"The Rommel Myth: Fact or Fiction?" Topic

"Erwin Rommel is described in a plethora of ways. To many, despite his role in the Second World War as one of Hitler's leading officers, he was ‘a good German', a man whom even Winston Churchill described as a great general. In Germany, the twenty-two ‘Rommel' streets and two army barracks named after him show the deep admiration still present for the ‘Desert Fox'. His victories, and even his defeats, are still examined in military compounds around the world. Historians and politicians alike praise his supposed morals, and he has been immortalised in not one, but two Hollywood films.

Evidently, the question is not whether Rommel has had an impact upon society, but whether this said impact is supported by fact or fiction. Known as the ‘The Rommel myth', it essentially involves three elements: firstly, that the Field Marshall was a military genius. Secondly, that the war fought in North Africa was a ‘clean war' and finally, that Rommel was not a Nazi. Created by a number of prominent Allied military officers and politicians, spread through film and literature, it ultimately aimed to help reconcile West Germany with Britain and America after World War Two; not an easy task, though nonetheless one it has succeeded in. However, after decades of invincibility, the character of Rommel is under investigation once more, not only in this essay, but globally. Disputes among the German government are surfacing over the Field Marshall's role as the poster boy of the Bundeswehr (the German army), his association with a genocidal regime, and even his long acknowledged military genius is under scrutiny. This essay will aim to both shed light upon the complex nature of one of the Second World War's icons, and to decide to what extent he can be considered a humane soldier, a great general, and a devoted Nazi…"

Main page

link

Armand

This is interesting, but I've come to believe you can write this article about any historical figure. We like to sum things up in neat stories, but to do so we have to file off the rough edges and leave out parts that don't fit. So for any given historical figure there's a "prevailing narrative" and a half hour's research will give you what you need to attack that narrative: this gives those who pay the rent by writing things that sound like they're going to be interesting an easy article to publish. After all, contrarianism always intrigues us; contrarianism is one of the few things we all agree on.

I know I'm getting old and grumpy but this is one of the categories of things I'm just not going to read.

I completely concur, Andrew.

B

I've not read the book myself, but didn't David Irving's "The Trail of the Fox" make the case that Rommel was pretty much a Hitler loyalist until after it became clear that Normandy was going to end in defeat?

Personally, anyone that takes such a prominent role in supporting a madman and a criminal regime is somewhat tainted. The excuse of "I am just following orders" does not pass the moral test--as was shown in Nuremberg. Rommel was a brilliant tactician and a very competent operational commander, but fought fiercely for a criminal regime. He was not a Himmler or a Goring, but he fought long and hard for Hitler. As to a "clean war" there were not many civilians in the desert, but the war was as ugly as any war. Just look at the pictures of tank crews burnt to death in North Arica. By the way WWII in the ETO was truly "Hitler's War" just as the present invasion of Ukraine is "Putin's War."

Thanks.

Armand

I'm also an old and sometimes grumpy man, in the not reading that camp.

Rommel wrote the book on infantry combat in ww1
Seemed to do pretty well in the desert to me.

I think it's not necessarily so simple. What's your career military officer supposed to do? Forget about soldiering, duty to country and all that stuff?
In the mid thirties, there were plenty of people and politicians round the world thought Hitler was doing great things.

Those who read the article will find that the author concludes Rommel was an ambitious, agressive commander whose reckless disregard for logistical considerations undermine the label of genius, who was honourable and humane towards his enemies, and was not notably more NAZI than other German professional officers.

"So for any given historical figure there's a "prevailing narrative" and a half hour's research will give you what you need to attack that narrative: this gives those who pay the rent by writing things that sound like they're going to be interesting an easy article to publish."

I agree with Andrew. I blame it on "Lee Considered". Nolan was a lawyer, not an historian. He had an opinion about Lee and built a case to support his case, like a lawyer would. In doing so he ignored things in Lee's life that didn't su[port his case. A lot of authors use this model now.

Robert Forczyk has a new book out on the N. Africa campaign – Desert Armour (planned for two volumes).

Perhaps he characterizes Rommel as an opportunist, politically and militarily. Versus the British in N. Africa, Rommel's audacious, and sometimes unsound tactics were able to work for awhile, and in their own political defense, the British lauded the Desert Fox for his cunning (rather than admit to their own lost opportunities on the battlefield).

