This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
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.
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
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Mitcham was was discussed in detail at Talk:Samuel_W._Mitcham, where I provided reviews to this effect. For example:
Of the many histories of the Wehrmacht that I have read and reviewed over many years this ranks as perhaps the worst. Even the propaganda-laden stuff put out by the Soviet Union in the 1970s was better than this. (…) The Rise of the Wehrmacht serves no purpose at all other than to revive many of the myths about the Wehrmacht that should have been put to rest long ago.
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.
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)[reply]
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 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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
