Talk:Erich von Manstein/Archive 3

Manstein's memoir vs analysis by historians
Manstein wrote his book as a memoir.That is what he states himself in the foreword.It is not intended as history and not read as such. One reads it to know Mansteins views which are those of a highly regarded expert. And the book generally stands very well up to historical scrutiny. A.S.Brown urgently needs to read some of the reviews on the book. Not surprisingly,A.S. Brown makes it very clear again that military history is not his subject. That no serious historian regards Manstein highly is nonsense. In addition,his peers still do highly regard him and their judgment is the one that counts. Manstein had his day in court. That judgement cannot be changed. Fortunately,his politically motivated detractors are not judges as they would be dangerous ones. Anyway, they can only execute people in their imagination.Knispel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Von Manstein's memoir cannot stand up against multiple modern historians who have written well-respected books about the general's life. We will continue to build the article on the framework of modern historians, not upon von Manstein's own self-characterization. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody wants the article to be based on Mansteins memoirs except obviously where statements are made about the content of the memoirs. These have to refer to pages in the memoirs where these statements are supposed to have been made. Not that Mansteins book does not stand up to scrutiny.It actually does. The article has to reflect facts and not represent biased opinions. A.S.Brown has not even denied being exrremely biased against Manstein which is therefore his avowed motive for attempting to transform the article in a pamphlet against Manstein. Binksternet is protecting his changes. Anyway Binksternet and A.S.Browb have had more than a week to substantiate the changes which have caused the dispute. Only speeches(mostly about motive) were offered and no substance. Not surprising as none of both have read Manstein. If they had,they could have come up with quotes from the book to substantiate the claims about its content. Same thing for the Stalingrad piece. I am all open for discussion but it has to be substantive. As none has been offered,I have started editing the article agin.--Knispel (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC) When Binsternet states that I want to base the article on Mansteins book, he is guilty of lies as he knows for a fact that I want nothing of the sort,except where statements about the content of the memoirs are concerned. Actually I defy him to support the claims he supports on the content of the book by quotes from the book.--Knispel (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove unflattering text supported by the Smelser book. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I will continue in removing the opinions of one book which are put there with the only intent of turning the article into a anti-Manstein pamphlet. The claims about the alleged content of Lost victories are clearly false as was already proven by quotes from Lost victories. Nobody has tried to refute that. When reviews of lost victories are put,positve reviews have to be included. Actually there are a large majority of extremely positive reviews on the book. The alleged forgeries by Manstein on the Stalingrad campaign do not exist. There was only ever a discussion in the sixties on the Eismann mission. Nothing to do with documents,let alone forging them. Manstein had nothing to answer for. He had not ordered Stalingrad to be taken and held. Paulus had to justify that he did not even attempt to execute Mansteins order to attack towards the relief force. Mansteins advice to Hitler was much more complex than what the disputed text tries to show in an obvious attempt to attack Mansteins reputation. The over the top allegations about Mansteins involvement with killing jews and commissars are again the reflection of a particular opinion. The article has to be neutral. It certainly cannot reflect one opinion. --Knispel (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The analysis by Ronald Smelser and Edward Davies of von Manstein's life cannot be dismissed as "opinions", nor can the analysis of other historians who say:
 * During this period, Manstein played a leading role in helping Einsatzgruppe D exterminate the Jewish popluation of the Crimea. (Smelser/Davies, p. 98)
 * After 1945, Manstein was to engage in forgery of documents, and claimed falsely that he told Hitler that the 6th Army must break out. (Gerhard Weinberg, p. 451)
 * "Because of the sensitivity of the Stalingrad question in post-war Germany, Manstein worked as hard to distort the record on this matter as on his massive involvement in the murder of Jews." (Weinberg, p. 1045)
 * Manstein had perjured himself when he claimed that he did not enforce the “Commissar Order”: documents from 1941 showed that he passed the “Commissar Order” to his subordinates, and that he had suspected “commissars” shot. (Smelser/Davies, p. 97)
 * In his memoirs, he presented the thesis that if only he had been in charge of strategy instead of Hitler, the war on the Eastern Front could have been won. (Smelser/Davies, p. 95)
 * For the most part, Manstein was disparaging of other German generals, whom Manstein portrayed as incompetent. Manstein took all credit for German victories for himself, while blaming Hitler and other generals for every defeat. (Smelser/Davies, p. 96)
 * As for the Red Army, Manstein portrayed the average Russian soldier as brave but badly led. Manstein depicted the entire Soviet officer corps as hopelessly incompetent, and portrayed the war on the Eastern Front as a battle between a German Army that was vastly superior in fighting ability being steadily ground down by an opponent that was superior only in numbers. Smelser and Davies wrote that this aspect of Verlorene Siege was very self-serving as it allowed Manstein to ignore several occasions such as the fall of Kiev in November 1943, where the Stavka not only fooled him, but defeated him as well. (Smelser/Davies, p. 95)
 * A noteworthy aspect of Verlorene Siege was Manstein's avoidence of political issues, instead treating the entire war as an operational matter. (Smelser/Davies, p. 96)
 * Manstein refused to express any regret for fighting under a genocidal regime, and nowhere in Verlorene Siege did Manstein issue any sort of moral condemnation of National Socialism. Instead, Hitler was only criticized for faulty strategic decisions. (Smelser/Davies, p. 97)
 * Smelser and Davies wrote that Manstein's criticism of Hitler was extremely self-serving as Manstein made the false claim that he wanted the 6th Army to be pulled out of Stalingrad after it was encircled, only to be overruled by Hitler; and Manstein attacked Hitler for launching Operation Citadel, a plan that Manstein himself had developed and championed. (Smelser/Davies, p. 95)
 * Manstein's lament about Germany's "lost victories" in the Second World War seemed to imply that the world would have been a much better place if Nazi Germany had won the war. Manstein made the entirely false claim that he did not enforce the "Commissar Order", and made no mention of his own considerable role in the Holocaust, such as sending 2,000 of his soldiers to help the SS massacre 11,000 Jews in Simferopol in November 1941. (Smelser/Davies, p. 97)
 * Verlorene Siege was much acclaimed and a best-seller when it was published in the 1950s. The favorable portrait Manstein drew of himself in Verlorene Siege continues to influence the popular picture of him to this day. (Smelser/Davies, p. 90)
 * This latter bit is, surprisingly, something you allowed to stay in the article in this edit of yours. You acknowledge that Smelser and Davies can have an opinion worth keeping.
 * I think that the analysis of Smelser and Davies should be represented more fully, and A.S. Brown agrees. Please do not remove the well-cited text. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If the book of Smeiser has the be judged by what is stated above,it is complete rubbish.It can only be hoped for the authors that the content of the book is as mispresented as the content of lost victories. Manstein did NOT state that he could have won the war on the eastern front. He spoke several times about achieving a draw. Was proven by me with quotes from the book and is also stated as such in the wikipedia article on Manstein. No authoritive book on the Stalingrad campaign will come up with the ludicrous assertion that Manstein did not advise the breakout of sixth army. He did that several times. Is part of the historical record. Was shown by me with quotes from the documents. Manstein did not make disparaging comments about other german commanders. What he said about the red army is intentionally misstated. He criticised Hitler for delaying the Kursk attack and for stopping it too early. Manstein adressed political issues at length in his second book. Not surprisingly,any mention of the book and its content was removed by Binksternet several times. Binksternet cannot base an article on Manstein mostly on one book which, if his interpretation of its content is correct,must be considered as extremely flawed. I know what Manstein wrote in his book. Binksternet does not. He has also not read any authoritive work on the Stalingrad campaign.It is significant that no biogaphry of Manstein is used. And where the content of lost victories is concerned, the article HAS to be based on the actual book,not on someones alleged warped interpretation of it.If Binksternet wants to pretend knowing what the book says,he should read it.--Knispel (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking up the Smeiser book on amazon and reading the reviews(which are very critical)confirms the suspicion that it is a book which is one massive biased attack on the german army and the many who admire it. A book written by authors with a particular leftist bias. And such a book is supposed to become the main source of an article on Manstein. Obviously not. I am not surprised anymore about what it supposedly says. Typically the leftist view on anything to do with the german army.--Knispel (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What's this about "the german army and the many who admire it"? We are not here to cater to those who admire the German Army. We are here to summarize von Manstein's life in the most complete manner possible, which means we use primarily the writings of mainstream historians. Smelser and Davies are very well regarded—I cannot find any of the negative reviews you refer to. Here's one from Canada which praises the book for its "sweeping examination" of the Eastern Front, especially regarding the post-war influence of "high-ranking German POWs" such as Manstein. Other praiseworthy reviews from respected sources can be found here, here and here. You are battling uphill against the opinions of historian Gerd J. Horten, Ph.D. of Concordia University and historian Jonathan Mallory House of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. These guys think the Smelser/Davies book is good. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Binkstnets 'bible' is not an authoritive biogaphry of Manstein and not an authoritive work on any military campaign. It develops a particular point of view particularly negative about the german army and those that admire its professional abilities. Not something ever to be used as a source of a neutral article. Furthermore I must judge the book on statements made about it by Binksternet. The alleged statements about the content of Lost Victory are,if realy made in the book, proof enough that the book is rubbish. When I read the Manstein articles on Wikipedia in french and german, I find them somewhat biased against Manstein but not in any shocking way. They keep pretty close to the facts and the authors make no stupid assertions about the content of Lost victories.They clearly read the book. The german article,for example, correctly states that Manstein wrote that he could have tried to achieve a draw on the eastern front. Binksternet supports the inaccurate statement about Manstein supposedly stating that he could have won. It is most ironic that Binksternets Manstein article is in formal contradiction with several other wikipedia articles. Has everything to with the sources used. For example,Using Beavors book on Stalingrad obviously gets you a different result than using statements alledgedly made ny Smeiser and Davies. When Binksternet offers up positive reviews on his favourite book he only makes me laugh. He is the one who has removed all positive reviews on lost victories from the article. In,addition,he even removed any mention of Mansteins second book and its content. I will repeat that Manstein did not write that he could have the war on the eastern front. He did not distance himself from the Kursk offensive. He did not make mainly disparaging comments about other german commanders. His statements about the red army are mispresented. The political issues were adressed at length in his second book,a book which Binksternet does not want the reader to even know about. Mansteins advice to Hitler on Stalingrad is misrepresented. The forgery stuff is an invention. Binksternet should read Lost victories so that he can really enter a discussion on its content. He should also make the effort to read some authoritive works on Stalingrad. Sqimply stating that one particular book is THE truth does not do it. Anyway,I now know where all those strange statements on internetforums concerning the content of lost victories come from. They got it from Smeiser.