Talk:Erwin Rommel: Difference between revisions
→Plot against Hitler section: comment |
Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
: That presumes there is not a valid reason for them to be together. The location is northern France a couple of weeks before the Allies begin the invasion of North West Europe. A meeting to discuss the defences would not be unusual. If the plot succeeds, then there's no one to use it as evidence. If the plot fails then they are all finished anyway. But it matters not why they photographed the meeting if there is a reliable source that says they did. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 20:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC) |
: That presumes there is not a valid reason for them to be together. The location is northern France a couple of weeks before the Allies begin the invasion of North West Europe. A meeting to discuss the defences would not be unusual. If the plot succeeds, then there's no one to use it as evidence. If the plot fails then they are all finished anyway. But it matters not why they photographed the meeting if there is a reliable source that says they did. [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 20:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
::Even if the plot had succeeded the SS would still have been in power, as Rommel admitted. ([[Special:Contributions/31.53.205.241|31.53.205.241]] ([[User talk:31.53.205.241|talk]]) 20:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)) |
Revision as of 20:45, 16 January 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Erwin Rommel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Erwin Rommel was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 14, 2014 and October 14, 2019. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Rommel myth was copied or moved into Erwin Rommel with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Daily page views
|
|
|||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
he protested against the massacre of the citizens of the French town of Oradour-sur-Glane
This has been repeated in several books but recent research doesn't confirm this as being clearly confirmed in any of the documents from meetings where Rommel supposedly protested. It is also blown out of proportion and out of context, as apparently both local commander and SS superior of the officer responsible wanted to punish the commander responsible. This myth has origins in Young's laudatory and biased biography of Rommel. See Desert Fox or Hitler Favorite? Myths and Memories of Erwin Rommel: 1941-1970 by Joseph Allen Campo from UC Santa Barbara, 2019--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- In my reading about Rommel's time in Normandy, I've not come across this anecdote. It sounds apocryphal and, IMO, should be removed. The sources I used were:
- Reuth, Ralf Georg (2005). Rommel: The End of a Legend. London: Haus Books. ISBN 978-1-904950-20-2.--K.e.coffman (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Lieb, Peter (2014). "Rommel in Normandy". In Beckett, I. F. W. (ed.). Rommel Reconsidered. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0-8117-1462-4.
- Both discuss Rommel's command in Normandy in detail. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Campo is a neutral author but he does not focus on the truths of Rommel's life, but the developnment of Rommel's reputation. Here he does not say that other historians rely on Young. He just say that Young did not provide a source for his account. Young's account is that in a meeting between Rundstedt, Rommel and Hitler, there was a clash between Rommel and Hitler about the incident.
- Here Peter Lieb mentions Ahlrich Meyer's work that says Rommel and Blaskowitz protested again the incident. Ahlrich Meyer is a historian who publishes quite abit on France and Nazi crimes (edited a bit for a mistake).
- This paper on the website of the Gerda Henkel foundation, written by Happ, mentions an order by Rommel that charged the officer Okrent with investigating the incident. That certainly does not come from Young as well.
