Talk:Erwin Rommel/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


no mention or even links to manfred rommel, a powerfully popular politician son of Erwin, no talk of his wife, no talk of his other child. id do it myself if i was'nt wikipedia n00bish.


what happend to rommel durring 1920-1930? the section on his role in WWI seems to be somewhat lacking, dates would help alot here. Reefsurfer226 09:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (i forgot to stamp it)

dubious quote

"Our onliest chance to win the war is to make a real friendship with England!" This quote seems somehow dubious, I cannot find it anywhere and it is not even proper English (onliest!). I also searched for a German translation, to no avail.

Can anyone confirm this as a genuine quote? Rimshots

I think it is highly questionable that Rommel be placed in the Suicide category. In all reality he was murdered due to his complicity in the July plot. Holden 27

It was suicide. He was given a choice: that or show trial & disgrace, along with (as I recall) concentration camp for his family. And there is some question he was actually complicit in the 20 July plot. Trekphiler 06:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
What he's saying is, even though his death is self-administered, it's not really a suicide, as it was forced upon him. It was, for all intents and purposes, an execution. No one ever says Socrates committed suicide, after all. Kurt Weber 01:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree, also because the outcome of the trial would have likely been execution as well; as I've understood, it was very much in Hitler's interest to do away with Rommel as quietly as possible due to his popularity, therefore Rommel was presented with options that were one bad and the other even worse, ensuring that he'd choose the lesser of two evils.


Administrators, please revert last edit. One user has deleted text, images and interwiki links from article. Thuresson 19:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. You don't need to be an admin to revert articles, BTW. Ortonmc 20:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I seem to remember that Guderian was fairly scathing of Rommel's tactics on D-Day in his book "Panzer General". Does anyone remember this well enough to add something to this effect in the article? Leithp 21:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't what Guderian said but Rommel definitely had different ideas of how to defend against the invasion from Rundstedt[sp?] I believe. Whereas, Rundstedt wanted to hold the Panzers in reserve and deliver a strong counter-attack once the invasion has landed, Rommel wanted them close to drive them off the beaches before they can gain a foothold. The ultimate solution was a compromise between the two, which probably had all the disadvantages of both. So, it's possible the Guderian was in the other camp. Comatose51 05:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Guderian wasn't particularly scathing in his disagreement with rommel over the placement of the panzer and panzergrenadier reserves in northern france.

"i was therefore not surprised by Rommel's highly tempermental and strongly expressed refusal when i suggested that our armour be withdrawn from the coastal areas. he turned down my suggestions at once, pointing out that as a man from the eastern front i lacked his experiences of africa anf italy; that he knew, in fact, far more about the matter in hand than i did and that he was fully convinced that his system was right. in view of this attitude of his, an arugument with rommel concerning the distribution of our motorised reserves promised to be quite fruitless. i therefore decided not to make any further attempts to alter his opinions and made up my mind once more to submit my contrary views to rundstedt and to hitler" (heinz guderian, "panzer leader" page 330).

you could hardly call that scathing. guderian then went on to praise rommel for considerably strengthening the defences in northern france. comatose is correct to state that guderian was in von rundstedt's camp, along with general von geyr, the general of panzer forces west.

This article is extremely biased

This article is by far the most biased source currently available on the web on Rommel. Its author looks by far more concerned about denoting those episodes that attribute him any sort of brutality, no matter how isolated they may be ("During the campaign in France, a French officer taken prisoner on May 17, 1940 was executed on orders from Rommel"), or his admiration to the Third Reich and Hitler. Yet, there isn't a single mention to any of his chivalry acts that earned him the nickname "the last knight" among his adversaries, of which examples abound. There is no mention to the fact that he's the only member of the Third Reich who has a museum about him. No need also to repeat twice a couple of selected phrases from his letters regarding Hitler. All this leads to an extremely POV, poorly written article which does very little justice to an interesting historical figure, who had flaws and virtues both, and Wikipedia does not deserve this sort of third quality articles. Cadorna 09:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Molobo claims he is committed to a balanced, impartial look at Rommel, but just read through his version of the article. Do phrases like "Rommel, drunk with victory", and "Speidel used Rommel as a scapegoat", sound impartial to you? AuthorNeubius

  • In the time it took you to write all of that up, you could have improved the article considerably! Be bold and make the changes yourself; you sound like you have the knowledge to do it. Be forewarned, though, that if you make significant factual changes, other Wikipedians may ask for references. —HorsePunchKid 20:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

No need for him to become a myth icon for Nazis and German nationalists.If you have any statements of Rommel protesting at Wehrmacht atrocities in September Campaign in Poland 1939 proving alleged "chivalry" be my guest.However statements of admiration for Hitler and Nazi regime are here to stay, because they show the full picture about Erwin Rommel.In time they will be even expanded by me.--Molobo 02:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This mere post of yours should be enough to dismiss any further edits to the article that you make on the grounds of POV. We're dealing with a historical figure here, deserving a fully objective analysis. No one here is exposing him as a "myth icon", but in your anti-nazi zeal (like most people, I believe nazis to be a band of despicable criminals and butchers) you're doing everything within your power to stain the image of one of the few german generals who actually did something different and acted as soldiers instead of murderers. The bias you intend to imprint on the article comes in evidence when you specifically ask for examples of his pro-adversary behavior for the invasion of Poland in 1939, when it is self evident that: A) he was not in charge of any of the intervening units at the moment and B) no german military, abolutely nobody, challenged Hitler nor the Wehrmacht at the moment. Likewise, one could "accusse" Mc Arthur for "saying nothing" about the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or Montgomery for not protesting against the RAF and the bombing of Dresden. You ask for something that no true soldier would have ever done; and you mention the "atrocities" of the Wehrmacht in the 1939 Poland Campaign. The choice of such terms reveals even more your lack of neutrality, for one could ask: in military and historical terms, which "atrocities"? Sure, it was a completely unfair agression war, and a truly humanitarian disaster; but it was a military event, and the Werhmacht acted in consequence. From a historian's point of view, one can't say it involved "atrocities"; of course, from a human's values perspective, one can assume that position, but by saying that here, you're doing exactly what Wikipedia is not. You want examples of his chivalry as a soldier, that earned him the respect of Churchill, Montgomery, Patton, De Gaulle, etc.? Why don't we talk about Rommel burning in front of his soldiers the orders to execute all enemy soldiers captured in Fall Gelb? Why don't you mention him cutting down water from his own supplies and his soldier's in Africa after the Battle of the Kasserine Pass, in order to provide the POWs with enough water to endure the suffocating heat of the desert?
So, until you're able to provide a truly objective view from a historian's point of view, restrain yourself from making any new edits. Reverting. Cadorna 11:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Since you have so many facts to support the notion that Rommel was actually quite upstanding and chivalrous you need to work them into the article. Deleting what appear to be established facts to somehow balance out the article is the wrong way to go. This is what I was trying to suggest when I replied earlier, and looking at the history of the article, it doesn't appear that you've made any attempt to improve it at all! Your effort will be better spent trying to improve the article directly than by reverting other peoples' efforts. —HorsePunchKid 18:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

"and B) no german military, abolutely nobody, challenged Hitler nor the Wehrmacht at the moment." They were several complaints from military officers (event to Hitler) about Wehrmacht atrocities.Although marginal they did exist. "A) he was not in charge of any of the intervening units at the moment and " Wrong again.Rommel was responsible for Hitler's mobile HQ during his vitits to the front.And again they are no reports about his opposition to atrocities or amnesty for those suspected of war crimes.

"You ask for something that no true soldier would have ever done; and you mention the "atrocities" of the Wehrmacht in the 1939 Poland Campaign. The choice of such terms reveals even more your lack of neutrality, for one could ask: in military and historical terms, which "atrocities"" You are unaware of Wehrmacht's atrocities during the September Campaign ? A couple of examples : "Operation Tannenberg was codename for one of extermination actions directed at Polish intelligentsia during World War II. Nazis prepared lists, so called Sonderfahndungsbuch Polen, which listed more than 60,000 Polish activists, intelligentsia, actors, former officers, etc.

First, in August 1939 about 2,000 activists of Polish minority organisations in Germany were arrested and murdered. The second part of the action started September 1, 1939 and ended in October resulting in at least 20,000 murdered in 760 mass executions by special units, so-called Einsatzgruppen, in addition to regular Wehrmacht units and SS" "The cooperation between the SS and the Wehrmacht in killing Polish civilians continued not only during the September Campaign but also in the months that followed. Wehrmacht firing squads shot no less than 16,000 Poles by the time the war ended early in October 1939. By December 1939, the Germans had killed approximately 50,000 Polish citizens, of whom 7,000 were Jewish.

The first large-scale atrocity on Polish soil, which set a precedent for innumerable slaughters that followed, took place in a forest near Piasnica Wielka in Pomerania in the period October-December 1939. The Gestapo and German field gendarmerie shot 12,000-14,000 people, including Poles, Jews, psychiatric patients, and Germans un-sympathetic with the Nazis. Many of the Piasnica victims were part of' the Nazi euthanasia program, even before Hitler gave his official mercy-killing order. Approximately 12,000 Poles were victims of this program, which included the elderly, invalids, those with incurable diseases, and hundreds of children, who were given lethal injections because they were invalids or suffered from terminal disease." "First mass executions of Jews took place between 16 and 19 September 1939, at several places in the city outskirts: Lipowica, Pralkowce, Pikulice, at Przekopana, near the Wiar river and near the Jewish cemetery at Slowackiego Street. According to some estimates as many as 600 Jews were killed at that time. Half of them were refugees from western Poland. Not all execution sites are known and only 102 victims were identified. Units involved in these killings (the so-called "Aktion Tannenberg") were Einsatzkommando I/1 and I/3. Units of the 1st Mountain Division and groups of the HJ (Hitlerjugend) also took an active part in round-ups for forced labour and execution" The exhibition will be also presented in Germany. Professor Leon Kieres said in opening ceremony that the aim of this is to make Germans aware of atrocites commited by Wehrmacht in Poland since 1939. It's aim is to challenge the German myth that crimes were commited only by members of SS while ordinery soldiers weren't involved in war crimes and genocide. Also it portreys the attempts of german courst to upheld that myth by refusing to cooparate in finding out and convicing Wehrmacht soldiers who took part in warcrimes. The exhibiton shows crimes commited by German soldiers during the period of 1st of September till 25th of November during which Poland was under the jurisdiction of Wehrmacht and makes it responsible for this crimes. The myth of Wehrmacht innocence was recently destroyed by exhibitions in Hamburg, but unfortunetly it created another myth-that those crimes started in 1941. The aim of this exhibition is to correct that. "Why don't you mention him" ...never fighting those who were believed "untermenschen" by Adolf Hitler-"a wonderfull man" in his own words.Written after murders of September Campaign.

--Molobo 14:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

French incident, Rommel friendly relations with Hitler, his admiration for the man, and quotes are true.Therefore I see no reason not to include them, unless somebody wants them to be ignored to present a biased POV view.--Molobo 14:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, it would be helpful if you would fill out the edit summary when you make an edit or reversion. As it is, someone looking at the page history will have to look at each edit individually to figure out what's been going on. I think reverting a page or restoring deleted material is generally considered to be "minor", too, so you may want to check that box when you submit. —HorsePunchKid 18:38, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Molobo please stop deleting my inclusion of Rommel's defiance of the Commando Order and his refusal to execute Jewish POWs. If, as you claim, you are interested in giving a "full portrait" of Rommel, than both positive and negative information must be included, not the handpicked examples of Rommel's "brutality" that you seem exclusively interested in. AuthorNeubius December 01, 2006

Molobo, if you were half as righteous as you try to act, you wouldn't be cowardly enough to delete people's contributions while refusing to discuss it on this page. If you delete my perfectly legitimate and factual contributions to this article again, don't think you will get away with it. You're a coward and a liar, and this site is to provide objective factual information, not provide a soapbox for a whiner. AuthorNeubius December 02, 2006

NPOV tag

Somebody put neutrality tag on the article.However that is not an registred user and no explanation given or examples of anything that is not a fact.So I will wait some time before removing it, so far I see nothing that isn't a fact in the article. --Molobo 19:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that facts can be used to push a point of view. I agree that it would be good to give the tag some time just in case a valid concern shows up. I'm not going to give it more than a few hours, though. The discussion I've seen so far here does not seem to indicate that the tag is actually necessary; rather, Cadorna just needs to expand the sections of the article that s/he finds lacking. —HorsePunchKid 20:01, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I did put the tag, sorry if I wasn't logged in at the time. Yes, this article is full of twisted and taken-out-of-context facts in order to "prove" Molobo's point of view, which is as he has openly confessed here, extremely one-sided. I'm grateful that you also consider my intervention necessary, HorsePunch, but rather, I believe that the selected "facts" that Molobo tries to push into the small box of his POV need, should simply to be removed, or at least put into the proper context. But, when it comes to analyze a historical figure, a couple of selected episodes shouldn't be rubbed in the face of the reader with the utmost importance Molobo gives them to prove his rather suprising POV. Cadorna 23:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm giving it a second thought, since I've always worked on the idea that it is better to improve an article, rather than facing a war edit. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to invest in Wikipedia, but I'll do my best to balance the article with proven facts. Therefore, Molobo, I expect you to do the same. You'll have references of everything I post in the next days; likewise, I expect the same to back your POV. Regarding the claim that I go against other's effort by reverting, HorsePunch, the same thing could be said about Molobo's insisting deletion of the line I added to the header, which is of public knowledge; all you have to do is a Google search to verify it. I'm removing the NPOV tag, and as of now, the text remains as written by Molobo. All his further edits will be respected as long as they respect the guidelines of Wikipedia: Verifiability. For the same reasons, I'm also re-adding the line to the lead section and this time I hope it remains. Since we're all so crazed abouts facts, I hope that criteria applies to every fact, not just those that endorse Molobo's point of view. Cadorna 23:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Edit war

The currently ongoing edit war is pointless, especially since Molobo continues to ignore all attempts of discussion at this page. In order to achieve an agreement, I've tried everything: from respecting his edits, and adding mine without touching anything he wrote (only to see my contributions removed by him later), to deleting both his and mine to eliminate any possible POVs from the article, and then seeing his POVs added again a couple of hours later. He continues to consider his edits unimpeachable, while everything that oposes his view (even facts of public knowledge like the respect Rommel earned among his adversaries) are sistematically supressed. I do not, and will not, give up and let the POVs of a particular person get ruin an interesting article of a notorius historical character that deserves an objective analysis. But as of now, and until Molobo decides to discuss these matters in a civil way, I see no solution to this situation. I suggest to make the article a linear account of factic events (he did this, he went there, he fought against someone) and make two new subsections, one to compile all historical criticism to his figure and another to account all his documented acts of chivalry, military prowess and admiration from his adversaries. Frankly, I don't know what else to do in order to solve the stalemate where Molobo has put us. Cadorna 18:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's symphathy for Rommel-fact.Rommel's fascination with Hitler-fact.Quotes-fact.Execution of French officer-fact.Massacre commited by 12th Panzer division-fact.Yet all those facts you erase time after time.It seems you are interested more in whitewashing then historic truth.--Molobo 12:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
You're lying. Everyone can see that by simply checking the history page; I've respected your edits; it was you who either: A) deleted mine with no explanation, and B) in the few cases where you actually left them, you modified them with irrelevant comments in order to change the sense of my contributions, which are also facts that deserve the same respect as those pointed out by you. Or is it that you're only interested in presenting those that suit your particular POV?
The only two things that you added which I did remove (just those two - I invite everyone to check the history page), and that I will continue to remove as long as you re-add to the article are: A) the quotes at the end of the page for the sole reason that they already were in the main text (Poland 1939 subsection). Why don't you say that, Molobo? Kinda strange that I oh-so-biased-from-me removed them from one section and actually left them on another!!! B) the completely irrelevant comment (to the contents of this article) about the 12th SS Panzer Division. What's that got to do with Rommel in any possible way? It has its own page; go post it there, not here, where it adds nothing but misplaced information. And always, when I removed such unapropriate edits, I explained the reason at the proper edit summaries. Yet, you insisted.
All of us like nazis; on the contrary, we love them, like I've already stated here. But this is not a humanitarian forum, and we're not supossed to let our personal ideas get in the way; Wikipedia is about serious History. And as you've already admitted it here openly, you expose yourself once more: your anti-german bias is so incredibly big that you're not suited to provide information at this article that complies with the policy of WP:NPOV. You should have an honesty gesture, excuse yourself from making any further edits to this article and step aside, knowing that the least thing Historiography need is one sided views, especially when you're not above selecting facts and put them out of context or even twist them to support your POV. And that's even worse when you need to silence the testimony of those who point out that you're wrong. Cadorna 13:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong -the quotes aren't doubled and aren't in Poland section.The comment about 12th war crimes is relevant to portray in what kind of army Rommel served.No personal views were put, unlike your edits about the "shame of French army".Just pure facts without any opinion.--Molobo 14:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC) Btw-do you know that that before his forced suicide Rommel said "I loved and I still love Fuhrer". ? But I will spare the quote.The two I putted before give the men enough justice.--Molobo 14:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC) We can also add that while he was liked by war reporters, his soldiers considered him very authoritarian and unsymphatic."Serving under Rommel was like punishment" one of army nurses.--Molobo 14:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Molobo's unnaceptable POVs

I honestly begin to think you've got an understanding problem... at least with those things you find it convenient not to understand. Just a couple of lines on the stuff you mentioned:

A) of course the quotes are not there now, genius - when I applied a salomonic solution and deleted both your and my edits, they were gone (much more in terms of justice than what you did, deleting or distorting mine only while developing yours even more). But hey! - see that button above that reads "History"? Try and see if they were there or not at any of my edits. Bingo!
B) You claim that your facts are verified and sourced. Well, you must have read quite a different version of his diary, for your "quotes" are nowhere to be found there. Don't say otherwise: I've extensively searched after your claims.
C) the mere fact that you mention that a nurse (!!!) thought he was ohhhh such an unpleasant guy and even consider "that" relevant is just still another confirmation of your POV views.
D) not to mention your incredible statement regarding your comment on the 12th Division, which you say it serves to "portray in what kind of army Rommel served" (Jesus, without it, I would have never understood that the nazis were good!) is far more than enough to shoot it on sight if it ever reapears on the article on the basis of WP:NPOV.