--Knispel (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not concerned whether you, personally, think the Smelser/Davies book is rubbish. Historians Gerd J. Horten, Ph.D. of Concordia University and Jonathan Mallory House of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College think it is a commendable work. Once again, do not remove text cited to Smelser/Davies. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If this Smelser/Davies book makes such very bold or strange claims, then it shouldnt be used as sole source for those. I also find it highly questionable to solely rely on this single book when it comes to controversial statements about minor details, whom i see many now in the article. Well lets simply look at this "Manstein forged documents". At first this sentence is wrong when it comes to the source itself. The source only says "faked the relevant portion of his memoirs after the war". Thats entirly different, because the current version implies that he somehow forged documents to back up his view. So the first question which arrises is, how someone can "forge" his own memoirs? Ofc he cant. But what we are talking about? We are talking about a single sentence where Manstein wrotes that he telephoned to Hitler to persuade him to allow 6th army to break out, as this is the only instance in the book were Manstein mentioned that. Its questionable whether this completly minor detail and Weinbergs claim that this is "faked" is relevant for an Wikipedia article. Weinberg sources this with a a German book to which i have no access to, so i cant verify wheter this controverse "Manstein telephoned with Hitler action" had really take place or not. But the real question is whether this is even relevant? I also think it would be more important to descibe what actually happened at Stalingrad instead of this memoirs thingie all the time. So lets go to other points: Things like
 * In his memoirs, he presented the thesis that if only he had been in charge of strategy instead of Hitler, the war on the Eastern Front could have been won. (Smelser/Davies, p. 95)
 * For the most part, Manstein was disparaging of other German generals, whom Manstein portrayed as incompetent. Manstein took all credit for German victories for himself, while blaming Hitler and other generals for every defeat. (Smelser/Davies, p. 96)
 * Are not notable at all. The first: ofc he does, but where the notability or controversy? That there were some major strategic misjudgements and wrong decisision on the eastern front is nothing new. The latter statement is also highly questionable as in Manstein memoirs he hardly criticise anyone except Hitler (and even regarding Hitler he often confirms with Hitler's assesment of the situation). The same is for the 2nd sentence, which isnt even encyclopedic at all and also has no underlying evidence when looking at his memoirs (except that it seems to be there to again inform the reader that Manstein was "arrogant"). The same goes for
 * Smelser and Davies wrote that this aspect of Verlorene Siege was very self-serving as it allowed Manstein to ignore several occasions such as the fall of Kiev in November 1943, where the Stavka not only fooled him, but defeated him as well.
 * As this is again a very vague statement about a completely minor point. Kiev is indeed mentioned in the chapter defensive battles of 1943-1944 in his memoirs over and over again, so this is again a completly useless statement for an encyclopedic article about Manstein. I have the strong feeling that all those additions only have the aim to include minor or unimportant but negative details about Manstein (with that i dont mean important things like Mansteins relation with the Nazi regime or the implementation of problematic policies like the commissar order). For example 1-2s entences about possible mismatches in his memoirs and other works as well as the existence of criticism on that book would be enough about this topic - as this is an article about Manstein and what he had done, and not an article about Manstein and what he wrote in his memoir and what he left out or didnt covered enough in the eyes of some authors from 2011. Currently this memoirs thingie as well as the personal opinions of Smelser/Davies are cluttered throughout the whole article and the overall style is really bad. There is a difference between covering the really "negative" points and adding tons of pointless statements about completly minor, unimportant or even questionable "details". You mentioned the Kesselring article, which really is a good article which applies a neutral tone, in a clear opposite to those recent additions to the Manstein article. StoneProphet (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Manstein advised Hitler not to order the 6th Army to break out, stating that he could successfully break through the Soviet lines and relief the besieged 6th Army." is also a very simple generalisation of Mansteins planning, missing a number of certain points... StoneProphet (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote elsewhere there has been a a certain propagation of "clean Wehrmacht" myth throughout popular history for some time, which includes idealization of figures like Manstein. Newer research and publications have established the myth as false and contradict somewhat older as well as more popular history writing that omitted numerous atrocities and anti-Semitism. Any edits that correct this false image are welcomed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You completly miss the point this is about. StoneProphet (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There has never been a 'clean wehrmacht' myth. War is inherently unclean and the war on the eastern front was even more so. There are no unknown atrocities out there. And Mansteinn was not idealised. He was and will be considered by many as the most brilliant german commander in ww2.His military record is the basis for that. I am not surprised that the 'forged documents' phrase turns out to be a misrepresentation of the source used. In addition what was really stated by the source is irrelevent as it concerns a minor detail. Mansteins situation reports are clear about what he advised Hitler. I am pleased that I am not the only one who thinks that the phrase about what Manstein advised, is a simplification. There should be no objection anymore to the removing of the 'forged documents' phrase.--109.129.218.240 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoever you are, IP from Brussels, you will want to read the following books which shed light on the myth of the clean war supposedly fought by the Wehrmacht:
 * War of Extermination: The German Military in World War II
 * "The clear linkage between strategy and mass murder in the war policy of the Third Reich makes it impossible to posit a Wehrmacht that remained detached from its political leadership. However, many a veteran not only doggedly perpetuates the myth that the German soldier only did his duty and fought a clean war..."
 * "the war in the East really was... war of aggression and racial annihilation." In the myth, the German soldier fought clean but the dictator was evil.
 * "Wette debunks the myth that the German military fought a 'clean war'..."
 * "The most insidious of those myths held that the Wehrmacht fought a 'clean' war... while the SS and other Nazi organizations committed the terrible crimes..."
 * "By no stretch of the imagination can the Waffen-SS be said to have fought a clean war..."
 * "...the myth that the Wehrmacht fought a clean war..."
 * "The transcripts... make shocking reading and effectively end the legend that the Wehrmacht had fought a 'clean war' and that war crimes were the sole responsibility of the Nazi political leadership, the SS, and the Gestapo."
 * "...the myth that the German regular army had fought a 'clean war'..."
 * "According to a popular myth, the German regular army, the Wehrmacht, fought a clean war, in contrast to the SS. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Wehrmacht began the Holocaust in France."
 * "Former Wehrmacht generals wrote their memoirs with the explicit thesis that the Wehrmacht fought an impeccably clean war while all the dirty work was done by the SS, notably the Waffen-SS. Even today's Bundeswehr rests on this myth..."
 * "...the myth of a clean war ..."
 * "A photo exhibit currently on display in Germany further punctures the myth that the Wehrmacht fought a clean war..."
 * There are more examples but the redundancy gets tiresome. There is so much interest and scholarship about the 'clean war' myth of the Wehrmacht that it is preposterous to claim there "has never been" a clean war myth. Binksternet (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First thing, that remark by 109.129.218.240 reads like something written by StoneProphet. No, Binksternet and Molobo are completely right about the “clean war” myth. No Wehrmacht general ever admitted to committing war crimes, and every one of them right down to a man insisted that their war had been a "clean war". History funtions at two levels-there is the work of historians, and there is the popular memory of the past, and the two can be quite divergent at times. In Germany after 1945, popular memory had it there had been two wars, a "good" war fought by the Wehrmacht, who were men of honour and ability who won the most incredible victories, and even if defeated, it was only through superior numbers and material power of the enemy, and never, never, never through the skill of the enemy. It is quite remarkable the way that single Wehrmacht general refused to admit in any way that the Allies might had a qualitative as opposed to quantitative advantage over them. And of course, this war was a "clean war". And then there was the "bad war" fought by the SS and Hitler agianst the Jews and the others. So, in short, Germans could take pride in the many who fought in the Wehrmacht's "clean war" while downplaying the few who fought in the "bad war". This is entirely self-serving and every aspect of it is a lie. StoneProphet, after your vicious personal attack me as a writer of "bullshit" as you so elegantly phased it leads to me to have less than friendly feelings towards you (Why is that Germany has such aggressive and unpleasant defenders?). I do believe that this very silly claim about there never been a "clean war" myth, which StoneProphet has made under the cover of an IP address (both your inarticulate style and German apologist arguemenst give you away here StoneProphet) is simply an attempt to downplay the criminal aspects of Manstein's career. The very fact that StoneProphet chose to made this claim under the cover of an IP address speaks for itself. George Orwell once wrote of Salvador Dali that he was a perfectly competent draughtsman and an utterly despicable human being. The same can be said about Manstein, and StoneProphet seems to be have some difficulty accepting that fact. StoneProphet, if you have anything useful and constructive to contribute here, please do so. If all you are interested in doing is repeating Knispels' arguements, and ranting in your very poorly written English about how Smelser/Davies are not fair to Manstein, go take it elsewhere.

