![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
I reworked the copy, reducing it by about half. I think it's in the shape that it can now be posted.
To the questions/comments above, the copy reflects what the sources say ("collaborated" etc); if something does not look right, I can double check, as I still have the books. Some of the sources are linked as PDFs or online web pages, such as Luvaas or Gibson. I'm also posting a few Google book previews, which I believe are searchable:
To the editor's comment that "nothing of this is new", then why has this scholarship not been reflected in the article? This is what I'm attempting to do with this addition.
The Rommel myth
The objective assessment of Rommel has been hampered by the the post-war myth of a "noble" man and a "military genius who, but for bad fortune and the faults of others, might have changed the course of World War II". [1] According to the historian Peter Caddick-Adams, Rommel's "image, carefully cultivated during his lifetime, was also carefully reworked after his death". Following a forced suicide, Rommel emerged as the "acceptable face of German militarism, the 'good' German who stood apart from the Nazi regime". [2]
The origins of the myth can be first found in Rommel's drive for success as a young officer in World War I and then in his popular 1937 book Infantry Attacks, a "determined effort" in self-promotion. Rommel's military successes in 1940 and 1941 were then played up by the Nazi propaganda, even though his success was achieved in the least strategically important theatre of World War II. [3] Rommel image was splashed across mass media throughout the Reich and reached as far as the U.S. and Britain. [3] [4] The ground was fertile for the myth to be reborn after the war, resulting in a "renaissance of Rommel's name and reputation". [5]
The myth came about as "the necessary image manufactured to serve the German rearmament" [6], as, after the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, it became clear to the Americans and the British that a German army would have to be revived to help face off against the Soviet Union. Many former German officers were convinced, however, that no future German army would be possible without the rehabilitation of the Wehrmacht. To this end, in October 1950, a group of former senior officers produced the Himmerod memorandum for West German chancellor Konrad Adenauer. Intended as both a planning and a negotiating document, the document included a key demand for "measures to transform domestic and foreign public opinion" with regards to the German military. [7]
In the atmosphere of the Cold War, Rommel's former enemies, especially the British, played a key role in the manufacture and propagation of the myth. [3] The journalist and historian Basil Liddell Hart, an early proponent of the German rearmament, provided the first widely available source on Rommel in his 1948 book on Hitler's generals, updated in 1951. Portraying Rommel as an outsider to the Nazi regime, Liddel Hart concluded with comments on Rommel's "gifts and performance" that "qualified him for a place in the role of the 'Great Captains' of history". [8]
The other foundational text was the 1950 "influential, laudatory" biography Rommel: The Desert Fox by Brigadier Desmond Young. [9] Young collaborated with several individuals who had been close to Rommel, including Hans Speidel, with Liddel Hart also supporting the project. Young subscribed to the "generous view" that Rommel had not been a supporter of Nazism, subtly conveying that he served the regime, but was not part of it. [6] Young's biography "assisted in developing a new version of the truth" – with Rommel now an active, in not a leading, plotter. Speidel contributed as well, starting, from the early 1950s, to "talk up the Rommel legend" and his own "anti-Nazi credentials", thus boosting his [Speidel's] suitability for a future command role in NATO. [10]
1953 saw the publication of Rommel's writings of the war period as The Rommel Papers, edited by Liddell Hart, Romme's widow and son, and the former Wehrmacht officer Fritz Bayerlein. With an introduction by Liddel Hart, The Rommel Papers was one of the two "crucial texts" that lead to the "Anglophone rehabilitation" and a "Rommel renaissance", the other being Young's biography. [11] Meanwhile, Liddel Hart had a personal interest in the work: by having coaxed Rommel's widow to include material favorable to himself, Liddel Hart could present Rommel as his "pupil". By "putting words in the mouths of German Generals and manipulating history" Liddel Hart was in a position to show that the dramatic German success in the 1940 could be "traced back to him". [12] [13]
Young and Liddell Hart "set the stage for all post-war interpretations of Rommel", which consisted of three themes: Rommel's ambivalence towards Nazism; his military genius; and the chivalrous nature of the fighting in North Africa. [11] Their works lent support to the image of the "clean" Wehrmacht and were generally not questioned, since they came from British authors, rather than German revisionists. [14] The trend continued with the "effusive and often uncritical biographies", such as Rommel as Military Commander by the military historian Ronald Lewin and Knight's Cross: A Life of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel by the high-ranking British officer David Fraser. [15]
In contrast to the apologist accounts, the recent historiagraphy suggests that Rommel had not only "found favor with the Nazi regime, but [...] was delighted with the preferential treatment he was receiving", as evidenced by Rommel's letters to his wife. Rommel fully subscribed to the Nazi worldview, writing to his wife in October 1939 from the devastated Warsaw: "The inhabitants drew a breath of relief that we have arrived and rescued them." [16] Contemporary military practitioners have been critical of Rommel as an operational level commander. While an accomplished tactician, Rommel was a "poor operational leader", according to a paper published by Naval War College, whose author concludes that Rommel's "personal relationship with Hitler put him in a position of authority he was not qualified to fulfill". [17]
The picture that emerges is much more complex than the post-war myth. In a 2012 interview with Reuters, the German historian Sönke Neitzel noted: "On the one hand he didn't commit war crimes that we know of and ordered a retreat at El Alamein despite Hitler's order. But he took huge German casualties elsewhere and he was a servant of the regime. He was not exactly a shining liberal or Social Democrat. Mostly, he was interested in his career". [18]
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)References
Please let me know of any comments. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Why are we converting 88mm to 3in when referencing the 88mm Flak gun? The gun is widely known, and was widely known even by Allied forces at the time, as the "88", and 88mm isn't 3 inches anyway!
GBev1987 ( talk) 10:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I tagged this passage with "unreliable source" as it appears to be cited to a fan page or other page affiliated with Africa Corps:
References
I suggest removing this passage altogether, as quoting a anonymous supposed participant of the events. Any objections? K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Is this section ( Erwin_Rommel#Wehrmachtbericht_references) needed in the article? It is citing from the OKW propaganda report, the Wehrmachtbericht. This appears to be either WP:OR or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. In either case, the section is citing verbatim (including in German) a piece of Nazi propaganda that has no informative value; all such reports were approved by the Reich Propaganda Ministry and were meant solely to instill optimism in the German population.
