h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why is Rommel held up as some amazing hero? The one honorable thing he could have gone down in history for, active support for the July 1944 bomb plot, you say he had nothing to do with!

Quote about Atlantic defences: "With his trademark cunning, the Fox organised special barriers to prevent the use of landing craft on the beaches, the infiltration of paratroopers behind the primary defences and anti-aircraft and anti-glider impediments." Well, that did a lot of good didn't it. Sounds more like Wile-E-Coyote than the Desert Fox!

He's definately an interesting subject, but more as a personality cult than a hugely successful leader. Generals on both sides in WWII managed far more than Rommel (look at the distances covered and size of battles fought by both sides in Russia). Quotes like: "By June 1940, the tracks of his PanzerKampfWagon IV were resting in the sand with the shallow waters of the English Channel lapping against the battle grey bulkheads on a beach near Dieppe." sound like a load of propaganda nonsense if ever there was any. Did this come from David Irving too (the famous non-historian)?

Sorry, I'm being really horrible here, but in for a penny in for a pound you know. I'm sure you'll come up with some good replies anyway. Oh, and what's a "PzKfW lil", whose "deadly barrels were eyeing the fencing of the western border of Egypt"? Cue music hall joke. Should it be PzKfW III.

Anyway, better an article that provokes a bit of response (mine never do!)

Cheers,

-Dan-

I saw this entry before it was Edited, and I offered up the same concern. I did a little research into Rommel, specifically searching a couple of anti-Nazi sites (including the Nizkor project) to see if I could come up with any dirt on unethical behavior or Holocaust involvement. But I couldn't find anything patently wrong with the history. Rommel didn't cover much ground, but he took and kept key locations against incredible odds with relatively few troops.

There are some left-wing debates about whether Rommel might have known about the July 20 plot on Hitler's life and perhaps decided to look the other way. He did seem quite disturbed by Hitler's increasing paranoia towards the end of his life, as evidenced by a couple of personal letters later revealed to the public. But it's really neither here nor there.

All evidence pointed to the concept that Rommel didn't know about the Holocaust, since he spent most of his time fighting in unoccupied or lightly occupied areas. His division of the Nazi military was surprisingly uninvolved in any sort of unethical behavior. It seems Rommel simply had a passion for war, and wanted to fight well for his home country. He didn't concern himself with ethical soul-searching on whether or not he should be on Germany's side. Some people would call this a fatal flaw, while others will call it common patriotism or the classic military spirit.

There is a certain amount of hero worship for generals that display excellent battle tactics, and we can certainly debate the merit of this. While the intelligence of such men is obvious, one has to ask whether intelligence alone is enough to make a hero or a 'knight.' We can also debate whether this worship should continue in cases where the person in question fought on the losing side, or for an unjust cause. And then, must we weight their knowledge of their contribution to said unjust causes? Or at those who fail to question authority equally to blame?

In the American South, for instance, there is hero worship of General Lee, who fought for the defeated Confederate States. He didn't agree with slavery for the most part, and simply fought for the South because his home state succeeded and was a prime target for the Union army. It seems clear he would have fought for his home state for either side, regardless of ethics. Many in the South worship Lee because he used great tactics, while a few have twisted him erroneously into a hero for racist causes. I can agree with reservations to the former, but not to the latter.

I dunno. I'm rambling. My conclusion is that the hero worship in the entry (particularly the ending) could have been toned down. But the historical facts seem accurate enough.

Rommel (as well as Lee, Jackson, and others in the American Civil war) was a professional soldier. To put the matter as a cut and dry phrase, soldiers fight becuase that is what they do, the same reason you and me drag ourselves into the office every day. Now, a person may join the armed forces out of partiotism or nationalistic feelings, but someone who is a real professional (in any field, not just militarily) just does his job, protecting his country's interests. Of course, military service is more intense than the every day cubicle parade of the average person, but the same generalities can apply. Certainly, Nazi Germany was one of the most evil governments in human history, but remember, Rommel didn't join Hitler's army; he joined the German army during the years preceeding WWI. And that's why Rommel deserves respect, he was a professional who did his job very very well. Rommel and men like him do not deserve, or even ask for, our admiration; they do, however, merit our respect.

