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.

Deamonpen, if you are referring to the "I shot the colonel" thread ( :-) ), then it was not me, as I did not participate in the discussion.

Regarding relationships with Arabs, that's nothing surprising as it was the official Nazi policy to maintain good relationships with the Arab population as potential allies in the expected fight against the Jews in Palestine. I can look it up in sources if needed. So I don't think this information in the article is particularly needed, but I don't feel strongly about it.

Here's the material in question, for the reference of other editors:

• He [Rommel] urged Axis authorities to treat the Arab with the utmost respect to prevent uprisings behind the front. ^{[1] [2]}

K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for my mistake.

As for quoting Rommel, I suggest we do it from a neutral, moderate view. We should not totally rely on his opinions, certainly, if it is about him saying he was the greatest commander ever. However, we should consider it a primary source if he said in a book (which he wrote in the heat of the moment, about which no author has ever said that it was unreliable and he lied a lot there. Notice that it's a diary not refined memoirs) that he loved Hitler, hated Himmler, and supported this attitude towards the Arabs...etc because it improved the German image (it should be noted that the section doesn't focus on proving or disproving that Rommel treated the Arabs with moderation, or that the Axis authorities chose this policy because Rommel proposed so or Himmler proposed so. The section just talks about how Rommel did see it both ways, that in Rommel's mind the idealistic and the practical (i.e propaganda and German benefits) can go along with each other. Rommel's way was that he would propose that the Germans should try hard to be benevolent, dashing conquerors, not to be useless do-gooders, but because that would bring these great benefits - let's go to Hradschin in Praha with me because leaders should be fearless and it will show the German might, let's pay the French good wages because it's wrong to use slaves and they will try hard to build our Atlantic Wall anyway, let's make a Jew a Gauleiter and the world won't believe the enemy's propaganda, let's lead the troops the way Seydlitz and Zieten did because it's wrong for a commander to avoid his troops' sufferings and also because that way we can solve the class problem, remake German mentality and unite the society too!... ). Just make clear that we cite his diaries and that's good enough for me.

Deamonpen ( talk) 09:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Rommel's memoirs may be useful for those who want to understand his thinking, but I think we need to keep two things in mind:

(1) Rommel was writing the notes with a view of publishing them as a book after the war, so he was self-editing;

(2) His writing was indeed edited—by B.H. Liddell Hart (a clear admirer, as evidenced by the material that's been taken out over the course of the past couple of months), Rommel's widow & son, and Rommel's former chief of staff.

So the natural inclination was to present Rommel in the best possible light and align his image to what was acceptable at that time (early 1950s). Hence the tie-in with the Clean Wehrmacht narrative or the tendency to accept Rommel's word that his failings were all due to external forces (Hitler, Italians, OKH/OKW, etc)—rather than his mistakes, including in strategy, or lack thereof. For example, I read a scholarly article that argued that the supposed bad performance of Italians in WWII largely finds its origins in Rommel's writings, and this perception has persisted to this day.

Additionally, with the volume of literature available on Rommel and the Mediterranean Theatre, such as by Porch, Reuth, Caddick-Addams, Kitchen, Watson, Barr and Messenger (just to name some of those that I've used in the article), I don't think we as editors need to parse The Rommel Papers as this has already been done by the authors that I mentioned (let alone Butler, who wrote a biography). So if the secondary sources make note of passages from Rommel's memoirs, then it's appropriate to use them, but cite to the secondary sources, rather than to the Papers. That would be my preferred approach. K.e.coffman ( talk) 10:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)]

I suggest you to read The Rommel Papers and decide that whether what Rommel wrote there was enough to create some sort of bad legend about the Italians, because I have the feeling you haven't read it yet - I apologize if this is not the case. Sure, here and there, when Italians shot and missed him form fifty yards (because they mistook him for the enemy - this he did not blame them), he made a sly half angry half amused comment about Italian marksmanship. And again, it was about officers who let soldiers run into dangers while sitting comfortably behind. But he gradually developed natural feelings for the lower ranks whom he called good soldiers, and sympathy for Mussolini whom he respected. Maybe his view was one-sided and he did not see his own problems, maybe sometimes he thought that he was still at Caporetto fighting the Italians there, but there had to be a kernel of truth about Italians' earlier weak performance (no matter what the reason) if Mussolini had to apologize to Hitler about it, and about officers abandoning soldiers if "not a few Italians" criticized [ [1]] Bastico and others for letting Rommel do the job. Certainly the Allied soldiers at the time already knew that Rommel complained much about his Italian allies, and it was a joke they could share with him. All in all, in the Rommel's Papers, when he had become calmer, he was certainly nicer to the Italians than in the vicious comments Mellenthin and modern authors said he said to the Italians' faces, right after any disaster happened. Certainly much nicer than his attitude towards his German High Command, Himmler, Bormann...etc

Again I suggest that if it was about articles/passages that rate Italian fighting performance, then we should use multiple sources, definitely not just Rommel, preferably Italian sources if available. But if it is about Rommel's opinion on Italians in a Rommel article, we might quote Rommel himself before all historians.

