Talk:Erwin Rommel - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:21, 23 July 2016 (Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Talk:Erwin Rommel/Archive 6) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:21, 23 July 2016 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Talk:Erwin Rommel/Archive 6) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Erwin Rommel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Military / Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Military history: Biography / European / German / World War I / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Erwin Rommel was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 6, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
November 22, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
June 12, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Delisted good article

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 14, 2014.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Rommel myth was copied or moved into Erwin Rommel with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Wehrmachtbericht report, take 2

I had previously started a discussion on this topic, suggesting the section be removed, to which there was no objection Talk:Erwin_Rommel/Archive_5#Wehrmachtbericht_references. I'm replicating it here to see if a consensus can be achieved. Original post:

"Is this section (Erwin_Rommel#Wehrmachtbericht_references) needed in the article? It is citing from the OKW propaganda report, the Wehrmachtbericht. This appears to be either WP:OR or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. In either case, the section is citing verbatim (including in German) a piece of Nazi propaganda that has no informative value; all such reports were approved by the Reich Propaganda Ministry and were meant solely to instill optimism in the German population.

In the past, I've seen these removed from articles such as in Bach-Zelewski. Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)"

Also compare to an article on another Field Marshal, Erich von Manstein, which is a GA article:

"Eight mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht: 11, 12 and 31 October 1941; 19 and 20 May 1942; 2 July 1942; 20 March 1943; 4 August 1943"

It does not contain the Wehmachtbericht wording, apart from a reference to Manstein's being mentioned in the report.

K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that the approach in the Manstein article is superior in this regards. The Wehrmachtbericht was a Nazi propaganda broadcast, and historians don't quote it. The material here is additionally troublesome as it presents this propaganda with no context whatsoever. The claim that Tobruk was "highly reinforced" in 1942 for instance is total rubbish: the city's defences had largely been destroyed following the 1941 siege and the troops in the town were highly disorganised and not really capable of effective resistance. The 1943 broadcast is more honest (especially the surprisingly frank admission to the brutal way in which the German forces treated the unfortunate Italians), but also presents a rather partial and biased perspective. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see the Wehrmachtbericht being included in the article of a military soldier or as to a military action when relevant. In those instances it should not be totally removed; Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski can be distinguished and would not fall into that category. Kierzek (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I went through the exercise of replacing the Wehrmachtbericht transcripts with appropriate prose and / or citations on several artcles, and I can say I feel more convinced that they add zero value to the encyclopedia. I never used to read them, because they just looked a block of text to me. When I first encountered these sections on WWII articles, I was confused mostly about two things: (1) what this was in the first place; and (2) why they took up so much real estate, and had their own prominent section. (That's why I rewrote the linked article).

Here are some examples of the reports. In some cases, they simply contain no information, as in the first bullet below. Overall, this exercise has left me mildly disturbed, as they ooze the "Nazi propaganda newsreel" vibe (emphasis mine):

In the battles on the East Prussian border, two battle groups under the leadership of the Oak Leaves bearers Colonel Koetz and Colonel Lauchert have particularly distinguished themselves.

The 106th Panzer Brigade "Feldherrenhalle" under the leadership of Oberst Baeke, who is decorated with the Oak Leaves with Swords to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, distinguished itself by showing attacking spirit and determined stableness in the defensive battles in the lower Alsace. It shot up 40 enemy tanks in 3 days.

The military measures for the protection of the neutrality of Denmark and Norway were carried out on 9 April from strong units in close cooperation of the Heer, the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe under the high command of General of the Infantry von Falkenhorst, of naval forces under the command of Generaladmiral Saalwächter and Admiral Rolf Carls and from numerous Luftwaffe units under the leadership of Generalleutnant Geißler.

In the second defensive battle in Courland, units of the army and Germanic volunteers of the Waffen SS under the command of Colonel General Schörner, again won a full defensive victory.

There's been so much new WWII historiography in the past twenty years. So, if there was any historical value in the transcripts, I'm sure there would have been published research on them. In the same vein, besides the Uziel, Daniel (2008). The Propaganda Warriors: The Wehrmacht and the Consolidation of the German Home Front. souce, I don't recall seeing anything else.

in short, such material isn't useful to readers (especially as if a mention in this broadcast was considered a noteworthy honour, it can be covered just as well without the transcript), and is additionally highly problematic as it's unreliable Nazi propaganda. Articles on Allied military units and individuals don't include the text of mentions in dispatches or communiques, and rightly so.

In a few cases where I tried to incorporate the transcript into the prose, it came out looking sort of hokey, and I'm not sure what value it adds; see: Michael Wittmann#Awards. I'm more inclined to follow Diannaa's example: step2 and step 2. This leaves simple text, allowing the readers to click on the link to find out more:

Mentioned twice on the Wehrmachtbericht (21 June 1942 and 10 September 1943)

If someone is willing to do the work and provide citations, I'd be all for it. But I'd rather not have to read more of the reports. We can see how the consensus continues to develop. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe following this example for military personnel is reasonable: * "Eight mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht: 11, 12 and 31 October 1941; 19 and 20 May 1942; 2 July 1942; 20 March 1943; 4 August 1943".

postscript - It is of the type which you have above. (sorry, tired, time to stop for the night). Kierzek (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; it aligns with the way the other awards are presented. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Text removed, for reference:

As announced by special announcement, German and Italian troops under the command of Colonel General Rommel assaulted yesterday most of the highly reinforced Fortress Tobruck.
In northern Italy, Field Marshal Rommel with his divisions of his army group, after a short battle, but fought by our troops with deepest bitterness, forced the Italian forces to surrender.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: please see discussion at NPOV noticeboard on the topic. According to feedback there, these quotations fail WP:UNDUE. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Fateful event