In the past, I've seen these removed from articles such as in Bach-Zelewski. Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
This section could stand to be trimmed. Now that I relocated the material from Personality, it appears that certain ideas are discussed twice, for example:
And
References
Another example:
And
References
Are there any comments or suggestions? K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I reworked the section using contemporary sources. Pls see discussion that I started on another page Talk:20_July_plot#Shirer_1960. Improvements welcome. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe that these section could stand to be trimmed somewhat, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Here are my suggested copyedits. The sections with number 2 in the section name are the trimmed versions; the originals have the titles as currently in the article.
Rommel was born on 15 November 1891 in Southern Germany at Heidenheim, 45 kilometres (28 mi) from Ulm, in the Kingdom of Württemberg, then part of the German Empire. He was the second of four children of Erwin Rommel Senior (1860–1913), a teacher and school administrator, and his wife Helene von Lutz, who headed the local government council. As a young man Rommel's father had been a lieutenant in the artillery. Rommel had one older sister and three younger brothers, one of whom died in infancy. [1] [2]
At the age of 14, Rommel and a friend built a full-scale glider and were able to fly it short distances. He later purchased a motorcycle, and upon getting home immediately set about taking it apart and putting it back together. [3] Rommel considered becoming an aeronautical engineer, but at age 18 he acceded to his father's wishes and joined the local 124th Württemberg Infantry Regiment as a Fähnrich ( ensign), in 1910, studying at the Officer Cadet School in Danzig. [4] He graduated in November 1911 and was commissioned as a lieutenant in January 1912 and was assigned to the 124th Infantry in Weingarten. [5] He was posted to Ulm in March 1914 to command the No.4 Battery, 46th Field Artillery Regiment, XIII (Royal Württemberg) Corps. Until the start of the First World War he trained new recruits and gave refresher courses to reserve officers, and then returned to the 124th when war was declared. [6] While at Cadet School, Rommel met his future wife, 17-year-old Lucia (Lucie) Maria Mollin (1894–1971). They married in November 1916 in Danzig. [7]
During World War I, Rommel fought in France as well as in the Romanian and Italian Campaigns. He gained success leading small groups of men, using tactics such as infiltrating through enemy lines under cover of darkness, moving forward rapidly to a flanking position to arrive at their rear, and attacking defenders using the element of surprise. [8] Arriving at the front near Verdun on 22 August 1914, Rommel initially commanded a platoon in 2nd Battalion, 124th Regiment. [9] They were assigned to reconnaissance and courier tasks. His first combat experience was on 22 August 1914, when – catching the French garrison unprepared at the village of Bleid – he and three men engaged the enemy without waiting for the rest of their platoon to arrive. [10] Rommel was often ill while on active duty, particularly with stomach troubles and exhaustion, a problem that manifested itself from the beginning of his career. [11] He was appointed Battalion Adjutant in September. The armies continued to skirmish in open engagements throughout September, as the static trench warfare typical of the First World War was still in the future. [12] On 24 September Rommel was shot in the leg when he engaged several French soldiers armed only with his bayonet (he had run out of ammunition). For this action, he was awarded the Iron Cross, Second Class. [13]
On his return in January 1915, Rommel was assigned to command 9th Company, 124th Regiment, stationed in the trenches near Argonne. [11] [14] On 29 January, he and his platoon crawled through 100 yards (91 m) of barbed wire to engage the French, who were positioned in blockhouses and earthworks. His company was running low on ammunition and were ordered to retreat. Rommel ordered an attack on one of the blockhouses to keep the enemy from opening fire on the withdrawing men. For his work that day, he was awarded the Iron Cross, First Class. [15]
He continued to soldier in the trenches of France for another nine months, and received a minor shrapnel wound to the leg on 29 June 1915. [15] [16] He was promoted to Oberleutnant (first lieutenant) and transferred to the newly created Königliche Wurttemberg Gebirgsbataillon (Royal Wurttemberg Mountain Battalion) of the Alpenkorps in September. He was commander of 2nd Company, which trained in mountain warfare in Austria until December, when they were posted on a 6-mile (9.7 km) stretch of front in the Vosges mountains of Alsace. [17] They remained there, seeing action in reconnaissance work and raids on enemy positions until October 1916, when they were moved to the Southern Carpathians to fight the Romanians, who had joined the conflict in August. [18] In August 1917, his unit was involved in the battle for Mount Cosna, a heavily fortified objective on the border between Hungary and Romania. They succeeded after nearly two weeks of difficult uphill fighting and were withdrawn to reserve on 25 August. [19] The unit spent six weeks recuperating in Carinthia, and Rommel received leave to return to Danzig to see his wife and recover from a gunshot wound to the arm that he had received in the fight at Mount Cosna. [20]
The Mountain Battalion was next assigned to fight on the Isonzo front, a mountainous area which had been the scene of near-constant fighting since the entry of Italy into the war on the Allied side on 23 May 1915. The offensive known as the Twelfth Battle of the Isonzo, or the Battle of Caporetto, began on 24 October 1917 with a four-hour artillery barrage. [21] Rommel's Abteilung, consisting of three rifle companies and a machine gun unit, was part of an attempt to take enemy positions on three mountains: Kolovrat, Matajur, and Stol. [22] Beginning at dawn on 25 October, Rommel took advantage of the terrain to outflank the Italians and gain control of the ridge on Kolovrat, taking 1,500 prisoners in the first three hours. [23] Noticing that there was no field of fire on a supply road leading down to the village of Luico (now Livek), Rommel and 150 of his men proceeded down and captured the town, 2 miles (3.2 km) behind enemy lines. Believing the presence of Rommels' group to be proof that their lines had collapsed, a column of Italian light infantry, 2,000 strong, surrendered after a brief firefight. [24] Before dawn on the 26th, Rommel led his Abteilung, now reinforced with two additional machine gun companies, toward Matajur. They took the village of Jevszek without a fight, capturing another 1,600 men. In spite of orders not to attack, they assaulted Matajur from an unexpected direction from behind the Italian lines, arriving at the summit shortly before noon on 27 October. [25] In two and a half days, he and his small contingent of men had captured 81 guns and 9,000 men (including 150 officers), at the loss of six dead and 30 wounded. [26] Acting as advance guard in the capture of Longarone on 9 November, he again decided to attack with a much smaller force. Reinforcements continued to arrive, and fighting continued through the night. Convinced that they were surrounded by an entire German division, the 1st Italian Infantry Division – 10,000 men – surrendered to Rommel at dawn. For this and his work at Matajur, he (and his battalion commander, Major Theodor Sproesser ) received the order of Pour le Mérite. After a week on leave in January 1918, Rommel was promoted to Hauptmann (captain) and assigned to a staff position with XLIV Army Corps, where he served for the remainder of the war. [27]
