Talk:Friedrich von Mellenthin

Funny article

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=91725

Edits

Removed Category:Military history of Germany during World War II as it is a parent of Category:German World War II people. Joshbaumgartner 21:52, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Section: 'Later Life'

Congratulations on a very well constructed and readable wikipage. I would like to propose 1 (one) small change to the above section. At present, it says 'after the war, he spent 2 1/2 years in prison'. I would like to change this to: 'he was released from officers' prisoner of war camp 2 1/2 years after the end of hostilities' In the original text, the wording suggests that he had been convicted of some kind of war crime. As we know, this was not the case. It might also be worth mentioning that he lectured at both West Point and Sandhurst and had several meetings with General Eisenhower.Miletus (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Observer v. Commander

Mellenthin had several rare opportunities to observe great generals in action but his "Panzer Battles" suffers for the lack of command experience. Just being on staff as he was his entire career is much different than having the responsibility of command. As anyone who has led men in combat or controlled a large business can attest the gap that exists between the two roles is huge. Mellenthin doesn't have that fine appreciation of the difference.

Hesweeney (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

More on Later Life

I have read von Mellenthin's book on being a panzer general. A friend lent it to me and I don't have it in front of me at the moment. I believe the remark "not until we were behind barbed wire did we learn..." comes straight from the book. How confident are we about this? This is a wise thing for a WWII German general to write during the fifties. According to Wolfram Wette, German generals knew what was going on in Poland, and behind the lines on the Russian front. According to Wikipedia, WWI field marshal August von Mackensen wrote Field Marshal Walther von Brauchitsch to complain about "crimes committed in Poland", and he was no where near the place.

References

JHowardGibson (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Teddy1289: Instead of engaging in WP:edit warring, please review WP:BRD and outline your objections here on the Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the article and the reason for the edits is that the material from Smeltzer & Davies is misleading at best-insofar as it relates to the article. Von Mellenthin devoted four pages of a 364 page book to "The psychology of the Russian Soldier" and that somehow is construed as a book about racism? Noone in his(von Mellenthin) book is referred to in a derogotory way as regards their race.

Furthermore, the accusation that "Panzer Battles" is an exculpatory memoir makes no sense if one has actually read the book. It is a dry military read almost entirely consisting of troop and armor movements during the various campaigns. To accuse the author of "focusing on German victories" and "explaining away the German defeat" misses the entire point of the book: a static army against a numerically superior opponent will always lose while mobility against a static, but superior opponent, gives a great chance of success on the battlefield.

Also, the subject of "Myth of the Eastern Front" deals with the valid topic of Nazi romanticism in the United States, but to drag von Mellenthin and his writings into that discussion does a great disservice to the WP community and anyone studying the topic of armored warfare during WWII. Unless evidence that von Mellenthin is lying in his book has been produced, the work of Smelser & Davies ought to be removed as being beyond the scope of this article. Teddy1289 (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Teddy1289

Thank you for posting your thoughts. Since you became involved with the article, I added two additional sources -- Robert Citino and Wolfram Wette (De Wikipedia). They are both critical of Mellenthin works. Re: racism, Citino quotes almost an entire page from Mellenthin regarding the "psychology of the Russian soldier", so it must have made an impression on him. That's what he chose to include in his work on the 1943 Wehrmacht campaigns, rather than Mellenthin's discussion on the armored warfare strategies and tactics. Citino then goes on to describe how "losers rewrite history" and how the perception of the Red Army been influenced by the German generals' writings. He concludes with this: "Thanks to modern research, the Red Army now occupies a different position in the history of WWII. Today it is known as a highly skilled and brilliantly led force that absorbed the best Wehrmacht had to offer in 1941, then turn the tables and eventually smashed it. From a primitive horde, it has now become the seedbed of modern military operations."

The language -- "Critics point out that Major-General von Mellenthin tends to downplay German failures while focusing exclusively on successes" -- precedes my involvement with the article: see this version, so it can be adjusted. I don't have Smelser & Davies on hand at the moment, but I will double check tomorrow and adjust the wording if needed.