Commenting:

On July 17, Rommel was incapacitated by an Allied air attack, which many authors describe as a fateful event that drastically altered the outcome of the bomb plot. Writer Ernst Jünger commented: "The blow that felled Rommel... robbed the plan of the shoulders that were to be entrusted the double weight of war and civil war - the only man who had enough naivety to counter the simple terror that those he was about to go against possessed." )

References

Hansen 2014, p. 46. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHansen2014 (help)
Rice, Earle (, 2009). Erwin J. E. Rommel-Great Military Leaders of the 20th Century Series. Infobase Publishing. p. 95. ISBN 9781438103273. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Tague, James E. (2011). The Last Field Marshal. Xlibris Corporation. p. 334. ISBN 9781465314819.
Alexander, Bevin (2007). How Hitler Could Have Won World War II: The Fatal Errors That Led to Nazi Defeat. Crown/Archetype. p. 255. ISBN 9780307420930.
»Der Treffer, den er am 17. Juli 1944 auf der Straße nach Livarot erhielt, beraubte den Plan der einzigen Schultern, denen das fürchterliche Doppelgewicht des Krieges und Bürgerkrieges zuzutrauen war - des einzigen Mannes, der Naivität genug zum Widerpart der fürchterlichen Simplizität der Anzugreifenden besaß. Er war ein eindeutiges Vorzeichen.«

This appears to be undue weight, as equally as many describe Rommel's incapacitation as immaterial to the success or failure of the bomb plot. For example, Norman J. Goda states, in discussing the Hitler oath: "... There were also field marshals such as Rommel and Kluge who despite the oath were willing to have others shove Hitler to the side and act accordingly after the fact". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

you may cite those authors when presenting an alternative view beside this one. I think "Authors A, B, C, D say it was serious. Authors E, F, G, H say it was not serious. Conclusion: it was not serious or serious, but less serious than what authors A, B, C, D describe. " is the wrong way to do things (except if one group is more recent AND has definite proofs that their answer is true). No, just present it as "Authors A, B, C, D say it was serious. Authors E, F, G, H say it was not serious." I can find still many more authors who say that this incapacitation was serious, at least those considered experts on Rommel, so I am not sure that it's in equal numbers.

Also it seems from the conspirators' point of view, they felt terrible about this. At that moment, after hearing about the accident, Stülpnagel was stunned and exclaimed "It was the last straw!" (Remy, pg.306), echoing Ernst Juenger's later statement about how this terrible omen, robbing them of the guy who would shoulder war and civil war, meant that they were going to fail.

Besides, I haven't read Goda, but it seems he believes so because he also believes Rommel was not committed to "the cause", but acted somewhat like Rundstedt who would let the conspirators do what they wanted but wouldn't act until the result showed itself. And that's the difference, authors who believe that Rommel was at least committed to opening his front independently would normally think that his incapacitation was importance. If any change is made, this should be kept in mind.

Deamonpen (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Overcite?

Is this perhaps a WP:Overcite, that is are six citations needed for this statement?

Additionally, Goerdeler had written down Rommel's name on a list as potential Reich President (according to Stroelin, they had not managed to announce this intention to Rommel yet and he probably never heard of it until the end of his life).

References

Marshall, Charles F. Discovering the Rommel Murder. ISBN 9780811742788.
Hansen, Randall. Disobeying Hitler: German Resistance in the Last Year of WWII. ISBN 978-0571284528.
Misch, Rochus (2014). Hitler's Last Witness: The Memoirs of Hitler's Bodyguard. Frontline Books. ISBN 9781848327498.
Reuth 2005, p. 183. sfn error: no target: CITEREFReuth2005 (help)
Young 1950, p. 197. sfn error: no target: CITEREFYoung1950 (help)
Shirer 1960, p. 1031. sfn error: no target: CITEREFShirer1960 (help)

I think that Misch and Young can be dispensed with as dated, possibly also Shirer. I suggest keeping Reuth, since this was the source I used, and perhaps retaining Hansen and / or Marshall? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

By the guidelines on this page, I don't think it applies. I usually cite with the intention of showing how the same content is treated by different authors through the eras, and encourage the curious readers to excavate the original sources to see how the same events are accompanied by different perspectives, not (just) to prove that the event mentioned is true. Also I think old sources should not be dismissed just because they are old, especially if also supported by new sources. Misch is not dated though, the person maybe, not his book, although actually I'm not sure it's a plus, because memoirs are considered less considerable if written in old ages. However it seems he is not criticized much for inaccuracies. I pay attention to him since according to him it seems Rommel knew about them trying to make him President (thus contradicting Stroelin's words that the intention was discussed in a hurry, and never came to Rommel's ears. Although Stroelin was obviously the one who knew the whole thing better than anyone else. Whether he said the truth or not is another matter), and Misch's friend Gauss (one of Rommel's few close aides, although initially an 'agent' who was sent by Halder to control Rommel) tried to talk him out of the whole business, for Rommel's own benefits (Misch should receive no benefit here in claiming to know about these events, since he doesn't claim to change his loyalty towards Hitler or supporting the rebels).

This part (that shows even Gauss knew about the plans) sounds honest to me, because Lieb has also found a note of Gause on his copy of Young's book on Rommel, regarding the part Rommel knew nothing about the coup, "Stimmt nicht" ("Not true").

Deamonpen (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Categories: