Talk:Erwin Rommel

Churchill Quotation

The article attributes a quotation about Rommel to Churchill, "on hearing of Rommel's death." But the quotation is from Volume 3 of Churchill's memoir, which was published in the 1950s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.6.237 (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

In the section "The Battle of Arras", the second paragraph seems to say Rommel was directing the Allied fire at the Germans. Someone needs to fix that. Noghiri (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see how that inferred that he was firing on the Germans, but if its confusing, what do you think it should say?--Jojhutton (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Missing Information

I have a biography at home which I can't remember the exact title of offhand which in the conclusion mentions that there is evidence that Rommel's intelligence at the time had cracked Allied codes and likely was a huge contributor to his military success. I think this is a major point that should be referenced, and I'd be happy to write about it and cite the book, but where should this write up be placed in the article? 98.118.97.122 (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)LRobertson

This is perhaps covered in this section already:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rommel#Role_of_Signals_Intelligence_.28SIGINT.29_in_North_Africa--Nwinther (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Different theory on Rommel's murder

In "Hitler's Valet" Heinz Linge (Hitler's valet, obviously) claimed that Rommel was killed on orders from Bormann, because of a personal grudge the latter held towards Rommel from an incident during the campaign in Poland (Rommel, as head of Hitler's security detail, had refused to allow Bormann to accompany Hitler at one point), and that Hitler had actually made inquiries about having Rommel's body being exhumed and an autopsy performed (because he himself had been told a story about Rommel's death he didn't believe fully). Historian932 (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Absent on D-Day

Worth mentioning that he was absent from his post on D-Day because he'd promised to go to Paris to buy new shoes for his wife for her birthday? 86.181.153.97 (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

potential bias

This article seems to be weighted to show Rommel in a positive light. Potential rewrite? 76.169.132.142 (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)dom

Not sure a "rewrite" is necessary, but I would encourage changes supported by reliable sources and challenges (perhaps by tagging the article phrases with {{fact}}) where you believe the information is incorrect/unduly "positive." --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to portray Rommel in a positive light - especially if you come into the article thinking he deserves a negative portrayal, because he's a Nazi and thus "one of the bad guys." Agree with John, attack specific innaccuracies or over-the-top glorifications, but there's no call for a re-write. Most of this article just tells it how it is (or was). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.14.151 (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Bengasi

User Kirrages edited the phrase "Rommel won many battles in Africa in 1941 and 1942 against British forces that always outnumbered him and generally had better supply lines" by deleting the "better supply line" part. I beg to respectfully disagree with Kirrages comment "Not true. For most of the time he had had Benghazi and a short sea route to Italy. 8th Army had a line to Cairo and then a sea route to either India or round the African cape to UK or US - much longer. ". Besides the fact that the original text didn't contain any statement about the *lenght* of the supply lines, but about their quality ("better", not "shorter"), Bengasi was not-operational for most of the time during the campaign, and even when it was it couldn't usually handle more than two ships (hand-unloaded!) at the same time. it's usual best turn-around time from late 1940 was two half-loaded ships per week, *when open*. Neither it was used (execpt in extreme emergency) for direct convoys from Italy, as it was more exposed to CW interceptions and interdiction than Tripoli. Most of the traffic to Bengasi - when available - were barges and costal lighters coming from Tripoli, and - in a few cases - from Greece, so it was the end of a trans-shipment or staged route, much longer in transit time and distance space than the usual direct route to Tripoli, that was the only reasonably effective supplyhead for the Axis during the whole campaign but hundreds of kms away from the frontline. So the availability of Bengasi wasn't absolutely a critical or even barely a substantial factor in the NA logistical balance. I would therefore advise to return to the original text or - probably better - to amend the last phrase in "and generally was in a better logistical situation" that - while still quite generic - is an accurate statement all the same. But before starting to cancel or correct another contibutor work I would like very much to hear Kirrages' and other contributors' opinion. Best regards --Arturolorioli (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I second that. Axis supply routes were under constant attack on the sea by aircraft/ships and on the land at coastline, while the Allied supply flow was nearly unhindered for most of the time, and only determined by its lenght. I reinserted an altered version about the supply situation. StoneProphet (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's about maintaining supply lines, not about how long they are. Teh Germans had a shorter Supply lines which also was better, but they did not manage to maintain it because of teh Ally navy. In that case the British had the better supply line, because they could maintain it. --Arsaces (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Relation Heinrich Kirchheim and Rommel

Food for thought: Rommel and Heinrich Kirchheim did not get along very well at all. Kirchheim was accused of cowardice by Rommel in Africa. Accusing a general at the time of cowardice was as close to a personal insult you can get. This relationship is crucial to understanding the outcome of the Cout of Honour decision of 1944. The choice to expel Rommel was actually a choice between Hans Speidel and Rommel, and Kirchheim advocated to expel Rommel and not Speidel (personal interest?) MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Rommel im Stabswagen 1941.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rommel im Stabswagen 1941.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)