As for him self-editing, the question is that whether he had the time and the capability to do so. He was a busy commander who hastily made some notes each morning before going to battle, usually to serve an immediate audience - his wife. Let's say if on day 29 he realized that he should have not written something he wrote on day 20, could he have edited the whole things to make it look consistent, rewrite whole pages (before erasing would look suspicious - anyway could he have predicted that they would fall into the hands of former opponents?)..etc like people do with their post war memoirs? Liddel Hart was certainly pro-Rommel, however does he and others have a reputation (other than making positive comments on Rommel's writings) for radically altering the texts Rommel wrote? Do recent historians complain about Rommel family preventing them from approaching the original writings or do they find signs of Liddel Hart, Bayerlein or Manfred Rommel faking documents? And can you point me to a more reliable version of Rommel's writings, I would be glad to know. Like you, I have the opinion that generally Liddel Hart and others accepted what Rommel wrote. Because they believed he made a good enough case for himself. Deamonpen ( talk) 02:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This inserted a new citation among the text already cited. So I restored prior version, by appending the new content to the end of the paragraph.

Compare:

With the edit:

• The American press soon began to take notice of Rommel as well, following the country's entry into the war on 11 December 1941, writing that "The British (...) admire him because he beat them and were surprised to have beaten in turn such a capable general". Rommel himself, no matter how hard the situation was, made a deliberate effort at always spending some time with soldiers and patients, his own and POWs alike, which contributed greatly to his reputation of not only being a great commander but also "a decent chap" among the troops. ^{[1] [2]}. General Auchinleck distributed a directive to his commanders seeking to dispel the notion that Rommel was a "superman". ^{[3] [4]}

Restored version:

• The American press soon began to take notice of Rommel as well, following the country's entry into the war on 11 December 1941, writing that "The British (...) admire him because he beat them and were surprised to have beaten in turn such a capable general". To counteract any demoralizing effect such articles might have on the British troops, General Auchinleck distributed a directive to his commanders seeking to dispel the notion that Rommel was a "superman". ^{[1] [2]} Rommel, no matter how hard the situation was, made a deliberate effort at always spending some time with soldiers and patients, his own and POWs alike, which contributed greatly to his reputation of not only being a great commander but also "a decent chap" among the troops. ^{[3] [4]}

Please let me know if there are any questions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit makes the definite impression that when Auchinleck wrote the order to prevent officers from enhancing Rommel's reputation, what he had in mind was media's portrayals of Rommel (this I don't know where you get from). Certainly he was popular, with media's portrayals being one of the reasons. But assuming that the Allied soldiers who fought him were totally under the spell of such portrayals in deciding who the man they were fighting was, until their own commander had to tell them that it was stupid to do so, was a total underestimate of their intelligence, do you think so? While [ letter] seems to suggest that the officers themselves were impressed with his behavior, and Madjalani suggests that it was exactly the case.

So I restore my version too. I don't think any word on what Auchinleck had in mind is needed either - let's allow the wiki reader to decide. Deamonpen ( talk) 01:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I restored to prior version where the citations were appropriately placed. Indeed, the sources listed make a connection between the British propaganda and its impact on the troops. The edit that I fixed inserted material inside the text cited to sources. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with taking this out: "To counteract any demoralizing effect such articles might have on the British troops, ..." as long as citations stay in proper locations. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That works better, I think. It's simple, we know for a fact he had a little fanclub consisted of Allied soldiers - some of it due to propaganda (by Hitler's admission, although he was probably the one who knew the power of Rommel's personality best), some of it due to his actions and charisma (as the letter sent to Auchinleck by one of his officers said). That's the same with even modern celebrities - meaning less serious, less divinized figures: no propaganda machine can sell to the public a figure on its own power alone - because such machines often support many aspiring models, singers, actors... but just a few register on the public's mind, worthy or not. In the end the people themselves, shallow teenagers or bitter critics or hardened soldiers, decide who they like.

Deamonpen ( talk) 06:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The article states that "During Rommel's time in France, Hitler ordered him to deport the country's Jewish population; Rommel disobeyed". This is based on dubious source that is neither a historian nor scholarly book, it's a biography by a filmaker Benjamin Patton along with letters from his father. According to /info/en/?search=The_Holocaust_in_France article the deportations of French Jews happened in March 1942.Here at Yad Vashem site we can learn that [2] they happened mainly in July. Nowhere is Rommel mentioned. Such deportations and actions were organized mainly by Einsatzgruppen and SS during WW2(although with Wehrmacht's assistance), and it seems very unlikely that deportation of over 150,000 French Jews would be assigned to Rommel and his division. This seems sensationalist and very poorly sourced. If there are no objections I will remove the dubious source.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 09:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Except in one instance, the information in this section is a history of the Rommel's division and the execution of POWs. Do any of the secondary sources discuss how Rommel was involved in these activities? I'd suggest those parts are are not are not notable enough in relation to Rommel to take us such a large section in this article. Thoughts? --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 03:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you missed the first part, Rommel himself was involved in execution. In general the section isn't too large compared to others, and in relation to its importance. As the commanding officer of these units Rommel of course was responsible for their acts. In general I would only trim it by removing some less reliable sources seemingly supporting Rommel Myth by for example claiming he didn't knew or support executions, despite Rommel boasting about being involved in one.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 08:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not miss that first part: that's the exception I mention.

"As the commanding officer of these units Rommel is of course was responsible..." may be true, but are there any sources that discuss Rommel's culpability (beyond the first one) in these other actions or are they here only because they happened in Rommel's division - without identifying his influence. If there is not discussion of the influence, I would suggest the sources don't believe it is notable enough. Such horrendous acts happened in many divisions, including American divisions. What makes it notable here? --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 16:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"French civilians and Italian prisoners of war held by the Germans were forced by officials under the Vichy government[334] , the Todt Organization and the SS forces[335] to work on building some of the defences Rommel ordered constructed, although they got basic wages and the conditions were "not terrible".[336][334]"

So what does author consider the conditions? Bad? Very Bad? Or just that they weren't terrible because the workers weren't short randomly but only when they wanted to be free and disobeyed?

