NationStates Jolt Archive

Field Marshal Erwim Rommel, arguable one of the best military tacticians in history, is a man who I have nothing but respect and admiration for.

For the first part, he was a military genius. His undersupplied and undermanned forces played Hell with the Allies in North Africa and and the European theatre. His revolutionary tactics with tanks and other armored vehicles is said to have rivaled (or even surpassed) the abilites of General George S. Patton.

Also, he fought for Germany and not for Hitler. There's a big difference between the two. Though almost certainly innocent of the charges layed against him by the Fuhrer; he was no lover of the Nazi regime or the Third Reich. He fought for his nation, for the land where he grew up and for the people he loved. He didn't fight because of his belief in the superiority of Germany or for Germanys right to rule the world. He didn't believe in the inferiority of other religions/races and he didn't approve of Hitlers Final Solution.

But the problem is I can't wish a reversal of history. I can't say "Man, I wish Rommel had won all these times he lost" and I can't wish his side victory because, though I do admire Rommel, the fact is he fought for the Axis powers. His victory would have meant defeat for the Allies. That would mean death for thousands (if not millions) of United States, British, and French soldiers who were combating the Third Reich. It would have meant the continued occupation of dozens of European and African nations and the possible extermination of dozens of ethnicities. His victory would have meant defeat for what I call 'Good'.

So, I am faced with a conundrum. I admire the man, but I am glad for his defeat. The fault, as I have heard said, of being born the son of his father. But you have to wonder, what if Rommel hadn't been born in Germany? What if his parents had moved to France or Britain or the US or the Soviet Union or any of a dozen other countries fighting the Nazis? What if his home, the land where he grew up and the land he fought for, hadn't been Germany?

It makes me wonder.

IMO if he had been the supreme commander of Operation Barbarossa the Germans would have won that summer...

I heard Rommel hated Hitler and wanted to be rid of him. If he hadn't fought for Germany, they would have lost Africa alot sooner and the war would have been over sooner. Period.

Rommel didn't hate Hitler. Not at first at least. His son Manfred once said his father was naive when it came to Hitler and politics. Rommel once asked Hitler to step down so peace negotiations could be made. Which would fail as long as he was in power. He honestly believed Hitler would listen to reason.
Later on he sympathised with the military resistance around Stauffenberg and their assasination attempt on July 20 1944. But he didn't take an active role. But he did inform General Bittrich, the commander of the 2nd SS panzercorpse that there may be a change of power soon. Bittrich replied to this revelation that Rommel had his full support and that of his men.

I think of Rommel as a sort of honorable "Knight" of his time. His life was devoted to the military and his fatherland(not the fuhrer). He became well known early on from his experience as a soldier in the German-Italian front in WWI and also his book on infantry tactics became very popular in Weimer Germany. Rommel controlled a tank division during the german Blitzkrieg over Europe(he was part of the polish and french campaign from 1939-40) and then came his most famous conquests in the deserts of Northern Africa earning him the nickname "Desert Fox" he was only defeated because of his complete lack of supplies and much less manpower then that of the allies. I think that if Rommel was appointed the War minister of Germany(instead of Hitler) the end result of the war wouldve been much different. And it is sad that the mans life ended the way it did.