Talk:Erwin Rommel/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Wait, what? "Rommel treated his Italian opponents with his usual fairness, requiring that the prisoners should be accorded the same conditions as German civilians"

Dieser Krieg ist ein totaler Krieg. Soweit die Männer Italiens nicht mehr die Gelegenheit haben, mit der Waffe für die Freiheit und Ehre ihres Vaterlandes zu kämpfen, haben sie die Pflicht, ihre volle Arbeitskraft in diesem Kampf einzusetzen.“

This war is a total war. If the men of Italy don't have the chance to fight with weapons for the victory of their fatherland, they have the obligation to use their labor in order to achieve this victory.

„Irgendwelche sentimentalen Hemmungen des deutschen Soldaten gegenüber badogliohörigen Banden in der Uniform des ehemaligen Waffenkameraden sind völlig unangebracht. Wer von diesen gegen den deutschen Soldaten kämpft, hat jedes Anrecht auf Schonung verloren und ist mit der Härte zu behandeln, die dem Gesindel gebührt, das plötzlich seine Waffen gegen seinen Freund wendet. Diese Auffassung muss beschleunigt Allgemeingut aller deutschen Truppen werden.“

Sentimentality concerning the Badoglio following gangs Banden, Nazi German dictum for Partisans and other irregular resistance indicating criminality] in the uniforms of the former ally is misplaced. Whoever fights against the German soldier has lost any right to be treated well and shall experience toughness reserved for the rabble which betrays friends. Every member of the German troop has to adopt this stance. Erwin Rommel.

Also Die Wehrmacht im NS-Staat: Eine strukturgeschichtliche Analyse By Jürgen Förster page 67 states in connection to Rommel-during its slow retreat from Italy, Wehrmacht left a broad bloody trail.

Also the quote " requiring that the prisoners should be accorded the same conditions as German civilians" is serious manipulation. The Italian soldiers weren't treated as POWs. They received a status that was called "Military Interned" and were used for forced labor and sent to concentration camps. This article has very,very serious issues. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello MyMoloboaccount It sure does Even more problematic was his relationship to a proposed Einsatzgruppen Egypt. This unit was to be tasked with murdering the sizeable Jewish population of North Africa and the British mandate of Palestine and to be attached directly to Rommel’s Afrika Korps. Its commander, Walther Rauff, had helped design the gas van. Rauff met with Rommel’s staff in 1942 to prepare for the arrival of the units. No evidence exists to record Rommel’s position on the proposed measure, but he was certainly aware that planning was taking place. While the larger Einsatzgruppen were never deployed, smaller detachments did murder Jews in North Africa.https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/erwin-rommelDriverofknowledge (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine By Klaus-Michael Mallmann, Martin Cüpperss supposedly have more information on the subject-I am interested in eventually acquiring this publication which supposedly has more information. I am also interested in behaviour of Rommel and his troops in Tunisia where there was substantial Jewish population. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello MyMoloboaccount, there is a discussion regarding these orders. I believe the current accepted opinion is that from a structural point-of-view, Rommel did have connection to war crimes in Italy , but he himself was not a war criminal and the orders, while "drastic" and with "aggressive wording", were no call for crimes. You can cite the exact sentences from the Jürgen Förster if you want, although I believe there he does not make any argument that contradict those of the historians who discuss this matter in detail (Peter Lieb and Maurice Remy, whose work he mentioned in his own book on Rommel Erwin Rommel: Geschichte und Mythos. Remy and Lieb say that Rommel did not know that the Italian prisoners would be used for force labour (the use of the labour of the POWs was/is not forbidden, as long as several standards are followed); his forces before and after these orders did not treat the Italians harshly, although individual exceptions happened and the SS (who did not report to him) in his area caused atrocities due to the orders that Hitler sent during the time Rommel was in the hospital. Basically, the orders that you mention are not considered criminal orders because they did not create or foster an environment for crimes, and when one puts them in connection with all the orders Rommel sent during the time he was in Italy, the intention of the sender was not removing legal rights of the Italian prisoners either. At worst, these specific orders were unhelpful in rectifying the climate of war that Hitler and the SS created (although Rommel did argue with them in other places).

This is Lieb's interpretation, from the Beckett book:

'The German disarmament of the Italian army in September 1943 was accompanied by numerous infringements and war crimes against the former allies. The most brutal incident was certainly the mass murder of 1,000 to 2,000 Italian prisoners on the Ionian island of Kefalonia following a direct order from Hitler. In Rommel's area of responsibility in North Italy, however, the disarmament happened without major bloodshed. The Italians were sent to Germany as military internees for forced labour, but Rommel was not aware of their fate at that time.

A few weeks later he happened to hear that elements of 1st SS Panzer Division 'Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler' had shot a number of Jews at Lake Garda; units of the same division also burnt down several hundred houses in Boves in thein the Cuneo province on 19 September 1943 and killed twenty-four inhabitants.Rommel was shocked by these atrocities and initiated an investigation which, however, did not come to a conclusion. After this episode Rommel allegedly forbade his son Manfred to join the Waffen-SS.

However, during his time in Italy he also issued what was probably the most radical order in his career. On 23 September he ordered, in reference to fighting the partisans, that 'sentimental scruples' against 'Badoglio-dependent bandits in uniforms of the once brothers-in-arms' were 'totally inappropriate'. This drastic order could have certainly meant a radicalisation of anti-partisan operations, but in reality it did not lead to a tangible increase in German atrocities in Northern Italy. Overall, the situation remained calm and the Germans did not execute larger reprisals in the area of Rommel's Army Group B.

During his time in North Africa Rommel had already been confronted by Hitler's infamous Commando Order of 18 October 1942, which ordered the execution of captured Allied commandos regardless of whether they had been caught in uniform or not. When Rommel received the order in North Africa, he allegedly burnt it. Even though this fact has not been proven, it seems very likely, as the Commando Order was not executed in Rommel's Army Group B. Before and after the invasion the army group bluntly reported that captured commandos had been treated just like any other prisoners of war.'

Here, Klaus Schmider implies that the consensus (one of the sources he cites is a German paper Lieb writes about the time Rommel was in Italy) seems to favour Rommel currently:

'Even though recent research has tended to vindicate Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel both with regards to his likely complicity in the July plot as well as his repeated refusal to carry out illegal orders, the same cannot be said of. Generaloberst Eduard Dietl.'

Regarding the whole Rauff affair, I will not complain if anyone insert another historian's opinion there. There are a lot of sources about this one already and the situation seems to be a mess. For example, some authors say that Rauff had met a staff officer of Rommel in Africa. According to Rauff's (frequently conflicting) memories, this person was Siegfried Westphal and Westphal also says that (no mention of the specific time) he did chase away an SS man who came to do some terrible thing to the Jews in Africa. But records show that they could not meet there during that time because Westphal was out of Africa due to ill health. Regarding the info that small detachments of the SS/Rauff's team (whatever) already managed to murder Jews in Africa, I have never seen any scholarly sources, other than the above mentioned website, that say this (although they certainly organized a regime of hard labour and looted the Jews' jewels - which they did together with Nehring - who was the commander of the Afrikakorps after Rommel and Crüwell - and civilian administrations in the region). The website does not cite any source for this particular piece of info but it seems their main source concerning this whole episode comes from Mallmann and Cüppers and I don't see this in their book. Also Rauff's detachment was very small (just 24 men) - how could even smaller detachment kill Jews in Africa?

See other sources in English like Caddick Adams, McKale - they also just mention the jewels and the forced labour.Deamonpen (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Rommel did not have strong racial views

So could we learn what were his "soft racial views"? For the record I know one German TV documentary mentioned he forbade his illegitimate daughter to marry as the candidate "wasn't Aryan enough".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's the description of Der Spiegel (apparently borrowed from the historians they interview). I don't know any German sources, including tabloid, that say he intervened into the love life of his daughter. The only source of this story, as I recall, is https://www.channel4.com/ - which, as you can see, is a website about movies and dramas. The link is http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/R/real_lives/rommel.html but it does not work anymore. Also Lucie Mollin Rommel was of the Polish and Italian extraction, so I doubt very much that he cared at all if the son-in-law was not pure Aryan.Deamonpen (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the title "Treatment and execution of POWs after siege of Tobruk"

In the case of the Battle of France, it is known that Rommel did at least execute one French soldier himself, right or wrong. In the case of Tobruk 1942, apparently he did not order anything like that, and we don't have even rumours associating bad things with him (to the contrary). And this is a Rommel article, not a "German side in the North Africa campaign" or "Italian side in North Africa campaign article". Horn does say that the Italian and Gerrman "forces" both disregarded the rights of the coloured troops, but all her examples, especially the ones concerning "execution", are about "guards". Then one has Remy, who has interviewed hundreds of witnesses in the process of writing his documentary and book, says that no incident of assault by Rommel's soldiers is known. And at least one should have something that is associated with the Afrika Korps themselves. I don't see these two authors' accounts as conflicting. I again suggest the title is changed to "Treatment of prisoners after the Fall of Tobruk." Deamonpen (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Rommel's Treasure

Satloff discusses the same event the other authors mention, aka the treatment of the Tunisian Jews in 1942, or rumours of such. This event is widely associated with the name "Rommel's Treasure" or "Rommel's Gold" (originally believed to be truthful by many authors), but the majority of modern researcher deny that Rommel had anything to do with the looting of the Jews in Tunisia. I don't understand why there must be two sections about the same event at all. Satloff does not mention "treasure", but he does not use any other specified name for it either. So Caron and co specifically discuss the rumours on the Internet and from Kirner (which became popularized through movies) that Rommel and the Afrika Korps had something or nothing to do with the looting of the Tunisian Jews in 1942 "War das deutsche Afrikakorps aber auch an Plünderungen beteiligt? Gerüchte, die im Internet kursieren, scheinen die Wehrmacht zu entlasten. etc" Either this is true or not true. If it is not true, that directly contradicts the information provided by Satloff. Deamonpen (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Already merged the two sections again. If anyone has other opinions, please contribute.Deamonpen (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Access to Rommel's letters

Are any of Rommel's letters available online? I am particularly interested in his letters describing French soldiers from Africa. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Do hypotheticals belong here?

"More specifically, several German historians have argued that while Rommel did not have strong racial views, if he had succeeded in his goal of invading the Middle East during 1942 large numbers of Jews in Palestine would have been murdered by an SS unit which had been deployed to North Africa in July 1942 to operate behind the lines of the Afrika Korps."

