Erwin Rommel

[SpeCtrE]

Perhaps this is gonna raise some eyebrows. But I admire the guy, Rommel is known to be a great soldier and he is great military leader. He was finally defeated by a large army led by Montogomery in North Africa.

What I want to ask now is if Rommel was an anti semite.

By the way, He was caught organizing a coup against Hitler and was allowed to commit suicide by taking cynide pill. Because he was very famous in the military.

[Black Dagger]

But I admire the guy, Rommel is known to be a great soldier and he is great military leader. He was finally defeated by a large army led by Montogomery in North Africa.

Rommel is one of the 'good' nazis who gets lots of hype in the 'west', hype being the key word. I honestly dont care how 'great' a 'leader' he was/is claimed to be, why is he admirable? Do you admire Alexander the great or Ghenghis Khan? Charlemagne? He was crucial to the military success of the nazi army, wow, thanks 'desert fox', i'm sure the millions of people who perished at the hands of the third reichs' military appreciates that one! He was a product of ther german ruling class, a military careerist, who served the nazi war-marchine loyaly and effectively. 'Great leaders' like Rommel are part of the reason why the Nazi's were successful invading and subjugating some many people/nations. How is that admirable?


By the way, He was caught organizing a coup against Hitler and was allowed to commit suicide by taking cynide pill

This is meant to make him sound 'better' isn't it? If organising a coup against hitler or being linked to such a coup made someone a 'good' nazi, there would be barely any high-ranking nazi officers/'leaders' to execute :P And besides, it's never been completely verified that he was a part of the 'july plot'.


What I want to ask now is if Rommel was an anti semite.

Does it matter? He was the 'great' military leader of the Nazi war machine, wasn't he? I hardly think that makes him opposed to anti-semitism.

[bolshevik butcher]

sorry dont have a lot of time for a man that high up in the nazis. Maybe he didn't agree with Hitler, but that didn't stop him from going along with them.

[Poum_1936]

Its hard to find anything good about the Nazi's. Take our new pope, lovely product of the Hitler Youth. I heard Rommel was just a general who didnt care for Hitler's politics. He was still a general who fought wars, not for humanity and to end war (not to say I advocate war, I just think capitalism will not go down without a big fight), but for the sake of war.

[LSD]

By the way, He was caught organizing a coup against Hitler and was allowed to commit suicide by taking cynide pill. Because he was very famous in the military.

Well, that was never proven.

Goebbels was sure that Rommel was not involved but Bormann was sure that he was.

Either way, by '44, Germany wasn't willing to take chances so they had him kill himself just to be safe.


Perhaps this is gonna raise some eyebrows. But I admire the guy, Rommel is known to be a great soldier and he is great military leader.

He certainly was, but so was Genghis Kahn, it isn't a good enough reason to admire him.

You have to look at what he was fighting for, not merely how he fought.


What I want to ask now is if Rommel was an anti semite.

Unknown.

[SpeCtrE]

Rommel is one of the 'good' nazis who gets lots of hype in the 'west', hype being the key word. I honestly dont care how 'great' a 'leader' he was/is claimed to be, why is he admirable? Do you admire Alexander the great or Ghenghis Khan? Charlemagne? He was crucial to the military success of the nazi army, wow, thanks 'desert fox', i'm sure the millions of people who perished at the hands of the third reichs' military appreciates that one! He was a product of ther german ruling class, a military careerist, who served the nazi war-marchine loyaly and effectively. 'Great leaders' like Rommel are part of the reason why the Nazi's were successful invading and subjugating some many people/nations. How is that admirable?



I admire the man for being a military leader, a great tactician and a dedicated soldier to his country. I also admire people like Napoleon, Moshe Dyan ( the best one ) and Ehud Barak for the military tact they showed.

I surely won't be hated for liking those guys. 0:)

[RedStarOverChina]

One of the few high Nazi officials who wasnt charged with any war crimes at the end. However I have a natural dislike for soldiers of his kind.

