Talk:Erich von Manstein/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

French attack plan

Hi guys. I hope I don't mix up your page, but I do not know how the whole think works. There is an article on the web which will answer many of your questions. It has been written by me, I am a military historian. The link is: www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=7901 Manstein was not even remotely Jew. Stahlberg's book, like all of his wrtings and interviews, have been discredited long ago by the great amount of lies he was telling. So he has to be used with utmost care. I would appreciate it if one of you guys would put a link to my article on the wiki page as I don't know how it works. If you have any other questions regarding Manstein or WWII you can contact me at: JMuth@gmx.net Good Luck and keep up the good work. Joerg

comment please: your style of writing and vocabulary do not suggest a military historian. would you please list some of your published work. additionally: I have stahlberg's book here. what is it that you object to? he was a junior staff officer working in the day-to-day operations of manstein's headquarters. he was not involved in decision making. he was an observer who had a secretarial-type function. he had no reason to exaggerate or lie. i found his account to be flat in style but otherwise entirely normal for a lieutenant working on a military staff. Miletus (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have revised some details of the content related to the development of the attack plan on France. This is heavily based on v. Manstein's war memoirs. Specifically:

• he did not like the Fall Gelb plan because it wasnt capable of delivering results that would further the strategy. Indeed he felt that it would just store up problems/battles for later
• he felt that a non-frontal attack to attack the rear of the Fall Gelb objectives combined with sufficient forces to exploit the probably huge opportunities that the deep penetration would expose.

Please quote your sources. in which archive can this information be researched. have you had access to the relevant divisional war diaries (in the german original). is this us-dod archive material, federal german archive material? quote your sources pleaseMiletus (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The emphasis on Guderian as the prime proponent of 'Blitzkreig' is not supported in the literature although he was a prime developer of the armoured element. He was very supportive, indeed enthusiastic, about Manstein's proposed new plan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Facius (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC). Guderian's views were not generally known until his publication of 'Panzer Leader' and 'Achtung Panzer', soon after the war, plus the much later book by Macksey. i have all three. is this what you are referring to? or do you have other sources?Miletus (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Was Manstein Jewish?

His real last name is "Lewinski" which is a Polish-Jewish name. Lewi means Levi which is a name only possessed by people with Jewish ancestry.

Completely irrelevant to any line of professional historical enquiry.Miletus (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

See #Jewish lineage below. Lupo 07:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When did he die?

I've found various dates for his death. Most web sites give either June 10, 1973 (e.g. the historian Schröders, the German Wikipedia or also Go2War2.nl) or June 11, 1973 (e.g. the Encyclopædia Britannica or the LeMo @ German Historic Museum). A few sites also mention June 9 or June 12. However, June 12 I only found in our own article here and on [1], but that site is confused because they give June 10 themselves on their own second page at [2]. Which of these dates is correct? Lupo 14:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, earlier dates are more likely to be correct because later dates are often confused with the date(s) the death was reported. Beyond that, I have no idea. Everyking 20:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And to confuse even more, I’ve even seen the date give as June 10/11 in some places. GeneralPatton 06:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yup, mee too. But I found that on only one web site, and I have assumed the author just used that way of giving the date because he couldn't figure it out, too. My print encyclopedia gives June 10, too. June 9 I found on only two web sites. I'll try asking one of the historians at the Forum on Erich von Manstein. Hopefully they can cite some authoritative sources. Lupo 07:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have received a reply from the the German historian Wigbert Benz, who wrote that both the "Enzyklopädie des Nationalsozialismus" (Encyclopedia of National Socialism, Klett-Cotta 1997; ISBN 3608918051, p. 861) and Wistrich's "Wer war wer im Dritten Reich" (Who was who in the Third Reich, Fischer 1993; ISBN 3596243734, p. 237) give June 10. Now these are encyclopedias, too, but at least specialized ones, not a general-purpose one like EB. I will try asking the historical research institute of the Bundeswehr, but whether they can give a reference to a primary source is doubtful. In any case, I do think that it most likely was indeed June 10, and I'll change the article accordingly. (It's just a hunch, but I think EB made a mistake.) If it should turn out that is was June 11 after all, we can still correct the article. However, June 12 seems to be almost certainly incorrect. Lupo 08:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, according to his obituary from the Times of London from 13th of June,1973, he died on Sunday, which is on June 10th. [3]. So much for the “authorative” accuracy of Britannica and their "experts", compared to our “unreliable” Wikipedia. GeneralPatton 14:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Very good catch! I was looking for that obituary, but couldn't find it. Now we just have to incorporate the info on his family in the article (last paragraph of the obituary). His older son's first name was Gero, he died in October 1942 on the battlefield (somewhere on the eastern front). His second son is/was called Rüdiger. Lupo 19:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to [4], Gero von Manstein was born December 31, 1922 and died October 29, 1942 (KIA in the northern sector of the eastern front). They also had a daugther named Gisela [5], she must have been born in 1921/22, if the picture at [6] is dated correctly and my guess of a baby's age isn't too far off. According to Schröders, Manstein's wife died in 1966. I haven't found any biographical info on Rüdiger (yet). Lupo 09:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Got another response from Michael Schröders, saying that both the Süddeutsche Zeitung and the General-Anzeiger (Bonn) of June 12, 1973 report von Manstein's death on June 10, based on AP and dpa news releases. Lupo 09:38, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The book Soldat im 20. jrh, edited by his son Rüdiger, states on page 381: ...,in der NAcht vom 9. zum 10. jumi 1973 starb Manstein an den Folgen eines kurz zuvor eingetretenen Gehirnschlags. (...) Am 15. juni 1973 wurde er mit militärische Ehren (...) in Dorfmark in der Lüneburger Heide (...) beerdigt. On page 423 of the same book, the place of his death is given as Munich. Luetzen 09:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image placement

The images seem awkward. What about left- or right-justification so that the text wraps? Mackensen (talk) 07:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me. The two large images probably should stay that large, and wrapping around such large images would give a very small column of text running down on one side, which I consider worse than the current layout. However, these images still don't have a source. Where do they come from? Lupo 08:18, 19 November 2004 (UTC)

Intro

I've taken the liberty of rephrasing the intro, which read "He was the mastermind behind the Fall Gelb, the ingenious plan for the German invasion of France; ..." The "ingenious" is a judgemental term that I find incompatible with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It's Liddell-Hart's words, and while he certainly is entitled to think that this plan was ingenious, we shouldn't adopt this point of view just like that. Obviously, the plan was successful, and I have decided to state just that: it's a fact, and we can leave it to the reader to form his or her own opinion on whether this plan was ingenious, devious, clever, hazardous, loony, or whatever. If someone disagrees and really wants the "ingenious" back in there, then please source the statement by writing e.g. "... the mastermind behind the Fall Gelb, the plan for the German invasion of France, which the British strategist Liddell-Hart called "ingenious"; ..." Whether that would belong into the intro is then another question; I would think such a reference rather belonged into the (currently) 3rd paragraph of the "WWII" section. Lupo 08:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also have added two sentences on von Manstein's fate after WWII: I think mentioning the trial and the sentence in the intro is important, as is his advisory career for the new government. I just didn't like the summary in the intro stop short. Lupo 08:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When appointet fielmarshall actually none of the 26 German officers in this rank had been a member of the nazi party. Dionysos

Hope you guys are okaywith my adding a couple of 'facts' to support the claim of his importance into the intro. Why is Nazi party membership given such prominence in the intro. Seems like a detail to me for later on. Surely the intro should focus on a one paragraph this is who he was and why he was important. Facius 14:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

He or his troops?

I find the phrasing quite odd in places. Is it really correct (or at least customary in biographies of military leaders) to state that "He was first to strike into Warsaw's suburbs" or "Attacking on 22nd June 1941, Manstein advanced more than 100 miles in only two days and was able to seize two vital bridges over the Dvina River at Dvinsk. The following month he captured Demyansk and Torzhok" when in fact it was the troops commanded by him who did this? Wouldn't it be better to write e.g. for that second example "Attacking on 22nd June 1941, Manstein's troops advanced more than 100 miles in only two days and were able to seize two vital bridges over the Dvina River at Dvinsk. The following month they captured Demyansk and Torzhok."? (This is a general question; there are many more such examples in the current text.) Lupo 08:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is a convention of military history to use phrasing such as that in the article wherein the commanding officer is given the credit for exploits which are, it must be said, actually performed by troops under his command. The convention was adopted to avoid the awkward phrasing that one would be forced to use repeatedly in any work of military history were one to credit the troops, e.g. "The troops under command of General X were able to advance no more than five miles this day" instead of "General X's drive advanced only five miles this day". So far as I know this convention extends back several centuries, though I have no citation at hand to show this definitively. Ron Morley 19:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree per his contemporary Berthold Brecht the reading worker would really wonder what for a man that Manstein was. It is his troops and giving credit to the commander not the troops isn't proper usage. For example in a history of the respective military units their achievements would be mentioned as such and not that their leader went hiking in Eastern Europe and had some fights with Polish and Russian generals who were also hiking around on their own. Wandalstouring 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The template

How about sorting the names in the Template:GFMofWWII by last name? (I've also raised this question on Template talk:GFMofWWII.) Lupo 09:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They’re now sorted by date they acquired the rank, i.e. chronologically. GeneralPatton 17:11, 19 November 2004 (UTC)

His first name(s)

I had seen the mention of Fritz Erich von Manstein earlier, but dismissed it as the source didn't look very authoritative. However, the Liddell Hart Centre for Military Archives at the King's College London also gives his full name as "Fritz Erich". I think this should be mentioned, maybe in the form (Fritz) Erich von Manstein in the intro. Lupo 16:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • Fritz Erich von Manstein was his full official name, but I’ve never seen a document where he used it, not at his trial, not in his signature. GeneralPatton 17:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know that he just went by the name "Erich von Manstein". Nevertheless, shouldn't his full name be mentioned? Other articles do this. Lupo 19:20, 19 November 2004 (UTC)

His trial

These paragraphs are somewhat confused. The text currently reads:

However, evidence was produced that Manstein had accepted and signed Hitler's Commissar order that had stated "the Jewish Bolshevik system be wiped out once and for all and should never be again be allowed to invade our European Lebensraum" (Field Marshal Carver in Barnett (1989/2003), p. 231), but Manstein did not allow the order to be passed on without adding his supplement which stated: "severe steps will be taken against arbitrary action and self-interest, against savagery and indiscipline, against any violation of the honor of the soldier" (ibid.). Manstein stated in his memoirs that, with the approval of his commanding general, he verbally directed his subordinates not to carry out the order.

