General Discussion

[Perun]

Rommel: Mistaken conspirator or balls deep?

To kick off, let's see what Hail of Bullets have to say about this:
Disillusion, recovery at home.
Faith disintegrated, his lament, his oath.
Accused of High Treason, plotting the attempt.
Mistaken conspirator, a Field Marshal condemned.

The choice between dishonor and death by cyanide.
Succumbed to his injuries, silenced suicide.
Father, husband, Desert Fox, loyal serving man.
A farewell with dignity, baton in his left hand.

"Wie wird das Urteil der Geschichte über mich
lauten? Wenn ich Erfolg habe, werden alle anderen
den Ruhm beanspruchen. Aber wenn ich scheitere,
wird jeder meinen Kopf fordern."

 

[Forostar]

It took me a while to get the topic title! I was so focused on the name of the board!

Would you explain me how that last sentence should be translated:
Aber wenn ich scheitere, wird jeder meinen Kopf fordern."

 

[LooseCannon]

There's this delightful attempt by popular media to portray Rommel as a mistaken catch in the Gestapo dragnet, but the fact of the matter is that he was involved with the conspiracy. Not from day 1, but when contacted by the conspiracy he hopped onboard and agreed to take overall command of the German military machine - assuming the conspirators could finish off Hitler. He wasn't going to leave an active battlefront to lead a conspiracy. he couldn't, that would cause him to lose the prestige the Valkyrie planners wanted to take advantage of, but he was 100% onboard, and if Hitler had died, Himmler and Goebbels and Goring killed or captured, Rommel would have been making statements and travelling to Berlin. Very slowly by ambulance, but there you have it.

 

[Perun]

It took me a while to get the topic title! I was so focused on the name of the board!

That was the joke, you know.

Would you explain me how that last sentence should be translated:
Aber wenn ich scheitere, wird jeder meinen Kopf fordern."

But when I fail, everyone will demand my head.

 

[Forostar]

Of course I knew that. But the coin took some time to fall.
I thought it was pretty cool to hear a whole metal album about him. I am afraid I don't know as much of Rommel as you guys.

 

[Perun]

Well, I think that LooseCannon knows a great deal more about him than I do. You might know that, despite having opened this thread, I'm not overly interested in military history.

The thing with Rommel is, I feel very uncomfortable with the subject. He is a bit of an icon among certain circles in Germany. He stands for an element of the Nazi-era German population that was patriotic and nationalistic, but did not sympathise with the Nazis. Rommel is considered a military genius who believed in the glory of Germany and did his duty for the fatherland, but had no love for Hitler. The key to this interpretation is of course the 20th July conspiracy. It is certain that Rommel knew of the plot and did not do anything to prevent it, but just how appreciative he was of the role the conspirators wanted to give him is a matter of dispute - especially because, eventually, he never got to play it. Popular history has him commit suicide because that was the only way he could keep his honour and not be tried for high treason, although he probably did it because he wanted to save his family.

So Rommel is the last Good German to have commanded the German military, and as such he is adored by the conservatives and nationalists. Some conservative towns have streets named after him, and he frequently appears in the media, not as a Nazi, not as an anti-Nazi, but simply as the greatest general Germany ever had, one who is clean, who never ordered to burn any villages or shoot any Jews, and one whom his enemies respected. We don't have many of those.

I guess his purported military genius is something we can discuss in this thread, because I'm not so enthusiastic about it even from a militarist perspective. But more than that, I do have a bit of a problem with the ethos behind all this. It's not like Nazism is the only bad thing to come out of Germany in the twentieth century. Next year, we are going to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War which, from within Germany, was spawned by nationalism and militarism, something that Rommel very much does stand for. I don't like the glorification of militarism and military people, and therefore I feel very uncomfortable with the spotlight that German history gives the military resistance against Hitler, either. Maybe they weren't supportive of gassing Jews, but that wasn't their concern. Their concern was the glory of the German nation, and the dilettantish command of Hitler's. In modern-day Germany, that is a potential source for nationalist identification, and that is something that I am very concerned about.

 

[bearfan]

Perun raises some good points. The main advantage Rommel has over other German generals is that he was never in the East ... pretty much any general that fought there is tainted to varying degrees (earned or not)

 

[Forostar]

I liked reading that observation Perun, also the connection to WWI. And his side "role" that he never played also feels extra interesting since we visited the museum and site connected to the plotters.

 

[Forostar]

It's a what if scenario, but had Hitler be killed by one of the plots, what would Rommel have wanted with his nation? Would he have supported a continuation of the war because he stands for nationalism? Perhaps some of his correspondence suggests something about this direction.

 

[Perun]

I'm not going to be negative about Stauffenberg, because I do respect him and his courage, but I still think that the military role in the resistance is sometimes overemphasised. I appreciate that it took more to be in the Wehrmacht and resist Hitler, but even the 20th July plot did not only involve officers.

It's a what if scenario, but had Hitler be killed by one of the plots, what would Rommel have wanted with his nation? Would he have supported a continuation of the war because he stands for nationalism? Perhaps some of his correspondence suggests something about this direction.

The Wehrmacht officers in the resistance were all of the opinion that the war was lost and not worth continuing. What they wanted was to preserve the sovereignty of Germany and avoid its occupation by the Allies. If you look at what happened after the war, the German Empire that was founded in 1871 only ceased to exist politically in 1945, and when the two new German states were founded, emphasis was put on the severing of any ties to the German Empire. That is an important reference point for many nationalists these days, and some argue that the Federal Republic of Germany is an illegal political construction on the soil of the German Empire that was discontinued, but never formally abolished.

