Rommel Survives the War...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Presume that the two informants who directly spoke about Rommel initially are killed (one tried suicide before naming him, another might die during torture), and let's assume Rommel survives the war somehow. How does he fare at Nuremberg? What happens to him afterwards? Will the Russians allow a German general of that caliber to survive?
 
Presume that the two informants who directly spoke about Rommel initially are killed (one tried suicide before naming him, another might die during torture), and let's assume Rommel survives the war somehow. How does he fare at Nuremberg? What happens to him afterwards? Will the Russians allow a German general of that caliber to survive?

They allowed many others to survive that fought in the East, so why not Rommel? He was nothing special compared to other German commanders, and doesn't have much in the way of war crimes to be punished for.
 
I don't know of very much in the way of war crimes which could be pinned on him directly, so he might get a few years in prison before being released, at which point I see him living in the Federal Republic. I don't see him having a lot to do with the Bundeswehr, but maybe an attempted foray into West German politics?
 
The most similar situation is Karl Dönitz that was sentenced to 10 years that many consider high given he wasn't involved and neither in position to do much for the most insane Nazi crimes.

Albert Speer was in knowledge and exploited slave labor, convicted to 20 years also due to repentance.

Wernher von Braun was not even on trial even if he used slave labor ... guess knowing how to build missiles is a definite asset.

Rommel would have 10 years max, probably acquitted. He was respected by the Allies and the Soviets didn't have any grudge. In North Africa he actively ignored orders regarding Jew prisoners.
 
The most striking similarity I think is the case of Heinz Guderian who was not charged at Nuremberg at all despite Soviet protests. So I can see Rommel avoiding the Nuremberg trials as well.
 
Aren't there some unresolved questions regarding his culpability in the deaths of British prisoners captured by his troops during the Battle of France? His track record in North Africa is spotless of course, but I think the Allies can still nail him over his conduct in France in 1940.
 
I don't know of very much in the way of war crimes which could be pinned on him directly, so he might get a few years in prison before being released, at which point I see him living in the Federal Republic. I don't see him having a lot to do with the Bundeswehr, but maybe an attempted foray into West German politics?

Heinz Guderian despite the protests of the Soviets who labeled him a war criminal didn't serve a day in prison. Rommel didn't actually fight the Soviets so they would have no say in the matter. Hell Erich Von Manstein who openly went along with the Final Solution against the Jews and the mass murder of slavs received a grand total of four years in jail.

Rommel was the only German general who was respected for far more then his military ability by the rank and file of the WAllied armies. People need to think less about what people think today about German military commanders and what constitutes war crimes and more on what people in the West in the 1940s thought of German commanders and what constitutes war crimes.

As for why Rommel was very popular during the war amongst Allied soldiers and by extension their populations, it had mostly to do with the fact that he was always out on the front lines meeting the troops, his own as well as Allied troops and doing things that are still talked about by the grandsons of Allied soldiers more then 70 years later.

Erwin Rommel found himself several times behind Allied lines. On one occasion, he stumbled across an allied field hospital. They were low on supplies and he promised to bring medical supplies, after which he drove off unhindered. Later he returned with the promised medical supplies.

My grandfather was a British officer, and a tanker. His tank was knocked out and taken POW by Rommel's forces during WWII (north Africa campaign), and met Rommel on several occasions.

When I was a boy he used to tell me that Rommel was not a Nazi, that he was a German officer; despite a deep rooted hatred for all things Nazi, he would never allow an ill word be spoken of Rommel.

http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearn...l_general_erwin_rommel_found_himself_several/
 
The most similar situation is Karl Dönitz that was sentenced to 10 years that many consider high given he wasn't involved and neither in position to do much for the most insane Nazi crimes.

Rommel would have 10 years max, probably acquitted. He was respected by the Allies and the Soviets didn't have any grudge. In North Africa he actively ignored orders regarding Jew prisoners.

The issue comes down to the friends you make and the enemies you make. Donitz by the nature of naval warfare can't go out and meet Allied soldiers other then in POW camps. He also by the nature of unrestricted sub warfare made himself huge enemies among very very rich shipping companies and other business interests who had a lot of political and economic power and wanted to see him punished big time and didn't give a damn about what the rules and norms of warfare had to say about it.

Generals are a very different story and historically speaking and WW2 was no exception it comes down mainly to mainly what other generals and officers think about your conduct. The issue at play in WW2 is the generals as well as many political leaders like Churchill who went to officer training school in the 19th and start of the 20th centuries were taught even extreme things like redistributive mass killings of civilians for partisan activity were acceptable in war.

So, even though it was banned in the interwar years you had a situation were German generals like Albert Kesselring who ordered the mass murder of hundreds of Italian civilians in retribution for partisan actions in their areas only served five years in jail as Churchill and many Allied military leaders went to bat for him.

Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill immediately branded it as too harsh and intervened in favour of Kesselring. Field Marshal Alexander, now Governor General of Canada, sent a telegram to Prime Minister Clement Attlee in which he expressed his hope that Kesselring's sentence would be commuted. "As his old opponent on the battlefield", he started, "I have no complaints against him. Kesselring and his soldiers fought against us hard but clean.

Alexander's sentiments were echoed by Lieutenant General Sir Oliver Leese, who had commanded the British Eighth Army in the Italian campaign. In a May 1947 interview, Leese said he was "very sad" to hear of what he considered "British victor's justice" being imposed on Kesselring, an "extremely gallant soldier who had fought his battles fairly and squarely". Lord de L'Isle, who had been awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry at Anzio, raised the issue in the House of Lords.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Kesselring
 
The most striking similarity I think is the case of Heinz Guderian who was not charged at Nuremberg at all despite Soviet protests. So I can see Rommel avoiding the Nuremberg trials as well.

True enough. In this instance, I think I can agree with you and Dionysius I that he would get ten years maximum, if he were charged at all.

Does anybody else feel that a newly civilian Rommel might sojourn into the politics of West Germany once he got out of prison, if he even went to prison to begin with? Perhaps eventually even a Bundeskanzler Rommel?
 
True enough. In this instance, I think I can agree with you and Dionysius I that he would get ten years maximum, if he were charged at all.

Does anybody else feel that a newly civilian Rommel might sojourn into the politics of West Germany once he got out of prison, if he even went to prison to begin with? Perhaps eventually even a Bundeskanzler Rommel?

The real question is how long does he spend as a POW. The U.S., British Empire and her Commonwealth would go apoplectic at the idea of him being criminally prosecuted and the Jews would be pissed off as well as word of his actions going to bat for them and protecting them got around quite fast during the war.

The question would come down to if they decide to have Rommel in the position of General Hans Speidel who was Rommel's adjutant in France and was made NATO Ground Force Commander in Europe in the 1950s or they decide a political role would be better for him.

These are decisions that yes Rommel would have some say in, but the end of the day Washington, London and Paris would have the greatest say. It depends on if they decide Rommel is more valuable as a military symbol for German rearmament or political leader. Rommel on one hand disliked politics, but on the other he was far better at it then he would ever willingly admit.
 

Robert

Banned
Rommel wouldn't have ended up at Nuremberg. After his part in the attempt to assassinate Hitler came out he might have ended up running the country for the allies.
 
The issue comes down to the friends you make and the enemies you make. Donitz by the nature of naval warfare can't go out and meet Allied soldiers other then in POW camps. He also by the nature of unrestricted sub warfare made himself huge enemies among very very rich shipping companies and other business interests who had a lot of political and economic power and wanted to see him punished big time and didn't give a damn about what the rules and norms of warfare had to say about it.

Generals are a very different story and historically speaking and WW2 was no exception it comes down mainly to mainly what other generals and officers think about your conduct. The issue at play in WW2 is the generals as well as many political leaders like Churchill who went to officer training school in the 19th and start of the 20th centuries were taught even extreme things like redistributive mass killings of civilians for partisan activity were acceptable in war.

So, even though it was banned in the interwar years you had a situation were German generals like Albert Kesselring who ordered the mass murder of hundreds of Italian civilians in retribution for partisan actions in their areas only served five years in jail as Churchill and many Allied military leaders went to bat for him.

Your insight is very interesting. One easily forgets the importance of the people's mindset in history. Pre-WW1 officer schooling was quite brutal and only the slaughter in frontal charges during WW1 started to change this view. Even if Albert Kesselring wasn't particularly brutal for Nazi standards it is still felt in Italy especially the 10 italians lifes to 1 german one exchange rate (furthermore the 10 italians were civilians not involved in partisan activity).
 
I don't know if a Rommel active military or political role post WW2 would be beneficial to Germany: on one side he would symbolize continuity with "old" Germany, while on the other hand, he might be (or at least perceived) more subservient to the Allies.

Germany had the opportunity after WW2 to start from scratch creating new a political class with the likes of Adenauer, Brandt, Schmidt, and Kohl and a new economical and political system quite different from the Allies.
 
I don't know if a Rommel active military or political role post WW2 would be beneficial to Germany: on one side he would symbolize continuity with "old" Germany, while on the other hand, he might be (or at least perceived) more subservient to the Allies.

Germany had the opportunity after WW2 to start from scratch creating new a political class with the likes of Adenauer, Brandt, Schmidt, and Kohl and a new economical and political system quite different from the Allies.