- All in all I would like to hear the full details of this incident, because I have no Meyer nor Ueberschär (whom Happ uses as source). But the accusation that this is a myth from Young cannot stand.Deamonpen (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ahlrich Meyer sounds like a reliable source. I suggest that Rommel's protests be mentioned, but briefly, so that not to give undue weight to the incident. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Forgive me @K.e.coffman but you came to this conclusion after reading TWO sources? TWO? Out of how many published on Rommel, or on Rommel's time in Normandy? I don't have a dog in this fight one way or another (though I do think Rommel was mythologized as a part of a cold war rehabilitation process), but wow, a whole lot of decisions are being made on scant evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBickley00 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Samuel W. Mitcham
I learned that Samuel W. Mitcham is been criticized for neo-Confederate and pro -Nazi Germany views. This was unknown to me before. Such authors with such views aren't reliable I have started to remove references to this non-RS source.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Mitcham is criticized by some for an occasion bad book or a title influenced by German propaganda (Fortress Europe), but he receives great praises as well. Never heard that he is Neo Nazi or neo Confederate (why the Confederate matters here, may I ask?)Deamonpen (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Samuel W. Mitcham is not a reliable source for the article, given his apologist approach to Wehrmacht's generals. There are a lot of reputable historians who cover Rommel, and Mitcham is not needed. I support removal. The neo-Confederate views, as well as his subscription to the myth of the clean Wehrmacht, are relevant, because this shows that Mitcham's views are outside of the mainstream. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Is he described as subscribing to the clean Wehrmacht myth? My impression is that some works of his are highly praised, why others aren't. But total removal is quite extremist.Deamonpen (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Mitcham was was discussed in detail at Talk:Samuel_W._Mitcham, where I provided reviews to this effect. For example:
- Is he described as subscribing to the clean Wehrmacht myth? My impression is that some works of his are highly praised, why others aren't. But total removal is quite extremist.Deamonpen (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Samuel W. Mitcham is not a reliable source for the article, given his apologist approach to Wehrmacht's generals. There are a lot of reputable historians who cover Rommel, and Mitcham is not needed. I support removal. The neo-Confederate views, as well as his subscription to the myth of the clean Wehrmacht, are relevant, because this shows that Mitcham's views are outside of the mainstream. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Of the many histories of the Wehrmacht that I have read and reviewed over many years this ranks as perhaps the worst. Even the propaganda-laden stuff put out by the Soviet Union in the 1970s was better than this. (…) The Rise of the Wehrmacht serves no purpose at all other than to revive many of the myths about the Wehrmacht that should have been put to rest long ago.
- Another: betrays adherence to a central plank of the postwar myth of the ‘unblemished’ Wehrmacht. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- I would say that this is about one work of his on the Wehrmacht, though. I think that he is not a historian who I will quote when describing the Third Reich's politics. But he does have good aspects, including the military and technical things, as the same reviewer says:
- Defenders of Fortress Europe is nonetheless a fascinating and insightful work of military history on the German officer class of the Second World War. However, while the work does an excellent job describing battles and establishing links between the social, political, and religious background of German officers and their actions in combat, many of its implications for the study of the Third Reich must be read with a critical eye.
- Same work is praised on Military Review: https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=Ksq8GKBlK4IC&pg=RA1-PA127
- In this case, I will say that the author has controversial aspects, but is "he is outside the mainstream" a bit too much? At least he gets decent publishers and gets (mixed) reviews. People like Iving just gets ignored. Deamonpen (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding the Rise of the Wehrmacht, I myself think that it's not the best work of his. But the reviewer here, when criticizing myths associated with the Wehrmacht, seems to have something related to technical details, functions of forces...etc in mind. Myths about the Wehrmacht include many things other than the Clean Wehrmacht. I don't see the reviewer mentions crimees or such?
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236705424_The_Ri se_o_the_Wehrmacht_The_German_Armed_Forces_and_World_War_II_review
- Thanks. Deamonpen (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- "Betrays adherence to a central plank of the postwar myth of the ‘unblemished’ Wehrmacht" is from the review of Defenders of Fortress Europe: The Untold Story of the German Officers during the Allied Invasion. Washington D.C.: Potomac, 2008: Outstanding Officers, SS Fanatics, and Nazi Generals on H-Net. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "reducing Mitcham, plus general overcite to Mitcham". --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- "Betrays adherence to a central plank of the postwar myth of the ‘unblemished’ Wehrmacht" is from the review of Defenders of Fortress Europe: The Untold Story of the German Officers during the Allied Invasion. Washington D.C.: Potomac, 2008: Outstanding Officers, SS Fanatics, and Nazi Generals on H-Net. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding the Rise of the Wehrmacht, I myself think that it's not the best work of his. But the reviewer here, when criticizing myths associated with the Wehrmacht, seems to have something related to technical details, functions of forces...etc in mind. Myths about the Wehrmacht include many things other than the Clean Wehrmacht. I don't see the reviewer mentions crimees or such?