References
Rommel was born on 15 November 1891 in Southern Germany at Heidenheim, 45 kilometres (28 mi) from Ulm, in the Kingdom of Württemberg, then part of the German Empire. He was the second of four children of Erwin Rommel Senior (1860–1913), a teacher and school administrator, and his wife Helene von Lutz, who headed the local government council. As a young man Rommel's father had been a lieutenant in the artillery. Rommel had one older sister and three younger brothers, one of whom died in infancy. [1] [2]
At age 18 Rommel joined the local 124th Württemberg Infantry Regiment as a Fähnrich ( ensign), in 1910, studying at the Officer Cadet School in Danzig. [3] He graduated in November 1911 and was commissioned as a lieutenant in January 1912 and was assigned to the 124th Infantry in Weingarten. [4] He was posted to Ulm in March 1914 to the 46th Field Artillery Regiment, XIII (Royal Württemberg) Corps, as a battery commander. He returned to the 124th when war was declared. [5] While at Cadet School, Rommel met his future wife, 17-year-old Lucia (Lucie) Maria Mollin (1894–1971). They married in November 1916 in Danzig. [6]
During World War I, Rommel fought in France as well as in the Romanian and Italian Campaigns. He successfully employed the tactics of infiltrating through enemy lines under cover of darkness or moving forward rapidly to a flanking position to arrive at their rear, to achieve the element of surprise. [7] His first combat experience was on 22 August 1914 as a platoon commander near Verdun, when – catching the French garrison unprepared – he and three men engaged them without waiting for the rest of the platoon to arrive. [8] The armies continued to skirmish in open engagements throughout September, as the static trench warfare typical of the First World War was still in the future. [9] For his actions in September 1914 and January 1915, Rommel was awarded the Iron Cross, Second Class. [10]
Rommel was promoted to Oberleutnant (first lieutenant) and transferred to the newly created Royal Wurttemberg Mountain Battalion of the Alpenkorps in September 1915, as a company commander. [11] In August 1917, his unit was involved in the battle for Mount Cosna, a heavily fortified objective on the border between Hungary and Romania, which they took after two weeks of difficult uphill fighting. [12]
The Mountain Battalion was next assigned to the Isonzo front, in a mountainous area in Italy. The offensive, known as the Battle of Caporetto, began on 24 October 1917. [13] Rommel's battalion, consisting of three rifle companies and a machine gun unit, was part of an attempt to take enemy positions on three mountains: Kolovrat, Matajur, and Stol. [14] In two and a half days, from October 25 to 27, Rommel and his 150 men captured 81 guns and 9,000 men (including 150 officers), at the loss of six dead and 30 wounded. [15] Rommel achieved this remarkable success by taking advantage of the terrain to outflank the Italian forces, attacking from unexpected directions or behind enemy lines, and taking the initiative to attack when he had orders to the contrary. In one instance, the Italian forces, taken by surprise and believing that their lines had collapsed, surrendered after a brief firefight. [16] Acting as advance guard in the capture of Longarone on 9 November, Rommel again decided to attack with a much smaller force. Convinced that they were surrounded by an entire German division, the 1st Italian Infantry Division – 10,000 men – surrendered to Rommel. For this and his actions at Matajur, he received the order of Pour le Mérite. In January 1918, Rommel was promoted to Hauptmann (captain) and assigned to a staff position with XLIV Army Corps, where he served for the remainder of the war. [17]
References
The original versions combined are about 8 300 characters; the suggested versions are about 4 500. Please let me know of any feedback.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
06:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
That was a very poor series of edits. The edits advanced a viewpoint, a viewpont that is clearly biased. It does not take long reading in the sources you cite to see that they are not written in an objective voice, but that they push a particular political view. You comment on sources you have not read, taking the word of someone advancing an argument to place these sources in doubt as to their value. The general lack of knowledge you display on this subject matter and others elsewhere is remarkable. The fact that a source you use may meet criteria as a secondary source does not mean you have found an unbiased viewpoint. The pursuit of historical truth based on the best available evidence should be our dominant concern. That means when we read material and consider introducing it we have to consider what the bias is of the author and guard against allowing the author's bias to enter into the voice of wikipedia. From your comments it would appear you have not read Infantry Attacks or The Rommel Papers, or even any of Liddell Harts works. This places you in a position where you are completely dependent on the opinion of whomever you happen to be reading. If you have not read broadly on a subject you are less able to discern fact from opinion. I asked you to look for sources that presented an alternative view. Did you make any effort to do so? When an author's political view matches your own you are less able to perceive bias in the writing. From what you have offered above any authors that did not match your view you have dismissed, showing that the source you are citing, who is advaincing a particular view, has informed us that the sources that are counter to the author's view are not of any value (Eg: "Searle... refers to "effusive and often uncritical biographies"). Apparently we are to conclue that Searle's opinion is unbiased, but Fraser's is not, and we have Searle himself to tell us so. I find that problematic. As to your editing in general, you have consistently introduced material that is critical of Germans, and removed content that might be viewed as supportive of Germans. The practice demonstrates a marked bias in your editing, which in my view is distorting wikipedia. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 08:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The Rommel Myth theory has also come to the stage when it faces revisionism of itself. For example, basically Maurice Remy [2] (who's also listed as if he belonged to the myth camp, and even more curiously, a French when actually he's a German )argues (with much success) that Rommel was both a Nazi and a hero who fought Hitler: »War er [ Rommel ] ein überzeugter Nationalsozialist, den man verachten muss, oder ein Held des Widerstandes gegen Hitler?«, stellt sich bei genauer Kenntnisnahme der Geschichte so gar nicht. Die Antwort ist nämlich ebenso einfach wie überraschend: Rommel war beides. But even though "his heart did belong to Hitler, it's all the more remarkable that he always found the strength needed to fight against him whenever his conscience required so [3]... Unwilling and probably without ever realizing it, he was part of a murderous system... but no individual sin. [4].
[6] cited by this wiki page). Here, the message is same with the two previously mentioned authors': the man was complicated, vainglorious, seduced by Hitler, yet [the Mythos of] his heroic battles remain nonetheless, like Hitler had predicted.
