Talk:Rommel myth/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

This article is a classic case of synthesizing and content forking a coat rack. Suggest immediate redirect.

I have to admit, I was pretty shocked to find not only the state of the parent biography but the very existence of this article. I've only spent an hour or so on it so I have not combed through the sources extensively, so please correct me if I'm missing key citations, but I cannot find a single independent, reliable third party source that substantively treats this topic as an independent academic or historical topic, much less one called "The Rommel Myth." The closest I can find is an obscure general treatment of post-WWII revisionism in The Myth of the Eastern Front, a single book used extensively to try to underpin substantial narrative changes across Wikipedia, a serious issue itself. While there has been plenty of hay made about the place of Rommel in history (as with any significant historical figure) the subject described here appears, as a concept, to be entirely the creation of K.e.coffman. While there are certainly some liberties taken with paraphrasing of sources and their meaning, which is another issue, this article doesn't seem outright fictitious. Rather, this article has accumulated a widely dispersed and largely unrelated series of asides and keyword searches and complied them into an entirely new and polemical hypotheses, the very definition of synthesis. Worse, it creates a neologism in the scope and meaning of the title, abusing or misunderstanding previous colloquial or context driven instances of the word "myth" and the German "Mythos," the interpretation of the latter here constituting original research. As this topic has not been treated substantively by independent sources in the context presented here it additionally fails to meet basic notability guidelines. The grooming and sussing of any tangentially related material to reference fluff creates serious POV issues as well. There are web cites in the lead and book refs such as Zaloga's Devil's Garden that have almost nothing at all to do with the material referenced, regardless of how impressive they look at the bottom of the page. Additionally, the article is permeated with any and all sources or mentions that can seemingly be found with the slightest whiff of support for the hypothesis, creating serious issues of weight. In fact, the very structure of this essay makes such a set of circumstances unavoidable as it is, at its base, a POV content fork.

The only solution in the immediate term I can see is to redirect the article to the Rommel parent article, after which point work needs to be done there. I recognize that this essay is not trash, it's intelligently and skillfully written, it's just not an encyclopedia article. I would propose that the primary stakeholder(s) in it move it back to their namespace, as any portions that could be retained seem to already be in the parent article. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added an additional tag since I just started going back into the references provided. At least one author put forth as a credited historian and cited extensively throughout this piece, 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 principally known for fishing books and publishing family members' books. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I have now tagged the phrase "numerous historians" as there are only four people provided without any ref provided to back the claim. Two are obscure and/or unconventional two are not historians at all. Watson has no academic credentialing I could find. Reuth is a journalist. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just removed the extensive tagging at the top of the article - such blanket tagging should be avoided in any article, and this is especially the case for those assessed as GA. As the substantive proposal is to merge the article, I've left that tag in place. Regarding the comments above, a wide number of sources do in fact analyse Rommel's reputation and how this has changed over time, so the article seems viable. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the term "blanket," I've demonstrated each item of concern on the talk page and requested input here and at MILHIST before making any substantial changes. Still, since there's concern it's overkill, I've trimmed the number of tags and reapplied a more judicious number of them. I've been gone a long time so I may be missing something but, as far as I'm aware, GA status doesn't preclude article tagging in any way shape or form. GA status doesn't confer any real enduring community consensus of anything or provide any form of edit protection, it just means it's been reviewed by at by one additional editor. It's not a shield to criticism or reexamination. Our guides on tags are unambiguous in their support of retaining tags placed in good faith until the issues in those tags are addressed and an enduring consensus has been formed. If you are aware of any policy relating to GA status and tagging that I'm missing please let me know. As for sources treating Rommel's reputation, you're absolutely right, something which I tried to make clear that I was aware of in my initial post. That is not the concern, not at all; it's a important component of his biography. The issue is that of content forking, original research, weight, improper use of references, tone, POV, and the introduction of a neologism in the form of advocacy. There is no recognized independent scholarly subject of "The Rommel Myth," it is entirely the synthesis of editors here. This article is pretty, but it's not in compliance with our standards. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

As there has been no support from other editors here for the tagging, I've re-removed most of the tags. The merge proposal and GA reassessment (which in turn obviously indicate concerns over the article's content) are the substantive proposals. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from other editors within a day or two of placing tags is not a condition of retaining tags. I'm familiar with and respect you and your work, and I'm sure that you're well intentioned here, but you seem to just be making things up as you go along. I've followed all the guidelines for the use of tags and provided a detailed explanation as to their purpose and reason, along with multiple requests in several places for additional input. This is a large article with multiple issues; I cannot do all the review and work myself, I need help. This is the purpose of tags, to raise awareness of concerns. If a multi-issue tag is not warranted on such a space where is it warranted? This is not a rhetorical question. You've provided no reason grounded in any policy or tag guideline or demonstrated a violation on my part, only your opinion. I've already attempted one compromise and now an additional, previously uninvolved, editor has concurred with my concerns below. Are you willing to revisit your removal of the tags or, alternatively, can we achieve a compromise here? I appreciate your time. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you hoping to achieve with personal abuse? Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I apologize, I just now noticed this reply. I already asked this question to some extent on my talk page without reply but I'll reiterate. I saw the two instances of what you called personal attacks at the sock investigation you filed. I'd reference your characterization of "personal abuse" here too. I'm at a loss as to how you consider anything I said in those provided edits as being a personal attack. Could you clarify? Also, can we work together on the tagging issue? There's clearly issues here and they're actively being discussed but a resolution hasn't yet been reached. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I think you and LargelyRecyclable both think that the GA reassessment is a substantive proposal that worths the use of tagging in the article page. What is the point of having those tags anyway, if not calling attention from other editors when needed? So I don't agree with Beyond My Ken's removal of that tag.Deamonpen (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree with the well-argued concerns raised by LargelyRecyclable above, and their proposals to address these issues, and I welcome them going forward with implementing their proposals.