I have to agree. Romell was a great general, superior in many way to montgomery (less haesetant for one) and teh main reason for why he isn't remembered as fondly si because he fouht for the loosing side. i feel this ahppens to often, for anotehr case of negative hsitory, Baron Von Richtoven is often forgotten sespite being teh best pilot airborne durning WW1 (teh less clear war IMHO) But is usually a villain in memory.

I think that too often history is writtern by teh victors, and it is too easy to forget that some people just fight fopr their country, regardless of its beliefs.

Rommel, an amazing general hampered by being surrounded by less capable generals on his own side. Faint praise to nobody, as mentioned above he was a true leader and one must not forget, his writings on tactics have been studied and used by many other generals, along with many american and brittish generals too. He deserves every word of praise.

As for good old Baron Manfred Von Richtofen, here again is a great man who's talent is hampered b being on the losing side... nobody else came close to his total kills in WW1 (80 confirmed, 82 if you read his auto biography). Amzazingly his younger brother Lotho got 40 confirmed kills two... an amzing family.

Kind of like the Schumachers of their day? I do sometimes wonder what would have happened if they'd had Michael and Ralf in Messerschmidts.

Anyway, back to Rommel. Comment from Fragilis: "All evidence pointed to the concept that Rommel didn't know about the Holocaust, since he spent most of his time fighting in unoccupied or lightly occupied areas. His division of the Nazi military was surprisingly uninvolved in any sort of unethical behavior." I see. So, he was in charge of the Atlantic defences. And who did he ask to build them? The local French contractor with the most competitive quote? Or perhaps he used the Organisation Todt, composed of slave labour from rather a lot of occupied countries. But he was just doing his job.

It does seem that a large number of Germans didn't know about the Holocaust - plenty of them simply didn't believe their eyes when forced to watch KZ footage after the war - but it's hard to believe that someone in Rommel's position didn't have any knowledge of it at all. Whether he could do anything about it, even if he wanted to, is another matter.

As for his division of the Nazi military being uninvolved, well there weren't an awful lot of Jews or Gypsies in North Africa I imagine and, with the speed of the fighting, there probably wasn't a lot of time for transporting slave labour anyway. I don't suppose that it didn't happen because of any specific intervention from Rommel, it just didn't happen.

The only division of the Nazi German army to never be accused of any kind of war crimes were the Fallschirmjager (paras) who also had a very solid fighting record. It's easy to look back from both winning and losing sides and criticise or praise or whatever, and Rommel surely deserves repect as a great soldier, but it's the way he's become some sort of tallisman for nazi apologists that bothers me a bit.

These people (and David Irving is their guru) have found someone who's already respected - probably through James Mason playing him in movies - and then established that he never betrayed Hitler after all. QED: A good Nazi. Hurrah! It's the Holy Grail of Holocaust denial. Not necessary. We all know that there was tragedy and evil on both sides during the war. There's no shortage of web sites showing pictures of children burned alive in arguably unnecessary bombing raids, but that - and the good Rommel - won't ever excuse the Nazi genocide.

-Dan-

Dan, I agree that Rommel's actions will never 'excuse' the Holocaust. Those who imagine so are quite self-deluded , as he himself would likely attest were he still alive. And anyway, there is no 'excuse' for genocide. There just isn't.

But at the same time, it's probably not fair to paint Rommel with the same brush that we would paint someone in charge of the death camps. Our ability to judge people in something other than black-and-white terms is one thing that keeps us from falling back to patterns that can lead to genocide.

If you would like to show me any evidence that Rommel knowingly utilized slave labor, was racist, or had knowledge of the death camps, go right ahead. Because I had the same concern, and couldn't find any. His record looks so clean that I honestly wonder whether there wasn't a tacit understanding among the top brass about keeping Rommel away from the ugly truth of what was going on behind the scenes. He is conspicuously absent from key Holocaust locations.

If there is indeed evidence I missed, this entry is absolutely incomplete without it. It should definitely be added. But I don't see how accusatory speculation helps our understanding. Rather, I think it clouds the issue.

It is odd that an entry on the Military Abilities of Field Marshall Romell has given rise to discussion on the Holocaust. He was a good General, possibly the best in the WWII, and that is a fact that he needs to be credited with. To raise the political and military excesses of Germany as a counterpoint to Romell is Bizzare. It shows a logic that is dangerously similar to what it condemns. Dan's conversation seems as venomous as Nazi baiters can be. It is also as extreme.

