5

I've heard that he was not. Later, I've heard that he would have joined the fray if not because of political consideration.

I forgot the source.

Rodrigo de Azevedo
  • 1
  • 1
  • 12
  • 25
user4951
  • 5,517
  • 9
  • 37
  • 67

4 Answers4

15

I am not sure what you mean by "joined the fray", but it does appear that Rommel did not share Hitler's antisemitism despite being relatively close to him throughout the 1930-ies. Rommel admired Hitler for his success in dismantling the Versailles regime, but ...

During Rommel's time in France, Hitler ordered him to deport the country's Jewish population; Rommel disobeyed. Several times he wrote letters protesting against the treatment of the Jews. He also refused to comply with Hitler's order to execute Jewish POWs.

EDIT: as so well expounded in the other answer, the non-antisemitism of Rommel was relative, i.e., compared to the rest of Germany (e.g., Manstein) he appeared to be a gentleman - while serving the Nazi regime.

In the absolute terms one can say with confidence that due to Rommel's actions (his successes on the battlefield) the war lasted longer and many more innocents (Jews, Gypsies, Russians, Poles &c) were murdered. It does appear that these deaths were not to his liking, but they did happen.

sds
  • 26,987
  • 2
  • 88
  • 140
  • 2
    True, but all those instances can be explained using practical arguments, not empathy with the Jews. The treatment of the Jews caused tension, requiring more police and military to be set aside for things other than the military campaign. Deportation ditto would require a large investment in scarce manpower and vehicle resources. Wholesale execution of POWs would enrage any professional soldier worth the name, and Rommel was a professional soldier before all else. That's not to say he was an anti-semite, pretty much all of Europe was at the time (and most of the US as well). – jwenting Dec 23 '13 at 06:06
  • 7
    @jwenting: However, to stand up to Hitler and say "Those Jewish POW's have the same rights as other POW's." does demonstrate a degree of moral courage that was absent from, for example, Auschwitz guards. – Pieter Geerkens Dec 23 '13 at 06:17
  • 1
    @PieterGeerkens yes, it does. And no doubt Rommel's personal relation with Hitler and his position high in the command hierarchy (as well as his military successes, which gave him leverage) helped him there. He was later disgraced, accused of plotting to kill Hitler, and ordered to commit suicide. – jwenting Dec 23 '13 at 06:20
  • Due to Roosevelt's actions, tons of Jews died. Does that mean that FDR was as antisemitic as Rommel? How about David Ben-Gurion, because of whose actions Jews died as well? – DVK Dec 23 '13 at 20:22
  • @DVK - I had added the last sentence to exclude the implication you are imputing. Are you sure I was that unclear? (I hope that you will excuse my not explicitly answering your rhetorical question). – sds Dec 23 '13 at 20:57
  • @sds - it mitigated the implication a bit, but I'd be a lot happier if the paragraph wasn't in the answer at all. It's totally not relevant to antisemitism of the person. I upvoted either way :) – DVK Dec 23 '13 at 21:00
  • Actually all morality eventually have true practical purpose. The fact that there is something in it for me does not make it immoral. In fact, immoral acts often end up in lose lose situation which is hence, stupid. In buddhism, this is blured further into kusala vs akusala. Kusala means both good and wise (literally skillful), and akusala means the opposite. – user4951 Apr 07 '14 at 02:11
  • So the fact that Rommel has a practical purpose for saving those jews doesn't mean that he is immoral. You can be both selfish and moral. In fact, selfishness is, in a sense, a morality. Capitalists acknowledge selfishness. – user4951 Jul 28 '17 at 13:17
  • @jwenting To disobey a direct order from Hitler was to take one's career and even one's life in jeprody, Rommel did this several times specifically over treatment of the Jews, even writing unsolicited letters to Hitler on the topic. Your contrary arguments don't hold up as Rommel also followed this path in North Africa with Allied POW's where he certainly had the opportunity and manpower to pursue those orders if he had chosen. –  Apr 05 '19 at 20:59
  • @JMS irrelevant. Rommel was a professional soldier, if he complained about the treatment of Jews it would likely have been because that treatment was a drain on resources better used for the armed forces. And soldiers tend to want to treat POWs well, because that treatment reflects on themselves and can have an impact on how they'd be treated were they to fall POW. – jwenting Apr 08 '19 at 04:18
  • @jwenting, In the last decade their has been a considerable effort by a handful of historians to re-write history concerning Rommel. This effort is not settled history. Explaining away Rommel's consistent actions which separated him from other German Commanders as irrelevant is on hole iin their case. –  Apr 08 '19 at 15:09
  • @jwenting. what we know of Rommel is he refused to deport Jews after the Battle of France in 1940 when other German commanders were. In North Africa 400,000 jews lived in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia under his command and 400,000 lived there when the Germans were removed in 1942. That Rommel refused orders to execute African American POW's. That Rommel even declined to execute commandos who had attempted to assassinate him. That Rommel's journals portray him not as an ideologue, but as a professional soldier, devoid of hatred for his enemy. Respected by enemies, and allies. –  Apr 08 '19 at 15:15
12

