This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

129
130

"Rommel Did Nothing Wrong" appears in the most unlikely of places. (self.badhistory)

pimpst1ckGeneral Goldstein, 1st Jewish Embargo Army が 投稿

This guy considers Rommel a personal hero because he didn't kill Jews and tried to kill Hitler

R5: The Rommel Did Nothing Wrong popular myth is a very strong thread of the clean Wehrmacht myth. Yes it is true that Rommel treated POWs with respect and didn't massacre a whole lot of people. But it should be pointed out that many of the soldiers he was facing were British, French, Australians or New Zealanders - the majority being white people and would be treated considerably better than Slavs, Poles and Jews by any of Hitler's Generals. It is entirely possible that Rommel's "cleanness" come out of the lack of a need to kill any 'Untermenschen' as in France and North Africa he fought primarily Western European forces, not to mention the North Africa campaign was marked by a far more fluid mobility than any other theater. Considering Hitler promised Palestinian Mufti Amin Al-Husseini the "destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power" it seems that Rommel may have become very complicity in the Holocaust had the North Africa campaign succeeded. Another point worth mentioning is that the Afrika Korps was a far smaller force than on the Eastern Front (up to 50k troops compared to 2-4 million troops) and didn't have the time or manpower to start programs of extermination - especially considering his tendency to run out of the reach of his supply lines.

That being said, there were numerous massacres carried out against the African population by Italian troops, which fell nominally under his command, and there is no indication he took any action against such atrocities. Furthermore, Rommel gained command through his personal relationship with Hitler, and it's considerably unlikely he managed to become such good friends with Hitler if he had radically different racial views.

Another mistake the commenter makes here is that he thinks he tried to kill Hitler. Not only is Rommel's involvement in the General's plot under considerable debate, but evidence suggests he was very opposed to killing Hitler and preferred having him brought to trial.

Also it is worth pointing out that Rommel's ability as a general is overstated. Rommel was known for rushing far out of reach of his supply lines, which were being continuously hampered by the RAF and Royal Navy. He also failed to take the city of Tobruk for eight months, which worsened the supply crisis leading to significant problems as the pivotal second Battle of El-Alamein. He certainly had talent as a tactical commander in battle, but often overlooked important strategic elements. The fact that despite being very close to Hitler he was only placed in command of a Corp and some Italian allies instead of the multi-million forces in the east should speak some degree about his abilities compared to figures such as Guderein and Manstein.

Another problem I have with hero-worship of Rommel is that emphasizing his upheld morality requires the complete removal of agency from him, which defeats the point of the former. The myth requires that he was simply "following orders/the needs of the nation", so that he holds no blame whatsoever for Hitler's illegal laws. But at the same time Rommel-worshippers praise his agency in refusing orders to kills POWs. The problem is left that if Rommel had the agency and humanitarianism to refuse to kill POWs and defy Hitler's orders, shouldn't also his agency whether to aid the Nazi war effort also be judged?

TL;DR All things considered Rommel was a leading military figure of Nazi Germany and just because he held some chivalric ideals about warfare doesn't white wash him from any complicity in the crimes of Nazism.

全 127 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]arminius_saw<-- Who invited this asshole, anyway? 68ポイント69ポイント  (5子コメント)

I seem to remember there was a bestof'd post a while back describing how Rommel got overhyped and pointing out that the actual best German generals would have ended up on the Eastern front, not stuck in the middle of the desert with the Italians. Not sure what I'd search for, though...

[–]eggwallErwin "Ares" Rommel 47ポイント48ポイント  (0子コメント)

Whil i'm not exactly the most feverent of Romel apologists (despite my flair), the idea that Rommel being in North Africa was somehow a slight against him is pretty... odd.

From a post I made three months ago:

Rommel went to Africa for a variety of reasons, few of which had anything to do with his combat abilities one way or another.

Rommel was a well connected officer whose book on infantry tactics in the first war was reasonably well respected (if not particularly ingenious) and meshed well with Guderain's theories of blitzkrieg. He had performed exceedingly well in France despite his rank as a relatively junior division commander and as such needed to be promoted. North Africa was a good step up.

Unfortunately, he was also exceedingly difficult to command. He had a habit of disregarding any order he personally disagreed with, regularly went out of communication for days on end, and his personal friendship with Hitler made him impossible to discipline. Giving him his own command elsewhere solved alot of headaches in the chain of command.

Personally, Rommel was quite ambitious. While he was never as popular in Germany as he would later be in the allied countries (mostly due to his victories over the terrible allied opposition) he certainly benefitted from the propoganda machine. North Africa gave him a place to obtain further prestige as a theatre comander rather than one of about a dozen corps commanders on the eastern front.

[–]ProbablyNotLyingI can mathematically prove that Hitler wasn't fascist 26ポイント27ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you look through my submission history it appears in a comment in a thread about Rommel apologia I started a while ago.

I'm way too lazy to click a couple links and bring it up for you, but now you know where it is.

[–]arminius_saw<-- Who invited this asshole, anyway? 39ポイント40ポイント  (0子コメント)

...I just linked the comment I was talking about.

But here's your damn post, you lazy ass.