To put it in perspective, the British used millions of Soldiers from their colonies to defend their interests in the WWII. Hundreds of thousands of them died serving the interests of an oppressive and hated colonial master. Does that make Field Marshall Montgomery a poor general? Or for that matter the Americans entered the war with segregated regiments. Does this explicit discrimination on colour cast a shadow on General Patton? Or for that matter, the pilot who shot and injured Field Marshall Romell was a South African. Was he wrong because he condoned Aparthied?

General Romell was a wiley general, a professional soldier who did exceedingly well at his chosen profession. It was his job to put up strong, dangerous, maiming and lethal defences. The Americans or the British were not coming with flowers and had to be stopped. Romell tried to do his job well. It was similarly the Job of the D-Day soldiers to break through those defences irrespective of the losses, they did their job well. Why can't it be left at that?

It is sad to hear that Romell's finest hour would have been participating in an assasination attempt on his political master. It evidently misunderstands what Romell was about. He was a soldier who chose death to dishonour. He could have stood a court martial and survived (Even Adolf Hitler could not have killed him) but he chose death. That more than anything brings out his beliefs. His job was war, not politics. This is a hero for me.

I find it difficult to have people preaching what heroes are supposed to be. Please let everyone choose his heroes. If there are people who find Adolf Hitler heroic, they are welcome to it by all means. What is reprehensible is the brazen display of Hitler's message of hatred and the accompanying violence. What is a matter of concern is why he should be a hero.

Please isolate the characters from the actors. People can be heroic for their abilities, irrespective of their beliefs. Heroes could be heroes for the inspiration they exude, for strength, vitality, courage, sacrifice, steadfastness, cunning, beliefs... It is tragically sad if Hitler is heroic for his beliefs. Yet, his ability to inspire a nation to rise to such power in just a decade is striking, just as his failure to give this nation any sustainable direction is amazing. Romell was a great General, he could well have been a moral destitute aware of the holocaust and impotent to do anything against it, or worse still actively participating in its execution. But the fact remains he was a great General. He lead his men to Victory and also pulled them out of defeat. Why should he be judged on his part in the holocaust? Why should the collective failure of a people be brought to bear on an individual's ability?

It is odd that an entry on the Military Abilities of Field Marshall Romell has given rise to discussion on the Holocaust. He was a good General, possibly the best in the WWII, and that is a fact that he needs to be credited with. To raise the political and military excesses of Germany as a counterpoint to Romell is Bizzare. It shows a logic that is dangerously similar to what it condemns. Dan's conversation seems as venomous as Nazi baiters can be. It is also as extreme.

To put it in perspective, the British used millions of Soldiers from their colonies to defend their interests in the WWII. Hundreds of thousands of them died serving the interests of an oppressive and hated colonial master. Does that make Field Marshall Montgomery a poor general? Or for that matter the Americans entered the war with segregated regiments. Does this explicit discrimination on colour cast a shadow on General Patton? Or for that matter, the pilot who shot and injured Field Marshall Romell was a South African. Was he wrong because he condoned Aparthied?

General Romell was a wiley general, a professional soldier who did exceedingly well at his chosen profession. It was his job to put up strong, dangerous, maiming and lethal defences. The Americans or the British were not coming with flowers and had to be stopped. Romell tried to do his job well. It was similarly the Job of the D-Day soldiers to break through those defences irrespective of the losses, they did their job well. Why can't it be left at that?

It is sad to hear that Romell's finest hour would have been participating in an assasination attempt on his political master. It evidently misunderstands what Romell was about. He was a soldier who chose death to dishonour. He could have stood a court martial and survived (Even Adolf Hitler could not have killed him) but he chose death. That more than anything brings out his beliefs. His job was war, not politics. This is a hero for me.

I find it difficult to have people preaching what heroes are supposed to be. Please let everyone choose his heroes. If there are people who find Adolf Hitler heroic, they are welcome to it by all means. What is reprehensible is the brazen display of Hitler's message of hatred and the accompanying violence. What is a matter of concern is why he should be a hero.