All of Western European culture, world-wide, was anti-Semitic at that time. Germany itself was extremely anti-Semitic, even more so than Europe as a whole. I do not hesitate to state that even that handful of Germans who risked their lives to save Jewish friends, would have to be regarded as anti-Semitic in regard to Jews who were not personally well-known to them.

However, what the Nazis' engaged in went far beyond every-day anti-Semitism. So far past everyday anti-Semitism that it gave anti-Semitism itself a bad name, so that it became unfashionable for the first time in over a millennium. Permanently unfashionable.

The movie A Gentlemen's Agreement could not have been made in 1937. Jewish refugee ships were still being refused entry to Montreal and New York and even Haifa. But by 1947, with the horrors of the Holocaust really starting to sink in, it almost had to be made.

So in this context, I think it is necessary to say "Of course Rommel was anti-Semitic - all of Germany was. All of North America was." However, there is a world of difference between run-of-the-mill anti-Semitism and support of the Holocaust.

Update:
I cannot truly be 100% certain that on an anti-Semitism scale of 1 to 10,000, where Hitler rates a 9,999.9 and a 0 rating is earned only by someone who can vote on his club membership without the slightest thought of religion, that Rommel isn't a 0.

However in a world and time where even Churchill and FDR were more likely to rate 100 or so than 0, it is almost impossible to believe that Rommel was a 0. Being a tiny bit anti-Semitic; a little too complacent in the anti-Semitism of one's colleagues; a little too eager to laugh at a Jewish joke if only to hide one's own Italian, or Irish, or Spanish, or Polish, or Dutch, or Balkan, or Catholic, or Baptist, or Orthodox, or other heritage; was just too easy. It was very difficult, and conspicuous, to rate a 0 in those times; and for an ambitious general in Nazi Germany looking to make his reputation in a world war, not being just a tiny bit anti-Semitic, passively, almost seems too much to ask.

In this context, I find the question almost unfair. It really should not attempt to look into the deepest recesses of Rommel's heart to judge the presence or absence of anti-Semitism. It should rather confine itself to solid evidence on his actions in regards to Jews, and judge him on this basis alone: To what extent was he willing to stand up and obstruct the Nazi extermination of the Jews, at risk to life, limb, prosperity and family.