A few points:

1. The Commissar order doesn't contain the cited phrase. See [7].
2. Von Manstein didn't sign the Commissar order. According to the transcript of the Nuremberg trials, Volume 20, pp. 608-609 (August 10, 1946) [8], he received it, but refused to carry it out. He claims that his superior at that time, Field Marshal von Leeb, tolerated and tacitly approved of his choice, and he also claims that the order were not carried out in practice.
3. Von Manstein did, however, issue an order on November 20, 1941: his version of the infamous "Reichenau Order" [9]. Hitler and Field Marshal von Rundstedt recommended this as an exemplary order and encouraged other Generals to issue similar orders. Not all did, in fact, it seems that only a few did do so. Von Manstein was among those who did issue such an order. It is this order that contains the lines cited after Carver in the article: an oder issued voluntarily by von Manstein, signed only by him, and it is this order that was one of the hot topics in von Manstein's trial in Hamburg. This order, in its entirety (but only in its English translation), also is available in the Nuremberg trials proceedings, Vol. 20, pp. 639 - 645. (It's towards the end of the file, search for "Did General Reichenau".) Besides the lines cited in the article, the order also states: "The food situation at home makes it essential that the troops should as far as possible be fed off the land and that furthermore the largest possible stocks should be placed at the disposal of the homeland. Particularly in enemy cities a large part of the population will have to go hungry." This also was one indictment against von Manstein in Hamburg: not only neglect of civilians, but also this (illegal by the then current laws of war) exploitation of invaded countries for the sole benefit of the "homeland".
4. Von Manstein's order of November 20, 1941 also states: "The soldier must appreciate the necessity for the harsh punishment of Jewry, the spiritual bearer of the Bolshevist terror. This is also necessary in order to nip in the bud all uprisings which are mostly plotted by Jews."
5. Von Manstein never claimed that he had intended this order of November 20, 1941 not to be carried out. That statement refers to the Commissar order. When presented the evidence at Nuremberg, he acknowledged that he had given this order of November 20, 1941, but claimed that he didn't remember it.
6. Von Manstein's order of November 20, 1941 does indeed contain the caveat "Severest action to be taken: against despotism and self-seeking; against lawlessness and lack of discipline; against every transgression of the honor of a soldier." It also contains a statement "Respect for religious customs, particularly those of Mohammedan Tartars, must be demanded."
7. Von Manstein's whole testimonial at Nuremberg is spread out over three files: [10], [11], and [12] at the Yale Avalon project.
8. The evidence for this order was already presented on August 10, 1946 in Nuremberg. (That is not to say that it weren't also presented in Hamburg, but it was known well before.)

Lupo 20:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I've incorporated this into the article, good work researching. I did a tweak with "Mohammedan" and changed it into Muslim, since its anachronistic (It was widespread though before the 1950’s). GeneralPatton 07:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Similar order was issued even by the anti-nazi Colonel-General Erich Hoepner on 5.2.41 "The war against the Soviet Union is an essential component of the German people's struggle for existence. It is the old struggle of the Germans against the Slavs, the defense of European culture against the Muscovite-Asiatic flood, the warding off of Jewish Bolshevism. This struggle must have as its aim the demolition of present Russia and must therefore be conducted with unprecedented severity. Both the planning and the execution of every battle must be dictated by an iron will to bring about a merciless, total annihilation of the enemy. Particularly no mercy should be shown toward the carriers of the present Russian-Bolshevik system." GeneralPatton 18:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's right. In the German original: "Der Krieg gegen Russland ist ein wesentlicher Abschnitt im Daseinskampf des deutschen Volkes. Es ist der alte Kampf der Germanen gegen das Slawentum, die Verteidigung europäischer Kultur gegen moskowitisch-asiatische Überschwemmung, die Abwehr des jüdischen Bolschewismus. Dieser Kampf muss die Zertrümmerung des heutigen Russland zum Ziele haben und deshalb mit ungeheurer Härte geführt werden. Jede Kampfhandlung muss in Anlage und Durchführung von dem eisernen Willen zur erbarmungslosen, völligen Vernichtung des Feindes geleitet sein." (Source: Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv, LVI.AK., 17956/7a, cited here after [13]) On Hoepner, see also [14]: albeit he was involved in the July 20 plot to assassinate Hitler in 1944, he was before his discharge from the Wehrmacht in 1942 one of the generals who even did carry out the Comissar order and repeatedly ordered his troops to kill "partisans". Lupo 13:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

GP, could you please improve on your addition "This order was drafted by a staff member at OKW who was only passing on the content of the order from Hitler to the Army Group"? I don't understand which order this refers to: the Reichenau order or von Manstein's order or Nov. 20, 1941? If the latter, could you explain where that info comes from? In the Nuremberg trials, von Manstein himself says only "Very probably the order was shown to me in draft and then I signed it." That doesn't indicate that it had been drafted at OKW — it may just as well have been drafted by his ordonnance in the field. (In Nov. 41, von Manstein was nowhere near OKW.) Or it may not have been drafted at all: who knows whether von Manstein told the truth in his defense, and in any case he just said "very probably". But maybe that's something that came up in the Hamburg trial and is mentioned in one of your sources? If the phrase refers to the Reichenau order, it should also be made clear, and I think the phrase should be moved up two paragraphs. Lupo 21:26, 22 November 2004 (UTC)

What is still missing

I think by now only a couple of minor points could do with some improvement:

• The WWII images need sources. If the original sources are unknown, they need the sources where they were taken from (URL, if online, ISBN, if scanned from a book, or other).
• Some brief mention of the family (see above)

And then there is one point I'm not sure how it should be incorporated because it has more to do with the image of the Wehrmacht after 1945 than with von Manstein himself. After WWII, a (to use modern words) PR campaign succeeded particularly in West Germany in publicizing a view of the Wehrmacht as "knightly soldiers" who fought a "clean war", an image that persisted virtually uncontested in W. Germany for about 50 years. This view basically attributes all atrocities committed in particular in the east to the Einsatzgruppen of the SD and maintains that the Wehrmacht was not aware of what the SD was doing. Only towards the end of the 20th century, historical research has slowly started to correct that image, showing that things weren't that clear-cut, that the "clean" image of the Wehrmacht is an idealization, and documenting that the Wehrmacht did at times help or participate in or at least knew of these atrocities. (Also known are instances where units of the Wehrmacht actively did oppose the SS. Blanket condemnations really cannot be made, nor is a blanket exoneration realistic.) This has led to intense debates in Germany, cf. the controveries around the "Verbrechen der Wehrmacht" exhibition. Any such discussion surely has no place here, I think. Maybe in the Wehrmacht article...

But (of course there's a "but", or I wouldn't have started this here) Manstein's defense of the General Staff at Nuremberg, where he already says "...with our traditional gallant conception of warfare..." [15], his autobiography Lost Victories, and also Liddell Hart's The Other Side of the Hill are considered instrumental in defining and promulgating the "clean war" and "knightly soldier" image. These are by no means the only works that publicize this point of view, but coming from or dealing with a high-ranking insider, they were influential. The general political climate (the beginning of the cold war) also furthered a favorable reception of this thesis. (Other works that also hold this view were published e.g. by Paul Karl Schmidt under the pseudonym Paul Carell. On Schmidt/Carell, see [16].)

I do think that to round out the picture, a mention in the vein of the following might be in order (though I won't insist if somebody has serious objections):

"His war memoirs, Verlorene Siege (Lost Victories), were published in Germany in 1955, and translated into English in 1958. In them, he presented the thesis that if the Generals had been in charge of strategy instead of Hitler, the war on the Eastern Front could have been won." (existing text)

"His war memoirs, Verlorene Siege (Lost Victories), were published in Germany in 1955, and translated into English in 1958. In them, he presented the thesis that if the Generals had been in charge of strategy instead of Hitler, the war on the Eastern Front could have been won. The memoirs and his testimony at Nuremberg were just two of many publications that promulgated especially in West Germany a view of the Wehrmacht as "knightly soldiers" who were fighting a "clean war", a view that was seriously questioned by historical research only towards the end of the 20th century." (proposed new text)

What do others think about this? Lupo 12:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most of the Wehrmacht is probably best left for the separate article, however the book description is right on, but it could also be added that most historians now doubt that just Generals running the war could help Germany avoid defeat, faced with the immense resources of the Allies. Maybe also that Stahlberg wrote in his book that he told Manstein about the mass executions and deportations, to which Manstein reacted indifferently. GeneralPatton 03:28, 5 December 2004 (UTC)

Von Manstein or just Manstein?