When the debate about whether Rommel was a good German army officer comes up these days most people want to focus solely on the word "good", ignoring the rest. If we exclude those willing to work with the Nazis to advance their personal career then the list of potential good German army officers is going to shrink significantly. If we further exclude those who believed that Germany should not push past its Versailles borders or even those who believed it was OK to use force or intimidation to push beyond those borders then the list becomes almost nonexistent.

Bill N + 1

Armand

Honorable officers always have the option of resigning their commissions rather than serve unspeakable evil. Officers should have a conscience; they are not automatons.

But, Legionarius, did they have the option? How many Russian officers were pulled out of the Gulag and sent to the front? Saying 'no' meant death. It wasn't much different in Nazi Germany. Rommel committed suicide because not doing so meant his family risked arrest, torture, and death. I'm not saying Rommel didn't have a choice early on, but by the end he didn't.

Excluding aggressive officers seems a bit doubtful.
I'd suggest there was also effectively a selection process which meant German officers of ww2 would very likely be disposed towards regaining territory lost in ww1.

Is simple patriotism permitted to enter into the calculus?
Who was it who said – "My country, right or wrong"?

B

To my way of thinking, the two essential texts for this topic are Joachim Fest's essay "General von X: Behavior and Role of the Officer Corps in the Third Reich" (in his "The Face of the Third Reich") and John Wheeler-Bennett's "The Nemesis of Power." They both say fundamentally the same thing: the Army had its own policy of limited reconquest of lost and neighboring territory, and connived at the Nazis' rise, thinking they could be controlled and used. The Army was wrong; and instead of using Hitler, it was used by him for far more apocalyptic goals than most of them ever imagined. Along the way, the senior officers were corrupted by typical emoluments (rank, decorations) and atypical ones, including direct cash payments, to keep them onboard, as insurance against a coup. It's no perhaps wonder Hitler held so many of his generals in such contempt; he had taken their measure pretty accurately.

"Created by a number of prominent Allied military officers and politicians…" I'm sorry, but that is just bad history. The myth existed from close to day 1 in North Africa. See here: link

All the best

Andreas

@ Blutarski

Who was it who said – "My country, right or wrong"?

Chauvin, I believe, hence chauvinism.

I believe that all german soldiers were required to swear a personal oath to Hitler thus it was not the country right or wrong but the leader.

All regular officers were smarting about the defeat in 1918 and thus there may well have been a professional reason for their efforts.

I dont know Rommels real input into the July 1944 plot but the Nazis felt he played some role.

4C wrote -

@ Blutarski
Who was it who said – "My country, right or wrong"?

Chauvin, I believe, hence chauvinism.

Actually it was American naval hero Stephen Decatur in 1816 -

"Our Country! In her intercourse
with foreign nations, may she
always be in the right; but our
country, right or wrong."

FWIW.

B

stevedubgworth wrote -

I believe that all german soldiers were required to swear a personal oath to Hitler thus it was not the country right or wrong but the leader.

I would suggest that a real sense of duty to defend one's motherland, hearth and family by far outweighs the dictated text of some political oath. That dictator ruling your nation at the time may in retrospect be the "wrong" part of the equation, but home and family are always the right part of the equation.

Nothing directed at you personally, but it is easy to criticize decisions like this after the fact when you are not actually standing in the person's shoes.

B

IIRC Hitler didn't require the personal oath from the Heer until after the bombing attempt in '44? That didn't mean individual officers weren't part of the Nazi Party (I believe Rommel was) but the army didn't use the personal oath until the war was lost.
Perhaps someone better read can correct me.

Rommel was never a member of the Nazi party.

The "Fuhrer oath" became law in July of 1935

"I swear by God this holy oath, that I will render to Adolf Hitler, Führer of the German Reich and People, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, unconditional obedience, and that I am ready, as a brave soldier, to risk my life at any time for this oath."

Civilian officials had a similar oath

One of the more unsavory aspects of Hitler's relationship with his senior officers- and this includes some of those who were actively plotting against him- was their acceptance of extralegal financial payments that went under the table and into their bank accounts. While the list of motivations was no doubt complex, "patriotism" was probably not first among them.

One reason I suggested John Wheeler-Bennett's account was his experience in Berlin during both Weimar and the Third Reich. He knew many of the Army's senior officers, and he does not hesitate to say that the regime wanted and picked careerists- because they were compliant, and because their selfishness made them easy to tempt and easy to buy. It's not that they were good men stuck with hard choices: they were weak men picked in part because they were pliant. The men of independent mind did not stay (and here you can think, for all their flaws, of Fritsch, Beck, and Hammerstein-Equord)- they were shuffled off to retirement as fast as the regime could get rid of them.