StoneProphet's problems with the English language makes it hard for one to follow his arguement. Reproducing fake documents in one's memoirs showing that one gave advice different from one actually gave would seem to qualify as forgery of documents. And no, this is not a "minor detail". Since you taken the trouble to look up Weinberg, surely you must had read the passages where Weinberg states quite clearly that Manstein wanted the 6th Army to stay in Stalingrad. The purpose of this page is tell the truth, not to reproduce the Manstein legend, is not? How can be defeated and losing Kiev be considered a minor point that is not really noteable at all? The Manstein legend is a hugely important part of his image, so giving it a paragraph or so is not excessive, and simply noting that legend is not always supported by the facts is part of what a good page should do.

As for Knispel's arguements. First thing, you cannot base a page upon what other pages say. First you go change the Battle of Stalingrad page to suit your own interpretation, and then you go complain that this page is not in accord with that page. That is a very dirty way of operating. And as for your whinning about how you don't like what other people say about Manstein at internet forums because they have read that page, that is not my problem (through it's nice to hear that somebody out there reading something I wrote). Returning back to the Battle of Stalingrad, I'm glad you mentioned Kehring. The curious thing is when Weinberg says that Manstein wanted the 6th Army to stay in Stalingrad, he cites Kehring, the book that Knispel claims proves the opposite. Something is not right here. Moreover, the pages in Kehring that Knispel cites as proving that Manstein wanted the 6th Army to pull out are sometimes the same ones that Weinberg cites. I do believe that somebody is taking things out of context. As for the "leftish" book by Smelser/Davies, you might be interested to know that Ronald Smelser once co-wrote a book with the very conservative historian Rainer Zitelmann, which is hardly the mark of an extreme "leftist". Reviews written on Amazon.com are not a valid source for dimissing a book. Indeed, knowing Knispel's methods, first he'll go post a bad review on Smelser/Davies on Amazon, and then used that bad review to argue that one cannot use Smelser/Davies here. As Binksternet has helpfully demostrated, Smelser/Davies has been very well received by historians, and to dismiss a well regarded book just because one dislikes it is the height of arrogance. This is especially annoying as Knispel insists on using Paget as a source. When Paget wrote his Manstein book in 1951, he was working as Manstein's lawyer. Do you not agree that a book written by a man who was paid by Manstein to put Manstein in the best possible light presents a conflict of interest? Yet, that book is unbiased according to Knispel. I have a number of problems with using Paget as a source because he was being paid by Manstein when he wrote that book, but I do not delete the sentences based upon Paget. I re-wrote them to make it clear to the reader that this was from Manstein's lawyer, even through I rather we not use Paget at all. It is you Knispel who is being unreasonable here in deleting anything that is any critical of Manstein.

Finally, Knispel, engaging in personal attacks is not a valid way of making a case. Attacking Binksternet for trying to be reasonable towards you does not reflect well on you. As Binksternet put very well: "Von Manstein's memoir cannot stand up against multiple modern historians who have written well-respected books about the general's life. We will continue to build the article on the framework of modern historians, not upon von Manstein's own self-characterization." One should never base an article on somebody's memoirs because memoirs are a problematic source at the best of times, and Manstein's memoirs are utterly worthless as history. Knispel, you gave the game away with your remark about "German army and the many who admire it." This is an apologia, not history you are engaging on here.--A.S. Brown (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be good to start a "Myth of clean Wehrmacht" article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it already addressed with War crimes of the Wehrmacht and Wehrmachtsausstellung (which I saw and thought to be very good). A relatively short but good summary of Manstein was written by Guido Knopp, (2000). Hitlers Krieger. Goldmann Verlag. ISBN 3-442-15045-0. Knopp also draws a controversial picture of him that puts him into shades of gray and not black and white. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

