210:
about which no author has ever said that it was unreliable and he lied a lot there. Notice that it's a diary not refined memoirs) that he loved Hitler, hated
Himmler, and supported this attitude towards the Arabs...etc because it improved the German image (it should be noted that the section doesn't focus on proving or disproving that Rommel treated the Arabs with moderation, or that the Axis authorities chose this policy because Rommel proposed so or Himmler proposed so. The section just talks about how Rommel did see it both ways, that in Rommel's mind the idealistic and the practical (i.e propaganda and German benefits) can go along with each other. Rommel's way was that he would propose that the Germans should try hard to be benevolent, dashing conquerors, not to be useless do-gooders, but because that would bring these great benefits - let's go to Hradschin in Praha with me because leaders should be fearless and it will show the German might, let's pay the French good wages because it's wrong to use slaves and they will try hard to build our Atlantic Wall anyway, let's make a Jew a Gauleiter and the world won't believe the enemy's propaganda, let's lead the troops the way Seydlitz and Zieten did because it's wrong for a commander to avoid his troops' sufferings and also because that way we can solve the class problem, remake German mentality and unite the society too!... ). Just make clear that we cite his diaries and that's good enough for me.
1608:, I don't think it applies. I usually cite with the intention of showing how the same content is treated by different authors through the eras, and encourage the curious readers to excavate the original sources to see how the same events are accompanied by different perspectives, not (just) to prove that the event mentioned is true. Also I think old sources should not be dismissed just because they are old, especially if also supported by new sources. Misch is not dated though, the person maybe, not his book, although actually I'm not sure it's a plus, because memoirs are considered less considerable if written in old ages. However it seems he is not criticized much for inaccuracies. I pay attention to him since according to him it seems Rommel knew about them trying to make him President (thus contradicting Stroelin's words that the intention was discussed in a hurry, and never came to Rommel's ears. Although Stroelin was obviously the one who knew the whole thing better than anyone else. Whether he said the truth or not is another matter), and Misch's friend Gauss (one of Rommel's few close aides, although initially an 'agent' who was sent by Halder to control Rommel) tried to talk him out of the whole business, for Rommel's own benefits (Misch should receive no benefit here in claiming to know about these events, since he doesn't claim to change his loyalty towards Hitler or supporting the rebels).
973:
one I've seen doing so. Probably because in the modern, global version of
English, "X Myth" usually indicates something that needs to be "debunked". Obviously that's not the case with Mythos Rommel in previously mentioned German historians' views. Yes I know we don't discuss him here (although I agree that if some authors write in a way possibly unclear to some of the audience due to multiple reasons, explaining a bit does no harm), I just tried to be patient with MyMoloboaccount as he suggested that authors who sounded biased/senseless to his ears should be deleted. However I promise that next time I will try to be short. My general view is that if wiki readers see "Rommel myth" and think "Lies about Rommel", it's our failure in conveying the message(s), so please be careful. Also if you haven't noticed it yet, it was not me who started "Rommel Myth sentences not adding anything to the article" section or the one before it. If mods see that these explanations are not necessary, feel free to remove.
1037:
violence, or Robert
Forczyk who considers Rommel a true great captain with chivalry." First of all we can read that Rommel was "chivalrous" in several other locations of the article including couple of sentences above this one. Another one is not really needed. Second of all what does "Rommel was by nature chivalrous" mean at all? That the author believes some men are by nature more noble than others? Then we have another Rommel Myth claim about him not prone to needless violence although he is well known to be enthusiastic in support of invasion of Poland and in charge of executing a defenseless prisoner. The sentence about Rommel being " true great captain with chivalry" what does it actually add to the article? We already have section on propaganda and how people idolize Rommel, we don't really need more examples of that. The sentence doesn't really add any facts or information that is of any importance. The above sentences are just pointless clutter and really should be removed. --
320:
written something he wrote on day 20, could he have edited the whole things to make it look consistent, rewrite whole pages (before erasing would look suspicious - anyway could he have predicted that they would fall into the hands of former opponents?)..etc like people do with their post war memoirs? Liddel Hart was certainly pro-Rommel, however does he and others have a reputation (other than making positive comments on Rommel's writings) for radically altering the texts Rommel wrote? Do recent historians complain about Rommel family preventing them from approaching the original writings or do they find signs of Liddel Hart, Bayerlein or
Manfred Rommel faking documents? And can you point me to a more reliable version of Rommel's writings, I would be glad to know. Like you, I have the opinion that generally Liddel Hart and others accepted what Rommel wrote. Because they believed he made a good enough case for himself.
798:“There was no choice about it. We had to go. Naturally we weren’t enthusiastic, but it is not as if we had any choice. The conditions were not terrible. We weren’t beaten or anything and we got a basic wage. At the start we could go home on Sundays, but after Stalingrad they put up barbed wire and we were stuck inside the work camp. Of course we knew we were building defences for the Germans, and it felt bad. I remember at the end of the war, my two brothers came home. One had been a prisoner, the other a deportee. I felt so bad I did not want to go to the party celebrating their return. But I do think the wall should be preserved now. It is important to remember what happened – the ignominy of it all, the cataclysm that we had to endure.” (Rene-Georges Lubat)
2554:
Mitcham are both influenced by Fraser in this case but i cannot remember what Fraser says. It looks much more likely that, as reported by other authors, he protested against overt ideology training, argued for sport and character training, and agreed with military training which should be provided by professionals like him rather than amateurs like
Schirach. Remy suggests that he was very much willing to find chances to tell the story of how he stormed the Matajur to pretty much anyone in the hitlerjugend, including Schirach's wife (she had accidently dropped the keyword "Mountain"; same story would later be told repeatedly to Hitler, Goebbels and Ruge no matter how depressed he became).
302:
form fifty yards (because they mistook him for the enemy - this he did not blame them), he made a sly half angry half amused comment about
Italian marksmanship. And again, it was about officers who let soldiers run into dangers while sitting comfortably behind. But he gradually developed natural feelings for the lower ranks whom he called good soldiers, and sympathy for Mussolini whom he respected. Maybe his view was one-sided and he did not see his own problems, maybe sometimes he thought that he was still at Caporetto fighting the Italians there, but there had to be a kernel of truth about Italians' earlier weak performance (no matter what the reason) if Mussolini had to apologize to
919:
hero who fought Hitler: »War er ein überzeugter
Nationalsozialist, den man verachten muss, oder ein Held des Widerstandes gegen Hitler?«, stellt sich bei genauer Kenntnisnahme der Geschichte so gar nicht. Die Antwort ist nämlich ebenso einfach wie überraschend: Rommel war beides. But even though "his heart did belong to Hitler, it's all the more remarkable that he always found the strength needed to fight against him whenever his conscience required so ... Unwilling and probably without ever realizing it, he was part of a murderous system... but no individual sin." His famous book is certainly the one that is named Mythos Rommel.
2180:
7th - and I can say this is the approach of at least the majority of authors (whatever they think about Rommel's order), and even if both had been crimes on Rommel's part and the 7th's part, the circumstances and motivations were totally different. The single execution (if we considered it a crime) could've happened anywhere, in a moment the commander was irritated by at least a partly justified reason, a la a crime of passion. Deliberate, prepared massacre is another problem. Let alone we already have the repeated mention of such massacres in the same section (second paragraph).
745:"As the commanding officer of these units Rommel is of course was responsible..." may be true, but are there any sources that discuss Rommel's culpability (beyond the first one) in these other actions or are they here only because they happened in Rommel's division - without identifying his influence. If there is not discussion of the influence, I would suggest the sources don't believe it is notable enough. Such horrendous acts happened in many divisions, including American divisions. What makes it notable here? --John (
2337:-Irving is not amateur. He is controversial though. His biography of Rommel is recognized as a piece of important writing, but usually recommended to be used with care because of the author's bias. I will find a better source for the sentence though. Also, it's in the end Spiegel, not Irving. Der Spiegel usually collects info from many authors before providing their own opinion, in review of a specific work too. Their most updated opinion is that 2012 article though. Many thing have changed.
1051:-We also have plenty of sentences saying that modern authors don't agree with post-war ones who supposedly lie or are misguided about his chivalrous image. It's not about some misguided 'people' who lack information, it's historians who as far as I know are not considered unorthodox, having ulterior motives... (Not that I say we should totally exclude such authors, because sometimes unpopular people bring out right answers. It's just if we reference them we should make some kind of note).
653:
letter sent to
Auchinleck by one of his officers said). That's the same with even modern celebrities - meaning less serious, less divinized figures: no propaganda machine can sell to the public a figure on its own power alone - because such machines often support many aspiring models, singers, actors... but just a few register on the public's mind, worthy or not. In the end the people themselves, shallow teenagers or bitter critics or hardened soldiers, decide who they like.
