Stalingrad - excellent example for different views on history
It is a fact that 6th army was surrounded due to breaking the romanian front, after the biggest soviet artillery barrage the eastern front had yet seen and a most powerful armoured attack. However, before the attack, the romanian high command had repeatedly appealed to OKW & OKH, informing about the soviet amoured build-up and the inadequacies of the romanian anti-tank defenses, but the measures taken were too little, too late (a strategic reserve of 1 german & 1 romanian armoured divisions). During and after the soviet attack, so many romanian soldiers died where they stood, after T-34s & KV-1s speeded through their lines, attacking in depth and leaving the following infantry to round-up the survivors. Few surrounded pockets of resistance could not change anything, and the consequent rout of the rest of the army found no help in german motorized columns, who instead of taking out as many romanians as they could, to have them fight another day, chose to flee alone. An action for which I found only praise in all sources - Mannstein's memories included, was the self-sacrificial attack of the 1st romanian armoured division, charging in their obsolete Pz-38(t) modern soviet armour, being completely wiped out as a result. For romanians, Stalingrad was no less a catstophy, than for the germans. The result of Stalingrad: commitment of the romanian army to the "crusade against bolshevism" and the trust in the german commitment to the alliance began to fade.
So, my point is that similar to quarrels between individuals, views on history need both sides to be listened to. The truth is always in the middle, and you can't hope for an objective view, without considering all sides. Since I brought him up, Mannstein was undoubtedly one of the best german generals, if not the best. But reading his memories is a bit annoying, view shared by many millitary historians. You get the feeling of reading the memories of the God of War reincarnated, who never could have made any mistake.
However, in his analyzis of the romanian troops, he is sharper and more objective than any romanian source. His critique of the romanian officer corps holds more truth and is deeper than any comunist historian's attack on the officer class he hated ideologically.