Overall, since Mellenthin was largely known for his works, I believe it's pertinent to include a section on that in the article. You are of course free to add copy based on assessment of his works from other reputable historians. That way a balanced picture can emerge. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Update -- I reviewed Smelser & Davies's work, and I believe it should stay, for three reasons: (1) it is directly pertinent, as it focuses not on the "romanticizing the Nazis" but on the "romanticizing of the German war effort in the East", specifically the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS (see note below); (2) this is a WP:RS source, written by reputable historians; (3) two other reliable sources, Citino and Wette, essentially agree with The Myth of the Eastern Front in their assessment of Mellenthin's works, so it's not a fringe opinion.

Smelser and Davies refer to Mellenthin's works as "exculpatory memoirs" (as can been seen in the Google preview, although this may refer to his entire body of work (he wrote other books) so I can adjust to apply more generally. However, Citino specifically refers to Panzer Battles as memoirs, so I have to go with what the sources say.

The two called out quotes in this section are from Mellenthin's work, so I don't see including them as objectionable; he wrote what he wrote.

Lastly, I will adjust the lead to replace "racial terms" with "derogatory terms" as being more broadly applicable.

Note on the topic of The Myth of the Eastern Front:

From the publisher:

• From the 1950s onward, Americans were quite receptive to a view of World War II similar to the view held by many Germans and military personnel on how the war was fought on the Eastern Front in Russia. Through a network of formerly high-ranking Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr officers who had served on the Eastern Front, Germans were able to shape American opinions into an interpretation of World War II that left the Wehrmacht with a “clean” reputation in World War II history. A broad subculture of German military enthusiasts continues to romanticize the German army to this day.

From the reviews (same link):

• "Smelser and Davies vividly show how the pernicious idea of an honorable German war on the Eastern Front permeated the American consciousness with devastating consequences not only for the broad understanding of German atrocities in the East, but ultimately for the Cold War itself. From its lucid discussion of the former Hitler generals who whitewashed their military records after World War II to its disturbing look at the self-proclaimed gurus of army minutia who still pose as authorities on the Wehrmacht, The Myth of the Eastern Front is a masterful and incisive combination of military and cultural history."

• The swiftness with which Cold War America embraced vanquished Nazi officers, along with their sanitization of Wehrmacht criminality on the Eastern Front, is a chilling reminder of how historical memory often follows the flag. Smelser and Davies have performed a signal service in bringing to light the internet's perpetuation of self-serving myths about World War Two." Etc.

I hope this clarifies my rationale. You are of course welcome to add content to the article that provides assessment of Mellenthin's works. Be sure to review WP:RS article to help you identify reliable sources that would be appropriate for inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged by @Teddy1289: on my talk page to express my opinion on this topic. I have to admit that I have not read Mellenthin's work nor have I read Citino's book, so I am not in a position to discuss on the content of the dispute. Nevertheless, I do think that @K.e.coffman: has taken the right approach here. Why do I say this? It is not up to us Wikipedia editors to pass judgement on the quality or reliability of a source. However, if another author, in this case Citino, expressed concerns about the content and view of a particular source, here Mellenthin, it is best practice to state this in the article. Now, if you think that Citino incorrectly criticizes Mellenthin's work, you need to find another source to counterbalance Citino. Makes sense? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Analysis by David Glantz

Offered here:

• American Perspectives on Eastern Front Operations in World War II

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friedrich von Mellenthin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161007091533/https://kuecprd.ku.edu/~upress/cgi-bin/978-0-7006-1826-2.html to https://kuecprd.ku.edu/~upress/cgi-bin/978-0-7006-1826-2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Memoirs

The language in the recent changes does not align with the sources. Besides, changing the following:

Mellenthin's works were part of the exculpatory memoirs genre that fed the post-war revisionist narrative, put forth by former Wehrmacht generals. Panzer Battles was instrumental in forming the misconceptions that influenced the U.S. view of Eastern Front military operations up to 1995, when Soviet archival sources became available to Western and Russian historians.

into:

Mellenthin's works were part of a post-war narrative by former Wehrmacht generals that influenced Western perceptions of the Eastern Front until 1995, when Soviet archival sources became available.

is not a "style issue". I'm happy to discuss further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)