Talk:Erwin Rommel/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Infobox image

I found the image in this version of the page by Emiya1980 to be an improvement. Rommel looks less like a propaganda hero, and more like a real person. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, K.e.coffman, for opening this discussion. While I did not originally set this forth as a reason for changing Erwin Rommel's infobox picture, I think that K.e.coffman raises a good point about the currently accepted image. Rather than providing a realistic likeness of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel the man , it seems more like an archetypical representation of the Nazis' ideal "Aryan" soldier (i.e.: dignified, emotionless, intimidating, etc.). Conversely, the previously uploaded seems to offer a more "warts-and-all" look which separate him from the rest of the Wehrmacht and gives him his own unique identity. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)(Emiya1980)

Well, if it is about propaganda... Actually the propaganda crew had to make him learn to act friendlier. Here was the younger Rommel:

Baby Rommel - Not intimidating yet, but somehow already a bit sorrowful and stern.

Teenager, with his three siblings. All look quite cocky, but him in particular.

With wife

The young officer

Playing with a fox cub. Excavated by Irving. Quite prophetic, right?

And for perhaps the least propagandic, the death mask.

Footage of him speaking. Really awkward.

Certainly there are photos in which he appears less intimidating though, if rarer. Even smiling, like these:

With son.

In an uniform

Just look for other guys. It was just people born in Imperial Germany (Especially a guy described by almost everyone who knew him as introverted and excessively formal. He also developed an occasional paranoid streak after a comedic WW1 incident, and Walburga's suicide made him uncomfortable with female strangers or even hearing adultery jokes). People of Erich Hartmann's generation tended to appear more sociable. Rommel's notable trait, that lots of contemporaries described, do not show itself in photos, but sometimes can be seen in video reels, that is, when he was interested in something, his whole demeanor changed and he looked like a boy.

Deamonpen (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Remember that the purpose of the infobox is a summary of the article, not promote some new information. Showing him smiling or playing with kids and animals, or even merely out of uniform, doesn't mesh well with the majority of the article, even if it supposedly better reflects the "true"^{[citation needed]} Rommel. The article is militaristic, tinged with respect, mixed with some dark questions; the infobox picture is required to fit with that as much as possible.

Of the pics suggested here, the one from Emiya1980 seems to fit best to me. He's in uniform. looks fairly serious, and maybe bit detached or distant. It's a bit better than the current one because he's without his hat, so you can see more of him clearly.

Of course, the other pics might be just fine for other places in the article where they mesh with what the specific sub-sections is saying.

--A D Monroe III (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not suggest wiki to use those images. I just say, if it's about the "normal Rommel" like what K.e.coffman and Emiya1980 want, he does look intimidating, kinda almost always. Because, except some aspects, propaganda images magnified Rommel's natural traits.

Like the way, introverted like he was, he liked talking with working class people even as a kid, so Goebbels saw that this would help build his People's General image easily. They tried to train him on engaging with the elites too (unsuccessful because he was too shy, somewhat like the young Hitler), but this was less important for propaganda (also, a distant idol was less dangerous for the ruler). Or that women liked him (they did target women, because who else encouraged the men on the Eastern front?) - perhaps not for physical attributes, because it was not intimidating photos but reels in which he acted like a 12yo that worked miracles, to the point Rommel himself began to notice that a lot of fan mails were coming from teen girls. Even the shy side seemed to help in some real life situations. Point is, his character actually had that side (although people who knew him on a daily basis would feel overwhelmed with the mix of lethargy and exuberance, or the uncomradely, cold, calculating patriarch and the uncontrollable, vulnerable, unbearably naive child, even though they seemed to think that he "had a heart somewhere"(!)), and propaganda guys knew how to make it work down to the details - Rommel's systems were always heavy on the big and the small ends, if fragile at the middle.

As for possible infobox photos without caps and shadows, maybe the following could also work: 1 2 3, original color, warts and all Deamonpen (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think it's necessary to upload a photo which perfectly encapsulates every aspect of Rommel's personality so much as one that can't easily mistaken for any other officer the Wehrmacht. As pointed out by A D Monroe III, the wikipedia article primarily serves to explore Erwin Rommel's life as a military officer so uploading a photo emphasizing that side of him is inevitable. I just think the infobox photo should highlight at least SOME characteristics that are not shared by every other German general during World War II. In that context, I think the picture posted at http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/erwin_rommel_5866.jpg would probably work best (if a symmetrical square-shaped version can be found ). Emiya1980 (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Emiya1980

We are limited to free images from Commons. Non-free images (as those linked above) would not meet the fair use requirements when free and appropriately licensed images are available. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

They can be uploaded as Fair Use cases, I think.

