Talk:Erich von Manstein

Crimea Shield

The Crimea Shield on its own may not have been a major award. But what I wrote in the article was the Golden version, though. Only two gold Crimea Shields were made, and Manstein was one of the two recipients. Seems major enough for it to be added. I made a separate section on the CS article on this, and thoroughly sourced it. Torpilorul (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary and very doubtful

Quote "Germany's fortunes in the war began to take an unfavourable turn later in 1942, especially in the catastrophic Battle of Stalingrad,... " - so this isn't about the article person, but this statement isn't quite true, is it ? Yes - Stalingrad wasn't a fortunate even for Nazigermany, but Stalingrad is more of a symbol of the turning point than actual. Although von Manstein possibly thought some kind of victory could be achieved in Russia as late as a few months before his dismissal, it is more than difficult to understand how. Especially in the light of USSR's military production far far away in Siberia. No - but the main crush to the "great idea" of Germany invading the Soviet Union came already in December 1941, the so called Battle of Moscow. That was when Nazigermany's firm trust in a fast victory vanished. After Moscow Germany managed to assemble yet another summer offensive - but with very limited goal compared to the year before. But it was already apparent that "Germany's fortunes" ended at Moscow 1941. Again Stalingrad was more of a symbol. (Also including not so few traces of later Stalinist history falsifications. Not at least due to the name of the city.) In the light of this, and as the quote not really has a bearing on the person the article is about, I propose: either change or delete at least the beginning of the quote in question.
Possibly to "Germany's initial fortunes in the war were long gone, especially in the catastrophic Battle of Stalingrad,... "
It's the idea of "just everything changed at Stalingrad" I disapprove of, nothing else. Boeing720 (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I have to disagree. Historians have been describing the Battle of Stalingrad as a major turning point in the war ever since it happened. I don't see any reason why we should downplay that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not about downplaying , but it has no bearing on this article. And Moscow was "when the war began to take an unfavourable turn" for Germany. Have a look in Isaac Deutcher's "Stalin". (The original work on Stalin, which revealed just everything on Stalin a long time before Chrustov.)

To begin with, the reason Tsaritsyn was changed into Stalingrad, was that Stain had fought some battles there together with Voroshilov (compared to Trotsky's part in the Civil War rather modest contributions).

Stalinism went so deep down, also in our culture (only Churchill realis4ed that), that we all were (in a way) historically fooled by him. Who spread the legends of Stalingrad ? Certainly not Hitler. It suited Stalin extremely well, that it was in (the largest) city that wore his name, which has become so indeed very symbolic for Russia's victory. Don't get me wrong. It was a huge battle. But as a turning point just symbolic for how far Hitler reached, during this the second and limited campaign. It remain as a symbol of a turning point, yes. But thanks to Stalin mainly.

I only suggest a minimal change, as Nazigermany's fortunes didn't begin to change at Stalingrad. Boeing720 (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Also please see the last 9 lines here [[1]] written by Admiral Kurt Assmann. Popular historical authors too often focus on the one event they have chosen to write about, leaving out the military strategic overview.

As with very much else regarding Stalin, it was circumstances as well. I don't think Stalin had the Battle of Stalingrad in mind before July-August 1942. But afterwards it suited Stalin very well, to put that battle as "THE" turning point. But all I'm saying is, that Moscow was a turning point too and Nazigermany's fortunes had began to end already there.

By the way, Isaac Deutscher was an outspoken Marxist, but not a Marxist-Leninist and indeed not a Stalinist. I've read quite a lot on Stalin, but no other author explain Stalin equally well, I think. Like a bit more "from within". Boeing720 (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Stalingrad was not a turning point, but does the article really claim it was? The sentence you don't like mainly says that the battle was catastrophic. It was. The sentence also says that Germany had seriously started losing by late 1942 and that Stalingrad was a notable, salient example ("especially") illustrating this general development. Isn't this true as well? I'm unable to see anything wrong with the language currently in this section. Damvile (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It was sooner the opposite I meant. Stalingrad was/still is a huge symbolic turning point (of how far the German armies came into Russia). (Spiced though, through circumstances and by Stalin) But Moscow was a turning point of when the Red Army could defeat the Germans. And indeed - the end of the idea of a new fast German victory on land (like Poland and France). Neither has much with this article to do, I agree with you there. I just think this quote:

"Germany's fortunes in the war began to take an unfavourable turn later in 1942, especially in the catastrophic Battle of Stalingrad,... "

The good prose aside, not really is an optimal statement, as it is wrong. At least in the first part. As Germany indeed had trampled on a devastating mine already at Moscow. It would be preferable if this was adjusted by someone who master great prose. My suggestion is:

"Germany's initial fortunes in the war were long gone, especially after the catastrophic Battles of Stalingrad, where von Manstein commanded a failed relief effort ("Operation Winter Storm") in December. Later known as the "backhand blow", von Manstein's counteroffensive in the Third Battle of Kharkov (February–March ... " , you can read it in the lead. Boeing720 (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

War crimes section and Commissar order

Replying to Szzuk's post on my talk page. I don't see the point of a subsection on "war crimes" that simply repeats points already covered elsewhere in the article. Hence I've removed some content on the commissar order. The second paragraph of the "Trial" section makes it clear that although Manstein says otherwise, the prosecution found evidence that he did follow the commissar order. That gives a balanced view; I don't think it's our place to say definitively what he did or did not do based on the content of one biography. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The refs are direct and unambiguous. The trial section hedges around the issue - he was convicted of these crimes but the article tries to say maybe he wasn't really guilty. Szzuk (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

( Removed PA - Per consensus on WP:AN) DuncanHill (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It's outside the purview of Wikipedia to say whether or not he was guilty; that would be original research and outside the scope of what Wikipedia is supposed to do. In my opinion what we should do is report on the evidence presented in the trial and then report on the verdict, without making an independent judgement on whether or not that verdict was correct. It's not up to us to declare him guilty. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

(Removed PA - per consensus on WP:AN) DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Please withdraw this personal attack. I am not a Nazi apologist. I gave what I thought was a good policy-based reason (WP:OR) - we can report what the defense said at the trial, what the prosecution said, and what the verdict was. But it's not our place to state in Wikipedia's voice that he actually committed the crime of which he was found guilty: carrying out the commissar order. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn't copy your responses all over the place, especially when, as here, you fail to make it clear that it's a response to something I said on my talk page. (Removed PA, per consensus on WP:AN) DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Duncan Hill: Considering Diannaa's record in protecting all sorts of articles from the edits of Nazi sympathizers, neo-Fascists and the like, your personal attack against her is all the more inappropriate. She is truly one of the "good guys" in this respect, and does not in any way deserve your remarks. Her reasons for removing the section were strictly based on common sense editing practices, and are not in any way indicative of a desire on her part to protect the reputation of a Nazi war criminal. I suggest that you withdraw your remarks and apologize, before you are subject to a block for making a blatant personal attack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Correcting ping @DuncanHill: Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The Commissar Order is one of the war crimes of which von Manstein was convicted. To not mention it in the War crimes section is to suggest either that Wikipedia does not regard it as a war crime, or that Wikipedia thinks he was innocent. DuncanHill (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

What you may not realize is that the article did not have a war crimes section until Szzuk created it on July 9. If it's going to be complete, it will duplicate material already present elsewhere in the article. That would be pretty pointless in my opinion, and if such a section existed at the time of a Good Article nomination, we would likely be asked to remove it and integrate any non-duplicated content into the appropriate sections of the article. I think it needs to be completely removed, and any useable content integrated in with the other prose. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Record as a commander

Articles about generals usually include postwar assessments of their military skill, but this article doesn't seem to have them. It only mentions it in an offhand way, like "postwar writings have focused on Manstein's military feats and ignored his political/ethical dimensions" (I paraphrase) but never actually gives due weight to such writings. When reliable sources talk about Manstein's military skill (or lack thereof) that should be explicitly included in an "aftermath" or "legacy" section. Tbqh I don't think should be rated as a "Good" article right now because it is a fairly significant omission for an article about a general. 47.28.101.28 (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Such a section is not a GA requirement. Perhaps for a Featured Article — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Second this. This article in it's current state is more of a teardown of "Manstein Myth" than a biography. Furthermore, there is almost zero context to this, it assumes the reader is already familiar with it without providing any explanation as to the substance behind it, real or imagined. 2601:19B:B80:3330:E072:1FD9:4759:ACD4 (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Speculation

Hello, Diannaa.

You've removed my latest edit because of the fact not being entirely certain. I've provided a reliable source, however. Don't you think my edit could stay, considering that it's not a well-known fact and should receive some more attention? The fact that it's a speculation doesn't mean it's not true, after all. Lupishor (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Who is Mark Axworthy? Is he a notable expert on the topic, notable enough that his speculation about Manstein's dismissal should appear in the article? If such content were present at the time of a Good Article nomination, I would likely be asked to remove it.— Diannaa (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

His works are based on archive documents. Maybe speculation can't be added, but his sources are definitely reliable when it comes to actual events. Lupishor (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Intro - war criminal

Intro should be simplified. He was war criminal, no need to say for how many years he was sentenced etc there, it is in the details. 173.63.235.70 (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be simple. Many people only read the opening paragraph, so it needs to be a little more comprehensive than your version in my opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is what's included in the Google knowledge panel on the right of the page when performing a Google search. Many people will only read that and never click through to our article. — Diannaa (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)