@ A.S.Brown. You dont seem to get that my issue here is not the fact that Manstein or other Wehrmacht generals engaged in warcrimes or did other questionable activities, the problem is the addition of minor details or statements (i outlined some above) with a strong non-neutral tone into the article. Nevertheless lets keep it short: The fact that Manstein wrote something in his journal which is possibly wrong is ofc no "forgery" of anything. This is simply the wrong word and it must be corrected because thats your OR. Before you start to complain about the english skills of a foreigner, you should get your own language right. I would have changed this sentence already, but i expected more reason from you. But that seems not the case. I propose to move this into the last paragraph of the article where the other complaints about Mansteins memoirs are "listed", otherwise it would sound out of context if in the middle of the Stalingrad paragraph an essay about Manstein's memoirs is following. What do you say about that? To the other points:
 * Manstein was against a breakout solely by the 6th army at Stalingrad only after the short time window in which a breakout would have had a chance of success was over. What he wanted and planned was a relief operation, paralleled by a breakout attempt if the relief forces were near the city. And thats what actually happened. However since Hitler was against a breakout he hoped that Paulus would order a breakout by his own against Hitlers order. And thats why he sent his intelligence officer into the perimeter to convince Paulus this way. You see the matter is a bit more complex, but you are anyway not interested into the history and more obsessed by this memoir subject.
 * Regarding Kiev: This Smelser book claims Manstein omits Kiev from his memoirs. Thats wrong, Kiev is mentioned very often. I also fail to see what the point about this sentence. Manstein was responsible for along frontline along the Dnieper, when his forces were pushed back and the Soviets captured numerous places (including Kiev), which is ofc described by him. This whole "Manstein didnt mention Kiev" thing just makes no sense. The defensive operations at the Dnieper is a topic very extensivly covered in the book. So whats the purpose of mentioning this obviously wrong allegation of Smelser?
 * I am not that IP. Thats just an insulting allegation. Writing as an IP would be a very dumb action, i am certainly not new to Wikipedia.
 * I never personally attacked you, or said that you wrote "bullshit". You obviously have a problem in interpreting written statements. Why are you so agressive, why starting all those personal attacks and arrogant remarks about my english against me?
 * I fail to see the purpose of your utterly long paragraph about the clean war myth (which certainly exists), because thats not what this discussion is about (which i stated several times), as i dont deny its existence or the wrongdoings of the German generals. Please stop writing such overly long and pointless essays in the future and stick to the discussed points.
 * And to state it clearly, before you again accuse me of Nazi-POV pushing: Yes there was and is a clean war myth in post-war-literature. Yes German generals and the Wehrmacht ordered and executed numerous war crimes. Yes also Manstein was involved in lots of questionable actions and crimes. Its ridiculous i have to make that clear just because you corrupt this discussion with personal attacks and mud throwing on me. But that not what the discussion is about, or at least the points i brought forward. StoneProphet (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I slightly changed this forgery thing into what Weinberg really means. I hope you accept that and dont insist on your "forgery" invention. I still propose to move this into the Postwar section.StoneProphet (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you StoneProphet for a good argument and for a good change to the article text. Binksternet (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear StoneProphet

In regards to your points:
 * Citing false documents in one's memoirs would seem to count as a forgery of documents, and I don't understand how you accuse me of "inventing" that. However, I will compromise on that point since it arguing about it seems to be getting us nowhere, and I will change that to "falsify the record". I hope you can accept that. I don't think your proposal to move Manstein's actions at Stalingrad into the post-war section is a good one, actually it seems to me to a very bad one. The Stalingrad section seems to me to be the best section for Manstein's actions at Stalingrad. No, I don't accept your change as it leds the reader know that Manstein was being less than honest, but just what he was being dishonest about is a mystery. I am no doubt biased about this, but that I feel my version is better in that it leds the reader know what Manstein was being dishonest about.
 * "Manstein was against a breakout solely by the 6th army at Stalingrad only after the short time window in which a breakout would have had a chance of success was over. What he wanted and planned was a relief operation, paralleled by a breakout attempt if the relief forces were near the city. And thats what actually happened. However since Hitler was against a breakout he hoped that Paulus would order a breakout by his own against Hitlers order. And thats why he sent his intelligence officer into the perimeter to convince Paulus this way. You see the matter is a bit more complex, but you are anyway not interested into the history and more obsessed by this memoir subject." You complain about me being insulting towards you, but your remarks about not being intersted in history are less than friendly. No, I am not obsessed with the memoirs, it is you are making the issue of that in this talk page. Moving on the more important points, you write that the sentence that Manstein's is my personal interpretation. That is simply dead wrong. The relevant sentences from Weinberg are:"'Once arrived on the southern front, von Manstein broke with all the other German army and air force generals and believed it was possible to hold Stalingrad and relieve the beleaguered forces there by the offensive he was planning; it was his asssessement that at least the attempt should be made. Concerned primarily about his reputation as a daring and always successful military commander, both at the time and after the war, he reinforced Hitler's inclination and faked the relevant portion of his memoirs after the war' (Weinberg, Gerhard A World At Arms Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005 page 451.)" Furthermore, you might also want to check out The Third Reich At War by Richard J. Evans, which was published by Penguin in 2009 where he says on page 413 that Manstein told Hitler that not to order a breakout from Stalingrad as Manstein was going to break in and relief the 6th Army. And likewise, one might consider the following: "On the 24th Manstein arrived at the headquarters of Army Group B. There he was warned that Sixth Army's position was untenable, but the field marshal sent a more optimistic report to the OKH suggesting a breakout was not immediately necessary" (Murray, Williamson & Millet, Alan A War To Be Won, Harvard, 2000 page 288) You have a bad habit StoneProphet, when confronted with a RS that says something that you don't like of proposing your own interpretation that suits your own fancy. I have three reliable sources that say Manstein wanted the 6th Army to stay put (4 if one counts Smelser and Davies), and so far, all I see is some Original research from you. If Weinberg, Evans, Davies, Smelser, Murray and Millet are as wrong as you say they are, then it should be very easy for you to find a review saying so. Sor far, I have yet to see you produce one. I going to put the offending sentence back (modified), and if you revert me on that one, I will report you for engaging in edit-warring based on original research. If and when you can find some reviews by a historian in a proper historical journal saying that these books are wrong about Manstein's advice to Hitler about Stalingrad, then and only then  will I change my stance about this issue.
 * "I am not that IP." I am sorry about that. The IP was almost certainly the now banned user Knispel. I was wrong to say that, and I apologize for wrongly accusing you of being the IP.
 * "Please stop writing such overly long and pointless essays in the future and stick to the discussed points." If you don't like what I have to say, don't read my posts. I'll write whatever I feel improves this article, and a background discussion of the historiography can often improve an article. If that's a problem for you, then stop reading my posts.
 * As for your point about Manstein trash-talking other German generals' being wrong, Smelser and Davies have the following to say:"'Manstein is also critical of his colleagues in the army command (OKH). None of them come off well in these pages, especially his nemesis, Halder. Indeed, when Lost Victories appeared, many surviving generals were shocked to see how Manstein presented himself at their expense. They had all made mistakes; Manstein had made none. That Hitler had come to dominate them so freely, said Manstein, lay in part on their own shortcomings' (Smelser and Davies, The Myth of the Eastern Front, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 page 96)." So, on one hand, we have what a RS has to say, and on the other, your own reading of Manstein's book, which in entire predicatable fashion is on the side on Manstein. What should we chose?
 * "Regarding Kiev: This Smelser book claims Manstein omits Kiev from his memoirs. Thats wrong, Kiev is mentioned very often. I also fail to see what the point about this sentence. Manstein was responsible for along frontline along the Dnieper, when his forces were pushed back and the Soviets captured numerous places (including Kiev), which is ofc described by him. This whole "Manstein didnt mention Kiev" thing just makes no sense. The defensive operations at the Dnieper is a topic very extensivly covered in the book. So whats the purpose of mentioning this obviously wrong allegation of Smelser?". In Wikipedia, one is supposed to follow what a RS says, not engage in OR. Smelser and Davies are a RS, your attempts to disqualify them based on your own reading of Manstein's book is OR. Smelser does not say that Manstein omitted Kiev from his memoirs and you are either confused or worse when you claim otherwise. The relevant sentence from Smelser and Davies is: "'As for the Soviet enemy, Manstein admires the toughness of the ordinary Russian soldier, but never accords the Soviet officer corps the ability to plan well on an operational level. He stress time and again the Russian superiority in equipment, manpower and reserves, especially in the last two years of the war, against which the Germans have only the superior fighting power of their soldiers. That the Russian Stavka (general staff) could develop and carry out complicated large-scale operations never occurs to him. It didn't occur to him during the war either and represented a blind spot, which, for example allowed the Russians to fool him and retake Kiev in November 1943' (Smelser and Davies The Myth of the Eastern Front, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2008 page 95)" Perhaps I am biased about my own edits, but I feel that the following sentences I wrote that you find so objectionable is a correct summary of the above: "'Manstein depicted the entire Soviet officer corps as hopelessly incompetent, and portrayed the war on the Eastern Front as a battle between a German Army that was vastly superior in fighting ability being steadily ground down by an opponent that was superior only in numbers. Smelser and Davies wrote that this aspect of Verlorene Siege was very self-serving as it allowed Manstein to ignore several occasions such as the fall of Kiev in November 1943, where the Stavka not only tricked him, but defeated him as well.'" What happened at Kiev was an example of what the Russians call maskirovka (disinformation) in which the Russians made out they were going to attack at point A, when they were really going to attack at point B. That was how the Russians retook Kiev. Now from Manstein's point of view, Kiev is a problem. After all, Manstein is an Aryan "super-man", a proud member of the Germanic Nordic-Aryan Herrnvolk (master race) who were genetically superior to everyone else on this plant and so destined to rule the entire world while the Russians were just Slavic Untermensch (sub-humans) who were hopelessly inferior to the German "master race". So the fact that the Russian untermensch could out-smart a self-proclaimed Aryan "super-man" like Manstein must had been very humilating for him, which is why in memoirs Manstein omits that he fell for and was fooled by the Russian maskirovka. After all, Manstein was an Aryan "super-man" while the Russians were just Slavic "sub-humans", so there is no possible way that Russian "sub-humans" could ever out-wit an Aryan "super-man" like Manstein. Manstein's feeling for the Russians were well summarized at his trial in 1949 when he had his mouthpiece Paget repeatedly call the Russians "savages". That is the point being made here. The only reason why you are being difficult about this point is Manstein was bothered that Russian untermensch and "savages" could out-smart an Aryan "super-man" like himself, something that evidently bothers you as well.
 * That is page makes Manstein sound "arrogant". Well, saying that Germans are the "master race" and so have both the rule and duty to exterminate and enslave everyone else in the world because they are part of "inferior" races does sound very "arrogant", does it not? That is what Manstein believed in, and I see no reason why we should be white-washing him. At his trial in 1949, Manstein kept on calling the Russian people "savages" and whinned about how difficult it was for him, a "civilized" and "cultured" German to fight such a "savage" enemy. Please remember that this "civilized German" who held the Russian people in such contempt as "savages" is the same man who had Jewish children gunned down (perhaps an example of how "civilized" and "cultured" the Germans' were in World War II?). If Manstein comes across as repulsive, that is because National Socialism is a repulsive ideology. Not my fault that Manstein was a Nazi, and believed that just because he was a German that made him part of the "master race" that were ever so superior to everybody else. Strange that this self-proclaimed and so-called Herrnvolk suffered such a total defeat in World War II, is it not? That is something that Manstein and his fellow apologists for the "master race" never really explain. And in the same way, it is noteable how once one adds some info based on RS that casts a critical light upon Manstein, and suggests that he was not the Aryan "super-man" that he claimed to be that you spring to the defense of this so-called Aryan "super-man". If Manstein really was the Aryan "super-man" he claimed to be during the war, and the Russians were just "savages" utterly incapable of intelligent thought as Manstein claimed, then surely Germany would won the war against these "savages", do you not agree?. The fact that it was the Germans who failed to take Moscow while the Russians took Berlin suggests that there is something very wrong with Manstein's picture of the Eastern Front, or I am just POV-pushing by noting this basic fact?
 * Much of this article is highly slanted towards Manstein, such as repeating the claim from his memoirs that he knew the war was lost when Hitler dismissed him in March 1944. Curious that Manstein invested his life saving in buying an estate in East Prussia in October 1944! If Manstein really believed that the war was lost, he would not invested his life savings in an estate in East Prussia the same month the Russians reached that place. He evidently must had believed that as late as October 1944 that Germany was going to win the war. The same goes for Kursk when until I came again along, this page had accepted had at face value Manstein's claim that he was on the verge of winning that batttle (something that is very untrue).
 * "Questionable" actions is an understatement. Genocidal is a better term for Manstein's actions in Russia.
 * "I never personally attacked you, or said that you wrote "bullshit". You obviously have a problem in interpreting written statements." Do I? Check out your statement of February 9 2010 in Talk:World War I reparations/Archive1 where you wrote: "The next problem are several dubios statements, as for example, that the Germans caused their hyperinflation deliberately to pay the Ruhrkampf, which is just, well, really really far fedged if not just complete bullshit." You did engage in a personal attack against me, so 1) please don't lie about what you wrote and 2) yes, I am not well disposed towards you as a result of your personal attack.

