[Thunderhawk]

Absolute nonsense. He was the Nazis favourite general as is well known,

No.
He wasnt hated, but he wasnt loved either.
He was popular - a hero general.
He was also popular amoung some of the high ranking politicians. Himbeing allowed to commit suicide was the politically useful thing to do.

Some of the military saw him as somewhat spoiled as he got a lot of positive PR fighting green troops in Africa and eventually loosing, while generals in the East were fighting hardened veterans, loosing, and getting little/no respect for their achievements which were harder won, more impressive and more important.

[Darth Tanner]

There's a difference between patriotism/nationalism and religious zealotry

Not that a significant one though.
Patriotism has the advantage that it is based on loyalty to a real concept (the nation state/tribe) while religious zealotry has the disadvantage of being based on a fictional concept(sky god/teapot). Other than that their more or less identical.

it is generally accepted that Rommel, who was very popular in Germany, would have taken over and sued for peace

Rommel seizing power in the afternath of Hitler's assination! I find that unlikely, he lacked any of the political support necesary not to mention his military support was hardly in a position to seize power of Germany itself.

[Far-Right Sage]

Absolute nonsense. He was the Nazis favourite general as is well known

Not neccessarily. He was one of Hitler's favorite generals - He wasn't well-liked within the Nazi Party for political reasons. Rommel was a patriot, rather than a partisan - If Germany had been a left-wing republic at war, he would have been serving it every bit as faithfully.

[MB.]

Why do armchair historians have such a hard-on for Rommel?

Because the victorious Allied commanders opposed him frequently during their punitive war against the Third Reich.

He wasn't the greatest general, nor a particularly good field marshal at that, but his solitary dash and courage during the insignificant African Campaign has captured the minds of historians for decades.

That said,

He was a horrible Nazi and his eventual forced suicide was organized more by his military comrades then by his political foes.

He was certainly no Lafayette. Rommel's political life was insignificant compared to his military. Indeed, he didn't live long enough to pursue any true political positions or powers.

Rommel actually was involved in the plot to kill Adolf when it became apparent that Hitler was the main enemy of Germany.

Lies I'm afraid. His involvement was fabricated by several key senior field marshals as a means to remove his command- which was losing the war in Normandy and France at the time.

[InterestedInPolitics]

Rommel wasn't an acceptable Nazi, primarily because he wasn't a Nazi. Rommel never joined the Nazi Party. The Wehrmacht was not a political organization, as, for example, the Schutzstaffel was. Officers in the Wehrmacht were actually discouraged from getting involved in politics, whether pro-Nazi or anti-Nazi.

Which is one of many reasons why the German Army had the best army out of all armies in World War II.

No, it is probably his impressive battlefield performance.

Yup. I agree with your view on Rommel FRS. One of my favorite generals out of World War II was Hienz Guedarian, father of the blitzkrieg. His tatics are still used today in many of the armies of the major powers today.

How so? By serving his country? That's as foolish as saying that Timoshenko was "complicit" in the rise of the Soviet Union. Who would not be "complicit" in the support of their own nation, particularly in wartime?

I agree with you here as well. Rommel, if captured alive by the allies, should have not, hypothetically speaking, been put on trial nor punished for war crimes. He was not a Nazi, he was just a soldier doing his job.

[steel rabbit]

If anything, Rommel deserves praise for burning Hitler's Commando Order, which required all Allied soldiers captured behind enemy lines to be shot.

[Thunderhawk]

The Commando order was illegal, though it was one of many agreements Germany made internationally that were either not upheld or violated by Hitler.

[Far-Right Sage]

The Commando order was illegal

As were the actions of many Allied commandos who fought behind the lines and in civilian clothing, not in any honorable fashion. It was tit-for-tat.

[Thunderhawk]

As were the actions of many Allied commandos who fought behind the lines and in civilian clothing

Enemy soldiers dressed as their country's soldiers behind your lines are not spies, they are soldiers.
Those dressed like civilians were effectively spies and fair game.


My point (which I didnt make earlier.. ) was that Praising Rommel for him not carrying out the order seems, odd. As an honourable person he did not carry it out. If he is to be praised for being honourable, then there are many who deserve such high praise too, yet havent recieved it.