[lenin_fresh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 02:55 PM
By the way, He was caught organizing a coup against Hitler and was allowed to commit suicide by taking cynide pill. Because he was very famous in the military.
I know your reasoning for liking Rommel. But I find within the West a lot of people tend to like Rommel because he tried to wrest power from Hitler's hands. So, with that kind of logic shouldn't the west celebrate Heinrich Himmler? He tried to gain power near the end by defying Hitler. *

On the issue of him being a great soldier and whatnot. It seems silly to me that we should celebrate anyone who would fight for the "nation". It seems to me he didn't get ballsy enough to try a move on Hitler until shit went quite south. In my eyes, if he was such a great person who clashed with Hitler, so, shouldn't he have opposed Hitler before Germany was threatened with total annihilation, before the camps got to running full blast? It seems to me he has blood on his hands just by helping keep Germany alive during the war.


*By the way, I don't want a mix-up of people thinking I support these Nazi assholes. I'm very much opposed to them. They're both assholes in my book.

[SpeCtrE]

if he was such a great person who clashed with Hitler, so, shouldn't he have opposed Hitler before Germany was threatened with total annihilation, before the camps got to running full blast? It seems to me he has blood on his hands just by helping keep Germany alive during the war.

Well, maybe he was waiting for the right moment. He could have been against the Hitler from the early moment, we really can't know.. He strikes me as the kind of a soldier who really never gave a damn on what goes on the political arena.


know your reasoning for liking Rommel. But I find within the West a lot of people tend to like Rommel because he tried to wrest power from Hitler's hands. So, with that kind of logic shouldn't the west celebrate Heinrich Himmler? He tried to gain power near the end by defying Hitler.

well, Heinrich Himmler... you expect me to like the reichfuhrer-SS?

I guess on the basis you have provided for liking someone who opposed Hitler, I should like people like, Goering, Goebbels, Stalin, Churchil...etc. But I don't, Sorry


However I have a natural dislike for soldiers of his kind.

Can you be more specific? :)

So far no one has answered my question whether he was anti semite or not. :angry:

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 07:01 AM
One of the few high Nazi officials who wasnt charged with any war crimes at the end. However I have a natural dislike for soldiers of his kind.
Obviously he wasn't charged with war crimes, seeing he committed suicide in 1944.

[Black Dagger]

So far no one has answered my question whether he was anti semite or not.

I think it's safe to assume he was, if he 'supported' or had a serious 'problem' with anti-semitism, why would he serve the nazi-war machine so loyally? I'm sorry, but the apathy argument does not wash at all, particularly with the holocaust. There's no way a person can remain neutral, and by doing so, enable such events to take place. If he was opposed to the holocaust, to the rapid anti-semitism/racism/authoritarianism of the nazi regime, he would have done SOMETHING to oppose it. But quite the opposite, he completely supported the regime, and further, was one of the major forces behind it's success.

He's worthy of nothing but disdain, and it disturbs me that you can 'respect' such a murderer, or for that matter anyone with such stategic importance to the Nazi regime.

He strikes me as the kind of a soldier who really never gave a damn on what goes on the political arena.

[bolshevik butcher]

That's the worst kind of soldier, a capable one that never question authority.

[Redmau5]

He strikes me as the kind of a soldier who really never gave a damn on what goes on the political arena.

It's not a soldiers job to make political judgements, it's a soldiers job to win battles.