When I searched for "Rommel legend" or "Rommel myth", the above sources are what I found. I have not found sources that state that the "Rommel myth" is the invention of contemporary historians that are trying to take Rommel down a notch. ... Regarding WP:Biased, this content is built on multiple WP:RS sources (books, articles, studies, etc). This is what the sources said. If you have contemporary sources that state the opposite, I would be glad to review them." The was no response. I believe the onus is on those who disagree with the sources to present alternate WP:RS. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not make myself clear. I was pinging you on the suggested condensing of Early Life/World War I section; this part here: "What specifically is problematic with the suggested copyedit/condensing for the above sections?" The article is very long, so here I'm attempting to make it more readable.
On the discussion of the Rommel myth subsection, I responded on March 10 as follows, which I'm reproducing here:
When I searched for "Rommel legend" or "Rommel myth", the above sources are what I found. I have not found sources that state that the "Rommel myth" is the invention of contemporary historians that are trying to take Rommel down a notch. ... Regarding WP:Biased, this content is built on multiple WP:RS sources (books, articles, studies, etc). This is what the sources said. If you have contemporary sources that state the opposite, I would be glad to review them." The was no response. I believe the onus is on those who disagree with the sources to present alternate WP:RS. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Since it appears that there are no objections, I will go ahead and trim these two sections. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that Ronald Lewin is an appropriate source for this article. Please also see: Rommel_myth#Uncritical_accounts.
I got this book from the library out of curiosity, and it's indeed quite effusive. Opening on a random page, I got this: "But Rommel is one of the Great Captains whose ideas and actions are all of a piece throughout". There are 3 pages of bibliography, minimal footnotes and no endnotes.
I would like to replace Lewin with alternate sources or trim content cited to him where possible. Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed in principal. Shirer is also dated, but one can at least see where he is citing to, and make an informed opinion. In Lewin's case, the book looks mostly "polemical" (i.e. his opinions) as I leafed through it, as there were no endnotes and very minimal footnotes. It's just not on par with books that are available today. Take these statements:
This is given as a statement of fact.
Why is this opinion important or relevant?
There were many other reasons why High Command looked at Rommel this way, such as (mostly) his special relationship with Hitler, his impetuosity and ambition, his lack of acknowledgement of contributions by other units, etc.
See above.
This is constructed in such a way as to buttress (?) Rommel's anti-Nazi credentials. I came across this incident in another source, where it was presented as Rommel resenting the SS, rather than for any ideological reasons.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); External link in |website=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
References
Rommel personally executed a POW in France, and his units there also conducted executions. This sentence is really, really wrong.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 13:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Atrocities committed by Rommel's 7th Panzer Division in France Hitler's African Victims: The German Army Massacres of Black French Soldiers By Raffael Scheck page 24,26 mentions executions of black French soldiers(approximately 109 victims).-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 13:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
That seems to be original research on your part, he only says that Rommel didn't took part directly in massacres of black French soldiers, not that his soldiers didn't took part in them. As to Rommel directly involved, he executed a soldier(of unknown background) on 17th May, and event which he himself wrote about openly. Please do note that involvement of Rommel's troops in mass murder of French PoWs is sourced by several works which you have removed, not only Scheck. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 13:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Any way, the English version of Scheck's book has updated his opinions on the matter [1]. "the operations against Airaines and nearby villages came from the 2nd and 46th ... (Rommel's 7th Panzer Division had already advanced much farther)." Looking at the way Scheck works, I think it highly probable that he had the initital conclusions about Rommel and his division just because of evidences that they had operated there.
By "other locations" did you mean Le Quesnoy? It is very near Airaines and Scheck writes that the 7th Division had advanced much farther. Also, as for Rommel executing the French officer for refusing to obey three times, while it was certainly true, but listing that along with "he and his units executed prisoners...", and writing that "Rommel was personally implicated".. make it sound like it was a crime while no author of note, even the revisionist ones like Beckett, Reuth...etc treats it to be so. -- Deamonpen ( talk) 05:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
And if you would like it, Dennis Showalter says that no massacre happened
-- Deamonpen ( talk) 00:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
How is the section for size now? It appears to be similar in size to "Battle of Gazala and capture of Tobruk", so I think it's appropriate, since the "Rommel myth" is critical in understanding the portrayal of Rommel to the present day. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
This did not really belong in the "Popular perceptions" section; moving it here for storage:
References
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
It's great that new content is being added to the article, but I'd like to suggest that it follows the predominant citation style, which is mostly using shortened footnotes. Please see: Template:Harvard_citation_documentation#Shortened_footnote
This makes it much easier to edit text, without the long web url getting in the way of understanding where the article text ends and where the reference begins. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I added a new section on Rommel's role in propaganda, both Nazi and Allied. This was an important part of his career, which has previously not been covered. Improvements welcome. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Concerning this section:
References
This section does not appear to add much to the article, as some of it belongs in Leadership, or was standard Wehrmacht practice of Bewegungskrieg (war of movement) such as "...Luftwaffe as a forward, mobile artillery to support the advance and help overcome difficult obstacles. ... the ability to concentrate all available strength at one point and then hit that point with everything at hand to force a breakthrough."
Rommel, according to sources, was a skilled practitioner, but he does not appear to have added much to the Maneuver warfare theory to sustain a section. I plan rework it, potentially reallocating material to other section, such as Leadership or specific battles, unless it's already discussed there.
Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I did (mildly) express some concern about the article as a whole ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Erwin_Rommel&curid=19371003&diff=718539645&oldid=718536554), hoping for some dialog - but not having time to dig through all the changes with more specific issues. I plan to circle back for that.
I would expect the removal of sourced material would include at least an edit summary explaining why it is being removed. Is the source no longer considered reliable? Is it just an editorial flow change?
A slower pace would likely help. I appreciate the enthusiasm! --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 04:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
These two sentences appear to be contradictory:
The latter para states that Rommel believed that the Pas-de-Calais would be the most likely invasion point. Peter Lieb states that "Most German commanders, including Rommel, expected the invasion to land at Pas-de-Calais.
References
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed this quote, as it presents Rommel's opinion, and appears to blame others for the failures in Africa. Douglas Porch calls Rommel a "whiner" as one of his defining characteristics:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I have removed claims that Allies were fabricating Nazi war crimes. Such extraordinary fringe claim would require extraordinary evidence and needless to say go against all mainstream history.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
I reworked the copy, reducing it by about half. I think it's in the shape that it can now be posted.
