Talk:Ferdinand Schörner

message: This biography rather eggs the pudding. It was the failure of Schörner's Army Group Centre to hold the 1st Ukrainian Front (Ivan Koniev) on 16th and 17th of April 1945 that unhinged the main defence in the Battle of Berlin by Army Group Vistula (Gotthard Heinrici) which was successfully resisting the main attack by 1st Belorussian Front (Georgy Zhukov) against their positions on the Seelow Heights.
So I think the claim that "The Soviets, impressed by the defense of Courland and Berlin regarded Schörner as the best German frontline general" needs a source. Philip Baird Shearer 15:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: It's doubtful Schörner was "arrested in 1951", when he was already a Soviet POW from 1945-1955. This should probably say "sentenced".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repkow (talk • contribs) 20:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the Americans hand him over to the Soviets? None of this is made clear in the article. Valetude (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Kershaw they did. During his later trial in West Germany, his former Chief of Staff, Lieutenant Natzmer accused Schörner of leaving his troops in the lurch. Natzmer said that Schörner had fled to Austria in civilian clothing and hidden in a hut for a few days before surrendering to the Americans. It was apparently the Americans who handed him over to the Red Army. Schörner's story was somewhat different and he claimed that he had been sent by Hitler to Austria to open up an Alpine front. Flanker235 (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-war trials and imprisonments

message: Saying he deserted his command seems rather severe. The whole German army had surrendered at Reims, he'd informed his command, told OKW he couldn't guarantee complete compliance and in the general meltdown, headed for Austria. So far as being the "best frontline general", this seems like a rash judgement and it's likely the Sovs were more interested in his propaganda value. So I've removed the problematic language in both cases and it doesn't seem to sway the content much at all. Given that, I've zapped the disputed tag as well, sorry if I've botched it somehow. Wyss 07:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was his Army Group which the Soviets penetrated with relative ease in the Battle of Berlin, so removing his defence of Berlin was the correct thing to do. He did not recognise that he reported to the OKW and I will add a bit to explain that. He did desert his command. It is customary that when a military unit is ordered to surrender by their commanding officer, that the commanding officer surrenders at the same time (little ritual of handing over the sword, or pistol, and then if respected by the other side being told that they can keep it and all that). A commander does not order his men to surrender and then run away! Is the point about him being promoted by Hitler in his LWT, enough to make the point that this guy was on side with Hitler right up to the end in a way that almost no other senior officer was (other than those in the Bunker), or does it need emphasising? Philip Baird Shearer 08:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Oops, I remember now, sort of. Everything was wrapped into OKW after Germany had shrunk between east and west. I'm still a bit unclear as to why he wouldn't have recognized that chain, could it be he didn't think von Runstedt (for example) was sufficiently hard core or whatever? Wyss 11:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: my fixes

message: The document signed in Reims on 8 may was an unconditional surrender of the German army, navy, and air force (not only the Wehrmacht). Since Doenitz's civilian government was never recognized by the allies, legal research promptly confirmed it as a surrender of the German military and (de facto, since it was unconditional) any civilian government, which is to say, the Third Reich, so I reverted the edit. Wyss 01:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this point is covered in the note above, but the article still says that Jodl  "was negotiating a surrender of all German forces". This is factually incorrect since the allies did not negotiate with the Nazis. Instead Jodl accepted the allied terms of unconditional surrender. All he did was sign the document. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  66.245.218.227 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 23 September 2005  (UTC)
He did not negotiate the terms of surrender, which were unconditional, but he did negotiate the mechanics of it: whether he had the authority to do so for all German forces, the timing of it, the details of how it was to be done etc (eg see SPECIAL ORDERS and ANNEXUREs )See also this site which talks about "and Adm. Hans-Georg von Friedeburg, one of the German chief negotiators".  This site "Alfred Jodl entering SHAEF at 5:15. He went to a private office and conferred with Gen. Adm. Friedeberg. Then they both went to Gen. B. Smith's office and talked for over an hour and a half". Wikipedia is not the only site to talk about negotiations eg US gov archives: "Karl Donitz, sent a representative to negotiate a comprehensive military surrender with the Allied command, which was then headquartered in Rheims, France. While the Germans stalled for time to allow as many soldiers and civilians as possible to move west in order to escape the savagery of the Red Army, Eisenhower's patience ran out. Finally, at 2:41 a.m. on May 7, with no remaining options, Col. Gen. Alfred Jodl, representing the German High Command of the armed forces, signed the formal unconditional surrender of all German forces." -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: who surrendered?

