Talk:Erwin Rommel/Archive 9

Honest historians and unnecessary doubt?

 * If Proske is a honest historian, Proske's assessment about the subject from Schwaebische Zeitung should be considered honest and introduces "necessary doubt".
 * The quote is:

Als Historiker würde er ihn einen Kriegsverbrecher nennen. Da er sich aber nicht sicher ist, ob diese Einstufung auch aus juristischer Sicht zu halten ist, nennt er Erwin Rommel schlicht einen NS-Täter und überlässt die weitere Beurteilung jedem selbst. Dies hat Wolfgang Proske bei einem gut besuchten Vortrag im Evangelischen Gemeindehaus deutlich gemacht.
 * Other editors, please provide your opinion.
 * I notice that the use who undid me, User:Cullen328 is an admin. As such, your behaviours should be more fair-minded.Deamonpen (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I took no action as an administrator, and did not mention, hint at or allude to my status as an administrator. You drawing attention to my status is a red herring, because I acted as an ordinary editor. So, please critique the revert I made instead of a status that I did not assert. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you act like a regular editor and not an admin, I hope that in the future if you suddenly delete sourced information like that (I do not remember that you have been very active on this page or have discussed with me on the status of the "honest historian" Proske, whom has sometimes been mentioned here), please provide your input on the Talk Page first. Thank you.Deamonpen (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Not in source
in you write "According to historian Gershom Gorenberg, responsibility for brutalities largely lay with the Italian authority, while Rommel’s Afrika Korps abided by the laws of war," sourced to  I do not see that in the source. Could you please quote where in the source linked this information is provided? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, and thank you. I inserted the wrong link so the wrong source appears.
 * It is from the Jerusalem Post:

The war in North Africa started as Mussolini’s romantic, but futile, attempt to restore a lost Roman empire. It was a sideshow in the Nazi scheme of things until Rommel arrived in 1941 to save Mussolini. The Italians were far more brutal with civilians, including Libyan Jews, than Rommel’s Afrika Korps, which by all accounts abided by the laws of war. But nobody worried that the Italians who sent Jews to concentration camps in Libya, would invade British-held Egypt, let alone Mandatory Palestine.
 * I will change the source.Deamonpen (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

A reference to the specific paragraphs/edits you are discussing would make it easier for us to dive into the discussion. Its hard to follow... --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Plot against Hitler section
Why would Rommel have allowed himself to be photographed with conspirators when that would be used by the SS as evidence against him? (31.53.205.241 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC))


 * That presumes there is not a valid reason for them to be together. The location is northern France a couple of weeks before the Allies begin the invasion of North West Europe. A meeting to discuss the defences would not be unusual. If the plot succeeds, then there's no one to use it as evidence. If the plot fails then they are all finished anyway. But it matters not why they photographed the meeting if there is a reliable source that says they did. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda icon
I agree that we do not need "the propaganda icon" tag in the first sentence, especially because of the paragraph about this aspect. Many works can discuss this aspect of his, but I have never seen a serious historian who writes "Erwin Rommel was a general and a propaganda icon" in his introduction of the general. Hitler was notable for his genocide. But he is still usually introduced first as "dictator of Germany in World War II". By the way, Rommel's reputation or myth or legend, true or false, is often broader than "propaganda". Many critical authors (whose books' titles are often "the man and the myth", "end of a legend" etc) represent misconceptions (according to them) about him as people deliberately deceiving themselves to serve their psychological needs, or in other cases, misinterpreting historical events due to lack of information. They criticize but they do not simplify such problems.--Deamonpen (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Rommel's status as a propaganda icon is covered in the section Erwin_Rommel. See also, p. 36: "Here, as in other Nazi propaganda media, the new “heroes” of the Wehrmacht played a central role. They were treated like modern pop icons and harnessed into well-organized campaigns. Among the more prominent examples were the “Desert Fox” Erwin Rommel and the fighter pilot Werner Mölders." --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Rommel was a propaganda icon both during and after WWII. If there's another way to write the same thing, go ahead and suggest it. But the reader is well-served by this article stating the fact right up front. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is already a whole paragraph in the lede about the matter - that is upfront enough for the readers, in my opinion. Besides, Müller's sentence is not really an introduction of Rommel in a biography or mini biography about him or any work that focuses on him. You can always find sentences like that about famous leaders - they are always icons of something, whether they want it or not. Secondly, the propaganda treated him like a pop star - but the sentence says nothing about whether they successfully defined him as such.  Hitler was treated like a hero and an icon of German heroism by the propaganda machine during the war. He is now a global iconic genocidal tyrant. There are a lot of works about that aspect of his too, just like there are a lot of artistic works that makes Cleopatra a sex symbol/symbol of female sensuality and then there are a lot of scholarly works that investigate that aspect of hers. It serves no one to state that they are an icon of this and that in the first sentence. Any serious biography of Rommel or Cleopatra still focuses on their career as general or queen first and foremost.
 * But if the majority of you want it to go that route, I will have something else to add later, too, when I have time for this.Deamonpen (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Other wording can be used, for instance we could say he was a "lightning rod" for propagandists both during and after the war. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, here are just some examples, on top of my mind, of the way he is usually introduced today - these are the ones that mention the icon/propaganda/myth aspect - but no historian describes him as "German general/field marshal and propaganda icon")
 * By USHMM:

Erwin Rommel was a German army officer who rose to the rank of Field Marshal. He was renowned as an innovator of armored tactics, particularly as commander of the Afrika Korps in North Africa. There is a “myth” or legend which depicts Rommel as a chivalrous and noble military opponent who was not driven by political ideology. In reality, there is ambiguity about the depth of his commitment to Nazi ideology.
 * By Peter Lieb - here propaganda is mentioned as the secondary factor in forming his reputation:

Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was a German military commander during World War II, chiefly in the North African theater of war. Until today he has arguably remained the best-known and most popular military leader of World War II. His tactical brilliance and chivalrous behavior, as well as German and British propaganda, created a myth around his personality. After the failed plot against Hitler in 1944 he was forced to commit suicide, as he was seen to be closely linked with the conspirators.
 * Bastian Matteo Scianna - this is by the way a critical work, that also details how bad reputation (abandoning the Italians) and good reputation (excellent commander) were created out of complex situations and who swallowed them and who did not etc

Erwin Rommel is by any standard a mythical ﬁgure. He has been the subject of countless studies in English and German. However, the Italian side of the hill” has been largely neglected, despite the fact that thefoundation of the myth around him lies in the North  campaign,where, after all, thousands of soldiers of the Italian army fought alongside the Afrika Korps.
 * Britannica Encyclopaedia online:

Erwin Rommel, in full Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel, byname the Desert Fox, German der Wüstenfuchs, (born November 15, 1891, Heidenheim, Germany—died October 14, 1944, Herrlingen, near Ulm), German field marshal who became the most popular general at home and gained the open respect of his enemies with his spectacular victories as commander of the Afrika Korps in World War II.
 * Rommel: The End of a Legend by Ralf Georg Reuth (critical work):

Rommel is undoubtedly the German military commander of the Second World War best known in the United Kingdom, as most books about the Field Marshal were written by English historians. All these works focused on the North African Campaign of 1941/1942.
 * Do you feel that the tone, even from the critical sources, is a bit different from that of our current lede?Deamonpen (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Holocaust Categories
- The definition for the Holocaust Perpetrators indicates they should be 'notable.' I'm not sure the referenced section establishes Rommel's anti-semitic activity establishes him as "notable" for being a holocaust perpetrator? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Rommel was arguably the foremost Nazi figure in North Africa, and is well-documented to have been involved in persecution of North African Jews. As I understand it, this makes him a notable Holocaust perpetrator. CJ-Moki (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well-documented by whom, please specify. The section that you refer to presents a range of opinions. Terracina is kept because she refers directly to Rommel, but her basic statement, that Rommel was responsible for the deportation is not supported by other sources such as Maurice Roumani. The general opinion I've seen is that Mussolini and the Italians were responsible for those orders. Proske is a questionable author who admits that he does not know what Rommel did were crimes in the legal sense or not. Some others like Der Spiegel point out the possible consequences of his actions, but do not show that he did so in an intentional manner.Deamonpen (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

General Promotions
The article on the Fall of Tobruk lists him - incorrectly as far as I know - as still a Generalleutnant at the time. My recollection is that he had been promoted to full general early in 1942. This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. Don't recall whether he was ever a Colonel-General. He was made a Field Marshal after the Fall of Tobruk, but that's in the article. Paulturtle (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * According to de:Erwin Rommel, he was made Generalmajor in August 1939, Generalleutnant January 1941, General der Panzertruppe July 1941, Generaloberst February 1942 and Generalfeldmarschall June 1942. Favonian (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Remember (Ranks and insignia of the German Army (1935–1945)) that "full general" in the Allied terminology is equivalent to Generaloberst. Favonian (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. My memory was slightly muddled as it's 25 years since I last read a Rommel biog. I knew that the German general ranks were "one lower" than their British or US equivalent. Perhaps somebody could add the details to the article.Paulturtle (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)