This article does indeed have fundamental problems related to weight, neutrality, original research/synthesis and POV forking; it looks to me more like an essay presenting original research/synthesis advancing a particular (minority) point of view than an encyclopedic article and is basically a polemic against most post-war historians. I agree that it is dubious that "Rommel myth", in itself a quite non-neutral title, constitutes a suitable encyclopedic topic. The whole topic seems to be based on the fact that the German word "Mythos" has been used in relation to Rommel by a few sources; however as far as I understand the German word "Mythos" cannot be directly translated as "myth" in the sense used in this article and more frequently means something like "legend" (or possibly "reputation"), often in a positive or at least neutral sense.

The Rommel article certainly should discuss different views on his reputation (and the use of it), including the views discussed in this article, but in a balanced way. This article takes the minority/"critical" point of view as its starting point and title. If it is retained as a separate article, it should at least be titled in a neutral way, e.g. Reputation of Erwin Rommel, and it would need to be more balanced in its discussion of the different views. --Tataral (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a a single independent, reliable third party source that substantively treats this topic as an independent academic or historical topic, much less one called "The Rommel Myth."? Let's start with the sources that carry the "myth" in title. In 2002 Marice Pilip Remy published Mythos Rommel, Munich 2002. It dealt explicitly with the way Rommel was dealt with in both German and British propaganda and how his persona was mystified after WWII. At the same time it was a new biography of Rommel. See the review by Rainer Blasius in the leading German newspaper FAZ.[1] Remy also produced a TV documentary entitled "Mythos Rommel" for the largest German TV network ARD. In 2008/9 the Haus der Geschichte Baden-Württembergs hosted an exhibition dealing exclusively with the "Mythos Rommel".[2] In connection with this exhibition military historian Jürgen Förster edited the volume Erwin Rommel: Geschichte und Mythos (2009) Here is the toc PDF There was also a publication by the museum to be used in high schools.TOC in PDF, and, of course, a catalogue (2008) edited by Cornelia Hecht. In his biography Rommel. End of a Legend, Ralf Georg Reuth deals quite extensively with the mythologization of Rommel. (Reuth holds a Ph.D. in history, having studied with Andreas Hillgruber; his Ph.D was about German stategy in the Mediterranean during WW II. Since then he has published biographies of Hitler, Goebbels and others which have been reviewed by leading German historians.) To that I might add Günter Riderer: Hitlers Krieger im Wüstensand. Zur medialen Konstruktion des Mythos "Rommel" nach 1945. In: Fabio Crivellari (ed.), Die Medien in der Geschichte. Konstanz 2004, pp. 560-88. As early as 1967 the Italian historian Emilio Faldella in his work L'Italia e la seconda guerra mondiale spoke of "the myth of Rommel" mainly created by the English. I got this quote from James J. Sadkovich: Of Myths and Men: Rommel and the Italians in North Africa, 1940-1942 who also critizized the "myth of the Desert Fox" in Anglo-American historiography. (in: The International History Review Vol. 13, No. 2 (May, 1991), pp. 284-313) According to Sadkovic the myth was created by Desmond Young's Rommel the Desert Fox. Antulio J. Echevarria II discussed the "Rommel myth" in his contribution"The Highest Rule". Rommel as Military Genius In: El Alamein and the Struggle for North Africa. ed. by Jill Mary Edwards, The American University in Cairo Press 2012. The Rommely myth is also briefly discussed by Randal Hansen, Disobeying Hitler, Oxford UP 2014. These latter citations show that the German word "Mythos" has been translated by historians as "myth". This comes at no surprise, since according to standard dictionaries "Mythos" is best being translated as myth, i.e. a fabulation which may contain a grain of truth, but is basically too good to be true and has taken on a meaning by itself. There is a German word for legend, namely "Legende", there is also a German word for reputation, namely "Reputation", or, more colloquial, "Ruf". Both terms have a very different meaning from "Mythos". According to WP:DETAIL summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs. Full-sized separate subarticles are therefore warranted to expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article.--Assayer (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I feel like I've already addressed the usage of both the term "myth" and the German "Mythos" in the context of original research and the scope of the article. Simply remunerating the references listed doesn't address my concerns. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Then it seems that you did not express your concerns clearly enough, because besides the sentence I quoted above, you reiterated: There is no recognized independent scholarly subject of "The Rommel Myth,". How else can this concern be addressed if not by pointing out the scholarly literature? I understand that you are not familiar with the German language, since you, for example, were not able to see an indication of a Ph.D although the referenced author's profile clearly stated "promovierte 1983 über Hitlers Strategie". Nevertheless, the citations should proove that the "Rommel myth" is neither a neologism in the scope and meaning of the title, nor that the German term "Mythos" is interpreted in the sense of original research. What are the entirely new and polemical hypotheses? You did not name any in particular, but you seem to be intent not only on throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but on tearing down the whole bathroom right away.--Assayer (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, when you're right, you're right. Here you're right on two counts. First, my German is garbage. Second, Georgreuth is both a PhD holder and an historian. I found him at a conference in Wurzburg where he was a speaker. So, mea culpa. To clarify my point about "The Rommel Myth," the point is that these sources use this terminology either as a colloquialism or general descriptor, or they are taken out of context. These sources do not identify "The Rommel Myth" as a coherent, enduring phenomena, they simply describe or talk about hagiography and the changing conceptualization of Rommel's legacy, using the word "Myth" in that context. For example, if we had politician named John; I could, likely, without much effort, scrape together countless sources talking about "The John Lie" or about John lying or lies told about John. This does not mean the "The John Lie" is an actual, coherant independent topic. Were I to then create an article about it with such a name and compile all of the instances of John and Lie, or even just people talking about John and dishonestly in that context, to create a narrative I'd be engaging in synthesis. That's what happening here. As an aside, as a (presumably) native German speaker, do you think we should move Reuth's article to "Ralf Georgreuth?" LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, here is my opinion:

I have no problem with the existence of this article, but I do think that the article's structure creates problems.