Some of your edits are been useful here. Please try to be constructive and mabye we all get along in the future, and makes this a better article. --A.S. Brown (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if I came across as rather jaundiced and abrasive earlier. I get annoyed when people start making arguments that are clearly counter-productive such as your claim that Smelser says Manstein omits the fall of Kiev when what Smelser says is that Manstein omits that he was fooled by maskirovka, which is a very different thing, and something that should not even require a discussion. The text says that quite clearly, and the only reason why you even making an issue of that was to try to remove the reference to Manstein being fooled by maskirovka (something that at present this article ignores). It is annoying when people start being difficult about things that should not be a problem, and I am sorry if let my irritation get the better of me. Much of this article does require work, which I have started. Take for example the claim that Manstein was on the verge of winning the Battle of Kursk. Contrary to some people claim around here, my understanding of military history is in my humble view, at least somewhat good. There were two pincers attacking the Kursk salient, with the aim of forcing the Soviets to divide their reserves to deal with the dual threat. Once the northern pincer led by Model had been stopped, Kursk was lost. For that meant that Manstein would have been taking on not only the southern Soviet forces, but also the northern forces and the reserves. It was an act of lunacy on his part to want to continue the battle, so in no way was Manstein on the verge of victory at Kursk. But this page was saying otherwise, and that stupid claim was even not cited to a RS (probably because one can't find a RS that says that).

You will no doubt hate me for saying this, but much of the imagery one gets about the Eastern Front is only a slightly reworked version of Nazi propaganda. All this business of a qualitative superior German Army being overwhelmed by “Asiatic hordes” from Russia who are only quantitatively superior comes straight from Nazi propaganda. Even look at some of the cover art from the books celebrating the German Army on the Eastern Front with their images of heroic-looking, tall, blonde, blue-eyed German soldiers with stereotypical “Nordic” features; all of this comes straight from Dr. Goebbels’s propaganda mill. Why is that it always the German generals who always are the smart ones, German soldiers always the better fighters and the Russians just this mindless horde who only managed to defeat the Germans through sheer force of numbers, and never through brain-power? Granted, there is no doubt that Soviet generalship was often abysmal, especially in the period 1941-42, when the Red Army had some truly dreadful officers. But German leadership was often no better, and indeed Manstein, who is sort of the poster boy for the alleged operational excellence of the Wehrmacht made some serious blunders like telling Hitler to keep the 6th Army in Stalingrad and wanting to push on with Kursk when it was clear that the battle was lost. If Manstein was the best that the Wehrmacht had offer as is often claimed, then I think this popular image of the Wehrmacht as the world’s greatest army really needs a second look. Indeed, I think that is reason why I bring in more critical scholarship, that this is causing such a ruckus. Manstein is the poster boy for the Wehrmacht’s operational excellence, and if Manstein blundered on the Eastern Front, then the “myth of the Eastern Front”, this image of the Eastern front as something alike to that movie 300, where a handful of tough-guy fascists used their superior fighting abilities to heroically hold off hordes from an Eastern despotism before being finally overwhelmed, explodes. The truth is sometimes Soviet generals were sometimes very bad and sometimes very good, and German generals sometimes very bad and sometimes very good. But the narrative Manstein and company promoted is one when the Germans are always the best and the Russians just a bunch of bumbling brutes who Manstein effortlessly defeats, and even he does lose, it is always under the most heroic of circumstances, and it never, never his fault. This narrative caught on in Germany, but also in the United States, the UK and elsewhere. No doubt, the Cold War played a huge part. Making Manstein look good meant making Communism look bad, and that still appeals to some people today. But the truth of the matter is that Communism was bad and awful enough on its own that one does need to make Manstein look good in order to Communism look bad. I think a great people brought into this narrative, they don't like it when someone like myself tries to correct this picture, to get at the truth instead of the legend. Now, if you want to be co-operative and help out, then I will work with you. If all you interested in doing is upholding the legend, then I expected that I will have to wasting even more time on these talk pages. I hope you can make the right choice.