To the questions/comments above, the copy reflects what the sources say ("collaborated" etc); if something does not look right, I can double check, as I still have the books. Some of the sources are linked as PDFs or online web pages, such as Luvaas or Gibson. I'm also posting a few Google book previews, which I believe are searchable:
To the editor's comment that "nothing of this is new", then why has this scholarship not been reflected in the article? This is what I'm attempting to do with this addition.
The Rommel myth
The objective assessment of Rommel has been hampered by the the post-war myth of a "noble" man and a "military genius who, but for bad fortune and the faults of others, might have changed the course of World War II". [1] According to the historian Peter Caddick-Adams, Rommel's "image, carefully cultivated during his lifetime, was also carefully reworked after his death". Following a forced suicide, Rommel emerged as the "acceptable face of German militarism, the 'good' German who stood apart from the Nazi regime". [2]
The origins of the myth can be first found in Rommel's drive for success as a young officer in World War I and then in his popular 1937 book Infantry Attacks, a "determined effort" in self-promotion. Rommel's military successes in 1940 and 1941 were then played up by the Nazi propaganda, even though his success was achieved in the least strategically important theatre of World War II. [3] Rommel image was splashed across mass media throughout the Reich and reached as far as the U.S. and Britain. [3] [4] The ground was fertile for the myth to be reborn after the war, resulting in a "renaissance of Rommel's name and reputation". [5]
The myth came about as "the necessary image manufactured to serve the German rearmament" [6], as, after the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, it became clear to the Americans and the British that a German army would have to be revived to help face off against the Soviet Union. Many former German officers were convinced, however, that no future German army would be possible without the rehabilitation of the Wehrmacht. To this end, in October 1950, a group of former senior officers produced the Himmerod memorandum for West German chancellor Konrad Adenauer. Intended as both a planning and a negotiating document, the document included a key demand for "measures to transform domestic and foreign public opinion" with regards to the German military. [7]
In the atmosphere of the Cold War, Rommel's former enemies, especially the British, played a key role in the manufacture and propagation of the myth. [3] The journalist and historian Basil Liddell Hart, an early proponent of the German rearmament, provided the first widely available source on Rommel in his 1948 book on Hitler's generals, updated in 1951. Portraying Rommel as an outsider to the Nazi regime, Liddel Hart concluded with comments on Rommel's "gifts and performance" that "qualified him for a place in the role of the 'Great Captains' of history". [8]
The other foundational text was the 1950 "influential, laudatory" biography Rommel: The Desert Fox by Brigadier Desmond Young. [9] Young collaborated with several individuals who had been close to Rommel, including Hans Speidel, with Liddel Hart also supporting the project. Young subscribed to the "generous view" that Rommel had not been a supporter of Nazism, subtly conveying that he served the regime, but was not part of it. [6] Young's biography "assisted in developing a new version of the truth" – with Rommel now an active, in not a leading, plotter. Speidel contributed as well, starting, from the early 1950s, to "talk up the Rommel legend" and his own "anti-Nazi credentials", thus boosting his [Speidel's] suitability for a future command role in NATO. [10]
1953 saw the publication of Rommel's writings of the war period as The Rommel Papers, edited by Liddell Hart, Romme's widow and son, and the former Wehrmacht officer Fritz Bayerlein. With an introduction by Liddel Hart, The Rommel Papers was one of the two "crucial texts" that lead to the "Anglophone rehabilitation" and a "Rommel renaissance", the other being Young's biography. [11] Meanwhile, Liddel Hart had a personal interest in the work: by having coaxed Rommel's widow to include material favorable to himself, Liddel Hart could present Rommel as his "pupil". By "putting words in the mouths of German Generals and manipulating history" Liddel Hart was in a position to show that the dramatic German success in the 1940 could be "traced back to him". [12] [13]
Young and Liddell Hart "set the stage for all post-war interpretations of Rommel", which consisted of three themes: Rommel's ambivalence towards Nazism; his military genius; and the chivalrous nature of the fighting in North Africa. [11] Their works lent support to the image of the "clean" Wehrmacht and were generally not questioned, since they came from British authors, rather than German revisionists. [14] The trend continued with the "effusive and often uncritical biographies", such as Rommel as Military Commander by the military historian Ronald Lewin and Knight's Cross: A Life of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel by the high-ranking British officer David Fraser. [15]
In contrast to the apologist accounts, the recent historiagraphy suggests that Rommel had not only "found favor with the Nazi regime, but [...] was delighted with the preferential treatment he was receiving", as evidenced by Rommel's letters to his wife. Rommel fully subscribed to the Nazi worldview, writing to his wife in October 1939 from the devastated Warsaw: "The inhabitants drew a breath of relief that we have arrived and rescued them." [16] Contemporary military practitioners have been critical of Rommel as an operational level commander. While an accomplished tactician, Rommel was a "poor operational leader", according to a paper published by Naval War College, whose author concludes that Rommel's "personal relationship with Hitler put him in a position of authority he was not qualified to fulfill". [17]
The picture that emerges is much more complex than the post-war myth. In a 2012 interview with Reuters, the German historian Sönke Neitzel noted: "On the one hand he didn't commit war crimes that we know of and ordered a retreat at El Alamein despite Hitler's order. But he took huge German casualties elsewhere and he was a servant of the regime. He was not exactly a shining liberal or Social Democrat. Mostly, he was interested in his career". [18]
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)References
Please let me know of any comments. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Why are we converting 88mm to 3in when referencing the 88mm Flak gun? The gun is widely known, and was widely known even by Allied forces at the time, as the "88", and 88mm isn't 3 inches anyway!
GBev1987 ( talk) 10:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I tagged this passage with "unreliable source" as it appears to be cited to a fan page or other page affiliated with Africa Corps:
References
I suggest removing this passage altogether, as quoting a anonymous supposed participant of the events. Any objections? K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Is this section ( Erwin_Rommel#Wehrmachtbericht_references) needed in the article? It is citing from the OKW propaganda report, the Wehrmachtbericht. This appears to be either WP:OR or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. In either case, the section is citing verbatim (including in German) a piece of Nazi propaganda that has no informative value; all such reports were approved by the Reich Propaganda Ministry and were meant solely to instill optimism in the German population.