Regarding Myth and Mythos, we have already discussed it in the section "Modern English slang definition of "myth"?" above. In this case, both English and German authors (as made clear in this article) use the word Myth/Mythos in its negative sense and neutral/affirmative sense. And the latter is true with the overwhelming majority of German-speaking authors, and a large number of English speaking author.

But the problem is not only that whether the author agrees with "the Myth"/Mythos or not. It is: what his /her myth is about? Rommel Myth/Mythos Rommel is (are) an umbrella word(s). Mythos Rommel as described by Sandra Mass is primarily about Rommel the cultural symbol: the one who unites German aristocratic, bourgeois and proletariat hero ideals.(And where is the "reassessment" in this matter?) Regarding this interpretation, whether he is talented military-wise or virtuous enough seems not too important (Mass does not even bother commenting that much on these aspects and nobody criticizes her highly regarded work for that)- he displayed such characteristics and thus performed his role, and that's enough. And this interpretation is important, too, if we want to delve into how the Nazi and then the post war German Goverment, NATO et al were (are!) able to use him so successfully as an integration symbol, the core of the society's grand narrative.

Others (among those, Watson - who, I think, is pretty qualified regarding cultural matters) certainly take interest in this route too. This article's structure does create an impression that historians see the Mythos only in the term of "Was Rommel a good person or a great commander?". Remy believes that the core of Mythos Rommel is his charisma (certainly, Remy talks about this in an affirmative sense), his ability to unite people and make them do things they would normally have not done (like treating the locals exceptionally nice). And here (pp.361. Edition 2002) he equates "Mythos" with "Ruf", and certainly not with a dissenting tone (regarding Rommel the person. Certainly he dislikes the way the regime used that reputation):

Rommels Ruf, der ªMythos Rommel", war Teil des Systems (...) Das stellt seine Taten und Leistungen als Feldherr in den Schatten der Verbrechen aber es ist keine individuelle Schuld.

Also, Assayer, can Mythos as in "Rommel bleibt Mythos" (Lieb's opinion) be interpreted into "something too good to be true"? I agree that all authors, or at least the majority, note that propaganda plays an important role in creating the Rommel image. But whether the image reflects the essence of his person is a totally different question. And what an author means with the word Myth/Mythos should be decided by what s/he actually says rather than just the fact that this word, in English, now has a slang meaning (that admittedly is creeping into academic books) that means "untrue, fabricated story"

Another problem with the structure is that it creates an impression that people like Fraser is somehow outdated and should be treated as a subject of assessment only and not source of references, while nothing demonstrates that the majority of modern historians disagree with them. Thus it is not an equal playing field.

I have no problem with a historian having roots in journalism, as long as their works are considered important/compatible with scientific standards by the academics. Maurice Remy, whose work is considered the modern standard in Rommel studies or at least very important in Rommel studies by many (including Reuth, who protest the "Rommel the Resistance Fighter" aspect), is a journalist too. So was the late Giordano. The Rommel problem is still a political hotspot and perhaps traditional academics don't have the such energy for debates often connected with political developments.

Deamonpen (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add that the Rommel Myth/Mythos Rommel was certainly mentioned during the War. The first (that I know about) author who wrote a book that talked at length about it was Rosie Goldschmidt Waldeck. And here is her myth:

It was not that he was an eminently successful general; at that time all German generals were eminently successful. But Rommel alone had all the makings of a myth. And a myth he had become — a myth so consummate that even his defeat in North Africa can't destroy it. What goes into the Rommel myth, aside from his ability to do sensational things with tanks and confusing the enemy with slippery and brilliant tactics ? First of all his age and and appearance. Rommel is in his late forties, which is young as German generals go, and there is an indelible youthfulness to his ugly rough-hewn face. It is a scarred, pockmarked face with a potato-like nose; but his smile, which is full of small unlovely teeth, has a puckish charm. When he laughs, which he does easily, the sharp blue watchfulness of his eyes takes on an impudent glint andone tends to forget the hard willpower which is in every line. Rommel looks like a soldier — only more so. Another ingredient of the myth is his apparent invulnerability. It fills his soldiers with awe. They see him day in and day out — torso rising out of the turret of his cruiser tank which leads the main column in the thick of the desert battle. The mortality among his aides was proverbially high, yet no bullet ever hit Rommel. His luck is the sort of luck which the ancients praised as an attribute of greatness. Add to the Rommel myth his closeness to his men. The Afrika Corps was a comparatively small force which Rommel picked personally and trained personally under simulated tropical conditions on the beaches of the Baltic. In Africa Rommel himself saw to it that his men had everything to make them as comfortable as possible under the circumstances. The men knew this. They knew that Rommel drove them as hard as he drove himself, but that he understood their needs and looked out for them. There is a deep comradeship between him and his men; he has a knack of talking to them, inquiring after their health and their mail and telling them rough army jokes.

