Bursting the Rommel bubble!

[heinz kling]

Do hit the link and see how the Rommel myth reamins that, a myth.

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/english ... 97/rob.htm

[Piet Duits]

"Heinz",

(or is it your real name?)
For once, I agree with you. I doubt it that Rommel would have been so popular if he saw action on the eastern front. But he didn't, so that's only speculating.
If he wasn't as popular with the crowd, he would also not been made a Feldmarschall. His collegues knew that too, and therefor he wasn't very polular with them (wasn't it Von Rundstedt who called Rommel the baby-marschall?)

Nevertheless, he must be remembered for the way he commanded his troops: from the front, and not a rear-area commander (maybe something he learned in WW1?)

I also love the story about the time he had some italian staff-officers bragging about their medals. When they became curious where and how Rommel earned his Pour le Merité, he answered by defeating an Italian force. The officers stopped bragging...
I like that

[Arne]

Rommel was well know on a broader basis before the war.
His book about infantry tatctics "Infantrie greift an" (Infantry attacks) was and still is one of the standarts in small unit warfare.

[michael kenny]

Trying to reason with heinz is pointless. Rommel was involved in the July Plt, Rommel tried to kill Hitler, therefore Rommel is :
a madman,
a coward,
a liar,
a thief,
a bad General,
homosexual,
evil incarnate,
ect,ect,ect.

[heinz kling]

"Heinz",

(or is it your real name?)
For once, I agree with you. I doubt it that Rommel would have been so popular if he saw action on the eastern front. But he didn't, so that's only speculating.
If he wasn't as popular with the crowd, he would also not been made a Feldmarschall. His collegues knew that too, and therefor he wasn't very polular with them (wasn't it Von Rundstedt who called Rommel the baby-marschall?)

Nevertheless, he must be remembered for the way he commanded his troops: from the front, and not a rear-area commander (maybe something he learned in WW1?)

I also love the story about the time he had some italian staff-officers bragging about their medals. When they became curious where and how Rommel earned his Pour le Merité, he answered by defeating an Italian force. The officers stopped bragging...
I like that

Rommel was of course better than those armchair strategists in the OKH/OKW, like Warlimont, Halder, Zeitzler, Keitel or Jodl. But he was not the only general to lead from the front, nor the most successful. He is at best a good tactician, commanding anything larger than a division is just beyond him.

[behblc]

I don't see any bubble to be burst. Like us all Rommel had good and bad points , he like everyone had his limitations , he was not however a coward or a man who didn't care for the men under his command.
He did not suffer fools gladly and when " at himself" had great energy and drive , he could inspire and get the best out of limited resources.
On the down side he could reach too far , was impulsive and was on occasions out of contact on the battlefield when he was needed.
Like us all , he had his faults , he was not the answer to all germanys problems , the panacea for all situational difficulties and the press did make the most of him , not unique.
When looking at him , keep a balance....a coward , a shirker , a man who cared not for his soldiers , don't think so.

[GeneralFeldMarschall_List]

Rommel was the battlefront general of the WWII [/i]par excellance. Rommel posessed an extrodinary fingerspitzengefuhl, a sense of the battlefield that most of the plodding staff officers of the general staff never had. Let us also not forget the speed with which he mastered the elements of modern armoured warfare, for in 1940 he had never commanded panzer troops before. Due to his exploits with the 7th Panzer Division in France, Rommel was allowed to accompany Hitler on a tour of the troops following the armistace with the French, the only divisional commander to do so. As for him being a "baby-Marshall", his understanding of grand tactics and strategy was not as primitive as his peers would like to have thought. His proposal before the D-Day invasion, to spread the panzer troops along the length of the French coastline to prevent them being attacked by Allied aircraft, and to fight the allies on the beaches, was subsequently proved to have been the correct one.
As for how he would have fought on the Eastern Front we can only guess, but lets put it this way, if you were a grenadier shivering in a foxhole at Stalingrad in the winter of 1942, would comfort you more, the fact Paulus was in command or Rommel?

[behblc]

Herr Feldmarschall , well put.

[heinz kling]

A moody, maniac depressive character like Rommel could never be a good strategist. As for his exploits in France, he was only executing the Hitler/Manstein plan.

He was by temperament and training not qualified for any commands higher than a division.

[behblc]

Heinz, have you any evidence that Rommel had such a personality ?
From what you say we are looking at someone who throughout his life might have been subject to a very severe disability.
If this is the case you have to ask serious questions not of Rommel but of the people /person who had him Commanding not even a division but any military formation , or even serving at all.
If Rommel can be "branded" as having a manic depressive "chracter" what can I say of Hitler ?

Hitler without doubt was a psychopath , quite probably paranoid
(certainly in his later years) , stressed out ( dealing with it very badly certainly not a man fit to lead a country , definately not in time of war ) , he was detached from and had some severe difficulties in dealing with reality even when things were going well for him prior to the war.