1067:
had allowed this, other prisoners might imitate knowing that he was soft and then his army would not be able to advance any more. In some countries in the West today, even during times of peace, police would shoot if you don't obey them after a certain level of warning, whether you have weapons or not. So if you see that as unnecessary violence, that's still your personal opinion. Telp certainly also knows that case - he says Rommel "was forced" to shoot that prisoner.
1931:"highly reinforced" in 1942 for instance is total rubbish: the city's defences had largely been destroyed following the 1941 siege and the troops in the town were highly disorganised and not really capable of effective resistance. The 1943 broadcast is more honest (especially the surprisingly frank admission to the brutal way in which the German forces treated the unfortunate Italians), but also presents a rather partial and biased perspective.
31:
464:
articles might have on the
British troops, General Auchinleck distributed a directive to his commanders seeking to dispel the notion that Rommel was a "superman". Rommel, no matter how hard the situation was, made a deliberate effort at always spending some time with soldiers and patients, his own and POWs alike, which contributed greatly to his reputation of not only being a great commander but also "a decent chap" among the troops.
588:
But assuming that the Allied soldiers who fought him were totally under the spell of such portrayals in deciding who the man they were fighting was, until their own commander had to tell them that it was stupid to do so, was a total underestimate of their intelligence, do you think so? While seems to suggest that the officers themselves were impressed with his behavior, and
Madjalani suggests that it was exactly the case.
2354:
of refs, I can explain as followed: In some cases I had to add references because others claimed that they've seen other authors who argue against it. In others, it is about authors who are represented dominantly on other articles related to this subject, without a counter-balance, thus I provide refs in case someone tries to find out more about Rommel after reading other articles, which I don't have time to modify.
1378:
source? It sounds like Bernie Sander being accused of being extreme left and Stalinist etc by certain people. Because a truely extreme right would've allowed the publication of the previous letter which said shooting was legal but still made Rommel a criminal? The book previously quoted above mentions two articles of Weston, one of which also being sent to Quadrant, so he was not one-timed contributor.
1507:
2212:
354:
situation was, made a deliberate effort at always spending some time with soldiers and patients, his own and POWs alike, which contributed greatly to his reputation of not only being a great commander but also "a decent chap" among the troops. . General Auchinleck distributed a directive to his commanders seeking to dispel the notion that Rommel was a "superman".
1806:(except if one group is more recent AND has definite proofs that their answer is true). No, just present it as "Authors A, B, C, D say it was serious. Authors E, F, G, H say it was not serious." I can find still many more authors who say that this incapacitation was serious, at least those considered experts on Rommel, so I am not sure that it's in equal numbers.
934:(one of the two authors was also the author of the "New Research taints image of Rommel." cited by this wiki page, written some years before this more balanced one). Here, the message is same with the two previously mentioned authors': the man was complicated, vainglorious, seduced by Hitler, yet his heroic battles remain nonetheless, like Hitler had predicted.
836:
valuable because it shows they did get wages and probably some lightening of condition like Rommel had suggested (we don't have evidences, but it seems possible that although Rommel's "charity" suggestions were sometimes outlandish to the elites' ears, the Nazis did listen to him to an extent, because I haven't heard about Eastern prisoners getting wages)
1779:»Der Treffer, den er am 17. Juli 1944 auf der Straße nach Livarot erhielt, beraubte den Plan der einzigen Schultern, denen das fürchterliche Doppelgewicht des Krieges und Bürgerkrieges zuzutrauen war - des einzigen Mannes, der Naivität genug zum Widerpart der fürchterlichen Simplizität der Anzugreifenden besaß. Er war ein eindeutiges Vorzeichen.«
2634:
1055:
countries like the Allied countries invaded Asia and Africa all the time - Rommel's personal idol Napoleon, by defeating German princes, helped to unite Germany and weakening the class system, thus an example of conquerors who benefited native populations. - They didn't have nukes yet so the image of war was not as terrible as today.
1122:
how they will enjoy the rest of their life without war. Remy pg 42. -Whether the officer was a "victim" or not is a debatable matter. And many people who are shot by police for disobeying haven't been put in a trial yet, you can't call all of them criminals. Lsst time I replied to talks that should have been put in a forums though
312:. All in all, in the Rommel's Papers, when he had become calmer, he was certainly nicer to the Italians than in the vicious comments Mellenthin and modern authors said he said to the Italians' faces, right after any disaster happened. Certainly much nicer than his attitude towards his German High Command, Himmler, Bormann...etc
303:
2219:
party, and he just talked whatever he wanted whether it corresponded with the Nazi ideals or not. They also used Dietrich, Dietl (party members), Model but they were much less efficient because they were much less popular. When R. was "weakened", Hitler looked to Manstein for replacement but, in Hitler's eyes, the guy had
1388:
1391:, considered unverified? And you haven't published a scientific paper, have you? It's not about "letters." Basically the editors accept you to be who you introduce yourself to be, and expect the real individual to speak if there was any falsification. By this standard many other authors will be considered unverified.
1481:
1455:
2353:
Can you point me to a specific instance references are not guaranteed, for example a non expert author quoting the opinion of another author without his/her own research, or adding anything new? If not, why should we choose to be selective and remove certain ones and not the others? As for my adding
1811:
Also it seems from the conspirators' point of view, they felt terrible about this. At that moment, after hearing about the accident, Stülpnagel was stunned and exclaimed "It was the last straw!" (Remy, pg.306), echoing Ernst Juenger's later statement about how this terrible omen, robbing them of the
1805:
you may cite those authors when presenting an alternative view beside this one. I think "Authors A, B, C, D say it was serious. Authors E, F, G, H say it was not serious. Conclusion: it was not serious or serious, but less serious than what authors A, B, C, D describe. " is the wrong way to do things
1286:
The history of this academic-populist fracas is fascinating. Between October and December 2000, in the right-wing magazine Quadrant, Windschuttle wrote three articles under the general heading "The myths of frontier massacres in Australian history". He was not, by any conventional academic definition
863:
user Deamonpen edited the article adding a concealed link to a Holocaust Denial website as source of claim for legality of Rommel's execution of prisoner. The link is concealed within the text(the main text in Knowledge (XXG) article won't show where it actually goes, the hyperlink does show it), and
652:
That works better, I think. It's simple, we know for a fact he had a little fanclub consisted of Allied soldiers - some of it due to propaganda (by Hitler's admission, although he was probably the one who knew the power of Rommel's personality best), some of it due to his actions and charisma (as the
587:
Your edit makes the definite impression that when Auchinleck wrote the order to prevent officers from enhancing Rommel's reputation, what he had in mind was media's portrayals of Rommel (this I don't know where you get from). Certainly he was popular, with media's portrayals being one of the reasons.
463:
The American press soon began to take notice of Rommel as well, following the country's entry into the war on 11 December 1941, writing that "The British (...) admire him because he beat them and were surprised to have beaten in turn such a capable general". To counteract any demoralizing effect such
209:
As for quoting Rommel, I suggest we do it from a neutral, moderate view. We should not totally rely on his opinions, certainly, if it is about him saying he was the greatest commander ever. However, we should consider it a primary source if he said in a book (which he wrote in the heat of the moment,
117:
Regarding relationships with Arabs, that's nothing surprising as it was the official Nazi policy to maintain good relationships with the Arab population as potential allies in the expected fight against the Jews in Palestine. I can look it up in sources if needed. So I don't think this information in
2385:
Thompson, Julian (2011); Speidel, Hans (1950); Silverstone, Paul (2011);Robinson, James R. (1997); Grill, Markus (10 October 2002); Green, Leslie C. (1993); Gibson, Charles M. (2001); Fellgiebel, Walther-Peer (2000);Citino, Robert (2007); Churchill, Winston (1949); Chambers, Madeline (2012);Bierman,
2317:
This page has reached a dimension in bytes that is 54% greater than the Adolf Hitler page. Here we are totally out of proportions and such plumpness needs to be curtailed. I didn't check the text yet, but I am sure that cuts are amply warranted, even in the reference department where sometimes 5, 7,
1054:
Many authors also explain him as supporting invasion of Poland because: -Misguided beliefs in Hitler's previous bloodless expansion - Belief in German population in Poland needing protection (because they were really suppressed there) - Invasions before WW2 were not something *that* illegal. *Noble"
1005:
Please stop using words like "original research" so freely. If you can read German, read these article to see, whether authors that are used in the Rommel myth section and article hold the same view as yours. If you cannot, please avoid slanderous comments that helps nobody. Certainly I (or somebody
918:
The Rommel Myth theory has also come to the stage when it faces revisionism of itself. For example, basically Maurice Remy(who's also listed as if he belonged to the myth camp, and even more curiously, a French when actually he's a German )argues (with much success) that Rommel was both a Nazi and a
890:
the officer was summoned three times or the labourers getting basic wages. This as I notice, you've done multiple times. Besides the article and the claims, while requoted by the Adelaide Institute, are not theirs, but the author Richard Weston's and Quadrant's, who have no anti-Semitic reputation.