I’m also sorry if I implied that you are a Third Reich enthusiast. You are clearly trying to uphold the military aspects at least of the Manstein legend, and I don’t mean to sound arrogant here, but not everybody has read the same books that I have. I know very well where the origins of the “myth of the Eastern Front” come from, and just what is implied when Manstein claims that one German soldier was equal of hundred Russian. The origins of the Manstein legend and its racist implications are not pretty at all. But I sometimes forget that everybody has read the same books that I have, and I’m just going to assume that you have not. Please accept my apologies. --A.S. Brown (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of retoric is produced here about Manstein but it reads mostly like a negative ad in a political campaign where the opinions of the opposing party are misrepresented. In his memoirs Manstein only makes a detailed assessment on the red army leadership concerning the Stalingrad campaign and its aftermath (Verlorene Siege pp 469-471) and there he does not not present it as awfully bad. He acknowledges that the red army leadership had gotten much better at handling large mobile formations and achieving breakthroughs but criticizes it for not achieving more in the circonstances by not being strong enough at the decisive point. In his judgment the red army could have cut off the whole southwing of german eastern front by being more bold. A not surprising judgment in view of Mansteins operational philosophy and his campaigns. It is all very well to have a negative opinion on the operational abilities of Manstein but the misrepresentation of the many that have a very high regard of his operational abilities is unacceptable. Manstein may not always have been right in his military judgment but they were honest opinions of the commander in the field who does not have the benefit of hindsight. Trying to put part of the responsability for sixth army staying in Stalingrad on Manstein is unjustified and not supported by any documentary source. Even if Manstein had argued for an immediate breakout of sixth army - the necessity of which he was not convinced of on the condition that it could be supplied by air - Hitler would never have authorised it. As soon as all the facts were known to Manstein he made a clear description of the dire situation of the sixth army and expressed his conviction that it could not be supplied by air and needed to abandon Stalingrad as soon as a link was established. It gets worse when Manstein is even accused of forging the historical record in his memoirs. Anyway, an article in an encyclopedia cannot contain just ONE opinion on any fact of history. It is also unacceptable to state that Manstein passes himself off as perfect and always right while the others are supposedly nitwits. Manstein did not write in absolutes. His opinions are not presented as the absolute truth. The possible objections to his ideas are taken seriously even when they come from Hitler. His assessments of his fellow german officers are at worst mostly balanced and with a lot of positives even concerning those he did not really like. Manstein certainly did not write that he realised the war was lost after he was dismissed. The only comment he makes at the end of his book is about him and his officers being convinced of the possibility of exhausting the offensive power of the red army in 1943 by a war of manoeuver. Julian144 (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Poland Campaign
"Manstein took part in conference on 22th of August 1939 where Hitler to his commanded underlined the need of physical destruction of Poles as a nation, after the war he would claim in his memoirs that he didn't recognise this as policy of extermination against the Poles[16]Benoît Lemay and Pierce Heyward in their book "Erich von Manstein: Hitler's Master Strategist" write that contrary to Manstein's claims he was perfectly aware of the policy of extermination towards Poles"

This gibberish makes an OR conclusion with using two sources out of context. Manstein certainly was aware of Hitler's policy towards the Poles during the war (outlined in the 2nd sentence). He also attended this conference (1st sentence) and claims in his memoirs, that when he attended the conference (pre-war), that he did not interpreted this speech back then (pre-war!) as destruction policy towards the Polish people. Those 2 sources refer to two different things. The first deals with this pre-war conference and how he interpreted it back then, the second sentence refers to the fact that Manstein was aware of the events in Poland when they actually happened. Those 2 sentences give the impression that Manstein denies what happened during the war in Poland, which is not the case (he indeed barely mentions it in his memoirs). He simply stated that he did not interpreted Hitler's speech, during the conference before the war, as destruction policy towards the Poles. StoneProphet (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC) He simply stated that he did not interpreted Hitler's speech Please present a source that contradicts reliable sources present currently. Is your sentence backed by Reliable Sources or is it your personal opinion and thus OR? Those 2 sources refer to two different things Which reliable source claims this? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A new source? This is about the usage of the already presented sources, which are misused. Its quite obvious that your both sources (one is actually a google book) refer to two different points. You should carefully read them. First refers to what Manstein thought about the conference, which happened before the war (this conference ist also described in his memoirs in lenghty). The second is not about the conference its a simple statement that Manstein knew what was going on in Poland during the war. So whats so special about that, whats the notability? Manstein had no connection to the atrocities in Poland after the military campaign was over anyway. StoneProphet (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect, both sources mention pre-war conference. whats the notability? Mentioned by scholars thus notable.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency
Currently, the article states
 * During World War I, von Manstein served on both the German Western Front (1914: Belgium/France 1916: Attack on Verdun, 1917–18: Champagne) and the Eastern Front (1915: North Poland, 1915–16: Serbia, 1917: Estonia). In Poland, he was severely wounded in November 1914.

According to the first sentence, therefore, he was not even in Poland in 1914, despite the second sentence stating that he was wounded in Poland in 1914. I don't know which part is wrong - can someone please correct. - Arjayay (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Dnjepr campaign
The chapter on the Dnjepr campaign needs a substantial rewrite. I have started by removing the statement about the forces being counteraatacked in november-december 1943 being bait to lure away german forces from the area of intended attack. Actually, the First Ukranian front replenished its losses after the german counterattack and then resumed its offensive on christmas 1943 in exactly the same area where it had been counterattacked and beaten back in november 1943. I also removed the statement about hundreds of german tanks being destroyed around Kasatyn. As Kasatyn was defended by the 18th artillery division, there could not have been a destructuion of hundreds of german tanks.In addition, all german Panzerdivisions in the general area of the soviet offensive probably did not even have a total strength of hundreds of operational tanks, let alone losing them all in one small area. Julian144 (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The german counteroffensive started in late november and not december. Mansteins fame certainly did not date from late 1943. It was based on his contribution for the attack in the west and the backhand strike. The german counterattack in november-december 1943 is more a Raus operation abd is barely mentioned in Mansteins memoirs.Julian144 (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are opposing text that is supported by reliable sources. The text should be returned. The reliable sources are more trustworthy than the personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I oppose a text based on an unreliable source. A source that states that the german counteraoffensive took place in late december 1943 is very unreliable as that would put the german counteroffensive at the same date as Vatutins resumption of his offensive on 25 december. Actualy ,the counteroffensive took place in three stages at the end of november and the beginning of december. The same goes for the strange statement that the counterattack hit forces that were bait as it was  Vatutins own forces which were counterattacked, were pushed back and then resumed their offensive in exactly the same area in late december. In order to realise this, it suffises to look at a map of the campaign of which threre are a lot in Hinze's book and in Panzer Operations ,the eastern front memoir of Erhard Raus. Worse of all is the statement about hundreds of german tanks being destroyed around Kasatyn.A source that makes such ba ludicrous claim is masively unreliable. One would be hard put to find an authoritive work on the fighting on the eastern front which supports the strange statements in the Dnjepr chapter. Many books are written on any subject and they are sometimes seriously flawed. The chapter is simply awfull. And I have not pointed out alll the errors.Julian144 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are insisting that the source is wrong because you say so. Instead, you should be pointing to a new source that says the previous source is wrong. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. That the german counteroffensive started in late december 1943 is inherently contradictory as that would put it at the same date as Vatutins offensive on 25 decemnber 1943. And the exact dates of the stages of the german counteroffensive are in Panzer operations, Hinze's book, Balcks memoirs and the divisional histories of all participating units. It is ludicrous that such a discussion even takes place. Julian144 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Late novemver and early december will be inserted again as the eact date of the three stage german counteroffensive. Some more rewrite will be done because russian forces were not destroyed and Erhard Raus merits a mention.Julian144 (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The mention of the content of Mansteins conference with Hitler is corrected as it was not about the giving up of the Dnjepr in general. It was about pulling back the divisions in the Dnjepr bend where the Dnjepr bends sharply to the west on the right of Armygroup south. The objective of this was to free forces for the decisive leftwing of Armygroup south.Hitler refused because he did not want to give up Nikopol for economical reasons and the Crimea for political reasons. The 'bait' thing and the Kastyn mention(probably literally copied from red army propaganda) will be corrected again later. Gives time to Binksternet to reflect on the probability of hundreds(!) of germans tanks being destroyed at Kasatyn. And looking at some campaign maps would be usefull to realise the ludicrous nature of the bait statement.Julian144 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

