Talk:Rommel myth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Broken sfn citations

Just a heads up that the following citations do not "connect" to the relevant books in the bibliography:

• Zabecki 2016
• Shirer 1960
• Hart 2014

—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Misspelt MP's name?

This page states that in 1951 "Richard Grossman, a Labour MP" was criticising portrayals of Rommel as an anti-Nazi. The name is not article-linked and no Richard Grossman turned up in disambiguation as a British Member of Parliament in any era. I strongly suspect it is a mis-spelling for CROSSMAN, as Richard Crossman (later better known as a diarist as well as one of Harold Wilson's cabinet ministers) had been an anti-Nazi propagandist in World War II and would have had a critical interest against it. However, I would like this checked out before I alter it.Cloptonson (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Indeed, it's Richard Crossman -- I must have misread. Patrick Major's article reads in part: "As Richard Crossman, former psychological warfare officer and Labour MP for Coventry, pointed out — quite presciently given current assessments of National Socialism: ‘ to argue that because he was attractive, courageous and chivalrous, Rommel could not have been a real Nazi is to miss the whole German problem, which is that any German who is uninterested in politics can be a good Nazi and a good fellow at the same time'." K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Notification

Congrats for single-handedly building such a large article, K.e.coffman. I hope I will have enough time to, rather than radically erase or change your points, majorly expand the article with other sources, except in some cases when the statements are blatantly untrue (and can be proven as such). So, complicated man, complicated authors, complicated ways of expressing their points of view (for plenty of reasons, like supporters not wanting to be seen as hagiographers so they try to be as critical as possible, detractors not wanting to sound like haters who argue against all evidences, and tired audience who feel like becoming schizophrenic, or even perhaps as Hecht's remark, these endless debates helping authors to deal with financial hardships considering he is that popular) which lead to many cases of misunderstanding, especially when foreign authors who cannot read German (or just lazy) - both detractors and supporters - misread the German ones' intentions (in Germany the revisionist trench has been going on consistently for about 40 years, while in English-speaking countries, this is quite recent; and German historians have easier access to many new sources). As for detractors of his military competence, well both sides have existed since day one. His methods have always been controversial and likely that will continue, as long as they remain influential in higher decision making and in academies, since I've read many officers' criticism that their armies have been Rommel-ized even though Rommel lost. I believe there are still many good sources to portray a "balanced" view, and there's no need to force readers to swallow the same contents they have already read on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deamonpen (talk • contribs) 12:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good -- looking forward to additional contributions. My one suggestion would be to please use the short citation style that's already in use in this article. This greatly simplifies inline editing since citations do not get in the way. For example:

Short citation copy sample

Rommel was an ambitious man who took advantage of his proximity to Hitler and willingly accepted the propaganda campaigns designed for him by Goebbels. Messenger points out that Rommel had many reasons to be grateful to Hitler, including his interference to arrange for Rommel to receive command of an armoured division, his elevation to the status of a national hero, and continued interest and support from the dictator. Messenger argues that Rommel's attitude towards Hitler changed only after the Allied invasion of Normandy, when Rommel came to realise that the war could not be won.

References

Bibliography sample

• Messenger, Charles (2009). Rommel: Leadership Lessons from the Desert Fox. Basingstoke, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-23060-908-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Naumann, Klaus (2009). "Afterword". In Charles Messenger (ed.). Rommel: Leadership Lessons from the Desert Fox. Basingstoke, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-23060-908-2. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Please let me know if I can help explain these better. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

thank, I will try to apply it. Maybe I've tried too hard with long citations, because in many cases I just want to include the links in one form or another.

Deamonpen (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Irving, and Ambiguity

Der Spiegel does not say "We praise historian Irving..." but this sentence definitely indicates some recognition: "Es ist das Verdienst des Historikers David Irving, die Legende vom anständigen General ein wenig zurechtgestutzt zu haben." And not just in this article but in 2 previous others. However this clearly does not prevent both Lieb and Der Spiegel from saying that they disagree with Irving (Der Spiegel and Lieb both believe that the mythical figure stands, although they also seem to imply that deep inside Rommel knew that something was wrong with Hitler and the system, with Lieb has more faith on Rommel the resistance fighter than Der Spiegel) And I know, with anything involves Rommel, it is sometimes hard to know whether an author is giving a back-handed compliment, let alone when it also involves Irving. See Mitcham, who attacks Irving for writing a "largely derogatory" work that distorts the subject (while others feel that Irving does try in a honest way to praise Rommel - as a shining Nazi genius), and seems to agree with Admiral Ruge who praises Irving for writing an extremely readable piece of fiction. So what we have are ambiguous reviews on ambiguous authors on an ambiguous man. You can delete the "praise" part if you want though, as long as the basic info is kept.

Der Spiegel gives recognition for being critical on Rommel, because he takes the initiate to question Rommel's "image" or depict him as a "naive fool" - "that still believing Hilter would work on a diplomatic way out of the misery". Der Spiegel in previous articles have had also criticized Irving for his paraphrase of Rommel's dialogs to draw a "prevalent and positively" view on Rommel's "tactical competency" and "ingenuity", while Irving himself only acknowledge Rommel's letter as "repetitive, grammatically wrong and bourgeois". However, you are interpreting too much in that one sentence, Der Spiegel should not stand in charge. That Irving was the first to review Rommel's letter is nice to know, but should have no relevance in the argumentation to the section of "Contradictions and ambiguities".

I would write it accordingly: "Peter Lieb and Der Spiegel recognize Irwings substantiated findings about Rommel that question his image as a "chivalrous" resistance fighter, [106][107] although, his biography has been criticized for misrepresentation of the subject[108] (more context would be helpful) or having "revisionist" nature.[109]" 37.252.224.35 (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

That does not mean some authors are not just plain lazy. Unbelievable. I can see why with Beckett, but someone like Caddick-Adams (who bothers to write a bio) reporting that this influential author Maurice Remy has been doing a good job of debunking Rommel... is beyond me. Apparently Remy's book was too "exhaustive", much more than Remy's documentary. Other ZDF documentaries do cause the same problem. Caron does say that the stolen gold was Rauff's treasure, rather than Rommel's treasure, with Rommel bearing no responsibility for Rauff's treatment of Jews or the thief of gold. Doesn't prevent Caron from making a documentary called Rommel's Treasure, and another one called Rommel's War which leave people with the impression that Rommel did something extremely shady. Naive author (who seems to be well-meaning towards Rommel then takes the bait. German directness is overrated, is all I can say. Deamonpen (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Mitcham and Pimlott

I took out the opinions cited to them -- they appear to be lesser writers on military history. Mitcham is good for military operations and OBs, but not for opinions on works by other authors. Amber Books seems to specialize in militaria (website).

The material I took out appeared both undue and unneeded, since the article is already citing a number of reputable historians. Please let me know of any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Who opines that Mitcham is not good for opinions on other authors, then? I did and can still cite multiple cases in which the authors you cite provide highly questionable info and opinions, and yet I never make any attempt to drag these authors totally out of the articles, because I try to give the readers some range, that despite these authors' mistakes, maybe their books have other merits here and there.

So in comparison with the authors who have negative opinions on Rommel, these are lesser authors then?