767:"French civilians and Italian prisoners of war held by the Germans were forced by officials under the Vichy government , the Todt Organization and the SS forces to work on building some of the defences Rommel ordered constructed, although they got basic wages and the conditions were "not terrible"."
679:
The article states that "During Rommel's time in France, Hitler ordered him to deport the country's Jewish population; Rommel disobeyed". This is based on dubious source that is neither a historian nor scholarly book, it's a biography by a filmaker Benjamin Patton along with letters from his father.
2179:
I totally don't want to talk about this thing again. However, I still find "... with Rommel being directly involved..." totally unacceptable. If even Caddick Adams who finds the execution illegal does not use this as a piece of evidence to link it to, or prove other alledged incidents regarding the
1386:
Again, the standard of wiki allows the listing of such magazines like Dailymail as sources, which if listed as a Reference by a serious historian will be considered ridiculous. They will not list verified authors' sayings in magazines either, as we do here. A letter is at least better. And he is a
1254:
At least Weston seems to know what is customary in his profession at that time, regarding treatment of prisoners, and freely admits that he joined the shooting of prisoners when they tried to run away, without apparently until today anyone bringing him to trial for it. I state his profession in the
1250:
Not every historian/journalist is an expert on laws of war either. In fact I would say very few have anything near a Bachelor of Laws degree. But Weston is a military who has fought in Tobruk, and I expect militaries to know the laws of their profession, especially those of their times. And we have
889:
I did not know that the site was anti-Semitic or denied Holocoust. Yes you did a right thing removing the links. However I think you should avoid removing other contents that are not related to disputed sources, and supported by other sources (already there) while inserting your info, like the fact
707:
Except in one instance, the information in this section is a history of the Rommel's division and the execution of POWs. Do any of the secondary sources discuss how Rommel was involved in these activities? I'd suggest those parts are are not are not notable enough in relation to Rommel to take us
315:
Again I suggest that if it was about articles/passages that rate Italian fighting performance, then we should use multiple sources, definitely not just Rommel, preferably Italian sources if available. But if it is about Rommel's opinion on Italians in a Rommel article, we might quote Rommel himself
255:
narrative or the tendency to accept Rommel's word that his failings were all due to external forces (Hitler, Italians, OKH/OKW, etc)—rather than his mistakes, including in strategy, or lack thereof. For example, I read a scholarly article that argued that the supposed bad performance of Italians in
2469:
Silverstone - probably intended to be used as the source for the naming of destroyer Rommel. Not much information there. This naming is not a fact challenged by anyone, and now not mentioned - I probably will include it, though, in a future adding to the Rommel Myth page regarding his modern image
2041:
in short, such material isn't useful to readers (especially as if a mention in this broadcast was considered a noteworthy honour, it can be covered just as well without the transcript), and is additionally highly problematic as it's unreliable Nazi propaganda. Articles on Allied military units and
1345:
I don't see much point in the Weston comment. But I also think the shooting of one prisoner deserves no more than a brief mention -- one sentence. Since it never got to a trial or any other official legal review, all we have are speculations based on incomplete hearsay. Nothing can come of it.
1121:
It was a legitimate German concerns, however Hitler certainly overstepped his boundaries (which R. could not predict). -I will not comment further on how colonial powers judged certain invasions illegal, and others not. But no he did not join the planning, writing to Lucie on August 31 1939 about
1095:
Invasion of Poland was illegal and a war crime(interestingly Rommel was complicit in its planning and thus would be sentenced as war criminal if he managed to survive), for which Nazis like Rommel were sentenced in Nuremberg Trials. Are you claiming that Invasion of Poland was legal? On what basis
1066:
Whether shooting that defenseless prisoner was necessary/legal or not you can read the two articles quoted in "Executions of prisoners" section. Some will also argue that as a commander, he needed time, and dealing with a prisoner who refused to obey three times took too much precious time - if he
1062:
What those authors mean by chivalry in nature, as I see it, is that his conduct was not about some materialized, "realistic" benefits but out of his natural inclinations. Like you save a drowning person because you see one, you don't even think, and that's that. And if you read Forczyk, he's not
972:
My immediate target audience is MyMoloboaccount who kept repeating things like "Rommel myth statements" "this is faboyism and Rommel Myth" which seems to suggest that in the way he sees it, Rommel Myth = Lies about Rommel, or at least something very negative. Admittedly he's probably not the first
910:
I post this one again because obviously some people don't understand these linguistic subtleties, or are deliberately so, in order to say that if a historian uses "Rommel Myth," what he means is that post-war praises MUST be lies or misconceptions. Actually it's a direct translation of the German
869:
The Adelaide Institute was formed in 1995 from the former Truth Mission that was established in 1994 by convicted Holocaust denier Gerald Fredrick Töben. The Adelaide Institute is a Holocaust denial group in Australia and is considered to be anti-Semitic by the Australian government's human rights
835:
I'm not a psychologist though, but maybe you are one? I put "not terrible" in brackets for a reason, that we don't have (yet) statements from historians and other witnesses about how the conditions were, especially in comparison with other places like Eastern concentration camps. I feel the ref is
773:
This is really a shining example of a very distorted view in these kinds of topics. At the end of the day these were people whose lives depended on whim of the German overseeing them and were essentially slaves that could be shot at any time. I will remove this sentence unless there any reasonable
301:
I suggest you to read The Rommel Papers and decide that whether what Rommel wrote there was enough to create some sort of bad legend about the Italians, because I have the feeling you haven't read it yet - I apologize if this is not the case. Sure, here and there, when Italians shot and missed him
353:
The American press soon began to take notice of Rommel as well, following the country's entry into the war on 11 December 1941, writing that "The British (...) admire him because he beat them and were surprised to have beaten in turn such a capable general". Rommel himself, no matter how hard the
319:
As for him self-editing, the question is that whether he had the time and the capability to do so. He was a busy commander who hastily made some notes each morning before going to battle, usually to serve an immediate audience - his wife. Let's say if on day 29 he realized that he should have not
2218:
At the beginning, the army generally supported Hitler but was lukewarm at best to the Nazi party. Thus the Nazis needed a general or some generals to invigorate the army with the Nazi ideology and the will to fight. They used Rommel for that. But turned out, he also liked Hitler but disliked the
1815:
Besides, I haven't read Goda, but it seems he believes so because he also believes Rommel was not committed to "the cause", but acted somewhat like Rundstedt who would let the conspirators do what they wanted but wouldn't act until the result showed itself. And that's the difference, authors who
1787:
This appears to be undue weight, as equally as many describe Rommel's incapacitation as immaterial to the success or failure of the bomb plot. For example, Norman J. Goda states, in discussing the Hitler oath: "... There were also field marshals such as Rommel and Kluge who despite the oath were
1644:
the outcome of the bomb plot. Writer Ernst Jünger commented: "The blow that felled Rommel... robbed the plan of the shoulders that were to be entrusted the double weight of war and civil war - the only man who had enough naivety to counter the simple terror that those he was about to go against
1259:
quotes his opinion, and many times at that (see the References part of that book, the author lists two articles of "Weston, Richard, anti-tank gun commander) why wiki can't. As for Quadrant, yes they're about culture but what kind of culture... they talk a lot about politics, terrorism, military
1036:
I noticed two sentences that are just repeat of previous sentences in the article and don't add anything of substance. "Other authors argue that generosity to opponents was a natural trait of the man, like Claus Telp who states that Rommel by nature was chivalrous and not prone to order needless
723:
I think you missed the first part, Rommel himself was involved in execution. In general the section isn't too large compared to others, and in relation to its importance. As the commanding officer of these units Rommel of course was responsible for their acts. In general I would only trim it by
1377:
I agree about Adelaide Institute being neo Nazi, because notable organizations say so. But one author commenting about a magazine being too right wing and mentioning one incident while supposed extreme rightish articles of an author are allowed, is enough evidence for it being unacceptable as a
2553:
It sounds very unlikely that Rommel was trying to reduce military training if he, by all accounts including that of Jodl who stood on his side in this case, was trying to convert the Hitlerjudgend into a military organization under the Army's management and not the party's. It seems Butler and
2203:
The personal feuding factor was only really important in Heinrich Kirchheim's case (who Rommel dismissed and called a coward. Although apparently on the side of Rommel, he did not keep personal grudge nor think much about it, considering he allowed Kirchheim' wife free access to his own family
1967:
transcripts with appropriate prose and / or citations on several artcles, and I can say I feel more convinced that they add zero value to the encyclopedia. I never used to read them, because they just looked a block of text to me. When I first encountered these sections on WWII articles, I was
1930:
I think that the approach in the Manstein article is superior in this regards. The Wehrmachtbericht was a Nazi propaganda broadcast, and historians don't quote it. The material here is additionally troublesome as it presents this propaganda with no context whatsoever. The claim that Tobruk was
1281:
You are inventing Knowledge (XXG) rules on the spot to justify your edits. A letter in a newspaper by unverified individual is hardly reliable source of information or notable to push such controversial statement. As to the Quadrant it is actually connected to right wing movement. Genocide and
687:
they happened mainly in July. Nowhere is Rommel mentioned. Such deportations and actions were organized mainly by Einsatzgruppen and SS during WW2(although with Wehrmacht's assistance), and it seems very unlikely that deportation of over 150,000 French Jews would be assigned to Rommel and his
922:
Cornelia Hecht, who staged and wrote her own Mythos Rommel (hugely successful exhibition, and booklet) also sees him and his Mythos in an ambivalent light, rather than outright negative or positive: Von Rommel könne man „viel über Ambivalenz lernen“, so die Stuttgarter Landeshistorikerin
1102:
You just compared victims of Nazi war and executions to criminals shot by police. Your personal views here are not relevant to the fact that the sentences about supposed Rommel being chivalrous are completely out of place, unnecessary, repeat Rommel Mythos and go against actual
2256:
In short this was about politics rather than personal feuding, and Hitler chose Rundstedt and Guderian because they were senior officers who were feared and respected by others. And we should encourage readers to look at the bigger picture. Black summarized the thing better:
265:
Additionally, with the volume of literature available on Rommel and the Mediterranean Theatre, such as by Porch, Reuth, Caddick-Addams, Kitchen, Watson, Barr and Messenger (just to name some of those that I've used in the article), I don't think we as editors need to parse
1282:
Resistance in Southeast Asia: Documentation, Denial, and Justice in South East Asia by Ben Kiernan states "Its CIA sponsor had already found Quadrant "too right wing," and "wanted to distance". And this is pretty clear here that it isn't any reliable academic newspaper:
270:
as this has already been done by the authors that I mentioned (let alone Butler, who wrote a biography). So if the secondary sources make note of passages from Rommel's memoirs, then it's appropriate to use them, but cite to the secondary sources, rather than to the
1945:
I can see the Wehrmachtbericht being included in the article of a military soldier or as to a military action when relevant. In those instances it should not be totally removed; Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski can be distinguished and would not fall into that category.
