I see a lot of praise for him on the Internet, which is commonly followed with the opposite. How good of a commander was he?. Is put in a higher place among WW2 german high official because of how he treated prisoners and people in general. Sorry if I rave on a little.
His treatment of prisoners is certainly noteworthy in comparison to other German officers. Whereas some like Walther von Reichenau were oppressive towards both POW's and ethnic minorities (including Jewish populations) Rommel was honorable with both. Under his command the German Afrikacorps were neither investigated nor convicted of any war crimes and he protested deportations of Jewish populations in France when he was stationed there. He refused to follow the Kommandobefehl, the order to execute any Allied commandos captured and even went so far as to try to punish officers of the 2nd S.S. Panzer Division Das Reich after it had massacred a French village.
Rommel the commander also has received praise more so than even Rommel the humanitarian. His tactics in France as a rookie Panzer commander were noteworthy. His 7th Panzer Division was nicknamed the "Ghost Division" for its ability to penetrate deep in Allied lines during the Battle of France without the need to halt for infantry support.
In Africa, the Italians were routed in Feb. '41 however with just two infantry divisions, Rommel was able to delay Allied control of all of North Africa until May '43, a little over two years later. It even managed to hold out in open terrain for six months after its defeat at El Alamein.
Many historians agree that had the German High Command followed his advice and kept their reserves at the beaches instead of being held in interior France as Rundstedt advocated, then the D-Day invasion would have lasted longer and even possibly failed.
Finally, his opposition to Hitler has helped cement the favorable opinions of him.
There are some flaws to the overflowing praise of Rommel.
First, his success in France can arguably be just as much attributed to the failures of the French Army as it can the the success of his. Rommel's forces faced a demoralized and understrengthed French force. The French Char B tank, which was the most capable French tank to face the Pnzr III tank, was slow and undermanned. Also, its 75mm turret was fixed in place rather than on a mount so the entire tank had to move to maneuver the gun. Also, the French lost air superiority which gave Rommel's forces an advantage. Had the French had air superiority, things could have been much different. Finally, in France, Rommel never had to face the Maginot Line as his forces were north of it.
In Afrika, while he delayed Allied forces from taking Italian territory and securing Egypt, the single greatest battle at El Alamein resulted in defeat for him.
Likewise, in France, Rommel's Atlantic Wall failed him at Normandy. Yes, his forces were not placed ideally for the Field Marshall, but he could have had a better defense. There were other German Generals that were arguably better defensive-minded officers. Model assumed command after Rommel's death and succeeded at staling the Allied advance in The Netherlands. von Kulge was another capable German officer of similar credentials.
While Rommel is the most popular German Officer in the West, other officers have better resumes. Heinz Guderian, another panzer/ offensive minded general and the founder of blitzkreig, had a better success rate than Rommel but is not as popular since he mostly fought in the Eastern Front and didn't face British or American troops save for the Invasion of France.
In the end, a lot of Rommel's popularity stems from his treatment of prisoners, attitude towards Hitler, and the fact he faced British and American troops versus being primarily am Eastern Front commander, like Guderian and Manstein. Was he a capable commander, absolutely, however he wasn't the most successful commander in the Wermacht.
Try one of the many, many other threads this has been asked in:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dkokk/erwin_rommel_and_stonewall_jackson_common/
Can I ask a different iteration of this question? When and how did he become romanticized after the war? By whom, in which books, in which communities, in which nationalities? For my part, I think the way the American officer corps romanticized German armor commanders is an interesting phenomenon I'd like to know more about.
I'm much, much less interested in WWII-buff style parsings of his relative awesomeness, and much more interested in the actual history of his romanticization. In keeping with the sub's theme, how was this "myth" born and sustained?
Edit: I get it, Churchill gave him praise. But if I may be blunt, that's exactly the kind of dad history I was trying to avoid. Myths are built and sustained. I'm looking for the history of a trope, a myth, a discourse here.
My favorite writeup about rommel is from a previous askhistorians post
Rommel's fame is the incidental result of his performing well against a culture of incompetence in the 8th Army, and the publicity that resulted from this.
In the late 1930s the British mechanised their cavalry by converting cavalry units into armoured regiments. This was after two decades of the cavalry arm, which dominated British military culture, being utterly disdainful and resistant to the Tank Corps which were responsible for tanks and mechanisation up to this time. The result of all this was, to generalise, dim-witted, reactionary cavalry officers taking control of armoured units without any of the appreciation of the problems of mechanisation that the Tank Corps (later Royal Armoured Corps) had had to overcome (notably communications and co-ordination of tanks, infantry and artillery).
The German army had mechanised from scratch in the early 30s with little of this baggage, and Guderian and others forcefully imposed a good ethic within the Panzer Divisions, and this suited Rommel who was a big risk-taker and appreciated the importance of mobility.
So, from early 1941 to mid 1942 Rommel repeatedy foiled British attacks and launched sharp ripostes, while the British went through a succession of leaders at all levels and were largely unable to get the better of him. Each of these attacks would be preceded by a vast build-up of resources and expectations.
These expectations wer4e underlined by the fact that North Africa was the only land theatre where the British could confront Germany, and Churchill was acutely aware for much of this time of the need to bring in America, and of the pressure the Soviet Union was under. Both these conditions greatly increased the pressure for British success.
In this context, the legend of Rommel took off. The 8th Army itself knew its commanders were largely incompetent, and although this rarely led to massive casualties, it often led to defeat. Rommel was as famous in the 8th Army as any British commander. Rommel's alleged genius became an excuse for German success: Rommel's capture of Tobruk after the Battle of Gazala- probably his finest hour- occurred when Churchill was in conference with Roosevelt, a most embarrassing outcome as the British were supposed to be launching an offensive themselves, and Tobruk was supposed to be a fortress.
Rommel's legend led to the creation of another unworthy legend, that of Bernard Montgomery, who defeated him in October 1942.
Is it safe to say that Rommel was the 'Lee of the Reich' and as playing the keystone in a 'Wehrmacht Lost Cause' that many of his flaws as a military commander are downplayed retroactively?