Does this section belong in this article? Surely it is titled "Erwin Rommel", not "what the German forces might have done after Rommel had left". Britmax (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems off-topic to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems like speculation that cannot be proven or disproven. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The operational planning to exterminate Cairo's Jews in event of Rommel's victory was real, so that isn't speculation-I would have to double check Palestine.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

But it didn;t happen, therefore it's counter-factual. The planninig may have happened, but there's no way to know if Rommel would have allowed it to go forward. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The planning happened and as such can be described. We describe planned invasion of Switzerland or UK despite them never being carried out.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I think Beyond My Ken's point there is interesting. Hypothetical plans can be notable but we'd need a crystal ball to see what Rommel would have done. And I don't think that speculation belongs in a biography. Britmax (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, we can leave the actual fact that plans were made to exterminate Jews in event of Rommel's history and leave out if he would or wouldn't done it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The point here is what did Rommel have to do with the putative Einsatzgruppe Egypt. According to research by German historians Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers published in Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine, Einsatzgruppe Egypt was formed and remained in Greece (and only consisted of a couple of dozen staff). The commander, SS-Standartenführer Walter Rauff, was sent to Tobruk in July 1942 to report to Rommel, but he was commanding the fighting on the Egyptian border at El Alamein some 500 miles away, and according to the above German scholars, it is unlikely that the two met before Einsatzgruppe Egypt was shelved after the Second Battle of El Alamein. So, the answer to my question is he had nothing to do with Einsatzgruppe Egypt, and it just isn't relevant to his biography. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The point here is what did Rommel have to do with the putative Einsatzgruppe Egypt It was embedded to his Afrika Korps HQ and his staff coordinated its organisation. Works on Rommel mention this clearly. All of these are facts not hypotheticals as was enquired. The existence of the Einsatzgruppe is a fact, its attachment to Rommel's forces is a fact, the coordination of its organization with his staff is a fact.No hypotheticals here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You are adding material to this article that I think belongs in an article about the campaign or the unit rather than specifically a biography of one of its generals. I would repeat that you are adding events that might have happened after he left to his biography. Your last addition is also not really clear: orders to do what? Britmax (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Where did you get "It was embedded to his Afrika Korps HQ and his staff coordinated its organisation" from? I have stated what the German historians say about where his staff were. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Holocaust: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection Paul R. Bartrop, Michael Dickerman - 2017 page 240

During the Nazi offensive in North Africa (1941–1943), Field Marshal Erwin Rommel pledged to give the SS and Einsatzgruppen his complete cooperation in activities designed to round up and murder Jews in Egypt and Palestine. Also see

• Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine

Klaus-Michael Mallmann, Martin Cüppers, page 117 "Rauff was probably officially assigned to one of the Afrika Korps staff officers during the visit to Tobruk"

• Donald M. McKale - 2012 Nazis After Hitler: How Perpetrators of the Holocaust Cheated Justice and Truth page 31

During the summer of 1942, the RSHA sent Rauff to North Africa to command a special German police detachment (an Einsatzgruppe Afrika), which planned to exterminate the Jews of Cairo once the regular German army unit, the Afrika Korps of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, arrived in the city. Also Rauff's death commando stood ready to accompany Rommel's forces if they advanced into Palestine

A murder squad attached to Rommel's army, an Einsatzgruppe for the Middle East Disobeying Hitler: German Resistance After Valkyrie page 11 by Randall Hansen

Gerhard Weinberg in Some Myths of World War II, in: Journal of Military History 75, 2011: Rommel: was to supervise the killing of all Jews in Egypt, Palestine, and elsewhere in the Middle East under the control and with the participation of the murder commando attached to his headquarters.”--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the time to check Weinberg yet. Can you cite the exact article and page?

But Mallmann and Cüppers do not indicate conclusively what happened to the ("probably" happened) meeting betweem Rauff and the staff officer, let alone saying that the SS was embed to the unit and the staff coorduinated its activities. Later it was clear that it was Nehring and co, who were not under Rommel, helping Rauff to organize the camp (https://books.google.com/books?id=vjsLAqafdQ8C&pg=PA172)

Hansen: A murder squad attached to Rommel's army, an Einsatzgruppe for the Middle East, would organize and implement the murders. The keyword here is "would" - he is talking about the planning. His previous description of Rommel (a Hitler loyalist, who never did crimes and might have modified entire criminal orders) does not indicate he is supportive of Rommel joining this crime (https://books.google.com/books?id=2DaTAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA48)

McKale's version follows the way that is suggested by the CIA file: "But when Rauff discussed with Rommel at Tobruk the liquidation of the Jews of Cairo, the field marshal, disgusted with the idea, refused to talk about it and sent Rauff on his way." (https://books.google.com/books?id=w-KW9aMmQ9MC&pg=PA31)

Deamonpen (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Rommel (a Hitler loyalist, who never did crimes)

Oh, but we know by now that Rommel did commit quite a bit of crimes himself, don't we(quite contrary to old and discarded myth)? In fact, since this topic has been researched by historians, I believe a war crimes subsection could perhaps be in order in the article don't you think?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You know then. I don't. And I doubt you can find a historian whose expertise is Rommel, the DAK or Nazi Germany who says the consensus is that he committed crimes (at best it is their own opinions). I can list plenty who say the opposite. Crimes are a serious matter. I think the biography of historical personalities might include discussions on crimes they might have or have not involved with. At the same time, "likely", "possible" and events that are associated with conflicting scenarios and never came to a court or any judicial authority should be treated in a different way from actual convictions or post mortem condemnation by an authority (and certainly, the historian side have the right to reexamine the past convictions too). Does Churchill's biography include a section that is titled "genocide and crimes", at all? I do not think that the French government or army, or the Tunisia or the Libya have ever declared Rommel to be a war criminal or even pointed out an unit of his as such (although since the time of Gaddafi, Libya has requested the German government to help with the mines. They never say that it was a war crime - Gaddafi admired Rommel and the Allies planted more mines there, anyway). For example, the French army seemingly still has the perception that the SS killed NT'choréré (https://www.atdm34.ovh/images/stories/informations/2010/saint_cyrienne.html). The German government certainly has defended him. Deamonpen (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Deamonpen (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Too Long

Did those making edits recently see the tag at the top? We seem to be headed the wrong way.

This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. (May 2020)

I agree, I think the military campaigns should be summarised along with note on atrocities and war crimes and treatment of population. The main body of the campaigns should be moved to North Africa Campaign. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that during the time the article is 'developing', some flexibility can also be allowed. MyMoloboaccount here is trying to introduce new materials and sub-sections that might have overlappings with the already existing ones, and when I "follow" him maybe I have done the same. Currently I just focus on preventing the article to be pushed in one direction, that does not expressly represents a consensus among historian. I really hope that when the condensing or splitting happens, other editors will help us with that, so the summary are good and balanced.Deamonpen (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

We should indeed use established historians and works Deamonpen, for example Rommel: The End of a Legend by Ralf Ruth or Patton, Montgomery, Rommel: Masters of War by Terry Brighton. If you want German historians, Erwin Rommel: Ein Deutscher Soldat by Peter Steinbach is quite good from what I heard. And of course the brilliant Ralph Giordano: Die Traditionslüge. As to the current version, it is biased towards historians that apologetic towards Rommel like Butler.a consensus among historian consensus changes all he time. Modern historians for example are well aware that African campaign was hardly "war without hate" and there were war crimes there. Even Rommel friendly historians like Lieb have now acknowledged that "war without hate" is a myth. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you have heard a lot from the wrong sources. Erwin Rommel: Ein Deutscher Soldat is not published yet, even though the author has promised this one since 2011. Rommel: The End of a Legend by Ralf Reuth or Patton, Montgomery, Rommel: Masters of War by Terry Brighton are used a lot here - I do not know that these two claim that the consensus is Rommel was a criminal. Consensus changes and I suggest one changes the article with it, once it has actually changed. You can add Giordano if you want, but one should ask oneself why Reuth or other notable modern critics don't bother to rely on his brilliant work published in 2000. In fact Reuth does not seem to be in accordance with him at all

"In the 1990s Germans again discussed the question of the collective guilt of the postwar period. Increasingly politics and self-flagellation, not thinking of the Third Reich in historical terms, determined the discourse from then on in a society with an ever-increasing lack of historical awareness, which seems to measure the past exclusively with the values and moral standards of the present. Rommel was now quickly converted into a 'war criminal', as the journalist Ralph Giordano did in his book, The Falsehood of Tradition"(https://books.google.com/books?id=LVgrDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT126).

Right there you could see that he criticizes the tendency to make Rommel into a war criminal too. Also I do not think that modern historians blame all the crimes happening in North Africa on Rommel, with some pointing their finger to the Allied side too, I do not think that the article here claims that the war fought by others in the absence of Rommel was clean either. There are historians who highlight that the war was still clean if one uses Europe and the East as the standard too (example: https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=LfOsTH6KRTgC&pg=PT273). And if you use Lieb, you should be careful with what he means with "myth". I do not see him debunking "War without hate" as in the way Rommel and the DAK did not fight clean anywhere, at least in comparison with any other large unit - I don't think that is a low standard. By the way, it seems Butler is used so much (this tendency does not begin with me) because his biography is more "recent" and "updated" - the other choice is Mitcham who has just released a new book again. Other recent authors (in English) discuss him with praise or reproach, but not in that comprehensive way like them. Remy is mainly a defender of Rommel in my book, but that does not mean his work is somehow "biased", in fact Beckett (I doubt one can call him a Rommel supporter at all) recommends him as the new critical source about Rommel alongside Reuth (https://books.google.com/books?id=56IYBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA175). In general, Remy's (and most German historian's) critical facet is that he was not a caring general at all and his leadership style did offend people. He was ruthless, although not a squander of lives in general. He also used propaganda and the relationship to Hitler to his advantage. This trend is summarized here by Rolf-Dieter Müller (https://books.google.com/books?id=VKmZDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA171). Regarding the second aspect I think this one and the Myth article already talk a lot about. The first aspect is also explored a bit here and there (Neitzel's remark, discusses on casualties in the Style as military commander, relationship with Italians... I can post more, regarding both positive and negative aspects...) but I don't think the article is pushing hard towards the other direction either.Deamonpen (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

John Morrow

I'm willing to wait for anyone with Richardot's book to present the exact page number and quote, because I see so many people on wiki and forums use him for this story about black French soldiers and connect it to Rommel. Using the only link that still works (https://maitron.fr/spip.php?article201980), it looks like it was the "25 infantry regiment". It was not even the "25th infantry regiment of the 7th panzer division" or "the 25th infan try regiment under Rommel" or anything (nothing like that existed - I quote Frieser for a source but something like this is easily verifiable. It is not something uncertain like the 7th's crimes in France (basically, they fought in an area where crimes were common, together with other divisions. Some sources mention soldiers dressing in black - may Rommel's, maybe the SS, maybe any other division). Considering Rommel's normal procedure with the surrendering soldiers during his advance phase was that he would signal them to continue to walk towards the German side while he continued pushing forward, in theory it was possible that you surrendered to Rommel and died in others' hands. Only in some cases when he had riflemen with him and the area was not controlled yet he would leave some infantry behind.