Dr. John Pimlott was head of the Department of War Studies at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, England. A foremost expert on twentieth-century warfare, especially World War II, his works include studies of particular campaigns. He has also edited many large-scale military histories.

links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deamonpen (talk • contribs) 03:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. was born in Mer Rouge, Louisiana, in 1949. He was educated at Northeast Louisiana University, North Carolina State, and the University of Tennessee, where he received his doctorate. He was a U.S. Army helicopter pilot during the Viet Nam War, remained active in the reserves, graduated from the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College, and is qualified through the rank of major general. Following in his mother's footsteps (she was a newspaper editor for 47 years), he is the author of more than 40 books, several of which were History or Military History Book Club Selections.

And I will bring out many others soon. Deamonpen (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

My point was that Mitcham is a writer, not a historian, i.e. he does not hold a teaching position. So I would not give his opinion as much weight as an academic. But I admit I was wrong on Pimlott; thanks for providing the info. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that makes it clearer. So you meant he was not a professor then? But he was.

Dr. Mitcham was a professor at Henderson State University, Georgia Southern University and the University of Louisiana at Monroe, and was a visiting professor at West Point. Deamonpen (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say they have the credentials for inclusive; frankly, you guys should consider some edits for concision as to the "opinions" of the various historians/authors on both sides so the reader does not get just a wall of text of different points of view. Kierzek (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Reducing is possible, but I think that leads to downsides as well, even though I've played to the rhythm of this article.

Say, this article (in mentality, very reddit and very gamer-like), tries to find out limits of Rommel by discovering whether he was a strategic/operational commander or not, because as they see it, tactical < operational < strategical (very linear way, and certainly, a number of writers might think in this way too). But

-Some do not think much of his strategic ability (say Mitcham, until the Normandy 1943), but basically think tactical and operational abilities made up for the large part of it, some would say it could not be so. Basically, leaders (military and political too) with more flexible mentality (who believe that the commander can always create the space for themselves instead of merely finding it) will act more tactical than strategic (like the planner type who like to include everything or almost everything in the original plan), and thus will sympathize with Rommel.

-Not every military writer explores the subject through this dimension. Some emphasize logistics (many others point out that he cared about logistics)and strategy, some point out military culture (and not everyone will agree that what spread by Rommel was good).

-Some point out the system, that he was a valuable operational/tactical commander in a system of operational/tactical commanders (in which no one held strategical control except Hitler and some cronies), thus it is unfair to compare him with someone who functions in another system, with other culture and directives.

Thus "concising" leads to the risk of grouping those who should not be grouped under one banner. I understand that wiki encourages summary styles, I just think it's actually harder than it sounds - not on the technical side, yes, it is easy to write that:

-ABC say he was not a strategist, DEF say he was a strategist

-ABC blame him for bad management of logistics, DEF say it was Halder's responsibility like Rommel said and Rommel was encouraged to focus on battles etc

-(According to a lot I've read) US-UK writers tend to like him more (both as a person and a military), while Germans don't (My experience is not so. They generally do like him, just in a complicated way, although they care about his moral values more)

Deamonpen (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, considering this is being considered for GA and thus perhaps needs cleaning, if someone needs to shorten the texts, I suggest it should be K.C. who does it first with his texts, since I don't want any charge of sly removal against me anytime soon. And what I post are common counter-arguments against common critical views (of Rommel) posted by K.C. I know and can post a lot more more regarding both sides, but I did not because I also didn't want to turn the articles into a mess. Seriously, anti or pro, basically there have been no new arguments nor new trends since 1939. The pro highlights his intelligence disadvantages (Ultra etc), the anti highlights his intelligence advantages (he had info from an official in the Allied camp).... It has always been a mess that I get the feeling they choose or disapprove his ways based on their social ideals or natural temperaments rather than actually professional ideas on competence (for example, staff officers might hate such commanders who interfere with details, break every plan, drag them from comfortable hotels to muddy battlefields, force them to deal with a lot of things other than their normal training...etc and leaders who want more coherent, stable social and military systems will protest too. But at the higher level of management we also have people who campaign for his barracks and ideals so their ideals can work, because generally the big ones are megalomaniacal at the core and want to leave some personal prints on culture and world, and thus his barracks and prizes and memory still stand...etc Same with those English nobles who defended him for protecting forgotten chivalric memories of their class - it was more than that he was a kind or good-natured man, or a convenient excuse for their incompetence. He played the diplomatic, mental games with Churchill and Allied leaders a lot, with all their outdated rites and quirks and manipulations, and at the beginning they had thought he was a thug, unlike those "vons" who knew the conduct). Or some praise or dismiss him because they need him to praise or dismiss Patton or Montgomery. Such a highly politicized leader like that, maybe it will need one or more century, I don't know. We can remove just about everything and say that he's controversial (with 100 refs behind) and it's still right.

Deamonpen (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Deamonpen and Kierzek: I am wondering if it would make sense to break out a new article Rommel as military commander and move the content there, leaving here a summary and a "Main" link? I believe there's enough material to sustain a stand-alone article already. It could be expanded from there. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's OK to me. We will need to edit the main Rommel article for it too.

This guy (I mean R.) has taken too much of my time already.

Warnings: It will never end, and like I said, it is a mess with almost everyone (certainly with more professional knowledge than us) who ever says something looking like they have some ulterior motives (because they fit so nicely to their groups).

Other opinions: if you feel like it, please create another structure more convenient than "operational and strategic commander" or "myth and modern", because I'm incapable of thinking about these anymore (and as I said, detractors have existed in large numbers since day one. And people like Fraser should be grouped with a lot of "moderns" who have very similar opinions. His book is like the most read among modern authors', thus it certainly has detractors, but it's easy to see, if you even try to gg a bit, that it's generally rated highly and many feel it's critical enough. Too bad I only had one Chinese edition that I lost). And if you want to expand, there are many sources to excavate, do it yourself and I will follow and cover what I feel like needing additions.

Deamonpen (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe it is necessary. Between the main article and this sub-article, there should be enough space, so to speak to cover Rommel. And that is an area both articles must address to be a complete presentation. And you don't want to get into content forking. The main arguments/points-of-view should be presented in a clear and concise manner; and I know you gentlemen have worked to do that, it is not an easy task; I was merely thinking there could be some edits for concision; but I am sure the GA reviewer will tell you his opinion as to whether he believes that needs to be done. Also, since the GA review has begun, you should not make any major changes at this point; the review will not go forward if the article is not stable/ready. Kierzek (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not know this about the GA process, OK, so I will let it be stable then. Thank you.

Deamonpen (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Kluge

Beckett and co make it as if Kluge was the main guy here and Rommel was implicated through him. First, every evidence points out that Hitler and Goebbels received news of the betrayal of the two marshals at the same time, and it was Rommel the one who dealt these two much harder blows. Beckett and co present no evidence that dispute against other authors' (the majority, I'm 100% sure) narrative that it was Rommel who actively put the opening the border plan in motion, tried to recruit other generals, was courted by the conspirators for a leading position in the new regime... with Kluge being very reluctant.

Remy pg 240 quotes Goebbels as followed: "Erschüttert schrieb Goebbels am 3. August in sein Tagebuch: »Was aber noch bestürzender ist, das ist die Tatsache, dass nicht nur General Stülpnagel sich an dem Putsch gegen den Führer als Mitwisser beteiligt hat, sondern auch Kluge und, wie man vermutet, sogar Rommel. Man möchte die Hände über dem Kopf zusammenschlagen, wohin wir geraten sind. Wir machen augenblicklich die schwerste Krise unseres Regimes durch.«

"It's still more startling that not only Stuelpnagel was involved, but also Kluge, and they are suspecting even Rommel. One wants to put the hands over his head, where are we coming too...?"