1350:
is that this one killing was illegal (or not), that really doesn't say much about Rommel. It was war. If such killings were systematic of his command, okay, but a big focus on just one single incident tends to imply the opposite, which shouldn't be our intent.
1006:
else) will make necessary clarifications on the Wiki contents when I have time. But I think I've collected enough evidences here say what I said. I welcome revisionistic views on Rommel, as long as the mentioned authors are not mispresented in multiple ways.
1058:
Also, (almost) Immediately in front of these two sentences is a sentence who mentions that he did what he did because he tried to conceal Nazi crimes and not out of noble motives, so these two sentences represent opinions that argue against that theory.
2429:
Gibson - author from the US army who criticizes his military performances, I've seen quoted by others. He's critical but reasonably neutral and does bother going into details, without major obvious false representations of facts. Maybe useful for some
2242:
1251:
no law expert's opinion, so I suggest that we respect militaries and historians as equals. Just as we respect historians who write on generals' military performances, including those who have commanded and those who never command a single unit.
2250:
1971:
Here are some examples of the reports. In some cases, they simply contain no information, as in the first bullet below. Overall, this exercise has left me mildly disturbed, as they ooze the "Nazi propaganda newsreel" vibe (emphasis mine):
546:
398:
1611:
This part (that shows even Gauss knew about the plans) sounds honest to me, because Lieb has also found a note of Gause on his copy of Young's book on Rommel, regarding the part Rommel knew nothing about the coup, "Stimmt nicht" ("Not
1436:
Additionally, Goerdeler had written down Rommel's name on a list as potential Reich President (according to Stroelin, they had not managed to announce this intention to Rommel yet and he probably never heard of it until the end of his
2003:
were carried out on 9 April from strong units in close cooperation of the Heer, the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe under the high command of General of the Infantry von Falkenhorst, of naval forces under the command of Generaladmiral
2258:
2220:
520:
372:
987:
Did we really needed to read a long Original Research about how Rommel was great, Hitler's predictions are coming true and historians are forced to admit Rommel is a hero? In earnest this long essay should be deleted from the talk
1229:
The article appropriately cites notable historians and authors, and introducing an opinion of an essentially lay person appears to give this statement undue weight. Weston is not a historian or an expert on the law of war. The
2226:
2233:
the armed forces, read the oration that delared Rommel had died a loyal Nazi soldier at his funeral...etc In short they helped Hitler to consolidate the Wehrmacht politically, thus his comment that Rundstedt did the regime a
169:
143:
609:
I restored to prior version where the citations were appropriately placed. Indeed, the sources listed make a connection between the British propaganda and its impact on the troops. The edit that I fixed inserted material
1729:
1682:
2029:
There's been so much new WWII historiography in the past twenty years. So, if there was any historical value in the transcripts, I'm sure there would have been published research on them. In the same vein, besides the
2598:
His last home is accessible from Bahnhofstraße, Herrlingen, and now houses a small museum (phone ahead to get the key). Postal address: Lindenhof 2, 89134 Blaustein-Herrlingen. Therefore *not* named in his honour.
1234:
article states that it's a "literary and cultural journal"; so it does not appear to be a specialist publication that's appropriate in citing for this controversial issue. Would like to hear feedback from others.
1755:
1394:
And here is your bias. I notice you say nothing about Bewley's letter (because it's also a letter). He is not a source listed by any historian either (as far as I can search for, please correct me if I'm wrong).
2349:
The reason the article is long and there are many references is that almost everything regarding the subject is controversial among the scholars, much more so than Hitler - and I'm absolutely sure about that.
2199:
It's true to different level but I don't think we should insert the phrase. Just let the readers themselves investigate the situation - it was much more complicated than that these three hated Rommel or smth.
2296:), which I would like to remove. It has been definitely established that D.I. is a writer with a political agenda, and close ties with neo-nazi groups, and therefore is to be considered an unreliable source.
309:
2446:: con: basically the author is uninformed regarding the subject and makes several factual mistakes, or at least provides very controversial opinions as facts; pro: she does quote notable critical authors.
1985:
The 106th Panzer Brigade "Feldherrenhalle" under the leadership of Oberst Baeke, who is decorated with the Oak Leaves with Swords to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, distinguished itself by showing
1256:
911:"Mythos Rommel". But Mythos Rommel as being used by German authors refers to something mostly neutral, like "the Enigma of Rommel" or "The Rommel Mystery" or even "the Mythology of Rommel", for example
1968:
confused mostly about two things: (1) what this was in the first place; and (2) why they took up so much real estate, and had their own prominent section. (That's why I rewrote the linked article).
2246:
2230:
1401:
But yeah, I agree maybe one sentence is enough. Because "criminal" or not, is a very serious accusation, and needs decisions by legal organizations, not just historians or journalists or veterans.
1387:
verified individual. Why the hell is an author listed by a serious historian, one apparently living at least into the 2000s and still joining multiple activities in his country, including giving
806:) 14:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC) And? Have you ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome? Does the single quote from single person change the fact that these were slaves that Germans could kill at any time?--
1816:
believe that Rommel was at least committed to opening his front independently would normally think that his incapacitation was importance. If any change is made, this should be kept in mind.
1587:
I think that Misch and Young can be dispensed with as dated, possibly also Shirer. I suggest keeping Reuth, since this was the source I used, and perhaps retaining Hansen and / or Marshall?
770:
So what does author consider the conditions? Bad? Very Bad? Or just that they weren't terrible because the workers weren't short randomly but only when they wanted to be free and disobeyed?
2133:
In northern Italy, Field Marshal Rommel with his divisions of his army group, after a short battle, but fought by our troops with deepest bitterness, forced the Italian forces to surrender.
2449:
Robinson, James R.- author of a critical article published in a military journal, which Joseph Forbes (mentioned in the article, both authors come from military circles) argues against.
724:
removing some less reliable sources seemingly supporting Rommel Myth by for example claiming he didn't knew or support executions, despite Rommel boasting about being involved in one.--
2573:
This section has some tangled sentence structures and disconcerting grammatical problems. Someone who understands how to write AND knows the subject should do some work on it. Thanks
2259:
After the unsuccessful July bomb plot of 1944, the bulk of the German military command rallied to Hitler, while Nazification was pushed by Guderian, the new Chief of the General Staff
2069:
If someone is willing to do the work and provide citations, I'd be all for it. But I'd rather not have to read more of the reports. We can see how the consensus continues to develop.