So, basically, unpredictable opponent, charm, luck, Rommel the Common Man (who also promoted meritocracy like a true bourgeois, which he was, like the author made clear later).

Deamonpen (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@LargelyRecycable: I do not share your interpretation of the sources at all. Many sources speak of "the Rommel myth" and they provide a consistent description of what this means. I do not want to repeat the references. But to pick up your example, it makes a difference, if you have sources talking about "The John Lie" or about John lying or lies told about John. The very name "The John Lie" (my emphasis, but you capitalized it yourself) suggests, that this is not simply about all of the instances of John and Lie, or even just people talking about John and dishonestly in that context, but about an actual, coherent independent topic. This does not mean that each and every source means exactly the same thing when this term is being used. This is also not the case when you look through sources on the Siegfried myth or something like, say, the Industrial Revolution. In fact, many scholars will diasagree about the exact definition. But this does not mean that a Wikipedia article about the Industrial Revolution is not viable, just because it has to deal with various interpretations. As an aside, I appreciate your humorous suggestion, but I do not think that your German is that bad.

@Deamonpen. Sandra Maß' book is a Ph.D thesis. Thus she builds on the existent literature and tries to advance a thesis on her own from a different perspective. She acknowledges the existence of the Rommel myth, refers to Sadkovich and Reuth for further reading and then proceeds with her own analysis. This is testament to the consensus among scholars that there is a Rommel myth in the sense of a sufficiently coherent, enduring phenomenon. It is not just an "umbrella word". The quote by Remy draws a distinction between the Rommel myth and Rommel the man. The Rommel myth was, according to Remy, part of the (Nazi) system, but argues that Rommel himself is not to be held accountable for that, that he is not guilty as a person. "Rommel bleibt Mythos" means that Rommel remains a myth. It is difficult to assess the exact meaning of such a short sentence without its context, but in his work Konventioneller Krieg oder NS-Weltanschauungskrieg Lieb writes that the fascination with Rommel's myth as a military commander is still unbroken, although this myth was originally created by Nazi propaganda. And he also cites, among others, Reuth and Remy.--Assayer (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

To Asssayer:

Regarding Sandra Mass, she does reference a lot of authors from Young to Irving to Fraser to Remy to Sadkovich. But them being referenced alone does not mean she builds her "myth" according to these author's central tenets or the structure of the myth as being presented here. Also, it is not important but Mass publishes a lot on the issue of "colonial masculinity" and I would guess that the book "Weisse Helden, schwarze Krieger" continues with its core ideas of her Ph.D thesis (which I don't have) - but I don't know how this is a problem, especially if the book is given very favourable reviews (for example, here and here) and widely referenced, though.

Regarding Maurice Remy, I already said that the majority, if not all authors, acknowledge the role of propaganda in the creation of the image. And certainly, Rommel's image is not Rommel, just like what my neighbours talk about me, right or wrong, is not me. But again, two separation questions: role of propaganda in building the image, and the crediblity of the image itself. If you have read Remy, you will certainly know that the author is far from denounce the "mendacious myth" that Rommel was a brilliant commander (who should not bear responsibility regarding overreaching goals Hitler imposed on him from the start), an innocent man who was very brave when he realized the nature of the regime he served (in other words, a Resistance Fighter) et al.

Reuth certainly feels that Maurice Remy, who has turned the tide, belongs to the camp who describe Rommel as a deservingly mythical figure (while Remy also acknowledges that propaganda fostered that image, as well):

(...)The above-mentioned historian, who denies Hitler's authorship of the Holocaust, published a wide-ranging biography of Rommel in 1977. For the first time, this book presented as a follower of the Fuehrer' who remained loyal to his soldier's oath to Hitler to the last. There is no doubt that Irving 's interpretation of Rommel's relationship to the resistance represents a change in historical viewpoint. Later treatments of the Field Marshal, for example those by Dieter Ose and David Fraser, follow his interpretation in that particular respect. If the image of Rommel eventually changed during the last two decades of the twentieth century it can be attributed to, among other things, the fact that the manner in which the Germans dealt with their history had evolved even further. At the beginning of the 1980s historians argued whether the Nazi crimes were unique. 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(...) After a Rommel documentary in the ZDF (Second German Television) under the overall control of Guido Knopp the filmmaker Maurice Remy produced a TV documentary cum book in 2002. The latter marked another turning point when the legend of the Field Marshal as Speidel had created it after the war returned in Remy's The Rommel Myth. Rommel became the 'hero of the resistance', although with the qualification that he had also been a 'convinced National Socialist' for a very long time. 'Rommel was both,' Remy concludes.

In reality Rommel was neither the one nor the other. He had intrinsically understood neither National Socialism, nor the resistance to it. In this respect Rommel epitomises millions of Germans. The German tragedy is reflected in the persona of the Field Marshal as a prototype. He followed the Fuehrer, who had restored the self-esteem of a humiliated nation, into disaster and whilst doing so believed he was only doing his duty.

Regarding Peter Lieb, I admit we don't have the contents of his whole talk. But I think it should be mentioned that between the time Lieb wrote Konventioneller Krieg oder NS-Weltanschauungskrieg (In which he described Rommel as having a role in radicalizing the war in Italy, which led to more war crimes) and now, his opinions have somewhat developed. This is what he writes in the Beckett book:

Was he really as chivalrous an officer as he has often been portrayed? The following paragraphs examine his behaviour in Italy and France in three areas: first, his time in Italy with the disarmament of the Italian army and anti-partisan operations in autumn 1943; second, the application of the infamous Commando Order in his area of responsibility in the West; and third, his attitude towards the local French population during the Normandy battle.