In the recent edits, the article has acquired a mixture of using only "Manstein" and "von Manstein" when referencing to the man. I think we should decide on one or the other. Personally, I think "von Manstein" is correct (compare Charles de Gaulle, or also Ruud van Nistelrooy), but actually, I don't really care as long as it's consistent, which it currently isn't. Lupo 14:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good catch, i think both are correct to use. I think I'll go with just Manstein. GeneralPatton 18:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have changed all instances of 'Manstein' to 'von Manstein', so the article is now internally consistent. NB that the correct form is 'Von' and not 'von' if used as the first word of a sentence. Ericoides 12:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In german, you normally only use the "von" before the surname after the first name (Erich von Manstein) or the title (Feldmarschall von Manstein or Herr von Manstein). Otherwise it's only "Manstein". --Vully 00:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In v. Manstein's memoirs 'Lost victory’s' he does use's the abbreviation v. instead of the full von. It is necessary to do so, von being similar to Sir in England." 12.175.230.59 15:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)WFarm

I think that 'Sir' in England refers to someone who has a knighthood and is a personal title. 'Von' in German is like 'de' in France and is part of a last name used by a family there is no equivalent in England. It perhaps an indicator of a previously held title in the family. Facius 14:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewish lineage

Anthony Beevor claims that Manstein was privately open about his Jewish ancestry. GeneralPatton 18:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stahlberg also mentions this, but when he was pressed for proof of the conversation he reported, he couldn't produce one. The SS has investigated von Manstein's ancestry after his dismissal 1944, too, but whatever records they might have had have never been found. See "Notes on sources", Note #62 on p. 41, under the heading "Notes to pages 83-84" (PDF file, 652 kB), from Bryan Mark Rigg, Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, Kansas University Press; ISBN 0-700-61358-7. So, in the absence of conclusive proof (beyond speculations based on the name "Lewinski"), I would treat that as a rumour only, not worthy of including in the article. I would think the fact that the SS never took any action againt von Manstein is a strong indication that he had no Jewish ancestry (or if he did, it was in such a remote past that even the SS didn't uncover it, and then it's hardly worth mentioning either). Does Beevor give any verifiable source for the statement?

What von Manstein did, however, was argue in 1934 against expelling Jewish members of the Wehrmacht. However, he argued not against racial discrimination, but considered expelling Jews contrary to the "Kameradschaft" and the corps spirit of the Wehrmacht. He quite openly expressed agreement with Nazi ideology. See Schröders. Lupo 19:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the book Die Wehrmacht - Feindbilder Vernichtungskrieg Legenden ISBN 310091208X, historian Wolfram Witte states that Manstein had a Jewish ancestor named "Lewi". GeneralPatton 23:40, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's exactly what Stahlberg reports. (Or rather, Stahlberg reports that Manstein had, late one evening, told his Bridge partners a story about a remote ancestor of his, named Lewi, that just might have been a rabbi in Warsaw. Stahlberg couldn't produce any proofs for this, von Manstein himself didn't talk about it publically, not even after the war, and his son Rüdiger said that his family might have had Jewish ancestry, but that there weren't any documents to either prove or disprove it.) What sources do Antony Beevor and Witte give for their statements? If they don't give any, or if they attribute this to Stahlberg, I'm afraid it's not very authoritative... Lupo 10:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He was obviously Jewish because the name Lewinski is pronounced Levinski in Polish, Levi is a Jewish name only. If hes not Jewish hes probably the only non-Jew with the name Lewinski.

The source is his real last name, Lewinski is a name only possessed by people who have Jewish backround, this argument is like argueing if a guy with the last name "Schmidt" is German.

What does it matter if he has jewish ancestry? --Nwinther 11:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It matters for accuracy. Yoiu can't go calling people jewish because of the last name lewinski alone. People can change their last names. The fact of the matter is his last name was not even lewinski but Manstein. If you can't prove it, then don't include it! Churchil said he was part Native American, Cherokee or something, does and did that make it so?

- Accuracy? Then why not mention his eye-, hair- and skin-color, his height, weight, width and shoe-size not to mention his grades in grammar-school (or the german equivalent)? Those numbers would be of much more interest to the person "Manstein" than would knowledge of his "racial" ancestry. What I'm trying to say is, that it would add little, if anything, to the article, wether he's jewish or not, just as his eye-color is of little interest. Instead, we should focus on relevant, historical aspects of Manstein and his actions.--Nwinther 08:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, normally Jewish ancestry wouldn't be a big deal, but this is no normal context. Given that anti-semitism was at the heart of Nazi ideology, and the "Final Solution" a central war aim, if a leading Nazi general indeed had Jewish origins, that would be of very much interest.Guy6543 22:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Von Manstein was born as Fritz-Erich von Lewinski. The family “von Lewinski” belongs to one of the oldest Prussian aristocratic families. Due to Prussian history many family names sound somewhat polish in this area but Jews never had the opportunity to join the circle of Prussian aristocracy whatsoever. Dionysos, 27 January 2007

Guys, I think you don't see the difference between being Jewish and having Jewish ancestry. Baptism wasn't that uncommon among Jewish families in the medieval and early modern Europe. In just few generations, nothing but a name would have left as a reminder. If memory serves me, even the SS required proof of "purity of German blood" only as far back as 1750.--Barbatus 06:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the case, it should be removed from the article. If he had jewish ancestors, the jewish blood would be so deluted that it's not worth mentioning. Almost 200 years (if the SS checked back to 1750), what is that, 6 or 7 generations? Also, the line "the Lewinsky family had jewish origins" is very poorly phrased, as if he only descended from one family line, ignoring the 63 other family lines that would be in his blood if we count six generations back.

How so? Is that phrase grammatically incorrect? ... But I'll repeat my question: is it so embarrassing for a Prussian officer to have Jewish ancestry, or is it embarrassing for the Jews to have a Nazi general among distant relatives? What's the problem? ... Anyhow, the very name Lewinski is revealing enough, whether the phrase in question is removed or not.--Barbatus 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

His original family name is “von Lewinski” and not just “Lewinski”. The little “von” clearly describes him as a noble. The meaning of “von” is “from” or "of" and provides the name of the fiefdom (for example a village) a knight had been granted by his liege lord. Lewinski = Lewi = Levi sounds funny but is just bullshit (sorry). Prussian aristocracy did not mix with ordinary Germans and therefore also not with those of Jewish ancestry. Of course nobody would (should) mind if von Manstein had Jewish ancestry but it is just technically impossible.If the Nazis where looking for some Jewish blood in his case they where looking for possible “breeding” out of official marriages within von Manstein’s ancestors. Even if there had been such a case involving a Mr. Levi surely this name would at the best coincidentally come close to that the name of that fief his family had been granted in medieval times. Please, recognize that Prince Charles’s name only by American standards may be Charles Wales because he is the Prince of Wales. But this does neither allow anybody to claim one of his ancestors had been a whale nor his family was rooted in Wales. Even if the name “Wales” would indicate Jewish ancestry it does not mean Prince Charles is of Jewish descent. Personally I can hear von Manstein and his Bridge partners laughing about his joke and I can even hear him laughing about the impact of this joke up to present days. Due to my opinion Wikipedia should not be a subject to von Manstein’s humor I deleted the bullshit about his “Jewish” ancestors even if some smart ass has written this in a publication. Dionysos (--AuthorDionysos 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

First: to the best of my knowledge the (somewhat unreliable) biography by Marcel Stein of a few years back traced the Lewinski family back to a name change and determined that it was a question of a place-name. Second, until I read the above comment about Rudiger von Manstein's ambiguous comment, I thought von Stalhberg had perhaps misremembered or exaggerated the "bridge game incident."

However, if Rudiger got that from his father (rather than, eg, from Stahlberg, as was probably the case with Beevor) than perhaps Manstein was, in fact, uncertain about his family history. I agree that it wasn't worth noting in the body of the article; the Beevor/Stahlberg account has given the misleading impression that Manstein wasn't anti-semitic; both Stein and von Wrochem have concluded reasonably that he was to an unclear extent.

To my mind it isn't that the subject (call it Manstein's actual level of ideological identification with Nazi ideology on race and other matters) is trivial; it's just something that has to be sourced very rigourously because of the extent to which Manstein's been lionized, from Paget and Liddell-Hart on down. Stahlberg and Stein don't breathe reliability, but they're both important. Beevor seems far too fast and loose on Manstein. 99.192.92.42 (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Same editor as 00:58 7 July here. I've since read Stahlberg's memoir in its English translation; surprisingly enough, he does make the claim about the dachshund, Knirps, raising its paw in response to "what does the brown dog do?" He writes (p. 312) that he (Stahlberg) trained him to, and that Manstein told him only to do the trick among friends. A plate elsewhere in the book, number 32, shows the dog with the caption indicating he raised a paw on "Heil Hitler," which seems like a significant difference. The alleged exchange of Jewish family history is strangely phrased and can be found at pp. 312-313, from late-43 or early 44 at Vinnitsa. (Stahlberg says he burned his 1943-4 diaries after the July 20th plot.) In the context of trying to have Manstein take an oral report of anti-Jewish atrocities from Oberst Eberhard Finckh, which Manstein refused. Stahlberg said he changed the subject and announced that he had had a Jewish convert as a great grandfather, that Manstein had taken a conversational interest in the grandfather, perhaps to change the subject, and that Stahlberg finally brought up a "late night conversation over bridge" in which Manstein spoke of a great-great grandfather who might have been rabbi of Warsaw.

The entire memoir is filled with picturesque and often wildly implausible stories; he supposedly met everyone, exchanged meaningful words with every conspirator, wrestled with all the great moral problems, and so forth; he was writing in the 1980s, by his own account without diaries for 1943 or 1944. Having an account from Manstein's ADC/Orderly Officer would be invaluable if it were only reliable; but it just isn't. Worth reading, certainly, but it's sheer guesswork to determine what might be real history. I have no difficulty believing he told Manstein about a converted great-grandfather, for example, but the circumstances seem doubtful and the business of Manstein's "bridge revelation" much moreso, particularly in the wierdly circuitous way he explains it. Similarly, Stahlberg training Knirps the dachshund to "shake a paw" with some ambiguously satirical command could be true, but we have no idea if Manstein or anyone else was really aware of it.