2225:
After the July plot, there was a void that threatened to swallow the whole regime. Hitler filled that void by Rundstedt and Guderian. They presided over the court martial, issued
240:(a clear admirer, as evidenced by the material that's been taken out over the course of the past couple of months), Rommel's widow & son, and Rommel's former chief of staff.
2303:" a quote is given, with the unnecessary original German text in note 288, without any reference to its origin. It may come from Remy,2002, not sure though. Can somebody help?
2130:
As announced by special announcement, German and Italian troops under the command of Colonel General Rommel assaulted yesterday most of the highly reinforced Fortress Tobruck.
251:
So the natural inclination was to present Rommel in the best possible light and align his image to what was acceptable at that time (early 1950s). Hence the tie-in with the
308:] Bastico and others for letting Rommel do the job. Certainly the Allied soldiers at the time already knew that Rommel complained much about his Italian allies, and it was
1100:
In some countries in the West today, even during times of peace, police would shoot if you don't obey them after a certain level of warning, whether you have weapons or no
628:
I'm okay with taking this out: "To counteract any demoralizing effect such articles might have on the British troops, ..." as long as citations stay in proper locations.
1199:
792:
Many thousands of French men were forced to work on the Atlantic Wall as part of an arrangement between the Vichy government and the Albert Speer’s Organisation Todt.
2595:"Numerous streets in Germany, especially in his home state of Baden-Württemberg, are named in his honour, including the street where his last home was located"
1287:
of the term, an expert in the field. That didn't matter. Quadrant articles are not subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny as articles for academic publication.
2021:
In the second defensive battle in Courland, units of the army and Germanic volunteers of the Waffen SS under the command of Colonel General Schörner, again
2602:
The street named in after him (Erwin-Rommel-Steige) *is nearby*, and leads to the Erwin-Rommel memorial, which marks the spot where he commited suicide.
2045:
In a few cases where I tried to incorporate the transcript into the prose, it came out looking sort of hokey, and I'm not sure what value it adds; see:
1976:
In the battles on the East Prussian border, two battle groups under the leadership of the Oak Leaves bearers Colonel Koetz and Colonel Lauchert have
674:
697:
230:
I don't disagree that Rommel's memoirs may be useful for those who want to understand his thinking, but I think we need to keep two things in mind:
823:
He said he felt bad and not enthusiastic, and that he realized he had done something benefited the bad guys, it doesn't sound Stockholmish to me.
675:"During Rommel's time in France, Hitler ordered him to deport the country's Jewish population; Rommel disobeyed"-really? Dubious source and claim
1213:
Weston, Richard. "War: Ruthless And Brutal - Volume 49 Issue 5 (May 2005)". No. May 2005. Quadrant Magazine Limited. Quadrant Magazine Limited.
1164:
Geoffrey, Bewley, (July 2004). "Was Rommel a war criminal? - Quadrant, v.48, no.7-8, 2004 July-August, p.8(2)". No. no.7-8, 2004 July–August.
343:
inserted a new citation among the text already cited. So I restored prior version, by appending the new content to the end of the paragraph.
1667:
1575:
1556:
1537:
1195:
592:
So I restore my version too. I don't think any word on what Auchinleck had in mind is needed either - let's allow the wiki reader to decide.
505:
486:
447:
428:
2574:
2253:
recounted a secret meeting between Guderian and Rommel at the Four Seasons Hotel, of which unfortunately we don't know the true content.
1297:
In any case it doesn't even matter. As stated beforehand a letter signed by an unverified individual isn't either notable or reliable.--
2211:
The other two were more like they had known about the plot beforehand (at least Rundstedt, and I find an author who states the same ab
915:
Peter Lieb (one of the authors listed as if he's one who's trying to debunk "the Rommel myth") states that he "is and remains Mythos".
1490:
178:
2241:
There was great reluctance on Rundstedt's part - he could not bear to go to the cremation. Even modern authors like Remy (p.229) and
1764:
1738:
1691:
1516:
1464:
555:
529:
407:
381:
152:
1147:...while Richard Weston, veteran at Tobruk, argues that it was not only legal but also made sense considering Rommel's situation.
930:
This revisionism vs revisionism trench was the reason Der Spiegel had to change its general tone towards Rommel, beginning with
2310:
there is at least one book never cited. In these cases what is the preferred choice: to remove or to move to the next Section
1404:
That's why the article about Churchill does not have "war criminal" in the head, although many authors accuse him of being so.
829:(I would say Mengele's victims were, though. But even then they retained the ability to recognize the situation as terrible)
1447:
1089:
What are you actually saying ? You realize that is a claim made by Nazi propaganda to justify genocidal war against Poles ?
1605:
688:
division. This seems sensationalist and very poorly sourced. If there are no objections I will remove the dubious source.--
2460:
2620:
1840:
I had previously started a discussion on this topic, suggesting the section be removed, to which there was no objection
1913:
It does not contain the Wehmachtbericht wording, apart from a reference to Manstein's being mentioned in the report.
1841:
924:
111:
94:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
2340:-It's Ernst Juenger's original sentence, quoted by a lot of sources, yeah including Remy. Perhaps needs to be fixed.
957:, we aren't going to debate Rommel here. Do you have some concise, specific, statement of a change you'd like? --
38:
2245:
felt that his affection for R., faint as it was, was genuine. Guderian probably had professional envy, and he was
2346:-Why do we have to do the comparison between the article with that of Hitler? Because Hitler was more important?
1869:
1302:
1108:
1042:
993:
879:
811:
779:
729:
693:
2423:
Speidel - inaccurate or not, an author who plays a major role in preserving Rommel's reputation, by all accounts
1255:
article, whether that's enough credentials or not I think we should let the wiki reader decides, I mean if this
685:
233:(1) Rommel was writing the notes with a view of publishing them as a book after the war, so he was self-editing;
1356:
962:
2578:
2215:), but they ducked and waited, and when they saw that Hitler had won, they came out and "surrendered" to him.
2513:
section. As for Friedmann 2012, or it's a typo or the full reference is missing. Currently there is only one
2645:
2608:
125:
He urged Axis authorities to treat the Arab with the utmost respect to prevent uprisings behind the front.
2013:
1298:
1104:
1038:
989:
875:
807:
775:
725:
689:
2205:
2443:
2164:
2141:
2114:
2074:
1920:
1886:
1793:
1592:
1324:
1240:
684:
article the deportations of French Jews happened in March 1942.Here at Yad Vashem site we can learn that
633:
619:
574:
280:
196:
2005:
1429:
954:
2616:
2318:
10, 11, 15 citations are piled up one after the other, most likely repeating similar considerations.
1861:
1087:
Belief in German population in Poland needing protection (because they were really suppressed there)
2559:
2539:
2486:
2369:
2265:
2185:
1826:
1622:
1414:
1352:
1268:
1231:
1129:
1077:
1016:
978:
958:
939:
895:
846:
803:
665:
597:
325:
256:
WWII largely finds its origins in Rommel's writings, and this perception has persisted to this day.
217:
2390:
There are also two short notes without their full references (typos?): Friedmann 2012; Remy 2015.
2641:
2612:
2091:
postscript - It is of the type which you have above. (sorry, tired, time to stop for the night).
1898:
1701:
1176:
865:
2156:
2084:
I believe following this example for military personnel is reasonable: * "Eight mentions in the
1347:
1640:
On July 17, Rommel was incapacitated by an Allied air attack, which many authors describe as a
1285:
2522:
2398:
2327:
2235:
2096:
1951:
1761:
1735:
1688:
1513:
1487:
1461:
1214:
1165:
552:
526:
404:
378:
237:
175:
149:
47:
17:
2088:: 11, 12 and 31 October 1941; 19 and 20 May 1942; 2 July 1942; 20 March 1943; 4 August 1943".
2042:
individuals don't include the text of mentions in dispatches or communiques, and rightly so.
950:
2160:
2137:
2110:
2085:
2070:
2062:
2046:
1964:
1936:
1916:
1909:: 11, 12 and 31 October 1941; 19 and 20 May 1942; 2 July 1942; 20 March 1943; 4 August 1943"
1906:
1882:
1853:
1789:
1588:
1320:
1236:
629:
615:
570:
276:
192:
1865:
1714:
1188:
1143:
As a follow up to the above discussion, I'd suggest removing a statement from a veteran:
789:
So the French civilians's words are distorted but your views based on... nothing are not.