In the past, I've seen these removed from articles such as in Bach-Zelewski. Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
This section could stand to be trimmed. Now that I relocated the material from Personality, it appears that certain ideas are discussed twice, for example:
And
References
Another example:
And
References
Are there any comments or suggestions? K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I reworked the section using contemporary sources. Pls see discussion that I started on another page Talk:20_July_plot#Shirer_1960. Improvements welcome. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe that these section could stand to be trimmed somewhat, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Here are my suggested copyedits. The sections with number 2 in the section name are the trimmed versions; the originals have the titles as currently in the article.
Rommel was born on 15 November 1891 in Southern Germany at Heidenheim, 45 kilometres (28 mi) from Ulm, in the Kingdom of Württemberg, then part of the German Empire. He was the second of four children of Erwin Rommel Senior (1860–1913), a teacher and school administrator, and his wife Helene von Lutz, who headed the local government council. As a young man Rommel's father had been a lieutenant in the artillery. Rommel had one older sister and three younger brothers, one of whom died in infancy. [1] [2]
At the age of 14, Rommel and a friend built a full-scale glider and were able to fly it short distances. He later purchased a motorcycle, and upon getting home immediately set about taking it apart and putting it back together. [3] Rommel considered becoming an aeronautical engineer, but at age 18 he acceded to his father's wishes and joined the local 124th Württemberg Infantry Regiment as a Fähnrich ( ensign), in 1910, studying at the Officer Cadet School in Danzig. [4] He graduated in November 1911 and was commissioned as a lieutenant in January 1912 and was assigned to the 124th Infantry in Weingarten. [5] He was posted to Ulm in March 1914 to command the No.4 Battery, 46th Field Artillery Regiment, XIII (Royal Württemberg) Corps. Until the start of the First World War he trained new recruits and gave refresher courses to reserve officers, and then returned to the 124th when war was declared. [6] While at Cadet School, Rommel met his future wife, 17-year-old Lucia (Lucie) Maria Mollin (1894–1971). They married in November 1916 in Danzig. [7]
During World War I, Rommel fought in France as well as in the Romanian and Italian Campaigns. He gained success leading small groups of men, using tactics such as infiltrating through enemy lines under cover of darkness, moving forward rapidly to a flanking position to arrive at their rear, and attacking defenders using the element of surprise. [8] Arriving at the front near Verdun on 22 August 1914, Rommel initially commanded a platoon in 2nd Battalion, 124th Regiment. [9] They were assigned to reconnaissance and courier tasks. His first combat experience was on 22 August 1914, when – catching the French garrison unprepared at the village of Bleid – he and three men engaged the enemy without waiting for the rest of their platoon to arrive. [10] Rommel was often ill while on active duty, particularly with stomach troubles and exhaustion, a problem that manifested itself from the beginning of his career. [11] He was appointed Battalion Adjutant in September. The armies continued to skirmish in open engagements throughout September, as the static trench warfare typical of the First World War was still in the future. [12] On 24 September Rommel was shot in the leg when he engaged several French soldiers armed only with his bayonet (he had run out of ammunition). For this action, he was awarded the Iron Cross, Second Class. [13]
On his return in January 1915, Rommel was assigned to command 9th Company, 124th Regiment, stationed in the trenches near Argonne. [11] [14] On 29 January, he and his platoon crawled through 100 yards (91 m) of barbed wire to engage the French, who were positioned in blockhouses and earthworks. His company was running low on ammunition and were ordered to retreat. Rommel ordered an attack on one of the blockhouses to keep the enemy from opening fire on the withdrawing men. For his work that day, he was awarded the Iron Cross, First Class. [15]
He continued to soldier in the trenches of France for another nine months, and received a minor shrapnel wound to the leg on 29 June 1915. [15] [16] He was promoted to Oberleutnant (first lieutenant) and transferred to the newly created Königliche Wurttemberg Gebirgsbataillon (Royal Wurttemberg Mountain Battalion) of the Alpenkorps in September. He was commander of 2nd Company, which trained in mountain warfare in Austria until December, when they were posted on a 6-mile (9.7 km) stretch of front in the Vosges mountains of Alsace. [17] They remained there, seeing action in reconnaissance work and raids on enemy positions until October 1916, when they were moved to the Southern Carpathians to fight the Romanians, who had joined the conflict in August. [18] In August 1917, his unit was involved in the battle for Mount Cosna, a heavily fortified objective on the border between Hungary and Romania. They succeeded after nearly two weeks of difficult uphill fighting and were withdrawn to reserve on 25 August. [19] The unit spent six weeks recuperating in Carinthia, and Rommel received leave to return to Danzig to see his wife and recover from a gunshot wound to the arm that he had received in the fight at Mount Cosna. [20]
The Mountain Battalion was next assigned to fight on the Isonzo front, a mountainous area which had been the scene of near-constant fighting since the entry of Italy into the war on the Allied side on 23 May 1915. The offensive known as the Twelfth Battle of the Isonzo, or the Battle of Caporetto, began on 24 October 1917 with a four-hour artillery barrage. [21] Rommel's Abteilung, consisting of three rifle companies and a machine gun unit, was part of an attempt to take enemy positions on three mountains: Kolovrat, Matajur, and Stol. [22] Beginning at dawn on 25 October, Rommel took advantage of the terrain to outflank the Italians and gain control of the ridge on Kolovrat, taking 1,500 prisoners in the first three hours. [23] Noticing that there was no field of fire on a supply road leading down to the village of Luico (now Livek), Rommel and 150 of his men proceeded down and captured the town, 2 miles (3.2 km) behind enemy lines. Believing the presence of Rommels' group to be proof that their lines had collapsed, a column of Italian light infantry, 2,000 strong, surrendered after a brief firefight. [24] Before dawn on the 26th, Rommel led his Abteilung, now reinforced with two additional machine gun companies, toward Matajur. They took the village of Jevszek without a fight, capturing another 1,600 men. In spite of orders not to attack, they assaulted Matajur from an unexpected direction from behind the Italian lines, arriving at the summit shortly before noon on 27 October. [25] In two and a half days, he and his small contingent of men had captured 81 guns and 9,000 men (including 150 officers), at the loss of six dead and 30 wounded. [26] Acting as advance guard in the capture of Longarone on 9 November, he again decided to attack with a much smaller force. Reinforcements continued to arrive, and fighting continued through the night. Convinced that they were surrounded by an entire German division, the 1st Italian Infantry Division – 10,000 men – surrendered to Rommel at dawn. For this and his work at Matajur, he (and his battalion commander, Major Theodor Sproesser ) received the order of Pour le Mérite. After a week on leave in January 1918, Rommel was promoted to Hauptmann (captain) and assigned to a staff position with XLIV Army Corps, where he served for the remainder of the war. [27]