All this could be easy dismissed as laughable, but there is a basic fact that is extremely serious behind your edits, at this article and everywhere else you post. I've done a small research of your contributions in the last days only. From you Polish nationalist view, you consider everything German-related hateful, and you express this wherever you post. I formally accusse you of spreading anti-German hatred in Wikipedia. No matter if you talk about Erwin Rommel, Konrad Adenauer, Untermensch, Gustav Stresemann or Prussia, you always have something to say about the "evil germans" in a most POV, fact distorting way. This gets even more evident with your frequent edits to the Anti-Polonism article. I've also learned that this is not the first time you engage in edit wars, staining articles with POVs, with no intention of talking or discussing solutions, like you did in Rywin affair.

You're not qualified to ever set afoot on any other Germany-related article at Wikipedia on the grounds of WP:NPOV. No further edits from you at this article will be tolerated unless you provide, upfront, verifiable sources with clear and precise references of each and every of your claims (book name and author, ISBN, edition and page number). Otherwise, not only I will delete them on sight, but also I will not hesitate to take your case before admins. Cadorna 19:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"Well, you must have read quite a different version of his diary, for your "quotes" are nowhere to be found there" Yawn...if you would actually read what I wrote you would see that the reference to diaries was in relation to murder of french POW officer by Rommel.The quotes about Fuhrer were from "The Trail of the Desert Fox".The quote about "I love and always loved Hitler" was in German documentary about Rommel and cited by either his son or adiutant(and because I didn't recall who of this two said that I didn't put it).As to "evil germans" you are seeing things since I don't put my opinions but pure facts--Molobo 00:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"I formally accusse you of spreading anti-German hatred in Wikipedia. No matter if you talk about Erwin Rommel, Konrad Adenauer, Untermensch, Gustav Stresemann or Prussia, you always have something to say about the "evil germans" Where did I write about "evil germans" can you point me to it ? Where did I gave any slight opinion of mine ? Point me to it.So far I am only expanding articles in relation to issues they miss.If you claim that either Stressemen didn't want to weaken Poland to change its borders feel free to prove with sources.If you believe Rommel didn't admire Hitler prove it against existing knowledge.If you claim that Poles weren't classified as Untermenschen-again prove it.If you feel that persecution of Poles wasn't part of Prussian state-again prove it.It seems though you are irritated by history and fact which you don't like but again these aren't my views.It is simply history--Molobo 01:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

" the mere fact that you mention that a nurse (!!!) thought he was ohhhh such an unpleasant guy and even consider "that" relevant is just still another confirmation of your POV views." Why is a statement of o witness of his actions and behaviour.I must tell you that I am not that nurse, so you can hardly accuse me of POV.But you can accuse the nurse-a historical wittness. It may not fit in what would like to see in your idolized Rommel, but it is historical evidence.--Molobo 01:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

how is an unidentified, unsourced report of a 3rd person's feelings a historical fact? Project2501a 00:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, Cardona's view is totally right. Molobo, you often mention that Rommel admired Hitler. What should that tell us about Rommel? Was to admire Hitler something like to worship the devil? Is someone who admired Hitler automatically a warcriminal or a evil person? I dont think so. Hitler was as genius in politics as he was weak in military knowledge and he knew how to polarize people. Hitler was voted 1938 as the "Man of the Year" by the Time Magazine. In my opinion you got a too simple view about whats good and evil in the world. And why should Hitler not admire Rommel? At least he was a big part of his military success. And please.. that Nurse comment about Rommel is absolutely hilarious. I believe a lot of people would state Napoleon as an bad little gnome because they disliked him personally but as well, a lot more people admire him. You cant take a single POV by such an qualified person like a nurse as a prove. If it would be a military officer companion or a politican, it would mean maybe something but only maybe. In my opinion you got clearly no NPOV because your intentions seem only to point out that facts, who make Poland look good or its enemies look bad, despite if its historical or not. This would be acceptable if you would only try to enlarge this article with as many important(!) historical facts as possible but it seems quite obvious to me, that you have a kind of nationalist intention behind your deed. - ColdHeat


In accordance to what has been observed above, I can only confirm that Molobo is pushing an agenda of right-wing POVs, including but not limited to his image Germany. He frequently inserts statements which are half-truths at best, and are seen from a Polono-centric POV. Take this example: "No need for him to become a myth icon for Nazis and German nationalists.If you have any statements of Rommel protesting at Wehrmacht atrocities in September Campaign in Poland 1939 proving alleged "chivalry" be my guest." The article simply states that, as Nazi generals go, Rommel has a favourable image in the English-speaking world - as a "magnificent bastard" (George Patton), or a "great general" (Winston Churchill) [1]; Neil Young even mentioned him in a song ("Someday", found on Freedom (1989 album)). If Rommel - deservedly or not - earned a reputation for chivalry in combat among his enemies in the North African theatre of war, then it is perfectly correct to mention this fact here. There is an essential difference between stating that Rommel "was" chivalrous and stating that people "believe" he was. This is not the first occasion that Molobo fails to recognise the difference. Quite apart from that, why make Rommel's position on the 1939 invasion of Poland the litmus test for his supposed "chivalry", out of all the WWII operations he was involved in? This is unbearably Polono-centric. If anything, the test would have to be the invasion of Czechoslovakia, during which Rommel was Hitler's chief bodyguard. (By contrast, Ludwig Beck refused to play a part in the aggression against Czechoslovakia.) It seems that Molobo finds it hard to accept that, ultimately, Rommel's image in the rest of the world does not hinge on any protests he did or did not make against the invasion of Poland. From a Polish perspective, this may well be a reason for bitterness. But such bitterness must be kept out of Wikipedia articles. --Thorsten1 12:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned that instead of disputing the merits of the article, you're getting personal here. Even naming the section here in attempt to personally attack another wp user is far from appropriate. --Lysy (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Lysy: If you cared to read my post more carefully, you might discover that I was strictly referring to the contents of the article. The only reason I chose to title this section "Molobo" was that he has so far been the only one to assert that the widespread respect for Rommel must not be mentioned here because Rommel did not protest against the German conduct in Poland. He also frequently reverted the article. While I could perhaps have come up with a more ingenious headline if I had thought about it a bit longer, I still think it is perfectly correct to use Molobo's name as the headline for a section that deals exclusively with his edits and arguments.
Secondly - in the end I mused on Molobo's motives for his edits, and a plausible explanation seems to be that he is personally disappointed about an injustice of history - Rommel enjoys a fairly decent reputation for his role in the African theatre of war, whereas his involvement in other operations is conveniently overlooked. As much sympathy as I personally have for such griefs, Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to redress the injustices of history, and personal griefs must not be allowed to affect the NPOV of articles. If you choose to misread my concern about Molobo's POV-guided edits as personal attacks, then I cannot help it, either.--Thorsten1 20:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
You make a great point here, and might also want to take a look at Molbos contributions over at Heinz Guderian where he also made major POV intrusions.GeneralPatton 14:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I have come into conflict with Molobo on his contributions to several articles, some on German affairs, some on purely Polish ones. I will be glad to have a look at this one, too, but we should have no illusions on Molobo's willingness to compromise, even if faced with constructive opposition. My own experience shows that he does not settle for anything less than his very own wordings. --Thorsten1 20:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunetly Thorsten yes Poland campaign is the test, because several other Wehrmacht commanders protested at the conduct of German forces.There were no major combat operations in Czech takeover, unlike in Poland, nor were there widespread war crimes as in Poland.And frankly just one war crime is enough to be important.Furthermore neither British nor Czechs were persecuted by Nazi regime as Poles. --Molobo 15:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, as I said above, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I understand your disappointment about what you seem to feel is an unjust verdict of history. But you will have to respect other people's perspective as well. It is an undisputed fact that, internationally, Rommel's image is more favourable than that of most, if not all, other German officers - deservedly or not. You are not entitled to censor this fact just because you happen to think this reputation is undeserved. "Poland campaign is the test," - for you, yes. For most others, no. Simple as that. "several other Wehrmacht commanders protested at the conduct of German forces". You are mixing things up, I think. There was no substantial protest from high-ranking Wehrmacht officers against Wehrmacht operations in Poland. What you are probably referring to are protests against the atrocities committed by non-Wehrmacht Einsatzgruppen filed by some Wehrmacht officers who immediately witnessed their behaviour from close range. "There were no major combat operations in Czech takeover". Of course there weren't any, since Hitler had "negotiated" the Czech surrender. This does not alter the fact that the invasion of Czechoslovakia was the first German act of aggression against a non-German population; Ludwig Beck was far-sighted enough to understand that it would eventually predetermine a full-blown European war in which he refused to play a role - while Rommel became Hitler's chief bodyguard in Prague. So if we are to question the validity of Rommel's image, then Beck should be the standard to measure him against, rather than any other. "nor were there widespread war crimes as in Poland". This just reveals your utter ignorance and Polono-centric POV. Ever hear of Lidice? True, in the final analysis the occupation of Czechoslovakia did have a lower per capita death toll. But as you say yourself, "just one war crime is enough to be important", so there is no reason to belittle the Czech suffering in WWII. "neither British nor Czechs were persecuted by Nazi regime as Poles" - as for the Czechs, see above. As for the British - please read up some more on WWII: You might learn that Britain was never occupied by Germany, so its population could not possibly have been "persecuted" to the extent that Poland's population was.
Moreover, regarding your insinuation that the British (and American) image of Rommel was somehow less relevant because they did not suffer as much as the Poles: As a moral statement by someone who had the privilege to grow up decades after the war, and probably cannot even consciously remember the communist era, this is unbearably arrogant. It shows a lack of respect for the countless American and British families who sent their sons to fight for the freedom of Europe, including Poland, and who can hardly be held responsible for the fact that, in the end, Stalin bullied Roosevelt and Churchill to surrender Poland and many other European countries. BTW, this argument is strikingly reminiscient of an irritating Jewish POV according to which the Polish wartime suffering was negligible, just because from the perspective of the Warsaw Ghetto, life in the rest of Warsaw appeared almost normal. You may want to think about that some time. --Thorsten1 20:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
That's one of the beauties of wikipedia. It does not record one universal "truth". Instead it shows that there exist different POVs and records them all in an eventually NPOV way. This is especially apparent in the history related articles. We're not rewriting a traditional paper encyclopedia, that is supposed to present a single "Anglo-American", "German", "Polish", "Jewish" or whatever "true" point of view. If we are aware of international differences in perception, we should make them visible to the reader and let him judge. --Lysy (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
First off, let's not get too postmodern here, Lysy. The fact that Rommel enjoys a positive image in the western world is part of what you call "universal truth" and dismiss as in-existent. If there was no such thing as universal truth, as you seem to believe, the whole Wikipedia project would have been futile from the beginning.
Quite apart from that, nobody here has ever claimed that Molobo was not allowed to include his own POV (which is not, by the way, a representative "Polish" POV) to the maximum extent still covered by the overall NPOV policy. What I and others are complaining is Molobo's repeated removal of a reference to other people's POV, which happens to have much wider currency than his own. Are you seriously implying that Molobo is entitled to constantly delete the reference to Rommel's perceived "chivalry" just because this happens to contradict his own POV? And is he justified in doing so just because his ancestors allegedly suffered more than the ancestors of other editors? I for one beg to differ and will certainly not be impressed by vague appeals to the relativity of all human knowledge. --Thorsten1 08:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You must know that in early years Irving made wrote some books that weren't so criticised, only later he turned to revisionism.If you would read my post you would see that I won't argue about the quotes, so your crtiticism is unfounded.As to the later part of your post, I have nothing against mentioning that a myth developed around Rommel in part due to war propaganda and portrays him more positive then he deserves, often forgetting his early nazi symphaties and friendship with Hitler.--Molobo 11:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC) " There was no substantial protest from high-ranking Wehrmacht officers against Wehrmacht operations in Poland" I am not arguing about "substential" protest.I am just writing that he wasn't among the officers protesting.That people include Admiral Canaris, Generaloberst Gerd von Rundstedt,Generaloberst Wilhelm List,Generaloberst Blaskowitz, General Walter Petzel, General Walter Petzel. "This does not alter the fact that the invasion of Czechoslovakia was the first German act of aggression" But not of direct violence. " So if we are to question the validity of Rommel's image" We should look if protested German forces behaviour. "It shows a lack of respect for the countless American and British families who sent their sons to fight for the freedom" Please don't insult me by putting words in my mouth.Obviously you don't realize that Poles were considered by German Reich to be a lesser race, and thus Polish POWs and soldiers were treated different. "As for the British - please read up some more on WWII: You might learn that Britain was never occupied by Germany, so its population could not possibly have been "persecuted" to the extent that Poland's population was. " This argument is flawed, since basically you are arguing that I am right.We have to deal with what happened, and compare known treatement and ideology on other nations.Poles were classified as sub humans by orders of German Reich, furthermore Polish PoWs were treated quite different then PoWs from western nations.--Molobo 11:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Poland 1939