[bolshevik butcher]

it is whe he's leading the nazi war machine.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

From what I've read, Rommel was not actually planning to overthrow Hitler because he was opposed to Hitler's ideology or goals. Although Rommel's stances on race and genocide are muddled (some say he was opposed to the Holocaust was would have stopped it if the coup succeeded, others say he didn't really give a crap either way), basically the von Stauffenberg-Rommel clique rebelled against Hitler because they saw that the war was lost, and that the Allies were eventually going to kick their ass, but they knew Hitler would never surrender and would only lead to the self-destruction his own regime. They were also worried about the advance of the Red Army towards Berlin, and so what they hoped to do was take power from Hitler and the Nazi Party, install a pro-tempore military dictatorship, and then start peace talks with the British and Americans. They were hoping that would stop the Red Army from advancing into Germany and would allow the "good" Nazis to stay in power after the end of the war under certain conditions.

So, despite being lauded in the West as a "respectable" and "gallant" person who "stood up to Hitler" (I used to be really into that line and really admired Rommel, but now I see the truth), he really was motivated by self-preservation and imperialist interests rather than an actual hatred of Fascism.

[SpeCtrE]

Hmmm...

I guess I need to read more then.

[Blitzkrieg]

Rommel wasn't a Nazi at all.

He was a soldier, who followed order like any soldier should. He was an excellent commander, and is worth admiring by all.

[Purple]

he was a nazi, but so was most of the german population, something that was a conclusion after a massive propaghanda scheme(something that also shows the power of the media), so in my opinion that is not something that many former nazis can be blamed for, except for those with the top ranks, which i am really not sure if rommel was, or was not.

[fernando]

All I know of Rommel is that he was a famous tank commander, sure he was a Nazi, but I'd rather learn from his military knowledge.

His military role is more interesting I think than him being a Nazi.

Same goes for Hitler to a certain degree, yes I would study his ideology (learn from your enemy) and also his rethorical skills and mastering of propaganda.

Matter is that we could also learn from our enemies, not just go "I hate you you fucking fascist/capitalist/imperialist!"

[kirov78]

He was ignorant middle class....he was only revolting against his Nazi overlords only because it served his personal interest to do so....there is no indication he was concerned about the working class of his own men, much less of the Brits, the French, etc. He certainly is higher on the noble totem poll than Hitler, but I don't think we should glorify him at all.

Now Zhukov....that was a general. :D

[fernando]

Zhukov:

After the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, (see Great Patriotic War), Zhukov was sent to the Leningrad Military District to organise the city's defence. He stopped the German advance in Leningrad's southern outskirts in autumn 1941.

In October 1941, when the Germans closed in on Moscow, Zhukov replaced Semyon Timoshenko in command of the central front and was assigned to direct the defense of Moscow (see Battle of Moscow). He also directed the transfer of troops from the Far East, where a large part of Soviet ground forces had been stationed on the day of Hitler's invasion. A successful Soviet counter-offensive in December 1941 drove the Germans back, out of reach of the Soviet capital. Zhukov's feat of logistics is considered by some to be his greatest achievement.

In 1942 Zhukov was made Deputy Commander-in-Chief and sent to the south-western front to be in charge of the defense of Stalingrad. Under the overall command of Vasilievsky, he oversaw the encirclement and capture of the German Sixth Army in 1943 at the cost of perhaps a million dead (see Battle of Stalingrad). During the Stalingrad operation Zhukov spent most of the time in the fruitless attacks in the directions of Rzhev, Sychevka and Vyazma, known as "Rzhev meat grinder" ("Ржевская мясорубка"), nevertheless he claimed the success at Stalingrad as his own, thus causing Stalin to sign the order about the improper behavior of Zhukov: "Contrary to Zhukov's claims, he doesn't have any relation to plans of liquidation of the Stalingrad group of German troops; it is known that the plan was developed and started to be implemented in winter of 1942, when Zhukov was with another front, far from Stalingrad".

In January 1943 he orchestrated the first break-through of the German blockade of Leningrad. Following the failure of Marshal Kliment Voroshilov, he successfully lifted the Siege of Leningrad in January 1944.

Zhukov led the Soviet offensive of 1944 and the final assault on Germany in 1945, capturing Berlin in April, and becoming the first commander of the Soviet occupation zone in Germany. As the most prominent Soviet military commander of the Great Patriotic War, Zhukov inspected the Victory Parade on the Red Square in Moscow in 1945.