This is really a shining example of a very distorted view in these kinds of topics. At the end of the day these were people whose lives depended on whim of the German overseeing them and were essentially slaves that could be shot at any time. I will remove this sentence unless there any reasonable objections. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC) That

So the French civilians's words are distorted but your views based on... nothing are not.

Many thousands of French men were forced to work on the Atlantic Wall as part of an arrangement between the Vichy government and the Albert Speer’s Organisation Todt.

“There was no choice about it. We had to go. Naturally we weren’t enthusiastic, but it is not as if we had any choice. The conditions were not terrible. We weren’t beaten or anything and we got a basic wage. At the start we could go home on Sundays, but after Stalingrad they put up barbed wire and we were stuck inside the work camp. Of course we knew we were building defences for the Germans, and it felt bad. I remember at the end of the war, my two brothers came home. One had been a prisoner, the other a deportee. I felt so bad I did not want to go to the party celebrating their return. But I do think the wall should be preserved now. It is important to remember what happened – the ignominy of it all, the cataclysm that we had to endure.” (Rene-Georges Lubat) Deamonpen ( talk) 14:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC) And? Have you ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome? Does the single quote from single person change the fact that these were slaves that Germans could kill at any time?-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

He said he felt bad and not enthusiastic, and that he realized he had done something benefited the bad guys, it doesn't sound Stockholmish to me.

(I would say Mengele's victims were, though. But even then they retained the ability to recognize the situation as terrible)

I'm not a psychologist though, but maybe you are one? I put "not terrible" in brackets for a reason, that we don't have (yet) statements from historians and other witnesses about how the conditions were, especially in comparison with other places like Eastern concentration camps. I feel the ref is valuable because it shows they did get wages and probably some lightening of condition like Rommel had suggested (we don't have evidences, but it seems possible that although Rommel's "charity" suggestions were sometimes outlandish to the elites' ears, the Nazis did listen to him to an extent, because I haven't heard about Eastern prisoners getting wages)

Deamonpen ( talk) 15:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

In this edit on 17th June [3] user Deamonpen edited the article adding a concealed link to a Holocaust Denial website as source of claim for legality of Rommel's execution of prisoner. The link is concealed within the text(the main text in Wikipedia article won't show where it actually goes, the hyperlink does show it), and goes to infamous Adelaide Institute The Adelaide Institute was formed in 1995 from the former Truth Mission that was established in 1994 by convicted Holocaust denier Gerald Fredrick Töben. The Adelaide Institute is a Holocaust denial group[1] in Australia and is considered to be anti-Semitic by the Australian government's human rights commission.[2]

I will proceed with removal of this source from the article.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that the site was anti-Semitic or denied Holocoust. Yes you did a right thing removing the links. However I think you should avoid removing other contents that are not related to disputed sources, and supported by other sources (already there) while inserting your info, like the fact the officer was summoned three times or the labourers getting basic wages. This as I notice, you've done multiple times. Besides the article and the claims, while requoted by the Adelaide Institute, are not theirs, but the author Richard Weston's and Quadrant's, who have no anti-Semitic reputation. Deamonpen ( talk) 04:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I post this one again because obviously some people don't understand these linguistic subtleties, or are deliberately so, in order to say that if a historian uses "Rommel Myth," what he means is that post-war praises MUST be lies or misconceptions. Actually it's a direct translation of the German "Mythos Rommel". But Mythos Rommel as being used by German authors refers to something mostly neutral, like "the Enigma of Rommel" or "The Rommel Mystery" or even "the Mythology of Rommel", for example here Peter Lieb (one of the authors listed as if he's one who's trying to debunk "the Rommel myth") states that he "is and remains Mythos".

The Rommel Myth theory has also come to the stage when it faces revisionism of itself. For example, basically Maurice Remy(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 ... Unwilling and probably without ever realizing it, he was part of a murderous system... but no individual sin." His famous book is certainly the one that is named Mythos Rommel.

Cornelia Hecht, who staged and wrote her own Mythos Rommel (hugely successful exhibition, and booklet) also sees him and his Mythos in an ambivalent light, rather than outright negative or positive: Von Rommel könne man „viel über Ambivalenz lernen“, so die Stuttgarter Landeshistorikerin Dr. Cornelia Hecht.

This revisionism vs revisionism trench was the reason Der Spiegel had to change its general tone towards Rommel, beginning with this (one of the two authors was also the author of the "New Research taints image of Rommel." cited by this wiki page, written some years before this more balanced one). 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. Deamonpen ( talk) 15:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I did actually take the trouble to read both the posts above, but still, see WP:TLDR (which applies even more to swathes of non-English text). Per WP:NOTFORUM, we aren't going to debate Rommel here. Do you have some concise, specific, statement of a change you'd like? -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 17:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

