![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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:
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 please Miletus ( 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)
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)
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)
The images seem awkward. What about left- or right-justification so that the text wraps? Mackensen (talk) 07:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
These paragraphs are somewhat confused. The text currently reads:
A few points:
Lupo 20:30, 20 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)
I think by now only a couple of minor points could do with some improvement:
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)
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)
Anthony Beevor claims that Manstein was privately open about his Jewish ancestry. GeneralPatton 18:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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
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.
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))
Lest these be forgotten I'm copying here remaining minor points from the FAC discussion:
Lupo 13:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Done 1, working on 2. GeneralPatton 09:00, 5 December 2004 (UTC)
Besides the issues Lupo has raised, this is a list of what I feel is still left to be done
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.
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)
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
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)
"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
"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)
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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 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))
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)
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
Fine. I'll write before the attacks on the enclave in 41
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)
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)
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
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
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!