A military role would have been pretty straightforward with him being for all intents and purposes being a paid spokesman for German rearmament in terms of both the German population and WAllied nations. In the 50s and 60s the socialist newspapers in Germany were not exactly wrong that he was being used as a unpaid deceased spokesman for German rearmament.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/Rommelfilm.png

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/w2.jpg

Him being Chancellor of West Germany is a very different issue and it would run head long into a few problems. First off he didn't want to be a political leader and supported Goerdeler as Chancellor as part of the July Plot not himself. Secondly you are correct that he would run the real risk of being seen as too close to London and Washington.

On the issue of war crimes trials it would be quite interesting. My guess is that he push London and Washington that court-martials not civilian courts are allowed to go through for the worst of the worst army personal. In the end it would be mostly a wash there compared to what they received OTL, but the SS would probably get it a fair bit worse under a Rommel chancellorship then an Adenauer chancellorship as he would have the stature with the German population to get the worst of the SS punished in a way Adenauer did not. Rommel did believe redistributive mass murder of civilians for partisan activity should be punished though all he could do in 1944 is demand to Hitler to no avail that he be allowed to lead the court-marshal of officers for doing so.

4fed2698-9aa7-4884-b401-3845c1cc5c9d.jpg


Finally the idea of a divided Germany with what he would see as half the country under Soviet domination would have been a continuing nightmare to him. I am sure it was a nightmare to many Germans at the time. The difference is that Rommel would know various ways to instigate a war that would entrap British and Americans to fighting the Soviets. I am not saying its likely he would do it, but the idea is apt to pop into his head from time to time at least until the Soviets have enough nukes that it means the total destruction of West Germany in any WW3 scenario.
 
The real question is how long does he spend as a POW. The U.S., British Empire and her Commonwealth would go apoplectic at the idea of him being criminally prosecuted and the Jews would be pissed off as well as word of his actions going to bat for them and protecting them got around quite fast during the war.

The question would come down to if they decide to have Rommel in the position of General Hans Speidel who was Rommel's adjutant in France and was made NATO Ground Force Commander in Europe in the 1950s or they decide a political role would be better for him.

These are decisions that yes Rommel would have some say in, but the end of the day Washington, London and Paris would have the greatest say. It depends on if they decide Rommel is more valuable as a military symbol for German rearmament or political leader. Rommel on one hand disliked politics, but on the other he was far better at it then he would ever willingly admit.

Who says it has to be one or the other? Have him assist in forming the Bundeswehr, and then he gets roped into politics once he leaves the military.

From a story writer's point of view, I personally find the idea of Rommel in the Federal Republic's government much more interesting.
 
Who says it has to be one or the other? Have him assist in forming the Bundeswehr, and then he gets roped into politics once he leaves the military.

From a story writer's point of view, I personally find the idea of Rommel in the Federal Republic's government much more interesting.

I agree with you that it is more interesting in terms of possibilities as I can pretty much say what he would be doing if he just was involved in helping to form the Bundeswehr. That would be writing a few books, giving interviews for the umpteenth time telling the same stories about Africa and Normandy to American, German and British audiences. Giving speeches about the need to pay for wounded veterans of WW2... and so on.

Rommel leading the Federal Republic's government is a different story entirely and could go all sorts of ways. He would be able to do things that Adenauer and other politicians certainly could not do given his political capital as a war hero. If he plays it mostly politically safe as Eisenhower did or not is the big question. In war Rommel was not one to play things safe, but politics is another matter.
 
I dont know about the rest of it, but Rommel would have certainly wrote a self serving book. Most other famous generals did so.

That much we already know and the shell of the book exists in scattered parts. He actually started writing it before the war.

Panzer Greift An (known as Tank Attacks in English) is an unfinished book on armoured tactics and warfare by Erwin Rommel. It was to be the follow-up and companion work to his earlier and highly successful Infantry Attacks.

It is believed he started writing it while commandant of the War Academy at Wiener Neustadt (Theresian Military Academy) in 1938, though he may have started earlier during his time as an instructor at the Potsdam War Academy (1935–37). His career as a military theorist and instructor, however, was preempted by his duties as a commander and soldier during World War II.

The Tank In Attack exists only in the form of scattered manuscripts and notes, but due to the fame of its author, it has achieved legendary status as a work of military literature.

In the film Patton, a book with this title is on the nightstand when he is awakened by his aides who inform him that Rommel is about to attack his army. When the battle is over, Patton exclaims "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_Greift_An

We know quite a few of the messages including the ending message from the scattered manuscripts that in essence Rommel would have argued as he did to his son that tanks have a new place in warfare, but that tanks alone could not be militarily decisive if one side definitively controls the air and he believed Americans would keep control of the air for a long time to come given the industrial power of the US.

1944II-1.png
 
Last edited:
Nuremberg he would probably go down for "planning/initiating wars of aggression" and serve a few years. Did Rommel have political aspirations? I'd imagine that if he survived the war he might at the most advise in the creation of a new German Army, retire and write a book.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top