My immediate target audience is MyMoloboaccount who kept repeating things like "Rommel myth statements" "this is faboyism and Rommel Myth" which seems to suggest that in the way he sees it, Rommel Myth = Lies about Rommel, or at least something very negative. Admittedly he's probably not the first one I've seen doing so. Probably because in the modern, global version of English, "X Myth" usually indicates something that needs to be "debunked". Obviously that's not the case with Mythos Rommel in previously mentioned German historians' views. Yes I know we don't discuss him here (although I agree that if some authors write in a way possibly unclear to some of the audience due to multiple reasons, explaining a bit does no harm), I just tried to be patient with MyMoloboaccount as he suggested that authors who sounded biased/senseless to his ears should be deleted. However I promise that next time I will try to be short. My general view is that if wiki readers see "Rommel myth" and think "Lies about Rommel", it's our failure in conveying the message(s), so please be careful. Also if you haven't noticed it yet, it was not me who started "Rommel Myth sentences not adding anything to the article" section or the one before it. If mods see that these explanations are not necessary, feel free to remove. Deamonpen ( talk) 18:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Did we really needed to read a long Original Research about how Rommel was great, Hitler's predictions are coming true and historians are forced to admit Rommel is a hero? In earnest this long essay should be deleted from the talk page....-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop using words like "original research" so freely. If you can read German, read these article to see, whether authors that are used in the Rommel myth section and article hold the same view as yours. If you cannot, please avoid slanderous comments that helps nobody. Certainly I (or somebody else) will make necessary clarifications on the Wiki contents when I have time. But I think I've collected enough evidences here say what I said. I welcome revisionistic views on Rommel, as long as the mentioned authors are not mispresented in multiple ways.

Deamonpen ( talk) 05:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed two sentences that are just repeat of previous sentences in the article and don't add anything of substance. "Other authors argue that generosity to opponents was a natural trait of the man, like Claus Telp who states that Rommel by nature was chivalrous and not prone to order needless violence,[308] or Robert Forczyk who considers Rommel a true great captain with chivalry." First of all we can read that Rommel was "chivalrous" in several other locations of the article including couple of sentences above this one. Another one is not really needed. Second of all what does "Rommel was by nature chivalrous" mean at all? That the author believes some men are by nature more noble than others? Then we have another Rommel Myth claim about him not prone to needless violence although he is well known to be enthusiastic in support of invasion of Poland and in charge of executing a defenseless prisoner. The sentence about Rommel being " true great captain with chivalry" what does it actually add to the article? We already have section on propaganda and how people idolize Rommel, we don't really need more examples of that. The sentence doesn't really add any facts or information that is of any importance. The above sentences are just pointless clutter and really should be removed. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

-We also have plenty of sentences saying that modern authors don't agree with post-war ones who supposedly lie or are misguided about his chivalrous image. It's not about some misguided 'people' who lack information, it's historians who as far as I know are not considered unorthodox, having ulterior motives... (Not that I say we should totally exclude such authors, because sometimes unpopular people bring out right answers. It's just if we reference them we should make some kind of note).

Many authors also explain him as supporting invasion of Poland because: -Misguided beliefs in Hitler's previous bloodless expansion - Belief in German population in Poland needing protection (because they were really suppressed there) - Invasions before WW2 were not something *that* illegal. *Noble" countries like the Allied countries invaded Asia and Africa all the time - Rommel's personal idol Napoleon, by defeating German princes, helped to unite Germany and weakening the class system, thus an example of conquerors who benefited native populations. - They didn't have nukes yet so the image of war was not as terrible as today.

Also, (almost) Immediately in front of these two sentences is a sentence who mentions that he did what he did because he tried to conceal Nazi crimes and not out of noble motives, so these two sentences represent opinions that argue against that theory.

What those authors mean by chivalry in nature, as I see it, is that his conduct was not about some materialized, "realistic" benefits but out of his natural inclinations. Like you save a drowning person because you see one, you don't even think, and that's that. And if you read Forczyk, he's not even Rommel's fan. He's Model's fan through and through. I don't know about the other.

Whether shooting that defenseless prisoner was necessary/legal or not you can read the two articles quoted in "Executions of prisoners" section. Some will also argue that as a commander, he needed time, and dealing with a prisoner who refused to obey three times took too much precious time - if he had allowed this, other prisoners might imitate knowing that he was soft and then his army would not be able to advance any more. In some countries in the West today, even during times of peace, police would shoot if you don't obey them after a certain level of warning, whether you have weapons or not. So if you see that as unnecessary violence, that's still your personal opinion. Telp certainly also knows that case - he says Rommel "was forced" to shoot that prisoner.

Deamonpen ( talk) 15:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Belief in German population in Poland needing protection (because they were really suppressed there) What are you actually saying ? You realize that is a claim made by Nazi propaganda to justify genocidal war against Poles ?

Invasions before WW2 were not something *that* illegal. Invasion of Poland was illegal and a war crime(interestingly Rommel was complicit in its planning and thus would be sentenced as war criminal if he managed to survive), for which Nazis like Rommel were sentenced in Nuremberg Trials. Are you claiming that Invasion of Poland was legal? On what basis and what sources are you using.

In some countries in the West today, even during times of peace, police would shoot if you don't obey them after a certain level of warning, whether you have weapons or no You just compared victims of Nazi war and executions to criminals shot by police. Your personal views here are not relevant to the fact that the sentences about supposed Rommel being chivalrous are completely out of place, unnecessary, repeat Rommel Mythos and go against actual events.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

- /info/en/?search=Polish_Corridor It was a legitimate German concerns, however Hitler certainly overstepped his boundaries (which R. could not predict). -I will not comment further on how colonial powers judged certain invasions illegal, and others not. But no he did not join the planning, writing to Lucie on August 31 1939 about how they will enjoy the rest of their life without war. Remy pg 42. -Whether the officer was a "victim" or not is a debatable matter. And many people who are shot by police for disobeying haven't been put in a trial yet, you can't call all of them criminals. Lsst time I replied to talks that should have been put in a forums though

Deamonpen ( talk) 05:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

As a follow up to the above discussion, I'd suggest removing a statement from a veteran:

• ...while Richard Weston, veteran at Tobruk, argues that it was not only legal but also made sense considering Rommel's situation. ^{[1] [2]}

The article appropriately cites notable historians and authors, and introducing an opinion of an essentially lay person appears to give this statement undue weight. Weston is not a historian or an expert on the law of war. The Quadrant (magazine) article states that it's a "literary and cultural journal"; so it does not appear to be a specialist publication that's appropriate in citing for this controversial issue. Would like to hear feedback from others. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not every historian/journalist is an expert on laws of war either. In fact I would say very few have anything near a Bachelor of Laws degree. But Weston is a military who has fought in Tobruk, and I expect militaries to know the laws of their profession, especially those of their times. And we have no law expert's opinion, so I suggest that we respect militaries and historians as equals. Just as we respect historians who write on generals' military performances, including those who have commanded and those who never command a single unit.