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.

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. (...) Speidel and his senior naval advisor Admiral Friedrich Ruge both claimed that Rommel had always urged his soldiers to adhere to the 'laws of humanity' and 'chivalry'. With regard to the Commando Order this was certainly true.

Unlike the war in North Africa, the battle of Normandy took place in a relatively densely populated area and hence the local civilian population was a factor both sides had to take into account in their operational plans before D-Day (...) 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.

The paragraphs, which I cannot quote in full due to its length, can be read online here.

So according to Lieb, Rommel's most radical order in his career did not actually radicalize the war, and Lieb talks about this in the speficic context of answering the question "Was he really as chivalrous an officer as he has often been portrayed?." Considering that "chivalrous, clean fighter" is a core aspect of (the Wikis) Rommel Myth, I think Lieb should at least be classified as "neutral".

I mean it is "umbrella word" in the sense that different authors mean different things with Myth or Mythos. I agree that a lot of authors talk about the Myth or Mythos , however what they mean to portray using those words are in no way coherent - to the point we can simply summarise that the term "Rommel Myth" is in itself: 1.Means to debunk Rommel and criticize praises he has received.;2.Everyone, whether they oppose Rommel or not, agree that the Myth portrays a chivalrous fighter and a perfect commander (on the strategical level). In doing so, I'm afraid, we focus too much on a portion of what all authors try to represent. And I would like to remind you that I did not suggest that we should delete the page or anything that talks about "the Rommel Myth". I just point out that the structure of this page does create problems.

Take an author like Butler for example. According to him, the myths about Rommel (yes, this author uses "myth" in a negative tone) are:

1.

Thus the most pervasive myth about Rommel and the conspirators who planned and attempted the July 20 attentat, that, had he not been severely wounded on July 17 Rommel would have, in cooperation with von Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators in Berlin, announced a capitulation in the West, is rubbish.

As it was, any association, real or imagined, played by Erwin Rommel in the conspiracies against Adolf Hitler began not with Claus von Stauffenberg but with Hans Speidel, Rommel’s Chief of Staff beginning in April 1944, who was involved in the July 20 attentat, but neither so fervently nor as deeply as he would attempt to lead posterity to believe. The source of all “detailed” accounts of Rommel’s involvement with the conspirators is Speidel, and as postwar events would demonstrate, Speidel had ulterior motives for offering up Rommel as a key member of the July 20 bomb plot. And thereby hangs a tale, not one of Second World War intrigue, but of postwar politics and personal ambition. (so yes, with this part we can say he is on the same page with many "negative" authors)

2.

Despite the enduring myth that Rommel was Hitler's favorite general, Model had for some time been the new apple of the Führer's eye—known as “the Führer's Fireman"(...)

3.

Halder never forgave him for the barb, and began circulating the rumor among his fellow senior officers that Rommel's grasp of logistics was weak, if not positively feeble, the beginnings of a myth that continues to persist.

Returning to the example of Rosie Goldschmidt Waldeck (a American German Jew) above, do you think, judging from what she writes, she means to mock when she uses the word "Myth"? (as in, Rommel was not a brilliant tactician, not charismatic, not lucky and not close to the barefooted soldiers?)

Deamonpen (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think this small detail should be mentioned, because some editors seem to think Rommel is such a special case that historians have to dig out this rare occurrence that is called a (Rommel) myth, or something like that. But as far as I see, all leaders who have strong cultural impacts, especially any historical figure who is venerated (bonus points, if internationally) even after the first regime associated with him/her has come to an end, have "myths" (in all senses) about them. When regimes fall, they stay and influence the government's ideology - and at some point, it gets bitter (no matter what kind of person the figure is), likely because people feel like they are being controlled by something invisible. For example, Garibaldi, whose image has been used by the monarchy, the fascist regime and the republic. Lately, some groups of progressive scholars and activists tend to adopt a more critical tone towards him (although he has been a symbol used by socialists at different points in history too), especially because he was Mussolini's role model. Among those that discusses his myth (in a critical manner), Garibaldi: Invention of a Hero by Lucy Riall is perhaps the most familiar to English readers. Another is the recent Garibaldi the first fascist by Marcello Caroti. Garibaldi: Citizen of the World, a positive biography, uses the word and discusses the matter too. There are at least 20 Garibaldi bios with "il mito di Garibaldi" or "Garibaldi mito" etc in their titles alone that can be accessed online (understandable, Garibaldi was a century before Rommel, and has completed the process of gradually overshadowing the three other founding fathers)! If such other figures somehow become the targets of online communities in the future, Wikipedia will have many myth pages - I don't think this is necessary bad, but it should be done carefully in good faith.

Deamonpen (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by GA nominator

The concerns expressed in the GAR nomination and on the Talk page are vague and generalised:

• this is a neologism / protologism (via tags);
• “fails to meet basic notability guidelines”;
• “subject described here appears, as a concept, to be entirely the creation of K.e.coffman”;
• ”it's just not an encyclopedia article”, and more.

Additionally, the arguments are insufficiently well researched, such the OP incorrectly dismissing Ralf Georg Reuth as “not a historian at all” or describing another work as coming from a “trade house principally known for fishing books”. The original publication was by Praeger Publishers, as was linked as such in the bibliography.

