Rommel actually often praised Fuhrer as the true leader.
At first, yes. And
not because of Nazi ideology, but for the same reason even many
Jews praised Hitler in the beginning: Hitler was seen as a man who got Germany back on its feet. In Rommel's case, Hitler was also the man who by conquest restored Germany's honour. Rommel's refusal to weed out Jews among POWs (and even his refusal to segregate black from white prisoners, on the grounds that everyone who fights in the same uniform are equals) should tell you just how much Rommel bought into this whole Nazi ideology thing. Quite the contrary, Rommel almost took pride in being apolitical. And his admiration for Hitler quickly faded not only with the fortunes of war, but also as he found out more about the internal processes and goals of Nazi bureaucracy. His thoughts of conspiracy against Hitler, though, had to do with the way Hitler was not only losing the war, but ruining Germany in the process with this "total war" business. He had no active part in the Stauffenberg plot, however, even though that is the reason he was forced to commit suicide. Of course, he
did no about it beforehand, as Speidel had attempted to recruit him, but had kept silent.
As for their "conformist attitude" in the '30s, it is not really our place to judge. It is all good and well to
say that "I would have done something", but those are just words. I guarantee you most of those who did not actively oppose Hitler would, at any other time, have said exactly the same thing: "I would not have been silent, I would have done something". It is truly the exceptional character that takes an active part in opposition, however, and such characters deserve praise of course. But it's a bit unfair to condemn people for not being exceptional in this regard. Also, remember that unless you were part of the minorities being persecuted, you wouldn't notice much of the persecution anyway. It's easy with the benefit of hindsight to say that they should have seen the warning flags everywhere, but no one could have predicted the Holocaust in the '30s, unless it was one of those whacky conspiracy theorists that people of any historical period (including the present) are used to ignoring.
Let me ask you this: how active have you been in opposing
your government regarding policies you disagree with? Whatever excuse you have, that's the same excuse people in the '30s had for not wanting to stir up trouble for themselves. And as the Endlösung wasn't implemented until 1942 (and even then it wasn't exactly widely publicized), it didn't seem important enough to lose one's head for for most people.
In short, I don't think it is proper to condemn people for certain things unless we've been in their shoes and can honestly say we would have acted differently. It is easy to make moral choices when there are no negative consequences attached.
reply
share