At least Weston seems to know what is customary in his profession at that time, regarding treatment of prisoners, and freely admits that he joined the shooting of prisoners when they tried to run away, without apparently until today anyone bringing him to trial for it. I state his profession in the article, whether that's enough credentials or not I think we should let the wiki reader decides, I mean if this serious bookquotes his opinion, and many times at that (see the References part of that book, the author lists two articles of "Weston, Richard, anti-tank gun commander) why wiki can't. As for Quadrant, yes they're about culture but what kind of culture... they talk a lot about politics, terrorism, military culture, probably much more than about poetry or love, see for yourself. Deamonpen ( talk) 06:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You are inventing Wikipedia rules on the spot to justify your edits. A letter in a newspaper by unverified individual is hardly reliable source of information or notable to push such controversial statement. As to the Quadrant it is actually connected to right wing movement. Genocide and Resistance in Southeast Asia: Documentation, Denial, and Justice in South East Asia by Ben Kiernan states "Its CIA sponsor had already found Quadrant "too right wing," and "wanted to distance". And this is pretty clear here that it isn't any reliable academic newspaper:

The history of this academic-populist fracas is fascinating. Between October and December 2000, in the right-wing magazine Quadrant, Windschuttle wrote three articles under the general heading "The myths of frontier massacres in Australian history". He was not, by any conventional academic definition of the term, an expert in the field. That didn't matter. Quadrant articles are not subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny as articles for academic publication.

In any case it doesn't even matter. As stated beforehand a letter signed by an unverified individual isn't either notable or reliable.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Weston should come out as wp:undue. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see much point in the Weston comment. But I also think the shooting of one prisoner deserves no more than a brief mention -- one sentence. Since it never got to a trial or any other official legal review, all we have are speculations based on incomplete hearsay. Nothing can come of it. Even if the WP:TRUTH is that this one killing was illegal (or not), that really doesn't say much about Rommel. It was war. If such killings were systematic of his command, okay, but a big focus on just one single incident tends to imply the opposite, which shouldn't be our intent. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 21:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree about Adelaide Institute being neo Nazi, because notable organizations say so. But one author commenting about a magazine being too right wing and mentioning one incident while supposed extreme rightish articles of an author are allowed, is enough evidence for it being unacceptable as a source? It sounds like Bernie Sander being accused of being extreme left and Stalinist etc by certain people. Because a truely extreme right would've allowed the publication of the previous letter which said shooting was legal but still made Rommel a criminal? The book previously quoted above mentions two articles of Weston, one of which also being sent to Quadrant, so he was not one-timed contributor.

Again, the standard of wiki allows the listing of such magazines like Dailymail as sources, which if listed as a Reference by a serious historian will be considered ridiculous. They will not list verified authors' sayings in magazines either, as we do here. A letter is at least better. And he is a verified individual. Why the hell is an author listed by a serious historian, one apparently living at least into the 2000s and still joining multiple activities in his country, including giving interviews through the Internet, considered unverified? And you haven't published a scientific paper, have you? It's not about "letters." Basically the editors accept you to be who you introduce yourself to be, and expect the real individual to speak if there was any falsification. By this standard many other authors will be considered unverified.

And here is your bias. I notice you say nothing about Bewley's letter (because it's also a letter). He is not a source listed by any historian either (as far as I can search for, please correct me if I'm wrong).

But yeah, I agree maybe one sentence is enough. Because "criminal" or not, is a very serious accusation, and needs decisions by legal organizations, not just historians or journalists or veterans.

That's why the article about Churchill does not have "war criminal" in the head, although many authors accuse him of being so.

Deamonpen ( talk) 00:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this perhaps a WP:Overcite, that is are six citations needed for this statement?

• Additionally, Goerdeler had written down Rommel's name on a list as potential Reich President (according to Stroelin, they had not managed to announce this intention to Rommel yet and he probably never heard of it until the end of his life). ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}

I think that Misch and Young can be dispensed with as dated, possibly also Shirer. I suggest keeping Reuth, since this was the source I used, and perhaps retaining Hansen and / or Marshall? K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

By the guidelines on this page, I don't think it applies. I usually cite with the intention of showing how the same content is treated by different authors through the eras, and encourage the curious readers to excavate the original sources to see how the same events are accompanied by different perspectives, not (just) to prove that the event mentioned is true. Also I think old sources should not be dismissed just because they are old, especially if also supported by new sources. Misch is not dated though, the person maybe, not his book, although actually I'm not sure it's a plus, because memoirs are considered less considerable if written in old ages. However it seems he is not criticized much for inaccuracies. I pay attention to him since according to him it seems Rommel knew about them trying to make him President (thus contradicting Stroelin's words that the intention was discussed in a hurry, and never came to Rommel's ears. Although Stroelin was obviously the one who knew the whole thing better than anyone else. Whether he said the truth or not is another matter), and Misch's friend Gauss (one of Rommel's few close aides, although initially an 'agent' who was sent by Halder to control Rommel) tried to talk him out of the whole business, for Rommel's own benefits (Misch should receive no benefit here in claiming to know about these events, since he doesn't claim to change his loyalty towards Hitler or supporting the rebels).