- I would say that this is about one work of his on the Wehrmacht, though. I think that he is not a historian who I will quote when describing the Third Reich's politics. But he does have good aspects, including the military and technical things, as the same reviewer says:
- Another: betrays adherence to a central plank of the postwar myth of the ‘unblemished’ Wehrmacht. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I am still not sure this is a function of wikipedia editing. Our impressions of a historian are not, or should not be determinative. Especially if the opinion upon which we are discrediting the historian is on a unrelated subject. I don't see enough evidence to remove Samuel Mitcham as a WP:RS. I don't agree with his position, but I'm sorry I think there is a tendency for WP editors to go off half cocked when it comes to historiography and RS decisions. If there is broad evidence of him being discredited by the larger academic community, then maybe. But I see a lot of sniping, especially based on reading one review of one book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBickley00 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Honest historians and unnecessary doubt?
- If Proske is a honest historian, Proske's assessment about the subject from Schwaebische Zeitung should be considered honest and introduces "necessary doubt".
- The quote is:
Als Historiker würde er ihn einen Kriegsverbrecher nennen. Da er sich aber nicht sicher ist, ob diese Einstufung auch aus juristischer Sicht zu halten ist, nennt er Erwin Rommel schlicht einen NS-Täter und überlässt die weitere Beurteilung jedem selbst. Dies hat Wolfgang Proske bei einem gut besuchten Vortrag im Evangelischen Gemeindehaus deutlich gemacht.
- Other editors, please provide your opinion.
- I notice that the use who undid me, User:Cullen328 is an admin. As such, your behaviours should be more fair-minded.Deamonpen (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Deamonpen, I took no action as an administrator, and did not mention, hint at or allude to my status as an administrator. You drawing attention to my status is a red herring, because I acted as an ordinary editor. So, please critique the revert I made instead of a status that I did not assert. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you act like a regular editor and not an admin, I hope that in the future if you suddenly delete sourced information like that (I do not remember that you have been very active on this page or have discussed with me on the status of the "honest historian" Proske, whom has sometimes been mentioned here), please provide your input on the Talk Page first. Thank you.Deamonpen (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Not in source
@Deamonpen: in [1] you write "According to historian Gershom Gorenberg, responsibility for brutalities largely lay with the Italian authority, while Rommel’s Afrika Korps abided by the laws of war," sourced to Gross, Judah Ari (2021). "New book deciphers forgotten intel war that kept the Nazis from the Holy Land". www.timesofisrael.com. Retrieved 3 January 2022. I do not see that in the source. Could you please quote where in the source linked this information is provided? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, and thank you. I inserted the wrong link so the wrong source appears.
- It is from the Jerusalem Post:
The war in North Africa started as Mussolini’s romantic, but futile, attempt to restore a lost Roman empire. It was a sideshow in the Nazi scheme of things until Rommel arrived in 1941 to save Mussolini. The Italians were far more brutal with civilians, including Libyan Jews, than Rommel’s Afrika Korps, which by all accounts abided by the laws of war. But nobody worried that the Italians who sent Jews to concentration camps in Libya, would invade British-held Egypt, let alone Mandatory Palestine.
- I will change the source.Deamonpen (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
A reference to the specific paragraphs/edits you are discussing would make it easier for us to dive into the discussion. Its hard to follow... --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Plot against Hitler section
Why would Rommel have allowed himself to be photographed with conspirators when that would be used by the SS as evidence against him? (31.53.205.241 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC))
- That presumes there is not a valid reason for them to be together. The location is northern France a couple of weeks before the Allies begin the invasion of North West Europe. A meeting to discuss the defences would not be unusual. If the plot succeeds, then there's no one to use it as evidence. If the plot fails then they are all finished anyway. But it matters not why they photographed the meeting if there is a reliable source that says they did. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Even if the plot had succeeded the SS would still have been in power, as Rommel admitted. (31.53.205.241 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC))
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (military) articles
- Top-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- B-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- B-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- B-Class Germany articles
- High-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- Selected anniversaries (October 2014)
- Selected anniversaries (October 2019)