252:
2249:
in Normandy, but nothing suggests it went that bad (that he desired to kill R.). In fact
1857:
912:
1864:
source. In either case, the section is citing verbatim (including in German) a piece of
2555:
2535:
2498:
2482:
2470:(this article bothers to talk at lengths about movies about him and his image in media)
2378:
2365:
2261:
2181:
2057:. This leaves simple text, allowing the readers to click on the link to find out more:
1822:
1618:
1410:
1264:
1125:
1073:
1063:
even Rommel's fan. He's Model's fan through and through. I don't know about the other.
1012:
974:
935:
891:
842:
799:
661:
593:
321:
213:
107:
931:
2034:
The Propaganda Warriors: The Wehrmacht and the Consolidation of the German Home Front
1788:
willing to have others shove Hitler to the side and act accordingly after the fact".
750:
713:
2518:
2394:
2323:
2092:
1947:
1849:
856:
Introduction of an anti-semitic Holocaust Denial site as a source by user Deamonpen
2649:
2624:
2582:
2563:
2543:
2526:
2490:
2402:
2373:
2331:
2269:
2189:
2168:
2145:
2118:
2100:
2078:
1955:
1940:
1924:
1890:
1830:
1797:
1626:
1596:
1418:
1360:
1328:
1306:
1272:
1244:
1133:
1112:
1081:
1046:
1020:
997:
982:
966:
943:
899:
883:
850:
815:
783:
754:
733:
717:
669:
637:
623:
601:
578:
329:
284:
221:
200:
114:
thread ( :-) ), then it was not me, as I did not participate in the discussion.
1932:
1844:. I'm replicating it here to see if a consensus can be achieved. Original post:
1757:
How Hitler Could Have Won World War II: The Fatal Errors That Led to Nazi Defeat
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2009:
1812:
guy who would shoulder war and civil war, meant that they were going to fail.
1217:
1168:
949:
I did actually take the trouble to read both the posts above, but still, see
681:
306:, and about officers abandoning soldiers if "not a few Italians" criticized
2433:
Bierman, John; Smith, Colin - notable, used and criticized by other authors
2290:
Noakes, Jeremy (2004). "Hitler and the Third Reich". In Stone, Dan (ed.).
2012:
and from numerous Luftwaffe units under the leadership of Generalleutnant
1852:) needed in the article? It is citing from the OKW propaganda report, the
2393:
For the other questions I would like to read some more comments. Thanks.
2381:, with a search per last name I found following unused items (E&OE):
1261:
746:
709:
118:
the article is particularly needed, but I don't feel strongly about it.
2477:
As for Friedmann 2012: not a mistake. We quote two of his articles here.
121:
Here's the material in question, for the reference of other editors:
1868:
that has no informative value; all such reports were approved by the
763:
Strange and very biased POV sentences- conditions were "not terrible"
1684:
Erwin J. E. Rommel-Great Military Leaders of the 20th Century Series
1872:
and were meant solely to instill optimism in the German population.
1118:
2503:
The following authors, I think, should be moved into Bibliography
2436:
Citino - new, notable author of the Myth trend (negative meaning)
2412:
The following authors, I think, should be moved into Bibliography
742:
I did not miss that first part: that's the exception I mention.
2109:
Agreed; it aligns with the way the other awards are presented.
953:(which applies even more to swathes of non-English text). Per
874:
I will proceed with removal of this source from the article.--
25:
1483:
Disobeying Hitler: German Resistance in the Last Year of WWII
1877:
In the past, I've seen these removed from articles such as
2466:
Fellgiebel, Walther-Peer (2000) - not notable in my opnion
708:
such a large section in this article. Thoughts? --John (
1994:
in the lower Alsace. It shot up 40 enemy tanks in 3 days.
1509:
Hitler's Last Witness: The Memoirs of Hitler's Bodyguard
1032:
Rommel Myth sentences not adding anything to the article
2152:
2054:
2050:
1878:
1842:
Talk:Erwin_Rommel/Archive_5#Wehrmachtbericht_references
1432:, that is are six citations needed for this statement?
1260:
culture, probably much more than about poetry or love,
1093:
Invasions before WW2 were not something *that* illegal.
861:
340:
2208:
was Hildegard Kirchheim, according to Marshall, p119)
2463:, that's about Manfred Rommel rather than his father.
2155:. According to feedback there, these quotations fail
1897:
Also compare to an article on another Field Marshal,
171:
Hitler's Soldiers: The German Army in the Third Reich
2534:Yes, I did not notice that. Just fixed Friedmann.
2001:protection of the neutrality of Denmark and Norway
2049:. I'm more inclined to follow Diannaa's example:
1319:I agree that Weston should come out as wp:undue.
682:https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Holocaust_in_France
569:Please let me know if there are any questions.
525:. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 31–32.
377:. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 31–32.
522:The Battle of El Alamein: Fortress in the Sand
374:The Battle of El Alamein: Fortress in the Sand
2038:souce, I don't recall seeing anything else.
1963:I went through the exercise of replacing the
8:
2286:the amateur British historian, David Irving
1198:) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
703:"Execution of captured prisoners in France"
2606:
2280:Note 302 cites a long article written for
1988:attacking spirit and determined stableness
2507:should be moved to Furter reading section
1666:sfn error: no target: CITEREFHansen2014 (
1574:sfn error: no target: CITEREFShirer1960 (
485:sfn error: no target: CITEREFWatson1999 (
427:sfn error: no target: CITEREFWatson1999 (
1850:Erwin_Rommel#Wehrmachtbericht_references
1555:sfn error: no target: CITEREFYoung1950 (
1536:sfn error: no target: CITEREFReuth2005 (
1119:https://en.wikipedia.org/Polish_Corridor
504:sfn error: no target: CITEREFReuth2005 (
446:sfn error: no target: CITEREFReuth2005 (
2439:Thompson - military person of high rank
1654:
1446:
1156:
473:
363:
275:. That would be my preferred approach.
134:
2343:-What book, might I ask, specifically?
1881:. Please let me know of any feedback.
1710:
1699:
1661:
1642:fateful event that drastically altered
1569:
1184:
1174:
480:
422:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1978:particularly distinguished themselves
1550:
1531:
499:
441:
236:(2) His writing was indeed edited—by
7:
2065:(21 June 1942 and 10 September 1943)
24:
2151:Update: please see discussion at
168:Shepherd, Ben H. (Jun 28, 2016).
2632:
2322:Thanks for any help / opinions.
1096:and what sources are you using.
545:Warner, Philip s (Jun 1, 2006).
397:Warner, Philip s (Jun 1, 2006).
310:a joke they could share with him
29:
2292:Historiography of the Holocaust
1836:Wehrmachtbericht report, take 2
1734:. Xlibris Corporation. p. 334.
1389:interviews through the Internet
2650:20:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
2625:15:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
2564:04:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
2195:Rundstedt, Guderian, Kirchheim
1999:The military measures for the
1687:. Infobase Publishing. p. 95.
1194:CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
548:Auchinleck: The Lonely Soldier
400:Auchinleck: The Lonely Soldier
110:, if you are referring to the
1:
2544:03:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
2527:02:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
2491:09:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
2403:09:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
2374:08:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
2332:07:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
2221:"no world view, no character"
2153:NPOV noticeboard on the topic
2126:Text removed, for reference:
1457:Discovering the Rommel Murder
145:Discovering the Rommel Murder
2583:01:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
2515:Friedmann, Jan (23 May 2007)
2294:. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 42.
2023:won a full defensive victory
1860:or extensive quoting from a
1856:. This appears to be either
2270:05:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
2204:shortly before his death -
2190:17:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
1901:, which is a GA article:
1760:. Crown/Archetype. p. 255.
614:the text cited to sources.
206:I apologize for my mistake.
2666:
2592:Following is inaccurate:
2509:". Currently they are in
2386:John; Smith, Colin (2002)
2169:03:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
1891:06:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
1870:Reich Propaganda Ministry
1831:07:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
1798:04:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
1754:Alexander, Bevin (2007).
1627:07:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
1597:04:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
1419:00:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
1361:21:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
1329:19:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
1307:19:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
1273:06:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
1245:05:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
1134:05:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
1113:19:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
1082:15:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
1047:15:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
1021:05:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
998:19:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
983:18:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
967:17:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
944:15:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
900:04:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
884:20:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
860:In this edit on 17th June
851:15:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
816:14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
784:14:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
755:16:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
734:08:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
718:03:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
698:09:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
670:06:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
638:06:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
624:06:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
602:01:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
579:08:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
551:. Pen and Sword. p. 108.
403:. Pen and Sword. p. 108.
330:02:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
285:10:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
222:09:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
201:07:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
174:. Yale University Press.
2481:Remy - yes, typo, 2002.
2456:I suggest for deleting:
2146:05:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
2119:01:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
2101:01:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
2079:01:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
1956:20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
1941:09:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
1925:19:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
1728:Tague, James E. (2011).