None of all of this has a place in a brief article about Manstein. What can be said reliably (ie, from solid documentation) is that he expressed a conventionally anti-semitic view characteristic of his milieu; that he made a protest while at Wehrkreis III against Aryanization, whatever his motives; that he later expounded Nazi ideology in a 1939 speech to his division; that he turned a blind eye to Einsatzgruppe D's killings in his 11th Army's front and rear area, which were accelerating at the time of his assumption of command in September '41; that he issued his own version of the Reichenau order in November '41; his headquarters was in close liaison with the killing operations in Crimea, where the 'private' nature of the campaign must have made them harder to ignore than usual, and that 11th Army HQ requested the rescheduling (hastening) of the Simferopol killings in November-December 1941, which killed around 12,000 Jews. Ohlendorf and Braune were in contact with the 11th Army Staff in that instance but (rightly) assumed such a request would be unthinkable without Manstein's approval. A subsequent request for the wristwatches from the 'resettled' Jews of Simferopol resulted in a document initialed both by Manstein and his chief of staff Wöhler. In Army Group staffs in Poland and from November 1942 onwards he could, with a certain plausibility, say he was only interested in the war; in Crimea, however hectic some of the maneuvering, he's unavoidably responsible on a normal command responsibility basis for the ~35,000 Jews murdered there (Feferman, War In History 2008; 15; 72 - it cites other estimates in a lower ~25,000 range) and more directly for 'rescheduling' and facilitating the killings in Simferopol. His personal attitude towards Nazi ideology and Jews, in other words, is innaccessable but kind of tasteless to speculate on when, in practical terms, he was so seriously implicated in the Crimean part of the Holocaust. Because of the contentiousness of debate over this article I'm not going to make any edits; I just thought having done some research I'd offer my perspective on the matter. 99.192.93.212 (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Leftovers from the FAC discussion

Lest these be forgotten I'm copying here remaining minor points from the FAC discussion:

• Manstein increasingly had serious differences with Hitler over questions of strategy, and tried repeatedly to lobby for the institution of an "Oberbefehlshaber Ost" that would have planned the overall strategy. This brought him in direct rivalry with Hitler. (Cf. Schröders, who cites Manstein's own Verlorene Siege as the reference for that statement.)
• Historians' evaluation of the thesis in his war memoirs.
• take a look at the battlebox at Polish September Campaign and list of battles in it, we may want to link some of them relevant to the plans and battles mentioned in the article.

Lupo 13:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done 1, working on 2. GeneralPatton 09:00, 5 December 2004 (UTC)

To do list

Besides the issues Lupo has raised, this is a list of what I feel is still left to be done

• More on his time in World War I
• The section on the development of his Sichelschnitt plan needs to be completely rewritten, also detailing how he came into conflict with Halder and the OKH because of it. Done for the most part.
• the text about the Crimea campaign needs to be massively expanded, to at least two paragraphs. Done, but needs checking (spelling, pictures? etc.) --Nwinther 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Stalingrad section needs to be rewritten, mentioning how Wintergewitter surprised the Red Army and caused them to divert troops from Little Saturn, thereby saving the 700,000 men of Army Group A still withdrawing from Caucasus from being cut off.
  • This part of the article seems strange. First, Manstein launches Wintergewitter to relieve/free 6. army inside Stalingrad. This operation (according to O. Saturn article) forces the soviets into "little saturn". Back at the Manstein article, it goes on to say how Manstein intervened in O. Saturn by reinforcing the line to Rostov, pulling out AG-A in the caucasus. Well, both these can't be true. Either Soviets cancelled Saturn and made L. Saturn because of the relief-attempt on Stalingrad, or because Manstein sent forces to reinforce the Rostov Line. To my recollection (and conviction) it was the assault on Stalingrad that made the soviets cancel Saturn. Manstein may have sent forces to reinforce the Rostov Line, but this would be AFTER the cancellation of Saturn (right?). And another thing. There seem to be a number of times, where different corps are mentioned, followed by an account of it's composition. This would at best belong in the details on the battle(s) OR in specific articles on the corps. Can anyone confirm these points - perhaps suggest how we do this? I'd like to get that "disputed"-sign off the article.--Nwinther (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• More on the Kursk and Dnieper campaigns, and how Hitler rejected that the Dnieper line be fortified.
  • Citadel/Kursk needs a complete rewrite. This shouldn't prove too difficult, as the Kursk-article contains great detail. As it is, though, this segment consists of bits and pieces, such as Zhukov "Praising Manstein" without any further comments. First of all, this information has nothing to do in this section, second, shouldn't it be a source rather than a piece of the article itself? The Dnieper-section suffers from the same symptoms, but this can perhaps be "cured" by looking in the Dnieper-campaign article. I'll begin looking at this bit in the weekend or next week.--Nwinther (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

GeneralPatton 13:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hitler never rejected the fortification of the Dniper, indeed, the projected "Dnieper Line" was the key to his defensive strategy for 43'. The failure to fortify the Dnieper would make Hitler extremely suspicious of Manstein but, he told Geobbels: "at the moment we cannot undertake anything against him" see Norman Goda -"black Marks" Journal of Modern History 72 (june 2000) p443. where could you have gotten the idea that Hitler was opposed to the fortification of the Dnieper? I don't believe even Manstein ever concocted such falsehoods.

His Picture

Can we add the black and white picture of Manstein from the German wikipedia here? It looks much better than the colour one currently up.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.182.226 (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge of Plot to Kill Hitler

An earlier version of the text was "Though he knew of the plot he did not take part in the attempt to kill Hitler in July 1944." No source is cited for this so I have changed it to "he did not take part in the attempt to kill Hitler in July 1944." It is very doubtful if the plotters would have informed him of their plans given they did not trust him. The plotters' opinion of Rommel was quite different and they listed him as a prospective leader if their plot succeeded. That is what led to Rommel being given a choice between suicide and facing a People's Court. As no such action was taken against Manstein, it would appear very unlikely he knew of the plot while Rommel did not. What may be said with certainty is that the plotter's approached Manstein about joining them (without revealing the plot to kill Hitler) and were rebuffed by him. 68.104.78.238 22:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)TruthInHistory

Can someone rewrite this please?

I went to this article because I was curious about Manstein, and I'm dismayed to see that it's undergone the typical process of Wikipedia degradation--all sorts of random people have put in their two cents worth, and by now it's very rambling and disorganized, and not really deserving of Featured Article status any more. Is there some editor who really knows his/her Manstein who could do a thorough rewrite? Thanks. Opus33 19:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I really agree with opus33, and would like to beg the editors to also delete the article. I am an educated historian, and are shocked by the unscientific demagoguery, the half-concealed hatred of Manstein that pervades this article, instead of a detatched measuredness of referred information. Now, 60+ years after the war, all parties must be requested to be fair and neutral concerning the war. But here we are presented with a very smug piece of propaganda. So; editors! Use the deletion button and be fair! P. Asbjoernsen, Oslo 80.213.129.92 11:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to delete it - remove the POV instead. I believe most of the POV material should be gone now. I'm gonna trim the article somewhat today, and hopefully we'll be left with a good article without the biased comments Abel29a 08:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

"He would mock Hitler, admit to his Jewish lineage, and would give a Nazi salute that parodied a dachshund’s trick of raising its paw." Anthony Beevor (Stalingrad, 1998, Penguin, p347) This quote is inaccurate and not found on page 347 of the book "Stalingrad", by Antony Beever.70.109.131.199 02:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Ragnar

Sorry for the belated reply; it took me some time to lay my hands on that book in this edition. Indeed it isn't there. This quote seems completely fabricated by GeneralPatton, who added it. It's a paraphrase, but a very poor one, for it changes the sense of the original and is taken out of context to show only the positive (i.e., anti-Hitler) aspects of the man. The closest I was able to find is on p. 273, where Beevor writes:

Manstein despised Göring and loathed Himmler. To his most trusted colleagues he admitted to Jewish antedescents. He could also be scathing about Hitler. As a joke, his dachshund Knirps had been trained to raise his paw in salute on the command "Heil Hitler". On the other hand, his wife was a great admirer of Hitler, and more importantly, Manstein, as already mentioned, had even issued that order to his troops mentioning "the necessity of hard measures against Jewry".

Following this, I have removed the whole "quotes" section, as I do not consider it trustworthy anymore. I'll also think about placing this article on featured article removal, I feel this incident compromises the trust I can place in this whole article. It needs a thorough fact check that I cannot do alone, and should also be re-read with an eye on POV, and (as Opus33 pointed out above) might even need a complete rewrite. Lupo 14:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Beevor does not give any sources for these particular statements. As you can see at the top of this page, I have now indeed decided to nominate this article for a removal from our "featured" articles; the relevant discussion page is Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Erich von Manstein. Lupo 22:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Crimea questions

"Half the Russian force (total 200.00. men) were captured..." Is this supposed to be 200,000? Clarityfiend 06:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am confused by some of teh section on crimea, and even more confused by the talk here. I will try to fix some matters of record taht seem to be faulty. Like for example the list or troop units under his command is wrong according to "Lost Victories" which he wrote. I cant think of any obvious reasons why he would fudge that. Facius 17:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

New Crimea description

What happened in the Crimean description? Whoever wrote the "new" version has some explaining to do. I've read Mansteins book and heaps of stuff about him - and this chapter dosen't seem anything like the descreptions I've seen or reflect how I percieves the man.

From being a military stroke of genius, it (the Crimea campaign) now looks like devine intervention on behalf of the german army. The present picture is this: Manstein is an incompetent planner and exceptionally bad commander. He fails to realise anything about russian preparations and methods. With him he has a borderline-incompetent army, with utterly laughable artillery and an extremely unskilled airforce. Manstein is also a vengeful and small man with dislikable traits en masse.

The Soviet on the other hand is wonderful planners with a hard-fighting exceptional army - and they don't even need an airforce - that's how good they are.

But strangely enough, all the catastrophic mistakes on Mansteins part, along with his poor army/airforce and exaggerated numbers, he manages to utterly defeat soviet presence on Crimea. Now that has to be devine intervention.

