Talk:Erich von Manstein

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)

Manstein's order dated 12 August 1943

I object to the addition of content about an order Manstein issued on 12 August 1943, because it is sourced to documents that only exist at NARA. Typically we do not use primary sources, and the source is inaccessible to almost everybody, and is therefore unverifiable. User:Tai3chinirv7ana has re-added the content in spite of my objection. I will try to find a better source when the library opens tomorrow.

Regardless of the sourcing, the inclusion of the 614-word text of the order is inappropriate, as it places undue weight on this fairly minor point. So that has to stay out in my opinion. Comments are welcome. — Diannaa (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with sourcing set aside, the addition toes into undue territory imho...way too much detail about a single thing. If adequate reliable sourcing (apart from primary sources) could be found, one could mull over creating a separate article. Lectonar (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, you wrote in the first decade of August 1943. A "decade" is a span of ten years, a span of time much longer than a month, so I changed it to read "in August 1943". — Diannaa (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand that archival material is a completely alien thing to you, but because of that you should not write that "the source is inaccessible to almost everybody, and is therefore unverifiable", which is pure nonsense and outright false.

By this point, nearly all German records stored at NARA, including the one I'm using, have been made publicly available online, accessible to anyone at any time, they can be read online and downloaded, all for free and without registration.

Essentially, these records are served on a silver platter. Seriously, this is a kindergarten level of knowledge from you about these matters- to say that it "is inaccessible to almost everybody" is laughable, lol. It is "inaccessible" only to those who are completely ignorant about it and still think that primary sources are out of reach for public.

I wasn't granted an exclusive rights to these records, nor anyone else who uses them, but we do know how to actually use them. In this regard, the original German docs, now stored at the Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv, are also digitized and available online.

And here's the link to this "inaccessible to almost everybody" source-document that I'm using, with frames clearly indicated and referenced in the citation:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/373074267?objectPage=786

I can agree that citing entire order would take up too much space, so I left the excerpts from the document that highlight main points of it. I'll reiterate again- this document is not found or used in any historical work, with regards to Manstein personally and Wehrmacht's justice system. As my German colleague said upon reading it, this document is indeed unknown, with only General Schörner being widely known for such actions.

Finally, the usage of "decade", to describe a ten consecutive day period in any calendar month, is perfectly valid. It was in constant use by the Germans (especially to describe the 10-day casualty reports per Dekaden) and in English language books covering German forces it is used as well. So, the first decade of August 1943, refers to days 1-10, because that's exactly when the German front collapsed and this prompted Manstein to issue this order. In the second decade, 11-20, the Germans were on a counterattack, after assembling reinforcements. Examples of Dekaden:

- Mit der Zusammenfassung des Kraftfahrzeug Raumes im Westen wurde der General Windisch beauftragt; in der ersten Dekade des Januar hatte er seinen Auftrag durchgeführt.

- Eine besondere Erschwerung bedeutete es, dass spätestens in der dritten Märzdekade der Betriebsstoffnachschub nach Norwegen einsetzen musste.

Die Kämpfe an der finnischen und an der Nordfront waren in der 2. Dekade (des März) wieder abgeklungen. Tai3chinirv7ana (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tai3chinirv7ana: No, archival materiel isn't completely alien to us, but in this case it's what we call a primary source. On another note: the use of "decade" for a 10 day period is, or better was, common in German; it isn't common in English, but there is usually used for a 10 year period, as Diannaa mentioned above. As I also object to your edit even in the shorter form, I have reverted your edit, and would beg you to not revert again. This talk-page discussion is what will be used for deciding if, and if yes which part of your addition(s), will be part of the article. So, let me warn you about engaging in edit warring. There's no deadline. Lectonar (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lectonar Clearly, the German archival material is completely alien to you both, that's exactly the primary source that I'm talking about (duh), as you both are completely oblivious to the fact that they are available and accessible in a matter of seconds, instead they are supposedly "inaccessible to almost everybody", lol.

I have reverted the edit. Perfectly valid original primary source, straight from the archives, relevant to the period in question, in shortened form and direct link to it is given, to the exact frame in the roll no less, to those that deem German primary sources as "inaccessible to almost everybody" and are completely alien to it.

Easily verifiable if you have the slightest grasp of it. Tai3chinirv7ana (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You say the source is available online; could you please provide a link? — Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Tai3chinirv7ana....You're concentrating too much on the sourcing. The more important point, imho, mentioned by Diannaa and myself is: should the info it be in the article at all? See WP:UNDUE, we both see it a fairly minor point. Lectonar (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point, Lectonar. I don't have access to Melvin any more, so I can't check there without requesting a copy on inter-library loan. But we still have Lemay at my library, and I can't find any mention of this incident in that book. If Lemay doesn't see fit to include it in his 482-page book, it's probably not notable enough event for us to include it in our article. That's one reason why secondary sources are preferred over primary sources: secondary sources will have already filtered out the less-important details.

A second reason not to include it: WP:PRIMARY states that the policy allows "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". A document that is only available in the NARA archives is not such a document. So it looks to me that for these reasons, the paragraph should come out. — Diannaa (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)