References
Rommel was born on 15 November 1891 in Southern Germany at Heidenheim, 45 kilometres (28 mi) from Ulm, in the Kingdom of Württemberg, then part of the German Empire. He was the second of four children of Erwin Rommel Senior (1860–1913), a teacher and school administrator, and his wife Helene von Lutz, who headed the local government council. As a young man Rommel's father had been a lieutenant in the artillery. Rommel had one older sister and three younger brothers, one of whom died in infancy. [1] [2]
At age 18 Rommel joined the local 124th Württemberg Infantry Regiment as a Fähnrich ( ensign), in 1910, studying at the Officer Cadet School in Danzig. [3] He graduated in November 1911 and was commissioned as a lieutenant in January 1912 and was assigned to the 124th Infantry in Weingarten. [4] He was posted to Ulm in March 1914 to the 46th Field Artillery Regiment, XIII (Royal Württemberg) Corps, as a battery commander. He returned to the 124th when war was declared. [5] While at Cadet School, Rommel met his future wife, 17-year-old Lucia (Lucie) Maria Mollin (1894–1971). They married in November 1916 in Danzig. [6]
During World War I, Rommel fought in France as well as in the Romanian and Italian Campaigns. He successfully employed the tactics of infiltrating through enemy lines under cover of darkness or moving forward rapidly to a flanking position to arrive at their rear, to achieve the element of surprise. [7] His first combat experience was on 22 August 1914 as a platoon commander near Verdun, when – catching the French garrison unprepared – he and three men engaged them without waiting for the rest of the platoon to arrive. [8] The armies continued to skirmish in open engagements throughout September, as the static trench warfare typical of the First World War was still in the future. [9] For his actions in September 1914 and January 1915, Rommel was awarded the Iron Cross, Second Class. [10]
Rommel was promoted to Oberleutnant (first lieutenant) and transferred to the newly created Royal Wurttemberg Mountain Battalion of the Alpenkorps in September 1915, as a company commander. [11] In August 1917, his unit was involved in the battle for Mount Cosna, a heavily fortified objective on the border between Hungary and Romania, which they took after two weeks of difficult uphill fighting. [12]
The Mountain Battalion was next assigned to the Isonzo front, in a mountainous area in Italy. The offensive, known as the Battle of Caporetto, began on 24 October 1917. [13] Rommel's battalion, consisting of three rifle companies and a machine gun unit, was part of an attempt to take enemy positions on three mountains: Kolovrat, Matajur, and Stol. [14] In two and a half days, from October 25 to 27, Rommel and his 150 men captured 81 guns and 9,000 men (including 150 officers), at the loss of six dead and 30 wounded. [15] Rommel achieved this remarkable success by taking advantage of the terrain to outflank the Italian forces, attacking from unexpected directions or behind enemy lines, and taking the initiative to attack when he had orders to the contrary. In one instance, the Italian forces, taken by surprise and believing that their lines had collapsed, surrendered after a brief firefight. [16] Acting as advance guard in the capture of Longarone on 9 November, Rommel again decided to attack with a much smaller force. Convinced that they were surrounded by an entire German division, the 1st Italian Infantry Division – 10,000 men – surrendered to Rommel. For this and his actions at Matajur, he received the order of Pour le Mérite. In January 1918, Rommel was promoted to Hauptmann (captain) and assigned to a staff position with XLIV Army Corps, where he served for the remainder of the war. [17]
References
The original versions combined are about 8 300 characters; the suggested versions are about 4 500. Please let me know of any feedback.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
06:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
That was a very poor series of edits. The edits advanced a viewpoint, a viewpont that is clearly biased. It does not take long reading in the sources you cite to see that they are not written in an objective voice, but that they push a particular political view. You comment on sources you have not read, taking the word of someone advancing an argument to place these sources in doubt as to their value. The general lack of knowledge you display on this subject matter and others elsewhere is remarkable. The fact that a source you use may meet criteria as a secondary source does not mean you have found an unbiased viewpoint. The pursuit of historical truth based on the best available evidence should be our dominant concern. That means when we read material and consider introducing it we have to consider what the bias is of the author and guard against allowing the author's bias to enter into the voice of wikipedia. From your comments it would appear you have not read Infantry Attacks or The Rommel Papers, or even any of Liddell Harts works. This places you in a position where you are completely dependent on the opinion of whomever you happen to be reading. If you have not read broadly on a subject you are less able to discern fact from opinion. I asked you to look for sources that presented an alternative view. Did you make any effort to do so? When an author's political view matches your own you are less able to perceive bias in the writing. From what you have offered above any authors that did not match your view you have dismissed, showing that the source you are citing, who is advaincing a particular view, has informed us that the sources that are counter to the author's view are not of any value (Eg: "Searle... refers to "effusive and often uncritical biographies"). Apparently we are to conclue that Searle's opinion is unbiased, but Fraser's is not, and we have Searle himself to tell us so. I find that problematic. As to your editing in general, you have consistently introduced material that is critical of Germans, and removed content that might be viewed as supportive of Germans. The practice demonstrates a marked bias in your editing, which in my view is distorting wikipedia. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 08:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The Rommel Myth theory has also come to the stage when it faces revisionism of itself. For example, basically Maurice Remy [2] (who's also listed as if he belonged to the myth camp, and even more curiously, a French when actually he's a German )argues (with much success) that Rommel was both a Nazi and a hero who fought Hitler: »War er [ Rommel ] ein überzeugter Nationalsozialist, den man verachten muss, oder ein Held des Widerstandes gegen Hitler?«, stellt sich bei genauer Kenntnisnahme der Geschichte so gar nicht. Die Antwort ist nämlich ebenso einfach wie überraschend: Rommel war beides. But even though "his heart did belong to Hitler, it's all the more remarkable that he always found the strength needed to fight against him whenever his conscience required so [3]... Unwilling and probably without ever realizing it, he was part of a murderous system... but no individual sin. [4].
[6] cited by this wiki page). Here, the message is same with the two previously mentioned authors': the man was complicated, vainglorious, seduced by Hitler, yet [the Mythos of] his heroic battles remain nonetheless, like Hitler had predicted.