[–]Georgy_K_ZhukovLend Lease? We don't need no stinking 'Lend Lease'! 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

/u/panzerkampfwagen's post IIRC. He posted it somewhere on here if you search "Rommel" it'll turn up.

[–]arminius_saw<-- Who invited this asshole, anyway? 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

...nope! Well, not the one I was thinking of. The one I was thinking of was by /u/Aemilius_Paulus and got DepthHub'd, not bestof'd.

[–]xaxers 30ポイント31ポイント  (8子コメント)

Hitler's illegal laws.

Uhhh.....

[–]nihil_novi_sub_soleW. T. Sherman burned the Library of Alexandria 25ポイント26ポイント  (5子コメント)

Don't you know? Illegal just means "not to my liking."

[–]buy_a_pork_bunMud, Steel, and Broken Transmissions 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

Illegal American Embargo?

[–]crazedmongoose#notallNazileadership 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Illegal declaration of war against Japan....

[–]Lord_BobAspiring historian celbrity 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Illegal unprovoked blockade of Japan which Roosevelt used to provoke the defensive action against Pearl Harbor.

[–]crazedmongoose#notallNazileadership 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Illegal occupation and refusal to surrender Fort Sumter

[–]Glassberg 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

FDR fired Hawaii right at those aircraft carriers.

[–]pimpst1ckGeneral Goldstein, 1st Jewish Embargo Army[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sorry that was a typo, I meant Hitler's illegal wars

[–]jianadaren1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well... I mean Nuremburg shat all over Nazi laws so to a certain extent Hitler's laws were found to be illegal.

[–]jizzmcskeet 27ポイント28ポイント  (2子コメント)

OP seems to allude to the fact that Rommel didn't act like everyone else was because Rommel didn't have the opportunity to massacare people. There are also vague guilt by association comments like "since he was Hitler's friend, he must have been a monster or since he was a Nazi general he must have been complicit". Though it may be true that he was Hitler's friend, is there any real evidence that he was as extreme as Hitler or Goebbels?

The myth requires that he was simply "following orders/the needs of the nation", so that he holds no blame whatsoever for Hitler's illegal laws. But at the same time Rommel-worshippers praise his agency in refusing orders to kills POWs. The problem is left that if Rommel had the agency and humanitarianism to refuse to kill POWs and defy Hitler's orders, shouldn't also his agency whether to aid the Nazi war effort also be judged?

If a US general refused to fight due to the illegal NSA program or drone strikes on innocent people, would that be a valid reason?

All I know about any of this is what OP has written. I'm not disputing his assertion based on any research I've done. These are questions I had after reading his post.

[–]PlowbeastKnows the true dark history of AutoModerator 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not merely vague guilt by association though, he was a high-level extension of Hitler's will who directly strengthened his ability to prosecute the war effort and the Holocaust. Every day he spent in Africa was a day that the swastika fell over Europe and claimed more lives.

Bear in mind no one here is really condemning Rommel, just validating his place in history as an interesting Nazi general worth studying but not as some hero.

If a US general refused to fight due to the illegal NSA program or drone strikes on innocent people, would that be a valid reason?

There's significant problems with that comparison because the US has a full military chain of command, separation of missions, and a democracy which holds both the President and Congress accountable for decisions of war (and anti-terrorism). Any officer who refuses to carry out a legal mission (i.e. not burning millions of puppies alive or something) is breaking their oath for a personal reason.

This is not to say that your question isn't valid; it's perfectly valid and the reason why we have history - to compare and contrast with the present day.

[–]KosherNazi 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

R5: The Rommel Did Nothing Wrong popular myth is a very strong thread of the clean Wehrmacht myth. Yes it is true that Rommel treated POWs with respect and didn't massacre a whole lot of people. But it should be pointed out that many of the soldiers he was facing were British, French, Australians or New Zealanders - the majority being white people and would be treated considerably better than Slavs, Poles and Jews by any of Hitler's Generals. It is entirely possible that Rommel's "cleanness" come out of the lack of a need to kill any 'Untermenschen' as in France and North Africa he fought primarily Western European forces, not to mention the North Africa campaign was marked by a far more fluid mobility than any other theater. Considering Hitler promised Palestinian Mufti Amin Al-Husseini the "destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power" it seems that Rommel may have become very complicity in the Holocaust had the North Africa campaign succeeded. Another point worth mentioning is that the Afrika Korps was a far smaller force than on the Eastern Front (up to 50k troops compared to 2-4 million troops) and didn't have the time or manpower to start programs of extermination - especially considering his tendency to run out of the reach of his supply lines. That being said, there were numerous massacres carried out against the African population by Italian troops, which fell nominally under his command, and there is no indication he took any action against such atrocities. Furthermore, Rommel gained command through his personal relationship with Hitler, and it's considerably unlikely he managed to become such good friends with Hitler if he had radically different racial views.

Holy shit, you're actually trying to refute the Rommel myth with your own wild speculation about his character and historical What-If's?

What the hell, dude. We make fun of bad history here, we don't create it.

[–]Disgruntled_Old_TrotMorale Officer, Burpleson Air Force Base 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

He also failed to take the city of Tobruk for eight months, which worsened the supply crisis leading to significant problems as the pivotal second Battle of El-Alamein.

