Rommel - a holy cow?

I'm placing this here since I am not about to discuss Rommel, the historical person, as much as the myths and aggressive aversion many people have against anything negative being written or said about him.

I've just been involved in a discussion on Norwegian Wikipedia where I have been literally bullied off by one of the administrators for pointing out the lack of objectivity in the article about Rommel. My points and suggestions have been ignored, and instead my person have been attacked. I had a look at the discussion page on English Wikipedia as well and saw similar tendencies there.

What is it about about Rommel that gets people so aggressive and emotional when he's critisized? You can critisize Patton or Montgomery, but wear full body armour if you're going to say something negative about Rommel.

 

I think part of it that there is a general lack of personal knowledge of Rommel as compared to Patton and Monty, both of them had well documented personality traits making it much easier to critisize them, Rommel has an air of mystery that allows people to create whatever image of him that they wish to. Since perception strongly influences history I imagine these tendencies have somewhat elevated Rommel above the others.

 

+ Rommel was a fine strategist. Monty was good but he needed numbers. As long as Monty didn't had the numbers, he wouldn't attack. Makes him a bit of a coward.

Anyway, I guess it's more because Rommel was an underdog. First having to proove himslef angainst the Italians when he took command, then he had to counter a strong britisch offensife while the german generals in the Med wanted him gone (Take Kesselring, he didn't liked Rommel and tried to sabotage him).
At El Alemein he was outnumbered and had to put up one hell of a fight while taking it up against Hitler after destroying some orders (like killing jewish POW's).
Add the fact that he fought in the front lines, took care of his man, flew arround in a plane to keep an eye on his tank collums and guide them back when they drowe the wrong way and you have a fine general, a good tacticus and someone who took care of both his men and his prisoners and tried to get them all save out of the war. No wonder that he is mostly considered as a hero.

But it's more then 60 years that the war ended, so, let us stand open for critics here. The man surely has some failures (love to hear them, i can find nothing bad about this person exept that some people condem him for beeing a Nazi.) but it seems nobody likes it when you bring down a hero by saying that he had some failures

 

Everyone has flaws there is nothing you can do about it everyone will always have a flaw. And in times of war it is good not to let it be known.

 

Eh?

Rommel was a good tactician but a very poor strategist. He paid no attention to logistics and had no concept of defensive fighting. This is what I always bring up when people start hailing Rommel to high heaven; he was an inspiring and competent leader of men but definitely no superhero. He too had his failings.

Varyag: some subjects are considered sacred by "the internet" and there is very little you can do about it but weep in despair at people's inability to face facts or their own ignorance. Try criticizing the katana or the Tiger, the effect will be the same.

 

The historians seems to be in consensus when it comes to Rommels weaknesses as a military commander. As you wrote, Roel, he was not a strategist, not great at defensive warfare and had little sense for logistics. Even so it was me who was accused of being out of touch with the established view on his military qualities.

Another issue is the myth of the chivalrous commander. I showed his orders to kill Italian soldiers at sight after the Badoglio government declared Germany war, but was only met with anger and abuse. I also brought forward the fact that some historians consider Rommel to have been very manipulative and to some extent created his own image and public opinion of him, but this only provoked even more.

Wikipedia sucks!

 

And add to all above the simple fact that the man fought for the nazi regime, and that he never spoke out in the manner Blaskowitz did. So, he tore up some orders from Hitler regarding the treatment of Jews. But still, a large number of Jews were deported from North Africa to the KZ camps.

 

Than why did he not report the officers that brought up the idea to assasinate Hitler to him?
It dosen't matter how good of a general you are but if you have the supreme commander's support behind you it wouldnt help.

He fought for the country he loved not for the policies of the government.

 

Exactly. Rommel leaned towards the Prussian officer class. No matter the differences with the country's leader a Prussian officer would never openly support a conspiracy against Germany's supreme leader. So did Guderian and Manstein for example. Although they did know of the plot against Hitler they neither helped nor betrayed the conspirators as they believed that such an act would create a great political instability.