In the case of Morrow, he does not mention which unit or commander N’Tchoréré’ fought against, which unit killed N’Tchoréré’ or anything related to the 7th division or Rommel at all. And yet MyMoloboaccount here insists on combining any elements he can get to produce the story that he wants:

"Capt. N’Tchoréré’s Tirailleurs fought off several German attacks on June 5 and 6, 1940, at the Village of Aimiens. When the German finally captured the village and the Atrium soldiers on June 7. a young Panzer offcer insisted that the black captain line up with his unlisted men, not the captured French officers. When Capt. N'Tchoréré protested. the German shot him in the neck."

The article is free to read here, with a free account https://www.jstor.org/stable/27895945?read-now=1&seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents

With this approach we are going to prove that any leader is guilty of genocide. Because during the last days other than him it has mainly been me who has made edits, I want to hear from others in this case.

I would also like to know how Lieb's article about the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend's Ardennes Abbey Massacre in 1944 (https://books.google.com/books?id=jVqqAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA27) has made it way here to prove that the 7th Panzer Division committed crimes in the Battle of France?

Finally, if we want to add more journalists who repeat the tenets of a historian's story (without mentioning them directly here), I know many journalistic sources that say it was the SS too (it was probably not the SS either, also according to Scheck).Deamonpen (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

In the sentence in which Morrow states Rommel's division to "conduct cleansing operations", he claims he takes that from the Scheck. First, if we follow Scheck here, the division would have nothing to do with the Airaines massacre, so you cannot just use this sentence to make sense of another paragraph, that does not have Rommel or the 7th at all. So was the 7th the only unit with a Panzer officer? Second, Morrow appeared to exaggerate Scheck there. Both in Scheck's book and Scheck's review of the exhibition on Rommel, he does not indicate conclusively that the 7th was involved in some crimes, just "likely" and that they fought in the areas crimes happened.Deamonpen (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

You should really read on WP:NOR

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we need to insert my idea of Morrow into this article. I say that there is nothing to connect the sentence you mention and the paragraph about the Senegalese unit. And if an author relies on Scheck for information, we need to look at what Scheck himself says first. Even in Morrow's rewriting of Scheck's account, there is nothing that indicates a connection between the 7th and Airaines. Besides, Scheck and Butler indicate that the involvement of the unit with the crimes was only possible, not conclusive (they both tend to suggest that Rommel himself committed no crime). The others present conflicting scenarios of the involvement, and plenty of "possibles", too. In that case I will say that many other units that have fought in a chaotic and large environment can be associated with such a record. I don't ask for the removal of the section or anything, but I don't see this as a special case. I think if you add Morrow, you would better write that "Citing Scheck, Morrow states that..." Because Morrow does not delve deeper into analysing or criticizing Scheck whatsoever. Deamonpen (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way, in that previous paragraph Morrow did not say the 7th Panzer Division was the only one that committed any war crime, so another reason not to link the two things automatically like that.Deamonpen (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Rommel supported Nazi "seizure" of power?

I'm not sure what the article means when it says, "Rommel supported the Nazi seizure of power and Adolf Hitler". Hitler was legally chosen to become Chancellor by non-Nazis, so to me that is not "seizure", which implies violence or illegitimacy. The Nazis did, of course, later pass the Enabling Act and perform other actions that transformed the government into a dictatorship, which could accurately be described as "seizure of power" -- but is the sentence intended to state that Rommel supported those actions specifically? If so, it should be worded less ambiguously, and preferably have some sort of citation for that specific fact, since the sentence right now also mentions anti-semitism, Nazi ideology, the Holocaust, and war crimes, so it isn't clear the citations for the sentence apply to the seizure of power portion.

I have already changed the wording a bit so it reflects the situation better. Except for very old non-scholarly articles published during or right after the war, nobody accuses Rommel of being an active member of the Nazi movement or something.Deamonpen (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Destruction of Rouen and mass murder of Rouen prisoners by Rommel forces

More on this can be found in

• Maurois, André, Rouen dévastée, Fontaine-le-Bourg, Le Pucheux, 2004 (Ist edn Paris, Nagel, I948)
• Rouen, 1940-1944: la guerre, l'occupation, la libération Alain Gasperini - 1994
• G . Pailhès , Rouen et sa région pendant la guerre , 1939 – 1945 , Rouen , 1948
• Marc Boulanger, Ce jour-là-- Rouen, dimanche 9 juin 1940, 1990

I have also been informed that French colonial troops have been massacred on 11th of June in Rouen and I am researching this further. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

War without hate

Even in the case crimes happened in the war, this is not to say that Rommel himself had "involvement" with war crimes. By this standard, like Lieb points out, basically any person who commands an unit equal to a division or above in a war would easily fall under this category.

Certainly there are historians who argue for war crimes, but this is a historical person about whom the number of publications is huge. I don't understand why undue weight needs to be given to the minority's site, while the major current experts on Rommel on both camps, namely Reuth, Neitzel, Remy, Lieb, Hecht...etc recognize that he was uninvolved in war crimes. Deamonpen (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Proske

I think the debate about Proske, who is chiefly known for criticizing Rommel, does belong here. The paper you cite in the article is a conference paper from a conference held by the activist organization DFG-VK, not an university or an established institution. So I think citing Lieb and Schweizer only balances the article, if you decide to cite this Proske's conference paper in the first place. Regarding the Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages, it does cite Proske's self-published book and even the (critical) bachelor's thesis of Daniel Sternal, also published by Proske's publisher (a fact noted not only by Lieb and Schweizer but also Mährle here) and notes that Rommel was controversial. It should be noted, though, that this report is not written by the historians' "branch" (WD1) of this organizations, but members of the WD2, whose focus is "Foreign Affairs, International Law, Economic Cooperation and Development, Defense, Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid". See here. Obviously the area Lieb and Schweizer know is about "their" area. Just like the consensus Hans Ulrich Wehler says is about the consensus of historians. So I don't see this report can devalue their statement in a substantial manner. You can add the report though (and I will also add that the report is written by the WD2). By the way recently two independent historians' commissions (of Düsseldorf and North Rhine-Westphalia) both say that he was not a war criminal (also they say that he was not a Resistance Fighter either).Deamonpen (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Anti-semite

If you insert something like "he displayed anti-semitism to a degree", please provide proof that this statement is undisputed or at least the opinion of the majority. Certainly, if he had been a person living in 2020 talking about "the Jewish problem" after even all this hindsight the humanity have gained (maybe in 2100, after such terms acquire even more uneasy implication, people will feel differently when someone talks about the China problem, the immigrant problem... etc, like even some liberal outlets call these matters today. I hope not), he would be an anti-semite. Secondly, please prove that the majority of historians consider this as a noteworthy matter. Imagine the number of biographies of people born before 1900, that you will need to insert a "xenophobic", "sexist" etc tags if we continue to follow this standard. As far as I know, historians generally put emphasis on people who made racism a theme of their novels or music, or fought for it, or somehow acted on it, etc, and not the people who once said one or two things, that are not considered informed by modern people. Wikipedia articles should also have this kind of balance.

Wehler: Nein, und er war auch kein Antisemit

Remy: Rommel war jedenfalls kein Antisemit. Pg.42, Mythos Rommel 2002.

Lieb: Wenn man aber unter einem „Nazi“ einen Antisemiten, einen Kriegsverbrecher und einen radikalen Weltanschauungskrieger versteht, dann war Rommel kein „Nazi“.

Thomas Vogel: Aber was wir bei Rommel eben nicht feststellen können, ist irgendwelche rasseideologische Nähe zum System, zum Regime.

Deamonpen (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear MyMoloboaccount, if you write something into the lede, please prove that the information is quite uncontroversial. Your reason seems to be that because Mitcham is positive about Rommel in general, any critical opinion from him must be accepted as such. But at the same time you don't just accept that Rommel made himself and his forces behave decently just because Reuth, a critical historian, says so, right? If other editors can provide your opinions, please do so.Deamonpen (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim, there are a number of scholars who do point out elements of anti-semitism in Rommel's statements and views, so the matter isn't as clear as you try to present it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I can provide even more other scholars who argue against this as well. I would add things when I have time. So, you can add Mitcham in the main article like you currently do. I post this because you seem to want to argue against my opinion in your edit summary (I apologize if it is not your intent). Well, on some level, I agree with Mitcham, Rommel seemed to be influenced by image of the Jews as a group focused on their own ethnic, which was quite a popular at that time. But the main difference between him and many leaders of the time is that he was always against extreme methods from the start and he was generally open-minded to the unknown. The black, Jewish, Arabic and Maori people who have met him in Africa seem to think so. He broke others' (supposed) clannish mentality by integrating them, not by eliminating them and incessantly making propaganda against them. And with Rommel, because the number of experts are huge, the range of opinions regarding every detail about his life is huge. I just don't get the impression here that even Mitcham (Ward Rutherford in a previous example of yours, maybe) is making this critical aspect into something really notable about Rommel.

'But it is fairly obvious that Rommel spent almost no time thinking about “the Jewish problem.” He was more interested in his family and his own career. Of course, he knew less than most Germans about how the Jews were being treated' - Mitcham, 2019, Desert Fox: The Storied Military Career of Erwin Rommel, pg 175. Deamonpen (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

. The black, Jewish, Arabic and Maori people who have met him in Africa seem to think so.

• You seem to forget that Rommel's soldiers massacred black soldiers, and Rommel directed a movie in which forced labour made out of captured black soldiers was murdered and humiliated. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel certain talking about Rommel's soldiers. I suppose he commanded many and there were bad seeds. But every time I have heard about black, Maori, Jewish... veterans (who had actually fought his forces and recognized this at time they did, or directly met him) talking about the policies he had towards them, I haven't seen them saying that he directed his soldiers towards the brutal ways. The notorious account about Rommel directing a part of the movie Victory in the West in which he killed some black soldiers comes from Irving. Irving then states that this was not Rommel's fault (meaning he did that accidentally and not deliberately killed them, let alone because of their colour). Other historians (other than movie scholars who give their source as Irving) do not mention it, and Mitcham seems to indicate that Rommel did treat the blacks in the part he directed well. I also haven't heard about people who survived that movie talk about Rommel, so that it is all I know. Meanwhile, according to Knopp, Rommel stood before a camera as a supporting character and he did no more than this.

Nach der Kapitulation Frankreichs waren zahlreiche Szenen «ergänzend» nachgestellt worden, wobei auch Rommel erstmals vor einer Filmkamera agierte. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt spielte er jedoch nicht mehr als eine Nebenrolle.- Guido KnoppDeamonpen (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

But every time I have heard about black, Maori, Jewish... veterans (who had actually fought his forces and recognized this at time they did, or directly met him) talking about the policies he had towards them'

How could black soldiers executed and murdered by Rommel's forces talk?