Rommel a amn with manic depressive traits , subject to mood swings , even of a moderate nature ?
( No , at what point do you think this developed and what was done about it ? Why if he was unstable was he allowed to remain in command. He did see doctors who would had been showing signs of mood swings ..even traits would have recommended that he be relieved of command, was such advice ever given ?)
I think he saw the reality of his position when in Africa and afterwards , knew and understood what he as a soldier was up against and knew ultimately that Germany was fighting a war she could not win and what defeat would mean for his country , this is dealing with reality and to do so is not to be ill , its quite natural. A considered and measured view of the situation and an appreciation of the consequences.
( Something Hitler was unable and incapiable of doing , so you can appreciate their views would be quite different . Reality vs Fanstasy).

On the other hand to , insulate yourself against, rant and rave like a child in a temper tantrum ( regressive behaviour) , rely on denial to such an extent that you can create your own idea of what is reality and be automatically hostile to anything which questions it or threatens the defense mechanisms relied upon to protect your own fragile and threatened ego * , add to this drug dependence , the effects of real physical illness and you have a snap shot of what was Hitlers mind and a very superficial one at that.
This is the man who was making key pivitol decisions on a day to day basis , the whole question of leadership , goverment and national direction beggars belief both before and durring the war.

Rommel , can you provide evidence to prove he had manic depressive traits ?
Hitler on the other hand displayed many regular traits which would support his being of a psychopathic personality and very unstable.
E.G. He was an immature person , he did not and could not learn from his
mistakes , he was subject to mood swings , he could not deal with reality , he manipulated and used those around him and self gratification for Hitler came above all else . ( When in a position of power he surrounded himself with those he could control , manipulate and direct , those who would do what he wanted without too much trouble ).
The whole Nazi state was the product of Hitlers belief and value system , everything stemed from him , from the control of youth and the family unit to the murder which he made state policy based on the most paranoid and redicilous "science".

Against this background if and I say "if" Rommel was troubled in any way , it was but minor when contrasted to the huge psychological problems Hitler was burdoned with. In any other reality he would have been in hospital , and a very secure one at that !

(Sorry to introduce what Hitler thought of as "Jewish" science.....but not all that S.F. "wrote" was wrong).

P.S. "Hitler /Manstein Plan." You credit the Hubris with having some ability in this area....Hitler didn't have the ability to plan on that scale.
Blue , Stalingrad , Kursk , Ardennes etc...they are Hitlers little gems. Every one a master plan.

[Sonntag]

Trying to reason with heinz is pointless. Rommel was involved in the July Plt, Rommel tried to kill Hitler, therefore Rommel is :
a madman,
a coward,
a liar,
a thief,
a bad General,
homosexual,
evil incarnate,
ect,ect,ect.

How Exactly does that make Rommel a homosexual, evil incarnate, or a bad General? He turned the plan down and DIDN'T take part in it. And if it had suceeded he would be considered a hero today.

[behblc]

Michael refers to previous threads in which Heinz was extremely critical ( this is a massive understatement by the way) of any and all who had even the slightest connection with the July Plot.
heinz also is critical of a number of well known RK and Dk holders who sees as being less than loyal and less than willing to make the ultimate sacrafice for Hitler.
I don't really want this to be a bite back at Heinz and its not meant to be that nor do i want him to take it up that way , but if you take a look over various posts made by Heinz , replied to by others including myself , Timo , Michael K. you will see what is meant.
Whilst Heinz has his views and I rspect his right to have them , MK. myself and some others are at loggerheads with him on what we see as being quite reasonable points , the differences are there and the ground betwen the views remain.
Rommel is just one point ......Heinz sees him as a defeatist , fair weather comrade etc.

[Sonntag]

I see, sorry MK.

[Paul_9686]

Much as I admire the Desert Fox, I'll gladly admit that there were better commanders than he in the WWII German Army; Manstein for one. Anyway, let's not speak badly of the dead unless he was really a bad character.

Yours,
Paul

[Edelweiss.]

Heinz's original post does present a key point. There is an enigma that surrounds Erwin Rommel, like no other General in the German armed forces, or even in the entire Second World War! For example, it is true that he did possess a streak of arrogance and aloofness that alienated him from his fellow officers, although his leadership from the front went on to become the focal point for the rank-and-file of the DAK. With regards to Rommel's own tactical and strategic ability, his successes whilst on the attack are most notable, although as Heinz notes, he was not the only one to achieve this. I believe Manstein, Steiner and Hausser to be equal to, if not greater than Rommel in such a field (but that's just my opinion). The question of whether Rommel could have stalled the British advance at El Alamein is one for the budding strategists to decide, my interest in the subject being that only of an amateur!

In conclusion, I do believe that his status amongst some historians has been elevated above the level it warrants in reality, but I still maintain that he was able to adapt to desert warfare far quicker, and with far less cost than his Allied opponent.

Regards,
Edelweiss