And strangely enough, this leader - Field Marshall even - gets a reputation of a gallant warrior in ALL walks of german (and allied) life - both military and politically. This certainly has changed my view on Manstein, whom I thought was an impecable officer, genius commander and brilliant planner, with a chivalrous heart - at least most of the time. I wonder when this disregard and hatred arose in the prussian military code.

Please, would someone respond to this... I need to know if I'm alone on this view. --Nwinther 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The much maligned rewriter of the Crimean chapter is me. I find your criticism a touch absurd. At no point did I submit that Manstein's forces were inept. On the contrary they displayed considerable skill and even greater doggedness. They had to! their commander's gross errors in Sevastopol made exceptional performence indispenseble were failure to be averted. The 30th corps under Salmuth's brilliant leadership fought with superlative excellence. As for Manstein's performance in other parts of the Crimean campaign, it was pefectly adequate. except that is to his delusional response to the Soviet counter-attack in Kerch and his perfidious, subsequent, scapegoating of the local commander, Sponeck, but then I have not as yet adressed that. I certainly did not argue that the Soviet command's performance was examplary or even competent. far from it. In the Perekop isthmus it was at best dubious and in the Kerch peninsula it was macabre-Keystonishly incompetent enough to make Manstein's celebrated "bustard hunt" victory a self-inflicted Soviet defeat. It is just that Manstein was not remotely as able as his and others' hagiographies would have it. When the Soviets were at there grotesque worst as in Kerch, he was at his best and vice versa. Sevastopol happens to be one of the first examples of competent Soviet leadership on the German-Soviet front and manstein's performance was corespondingly poor. I certainly did not argue that the Luftwaffe was inept at this stage of the war. It would become nearly useless in the "eastern front" after 1943, but that lay in the future. I merely indicated that it was hopeless in nocturnal interdiction. This was due to a shortage of electronic navigational aides in the Soviet theatre. As for Manstein' supposed gallantry. There simply was no gallantry in the Wehrmacht. Against the Soviets it exhibited nothing but feindish sadism at all levels everywhere. The myth of the "gallant Wehrmacht" has long been put to final resting. Manstein like most Wehrmacht commanders on the Soviet front was a mass-murderer of the vilest kind. After Sevastopol it emerged that he could even be more murderous then the SS' finest, personified by Ohlendorf, when he insisted on a slaghter of the Soviet POWs. It is time you gave up on your illusions on the matter. When I find the time, I also intend to take Anthony Beevor's book and rewrite the article's section on Stalingrad. where Manstein's performance was as bad if not worse than in Sevastopol. unless you experience the requisite intellectual awakening by then, you will be horribly, though unwarrantedly, traumatised. Please open your eyes.

Dear 88.153.*.*, with that attitude you might discover that it's rather difficult to do any rewrite that'd conform to our WP:NPOV policy. If you ever should get to do such a rewrite, make sure it adheres to WP:CITE, WP:ATT, WP:VERIFY, and, above all, WP:NOR. In particluar, you should refrain from any conjectures about reasons and causes. Lupo 06:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To NN (Lupo Identifies you as 88.153.*.*) - Do you have any sources on your claims and assertations? It seems like nothing but battering to me. Please put forth som sources. I remember of reading of Soviet POW's marching from Leningrad (ca.) thousands of kilometers to remain in Mansteins "care". This does not sound like anything you've put up about his bloodthirstyness. Rather, they'd be better off with the Einzatsgruppen, according to you. I find that hard to believe.--Nwinther 10:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To 88.153 It is natural that there are differing opinions about wars. So the best that can be done is to provide cites for claims that are not universally agreed to. That Manstein ordered the killing of 20,000 POWs is quite controversial, it definitely needs cites if it is to remain in Wiki. As for rewriting Stalingrad based on Anthony Beevor's book, the relevant book really won't provide you much material. It does say that Manstein later claimed that he opposed Hitler and encouraged the 6th Army to break out, whereas the reality was more nuanced. If you really want to present the Soviet point of view, you are probably better off citing Alexander Werth (Russia at War) rather than Anthony Beevor. Jayanta Sen 17:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

to Jayanta sen: Beevor's book apropriately titled Stalingrad, deals with, believe it or not, the battle of Stalingrad. I read it, enjoyed it and detected nothing wrong in it. What is your reason for dismissing it. On a different matter I certainly had no intention of presenting the "soviet point of view" I merely introduced the figures readily, even urgently, available in Krivosheev statistics and just about anywhere else, and indicated that they sharply differ from Manstein claims. This fact should not be a revelation to anyone remotely interested in the subject. The Wehrmacht's estimates of Soviet casualties inflicted were a notorious orgy of baseless self-congatulation. Had the Soviets suffered anything like the losses the Germans claimed to have inflicted, Barbarossa would have ended in kamchatka. Nwinther You find my depiction of the Crimean campaign an earth shaking novelty, but even a critical reading of Manstein's own memoirs reveals his many false assumptions about the Sevastopol enclave's disposition. He tried to gloss over them. Little did he realise that future admirers would regard the very possibility that he should err a sacrelige. It would have spared him some trouble. As to your imsistence upon a source citing the mass-murder of POW following Sevastopol. Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of European Jews happens to spring to mind. It mentions the loathsome affair. It also points out that Manstein urged the einzatsgruppe to expedite the annihilation of the Simferopol ghetto, which he himself established as a "security measure" following a "partisan attack" - the partial destruction of three vehicles by a misguided bunch of adolescents. He neglected to provide for the feeding of the resulting ghetto thereby violating the tried and true SS practice of minimally feeding a major new ghetto until it has been securely sealed off. The outcome was famine followed by epidemics which soon threatened to cross over into Simferopol's newly established "Aryan zone" - which happened to contain Manstein's own HQ - as increasing numbers of increasingly desparate Jews began breaking out through the ramshackle ghetto enclosure which was all that the "security concious" Manstein had cobbled up. Thus it soon became "necessary" to "liquidate" the gehtto. Murdering the Jews of Simferopol diverted murder forces from the Kerch peninsula where they had been operating very successfully. Needless to say Ohlendorf and company were slightly miffed by Manstein's overzealous and "counter-productive" interference but being good little soldeirs they obeyed him on this as on everything else. why do you find these things so mind boggling? at the time they were quite commonplace. I encountered this and similiar information in almost all recent books I read on the wehrmacht. Your submition that Soviet POWs "marched thousends of kilometers to remain in Manstein's care" unintentionally provided an exquisite specimen of macabre humour. It certainly could not have originated with the POWs concerned, for had they marched the alleged thousends of KMs they would mostly have dropped dead in the process, which is propably what happened to them. Soviet POWs were not at liberty to go where they pleased. They only marched thousends of KMs on command and at gunpoint in what were rightly termed death marches. What next, Did the Jews enter the gas chambers from shear loving devotion to the tender SS? Realy Nwinther. This was ludicrous beyond belief. how can you believe such ferrytales, and where do you manage to locate such military literature? Its very existence horrifies me!

I am not dismissing Beevor's book, in fact it is one of the few books I have read more than twice. Though he is an excellent writer I believe his numbers are slanted towards the Germans, something that you yourself wish to work against. Beevor does occasionally lose his objectivity, like when he accuses Stalin of having a "deep streak of cowardice". As for the "Soviet point of view", all casualty numbers that you have for this war represent someone's point of view. Both sides exaggerated enemy losses and underestimated their own.Jayanta Sen 01:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would grant you that commanders and commands at war tend to exaggerate enemy losses while deflating their own for reasons of self-aggrandisement, but in the wartime Red Army a premium was placed on intelligence. therefore their estimates of German casualties - the real estimates, not those occasionally published - tended to be accurate. Contemporary Soviet own losses accounts also tended to be truthful, rather than doctored as in the Wehrmacht, for the simple and dispiriting reason that heavy, occasionally monsterously heavy, losses were not the stigma that they should have been. It was only after the war that Soviet losses became a touchy point for the Soviet system, which explains why they were only recently declassified. I therefore feel that the more recent own casualties figures published in post soviet russia are credible. If anything they occasionaly seem excessive, taking at face value the contemporary pre-combat figures of strengh - on whose basis losses were calculated - which often emerged as sad exercises in wishful thinking.

I find what you write to be plausible. However please do cite sources for figures you enter into the main article. Jayanta Sen 17:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just go to Glantz's When Titans Clashed (especially the Krivosheev figures cited in an appendix) or even John Erickson's good old The Road To Stalingrad (pp 350-2 and p 552) I happen to have these two at home, but for the sake of all that is rational! these figures are everywhere whenever I pick up a new book about the German-Soviet war in the library. They are hardly a revelation. When I happen to visit the library in a few days, I'll see how many sources I can dredge up to back up the first two. In the meantime I refer you to the sources above.

my recent atempts to elaborate somewhat on on the Crimean campaign are instantly reverted. Most annoying is some user's adhearence to the 17th of November, rather than becember 17, as the starting date of the Manstein's second bid to subdue the Sevastopol enclave. This is rather absurd since this same person also rejoices in noting that "less than a week later" (that is less than a week afer it was repulsed) the Soviets carried out their amphibious landings in Kerch. This puts the landings on the 26th and 30th of November, when it is well-known that the landings took place in December. Accounts of the landings stress that the Kerch straits were largely ice-covered when they began. this alone should exclude November as the month of the landings, regardless of when the second storming of Sevastopol ground to a halt. The whole matter is vexing and even strange. Perhaps some admirer of Manstein fancies that by dating the second attack to when the first and equally abortive attack was taking place he or she can supress at least one failure. Whatever the explaination this is becoming desparately silly.