Please isolate the characters from the actors. People can be heroic for their abilities, irrespective of their beliefs. Heroes could be heroes for the inspiration they exude, for strength, vitality, courage, sacrifice, steadfastness, cunning, beliefs... It is tragically sad if Hitler is heroic for his beliefs. Yet, his ability to inspire a nation to rise to such power in just a decade is striking, just as his failure to give this nation any sustainable direction is amazing. Romell was a great General, he could well have been a moral destitute aware of the holocaust and impotent to do anything against it, or worse still actively participating in its execution. But the fact remains he was a great General. He lead his men to Victory and also pulled them out of defeat. Why should he be judged on his part in the holocaust? Why should the collective failure of a people be brought to bear on an individual's ability?

Romell was indeed a very good General, but was hardly the best the Germans had on offer. Certain WWII generals had a style of leadership which set them apart from their peers. MacArthur, Patton, Montgomery and Romell being the ones which spring to mind. Of these, I think Romell was probably the best, and he is certainly more famous than his fellow German generals, but he was not their match. Manstein, von Rundstedt and (my vote) Heinz Guderian were better than Rommel. Guderian helped develop the concept of Blitzkrieg. He wrote the manual on it (Achtung Panzer!) and then went and did it when his country went to war.

As for Rommel and the 88mm anti-tank, pure poppycock. Though designed as an anti-aircraft gun it was quickly realised that it could be used very effectively in an anti-tank role. It was therefore adapted for such a role and armed with solid shot. Anti-aircraft shells aren't much use against armour- even from an 88. Pehaps Rommel did discover the efficacy of the 88, but lots of others had done it before him!

"Even Adolf Hitler could not have killed him". Eh, wasn't that exactly what Hitler did do?

"Why should he be judged on his part in the holocaust?" Because we judge people by their words and deeds. He fought for something evil. That should limit how far he should be allowed to rise in anyone's esteem.

You are probably right in saying that Romell was not the best the Germans had on offer. Personally I think General Guderian took that one. Fair enough and point conceded.

No, Hitler did not kill Romell. It has been considered a distinct possibility that had Romell chosen a court martial, Hitler would have had serious problems in doing away with him. The repercussions in the army would have been serious, possible more of the July 20 kind of plots. Which is precisely why Romell was given a choice to kill himself, Hitler knew his man and his situation well. It was calculated and not 'magnanimous'.

The last part about Romell fighting for a false cause. That is something one cannot judge. How can you be so sure that Montgomery or Patton or Zukhov fought for the right cause. To my mind Montgomery fought for a colonial Power with hegemony over a large part of the world. It was possibly for the best for the colonies if Britain had lost. Just to remind you of Churchill's quote after the war to the effect that he would not sit by to watch the British empire cut up. That colonial ambition then was all that the British morality was worth?

Patton fought for the protection of American interests, and stayed in Europe with the keen and openly stated desire to then fight the Russians, that was the final depth of the General's Moral stand - Now that we have done in the enemy, lets start with the allies.

General MacArthur ended the WWII, and went into the Korean war as the 'Old Soldier' who wanted to use 6 nuclear bombs on Chinese cities to win. That was his interpretation of the War.

And then there were the American concentration camps where all the Japanese Americans were herded in the WWII. True, there were no Gas chambers, and the comparison to the Nazis is weak, but the moral question is far from settled. That was what the American cause was worth.

And Zukhov fought to save his skin, quite literally. Stalin, possibly the Nemesis for Hitler went on to butcher more Russians than the Nazis ever managed.

On the other hand, the destruction in the WWII was a direct cause for the end of colonial powers. But it would be very adventurous to say that Hitler fought against colonialism.

The WWII was a geopolitical affair, it is best left to that, the moral questions in that war were far more complex than is made out to be.

Why cannot it be simply kept that Romell fought for colour green, Montgomery for Red, Zukhov for blue and Patton and Macarthur for yellow. Now forget why and for what these guys fought, but they all fought superbly for the colour they got, and that makes them Good men...

I think you must consider that at the time Rommel was at his most acive it was a truly miserable time for British civilians. Any German showing the faintest hint of decency would have been treated with great respect.

I am rather shocked that the article begins with a quote from David Irving, I really feel very strongly that Irving has no place in this forum.