I thus don’t believe that the GAR nomination, as it currently stands, is actionable. I also note that the GA reviewer does not appear to have been notified. It may be a good idea to do so as they may not have this page on their watch list. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I figured that would be your position but, it's a community review. I have no doubt that you'll participate in the process, which is appropriate and welcomed. I'd be happy to let Chris know and I appreciate your reminding me. I tried to hit everyone who's been substantially involved here but I'm sure I missed people. If there's anyone else you can think of as appropriate, please let them know, or tell me and I'll do it. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know, and it is of course an unwelcome surprise to have such a discussion about an article that is not only reviewed but well researched, very carefully cited, and full of meat. I find the label "essay" nothing short of absurd, given that it carefully describes the facts of the topic from a wealth of reliable sources. I reviewed the article in good faith, nom made significant improvements, and the article as it stands is a credit to the encyclopedia. It's certainly a topic that we should keep as an article, as seems to be agreed above, so I can't see what we ought to be reviewing. If anyone wants a !vote from me, it's Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The article includes some interesting material/discussion, but the problem is that it takes one particular point of view, which happens to the minority/"critical" one, as its starting point, leading to a fundamental imbalance. There is also the question of whether the article represents some form of original research/synthesis. I don't think the article as it stands should be a GA. Possibly it could retain GA status after some work to make it more balanced. The topic of the article seems to boil down to what could be described as Erwin Rommel in popular culture. Such a more descriptive title, and broader focus, could be one way to make this article more suitable as a stand-alone encyclopedic article. --Tataral (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Bundeswehr

Sorry for this late explanation - I could not edit wiki for some reason. My guess is that LargelyRecyclable thinks that Knab tries to paint the Bundeswehr in a bad light and I agree that he is perhaps biased (although as a longtime and influential critic of Bundeswehr traditions, as well as a former Bundeswehr member, he does provide interesting details). There are certainly differences between the German military and civilians branches regarding how to honour Rommel though. Generals from Hans Speidel, Ulrich de Maiziere to Friedrich Foertsch to modern ones like Edgar Trost clearly focus a bit more on qualities like manliness and humanity, magnificence, honour and sacrifice etc (as well as leadership and performance). Only Storbeck associates the story of Rommel with lessons on responsibilities of “citizens in uniform”.

Btw apparently he is still censored (also, notice how authors who have changed the consensus/general perception like Giordano and Remy never get published in English). In ab 1998-99, after the Minister of Culture Michael Naumann declared that he wanted to rename the Rommel barracks (note: the highest power lays with the Defence Minister, but wishes of military units and communities are usually respected), three leading Bundeswehr generals came out and defended their role model vigorously (even though they let the Lettow-Vorbeck and Dietl barracks be renamed). These interviews/articles cannot be accessed on the internet.The change of heart made by historian Michael Wolffsohn is quite interesting too (He was born and raised in Tel-Aviv. He frequently comments on antisemitism, and does not shy away from attacking revered figures like Helmut Schmidt. In short, influential public figure and far from a German conservative nationalist). Just recently he still lamented the fact that Rommel was venerated by the German government (and militaries around the world) (in this article, he claimed that people whom the government named things after should be close to perfect). Now he suddenly adopts a new tone. The only explanation is that in his final days Rommel became serious regarding war and politics (so, previously, was it a joke or a game?). Also Wolffsohn thinks that even being a Nazi or no Resistance Fighter should not disqualify people from being honoured officially?!? At the same time he continues to criticize the government for covering scratches on Schmidt's and Heusinger's pedestals. Maybe the authorities and historians have or don’t have info that is perhaps too subtle to understand for the general public (??), but the attitudes displayed by many sides in the Rommel political debate are quite mysterious to me (although, I do understand the whole "Rommel was an apolitical chivalrous soldier and a Nazi, and an anti Nazi, all at the same time" thing from Remy and the Bundeswehr. But people who accept the Nazi risk/temptation are those who believe that chivalry worths that risk and has the potential to neutralize it. Wolffsohn seems to worry about chivalry even more than Nazism, and at the same time wants a democratic model). Deamonpen (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Beyond my Ken, Wolffsohn's reasoning is like this: Because honouring Rommel has traditionally led to the unofficial recognition of outdated virtues (more suitable for expansionist colonialists than democratic parliamentary armies), so we need to honour Rommel's practical and prudent side more.

Using "believes" in the next sentence, imho, creates a feeling that the "the focus should be put on the later stage of Rommel's life, when he began thinking more seriously about war and politics, and broke with the regime" part and "such recognition has the unintended and unfortunate effect of promoting the image of a swashbuckling humanitarian soldier" are not connected

Also, I wrote the last section myself. I know what activist Knab says. He is not replying to Wolffsohn here, so the former edit (by LargelyRecyclable) which you consider "neutral" is a bit misleading (and provides the impression that Knab is leveling charges against Wolffsohn) at the first place. The authors involved use different wordings (although they clearly present the same concepts. The more you read about Rommel you will see) so I think, for the sake of objectiveness, it is better to quote those words as they are, lest anyone else complains that "apolitical knights" and "swashbuckling soldiers/humane rescuers without any sense of political responsibilities" are not the same thing.

By the way, why not "assume that the claims are true"? Wolffsohn was a Professor at a Bundeswehr University, has extensive knowledge and relationship with military people, frequently gives advice to von der Leyen and the government on matters like this. He does not need to make speculations. And the article does not give that feeling.

Wolffsohn erklärte weiter, die Bundeswehr habe von Anfang an den politisch mitdenkenden, verantwortungsvollen Offizier haben wollen. Nicht gewollt sei dagegen eine Tradition, die sich an "Haudegen" und "menschlichen Kümmerlingen" orientiere.