If Kluge had not killed himself, he would've been killed immediately when he reached Berlin like other generals. It was Rommel who made them struggle between themselves about how to deal with him, with Himmler pulling out the "Rommel had worked for England since the beginning of Normandy" card and Bormann pulling out every tiny detail about him like "he did not wear glasses"...etc to force Hitler to kill him. And then the blaming party about who had caused his death, with a lot of ludicrous stories like "Bormann killed Rommel without Hitler's orders, Hitler then demanded an autopsy..." (see Linge) or Himmler said it was Keitel and Jodl (by a lot of authors). 15:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deamonpen (talk • contribs)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rommel myth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Biblioworm (talk · contribs) 02:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks interesting. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 02:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Rommel was subsequently able, with an intervention from Hitler, to obtain command of a Panzer division despite being earlier turned down by the army's personnel office... - Place "earlier" after "turned"
• Going against military protocol, this was noted by Rommel's fellow officers and added to Rommel's growing reputation as one of Hitler's favored commanders. - This sentence gives the impression that the officers went against protocol by noting the promotion. It should be clarified, perhaps as follows: "The unusual promotion of Rommel went against military protocol, and this was noted..."
• Patrick Major argues that the desert war indeed proved a suitable space to effect the reconciliation among the former enemies. The British popular history focused on the reconstruction of the fighting in that theatre of war, almost to the exclusion of all others. - "among" -> "between". Also, what is meant by "the reconstruction of the fighting"? Currently, it is not quite clear what is meant by that phrase.
• ...has also been criticized by historian Mark Connelly as "encapsulates the post-1945 hagiographic approach". - "as encapsulates" does not read properly. Perhaps "as it 'encapsulates...'" was meant?

 Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Young's biography was another step in the development of the Rommel myth – with Rommel emerging as an active, if not a leading, plotter. - Change dash to comma
• The trend continued with other uncritical biographies, such as Rommel as Military Commander (1968) by the former Desert Rat and author Ronald Lewin and Knight's Cross: A Life of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (1994) by the high-ranking British officer David Fraser. - Comma between "(1968)" and "by"; comma between "Lewin" and "and"; comma between "(1994)" and "by"
• Fraser's biography, while remaining a work of high reputation,[55][56][57][58] with Pier Paolo Battistelli praising it for the outstanding handling of the issue of Rommel's myth as well as his life and career in general, has also been criticised by historian Mark Connelly as "encapsulat[ing] the post-1945 hagiographic approach". - I recommend splitting this sentence in two, like so: "Fraser's biography remained a work of high reputation, with Pier Paolo Battistelli praising it for the outstanding handling of the Rommel myth as well as Rommel's overall life and career. However, the work has also been criticised by historian Mark Connelly as "encapsulat[ing] the post-1945 hagiographic approach."

-"Remains", not "remained", I think.-Deamonpen (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Connelly offers the example of Fraser writing about Rommel as one of the "great masters of manoeuvre in war", whose personalities "transcend time" and "cut like [a] sabre through the curtains of history". - Change "Fraser writing about Rommel" to "Fraser's describing of Rommel"; change "personalities" to "personality"
• The historian Patrick Major points out a recent work, the 2002 book Alamein: War without Hate by Colin Smith and John Bierman that borrowed the name of Rommel's posthumous memoirs for its subtitle. - Rearrange as follows: "The historian Patrick Major points out that a recent work, the 2002 book Alamein: War without Hate by Colin Smith and John Bierman, borrowed the name of Rommel's posthumous memoirs for its subtitle."
• According to Watson, the most dominant element is Rommel the Superior Soldier; the second being Rommel the Common Man; and the last one Rommel the Martyr. - Change semi-colons to commas
• In his work Homo militaris: Perspektiven einer kritischen Militärsoziologie, the senior social scientist Ulrich vom Hagen offers a critical view of the (past and modern) use of Rommel's image, which was and is recognized by Germany's NATO partners, as the modern knight of the Bundeswehr, who was highly successful as an operator of military arts and embodied the apolitical, chivalrous soldier (with several leaders of the Bundeswehr like Helmut Willmann, Hartmut Bagger and Edgar Trost declaring him as their personal role model) as well as the combination between this image, the traditional Miles Christianus model, and the concept of "soldier-statesman" to promote their military sub-culture. - This is far too lengthy for one sentence. Please split into two or three separate ones.
• Remy remarks that according to personal and official evidences, an incident (Rommel used tanks to threaten rebellious party members to protect a journey of Hitler), that has been used by Reuth and Irving to prove that Rommel came to Hitler's attention and became his escort in 1936, actually happened in 1939. - Perhaps the parenthetical should be made a note (also delete "a journey of" from the note). Even then, the sentence still has a tendency to run on. Perhaps it could be reworded as follows: "In addition, Reuth and Irving used a certain incident [note here] to prove that Rommel came to Hitler's attention and became his escort in 1936. However, Remy remarks that according to personal and official evidences, the event actually occurred in 1939."
• According to Remy, in 1936... - I think this would sound better if the order was switched ("In 1936, according to Remy, ...")
• Searle describes another of Young's assertions, that Rommel first became close to Hitler because Hitler had read Infantry Attacks and wanted to meet the author, in the fall of 1938, as "patently untrue", casting doubts on the rest of Young's narrative as it pertains to Rommel's relationship with the dictator. - I propose rearranging as follows: "Searle describes as "patently false" another of Young's assertions, namely the assertion that Rommel first became close to Hitler because Hitler had read Infantry Attacks and wanted to meet the author in the fall of 1938. This casts doubt on the rest of Young's narrative as it pertains to Rommel's relationship with the dictator."
• Goebbels wrote in his diary Rommel "is ideologically sound..." - Add "that" between "diary" and "Rommel"
• ...and as beguiled by Hitler as steel filings by a magnet... Hitler was a bulwark against bolshevism, [Rommel] had told staff officers. - Space between "magnet" and "..."

@Biblioworm:  Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, Biblioworm's last real edit was to this nomination back in August; would you like me to put this nomination back into the reviewing pool with no loss of seniority, so it is available for a new reviewer to select? Please let me know. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Yes, that would be great. The reviewing editor (Special:Contributions/Biblioworm) has not been on Wiki since Sept 10, so it looks like they are may be taking a Wiki break. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, done. This is one of two reviews that Biblioworm left unfinished, unfortunately. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Citation formatting

There are a number of examples of citations that don't point to references and vice versa. Fns 101, 107, 120, 121, 128, 136 and 137 don't point to a reference, and Murray & Millett, Citino, Creveld, Lieb, Owen and Detsch don't have citations pointing to them. It is probably just a technical thing with the ref field and ensuring the citations reflect the year/spelling/names correctly. From a brief look, the article looks pretty comprehensive. I hope you'll nominate it for Milhist A-Class review after GAN. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"Rommel Myth"

What is the source for the existence of a "Rommel Myth"? I think the source is quite weak in demonstrating that there is a widespread belief that the earlier representation of Rommel was a "myth"? Is there a source that uses the term "Rommel myth"? Is there a source that exposes the myth and turns the tide against the former historiographic representation? Is there a source that reviews the many different studies that revise aspects of Rommel's representaion? I am a little worried that we are in effect creating the notion of a "Rommel Myth", unless it is very clearly articulated in the sources that there is a consensus that the former representation was erroneous. I think the article needs to do much more work explicitly showing how historians have rejected from earlier representations and established a new consensus perspective on Rommel. As it is now the "reevaluation" section comes across as being potentially based on a synthesis. I would very much like to see some quotes from sources that evidence the historiographic turn in relation to Rommel (probably in the 2014 volume reconsidering Rommel?), and a specific source for the phrase "Rommel Myth" ( Beckett 2014? Sadkovich 1991? Robinson 1997?). I would suggest that the reevaluatoins section be much more specific in which publications have participated in what ways in contributing to a renewed view of Rommel.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The very first authors who have used "Rommel legend" are... Desmond Young and Basil Liddel Hart (i.e. those same authors revisionists try to debunk). See the citations in this section.