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC) . Other historians (other than movie scholars who give their source as Irving) do not mention it, and Mitcham seems to indicate that Rommel did treat the blacks in the part he directed well. Actually they do(Echenberg Myron for example in Colonial conscripts: the Tirailleurs Sénégalais in French West Africa, 1857-1960 where he criticises Irving for not disapproving of the act committed by Rommel) and the footage has been found independently from Irving as per World War II & the media. A collection of original essays.By Christopher Hart, Guy Hodgson, Simon Gwyn Jones which states There are however several stills extant in the 'Rommel Collection' from this reconstruction; a few showing the Tirailleur POW's running with hands up, tanks crashing through the wall of the Chateau le Quesnoy. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

How could black soldiers executed and murdered by Rommel's forces talk? -Because even with deliberate extermination attempts, there are usually survivors, right? Many victims know personally what Mengele was like. In the N'Tchoréré story for example, a common element seems to be that he refused to obey a racist soldier who tried to separate blacks and whites, and then he was killed, not that the German immediately murdered all the black soldiers the moment they captured them. There are certainly black survivors of the massacres in France by German units.

Regarding Echenberg, this is new to me. It seems though that he does not present any other source of the story itself (not his comment on it), other than Irving, who is quite a problematic source. You can add this and I will add Mitcham and Knopp too. About Rommel's Collection and the fact that he helped to create a part of the film, this is no new excavation. Caddick-Addams for example comments on the footage and the photos. It does not seem like he detects any scene of crime there (Christopher Hart, Guy Hodgson, Simon Gwyn Jones don't make a specified mention that the men were running against the tanks firing real bullets like what one sees in Irivng's account either. Rather it was tanks crashing through the walls while they ran with their hands up) because the only crime Caddick-Addams attaches to Rommel in his whole life is the killing of the officer who refused three times to obey. By the way, Hart, Hodgson, Gwyn Jones seem to suggest that a photo taken by Rommel with his Leica and left in his collection (in which someone, likely Ertl, stood on the back of a tank) shows the reenactment (thus apparently they show that at least part of what Irving says is real, with the authors highlighting that this one matches the position of the footage) while Caddick-Addams seems to indicate that Rommel was taking photos of the real campaign itself during which Hanke already directed the Propaganda company to film events with a movie camera. Hart, Hodgson, Gwyn Jones also seem to believe the other part that Knopp calls myth, that is Rommel did this because Goebbels asked him to do so in a concerted propaganda effor (according to Knopp, Goebbels actually protested the movie.) Deamonpen(talk) 19:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The French historian Jean-Yves Mary, who was a noted expert on the Battle of France, writes on this military forum some interesting info regarding the movie Sieg im Westen. According to him, it seams there are three scenes (which can be extracted from the footage, Rommel's collections, photos kept by members of Rommel's propaganda company etc) made with the involvement of the 7th Panzer Division: The crossing of the Somne (which has two sequences), the surrendering of the Tirailleurs (which shows fearful Tirailleurs running out of the houses with some tanks in the background), the tank 321 crashing the wall of the château de Quesnoy. It sounds like the first scene is the scene in which one can see real bullets (a self-propelled gun shooting at a building) According to Mary though, a careful investigation reveals that unlike the latter two scenes, the first scene is not a reconstruction, but the footage of the actual crossing of the Somne, which was filmed both from an airplane and from the ground (the company propaganda had to reconstruct the other two scenes because they were at different places when those events happened). According to Mary some pieces of info are taken from his book Le Carrousel des Panzers. Too bad I don't have the book and generally French books are hard to access from the internet. Hope that someone who can help will take notice later. Also, the information given here by Mary seems to correspond with that of Caddick-Adams (mentioned above, link here), who notes that some footage (created under the direction of Hanke, it seems) of the battle was later used for the newsreal and the movie. Christopher Hart, Guy Hodgson, Simon Gwyn Jonesalso too seem to only mention the surrendering scene and the wall crashing scene as reenacted scenes.Deamonpen (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've read up a bit on Rommel for the Rommel myth article and I don't recall significant discussions of Rommel views in re: Jewish people, nor anyone calling Rommel an antisemite. It seems that Rommel was so focused on his career and his public image, that he did not care much about anything else. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Rommel's antisemitic remarks and views have been uncovered by modern scholars. The current fragment describes this in detail and is based on several historians During his visit to Switzerland in 1938, he reported that Swiss soldiers who he met showed "remarkable understanding of our Jewish problem".[52] Butler comments that he did share the view (popular in Germany and many European countries during that time) that as a people, the Jews were loyal to themselves rather than the nations which they lived in. Despite this fact, other pieces of evidence show that he considered the Nazi racial ideologies rubbish.[53] Samuel Mitcham states that "Yet after years of propaganda even Rommel was infected with the anti-Semitic virus, at least to a minor degree. ... Rommel did not approve of Jewish clannishness, and he was also suspicious of Jews because of the large amount of wealth which they had acquired", but he was more focused on his family and his career than he was on this particular issue.[54].--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This article needs an overhaul

This article seems overly long with too much focus on alleged racial prejudice rather than the war exploits that Rommel is famous for. For example there are at last count 141 mentions of the word "jew" in this article - probably attributable to a handful of editors with dubious intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.107.121 (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I have literally read books on Rommel that were more concise than this article. It's really a bit ridiculous

Nonsense and false information mounting

Rommel joined the IR No. 124 (Weingarten) (correct designation: no "order" number like "124th") of Wurttemberg Army as a "Fahnenjunker" - as early as 1910. It was not possible for him to join as a "Faehnrich". Then he was commandeered for a short period to Feldartillerie-Regiment No. 49 (27th (Wurttemberg) Division) - surely the young, fresh infantry second lieutenant would not fit as artillery "battery commander". I wonder who concentrated so much rubbish in a few lines. --46.244.254.208 (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Grandfather Karl v. Luz ?

Headed what "local" Government council ? What is meant by that and what "locality" ? --46.244.254.208 (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this really necessary?

"Scheck says, "Although there is no evidence incriminating Rommel himself, his unit did fight in areas where German massacres of black French prisoners of war were extremely common in June 1940."[563][564][565][566]"

IMO it is just attempt to put him into bad light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.116.234 (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. 82.181.143.171 (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Libyan Jews

talk).Again, it has never been stated that there were Jews who died (like Gerlach states). However, I think it should be repeated that this is an article about Rommel, not atrocities in Africa in general. So according to Gerlach, 500 Jews died in Libya because of Italian internment, and not because of some pressure regarding an extermination plan involving Rommel or even Rauff. Gerlacht's account also seems to correspond to Hoppe's account about the time the Jewish oppression in Tunisia happened - November 1942. So while Gerlach does not mention Rommel (negative or positive here), I don't see how the Tunisian atrocities should be automatically placed at his feet. And your addition using materials from the ushmm shows the whole problem with creating too many subsections. First, Rauff was deployed in Tunisia and there was no evidence he was calling the shots in Libya. So while the Ushmm was criticizing Rommel and talking about Rauff (without mentioning Libyans at all), how should we assume they are talking about Libya here and insert this piece of info in the "Treatment towards the Libyan Jews" subsection? Should I insert all the other historians who say other things about Rommel and Rauff and Tunisian Jews (already mentioned elsewhere) into this subsection, again?Deamonpen (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

So according to Gerlach, 500 Jews died in Libya because of Italian internment, and not because of some pressure regarding an extermination plan involving Rommel or even Rauff Rommel's soldiers helped out in interning Jews in Libya and German soldiers were bombing Jewish quarter in Benghazi as well.Don't worry, I will add sources on this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add that, but Gerlach's opinion is clearly that 500 Libyan Jews died in Italian internment while the Germans had no extermination plan there.Deamonpen (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I also came here to comment on this section of the article. Of the 7 paragraphs in this section, only 2 address Rommel's actions. The rest is a general overview of German-Libyan relations which, while an interesting and noteworthy discussion, seems like a digression from the article. I would propose something more like this, simply noting the testimony and criticism:

Giordana Terracina writes, "On April 3, the Italians recaptured Benghazi and a few months later the Afrika Korps led by Rommel was sent to Libya and began the deportation of the Jews of Cyrenaica in the concentration camp of Giado and other smaller towns in Tripolitania. This measure was accompanied by shooting, also in Benghazi, of some Jews guilty of having welcomed the British troops, on their arrival, treating them as liberators."[173]

According to German historian Wolfgang Proske, Rommel forbade his soldiers to buy anything from the Jewish population of Tripoli, used Jewish slave labour and commanded Jews to clear out minefields by walking on them ahead of his forces.[181] According to Proske, some of the Libyan Jews were eventually sent to concentration camps.[182] Proske's account is disputed by historians Christian Schweizer and Peter Lieb.[183]

Some of the Jewish prisoners were later transferred to Italy, where they were used for exhausting forced labour on German fortifications. It is uncertain what role Rommel played in these actions. Giordana cites a testimony of one Jewish camp survivor, Sion Burbea, who states that he witnessed Rommel inspecting their work together with General Albert Kesselring sometime after 26 October 1943 (when they were transferred to the Gustav line) [174]. However, according to some historians, Rommel's Italian responsibility ended on 19 October 1943 when Northern Italy was turned over to Kesselring's authority. Rommel received his new mission as Inspector General of Defence in the West on 5 November.[176][177] According to Remy, Rommel was already back in Germany on that day to discuss the fortifications with Hitler and Speer, before returning to Italy briefly to prepare for the move to France.[177] Terracina says it must have happened before 20 November 1943, when Rommel was recalled to Germany.[175] By 21 November 1943, Rommel and his Army Group B headquarters were in France.[178] 67.8.203.16 (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for this late reply. The problem with Giordana Terracina's accusation, that Rommel/The Afrikakorps commander sent Jews to concentration camps ("labour camps"), is that this is quite an extraordinary claim, considering these are Italian concentration camps in an Italian colony and we know about direct orders from Mussolini and the Italian administration sending Jewish people to those place, as noted by other historians. Rommel had no executive powers over these matters. That is why Patrick Bernhard (mentioned in another section), who wants to show that Rommel was guilty (by ignoring or event subtly encouraging war crimes through asking the Italians to suppressing local attacks on his forces), tries to suggest that Rommel must have informal powers over the Italians through his strings of victories. Because the claim by Terracina is extraordinary, it is hard to find an author who argues against that at all. Terracina and other authors (as I see, either magazines or authors who describes these events very briefly without mentioning new sources of evidences) also claims that the Afrika Korps led the lootings and shootings, but according to some historians considered notable on the matter like Roumani (who was also a witness), it seems there were lootings done during the initial chaotic phase mostly by local residents, but the Afrikakorps (at least under Rommel)'s policies towards Jews were not destructive nor exterminative. Also, according to Lieb, when the Italians executed harsh measures towards partisans behind the Afrikakorps' back, documents show that the rear commandant, Otto Deindl, had no idea whatsoever that the Italians were there! Let alone sending troops to cooperate with them. As I am busy, I'm really hoping someone else would find the time to group Terracina, Bernhard et al together so that the same matters are not discussed repeatedly in different places and confuse readers.Deamonpen (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Views on propaganda

I do think that this paragraph does reflect Rommel's view on propaganda. According to Hansen, Rommel's command style is not for the purpose of achieving military results alone, but above all, to spreads values he preferred as well (Imho both purposes were probably important to Rommel). I think maybe Hohum deletes this because they think that propaganda is all about words, leaflets and books that encourage people to support a government or something like that? Not to Rommel, from the way he talked about it. He was a propagandist by action first and foremost. He always put emphasis on the way the leaders themselves behaved. Nazi indoctrination is also a matter of propaganda I think - "inner propaganda". Rommel was independent thinking, and he did not want politics to shape his army (mentally or organization-wise) through propaganda.