Rommel's troubles with Tobruk would not have affected the battle of El Alamein. Rommel had invested the fortress in April, 1941 after his first offensive swept the British out of Cyrenaica. Other Italo-German forces units and defended a line roughly along the Libyan-Egyptian border, where they fended off two British counteroffensives, Operations Brevity and Battleaxe. Meanwhile, the Allied defenders of Tobruk defied Rommel's repeated attacks on the port. In November the British launched Operation Crusader, which eventually raised the siege of Tobruk and led to an Axis retreat.

After some back and forth, the front was eventually stabilized along the Gazala Line, between Tobruk and Benghazi. Rommel launched an offensive in May, 1942, which led to the eventual defeat of the Allies and their retreat into Egypt. As part of his advance, Rommel easily captured Tobruk this time, including large numbers of vehicles and supplies of fuel, provisions and ammunition, which helped his advance into Egypt. The front then eventually stabilized along the Alamein line, where eventually Montgomery launched his offensive in October.

So, while the Allied defense of Tobruk may have cramped Rommel's style in 1941 it would have had no effect on el Alamein.

[–]noblemortarmanU-17: Basically the USS Los Angeles 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

Guderian and Kesselring may pop up soon, too. I haven't even been on Reddit for a day so I can't say for sure that they have.

[–]Gmackowiak 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Especially Guderian, who (regardless of morals) was a better commander than Rommel.

[–]smileyman 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's also worth pointing out that an Einsatzgruppe Egypt had been formed and attached to his command. Had Rommel won in Africa they would have swung into action and done to the Jews n Palestine what the Einsatzgruppes had done elsewhere.

[–]autowikibotLibrary of Alexandria 2.0 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Einsatzgruppe Egypt:

Einsatzgruppe Egypt (German: Einsatzgruppe Ägypten) was a special mobile SS death squad, which was to carry out a mass killing of Jews in British mandate of Palestine similar to the way they operated in eastern Europe. "Einsatzgruppe Egypt" was standing by in Athens and was ready to disembark for Palestine in the summer of 1942, attached to the "Afrika Korps" led by the famed desert commander General Erwin Rommel. The Middle East death squad, similar to those operating throughout eastern Europe during the war, was to be led by SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Walther Rauff. However, the Nazis' plans for the destruction of the Yishuv could not be carried out as the Nazi advance across North Africa and towards Palestine was reversed following the Axis' defeat in the Second Battle of El Alamein.

Interesting: Responsibility for the Holocaust | List of Einsatzgruppen | Index of World War II articles (E) | New Order (Nazism)

/u/smileyman can reply with 'delete'. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words | flag a glitch

[–]LemuelG 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

That being said, there were numerous massacres carried out against the African population by Italian troops, which fell nominally under his command, and there is no indication he took any action against such atrocities.

Rommel disagrees:

As a result of Italian loss of prestige after Graziani's defeat, a number of Arab tribes had begun to get restive. This was not helped by the fact that Italian troops occasionally took liberties with the Arab women, a thing which Arabs particularly resent. I was forced to send an urgent request to the Italian High Command, asking them to see to it that the Arabs were treated with sufficient respect to avoid an armed uprising close behind our front. At about this time officers and men of the Trento Division were responsible for several excesses against the Arab population, with the result that the Arabs killed a number of Italian soldiers and kept the Italians away from their villages by armed force. There are always people who will invariably demand reprisals in this sort of situation for reasons, apart from anything else, of expediency. Such action is never expedient. The right thing to do is to ignore the incidents, unless the real culprits can be traced.

The Rommel Papers, 138-9.

Whether he's being placed on a pedestal, or being thrown off it - Rommel badhistory is rampant on Reddit.

Can we just get a reasonable (not simply frothy-mouthed contrariness) discussion of this very interesting historical figure? Is that too fucken much to ask?

[–]pumpkincatChurchill was a Nazi 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't know enough about this subject to really rule on one side or the other (honestly I know 0 amounts), but I have to agree. There was an awful lot of assumption and guessing in that rant.

[–]LemuelG 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I find the myth of the 'clean Wehrmacht' as vile and false as anyone else - but there is simply no need to fabricate and speculate in order to explode this fallacy.

Rommel was most definately not a paragon of chivalrous virtue - note his objection to reprisal killings is stated in purely practical terms, as opposed to principled rejection of mass-murder as a political/security tool - but this, and his general, insolent refusals to maltreat his prisoners (recognizing that this type of behaviour would only increase bitterness and resistance among his opponents, making his job harder) not only put him in direct opposition to Hitler's various orders and decrees regarding partisan warfare (and Jews and commandos), but it made him something of an odd-duck compared to many of his peers in the Heer, such as Reichenau or Manstein, who were quite nakedly, rabidly racist and murderous beasts of the worst sort.

He was an interesting man, living in an interesting time - if people want to tackle this topic, at least read the book containing his own words and thoughts before sharpening the hatchet.

[–]ProbablyNotLyingI can mathematically prove that Hitler wasn't fascist 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I remember having read that Rommel's troops executed French colonial troops from Africa in the 1940 campaign. Does anyone know if there's any truth to this?