People like Knab and Heiducoff (former Bundeswehr members, in the case of Heiducoff a high ranking one) do not need to make speculations either. The only problem is whether they talk about the Rommel Cult and Nazi tendencies in the Bundeswehr objectively or not.Deamonpen (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't indent successive paragraphs of your own comment.

(1) "Recognizes that recognition" is bad writing.

(2) No matter who makes the claims, they are claims, not facts, and saying that someone "recognizes" them (implied: to be true) is to assume that the claims are true. That's POV.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. There is already a "X believes" in the paragraph (the Bundeswehr), so, changing it like that is not much better writing to me; Imho, "recognizes" here only implies that Wolffsohn accepts that giving honours to Rommel (which he agrees with) has its bad effects; but I'm satisfied as long as we make it clear that Wolffsohn advocates using Rommel's change of mind to teach soldiers about reflection on the basis of recognition/"assumption" of such bad effects.Deamonpen (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

By your standard, do we need to change every "author X explains" sentence in this article, as well as the whole Wiki project? Because all authors' claims are claims. Imho, we should assume that the readers are intelligent. I'm afraid no one would like/accept a Wiki with only "X believes" and "X claims" formulae allowed.

And I don't see "explains" as "Wikipedians accept the truth of the matter." I only see it as Wolffsohn's acceptance of what he considers an uncomfortable truth.

Any other editor who can provide better ideas, please do so.Deamonpen (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Best practices for avoiding editorial language is covered in WP:SAY. On a side note, thanks for all the awesome work on the commentary and analysis so far here. I'll gt around to responding, I just want to make sure I have the time to do so properly. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, LargelyRecyclable. I know about editorial language. In this case, the only thing I want is making sure that readers understand the relationship between the ill effects of veneration towards Rommel and the solution (using Rommel's change of mind as an example) suggested by Wolffsohn. I think the context itself justifies the use of the word. Also, I notice that this article alone has two another "X explains" sentences, in which replacing "explains" with another word is much easier to justify, imho. What word do you think is suitable for this case(Bundeswehr and Rommel)?Deamonpen (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I took a stab at it with some copy editing. The whole paragraph (article?) is really choppy due to over attribution in the prose and I find that being as literal as possible usually helps in those situations. As a native English speaker this makes more sense to me but I'm not married to it if people hate it. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It looks good to me.Deamonpen (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Not to me, and I have reverted it. It's an absolute unreadable mishmash which doesn't actually say what -- I believe -- is intended. The sentences as they stand are fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think LargelyRecyclable's sentence is exactly what Wolffsohn means. Here in the article he does not say that Rommel was not a swashbuckling humanitarian soldier, or that image in itself is evil or terrible. He says that the Bundeswehr does not need that image because they want their people to be politically responsible from the start (unlike Rommel who made a journey to reach that point). LargelyRecyclable's sentence shows that it is the recruits that they target (and not the general audience, or scholars, or high ranking political and military leaders) and that is right. Please read the article before making unnecessary speculations. I am open to another suggestion but if there is no one else who provides anything that makes more sense, I will revert it. Deamonpen (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do not revert it, because it makes absolutely no sense, and, in fact, says pretty much the opposite of what is intended. If I have to deconstruct the sentences here for you I will, but if you restore it to the article, I will revert you, as you will adding incorrect information not supported by the source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me. The consensus here is presently LargelyRecyclable's sentence. I think it is a bad idea to try to impose your opinions on others. Deconstruct, please. That sounds more constructive.Deamonpen (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not imposing my opinions, I'm making sure that the information presented is what the source says. The sentences yopu want to restore do not do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, no big deal if you don't like my version, but could you give a synopsis of your interpretation of the German? You seem to feel really strongly about it so a better idea of where you're coming from would help. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Editor thinks that this article is "pathetic ... one big weasel word"

I've set up this section for them to express their views. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of my thoughts in this extremely rude manner. Are you open at all to changing the introduction to ask for more information in it regarding the key point of the article? A lack of response by 14th december will be construed as a no. 172.97.177.167 (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Those are your words, from the edit summary of your very first edit [3]. Had you forgotten that you wrote them?

BTW, Wikipedia doesn't work by ultimatums, so yours is of no value, but in any case you can consider this a "no" from me. We don't "ask for more information" in articles, we ask for it here.

So, you have the floor, what information is it that you are wanting? What is the article missing, in your opinion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Those are quote mines, not "my words", you are leaving out the context explaining why I'm irate. And then even MORE context explaining why I requested the citation. This was not a frivolous request, the entire article hinges on that one claim in the lead and it's unsupported.

Thank you for explaining that you had no intention of allowing a footnote/citation request from the start, and instead of telling me at the outset, you engaged in this harassment. 172.97.177.167 (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No, those are your words, lifted directly from the edit summary of the edit I cited above. In fact, I cut-and-pasted them, and only cut out an unnecessary repetition and replaced it with an ellipsis so the section title wouldn't be incredibly long. So, you wrote them, no one else. Here's the unedited edit summary in toto:

(I'm trying to research North African leadership and this is pathetic. This entire article is one big weasel word.)

which I turned into "[this article] is pathetic ... one big weasel word". I'll stand by that as being a legitimate shortening of your words, which does not in any way alter their meaning.

As I mentioned on your talk page, there has been no "harassment". I'd advise you to read WP:HARASSMENT, and to stop making unfounded and unsupported allegations about another editor, as you have done both there and now here.