This part (that shows even Gauss knew about the plans) sounds honest to me, because Lieb has also found a note of Gause on his copy of Young's book on Rommel, regarding the part Rommel knew nothing about the coup, "Stimmt nicht" ("Not true").

Deamonpen ( talk) 07:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Commenting:

• On July 17, Rommel was incapacitated by an Allied air attack, which many authors describe as a fateful event that drastically altered the outcome of the bomb plot. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} Writer Ernst Jünger commented: "The blow that felled Rommel... robbed the plan of the shoulders that were to be entrusted the double weight of war and civil war - the only man who had enough naivety to counter the simple terror that those he was about to go against possessed." ^[5])

This appears to be undue weight, as equally as many describe Rommel's incapacitation as immaterial to the success or failure of the bomb plot. For example, Norman J. Goda states, in discussing the Hitler oath: "... There were also field marshals such as Rommel and Kluge who despite the oath were willing to have others shove Hitler to the side and act accordingly after the fact". K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

you may cite those authors when presenting an alternative view beside this one. I think "Authors A, B, C, D say it was serious. Authors E, F, G, H say it was not serious. Conclusion: it was not serious or serious, but less serious than what authors A, B, C, D describe. " is the wrong way to do things (except if one group is more recent AND has definite proofs that their answer is true). No, just present it as "Authors A, B, C, D say it was serious. Authors E, F, G, H say it was not serious." I can find still many more authors who say that this incapacitation was serious, at least those considered experts on Rommel, so I am not sure that it's in equal numbers.

Also it seems from the conspirators' point of view, they felt terrible about this. At that moment, after hearing about the accident, Stülpnagel was stunned and exclaimed "It was the last straw!" (Remy, pg.306), echoing Ernst Juenger's later statement about how this terrible omen, robbing them of the guy who would shoulder war and civil war, meant that they were going to fail.

Besides, I haven't read Goda, but it seems he believes so because he also believes Rommel was not committed to "the cause", but acted somewhat like Rundstedt who would let the conspirators do what they wanted but wouldn't act until the result showed itself. And that's the difference, authors who believe that Rommel was at least committed to opening his front independently would normally think that his incapacitation was importance. If any change is made, this should be kept in mind.

Deamonpen ( talk) 07:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I had previously started a discussion on this topic, suggesting the section be removed, to which there was no objection Talk:Erwin_Rommel/Archive_5#Wehrmachtbericht_references. I'm replicating it here to see if a consensus can be achieved. Original post:

• "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)"

Also compare to an article on another Field Marshal, Erich von Manstein, which is a GA article:

• "Eight mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht: 11, 12 and 31 October 1941; 19 and 20 May 1942; 2 July 1942; 20 March 1943; 4 August 1943"

It does not contain the Wehmachtbericht wording, apart from a reference to Manstein's being mentioned in the report.

K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that the approach in the Manstein article is superior in this regards. The Wehrmachtbericht was a Nazi propaganda broadcast, and historians don't quote it. The material here is additionally troublesome as it presents this propaganda with no context whatsoever. The claim that Tobruk was "highly reinforced" in 1942 for instance is total rubbish: the city's defences had largely been destroyed following the 1941 siege and the troops in the town were highly disorganised and not really capable of effective resistance. The 1943 broadcast is more honest (especially the surprisingly frank admission to the brutal way in which the German forces treated the unfortunate Italians), but also presents a rather partial and biased perspective. Nick-D ( talk) 09:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see the Wehrmachtbericht being included in the article of a military soldier or as to a military action when relevant. In those instances it should not be totally removed; Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski can be distinguished and would not fall into that category. Kierzek ( talk) 20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I went through the exercise of replacing the Wehrmachtbericht transcripts with appropriate prose and / or citations on several artcles, and I can say I feel more convinced that they add zero value to the encyclopedia. I never used to read them, because they just looked a block of text to me. When I first encountered these sections on WWII articles, I was confused mostly about two things: (1) what this was in the first place; and (2) why they took up so much real estate, and had their own prominent section. (That's why I rewrote the linked article).

Here are some examples of the reports. In some cases, they simply contain no information, as in the first bullet below. Overall, this exercise has left me mildly disturbed, as they ooze the "Nazi propaganda newsreel" vibe (emphasis mine):

• In the battles on the East Prussian border, two battle groups under the leadership of the Oak Leaves bearers Colonel Koetz and Colonel Lauchert have particularly distinguished themselves.

• The 106th Panzer Brigade "Feldherrenhalle" under the leadership of Oberst Baeke, who is decorated with the Oak Leaves with Swords to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, distinguished itself by showing attacking spirit and determined stableness in the defensive battles in the lower Alsace. It shot up 40 enemy tanks ^{dubious – discuss} in 3 days.

• The military measures for the protection of the neutrality of Denmark and Norway were carried out on 9 April from strong units in close cooperation of the Heer, the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe under the high command of General of the Infantry von Falkenhorst, of naval forces under the command of Generaladmiral Saalwächter and Admiral Rolf Carls and from numerous Luftwaffe units under the leadership of Generalleutnant Geißler.

• 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.