[–][deleted] 46ポイント47ポイント  (45子コメント)

Justed went on a rant in that thread:

Alright, since I'm so sick and tired of these "Good Guy Rommel" posts I'll take the opportunity to give a thorough explanation of why we think way too much about Rommel these days.

Generally, there are 3 things people think of when they think about Rommel:

  • Didn't support Hitler
  • Fantastic military leader
  • Not really a Nazi

Before he met Hitler, Rommel was (of course) already active in the German army. Eventually, he commanded the Jäger Goslar alpenkorps battalion. He had written some military handbooks, and was already offered a post amongst the general staff (keep in mind: this was before Hitler came to power). He was already regarded as a good military leader at this point.

In 1934, he met Hitler. Hitler liked Rommel so much, he placed him in charge of the War Ministry liaison with the Hitler Jugend in 1935. Keep in mind, this was a decade after the publication of Hitler's "Mein Kampf", so his anti-semitic nature wasn't exactly a secret. Yet, Rommel accepted to partially lead the Hitlerjugend.

In 1938, Rommel was a colonel. Around this time, Hitler had already started invading other countries. Hitler still liked Rommel, and asked him to take charge of the Führerbegleitbataillon. This was Hitler's personal bodyguard. Again, Rommel accepted this position.

In 1939, Rommel continued to command Hitler's personal bodyguard when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Now, I do think he was well aware of the atrocities going on there, and there's no doubt he saw Hitler often enough to voice his concerns. He didn't.

1940: Rommel asks to be transfered to another unit. Not because of the atrocities he was witnessing, but simply "because he thought this was not the best use of his services". He took command of some other units, and led them when invading France/Belgium.

I will stress again this was after events like the Kristallnacht so there's not a single doubt Rommel was aware of the Nazi attitude towards the jews. Yet, apparently he had no problem with conquering new territories for Nazi Germany even though it's incredibly likely he knew damn well what would happen to the jewish population.

After the succesful invasion of France/Belgium, he joined the Afrikakorps, which granted him the nickname of the desert fox for his "chivalrous behaviour" (more on that later).

In 1944, while the Holocaust was happening and Auschwitz was running at full capacity, he was put in charge of strengthening the Atlantic Wall: Nazi-Germany's defense line on the western front. So, even though Rommel was perfectly aware Hitler and Nazi Germany were slaughtering millions of people in the concentration camps, he had no problem with trying to defend them. By all means, the man was a Nazi.

Now, the July 20 plot: Rommel knew about it, and opposed killing Hitler. That's about as far as his involvement goes. What no one ever mentions, is that Rommel was 1 out of 5000 people executed for being involved with the July 20 plot. He was not "one out of five conspirators" or whatever, he knew about it and didn't stop it.

So, what do we have in the end:

  • Rommel was without a doubt aware of Hitler's antisemitic behaviour
  • He knew about the holocaust
  • He still tried to conquer new regions for Nazi Germany
  • Hitler promoted him
  • He even served as the commander for Hitler's bodyguard

So yes, this man was without a doubt a Nazi.

Fantastic military leader

If this was really the case, then why was he put in charge of the Afrika Korps, and not on the Eastern front? He was a good general, but by no means the best military leader in world war II. Hell, he wasn't even the top Nazi military leader in World War II. Most military historians argue that infact Von Manstein was the best Nazi military leader.

"But, but... Rommel didn't execute jews himself!!!"

No, he just protected the system that was exterminating them. That, and there is quite some controversy regarding what Rommel actually did during world war II. You had two sides reporting on his actions: the allied front, and the axis. Obviously the Axis wasn't going to say the man was an animal. The Allies liked him because he didn't execute the POW's, unlike the other Nazi military leaders.

Does this mean "Good Guy Rommel"? Nope.

This is still a matter of historical debate. Some historians like Proske argue that after invading Tripoli, Rommel collected the jews as slave labourers, and actually ordered them to walk over minefields. Or, as I like to call it, "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king".

In the end, you can conclude that the man fully supported Hitler until he had all but completely fucked over Germany, made no attempts to stop the Holocaust, and conquered territories for Nazi Germany.

[–]Squarg 44ポイント45ポイント  (3子コメント)

To play devil's advocate here, you are putting a lot of emphasis on the fact that Rommel didn't object to the treatment of Jews by Hitler. There is a lot of debate among Holocaust historians about the roles of bystanders, be they German citizens, neutral nations or members of the Wehrmacht. To say because he did his job, accepted promotions and didn't explicitly object to his superiors to something that would have definitely been seen as unfavorable, shows anything more than a devotion to his country is silly especially in the context of the Holocaust. I mean if you can have Ordinary Men who weren't former Nazis killing tens of thousands of Jews with little objection, why is it not possible that the reverse could happen?

I'm not saying that he was a good person or that he wasn't a Nazi just that the situation is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it seem.

[–][deleted] 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

To say because he did his job, accepted promotions and didn't explicitly object to his superiors to something that would have definitely been seen as unfavorable, shows anything more than a devotion to his country is silly especially in the context of the Holocaust.