"The political scientist and historian Randall Hansen suggests that Rommel chose his whole command style for the purpose of spreading meritocracy and egalitarianism, as well as Nazi ideals he shared with Hitler because of their common non-aristocratic background. His egalitarianism extended to people of other races: in replying to white South African officers' demands that the black POWs should be housed in separated compounds, he refused, commenting that the black soldiers wore the same uniforms and had fought alongside the whites and thus were their equals. On the other hand, Watson comments that, regarding the Afrika Korps, any Nazi indoctrination was minimised, allowing Rommel the freedom to reinvent his army in his own style." Deamonpen (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

References

All sourced entries above: Propaganda not mentioned, presumably not mentioned in source. Link to Rommel's views on propaganda is therefore synthesis, unless you can show otherwise. (Hohum ^@) 00:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that when a public, military figure tries to spread an ideal or a social idea though military actions, it definitely belongs to the topic of propaganda. Following your logic, if we introduce an author or a sentence that mentions Rommel leading the Axis forces during the battle of El Alamein, one can say that: because this sentence does not specifically mentions the war in Africa, it does not belong to the Africa campaign section? I concede that maybe the Watson part can be removed (it is also mentioned in another section), but Hansen and Watson are definitely historians who focus a lot on Rommel's image, propaganda about him and his view on ideology and the way ideals could be spread. I hope someone else can provide a third opinion on this Deamonpen (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Content must be sourced, not interpreted by editors. I believe your interpretation is WP:SYNTHESIS / WP:OR if the source isn't explicit. A third opinion would be welcome. Perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (Hohum ^@) 12:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Shortening section on Rommel Myth (as requested in your tag)

The trouble with shortening a long section is that it means deleting a lot of cites, and Wiki does not generally favour this. No doubt many of these are the same ones to be found in the main article about the Rommel Myth, but it would take too long to check each one. Also, you may know that the section before the Rommel Myth (Relationship with National Socialism) is also represented in the main article on the Rommel Myth. Valetude (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Removing citations for text that isn't required is perfectly acceptable. (Hohum ^@) 16:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Errors in sources?

I'd like to point out that the work by Butler is very probably mistaken in the name of Rommel's wife.

• "While at Cadet School, Rommel met his future wife, 17-year-old Lucia (Lucie) Maria Mollin (1894–1971), of Polish and Italian descent.[41]"

To wit, the "-in" ending in the surname is strongly indicative of the feminine form of the surname "Moll". Moll is a rather common German surname. I'm not sure what research indicates his wife was of Polish and Italian descent. Of course it would take first hand research to determine if this is a real error. It's highly probable though, unless the researcher is familiar with German naming of the period, and Poland didn't really exist as a nation in that period. It was ruled in pieces by Prussia (Later the German Confederation, and then the German Empire), Austria, and Russia. Mollin is neither Polish nor Italian, so I also find that Butler information to be less than reliable. Celtic hackr (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 edits

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "removing general material that is not about Rommel". --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Young, Desmond (1950). Rommel: The Desert Fox-seriously?

I just noticed that Desmond Young is used throughout the text. This is seriously shocking. Young is well known for his infatuation with Rommel, presenting false claims, trying to whitewash Wehrmacht from war crimes, blaming them solely on SS, and represents a well known example of Wehrmacht Myth. This seriously is completely unreliable.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Young is often considered an author who lacked the information modern ones knew, rather than someone who misconstructed things deliberately, as far as I know. Here he is used for simple facts rather than grand analysis or emotional exclamation. So if you find another modern historian who provides a contradictory picture, you can add. But there is a reason he is not deleted so much.Deamonpen (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

‎ MyMoloboaccount's addition

They added these once and at that time I added some sources to balance the impression. But basically, ‎ MyMoloboaccount's sources touched the German forces in a general tone, without clarifying the exact time, units and the commanders associated with the plundering. Rommel was not the only commander of the Afrikakorps and we know that his successors were not kind people. I suggest other editors to look into this and find a solution. It would be a strange thing if people lịke Maurice Roumani gets removed but less notable authors who only provide that level of information are retained--Deamonpen (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Rommel was not the only commander of the Afrikakorps and we know that his successors were not kind people Neither was Rommel who we as is well known murdered a French PoW officer, used slave labour,praised genocidal Hitler as "gift from God" and his troops executed PoWs numerous times. The events in question happened when Rommel was in charge as far as I am aware. There is no reason to whitewash this nationalist pro-Nazi figure, and this really has to stop.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The new material about plunder and death of Jews in Benghazi is beating the reader on the head too much. Generally, the references don't need to be attributed, and two or more of them can be combined to give a more succinct account of the German leadership's responsibility for this act. At least one source directly naming Rommel is required, of course. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

He did execute one officer in a controversial situation. The others are described by authors who present conflicting scenarios. He did not have executive power over Speer's organization or the Vichy government, unlike officers who were charged for slave labour in Atlantic. Other incidents were dubious. Most importantly, it had nothing to do with what you are trying to claim. Hitler was a dictator with many crimes. This does not mean every single sources that describe "German leaders who do awful things" can be associated with him and inserted into his Wikipedia article either.Deamonpen (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This does not mean every single sources that describe "German leaders who do awful things" can be associated with him As Hagen writes Rommel was "beloved Hitler's soldier", he is very much associated with him.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobody (at least in the modern time) argues that Rommel was not close to Hitler (at least at some point). The point historians like Remy make is: Rommel misunderstood Hitler's whole character and modus operandi - this did not mean Rommel would commit war crimes for him. If you don't agree with them, publish your own work or bring other highly regarded sources, don't delete.Deamonpen (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The point historians like Remy make is: Rommel misunderstood Hitler's whole character and modus operandi - this did not mean Rommel would commit war crimes for him.

We already know Rommel committed several war crimes. Are you saying Remy is so outdated he is not aware of that? Also what does he says about Hitler's open statements about Lebensraum, and Rommel's views on genocide of Poles by Germany?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Per Binksternet: The Benghazi paragraph needs cleaning up and proper sourcing for Rommel's involvement/responsibility. (Hohum ^@) 16:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount , please don't insert you POV as fact. Rommel's letters to his wife showed that he knew nothing about the genocide of Poles. He misunderstood Hitler's policy completely. But Remy being outdated or not is not something you should decide - please provide authors who say so. And I repeat, this has nothing to do with the situation here.Deamonpen (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Rommel's letters to his wife showed that he knew nothing about the genocide of Poles. He misunderstood Hitler's policy completely. Please read on Original Research.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I just thought that I should try to be nice, explaining things described by Remy and some other historians. Reuth has a more negative view, but basically he does not suggest that Rommel supported Hitler's criminal thinking or something like that - Rommel focused on his military life and tried to shut his eyes, but did not do crimes himself, that's how Reuth puts it. But the thing is, this has nothing to do with the situation described here.Deamonpen (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

'Other historians note that there is no clear evidence Rommel was involved or aware of these crimes'-seems difficult considering Rommel wrote about them openly.

There is a sentence in the lead stating Other historians note that there is no clear evidence Rommel was involved or aware of these crimes The sentence contradicts Rommel as he himself on at least two occasions confessed to carrying out or witnessing war crimes committed by his own troops. In France he wrote about captured prisoners who were executed any enemy troops were wiped out or forced to withdraw, and he also gloated in one letter about personally murdering a French PoW. So it would be very difficult indeed for Rommel to not be aware of what Rommel wrote. Unless of course he had some kind of very specific re-occuring amnesia condition. In any case, this needs to be removed from lead as it grossly contradicts statements by Rommel himself in additional to several modern historians.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, I think the spirit here is that both sides (as long as them being highly recognized authors) should be able to express their opinions. Following the sentence he said "any enemy troup were wiped out", he described the attitude of POWs. An author, who is mentioned in this article, thinks that "wiped out" means "we the Germans killed them all and did not take prisoners", and says that the other sentence sounds self-contradictory. Butler obviously does not think "wiped out" means that and accuses the other author of manipulating Rommel's words. Same with the officer - just a matter of interpretation. Maybe, there's a chance Rommel did not think it was a crime? Some will agree with that and some won't.

Please, we don't just delete the authors who bring out the worst interpretation. so don't try that on the other side.Deamonpen (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Posthumous honours-completely POV section lacking significant information

Posthumous honours unfortunately is another hagiographic piece in this article. It completely lacks the information that several memorials to Rommel were removed in Germany since 2000, that there regular protests against naming of places and barracks after Rommel and that Bundestag has distanced itself from Rommel Myth and worship still practiced in certain circles of German military.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the protests regarding each instance mentioned are present in the section. I don't think that's the case with some other leaders who have controversial monuments (and I don't see those articles being called hagiographic). If you have something to add, you can do so. Nobody forbids you. I know a bit more about both sides, so if I add things I will just make it longer. I focus more on recent events - the others were added by others a long time ago.

By the way you can read more about that in the Rommel and the Bundeswehr article. Where do you get that the Bundestag is distancing themselves from Rommel? This is their latest document about the problem (it's easy, just use Google Search): https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/251/1925159.pdf

126. Abgeordneter Dr. Harald Weyel (AfD) Welche Erkenntnisse hat die Bundesregierung über den Stand der Überprüfung der Namensgebung der Rommel-Kasernen in Augustdorf und Dornstadt (www.dbwv.de/aktuelle/themen/blickp unkt/beitrag/kasernennamen-unter-der-lupe-gener alfeldmarschall-erwin-rommel-ein-umstrittener-m ilitaer/)?

Drucksache 19/25159 – 90 – Deutscher Bundestag – 19. Wahlperiode Antwort des Parlamentarischen Staatssekretärs Dr. Peter Tauber vom 8. Dezember 2020 Es bestehen gegenwärtig keine Bestrebungen, die Liegenschaften in Augustdorf oder Dornstadt umzubenennen.

Second latest (more interesting details):

https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/080/1908046.pdf

Both are after the report by the Scientific service (non-historian branch) that you want to discuss with me. Others mention him but in another mannder (officer B served under him...) and does not mention naming/renaming/keeping the name or him not being a role model etc.