There's been so much new WWII historiography in the past twenty years. So, if there was any historical value in the transcripts, I'm sure there would have been published research on them. In the same vein, besides the Uziel, Daniel (2008). The Propaganda Warriors: The Wehrmacht and the Consolidation of the German Home Front. souce, I don't recall seeing anything else.

in short, such material isn't useful to readers (especially as if a mention in this broadcast was considered a noteworthy honour, it can be covered just as well without the transcript), and is additionally highly problematic as it's unreliable Nazi propaganda. Articles on Allied military units and individuals don't include the text of mentions in dispatches or communiques, and rightly so.

In a few cases where I tried to incorporate the transcript into the prose, it came out looking sort of hokey, and I'm not sure what value it adds; see: Michael Wittmann#Awards. I'm more inclined to follow Diannaa's example: step2 and step 2. This leaves simple text, allowing the readers to click on the link to find out more:

• Mentioned twice on the Wehrmachtbericht (21 June 1942 and 10 September 1943)

If someone is willing to do the work and provide citations, I'd be all for it. But I'd rather not have to read more of the reports. We can see how the consensus continues to develop. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe following this example for military personnel is reasonable: * "Eight mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht: 11, 12 and 31 October 1941; 19 and 20 May 1942; 2 July 1942; 20 March 1943; 4 August 1943".

postscript - It is of the type which you have above. (sorry, tired, time to stop for the night). Kierzek ( talk) 01:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; it aligns with the way the other awards are presented. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Text removed, for reference:

• As announced by special announcement, German and Italian troops under the command of Colonel General Rommel assaulted yesterday most of the highly reinforced Fortress Tobruck.
• In northern Italy, Field Marshal Rommel with his divisions of his army group, after a short battle, but fought by our troops with deepest bitterness, forced the Italian forces to surrender.

K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: please see discussion at NPOV noticeboard on the topic. According to feedback there, these quotations fail WP:UNDUE. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I totally don't want to talk about this thing again. However, I still find "... with Rommel being directly involved..." totally unacceptable. If even Caddick Adams who finds the execution illegal does not use this as a piece of evidence to link it to, or prove other alledged incidents regarding the 7th - and I can say this is the approach of at least the majority of authors (whatever they think about Rommel's order), and even if both had been crimes on Rommel's part and the 7th's part, the circumstances and motivations were totally different. The single execution (if we considered it a crime) could've happened anywhere, in a moment the commander was irritated by at least a partly justified reason, a la a crime of passion. Deliberate, prepared massacre is another problem. Let alone we already have the repeated mention of such massacres in the same section (second paragraph). Deamonpen ( talk) 17:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It's true to different level but I don't think we should insert the phrase. Just let the readers themselves investigate the situation - it was much more complicated than that these three hated Rommel or smth.

The personal feuding factor was only really important in Heinrich Kirchheim's case (who Rommel dismissed and called a coward. Although apparently on the side of Rommel, he did not keep personal grudge nor think much about it, considering he allowed Kirchheim' wife free access to his own family shortly before his death - a woman on the right was Hildegard Kirchheim, according to Marshall, p119)

The other two were more like they had known about the plot beforehand (at least Rundstedt, and I find an author who states the same ab Guderian), but they ducked and waited, and when they saw that Hitler had won, they came out and "surrendered" to him.

At the beginning, the army generally supported Hitler but was lukewarm at best to the Nazi party. Thus the Nazis needed a general or some generals to invigorate the army with the Nazi ideology and the will to fight. They used Rommel for that. But turned out, he also liked Hitler but disliked the party, and he just talked whatever he wanted whether it corresponded with the Nazi ideals or not. They also used Dietrich, Dietl (party members), Model but they were much less efficient because they were much less popular. When R. was "weakened", Hitler looked to Manstein for replacement but, in Hitler's eyes, the guy had "no world view, no character"

After the July plot, there was a void that threatened to swallow the whole regime. Hitler filled that void by Rundstedt and Guderian. They presided over the court martial, issued orders that truly nazified the armed forces, read the oration that delared Rommel had died a loyal Nazi soldier at his funeral...etc In short they helped Hitler to consolidate the Wehrmacht politically, thus his comment that Rundstedt did the regime a great service after the plot.

There was great reluctance on Rundstedt's part - he could not bear to go to the cremation. Even modern authors like Remy (p.229) and Mitcham felt that his affection for R., faint as it was, was genuine. Guderian probably had professional envy, and he was behind Schweppenburg in Normandy, but nothing suggests it went that bad (that he desired to kill R.). In fact von Luck's memoirs recounted a secret meeting between Guderian and Rommel at the Four Seasons Hotel, of which unfortunately we don't know the true content.

In short this was about politics rather than personal feuding, and Hitler chose Rundstedt and Guderian because they were senior officers who were feared and respected by others. And we should encourage readers to look at the bigger picture. Black summarized the thing better: After the unsuccessful July bomb plot of 1944, the bulk of the German military command rallied to Hitler, while Nazification was pushed by Guderian, the new Chief of the General Staff Deamonpen ( talk) 05:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Note 302 cites a long article written for Der Spiegel by "the amateur British historian, David Irving" (Noakes, Jeremy (2004). "Hitler and the Third Reich". In Stone, Dan (ed.). Historiography of the Holocaust. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 42.), which I would like to remove. It has been definitely established that D.I. is a writer with a political agenda, and close ties with neo-nazi groups, and therefore is to be considered an unreliable source.
• In Section "Plot against Hitler" a quote is given, with the unnecessary original German text in note 288, without any reference to its origin. It may come from Remy,2002, not sure though. Can somebody help?
• In Bibliography there is at least one book never cited. In these cases what is the preferred choice: to remove or to move to the next Section Further reading?
• This page has reached a dimension in bytes that is 54% greater than the Adolf Hitler page. Here we are totally out of proportions and such plumpness needs to be curtailed. I didn't check the text yet, but I am sure that cuts are amply warranted, even in the reference department where sometimes 5, 7, 10, 11, 15 citations are piled up one after the other, most likely repeating similar considerations.