I strongly disagree. He accepted the position of being the commander of Hitler's personal bodyguard. In this role, he often met or talked to Hitler and to me it's obvious he knew about his intentions as soon as 1940. Even then, he continued to accept promotions and did what he could to make sure Nazi Germany expanded its territory. Keep in mind, I'm not saying he hated the jews, all I'm saying is there's no doubt in my mind the man was a Nazi.

If he actually was so incredibly opposed to the treatment of the jews, then he could've done way more to actually voice his opposition. Ludwig Beck for instance was a German general prior to world war II who heavily disagreed with Hitler's ideas (though more for strategic reasons than moral reasons) resigned as a general and played a much bigger role in the July 20 plot.

In my opinion, simply refusing to execute POW's or refusing to execute jews isn't nearly enough to say Rommel was chivalrous/not anti-semitic. And, again in my opinion, "showing devotion to your country" does not include protecting/trying to expand a system which you know is exterminating an entire race.

[–]Squarg 22ポイント23ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean if you want to predicate your argument on the 100% intentionalist view of the Holocaust then by all means do that. However from what I have studied, it seems that the functionalist view is much more persuasive as it counts for the actions of the people on the ground committing the atrocities much more convincingly as opposed to one man doing insane things and everyone just going along with it.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying he hated the jews, all I'm saying is there's no doubt in my mind the man was a Nazi.

I don't see what you are going for here. Are you trying to say he was a member of the Nazi Party (he wasn't)? Are you saying he subscribed to Nazi ideology without being officially a member? Debatable, however the Nazi ideology is rooted so much in antisemitism that if you were to exclude that there is very little to go on aside from a sense of nationalism, militarism and revanchism and in that case he could certainly be seen as a Nazi, however so could: Stalin, De Gaulle, Churchill, Chiang Kai-Shek and almost every other leader of that era.

[–]telemachus_sneezed 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

1) You seem to under some mistaken belief that Hitler spent every waking moment spewing anti-Semitic venom, and ordering generals to execute Jews in every meeting.

2) You also seem to be under some mistaken delusion that the majority of people in Europe either loved or were indifferent to the Jews, and that anti-Semites were somehow a minority population. Roughly two generations ago, Jewish villages were randomly torched and residents slaughtered at varying times throughout Europe. The word pogrom was not invented in the 1930's. When Hitler was saying his anti-Semitic statements in everyday life, they probably drew as much attention from people as racist comments about blacks among Southern whites in the same time period.

3) Hitler did not loudly broadcast in "public" speeches and in newspapers that he was going to build concentration camps specifically for the purpose of executing Jews. When the roundups began, they were probably not much different to the average observer than when their grandfathers got together to drive out all the Jews living in the local shtetl from the region (and yes, that involved a lot of rape and killing). Germans, Poles, Russians, and French didn't think twice.

4) What made the Holocaust so uniquely horrific was modernization. The Holocaust became possible because huge, modern conscripted armies could expend forces to round up millions of Jews, and later on build infrastructure dedicated to executing them (gas chambers). The fact is the overwhelming numbers of Jews died by overwork, starvation, disease, exposure to the elements, lack of medical treatment, and bullets. Hitler probably would have just expelled them out of Europe if he had the naval transport assets and the diplomatic avenue to do so. The reality was that no one wanted Jewish refugees.

5) If anything, his "final solution" was quite unpublicized once Hitler came into power in Germany. Hitler was pretty careful not have signed documents authorizing diversion of assets into execution chambers and memos to speed up the extermination. The closest document that comes to implying any direction from Hitler was from Himmler's(?) diary.

6) While I agree with your premise that Rommel was not a "good" guy, and on some level an anti-Semite, I hardly think Rommel knew first hand that Hitler planned to exterminate every Jew in Europe, because Hitler did not speak about it outside his inner circle. Rommel is also documented for disobeying orders from Hitler's command to round up and execute Jewish prisoners, and when conscripting slave labor for fortification work, would insist on paying every prisoner for the work. There's a big difference between being a bigot, and going out to kill people over it.

[–]DJS4000 11ポイント12ポイント  (15子コメント)

hindsight bias. a lot of it. rommel was an opportunist, nothing more, nothing less. how does criticising someone who heavily benefited from an oppressive system (that came to power semi-legally) for not stopping the crimes said system committed even work? crimes that, to their full extend, were not known but by only a few? not "seeing the anti-semitism"? that was no secret. antisemitism was common in europe at the time, that's why a lot of jews GTFO and migrated to america in the 1920s. rommel knew that hitler liked him and played him as a propaganda puppet. and he liked that, too. who wouldn't, at the time? he was no nazi. he was not even politically inclined, and i was under the impression that this is an established fact (there are tons of books, i recommend reuth and fraser. hell, even knopp loses a few words about him...). he was a soldier, and soldiers in the mid 20th century did not think about politics. they followed orders. damnit, he even suggested that hitler use more jews in political positions for the betterment of germany's stance in the world. in 19-fucking-43. what a brilliant nazi indeed.

as for gallantry:

how about that time he just countermanded specific orders from hitler himself to treat british commandos not as soldiers, but as spies, as to shoot them on sight and without trial?

i'd like to write more, but i have an exam tomorrow. so, sorry for not being as thorough as i'd like to be, or as this argument deserves.