When I searched for "Rommel legend" or "Rommel myth", the above sources are what I found. I have not found sources that state that the "Rommel myth" is the invention of contemporary historians that are trying to take Rommel down a notch. ... Regarding WP:Biased, this content is built on multiple WP:RS sources (books, articles, studies, etc). This is what the sources said. If you have contemporary sources that state the opposite, I would be glad to review them." The was no response. I believe the onus is on those who disagree with the sources to present alternate WP:RS. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not make myself clear. I was pinging you on the suggested condensing of Early Life/World War I section; this part here: "What specifically is problematic with the suggested copyedit/condensing for the above sections?" The article is very long, so here I'm attempting to make it more readable.
On the discussion of the Rommel myth subsection, I responded on March 10 as follows, which I'm reproducing here:
When I searched for "Rommel legend" or "Rommel myth", the above sources are what I found. I have not found sources that state that the "Rommel myth" is the invention of contemporary historians that are trying to take Rommel down a notch. ... Regarding WP:Biased, this content is built on multiple WP:RS sources (books, articles, studies, etc). This is what the sources said. If you have contemporary sources that state the opposite, I would be glad to review them." The was no response. I believe the onus is on those who disagree with the sources to present alternate WP:RS. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Since it appears that there are no objections, I will go ahead and trim these two sections. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that Ronald Lewin is an appropriate source for this article. Please also see: Rommel_myth#Uncritical_accounts.
I got this book from the library out of curiosity, and it's indeed quite effusive. Opening on a random page, I got this: "But Rommel is one of the Great Captains whose ideas and actions are all of a piece throughout". There are 3 pages of bibliography, minimal footnotes and no endnotes.
I would like to replace Lewin with alternate sources or trim content cited to him where possible. Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed in principal. Shirer is also dated, but one can at least see where he is citing to, and make an informed opinion. In Lewin's case, the book looks mostly "polemical" (i.e. his opinions) as I leafed through it, as there were no endnotes and very minimal footnotes. It's just not on par with books that are available today. Take these statements:
This is given as a statement of fact.
Why is this opinion important or relevant?
There were many other reasons why High Command looked at Rommel this way, such as (mostly) his special relationship with Hitler, his impetuosity and ambition, his lack of acknowledgement of contributions by other units, etc.
See above.
This is constructed in such a way as to buttress (?) Rommel's anti-Nazi credentials. I came across this incident in another source, where it was presented as Rommel resenting the SS, rather than for any ideological reasons.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); External link in |website=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
References
Rommel personally executed a POW in France, and his units there also conducted executions. This sentence is really, really wrong.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 13:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Atrocities committed by Rommel's 7th Panzer Division in France Hitler's African Victims: The German Army Massacres of Black French Soldiers By Raffael Scheck page 24,26 mentions executions of black French soldiers(approximately 109 victims).-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 13:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
That seems to be original research on your part, he only says that Rommel didn't took part directly in massacres of black French soldiers, not that his soldiers didn't took part in them. As to Rommel directly involved, he executed a soldier(of unknown background) on 17th May, and event which he himself wrote about openly. Please do note that involvement of Rommel's troops in mass murder of French PoWs is sourced by several works which you have removed, not only Scheck. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 13:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Any way, the English version of Scheck's book has updated his opinions on the matter [1]. "the operations against Airaines and nearby villages came from the 2nd and 46th ... (Rommel's 7th Panzer Division had already advanced much farther)." Looking at the way Scheck works, I think it highly probable that he had the initital conclusions about Rommel and his division just because of evidences that they had operated there.
By "other locations" did you mean Le Quesnoy? It is very near Airaines and Scheck writes that the 7th Division had advanced much farther. Also, as for Rommel executing the French officer for refusing to obey three times, while it was certainly true, but listing that along with "he and his units executed prisoners...", and writing that "Rommel was personally implicated".. make it sound like it was a crime while no author of note, even the revisionist ones like Beckett, Reuth...etc treats it to be so. -- Deamonpen ( talk) 05:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
And if you would like it, Dennis Showalter says that no massacre happened
-- Deamonpen ( talk) 00:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
How is the section for size now? It appears to be similar in size to "Battle of Gazala and capture of Tobruk", so I think it's appropriate, since the "Rommel myth" is critical in understanding the portrayal of Rommel to the present day. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
This did not really belong in the "Popular perceptions" section; moving it here for storage:
References
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
It's great that new content is being added to the article, but I'd like to suggest that it follows the predominant citation style, which is mostly using shortened footnotes. Please see: Template:Harvard_citation_documentation#Shortened_footnote
This makes it much easier to edit text, without the long web url getting in the way of understanding where the article text ends and where the reference begins. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I added a new section on Rommel's role in propaganda, both Nazi and Allied. This was an important part of his career, which has previously not been covered. Improvements welcome. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Concerning this section:
References
This section does not appear to add much to the article, as some of it belongs in Leadership, or was standard Wehrmacht practice of Bewegungskrieg (war of movement) such as "...Luftwaffe as a forward, mobile artillery to support the advance and help overcome difficult obstacles. ... the ability to concentrate all available strength at one point and then hit that point with everything at hand to force a breakthrough."
Rommel, according to sources, was a skilled practitioner, but he does not appear to have added much to the Maneuver warfare theory to sustain a section. I plan rework it, potentially reallocating material to other section, such as Leadership or specific battles, unless it's already discussed there.
Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I did (mildly) express some concern about the article as a whole ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Erwin_Rommel&curid=19371003&diff=718539645&oldid=718536554), hoping for some dialog - but not having time to dig through all the changes with more specific issues. I plan to circle back for that.
I would expect the removal of sourced material would include at least an edit summary explaining why it is being removed. Is the source no longer considered reliable? Is it just an editorial flow change?
A slower pace would likely help. I appreciate the enthusiasm! --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 04:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
These two sentences appear to be contradictory:
The latter para states that Rommel believed that the Pas-de-Calais would be the most likely invasion point. Peter Lieb states that "Most German commanders, including Rommel, expected the invasion to land at Pas-de-Calais.
References
K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed this quote, as it presents Rommel's opinion, and appears to blame others for the failures in Africa. Douglas Porch calls Rommel a "whiner" as one of his defining characteristics:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I have removed claims that Allies were fabricating Nazi war crimes. Such extraordinary fringe claim would require extraordinary evidence and needless to say go against all mainstream history.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)