Why do you keep removing the "Poland 1939" subsection under "World War II" ? Is this something shameful to participate in this invasion or what ? WWII did not start in 1940. --Lysy (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Rommel didn't really participate in any combat in Poland. GeneralPatton 15:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, during the invasion of Poland he was a mere commander of the Fuhrer-Begleit-Bataillon, or Hitler's bodyguard battalion. It wasn't until the following year that he assumed command over some serious force. Halibutt 02:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Attention to edits by user Cadorna This is the following comment posted by the user Cadorna "(Removed extreme POV - you call Yad Vashem "trustworthy"??? Oh COME ON!!)" I leave others to judge neutrality of edits by the user. --Molobo 15:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt that we are witnessing an attempt to whitewash Nazi army here. --Lysy (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
For the record; I think Molobo, Cadorna and others are all trying to push POVs here. Comments such as "You're not qualified to ever set afoot on any other Germany-related article at Wikipedia on the grounds of WP:NPOV." are also extremely unhelpful. It seems obvious, to me at least, that Rommel was pro-Nazi (like many, if not most, of the Generals in the Wehrmacht). Whether he changed his opinions later in the war and participated in the assassination plot is still in some doubt as far as I know. Having said that, he was one of the more respected Axis generals. Certainly the British army never had anything other than respect for him and the conduct of his troops (again, as far as I know). Perhaps a little more balance is what is needed rather than constant reverts from one POV to the other. Leithp 15:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. --Lysy (talk)
Rommel, like most in the Wehrmacht was a strong German nationalist, he supported Hitler manly for seeing him as someone who will strengthen the nation. However, his later disillusionment, as well as the opposition to carry on some of the more extreme orders is rather well documented. GeneralPatton 16:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
However so is his early fascination with Hitler.The quotes I have given before are documented in Trail of the Desert Fox. It isn't a contested biography IIRC. Till 1942 from what I know Rommel was quite loyal towards the regime. The fragment about chivalry-Rommel didn't protest against conduct of campaign in Poland-Blaskowitz or Uxel did protest, so I think it would be best to change it to "British soldiers" not adversaries.Likewise the execution of French POW isn't disputed I think it should be put in some form to portay the man fully.We can of course in addition to quotes and the incident give the fragment that he advised his son against joining Waffen SS for its role in atrocities. I see no reason why the article can't be expanded with common work to portay the man in all his aspects with a balanced view --Molobo 16:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
And I have no doubt myself that we are witnessing an attempt from Polish extreme-right nationalists to stain absolutely every German related topic, and even more amazing is the fact that no actions are being taken to control these persons activities. Leithp: do me a favor, check these guys' contributions and read their every thoughts on these matters. Let their actions speak for themselves. And yes, some Jewish sources cannot be relied on when referring to such issues, for obvious bias reasons. While the Jewish cause in WWII deserves utmost respect, there are sources that do not comply to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, Yad Vasem being one of them. Honestly, Leithp, it amazes that you point at my comment after what I expresed at your talk page. I replied to your messages promptly, compromising myself to respect the 3RR on this page (which I did), a compromise that Molobo not only did not assume, but who ignored completely by breaking the aforementioned rule repeatedly. I also suggested a compromise of neutrality at this very page, and notified you about it; I'm still waiting for a similar reply from Molobo, but all I got was more edit war. I even restored the article to the version prior to any of my or his edits in order to attain the greatest possible grade of neutrality... broken again by... guess who?
Molobo, thanks for letting others decide about the neutrality of my edits. I'd do the same for you; however, everyone on Wikipedia seems to already know that yours are not neutral at all. I've had enough of your fanaticism, your extremely bad manners, your primitive use of the english language, your lack of knowledge of the WP edit tools and your bitterness; since you're a journalism student, I can't say I foresee you a career outside of right wing nationalist press.
Wojsy, stop seeing ghosts, or rather I'd say, twisting the facts with your personal motives. Read my words above: saying that nazis were "despicable murderers" as I did isn't my idea of "whitewash nazi army" (sic). This is about History, in a NPOV way, not a Polish forum. And regarding the message you left at my talk page, I suggest you do some research in the future before threatening people, in case you don't wanna get in trouble in life. I never broke the 3RR. Your friend Molobo did, yet I haven't heard any complaints from you on that direction.
I'm sick and tired of the rampaging edits of these people claiming that "these are FACTS!!!"... yet they provide no reliable sources, if any at all. Molobo has tired all of us with the alleged "murder of a French officer by Rommel"... yet a Google search on the subject leaves only Wikipedia and its mirrors as the only places on the whole web (!) with such information. Meanwhile, other facts that deserve the same consideration and that prove contrary to their opinion(s) (I've expressed something similar to what GeneralPatton has just mentioned, only to see it changed by Molobo hours later without explanation), are sistematically deleted and/or twisted without mercy. As HorsePunchKid has rightfully pointed here, selected facts can be pushed into "proving" a POV, and this is exactly what we are witnessing.
Frankly, this is exactly the kind of stuff that gives Wikipedia its fame of a non reliable source. As for me, I think my time here is over. I didn't came here to fight with the narrow minds of a few fanatics, but to do some learning, searching, and contributing. Too bad.
And just for the record, I'm Italian, not German. So long. -- Cadorna 16:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't want any more flames here, however it frustrates me to be called Polish extreme-right nationalist or being accused of threatening you. I have simply warned you that you've broken the 3RR rule. I thought it would be a friendlier gesture than reporting this incident. Now, I don't like your getting personal on me. --Lysy (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"yet they provide no reliable sources" David Irving "Trail of the Desert Fox" for quotes.Given time and time again. Executing French officer -One brave French lieutenant-colonel tried to defy Rommel--"He looked like a fanatical officer',recalled Rommel in his history."His eyes burned with hatred and impotent fury...I decided to take him with us.He had already gone on about fifty yards further east,but he was brought back to Rothenburg.Rothenburg ordered him up on to our command Panzer.But as the French officer curtly refused--three times,in fact--to come with us,there was nothing for it but to shoot him down." The Trail of the Fox,page 58.

17th May 1940

... Hundreds upon hundreds of French soldiers and their officers surrendered at our approach. Sometimes they had to be got out of vehicles driving alongside us. Particulary angry at this sudden disturbance was a French Lieutenant-colonel, whose vehicle was caught in the jam, and whom we overtook. I asked him his rank and position. He gave the impression of being one of these very fanatical officer types. His eyes glowed with hatred and impotent fury. In consideration of the possibility that our column would get split up in the traffic, I decided it best to take him along with us. He was already 50m (55yd) to the east when he was brought back to the command tank of Colonel Rothenburg, who motioned him to climb up. The French officer bluntly refused to come along, and there was nothing for it but to shoot him after three times ordering him to get up. ...

Source: Rommel and his art of war by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel --Molobo 20:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Another comment from Cadorna (this time comparing Jews to Klu Klux Klan and Nazi units to oppresed minority) : "(Serious sources only, please - using as a source on this matter is like quoting the KKK on the Black Power article)" --Molobo 16:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading thru the discussion, and I think that rather than a comparison, he was merely offering an example of what an unneutral source is. On the other hand, you, Molobo, have much more to answer for. Shauri 17:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC) So can you tell me what is biased and "unneutral" in the source ? Certainly I don't think Jews should be compared to KKK or Nazi's to some persecuted and oppresed minority--Molobo 18:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC) Btw it seems that the idea of neutrality is hiding every mention of war crimes commited by Nazi forces.Am I taking this right ?--Molobo 18:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, I am not familiar with Cadorna's political POV on other pages. The fact is that on this page, you are carelessly drawing on your readings of David Irving, a notorious Nazi sympathiser and holocaust denier. Before you point your finger at others, you would be well advised to have a second look at the giants whose shoulders you are so proudly standing on. --Thorsten1 20:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Back on the track

People: I think the article is fairly all right as it is now. Or is there any ongoing dispute about it ? Otherwise I suggest to quit the discussion here, as:

  1. it does not belong here
  2. it does not seem to lead anywhere
  3. it's getting personal and unnecessarily heated

Cool down everyone (myself included). --Lysy (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I will change adversaries to British soldiers. There are no known cases of Rommel expresing chivalry to Poles or protesting conduct of German forces in September Campaign(von Rundstedt, Blaskowitz, Petzel, and Ulex did protest).Also I will add the quotes, since nobody gave any reasons why they should be removed.I will wait some time for reasons of course If anybody has any. --Molobo 18:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Rommel never saw action in Poland, his command was purely ceremonial. The quotes you presented were presented out of context... and I agree with Lysy, the article is pretty OK now, before making any changes, they should first be discussed here in detail, or I will be forced to lock the article if another edit war erupts, I'm actually considering locking it right now to cool the things down. GeneralPatton 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Just for the record: Polish forces fought in Africa as well. --Lysy (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Its also interesting to note that Rommel's wife was of Polish ancestry. GeneralPatton 19:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
No wonder. Polish are the most beautiful girls worldwide ;-) --Lysy (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I must add though that I did read after the argument many sites about Waffen SS on wiki-many(if not most) are without any mention of war crimes commited by those units.That is worrying.--Molobo 18:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are you mentioning that here? GeneralPatton 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that Rommel has much to do with war crimes. --Lysy (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Please provide the proper context.I will add it after the qoutes. I can paste the whole page where they are written to discussion If you wish if your believe there is some unique and specific context of those quotes. Whetever Rommel took place in action is unimportant.Canaris didn't and protested.--Molobo 19:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC) Right now I am not editing the article in order to achieve concencus on showing balanced view on Rommel, including his early fascination and loyalty to Hitler(if you think that is untrue please state your reasons)--Molobo 19:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"I don't think that Rommel has much to do with war crimes." He confessed to executing a French officer taken prisoner.Some units under his command made war crimes, and he used slave labour.--Molobo 20:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to reedit every article of a person, who commited warcrimes, for example Patton and his unit and other allied generals or only the german one´s? Your "French officer crime" sounds like a broken record to me. You gave the reason when you quoted "Rommel and his Art of war" and it seems quite justified for me. At least this was a war! People were killed for even less then just "making some trouble" and this all over history on every side.


Here are some that are not used on the article page. As the article gets more extensive, they could be put in. GeneralPatton 16:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, that photo is in the article, opposite the 2nd Alamein reference. Leithp 16:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


Ok, I’ve locked the article for a 24 hour cool down period... please lets discuss the potential changes here so as to avoid another revert war. GeneralPatton 20:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Add-Hitler's symphathy for Rommel.
  • Add-quotes.
  • Add-Rommel's early admiration of Hitler and campaign in Poland.
  • Add-no reports of Rommel objecting German conduct in September campaign while being on the front (killing PoW, murder of civilians, bombing civilian cities etc,Blaskowitz and others protested).
  • Add-execution of French PoW.
  • Change-adversaries to British soldiers.
  • Add-his growing dissillusion with Hitler after 1942.
  • Add-advice for his son not to join Waffen SS.

Source for execution of POW:

"One brave French lieutenant-colonel tried to defy Rommel--'He looked like a fanatical officer', recalled Rommel in his history. 'His eyes burned with hatred and impotent fury...I decided to take him with us. He had already gone on about fifty yards further east, but he was brought back to Rothenburg.Rothenburg ordered him up on to our command Panzer.But as the French officer curtly refused--three times,in fact--to come with us,there was nothing for it but to shoot him down'." The Trail of the Fox,page 58.

17th May 1940

... Hundreds upon hundreds of French soldiers and their officers surrendered at our approach. Sometimes they had to be got out of vehicles driving alongside us. Particulary angry at this sudden disturbance was a French Lieutenant-colonel, whose vehicle was caught in the jam, and whom we overtook. I asked him his rank and position. He gave the impression of being one of these very fanatical officer types. His eyes glowed with hatred and impotent fury. In consideration of the possibility that our column would get split up in the traffic, I decided it best to take him along with us. He was already 50m (55yd) to the east when he was brought back to the command tank of Colonel Rothenburg, who motioned him to climb up. The French officer bluntly refused to come along, and there was nothing for it but to shoot him after three times ordering him to get up. ...

Source: Rommel and his art of war by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel"

Source on admiration of Hitler (besides numerous historic evidence

Later that day, August 31, 1939 he added, “Waiting is a bore, but it can’t be helped. The Führer knows what’s right for us.” Almost at once the telephone call came, ordering him to stand by. That evening, the phone rang again in the railroad station waiting room where he had set up his office. “The invasion begins tomorrow, Thus the Second World War began. Nobody, least of all Erwin Rommel, could foresee that the military operations that began on September 1, heralded by a ranting and self-justificatory Reichstag speech by the Führer, would inexorably involve one country after another; would last six years; would leave  million dead and all Europe and half Asia ravaged by fire and explosives; would destroy Hitler’s Reich, ruin the British Empire and end with the creation of new weapons, new world powers and a new lawlessness in international affairs. Rommel wrote excitedly next day, “What do you make of the events of September 1  Hitler’s speech? Isn’t it wonderful that we have such a man?” Trail of Desert Fox page 50.

--Molobo 20:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I’d be cautious in using a David Irving book as a primary source. GeneralPatton 20:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this evidence here seems weak to me as well. I think I'll pass here. --Lysy (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)\

Are the quotes in Trail of the Desert Fox disputed by any historian ? I think one can hardly accuse Irving of critizing German leadership btw, although the book isn't one of his revisionist ones. As to the execution of French officer two sources were given, so Irving isn't a primary source.--Molobo 21:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think similar passage should be included in the article : "In September 1934, Rommel first met Hitler. Rommel was devoted to Hitler because of Hitler's acceptance of the army over the SA. Rommel thought Hitler was a good man, and he was swept up in the patriotic pride that now ran rampant throughout Germany " " On September 4, 1939, Rommel crossed the Polish border with the elements of the Fuhrer's special field headquarters. During these opening operations, Rommel viewed the success and advantages of Panzer columns on open ground. He saw countless enemies beaten by these fast, mobile, armor plated monsters. Rommel noted their speed and weaponry, and even noted the things that they lacked. Rommel also became close friends with Hitler, because he accompanied him everyday. On September 10, Rommel and the Hitler envoy were already at Kielce, just South of Warsaw" His development of friendship with Hitler is very important in light that it was made during September Campaing, where other officers protested at the murder made on civilians by German forces. --Molobo 22:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I recall that British historian Paul Johnson debunked David Irving's ideas on Rommel at an article some time ago. According to Johnson, it is a "nothing but a weak attempt by a neo nazi to "recruit" the one German member of the Nazi regime who actually has a positive historical image for his cause", or something like that. I'l try and re locate the precise source to post it here. There you have the motivations behind your source, Molobo. Shauri 23:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
If it's the Paul Johnson that you linked who is alleged to a have debunked Irving, I congratulate you for finding a source almost as unreliable as Irving himself. Leithp 23:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with his works or affiliations, I merely wanted to point Molobo, who asked if no other author had debated the subject with Irving, that indeed someone has. Luckily, this time he understood. Issue closed. Shauri 00:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

As I understand the quotes are debatable.That is fine with me right now. However, as to the execution of the French officer taken PoW one source remains : "Rommel and his art of war by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel". --Molobo 00:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC) As to Rommel fascination with Hitler how about something this : "Like many other nationalistic German officers, Rommel was fascinated by Hitler and his reforms. The men got to knew each other as Rommel became responsible for Hitler's safety and in time a friendship and admiration between the two developed."--Molobo 00:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Source please? Shauri 00:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This was a proposal of mine of the passage.Rommel and Hitler fondness for each other is well known historically. Almost every site, book and documentary mentions Hitler was impressed by Rommel and vice versa--Molobo 01:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

A couple of interesting statements from this site: He appears to have been the archetypal 'good German', an apolitical soldier and cunning military genius. But, as Channel 4 shows for the first time in The Real Rommel, he had a secret love affair that almost ruined his career – 'and he was more political than his fans would like to believe.

In Danzig, he fell in love with Lucie Mollin, who came from a middle class family with Polish ancestry. At the same time, Rommel started an affair with a teenager, Walburga Stemmer, a fruit-seller living in Weingarten, his garrison town.

In 1913, their daughter Gertrud was born. But although Lieutenant Rommel was delighted, and wanted to quit the army to marry Walburga, his strict family persuaded him to abandon her and wed Lucie. After all, it was 1914, and quitting the army when war was looming would have been dishonourable.

Even so, Walburga remained faithful to Rommel, and committed suicide when his and Lucie's child, Manfred, was born in 1928. Gertrud, however, kept in touch with her father. She wrote him dozens of letters and was known to the family as a 'cousin'. Later, on the battlefield, he wore a scarf she had knitted for him.

Rommel's affair with Walburga remained secret until Gertrud died in 2000, and her collection of her mother's letters and photographs revealed the truth."