message: the "smear campaign" is propaganda. he was convicted by a west german court because of his desertation and his unlawful death sentences - even conservative politicians distanced from his person. (source: german wikipedia) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.191.134.178 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 November 2005  (UTC)
:Please add any new sections to the bottom of this talk page. It is the way it is done. Also please sign your additions to the talk page by adding: ~~~~
:You can edit the page and fix it if you want to. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: STASI

message: most parts of the article are probably taken from here biography.ms
--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.191.134.178 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 24 November 2005  (UTC)
See the bottom of the ferdinand-schorner.biography.ms page. It is a copy of Wikipedia (this source) --Philip Baird Shearer 00:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  COPYRIGHT 

message: I agree with the prior contribution.  The article is currently biased towards Schörner by not delving into the controversy that developed about him after the war - some of the veterans under his command loved him, some hated him.  The article is making unsourced claims about a Stasi smear campaign - these need to be sourced or removed, in my view.  
Regarding the desertion, German military courts sentenced German soldiers for violations of the Wehrmacht disciplinary code until weeks after the war ended in Denmark.  The surrender did not affect this at all.  That the 'Iron Ferdinand' who had soldiers shot and demoted for minor failings in their duty takes off in a plane to escape the Red Army is not just grimly ironic (he could dish it out, but not take it), but also would have fulfilled his own definition of desertion.  Ziemke is the foremost US historian working on the Wehrmacht in the 1960s.  If he claims it was desertion (working from German army records), the claim is well sourced and should be left in.  This is supposed to be a biography, not a hagiography.
I have added a needs cleaning up tag.
Andreas 17:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not just a question of legality, it is a question of honour (like a captain being the last one off a ship). For example see what happened to Lieutenant-General Henry Gordon Bennett who left the men of the Australian 8th Division to go into captivity at the fall of Singapore. There are blog sites which report that the soldiers of Australin army nickname for their running shoes "Gordon Bennetts" for a time after that. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I have just looked up Duffy's 'Red Storm on the Reich', and it gives to contradictory versions of the departure of Schoerner. 1) is provided by his ADC and cousin Lieutenant Helmut Dirner who was not present at the event, the other by his chief of staff, Lieutenant-General Natzmer, who was.
1) Schoerner left on orders of Hitler to take command of the 'National Redoubt' in Bavaria.
2) Schoerner on the 8 May left his Army Group, despite representations by Natzmer that his proper place was at its head, stating that he had already given freedom to everyone to go west, and was now merely claiming the same for himself.  He raced to an airfield followed by Natzmer in another car.  The first airfield was already overrun by Soviet tanks, the second one had a Fieseler Storch waiting.  Natzmer asked for the plane for use in liason with units under command of the Army Group.  Schoerner, who was by then drunk and in Bavarian national costume, 'browbeat' the guards of the plane into leaving it to him and escaped.
Andreas 19:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is biased and needs cleaning up

message: He could dish it out but not take it?  The Soviets gave him the option of being a General in the to-be-formed East German army or going to a gulag where he would have unquestionably been tortured and abused.  On his guilt for the crimes of which he was accused during the war, I cannot comment, but nonetheless the man was no coward.  However, the article does need to be cleaned up. -Gabriel.
* Articles on Wikipedia are not supposed to represent the personal opinions of posters. They are supposed to be encyclopaedic. This article is simply written up in a defamatory manner apparently based upon one or two people's opinions/writings. Britannica would not permit this and nor should we. 86.130.32.209 (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: RE:Article is biased and needs cleaning up

message: I do not think that all the article needs a clean up, and not all the article has an unbalanced POV. So I have   replaced the NPOV article template with specific section "template:Disputed-section" and added  to the sentences that I think need citing. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Disputed-section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ferdinand Schörner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060626010113/http://www.ghil.ac.uk:80/bul/bu2005_no2.pdf to http://www.ghil.ac.uk/bul/bu2005_no2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I suggest removal of the Wehrmachtbericht as NPOV and OR:
*In the heavy fighting in the area of Nikopol have the Ostmark, Bavaria, Rhineland-Westphalia, Saxony, Mecklenburg, Pomerania and East Prussia Division under the command of the General of Mountain Troops Schörner and the generals Brandenberger, Mieth and Kreysing in the time frame of 5 November 1943 to 15 February 1944 in offensive and defensive actions, prevented Bolsheviks attempts to break through with cold steel and inflicted heavy losses. Thereby have been captured or destroyed. 1754 tanks, 533 guns, many other weapons and other military equipment, 56 enemy aircraft have been shot down by infantry weapons.
*In the second defensive battle in Courland, units of the army and Germanic volunteers of the Waffen SS under the command of Colonel General Schörner, again won a full defensive victory.
Please see discussions at Rommel and  Manstein Talk pages. Please let me know of any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wehrmachtbericht transcript 

message: I wonder why the Dates of rank section has been commented out? Is it because there is no ref? Can that be remedied? DadaNeem (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has the '''Dates of rank''' section been commented out?