Why the glorification and revisionism concerning the desertfox Erwin Rommel?

Question

Most people who know about WW2 know about Erwin Rommel. Generally he is most famous for his defeating the English battle after battle in North Africa whilst having a lot less men, worse supply and just about being in the disadvantage with everything. As well as him being the man who fortified the beaches of Normandy much to the surprise of the Allied forces on D-Day who then suffered insane losses on what should have been a rather clean landing when the plans were first written up.

Why is he called the Last Knight or shown in positive lights in most entertainment when he was a dedicated n**i and German nationalist? As well as his wife still claiming after the war that his accusation in the assassination against Hitler was false and he remained loyal to Hitler until the end. That his sense of pride and chivalry would not have allowed a betrayal of the man he swore to serve.

Yet he is treated more enthusiastically than most Allied generals and officers in regards to history?

Answer 1

Indeed, history has been rather kind to Rommel and, apparently, for many good reasons. He was a German patriot with a reputation for chivalry and humane treatment of the enemy. He refused Hitler's orders to kill captured Jewish soldiers, and lost his own life after a suspected involvement in a failed coup against Hitler.

He was a talented soldier, but certainly not a nationalist or "dedicated n**i".

Answer 2

Glorification and revisionism?  History and historians have been kinder to Rommel because of the person he was compared to other German generals and also to his Allied counterparts (Eisenhower, Bradley, Montgomery, and Patton).  

Eisenhower was a political, not a field general.  FDR saw that quality and which is why he was made Supreme Commander in Europe.  Bradley I think was a fine tactician but has been overshadowed by both Eisenhower and Patton.  Patton for all his energy and drive was a maverick.  He had ability but didn't know when to shut up.  He was always getting himself into trouble not only with his military superiors, but also with political superiors as well.

Rommel has probably been treated better by history and historians probably because he was a veteran of WW1, a non-aristocrat, and a good tactician who knew how to use geography to his advantage.  He knew how to defeat a larger enemy force, and did this more than once.  Not a small feat for any general field officer.  

The Afrika Korps was not accused in war crimes.  British and American troops caputured were largely treated humanely, and orders to kill Jewish prisoners of war and civilians were largely ignored.  

When you look at history you have to separate the man, his talents as a military officer, and his skills in the field from his political master(s).

Another example is Robert E. Lee from the American Civil War.  He was an outstanding strategist and was excellent on the defensive.  That he fought for a government dedicated to the perpetuation and expansion of slavery does not take away his personal and military attributes.

Same goes for Soviet Marshal Zhukov.  He served another tyrant (Joseph Stalin), but managed because of his military skills to defeat the n***s and become the conqueror of Berlin.

History is full of examples of people who were on the "wrong" side, but did have the personal qualities admired by their enemies because of how they conducted themselves.

Answer 3

What shall history be,  unbiased truth, or biased propaganda and ignorance and purposeful forbidance of facts which is what totalitarian despots stand for --- exactly what the allies were fighting to prevent.  Are you saying we should do the latter, push biased propaganda enforce ignorance and forbid facts ???  Let freedom reign, and let go of tight control of information, stop pressing for biased propaganda.

Answer 4

Very interesting question.  About the only reason I can think of for him being given a lot of respect and seen in a very positive light when his character appears in movies is that he was different from the other n***s we've become familiar with.  Himmler, Goering, Goebbels and of course Hitler himself were true n***s while Rommel is seen as a soldier the others are seen in direct connection to the war crimes.  Rommel is seen as a soldier following orders to fight a war for his country while the others are viewed as believers in everything the n***s stood for.  

That's not to say that Rommel was in fact different from the others it's just that the perception is certainly there.  I can't say for sure that this is the reason but it's the only thing I can think of, I'm interested in seeing other responses to this question.

Answer 5

Erwin Rommel symbolizes the old Germany before Nazism. The strong, efficient, and brilliant Germany of Bismarck. This could be why revisionism occurs for him, but let's get some things straight:

The many of the military leaders, Rommel included, were not very strong n***s. The military originally hated Hitler and during the war many of the old leaders saw that he would bring Germany down when he began to ignore them and create plans that made no sense. This makes a lot of sense according to much of the history of Rommel. He saw the insanity happening more and more and couldn't live with it anymore. Rommel was moving quickly (from Poland to France to North Africa) and never saw the camps. This would be a good reason for the assassination attempt. His death was also a symbol of honour where he chose to end his life rather than be partied around by Hitler's "Court".

Furthermore, The Afrika Korps never did ANY war crimes. Rommel called it "a war without hate". He was also very respectful to those he faced, particularly opposing generals. He refused to execute Jewish POWs as per Hitler's orders as well as ignoring Hitler's Commando Order which called for the killing of all commandos saving Lt. Roy Woodridge and Lt. George Lane. Rommel didn't deport Jews from France, though Hitler ordered that as well. Even without seeing the camps, he wrote many letters protesting the abuse against Jews, and refused to use slave labour.

Lastly, he turned into a legend after his death by the n***s who wanted a symbol of the perfect German soldier and spun the propaganda machine to portray him as such. Therefore, today, his history needs revision to separate n**i lies from truth.

Answer 6

I,m glad that someone is ackwoledging the Ausralians and their primary role in Rommels initial defeats, but the history

you are reading is (as always) a false interpritation of the truth

The B.E.F's successes and failures against Rommel were

amazing, considering their disposotion. Rommel had a much

larger force than Brittish.  Modern history convieniantly fails to

mention the 8 or 9 Italian divisions that fought along side the

DAK throughout the war.

Answer 7

He was one of Germany's better general officers. And I'd take issue with the "dedicated n**i" supposition. Also, his decision to meet the invasion on the beaches was not a good one, since it subjected the defenders to naval gunfire. Von Rundstedt's more flexible plan was a little better, though it suffered from air interdiction. The piecemeal compromise actually used was worse than either, of course.

The bigger question is why other top generals aren't better known.

Answer 8

Us Aussies were the first one's to stick it right up him and make him back off in Tobruk and El AlameinHAHAHAHA.

That's all i have to say about that.