Like most Germans, Rommel accepted Hitler's policies on racial purity. When his daughter Gertrud asked his permission to marry her Italian boyfriend, Rommel told her that he must prove his Aryan descent. Manfred Rommel remembers how his father looked the other way when anti-Jewish violence spilled on to the streets.

--Molobo 01:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to add from the same site: "Then, on the 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland and the Second World War began. At the end of the year, one of Lucie's cousins, a Polish priest, was shot. Although her relatives were in danger, Rommel refused to help. During a victory parade in Warsaw, he joined Hitler on the podium" I think the statement about chivalry in view of this will have to be changed, or added in Africa campaign in relation to the incident with British soldiers--Molobo 02:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

And another interesting statement and facts: "Contemporary photographs and newsreel clips of Rommel are familiar even to those born decades later. Rommel is almost always depicted as a bronzed, handsome man, projecting transcendent wisdom and courage. His daring and valor earned him Germany's highest military medals in World Wars I and II. No 20th-century military foe approaches the enduring fame awarded Rommel by English-speaking peoples.

In truth, Rommel was and is a myth, crafted during his life by friend and foe alike to satisfy various political, social and psychological needs. It was a myth created from an admixture of truth, fiction and emotion, ever enshrined in popular culture and military history. Rommel's myth was used to explain events, to promote beliefs and to entertain, just as myths have done throughout the ages.

Rommel achieved some measure of fame in World War I and in the 1940 Battle of France, but North Africa forms the bulk of his legend. During the war, his deeds were trumpeted in countless newsreels, books and articles around the world. His fame in Germany was enormous. Shortly after the war, B.H. Liddell-Hart, one of this century's best-known military theorists and historians, proposed Rommel for entry into the pantheon of "Great Captains."15 Most views of Rommel offer similar songs of praise. Martin Blumenson, the distinguished World War II chronicler, could hardly contain himself in a 1989 piece, claiming that Rommel "is increasingly regarded as a soldier who had a clear and compelling view of strategy and logistics and a sound and balanced touch for grand operations."16

Rommel's myth was shaped not just by the Germans, but by his enemies as well. Rommel's brilliance mitigated for the British their defeats in North Africa. Rommel became a demigod of war, even to his enemies. During one period of the "Desert Fox's" successes, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill made his now-famous speech before the House of Commons, saying, "We have a very daring and skillful opponent against us, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great general . . ."17 No doubt Churchill meant his words; but little doubt can exist either that by acknowledging Rommel's putative genius, Churchill helped excuse British errors, thereby deflecting political criticism of his government.

Image and Power Rommel traveled the paths of glory not just on the strength of his record and abilities, but also from his personal relationship with Hitler. Rommel met Hitler briefly in 1934 and again in 1935, but it was Rommel's temporary tours of duty as commander of Hitler's headquarters party for the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland that cemented the relationship. Hitler read and enjoyed Rommel's book Infantry Attacks, which was based on his exploits in World War I. In 1939, Rommel was promoted to general officer and assigned as the Fuhrer's headquarters full-time commander. Less than three years later, Rommel was a field marshal, surely one of the most meteoric rises in any modern army. Rommel was neither Prussian, an aristocrat nor a member of the general staff, factors greatly increasing his appeal to Hitler. Rommel was, to Hitler, a wholly acceptable ally, one disenfranchised from the army's usual social elite that Hitler detested and distrusted. In 1940, Rommel was assigned 7th Panzer Division command through Hitler's intercession. On arrival at the division, he shocked his new subordinates by using the "Heil Hitler" greeting.18

Rommel clearly was not above increasing and using his political power. Rommel was quick to realize the subtle interactions among public appeal, political value and personal goals. While in North Africa, Rommel often communicated directly or indirectly with Hitler, bypassing his German and Italian higher headquarters. Rommel's aide, SS Lieutenant Alfred Berndt, maintained close ties with his former boss, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels.19 Rommel often used Berndt to intercede with Hitler, Goebbels and others. Sometimes these were political or strategic matters but were often more mundane issues.

Goebbels guided the building of Rommel's reputation in Germany. Like Hitler, Goebbels saw the political, social and psychological benefits that accrued to the Nazis from the handsome, dashing Rommel, whose political acceptability was rewarded with extensive press coverage. He was the first division commander to receive the Knight's Cross for efforts in the fall of France, and he received the lion's share of press coverage. Even Goebbels, though, recognized Rommel's unpredictable nature and the risks of his actions. In an April 1941 diary entry, Goebbels wrote, "We have our hands full trying to hold him back."20

For Hitler, the daring headline-making exploits of Rommel were too enticing to give up, even if there was no military-strategic logic behind them. Rommel, for his part, knew and cultivated the rewards of image. Prior to his departure for Africa, Rommel met with Hitler and examined American and British magazines lauding the Italian defeat by the British. Soon, Hitler and the world would see German victories there, and the photogenic Rommel would see his fame expanding. The Desert Fox found time to communicate to Goebbels concerns on the quality of his media coverage. Goebbels reacted, in a diary entry of 7 June 1941, that Rommel "deserves the best presentation we can give him. . ." and later that month wrote that Rommel and his forces "deserve the highest praise and a fame that will go down in history."21 Goebbels lived up to his promise, as Rommel became one of the most highly promoted Third Reich heroes. Thus did fame come to Rommel, and with it power.

In the end, the myth was too powerful for even Hitler to destroy. When Rommel came to terms with the irrationality and horror of the Nazi madman, he joined, in some form, the conspirators who hoped to kill Hitler and overthrow the Third Reich. Ironically, the unsuccessful putsch was organized and predominantly made up of Rommel's longstanding foes, general staff officers. Rommel was forced to commit suicide, but the public, of course, was told only that their hero died of wounds. Only after the war would the world learn the truth, a truth that would magnify the myth. In death as in life, Rommel was a hero.

Ultimately, German efforts in North Africa served only to delay the war's outcome at excessive costs. Rommel's failure to envision a realistic end state or to conduct an operational-level mission analysis meant there was never meaning to his battles. For the Germans, little good came of all their tactical and technological brilliance. In the end, they accomplished no clearly identifiable, meaningful objectives. Rommel was untrained and ill-suited for the intellectual rigors of operational art. Rommel came to North Africa, fought countless battles over two years, shaped his legend, but achieved no enduring political goals. In all this, he never met the challenges of operational art and never blended time, space, means and purpose.

Rommel fought battles, but never determined why. For his enemies, the price paid in blood and treasure was later repaid many times over in improvements to equipment and doctrine, and in the inestimable value of battle experience. By any measure of success at the operational level of war, Rommel failed. By most measures of history, he succeeded. The difference is absorbed within the myth. The Rommel myth fulfilled psychological needs for Germany, offset British failures and transfixed the world. His legend as a heroic, tragic figure endures. But operational art is unforgiving-it sets its judgment on success, and Rommel achieved none. It was not just that Rommel failed at operational art, he never really attempted it. He had not learned it, had not practiced it and could not meet the intellectual challenges he faced.

Rommel and North Africa are windows into the future. No, not every circumstance will be repeated, at least in any single campaign. Nonetheless, we must look for each, either in ourselves and our allies or in our foes. For within each weakness is vulnerability. Perhaps the most dangerous risk is permitting public emotions to poison reason. We must beware of heroes, legends and tales, for they can lure political leaders and the public away from the reality of war.

Rommel will be borne by his legend across the sands of time. Nothing said now will change that; nor should we wish to rewrite the tale, for heroes are hard to come by. But let us ensure that today's warriors-at least the strategists-separate the man from the myth, the deeds from the drama and the futility from the glory. We owe that not to the past, but to the future. MR

1. Gerhard Weinberg, A World at Arms (New York: Cambridge Press, 1994), 346-50. 2. David Fraser, Knight's Cross: A Life of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (New York: Harper Collins, 1994), 563-65. 3. Ibid. 4. An excellent survey of this complex subject can be found in Christian Millotat, Understanding the Prussian-German General Staff System (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Army War College booklet, 1992). 5. Daniel Hughes, editor, Moltke on the Art of War: Selected Writings (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1993), 47. 6. Fraser, Knight's Cross, 179, 205-9. 7. B.H. Liddel-Hart, The German Generals Speak (New York: Quill, 1979), 234. 8. Liddell-Hart, editor, The Rommel Papers (New York: Da Capo Press, 1982) 116. 9. Ibid., 179. 10. Martin van Creveld, Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton (New York: Cambridge Press, 1980), 181-201. 11. US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 1, Joint Warfare of the US Armed Forces (Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1991), 46. 12. Van Creveld, Supplying War, 187. 13. Franz Halder, The Halder-War Diary, 1939-1942, C. Burdick and H. Jacobsen, editors (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1988), 374. 14. Walter Warlimont, Inside Hitler's Headquarters, 1939-1945 (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1964), 129, 235-38. 15. Liddell-Hart, The Rommel Papers, xii-xxi. 16. Martin Blumenson, "Rommel," in Corelli Barnett (ed.), Hitler's Generals (New York: Quill, 1989), 293. 17. Winston Churchill, A History of World War Two, Volume 3, "The Grand Alliance" (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950), 200. 18. Len Deighton, Blitzkreig: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk (New York: Ballantine, 1982), 54. 19. Berndt is mentioned frequently in Goebbels' diary before, during and after his time as Rommel's aide. He later became an SS general and died in action. 20. Joseph Goebbels (Trans. & ed. by Fred Taylor), The Goebbels Diaries, 1939-1941 (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1983), 339. 21. Ibid., 399 and 421.

Colonel James R. Robinson is a logistician in the Individual Ready Reserve, US Army Reserve. He received a B.S. from Niagara University and an M.B.A. from St. John's University. He is also a graduate of the US Army War College and the US Air War College. He has held a variety of command and staff positions in the Continental United States, including commander, 304th Materiel Management Center (Corps), Los Angeles, California; chief, Support Plans, 311th Corps Support Command (COSCOM), Los Angeles; commander, 387th Maintenance Battalion, Los Alamitos, California; and chief, Operations Branch, 311th COSCOM."

--Molobo 02:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, full-text quoting of easily available internet resources on talk pages is not helpful at all. It is enough to provide the URL, and maybe quote some key statements to make your point (such as the ones in bold type above).
As for the point you intend to make with this quote - I think you are tilting at windmills here. You said: "No need for him to become a myth icon for Nazis and German nationalists". Fine, but nobody here is creating a "myth" or trying to "iconise" Rommel - this is strictly your own perception. Your opponents, including myself, are merely reserving the right to state that Rommel's image is much more positive in world opinion than that of other WWII German military leaders. This is a fact, and recording this fact does not mean creating any "myth icon" as you put it. That this image does not entirely live up to reality, that, e.g. Churchill contributed to Rommel's myth in order to justify British military defeats, - well, who'd have thought? There's no need for you to prove what is obvious, really. --Thorsten1 09:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
This is similar as to what he did over here [2] taking out the text about combat reputation, or over here [3], where he also incorrectly stated that the incident was at Malmedy. When corrected he accused User:Ansbachdragoner, a well respected editor, of "right-wing propaganda” [4]. His edits over at Heinz Guderian are also quite POV’ish [5].
Yawn the Massacre is called Massacre at Malmedy.Right wing propaganda was aimed at other parts of edit.As Heinz Guderian I only linked to the mention of him taking away possesions from Poles and accepting money from Hitler.How is that PoV ? And please sign yourself in the future.Of course personal interests are to be discussed on talk pages.I fail to see what comments about my corrections in articles have to do with Erwin Rommel--Molobo 14:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
It just shows you make hasty and POVish edits, for instance Malmédy Massacre and the one at Abbaye Ardennes are not the same incident, when corrected, you reverted back again with that accusation of "right wing propaganda "[[6]]. Not to mention tha tyou took out the part that Meyer was released because of the pressure given by Allied officers, and that that was entirely historically correct. In the Guderian article you also inserted " Guderian was also known for his corrupt nature" while even the link you put in as your source spoke of "possible elements of corruption and avarice" GeneralPatton 14:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing against stating in the article that around Rommel a myth was created, to justify British defeats, and to create an icon for Germans, and as a result his image is distorted--Molobo 13:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, that is POV, your own oppinion. GeneralPatton 14:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No this not POV or my opinion, this is opinion of military historian cited above. This of course can be shown balanced stating that "some historians consider his victories to be overblown by England to justify British failures, and by German Reich for propaganda reasons".--Molobo 14:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Add to article-creation of propaganda icon by German Reich propaganda.Ties between Rommel and Goebbels as shown in source.--Molobo 14:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

To Molobo

It just looks to me like you’re trying to shape the article according to your own ideas, and are selectively quoting just the materials that support your cause, this is weary much like what David Irving is doing, no wonder you’re using him as source. We’re just trying to objectively present the facts here in full context, not model articles around opinions. GeneralPatton 19:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what this debate is about. And what the hell is this?

"Ultimately, German efforts in North Africa served only to delay the war's outcome at excessive costs. Rommel's failure to envision a realistic end state or to conduct an operational-level mission analysis meant there was never meaning to his battles. For the Germans, little good came of all their tactical and technological brilliance. In the end, they accomplished no clearly identifiable, meaningful objectives."

Uh, I believe the objective was to capture Cairo and the Suez Canal, and possibly from there the Caucasus oil fields. Also, there was that "Plan Orient" in which to secure the Middle East from North Africa or Russia. Unsigned comment from User:Field Marshal Rommel

Really? I thought that was such an unrealistic plan that it wasn't ever taken seriously. Rommel was certainly never given anywhere near enough resources to even begin such a task. His primary role, as I understand it, was to keep the Italians from getting into too much trouble. He overstepped this and carried on, overreaching his supply columns and demanding more troops until it ultimately ended badly for the Germans. The paragraph looks reasonable to me. Leithp 07:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

No really Patton, the article lacks information about his relation with Hitler, german propaganda, and is idolizing Rommel, there is nothing wrong in stating that he showed mercy to British and French soldiers, he didn't object to cruelty of German campaign in Poland, like others did. however, so the statement about adverseries is incorrect.Furthermore, the mention of him executing by orders a captured French officer aren't fabrication. You also ignored the military assesment of this German commander, trying to concentrate on accusing me of using Irwing, despite the fact that I agreed in the beginning of discussion that the quotes are debatable(however as we can see Rommel had some nazi symphaties, because of the question about aryan background of the boyfriend of his daughter from another relationship).--Molobo 11:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I fail to see exactly where is the part of the current text that "idolizes" Rommel. Both British and French soldiers where "adversaries" of his, so the sentence is correct; might as well add Americans, who faced him in the North African campaign, and that's about all three armies he conducted military campaigns against, hence making the Polish-based view by omission of "protests" completely out of place. I also consider your repeated mention of a single incident irrelevant and taken out of context (the context of fight in the war front, no less). I believe there are dozens of examples of his "chivalrous" conduct often related in several books which have an equal (un)importance, and mentioning that incident would require the inclusion of them as well in the article itself, turning this article into a collection of anecdotes rathen than the general information that would be expected. I see a patern behind your intended edits, Molobo, and it's basically that, since you don't really have any solid accusations against the man, you grab every single anecdote to discredit him, no matter how small and/or irrelevant it may be (his daughter's boyfriend, some anonymous "nurse"'s impression, a single incident at the front, mention of the 12th SS Division war crimes (when Rommel had nothing to do with it), omission of "protests" (whereas accussing by omission is hardly an evidence accepted by any serious historian), etc. I think you should face the fact that you are on your own in your vision of how the Rommel article should be. 'Nobody of the many people who has expressed their ideas here support it, not even Lysy who shares with you a more Polish-based view for obvious reasons, something understandable and perfectly OK by itself; but who, unlike you, has the seriousness to realize when something is both true and important, and who doesn't let his personal feelings get in the way, no matter how much one may dislike Germany personally. I'm eager to discuss "solid" arguments, backed with "solid" sources; but so far, you haven't presented any good case. Shauri 05:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