Rommel myth, as I've explained, is direct translation from Mythos Rommel in German. And modern German authors, whether they agree, disagree or agree only in parts with the Mythos, use this word widely (again, see the section I've mentioned). Two of the most notable modern German authors, namely Remy and Hecht, name their books "Mythos Rommel" (Remy agrees that the myth basically represents the person truthfully, while Hecht is more like "I don't know how to describe him yet.", with the way she presents it, he comes out as "romantic, but dangerous for himself and others.") More than any concrete elements (such as Myth being defined as praise of his morality or talent), German authors mostly talk about: 1.The mythical aura that makes Rommel an extremely provocative figure in Germany even today; 2.His ambiguous characteristics - ambiguity does not mean "grey", but that authors believe his character and even his abilities/flaws cannot be fully analysed in any concrete way (many reasons...), and that his story contains many strange elements (examples: a person being Hitler's friend and symbol of the Nazi regime, and at the same time not understanding what he did, the regime's ideology and crimes... etc is hard to believe; but known evidences point to this way; or, him actually leading from the front and surviving in unbelievable situations: people now think others also did it, but most of other high ranked generals usually visited the front at times at best, those like Manstein stayed safely miles away from the battlefield..etc). English-speaking authors tend to mention "morality and talent" more, beginning with Liddel Hart when he praises Allied commanders for trying to break the myth!

Thus the British commanders and headquarter staffs were compelled to make strenuous efforts to dispel " the Rommel legend ". It is a tribute to their sense of decency and his personal conduct that such counter-propaganda was not directed towards blackening his character but towards diminishing his military scale. Rommel Papers, full text

Regarding scholars' consensus, as far as I can see, this Myth article does not claim negative views to be modern scholars' consensus (and actually they are not), but it should be accepted that skeptic historians constitute a notable minority, with a fair share of coverage in the media.

Rommel's story is complex and inconsistent, and too many authors talk about it with contradicting representations (supporters disagree with each other too), and (with notable exceptions) the people who support his character tend to support his military abilities too and vice versa. So I think it does no harm to keep a more negative, skeptic article beside the main one (both articles mention a fair amount of supporters and detractors, btw) Deamonpen (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If it is not generally agreed upon that the earlier positive representations are a myth then it is even more important that the article do a better job of describing that it is a viewpoint that there is such a myth, and to attribute that viewpoint to those who espouse it. All this should be explained explicitly in the text - with clear attribution also in the text. As it is now the article reads as if everyone agrees that early Rommel portrayals are erroneous and uncritical, and that it is a myth - it is not at all clear that only some scholars consider it a myth nor who those scholars are. I think a basic istakje here is writing the article as if it were about History when in fact it is about historiography. You also cannot send readers to a different article to find basic information about what the Rommel Myth is and who has written about it. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was not the one who started the article (and wrote the majority of texts), and I believe when K.e.c wrote it, he actually believed the negative views represented the majority. And then the article has become what it is now because of so many edits. At times I do have some ideas about fixing some problems too but I can't figure out how to structure the writing yet. Deamonpen (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think it is a serious enough problem that I would recommend not passing the article as GA untill it does a better job of distinguishing history from histriography.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Apolitical

I know it sounds contradictory, but it's actually the key, and one area where most modern authors differ from the earlier ones.

Most of the earliest representations - Young, Liddel Hart...etc totally focus on his military career and made it as if he never had anything to do with politics. As for assassination, no, earlier bios rejected that too (and the political authorities wanted to keep Rommel kind of "neutral" at that point, because they wanted to soothe the many Hitler loyalists and/or militarists who opposed assassination as a method, even against Hitler, as well. Only Speidel and co had an interest in promoting Rommel as having supported them.) So, these authors' "apolitical" means both:

-Having nothing to do with politics

-Strictly focused on his military matters, ie. having no "political nature"

Today it is abundantly clear that he did have a political role in the regime long before the assassination. So the problem lies with the latter assessment.

Authors like Mitcham, Bierman..etc say that he was strictly focused on military matters, hardly had any political insight, his political influence while real was unwilling and the result of Hitler's and Goebbels' manipulation.

German authors generally accept that he willingly lent his image to propaganda. People like Remy though emphasize that Rommel accepted it because it noticeably helped him to boost German morale, get more support to his troops (military benefits)...ect without ever realizing the extent Hitler and Goebbels abused his image for political ends. "Vain but naive" authors like Hecht, Butler...etc will generally go this route too or something akin to that. And German authors now generally accept that his strange personal relationship with Hitler, the core of it very real, did a lot in making Rommel manipulatable for Hitler and co.

Some like Watson, Hansen etc emphasize that he did have a world view of his own and tried to spread this world view in all ways possible. Watson appears more mysterious about his position but evidently Hansen considers this "political" enough, and Rommel's political machinations adept enough (Remy does actually provides plenty of evidences for Rommel's attitude on various political matters, but he himself seems to think that Rommel was in the end about military matters more)

Other revisionists like Citino seem to blur the lines between the two matters and indicate that he was not apolitical both in reality and in attitude, an opportunist.etc

As the "Element" sections show, militaries who like Rommel (likely the majority, which allows him to be revered officially by the Bundeswehr and NATO) commemorate him both as "apolitical" and as "knight" (as they define it, "knight" is more closely related to a modern multifunctional soldier, a soldier-statesman with international influence than a traditional combatant fighting for his country, and totally not a mere technician).

What I understand is that they, as soldiers, do not want to be mere tools but also do not want to become snakelike politicians either. Thus they regarding the use of one's own image (as long as you are actually the brave, honest and talented soldier the image portrays) to raise your country's spirit and spread your ideals... as fair, in comparison with forming factions, making deals... like true politicians. (In fact Hitler initially wanted a whole faction of younger, Nazi, frontline, non aristocratic commanders to erase the whole military and political Culture of "older ones." In the end Rommel emerged the sole military symbol, and he essentially remained himself despite Hitler's and the party's lures, pressure and manipulations)

As for mutiny and assassination, certainly that does not sound dashing or apolitical. But it was an extreme case because it was Hitler. Rommel did repeatedly try to talk Hitler and others into reason using concrete evidences. And when he reluctantly went with the Resistance, he did risk himself and his beloved family by trying to recruit lots of important people (with Bormann's and Himmler's spies everywhere) and refused to evacuate his family before the attempt, and he went into this knowing the weight they were about to place on his shoulders when it ended.