Dear 88.15*.***.***! I agree with most of what you have to say, but, please, if it's not too much of a problem, sign your postings (it's just a single click, after all) and, when you edit the article itself, check your spelling. Of course 'becember' or something like that will be changed (or reverted, as I did when I had no time to correct it and asked to revise the edits instead). I don't know your reasons for staying a non-registered editor, but I hope you will reconsider. Danke!--Barbatus 13:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I to understand that you reverted my alteration of the dates for no better reason than because it contained a spelling error? It strikes me as rather sad that you would prefer a wrong date to a misspelled one. My spelling leaves much to be desired, no doubt. At some point I should study touch typing, but is it such a Herculan exertion to replace a `b` with a `d`. well, we live and learn. On another matter. What difference does it make if I sign my postings or not? We are writing and communicating through the Internet. a "measure of anonimity" is indicated. your survival of both pre-school and elementry school makes it unlikely that your real name is Barbatus.

(1) Frankly, I don't remember if I did revert your edits, but, as I said, I did so only because I had no time to correct edits with misspellins, missing spaces, etc. (that's why I asked to revise them ... may be I had to be more specific, but, again, no time). (2) My real name is not Barbatus, of course (though it suits me well, for I've been bearded since the last century, hee-hee). Registering under an assumed name, of alias, or whatever, does not compromize your anonymity in any way, but allows, for example, to have a conversation like this one not here but on yours (or mine, for that matter) personal page. And (3) to sign your postings is just another way of being polite.—Barbatus 18:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the exact sources but I believe that it sums up (my look upon) Manstein and his character very well, especially in the light of the eye-opener this discussion has led me to recieve:

"I have studied the records of warfare long enough to realize how few men who have commanded armies in a hard struggle could have come through such a searching examination of their deeds and words as well as Von Manstein did."

A fragment of a letter by Lidell Hart in the Times, in a defence of Manstein after his trial. http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/Commanders/German/vonmanstein.htm - bottom of the page.--Nwinther 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear nwinther. Liddell Hart is an entirely disbelieveble authority on the matter. Following WW2 he found himself diservedly discredited after the defeats of both Poland and France disproved his claim that "the increasing advantage of the defence over attack" ment that "the soldier's dream of a `lightning war` has a deacreasing prospect of fulfilment" (The Defence of Britain published in 1939). seeking rehabilitation he gained access to captured German generals on the pretext of aiding in their "political reeducation" and a dirty deal was struck, whereby the generals would pretend that Lidddel Hart's pre-war writings contributed to the evolotion of German doctrine——a claim refuted in James Corum's The Roots of Blitzkrieg——in return for Liddel Hart's propagating the myth that the generals were "mere soldeirs" (nur soldaten). Passionate patriots certainly, but otherwise mere military technocrats uninviolved in the "New Order"'s atrocities (Alaric Searle's A Very Special Relationship: Basil Liddell Hart, Wehrmacht Generals and the Debate on West German Rearmament 1945-1953). A claim he knew to be a lie following a review of the evidence against them (Tom Bower - Blind Eye to Murder). Their collusion was crowned in Liddell Hart's The Other Side of the Hill. A stylistic masterpiece which remains a rich and influential source of gross military-historical distotrions, deifying both Liddell Hart and the German generals, as well as a whitewashing of the Wehrmacht's crimes. Among the the unsavoury gang of Cold War appologists for the Wehrmacht, Liddell may be counted as one of the very worst. In summation Nwinther. Face reality and stop grasping at straws to save your idol's image. A mass murderer is a mass murderer even if some spineless charletan writes a newspaper article. I hope that the matter is permanently settled. Yours sincerely Soz

I think you misunderstand. I'm not trying to use Lidell-Hart as a source. I merely mean to use this quote as a description of my own opinion on the Manstein-matter/legacy; that if you scrutinize the actions of almost any general, you'll see a trail of blood and killing. Sometimes of people that was proven innocent - or never comitting a crime worthy of a deathpenalty. However, that is war and I don't see any convincing evidence that Manstein was killing civilians with that purpose alone. I do, however see plenty of circumstantial evidence, hearsay and speculation - which of course could be true. After all, I don't see any mentioning of the Dresden Bombings under Churchill's profile, nor "Bomber" Harris'. And those guys weren't even facists! Rather, I think that the "righteous" bathing in the murderous activity of everyones favourite enemy - Ze Germanz - is of little interest, compared to the crimes comittet by people we've celebrated for decades as heroes. Or we could start viewing those "incidents" as regrettable atrocities comittet sometimes in desperation, sometimes as a cool calculation - and sometimes as a "regular" act of warfare where eliminiation of the enemy, means more or less, unavoidable, colatteral damage. And sometimes they are "honest" mistakes (related to the desperation-part). To me the matter is pretty much settled. However, the view on Manstein as a mass-murderer, though I acknowledge atrocities happened, is not one that I'm a proponent of - not any more than it should be Churchill's designation also - and I don't see Churchill as a mass murderer - not first and foremost anyway. Sincerely --Nwinther 13:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you regard the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities as on a par with allied bombings of Germany? to me such a view amounts to a shameful trivialization of Nazi crimes. I am no apologist for Arthur Harris. His `area bombing` extravaganzas amounted to a spectacular and savage waste of resources. Still the RAF's `area bombing` raids against Germany's cities was almost tender compared to the practices of Manstein and company. It needs bearing in mind that 1)the `area bombings` were ultimately designed to bring about a German defeat. At worst they were an immoral means of prosecuting the war. They were not directed at POWs and occupied civilians already under allied control, therefore they were not founded on shear evil. No western allied atrocities against German POWs or occupied civilians were commited. Even the Soviets displayed nothing remotely like German savagery. and 2) that the British's willingness to engage in such behaviour stemmed from their knoledge of how diseased the Germans had already proven themselves to be, and consequentially that it could no be directed at truely innocent people. To understand the so-called terror bombings is first to understand the British's and later also the Americans' correct perception of the pervasive moral foulness of its intended "victims". They were just following the moral precedent established by Germany, and doing so very tentatively. I know that it is boring to condemn the Germans. It is far more exciting to look for baddies among the righteous, but fun and games aside, let us not discard of our moral judgement.

I would only add to the argument two recently published books: Rommel: The End of a Legend by Ralf Georg Reuth and Wolfram Wette's The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality.—Barbatus 02:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

On another matter if you (Barbatus) have an interest in eliminating some Wehrmacht love fests ("you agree with most of what I have to say", do you not?), go to the Erwin Rommel article, and see how it compares with Reuth's account, being that you have access to his book. You'll find much more to do. Soz

Yes, I do agree with, though few times I did not agree with how. ... Lemme guess: in that article, Rommel is a Brilliant Commander, a Noble Warrior, a Hero of Resistance, etc., etc., etc. ... The thing is, English is not my native language, so I try to stay from any serious editing and follow my own proclamed task: updating bibliographies, links and such, and correcting spelling here and there. I thought until recently that these fields are secure from any revert warring, but I have been proved wrong.—Barbatus 13:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me add another opinion - the main article still reads as biased and unprofessional. It is appropriate to avoid over-praising Manstein, to call out where facts may differ from reality, or to state that some of his claims can be questioned based on such-and-such data etc. However, this article reads not as an unbiased analysis of the historical record, but instead it shows an anti-Manstein anti-Manstein's-current-reputation bias. This is a poor article in desperate need of a truly unbiased account that would focus on data, call out data conflicts, and stick to facts without a bone to pick. A 12-2006

I've removed the "mopping up" bits due to irrelevance. Mopping up is a part of every advance. If it is relevant here, then it's relevant everywhere (like in the Kharkov, Leningrad, Poland or France sections). Yet it is only mentioned here. Secondly, the task of mopping up is rarely put to the commanding officer of an army. The number of casualties during mopping-up hardly reflects on said officer then. Thirdly, Manstein was not in the vicinity of the mopping-up, as he was on his way to Leningrad. To me it seems it's been put there in order to deflate the german crimean victory. Fourthly, in this particular section (much to my dislike) there's numbers everywhere regarding casualties. Now the mopping-up losses dosen't have any numbers, which, for local consistency-reasons, would be appropiate. But to the casual reader, the mentioning of the losses due to mopping-up must read in thousands - if not tens of thousands - due to the very mentioning of them as well as the emphasis on "even higher casualties" which in turn underlines the clear statements that Manstein is trying to hide something.--Nwinther 10:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Manstein was not jewish

I took out the phase "it was said that Manstein had jewish ancestry" which had no citation and agian later on written with a page reference. These peoples ancestries are avialable or not, but there is no jewish relative mentioned anywhere for Manstein. It is the same for HItler, who some think was part jewish, despite all of the evidence being the opposite, or at best not close to conclusive enough to attribte something like being of jewish ancestry. The articles discusses even his grandparents who were christian, etc. I don't know how these rumors spread exactly, but they shouldn't be in Wikipedia unless mentioned as incorrect, and or unfounded rumors. The article keeps quoting him stating and committing actions that seemed indifferent to the holocaust, and jewish people in general.

Von Manstein was born as Fritz-Erich von Lewinski. The family “von Lewinski” belongs to one of the oldest Prussian aristocratic families. Due to Prussian history many family names sound somewhat polish in this area but Jews never had the opportunity to join the circle of Prussian aristocracy whatsoever. Dionysos 27 January 2007

His original family name is “von Lewinski” and not just “Lewinski”. The little “von” clearly describes him as a noble. The meaning of “von” is “from” or "of" and provides the name of the fiefdom (for example a village) a knight had been granted by his liege lord. Lewinski = Lewi = Levi sounds funny but is just bullshit (sorry). Prussian aristocracy did not mix with ordinary Germans and therefore also not with those of Jewish ancestry. Of course nobody would (should) mind if von Manstein had Jewish ancestry but it is just technically impossible. If the Nazis where looking for some Jewish blood in his case they where looking for possible “breeding” out of official marriages within von Manstein’s ancestors. Even if there had been such a case involving a Mr. Levi surely this name would at the best coincidentally come close to that the name of that fief his family had been granted in medieval times. Please, recognize that Prince Charles’s name only by American standards may be Charles Wales because he is the Prince of Wales. But this does neither allow anybody to claim one of his ancestors had been a whale nor his family was rooted in Wales. Even if the name “Wales” would indicate Jewish ancestry it does not mean Prince Charles is of Jewish descent. Personally I can hear von Manstein and his Bridge partners laughing about his joke and I can even hear him laughing about the impact of this joke up to present days. Due to my opinion Wikipedia should not be a subject to von Manstein’s humor I deleted the bullshit about his “Jewish” ancestors even if some smart ass has written this in a publication. Dionysos (--AuthorDionysos 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Walter Model a fervent Nazi, since when?!