Zhukov last commanded the Soviet Operation August Storm, the campaign against Japan in the final days of World War II.

[1949]

I wrote and posted a slightly different version of the following in the Commie Club a few days ago, for reasons I shall not state. I hope the administrators do not object to me reproducing it here, for I feel it has more relevance to this thread than it does to that thread in the CC:

"On the subject of Erwin Rommel: regardless of whatever criticisms he made of Hitler, for the majority of his career his actions as a leading Nazi general objectively served the interests of the German imperialist bourgeoisie--and its leader, Hitler--in maintaining their global system of exploitation and oppression. And even when he participated in an assassination attempt against Hitler, he did it from the same standpoint as a representative of the German imperialist bourgeoisie; he merely wanted to replace Hitler's system of exploitation and oppression with one more in his personal interests.

"The argument that "Rommel wasn't that bad of a guy, since he criticized Nazism (or at least wasn't that fervent a follower of it)" sort of reminds me of the stuff bourgeois historians tend to say about Robert E. Lee. Lee was a military man from Virginia in the 19th century, who was offered a leading position in the Union army by Lincoln when the Civil War broke out, but declined it and instead accepted a similar role in the Confederate army because his native state had sided with the Confederacy. The historians tend to make it sound like he wasn't such a bad guy because before the war, he spoke out against slavery and seccessionism. But while it's true that he made these types of critical remarks in his words, the fact is that by accepting a leading role in the Confederate army, he was objectively serving the interests of the slavocracy in the waging of their counterrevolutionary war against the bourgeois Union.

"As Lenin taught us, we have to evaluate people based on what they objectively do in the world--not just based on what they subjectively say.

"And I'm not sure it's a totally accurate, relevant connection to make, but the argument that "Rommel wasn't such a bad guy, since he did act against Hitler in the last few months of his life" sort of reminds me of the argument many supporters of former Romanian revisionist leader Nicolae Ceausescu--who brutally oppressed women and minority nationalities in Romania, and who received support from U.S. and British imperialism--make when it is pointed out that Romania under him had Most Favored Nation status from the U.S. These Ceausescu supporters say "well, in 1989 [the last year of his revisionist regime], he said he no longer wanted MFN status." All I can say is, So what? There is actually a long history of fascist third world dictators like Ceausescu turning against their imperialist masters in the latter era of their regime. See, for example, Diem in south Vietnam, Mobutu in Zaire, Suharto in Indonesia, the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq...etcetera. Does that make what they did for those decades when they were in the service of imperialism any better?"

Also, if you want to admire Zhukov's heroics in the Soviet Union's resistance to German imperialist invasion, or the way he ostensibly refuted a bunch of myths about Stalin in his 1974 Memoirs (I say "ostensibly" because I haven't yet read the entire memoirs, although I've seen them quoted in excerpts from Ludo Marten's Another View of Stalin which I've read, and other articles), then I guess that is fine...but don't neglect or downplay the sinister role he had in Khrushchev's 1956 coup, which overthrew socialism and restored capitalism in the Soviet Union.

[bolshevik butcher]

Under stalin the soviet union was lead by a sbrutal dictatorship. SOcialism was killed in russian in 1923.

[SpeCtrE]

Zukhov was a true military hero,

[1949]

To Clenched Fist: whether or not the Soviet Union was socialist in the Stalin era is a very valid and important question, which, IMHO, deserves its own thread. I have to go soon, so I shall try to create one here in the history forum the next opportunity I have on the internet.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I thought I read or heard somewhere that Rommel was never a participant in the coup of overthrow Hitler. If anything, he knew of it and stayed in a position of "I will not try to stop you, but if you fail, I'm not going down with you" ... or something like that.