I would agree with others here that Rommel was unexceptional as a commander, adopting tactics defined by the three founders of Blitzkrieg (Liddell-Hart, Guderian, Zhukov) and using them effectively.

No mention is made in the article of the influence of Fellers, surely the largest single impact by anyone in the desert war.

I don't mean to be harsh, just honest.

Cestus

There is no doubt that Rommel did have a certain dramatic flair, but I agree that he was not the over-powerful tactician he is sometimes viewed as. It is true that he did have some major victories, but the timing of these is very interesting.
His first set of victories was in early 1941, after his arrival in Africa in Febuary. From there he attacked and pushed the British army back through Nofilia, Derna and into Egypt, isolating Tobruk. This was a major German victory - yet one thing is ignored. The British army that had been there and had defeated Graziani had been withdrawn to Greece, in an attempt to keep Greece independant as Britain's treaty with Greece had agreed. The German victory there was in my view far more important, yet is forgotten.
Similarly, Rommel's second set of victories occured after a large part of the British Army in Egypt had been transferred to the Pacific after Japan entered the war. Rommel did well when up against a weaker army, but did little when against an army of the same, or greater, strength.

<BB<

I strongly agree with david irving's praise about Rommel, Rommel was in every way an exceptional field commander. he was very demanding of his soldiers but never asked them to do more than he could, he always led from the front line even after he was pormoted to the rank of field marshal. some of u guys said he did have the time to round up jews of gypsies or there werent any, but this is not the case. hitler learned that there is regiment in the british army largely of jewish, and ordered Rommel to execute them, but when Rommel receieved the order he dismissed it as unsoldierly and told his staff to tear it up. he often cut his own water ration so his POWs can suffer the desert. however Rommel didn't understand the operational art, he was more involved with small scale battles. the german african campaign was flawed before it even began, the africa corps never had enough man, tanks and supplies to reach the suez canal. the bulk of german armor and supplies had gone to the russian campaign. Rommel did very well against numerical odds in capturing tobruk, by the time of el almaine battle his forces were complete living on captured supplies from tobruk. we must not forget about Rommel's achievement in WW1, his company captured 9000 italian soldiers and officers with only 6 casulties and only of them died from exhaustion because he couldnt keep up with leutenant Rommel! to me Rommel was tatical genius, a patriot to his fatherland and a tragic hero.

in the last post I meant to say survive the desert not suffer the desert. doh

There was a joker named Dan,
who belittled a very great man.
Rommel the Knight never flunked a fight,
unlike Hitler the trash in the can.

To my dismay I failed to meet,
Herr Rommel because I was sent to Crete.
There the Kraut was enraptured because I was captured,
because the Kraut on feet was more fleet.

I was imprisoned in Salonica in Greece,
but the Kraut would give us no peace.
We were beaten and gagged and some even dragged,
to a wall and from life instant relief.

But a Kraut Officer appeared on the spot,
and insisted we could not be shot.
For taken in arms is as honerable as Phsalms,
and Prisoners of War became out lot.

Sorry mate! but my view is Rommel was a German and a Gentleman.
If one is aquainted with German history one will find that the Germans got a raw deal after WW1 and when I was captured and sent to Germany as a P.O.W. I found the German civilians had really had it rough for years and deserved better.
So is there any wonder that they flocked behind Hitler who had a big mouth but nothing to back it up with.
Hitler knew very little on how to run a Navy.
He was a failure as an Artist.
He wouldn't work for a living and slept in doss houses.
By accident he got into politics and wrote a book which made him some money.
He made a bid in politics that earned him a jail sentence but the wiley rat got out and began ranting on about how the Goverment had let the side down in WW1 and was cheered and from then he had it made.
Some People of Germany were completely taken in by this loafer who engineered others to do his dirty work while he sat back and entertained other s--t heads who flocked to his cause.
The Bankers of Germany were soon flocking to seed Hitler's ventures
and WW2 was set and triggered. Anyway have a nice day mate. ;0)

For what it is worth old mate, Hitler was hiding down in a bunker with his bint when the Russians took Berlin.
History has it that he gave her poisen then took some himself.
When Hitler's body was later found it was discovered there was a bullet hole in the temple.
It has been suggested that the rat was shot by some one else.
That I could believe. Ah well! yu win some an' yu lose some,! :0)T