519:Majdalany, Fred (2003).
371:Majdalany, Fred (2003).
316:before all historians.
2588:Streets named after him
2426:Churchill - same reason
2061:Mentioned twice on the
2047:Michael Wittmann#Awards
1905:"Eight mentions in the
2505:" maybe you intended "
2032:Uziel, Daniel (2008).
1731:The Last Field Marshal
1709:Check date values in:
1681:Rice, Earle (, 2009).
1506:Misch, Rochus (2014).
103:Rommel in North Africa
2605:How to correct this?
1454:Marshall, Charles F.
142:Marshall, Charles F.
42:of past discussions.
2442:Chambers, author of
2247:behind Schweppenburg
2206:a woman on the right
112:"I shot the colonel"
2549:Clash with Schirach
2301:Plot against Hitler
2175:Massacres in France
1512:. Frontline Books.
1232:Quadrant (magazine)
2501:, when you wrote "
2459:Grill - author of
2251:von Luck's memoirs
1899:Erich von Manstein
1848:"Is this section (
1604:By the guidelines
1428:Is this perhaps a
925:Dr. Cornelia Hecht
866:Adelaide Institute
459:Restored version:
2627:
2611:comment added by
1992:defensive battles
1480:Hansen, Randall.
1262:see for yourself.
864:goes to infamous
268:The Rommel Papers
238:B.H. Liddell Hart
100:
99:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
18:Talk:Erwin Rommel
2657:
2640:
2636:
2635:
2569:Between the Wars
2517:full reference.
2295:
2238:after the plot.
2086:Wehrmachtbericht
2063:Wehrmachtbericht
2037:
1965:Wehrmachtbericht
1907:Wehrmachtbericht
1879:in Bach-Zelewski
1854:Wehrmachtbericht
1780:
1777:
1771:
1770:
1751:
1745:
1744:
1725:
1719:
1718:
1712:
1707:
1705:
1697:
1678:
1672:
1671:
1659:
1580:
1579:
1567:
1561:
1560:
1548:
1542:
1541:
1529:
1523:
1522:
1503:
1497:
1496:
1477:
1471:
1470:
1451:
1222:
1221:
1210:
1204:
1203:
1192:
1187:has extra text (
1186:
1182:
1180:
1172:
1161:
562:
561:
542:
536:
535:
516:
510:
509:
497:
491:
490:
478:
452:
451:
439:
433:
432:
420:
414:
413:
394:
388:
387:
368:
349:With the edit:
185:
184:
165:
159:
158:
139:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2665:
2664:
2660:
2659:
2658:
2656:
2655:
2654:
2633:
2631:
2590:
2571:
2551:
2312:Further reading
2289:
2277:
2197:
2177:
2031:
1866:Nazi propaganda
1838:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1778:
1774:
1767:
1753:
1752:
1748:
1741:
1727:
1726:
1722:
1708:
1698:
1694:
1680:
1679:
1675:
1665:
1660:
1656:
1634:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1573:
1568:
1564:
1554:
1549:
1545:
1535:
1530:
1526:
1519:
1505:
1504:
1500:
1493:
1479:
1478:
1474:
1467:
1453:
1452:
1448:
1426:
1299:MyMoloboaccount
1227:
1226:
1225:
1212:
1211:
1207:
1193:
1183:
1173:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1141:
1105:MyMoloboaccount
1039:MyMoloboaccount
1034:
990:MyMoloboaccount
908:
876:MyMoloboaccount
858:
808:MyMoloboaccount
776:MyMoloboaccount
765:
726:MyMoloboaccount
705:
690:MyMoloboaccount
677:
567:
566:
565:
558:
544:
543:
539:
532:
518:
517:
513:
503:
498:
494:
484:
479:
475:
457:
456:
455:
445:
440:
436:
426:
421:
417:
410:
396:
395:
391:
384:
370:
369:
365:
337:
304:Hitler about it
253:Clean Wehrmacht
190:
189:
188:
181:
167:
166:
162:
155:
141:
140:
136:
105:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2663:
2661:
2653:
2652:
2589:
2586:
2575:124.148.24.180
2570:
2567:
2550:
2547:
2532:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2479:
2478:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2467:
2464:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2447:
2440:
2437:
2434:
2431:
2427:
2424:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2388:
2387:
2363:
2362:
2361:Thank you too.
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2344:
2341:
2338:
2320:
2319:
2315:
2304:
2297:
2276:
2273:
2196:
2193:
2176:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2135:
2134:
2131:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2104:
2103:
2089:
2067:
2066:
2027:
2026:
2018:
2017:
1996:
1995:
1982:
1981:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1911:
1910:
1895:
1894:
1874:
1873:
1837:
1834:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1782:
1781:
1772:
1765:
1746:
1739:
1720:
1692:
1673:
1653:
1652:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1633:
1630:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1609:
1582:
1581:
1562:
1543:
1524:
1517:
1498:
1492:978-0571284528
1491:
1472:
1465:
1445:
1444:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1425:
1422:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1402:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1353:A D Monroe III
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1283:
1276:
1275:
1252:
1224:
1223:
1205:
1155:
1154:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1140:
1137:
1070:
1033:
1030:
1028:
1025:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
970:
969:
959:A D Monroe III
907:
904:
903:
902:
857:
854:
840:
839:
838:
837:
827:
826:
825:
824:
795:
774:objections. --
764:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
743:
737:
736:
704:
701:
676:
673:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
590:
589:
583:
564:
563:
556:
537:
530:
511:
502:, pp. 141–143.
492:
483:, pp. 166–167.
472:
471:
467:
466:
465:
454:
453:
444:, pp. 141–143.
434:
425:, pp. 166–167.
415:
408:
389:
382:
362:
361:
357:
356:
355:
336:
333:
299:
298:
297:
296:
291:
290:
289:
288:
260:
259:
258:
257:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
234:
225:
224:
211:
207:
187:
186:
180:978-0195079036
179:
160:
153:
133:
132:
128:
127:
126:
104:
101:
98:
97:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2662:
2651:
2647:
2643:
2642:Beyond My Ken
2639:
2630:
2629:
2628:
2626:
2622:
2618:
2614:
2610:
2603:
2600:
2596:
2593:
2587:
2585:
2584:
2580:
2576:
2568:
2566:
2565:
2561:
2557:
2548:
2546:
2545:
2541:
2537:
2528:
2524:
2520:
2516:
2512:
2508:
2504:
2500:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2488:
2484:
2476:
2475:
2468:
2465:
2462:
2458:
2457:
2455:
2454:
2448:
2445:
2441:
2438:
2435:
2432:
2428:
2425:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2419:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2400:
2396:
2391:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2380:
2376:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2360:
2352:
2351:
2348:
2347:
2345:
2342:
2339:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2329:
2325:
2316:
2313:
2309:
2305:
2302:
2298:
2293:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2278:
2274:
2272:
2271:
2267:
2263:
2260:
2254:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2239:
2237:
2236:great service
2232:
2228:
2223:
2222:
2216:
2214:
2209:
2207:
2201:
2194:
2192:
2191:
2187:
2183:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2143:
2139:
2132:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2120:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2102:
2098:
2094:
2090:
2087:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2064:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2024:
2020:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2002:
1998:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1984:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1969:
1966:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1908:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1900:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1876:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1843:
1835:
1833:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1814:
1813:
1810:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1776:
1773:
1768:
1766:9780307420930
1763:
1759:
1758:
1750:
1747:
1742:
1740:9781465314819
1737:
1733:
1732:
1724:
1721:
1716:
1703:
1695:
1693:9781438103273
1690:
1686:
1685:
1677:
1674:
1669:
1663:
1658:
1655:
1651:
1645:possessed." )
1643:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1632:Fateful event
1631:
1629:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1610:
1607:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1577:
1571:
1566:
1563:
1558:
1552:
1547:
1544:
1539:
1533:
1528:
1525:
1520:
1518:9781848327498
1515:
1511:
1510:
1502:
1499:
1494:
1489:
1485:
1484:
1476:
1473:
1468:
1466:9780811742788
1463:
1459:
1458:
1450:
1443:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1431:
1423:
1421:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1403:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1392:
1390:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1349:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1263:
1258:
1253:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1233:
1219:
1216:
1209:
1206:
1201:
1197:
1190:
1178:
1170:
1167:
1160:
1157:
1153:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1138:
1136:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1101:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1088:
1084:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1031:
1029:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
995:
991:
985:
984:
980:
976:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
947:
946:
945:
941:
937:
933:
928:
926:
920:
916:
914:
906:Mythos Rommel
905:
901:
897:
893:
888:
887:
886:
885:
881:
877:
872:
871:
867:
862:
855:
853:
852:
848:
844:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
796:
793:
790:
787:
785:
781:
777:
771:
768:
762:
756:
752:
748:
744:
741:
740:
739:
738:
735:
731:
727:
722:
721:
720:
719:
715:
711:
702:
700:
699:
695:
691:
686:
683:
680:According to
672:
671:
667:
663:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
639:
635:
631:
627:
626:
625:
621:
617:
613:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
599:
595:
586:
585:
584:
581:
580:
576:
572:
559:
557:9781473812048
554:
550:
549:
541:
538:
533:
531:9780812218503
528:
524:
523:
515:
512:
507:
501:
496:
493:
488:
482:
477:
474:
470:
462:
461:
460:
449:
443:
438:
435:
430:
424:
419:
416:
411:
409:9781473812048
406:
402:
401:
393:
390:
385:
383:9780812218503
380:
376:
375:
367:
364:
360:
352:
351:
350:
347:
344:
342:
334:
332:
331:
327:
323:
317:
313:
311:
307:
305:
295:
294:
293:
292:
286:
282:
278:
274:
269:
264:
263:
262:
261:
254:
250:
249:
248:
247:
239:
235:
232:
231:
229:
228:
227:
226:
223:
219:
215:
212:
208:
205:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
182:
177:
173:
172:
164:
161:
156:
154:9780811742788
151:
147:
146:
138:
135:
131:
124:
123:
122:
119:
115:
113:
109:
102:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2637:
2607:— Preceding
2604:
2601:
2597:
2594:
2591:
2572:
2552:
2533:
2514:
2511:Bibliography
2510:
2506:
2502:
2480:
2392:
2389:
2377:
2364:
2321:
2311:
2308:Bibliography
2307:
2300:
2299:In Section "
2291:
2285:
2281:
2255:
2240:
2224:
2217:
2210:
2202:
2198:
2178:
2136:
2125:
2068:
2044:
2040:
2033:
2028:
2022:
2008:and Admiral
2000:
1991:
1987:
1977:
1970:
1962:
1915:
1912:
1896:
1839:
1821:
1786:
1775:
1756:
1749:
1730:
1723:
1683:
1676:
1657:
1649:
1641:
1636:Commenting:
1635:
1617:
1606:on this page
1586:
1565:
1546:
1527:
1508:
1501:
1482:
1475:
1456:
1449:
1441:
1427:
1409:
1393:
1385:
1346:Even if the
1257:serious book
1228:
1208:
1159:
1151:
1142:
1124:
1116:
1099:
1098:
1092:
1091:
1086:
1085:
1072:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1050:
1035:
1027:
1024:
1011:
986:
971:
929:
921:
917:
909:
873:
868:
859:
841:
828:
797:
794:
791:
788:
772:
769:
766:
706:
678:
660:
611:
591:
582:
568:
547:
540:
521:
514:
495:
476:
468:
458:
437:
418:
399:
392:
373:
366:
358:
348:
345:
338:
318:
314:
300:
272:
267:
191:
170:
163:
144:
137:
129:
120:
116:
106:
78:
43:
37:
2282:Der Spiegel
2229:that truly
2161:K.e.coffman
2138:K.e.coffman
2111:K.e.coffman
2071:K.e.coffman
2006:Saalwächter
1917:K.e.coffman
1883:K.e.coffman
1790:K.e.coffman
1662:Hansen 2014
1589:K.e.coffman
1570:Shirer 1960
1430:WP:Overcite
1321:K.e.coffman
1237:K.e.coffman
955:WP:NOTFORUM
870:commission.
630:K.e.coffman
616:K.e.coffman
571:K.e.coffman
481:Watson 1999
423:Watson 1999
335:Recent edit
277:K.e.coffman
193:K.e.coffman
36:This is an
2010:Rolf Carls
1862:WP:Primary
1650:References
1572:, p. 1031.
1551:Young 1950
1532:Reuth 2005
1442:References
1152:References
988:page....--
500:Reuth 2005
469:References
442:Reuth 2005
359:References
130:References
2556:Deamonpen
2536:Deamonpen
2499:Deamonpen
2483:Deamonpen
2461:interview
2444:interview
2379:Deamonpen
2366:Deamonpen
2275:Questions
2262:Deamonpen
2182:Deamonpen
1823:Deamonpen
1702:cite book
1619:Deamonpen
1553:, p. 197.
1534:, p. 183.
1424:Overcite?
1411:Deamonpen
1265:Deamonpen
1218:0033-5002
1177:cite news
1169:0033-5002
1126:Deamonpen
1103:events.--
1074:Deamonpen
1013:Deamonpen
975:Deamonpen
936:Deamonpen
892:Deamonpen
843:Deamonpen
800:Deamonpen
662:Deamonpen
594:Deamonpen
346:Compare:
322:Deamonpen
214:Deamonpen
108:Deamonpen
95:Archive 9
90:Archive 8
85:Archive 7
79:Archive 6
73:Archive 5
68:Archive 4
60:Archive 1
2621:contribs
2609:unsigned
2231:nazified
2213:Guderian
2157:WP:UNDUE
1664:, p. 46.
1348:WP:TRUTH
747:User:Jwy
710:User:Jwy
2519:Carlotm
2430:people.
2395:Carlotm
2324:Carlotm
2243:Mitcham
2093:Kierzek
2014:Geißler
1990:in the
1948:Kierzek
1612:true").
1185:|issue=
951:WP:TLDR
39:archive
2613:Gjsims
2227:orders
2055:step 2
1933:Nick-D
1711:|date=
1437:life).
1139:Weston
612:inside
273:Papers
2051:step2
1858:WP:OR
786:That
339:This
16:<
2646:talk
2638:Done
2617:talk
2579:talk
2560:talk
2540:talk
2523:talk
2487:talk
2399:talk
2370:talk
2328:talk
2284:by "
2266:talk
2186:talk
2165:talk
2142:talk
2115:talk
2097:talk
2075:talk
2053:and
1952:talk
1937:talk
1921:talk
1887:talk
1827:talk
1794:talk
1762:ISBN
1736:ISBN
1715:help
1689:ISBN
1668:help
1623:talk
1593:talk
1576:help
1557:help
1538:help
1514:ISBN
1488:ISBN
1462:ISBN
1415:talk
1357:talk
1325:talk
1303:talk
1269:talk
1241:talk
1215:ISSN
1200:link
1196:link
1189:help
1166:ISSN
1130:talk
1109:talk
1078:talk
1043:talk
1017:talk
994:talk
979:talk
963:talk
940:talk
932:this
913:here
896:talk
880:talk
847:talk
812:talk
804:talk
780:talk
751:talk
730:talk
714:talk
694:talk
666:talk
634:talk
620:talk
598:talk
575:talk
553:ISBN
527:ISBN
506:help
487:help
448:help
429:help
405:ISBN
379:ISBN
341:edit
326:talk
281:talk
218:talk
197:talk
176:ISBN
150:ISBN
2306:In
2288:" (
2648:)
2623:)
2619:•
2581:)
2562:)
2542:)
2525:)
2489:)
2401:)
2372:)
2330:)
2268:)
2188:)
2167:)
2159:.
2144:)
2117:)
2099:)
2077:)
1954:)
1939:)
1923:)
1889:)
1829:)
1796:)
1706::
1704:}}
1700:{{
1625:)
1595:)
1486:.
1460:.
1417:)
1359:)
1351:--
1327:)
1305:)
1271:)
1243:)
1181::
1179:}}
1175:{{
1132:)
1111:)
1080:)
1045:)
1019:)
996:)
981:)
965:)
942:)
927:.
898:)
882:)
849:)
814:)
782:)
753:)
732:)
716:)
696:)
668:)
636:)
622:)
600:)
577:)
328:)
283:)
220:)
199:)
148:.
64:←
2644:(
2615:(
2577:(
2558:(
2538:(
2521:(
2485:(
2397:(
2368:(
2326:(
2314:?
2264:(
2184:(
2163:(
2140:(
2113:(
2095:(
2073:(
2036:.
2025:.
2016:.
1980:.
1950:(
1935:(
1919:(
1893:"
1885:(
1825:(
1792:(
1769:.
1743:.
1717:)
1713:(
1696:.
1670:)
1621:(
1591:(
1578:)
1559:)
1540:)
1521:.
1495:.
1469:.
1413:(
1355:(
1323:(
1301:(
1267:(
1239:(
1220:.
1202:)
1191:)
1171:.
1128:(
1117:-
1107:(
1076:(
1041:(
1015:(
992:(
977:(
961:(
938:(
894:(
878:(
845:(
810:(
802:(
778:(
749:/
728:(
712:/
692:(
664:(
632:(
618:(
596:(
573:(
560:.
534:.
508:)
489:)
450:)
431:)
412:.
386:.
324:(
287:]
279:(
216:(
195:(
183:.
157:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.