They are no reports of Rommel protesting conduct of German forces during September Campaign.So it can't be said that he had shown chivalry to all his adversaries.Like said that he had shown chivalry to the nations not considered subhuman is correct and can be put. " also consider your repeated mention of a single incident " Which is murderer.A single murder is enough to mention I think. "Molobo, and it's basically that, since you don't really have any solid accusations against the man" I don't accuse Rommel.I state facts that aren't placed in the article.Rommel's friendship with Hitler, propaganda role of Rommel, his daughter, his questions about her boyfriend's aryan background, no protests against atrocities commited in Poland. "I'm eager to discuss "solid" arguments, backed with "solid" sources; but so far, you haven't presented any good case" Military assesment of Rommel by military historian isn't a solid case ? Strange.As strange as claiming Allies are guilty per definition of war crimes...--Molobo 18:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, I will say this once and clearly, in English 101 just to close the issue for good: Poles were NEVER military adversaries of Rommel. He conducted NO MILITARY ACTIONS WHASOEVER in the Polish campaign. He didn't have to face the Polish army, NOT ONCE. I suggest you check the meaning of ADVERSARY in your dictionary. Case dismissed; no further argument on the subject is needed; not even to debate the faible claim of accusation by omission that he issued no protests (which is ironically against your on arguments of "innocent until proved guilty" that you present at the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend article but you so conveniently ignore here.)
Regarding the outrageous statement that I ever implied that "Allies are guilty per definition of war crimes", restrain yourself from putting things in my mouth that I never, ever said. That discussion does not belong here, however; drop by the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend Talk page, where that debate belongs, and discuss your intended edits instead of forcing them, for a change.
Last but not least, yes, the execution of ONE SINGLE enemy (among the thousands and thousands that the 7th Panzer Division captured) deemed dangerous in the middle of a military campaign is completely irrelevant to get the whole picture of a military character, when I doubt there is a single general in any army in the whole world who has ever been above of making such a decission; it is clearly a selected fact that you toss on the table in the abscence of any solid ways of staining a historical figure. Much more rare to find indeed are facts that you ignore completely, and of which dozens of sources can be provided, like the respect for the lives and well-being of thousands upon thousands of POWs (in sharp contrast to the behaviour of the vast majority of the German commanders). GeneralPatton has put it very clearly: you are carefully selecting very specifical facts which support your view and ignoring the whole picture, much in the way of your sources. You claim that "one" source of doubtful origin which supports your view makes your case solid? Not a chance. The article as it is now is basically according to no less than ten different books by respected authors, including, but not limited to:
  • Rommel: Desert Fox (ISBN: 0688067719) by Desmond Young
  • Biography of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (ISBN: 0600341798) by Ward Rutherford
  • Knight's Cross : a life of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (ISBN: 0060925973) by David Fraser
  • The Desert Generals (ISBN: 0304352802) by Correlli Barnett
  • Rommel's North Africa campaign (ISBN: 1580970184) by Jack Greene
Furthermore, if one was to follow several of these sources more literally, rest assured that the article would become even less of your liking. So NO, your case is pretty far from solid. You have to do MUCH better than saying what a bad father in law he was in order for your suggestions to be serious. Wanna discuss about his military prowess? Be my guest, for THAT is a serious field, and a truly debatable one. But get serious, and stop staining the personal aspects of the historical figure, for that is a tabloid technique, not an encyclopedic one. Personally, I dislike the idea of this article being an apollogetic of Rommel, and I think it would be best to leave it just like it is now; but I'd hate to see it turned into the informal, laughable kind of article that one could expect at a personal webpage located in a public server, which is inevitably as it will turn up to be if it was for you. Shauri 06:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Just one comment - as Shauri and General Patton aptly put it, Molobo is "carefully selecting very specifical facts which support [his] view and ignoring the whole picture". He does very much the same on other pages he has been editing - see, for example, Wisława Szymborska (Talk), Konrad Adenauer (Talk). In the end, his reaction is always "why, these are just 'facts'!"... Thus, at the risk of being charged with a personal attack, I consider Molobo a liability to Wikipedia, not an asset. --Thorsten1 07:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Why Thorsten I only add facts, not my problem if they don't fit into picture that others want to create. ":Last but not least, yes, the execution of ONE SINGLE enemy (among the thousands and thousands that the 7th Panzer Division captured) deemed dangerous in the middle of a military campaign is completely irrelevant to get the whole picture of a military character, when I doubt there is a single general in any army in the whole world who has ever been above of making such a decission; it is clearly a selected fact that you toss on the table in the abscence of any solid ways of staining a historical figure" Untrue on several points.First of all the captured officer was in no way dangerous, and did neither try to escape or attack-both of which allow for execution.Disobeying order is not reason for execution.Secondly the murder of the officer has been brought up couple of times in discussions if he would be considered war criminal.So it is worthy of mentioning. "Much more rare to find indeed are facts that you ignore completely, and of which dozens of sources can be provided, like the respect for the lives and well-being of thousands upon thousands of POWs" Can you give any source showing Rommel's protest then to conduct of German army in campaign in Poland like other German commanders ? "Furthermore, if one was to follow several of these sources more literally, rest assured that the article would become even less of your liking" Showign how Rommel became a myth created by Nazi propaganda and used by British to justify their defeat doesn't bother me at all. "But get serious, and stop staining the personal aspects of the historical figure" Address this issue to authors of several documentaries.I don't stain the figure.His actions and inactions do. " Poles were NEVER military adversaries of Rommel. He conducted NO MILITARY ACTIONS WHASOEVER in the Polish campaign. He didn't have to face the Polish army, NOT ONCE. I suggest you check the meaning of ADVERSARY in your dictionary. Case dismissed" Wrong Rommel was part of campaign in Poland and thus Poles were his adversaries.Despite protetest of several German commanders towards conduct of German forces, Rommel didn't issue any protest.Since he was in charge of Hitler's security he conducted military operations to provide safety for him, and thus Poles were his adversaries.If they never came to military contact is irrelavent.He was still part of the campaign.--Molobo 12:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Why Thorsten I only add facts"... - quod erat demonstrandum. See my post above. --Thorsten1 13:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
"If they never came to military contact is irrelavent.He was still part of the campaign." No, it is not irrelevant, it's the whole point. An adversary is, by definition, someone you face in any kind of conflict, and Rommel was in charge of an auxiliary matter, not facing the Polish army, thus rendering you claim void. Providing security is not fighting against the enemy. Besides, it is completely clear from the concept of "showing chivalry towards his adversaries" that the intended meaning is, when he was in the position as to decide over the lives of his adversaries, he showed respect. Did he have that power in Poland 1939, like he did in France 1940 or North Africa 1941? The answer is clearly, no. You're twisting the point, as usual. "Address this issue to authors of several documentaries." May I ask, which documentaries? And just because they exist, doesn't make them reliable. But then again, what can be asked when you quote Irving? "Showign (sic)how Rommel became a myth created by Nazi propaganda and used by British to justify their defeat doesn't bother me at all." No, of course, it doesn't bother you, because that's exactly what you want. Take off the mask already. Yet, the books I mentioned are not nazi propaganda, but the work of serious historians that contradict that view. Can you give any source showing Rommel's protest then to conduct of German army in campaign in Poland like other German commanders ? Again, the polono-centrism that is entirely out of place here. I'll say this clear: PROVE THAT HE PROMOTED ATROCITIES AGAINST POLAND. You said "inocent until proved guilty". Well, the lack of protests is NOT an acceptable acussation. Acussing for inaction, instead of action, is reversing the requeriments of proof, which is unacceptable (at least, that's your position in another article). I'll go further: your position is even more compromised when considering that there are authors (i.e. Rutherford) who speculate as to whether Rommel may well have presented complaints to Hitler privately, respecting the appearances and the chain of command (and not only regarding the conduct of the SS in Poland but to certain other aspects of Hitler's orders).
This is getting old, and each time you post something here, it becomes more and more evident what users like Cadorna, GeneralPatton, Thorsten1 or me have repeatedly observed: you show a grain of sand in one hand and hide behind your back the fistful you hold in the other. This gets even more serious when you demand sources, and once they are provided, you ignore them; or, even more infuriating, when you plainly forge "facts" in order to support your "claims" (a clear example being your new assertion that Rommel conducted military operations in Poland 1939, which is nothing but an amazing fabrication derivated from a completely different fact). You POVish view does not accept middle terms; it's either your view, or nothing at all. So I believe that unfortunately, the issue can only be solved via an arbcom. I'll let admins know so they can take the proper action course. Shauri 14:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Molobo I don't understand why you keep pressing to have your hurting little bits of data on this page...or any other for that matter. It seems to me like you are biased. You never have anything good to say. If you were allowed to change the text, what would you put in that would be good to balance out the negative somewhat? Rommel is generaly well respected and considered an honerable man by many. The reason is because more facts can be found of him doing good things as apposed to bad. Much more. Just to let you know I deleted some of your material a few times as well :) mike1366

I don't care about creating good or bad image.I care only about mentioning facts.Unlike you I am not interested in creating anything, but simply presenting.

"a clear example being your new assertion that Rommel conducted military operations in Poland 1939," Providing security and escorting Hitler's HQ during fights on the front is not an military operation ?--Molobo 17:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC) "Did he have that power in Poland 1939, like he did in France 1940 or North Africa 1941? The answer is clearly, no. " Irrelevant.Other commanders issuing protest had no power in this matters as well.--Molobo 17:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Yet, the books I mentioned are not nazi propaganda, but the work of serious historians that contradict that view" Military historian from US Army cities this books and comes to different conclusion.--Molobo 17:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC) "Again, the polono-centrism that is entirely out of place here."

Nope, actually Poland campaign is important since unlike French campaign, German forces conducted mass war crimes and atrocities. "I'll say this clear: PROVE THAT HE PROMOTED ATROCITIES AGAINST POLAND."That is not what I wrote.Of course prove that he protested atrocities in Poland, like other Wehrmacht commanders. --Molobo 17:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC) "You said "inocent until proved guilty". Well, the lack of protests is NOT an acceptable acussation." I don't accuse him of anything.However I point out that no reports of Rommel protesting(unlike other German commanders) are known.--Molobo 17:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC) "and not only regarding the conduct of the SS in Poland" Ekhem.You believe it's the matter of SS commiting atrocities in Poland ? Are you unawere of the fact that Wehrmacht murdered thousands of civilians and conducted massacres ?--Molobo 17:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Providing security and escorting Hitler's HQ during fights on the front is not an military operation?". Frankly, no. Hitler tried hard to project the image of the "greatest military commander of all times", but in fact, he wouldn't go anywhere near where it was dangerous. You might compare Rommel's role in occupied Poland to that of an ordinary bodyguard. Of course, he could have protested anyway, but it simply doesn't matter. Let there be no mistake - everybody knows that Rommel was devoted to the goals of German megalomania, and chose to serve what is generally considered as the most despicable regime in history almost down to the bitter end. His association with the ill-fated last-ditch attempt to kill Hitler was, at best, loose. If there are people who idolise him even in the face of all this, do you seriously believe they will be impressed by your "facts" about Rommel's lack of protest against Wehrmacht atrocities in Poland, or executing a POW? Don't be so goddamn silly. --Thorsten1 20:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Thorsten look on German forums.German nationalism is quite strong in making myths from such people as Rommel or Doenitz, this often includes denial of their Nazi connections, or symphaties.I don't think Rommel was fanatic Nazi, In fact my own POV is that he was a good soldier and a weak man, tempted by opportunites given by Nazi regime, that struggled hard in order to find strenght to finally oppose it.However there were German generals and officers who did protest, and Rommel wasn't one of them at 1939.This isn't making a beast, monster out of Rommel, but showing his full portrait.--Molobo 23:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
"Thorsten look on German forums." What "German forums"? If you feel the desire to counter German nationalism in some unnamed "forums", of which there must be thousands, kindly do so in the forums where you observe it. This Wikipedia article is certainly not nationalist, neither is it building a "myth", neither does it deny that Rommel was loyal to the Nazi leadership for most of the time. You have simply come to the wrong place. And, I'm getting tired of repeating this, the fact that Rommel did not protest against any atrocities he may have witnessed or (more probably) only heard of, is simply not relevant here. As long as no protest is mentioned in the article, it goes without saying that he did not protest. If he had been one of the few to protest, that would be relevant. Rozumiesz czy jeszcze nie za bardzo? --Thorsten1 12:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Again you seem to have problems with understandign written text.What I wrote was that the spreading of myth of Rommel(such as his "chivalry", while he did not protest any atrocities in Poland) is shown also here.If someone witnesses murder and doesn't protest it is worth mentioning likewise the lack of protest during German campaign in Poland. Co do rozumienia Thorsten, jak na razie to ty nic nie rozumiesz.--Molobo 13:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, personally, I like very much the shape the article is taking under the guidance of the current editors. I believe it to be very much in the NPOV fashion the Wikipedia articles should be, and I encourage Ghost and GeneralPatton to proceed in the direction they're going. Good work guys! - Shauri 22:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again, Shauri, for the compliments and encouragement. I've tried to fill in as many "gaps" as I can, especially on the vital North African campaign. And Patton added the excellent, high quality photo of a visably tired Rommel in Tunisia. It looks like it was taken yesterday!
Regarding the quotes list, I was thinking of adding those two quotes where Rommel praises Hitler. But I'll leave that for Molobo or anyone else. Rommel was a complex figure. The addition of those two quotes would help reflect this. The turning point in his relationship with Hitler, I believe, was when after being promoted to Field Marshall and presented his baton, Rommel said "I'd rather he had given me one more division." It was at this moment he began to see him for what he truly was. Rommel was, in essence, a pragmatist and a warrior. He was also rational. Hitler was an idealist and a addition to being viciously, bat-shit insane. A clash between the two was inevitable. The tragedy of Rommel is, he saw too late...he had made his Faustian bargain, so now he had to live with, and ultimately perish by, the consequences. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Amen, brother, a magnificent synthesis :) That sounds like an anecdote worthy of being included at the article itself, perhaps under the projected "controversy" section. Btw, thank for your praising on the Spring Heeled Jack article, I've been thinking to review it a little bit with more information that I've come across lately, so stay tuned! ;) Shauri 23:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again sweet sister :) Of course if it does go into the "controversy" or any section of this article, the line about Hitler being viciously, bat-shit insane will have to go or get watered down to NPOV standards. But such are the trade-offs we must make between neutrality and flavor. Still, we must be doing something right, I've found our Wiki Rommel article is "ripped off" on quite a number of sites, for instance: [This]
A Very up to date ripoff too..even incorporating changes, Patton, myself and others made only yesterday. It even includes the stub I wrote on The Tank In Attack , although they havent gotten around yet to many of Rommel's battles I've expanded on such as: Arras- (Theirs compared with Ours .
Nor Operation Brevity- ( Theirs and Ours ) And Operation
Crusader-(Their Version and Our Version ).
I guess it is a backhanded compliment of sorts...backhanded because they don't cite us as a source or reference or, failing that, even try to change the wording a bit...just flagrant, verbatim, regurgitated rip-off. While as a Wikipedian I do strongly believe in knowledge being FREE and OPEN to all and that it is highly unrealistic to expect honor among thieves, I'm still a bit peeved. Afterall, there SHOULD and MUST be some standards of civil behaviour and small courtesy, even from a Potemkin village site such as that one. Oh well...oh hell...
I will most certainly keep me eyes on Spring Heeled Jack, especially with regards to his "Ripper" connections...but that is a matter I shall take up on your discussion pages;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Much of the "information" Molobo posts about Rommel in this article is either a complete lie or a distorted, out-of-context half-truth, and I will continue to delete them whenever they are posted.