But the color one is already on Wiki Commons so I think we would have a problem. @Emiya1980: I don't think you meant it as we have to find out the photo that represent all aspects of the person. I just think in this case we should not accidentally insert a message that Rommel must have been something completely different from the propaganda image either. He might have been, who knows? But if we go by Goebbels' words, "A military authority such as Rommel cannot be created at will and again disposed of at will", then it sounds like some parts of the image were created by Goebbels, some by Rommel (and deliberately), but for the most part it was "the right man at the right place at the right time", you know, circumstance. Like Rommel the Resistance Fighter - true or not, it began, for God's sake, with Lucie Rommel (even Hitler would not have been obeyed that easily) ordering her husband to fire his chief of staff Alfred Gause, because Gause's wife insisted she had been given the more honourable place than Lucie at a wedding. And then he chose Speidel. Deamonpen (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

How about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1977-018-13A,_Erwin_Rommel.jpg with a less pronounced shadow. I should be able to edit it and reupload it on wikimedia commons. Thoughts? Emiya1980 (talk) 07:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Emiya1980

Works for me. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes I think it should be that way.

Deamonpen (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I boldly put in the "better" pic (one without cap) while we wait for what we've agreed on is the best pic. Just replace when it's ready. Thanks all. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A D Monroe III Sorry for the delay. How does this work? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Erwin_Rommel#/media/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1977-018-13A,_Erwin_Rommel(brighter).jpg --Emiya1980 20:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Emiya1980

This is certainly worth waiting for. Looks great -- good to go. Thanks! --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I see the photo has been changed already but just wanted to register that I think the previous one was better. For better or worse, Rommel is famous today because he was in the German military. He is very famous for his uniform and the way it made him look - it's a kind of running joke in people debating who was the greater general - Patton or Rommel - that people will say, well Rommel had a nicer hat! The desire to find a photo of him not in his uniform is a strange one really. Look at Michael Jackon's wiki page. Should that photo be replaced with one of him sitting in an office wearing a t-shirt? Madonna's photo has her in make-up, on stage and holding a microphone. Because that is how most people think of her. Well most people think of Rommel wearing that hat.

Ultimately I suppose it's not that important. But if you showed the new photo of Rommel to a cross section of society most wouldn't recognise him. Show them the photo of him wearing his iconic hat and quite a few more would remember who he is or at least roughly who he is. On that ground alone I think the change is for the worse. If you search google images for "Erwin Rommel"then of the top 43 results 35 are photos of him wearing that hat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.155.195 (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Entertainers strive to have their own distinctive look that they will be known for; that's hard to do if you're assigned an official uniform (based on the root meaning of the word "uniform"). I haven't heard that Rommel is known for his distinctive hat. So, to help distinguish his pic from other German generals, we have to show more of his face instead of his uniform. If only Rommel had a Hollywood agent... --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit break

Not just entertainers, military men like Rommel also devote time to their image. Rommel was very careful to be photographed in ways to show that he was a soldier, not an aristocratic officer. Probably the most famous photo of Rommel is the one of him pushing the stuck car - it's included in the article - to show he was different from other officers. He, of course, made sure to wear his hat. Among military history buffs, yes, Rommel is often spoken about with regards to the immaculate way he was always turned out, his clever use of propaganda and well shot photos and in the vast majority he would be wearing the same hat.

It's all rather by the by, reading the rest of the comments above I see that this has all become rather politicised with someone even suggesting the original, more recognisable photo, was some kind of "aryan" ideal! The determination to find a less "intimidating" and "dignified" (their words, not mine) photograph has resulted in one that I think will be recognised by fewer people.

I understand what you mean about entertainers, however the articles for General Patton, Horatio Nelson, Manfred von Richthofen, Mussolini, the Duke of Wellington, Churchill and Che Guevara all have main images that are clearly, shall we say, flattering, powerful, iconic, and I think it's a better policy to have such men represented with their "best known image" rather than striving for a "neutral" image. The only change that might have improved it, in my view, would have been one of him wearing those desert goggles over his hat. The google image search results would seem to back me up on this. Another way to see is by searching amazon books for Rommel books, of those that have a representation of him on the front cover the vast majority have him in full uniform. Had Rommel gone on to be more famous in another walk of life, such as Eisenhower did, then the new photo would have been better. But he didn't. Rommel is famous today almost entirely due to his exploits as the Desert Fox. However I see nobody else is bothered or has raised objections and in this type of thing there isn't a true "right" and "wrong". I won't pick a fight when clearly among those bothered enough to write all are for the change, I simply wanted to have it on the record that I think it has resulted in a less recognisable image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.254.84 (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all these points. The only additional point present here would be that Rommel isn't known for making himself distinct from his fellow generals. So we're looking for a pic that highlights differences from from Guderian, Manstein, Rundstedt, etc.

But putting all these together, a "Desert Fox" image may work. If people think of "WWII German general in the desert", that's pretty much always going to be Rommel. (Yeah, Rommel did a bunch of other things, but capturing the "most" image is better that trying to capture the "all" image since that's bound to fail.)