I don't want to sound like I'm defending Rommel, just voicing what I remember and trying to get down to historical fact and not opinion (FYI: I could easily be wrong on the subject).

Theworld is not black and white and there is not need to simply downplay any historical role a person had because of their politics or what we think their politics were. In their given field, a person who achieved a great feat or invented some great device is indeed a great person in history. I dont' mean great as in "best" but great as in "important."

In the field of military strategy and war, Rommel was a damn good general and great figure. There is much to learn from his ideas. The same goes for Zhukov, and Konev. Lenin was great in politics and theory. Stalin and Hitler were both great and infamous. Carnegie was damn good at making steel, he is a great man in history, although I don't agree with him ideologically and civily, you can't just ignore him.

Glorify achievement in their fields, not them personally. If you want to do it personally, then Engels was the son of a factory owner, and inherited vast amounts of wealth off the backs of his father's workers! Engels used this money to give Marx a free ride to write, Marx never had a job, he never paid anything with his own money! Lenin was a bourgeois lawyer!

Personal badgering can go both ways.

Now lets not end up with a debate of Marx, Engels and Lenin as people, but let us agree that they are indeed great men of history despite their personal shortcomings and contradictions. I may glorify Rommel on the field of battle (but certainly not what he stood for) which it seems is also what I believe many people glorify him for as well.

Besides that, Rommel being a Nazi and the Nazis in general are in fact much more complicated then we are giving them justice here.

TGOW

[Freak]

We have to understand here that someone can be "admired" for their military genius outside of whether or not they were a morale person. Generals today still study Erwin Rommel's military tactics in the Afrika campains, because they were brilliant in the eye of a strategist. Would anyone suggest that because a general's political views were immoral that their tactics should be ignored by future military strategists? I think not.

Rommel as a strategist=genius
Rommel as a humanitarian=cowardly at best, possibly rotten

Freak

[canucksr]

Regardless of one's political bent, you have to admire Field Marshall Rommel's genius as a commander of both long term strategy as well as tactics in the field. He was a professional soldier above all else.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:46 AM
Would anyone suggest that because a general's political views were immoral that their tactics should be ignored by future military strategists?
Recognize their competence, does not equal admire. I recognize the Waffen SS were competent and courageous soldiers. That does not mean I admire these soldiers, some of whom also served as death camp guards...

Most of these officers' plots arose after Germany was beginning to lose the war...and probably because they were beginning to lose the war. They were also extremely hesistant and half-hearted...clearly for political reasons, because the officers involved could be very decisive in their military operations.

[Redmau5]

Whatever battles he may have won in North Africa make little difference as the Nazis ultimately lost that region.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Severian+Jun 5 2005, 04:05 PM--> (Severian @ Jun 5 2005, 04:05 PM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 07:46 AM
Would anyone suggest that because a general's political views were immoral that their tactics should be ignored by future military strategists?
Recognize their competence, does not equal admire. I recognize the Waffen SS were competent and courageous soldiers. That does not mean I admire these soldiers, some of whom also served as death camp guards...

Most of these officers' plots arose after Germany was beginning to lose the war...and probably because they were beginning to lose the war. They were also extremely hesistant and half-hearted...clearly for political reasons, because the officers involved could be very decisive in their military operations. [/b]
Yeh, i mean when they were looting europe i didn't see them complaining.

[Anti-establishment]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:54 PM
Whatever battles he may have won in North Africa make little difference as the Nazis ultimately lost that region.
Being stuck with those Italian soldiers did him no favours lol, probably more of a hindrance than a help, they were useless.

[Frederick_Engles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 02:25 PM
He was ignorant middle class....he was only revolting against his Nazi overlords only because it served his personal interest to do so....there is no indication he was concerned about the working class of his own men, much less of the Brits, the French, etc. He certainly is higher on the noble totem poll than Hitler, but I don't think we should glorify him at all.