 

On Rememberance Day I feel obliged to point out that everyone who fought for Germany in WW2 fought for the Nazis and all that that entails - including he holocaust. Thanks go out to those brave Germans who resisted the nazis but none to those who served them.

 

Maybe not thanks, but certainly respect

 

I think this is a very strong statement.

People's blood had been shed.No matter who they fought for, they fought and died and bled as much as anybody.

If you slash at them,does not blood flow out?

 

i would suggest that who one fights for is mostly predicvated on the time and location of their birth ...if any one of you were born a male gentile in 1920 in germany you can pretty much bank on being in feildgrau on your 21st birthday you can also count on being a staunch supporter of national socialism and der fuerer...because then as now you are very much a product of your culture and the times...

 

He never spoke out like Blaskowitz, period.

Why he didn't report those officers. He you ever considered that he might just be safeguarding himself? It certainly does not compare to what Blaskowitz did in 1939.

Rommel was on of Hitler's greatest supporters at the beginning of the war. He reconsidered his sentiment towards the nazi regime as the war proceeded, but he still fought for the nazi regime. Your excuse might be considered for a teenager finding himself in a German uniform during WWII, but not for an experienced man like Rommel.

Rommel was not a nazi himself, but he served the nazis and should not be considered a hero above any critisism. And the uprising in 1944 which he half-heartedly supported does not clean his records in any way.

 

What pisses me off is overated role they give Romell in WW1. If you read most of the writings on the subject he almost alone defeated Italian army on Soča (Isonzo) front. I reality German role in entire 12.th Soča offensive was more or less supportive as main attack was done by A-H forces under command of Svetozar Boroević von Bojna (a Croatian Serb i might add) to the south (planes north of Trst-Trieste). Basicly this first blietzkrieg is in literature more or less always ascribed to Bavarians even though that German involvement was limited to holding hilly central part of the line to allow A-H forces to concentrate for offensive to their south. When Germans attacked Italian army was already in disarray becouse of massed artillery bombardment (first time A-H artillery has numerical superiority) and A-H attack to the south. This is the reason German managed to penetrate very difficoult terrain on which Italians started 11 unsuccesfull Soča offensives against Boroević forces in prewious 2 years.

 

The enemy had heroes too.
Thankfully the Canadian vets see it differently than you. A couple years back Canadians and the German paras that fought at Otona had a reunion so certainly they did have the same opinion as you. Also they were all volunteers.

What next that all men that served in the SS are criminals?

From what?

What did you expect him to desert his country? Many US generals dont agree with what the white house is doing but I dont see any of them deserting their soldiers.

Clean his record of what?

 

Similar thing with Hitler (not quite.....) Excellent politician. Knock out oh....all of those traits that made him the most hated man of WW2 and he's a pretty good guy.

Oh yeah about the body armor and bad things about Rommel....

Rommel sucks!!! *dodges fuselade of heavy objects*

 

So, then, every US soldier currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan is a Republican, fighting for George Bush?

 

No, but they all served a criminal organisation.

Not so much from anything than that he saw, like every other reasonably intelligent German officer, that Hitler was bringing Germany to its doom, and that he might have wanted to keep his options open in case the uprising succeeded.

I don't expect anything, I'm just poining out that he served one of the most brutal regimes ever seen. Not that I think the analogy to US generals is valid, but they speak out against the White House. Rommel never spoke out. He's just not the great hero many wants him to be.

His whole-heartedly support of Hitler in the early years of the war, war-crimes committed under his command, his orders to kill Italian soldiers at sight ...

Anything a Rommel-fan wont hear of.

 

Many people supported Hitler full heartedly in the earliers years of the war I dont see what that has to do with anything.

What crimes commited under his command, how major were they? Are you forgetting war crimes were commited by both sides?

Not to mention war crimes were commited by Kurt Meyer (commanded the 25th SS) but his superiors did not take any blame, it that what you are talking about? I dont believe there is little Rommel could have done if a divisional commander decided to execute someone on the spot at their own HQ.

About that order to shoot any Italian soldiers, when was it ordered, and can you provided some details about it?