So, does anyone have a "Desert Fox" image that works with all the above? --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the current image (no headgear). The big part of the Rommel life story is the Rommel myth; the bio article should portray Rommel as a person, rather than as a propaganda icon. If there's a suitable "Desert Fox" image, it can go into the "myth" article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree the current pic fulfills features a "Desert Fox" pic would not. Let's go with the current one and move on. Thanks all! --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I would have thought either of the two images [1] or [2] would fit best. I've changed the Infobox image to the latter one. It is certainly how people remember Rommel.--Henry P. Smith (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Blocked as a sock of English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Henry P. Smith:. Sigh. Reverted. See WP:CONSENSUS. Nothing good comes from editing contrary to the agreement of the majority of editors. If you're unhappy with the decision, discuss before editing, addressing the ideas in this discussion favoring the agreed image. --A D Monroe III (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the wrong with using the well known image of Rommel in the infobox?--Henry P. Smith (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Blocked as a sock of English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Primarily that a WP:Consensus of editors prefers this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that is fine. So what is the objection of using the image I attempted to add?--Henry P. Smith (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Blocked as a sock of English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The WP:Consensus of editors prefers this onw. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The image I tried to add is used as standard on any Rommel article in other languages, it seems odd that it is totally omitted from the article altogether. That icon image is how people remember Rommel, it has nothing to do with the Rommel myth.--Henry P. Smith (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Blocked as a sock of English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed at length above, and the consensus of editors is in favour of the other picture. Thank you. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

(ec) "That icon image is how people remember Rommel, it has nothing to do with the Rommel myth." Sorry, but that's a contradictory statement. If the image is "iconic", then it is, pretty much by definition, part of the "Rommel myth". But put that aside -- how is it you know for a fact that "that ... image is how people remember Rommel"? Do you have evidence to support that statement? It seems to me that it would be quite hard to prove that, and without proof it's simply a statement of belief on your part. My observation is that the editors here chose a careful course between the hagiographic and a representation that showed what Rommel looked like, without going to one that denigrated him as a person.

As for the image you prefer - have you looked for another place in the article where it might fit in well? When I replaced the airbrushed war-hero picture of Hermann Göring in that article's infobox, I found another place for it down in the article, where it fit in chronologically and did not overwhelm anything, as it did when it was at the top. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The infobox image is not too important to me, although I still prefer the (naturally colored, warts and all) photo. However I repeat that I see nothing in the supposedly "hagiographic" image that is significantly different from the photos of Rommel that were taken before he had anything to do with propaganda (as well as multiple descriptions of him by the people who have met him, or videos in which you can see his face clearly), as I have demonstrated above.

This, or this, I would call a hagiographic image. Watching Rommel in video reels is more interesting. He did have a demeanor that made himself not overshadowed by the taller guys around, while not hiding his height - perhaps that is why few people, even his enemies, mocked him for height.

On a side note, I've tried to search for what Rommel photos they use on "serious" German sites. And wow, the GFM Rommel Barracks hires the worst coloring artist ever. They could've put there a photo of the portrait that they supposedly (well, according to critics) worship (!) together with the Hermann statue and it would've looked better. The Dornstardt barracks uses this. The LeMo museum uses this. Deamonpen (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"Side note", not "site note". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, typo. Deamonpen (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

NP, it happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, some images of (Oberstleutnant - Oberst) Rommel 1 2

As for the iconic Rommel image, I think the infobox image usually focuses on just the face. The iconic Rommel portrait must be a full portrait, and certainly, like the Mythos, it is designed by a combination of circumstance with acts of humans. The Leica camera was a gift from Goebbels (not for decoration certainly; Rommel took thousands of photos with it); The goggles, perhaps the most iconic of all (which then quickly became fashion in the Wehrmacht), were from British General Michael Gambier-Parry (whom Rommel helped to retrieve a stolen hat from a German soldier); The scarf - a gift from his daughter; The trench coat - I don't know; The uniform - apparently, chosen by Hitler himself; Command car - Booty, from the British.Deamonpen (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Would you please stop screwing around with the indents? Add one additional colon (one tab) for each response, that's the usual way we do things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Not quite Beyond My Ken, the Rommel myth refers to the myths including "apolitical, brilliant commander, and a victim of the Third Reich due to his participation in the 20 July plot against Adolf Hitler" (copied from the Rommel myth article). I never used the word "fact". I simply said that most people remember Rommel as either [3] or [4]. The majority of images of Rommel depict him with the cap. Okay, if it has been decided by a general consensus not to have the image I attempted to add as the infobox image, would there be any objections to have it elsewhere in the article?--Henry P. Smith (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Blocked as a sock of English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course that image is connected with the Rommel myth. It practically screams' "I am the indomitable warrior, honorable and true." It is, like the Göring image I referred to above, a piece of visual propaganda. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I would argue and say that's only your interpretation. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any problem with it being included in the article so everyone is happy.--Henry P. Smith (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Blocked as a sock of English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Rommel and Blitzkrieg in WW1