[–]WARFTW 18ポイント19ポイント  (11子コメント)

Fantastic military leader If this was really the case, then why was he put in charge of the Afrika Korps, and not on the Eastern front? He was a good general, but by no means the best military leader in world war II. Hell, he wasn't even the top Nazi military leader in World War II. Most military historians argue that infact Von Manstein was the best Nazi military leader.

Rommel made his name fighting against a sub-par British commander and when one that was somewhat worth his salt showed up, with reinforcements, he was trounced again and again. Aside from continually disobeying orders (be it in France or North Africa), Rommel proved to have been a competent divisional commander, which Germany had plenty of already. The British had their reasons for labeling him the 'desert fox', it helped explain away their failure(s) in North Africa without their command staff looking incompetent. And the Germans had no reason to disprove them. Just like with the propaganda that revolved around Blitzkrieg, the Germans didn't invent the terms but they were happy to conceive that yes, they were an unstoppable fighting force with a talented officer corps.

[–]eggwallErwin "Ares" Rommel 5ポイント6ポイント  (8子コメント)

Rommel made his name in France fighting against a variety of commanders, most notably at the Batle of Arras. That's why he was put in command in North Africa. Amongst the "plenty" of divisional commanders in France, he accomplished the most - aquiring a very strong reputation for unpredicatbility and successful tactics.

Archibald Wavell (the sub-par British Commander you mentioned) performed quite well after being removed from command in the Middle-East, moving to become CIC India and managing a very sucessful campaign in Burma against the Japanese. Quite frankly, his orders in the middle east were hampered by terrible ROE's which came directly from the war office. After soundly trouncing the Italians, he was ordered to stop attacking so that part of his force and all his reinforcements could be moved to support the action in Greece. Forbidden to engage in offensive operations, he got pushed back to Egypt. The failure of Operation Battleaxe is entirely on him, although he was pressured into it and expressed significant doubts prior to its launch.

[–]WARFTW -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

Rommel made his name in France fighting against a variety of commanders, most notably at the Batle of Arras. That's why he was put in command in North Africa. Amongst the "plenty" of divisional commanders in France, he accomplished the most - aquiring a very strong reputation for unpredicatbility and successful tactics.

Rommel earned part of his reputation by ignoring orders and spearheading against a lack of resistance on the part of the French, hardly an accomplishment. His division's movements were as much a surprise to the French as they were to the Germans. Faking a loss of communication and continually spurring orders from your high command hardly makes for an accomplished commanding officer. The same can be said for his sojourn in North Africa where he immediately disobeyed orders, attacked, and eventually lost his entire command.

Archibald Wavell (the sub-par British Commander you mentioned) performed quite well after being removed from command in the Middle-East

That's great. Too bad he could only retreat against a few German divisions led by Rommel.

[–]eggwallErwin "Ares" Rommel 10ポイント11ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm sorry.... what part of the Battle of Arras did you fail to comprehend? That was a battle between the Germans and the British... where the British were attacking. Not really a lack of resistance on behalf of the French who weren't involved in any way, shape, or form except they owned the land it was fought on. Your argument is suggesting that the Battle of Bastagone wasn't important becasue the 101st faced a lack of resistance by the Italians.

IF you are unfarmiliar with the battle, the British attempted to break out of their encirclement using an armored spearhead of tanks which the majority of German guns could not penetrate. Rommel's last-ditch effort, a concentrated line of direct-firing artillery almost completely exposed to british fire, should not have worked. It did, mostly becasue the matildas had moved too far forward for their infantry to properly support them. This action saved the German encirclement and prevented the Brtish from reuniting with the French and destroying half the German army. Next to the Battle of the Ardennes, it is probably the most important battle in the entire French Campaign.

You are certainly correct in your assessment of his command style. He was a difficult man to work with and noone wanted him as their subordinate. I would also add that his staff hated him and he had a habit of overruling his officers to look good in front of his men. His insistance on subordinates rigidly following established timetables, in direct opposition to established German doctrine, prevented him from capturing Tobruk for 8 months due to Morsehead's agressive use of intelligence gathering tehniques.

Rommel was neither the literal god of war nor a failure. He was one of the better german divisional commanders, but not one of their best Operational commanders. He functioned very well with limited supplies but had some serious doctrinal failures including the aformentioned disregard for authority.

As for Wavell, he had a spectacular record against both the Italians and the Japanese, would likely have been able to take the entirety of North Africa of Curchill hadn't have taken away his reinforcements, and had only one chance to prove himself against Rommel - Operation Battleaxe - which ended in failure due to unrealistic goals, extensive political pressure, and the earlier failure of Operation Brevity.

[–]eggwallErwin "Ares" Rommel 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sorry if I came off a little testy in my reply. I tend to get a little frustrated when people argue past me instead of engaging with the point at hand. /u/military_history wrote a much better comment and certainly was much more professional.

[–]WARFTW -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm sorry.... what part of the Battle of Arras did you fail to comprehend?

What you should be asking is where did I address the Battle of Arras, the answer is I did not. My comment about the French was based on Germany's general invasion in May of 1940, not any one battle in particular.

[–]eggwallErwin "Ares" Rommel 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Since you did not address the Battle of Arras, why didn't you? it's Rommel's most stand out moment in the campaign, and his stand there is why he got the attention he did.