In any case, why are you wasting this space with this drivel? Please say, specifically, what it is that you think that article lacks, and what changes, in your opinion, need to be made. There's no way other editors can help improve the article if you don't say what it is that has got you in such a dither. In the edit I cited above, in the edit itself, the long comment you appended to the CN tag after "According to critical historians" was:

There should be half a dozen citations here. The entire article hinges on the supposition that historians in general disagree with this hypothesis so vehemently that it's classified as a myth! If the intro can't even find someone who disagrees with it, and uses weasel words to this extent, it discredits the whole article.

So this is the nature of your complaint, but, as I pointed out in my edit summary, and on your talk page, information in the lede section does not need to be referenced, as long as the information it summarizes in the body of the article is properly referenced. My advice to you was to find the information in the body of the article, and tag it if it wasn't properly referenced, but you have steadfastly refused to follow that advice, instead continuing in your attempts to label the lede as insufficiently referenced.

So, here's your chance, you've got a forum for your views in how the article (the body of it) can be improved. Go for it!Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

So, 172.97.177.167, we're under directive from admin EdJohnston to "work it out on the talk page." Can you expand on your concerns about the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

His advice is "The article could use some clarity as to which historians have disbelieved the 'Rommel myth'. Especially when the article presumes it to be a myth by its choice of title." I move we follow it and request that editors add footnotes that link the "historians" mentioned to actual names. 172.97.177.167 (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable request. What form would you think it would be better to use, an alteration of the text itself to something like "Critical historians, especially X," or "Critical historians, including X, Y and Z," or an informational footnote -- which has the advantage that it could be fairly extensive? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Informational footnote. However I have something to publish on Saturday, and a flight on Sunday, so I can't work on it until then. 172.97.177.167 (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The image of the book should be removed

I think the Liddell-Hart book should be removed, or at least put in the Rommel Papers section. Other than it being non free, there is a different reason. A profile image should represent something agreed upon by at least the majority of scholars, in the case absolute consensus cannot be achieved. When we put it in the lead, we assume that:

-The myth (used in the negative meaning) is something the majority of historians agree upon. This is obviously not the case - I challenge you to find one critical scholar who claims that the majority of historians working on Rommel see him in a negative light. The closest I have come by is that of former Scientific Director of the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office Rolf-Dieter Müller: "The Italians' role in Rommel's victories is often glossed over in German versions, as was his special role as “darling of the Führer” and Nazi propaganda hero, something the general used to his advantage. Recent biographies view his difficult personality and his conduct as commander in chief and leader in battle critically, just as they view some of his decisions." While a lot of historians, including the high-profiled ones like Wehler state the opposite. Not to mention the German government and army. Even Reuth recognizes that his (moderately) critical work is against the general trend.

-The majority of these critical historians say that the myth's main author is Liddell Hart. As I see it, not the case here. Some say Goebbels, some say Speidel, some say Churchill. Not to mention, as the case of Rosie Goldschmidt Waldeck illustrates, the "myth" obviously appeared during the war already, long before Liddell Hart or anyone else.Deamonpen (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Replying to Beyond My Ken's opinion that other texts are not as influential. It would not be my opinion, but other authors'. For example, for Desmond Young only:

Baxter does not even mention Liddell Hart, only Young (in launching the legend of Rommel)

Caddick-Adams gives a detailed account of Marshall's and Young's influence on Rommel's reputation (while in the same book, Liddell Hart is mentioned primarily for his connection with Montogmery)

Similarly, Alaric Searle gives the full 'credit' to Young: "One of the reasons why the long-standing image of Rommel as 'the good German general', a necessary image manufactured to serve German rearmament – has rested for so long in spirit on the interpretation provided by Young has been the lack of source material relating to Rommel in the interwar years. Nonetheless, by considering his interwar career in proper historical perspective, and utilising some of the latest research by German historians, a fuller and more revealing interpretation than the one provided by Desmond Young."

Simon Ball's account mentions Liddell-Hart, but the focus is much more on the active roles of Young, Manfred Rommel, and Bayerlein.

Young's biography is much more "foundational" since it is the first (and influential) English biography of the subject. Certainly I will do a whole lot more myself when I have time to absorb lots of other authors.--Deamonpen (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Image

I restored the image with this diff. Several editors have objected to the removal in the past; it was also reviewed during GA and was recommended for inclusion. WP:FFD is available to address concerns about the use of a non-free image in this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Too technical?

Now please forgive me for my ignorance of the wikipedia guidelines, but i’m pretty sure this article is too technical for an encyclopedia. From what i’ve seen in articles about technology and science, there is barely any room to explain a subject in great detail without having a « too technical » slapped on the page. I myself who is interested in Rommel can’t read through the third headline without becoming a little confused. Another thing, as i’m reading the talk page i’m beginning to notice how much this article just seems like original research in its entirety. If there hasn’t been anything academic written specifically about the « Rommel myth », isn’t this just creating a conclusion on its own? Anyway, to sum up my post, i think the article should be easier to read by having the « myth » and the « reality » clearly presented to readers so they don’t have to scroll through mounds of research paper level filler. Also, i really need to know what makes this any different from original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieurperspicace (talk • contribs) 03:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific than that if you want the folks who regularly edit this article to respond to your complaints. Why not take the worst problem you see and make it the center of a new discussion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Mixed Myths

This topic proves only that people like to make myths about myths!

Using movies as 'foundational' sources? Laughable!

Taped conversations by captured German generals who were subordinates NOT confidants of Rommel? Asinine!

No 'first person' accounts by anyone close to Rommel (When there are several excellent sources) means a lot of urinating into a stiff breeze in a pathetic attempt at history!

Even mentioning Irving is an insult considering his lack of scholarship, use of innuendo and obvious fascist-envy bias is shameful!

Delete this topic! Hesweeney (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)