When reporting Manstein's dismissal the article informs us that he was replaced by "Walter Model, a fervent Nazi". The obvious implication being that Manstein was dismissed because of his supposed lack of Nazi zealotry rather than any doubt regarding his military track record while Model was chosen to succeed him because he was a zealot, rather than thanks to his defensive successes. Where is it reported that Model was a proven National Socialist, "fervent" or otherwise? He is famous for never indicating a political affiliation. I think this section should be radically edited, with the simplistic Manstein-glorifying description of the cool-headed professional making way to the rabid fanatic, being at the very least severely qualified.

Model was a Nazi supporter but so were many other generals.You are right Model,was a brilliant defensive strategist and that is why he was appointed as commander. People of Wikipedia, Manstein was a great general but not a demigod. Please stop glorifying him.

Walter Model was one of Hitler's most "loyal" generals and a Nazi supporter. He was the first to reconfirm his allegiance to Hitler after bomb plot on him. Of course Model was a extremely capable commander but he also was a "fervent Nazi". As it is I think Von Manstein is one of the best generals of WWII comparable with Zukov. But because he was never given a completely free hand he never could fully exploit his genius, like operation "Citadel" after the battle of Prokopva the Russians were at breaking point. But Hitler cancelled the operation the same day.--Burds (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Capture of Sevastopol: Soviet supplies

...the Soviets had hoarded considerable supplies in advance, as they were not able to do before the attacks in 1941...

Actually, in the last months before the German attack, the Soviets had "hoarded" enormous supplies on their western border. These supplies were lost.—Barbatus 19:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In this statement I refered soley to the 1941 attacks on sevastopol alone. Not the opening battles on the frontier or the fighting over all. The soviets were not able to hoard much supplies, for land fighting, before these two consecutive attacks. SOZ

I see ... may I suggest "before the attacks on the city in 1941" than?--Barbatus 03:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I'll write before the attacks on the enclave in 41

Kharkov Operation

According to the page Third_Battle_of_Kharkov the russian casualties were considerably higher, than pointed out here. The numbers on this page seems like casualty figures inflicted by a single division/corps, not the entire operation. I don't know which page has it right, if any, but I'm sure the Kharkov Operation wouldn't be worth mentioning, if the present figures are correct. I'm also sure, that damage of this kind was of little concequence to the russian advance, considering their vast army.--Nwinther 10:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Rant

Someone put up a gigantic rant in the introduction. Can someone who knows how this article works better than I do weed out the crap from the useful material? Kensai Max 07:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Does little samurai Kensai wants to know historical truth or to rot in delusions where great German armies and generals always outfight the Red Army only to end the war in Berlin? The truth hurts!!! But it hurts only Nazis! User: Sven Haraldsson. 1.5.07

Kensai is right, it's a riddiculous, incorrect rant. Not even going to dignify it with a response. I removed it, and will continue to do so. 60.230.63.169 16:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So, where are your facts Manstein's aplogists? In the books writen by Manstein. It is Wikipedia, if you would like to express you biases start a web site. John Spong.

The only people who are looking bad through that rant are the Slavic Supremacists who can't comprehend how the Germans beat them to within an inch of collapse, twice, the second time against greater odds. How is it that the incompetant von Manstein was able to punch through the southern arm of Operation Uranus, and do so much damage that Operation Saturn had to be aborted and replaced with Little Saturn, essentially an attack to stop Manstein. Moreover, Manstein's attack was numerically inferior to the southern arm of Uranus by a huge amount, and it was conducted against Yeremenko and Zhukov, two of the Red Army's finest officers. Throughout all 1941-1945 the Germans were outnumbered, and quite usually had inferior equipment, so the surprising thing isn't that Manstein was defeated, but that he held out as long as he did. Read some serious historical accounts such as Berlin and Stalingrad by Antony Beevor - having read both books I'm happy to tell you, there is no anti-Slavic bias in either book, even though a few Russian sources accused him of this.

What are your sources - Vassily I. Chuikov's "The Battle for Stalingrad"? Chuikov was a powerful general, but his 1950s Party-sop book isn't exactly honest - yes, I've read it, and to the large degree it's true, but Chuikov does go to extremes in suggesting throughout the battles from the left bank of the Don to February 1943 his area of the front alone destroyed more tanks than the Germans actually produced that whole year...

I agree that Western historians have mistreated the USSR's contribution to WWII, and even today people still try to marginalise the USSR's contribution, to the point of citing Lend-Lease figures, to suggest that the Eastern Front was won with Western materiel. The majority of German strength was destroyed by the USSR, to paraphrase Chuikov: two German panzer divisions were present at the battle of El Alamein, more than twenty divisions comprised the 6th Field Army alone - not the only German forces involved in the battle of Stalingrad. But that is no excuse for muddying the waters further with this rubbish. Erich von Manstein did pretty well until the Eastern Front, where he was outnumbered, with inferior equipment - case in point the T-34/76-41 compared to the Panzer IV ausf F2. How was it this incompetant general saved all of Army Group B from annihilation post-Stalingrad, was able to blunt Operation Saturn, in a manner that, were it not for Paulus dedication to Hitler, could have rescued much of the 6th Army. The only "answer" to a Manstein victory is calling several of von Manstein's counterparts "political officers". Well how about we call the defeats von Manstein suffered "political defeats" will that excuse them? After all, there are measures of Hitler's meddling in the Korsun Pocket. 139.168.42.232 07:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To Sven and John: Please do not waste your time arguing with Manstein apologists. They are ignorant and they shall be ignored. Thank you Wikipedia for a reference to a recent Megargee book. I read his monumental "Inside Hitler's high Command." Pete K.

I see you argued your point so very well there... "Apologist" suggests Manstein did something wrong and people are denying it. I'm not denying war crimes or any of that, I'm arguing, on a factual basis, that Manstein was at least a competant general, rather than the incompetant fool the rant proclaims - among other unwarranted attacks. The facts speak for themselves: the victories won in the face of overwhelming numerical superiority, and those forces under competant generals such as Zhukov. There is no "dual myth" - the myth here is the "let's blame it all on the NKVD and Stalin" line of thinking that will not accept any other reason for Soviet failures. Get a grip 139.168.42.232 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you think Zhukov was "competAnt", that says it.--Barbatus 01:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbatus: Pete K. gave a good advise: please do not to argue with Manstein apologists. They are ignorant and read only what they want to find to confirm their prejudices. (They have to work on English spelling as well but for them any precise knowledge is not important to start with.) They are main customers of tabloid literature about the WWII. When I read their comments in discussion about Manstein I concluded that they do not know even difference between strategy, operational art and tactics. Wikipedia article about Manstein is extremely biases; it started with glorification of second Kharkov. (An exception of bias is a short description of Manstein strategic failure in the North during the "blitzkrieg" of 1941.) There a lot of claims by the beaten German generals, angry Cold War era warriors about Manstein's victory at second battle of Kharkov because it was last German victory. They are so desperate to show that Germans still could fight the Red Army!!! Who else could for a few decades until... Afganistan. The victory was an insignificant one. It did not let Germans to wrestle initiative from the Red Army. Second Kharkov stopped Soviet post Stalingrad offense but Soviet offenses int that time were flexible. Russian took what they can take, then regrouped their armies and pushed again, demolishing Wehrmacht by piecemeal. After Kharkov the Red Army played cat-and-mouse with brilliant Germans allowing then to jump to Kursk. J. A. 1.11.07 Spain

Sadly, you're right.--Barbatus 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to resort to irrelevant attacks: have you ever thought of using grammar? While you're doing that, please, also, run your exceptional English skills over the rant, to at least correct the glaring grammatical mistakes. Oh and, attempt some coherency in your rantings, both in talk and the article itself, because, quite frankly "They are so desperate to show that Germans still could fight the Red Army!!! Who else could for a few decades until... Afganistan" is as poorly formed an example of innane babblings as any toddler could give me.

To the actual discussion, rather than irrelevant attacks: if you actually thought you were contributing something worthwhile to the article, it would be a whole revision of the article, rather than taking a cheap stab at the whole article as an example of the "dual myths" in a huge slab thrown into the introduction. In fact, going by how much the rant appears to be vandalism (appears is the keyword - it is vandalism, but not the key point), you're more likely to have readers side against you. And while you're revising the Erich von Manstein page, do the rest too; the overly glowing reports for Heinz Guderian, and Erwin Rommel, among others, probably need some Slavic/Soviet Supremacist filtering, too, yes?

The central basis for your argument is that Erich von Manstein was defeated several times - well so was Vatutin. Moreover, Vatutin had huge materiel supremacy over von Manstein, he did not have the problem of partisans, nor of interfering politicoes - Stalin released the political grip on the Red Army in 1942, as evidenced by officers no longer being required to have comissars sign orders. In fact, you'll notice, as Stalin learned and accepted that interfering in the military was bad news, Hitler was going increasingly the opposite direction, while also unlearning Blitzkireg doctrine: try to reconcile the Atlantic Wall with the 'Sichelschnitt', for example, the former being a huge static defensive position, the other being the use of Blitzkrieg tactics to render a huge and costly static defensive position, the Maginot Line, worthless. Oh but, I forget, according to Megargee, the Sichelschnitt wasn't necessarily good just because it worked, right?