Deamonpen (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

So you are now quoting AFD?

Abgeordneter Dr. Harald Weyel (AfD) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany Alternative for Germany (German: Alternative für Deutschland, AfD) is a German nationalist and right-wing populist political party

I am afraid if you are using google search as source of your knowledge, it explains a lot about the state of the article. In any case Bundestag prepared a document in 2019 showing the controversy and modern research on the subject, including renown scholars like Proske. [1] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The google search is used to check the date the document is released. The report you mention is created by the Scientific Service of the Bundestag. As I said a long time ago, it is not from the historian branch, so if you want to add, you can, but I will add the information about that branch too. The documents I mentioned above are more recent than the report.

If you cannot read German, at least use Google translate - I'm sure they are competent in a case like this. The latest document shows that the AfD guy is asking the Bundestag about the barracks' status. The state secretary of Bundestag (for defense) Tauber replies that they have no plan to change the name. The secretary is the one who represents the voice of the institution, not the AfD guy.

The other document I mentioned (also after the Scientific Service's report) is much more detailed. In this they praise Rommel as the following:

Das Missachten verbrecherischer Befehle und die Missachtung des vom NS-Regime geforderten ideologischen Feindbildes sowie der soldatische Mut und die gezeigte Verantwortung durch Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel, die Beendigung des Krieges gegenüber dem Diktator auch unter Gefahr für Leib und Leben persönlich einzufordern, sind sinn- und traditionsstiftend für die Bundeswehr.

I will hardly call that distancing from the figure.Deamonpen (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Lieb on Rommel

I think there is a problem, when some people want to shorten and delete a whole lot of things real quick, but then decide that this quote should be manipulation and that sentence sounds odd without a quote, without bother checking carefully themselves. A lot of quotes have been deleted from this article.

The section is about civilians in general. No one decides that it must be about slave labor. " Rommel changed the order and permitted the French population to seek cover in the fields" out of his concern for civilians is described by Lieb as a fact. "How many were saved" certainly has a speculation aspect, but not more than the ones who talk about the "possible" and "likely" atrocities caused by the Ghost Division.

For my history of arguing with MyMoloboaccount, i hope that third parties should look at this case, so that edit wars are prevented and the article is not butchered using nonsense reason.

This is Lieb's description:

At the same time, Rommel felt pity for the French When he saw their pain and suffering after the Allied aerial bombings."2

The fate of the civilian population was not a top priority for the German military once the invasion started; they had to focus primarily on military matters in this hard battle. Initially they had ordered locals to remain in their houses during the fighting, so that they would not become a liability. But after a while the Germans found that dwellings had become a trap for the civilians during the heavy Allied bombardments. Rommel changed the order and permitted the French population to seek cover in the fields. This probably saved the lives of thousands of local Frenchmen during the battle."3

Deamonpen (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Mines in Africa

I don't protest the addition of landmines, although at some point I will add something to it too. But it's not about "treatment of civilians". One should find a proper section to put it. Mines were for the enemies, not civilians. If I leave behind rat traps (in a legal manner) that happen to hurt you, that is not about "how I treat you".

The British planted even more mines than the Germans. Both have destroyed lives, until this day. That is something brutal, and journalists and artists are right to point out the brutality, even if no crime happened and Rommel probably did not imagine it (they were planted in places far from the populations).Deamonpen (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Charles Marshall

He was not a historian, but he was able to access many sources first-hand, and I have not seen any source criticize this author (early, and also quite influental) as dangerously misleading, the way Young or Liddel Hart is criticized. I think if Proske and others qualify as quotable source, Marshall should be too. Deamonpen (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Proske is a historian, cited in scholarly works and reports by Bundestag. Marshall isn't a historian, for controversial and highly significant claims a better source is required. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

A historian in the strict sense has to be trained as such. Proske does not hold a historian's degree, and the branch that mentions him, as said, is not the historians' branch either. Marshall at least could publish his work using normal channel. If Proske was a respectable historian whose claims are respected by historians, maybe he would be able to avoid the self-publishing route with his main work, one would think? And you think that his claims are not controversial? Mind you, the Bundestag itself is a political institution, so the answerers I mention in the above section has more weight as representative of the instution, but also, only regarding the political value. Their scientific branches work in the incognito mode (no known face, no known work) and their reports are not academic publications that follow academic standards either, so whether their reports have value or not, it's for the politicians who give them the commission to decide (and in those latest documents I mentioned above, the policitians don't even mention this report). And that is not their historians' branch either. Same with the "internal report" composed by Bundeswehr's experts, which prove that Rommel was innocent. I can understand if you mention such reports in a section talking about controversies over Rommel among politicians and military actors. I cannot understand them being the equal of normal academic publications.

Deamonpen (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

A historian is someone who is respected as a historian by other historians. Formal training is not a requirement, or Thucydides would just be a history buff.

In that vein, a book about Rommel that is praised and cited by others will be a very useful book for Wikipedia. A book that is significantly questioned should be carefully handled, certainly named per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and not given much weight. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I know and I respect historians like those. I even accept journalists and people who are not historians, if their claims are notable in some way (discussed, protested, approved... by historians) and put at the right place. I just brought the trained historian matter out in this context because the other user had mentioned that Marshall was not a historian. Despite this, if Thucydides lived in our day, I expect him to at least be able to publish his main work through a respectable channel, except if his country were named North Korea. By respectable channel I mean a normal academic institution/publishing house (at least with transparent academic procedures...etc)

Marshall is old, but the work was widely acclaimed in his days as claimed by LSU press

https://lsupress.org/authors/detail/charles-f-marshall/

a 90s historian's opinion

https://books.google.com/books?id=ldxBGkzE0F4C&pg=RA2-PA61

a recent one

https://books.google.com/books?id=NvfyLM8IyvwC&pg=PA478

Deamonpen (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

"The Bundeswehr and Germany's NATO partners recognize Rommel as the modern knight of the Bundeswehr, a highly successful operator of military arts and an apolitical, chivalrous soldier"-dubious claim

Quite interesting. Which "NATO partners" recognize Rommel as modern knight and chivalrous soldier" ? Does it include NATO modern Poland too, where Rommel stood on victory podium in German ruined Warsaw together with Hitler? The sentence is incredibly dubious, especially since I can clearly remember recent publications by German authorities showing Rommel in much less favourable light.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Whoever added the text I commented on, seriously manipulated the source material. I have obtained it and it mentions this in context of two statements from 1990s, it is also highly critical of Rommel and underlines heavily that such views are reserved to Anglosaxon countries. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Manipulated? I think I was the one who added it and I did not remember how it was in my original form because it was a long time ago. Please kindly provide your own translation by the way. I repeat, if you have something that says the contrary, add it. Don't just delete the things you don't like.Deamonpen (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not remember how it was in my original form You seem to be quite forgetful, I remember you also forgot that a source you added to this article was a Holocaust Denial website [2]. Should there be a review of sources you added just in case of any other surprises like this?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This was not my intention and I recognized that immediately. At that time I also edited only a few of the Wiki pages and I did not deny that sometimes I could not choose a good source. But when I added my sources en masse, it was the time other contributors like K.e.coffman was active as well and we mutually checked our sources back and forth alot. Originally I used to provide the German sentences too until they got deleted by others who feared that the article was too long. But you can review my sources here if you want. Now, back to the question here, please provide your own translation?Deamonpen (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the book for others, especially those who understand German, thanks (note: this is just a simple fact Hagen recognizes, in an ironic way if I understand that well. Hagen criticizes the Bundeswehr and NATO for revering Rommel in a half secret, half open manner):

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=5rTWBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA184

Deamonpen (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Rommel gilt in Deutschland und vor allem in angelsächsischen NATO�Ländern als besonders ritterlicher Soldat. Dies geht auf Rommels Rolle im Wü�stenkrieg während des II. Weltkrieges in Nordafrika zurück. Unter Bezug auf die Soldaten der militärischen Opposition konnte sich die Bundeswehr NATO�konform von NS-Deutschland absetzen ohne sich von der deutschen Wehrmacht

klar zu distanzieren

• Rommel is considered a particularly chivalrous soldier in Germany and especially in Anglo-Saxon NATO countries. This goes back to Rommel's role in the desert war during World War II in North Africa. With reference to the Soldiers of the military opposition were able to set the Bundeswehr apart from Nazi Germany in accordance with NATO without clearly distancing themselves from the German Wehrmacht.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the original extract I use (I think my translation was originally longer, but then cut short by someone. But "Rommel was and is reconized by NATO partners... as the knight of the Bundeswehr and effective operator..." is its spirit.)

"In seiner Person verkörpert sich der moderne Ritter der Bundeswehr, da er zur militärischen Opposition gegen Hitler gezählt werden kann ohne dementsprechend gehandelt zu haben, aber als sehr erfolgreicher Operateur den unpolitischen, ritterlichen Soldaten verkörpert und auch bei den angelsächsischen NATO-Partnern anerkannt war und ist.”

I cannot understand why don't you just go straight to the page I provided, instead of searching for something unrelated in another page and then making baseless accusations against me? If you accuse others of manipulation, at least provide accurate translations checked by someone who knows German (the extract and translation you provide seem to be produced by a machine??) If you provide better translations, I have nothing to protest. If there are different ways of interpreting things, it can be managed by providing the exact quotes. It's easy. Deamonpen (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the purpose of adding this to the article, we already have a section of the misleading Rommel Myth? Why was the text manipulated by omitting information on the purpose of spreading of this propaganda image and that such receipt of image of is limited to Anglo Saxon countries? Anyways there is section on Rommel Myth already, no need to spread it all over the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This is just about his current status in the eyes of important organizations, and also a quite simple, shortened, neutral sentence. Whether the things people believe about Rommel are lies or truths, it's another matter completely. If "Rommel is good" is something that is widely known as a lie and you believe the sources you cite are enough to prove it, it's a good thing to tell the public that the Bundeswehr and NATO as insitutions still deliberately protected that image. Anyway what about Anglo Saxon countries here? NATO is clearly broader than that. I can tell you as an Asian, there are many people here who have a positive view of Rommel as well.

And can you bother reading my reply. I used a different extract that has no "Annglo" in it. Deamonpen (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

:Please read the page 184 I provided above. Don't try to search for something elseDeamonpen (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC).