After some more map study in Hinze's book, the prhases on Vatutins christmas offensive are again rewritten. That the actual piece is flawed is ,is already proven by the fact that the attack is stated as having tahen place against overextended german lines on the Dnjepr which is impossible as the germans had been pushed far back from it in november. The main push of the christmas offensive attacked the germans in the area which they had retaken in the second half of november(Kornin-Brussilow-Radomyschl and then onto Shitomir and Berditschew)which makes the whole bait theory ridiculous. The truth is that Vatutin simply resumed his offensive and rolled the germans back again. Actually the german counteroffensive was a spoiling attack which meant to disrupt Vatutin's atttack preparations. As the red army was capable of replenishing its losses relatively quickly,the counteroffensive only gained some time(more or less a month).Julian144 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The mention of the taking of Kasatin will be removed as this was not the major supply base that it is erroneously called.There was also no major battle near it. Shitomir was a mojor supply hub and the taking of that will be inserted instead.Julian144 (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The mention of Manstein asking permission to retreat on 28 december will be removed as he did not want to retreat on his leftwing. He wanted to reinforce it to enable it to stand. Julian144 (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Mansteins proposal to designate a Oberbefehlshaber Ost is added.Julian144 (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The section on what happened after Kursk also needs a rewrite. Manstein certainly was too optimistic concerning the capabilirty of the red army to replenish its losses after the Kursk offensive but it did not go so far that he was convinced that there would be no attack anymore for the rest of year.He hoped for a pause. He certainly did not send his whole armoured reserve to the aid of 6th army. It was only the 3rd Panzer and the SS panzerdivisions which had been intended for transfer to Italy which were sent. The pointing out of the untenability of the position of Armygroup south happened at the end of august.Julian144 (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, you cannot remove text that is well cited to Williamson Murray and Allan Reed Millett, published by Harvard University. Even worse, you replaced this scholarly text with Manstein's own writings, a very self-interested source. I reverted your changes except for the good source you used from Rolf Hinze (1991). Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I remove text that is factually incorrect. That a statement is sourced does not mean that the statement is correct. I will give one example. It is stated that the forces in the north were in a vulnerable position because they were still in their positions reached at the end of the Kursk offensive. Factually untrue as they had retreated back to the positions they were in before the start of the offensive. That is something I know from the divisional histories I own. Shows again how unreliable the sources used for the Manstein article are. That Manstein is unreliable on the knowledge of a campaign he directed is a little bit silly. He actually had the honesty to admit that it is was a mistake to underestimate the speed with which the red army would attack again after the Kursk offensive. That he believed that he would not be attacked for the rest of the year is a massive overstatement and based on nothing at all. It is an opinion expressed in a book. Nothing more.Julian144 (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It is extremely obnoxious that all the factually incorrect statements that I removed,were reinstated again. Even after poiinting out in detail that Vatutin attacked in exactly the same area where the german army attacked in november, the 'bait' theory is silmply reinstated. Unbelievable.It will be removed again tomorrow with referral to several sources(Raus,Mellenthin,Balck etc...) Binksternet should start worrying on the reliability of books that get so many facts wrong. And I can prove it as my library is big enough.Julian144 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia, not Julian144-pedia. At Wikipedia we use WP:Reliable sources. You must not remove reliable sources such as scholarly criticism published at Harvard and Cambridge, replacing it with Manstein's own version. Instead, you must find other scholarly sources that dispute the findings of the previously cited scholars, and then both versions should be discussed in the article. There is not one truth to tell; we are not here to find out the One Truth and show it to the reader. We are here to tell the reader what the sources are saying about Manstein, and scholarly sources are our highest form. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source is one that gets its facts right. The source used here got it wrong many times. And Manstein is used all the time by historians. Actually,I would have great difficulty quoting a book on the eastern front that did not also use Manstein as a source. Anyway, I suppose that Binksternet will not have trouble accepting that general Mellenthin knew the exact dates of the german counteroffenbsives and the losses inflicted. He should start worrying about a historian getting his dates completely wrong. Same thing for the strange 'bait' theory and the 'hundreds of german tanks destroyed near Kasatyn'. Mellenthin will come in handy there too.Julian144 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that Binsternet will be able to accept that 'on the Dnjepr' was removed and 'Kastyn' was replaced by 'Zhitomir'. Vatutin could not attack german forces on the Dnjepr as the germans had been pushed back from the Dnjepr and only retook part of the terrain lost. They were not on the Dnjepr anymore in that area. Another gaffe of the siource used. Zhitomir was more important than Kasatyn so it is better to mention that.Julian144 (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually dealing with the 'bait' theory will turn out to be more easy as the own wikipdia article on the battle of Khiev contradicts the Manstein article on the subject of that battle. Not surprising.Julian144 (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The phrase about the hundreds of german tanks alledgedly knocked out outside of Kasiatin is going to be replaced as the 48th Panzercorps which executed a counterattack there only had 150 tanks according to Raus and Mellenthin. No doubt soviet war propaganda must have claimed the destroying of hundreds of german tanks at the time but these claims cannot simply be stated as fact because they were always seriously exaggerated. An author needs to check these figures or state them as claims.Julian144 (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The mention of Manstein requesting a retreat on 28 december will be replaced as the only retreat requested was the one of the two corps on the right of Fourth Panzer Army near Kanev on the Dnjepr. Probably requested by Fourth Panzer Army and not by Manstein as it is only mentioned by Raus. Julian144 (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The erroneous mention of Fourth Panzer Army being in expoesed forward positions will be replaced by a prhase based on Glanz Kursk book. Fourth Panzer Army was actually back in its old defense positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian144 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Reflect Manstein's Memoirs
I well understand the folly of relying on a man's own words to tell you what "really" happened, as well as the general battle being waged over this article's viewpoint. However, I've been trolling through a stack of German war memoirs, have now reached Manstein's and I find that the critiques of him as portrayed in his memoirs do not appear to be entirely accurate.

For example:

''For the most part, Manstein was disparaging of other German generals, whom Manstein portrayed as incompetent. Manstein took all credit for German victories for himself, while blaming Hitler and other generals for every defeat.''

He repeatedly praises commanders who served under him at least, in the highest terms, even the occasional Italian or Romanian (for whom German soldiers did not have the highest regard for). Even then, he takes pains to point out what it was that led these nationalities to field inferior armed forces, rather than sweeping racially-based arguments (pp. 207-208) Manstein points out that Zeitzler argued against Hitler with him (p. 278, p. 286, p. 328). He says that his predecessor in the Crimea, Schobert, was experienced and of great integrity (p. 205). He's full of praise for Luftwaffe FM Richtofen. He describes General Antonescu as a good soldier (p. 292). You can pass by numerous mentions of generals without any disparaging remarks. He's not even hard on Paulus at Stalingrad (pp. 302-303). He credits Hoth with the survival of the entire Caucasus force (p. 311). he speaks well of General Rauss (p. 330). I trust this is enough.

Manstein refused to express any regret for fighting under a genocidal regime, and nowhere in Verlorene Siege did Manstein issue any sort of moral condemnation of National Socialism.[79] Instead, Hitler was only criticized for faulty strategic decisions. and Manstein's lament about Germany's "lost victories" in the Second World War seemed to imply that the world would have been a much better place if Nazi Germany had won the war.