 

[Forostar]

Could we zoom in a bit more on military resistance? I think I support that if there was a dire need, and especially if they thought the war was not worth continuing.

I can understand that it's bothering to hear people saying that the current republic is illegal, especially if they are wrong, but aren't their aims and actions at least as important? What did (and/or) do they want with their country?

I appreciate that it took more to be in the Wehrmacht and resist Hitler, but even the 20th July plot did not only involve officers.

I am not sure if I see the relation between this sentence and how the military role in the resistance is sometimes overemphasized? Perhaps you mean that the focus is too often -e.g. in popular media- on officers only?

 

[Perun]

Well, I did say what the military resistance wanted for Germany, I just got a bit carried away, I guess. So to put it clearly: They wanted to end the war, avoid Allied occupation, and keep the sovereignty of Germany. To break this down:

They wanted to end the war because the war was lost. On 20th July 1944, the Western Allies were already deep in Italy and France, and in the East, the Wehrmacht was largely behind the lines of the 1941 invasion. Most German cities lay in ruins from Allied air raids, and the only thing that was still to be prevented was Allied forces reaching German soil. I don't know how detailed the knowledge of the agreements from the Tehran Conference was in Germany, maybe LC does, but it was known that the Allies were demanding unconditional surrender, which in effect meant that Germany would be free to be occupied and cease to exist, and that is what eventually happened. The resistance believed that, if they got rid of Hitler, they could create a situation in which Germany could negotiate an end of the war that kept it independent and sovereign.

I am not sure if I see the relation between this sentence and how the military role in the resistance is sometimes overemphasized? Perhaps you mean that the focus is too often -e.g. in popular media- on officers only?

Yes, that is what I meant. You see, with Stauffenberg and the others, what is always emphasised is how they let their conscience win over their military ethos. They had sworn an oath to serve Hitler, and swearing an oath is a matter of honour to soldiers, and it was something sacred to German militarists, and breaking that oath was no mean thing. I get that - it's a big deal. But as I said, there was not only military personnel involved. Other people risked their lives too. They deserve attention.

 

[bearfan]

That is my understanding as well, they wanted to negotiate a peace and try to keep Germany as intact as possible. There are certainly some (Beck for example) that plotted from the start, some joined because of what they saw happen (especially in the East) and more later on because it was obvious the war was lost and they wanted to maintain as much of Germany as possible and blame as much as possible on Hitler and the more hardcore Nazis

 

[Forostar]

Per, agreed. Also in general, I feel that too many people (historians included) are mainly focused on military aspects. This was also a war about civilians and politics.

That is my understanding as well, they wanted to negotiate a peace and try to keep Germany as intact as possible. There are certainly some (Beck for example) that plotted from the start, some joined because of what they saw happen (especially in the East) and more later on because it was obvious the war was lost and they wanted to maintain as much of Germany as possible and blame as much as possible on Hitler and the more hardcore Nazis

Let's see what this means, how do we get this more concrete:
To keep Germany as intact as possible. Maintain as much of Germany as possible.

In what way? I mean, after a surrender, I don't suppose that the allied would destroy more infrastructure and kill more people.
Is this about (controversial) laws, or about keeping certain political parties?

Looking at the territory, Germany indeed lost territory. Were Rommel and other nationalists strictly against this? I find it hard to believe that if they would have surrendered, that they could have kept every inch of the territory.

Or is it purely (especially) about independence? How far would their demands have gone?
"Our country should not be in the power of the USSR, nor of the West. We will rule ourselves, and we will punish ourselves? Thank you very much, we've sinned but we can solve our own problems".

 

[Perun]

Let me emphasise though, that I don't mean to say there is absolutely no commemoration of the civilian resistance. An educated German is expected to be able to associate three names with German resistance: Stauffenberg, Scholl, and Bonhoeffer. Stauffenberg stands for the military resistance. Sophie Scholl, a student from Munich university, stands for the resistance against dictatorship and tyranny. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a theologian, stands for the moral outrage against the crimes of Nazism. The difference only is, Bonhoeffer gets a TV feature, Scholl gets a German art film, and Stauffenberg gets a Hollywood blockbuster starring Tom Cruise.

 

[bearfan]

In fairness to Scholl and others ... and not to diminish what she did, but from a practical standpoint, if anyone was going to overthrow Hitler/the Nazis from the start, it pretty
much needed to be the army ... but the German art movie was much better than the Cruise film.

I very much assume the nationalists would be opposed to the losing the territory they ended up losing .. that is what they were trying to avoid.

 

[Forostar]

Stauffenberg gets a Hollywood blockbuster starring Tom Cruise.

And (at least?) three German films..

That Scholl film was quite impressive I thought. The director tried to make every scene exactly as it happened (using real witnesses as source etc.)

 

[Perun]

I can't go into detail right now, but yes, loss of territory was a major concern to the Germans, as was the dismantlement of infrastructure. Those were points raised in the Tehran Conference, and things that happened following the Treaty of Versailles. But the chief concern was the independence and continuity of the German Empire.

 

[Forostar]

Still hard to imagine that they found that more important than ending the war itself.

 

[Perun]

The things went hand in hand. They knew the war was going to be over soon, and they wanted to avoid it from becoming a complete and dishonouring catastrophe.