Rommel As Commander

Hi. I think the main focus of this article should be on Rommel as a COMMANDER. Not what he may or may not have done during the whole 5 minutes he was in Poland. Towards this end I'd like to offer the addition of Battle of Arras (1940) to the list of Rommel's battles. It was, afterall, where his love affair with the 88 mm began. I can understand our Polish friends' distaste for praising Rommel or any German WWII commander. But we must put aside these feelings and try to present the reader with the basic facts, then let them decide for themselves what to make of him. Perhaps a separate section for criticisms and controversies over Rommel's politics and conduct would allow these concerns to be expressed without contaminating the main article with too much undeeded detail or undesirable POV. As is, I think the article does a sufficent job of presenting the basic facts of Rommel's life and career. It may not win any awards or get feature status, but it succeeds at an essential level despite being written by a "committee". I see no need for any major revisions nor "nuclear" cleansing.:) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I endorse this very sensible suggestion. I also think, as noted elsewhere in the discussion above, that a section on "the myth of Rommel" i.e. his role in propaganda and as an icon of a certain type of "good German" would also be appropriate. Leithp 07:34, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Ghost's idea is a good one, albeit it is not an original one: I see that Cadorna suggested the same thing two weeks ago, in the middle of his edit war with Molobo, yet it appears to have been simply ignored at that moment. Nevertheless it is a fine way of solving the current problems, and I think we should give it a serious try. One word of warning: having a section to "contain" all posible POV contents from "contaminating" the rest of the article requires utmost care. I think it must be clear to every editor that it doesn't mean to have free hands to post "anything" they want, as long is it's located on that specifical section. Shauri 07:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
So often in the heat and smoke of edit wars do good ideas and points get overlooked. Tossed aside, along with much rationality and objectivity. This tends to happen anytime people start talking AT rather than TO eachother. The hell of it here is it takes away our opportunities to improve this article on one of the most important and able commanders of the greatest war in history.
Leithp, I like your proposal for a section on the "Myth" of Rommel. In fact I have a quote lined up for it already :) It is important to note that the Rommel "Myth" (Or Desert Fox Legend) was a product of BOTH sides. The British needed an adversary they could respect and admire, as much as the Germans needed a hero, both to excuse their defeats by him and eventually aggrandize their victories over him.
Shauri, warning well taken about the potential dangers of a controversy section. We shall be on guard, fear not :) The keys to making this work are RELEVANCE and PERSPECTIVE. As long as we keep it relevant to the subject of Rommel and present not all perspectives but all important ones, then it could work. Both these proposed sections could also help to liven up the article, which tends to be a bit dry. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Excellent, then; this is the kind of attitude that leads to positive things. I request that the article gets unlocked so we can get started and try to make it as good as possible. While I intend to make some contributions, I'll stand aside and let more expert people like Ghost, Thorsten1 or GeneralPatton do the extensive work. I personally welcome all potential editors (including Molobo), as long as we all follow the guidelines that Ghost has perfectly set: relevance and perspective. I'd also like to invite Ansbachdragoner to contribute here, since he is one of the users with greatest degree of expertise in the subject. - Shauri 07:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Shauri for the most encouraging and kind words. I second your e-motion for the unlocking of this article. The edit Krieg has ended, the side of the clear heads have prevailed. Let us now continue our work in peace. By the way, great work on the Spring Heeled Jack project. I had no idea there was such a charachter. Fascinating material!

--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we get this unprotected so we can go ahead and edit the article now? The typo in the first paragraph has been bothering me for a while now! Leithp 08:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've added a small insert about Rommel's last offensive in North Africa - the battle of Medenine. Is anyone ever going to write a piece on this battle? Seems to me to be the perfect way to stop Blitzkrieg. Darkmind1970 14:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Medenine covered at Operation Capri. How involved was Rommel? Some reports suggest that he had little involvement (illness?) and some Wiki articles claim that the Italian General Giovanni Messe was in command. Folks at 137 11:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

wrong link to Montgomery

Bernard_Montgomery should read Bernard_Law_Montgomery%2C_1st_Viscount_Montgomery_of_Alamein

hey, don't shoot the messenger! i just found this error, i didn't make this viscount stuff up!


Can anybody confirm it was an RCAF Spit? I've heard it was from 602 (City of Glasgow) Squadron, RAF. Trekphiler 07:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Ok, play nice folks GeneralPatton 09:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

SIR YES SIR! And thank you:) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Additional sources

I am looking for additional sources pertaining to Rommel. Thank you for your help.


Since we have WikiQuote, there's no need for them to be on this page, especially in such a size. I've removed them and copied them here in case any are missing at the WikiQuote site.

I put them back, they have been peacefully there for months, no one has had a problem with them till now. Not everyone knows about or uses WikiQuotes. So I have restored them. Please let's discuss first before making major changes to long standing sections. It is a good way to avoid edit wars. Thanks--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I fix some of your mistakes on you thing above this one for you Deathdealer 00:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)deathdealer


  • The British Parliament considered a censure vote against Winston Churchill following the surrender of Tobruk. The vote failed, but in the course of the debate, Churchill would say:
    • "We have a very daring and skillful opponent against us, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great General."
  • Churchill again, on hearing of Rommel's death:
    • "He also deserves our respect, because, although a loyal German soldier, he came to hate Hitler and all his works, and took part in the conspiracy to rescue Germany by displacing the maniac and tyrant. For this, he paid the forfeit of his life. In the sombre wars of modern democracy, there is little place for chivalry”
  • Theodor Werner was an officer who, during World War I, served under Rommel.
    • "Anybody who came under the spell of his personality turned into a real soldier. He seemed to know what the enemy were like and how they would react."
  • Attributed to General George S. Patton in North Africa (referring to "The Tank In Attack")
    • "Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!"

Quotations of Erwin Rommel

  • "Sweat saves blood, blood saves lives, and brains saves both."
  • "Mortal danger is an effective antidote for fixed ideas."
  • "The best form of welfare for the troops is first-rate training."
  • "Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning."
  • "In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine."
  • "Courage which goes against military expediency is stupidity, or, if it is insisted upon by a commander, irresponsibility."
  • "So long as one isn't carrying ones head under one's arm, things aren't too bad."
  • "A risk is a chance you take; if it fails you can recover. A gamble is a chance taken; if it fails, recovery is impossible."
  • "There is one unalterable difference between a soldier and a civilian: the civilian never does more than he is paid to do."
  • "What difference does it make if you have two tanks to my one, when you spread them out and let me smash them in detail?"
  • "The best plan is the one made when the battle is over."
  • "In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it."
  • "The officers of a panzer division must learn to think and act independently within the framework of the general plan and not wait until they receive orders."
  • "Men are basically smart or dumb and lazy or ambitious. The dumb and ambitious ones are dangerous and I get rid of them. The dumb and lazy ones I give mundane duties. The smart ambitious ones I put on my staff. The smart and lazy ones I make my commanders."
  • "Be an example to your men, in your duty and in private life. Never spare yourself, and let the troops see that you don't in your endurance of fatigue and privation. Always be tactful and well-mannered and teach your subordinates to do the same. Avoid excessive sharpness or harshness of voice, which usually indicates the man who has shortcomings of his own to hide."
  • "The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions."
  • "Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success."
  • "The art of concentrating strength at one point, forcing a breakthrough, rolling up and securing the flanks on either side, and then penetrating like lightning deep into his rear, before the enemy has time to react-is Blitzkrieg."

I added the following quote: "What was really amazing was the speed with which the Americans adapted themselves to modern warfare. Starting from scratch an army has been crafted in the very minimum of time, which, in equipment, armament and organization of all arms, surpasses anything the world has yet seen." It's from "The Rommel Papers" ---User:Tommel

Is it possible to get sources for any of these quotes? Leithp 10:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of them are from "The Rommel Papers." Churchill's quote about Rommel ("We have a very daring and skillful opponent against us, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great General.") is pretty famous though. Tom 14:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Tommel

Is it worth using in-line refs (or some other method) to directly attribute these quotes? Leithp 08:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I can scan some of them from "The Rommel Papers" and host them... I know he said (wrote actually...) "What was really amazing was the speed with which the Americans adapted themselves to modern warfare. Starting from scratch an army has been crafted in the very minimum of time, which, in equipment, armament and organization of all arms, surpasses anything the world has yet seen." but somebody deleted it for whatever reason... Tommel 00:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

While I agree we Americans can be pretty amazing at times, I don't recall where that particular quote appeared in the Rommel Papers. We are talking, of course, about Basil Liddell Hart's edited volume right? It does'nt seem like something Rommel would least not publically. His official stance was the usual Prussian contempt for American military capabilities (IE A bunch of poorly led, undisiplined amatures with massive quantities of equipment of inferior quality). Unfortunately, there was some justification for this view early in the war. His experience against the Americans was mainly during this time in Tunesia, where with few exceptions, we did not exactly shine. Also America was not exactly "Staring from scratch". Roosevelt saw the storm clouds gathering and had actively carried out a massive, premobilization effort starting almost as soon as the Panzers rolled over the Polish frontiers. Rommel, if not entirely aware of this, would surely had been aware of Lend-Lease and America's massive material potential. So I take the great Field Marshall's praise with a salt pinch, until I know specifically where he said/wrote that.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a quote by Rommel from The Rommel Papers. Just read it and I recall that statement.

As far as scanning and hosting them goes, I don't think that's really necessary. Just a note saying where the quote is from would do the trick. Leithp 08:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Re: "He was portrayed by James Mason in the 1951 movie The Desert Fox, and also by Karl Michael Vogler in the 1970 biographical film Patton, starring George C. Scott, and by Hardy Kruger in the 1988 television miniseries War and Remembrance."

"The Desert Fox", like "Patton" was also a biography. Some readers may read this and believe that it is not. Tom 01:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"This business with..."

Does anyone know what the source for this quote is:

This business with the Jews has got to stop

Without any further context, it is unclear what he meant. The article (in its current form) makes no other references to Rommel's personal beliefs regarding "the Jewish question". 00:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, it's not really known what Rommel thought of "the Jewish question...," so I too have no idea where that quote supposedly come from. Manfred, Rommel's son, (and I believe this is mentioned in either the "The Rommel Papers" or "Knight's Cross") only remembers talking about the Jews twice with his father. When he was really young he had kept staring at a Jewish man and his father had told him that it wasn't polite to stare, and he had at one point asked his father what he thought of Jews and his Dad's answer was that he had some of them under his command in WWI and thought they were good soldiers (Rommel tended to think of things in Military terms). He did burn Hitler's order to execute any captured Jewish prisoners though... Tommel 21:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The order issued by Hitler did not concern all Jewish POWs but a very specific group of Jews recruited in Palestine who were mostly German born, who at the time were holding out in some fortress - I cannot recall off-hand which one - causing many German losses. Rommel did not immediately burn the loathsome order but merely witheld it, trying to make up his mind what to do about it. Ultimately the Jews in question solved his problem for him. They brilliantly broke out, under the Germans' noses, killing a few more wehrmacht soldiers in the process. Hitler's order thus became moot, and could be suppressed without consequences. Let us not muddle fact with fiction. Soz

You're making things up. This is something he said before he even stepped foot in Africa. Rotten Venetic 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

German Translation

Please read this! I'm just an amateur german student, but i notice quite frequently that the German and the English stories/articles are very different! Both seem to be factual, but they go on two very different trains of thought. Could someone please enlighten me into why this is? Steve Delrogs

Greetings and welcome. You see, the problem is that the two projects are separate, although they are both "wikipedias" not everyone works on both projects. There is no requirement that the en version look anything like the de version. There are folks that work on both that try to incorporate the best each one has, i.e. take what is missing in the en version from the de version to fill in blanks and make it better and vice versa, but it is often a slow process. Folks (like me for instance) have day jobs, nobody is getting paid to do any of this. The suggestion that I would make to you would be to influence the process yourself, if you think that one version or the other is better, then make the changes you think necessary. Create a user account, and visit pages like Wikipedia:German-English translation requests, Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board, and Portal:Germany to see where you can help. Again, welcome and enjoy. --Easter Monkey 02:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. You should keep the article in German and discard this one. It has been corrupted. Rotten Venetic 19:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

May 1944 photo

The caption to the May 1944 photo of the 4 officers may bear checking. The names are in a different order than the image file name. & the far officer appears to be in Kriegsmarine uniform, contrary to the caption. GrahamBould 12:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Error in list of award recipients

The box at the bottom of the page, with the list of holders of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds, is wrong. It appears in this entry and several of the entries for other holders. As is stated correctly in the main entry for the award itself, only 27 men received it. The box lists 28 men, and the one who doesn't belong there is Reinhard Heydrich (he received the Iron Cross 1st and 2nd class but not the Knight's Cross). I know how to edit text in entries, but can't figure out how to edit the box to remove Heydrich's name. If someone else knows how to do it, please do.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 01:05, 19 May 2006.

Sheer Admiration

Historically, Erwin Rommel is a well known Field Marshall to all historians (I hope) and I must admire the way he defied the Nazi Regime and plotting against facist leader Adolf Hitler. He was known as the 'Desert Fox' in North Africa where the Allied Forces had many problems with this strategic and gallant Marshall. If one ever goes to Germany, one could remember to visit his grave in Herlingen, West if Ulm, the place where he committed suicide when Hitler discovered the plot and threatened to kill his family. --Tamar Azalbarian 04:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis on Rommel's admiration for Hitler

This is something that is widely documented, and you wouldn't find many who disagree. However, there is a certain amount of blatant Polocentric POV pushing here, largely in the guise of Poles (the usual ungrateful anti-EU type - dismissive of all the agricultural aid they are given), who despise Germans. This has to be dealt with, admiration for Hitler wasn't something uncommon in Germany at the time, by all accounts (SOPADE reports are very reliable on these issues), Hitler was regarded as being somewhat 'detached' from the crimes of the day. For example, after Kristalnacht, the attitude around Germany was 'When Hitler finds out about this he is going to be furious'.

So admiration for Hitler and support for his vague 'working towards the fuhrer' policies are not the same thing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 03:39, 23 June 2006.

It is a myth that Rommel was a great military commander

It is a myth that Rommel was a great military commander. He was no more than audacious division commander. The myth was created first by Nazi propaganda and then eagerly picked up by British to glorify their only independent victory in the war. E. W. 6.3. 2006—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 02:44, 4 July 2006.

Only independent victory in the war? That is very inaccurate. What about Beda Fomm, Abyssinia, Syria, Madagascar and the successful defence of Tobruk in the 1940-1941 period? And what about Alam Halfa in 1942 (before El Alamein 2) and above all the crushing victories over the Japanese in India and then Burma in 1944 and 1945? Darkmind1970 09:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the defence of Tobruk was actually the Australian 9th Division but the Brits did have plenty of victories without any help ecb91

  • How come all the people trying to point out that Rommel was incompetent and/or a war criminal never sign themselves? Rotten Venetic 06:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


It has always been a "pet peeve" of mine, that people say that Rommel was a member of the Nazi party!! HE NEVER WAS!!!!! This misunderstanding gives many people the wrong impression of Rommel. In another article furthur up the page clearly states, Rommel was a gentleman, and a knight of calibar to be looked up to, not just Hitlers general! just take this into account next time you read about Rommel! Steve Delrogs—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:15, 7 July 2006.

It is a myth that Rommel was a great military commander.2

To Darkmind1970. Your list of British victories is pitiful!! How many Wehrmacht troops were engaged in battles on the Eastern Front? Compare with British engagements. How well Brits fought in Italy and in the West? Even Churchill was depressed because British army was good for nothing. So, Brits need to inflate their victory over Rommel by inflating Rommel. E. W.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 22:37, 12 July 2006.

