Talk:Manstein Plan

message: The second paragraph says "In the final version of the plan, the main effort of the German invasion was made against the Ardennes, which by coincidence, was the weakest part of the Allied line". This doesn't seem right, it wasn't just coincidence - the Germans expected the Ardennesto be more weakly-defended because of the more defensible terrain, and possibly units defending there would be out of position to help defend Belgium.
I haven't edited the page yet because I want to find a particular source or two for the particular reasoning, but in the meantime, we can agree it wasn't just pure chance that resulted in the Manstein Plan's attack just luckily running into a weakly-defended area, right? Statalyzer (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I changed the lead.--MWAK (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Coincidence?

message: In the lemma entitled “Battle of France” (WWII) in the description of the Manstein Plan it is indicated that Hitler received Von Manstein on 17 February  together with Schmundt and Jodl.
In the lemma entitled “Manstein Plan”  the same meeting is described - but here the co-attendees are named as Rommel and Jodl.
Clarification seems required, but I do not regard myself as sufficiently qualified.
16 August, 2015  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifrank40 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Schmundt was obviously not Rommel, but the lunch was attended by several people. There is no logical contradiction.--MWAK (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any particular reason only Jodl and Rommel are mentioned in this one? Statalyzer (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: SCHMUNDT ≠ ROMMEL

message: I wouldn't make too much of a comparison with the Schlieffen Plan because it has been substantially debunked. The course of operations in 1940 bore little resemblance to the events of 1914 and the events of 1914 bore less resemblance to the Schlieffen memorandum of 1905–06. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schlieffen Plan 

message: @MWAK, apols I got an edit conflict amending the recent edits and blanked your changes. @all, how can it be a B class when there are citations missing?Keith-264 (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Filled in the missing citations and imported a bit of narrative about the battle; the section remains incomplete. Keith-264 (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Sichelschnitt is a transliteration of the English "Sickle Cut", coined by Winston Churchill. Keith-264 (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sichelschnitt 

message: This page is simply missing one of the most critical elements of this plan/battle. Pervitin was not just tangential, it was an absolutely necessary component of the Blitzkrieg through France. The Germans were required to fight without sleep for several days straight. Blitzed by Ohler is of course my main source for this. It has become well-known generally, yet is not mentioned on this page. 2600:4040:A5B1:1200:AD2B:168F:1C41:8387 (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OR, it might be that reliable sources agree but you can't put opinion into the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pervitin’s role is missing 

message: The article refers three times to Sichelschnitt as a 'transliteration' of the English 'sickle-cut'. This is a translation - it represents the meaning which is expressed in English by 'sickle-cut', in German. A transliteration is a representation of a word conventionally represented in a language which uses one alphabet or script, in the alphabet or script of another. For example, 'drepáni' would be a transliteration into the Latin script (as used in English and German) of the Greek δρεπάνι, whereas 'sickle' (in English) or 'Sichel' (in German) would both be translations of δρεπάνι. Perhaps what is meant in the article is a literal translation (rather than, perhaps, the most idiomatic) - but it is nonetheless a translation rather than a transliteration (as both English and German use the Latin script). Carminowe of Hendra (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks but that's OR. Keith-264 (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean original research? It isn't any sort of research - merely a talk page comment on the commonly-understood meaning of the word transliteration (which is similarly detailed at that page). I'm not suggesting that we add an explanation of what transliteration is to the article on the Manstein Plan (to which such an explanation would be irrelevant, whether sourced or not) - merely that words used in this article should be used to mean what they are generally understood to mean, rather than thrice describing a word-for-word translation as a 'transliteration', as if German were written in a different script to English. Carminowe of Hendra (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Sichelschnitt'' as translation, not transliteration