Blitzkrieg, as ambiguous as it was and is, is certainly not the invention of one person, and even in WW2, was never an "official doctrine". It was more of a trend, a fashion promoted by some officers (Rommel included). If we change it to "infiltration tactics", then yes Rommel was one of the people who pioneered it in the context of the contemporary German military forces (infiltration tactics can be considered as old as war itself though), and not even the first noted pioneer of German infiltration tactics in general (by the way, it was a notable tradition of the Prussian military, likely beginning with the Great Elector who gave his battle commanders more freedom in decision making; this tradition was only weakened when the shadow of modern weapons loomed, hence the cultural and political dilemma of Prussian knight vs modern proletariat fighter aka Paul Lettow Vorbeck vs Carl Peters later). However, here, Remy and Grossman are talking about one particular version: the Rommel version that was used at Caporetto (according to them; People like Storbeck too say that the Rommel model of war is adopted by NATO and the Warsaw Pact and the Israeli, but obviously talking about Rommel in general not the WWI Rommel, and Scheck, while talking about Rommel's WWI book influencing modern armies, does not mention Caporetto specifically), not Blitzkrieg or infiltration tactics in general, or the Prusssian one or the Manstein one. In the case of Grossman it is notable in another way: the Caporetto Blitzkrieg is (modern infantry's) Blitzkrieg without tanks, and the author is talking about its application in the infantry world (thus he chooses this incident instead of the more famous examples of Blitzkrieg Rommel himself displayed in Africa in WW2).

From the way Rommel operated (adapt in the moment, and combine in the long term) I doubt he even realized that he opposed, used or developed doctrines or anything. He did care about certain images and values, and thus certain aspects of maneuver warfare as a medium to both promoting Seydlitz and Ziethen, and promoting bare footed soldiers, but he obviously did not care about maintaining a kind of trademark (he was mentally flexible and would jump for a piecemeal concept the moment this proved practical, regardless of whether this agreed with certain doctrines or not, like what Lieb says). Here according to Remy, Rommel saw that the Italians were clueless about the German movement but his unit was too small so a frontal attack would have been suicide, thus he developed this daring idea that allowed him (with 8 mountain troops) to overwhelm them etc and that was it.

So yes I'm open to new ways of wording it, and did not mean to make it look like Rommel invented infiltration tactics or something. It is just about one incident of modern maneuver warfare that modern commanders somehow seemed to care a great deal about. Do people have any idea on how to portray this better?

Deamonpen (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

July Bomb plot

The lede should mention it is unconfirmed whether Rommel had any actual involvement. (2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:A438:56CB:86ED:2693 (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC))

The lede currently states "Rommel was implicated", which was true; the implication alone ended his life. Whether he was falsely implicated or not isn't important now. Since the details of how he might have been actually involved are fragmentary and debated, and can never be proven either way at this point, it's difficult for the lede to go into this accurately and fairly without using more verbiage than the lede can duly sustain. The complete story is fully covered in the Plot against Hitler section. Any suggestion of how this might be summarized very briefly without disrupting the lede with such less important facts (or lack of facts) can be proposed here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

With no other suggestions, I have linked the word "implicated" in the lede to the Plot against Hitler section of the article. I think that's the best we can do given the constraints. --A D Monroe III (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

---

In this section, it is stated: "This conversation happened about a month before Rommel had to commit suicide." I would like to omit the words "had to". Had to means "forced to" and according to other information in the article, Rommel was given choices when he was implicated in the bomb plot. Admittedly, the other choices he was offered were not good ones (I think most would agree; but then, none of his choices could be considered good), but that's not for us to decide. He was not forced to commit suicide; he chose to commit suicide.

I will delete the words "had to" tomorrow unless someone objects. Starsmark (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I object. The "choice" he was given was clearly coercive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. He was coerced. He was given "either or" choices. Either he commits suicide or he goes to trial. If he goes to trial, he will surely be convicted and die anyway; his family may be indicted with him, be disgraced, or be harmed in any number of ways. If I had been in his shoes, I would have chosen suicide as he did. By choosing suicide, he was given a state funeral, his family was not harmed, and he remained a hero in the eyes of his nation. Nonetheless, I'm sure there may have been people who would have chosen differently, whatever their reasons. Don't you think that's true? Starsmark (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The "choice" was the equivalent of "Sign this stock over to me or I'll publish these pictures of you committing adultery". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I still think the words "had to" should be removed, perhaps to "This conversation happened about a month before Rommel was coerced into committing suicide." In your example of the stock versus adultery, the person still had a choice. Perhaps he/she valued the stock more than the marriage. However, I assume you wrote the article (which I think is excellent, by the way) and since you still object after I've explained my reasoning, I will not change anything. Cheers! Starsmark (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your definition of what constitutes a "choice" is a decidedly odd one, and consensus does not appear to agree with it, but I have no objection to the re-writing you suggest, because a coerced "choice" is not a true choice at all. I'll be BOLD and make the change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. You're very gracious. For reasons not relevant to the article, I've been ruminating on exactly what "choice" means for several weeks and how many choices we all make every day, often not even consciously aware that they are in fact choices. I can't tell you how many times I've said, "I had no choice," when, upon deeper inspection, I realized that it was a choice. The choices presented may have been unpleasant or even bad, but in the end, they were still choices. ;-) Starsmark (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm content with the current wording, but have been similarly tweaked about the meaning of "choice." On COULD say that "had to" doesn't necessarily mean "had no choice," but "had to, or else" consequences he could not endure would ensue. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Another option would be simply to say "The conversation took place about a month before Rommel's death" and leave the subtleties around the manner of death to the more detailed section elsewhere in the article. On a separate note, it might be good to make clearer which conversation is referenced: Eberbach and his son's or Eberbach and Rommel's. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The edits I just rolledback...

