Talk:Erwin Rommel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Redirect

Inputting "Rommel" into search does not redirect here as the header suggests. Should that header be removed or should it actually redirect here? DeutscherStahl (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Name

Why does the name in the article in the english wikipedia differ from the one in the german wikipedia? Greetings - Joe King —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.121.220 (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In germany people usually called by their second given name (in former times). For example: When your name is John Francis Public you are called Francis by other people. Therefore I guess "Johannes Erwin Eugen Rommel" is the correct version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.43.106 (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the name to 'Johnnes Erwin Eugen Rommel' ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.58.48 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Kill Hitler

Was Gen. Rommel ever in a plot to assasinate Adolf Hitler? Oyo321 19:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol, never mind, its in the first paragraph of the article! My bad. Oyo321 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

it is debated--ToyotaPanasonic 14:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

ive wacted a documentry that said he wouldnt do thae plot. but he new about it(Esskater11 01:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

Not sure. The rumors in Germany belife, that he would´t not attempt to kill the man who made him an Field Marshall. But the rumors swear that he was an truely human fighter at north african campaign. 84.56.125.205 (talk)--- am i here?!

I don't think this part is correct at all. Rommel was accused of plotting against Hitler, but I'm 95% sure he had no role in it. The man thoroughly believed in Hitler, hell he led his personal bodyguard during the invasion of Poland. I think this might be a case of Western history putting a rose tint on a man that we want to respect and admire... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slim-NZ (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is a matter open to debate, I have not seen conclusive proof that he knew about the plot although popular culture seems to believe that he did I will have a look this afternoon for any references in his papers, or his son's... RP459 (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Desmond Young's biography "Rommel", Rommel was not aware of the plot but had been listed by the plotters as the next President. By his wife's testimony, Rommel denied participation in the plot when informed that he had been named by the arrested plotters, but agreed to commit suicide to protect his wife and son because he knew he would never make it out of a trial alive. It is unlikely that he was a Hitler fan; certainly he was not a member of the Nazi party. As a soldier, judging by his record, his loyalty would have been to the legitimate government -- whoever it was -- rather than to any individual responsible for his promotion. The fact that the plotters considered him suitable for a leading position in the post-Hitler government would seem to indicate that he was not considered a political crony of the Fuehrer. He was chosen by Hitler himself to command his life guard battalion primarily on the basis of his book on infantry tactics ("Infanterie greift an"), not because of any party affiliation or volunteering for the post. --Death Bredon (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced fragments

There are dubious fragments in this article:

1. "Rommel's success owed partially to his misappropriating supplies and bridging tackle belonging to the neighbouring divisions. This gravely hampered their operations. His commander Hermann Hoth considered court-martialing him for this, but was dissuaded by his own commander Gunther von Kluge."

Where does this one come from? It seems false because it lacks a source, not counting the head of the writer. As a (large) sidenote it is also totally nonsensical for a number of reasons: If Hoth thought that Rommel deserved a court martial, he would have done it, and Kluge was not Goebbles or Hitler to think about public relations. Also, Rommel's division was so far ahead it was hard to keep their own supplies from falling into French hands. Also, which neighboring divisions were involved, and why would they just let Rommel's men take their supplies? My hat down to the forgers who worked for Rommel with this - though of course they didn't exist.

2. "The only real evidence against him came from General Carl-Heinrich von Stuelpnagel, who had repeatedly called out Rommel's name under torture from the Gestapo."

Not unreasonable like the first, but I should like to know the source of this and why is it not stated in von Stuelpnagel's own article, which is quite short.

3. "[...Adolf Hitler, who] placed him in charge of the War Ministry liaison with the Hitler Jugend's Headquarters of Military Sports, the Hitler Jugend branch involved with paramilitary activities: terrain exercises and marksmanship. Rommel applied himself energetically to the new task. The army provided instructors to the Hitler Jugend Rifle School in Thuringia, which in turn supplied qualified instructors to the HJ's regional branches. In 1937 Rommel conducted a tour of HJ meetings and encampments, delivered lectures on German soldiering while inspecting facilities and exercises. Simultaneously he was pressuring Baldur von Schirach, the Hitler Jugend leader, to accept an agreement expanding the army's involvement in Hitler Jugend training. Schirach interpreted this as a bid to turn the Hitler Jugend into an army auxiliary, a "junior army" in his words. He refused and Rommel, whom he had came to dislike personally and apparently envy for his "real soldier"'s appeal to the youngsters, was denied access to the Hitler Jugend. An army-Hitler Jugend agreement was concluded, but on a far more limited scope then Rommel had sought; cooperation was restricted to the army providing personnel to the Rifle School, much to the army's chagrin. By 1939 the Hitler Jugend had 20,000 rifle instructors. Simultaneously Rommel retained his place at Potsdam. In his class Rommel was awarded the highest war ribbons for excellent performance."

This one is a real mystery. Where does it come from?

Whoever posted these, please add your sources to the article. The whole article needs to contradict itself less, or to be written in such a way as to reflect this contradiction. For example, it could read "Sources a and b say that x, but sources c and d say that y." Nobody could fault that, but they can fault the way this article appears now. If the sources conflict each other, we here should definitely not present either version as fact, unless we were there. So, any WWII veterans around here who served with Rommel? Rotten Venetic 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, we need to work out the exact wording of the caption below the picture of Rommel with Speidel, Ruge, and Lang. It originally reads- and someone keeps reverting it to continue to read- that "all of them were heavily involved in the anti-Hitler conspiracy within the Wehrmacht". Not only have I never heard any suggestion that Lang or Ruge were active members of the conspiracy, but it contradicts the text of the article about Rommel himself. The article says that the extent of Rommel's involvement is unclear, but the photo caption claims he was "heavily involved". I have edited it to say that Speidel was heavily involved, as he is really the only one who is known beyond doubt to have been, but someone insists on reverting it to its original wording, which results in a photo caption and an article which flatly contradict one another. AuthorNeubius December 22, 2006

Where are the sources for Soz's endless claim that Rommel killed black POWs during filming of a propaganda movie? When he continually ignores all discussion about this article and requests for sources for his claims, it leads one to the obvious conclusion that he has no sources and his claims are fictitious. AuthorNeubius January 6, 2007

Hello, I am not Soz, but I added a reference which documents Rommel's murder of black prisoners of war (colonial French soliders) in order to film footage for the newsreel "Victory in the West." Throughout his life Rommel frequently expressed racist beliefs to his family and those near him. He was a good tactical military commander, but he was not a man of high character. As late as the summer of 1943 Rommel conducted friendly visits with Hitler in order to lobby for command of troops in Sicily. By 1943 it is not conceivable that he did not know about the murder of "undesirable" parts of the population, the treatment of Slavic people in occupied territories, and the murder of political enemies of the Nazi party. The conclusion is simply that Rommel did not mind the Nazi Party or Hitler in power so long as the war went well. He only distanced himself from Hitler when defeat became obvious. You can still admire Rommel's military ability, but you cannot pretend that he was a man of good character and remain in touch with the reality of his life. JQ 02:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely about the points about Rommel misappropiated equipment from other divisions, and I will remove it unless it is properly source within the next couple of days. There is no mention about this in any texts I have read, not even in teh Rommel papers, where Rommel was more than keen in defending himself against accusations - if he had had a near court martial he certianly would have mentioned it. As for sources in general, I've rewritten and introduced substantial sourcing of the Africa segment, and I'll keep working on other sections as well. Many of Rommels actions were indeed open for critiscism, but it needs to be sourced and attributed, and all sides views need to be included. Abel29a 15:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've found a source for Rommels borrowing of bridging tackles, altough it happend in a slihtly less devious version than the old text could give the impression off. I've rewritten the claim somewhat with proper citations. The court martial claim is still something I havent found any mentions off, so I've removed it for now, but I'll see if I can find something Abel29a 12:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

To JQ: The final solution was not implemented until 1942, at which time Rommel was in Africa. Being in Africa, there was little reason for him to know about the genocides. When he did find out it was already 1943 and he famously had a row with Hitler about it - one of the few who dared. The reason he admired Hitler in the first place was because he brought Germany back to greatness - Rommel was otherwise disinterested in politics what did not concern military matters. Tsuka 21:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect - the Wannsee conference was one thing, but the Nazis began eliminating "undesirables" during the invasion of Poland. Army and SS groups were employed in the invasion of the USSR where thousands of people were murdered long before the setting up of the extermination camps. Rommel was a top-level military man who could easily have had contacts who were aware of these activities. 21:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC) HammerFilms11

He did not follow orders too, which involved to kill germans on the enemy side precisiously (North Africa where some German Colonies right or just before after then). Exactly he said "this will not be done!". I try this for signigture: 84.56.125.205 (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)----

To Soz

I believe I've identified and restored the lacking info regarding the Tobruk and Crusader operations that I removed, but do take a look and see if there is something else. I've expanded the sections with more detial as well, as you can see. Regarding the removal of the way the British attacked during Crusader: I could find no collaboration for a British plan that relied on a German counter attack, nor that Rommel awaited "the next British move". I've rewritten the account based on his own recollections in the rommel papers, comments by bayerlin and Hart and the main crusader article from here on wikipedia. Abel29a 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the British's reliance on a German counterattack for the success of their own atack. I wish to direct your attention to Germany and the Second World War - Volume III - Part V (authored by Bernad Stegmann) - Chapter V.VI ("Operation Crusader") page 729 : "The british operational plan was based on wishful thinking. When XXX corps reached the area of Qabr Salih, only a point in he desert, on the evening of the first day of the attack, it was assumed that the Africa Corps would move eastward and accept a battle, although there was not the least necessity for it to do so. As Rommel was concentrating all his attention on preparing an attack on Tobruk and expected at most diversionary operations on the Solum front, the British plan was doomed to failure". Soz

Ah I see, I'll add the information with the reference right away. Do you have a page reference for the Bernard Stegmann reference in the section about Rommels decision to drive east? Also - there is already a Germany and WWII book listed on the reference list, do you know if this is the same book? I've taken the liberty of listing the two together on the same line for now. And one more thing (asking a lot I am :) ) ISBN and such for the volume would be nice to have in the reference section. Abel29a 12:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed the same book. On a different matter, I have had a chance to review the new Tobruk section and you changed it extensively on the basis of no more credible a source than Rommel's own writing, the most biased source imaginable. to my way of thinking this is discreditable and I have greatly revised the section on the basis of Stegmann and wolf Heckmann's works. A biography should be allowed to degenerate int an autobigraphy by proxy. On a different matter the claim that Rommel had negro POWs murdered for the making of a film is alrewady refferenced in the article. Soz.

I have a few comments to this:
1. While I agree that just using Rommels own writing would be biased, I didnt - I used Rommels papers, Liddell-Harts and Fritz Bayerleins comments, Von Mellenthin in Panzer Battels, Irving in Trail of the Fox and Rommels desert army (which I cant remember the author of atm) - I hadnt gotten around to adding cites yet tough. They paint a completely different different picture of your source - and therefore should be included as the opposing view.
2. Your additions are written in a biased way, it actually detracts from your credibility. Everything is presented in a black-and-white "Rommel was wrong" fashion, completely ignoring the sources supporting that Rommels called off the attacks in early May. EDIT - withdrawn. This accusation was made in haste on my part, the text is more neutral than I saw at first read.
3. Cite your sources, please - otherwise the article gets messy with unsubstantiated claims. 4. Don't delete my cited claims, instead refute them with your own cited claims - that way every view is presented.
5. About the Negro POWS, if your referring to my post below I am not doubting the incident - I am asking for more information, as I do not have access to the source (and probably never will).Abel29a 14:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated the claim that Rommel made the decision, or at least had doubts prior to Paulus visit, and then it will be up to the reader to judge what sources to trust. I'll add some more citations later tonight. I also moved part of the discussuion around for a more logical flow - moved the Italians not giving plans section further up and tried to make the discussion of what influenced Rommels decisions one coherent discussion, with some paragraphs inserted to ease the reading.Abel29a 17:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You (Abel129) fault me for deleting your contributions, yet your rewriting of the section was done primarily by deleting the content preceding it, which contained many contributions of my own. I find that rather dubious of you. While I would grant you that you did not retaliate in the customary way by wholey reverting to the version preceding my insertion, you nonetheless deemed fit to delete some of the information I introduced. You cite David Irving as one of your sources. While the man has come under well earned direpute, I for one am inclined to reservedly accept his "The trail of the fox" as generally credible, as it was writen at a time predating his full conversion to neo-Nazism, and significantly contains references to original records, and most importantly concernes a subject in regard to which he had no particular ideological bone to pick. Richard Evans, commisioned to scrutinise Irving's work on behalf of the Deborah Lipsdtet defence team, while finding distortions and fasifications in all of Irving work works, had curiously nothing to say about The Trail. Irving's description of the opening phase of the fighting over Tobruk clearly displays Rommel as acting quite hysterically, and persecuing his commanders, as well as intending to commit the forces guarding the Egyption border to the assult, or rather assults, on Tobruk. As for Liddel Hart and Bayerlin. Liddel hart is little more than the Rommel family historion and more generally a highly discreditable authority on WWII, having conspired with Hitler's generals to whitewash their crimes in return for their pretending that their `Blitzkrieg` doctrine was based on his prewar writings. Bayerlin for his part made statements immediately after the war (to Desmond Young, Rommel first biographer for one) that were very different from statements he made in the 50s let alone the 60s, when he was making himself the high priest of the Rommel cult. His later claims should be carefully scrutinised before being accepted. Soz

I am sorry if you feel I deleteded something vital in my earlier edits - The problem was that the text lacked any cites, so it was hard to determine what was sourced and not - and when none of the sources I used had any references to the material, it was hard not to loose some of the information while editing the article to insert new material. I hope you will note I said dont delete any cited material, as I fully understand how difficult it is to keep material in an article that is not cited, when your own sources contradict it - I hope you can see that point. As for your claims that I deleted some of your recent additions, the only thing I deleted was the phrase , however small, from the sentence about rommel throwing fresh units into action - this gave the impression that rommel would send a company of men who happend to wander out of the desert into an assault, I refuse to believe he was that far gone... I did try to preserve the critiscism of rommels insistence of attacking tobruk, but I might very well have erred on the side of Rommel. That being said, I'll admit I was sceptical of using Irving as a source, but after reading extensive reviews about his book I did conclude that trail of the fox seemed a genuine historical source. Also, I was sceptical of Rommels Papers, but the vast amount of cites and explanations of Hart, bayerlin and others - coupled with Rommels frankness in admitting points of critiscism against him presuaded me to its usability. As for reverting earlier edits completely - mea culpa if you're thinking back to the manstein article, seeing as you werent registered I didnt see that you had in fact contributed greatly there. As it stands on my earlier edits of the Rommel article I still do not see that I deleted that much critiscism, just used the sources I had, and could not get it to fit with some of the material in the article, thus I changed some of it. I hope you can apprecitate the fact that I've tried to maintain a balanced article, and have tried to see things from both sides. I hope we can continue to work together on this article, and improve its overall quality to get it back to GA status - wheter we like him or not, rommel is a interesting and important part of ww2. On a side note, I have the Desmond Young book ordered, and cant wait to read it - from what you say it seems it can be quite a interesting read. I hope you can indulge me with citing the material in the Tobruk section tough, it would be nice to have it referenced. Abel29a 22:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The killing of black POWs to make a movie

I was wondering if somebody with access to relevant sources could shed some light on this incident for me? I havent been able to find any reference to this in anything I've read about Rommel, but it seems like such a callous act and I would like some more information. If somebody could recap the description of the event, or better yet maybe a direct exceprt of the source supporting this I'd be gratefull. How did it happend? Did a German film team make the movie, and then Rommel walked up to them and said "Hey, I have a few black POWs here, like me to kill them for the movie?" Or was the whole film Rommels idea? It seems to me such a senseless act, how on earth did it come about? Abel29a 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That does not sound like Rommel at all. I do know that he did use black POWs as actors in propaganda movies, were they were supposed to "lose" to "German might". I will try and find out where I read about it, but it seems - as I recall reading - Rommel had trouble keeping the POWs from overacting, which would suggest he didn't actually kill them. And indeed, why would he? This is the man who refused British requests to segregate blacks from whites in the POW camps, because he considered the uniform, not the colour of their skin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tsuka (talk • contribs) 18:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

That account doesnt contain 1 ounce of truth in it. Total BS with no way of even proving it. Rommel was even hailed by the Allies as a true gentleman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.228.61 (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is this pratt? (user Abel129a) is he working to distribute disinformation? i have never read such rubbish!

before posing such a question, cite your sources! lets hear where you got this fable from!Miletus (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the personal attacks, mate :) For your information this question was pertaining to a sentence written in the popular perception of Rommel~section a while ago, sourced from a, to me, unknown book, claiming that Rommel had killed black POWs. The statement was later removed, as the source did not support the claim (IIRC). I was merely asking for a clarification of what the (then) source said, because I disbelieved the claim myself. See the Reference to Killingray, David section on this page for more info Abel29a (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of citing your sources, I have deleted all your recent edits, because they appear to me to have a definite point of view behind them. Of course, I could be wrong, and all of your statements could be absolutely factual and correct. If so, it should be no problem to find sources to support them, so please do not reinsert the deleted material without references to support them. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh... whoops

Nothing much here, forgot to add the note to my edit. Replaced "aggresive" with "aggressive" in the section "Rommel as a military commander."

Sorry for the err and the disturbance.

Soly 00:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Solnath

Reference to Killingray, David

We have the following paragraph:

"Tempering this favorable view of Rommel are the facts that he did loyally serve Hitler and the Nazi government if not throughout his life at least until 1944, and that he never publicly disagreed with any Nazi actions or goals during his lifetime. There are several documented examples of racially prejudiced policies enacted under Rommel's command including his 1942 order that non-white Allied prisoners of war in Axis captivity be fed less (1,400 calories a day) than white prisoners' calories, and his killing of unarmed black prisoners of war in 1940 in order to film the propaganda newsreel Victory in the West."

This statement about rations. It seems to me that the standard POW daily ration, for all Geneva Convention protected prisoners, was 1,400 calories and this was supervised by the Swiss Red Cross. Red cross foodparcels were permitted as a supplement. If Rommel had ordered a reduction, it would not only be illegal under the Geneva Convention but a copy of the order would be available and the Swiss would also have noted it. Is it likely that Rommel, personally, would get involved in such an order? I think not. If there was such an order, there will be a copy of it and the probable signatories would be either the Quartermaster-General or the Director of Operations. It should also be remembered that German rations were much inferior to 8th Army rations and were not much better than the 1,400 calories listed here. The german troops were often surprised at the quality of allied rations

I have looked at work published by mr Killingray (there is not very much) and he seems to be almost exclusively concerned with bad events as they affect black/coloured people. I do not see that he is relevant to the campaign in North Africe in WW2.Miletus (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know if this is reliable information at all? As far as I'm aware, Rommel staged a surrender in this movie, and did not kill anyone. I am unable to find evidence to corroborate Killingray, and google keeps referring to staging surrenders. I know I've read about it in more detail somewhere (I believe it was D. Irving's "Trail of the Fox"), and this Killingray quote seems awfully suspect to me. Perhaps I'll order the movie and find out.

There is also an uncited paragraph immediately following: "When his illegitimate daughter informed him of her desire to marry her Italian boyfriend and asked for his blessing, he admonished her to make sure that the man was an "Aryan", that is, non-Jewish under Nazi law. On one occasion he wrote to his wife about a discussion with some Swiss officers, commenting approvingly about their "amazing understanding for our Jewish problem"."

This also goes against everything I've ever read about Rommel. Could whoever wrote that provide references, preferably with links so we could read the letters ourselves? I'll let those who have seniority decide if these paragraphs stay or go, but I would like a second opinion. Tsuka 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I found it. It was Trail of the Fox, alright, and here is what it says about the film Sieg im Westen (pp.59-60):

The Nazi propaganda minister, Goebbels, asked [Rommel] to collaborate on a big army film about the campaign, Victory in the West. Rommel spent part of August reenacting for the movie cameras the Spook Division's crossing of the Somme. He had a great time playing movie director, and he schooled his troops in acting techniques. A battalion of French black troops was hauled out of the prison camps to stage the surrender of a village. Again, this time for the cameras, Rommel's tanks charged, guns blazing. He told the blacks to come out toward the tanks with their hands up and looking scared; but the men overacted, rolled the whites of their eyes, and screamed with terror. Rommel cut the cameras, and patiently explained through interpreters that actors had to show their emotions more subtly than that. The battle scenes were finally filmed on such an epic and reckless scale that several more lives were lost, though through no fault of Rommel's. "No expense has been spared to show it as it really was," he wrote on the last day of shooting. "There were blacks in it again today. The fellows had a whale of a time and thoroughly enjoyed putting their hands in the air all over again."

While I would like to know in more detail about how lives were lost during the production, it seems far more plausible to me that it happened as a result of accident or overzealousness rather than an act of cold-blooded murder. Tsuka 15:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes this makes more sense to me as well - I think the sentence should be rewritten to accidentaly causing the death of Black POWs or something to that effect, or maybe state that there are two views on the events... Abel29a 02:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have taken the liberty of adding a "verification needed" to the Killingray quote, and a "citation needed" to the rest of the paragraph. I'll give it until May, and if by that time I have received no feedback or have not seen any indication that it is accurate or remotely reliable, I'll remove the whole thing. Tsuka 10:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The information on the gratuitous slaughter of black POWs may be unpalateble to Rommel enthusiasts, nonetheless the fact remains that Killingray is an established authority, whereas Irving has some rancid disrepute, and even though "The trail of the Fox" has not as yet been claimed to contain major errors, Killingray's claim cannot be claimed to be in need of verification, simply because it disagrees with Irving's account. For our purposes, the reference to Killingray is verification enough. In a few days when I will visit the library and will provide more details from Killingray including his sources. I will accordingly remove the "verification needed" tag. However, whoever wishes to introduce Irving's claim that the death were not of Rommel's doings is welcome to do so. Soz101 15:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent Soz, looking forward to see more detail on the incident. Adding Irwings view of the event will give us both sides of the story, so to speak, and seems a fair compromise to me. Abel29a 16:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

When we have two clearly conflicting sources, the reference to one - however reputable - is not "verification enough". That's like proving the Bible with the Bible, it simply will not do. Now, of course it is possible that Killingray is correct, in which case there should be no trouble finding other sources to corroborate his claim. Which is necessitated by the fact that Irving - however disreputable - tells a completely different story. We clearly need more sources. Authority should never be taken at face value. Turnbull, for example, is a very reputable source (if not the most reputable source) on Japanese history and culture, but his works should most certainly NOT be taken as gospel. Tsuka 20:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so we know: can someone post the relevant paragraph from Killingray in the discussion section here? Just so we know exactly what is being said, and hopefully make individual searches easier. I naturally assume that whoever made the reference in the article posesses the book in question. Tsuka 21:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And just so we're clear: I do not intend to delete anything from the current article. It would perhaps be better, as Soz suggests, to present both sides instead (I am pondering how to do so without bias, and also preserve the flow of the article). But we should still look for more sources. Tsuka 14:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have obtained the book (Prisoners of war and their captors in World War II) wherein Killingray's article appears. disappointingly the only source he cites for his claim that Rommel killed negro POWs in order to produce the film Victory in the West, and which Killingray claimes demonstrated "German disregard for the welfare of non-white POWs" (pages 195-6) is Irving's book The Trail of the Fox. Killingray, however, ommites that Irving insists that the deaths were entirely accidental and were "no fault of Rommel" (however implausible that may sound). Irving's version on the matter must stand uncotested, until and unless a source not based on Irving's account and sustaining the claim is located. I accordingly feel forced to delete the claim Zozzoz 13:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC) (Soz101's new username)13:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See. Rommel was a cuddly innocent teddy-bear all along :) It would be interesting to have studied Irvings sources tough - this episode is something that does not seem well known, so to have shed some more light on it would be interesting. Like the new nick by the way :) EDIT: Thanks for taking the trouble of obtaining the Killingray source and giving us more details on the episode. Abel29a 14:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A "Cuddly Teddy-bear", I wouldn't go as far as that, but the claim that he wantonly slaughtered negro POWs has no credible source at present. Perhaps one shall be found in the future, then again perhaps not. Time will tell. Zosew 11:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats absolute bull shit! Rommel was even hailed by the Allies as a true gentleman! I have read numerous first hand accounts of german officers who served under Hitler who give countless examples of his true humanity. He never mistreated prisoners, he was always taking care of his soldiers... ext ext. and he DID defy Hitler MANY times! He disobeyed several dirrect orders! Its also a well known fact that he had many disagreements with Hitler, including no-retreat orders in North Afrika and the lack of supplies in North Afrika. He was the head of Hitlers personal security at one time but they had a major falling out. Several assisination plots against Hitler even called for Rommel to take over the ruling of Germany after Hitler was out of the way. If anyone even comes close to considering these accounts as truth you should be slapped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.228.61 (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

    I have no idea who you are, but your expletives make your arguments sound childish.  It's not really relevant that a few Allied persons
    have a view of Rommel as a 'gentleman.'  He was active in a Nazi war machine that killed millions of people and caused irreparable 
    material damage to the world all in the name of facism and sheer greed.   Such men are not 'gentlemen.'  A gentleman would have had
    nothing to do with Hitler and his despicable lot. HammerFilms1 (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)HammerFilms1

Hans Speidel references inconsistent

As I read this part of the article....

The only serious evidence against him was provided by his chief of staff Hans Speidel who scapegoated Rommel for his own actions, claiming that the rebellious orders were issued by Rommel, not him, and that he, Speidel, tried to report these criminal acts to Berlin, but was prevented from so doing (See Reuth 2006). Speidel was killed when he was convicted of rape and garroted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#The_plot_against_Hitler

It's that last sentence that bothers me. When I read the article on Speidel, it mentions that he survived the war, taught at a university and even served in the post-war BundesWehr. Obviously he wasn't garroted. Or were there two Hans Speidels?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Speidel

I'm not a scholar of the period, I just noted the inconsistency.

Tschuss!

Speidel's 'death sentence' deleted. Must have been added by a vandal. GrahamBould 06:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

More Rommel pics?

I have a book called the Descovering the Rommel murder -the life and death of the Desert Fox. It contains some pics of the elaborate funeral the Nazi's devised. Does anyone think they could be put in?Dapi89 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If the book was published, you will require permission directly from the author(s) or copyright holder(if he is not the author(s). Once you obtain his/their permission, you must obtain an electronic copy. after completing these tasks you can post them on the page. photos of his funeral would be great and a valuable addition to the page. if you are up to the task, i strongly suggest and request that you pursue this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerBarJude (talk • contribs) 05:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rommels

several times in this page there is the phrase "Rommels" instead of "Rommel's" any reason or just multiple typos? Brandonrush 02:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiple typos - if you find any just change 'em. Abel29a 23:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

More Speidel

Just noticed that there seems to be inconsistency between this article and the one on Speidel. The Speidel article makes no mention of his having betrayed Rommel, and in fact the view on the talk page is that these are just unsubstantiated rumours. The Rommel article, OTOH, states as fact that Speidel betrayed Rommel. We should at least have the articles say the same thing. -- Hongooi 07:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Gen. Speidel did not betray anyone. He was in fact held by the Gestapo until near the end of the war and "talked" his way out of being shot. He escaped custody soon after. I met Gen. Speidel in Germany when he had been brought back into uniform in the Bundeswehr and a NATO command. My father was Operations in an army corps and the Gen. and aides spent time at our home. CEmersom CEmersom (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

War Without Hate

The article says that the The Afrika Korps was never accused of any war crimes. Is this really true? Chivalrous' Rommel wanted to bring Holocaust to Middle East Hawkeye7 23:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The article never actually links the SS unit in North Africa to Rommel; it says they were ordered by Hitler to conduct their murderous mission, not by Rommel. Arabs using "Heil Rommel" means is irrelevant. It also doesn't state that Rommel was the one telling his soldiers that those who fight the Jews had the support of Arabs. It only states that the military efforts led by Rommel allowed the expansion of the Holocaust to North Afica. In that case, every German soldier is as guilty as Rommel apparently is, because their military efforts directly allowed the Holocaust to continue. It seemingly needlessly links Rommel to genocide more than other commanders who were in the same position as he was (this is not having seen the documentary, so I don't know what further evidence, if any, is supplied there) This seems like a weak smear attempt, by the writer of that article, not by you, Hawkeye7. Parsecboy 23:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would add that people tend to mix up the Wehrmacht with the Waffen-SS. The SS troops may be formally part of the Wehrmacht, but they had direct loyalty to the Naziparty and any order directly issued be Hitler, nullified any other order. An example of this was the refusal of the 12 SS. Panzer to move without Hitlers command at D-Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.40.17.156 (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the "any order directly issued be Hitler, nullified any other order." In 1944, that would also be true for any army division since Hitler had become the Commander-In-Chief of the army on 12/19/41. Also, 12th SS Panzer didn't need an explicit order from Hitler to move to the front. Rommel also had this authority and if he had been at Normandy instead of visiting his wife, he could have ordered the 12th SS Panzer as well as 21 Panzer to move on 6/6/44 and both divisions would have done so.--TL36 (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And there is a difference between the Waffen-SS, which were under army command and SS-Einsatzgruppen Which were send directly from Berlin to collect any people of interest to send them to any camp. The Einsatzgruppe Rauf, which were deployed to Tunesia in 1942/1943 committed some athrocities but they did it on there own, without cobtrol of the then Panzerarmy Africa. --92.227.197.234 (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Māori Battalion quote

There are a number of blogs and forum posts giving a Rommel quote of "Give me three Māori battalions, and I could rule the world", or of him calling the Māori Battalion the "greatest fighting force he'd ever seen". I can't find any reliable references though. Does anyone know where these quotes come from? I'd like to add a reference to Māori Battalion.-gadfium 18:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've heard the same thing about 'two Australian divisions'. I'll look at the Rommel Papers and see if I can find a quotation in that. --Squigian (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Animaniacs (cartoon) "implied" reference

There is an Animaniacs episode of the Characters Rita and Runt entitled "Puttin' on the Blitz" (1993) which is on Nazi ocupied poland. In this episode, there is a military figure with a strong german accent who is only seen from the knee down (typical technique used for partially or unseen characters) which is surrounded by "ferocious" Dachshund dogs (which are the enemies of the main characters on this episode). My opinion (which one is free to dispute) that this german character is implied to be Erwin Rommel (bear in mind that Animaniacs was a cartoon with strong Adult jokes and themes discretly embedded into it) --Pinnecco 00:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I just watched this episode to see if the above was true, and I found absolutely nothing in the entire cartoon that would suggest the character is anything more than a generic German Army commandant. What could possibly have led you to believe otherwise, I wonder? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rommel a Nazi?

The article on Rommel was previously categorized under 'Nazis who committed suicide'. His actions hardly qualify him as being labelled a member of the National Socialist Party. - MakeChooChooGoNow (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Although he fought for Germany which was a Nazi controlled country he was not a Nazi himself. He was a military general which has NOTHING to do with being a Nazi. He defied Hitler many times and disobeyed direct orders as well. He was forced, in the end, to commit suicide because he was supposedly involved in an attempt to kill Hitler. Although its unlikely he was involved, several plans were for Rommel to even take over control of Germany after Hitler was out of control. Theres no reason in any article that would point to Rommel being a Nazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.228.61 (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The article tends to make him sound like a hero. I wish it reflected more the fact that Rommel knowingly conducted aggressive war on behalf of an anti-Semitic murderer. I may get around to editing it...Manormadman (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Manormadman

I wouldn't edit the tone too much, MM, especially since it can easily be argued that he was simply fighting for his country out of nationalistic sympathies, not a personal hatred of Jews or close affection for Hitler. Not every German who fought in WWII was a Nazi and not all agreed with Hitler's views, however they fought because they believed it was honorable to fight for their country in time of war. Much like most other nationals around the world, wouldn't you agree? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Rommel only conducted defensive war in WW2...If you are techincal about it. He didn't command fighting troops during the polish campaign and he wasn't involved in the campaign in Russia. And France and Britain DOW'ed Germany. Not the other way around. IF you still insist, then the same characteristics should be evident in all similar soviet articles as well.--Nwinther (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(This is nonsense. Nazi Germany forcibly took over Czechoslovakia, then invaded Poland. Britain and France declared war in an (ineffective) attempt to defend Poland. In other words: Hitler started it! And Rommel helped him continue it. Manormadman (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

Actually the notion that Britain declared war to "defend Poland" is bigger nonsense. To prevent a pan-European war and/or prevent Germany from dominating the Continent, yes, but not to defend Poland. The British promise to defend Polish sovereignty was meant to convey the message to Poland that the survival of the main part of the Polish state would be guaranteed by the West even in the case of Poland returning Danzig to Germany (which Britain recognized as legitimate) without fear of a similar situation as happened in Czechoslovakia (where the whole country rather than simply part of it [the Sudetenland] was occupied). However issuing a blank check was a mistake just as it was for Wilhelmine Germany vis-á-vis Austria-Hungary in 1914. (Hence the response of the British government to Poland when the latter requested a declaration of war against the Soviet Union, which had also invaded Poland [wouldn't Britain also be pledged to "defend Poland" against the Russians?]: "We promised to guarantee your sovereignty but not your specific borders." Historian932 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, not to argue, but I wouldn't characterize the plan to conquer northern Africa a defensive move myself, but your point still stands. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it was an offensive operation to defend against and end the british aggression. In a certain point of view. Of course, Moussolini had DOW'ed britain - so the campaign was offensive in purpose and nature - for the Italians. But for Rommel (Germany) it was a defensive measure, offensive in nature. But i guess I'm preaching to the choir.--Nwinther (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I look at Field Marshal Rommel in this hypothetical light: If he had survived the war, there is no doubt that he would not have been indicted or tried at ANY International Military Tribunal. It was well known that not only during the North African Campaign, but afterward when he lead the Western European Wehrmacht in the defense of the Normandy Invasion, that American and British Generals alike both respected and understood that Rommel simply was a legendary German Tank Commander and masterful strategist. In the end however, he was outwitted by contemporaries such as General Patton and Field Marshal Montgomery, men who out-classed Rommel at the 2nd El Alamein Battle and eventually ended the Axis (German and Italian) aggression in North Africa. Mike D (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Manormadman, Rommel may have fought under the German flag but it would have been far more surprising if he didn't. In war men must turn into animals. the men who remain men are the losers. while the losers of WWII may have been Animals, I personally believe Rommel fought for Germany, not the NSDAP or Adolf Hitler. Savage is defined by the winners. If the 3rd Reich succeeded, Patton may have been looked at as an enemy scum for the same reasons that Rommel may sometimes be today. C/AmnX 05:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerBarJude (talk • contribs)

Alpenkorps

In the Biobox Rommel's rank is field marshall, and unit is Alpenkorps. Presuming that both should be his highest achievement, the unit seems a little odd. Is there a reason for keeping this? GrahamBould (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK the unit section is there to list units he served in, but did not command. Therefore the Alpenkorps is listed under unit, whereas all his commands are listed below that, including the various Army Groups he commanded as a Field Marshall. Abel29a (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think this heading is too vague. I have looked up a number of British and German field marshals in Wikipedia - almost all do not have the heading at all, but Günther von Kluge has the national army names. I think there is confusion as to what "Unit" means here. Should it be renamed, or removed from the Template? GrahamBould (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is vague and misleading, indeed. Until someone who has a great Infobox-Fu comes along I'm going to remove the unit listing. Abel29a (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

hitler's threat to Rommel's family

I read in Countess Waldeck's account of "What Really Happened to Rommel" in the Readers Digest that Hitler ordered that he either commit suicide or face the people's court AND have his family killed. That is somewhat different than the sentence in this article that he face the court and the "potential persecution of his family". The Countess was quite specific that Rommel spared his family's life by committing suicide.

Thoughts or other information on this slightly different take on what Maisel and Burgdorf told Rommel when they visited him. Trucker11 (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cause of death

We state the usually accepted version of poison at his own hands. The alternative theory about being shot by others seems to be gainsaid by this "eyewitness account" from his son. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation is not that they would take them out and shoot them, but if they were to resist as Manfred suggests, they would all be shot. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the death paragraphs

• I can't quite figure out who the two people are that are waved back to the car. Am I missing something? (John User:Jwy talk) 21:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Also, I have my doubts about using the Shirer story. He's interesting but I'm not sure how rigorous he is. Are there other sources? (John User:Jwy talk) 21:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Rommel Spoof Articles?

On the 17th and 18th December two London Newspapers, the'Daily Mail' and the Daily Telegraph' published articles which claimed that the 'Rommel Myth' had been 'debunked'. The origins of this proposition were, it was claimed, an exhibition in Stuttgart organised a group named History House. Various claims seem to have been made in and by the exhibition, almost all of which are (at first sight) either naive, inaccurate, not researched or not adult in their assertions. An impression is that this seems to originate in the Holocaust Industry. 'History House' claims that it presents a light-hearted view of history (whatever that is!).
There are several problems here.

A. History house is a nebulous organisation and does not seem to have a central office. It is difficult to contact them or to establish how, and by whom, they are funded.

B. Search engine enquiries at the official Stuttgart website and for the state of Wurtemburg have not revealed any references to such an exhibition.

C. The 'Daily Mail' article was published under the byline: 'Allan Hall'. There is no record on the major search engines of any journalist writing under that name.

The response of the British newspaper readership was immediate and ferocious. The article in the 'Mail' was wholly rejected. A large number of people commented and some of the more elderly respondants were quite emotional in defense of Rommel. It has to be assumed that these are veterans of the 8th Army. The 'Daily Telegraph' did not invite comment. Perhaps Wikipedian contributers and editors could take a look at what is going on with 'History House' and post their comments/information here. 'H-H' may attempt to participate in Wiki-articles in a way which would not be productive.

Although wiki writers, editors and correspondants have disputes (as I well know), these are related to academic questions. 'History House' seems to be something different. thanks and best wishesMiletus (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Strafing

The following section was input as a footnote to the strafing discussion by Blacktea and its more appropriate to have any discussion about it here. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Both a Canadian and an American claim to have strafed Rommel’s touring car. The Canadian is Charley Fox (Citation needed for ‘strafing’ claim). The American is James Ferguson whose assignment at the time was assistant chief of staff with the 9th Fighter Command. Ferguson was one of two American air controllers on duty the night of the Normandy Invasion and served in various campaigns until the German surrender. At time of retirement on September 1, 1970, General Ferguson was commander of the Air Force Systems Command Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. See his biography on the official website of the United States Air Force [1]

On pages 25-26 of his unpublished autobiography, Memoir of James Ferguson, Sarasota, Florida, February 22, 1991 (41 pages), Ferguson gives this account of the strafing: When I left Christchurch for London, I took my P-47 with me and parked it in a nearby airfield. My new air control friends and I decided to fly to the invasion area. We had an international element, since there were “representatives” from the USA (me), Britain, New Zealand, and Poland. They flew borrowed Spitfires. Over the next week that I was still at Uxbridge, the allied forces slowly but surely advanced deeper into the French countryside against the determined resistance of the German forces. On several occasions I flew my P-47, still parked nearby, over to one of the newly constructed airstrips in Normandy. I would pick up some ammo and do a little “armed recce.” One day, Colonel Dyke Meyer (my roommate and one of the controllers) and I flew over to A-8, picked up some ammo and decided to do a little “hunting”. The weather was clear, so we roamed well into the German occupied territory looking for suitable targets. We were familiar enough with the area because of our actions back at the Uxbridge control center. We were flying at about 3,000 feet over a lightly wooded area. Almost simultaneously we noted a small cloud of dust following a large open touring car. A closer look revealed one person sitting in the rear seat. We were well to the rear of one of the larger concentrations of German defenses. I called out the target to Dyke, switched on the guns and raked through the staff car. The vehicle rolled over and landed on its side. Hindsight tells me we should have reported the incident, since it was well-known that ranking officers were the only ones who traveled in open touring cars . . . but we didn’t. We found a few other vehicles and a few burned out tanks which needed no further attention from us, so we returned to base, had our guns unloaded, and back we went to England. This occurred, as noted in my flight records, on 17 June 1944. In the early 1970s, long after I had retired from my military career, someone gave me a copy of the book The Desert Fox. While reading it, I found the incident I just described. The occupant sitting in the back seat of the touring car was none other than Rommel, the commander of all the defending German forces! I have been reluctant to say much, except to my family, about the incident because one can only begin to imagine what people’s reaction would be. In any case, my flight log and the official description of the incident from the German side, seems sufficient enough confirmation to mention. By this time [late June 1944] I had been chosen by General Weyland to join his Tactical Air Command which was to cross to France along with General Patton’s Third Army. This was to take place about D-Day plus eighteen…. originally an article footnote added by Blacktea talk

The Marshall Cavendish Illustrated Encyclopedia of World War II (1972) Vol 13 Pg 1708, includes references, including gun camera film frames, which adds a Lieutenant Harold O. Miller of the 352nd Fighter Group, USAAF (which was flying P-51 Mustangs at the time) to the list of potential Allied fighter pilots who strafed and wounded Rommel. PhantomWSO (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Add another pilot... I've just come across this souce at the Imperial War Museum's archive, about South African, J J Le Roux, Commanding Officer of No 602 Squadron. It states:

Le Roux is generally credited as the pilot who attacked and badly wounded Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel in his staff car on the road between Livarot and Vimoutiers on 17 July 1944, the day on which he also destroyed two Messerschmitt Bf 109s and damaged two more to bring his victory score to 23.5.

Clearly, there is there no consensus on the matter. With two American, a Canadian and a South African pilot all credited by different sources. Perhaps the article should reflect this.Catsmeat (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The account of his suicide is hard to find in the article.

Doesn't his death warrant a proper heading instead of just being buried in the "The Plot against Hitler" one ?

I came here looking for how he died, ended up searching the page for the word "suicide" after reading the intro box, after failing to find it in the Content index. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.228.251.10 (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Role of Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) in North Africa

Should the "Role of Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) in North Africa" section be deleted? It's interesting as history of the campaign, but hardly biographical of Rommel. Cyclopaedic (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

One might think it would be better served as part of the SIGINT article. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant to Rommel, since it explains an advantage he had in the earlier rounds in N Africa. The section is not too long for inclusion but it needs to be adapted to make its relevance more obvious. At least one biography of Rommel deals with the impact of sigint and points out that the capture of his sigint team had 2 effects - it prompted the Brits to tighten up and he no longer had the help of a specialised team to imterprete what was left. Leave it in but tune it. Folks at 137 (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's of some relevance, but I think it's given disproportionate weight by having its own section. A sentence or two integrated into the main text of the article would be more appropriate. Biographies shouldn't get diverted into general histories of the period. Cyclopaedic (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. For interest the ref for my comments is Appendix 2 of Ronald Lewin's Rommel as Military Commander. It's a 2 page addition, calling on info from The Codebreakers by David Kahn. Lewin refers to 3 sources that Rommel used: despatches from a US military attache in Cairo in the "black code" which the Italians had broken, sigint analysis & broken British codes. In July 1942, the German sigint team was destroyed at Gazala and the US attache was recalled. The British tightened up their radio procedures & discipline and the new German sigint team lacked the skills to get back in. The next set-to was at Alam Halfa, when Rommel seemed to be short of info. Cause & effect? Folks at 137 (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Trying to enforce a distinction between footnotes and citations gets in the way of doing business. Can we just collapse those two into one stream? Rammer (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. There is a distinction. 'Losing' explanatory footnotes (generally of interest to the casual reader) in a large mass of citations (generally not of interest to the casual reader) destroys the readability of the former. The syntax using #Tag:ref in order to accommodate enclosed <ref></ref> citations may appear tricky but there's nothing to stop editors including new explanatory notes as ordinary citations, leaving them to be changed afterwards by editors more familiar with the syntax. In other words the complex syntax helps the reader not the editor....which is as it should be! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Quotations

They all need citations.

The Auchinleck seems inappropriate here. A note to field commanders with the likely intent to encourage them is not the best place to glean someone's real perception about the importance and abilities of the adversary. I propose that one go away. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Source added.--AM ^(talk) 05:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For the Auchinleck, my worry was not only with the citation, but the bias of the source. One has very little incentive to lavish praise on a near legendary opponent prior to battle when talking to one's subordinates. In fact, there would be every temptation to do otherwise, I would think. I'm suggesting it is not a good quote to have among a few that are supposed to be present an honest view of the man. There must be someone with a more neutral standing that has expressed an at least luke warm impression of the man. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is too long

I added the {{Toolong}} template. I think the World War II section needs to be cut down, with detailed descriptions of battles left to their own articles with brief summaries here. Mr. Quickling (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

geography of germany

"in the Kingdom of Württemberg (then part of the German Empire)"

it still is - it's no longer a kingdom - it's the bundesland baden-württemberg today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.202.73 (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

well it's also not an empire :-) Historian932 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Rommel's Death section is poorly written

This section contains numerous redundant statements and should be cleaned up. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that the sound of a volunteer? RP459 (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

outdated external links

• Afrikakorps History

I am not bold. Someone who cares may be interested in removing the five (5) fruitless links to afrikakorps.org. 12.69.99.122 (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Killed on Bormann's orders?

According to Heinz Linge ("With Hitler to the End: The Memoir of Hitler's Valet") Martin Bormann had Rommel killed in the aftermath of the July 20 assassination attempt on Hitler because of a grudge resulting from an incident earlier in the war when Rommel refused to let Bormann accompany Hitler to a certain locale during a visit to the front, and that Hitler expressed an interest in having an autopsy done on Rommel's body to make sure he commmitted suicide and hadn't been murdered. Historian932 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Schwarze Kapelle

I'm not a native speaker of German, but the literal translation of schwarze Kapelle is black chapel, not black orchestra, and the adjective schwarze should not be capitalized unless it is the first word of the sentence; nouns are capitalized and adjectives are not. It also looks odd to me to see it written as two words rather than one. Dick Kimball (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see both translations on the net, but Oxford has "Orchestra" ( http://www.oxfordreference.com/pages/samplep-06.html ), so I'd keep that. But perhaps Schwarze Kapelle should include a discussion of possible translations if there is a reliable source discussing it. Also, I think as an organization name, it would be all caps. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

quotes

"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning."— Erwin Rommel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.184.26 (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Irving, David (1977). The Trail of the Fox—The Search for the True Field Marshal Rommel. Is used continuously as a primary source even though Irving does not back up many of his more extreme diversions from other historians by much fact/sources. His work has to be viewed with great caution and his quotes are often not found anywhere else in the literature. He should edited and perhaps deleted as a source. --Hesweeney (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

British rescue attempt?

My (British) mother insisted that the Btitish attempted to save Rommel's life through either negotiation or abduction. I have no other references, but her accounts of other esoteric WW11 facts proved to be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.8.59 (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Factual errors and poor sources

I have read through this Bio and find myself asking who wrote this?

Errors in fact

("convicted of joining the conspiracy") which expressly implies a court proceeding where there was not. This not only poor research but plainly false and so simply avoidable.

("leaving their exact position unknown to this day") Rommel knew where he was and only the Panzer Corps HQ didn't for brief periods. Which is a long way from the quoted words.

(The British launched a counterattack (the Battle of Arras)) This was in fact a deliberate attack made by two English battlegroups to cut into the German flank (Frankforce and Petreforce) only the first use of 88's in the anti-tank role stopped the English Matilda heavy tanks.

(General Hoth placed his other tank division, 5th Panzer Division, under Rommel's command) only the Panzer Regt. 5 was given to Rommel and he adjusted his command style in light of the larger force and kept back from the front lines.

There many more factual errors so there is little point in going on here. I do not consider any of this nit-picking considering many people may use this as a reference and it is all settled history.

The use of "Trail of the Fox" by David Irving in so many instances as a reference is just disgusting. He is a failed writer whose scholarship is non-existent, whose use of sources is sloppy (that is a kind description) and is a known bigot, Holocaust denier and Jew baiter who Julius Streicher would have taken to his bosom. No real historian, writer, or student of the period accepts Irving as a reliable source. The reliance for much commentary on him should be removed, 20 percent of all footnotes reference his sad and comical book.

This in many way dishonours Rommel, a man of supreme honour and is in need of a complete make over. Sooner rather than later.

CEmersom CEmersom (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have followed up on this on User talk:CEmersom. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Churchill Quotation

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

Relation Heinrich Kirchheim and Rommel

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

File:Rommel im Stabswagen 1941.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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