Thus I don't think the "apolitical" word should be deleted because it is revisionists' premise, right or wrong. But just wait for the GA reviewer's decision, I think changes should be made later.

Deamonpen (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Academic writings

It's sometimes the negative/doubting camps who make the allegations themselves, that the notion is widespress

Russell A. Hart It has become widely accepted that the conspirators who sought to assassinate Adolf Hitler during the failed 20 July 1944 bomb plot had recently won over Erwin Rommel to their cause and – had Rommel not been severely ...

Zaloga: ROMMEL IS A DEMIGOD IN MOST English accounts of the war

Showalter:Rommel was an infantry officer—more than that, he was widely considered the model of a modern infantry general.

See also Proske and Wehler as seen in the main articles. Also even revisionist works like the one of Beckett and co, which you extensively use here: ...was the regime which had propelled him to fame, but he was as much a victim of his own myopic and narrowly military view of the.... I believe most people describe "having a myopic and narrowly military view" as "apolitical". Do you know what is the real problem? Some authors use "apolitical" in a positive/apologetical way. These revisionists understand that they must not say that he was apolitical to avoid provoking sympathy in the readers. They want to criticize him. But how... There must be a way. But they cannot find another word to describe the reality. So it turns out he was not apolitical but he had a narrow military view of the world around him which prevented him from seeing the larger political realities.

Few among the revisionists, and fewer among those you have cited here, avoid the previous trend or provide a picture of how Rommel did care and understand a lot about politics. So how can the notion of apolitical Rommel not popular?

As far as I can see, only a few like Hansen and Cocks and maybe Bruce Watson (Watson, or Kubetzky is something between "sophisticated leader" and the typical German "you can still interpret him the way you want." While Caddick Adams' "being complicated" is more like "sometimes heroic, sometimes criminal") see Rommel as a sophisticated man. They are more like political scientists than historians. They are not turned on by apolitical men who have happened to cause big troubles for humankind by their love of their professional careers. I mean Rommel's leadership style and military system happened to be ideal to promote and realize certain ideals of his and Hitler's, and thus continues to be used by various countries and leaders even after the German defeats: dictators of small countries, world powers, neutral countries... alike. Also as can be seen in Ball, Mass and Hagen, he actually had a lot of influence on the inner dynamic of the ruling class and their ideals etc See this part of Neitzel work to get a glimpse - yes I know it was just one person. If he was apolitical this means all of this is accidental - so it is unacceptable in the view of the political scientists.

I don't dismiss the political scientists here. Actually it's an interesting view to look at it, showing how men standing on borders of things can be viewed, and the exact same events can lead to different conclusions depending on the scholars. It's clear like day which is the minority. No need to "simplify" anything, imho. Deamonpen (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not following... The statement appears to say that "common depictions of the man in popular culture and academic writings as an apolitical, brilliant commander and a victim of the Third Reich (...) are not accurate". This reads to me as "academic writing" commonly depicted Rommel in such way. I don't believe this to be the case, as the academic writing (i.e. books by reputable historians) that I've seen provide a nuanced portrayal, rather than blind hagiography.

Could this be clarified further? Perhaps this can be reworded to clarify, such as "popular culture and uncritical post-war historiography"? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps because the historians you read are mainly such critical historians? Because if you want more statements from such notable historians who claim that most of the books they have read say such and such (and not just "post war"), I can provide. [https://books.google.com/books?id=453rHx98crUC&pg=PA250 Sandra Mass lists many authors up until Maurice Remy as hagiographic (totally accurate I think. If you call Young hagiographic), while recommending just Reuth and Sadkovich for "nuanced".

(I list herself as neutral because she, while generally avoiding providing a direct opinion on Rommel in general (she is something like a cultural historian and cares about the myth as a folklore element more), writes that Rommel combines chivalrous warfare with modern technology - meaning she does see at least that aspect as reflecting reality.

Ivano Massari: Today, Rommel’s legacy as one of the greatest military geniuses of all time remains intact, and he is revered as an outstanding tactician and a soldier of great personal courage and integrity.

Rice: Death came not proud to Rommel, whom many consider to have been one of the ten greatest generals of all time.

Also, some critical authors you've listed are not really more modern or least post war than some of those they criticize at all.

Also, do you really want I add more authors to both articles to show more clearly which side is the minority? I'm glad to do it, really. It's only that Carlotm seems to think that I have added too many sources to some statements already. I remember that Molobo also complained about something like that.

If another editor makes the opinion that the non-postwar sources listed here are still limited in number, I certainly will.

And actually, how does being nuanced mean that they are negative about him or oppose the facts I've listed? I write that they say he is chivalrous and brilliant, I do not say that they are all hagiographic/positive and don't criticize his (real or unreal) weak points. For example, Lieb says the Mythos stands, while he can list many of his questionable traits. That means I can still include Lieb in the list of those who says that Rommel was such and such, although obviously Lieb is more "nuanced" and has more "twists" than say, Young.

I understand that your opinion is anyone who still writes about him as such is perhaps influenced by propaganda or something. But do you really think that a respectable, left wing source like Der Spiegel would claim that the heroic myth stands (some years after they themselves implied that it was wrong) if the majority of modern sources say otherwise? The Rommel debate in Germany have led to many conferences being organised, the high point of it was 2012, when that article was published. If you make an observation on German media regarding the matter, you would notice that it is not Remy (although any scholar who writes a book or long article on Rommel now would have to discuss Remy), but Wehler (who was like modern German historians' godfather, and a notable left wing academic who had remained silent regarding the matter for a long time) who has turned the tide. Deamonpen (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Citation # 23 - Mitcham 2007, p. 150

Would it be possible for someone to confirm which book citation # 23 ("Mitcham 2007, p. 150") refers to pls? There seems to have been a number of books by this author published or reprinted in this year. I tried going through them in Google preview but don't seem to have been able to track this reference down. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that I haven't noticed your request. It is "Rommel's Desert War: The Life and Death of the Afrika Korps" and the words used by the author were "The Rommel legend". Very sympathetic account of the subject, thus my classification as neutral use. Deamonpen (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Modern English slang definition of "myth"?

I don't like seeing this usage on Wikipedia, especially in articles where the lead says that in German it is "Mythos Rommel", but then in the body it is clarified that the phrase in German actually means something else, because "myth" in the sense the rest of the article uses it is a modern slang sense that is not widely used in scholarly literature. It's the same problem as the so-called "Christ Myth Theory" -- Bart Ehrman, just about the only reputable scholar to address that, points out that it's a misuse of the word "myth". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Could you help me understand the nature of the concern? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"Myth" in the sense "widely held but false belief" is contemporary English WP:SLANG, and is used on English Wikipedia advisedly in certain circumstances like Christ Myth theory. When I read the lead of this article, I was skeptical that the German phrase included in the first sentence actually referred to the same thing as what this English article is about, since that would involve either (a) German having borrowed the usage from English (which doesn't seem particularly likely in this case), (b) English having borrowed the usage from German (something that seems even less likely), or (c) the two words in the two languages having independently acquired the same informal usage (which seems almost completely implausible). In fact,the body of our article actually implies that "Mythos Rommel" as actually something completely different from the English "Rommel myth", since the former carries no value judgement as to the historical accuracy of the myth. If I' reading the first paragraph of the body correctly, and if it is accurate, then the body of the article contradicts the lead, the lead doesn't accurately summarize the body, and the lead contains objectively inaccurate information. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

From my understanding of the topic, the English "Rommel myth / legend" is not really related to the German use of Mythos Rommel. The English-language (primarily British) version of the myth grew from the continued inability of the British forces to defeat Rommel in 1941-early 1942, which necessitated a creation of this almost mythical figure of Rommel (see Churchill's speech in the Parliament, 1942).

The "legend" also had much stronger roots and longevity in the English-language literature (via writings by Liddel-Hart & Young, Cold-war politics, etc) -- i.e. the idolatry of Rommel did not reach the same heights in post-war West Germany as it did in Britain & America. See samples of such hero-making from my user page, circa 2016: "Gentleman warrior, military genius". It took a considerable effort expunging such myth-making from the main article, over (at times) strenuous opposition.

I edited the Ethymology section to streamline. Does this help clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that pretty much solves it. Good work! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You could separate "The English Myth as negative criticism" if a large majority of English writers now used it in that sense. I write the Etymology section in response to the request of ·maunus, who wants to know who says that it is a myth, who says it is not and who means what with their version of the "myth."

Also, this article quotes many times the arguments ·of "neutral" myth writers. If we not careful and give an etymology section first, the readers will be confused and believe that the neutral (positive, to be frank) myth writers' basic stance is like the negative myth writers, with some modifications.

This is after all a word widely used by many authors who hold different beliefs, I see no problems in defining how the others (majority) use it first, and then explain how the negative myth writers use it.

This creates problems with things like "National Socialism", which certain people believe that it is like Socialism because the title says so. It does no harm to explain to them what is Socialism as Marx and others define it, and what is Socialism as most modern activists understand it, and what is Socialism as Hitler and co understand it.

Also, many of the negative camps quote Maurice Remy and "German historians" (those they've heard from the media like Der Spiegel and others) like their basis of argument, so after all it is not a separate matter. Part of it is a linguistic problem.

So I don't agree that the people who use it in a neutral way should be put at the bottom of the article.

Also, to 聖: many of the events listed in the origins... etc sections (also I'm terribly busy now, but I will try to make some clarifications there when I have the time again; but the basic events are OK though I think) are recognised by all camps (99% of writers). Many from the neutral camp recognize the propaganda factor and say things like "Goebbels created the legend", "Bernd created the legend", "Speidel created the myth"... with the help of Rommel who highly valued the mentality advantage (the only difference is that such authors believe that the content of the legend is basically true, or that Rommel is a legendary character in other ways). So I see no discontinuity here.

Deamonpen (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rommel myth/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll take this on. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

General comments

Firstly, this is a fine and well-researched article, decently structured and referenced.

• The article text names several books, journals and films explicitly (rather than just in references). I think this is only necessary when the work is itself notable, in which case its date should also be give in the article text. More minor works should not be named explicitly. For example, " Peter Lieb concludes in an article published in the German journal Contemporary History Quarterly (de): Rommel' 'did not play...'" should I think read "Peter Lieb concludes that Rommel 'did not play...'". If you agree with this approach then we should make sure that we have only major, named and dated works in the text, all the others being confined to references.

• Agreed. I corrected a few instances of this; if some remain, please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• The article is strikingly little illustrated for its length. Given the strength of the myth and the fame of the hero-subject, this seems to justify fixing by adding more images. I appreciate that there is a need to maintain neutrality, but given that we are discussing a myth, we should show what the myth consisted of. There are some photographs on Commons, including File:Erwin Rommel 1.jpg. I think we need also to show something of the propaganda (actual newspaper headlines, perhaps, in facsimile) and posthumous mythic images (film posters, book covers) to define the myth visually. These can be accompanied by explanatory captions which will help to disarm the images if need be. Key figures with a controversial aspect, like Liddell Hart and Irving, might well be pictured also.

I've added photos -- does this work? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.

• Where a book or film is the subject of a whole section of the article, I suggest we should have a "main article" link to it. ({{main article| ... }}) This would for instance be appropriate for Rommel: The Desert Fox and The Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel.

Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• It is not quite clear what language variant is being used. It seems mainly (and very reasonably, given the topic) to be educated European English (not quite the same as British, I observe, but not American either), in which case I'd suggest we use "film" rather than "movie", "cinema" rather than "movie theatre", and indeed "theatre [of war]" rather than "theater". Currently the language is not consistent. I expect there are other instances that deserve similar treatment.

Corrected; if more instances remain, please let me know. The original intent was British English, so I changed "recognized" to "recognised" etc as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Specific comments

• "Many historians conclude that Rommel remains ..." It would be good to name a few of them, as "Historians including Jones, Smith, and Robinson conclude...".

• Based on the sources in the article, almost all contemporary commentators paint Rommel in the shades of gray, so I just removed "many". K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• 'Etymology' appears to be a misnomer for the first section, which might better be called 'Terminology' or something of that sort. An etymology would derive the name from Sanskrit or Proto-Indo-European via Old Gothic.

Done.

• "arguably one of Germany's least strategically important theaters of World War II" - how many were there? I suggest simply "arguably Germany's least strategically important theater of World War II".

Done.

• The 'Contradictions and ambiguities' section is the weakest part of the article, its title suggestive of a ragbag. Since the entire article is about the complexities of a myth, I think we should aim to move each paragraph of this section into an appropriate part of the article, creating additional sharply focused subsections if need be.

Agreed. I relocated some of the content elsewhere, and renamed the section: "Historiography and continued debate". It would also seem that two last paragraphs from "Terminology" could be moved there as well. The extensive Terminology section makes the article "top heavy" of sorts, as it pre-supposes certain knowledge of the topic. I feel that the last two para would be better at the end. I would like additional input on this. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Do that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Done -- thanks for the feedback! K.e.coffman (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It's far sharper. I've trimmed the section heading for the same reason. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Liddell Hart drew comparisons between Rommel and Lawrence of Arabia, "two masters of desert warfare", according to Liddel Hart." Please remove the last four words.

Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• "enthusiastic, with the book going through eight editions". Better would be "enthusiastic: the book went through eight editions".

Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• "boosting his [Speidel's] suitability". Why not just say "boosting Speidel's suitability".

Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• An image of the cover of Infanterie greift an ("Infantry Attacks") should accompany the text; and the German title should be given in the text, with the English translation in parentheses after it.

Done re: copy. The linked article does not provide an image, and I don't think it's a big deal to omit it, as the section is quite short. Please let me know if it would be essential to do so. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, that's fine.

• The German title Sieg im Westen should similarly precede "(Victory in the West)".

Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Peter Caddick-Adams describes Rommel as "representative of a clean Wehrmacht, so we have authority to describe the Rommel myth as part of the wider Clean Wehrmacht myth, and should do so in the main text (and in the lead), rather than confining it to "See also". Incidentally that article has a useful illustration which would fit well here.

Question: the image in Clean Wehrmacht is that of a neo-Nazi demonstration. I think it would be somewhat off-topic to include it, as neo-Nazis tend to gravitate towards the Waffen-SS rather than Rommel. Please clarify. Separately, I've integrated Clean Werhmacht better, as several authors make the connection. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Good solution.

• When briefly discussing the Clean Wehrmacht and how the Rommel myth fits within it, you might usefully link to Nazism and the Wehrmacht.

Good suggestion, I added it to the appropriate section as "See also|Nazism and the Wehrmacht". Hope this works. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• There are embedded redlinks for articles that exist on German Wikipedia. One or two like "Thomas Vogel (Historiker)" have titles that do not work in English. Please find a way to replace these with plausibly English article titles.

Thomas Vogel is taken up by two footballers, so if an article is created in en Wiki, it needs to be Thomas Vogel (historian). I changed the red link to this; if this is still problematic, I can remove the inter-language link. Please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thats' fine for GA. Of course it would be great if there were English Wiki stubs for the redlinked authors!

• Some terms and names do need wikilinking, even if they are familiar enough to historians: blitzkrieg, Goebbels, Guderian among others. Please do a check.

Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• "The Rommel Myth Debunked" is discussed twice. Maybe this can be tidied up.

The purpose of the 1st mention is to indicate that the "Rommel myth" terminology is not a recent invention. I revised; please have a look at the changes. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tweaked the second one slightly, hope that works for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that works well, thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• "an article published in the German journal Contemporary History Quarterly" - do we need this much detail in the main text?

Removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• "who states that generals showing their pride is normal" might be better as "who states that it is normal for generals to show their pride".

Done. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Concluding remarks

This was a fascinating article to review, with sensitive handling of a difficult topic. I believe the article is sharper for the review, and that it is now more than worthy of GA status. I hope this will be a useful preparation for FAC; I'd still advise you to give it a thorough polish, and to run it through a peer review before you attempt that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough and efficient review. Much credit also goes to Deamonpen for providing the German-language sources and perspectives. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Mitcham query

Re-posting from my Talk page:

I recently took a look at the Rommel myth article, and was wondering about citation 166, which is sourced to Mitcham 2007 - except there are two books by Mitcham from 2007. Which one does this refer to? Thanks, GAB^gab 17:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Deamonpen: I believe you have added this content; could you clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed it. Thank you both.

Deamonpen (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"The myth is a view that the depictions are inaccurate"

The initial paragraph says that "The [...] myth [...is] a view that [the] common depictions [...] are not accurate". This is just weird grammar, and semantically wrong. The referent to the phrase "Rommel myth" is the depictions themselves, not the view of the depictions as inaccurate. My second version was too POV, but the way the initial paragraph stands now isn't good either.

How about this? "The Rommel myth, also known as the Rommel legend, refers to common depictions of German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel in popular culture and academic writings as an apolitical, brilliant commander, and a victim of the Third Reich due to his (disputed) participation in the 20 July plot against Adolf Hitler." followed by a sentence on the accuracy or not of those depictions, or the dispute over the accuracy of those depictions. Maybe putting in a "(disputed)" before the word "common".

IDC about this topic factually and I gladly refer to you and Coffman to handle that part. I don't have any facts about Rommel. [I mean, I've heard about him plenty, from secondary sources such as board games & pop culture, but I'm not a historical researcher, and IDGAF about Rommel.]

I'm all about that grammar. It can't say "The Rommel myth refers to a view that the depictions of Rommel is inaccurate", which is what it does now. That's not OK, grammatically or semantically. The depictions themselves, inaccurate or not, are the myth. The view isn't the myth. It could say "The phrase "Rommel myth" is used by those who propose that the descriptions are inaccurate", that would be OK grammar, but the article isn't about the phrase, it's about the depictions and about the dispute of whether or not the depictions are accurate. A dispute that I leave to you to decide how to portray, I'm not invested in it.

This is meant as good faith edits. Don't take my brevity as harshness. I've got nothing but big love for all the work that you folks put into our beloved Wikipedia. Let's find a solution that works for all of us.♥ Jikybebna (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

PS. I apologize for my overly POV second attempt. I'll try to be careful. Thanks for the reverts. But let's find a way to phrase the paragraph that we both can live with. Jikybebna (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, you are welcome. I understand what you say. I would like this approach myself. Problem here is the word "myth": critical authors use it in an inherently negative way but many others (the ones who say that the Field Marshal was apolitical, brilliant...) would not call their own depictions "myth", and most neutral authors who use the word "myth"(especially the German ones) explore it through many other perspectives (to the point one or more articles name "Rommel Myth" can be written in totally different directives). The only common thing in any work that mentions "Rommel myth" is the recognized phenomenon of the blending of historical facts, propaganda, different cultural and temporal perceptions, national folklore elements - many of which predated Rommel. How about "The Rommel Myth, also known as the Rommel Legend, is a phrase used by a number of critical historians in reference to to common depictions of... In these critical historians' view, such depictions are not accurate."? Deamonpen (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That does look pretty good to me. Nice! I guess the only caveat is makes it look like the article is about the phrase and not about the depictions. Which... I guess it's pretty tangled up, by now, given the article's title & current text. Jikybebna (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the lead a bit. If you or other editors have other opinions, please contribute.:)

Deamonpen (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead suggestion

I generally like the proposed version, but I would change it up a bit since "critical historian" is an odd usage. As proposed

• How about "The Rommel Myth, also known as the Rommel Legend, is a phrase used by a number of critical historians in reference to to common depictions of... In these critical historians' view, such depictions are not accurate."?

Suggestion:

• "The Rommel Myth, also known as the Rommel Legend, is a phrase used by a number of historians in reference to the common depictions of... According to these historians, who take a critical view of Rommel, such depictions are not accurate."?

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's OK I think. Deamonpen (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with it as it stands, or with K.e.coffman's "these historians" change. Either way is fine by me. Thanks for sorting this out amicably. Jikybebna (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Feminism

Recently, the Green politician Margit Stumpp put a Pussy Hat and a "Men have monuments, women have the Future" tag on Rommel's monument here, with the reasoning that it is unfair that in most cases it is men, and mostly military men, who get honoured like this. For the more subtle and more scholarly kind of criticism, one can refer to Sandra Mass' Weiße Helden, schwarze Krieger, in which she describes Rommel as the keystone of German patriarchy (with all the implications of militarism, colonialism, medievalism etc behind), which is apparently an outdated model for both the Bundeswehr and modern German society.

A note: That the civilian critics feel that he is being pushed down their throats as a model etc seems to be an impression coming from them only, because I don't know about any such effort from the German government or the Bundeswehr (I mean the modern ones. Perhaps this is mental backlash among those who know. Because he WAS the integration figure of the larger society during post war. For example, the Resistance depended on him totally to legitimize the concept of treason, i.e. "treason is acceptable - not because now we have to move on from medieval cultures to democracy, but because Rommel did it, or at least approved of it etc" in other words the same way the Nazis used him in building their Grand Narrative. See Cornelia Hecht. The modern German authorities certainly understand that continuing that method is unhealthy) In fact it seems the German authorities, although not refraining from defending him openly, always try to keep Rommel low-key outside the Bundeswehr and related circles, highlight his more prudent moments, and would most likely appreciate it very much if activists find out and promote more peaceful leaders as counter-"Vorbild." By all accounts, it seems the Bundeswehr Army Generals fight the hardest for him, and yet even they prefer to have medic generals, doctor-generals and foreign generals openly present their case instead of doing it themselves.