[–]WARFTW 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I had no need to address it. But since it was brought up so often, I addressed in another post:

Enjoy

[–]military_historyBlackadder Goes Forth is a documentary 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

The battle of Arras was against the British. It was their most successful attack of the entire campaign. It's widely recognised that had the Allies been more proficient at organising such attacks German chances of winning would have been much reduced, since the logistical shoestring which supported the panzer spearhead only worked because it was under very little pressure from the enemy. Had the British attack succeeded, the consequences for the Germans could have been considerable. Rommel had a major part in preventing that from happening, mainly due to his personal initiative. He deserves some credit for that.

And Wavell is not considered a sub-par commander by most historians. His command was problematic because he hugely lacked the men and resources he needed. Correlli Barnett, for example, has argued that it was not an increase in the calibre of their commanders that won the British the campaign in North Africa, but simply that it took until 1942 for them to gain enough of a material superiority to defeat Rommel; and without the efforts of Wavell and, later, Auchinleck, that would not have been possible. Even if you disagree with Barnett, as some do, you can't ignore that the resources allotted to Wavell compared to those Montgomery had to hand when he brought the campaign to a successful conclusion were miniscule.

[–]WARFTW 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The battle of Arras was against the British. It was their most successful attack of the entire campaign. It's widely recognised that had the Allies been more proficient at organising such attacks German chances of winning would have been much reduced, since the logistical shoestring which supported the panzer spearhead only worked because it was under very little pressure from the enemy. Had the British attack succeeded, the consequences for the Germans could have been considerable. Rommel had a major part in preventing that from happening, mainly due to his personal initiative. He deserves some credit for that.

Sure thing. Reading about the battle one would think a few hundred casualties on both sides would have made zero difference. And Karl-Heinz Frieser comments that "The so-called crisis of Arras was homemade and had an effect only among the higher-level staffs. It seems paradoxical that there was no crisis mood to be detected at all among the Panzer divisions that should have felt threatened. Rommel kept attacking quite unconcernedly and, on the next day, pushed into the area north of Arras. On 23 May the 5th Panzer Division, which he had sent forward, took the Lorette Heights that had been so bitterly fought for during World War I...The chief of the general staff made a correct estimate of the consequences deriving from the failed British attack. Like Guderian, he felt that the threat was now no longer represented by a possible flank attack executed by the Allies but rather by the fact that the Allies might withdraw to the Channel coast too fast."

Additionally: "Now we come to the question as to how the failed British attack at Arras could in the end have brought all this about. Rommel must indirectly shoulder a part of the responsibility here. First of all, we must establish that he indeed was the victor of Arras. In a style completely atypical for Allied generals, Rommel had led his division from far up front, where all the firing was going on. To that extent, his courage and calmness in coping with extreme danger must be emphasized. Reacting with lightning speed, he managed to convert a disaster that threatened his formations into a victory. But there is another side to the coin, and it is also rooted in Rommel's extreme personality. His excessive ambition led him astray to the extent that he magnified the danger to make his achievement look even better than it already was. So he sent exaggerated disaster dispatches to his superiors and reported about 'hundreds of enemy tanks' that would attack him. In the so-called Rommel-Album that was presented to Hitler after the campaign in the west, there is a real horror painting consisting of red arrows that are supposed to represent the attacking British tank formations. There is mention of a total of five enemy divisions." Thus Rommel has in fact partly created his own greatness in stopping the British and the danger the British actually posed in terms of their numbers and ability. See 'Blitzkrieg Legend' by Karl-Heinz Frieser.

So what conclusions can be drawn from the above? The British put together a minor force with which to attempt to attack the German flank and the vaunted future 'Desert Fox' exaggerated their numbers and easily enough stopped the weakened attack yet all the while making it seem that his units triumphed over a force numerous times larger than it actually was. This caused some chaos among the higher-level staff, while Germany's divisional commanders on the ground hardly experienced much interruption of their advance(s), and gave the allies enough of a reason to claim Arras was something much more than it was. Thus everyone wins. Propaganda and myths at their finest.

[–]BlazingNipples 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

that was somewhat worth his salt showed up, with reinforcements, he was trounced again and again

Patton was more than just a general "somewhat worth his salt" and even so, he delivered a powerful blow in the battle of Kassaerine Pass. You paint this picture of Rommel being a completely inept general, and it isn't true. I can totally agree that he is overrated, but you yourself are selling him far short.

[–]WARFTW -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Patton was more than just a general "somewhat worth his salt" and even so, he delivered a powerful blow in the battle of Kassaerine Pass. You paint this picture of Rommel being a completely inept general, and it isn't true. I can totally agree that he is overrated, but you yourself are selling him far short.

I was talking about Montgomery. As for the picture I paint of Rommel, it's based on fact. And I did say "Rommel proved to have been a competent divisional commander", so there's no need to put words in my mouth (which you did, twice).

[–]Georgy_K_ZhukovLend Lease? We don't need no stinking 'Lend Lease'! 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

He was a good general, but by no means the best military leader in world war II. Hell, he wasn't even the top Nazi military leader in World War II.