That was just a short comment on the fact that we did have victories. Please look up Beda Fomm, it might surprise you. Tobruk as well. I can mention others - Alam Halfa was a severe check to Rommel. The battle of Medenine was a classic, textbook, example of how to stop panzers - three german panzer divisions plus diversionary forces, all under the command of Rommel, attacked the British at Medenine. They were stopped dead in their tracks, losing 52 tanks and any hope of regaining the initiative in the south. Your comment on the British Army being good for nothing is utter piffle as well. This really is the wrong place to debate this point. If it had been useless, then we wouldn't have kept the vast bulk of the panzer divisions off the Normandy beaches in 1944. Or driven as fast as Patton up the coast to seize Antwerp. Or given out the worst drubbing the Japanese ever received to their army at Imphal-Kohima, and then totally destroyed their armies in Burma in 1945. Darkmind1970 09:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

indochina is the only theatre where British ground forces performed effectively on any scale and it is the exception which confirmes the rule, namely, that the British army was horribly inept. In Indochina the very competent local commander, Slim, was allowed to retrain his troops and their officers for a long period, without interference from superiors, before he attacked. Where the British military establishment in all its glory as in both western Europe and the Mediteranean was allowed to operate per custom and procedure. The doctrine was foolish, training sketchy, personnel policy disasterous with appointments determined according to the wishes of the old-boy-network rather than combat perfprmance, and the organisation Balkanised with the services refusing to cooperate in the most chidish and petty way. Britain survived because it had a fundamentally good navy and Fighter Command that unlike the army were willing to learn from their terrible initial mistakes, but ultimately because Hitler decided to attack The USSR instead of pressing the figh with Britain to he end. A brief but exhaustive summary of the problem appears in Williamson Murray's article British Military Effectiveness in the Second World War (contained in Military Effectiveness-volume 3). Rommel was mythologised into a great soldeir in order to rationalise floundering British performance. Against Konyev and Vasilievsky he wouldn't have lasted a month. sorry.

Confused. There were no British forces in Indochina. That was Vichy French. Are you confusing it with Burma? Certainly Montgomery found problems when he took over (morale, training, air/ army coordination), but I thought at least some of the problems had been the diversion of troops to Greece, and elsewhere. What about Rommel's performance in France in 1940? At Medenine, I thought that Rommel had little to do with the planning of that, so maybe that shouldn't count. There were few western generals who could have coped with the experience, resources and sheer brutality of Soviet commanders, certainly Allied troops were learning as they fought in western Europe. On the other side, the Oder crossing was a shambles and inexperience showed in the Soviet performance around Leningrad. Folks at 137 23:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Oder crossing was certainly a shambles by the Soviet standarts of the second part of the war and qualifies as Zhukov's second greatest fiasco after his inexcusable performance in Operation Mars. However it was certainly no worse than operations the western allies regarded as fairly successful. Liddel Hart fatuously praises Montgomery for what he calles his flexibility in repeatedly changing his plans in the midddle of an attack when this proved useful. This is another way of saying that his original plans were usually pishposh, and Montogomery was, shamefully, the best the British had in Europe. The heart of he matter is hat the Soviets never enjoyed the overwhelming numerical superiouruty claimed by the Germans in order to excuse their defeat. At no point did the Red Army's superiourity approach that enjoyed by the Westen Allies in both North Africa and Europe. The Soviet military began pitifully but it learned from its bitter experiences. It was not "brutality" or "resources" which enabled it to almost single-handedly defeat the Reich but very hard won expertise. It should not have taken them so long to learn but at least they did. An example closer to home (yours that is) may be found in the RAF. In the Battle of France the RAF's ludicrous Area Attack tactics made its performance as bad if not worse than the army's, yet through trial and disaster it did learn its lessons and shortly thereafter won the Battle of Britain. An even more poignant example is the the Royal Navy's shocking unpreparedness for anti-submarine fighting shortly followed by a rapid process to adaptation. You are of course correct about the problem of troops being diverted in the course of operations in the Mediteranean, and there is Churchil's reckless insistence on immediate action which played havoc with his subordinates' efforts to prepare their troops in North Africa. However this only explains so much. Ultimately the British army's problem was that not only did it start the war in a doctrinally antiquated state but that contrary to your wishful claim it did not learn as it fought. Rather it remained its good old self with no after action studies worthy of the name being conducted, the egrigeous Alan Brook denying armour experts promotions less they showed up the rest for the polo jockies that they were and on it went. If anything British performance declined for he Germans did learn from experience while the British tenaciously stagnated. Incidently why do you exclude Burma from Indochina? I am quite certain that it is a part of Indochina. It was certainly there when I last looked at the map of Indochina. This, I confess, is most puzzling.

This is widening far beyond the scope of "Erwin Rommel"!! Pity, because it is getting interesting and not as doctrinaire as I'd expected. I think we converge on some issues. The western allies were not (IMO) as committed or skilled soldiers as the Germans they faced. Several British and American historians have made this point, and explained it by quoting cultural and political factors. I disagree that the outlook of all British generals was bad; compare the several who commanded the 7th Armoured Division (although Hobart's troubles support your main point) - some were v effective. I think brutality or disregard of the lives of their own troops does apply to Soviet commanders. Partly through their culture and partly through the consequences if they failed. Evidence? Repeated massed infantry attacks in the face of overwhelming fire. Use of punishment battalions as cannon & mine fodder ("The best way to clear a minefield is to march troops over it"). The assault on Berlin. This last is instructive - Stalin drove his commanders to accept heavy casualties when the victory was in sight, whereas western troops were allowed to be cautious (perhaps cowardly) at the same time - Eisenhower was not happy, but he would not have had his subordinates shot. Soviet tank production (numbers and quality) and American vehicles, radios, rations gave the Soviets a definite advantage. BTW, check Indochina - the usual accepted definition in the English language restricts it to the former French colonies (excluding Burma); Burma would normally be seen as either the Indian Empire or, as Myanmar, as part of South-East Asia. It's a matter of usage. If we keep this debate going here we will get shot!!! Folks at 137 21:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Aside from shear ruthlessness. The Soviet success in breaking through German defences against whose like western-allied breaktrough attempts repeatedly foundered was based on: A) An artillery enourmously stronger then their allies' . Unlike the western allies and the Germans for that matter, who excessively relied upon air power, the Soviet recognised the grave limitations of air power in supporting ground forces engaged in positional warfare, even though they more then all other belligerents were dedicated to close-support air operations B) Far more sophisticated breakthrough tactics then those employed by other belligerents. Much as it took them too long to evolve them, they ultimately learned from bitter experience and, in contrast to the Americans, let alone the British, did not rely upon shear stampeding mass. Though still popular cold war mythology would have it otherwise C) A far greater capacity then all other belligerents' for deception, which enabled them to achieve surprise as no other. and yes I suggest that this will be the last of our exchange on this only tangentially relavent subject. My point is that if the likes of Kleist and Model or even the absurdly overrated Manstein had been fortunate enough to be assigned to North Africa. There is every reason to believe that the British would have suffered from them even worse then they did from the impetuous, disorganised and "logistically disinterested" Rommel, and that had Rommel been unfortunate enough to be sent to the Soviet theatre, then like so many ohers he would have enjoyed a great string of successes until the summer of 1942 and, if he survived in command until 44' would have been effortlessly crushed.

Erwin Rommel

   This is how you know Field Marshal Rommel was the greatest Military Leader in the history of War. 

1) His decisive and lightning victories in Africa in 1941-1942 earned him his rank as Field Marshal at age 50, becoming the youngest field marshal in German Military History. 2) Rommel's victories were even more impressive as for most battles were fought without air support and little supplies such as ammunition and rations. 3) Contrary to belief, Rommel was not a Nazi and despised Hitler and all he stood for. This added to his fame in Germany and Allied Nations. 4) Rommel built relationships with his troops in both Africa and France and often cut water and food rations in order to supply enemy POWs. 5) Rommel properly applies and uses the Blitzkrieg strategy to its full potential. 6) Rommel was not involved with any War Crimes. 7) I read his books.

User:parasite123 20:20, 24 July 2006

Many of these points are incorrect. Rommel's victories in North Africa were not decisive. Although he was able to defeat 8th Army twice and push it back to the Alamein position, he was never able to finish the job and was stopped dead at Firat Alamein by Auchinleck. He did have air cover in North Africa - quite a bit of it. Unfortunately for him the Luftwaffe in North Africa were badly led and concentrated on the wrong things. By the time of Alamein it had lost air superiority to the Desert Air Force, but still existed. Rommel's trust in Hitler was only shaken by the 'no-retreat' order that he received during Second Alamein. Let's not forget that he was the commander of Hitler's bodyguard for some time. However, I do agree that he was not responsible for any war crimes.

We're not here to deduce whether or not Rommel was a great military leader or not; such attempts are explicitly prohibited by WP:NOR. As to whether he is considered such, there should be little doubt. 15:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Rommel was however a master in operational maneuverability and the armored spearhead doctrines. Considering the balance of forces in the Africa campaign, sometimes nearly 5:1 in favor of the British via armor, his achievements seem at least above average.

Minor quibble

"He was later put in command of the German forces following the Allied invasion at Normandy in the final effort to defend the Fatherland." This makes it sound like he was in charge of all German armies in the West and that he was put in command after D-Day, which I know isn't right. Clarityfiend 05:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Further Disputes

Old title: OK, let's cool it!

Out of pure laziness I am not a named user, but I can see that the editing of this page has turned into an all-out war. Rommel himself would not have liked so much controversy because of him, but perhaps that's also irrelevant because he's dead and no longer of this world, except in memory.

Because I am not a known user, I judge that I do not have the necessary, erm... authority to be bold and change articles off the top of my head. It also adds that when I did (incl. in the Rommel article) I was edited out, perhaps justly although I doubt that (my doubts are, however my own).

Personally I am greatly biased towards Rommel as a great man, but he was still a man and I would imagine he had vices, and for the purposes of objectivity I think those vices should appear in some form in the article.

However, there are a few things appearing in the article that blatantly conflict with reality.

First, his using of black POW's to re-enact his victories and making his soldiers fire live rounds at them which is implied by the fact that those black pow's died. If so, where are those films? How could Rommel be as shockingly wasteful, to use up rounds for films when he was short of supply constantly?

Second, insisting that his natural daughter Gertrude make sure her fiance was Aryan. Look, the girl was probably in enough trouble, being the black stain on his resume, in the eyes of the German public, as an illegitimate child. Were she to marry a Jew, she would be in mortal danger at the hands of the German police, not to mention undermine her father's career and public image completely, perhaps causing him to be executed as well. Hitler would have been very paranoid about his trusted general's daughter marrying a non-Aryan and would hold him responsible for not keeping her in line. And we all know what happens when Hitler held somebody responsible for such leniant attitude towards Jews...

If I were a German under Hitler, even with my current opinions that antisemites should be hung by the feet and sawed in half, I would warn my daughters, did I have them, to check that they married an Aryan. I wouldn't want them (and myself) shot or sent to a concentration camp over marrying the so-called enemy. This is because I would not have the courage and initiative to go into hiding and flee Germany proper to join a resistance movement; likewise, Rommel, who likely had the courage and initiative, was well aware that his celebrity status would thwart him.

There is no reason to flame each other over what Rommel did and what he didn't do; what's done is done and our ranting is not going to change anything bar killing off some of our own neurons. 10:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Rotten

EDIT: Signed myself.

With all due sympathy your statement is acutely nonsensical. The well-documented mass murder of negro POWs was carried out in France, after the German victory, when Rommel could easily afford using a few cartridges. As for your statements regarding Rommel's reasons for exhorting his illegitimate daughter to ascertain that her fiance was not a Jew. A lamer and more fenciful concoction of contorted excuses is hard to imagine. If Rommel's behaviour is indeed not worth the pssions aroused, why do you so exert yourself and, I feel, debase yourself to excuse it? The answer of course is that this portion of the past is not "over and done with", but has clear implications on our perceptions of the Nazi era Germany as a whole. Since the ostensibly noble Rommel is used as evidence that "it was not all wicked".

Look, whoever you are (obviously you don't endoy putting your name next to your words) first of all your statements are offensive. I (because it is I, just check the ip) did not go through great pains to write the message, nor put a lot of 'passion' (this word dramatizes things a lot!) in them. If you consider writing a long message an exertion, allow me to differ from your otherwise inattackable standards. If you say the shootings are well documented, where are the documents? I am still in doubt that they happened at all. Show me the evidence, then I'll believe it. As for the daughter and checking after Aryan status, my excuse might not stand up to a strong analisys although it doesn't look that bad to me. I'll leave it at this: an offensive comment which does not bear a signature has no value against it.
To all: Rommel's better behavior does nothing, in my opinion, to soften the evil ways of Nazi Germany but rather emphasizes them through contrast. Rotten Venetic 20:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoever you are, you seem to be utterly incensed by my comment. It was not my intention to upset you; why would I? I don't know you. It was just that I found your arguments not only absurd, but also a whitewash. A faintly polemical tone may have slipped into my response but that is not always escapable. As for your claim that you do no regard an attribution of good conduct to Rommel a mitigation of Nazi Germany's bad reputation. This may be so, or it may not. The fact remains that suggesting that a man could serve very closely to Hitler himself, be a friend to Göbbels, repeatedly claim afinity to Nazism and yet could somehow emerge from it all as innocent as a newborn kitten, so much so that he may serve us as a contrast to Nazi evil, does allow many others to claim that their clear association with Nazism should not "brand" their reputation. It is therefore crucial to scrutinise this particular individual all the more closely. Unsurprisingly such a scrutiny, if conducted in good faith, demolishes the myth of the decent Rommel, thus proving that their were neither good Nazis nor even decent fellow travelers.

Conducting a scrutiny "in good faith" does not include making things up such as the mass murder of black POWs which only Molobo ever seems to have heard of. And as for Rommel demanding that his alleged daughter prove her fiance's pure Aryan background, Rommel's wife herself was not of pure Aryan background, she was of Italian and Polish descent.- User AuthorNeubius

I believe that Molobo offered sources other than his own opinion. I can only direct you to Reuth. As for the meaning of "Aryan". In the German speak of the time that meant non-Jewish, thus even in occupied Poland and occupied Soviet territories - with clearely "subhuman" populations, once the Jews had been Ghettoised, the area outside the ghetto walls was declared the Aryan part of the city, that is the part where Jews were not permitted to be. Rommel may not have been a "well-rounded" Germano-supremacist and could marry a woman of partially non-German descent, but he did not stray far enough to reject antisemitism.

Molobo has repeatedly deleted contributions to this article mentioning Rommel's ignoring the Commando Order, as well as ignoring an order to execute Jewish POWs, and that the Afrika Korps was never accused of any war crimes. These are well-known facts which belong in a source of information about Rommel, yet they are deleted to maintain Molobo's slanted view. To give a "full portrait", as he claims he wants, both positive and negative information must be included, not the handpicked examples of Rommel's negative aspects which Molobo and certain others seem exclusively interested in. And so far no one has provided hard evidence of Rommel's supposed anti-Semitism.


Thank you! I do not understand why this Molobo fellow would go through such pains to discredit Rommel but that's his issue. It would be nice of him to stop deleting the contributions you mentioned and others as well if I understand prev. discussions correctly. The last sentence you wrote, I wholly second. To unnamed: for the last time, please sign yourself, it is extremely rude to write a reply coming from... nobody. Especially as offensive as yours were. There is a big diffrence between polemic and rudeness, even when the rudeness is not accompanied by curse words.
The fact of the matter is that Rommel was never accused of warcrimes, nobody can say with reasonable evidence that he was antisemitic. At least at first, he was seduced by Hitler's skills as an orator like so many others before and, alas, after him. I'm not saying you can't fault that but you can't call him a nazi per se - he was a nazi sympathizer, which meant he believed, at least to a point, that the Nazis were good. He was mistaken, and he very likely knew it before the end. 18:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Rotten Venetic, at another computer and not logged in.