...were by banned editor HarveyCarter, whose edits should be deleted on sight, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice who created it. And sorry for not noticing your new Talk section at first. But does Wikipedia have a policy regarding deleting all the edits that the banned people make (regardless of the nature of the edits themselves)? If so, I don't know.

I think that by Beyond My Ken's reasoning, a lot of images would be considered unnecessary except the profile one. The image does show the barracks' soldiers together with von der Leyen. Btw, there are a lot of German articles that mention vdL and Rommel together recently. She and he, in different ways, are points of focus during the current German reformation of military culture. She is the one who presides over the affair, and he was/is the most prominent personality among "Bundeswehr's idols" - the one who the critics want to erase the most and the one who the "conservatives" want to protect the most. See this article from the critics' side, for example.

There are lots of views regarding the way people interpret vdL's actions towards Rommel. Some see an obstinate defender, some see a defeated reformer etc She seems to be a hesitant defender to me, looking at the way she avoided the question here, when the reporter asked her what she thought of him personally. She has received lots of insults over this whole thing. Earlier she had to go to another barracks (not one that bears his name) to explain to angry soldiers why his painting was removed (she replied that it was removed in 2015 due to its ahistorical settings, and not related to current affairs)

So I do think a photo that shows her attitude when she stands at "his" barracks is interesting enough. It was also the year she started the reformation of the Bundeswehr's image (beginning with softer moves like investing into daycare facilities etc) and the Greens made an organized call for the renaming of barracks.

What do you other editors think? Deamonpen (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that the edits of banned editors can be removed on sight, regardless of the nature of the edits. An editor who reverts those removals -- because they think they are worthwhile -- takes on the full responsibility for them. They cannot, at some future time, say "Oh, I was just giving this poor banned editor the benefit of the doubt", they, and only they, are from that time forward responsible for the content they restore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, the edits I was referring to have nothing to do with the image in question, the edits were this and this.

On the question of the image, I remain adamant that as an image it provides absolutely nothing of value to the article. It's just a person, with some people behind her. There's no location present in the image, and no information about what's going on. It is purely decorative, and we don't do decorative images.

I have no objection to the information in the caption being in the article, by all means go ahead and do so, but the image is worthless, it conveys no information and is not appropriate for this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, whatever, I am the supporter of the image then. My opinion is that most of the images here can be described as just images of people, and thus purely decorative if we continue this line of thinking. I want to hear from others, thank you.Deamonpen (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't normally edit in WW2, but I have some pages on my watchlist for various reasons. Having looked at this as an editor who is an outsider in most respects, I can't see any justification at all for that image and caption. It has absolutely nothing to do with the prose of the article. I endorse Beyond My Ken's original removal, and I would point to WP:ONUS re: no consensus to remove. Consensus is needed to restore challenged content, not vice versa. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Wikipedia's statements here mean that: if the content has existed prior to the discussion and someone is trying to remove it (in this case, Beyond My Ken), lack of consensus means the content is kept. Consensus is needed when the content one tries to add is challenged. But I do accept that removal is now supported by you. I hope other people will add their comments though, because by this line of thinking, many images here have no meaning behind them.--Deamonpen (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You understand wrong. The content is disputed, so you need a consensus to restore it, and you don't have one. Please don't restore it to the article again without one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

An image of a politician decades removed from Rommel in no way helps our readers further understand the subject of this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I still do not understand how I have misunderstood the Wiki's guidelines on content removal. Can you two show me the guidelines on "restoring challenged contents" (that was added the first time by another person), that justify your claims on the need of consensus here? Also, I agree that von der Leyen has little to do with Rommel the human, but she has many things to do with his posthumous honours. And as far as I can see, many editors here are putting a lot of emphasis on understanding the posthumous reputation of Rommel, aka Mythos Rommel that many historians describe as "having a life of its own" (which claims a large part of this article, as well as an article of its own), as well as the way politicians are using it to attain their goals.Deamonpen (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Saying that the Bundeswehr is not going to remove him from their list of role models is not a posthumous honour, and even if it was, a picture of the politician who made the announcement does not aid the reader in understanding that decision.

The number and verse of the policy that BMK was referring to is WP:ONUS, which states in part, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Rommel being a role model (for the Bundeswehr, and officially so) is enough of a honour, and other (posthumous) honours articles and sections frequently include debates and contents on honours being added, kept or removed. If we use this "does not aid the reader in understanding" line of thinking, many other images here or in the Rommel Myth page do not help anyone to understand anything more about the subject. I think it would be best if the same standard is always applied, no matter how hard this seems.

Imho, if combined with statements written in the Consensus page, that WP:ONUS statement, by mentioning "those seeking to include disputed content", seems to refer to the act of "adding new content of one's own", rather than restoring challenged content after a lack of consensus. I have just tried to ask information from the Consensus page editors and admins. I hope there will be a clearer explanation - if your and Beyond My End's interpretation is true, the wording of that page should be changed, to avoid misunderstanding in the future.--Deamonpen (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me be clearer: the image you want included has zero relationship to this topic, which is why I object to it (and I suspect why BMK does as well.)

