Information icon.svg Our Community Standards are under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Talk:Erwin Rommel

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Try to talk me out of slapping this puppy with a {{mission}}. Starting............NOW! C®ackeЯ 19:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Top military commander in the Nazi regime, gives Hitler the finger, and sacrifices himself? Historical revisionism from the far-right?
I added this for a reason. Expand on the bomb plot all you want. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I can see the wigo at RWW: "Cracker admits to animal abuse, threatens to hit puppies." Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

The bomb plot is interesting, and may be worth a sentence or two in our Nazi article. We don't need an article on any particular Nazi general, unless pseudoscience, religion or woo loomed especially large in shaping his actions on the battlefield. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 20:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism." Osaka Sun (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the italics. I would have totally missed your point without them, you condescending twat. Doesn't mean we need an article on every, or even any particular, military leader who ever led. This is what paragraphs in articles are for. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 20:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok then, make an article, take any relevant data from this. It will require some research that I just don't have the time to do. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Excuse the appeal to consequences, but are we to have articles on everyone who tried to kill Hitler, and who then was the subject of some prick trying to flog a book by stirring up non-existent controversy? SophieWilder 20:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Apparently it's not notable enough. I don't mind putting it all in one fit-all entry, the plots were quite sophisticated and each still failed in the end. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Its always fun to see how little this site has gotten from your typical wikipedia politics. --142.179.63.138 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I say keep it[edit]

Not so much for the man himself but more because he's used as a fig-leaf for Neo-Nazis to show that their ideology isn't all bad. Sort of like how Robert E. Lee's virtue and military successes are puffed up to create a rallying point for the Lost Cause of the South narrative. Hell, I think we could use an entire article on figureheads and their being co-opted for nasty narratives. Bunch of people come to mind; Christopher Columbus, Robert E. Lee, Che Guevara, Frederick Douglass... Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Were this site an encyclopedia, I could well agree. But our focus here is only Rommel's belated stance agin his authoritarian boss...if this aspect can be worked up into a coherent, on-mission article then, yes, it should stay. Another stub of a biography the internets can do without. C®ackeЯ 04:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
What's there to keep? A sentence or two that he was implicated in the plot to kill Hitler, was never a Nazi party member and disagreed with several Nazi policies? He was a soldier, not a politician. All that can go in some other article, if at all. SophieWilder 08:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely believe this page should be kept in place. Science and philosophy are not the only perviews of rationality. History is a huge part of rationality; those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it. We use history as evidence to back up rational beliefs, and the irrational use revisionist history to justify their irrational beliefs. I personally use this page as an alternative to wikipedia, as the articles are not required to be fair to sides of an argument that are irrational. If we don't put an emphasis on history on this website, especially the truth when it comes to history then I feel the site misses a huge aspect of what it is to be rational. There are plenty of illegitimate views when it comes to history out there; rather than there having to be a "Realhistorywiki.org" why not let rationality flourish here on every topic that is relevant to rationality. Surely natural history is important to rationality, and I would argue that human history is just as relevant to rationality if not more. Deleting articles like this can only serve to hurt rational wiki.

It could be worth keeping for this[edit]

I think it would be relevant if we added a section debunking a lot of the myths held by closet-nazi kiddies who act like he's some sort of big hero and do the old "I'm not a Nazi because he wasn't a Nazi and it's just non-political." Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 18:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That argument would better in a Nazism article though, wouldn't it? SophieWilder 18:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
People looking up Rommel would be more likely to see it here. Plus I don't think biographical information would really fit well into that article. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Google detects redirects. why have biographical information anyway? This isn't an encyclopedia. SophieWilder 08:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I supposed, but the people who are going to be operating under the delusion probably aren't going to read an article about Nazis. I think we should just monitor what gets written here. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 01:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

NAZIS PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Glenn, the Nazis are everywhere!" Osaka Sun (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Compromise[edit]

I do see a reason to keep atleast a brief biography of Rommel and some other prominent Nazis, and I can also see the argument to not waste site resources on an article about Rommel. As a compromise, how about an article broadly about the 20 July Plot and another about the conspirators of the plot, and include in it small biographies of some of the prominent members such as Rommel, Schacht, etc, who were often high ranked members of the German military and political element. Would that make everyone happy?--Logic and Empricism (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Eva Braun[edit]

I take that nobody will object to my Eva Braun article?--Weirdstuff (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You write it, I'll object to it. I can see a slight RW-ish angle to Rommel (the only question being, is there enough to justify an article); I see none re Eva Braun. What's your proposal? SophieWilder 09:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I see. Evidently if forgot to enter my sarcasm start and stop tags. If Rommel why not Braun was my point but I guess that I should have added a smiley. :-) --Weirdstuff (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, i get you. The trouble with sarcasm is that it often relies on tone of voice. Sorry about that. SophieWilder 10:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

too positive[edit]

The portrayal of Rommel (who was a moderately competent general all right, but don't forget that he was also in charge of the German defenses on D-Day) in this article overall pretty much follows the German right wing myth. Mostly spread "thanks" to him dying before the war ended and due to his son being a reasonable competent local politician for ages (mayors in Germany hardly lose elections and there are no meaningful challengers from within the party unless major things happen). The question whether his unit was involved in war-crimes is quite controversial (though consensus tilts towards yes), but it has to be remembered that most of the war crimes happened on the Eastern Front and the whole point of the Rommel myth during the Nazi-time was to provide a distraction from the Eastern Front (on which the Nazis were getting clobbered by 1943). Anyway, overall we could surely find more dirt on the guy, as there is plenty of it Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Right of Reason?[edit]

Would it we be correct to put him in that category?S.H. DeLong (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, mainly because Rommel did very little to oppose Hitler until things began to go south in WWII.
Also, as with the earlier anti-Nazi/-Hitler conspiracies in the German armed forces (going back to the 1930s), their main gripe was that they saw Hitler and the Nazis as a threat to the status and position of the armed forces as a power player in German politics and society, not that they minded the Nazis' anti-democratic and fanatic ideology.
Contrast, for instance, with such pre-Pinochet Chilean high-ranking officers as René SchneiderWikipedia or Carlos PratsWikipedia who were both constitutionalists who opposed the idea of a coup against a democratically elected government and who both paid with their lives for that decision. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Rommel is getting too much good press. Mostly because one of his sons was a rather important politician (mayor of Stuttgart for ages); because the Nazi propaganda exaggerated his military skills and because he conveniently died in a way that makes his "opposition" to the regime appear greater thaen it really was. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)