As a matter of fact, at no point did I call Rommel a Nazi, then again considering that he often enough asserted his fidelity to Nazism, I see no reason why he should not be considered and accordingly called one, then again name calling weather justified or not is of little significance here. It is however, I feel, thoroughly mistaken to think of Rommel as starry-eyed innocent "seduced" by Hitlerian rehtorics. Rommel was a fame-hungry opportunist, who thought nothing of using the regime for self-advancement and used it skilfully and remorselessly, wire-pulling at every chance. As for his alleged antisemitism. His despicable admonition to his illegitamate daughter to ascertain that her fiance was `Aryan` before marring him, is but one of several such gems. Following a discussion with Swiss army officers who made no bones about their antisemitism he wrote approvingly to his wife about their "amazing understanding for our Jewish problem". If you can spin this one into an essentially acceptable statement as you at least beleive that you did with his admonition to his daughter, you should be PRing for Bush. Shortly upon receiving command over the 7th panzer division, again thanks to unblushing string-pulling, he wrote ominously about his new and understandably distrustful subordinates' lack of Nazi fervour. Making much of the fact that Ronnel was never charged with war crimes is a touch absurd. The man was already dead by the time of the Nürenberg trials. Himmler never faced trial either. Of course Rommel was never considered a war criminal by the allies, aggrandising him was the British's way of rationalising their pathetic performance against him. Ennobling him was a natural corrolary. Moreover Rommel fought exclusively against the western allies, towards whom the Reich and its Wehrmacht displayed their relatively normal side. Can we realy be sure that Rommel would have exhibited the same behaviour against the Soviets, and if not can his relatively decent conduct against the western allies be taken as proof of immunity from völkisch foulness. Many a prominent mass murderes like Manstein and Reichenau had long records of civility towards the British and even the French. Reichenau even hd some sentiments for the Americans. Kesselring Rommel's disdainful boss gained a reputation as a chivalrous soldier for the way he conducted himself in both North Africa and later in Italy. He displayed not a hint of chivalry or even humanity while serving on the Soviet front. A fact naturally forgotten. Kesselring, incedently, even gained an undeserved reputation for military genious, that is even greater than Rommel's equally undeserved reputation, as a way for the western allies to rationalise some of their fantastic incompetence in Italy. As regards Arthur Neubius comments. I gather that it is you who so rlentlessly try to pervert this article into a hagiography forever deleting uncomfortable truths about Rommel, and compelling me to endlessly revert. For you of all the lord's wayward creatures to accuse this Molobo or anyone else of unfair conduct and unfair-mindedness is a truely daring feat. If you cannot help inserting that the Afrikakorps was not accused of war-crimes, or that it was never suspected of bestiality, insurence fraud,icest, drug dealing, enviormental pollution or any other negative that strikes your fancy, go fourth and inflict yourself without pity for the infidel, but do not go on deleting the contributions of others less commited to the cult of Wehrmacht worship then your single-minded self, and since Venetic wants me to sign my comments I shall oblige by using the handle Soz, which so far as I am aware is an entirely meaningless word. If anyone is aware of `Soz` having any kind of meaning please apprise me so that I should change it. Soz

That the Afrika Korps was never accused of war crimes and was respected by the British is a well-known historical fact, and therefore has as much place in this article as anything. It is you, Molobo/Soz/Obserwator or whatever handle you are using now, who incessantly delete my perfectly factual contributions, which I must and which I will continue to re-post every single time I visit this article and find that they have mysteriously vanished. Posting historical facts which are known to all does not constitute "Wehrmacht worship" or "perverting the article into a hagiography", but then again, you are no stranger to distorting other people's words to twist them into fitting the Nazi/racist/German nationalist/Wehrmacht worshipper labels you try to slap on anyone who disagrees with you. You did it with me on the Axis History Forum and Feldgrau, and I see we continue on Wikipedia. I will repost my contributions in their entirety, or even expanded, every single time you delete them. And unlike you, I am not afraid to sign my name to my comments. AuthorNeubius...and for your information Molobo/Obserwator, you may already know me as Beppo Schmidt.

I have erred terribly to start this section which was originally intended to calm the heated spirits down. I might have known it would only stir up things once more. So, now Rommel is a schemer and antisemitic and I worship the Wehrmacht... this is indeed news! Personally I do not know where your 'facts' come from but all the books I've read and all the documentaries I've seen mention nothing of this. Although there have been some harsh critiques against some of the decisions he made, most notably in France in '44 where we all know what happened to the 7th German army and the 7th Pz. army (iirc the names of the military units correctly). AuthorNeubius: maybe your open statement of opposition to soz/molobo/obserwator (be it either one, um, person, or many) is more of a bad idea then a good, since it provokes both of you and others into fighting, which is counterproductive. What we should be trying, is to achieve some form of consensus about what is true, what is not, what is to be written and what is not. IF we cannot do this, the civilized thing to do would be for all involved in this argument to back down from further edits on the article and let it evolve (or indeed devolve) as passive bystanders. Rotten Venetic 21:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Rotten Venetic

Dear Arthur Neubius. I am very happy for you. Being named Author Neubius is a great feat, though hopefully not your very greatest, and may you forever sign your full name, Author Neubius. I, however, am not, contrary to your claim, Molobo. I have chosen for myself the handle Soz, though in truth I am not even Soz but have a very different name. Regarding your accusations of deleting. I believe that you are the one doing the deleting. You have repeatedly not only insered your contributions, a legitimate action, but have also deleted my perfectly factual contributions, An indefensible behaviour. please cease and desist. SOZ

Deleting your factually dubious POV contributions such as Speidel using Rommel as a "scapegoat", and Rommel's alleged murder of black POWs which you have yet to provide any sources for despite being repeatedly asked, and adding factually sound contributions such as Rommel's refusal of the Commando Order and a Hitler order to execute Jewish POWs, as well as insisting that French workers be paid for their labor on the Atlantic Wall, is hardly "vandalism". Posting well-known facts about Rommel does not amount to making the article a "hagiography" just because you don't want to hear about it, so please "cease and desist" with your lies. AuthorNeubius

Neubius! You are being ridiculous, if not grotesque. Speidel's scapegoating of Rommel is fully described by Ralf Georg Reuth's book, Rommel the End of a Legend, yet you insist on deleting this uncomfortable truth about this serpentine operator turned post-war German idol and insert some nonsense about Stülpnagel screaming Rommel's name under torture. what could possibly be the basis for that, I shudder to think?. Have you or your sources been holding seanses with the July 20th conspirators?. Oh and this is truely exquisite. you claim that Speidel's being a linchpin of the conspiracy cast further suspicion on Rommel, but Neubius, Had Speidel been Known to be a member of the conspiracy he would have been executed!!! Where is your brain? Indeed his very survival would suffice to prove that he scapegoated Rommel, for he had no other superiors to scapegoat. As it happens there are trascripts of his testemony to the Gestapo. Yours, the much dismayed Soz.

The basis for Stuelpnagel screaming Rommel's name under torture are the two best-known biographies of Rommel, The Desert Fox by Desmond Young, and Knight's Cross by David Fraser. And Speidel was dimissed from Army Group B, replaced by Hans Krebs, arrested by the Gestapo, and imprisoned. AuthorNeubius

I have not taken the trouble to read Young's biography due to its hagiographic disrepute. Young after all is notorious for uncritically accepting all favourable information about his idol. I considered reading Fraser's book, but a review of the notes and bibliography sections revealed that he had conducted no original research. Indeed he seemed to have a downright aversion to primary German sources and did little but parrot others, primarily the discredited Young and Levin. I would seriously scrutinise whatever Young and Fraser wrote before accepting any of it. In any event, neither one of them could possibly know what took place in the Gestapo torture chambers. The one indisputable fact is that the evidence submited by Kaltenbrunner to Guderian and Rundstedt's "military court of honour", did not contain any references to stulpnagel's screaming but to Speidel's beutifully crafted perjury. Speidel was indeed discomfited somewhat by the conspiracy's failure, though he was much rewarded for it when this was used to make him an anti-Nazi hero. In time, with the devil taking care of his own, the wiley man would become the head of Nato forces, god have mercy. He was not however directly implicated in the conspiracy, but got away with his life by sacrificing Rommel's.

Is this going anywhere or are the two of you going to keep arguing and accusing yourselves of the same things for as long as you both have Internet access and are still alive? Do I have to terminate this section so badly? Rotten Venetic 11:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should you feel behooved to terminate (read: delete) this section simply because it has not proven to be the oasis of intellectually indolent tranquility you so dearly sought? On another matter. Do you feel that because you are the one who started this section you have some kind of proprietorial claim to it, for I must assure you that you do not? It is my hope for this section that it should serve as a means of inducing at least this Neubius fellow to stop his vandalising deletionism and allow for a civilised editing of the article. This may prove a futile hope, as you believe, but where there is life there is hope. In the meantime, if the section's development displeases you, why must you remain a participant in it. In any event do not delete it. For one who claims such fine sensitivity that my response to your opening comment caused you all this rather surprising hurt, you seem rather trigger-happy. Soz

  • Proprietorial claim? No, I do not think that. Try starter's responsibility. This mess is (mostly) of my making and I intend to clean it up, but, despite the fact that you have yet again insulted me and proven beyond all doubt or hope that this section cannot be saved, and had been doomed from the start, I am ready to hear you out about why this section should remain. Because you do not make a good point here, and your attacking me again does not help your case. Wikipedia warns that if you do not want your writing to be edited, do not post it - deleting is a form of editing. And please do not bring up being civilized (or, if you really want, "civilised") about editing the article or even this discussion page. For one so interested in civility, you have gone a long way to attack and hurt people. Rotten Venetic 14:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Put simply: I believe that, despite the less that perky tone of its discussion, points of substance have been debated in this section, and this if nothing else warrants its retention. I would point out that the injunction: "if you do not want your postings to be edited don't post them" referres to the article page not the discussion one. In any even wholesale deletion does not constiute editing any more than capet bombing constitutes remodeling, so follow yor own motto and please cool it. Soz

Very well, I will humor you, but only for now and not wholly. I have changed the title to reflect the reality of this section. Now it is apparent why this discussion page cannot cool down: when attempts at calming the situation are met with renewal of the very arguments one tries to eliminate or at least relax and especially insult I am content at not being angry. I do not write in an aggressive or angry note without a good reason, which is my own. As for points of substance, I will splurge by allowing myself a short laugh. But, because of this excess, I will not attack your spelling. Rotten Venetic 04:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the heading "abject Failure" fails to convey anything about the section's content, but merely informs the would be reader of your hurt feelings, I have changed the title yet again to "Further Disputes".

My IP address was reported to RoadRunner for "unacceptable abuse" a few days ago, which I suspect may be connected to my editing war with the one who calls himself "Soz" as he is apparently afraid to use his own name. Therefore unfortunately to avoid being reported for so-called "abuse" again, I am going to have to allow this article to remain the festering mess of lies which it is right now. This is not a factual article and has no place on Wikipedia in the state it is in now. Unfortunately the ones who talk the most about "the truth", namely Molobo and Soz, have no interest in truth whatsoever. AuthorNeubius January 5, 2007

  • Neubius: Do you object if, along with the rest of this section, your comments should disappear as well? Title changer: Very well, I will agree that it was a poor choice. Who are you, by the way? Rotten Venetic 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Venetic, go ahead and delete this section if that is your choice, it's not like it accomplishes anything anyway. Soz ignores all requests for sources to back up his claims, probably because his claims are completely made up and have no sources. AuthorNeubius January 6, 2007

The title changer is me, myself and I, the much resented Soz. Venetic, why are you still so hell bent on pressing on with the deletion. leave it in peace. Neubius! I have not as yet reported you to either Roadrunner, whoever he may be, or anyone else, perhaps I should have, still I did not. As for my "fear" about signing my real name. Do you consider yourself the braver for signing your true name. I doubt old Rommel would have been awed by such courrage. There is no point in using real names, any more than there is a danger to be braved in using them. Using handles is a way of avoiding an overpersonalisation of debates. beleive it or not there are advantages to that. Soz

Soz, do you at least notice that the way you have the article, you contradict yourself by saying the extent of Rommel's involvement in the plot is unclear, and then in the caption under the picture of Rommel, Lang, Ruge, and Speidel, you say they were all heavily involved? AuthorNeubius January 8, 2007

I wrote no caption to any photograph, and why must you persist with what strikes me as ham-handed vandalism. If it realy matters to you that the article records that the Afrikakorps was never charged with war crimes, than indulge yourself, but to continue deleting uncomfortable truths, and than inserting this comment as a pitiful substitute is in very bad taste. Especially for someone who boasts great courage. Why can't you simply look up Reuth's book, before yet again staining the article with your unreasoning idolatry. Yours with growing dismay. Soz.

Well Rotten, you have made good on your rotten threat to delete the section. sinful as always I have reverted your deletion. Not because I am overly attached to the section or my contributions to it, but becuase I am opposed to the practice of censorship. You may not have treasured some of the words I had addressed to you, BUT, and this is a major but, you simply cannot delete entire sections containing the contributions of others from the Talkpage, however much some of it may irk you. Now start showing some self-control. Soz

  • Censorship or no, I said I would do something and common sense dictates I should make good on my own word. I would rather be labeled a censor than a word-breaker (read "liar"). Neubius had agreed to let me delete the section as it is useless; only you seem to find use to it. Dare I ask, what use? And if there is indeed none, why should it remain? Just because I have no moral right to delete entire sections on a whim (nor you, to revive them) doesn't mean that it is not defensible to weed out useless text. Rotten Venetic 09:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. One thing you should know not from me but from science is that if you want certain behaviors from people you should facilitate them rather than create obstacles.

Reasons for GA Delisting

This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 20:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Was this a good article even without regard to its lack of inline citations? It is full of fiction. Rotten Venetic 06:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In its current state, this article is one of the poorest sources of information about Rommel on the internet. It's blatantly POV and filled with fabrications.

Rommel and Normandy

"Rommel disagreed, saying the enemy wanted the Führer to strengthen the defences in the wrong place and that they would attack Normandy instead. He was right." Can anyone provide a reference to state the Rommel believed that tha Western Allies would land in Normandy rather than Calais? Thanks,Steph 17 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

No credible reference can be produced since the claim is patently false. Rommel was convinced that a landing as far west as Normandy was out of the question. Even after the landing he remained convinced that the main allied landing, the one to be staged east of the Seine, had yet to materialise. Soz

I'm afraid I must agree with Soz, if only this once. Every source I have read about Rommel states that he, along with Hitler and virtually the entire German High Command, expected an invasion at Pas-de-Calais, not Normandy. AuthorNeubius December 22, 2006

While this is true afaik I have added some detail to this section, explaining that Rommel, as well as Hitler, percieved Normandy to be a very likely landing place until the Fortitude Operation got going in April, and that Hitler seemed to believe Normandy the likeliest landing place even as late as early May (tough Rommel switched his focus to the Pas-De-Calais region in mid April). However, they never excluded Normandy as a landing place - Rommel himself repeatedely said that Normandy or even Brittany would be suitable for a Allied landing.Abel29a 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Caption to Rommel/Lang/Ruge/Speidel photo

I have deleted the caption's claim that "all of them were heavily involved in the anti-Hitler conspiracy within the Wehrmacht". Speidel was without a doubt heavily involved, but there is little if any evidence that Lang and Ruge were, and even Rommel's involvement is dubious, as the very article the photo is posted to indicates. As Rotten Venetic mentioned above, this article needs to stop contradicting itself. The text says Rommel's involvement was unclear, and then a caption to a photograph right next to it says he was "heavily involved". And "Soz", or Molobo, or whoever restored the factually dubious original caption the first time I edited it, if you have sources to indicate that either Admiral Ruge or Captain Lang had anything to do with the conspiracy against Hitler, please name them. AuthorNeubius December 18, 2006

I said it once, and I'll say it again, if you have any evidence that Captain Lang and Admiral Ruge or even Rommel himself were "heavily involved" in the conspiracy against Hitler, supply it. When the caption reads that way, as someone keeps posting it, it contradicts the article itself, which states that the extent of Rommel's involvement is unclear. AuthorNeubius December 22, 2006

Paragraphing and Revert War

Hey folks. I appreciate that there are a couple opinions here about how to portray ER going on, and I'll not take sides in this particular case, but I'd like to take a moment to mention the actual layout of this article. At present there are several long paragraphs, particularly in the "Africa" section that could be broken up a bit to make the article more readable. It's not a big deal or anything, but if you guys who are reverting one another could take a look at the way I broke up that section (the most recent edit under this login ID) and use a similar strategy in your NPOV edits (whoever it might be that is being NPOV) then it would make either version a little more readable. No matter which side of this issue you're on a few additional breaks in the article's text would make it a lot easier for those who read either the NPOV or non-NPOV version. :) Best of luck. Geeman 15:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading the long talk section of this article, I have deduced that this article has been the cause of long and useless arguing and has slipped from a good article to a start class one. I suggest that someone should make a list of possible improvements for this article, and that people should refrain from useless arguing and edit wars.