Talk:Erwin Rommel/Archive 1

message: Anyone know a website where I can read the Rommel Papers in english? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorranH96 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comment

message: Administrators, please revert last edit. One user has deleted text, images and interwiki links from article. Thuresson 19:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  You don't need to be an admin to revert articles, BTW. Ortonmc 20:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion

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

message: I honestly begin to think you've got an understanding problem... at least with those things you find it convenient not to understand. Just a couple of lines on the stuff you mentioned:
:A) of course the quotes are not there now, genius - when I applied a salomonic solution and deleted both your and my edits, they were gone (much more in terms of justice than what you did, deleting or distorting mine only while developing yours even more). But hey! - see that button above that reads "History"? Try and see if they were there or not at any of my edits. Bingo!
:B) You claim that your facts are verified and sourced. Well, you must have read quite a different version of his diary, for your "quotes" are nowhere to be found there. Don't say otherwise: I've extensively searched after your claims.
:C) the mere fact that you mention that a nurse (!!!) thought he was ohhhh such an unpleasant guy and even consider "that" relevant is just still another confirmation of your POV views.
:D) not to mention your incredible statement regarding your comment on the 12th Division, which you say it serves to "portray in what kind of army Rommel served" (Jesus, without it, I would have never understood that the nazis were good!) is far more than enough to shoot it on sight if it ever reapears on the article on the basis of WP:NPOV.
All this could be easy dismissed as laughable, but there is a basic fact that is extremely serious behind your edits, at this article and everywhere else you post. I've done a small research of your contributions in the last days only. From you Polish nationalist view, you consider everything German-related hateful, and you express this wherever you post. I formally accusse you of spreading anti-German hatred in Wikipedia. No matter if you talk about Erwin Rommel, Konrad Adenauer, Untermensch, Gustav Stresemann or Prussia, you always have something to say about the "evil germans" in a most POV, fact distorting way. This gets even more evident with your frequent edits to the Anti-Polonism article. I've also learned that this is not the first time you engage in edit wars, staining articles with POVs, with no intention of talking or discussing solutions, like you did in Rywin affair.
You're not qualified to ever set afoot on any other Germany-related article at Wikipedia on the grounds of WP:NPOV. No further edits from you at this article will be tolerated unless you provide, upfront, verifiable sources with clear and precise references of each and every of your claims (book name and author, ISBN, edition and page number). Otherwise, not only I will delete them on sight, but also I will not hesitate to take your case before admins. Cadorna 19:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: how is an unidentified, unsourced report of a 3rd person's feelings a historical fact? Project2501a 00:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Molobo's unnaceptable POVs

message: Why do you keep removing the "Poland 1939" subsection under "World War II" ? Is this something shameful to participate in this invasion or what ? WWII did not start in 1940. --Lysy (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rommel didn't really participate in any combat in Poland. GeneralPatton 15:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, during the invasion of Poland he was a mere commander of the Fuhrer-Begleit-Bataillon, or Hitler's bodyguard battalion. It wasn't until the following year that he assumed command over some serious force. Halibutt 02:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poland 1939

message: People: I think the article is fairly all right as it is now. Or is there any ongoing dispute about it ? Otherwise I suggest to quit
the discussion here, as:
#it does not belong here
#it does not seem to lead anywhere
#it's getting personal and unnecessarily heated
Cool down everyone (myself included). --Lysy (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rommel never saw action in Poland, his command was purely ceremonial. The quotes you presented were presented out of context... and I agree with Lysy, the article is pretty OK now, before making any changes, they should first be discussed here in detail, or I will be forced to lock the article if another edit war erupts, I'm actually considering locking it right now to cool the things down. GeneralPatton 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record: Polish forces fought in Africa as well. --Lysy (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its also interesting to note that Rommel's wife was of Polish ancestry. GeneralPatton 19:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No wonder. Polish are the most beautiful girls worldwide ;-) --Lysy (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Since we have WikiQuote, there's no need for them to be on this page, especially in such a size.  I've removed them and copied them here in case any are missing at the WikiQuote site.  
I put them back, they have been peacefully there for months, no one has had a problem with them till now. Not everyone knows about or uses WikiQuotes. So I have restored them. Please let's discuss first before making major changes to long standing sections. It is a good way to avoid edit wars. Thanks--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to get sources for any of these quotes? Leithp 10:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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

text: While I agree we Americans can be pretty amazing at times, I don't recall where that particular quote appeared in the Rommel Papers. We are talking, of course, about Basil Liddell Hart's edited volume right? It does'nt seem like something Rommel would say...at least not publically. His official stance was the usual Prussian contempt for American military capabilities (IE A bunch of poorly led, undisiplined amatures with massive quantities of equipment of inferior quality). Unfortunately, there was some justification for this view early in the war. His experience against the Americans was mainly during this time in Tunesia, where with few exceptions, we did not exactly shine. Also America was not exactly "Staring from scratch". Roosevelt saw the storm clouds gathering and had actively carried out a massive, premobilization effort starting almost as soon as the Panzers rolled over the Polish frontiers. Rommel, if not entirely aware of this, would surely had been aware of Lend-Lease and America's massive material potential. So I take the great Field Marshall's praise with a salt pinch, until I know specifically where he said/wrote that.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as scanning and hosting them goes, I don't think that's really necessary. Just a note saying where the quote is from would do the trick. Leithp 08:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations

message: Re: "He was portrayed by James Mason in the 1951 movie The Desert Fox, and also by Karl Michael Vogler in the 1970 biographical film Patton, starring George C. Scott, and by Hardy Kruger in the 1988 television miniseries War and Remembrance."
"The Desert Fox", like "Patton" was also a biography. Some readers may read this and believe that it is not. Tom 01:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fiction?

message: Does anyone know what the source for this quote is:
:This business with the Jews has got to stop
Without any further context, it is unclear what he meant. The article (in its current form) makes no other references to Rommel's personal beliefs regarding "the Jewish question". 70.20.141.10 00:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This business with..." 

message: Please read this!
I'm just an amateur german student, but i notice quite frequently that the German and the English stories/articles are very different! Both seem to be factual, but they go on two very different trains of thought. Could someone please enlighten me into why this is?
Steve Delrogs
:Greetings and welcome.  You see, the problem is that the two projects are separate, although they are both "wikipedias" not everyone works on both projects.  There is no requirement that the en version look anything like the de version.  There are folks that work on both that try to incorporate the best each one has, i.e. take what is missing in the en version from the de version to fill in blanks and make it better and vice versa, but it is often a slow process.  Folks (like me for instance) have day jobs, nobody is getting paid to do any of this. The suggestion that I would make to you would be to influence the process yourself, if you think that one version or the other is better, then make the changes you think necessary.  Create a user account, and visit pages like Wikipedia:German-English translation requests, Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board, and Portal:Germany to see where you can help.  Again, welcome and enjoy.  --Easter Monkey 02:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings. You should keep the article in German and discard this one. It has been corrupted. Rotten Venetic 19:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Translation 

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

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

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

message: It is a myth that Rommel was a great military commander. He was no more than audacious division commander. The myth was created first  by Nazi propaganda and then eagerly picked up by British to glorify their only independent victory in the war. 
E. W. 6.3. 2006—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.46.50 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 4 July 2006.
Only independent victory in the war? That is very inaccurate. What about Beda Fomm, Abyssinia, Syria, Madagascar and the successful defence of Tobruk in the 1940-1941 period? And what about Alam Halfa in 1942 (before El Alamein 2) and above all the crushing victories over the Japanese in India and then Burma in 1944 and 1945? Darkmind1970 09:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It is a myth that Rommel was a great military commander

message: To Darkmind1970. Your list of British victories is pitiful!! How many Wehrmacht troops were engaged in battles on the Eastern Front? Compare with British engagements.  How well Brits fought in Italy and in the West? Even Churchill was depressed  because British army was good for nothing. So, Brits  need to inflate their victory over Rommel by inflating Rommel.  E. W.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.38.207 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 12 July 2006.
That was just a short comment on the fact that we did have victories. Please look up Beda Fomm, it might surprise you. Tobruk as well. I can mention others - Alam Halfa was a severe check to Rommel. The battle of Medenine was a classic, textbook, example of how to stop panzers - three german panzer divisions plus diversionary forces, all under the command of Rommel, attacked the British at Medenine. They were stopped dead in their tracks, losing 52 tanks and any hope of regaining the initiative in the south.
Your comment on the British Army being good for nothing is utter piffle as well. This really is the wrong place to debate this point. If it had been useless, then we wouldn't have kept the vast bulk of the panzer divisions off the Normandy beaches in 1944. Or driven as fast as Patton up the coast to seize Antwerp. Or given out the worst drubbing the Japanese ever received to their army at Imphal-Kohima, and then totally destroyed their armies in Burma in 1945. Darkmind1970 09:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Confused. There were no British forces in Indochina. That was Vichy French. Are you confusing it with Burma? Certainly Montgomery found problems when he took over (morale, training, air/ army coordination), but I thought at least some of the problems had been the diversion of troops to Greece, and elsewhere. What about Rommel's performance in France in 1940? At Medenine, I thought that Rommel had little to do with the planning of that, so maybe that shouldn't count. There were few western generals who could have coped with the experience, resources and sheer brutality of Soviet commanders, certainly Allied troops were learning as they fought in western Europe. On the other side, the Oder crossing was a shambles and inexperience showed in the Soviet performance around Leningrad. Folks at 137 23:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This is widening far beyond the scope of "Erwin Rommel"!! Pity, because it is getting interesting and not as doctrinaire as I'd expected. I think we converge on some issues. The western allies were not (IMO) as committed or skilled soldiers as the Germans they faced. Several British and American historians have made this point, and explained it by quoting cultural and political factors. I disagree that the outlook of all British generals was bad; compare the several who commanded the 7th Armoured Division (although Hobart's troubles support your main point) - some were v effective. I think brutality or disregard of the lives of their own troops does apply to Soviet commanders. Partly through their culture and partly through the consequences if they failed. Evidence? Repeated massed infantry attacks in the face of overwhelming fire. Use of punishment battalions as cannon & mine fodder ("The best way to clear a minefield is to march troops over it"). The assault on Berlin. This last is instructive - Stalin drove his commanders to accept heavy casualties when the victory was in sight, whereas western troops were allowed to be cautious (perhaps cowardly) at the same time - Eisenhower was not happy, but he would not have had his subordinates shot. Soviet tank production (numbers and quality) and American vehicles, radios, rations gave the Soviets a definite advantage. BTW, check Indochina - the usual accepted definition in the English language restricts it to the former French colonies (excluding Burma); Burma would normally be seen as either the Indian Empire or, as Myanmar, as part of South-East Asia. It's a matter of usage. If we keep this debate going here we will get shot!!! Folks at 137 21:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It is a myth that Rommel was a great military commander.2