--Deamonpen (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Who is the deputy

"As early as 1950, Bernard Montgomery's former deputy referred to the "myth" in an article titled "The Rommel Myth Debunked" where he aimed to address perceived misconceptions regarding the fighting in the North African Campaign.[9]"

Can we clarify who the deputy is, by including his name in the article?Thetweaker2017 (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Allen Watson

I'd like to better understand concerns about this source:

• ...Bruce Allen, is not an historian. As far as I can tell he got his PhD in Psychology and then retired from teaching Art History at a Community College in California. His extensively cited book Exit Rommel is a non-scholarly work published in a trade house... [1]

Here's the info about the author:

• BRUCE ALLEN WATSON is Professor Emeritus of Art History and History at Diablo Valley College. He is the author of seven books, including on desert warfare: link.

The source used in the article, Exit Rommel, was initially issued by Praeger Publishers, which is a scholarly publisher, and then reprinted by Stackpole Books, which is a speciality publisher. I'd agree that some of the latter's titles, such as by Franz Kurowski and other militaria authors, do not pass RS muster, but some do. An example of this would be another title used in the article, Rommel Reconsidered, which is a collection of essays by historians and other scholars. Exit Rommel was included in the listing of "New scholarly books" by the Chronicle of Higher Education (Oct 29, 1999; Vol. 46, No. 10).

Are there specific concerns about this source? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

He lives, glad to see you're logged on. I figured out the reissue later and failed to update, that's my bad. Praeger, though, does both scholarly and general interest publication. I can't find the entry in the CHE archive, can you link me? Regardless, I'm unaware of the criteria used in those notices, can you help me out there too? My underlying issue is that Watson appears to be an enthusiast, professionally trained as a Psychologist, not a historian. I have concerns about his suitability as a reference. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a listing only. I don't have a link, as this is something I accessed via my library seach. My guess is that they compile it based on the publisher; other titles included in the list under "History" are from: Smithsonian Institution Press; University of Toronto Press; University of Tennessee Press; St. Martin's Press, etc. Re: historians, how do you define a historian then? Do you have a set of criteria that must be met?

What concerns about Watson's suitability as a reference do you have? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

My criteria for historians is pretty standard, that they are professionally trained as historians (hold a PhD. in the relevant field) and are working historians, either in research or teaching at the university level. In exceptional circumstances that "and" can be an "or." Watson doesn't seem to fit this criteria, as he is not professionally trained and his teaching position was generic and at a level that doesn't qualify. Outside of academia I also find established technical professionals at high levels commenting on their field of expertise as being acceptable in many, but not all, circumstances. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Are only historians, as you define them, qualified to have an opinion on the matter? What concerns about Watson's suitability as a source do you have? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

He can have all the opinions he wants, as with anyone else. I'm also pretty sure I already outlined my issues. Do you disagree with my assessment of what constitutes an historian for use as a reliable source? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You have questioned Watson's description as a historian in the article, but that's all I can see at this point. The source has been described as a non-scholarly work published in a trade house; I disagree with this assessment and have provided additional information. If you are questioning the source's suitability for the statements in this article, then I would suggest WP:RSN. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If you'd answer my question we could probably come to a reasonable conclusion, or at least have something solid in which to bring to an outside party. I've explained what constitutes an historian as a reliable source and why Watson doesn't met that. Do you disagree with my criteria? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

historian criteria seem overly specific. I don't believe Richard Holmes had a PhD but he was accepted as an historian, ditto Ian V Hogg. R. P. Hunnicutt had a masters qualification in engineering and Steven Zaloga is only a BA but is an RS. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Homes had a PhD from Reading in addition to being a former Brigadier, Hogg is not identified on Wikipedia as a historian, although he was a working/teaching expert at the University level for his area of expertise so good as a RS in his field, Hunnicut was a senior level professional expert as I outlined above so good as RS in his field, although his wiki bio shouldn't say historian, Zologa has a Master's and is a working military analyst so good for RS in his field, although I again sort of cringe at the "historian" label. My point being that there is an inexhaustible wealth of truly qualified historians who have spilled barrels of ink on Erwin Rommel. Going to someone as obscure and under qualified as Watson comes off as hunting for concurring opinions instead of building mainstream academic consensus, especially here. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

We assess the usefulness and significance of sources in line with the criteria set out at WP:RS. The most important of these is whether the source was professionally published by firm(s) with a good record of fact checking, which does not seem to be in dispute here. No reference has been made above over whether the work in question has been poorly reviewed by professional reviewers and historians, which is the main thing which counts against professionally published works. Getting into debates over whether different people are 'really' historians is a dead end, and not actually very relevant. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

And in line with RS there is no evidence he meets the criteria set out in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. More over, he's credited as a historian in the article, which is not established. Finally, to reiterate, he's a virtually unknown Community College instructor with an uncertain academic pedigree who's mentioned by name five times in the body of the text and is cited ten times in the notes. From what I can see, he may actually be the most cited person in this article, from a book with no indication of peer review at all. On an article dealing with one of the most, maybe the most, written about military leaders of the Second World War. This is is well worn strategy of a coat rack fork. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda

Beyond My Ken you reverted my decision to change the image locations because of "POV edit, moving visual propaganda to the top of the page" Really??? So the reason you don't want this image to be in the infobox of any article regarding Rommel is because you view it as "visual propaganda"? Since you regard the image as part of the Rommel myth and don't want it to be as the infobox image of the Erwin Rommel article, why are you against using it in Rommel myth article as the infobox image? Is there any policy in Wikipedia where you can't have an image in the infobox image because it consists of alleged "visual propaganda"? - as you called it.--Henry P. Smith (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Blocked as a sock of English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the only criteria, other than pertinence, is that the picture be a "natural and appropriate representations of the topic" when appearing in the lead. In this context I think the Rommell papers is a better illustration of the topic. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Henry P. Smith: You've advocated for that image both here on the Rommel article, and you've been told why it is inappropriate. Why did you think it would be more acceptable here when you were turned down there. One gets the impression that your concern is the promotion of Rommel, and we are an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promotion, even of long-dead generals. We have an article about Rommel, and the editors there have agreed on an infobox image, and I advised you to move the hagiographic image down into the article, which you did. As pointed out just above, this article is not about Rommel per se but about the mythos surrounding him, and the book is a better image for that. Please stop pushing your personal choice of images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

When I first joined Wikipedia one of the first things I read about was personal attacks and you have accused me of promoting Rommel. Wikipedia has a strong policy on WP:PERSONAL so you should omit yourself from accusing me of promoting Rommel in any further discussion between the two of us. Using an image of a front cover of a book about a person in the infobox is incredibly silly when there are plenty of images of that actual person but instead have been pushed further down in the article due to an alleged promotion of Rommel for using a well known 1942 portrait of him. An image of Rommel in the infobox and the front cover next to the author of that book is much more cogent.--Henry P. Smith (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Blocked as a sock of English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

One of the first things you did when you created this particular sockpuppet, or when you signed on some time ago as User:English Patriot Man, before you were banned and you began incessant socking? Go ahead and report me to the noticeboards, I really don't care. In the first place, you are obviously trying to promote the hagiographic view of Rommel, so no one's going to ding me for that, in the second place, your interpretation of what constitutes a personal attack is incorrect, and, finally, your report will help bring some public notice to your existence as yet another sock of English Patriot Man. So, please, report away. In the meantime, you're not getting that photo of Rommel at the top of any Wikipedia article, if I have anything to do with it, any more then you were successful in cleansing the reputation of Houston Stewart Chamberlain in your last identities as User:Robinson98354 and User:Sein und Zeit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)