Thanks for any help / opinions. Carlotm ( talk) 07:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

-Irving is not amateur. He is controversial though. His biography of Rommel is recognized as a piece of important writing, but usually recommended to be used with care because of the author's bias. I will find a better source for the sentence though. Also, it's in the end Spiegel, not Irving. Der Spiegel usually collects info from many authors before providing their own opinion, in review of a specific work too. Their most updated opinion is that 2012 article though. Many thing have changed.

-It's Ernst Juenger's original sentence, quoted by a lot of sources, yeah including Remy. Perhaps needs to be fixed.

-What book, might I ask, specifically?

-Why do we have to do the comparison between the article with that of Hitler? Because Hitler was more important?

The reason the article is long and there are many references is that almost everything regarding the subject is controversial among the scholars, much more so than Hitler - and I'm absolutely sure about that.

Can you point me to a specific instance references are not guaranteed, for example a non expert author quoting the opinion of another author without his/her own research, or adding anything new? If not, why should we choose to be selective and remove certain ones and not the others? As for my adding of refs, I can explain as followed: In some cases I had to add references because others claimed that they've seen other authors who argue against it. In others, it is about authors who are represented dominantly on other articles related to this subject, without a counter-balance, thus I provide refs in case someone tries to find out more about Rommel after reading other articles, which I don't have time to modify.

Thank you too.

Deamonpen ( talk) 08:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Deamonpen, with a search per last name I found following unused items (E&OE):

• Thompson, Julian (2011); Speidel, Hans (1950); Silverstone, Paul (2011);Robinson, James R. (1997); Grill, Markus (10 October 2002); Green, Leslie C. (1993); Gibson, Charles M. (2001); Fellgiebel, Walther-Peer (2000);Citino, Robert (2007); Churchill, Winston (1949); Chambers, Madeline (2012);Bierman, John; Smith, Colin (2002)

There are also two short notes without their full references (typos?): Friedmann 2012; Remy 2015.

For the other questions I would like to read some more comments. Thanks. Carlotm ( talk) 09:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The following authors, I think, should be moved into Bibliography

Speidel - inaccurate or not, an author who plays a major role in preserving Rommel's reputation, by all accounts

Churchill - same reason

Gibson - author from the US army who criticizes his military performances, I've seen quoted by others. He's critical but reasonably neutral and does bother going into details, without major obvious false representations of facts. Maybe useful for some people.

Bierman, John; Smith, Colin - notable, used and criticized by other authors

Citino - new, notable author of the Myth trend (negative meaning)

Thompson - military person of high rank

Chambers, author of interview: con: basically the author is uninformed regarding the subject and makes several factual mistakes, or at least provides very controversial opinions as facts; pro: she does quote notable critical authors.

Robinson, James R.- author of a critical article published in a military journal, which Joseph Forbes (mentioned in the article, both authors come from military circles) argues against.

I suggest for deleting:

Grill - author of interview, that's about Manfred Rommel rather than his father.

Fellgiebel, Walther-Peer (2000) - not notable in my opnion

Silverstone - probably intended to be used as the source for the naming of destroyer Rommel. Not much information there. This naming is not a fact challenged by anyone, and now not mentioned - I probably will include it, though, in a future adding to the Rommel Myth page regarding his modern image (this article bothers to talk at lengths about movies about him and his image in media)

As for Friedmann 2012: not a mistake. We quote two of his articles here.

Remy - yes, typo, 2002. Deamonpen ( talk) 09:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Deamonpen, when you wrote "The following authors, I think, should be moved into Bibliography" maybe you intended "should be moved to Furter reading section". Currently they are in Bibliography section. As for Friedmann 2012, or it's a typo or the full reference is missing. Currently there is only one Friedmann, Jan (23 May 2007) full reference. Carlotm ( talk) 02:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did not notice that. Just fixed Friedmann. Deamonpen ( talk) 03:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It sounds very unlikely that Rommel was trying to reduce military training if he, by all accounts including that of Jodl who stood on his side in this case, was trying to convert the Hitlerjudgend into a military organization under the Army's management and not the party's. It seems Butler and Mitcham are both influenced by Fraser in this case but i cannot remember what Fraser says. It looks much more likely that, as reported by other authors, he protested against overt ideology training, argued for sport and character training, and agreed with military training which should be provided by professionals like him rather than amateurs like Schirach. Remy suggests that he was very much willing to find chances to tell the story of how he stormed the Matajur to pretty much anyone in the hitlerjugend, including Schirach's wife (she had accidently dropped the keyword "Mountain"; same story would later be told repeatedly to Hitler, Goebbels and Ruge no matter how depressed he became). Deamonpen ( talk) 04:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This section has some tangled sentence structures and disconcerting grammatical problems. Someone who understands how to write AND knows the subject should do some work on it. Thanks 124.148.24.180 ( talk) 01:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Following is inaccurate:

"Numerous streets in Germany, especially in his home state of Baden-Württemberg, are named in his honour, including the street where his last home was located"

His last home is accessible from Bahnhofstraße, Herrlingen, and now houses a small museum (phone ahead to get the key). Postal address: Lindenhof 2, 89134 Blaustein-Herrlingen. Therefore *not* named in his honour.

The street named in after him (Erwin-Rommel-Steige) *is nearby*, and leads to the Erwin-Rommel memorial, which marks the spot where he commited suicide.

How to correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjsims ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)