<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: July 2008 Mailbag</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.armchairgeneral.com/july-2008-mailbag.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.armchairgeneral.com/july-2008-mailbag.htm</link>
	<description>All things military history!</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:36:40 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: warren olson</title>
		<link>http://www.armchairgeneral.com/july-2008-mailbag.htm#comment-445</link>
		<dc:creator>warren olson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2008 04:14:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.armchairgeneral.com/july-2008-mailbag.htm#comment-445</guid>
		<description>Dear Colonel John Antal In the attack of the T-72 tanks with the M1A1 in Iraq, I would right flank &#38; attack &#38; in line so that 4 of the T-72 would be in line &#38; only one of them could fire.Then I would reposition &#38; continue picking them off as they couldn't fire without shooting their own tank in front of them. Best Regards warren Great magazine!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Colonel John Antal In the attack of the T-72 tanks with the M1A1 in Iraq, I would right flank &amp; attack &amp; in line so that 4 of the T-72 would be in line &amp; only one of them could fire.Then I would reposition &amp; continue picking them off as they couldn&#8217;t fire without shooting their own tank in front of them. Best Regards warren Great magazine!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Henthorne</title>
		<link>http://www.armchairgeneral.com/july-2008-mailbag.htm#comment-441</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Henthorne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:50:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.armchairgeneral.com/july-2008-mailbag.htm#comment-441</guid>
		<description>General Eric von Manstein

The recent article on General Eric von Manstein was very well written. However the author seriously short changed the General on his service to Germany after the war. 

General von Manstein was more than just "a long time advisor. He was called on by the West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer to served as his senior defense advisory and chair a military sub-committee appointed to advise the parliament on military organization and doctrine for the new German Army, the Bundeswehr and its incorporation into NATO. He later moved with his family to Bavaria. His war memoirs, Verlorene Siege (Lost Victories), were published in Germany in 1955, and translated into English in 1958. In them, he presented the thesis that if the generals had been in charge of strategy instead of Hitler, the war on the Eastern Front could have been won.

Never having been a member of the Nazi party, he had no trouble in West Germany, unlike some of the Reich's more notorious Hitler supporters. Because of his influence, for the first few years of the Bundeswehr, he was seen as the unofficial chief of staff. Even later, his birthday parties were regularly attended by official delegations of Bundeswehr and NATO top leaders, such as General Hans Speidel who was the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied ground forces in Central Europe from 1957 to 1963. This was not the case with pro-Nazi Field Marshals such as Milch, Schörner, von Küchler, and others, who were disregarded and forgotten after the war.

Erich von Manstein suffered a stroke and died in Munich on the night of 9 June 1973. He was buried with full military honors. His obituary in The Times on June 13, 1973, stated that "His influence and effect came from powers of mind and depth of knowledge rather than by generating an electrifying current among the troops or 'putting over' his personality."

I would think that the many honours bestowed on him by the new German defence establishment should be more than enough to establish his credibility. I fully agree with the closing statement in the article, that " ACG readers are advised to closely examine the evidence on both sides, and then judge for themselves if Manstein's "Lost Victories" claim rings true."
That would of course entail actually reading the book, and supportive documents; as well as the full circumstances behind his war crimes trial. At the end of the day please remember one thing----He was the one and only WWII German General to hold the post war positions that he did. I knew the General personally, and I believe that the belief that had Hitler let his general's run the War that events may have unfolded differently. There are some inherent problems with Heads of State being Commander-In-Chief of their national military.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>General Eric von Manstein</p>
<p>The recent article on General Eric von Manstein was very well written. However the author seriously short changed the General on his service to Germany after the war. </p>
<p>General von Manstein was more than just &#8220;a long time advisor. He was called on by the West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer to served as his senior defense advisory and chair a military sub-committee appointed to advise the parliament on military organization and doctrine for the new German Army, the Bundeswehr and its incorporation into NATO. He later moved with his family to Bavaria. His war memoirs, Verlorene Siege (Lost Victories), were published in Germany in 1955, and translated into English in 1958. In them, he presented the thesis that if the generals had been in charge of strategy instead of Hitler, the war on the Eastern Front could have been won.</p>
<p>Never having been a member of the Nazi party, he had no trouble in West Germany, unlike some of the Reich&#8217;s more notorious Hitler supporters. Because of his influence, for the first few years of the Bundeswehr, he was seen as the unofficial chief of staff. Even later, his birthday parties were regularly attended by official delegations of Bundeswehr and NATO top leaders, such as General Hans Speidel who was the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied ground forces in Central Europe from 1957 to 1963. This was not the case with pro-Nazi Field Marshals such as Milch, Schörner, von Küchler, and others, who were disregarded and forgotten after the war.</p>
<p>Erich von Manstein suffered a stroke and died in Munich on the night of 9 June 1973. He was buried with full military honors. His obituary in The Times on June 13, 1973, stated that &#8220;His influence and effect came from powers of mind and depth of knowledge rather than by generating an electrifying current among the troops or &#8216;putting over&#8217; his personality.&#8221;</p>
<p>I would think that the many honours bestowed on him by the new German defence establishment should be more than enough to establish his credibility. I fully agree with the closing statement in the article, that &#8221; ACG readers are advised to closely examine the evidence on both sides, and then judge for themselves if Manstein&#8217;s &#8220;Lost Victories&#8221; claim rings true.&#8221;<br />
That would of course entail actually reading the book, and supportive documents; as well as the full circumstances behind his war crimes trial. At the end of the day please remember one thing&#8212;-He was the one and only WWII German General to hold the post war positions that he did. I knew the General personally, and I believe that the belief that had Hitler let his general&#8217;s run the War that events may have unfolded differently. There are some inherent problems with Heads of State being Commander-In-Chief of their national military.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dennis K. Repke</title>
		<link>http://www.armchairgeneral.com/july-2008-mailbag.htm#comment-405</link>
		<dc:creator>Dennis K. Repke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:05:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.armchairgeneral.com/july-2008-mailbag.htm#comment-405</guid>
		<description>In your July 08 edition on page 68 there is a picture of Reuben James saving Stephen Deccatur, the caption reads that the unknown sailor, though wounded, gives his life by taking the scimitar blow that was meant for Decatur.  The problem is that Reuben James, who is not mentioned by name, survived the scimitar wound and retired from the Navy in 1836 and died in Washington DC in December 1839.  I hope this helps set the record straight for the readers of your fine magazine.

V/R
Dennis K. Repke
Annapolis, MD
SFC (Ret)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In your July 08 edition on page 68 there is a picture of Reuben James saving Stephen Deccatur, the caption reads that the unknown sailor, though wounded, gives his life by taking the scimitar blow that was meant for Decatur.  The problem is that Reuben James, who is not mentioned by name, survived the scimitar wound and retired from the Navy in 1836 and died in Washington DC in December 1839.  I hope this helps set the record straight for the readers of your fine magazine.</p>
<p>V/R<br />
Dennis K. Repke<br />
Annapolis, MD<br />
SFC (Ret)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
