# Talk:Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb

A totally misleading article, nothing said about Leeb's fatal mistake in rushing his armies to capture Leningrad in a hope of easy victory and defeat he suffered in the battle of Tikhvin, which was a  major battle of the early period of the WWII on the Eastern Front. See David Glantz, The Battle for Leningrad, 1941-1944 (Lawrence, KS, 2002).
This comment was originally posted by Tracadero on 18 February 2007. I'm moving the text from the article to the discussion page. 
I'm moving this issue here to be tracked and have no comment on this particular feedback other than that it should not be in the article.
Craig.borchardt 18 February 2007

This section states: "After the war, Von Leeb was tried by a American military tribunal in Nuremberg in the High Command Trial. Due to a confusion of documents, Von Leeb was found guilty on one of four charges and sentenced to three years imprisonment; but he was released after the judgment because he had already spent more time in custody. He spent his last years living quietly with his family until his death in Füssen in 1956." 
The Bold text is confusing to me, and I believe it can be for many others. 
Does it mean 
a. That he was WRONGFULLY found guilty because of the confusion of the documents (meaning he was not guilty of any of the charges) 
OR 
b. That he was found guilty of ONLY one charge due to confusion of the documents (meaning he was actually guilty of more or all of the four charges, while only being found guilty of one)?? I don't know anything about his guy or his history, but found this ambiguity in the text... Mkruijff (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there are used too many vons in this article. For example: Hitler was not fond of von Leeb because of the general's anti-Nazi attitudes and religious convictions, and retired von Leeb in... - it should be Hitler was not fond of Leeb because of the general's anti-Nazi attitudes and religious convictions, and retired Leeb in....
Von means "of" or "from" and Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb means Wilhelm, Knight of Leeb. If you speak about Duke of Marlborough, you dont say "And then of Marlborough did this or did that". --WooteleF (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that "of Marlborough" was not his surname. "von Leeb" is a two element surname. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article, by reducing the amount of uncited and / or non-notable detail. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: this edit ("...remove redundant and non-biographical material, more"), I believe that some material was without a good justification. Because of different line breaks, it's hard to see what specifically was changed, but this citation appears to have been removed: 

In the same month, Franz Walter Stahlecker, the commander of Einsatzgruppe A, in a report to Berlin praised Leeb's Army Group for its exemplary co-operation with his men in murdering Jews in the Baltic states.
In the follow-up edit, material was removed from the lead as "not cited in the body": "...and provided close cooperation to the SS Einsatzgruppen, the mobile killing squads primarily tasked with the murder of the Jewish population as part of the Holocaust."
I believe that both statements are pertinent as Leeb's activities on the Eastern Front were the basis of his indictment. That's "biographical material", in my mind. 
There are some wording changes, such as: "..eliminating so-called mentally inferiors. was changed to "...eliminating people identified as mental inferiors." (The latter version uses "mental inferiors" in Wikipedia's voice, and is also vague "identified by whom"?). 