Ah, your answer to just what "Grand Tactics" are supposed to be is saying I don't appreciate the difference between Tactics, Strategy, and Operational Art. Guess what? That doesn't hold an water, matey. I'm guessing now that "Grand Tactics" refers to Blitzkrieg Doctrine, in the overall sense of being applying overwhelming, armoured, forces, at the point of the enemy's greatest weakness? So the sentence was meant to mean "German generals failed to adequately plan Operations, instead using the basic principles of Blitzkrieg doctrine as their Operational Strategy"? Operational Art, being, as it seems, your cute little term for Strategy at an Operational level.

Stop with the baseless revisionism.

== "I'm guessing now that "Grand Tactics" refers to Blitzkrieg Doctrine..." Wrong guess, pal. Read some elementary books on basics of the military art. (Is there a book "Military Art for Dummies"? Americans are good in producing such books. Go to American culture center in your country capital or in any big city and ask. Also, take some language classes in an elementary school so you will not confuse grammar with syntax. Now you acknowledge Manstein's defeats. Why did you avoid to give this information in original version of your fraudulent apology in innocent Wikipedia while shrilling about Manstein demi god brilliance? Also, opposite to your another intelligent guess (which is coming from your base anti Slavic visceral instincts)I am not a Slav and I never visited Russia.

I'm quite fine with my comprehension of military theory, thank you: you're the one using the phrase "Grand Tactics" (and using 'art' quite frequently, I note) which I have never before come across in all my years, and is, in fact, an oxymoron. I'm also quite happy with my grasp of English theory: you seem to have mistaken two separate comments for one, despite them being separated within the paragraph - maybe if you had some coherancy then you'd not have made that mistake? You, however, still fail to use basic grammar.

I did not write, nor contribute, to this article, I only checked it to verify a date. When I checked, I found this riddiculous rant in the introduction, and removed it. I've since been dragged into trying to present a sensible article about Erich von Manstein. If you think this article does not cover his defeats adequately, the fine, cite your sources and edit the relevant sections to reflect that. Throwing a huge, ill-conceived rant into the introduction is not the right way to correct such an imbalance.

I am not of the opinion that Erich von Manstein is a deity, even in the military sense. He seems, through my readings, to have been a more than competent commander, considering his successes in France, and especially on the Eastern Front where with scant resources he was able to retrieve something from bad situations; again, Operation Ring, whereby he broke the southern arm of Operation Uranus and forced the cancellation of Operation Saturn, to a revision of Little Saturn with a far, far smaller scope. The forces involve in Operation Ring were not huge, and yet he succeeded in opening a corridor to the 6th Field Army, and had Paulus any sense, he would have tried to evacuate as much of the 6th as possible through that corridor. Even after that, Manstein was able to evacuate most of the forces in the Caucasus, and thwart yet another Red Army encirclement, against Zhukov and Yeremenko, both acknowledged as skillful commanders. In the central defeat you've discussed, against Vatutin, you acknowledge Vatutin making the mistake of overextending his lines, and then say Manstein was incorrect to try and take advantage of that - it would seem to me that any general who did not take advantage of such an opportunity is a poor one. Vatutin was able to blunt Manstein's attack - not surprising given Vatutin had more forces at his disposal. I do not deny Vatutin's skill as a general, in fact, if any one is, it's you, claiming that Manstein was so poor, and yet Manstein managed quite well, despite having inferior forces, for such a long time. It's more credit to Vatutin for defeating Manstein the competent general, than struggling to destroy a smaller force with a fool at its head.

My contention here is that Erich von Manstein was a more than capable general, and that should be represented, rather than having a rant in the introduction that implies all German commanders are murderous fools. Again, if you think Vatutin, and Manstein's defeats, are misrepresented, then edit the article accordingly, but do not make unqualified blanket statements in this manner.

== "He seems, through my readings,..." You need to do more reading of scholarly works, not only introductions to video games about WWII. Sven H.

Your entire rebuttal is a mere sentence, one that is a bad personal attack rather than a proper reply to the discussion, and one that completely avoids actually challenging me where it matters: how incompetant Manstein had the successes he did against overwhelming force, including against Vatutin...

But that's okay, because this issue has been resolved. Have fun with your revisionism, but in future try not to push it on others. 143.238.54.249 10:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To Japanese participants of this "discussion." Why did you delete a critical statement about Manstein made by a major military historian Geoffrey P. Megargee? Please do not vandalize the article. You are not in Nanking. (And you still did not improve your poor English. Still..."incompetAnt.")

People naturally have to attempt to tear down commanders of note. Having read 'Lost Victories' (By v. Manstein) and 'The German Army 1933 to 1945' by Matt Cooper, it is quite apparent that he was one of the best Generals of the war. For a moment, consider the numerical superiority enjoyed by the Soviets. In some sectors of the front it was nearly 8:1 favoring the Soviets. Not only did they have the manpower advantage, they had the material advantage. They had far more tanks at their disposal than v. Manstein. That he held what he had and launched a few successful counterattacks is a rather large achievement. 12.175.230.59 19:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)W.Farmer 12:20, 12 January 2007

Well, thank you for confession that your opinions are based on Manstein's writing. I assume that Megargee is greater authority than me:"Beware of the German memoir literature! Books by the likes of Guderian and Manstein are still selling briskly in English and German, but most of what they contain is not be trusted, and the same is true for secondary works that depends upon them." Geoffrey P. Megargee, "War of Annihilation. Combat and Genocide on the Eastern Front, 1941", p. 166. 2006, Rowman & Littelefield, ISBN 0-7425-4481 Regarding Cooper, his book published in 1978 is a "secondary work." It is relies heavily on post war German memoirs and collections, mostly of Manstein, Guderian, etc. No serous scholar is considered this old book as a source of knowledge about WWII. Manstein, still was an outstanding military commander but he does not deserve adulation which is prevailing in Wikipedia article and in some statements in this discussion. His poor strategic judgment and stagnation of his tactics are well researched facts. And one participant made a good point that Guderian and Rommel also get uncritical praise in Wikipedia. At least Manstein was much better general than any of German commanders. J. A. Spain

Megargee's book 'War of Annihilation. Combat and Genocide on the Eastern Front, 1941", is even in the authors words 'not intended to be a work of great scholarship'. I was very disappointed by its bibliography. It is well written, and gives a good general overview of the eastern front in 1941. Other than that its a excellent book for the novice WWII historian. W. F. USA

As it is also stated about Megargee's book, it is not a new research because it is a summary of the most current research on WWII. If W. F is not a novice in WWII history he shall know about Megargee's capital work on German high command. Megargee is using his previous research as well as works of other military scholars in his "War of Annihilation". Also it is common now for publishers because the high cost of publishing to limit bibliography sections. If you need more bibliography, look appropriate sections in the books which Megargee listed. N.C.

I have just purchased Megargee's book 'Inside Hitlers High Command', and will read it. W.F

• Please let us know what you think of it and what it says. Facius 11:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Highly recommended, even though it doesn't deal with von Manstein in detail.--Barbatus 14:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

One may note that in college the higher one advances (Say past 300 level classes) the more and more primary sources are required (i.e. Lost Victories, the Rommel Papers, Panzer General). Primary sources are those who were at the event or at least alive during the time of the event. Any other source is considered a ‘secondary source’. And although secondary sources are not considered below par, they are usually used in papers only to confirm events from the primary source. (Well, this has been some of my experience in college anyway, and it may vary from institution to institution.)

Every undergraduate in every college across the word is taught about a need for a critical study of sources. Meanwhile, why J. A. from Spain claims that Manstein was an outstanding commander? By what standards? Even great general can be defeated but not because of his gross mistakes. Napoleon of his Russian campaign was a shadow of a great "little Corsican." The losers shall not be considered outstanding if they lost on their own. Recently I read a lot in German and English (in some Danish as well) about Second Schleswig War and a Danish commander De Meza. He lost the war because an overwhelming German superiority but his conduct of the war was impeccable in strategy and tactics. Moltke had high opinion about him. Was Manstein in the same league? He made too many mistakes because his overestimation of Wehrmacht and underestimation of the Red Army. Is inability of general to estimate correctly a power and potential of his army and his adversaries the main failure of the generalship? Manstein shall not be much blamed perhaps for his failure during Barbarossa in the North where Vatutin surprised him. He was in subordinate command; still his failure of judgement was there. He also could do little against Malinovsky in attempt to save the 6th army because he started from much weeker position. On the other hand in spite of his post war claims he was fully responsible for defeat in Kursk where he even failed to use properly his tanks which were better than those which Russians had. Event worst,he was not prepared for Vatutin's immediate offense right after Kursk when Vatutin surprised him and took Belgorod. Manstein was caught off guard because he even did not have an alternative plan what Wehrmacht shall do if the battle will be lost. So he almost panicked when faced Vatutin offense. Recent reserach shows that Belgorod had even more devastating effect of German top command than Kursk. After Belgorod Manstein's conduct of war was below of any standard and was reminiscent of the worst of the Soviet generalship during summer the 1941. Vatutin indeed read him as a book and totally dominated him. He forced, for example, Manstein to Korsun salient by turning Manstein's flank from direction which Manstein did not expect. Manstein overlooked Vatutin enveloping maneuvers which enabled Vatutin to turn German flank and push Manstein to Korsun. D. V

To J.A. from Spain. It's rather funny. I happened to look at the dust cover of my copy of Megargee's book 'War of Annihilation. Combat and Genocide on the Eastern Front, 1941'. I was looking at the author's photo(Taken in his library) and noticed that he had familiar book on his shelf! It was none other that Matt Coopers "The German Army: 1933-1945".(On the left side of the photo, which would be the author’s right hand side) Well, I wonder what a book that no scholar would take seriously is doing on this outstanding scholars book shelf. Food for thought!