Also, no, not having your name removed from things is not an honour. He was honoured by having the names placed, yes, but the decision to not de-Rommelize the Bundeswehr is not an honour in the normal English usage of that word. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I have been clear enough myself. What I mean is that, from what I have seen, honours pages and sections do not just include information on the addition of honours, but developments (debate, removal, keeping...) around them as well. I agree the keeping part is not important if no particular event happens (example: "Ho Chi Minh was honoured as the founder in Vietnam in 1950. In 2010, this honour is still kept" makes no sense), but if a lot of debates happen, that should be mentioned (example: "Ho Chi Minh was honoured by the communists as the founder in Vietnam in 1950. In 2010, although there are major ideological changes, this honour is kept"). In this case, in 2017-2018, honour to the Wehrmacht as an institution is removed (and a major ideological reform of the Bundeswehr is being carried out), but honour to Rommel (and some other soldiers) is not - and the keeping decision is a very controversial one (see the Controversies over model role section in the Myth page). Not to mention, there have been instances of removal, notably during 1990s when the Bundeswehr did not mention or honour Rommel's connection to the Resistance anymore. Only beginning with Maurice Remy in 2002 and recent evidents, these resistance talks have been revived (and the Bundeswere requirements for the continuing of honours in the case of Wehrmacht soldiers are either if they were part of the Resistance, or if they helped to create the Bundeswehr. Other than that, only democratic soldiers are hailed as role models, thus Prussian generals are being removed too).

Also, I think Beyond My Ken only calls for the removal of the image, and not the content I added in the caption (Beyond My Ken wants to move it to the article.Deamonpen (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm reasonably certain, from what I'm reading here, that we could get a consensus here against including the image. Unfortunately, I don't find the string Leyen on the page, so I can't see for myself. Could someone point me to a revision that has it? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Jwy, see here. An image of her smiling in front of a nondescript background with two people who appear to be soldiers. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Certainly I accept the consensus even if I disagree with it, and if people choose to end it, I will do so too. But if TonyBallioni wants to talk it out, I am ready to answer his questions. Btw, I was saying that by ToniBallioni's and Beyond My Ken's reasoning, there are many images that should be treated in the same manner. For example apparently the image of Liddel Hart's book (which Beyond My Ken supports) in the Myth page is deemed to have deeper meaning behind it, as shown in the caption - but it is just something a minority among historians see (that the book is the source of the myth, while the majority have different interpretations). At least in this case, the caption (mine) just states some facts that nobody bothers to argue against, not an attempt to bring out some deeper meaning based on the interpretation of one or two authors.

Other than that, I was asking for clarification on some related rules, mainly for reference in the future. Because if TonyBallioni's and Beyond My Ken's interpretation of such rules are true, I see contradictions/wording problem here.--Deamonpen (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at this from a common sense point of view. If shown the picture of the Liddel-Hart book without any context, anyone can see that it's a picture of the cover of a book called The Rommel Papers. That, in and of itself, gives the image an immediate connection to the article Rommel myth, even if the viewer has no ideal who Rommel is, and that connection is deepened by the caption, which explains Liddel-Hart's part not in starting the Rommel myth, but in spreading it within the English-speaking community.

Now, on the other hand, let's look at the disputed picture for this article. It shows a smiling woman with two soldiers behind her against a background of greenery of some sort. What is the viewer to make of this? Well, if they know who the woman is, that certainly helps, but the number of English-speaking readers who know who the German Defense Minister is by sight must be pretty small - I'm hardly a stupid or uninformed person, and I have no idea who that woman is. Otherwise the picture says nothing concrete whatsoever about this woman and the two soldiers. In fact, it conveys absolutely nothing, all the information is in the caption to the picture, and that information is not in the article itself -- the opposite of what is generally the case, because images are supposed to illustrate the article, not decorate it. That information could be added to the article, but then the need for the image is entirely eliminated, as the image tells us nothing more than the information does -- in fact it tells us less -- so its purpose is merely to decorate the page with a picture of a smiling woman.

Now, if the picture was of Leyen making a speech at the barracks, the argument for keeping it would be stronger. If the picture even showed the barracks and Leyen in it, the argument would be stronger, but it has neither of these things. In the end it's a woman that most people don't know, smiling, with two soldiers behind her. It's simply not an appropriate picture for this article, as it is information-less and does not add anything substantive to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Further, the idea that if we don't allow this specific image into this specific article, there's going to have to be a massive re-consideration of all images in all articles is ridiculous on its face. We operate by consensus, and if the consensus is that in this specific instance a specific image should not be used in a specific article says nothing whatsoever about Wikipedia's image policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for again removing the image, which is not appropriate to use here. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there are other images of von der Leyen, standing at apparently the same place, speaking about the matter directly (in theory, these can be uploaded and used like this one), but I think this one is more interesting because it was the year she started the process of changing the Bundeswehr's ideology. And because this one is the one used in German and other wikis already (I don't think Wikipedia encourages the uploading and use of similar non free images).