Agreed. Rommel was a tactician, not a strategist. Too hands on. Had he never risen to Field Marshall and remained in lower commands, and think he legitimately would be remembered as the best Divisional commander the Germans fielded, instead of erroneously held up as their best leader, period.

[–]NeedsToShutUphanging out with 18th-century gentleman archaeologists 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because for there to be a Scipio Africanus, there needs to be a Hannibal. For Patton to be the great hero, his foe needs to be the best. It's the cult of Patton that made Rommel a noble Villain.

Hell, half the shit we hear is the same stuff about Hannibal with a Nazi background.

[–]thedboyHistory is written by Ra's al Ghul 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Most military historians argue that infact Von Manstein was the best Nazi military leader.

What of Heinz Guderian?

(not correcting, I'm curious)

[–]Auspants 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

By your logic every German was a rabid Nazi.

[–]TheDoorManisDead 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed.

This is, itself, bad history.

[–]I_hate_bigotry 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

What no one ever mentions, is that Rommel was 1 out of 5000 people executed for being involved with the July 20 plot.

Never knew the outlash was this big. Thanks.

[–]soggyindo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you follow this logic, every US General supported Bush by doing their job in Iraq. This is a very simplistic view.

[–]pop-cycle 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

According to this theory, anyone who pays taxes to the US government which everybody knows has perpetrated numerous illegal wars is somehow in support of it. What can you do? Quit living?

[–]military_historyBlackadder Goes Forth is a documentary 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In 1944, while the Holocaust was happening and Auschwitz was running at full capacity, he was put in charge of strengthening the Atlantic Wall: Nazi-Germany's defense line on the western front. So, even though Rommel was perfectly aware Hitler and Nazi Germany were slaughtering millions of people in the concentration camps, he had no problem with trying to defend them.

Not to mention that the defences were in large part built basically with slave labour. Which Rommel was apparently fine with.

[–]insaneHoshi 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Allies liked him because he didn't execute the POW's, unlike the other Nazi military leaders.

Plus its not as embarrassing to lose to a military mastermind than to a dunce. "See it wasnt allied ineptitude that made them loose, it was the brilliance of Romel"

[–]gatzbysgreenlight 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

i cant upvote you enough. i have made these same arguments countless times here on Reddit. I will never understand the love for Rommel..

[–][deleted] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I saw the title of the thread in /r/aww and then immediately went to /r/badhistory. You didn't disappoint.

[–]PadreDieselPunk 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Haven't these "clean Wehrmacht" folks ever heard of Nacht und Nebel or the Commando Order? Is there any doubt that Rommel would have followed or allowed the Einsatzgruppen to operate had he been on the Eastern Front? Puzzling.

[–][deleted] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Man. I knew I was smart to stay out of front page thread about a cat named "Rommel". Anyone not see that coming?

[–]military_historyBlackadder Goes Forth is a documentary 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm not sure I buy your point that Rommel only had to fight fellow western Europeans. Substantial numbers of Indian and Gurkha troops served in north africa in the first year of the campaign. I've no idea whether they were treated better or worse than their British comrades but it seems a bit remiss of you not to address them at all.

[–]pimpst1ckGeneral Goldstein, 1st Jewish Embargo Army[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

It certainly was a generalization, but was sine primarily to contrast the Eastern and North African fronts

[–]jianadaren1 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

It was a really terrible argument/insinuation "if only he'd have been in command of an untermensch front - then we would've seen how bad he really could have been.

Don't be worse than the badhistory you're criticizing.

[–][deleted] 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

You know, literally millions of people tried to kill Hitler without wearing a swastika on their chest.

Perhaps one of them could be your personal hero, asshole.

[–]tsarnickolasPearl Internet Defense Force 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, outside of the context of history, we call that "aiding and abetting."

[–]gradstudent4everfact unfucker 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

This is fantastic, OP. I've heard Rommel lionized often in the past, and have often thought the "facts" bandied about smelled faintly of excrement, but I didn't know enough to truly overturn the standard Rommel narrative. I really appreciate this analysis. It's not that I want to see Rommel as evil. It's just that I think outsized myths of greatness can obscure the truth, and I want to have a clear-eyed view of the past, whenever that's possible.

[–]KosherNazi -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Jesus christ, are you seriously a grad student? How can you hold this example of blatant speculation and weasel words up as giving you a "clear eyed view of the past"??

[–]gradstudent4everfact unfucker 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Your username also gives some clues about you.

[–][deleted] -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Here is an idea: just because the republicans stole the election in 2000 doesn't make every soldier who invaded Iraq and participated in countless war crimes a republican. Nor does it mean that they agreed with republican idealogy or the invasion itself - even if for lack of courage they went along with it. Be careful who you label as a Nazi. Political parties and armed forces are separate entities. Generally the latter follows the orders while the former shapes policy.

And further more it was a minority political party at its outset but it took the country by storm. Many Germans, including soldiers, living during that time were swept by fear and by force into the will of the monster that became the third Reich. My understanding is that Rommel was NOT a member of the party. Of course this is irrelevant as to the war crimes he may or may not have committed, but it serves no good to conflate every WWII german with the Nazi party.

[–]Raven0520"Libertarian solutions to everyday problems." -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

My favorite meme.