The first seems relevant to me, in that his stance on such issues is a matter of controversy (though it is not entirely correct, as I found at least one footnote on p. 281 mentioning the "brutal cruelty that became increasingly typical of the regime as time went on."). At the same time, it flows into the second; Manstein treated the war section of his memoirs as a operational diary, and I think it's easy to see both the form of his discussion of Hitler and his talk of "lost victories" as two facets of the same central approach. He was a military man, focused on military issues. I strongly believe that the line, "Manstein's lament about Germany's "lost victories" in the Second World War seemed to imply that the world would have been a much better place if Nazi Germany had won the war" has no place here, as in the end Manstein does not claim that - it's supposition on the part of the authors. In addition, it is just as likely that the concept of "lost victories" can be explained as the viewpoint of a German directly involved in the conflict, approaching things from a purely military perspective. As one of the foremost critiques of the German army at this time was its myopia regarding strategy, diplomacy, and the bigger picture, this isn't surprising.

As an aside, the Senior Advisor paragraph is one terrible block of doom and needs to be broken up. I plan to make a memoir section to help thin it out.

I intend to go ahead and make these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.70.30 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your view of the memoirs is not supported by modern scholarship. Let's work to edit the article without Manstein's own viewpoint of himself and his career dominating. Rather, we will feature the voice of modern military scholarship. Binksternet (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am the person who started this section. Respectfully, I feel you miss the point of my edits. I'm not stating anything about what Manstein did or did not do - rather, I'm debating what Manstein's memoirs actually say. The sections I deleted are either incorrect or spurious with regards to what is actually written in the memoirs themselves. All you have to do is grab a copy and look in them to see this (which is why I provided page references). Quite frankly, the review of his memoirs reads largely like a hatchet job.

Again, "For the most part, Manstein was disparaging of other German generals" is demonstrably untrue (see above), as is "Manstein took all credit for German victories for himself," (see above - he is especially full of praise for fellow generals, his and other staff officers, his sub-unit commanders, and the common soldier) and "nowhere in Verlorene Siege did Manstein issue any sort of moral condemnation of National Socialism." (see above)

"he presented the thesis that if only he had been in charge of strategy instead of Hitler, the war on the Eastern Front could have been won." This is an absurd simplification - he argues again and again that the fault was with the bad decisions by high command (including Hitler), not a lack of Manstein as eastern commander (though he presses for this as well). His view was not only that the war in the East could have been won - he argued that at a certain point it was only possible to achieve a stalemate.

"Manstein's lament about Germany's "lost victories" in the Second World War seemed to imply that the world would have been a much better place if Nazi Germany had won the war" is just empty supposition - you have to assume bad faith to reach that conclusion, because Manstein nowhere states this. he strenously avoids any political opinion (something this setof reviews critiques him about).

"Manstein attacked Hitler for launching Operation Citadel, a plan that Manstein himself had developed, although he had urged it to be executed months earlier before Soviet defenses were built up." is just foolish - the second half of the sentence (the delay) clearly explains away the first (Manstein's change of mind on the wisdom of launching it). What's the point in critiquing someone for changing their mind when circumstances change?

I do not argue with and have no interest in arguing about what Manstein actually did (the evidence regarding his stance on Jews seems rather clear, for example) - I just want the clearly factually incorrect views regarding his memoirs removed. If someone wants to provide counter page quotes, by all means go ahead: I cited my quotes for a reason, and would like to see the same rather than just being reverted with no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.30.111 (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I see you again have undone all of my work for the second time, with no regard for my explanation or methodology, again claiming that I was striving for a viewpoint I myself have twice disavowed. Again, I am not debating whether or not Manstein’s memoirs are straight history - it is obvious that they are not, a fact I point out myself in my original post (with emphasis) in this talk page before I made a single edit.  This is not about their use as a historical tool.  Instead I am debating the presentation of the memoirs themselves, as I have pointed out twice before.  If Manstein’s memoirs said he personally beat up Stalin and took his lunch money and then proceeded to fly off into outer space, then when dealing with the issue of his memoirs that is what must be used, and any claim to the contrary must be incorrect, regardless of the larger issue of its accuracy in the real world.  If I was arguing that events as depicted in the war must have happened as described in Manstein's memoirs because Manstein wrote that they did, then I would be doing what you argue I am.  But I am not, and would appreciate it if you would engage my actual point rather than something I have never claimed.


 * Looking up through the current talk page, I can see that I’m now the third person to point out that the “interpretation” of Manstein’s memoirs currently used is exaggerated at best and outright incorrect at worst, and that this can be demonstrated by simply reading the book. If direct page quotes to the original document (ones that in some cases directly contradict the present interpretation) and complaints by multiple people are insufficient, the least you could do here is permit a stronger attribution of the source of this critique so that people are not misled, and allow some of the more melodramatic and/or irrelevant portions to be excised.  The alterations I’ve most recently made do not detract from the basic charge that modern scholarship has called portions of Manstein’s account into question, including the essential charge that he lied about his anti-Semitic actions and opinions.


 * I opened this series of edits with a clear statement as to what I hoped to accomplish, and am willing to walk through each edit on an individual basis, to explain my justification for them without bringing in original research. In my latest edit I did not remove much of the critique, even though I know it is outright wrong, but simply sourced it more strongly in the text, hoping in good faith that a compromise approach might work here.  You reverted it regardless.  As it stands, you’re simply reverting everything, typo corrections and all, with no compromise on your part whatsoever.


 * Please stop treating this page as your personal fiefdom. Thank you.136.159.70.30 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of valuable text
I don't think it is an improvement to the biography to have this removal of content taken to the article Verlorene Siege in this edit. Of course, the change is good for the book article, but it left only positive impressions at this biography article. Some Smelser/Davies observations are removed, for instance, the one saying von Manstein never expressed moral condemnation of Nazism, the one about von Manstein failing to tell about his part in the Holocaust, and the one saying von Manstein made a false claim in his book about the Commissar Order. These are points that are not just important to the book but also very important to the man. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Corrections
After the Kursk offensive was stopped, Manstein moved part of his panzerreserves to counterattack the red army bridghead over the Mius river in the area of sixth army. Stug43 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC) The red army counterattack on august 3rd came from the north and not from the east over the donets.Stug43 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Fourth Panzer Army and Armee-Abteilung Kempf had withdrawn to their original starting positions by the beginning of the red army counterattack on august 3rd which is mentioned on pp 244-246 of the book on the Kursk offensive by David Glantz and also visble on a map on these pages.Stug43 (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC))
 * Sorry, I should have checked here first; I did not realise you had posted comments. I reverted parts of your edit as the material you removed as being factually incorrect was sourced to this book; it's on page 390. I ended up retaining the other edits, though in a modified form. -- Dianna (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thunder in the east is not a good source as it is a work of a general nature whose authors have to simplify a complicated subject which inevatibly leads to inaccuracies.Stug43 (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC) One example of an inaccuracy is Manstein asking for authorisation to retreat to the Dnjepr at the end of july. Actually,that happened at the end of august, after the different red army offensives had put Army Group south on heavy pressure. The only source historians can use for that request is Mansteins memoirs as the war diary of AGS is lost for that period and 'lost victories' puts the request at the end of august ( as stated by Frieser in Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Band 8 DVA 2011 p361).And the OKH was in charge of the eastern front so Mansteins request can only habe been sent to OKH and not OKW. So, I correct that phrase and put it further back in the text.Stug43 (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Another mistake in thunder in the east is the phrase about Manstein having left his forces in the exposed positions obtained after the Kursk offensive instead of having them retreat to the defense lines from whom the offensive started. Actually ,they had retreated back to their starting positons again as can be seen on the map on p 243 of The kursk battle by David Glantz and mentioned in his narrative. The unit histories of 6 Panzer and 19th Panzer also mention this. The wikipedia Kursk article mentions this too. More detailed history works on the Kursk battle and unit histories have more credibility than a very general work. And wikipedia articles need to be consistent between each other. So, that phrase is modified. Stug43 (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have found an exact date for his report in Melvin on page 387, and it confirms it was the OKH not OKW. Melvin is a biography of Manstein (Melvin, Mungo [2010]. Manstein: Hitler's Greatest General. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. ISBN 978-0-297-84561-4), not a general work, and it has been my main source for the re-write I am presently undertaking. I have requested Glantz on intra-library loan and hopefully it will arrive soon, at which point I can check out the map on page 243. The text Thunder in the East is not used as a source in this article. Thanks for spotting this error. -- Dianna (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)