Talk:7th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)

Untitled

This would be standard title form for the articles in this series; the page to be moved to is currently a redirect to German 2nd Light Division, which should probably be merged into this article. MisfitToys 00:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support move and merge to conform to standard title form. --Lox (t,c) 09:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support, per nom NickelShoe 16:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 20:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Fan site?

Is this a fan site or a historical article? The 7th PD didn't go out of existence after the French campaing, but you might be forgiven for thinking so from this article. There's also a certain amount of Rommel-woship here.

I re-added the well-earned neutrality tag. I am not an expert on this division, but surely we could add some OOB info and some actual operational history as opposed to the schoolboy stuff in the article now. DMorpheus (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

-True the entire history should be told: The division remained in France until Feb 1941. Then it was refitted and sent to the Eastern front where it fought in the central sector until May 1942. After that it was once again sent to France for refitting. It returned to the Eastern front Feb 1943, this time to the southern sector. It took part in the fighting at Kursk, Kiev, Zhitomir, Kharkov and later in the long retreat through the Ukraine. It was transferred to the Baltic states Aug 1944 and remained there until Nov 1944. It retreated west fighting the Red Army and surrendered to the British Army at Schwerin at the May 1945. Sneaking Viper (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

2nd Light Division merge?

2nd Light Division (Germany) states that it was later reorganized into the 7th. I was wondering if anyone has a problem with incorporating the information on there into here, and making the 2nd Light Division article a redirect to this one? §FreeRangeFrog 08:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Elete Status?

Removed the term elete. Someone had already coimmented,

"In what sense was it 'elite'? Is there any indication that its training and ethos were superior to other formations? It certainly hadn't earned elite status prior to the french campaign, which was the division's 1st campaign after all - although most of its components had served in Poland as the 2nd light division, where it didn't exactly distinguish itself - nor was it particularly noteworthy post 1940"

The term is a subjective description, and was not applied at the time to Panzer units. Therefore its an unnecessary addition. §User:Christwelfwww 20 March 2014.

Treatment of prisoners, allegation of war crimes

The section added on "War Crimes" allegedly committed by the 7th Panzer Division during their operations in France seem highly unlikely. During the period in question the division was under the command of Erwin Rommel, a commander well known for his high regard for the soldiers code of ethics. Multiple times he took actions that placed him at great risk with the German political structure. He acted this way all through the war. Why then would there be a lapse and change of character during six weeks in 1940? Given that it is impossible to prove these things did not happen (attempting to prove a negative), I instead cite a wealth of material that supports the experience of allied men and officers at the hands of German troops under the command of Rommel:

Lewin: "Rommel's attitude to the war was that the important thing was to win it with as few causalities as possible. A saying of which he made frequent use was 'Germany will need men after the war also.' And this concern embraced his enemy." p. 242 In addition, he burned the Commando Order in front of his staff.

Young: Rommel took pride in the clean record of his troops, and of ours, for he had strong views on correct conduct and the observance of the soldiers code. pp. 126-127 The Afrika Korps did not beat up prisoners. On the contrary, after the first pounce it treated them with almost old world courtesy. p.128 Comparing notes with others I found that no one had any cause for complaint until after we were handed over to the Italians. p.128 On the occasions when he met our troops, either as prisoners or wounded, he greeted them as one soldier meeting others and treated them very fairly. p. 136

Westphal at Nuremberg: Q: You were on the African front? A: More than a year and a half. Q: How was the war conducted there? A: I can answer in a sentence: it was conducted in a chivalrous and irreproachable manner. Q: Who was you Chief? A: Marshal Rommel. Q: Did he ever order or sanction violation of the rules of war? A: Never. p. 130

Field-Marshal Earl Wavell sent a copy of his lectures on Generalship to Frau Rommel, inscribed "To the memory of a brave, chivalrous and skilful opponent" As such he would have treated Rommel had he fallen into his hands, for that was our experience of Rommel in Libya. p. 138

Liddell Hart: This was inspired primarily by the speed and surprise of his operations, but it was fostered by the way he maintained in African warfare the decencies of the soldierly code, and by his own chivalrous behavior toward the many prisoners of war whom he met in person. Rommel Papers intro p. xv

And there are many more. Perhaps the best example of Rommel taking personal risk to impose the soldiers code on his forces is his attempt to punish 2nd SS Panzer Division for the actions at Oradour-sur-Glane. When he learned of it he confronted Hitler and requested permission to punish the division. Hilter told him it was none of his business, but it is clear that he was willing to risk his own position and safety over the issue. That being so, it is highly unlikely that these allegations of wrong doing by the 7th under his command in France are true. In fact, the citations presented supporting the claims make use of weak qualifiers such as "probably" and "most likely".

The above being so I recommend the section on "War Crimes" be removed for being of dubious validity and having inappropriate weight upon the article's subject. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the events at Airaines and elsewhere are quite well documented (for example http://pl.scribd.com/doc/4122235/JMHv77p325344), and 7th division took part in them, thus it should stay 89.73.182.190 (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. The article you cite makes the following statement:

While this is suspicious enough, plentiful evidence exists of abuses and murders of Tirailleurs who be came prisoners of the Germans and thus should have enjoyed the protectionof the Geneva convention. A cluster of massacres happened during the battles on the southern shore of the Somme in a group of small towns and villages including Airaines, ten to twenty kilometers west of Amiens. Here the German Second, Sixth, and Forty-sixth Infantry as well as the Fifth and Seventh Panzer divisions (the latter under General Erwin Rommel) fought against the Forty-fourth and Fifty-third RICMS. It took the Germans three days to overwhelm all French resistance in this area. All ready on the first day (June 5th) massacres of the Tirailleurs occurred.

This is the only mention of the 7th Panzer Division in the article. So five divisions are mentioned in this one episode, and for the rest of the article we have the perpetrators being described rather vaguely as "German troops". This is not adequate. You might as well say that every German soldier in the German army was responsible, which in fact is the case that Mr. Scheck attempts to make. If these events occurred and you wish to tie them to the 7th Panzer Division then you need direct association, not a mention that the unit was in the general area, along with four other divisions. This is an article on the 7th Panzer Division. Without being able to tie this unit to the event it is inappropriate to place this assertion of fact in the article.Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The information left in this section seems to have a bases in published literature, and the sources do seem to be from mainstream publications. It is obviously a controversial topic, and the language must careful to maintain a neutral POV. However I don't see why it should be removed, if anything the section should be improved and expanded. Christwelfwww (talk) 04 May 2014

Okay. We'll leave it for now. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)