# Talk:Erich von Manstein

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 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)

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)
Gotta love Wikipedia continually insuring it always has incorrect information. Diannaa, I do wish you'd actually learn something like a historian. GustavaKomurov (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Also can confirm, I can access the document being sourced. https://catalog.archives.gov/id/373074267?objectPage=786 Is easily available. GustavaKomurov (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no reliable evidence that Erich von Manstein had Jewish ancestors. The claim that he descended from a “great-great-ancestor Lewi” is based on a statement by his former ordnance officer Alexander Stahlberg, which historians such as Oliver von Wrochem consider to be speculation or “not a serious statement” by the general himself. There is also no evidence for a “Jewish origin of the name”. The Lewinski and von Manstein family line is demonstrably an old Prussian family of soldiers
The name “Lewinski” may be of Jewish origin in Eastern Europe, where it is often derived from the Hebrew ‘Levi’ or “Levin”. In the case of Erich von Manstein, however, the name comes from an old Pomeranian-Kashubian noble family, which was originally called “Royk” and only changed the name of its estate to “Lewinski” in the 16th century. It was not until the 16th century that they adopted the name of their estate “Lewyn” (now Lewino). This family was demonstrably Christian and belonged to the landed gentry. 2A02:3100:8990:8D00:D41E:B1BD:A2C6:2317 (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Levinski IS a jewish surname, coming from "lev"/"levite"/"levi". In Slavic countries, especially in Poland it is carried exclusively by jews since it has nothing Slavic in it. There are false speculations by jews that it is coming from Russo/Polis/Czech noun "lev" which means "Lion". But that is unsustainable , for in Slavic languages "le", for "lion" is only used in Russia and it has no meaning with the ending "inski", which does not exist as surname suffix in Polish surname-forming traditions and grammar. If it were to be from the surname, it would have had to be Levov - sor "son of". Instead it is a derivative of jewish noun "levi", and "n" is added for flexion of the two incompatible elements "levi" and "son of" or "ski" in Polish.
Levinski is just one of at least 22 confirmed jewish nazi generals, admirals and marshals such as general Helmut Wilberg, mentioned in the Book "Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military" by Bryan Mark Rigg, who himself is a jew, so any criticism of anti-jew propaganda is moot. Some criticism claims that the book is not really about the jews because "majority were the 'Mischlings' - mixed descendants offspring between German and jewish parents. Since most of such marriages were between jewish males and German women, as Levinski's and Wilburg'surnames show, that argument is invalid. It fits well within Hitler's false assertion that the "jewishness" is transmitted by the female line, hence the "Mischlinge" whose mother was German, were "not" "jews". Hitler himself was a son of a jewish father, as DNA of his last male nephews has confirmed. These Mischlinge, half-jews half-Germans, had clear interest in making such claims. B. M. Rigg has unearthed irrefutable evidence of a large jewish presence in Hitler's army, amounting to about 150 000 soldiers as well. But what is of utmost importance here is the fact that the looting of art and gold from around Europe was done on specific orders by these jewish generals, later blaming German generals, who actually tried to remove Hitler. And remember that allied armies also looted Germany's art and gold after the WWII. So no better than the nazis. As our present time still shows, sadly, to be the case.
Details of jewish presence and leading role in the WWII on the side of the nazists can be found in Rigg's books and in Finland's archives. It is little known that Finnish army had entire jewish battalion fighting on the nazis. Levinski is just one of many of these jews who fought to create nazism, and then try and enslave the world. Just as they are doing it today using the EU and usa as their new soldiers. 210.56.241.66 (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)