Regarding the book image, I don't think this caption puts the emphasis on "spreading": "It was one of the foundational texts that built and sustained the Rommel legend as one of the components of the overarching myth of the clean Wehrmacht." ("myth of the clean Wehrmacht" is translation of Mythos der sauberen Wehrmacht, which has been until recently more of a German notion, thus would be more easy to find in German books about German propaganda directed first of all at the German people. Try a google search for "sauberen Wehrmacht" and "clean Wehrmacht" and you will see)? And first, there are lots of evidences that the so called myth had already spread long before Liddel Hart (Goebbels and Hitler recognized it; and the British had to put their soldiers under hate training in 1942 to counter it) Even in spreading the myth (in the English speaking world), many other authors would put the emphasis on Desmond Young, a more ardent (and seemingly more honest) admirer, or even the movies (not just the Mason version, the Stroheim version too - though in a different way. Rommel was a villain there, but a central figure, somewhat fetishized. Some authors like Batistelli puts the emphasis on the latter movie in the rise of the myth. I will rewrite the media/entertainment/movies section when I have more time).

Your complaint about the caption on Rommel myth is legitimate, so I have adjusted it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

See the cover images of some works that focus on the Myth/Legend/Mythos. None shows a particular author (even Goebbels), only Rommel:

By critical authors:

Reuth's book

Lormier

Neutral (Beckett himself seems to be critical, but some of the co-athors, like Lieb, are not):

Beckett's book

WWII Quarterly

Positive (or frequently 'accused' of being such) - in German:

Hecht's exhibition

RemyDeamonpen (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You'd have to make a convincing argument that other texts were as seminal in their way to their mythos as The Rommel Papers was to its. I don't think you're going to be able to do that. In any case, discussion about the image there should be on that article's talk page, not here. Here, we're talking about the Leyen image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's for a comparison only, to illustrate the matter to Jwy. I've replied you on the Myth's Talk page.Deamonpen (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the link. The photo and caption match what I imagined it might be from the earlier discussion. I don't think it adds significantly to the article and should not be included. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 14:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Some comments/questions

Per "Rommel continued to attempt to advance for two more days, but repeated sorties by the RAF meant he could make no progress." Should this be the Desert Airforce v RAF? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Good catch by you. It was the DAF.Deamonpen (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Per the following:

Montgomery had made preparations to cut the Germans off in their retreat, but in the afternoon of 2 September he visited Corps commander Brian Horrocks and gave orders to allow the Germans to retire. This was to preserve his own strength intact for the main battle which was to come.[205] On the night of 3 September the 2nd New Zealand Division and 7th Armoured Division positioned to the north engaged in an assault, but they were repelled in a fierce rearguard action by the 90th Light Division. Montgomery called off further action to preserve his strength and allow for further desert training for his forces.

There appears to be a duplication, in that: "gave orders to allow the Germans to retire" and "called off further action to preserve". Are these two consequences of the same decision or are they two separate decisions? The present text is ambiguous as to this. It undermines a reader's trust in the authorship.

If I could answer this, or any other of the questions I raise, I would resolve these myself. However, I cannot without the assistance of somebody with greater content knowledge and access or familiarity with the sources cited. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Two separate decisions. I find this paragraph understandable, but the wording is perhaps not ideal - maybe someone tried too hard to shorten previous versions. Montgomery gave orders to allow the Germans to retire on 2 September (except the RAF's patrols), but on 3 September, the 2nd New Zealand Division and the 7th Armoured Division were allowed to attack. When they were repelled by the 90th Light Division, Montgomery called off further attacks.Deamonpen (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken, Please see the above two posts per the tag added. Per the response by Deamonpen, this is not just my opinion. This is the discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Deamonpen, fixed the DAF/RAF. Tried to clarify the para and the apparent ambiguity. I had added a note to help clarify and put in context commitment of the 2nd NZ and 7th Armoured but this has been reverted by Beyond My Ken with the comment: This note is unsourced, and pertains to details about the British disposition, and not to Rommel's. It is sourced to Battle of Alam el Halfa - particularly the map in the infobox (adapted from Playfield) and ref 20 (Fraser pp. 354–355). Togeather, these show the disposition of the 2nd NZ as the corner-stone and that the 7th Armoured was to give ground to allow the Axis advance. I accept these sources in good faith. It was added as a note for the specific reason that it was about the Allied disposition and not Rommel. The actions and responses of one commander cannot be considered in isolation - hence the note. Particularly, the hover feature allows the note to be read without the need for the reader to loose their place by jumping to either the note or the main article for this battle (and having to read through all of that to get the critical aspects of the battle). Of itself, this is not a reasonable reason to delete the note since it is contrary to how and why notes are used (IMO). My edit was to make more sense of the second para in this section - an order to let the Axis forces to withdraw but then to engage them with the 2nd NZ and 7th Armoured - both part of XIII Corps. Their action was a limited counter offensive action, rather than the larger counter offensive that had been planned and they were in a key position (see Caddick-Adams p 285). BMK, is my edit (and the note particularly) factually accurate, does it serve to clarify an ambiguity and is it reasonable to challenge the note in particular? I have attempted to work collaboratively and am disappointed by this action. Given the afore, how might this be resolved? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: You've been editing here since June 2014, that's more than 4 years, which is more than enough time for you to have learned that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source. If you want to add something to any article, it must be supported by a citation from a reliable source, and the material added must be pertinent to the subject of the article. The material you added in a note that I reverted was not only unsourced, it was not pertinent to Erwin Rommel, although it would be pertinent (if properly sourced) to the article Battle of Alam el Halfa. You cannot simply add anything you want to to articles, there are rules about what is and isn't appropriate that you do not seem to be aware of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou @Beyond My Ken for your commentary on my editing experience. You have construed that the note is only sourced to WP and ignore the third-party sources provided. A note may well be covered by sources for the sentence|s/paragraph where it occurs without the need for a specific citation to the note in such a case. I had returned to the talk page, not because my edit had been part reverted, but to engage in discussion and confirm whether additional sourcing was required. Your revert was merely coincidental. This is collaborative editing. You may wish to consider WP:UNSOURCED (particularly the last sentence of the third para) and perhaps WP:5P4 and WP:5P5. As for the note specifically, I would not be adding that material to the article Battle of Alam el Halfa not as a note but as main text, since it is not a useful aside that aids clarity but of direct relevance.