[Lone Gunman]

Far-Right Sage, I'm not a right-wing person myself but your posts regarding Rommel took the words out of my mouth. I know this is an older thread and nobody reads this anymore but I'm glad Rommel has been mentioned on the History forums. His convictions lay with his brothers in arms, his nation, a duty that men like him have to their people regardless of the leader. Rommel did not help the 3rd Reich rise to power, Rommel was not a Nazi, Rommel never executed Hitler's racist or criminal ideologies. As someone with German ancestry, I am very proud of men like Rommel. Rommel, like the men serving under him, had no choice. He was a great tactician, an honourable general and a man who was even admired by his counter-parts on the Allied side. Patton himself even read Rommel's book on infantry warfare. I think men like Rommel show the world what chivalry is all about, what being a true soldier is. He was not a bloodthirsty war-monger, he believed in thinking about the repercussions of war, the nature of conflict itself. In fact Rommel undermined Hitler and the Nazi ideology time and time again until his eventual suicide because of his constant disobedience! We can't glorify any war, any battle or the horrors that go with it. But we must also understand war is an inevitable part of human life. People who have no choice but to fight must do so 'cleanly' and should always consider the preservation of common decency and humanity on the battlefield before any one political ideology. It's a different ball game when you're asked to kill someone wearing a different uniform and if General Patton and even Winston Churchill can find praise for Rommel then I don't see why anyone else couldn't, especially if they understand what I said earlier about war being a part of human life.

'Sweat saves blood'. I'll leave it at that.

[Tailz]

Rommel was not transferred to the East as when he came back from North Africa he was already ill and needed time to convalesce. Plus also because of his rank as Field Marshal, you just can’t throw an officer of the calibre around without stepping on toes – who would Rommel have replaced? Where would he have been sent and in charge of what formation? His experience was also in fighting the Western Allies, the British and Americans. He did not have experience of fighting the Russians. Redeploying him to the French theatre and putting him into an inspector role kept him out of the hair of higher command for a while without losing his propaganda value. Plus his experience was needed to defend against the very same types of forces he had the experience of fighting against.

Rommel was shielded by the same war crimes of the European Germans because of the nature of the North African conflict zone – an area mainly devoid of civilians. Where military forces could beat the snot out of each other with minimal impact to a civilian population. Thus the Desert war is seen as the last Gentlemen’s War.

[Erebus]

I´ve heard people think Heß was more of a respectable Nazi than Rommel.

He was not a Nazi, he was just a soldier doing his job.

That´s a tricky one though. Then anybody at the time could have used that excuse.

[albionfagan]

Well yes they could. The vast majority of the Wermacht weren't involved in war crimes, there were some though.

Should they all be held accountable? Should they all be condemned as Nazis? The army always retained a degree of autonomy within Nazi Germany(although considerably limited after the death of Hindenburg and the then the Bromberg-Fritsch affairs). Of course you could argue that morally they should have refused to fight but that argument could be levelled at any member of armed forces in my opinion.

[Tailz]

You have to judge Rommel by his actions, not by word of mouth of what he might have been affiliated with. Rommel was a superb soldier of the old Prussian style – war crimes just get in the way of good old fashion soldiering. Did Rommel know of the actions various other Nazi affiliated Wermacht officers carried out, or the actions of the SS? Certainly he knew, he was a well connected German General, a field Marshal – but it must also be understood that Rommel was shielded from the theatres of warfare where real total war was playing out its barbaric role. While Rommel was in North Africa, a battlefield devoid mostly of all but the most hardy of desert nomads, scattered towns of Arabs who cared little for the Germans and even less for the British. As much as Rommel knew the real war for Germany’s survival was being waged on the Russian front, he was not there and could only rely on Wermacht reports or discussions with other headquarters staff from the Russian front.

But a telling part of Rommels character was that he did not permit his Son to join the SS when he was called up to active duty, even though his son was intent upon joining the prestigious SS – Rommel forbade him upon a point of the crimes he (Rommel) presumed of the SS in Russia (see: The Rommel Papers).

The real question, which can never really be answered, is how would Rommel have acted, had he been posted to Russia, and not North Africa?

[DDave3]

For more authoritative account of Rommel, and particualarly the Axis 'myth' that surrounded him, I read:

Robinson, James, "The Rommel Myth", Miliary Review Number 6 (Sept-Oct, 1997): pp. 81-89

By any measure of success at the operational level of war, particularly within the North Africa theatre, Rommel failed. In the end, his force accomplished no clearly identifiable, meaningful objectives in North Africa. Rommel relied far too heavily on captured British supplies, most notably at Tobruk, and never seemed to envision an end solution to the continuous back and forth of what is desert warfare. However, by most measures he did an outstandingly good military job within his circumstances - his impulsiveness, element of surprise, improvisation and daring made him one of the most brilliant, and revered, generals of the modern age. Our own British commanders and generals, not to mention our then political elite, not doubt added to this 'myth' by being mostly in awe of the man.

[Tailz]

I think Rommel failed in North Africa, because of a lack of ultimately – what are they there for? The Italians wanted to build the Duce’s empire, and recapture what the British had won off them, but aside from that, what next as far as the Italians were concerned? The Germans were really there to bail out the Italians – what next as far as the Germans were concerned in North Africa?

Ultimately Rommel was in a way, left to rattle around North Africa with a half hearted end game in sight. Ultimately the North African theatre was a failure. What gains could there be from winning it? Hitler was not interested, and the Italians were partially interested as colonial masters.

Certainly there was the Canal, and the supplies the British brought through it – but holding it and supplying it – had the Italians and Germans gotten that far?