'Don't try to search for something else Are you seriously telling me not to read the source where you don't want me to ? Amusing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to be patient here. I used the sentence in the page 184, but you used another sentence in another page to accuse me of manipulating things. Two sentences are not related. They also don't contradict each other (your sentence says that he is considered a knightly soldier in Anglo Saxon NATO; my sentence says that the NATO considers him the knight of the Bundeswehr and a good operator). Why is this hard? If you accuse me of manipulating things, please prove that I manipulated the sentence I actually used!Deamonpen (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually both sentences are from the same text and both concern the same subject in proper context. It would be absurd to claim that Nato Member Poland or Italy view pro-Nazi war criminal such as Rommel in positive light. The text specifies that this myth is limited to Germany and Anglo-Saxon countries. We already have a sub-section on how image of Rommel was distorted.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about Poland, but I don't think Italians think bad about him if a central left party allows a marathon that bears his name. The sentence I use says "NATO", and I understand that is about the organization (because the Bundeswehr is an organization, so "NATO partners"Italic text here should be about member armies, as far as I understand). Your sentence has nothing to do with this - it talks about his image in those nations (meaning it's about the people, the scholars... too). But if you say that this is manipulation, the simple solution is adding the sentence you choose next to the sentence I choose, so that others can determine the meaning on your own (edited for the signature).Deamonpen (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing this sentence would contribute to the article. It is already bloated, and we have a sentence on Rommel Myth.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it contributes. Let others decide.Deamonpen (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The section is about his military reputation (often relying on the opinions of military personnel themselves). The sentence regarding the NATO obviously fits that context. Hagen just describes the situation neutrally without mentioning anything about the Rommel myth - NATO rates him highly, that's just a fact (section also mentions views of specific modern leaders, so this sentence shows which side is the majority/status quo). Deamonpen (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

No this has nothing to do with military capability and NATO countries in principle forbid use of slave labour and executions of prisoners of war.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The sentence I used mentions both aspects (knight and efficient military operator). And so what? If Rommel had been a bad person at all and NATO still reveres him despite their own laws, it shows that they are hypocritical. It's something the public should know about and decide. Notice the subtlety. "Modern knight of the Bundeswehr" - Normal people normally don't know that the Bundeswehr claims Rommel for themselves (this is actually because many of his subordinates later played the leading role in the institution, so they consider him kind of a spiritual prototype, even if Rommel actually had nothing to do with the Bundeswehr.)(edited for the signature)Deamonpen (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems you are engaging in personal views and original research. Hagen clearly shows this attitude as sourced in Cold War mentality that survived in Anglo-Saxon countries and in Germany, not the whole NATO-he sources this to statements in 60s and 90s, primarily function of which was to integration of Wehrmacht into Bundeswehr. The unwillingness of Germany to deal with its Nazi past is well known but outside the scope of this article--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

You just proved yourself that the two sentences have nothing to do with each other. The sentence I used mentions that: He was and is recognized... as knight and military operator. 2014 is not Cold War, "was and is" in 2014 should not be about Cold War.Deamonpen (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Read the source, it describes statements from 1967 and 1998.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, completely different situation in page 223. Page 184 which talks about the modern knight concept is discussing the changing role of soldiers in modern time, which makes such a model/Rommel appealing. Rommel being considered a prototype for modern soldiers (according to them) is something interesting. It explains a lot. Neitzel says in an interview that the Bundeswehr might let all other Wehrmacht people go, but they will risk their careers for Rommel alone. Why that? They don't need to legitimize the Bundeswehr anymore. Deamonpen (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the same text and the same issue. 1998 was 13 years ago and before Eastern Europe joined NATO. It's not "modern times"." which makes such a model/Rommel appealing" I doubt anyone is attracted in modern NATO to Nazi ideology."Neitzel says in an interview that the Bundeswehr might let all other Wehrmacht people go, but they will risk their careers for Rommel alone. Why that? They don't need to legitimize the Bundeswehr anymore" Yes, Germany had and still has to certain degree problems with dealing with its Nazi past, but this is outside of the scope of the article.Please take your OR elsewhere.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I cannot understand how you can twist it this much. Hagen, in 2014 clearly states that he "was and is" recognized. If it was about 1998, he would say "in 1998, before the Eastern Europe joined, NATO still revered Rommel..." About NATO being attracted to Nazi ideology, this is the thing: they certainly don't care about the racist and dictator stuff, but from their military view, they care about the idea of a Kämpfer. If you know a bit about the brutal soldier Carl Peters, who was the early idol of the Nazi, you should know that he was once portrayed as the ideal Kämpfer. Miles Christianus (aristocratic ideal of a a medieval knight) is also outdated. But the modern knight/Miles Protector (Rommel as the example) incorporates both in a selective manner (read the second paragraph in 184 and you will get an idea).

I added the Neitzel thing to shed a new light on this problem, please don't think that I'm trying to bring "German dealing with the past" into this (if it's about the past only, Stauffenberg and co should be at least equally precious). On the contrary, Miles Protector is about the present and the future. What I get from Hagen is that: because they want that model, they need a prototype and they find that in Rommel. and Hagen feels that they are willing to ignore his problematic aspect, as well as focus too much on the values of "homo militaris", and not "homo sapiens".Deamonpen (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Scheck on the movie

Scheck also says there is no evidence about Rommel's crimes. He helped to direct the movie but the movie had many parts and created by many people. Please insert the part Scheck says about Rommel's involvement. Or I will insert Scheck's other sentences next to it. And some time ago we already discussed about this movie here. It was Irving who created the dubious situation about Rommel.Deamonpen (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC) It was Irving who created the dubious situation about Rommel I have a hunch it could be that Rommel created the situation by following Hitler(whom he described as "God's prophet"), him and his soldiers executing defenceless prisoners and using slave labour. It's just a hunch though you know.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, you brought out the most negative interpretations of things that actually have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Please don't pretend that people ignore things, when you were part of the discussion about that topic yourself. If you have something new, please talk here first. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Erwin_Rommel/Archive_8#Anti-semite

You mean this well sourced fragment about Rommel's antisemitism?

During his visit to Switzerland in 1938, he reported that Swiss soldiers who he met showed "remarkable understanding of our Jewish problem".[52] Butler comments that he did share the view (popular in Germany and many European countries during that time) that as a people, the Jews were loyal to themselves rather than the nations which they lived in. Despite this fact, other pieces of evidence show that he considered the Nazi racial ideologies rubbish.[53] Samuel Mitcham states that "Yet after years of propaganda even Rommel was infected with the anti-Semitic virus, at least to a minor degree. ... Rommel did not approve of Jewish clannishness, and he was also suspicious of Jews because of the large amount of wealth which they had acquired", but he was more focused on his family and his career than he was on this particular issue.[54] This is based on several scholarly sources What's the problem?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean the discussion on the movie, Irving, black people being used as actor in an abusive manner... that is part of that section (which begins with Anti semitism but does not end there). Two totally unrelated things.Deamonpen (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean the discussion on the movie, Irving, black people being used as actor in an abusive manner.' The information about the movie which Rommel directed isn't based on Irving.Irving makes a claim that African PoW's were executed by Rommel during the shooting of the movie.I haven't included this information. That Rommel directed the movie and that African forced labour was abused is widely known and scholarly sources confirm this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that you used Irving. I directed your attention to the conversation about this movie (the part that had Irving, black people, Hanke, Caddick-Adams) in that section, because before that you brought out the unrelated anti-Semitism matter.

Rommel was just one of the person involved in that movie, which was filmed in many places. Scheck mentions that together with the fact that his division was in the area massacres happened (same with other divisions), but Scheck also explicitly says that there's no evidence Rommel did anything criminal in France. In short, "he was a part of a movie that was related to brutal treatment of POWs" is about as helpful as "he fought in Africa where brutal things happened". I will not delete you but when I alter this article I will quote Scheck in full and add others. Right now I am focusing on another page.Deamonpen (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Section on massacres of Italian soldiers by German forces

Section on massacres of Italian soldiers by German forces is incredibly POV presenting only historians who defend Rommel while omitting others

Section on massacres of Italian soldiers by German forces is incredibly POV, selectively cherry picking sources to show Rommel as innocent. There are several historians who accuse him of violating international law and issuing orders in spirit of Nazi policies in Soviet Union, for example Professor Dr. Wolfram Wette from Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure that if, on this page, we practice the normal things we usually do to other historical personalities, as in only choosing the notable sources (publications from historians who are known to be experts on the subject), it would look much better for Rommel. Lieb, Reuth, Remy... are such sources.

Dr.Wette is respected for his past works on WW2 in general. However, I would like to see from him an academic publication on Rommel, same with Prof.Steinbach who, as far as I know, has a negative opinion on Rommel as well, although I don't mind "speeches/posts on a magazine" types of sources in general - especially because, they have both spent some years portraying him as negative etc. Beside, in the lecture he gives regarding Rommel's supposed crimes, he presents as his sources (for both the claims about Jews in North Africa and Italy) the renowned, commendable historian Proske - who himself, mind you, is not sure that his accusations can stand on a legal basis but still, as a historian, calls Rommel a war criminal anyway. I think it is very harmful if we just allow these "war criminal" claims from people who are not even sure about their graspe on international laws and such, to be spread - and not only them, but the people who use them as their primary sources as well.

So, in short, about Dr.Wette: expert on a broader topic, not on the specific subject, weak sources for the claims.

About Proske's opinion that I mentioned above, see here:

https://www.schwaebische.de/landkreis/ostalbkreis/aalen_artikel,-rommel-war-kein-widerstaendler-_arid,11127973.html

Schwaebische Zeitung requires subscription.

The quote is:

Als Historiker würde er ihn einen Kriegsverbrecher nennen. Da er sich aber nicht sicher ist, ob diese Einstufung auch aus juristischer Sicht zu halten ist, nennt er Erwin Rommel schlicht einen NS-Täter und überlässt die weitere Beurteilung jedem selbst. Dies hat Wolfgang Proske bei einem gut besuchten Vortrag im Evangelischen Gemeindehaus deutlich gemacht. 

In the recent, widely published (on media) discussion/podium on Rommel, the Italian claims were also checked and the Aalen historian team (historian Georg Wendt and the teacher Matthias Pfeffer (Rommel expert, according to the media) decided that Rommel was not a war criminal as well. Same with Dr.Wette: no academic publications that I know of.

Deamonpen (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

You are using a freelance journalist who seems to be dedicated to covering the German expellee organizations[3]. Hardly a source that I would consider reliable on the subject matter. Also the Schwaebische Zeitung is described on German wikipedia as controversial and moving away from critical journalism[4]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Freelance what? We are not talking about the journalist's opinion, we are talking about Proske. The journalist just does a simple report. It's a normal article not an opinion piece or something. The newspaper is till responsible for it being published. Also Every paper/journal/magazine... has controversy to a degree, but I will hardly call Schwäbische Zeitung controversial just because one book says that the content is becoming less crtical (German wiki does not say that the news outlet is controversial. It just has a "controversy" section for the newspaper like the case with any other major news outlet; ). It's reliable enough for your commendable historian to grant it an interview, and I have never seen him mention that they presented the wrong report anywhere. I quoted Schwäbische Zeitung here on this Rommel page too, but it seems it was not controversial until this Proske debate.

