Now that is a bad summary if I’ve ever seen one. He was one of Hitler’s favourites, that’s true, and he was also involved with the Stauffenberg et al plot to get rid of Hitler.
If you want a summary of that article this section fits the bill:
Maurice Remy concludes that, unwillingly and probably without ever realising it, Rommel was part of a murderous regime, although he never actually grasped the core of Nazism. Peter Lieb sees Rommel as a person who could not be put into a single drawer, although problematic by modern moral standards, and suggests people should personally decide for themselves whether Rommel should remain a role model or not. He was a Nazi general in some aspects, considering his support for the leader cult (Führerkult) and the Volksgemeinschaft, but he was not an antisemite, nor a war criminal, nor a radical ideological fighter. Historian Cornelia Hecht remarks “It is really hard to know who the man behind the myth was,” noting that in numerous letters he wrote to his wife during their almost 30-year marriage, he commented little on political issues as well as his personal life as a husband and a father.
Lots of nazis disliked Hitler, that dosn’t make them good people. You can’t be part of the nazi warmachine at that level and not realize what you are supporting.
Those are the opinions of Historians (and one documentary film maker specialising on Nazi Germany), I’m not nearly deep enough into the topic to really know what I’m talking about, but I could imagine that he had no idea what went on on the eastern front given that he was in Africa that’s how they come to conclusions such as “probably without ever realising it”. And if he really supported that kind of extermination campaign – why didn’t he behave like that in his area of operation? Remember that all that didn’t happen the information age, he was knees-deep in Sahara sand most of the time with other things to worry about.
He’s certainly controversial but, like Stauffenberg, the Bundeswehr has bases named after him, and the reason is in both cases the same: Military leaders turning against the government because their actual loyalty is the people and nation. That’s something the Bundeswehr wants to be part of the tradition, hence why they honour him. Stauffenberg also isn’t a spotless hero, for one, the man was a monarchist. Being a bit mean I can see a “Soldier, you may be a broken clock but twice a day try to do something” kind of meaning in it.
Now that is a bad summary if I’ve ever seen one. He was one of Hitler’s favourites, that’s true, and he was also involved with the Stauffenberg et al plot to get rid of Hitler.
If you want a summary of that article this section fits the bill:
Lots of nazis disliked Hitler, that dosn’t make them good people. You can’t be part of the nazi warmachine at that level and not realize what you are supporting.
Those are the opinions of Historians (and one documentary film maker specialising on Nazi Germany), I’m not nearly deep enough into the topic to really know what I’m talking about, but I could imagine that he had no idea what went on on the eastern front given that he was in Africa that’s how they come to conclusions such as “probably without ever realising it”. And if he really supported that kind of extermination campaign – why didn’t he behave like that in his area of operation? Remember that all that didn’t happen the information age, he was knees-deep in Sahara sand most of the time with other things to worry about.
He’s certainly controversial but, like Stauffenberg, the Bundeswehr has bases named after him, and the reason is in both cases the same: Military leaders turning against the government because their actual loyalty is the people and nation. That’s something the Bundeswehr wants to be part of the tradition, hence why they honour him. Stauffenberg also isn’t a spotless hero, for one, the man was a monarchist. Being a bit mean I can see a “Soldier, you may be a broken clock but twice a day try to do something” kind of meaning in it.