Community
  • 1
Pieter Geerkens
  • 72,560
  • 9
  • 210
  • 330
  • 2
    You can not just put every one in Europe or even Germany in one bucket like that. There were plenty of people who were not anti-semites also back then. – Lennart Regebro Dec 23 '13 at 03:58
  • 2
    @LennartRegebro: Nothing is ever 100%, I agree; but the norms of these societies were truly so saturated with low-level not in my country club, not on my block, anti-Semitism that a greater tan 99% compliance really does seem most likely. I accept downvotes from those who disagree, but I truly believe this is a truth that must be faced if we are to prevent another such horror from ever occurring. – Pieter Geerkens Dec 23 '13 at 04:05
  • 2
    @LennartRegebro: Only when the citizenry of a nation are wiling to stand up, and risk life and limb, to protect the very weakest members, can that society ever truly call itself free. – Pieter Geerkens Dec 23 '13 at 04:08
  • 5
    That is is likely that he was an anti-semite does not make him a anti-semite. That's the sort of collectivist thinking that lies behind both anti-semitism and anti-liberalism. I'm sure you know better than this. – Lennart Regebro Dec 23 '13 at 04:18
  • 1
    @LennartRegebro: Agreed now - that was the distinction I was attempting to make by putting the key sentences in quotes. Obviously not clearly enough. – Pieter Geerkens Dec 23 '13 at 04:22
  • @LennartRegebro: Is this better now? – Pieter Geerkens Dec 23 '13 at 05:13
  • This answer doesn't seem to answer the question, apart from saying it is poorly defined. Wouldn't it work better as a comment? – congusbongus Dec 23 '13 at 05:52
  • 1
    @congusbongus: Well, the question is poorly defined; why and how is not immediately obvious however. Eyeball estimate, it would have to be 8 comments most likely. – Pieter Geerkens Dec 23 '13 at 05:54
  • @congusbongus the answer states that Rommel was likely an anti-semite to some degree simply because of his cultural and social background making that almost inevitable. Whether he was one at the same level of the SS camp guards can probably never be answered as he no longer lives and his memoirs (which I've read...) don't go into any details about it. – jwenting Dec 23 '13 at 06:08
  • @PieterGeerkens Yes, I agree with the statement that the question probably is unfair, at least without defining what an anti-semite is. – Lennart Regebro Dec 23 '13 at 08:40
  • 1
    "Permanently unfashionable"?? - come on! it's back in fashion! (+1 though, very good answer) – sds Dec 23 '13 at 14:23
  • +2 for great answer. -1 for "Permanently unfashionable" wishful thinking. – DVK Dec 23 '13 at 20:25
  • 1
    @sds: "Permanently unfashionable", though unfortunately not permanently dispelled. At least these days when someone is being anti-Semitic, they are likely to be called out on it rather than abetted with silence. – Pieter Geerkens Dec 23 '13 at 23:15
  • @PieterGeerkens: "antisemitism" has been re-legitimized as "antizionism". – sds Dec 24 '13 at 03:48
  • 4
    Not true that "Germany was extremely antisemitic". The Jewish population was overwhelmingly in mixed marriages with non-Jewish Germans. That's a lot of German men and women, right there, whose supposed antisemitism didn't preclude them from marrying a Jew! On the contrary, there are scholars who think that Germans were attracted to antisemitism because they were attracted to nazism, and not the other way around. – Shimon bM Jan 05 '17 at 22:44
  • 1
    The answer could benefit from a least 1 sources which supports it. Not a single source which even references Rommel. A guy who disobeyed hitler several times over treatment of Jews, but that doesn't even rate a reference? Not like disobeying hitler's direct orders was common for Generals in WWII and not like it wasn't placing one's career and even one's life in jeprody. –  Apr 05 '19 at 21:40
1

Rommel was not an anti-semite, but he did approve of Hitler's plans to strengthen the military and use military might. He wrote a letter to Hitler saying "this business with the Jews has to stop". When Hitler disregarded his plea, Rommel tried to save Jews from camps by suggesting to Hitler that they be taken into the army.

This prompted Hitler to remark: "That man has no idea what we are trying to accomplish".

Manuel Levine
  • 29
  • 1
0

Question: Was Rommel anti-semetic?

Short Answer:
Absolutely, no question. Rommel was a high ranking general and a personal friend of Hitler. He was an early Hitler admirer, who served as Hitler's personal body guard and came into contact with many of the highest ranking Nazi's. He had both personal and military information and meetings on the liquidation of Jewish populations. There is no question that he knew about the Nazi's controversal policies. The only question is how anti-semitic was he.

Detailed Answer:
While the extent of Rommel’s antisemitism is difficult to quantify. Best case he ignored the Nazi's racial puriity / liquidation policies. It is accurate that he refused to cary out several orders to execute POW's. Black and Jewish POW's in North Africa, and Free French fighters in occupied France. This however does not excuse his knowledge, silence and aid in other liquefaction exercises.

In North Africa Rommel held meetings with Walther Rauff to propose Schutzstaffel (SS) paramilitary death squads for when Egypt fell. Rauff was the inventor of gas vans which operated and murdered civilians in Rommel's sectors. Rauff coordinated his actions with Rommel's staff. We don't know what Rommel thought about the murder of helpless civilians in his armies sphere of control, but their is no question that Rommel knew about these actions, was complicite both in the planning and acts.