message: This is how you know Field Marshal Rommel was the greatest Military Leader in the history of War. 
1) His decisive and lightning victories in Africa in 1941-1942 earned him his rank as Field Marshal at age 50, becoming the youngest field marshal in German Military History. 
2) Rommel's victories were even more impressive as for most battles were fought without air support and little supplies such as ammunition and rations.
3) Contrary to belief, Rommel was not a Nazi and despised Hitler and all he stood for. This added to his fame in Germany and Allied Nations.
4) Rommel built relationships with his troops in both Africa and France and often cut water and food rations in order to supply enemy POWs.
5) Rommel properly applies and uses the Blitzkrieg strategy to its full potential.
6) Rommel was not involved with any War Crimes.
7) I read his books.
User:parasite123 20:20, 24 July 2006
Many of these points are incorrect. Rommel's victories in North Africa were not decisive. Although he was able to defeat 8th Army twice and push it back to the Alamein position, he was never able to finish the job and was stopped dead at Firat Alamein by Auchinleck. He did have air cover in North Africa - quite a bit of it. Unfortunately for him the Luftwaffe in North Africa were badly led and concentrated on the wrong things. By the time of Alamein it had lost air superiority to the Desert Air Force, but still existed.
Rommel's trust in Hitler was only shaken by the 'no-retreat' order that he received during Second Alamein. Let's not forget that he was the commander of Hitler's bodyguard for some time.
However, I do agree that he was not responsible for any war crimes.
: We're not here to deduce whether or not Rommel was a great military leader or not; such attempts are explicitly prohibited by WP:NOR. As to whether he is considered such, there should be little doubt. 82.181.61.48 15:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erwin Rommel

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

message: I know little about Rommel but I think if you have a career which started all the way from the first world war,chances are you might want to befriend the new CEO of the company. (In this case Hitler) Just like an executive working up the ladder, only the CEO has the power to grant you extra pen and paper supplies to your workers because the people believed in their elected CEO and the organisation. I once saw a german made documentary whereby Hitler could not supply enough tanks to Rommel since Hitler had to divert his forces to the eastern front. So what Rommel did was to make his tanks go a few more rounds around the block during a parade to show the general public that the Afrika korps are serious about the campaign. Isn't that brilliant enough?
Although killing a soldier may seem brutal to many of us, I believe it still is within the geneva convention, I believe execution of a civilian by a soldier is more brutal and unless someone can prove that Rommel did sign a paper to murder innocent civilians, I believe Rommel deserves the museum in Herlinggen. 
Jungle Fox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.16 (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

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

message: no mention or even links to manfred rommel, a powerfully popular politician son of Erwin, no talk of his wife, no talk of his other child. id do it myself if i was'nt wikipedia n00bish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAMILY HELLO 

message: This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;
::(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).
LuciferMorgan 20:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for GA Delisting 

message: "Rommel disagreed, saying the enemy wanted the Führer to strengthen the defences in the wrong place and that they would attack Normandy instead. He was right."
Can anyone provide a reference to state the Rommel believed that tha Western Allies would land in Normandy rather than Calais?
Thanks,Steph 17 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.129.130.166 (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While this is true afaik I have added some detail to this section, explaining that Rommel, as well as Hitler, percieved Normandy to be a very likely landing place until the Fortitude Operation got going in April, and that Hitler seemed to believe Normandy the likeliest landing place even as late as early May (tough Rommel switched his focus to the Pas-De-Calais region in mid April). However, they never excluded Normandy as a landing place - Rommel himself repeatedely said that Normandy or even Brittany would be suitable for a Allied landing.Abel29a 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rommel and Normandy 

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