Per: cut the Germans off in their retreat, does that mean that the Italians were to be given a free pass. Italians are no more German than New Zealanders are British. Which Corps did Horrocks command and why did the New Zealanders attack contrary to the order of 2 September if they were part of Horrocks'Corps (or were they not) and why just 2nd NZ and 7th Armoured at all? What made them special? I suggest that the map in the infobox at Battle of Alam el Halfa is more informative than the map in the Rommel article at this section. I will let you deal with these matters as my opinion and input appears unwelcome. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you arguing that by that point in North Africa, the Germans were not the primary component of the Axis forces, that Rommel -- although technically under Italian command -- was not the officer in total independent command of those forces, and the actual Italian contribution and influence on the campaign was not minimal? Is that the argument you're making?

As for the rest, it's really totally irrelevant to this article, and its inclusion -- even as a note -- is completely unnecessary. It changes nothing about our understanding of what Rommel did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Have a look at the map in the infobox at Battle of Alam el Halfa. Are you arguing that the Italians played no direct role in the advance along the Allied southern flank? As for relevance, you cannot understand the success or failure of one commander in isolation and without context. This includes the actions and responses of their opponent. It tells us quite something of Rommel - that the Fox was outfoxed. It exposes some of his weaknesses as a commander. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

So, again, what needs clarification? It you want to "expose someof his weaknesses as a commender", find a source that says that, do not pile on information in order to make the reader think that. That's WP:SYNH. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, for someone who is very likely to be subjected to at least an admonishment from ArbCom VSN, I'd think you'd take care to be less BATTLEGROUNDy in your editing. A clean-up tag is an edit, which represents the opinion of a single editor, and it is not immune from the rules that any other edit is subjected to, such as not edit warring to restore it when it is disputed and reverted. You have been asked to specifically explain what needs clarification, as I see nothing in the text that obviously does, so please explain here what it is your were tagging for -- without a wall of text, if possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Rommel myth#WP:SPLIT proposal

Related discussion linked above -- input welcome. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Promotion to General rank - call for help disentangling!

Can someone more familiar with the sources help?

Rommel’s promotion to General rank (as Generalmajor) was evidently controversial. And, from the article, it seems to have occurred at the time of his appointment to the Führerbegleitbatallion and so should be discussed there.

Instead, it’s discussed in the “France 1940” section, in connection with his appointment to command of 7th Panzer Division - presumably also controversial! - and the article seems to consider the two in combination.

They’re very different types of command - and in very different places. But, of what the article says, I can’t tell which bits relate to which. I can’t identify the material relating to the promotion, and the Führerbegleitbatallion appointment - so I can’t move it to the Poland 1939 section where it belongs. Help!?

- SquisherDa (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

SquisherDaAccording to, Generalfeldmarschal Erwin Rommel was promoted to major general on 1/8/1939.28regiment (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

References

H.G.von Esebesk

Deamonpen thank you for the notice, actually author's name on the book : "Rommel, the Deutchland Afrika Korp" is H.G.von Esebeck.28regiment (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Good to have more sources. I've heard about Esebeck but failed to access his work in any language. I just doubt statements like that since Scianna seems to imply that all captured officers of the X Corps (arguing against accusations made by other Italian officers), whose opinions we know about, dismissed the claim that they were abandoned. I don't think they would have had that attitude had their vehicles been robbed from them by the Germans, let alone all the vehicles, in a very chaotic situation.Deamonpen (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Rommel's Foreign Awards

What are people's opinions regarding listing all of Rommel's foreign awards? Particularly those he rarely wore on his uniform?

Documentation for those awards are difficult to find. However, numerous photographs of Rommel, and particularly at his funeral, showed a number of foreign awards he never wore, such as the Romanian Order of St. Michael. I have found citations for a couple of Rommel's Italian awards, and have added those.

So how should the awards without ready documentation, aside from photographic evidence, be handled?

SJCreecy (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, only those awards that can be reliably sourced should be added. Analysis of a photograph to determine what awards he had is original research. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)