Now Zhukov....that was a general. :D
You're wrong, Rommel gave the same rations to POWs as he did his own men.

[Super Sheep]

Rommel is one of the followers of nazism. He wasn't a nazi at heart, just one because it offered him a job and place. He didn't seek out to become a party member, instead he was in the German Army and was nazified when the German Army was intergrated into the NSDAP.

He was one of the more "clean" german generals of World War II. He refused Himmler's request on sending SS troops to Africa many times (He knew what would happen to POWS if he did). He treated allied POW with respect. On the plot that he was involved to kill Hitler. He didn't get involved because he hated Hitler, just that he knew Hitler was leading Germany into distruction.

[Topcat]

Rommel was suppose to be a Socialist.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 04:52 AM
Rommel was suppose to be a Socialist.
Huh? Where did you read that he was a 'socialist'? :blink:

[Sons_of_Eureka]

I saw on a documentary about him that he had caught a load of jewish soliders and when Hitler ordered him to exercute them he refused.

I have great respect for the man as he ran his army demorcraticly and listened to his soliders needs.

His troops wern't a partial to commiting war crimes as the allied troops were which is another good point.

Though he was a Nazi and they were evil,so we can only respect him on a millitary sense.

[Black Dagger]

I have great respect for the man as he ran his army demorcraticly and listened to his soliders needs.

How is that even possible?



His troops wern't a partial to commiting war crimes as the allied troops were which is another good point.

How do you know that?

I don't understand why anyone would 'respect' a nazi general. He was a authoritarian, pro-capitalist, pro-nazi, GENERAL, you can't get much more reactionary than that. This whole Rommel 'love-cult' is insane, respect the people who died resisting the germany army, not the man leading it.


Recognize their competence, does not equal admire. I recognize the Waffen SS were competent and courageous soldiers. That does not mean I admire these soldiers, some of whom also served as death camp guards...

Well said.

[Sons_of_Eureka]

QUOTE
I have great respect for the man as he ran his army demorcraticly and listened to his soliders needs.



How is that even possible?


Democraticly in that sense that he listened to his soliders and they influenced his decisions to some degree.


QUOTE

His troops wern't a partial to commiting war crimes as the allied troops were which is another good point.



How do you know that?

It's common knowledge that German soliders (except the SS) had some degree of millitary honor(in a western sense)

I purely have respect for Romel in a Millitary sense not in a individual sense
and i am glad the Soviets liberated Nazi germany.

I'm no Nazi-lover

[Black Dagger]

Democraticly in that sense that he listened to his soliders and they influenced his decisions to some degree.

That sounds more like a 'benevolent' dictatorship than a democracy, he would only 'listen' to his soldiers as long as they didn't disagree with him- they still had no power to make decisions that affected their lives- that's not democracy.


It's common knowledge that German soliders (except the SS) had some degree of millitary honor(in a western sense)

Tell that to the thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of women that were raped by german soldiers during the war, and the 16 million soviet civilians who died in the (largely in the eastern) war. Though the germans were not responsible for all of those deaths, most were killed during the nazi drive into the USSR, and in the following occupation. 'Military honour' is the 'honour' of officers, not rank and file soldiers, and the 'honour' of officers is just as dubious.


I'm no Nazi-lover

I know, i just don't understand why you would 'respect' him at all.

[Wiesty]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 11 2005, 11:16 AM
sorry dont have a lot of time for a man that high up in the nazis. Maybe he didn't agree with Hitler, but that didn't stop him from going along with them.
he actually was kind to pow's, he had a plan to assistnate hitler, and he freed jews on several occasions

[Wiesty]

he was a nazi, but so was most of the german population, something that was a conclusion after a massive propaghanda scheme(something that also shows the power of the media), so in my opinion that is not something that many former nazis can be blamed for, except for those with the top ranks, which i am really not sure if rommel was, or was not.



blaming a german from 1939 for being a nazi is like blaming a christian for being conservative