At least it's better than Proske's conference paper for a conference organized by an activist group. Just write that "Proske tall the Schwäbische Zeitung that..." etc Deamonpen (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned Dr. Wolfram Wette, who is a respected scholar and certainly a much more reliable source than freelance journalist, not Proske(who is quite reliable as well, but not subject of this discussion)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Wette uses Proske for the source of his claims for a non-academic paper. If you bring out a publication of Wette on WW2, it will be another matter. If will not debate with you on Proske's reliablity anymore, as I think other contributors can decide this at this point. This has nothing to do with the journalist's opinion. AgainDeamonpen (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think Wette, Wolfram & Ueberschär, Gerd R. Kriegsverbrechen im 20. Jahrhundert and Deutsche Kriegsverbrechen in Italien: Täter, Opfer, Strafverfolgung by Gerhard Schreiber are quite reliable scholarly sources compared to journalist's opinion.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

If they base their particular opinions on a subject on the basis of the works of historians like Irving for example and cannot even publish such opinions on an academic paper, I doubt it. Schreiber btw is already mentioned I think on this page. But when Wette mentions the Italian orders, he says "see the Gesindelbefehl ... in proske" (Gesindelbefehl is the description of Proske, in his text, that I have) and just recommend Schreiber "for the context". Ueberschär, Gerd has nothing with this - I don't see him accusing Rommel of a war crime anywhere.Deamonpen (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

and cannot even publish such opinions on an academic paper for the record Proske you attack relentlessly and claim he is unable to publish academically, has published in academic papers such as Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft [5]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

His one publication has nothing to do with the opinion (Rommel was a war criminal) you are trying to insert here. He talks about a Rommel movie made for television. This is my point: Wette and Proske and co cannot publish on a respected journal or a decent publisher that Rommel was a war criminal. That's the difference with Marshall, for example - Marshall published, and he received endorsements for what he wrote about Rommel. And Marshall did not say that he was not sure whether what he said has a legal basis.Deamonpen (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Wette has published whole academic books and is a historian and a professor. Marshal isn't a historian, didn't publish academic books and was a knitwear manufacturer. Your sources are quite poor.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: When I was working on this article, as well as the Rommel myth, I've read up on Rommel's activities in Italy. Atrocities on behalf was Rommel were not mentioned. The source I used was:

• Caddick-Adams, Peter (2012). Monty and Rommel: Parallel Lives. New York, NY: The Overlook Press. ISBN 978-1-59020-725-3.

Caddick-Adams covers the Rommel myth in some detail, so it was not an apologist account. I have a book by Wette, The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality, and he mentions Rommel twice. One mention is in the context of the The Rommel Papers, and another one was about the Bundeswehr naming facilities after Rommel and other former generals. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Rommel's engineering

He has technical talents and the people quoted should know that, plus modern historians agreeing with them (Liebn repeats Meise's quote). I consider this excessive removal. It seems only contemporaries who said negative things about him are those "we need" here, or what? The matter with aggressive deleting is that it will bite back at the other side as well. Deamonpen (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It might be better to describe Rommel's engineering abilities by paraphrasing what historians said, rather than including a quote. That a former subordinate would praise Rommel is not remarkable. I do recall reading about Rommel applying himself with great vigor to the task. I don't recall whether the historians concluded if Rommel's fortification played a decisive role. It might be good to include this.

I only have Reuth: Rommel: The End of a Legend at the moment; it devotes little space to the topic. Reuth writes: "When Rommel assumed command [of Army Group B] he began a feverish effort to strengthen the Atlantic Wall. ... he coordinated an ambitious building program and undertook extensive inspections." I assume these defenses were for naught as the Allies eventually landed in all target sectors. So perhaps the effusive praise via the quote is excessive. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Subordinates badmouthing their superiors and jealous superiors badmouthing a famous subordinate are just normal as well. If we include one side, the other should be included too. His engineering ability did play a role because as the engineering side liked him, he gained authority. Speer mentioned that Rommel was gaining this technical reputation - the Atlantic wall was the Todt Organization's task, he had no reason to praise a "rival" like that. The Atlantic wall was not supposed to last alone. The plan was that military actions and the physical defence combined would create an effect (like a shield and a warrior), but on the day the Allies landed, each local commander on the German side basically fought the way they wanted and some were busy with their girlfriends, so there was no coordinated action. Physical defense alone did not work in our modern world the way castles worked in the medieval era, that was why September 11 happened. Reuth does not comment on it because he does not have the engineering background Zaloga has. Zaloga notes that the Allies succeeded quickly but the construction itself was good (although I don't think he rates Rommel really highly overall as a commander, even if he does not use strong language).Deamonpen (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a distinction between civil engineering (calculating how much tons of earth to be moved) and military engineering (deciding where to put an anti-tank ditch). Organisational skills and the clout to get the job done also play a part in impressing the builders if it means the bricks and mortar are delivered on time.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Both Zaloga and Speer were familiar with military technical projects, I think.Deamonpen (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Samuel W. Mitcham

I learned that Samuel W. Mitcham is been criticized for neo-Confederate and pro -Nazi Germany views. This was unknown to me before. Such authors with such views aren't reliable I have started to remove references to this non-RS source.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Mitcham is criticized by some for an occasion bad book or a title influenced by German propaganda (Fortress Europe), but he receives great praises as well. Never heard that he is Neo Nazi or neo Confederate (why the Confederate matters here, may I ask?)Deamonpen (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Samuel W. Mitcham is not a reliable source for the article, given his apologist approach to Wehrmacht's generals. There are a lot of reputable historians who cover Rommel, and Mitcham is not needed. I support removal. The neo-Confederate views, as well as his subscription to the myth of the clean Wehrmacht, are relevant, because this shows that Mitcham's views are outside of the mainstream. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Is he described as subscribing to the clean Wehrmacht myth? My impression is that some works of his are highly praised, why others aren't. But total removal is quite extremist.Deamonpen (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Mitcham was was discussed in detail at Talk:Samuel_W._Mitcham, where I provided reviews to this effect. For example:

Of the many histories of the Wehrmacht that I have read and reviewed over many years this ranks as perhaps the worst. Even the propaganda-laden stuff put out by the Soviet Union in the 1970s was better than this. (…) The Rise of the Wehrmacht serves no purpose at all other than to revive many of the myths about the Wehrmacht that should have been put to rest long ago.

Another: betrays adherence to a central plank of the postwar myth of the ‘unblemished’ Wehrmacht. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say that this is about one work of his on the Wehrmacht, though. I think that he is not a historian who I will quote when describing the Third Reich's politics. But he does have good aspects, including the military and technical things, as the same reviewer says:

Defenders of Fortress Europe is nonetheless a fascinating and insightful work of military history on the German officer class of the Second World War. However, while the work does an excellent job describing battles and establishing links between the social, political, and religious background of German officers and their actions in combat, many of its implications for the study of the Third Reich must be read with a critical eye.

Same work is praised on Military Review: https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=Ksq8GKBlK4IC&pg=RA1-PA127

In this case, I will say that the author has controversial aspects, but is "he is outside the mainstream" a bit too much? At least he gets decent publishers and gets (mixed) reviews. People like Iving just gets ignored. Deamonpen (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Rise of the Wehrmacht, I myself think that it's not the best work of his. But the reviewer here, when criticizing myths associated with the Wehrmacht, seems to have something related to technical details, functions of forces...etc in mind. Myths about the Wehrmacht include many things other than the Clean Wehrmacht. I don't see the reviewer mentions crimees or such?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236705424_The_Ri se_o_the_Wehrmacht_The_German_Armed_Forces_and_World_War_II_review

Thanks. Deamonpen (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"Betrays adherence to a central plank of the postwar myth of the ‘unblemished’ Wehrmacht" is from the review of Defenders of Fortress Europe: The Untold Story of the German Officers during the Allied Invasion. Washington D.C.: Potomac, 2008: Outstanding Officers, SS Fanatics, and Nazi Generals on H-Net. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "reducing Mitcham, plus general overcite to Mitcham". --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I am still not sure this is a function of wikipedia editing. Our impressions of a historian are not, or should not be determinative. Especially if the opinion upon which we are discrediting the historian is on a unrelated subject. I don't see enough evidence to remove Samuel Mitcham as a WP:RS. I don't agree with his position, but I'm sorry I think there is a tendency for WP editors to go off half cocked when it comes to historiography and RS decisions. If there is broad evidence of him being discredited by the larger academic community, then maybe. But I see a lot of sniping, especially based on reading one review of one book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBickley00 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

he protested against the massacre of the citizens of the French town of Oradour-sur-Glane

This has been repeated in several books but recent research doesn't confirm this as being clearly confirmed in any of the documents from meetings where Rommel supposedly protested. It is also blown out of proportion and out of context, as apparently both local commander and SS superior of the officer responsible wanted to punish the commander responsible. This myth has origins in Young's laudatory and biased biography of Rommel. See Desert Fox or Hitler Favorite? Myths and Memories of Erwin Rommel: 1941-1970 by Joseph Allen Campo from UC Santa Barbara, 2019--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• In my reading about Rommel's time in Normandy, I've not come across this anecdote. It sounds apocryphal and, IMO, should be removed. The sources I used were:

• Reuth, Ralf Georg (2005). Rommel: The End of a Legend. London: Haus Books. ISBN 978-1-904950-20-2.--K.e.coffman (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Lieb, Peter (2014). "Rommel in Normandy". In Beckett, I. F. W. (ed.). Rommel Reconsidered. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0-8117-1462-4.

Both discuss Rommel's command in Normandy in detail. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Campo is a neutral author but he does not focus on the truths of Rommel's life, but the developnment of Rommel's reputation. Here he does not say that other historians rely on Young. He just say that Young did not provide a source for his account. Young's account is that in a meeting between Rundstedt, Rommel and Hitler, there was a clash between Rommel and Hitler about the incident.

Here Peter Lieb mentions Ahlrich Meyer's work that says Rommel and Blaskowitz protested again the incident. Ahlrich Meyer is a historian who publishes quite abit on France and Nazi crimes (edited a bit for a mistake).

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=IcTpBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA372

This paper on the website of the Gerda Henkel foundation, written by Happ, mentions an order by Rommel that charged the officer Okrent with investigating the incident. That certainly does not come from Young as well.

https://lisa.gerda-henkel-stiftung.de/binaries/navigation/6016/9xokrent.pdf?t=1456146901

All in all I would like to hear the full details of this incident, because I have no Meyer nor Ueberschär (whom Happ uses as source). But the accusation that this is a myth from Young cannot stand.Deamonpen (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ahlrich Meyer sounds like a reliable source. I suggest that Rommel's protests be mentioned, but briefly, so that not to give undue weight to the incident. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me @K.e.coffman but you came to this conclusion after reading TWO sources? TWO? Out of how many published on Rommel, or on Rommel's time in Normandy? I don't have a dog in this fight one way or another (though I do think Rommel was mythologized as a part of a cold war rehabilitation process), but wow, a whole lot of decisions are being made on scant evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBickley00 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)