I've reverted to prior but would be happy to discuss further. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think my edit summary was clear here, the wording doesn't appear in the accompanying reference and it's framed in editorial language. The referenced Einsatzgruppen passage removed here does not mention Leeb at all. The quoted passage is in the context of widespread cooperation by the Wehermact, Einsatzgruppen A was simply the one assigned to Army Group North's area of operations. There's nothing exceptional about the claim and no assertion in the reference that it had anything to do with Leeb, his policies, orders, or directives. There were over 700,000 men in Army Group North, most coordination with such units happened at a far lower level. It's inclusion is, especially as written, is inappropriately tangential. Additionally, the placement and phrasing of the sentence clearly suggests a relationship between Leeb's "birthday present" and the cooperation quote, something that is not at all stated in the references. It's inclusion is synthesis. The passage removed from the lead is not supported by any references, including Hilberg's book. Also, Leeb was convicted specifically for his passing on of the Barbarossa Decree. The language changed was done so because "so-called" is explicitly not a word used in an encyclopedic setting. Assertions are attributed and repeated. As written it's couched in editorial parsing. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I don's see it that way; Leeb was the commander of the Army Group North and activities of EG A in his area of command are relevant, in my opinion. Could you elaborate on why you find this tangential?
Some of the word changes were...peculiar. For example, "men of the 16th Army" was changed to "with the partial participation of elements of the 16th Army". Of course, not all of the 16th Army participated :-); partial, elements is both wordy and confusing, as in: what's "partial participation"?
Also, do you happen to have Goda on hand? I wonder if it was him making the connection. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The massacres of Kaunas in June/July 1941 are well documented. Helmut Krausnick has concluded that there likely was some kind of understanding between SS and OKH or at least between the Einsatzgruppe A and the 16th Army, so that the Wehrmacht units received strict orders not to intervene. (See Wette, The Wehrmacht, p. 105-6) Krausnick, Wette and other historians also refer to Franz von Roques complaining to Leeb: Leeb listened to Roques's complaints and responded that he had no influence over such measures; all one could do was to keep one's distance. Then Leeb and Roques discussed whether it might not be better to sterilize Jewish men rather than killing them. (Ibid., p. 106) There is no indication that Leeb filed "official protests" as suggested in this edit.[1] As Goda puts it: Though the extent and intensity of Leeb's protests against these atrocities remain highly problematic. (p. 112) I furthermore think, that Schmundt told Leeb that such complaints from the military were out of line are not a correct paraphrase of Schmundt felt obliged to instruct Leeb's staff that objections from the military in this realm were out of order. Anyway, as Krausnick points out, the notion that Leeb protested vigourously was put forward during his trial at Nuremburg. But given the entry in Leeb's diary from July 1941 Krausnick does not buy this story. When Schmundt visited the headquarters of the Army Group North he was informed of the massacres and replied that soldiers should not be burdened with these political questions; it is a matter of a necessary cleaning up operation. (Wette, p. 106) Manfred Messerschmidt sees Leebs "report" (not "protest") as evidence that the German army knew of the systematic murder of the Jews from early on. I would suggest to base the account not on Goda who is rather dealing with birthday checks, but on Wette (as his work is available in English) and probably other literature dealing with the Holocaust in Lithuania.--Assayer (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, I've been very busy. Yes, Goda's Volume I is available online, I'll find the link and put it up with a ping. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The provided references state Leeb filed a protest. We may have to compare sources and come to a consensus on what to cite and not, or how to cite and what. Sorry for the drive-by edit. I am, and have been, very busy. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Cheeky little ce, changed some isbn 10 to 13s, altered author to last= first= deleted duplicate authorlinks, added a couple of trans-titles, rm dupe wikilinks tidied prose a la Word splendidiser. All suggestive so rv as desired. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: thank you. I made one minor change. Looks good! Thanks for fixing the references. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Always a pleasure to help a good article get a little better. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Tidied a few loose ends, rv as preferred. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sigurd Hring (talk · contribs) 21:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


### Review
Hi, I'm still fairly new to the site but I'm interested in reviewing and do have some knowledge of this man so I think this will be a good first article for me. I need to study the methodology and its application to other reviews but I'm sure I'll be able to do this fairly soon. Please bear with me for now. Thanks. Ziggy (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for the six good article criteria:

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and embedded lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Inline citations to reliable sources where necessary (e.g., direct quotations): 

C. No original research: 

D. No copyright violations: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Scope: 

B. Length: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

This ticks all the boxes. I think a lot of work would be required before it could be nominated for feature article but for this GA purpose it is fine. One thing that you might consider is the lack of any inter-war coverage but, as the article does point out, he was a career soldier in Bavaria then so not a lot to be said. I see no problems and will pass this. Thanks. Ziggy (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Preserving here by providing this link. I objected to some of the excisions, as I disagree with the rationales provided, such as: All units of the army "cooperated with the einsatzgruppen", leeb did not play a special role between Wehrmacht-einsatzgruppen cooperation, it doesn't need to be in the introduction of his biography. Leeb's "special role" was that of the most senior commander in the field, which was investigated both during the High Command Trial and by historians more recently. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I undid this recent addition: diff, as it included unneeded level of detail for the infobox, including units that Leeb served in (excessive for a sr commander); nn units; etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

For this edit, pls see WP:ICONDECORATION. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone avoid told at this article that Leeb was an anti-nazi...
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/wilhelm-von-leeb
And also his problems with Hitler.
Someone who wrote this, or that wrote some references about this article avoid important information.
People don't want learn history, want change it...
That's not a wikipedia problem, but a people problem...