Talk:20 July plot/Archives/2016/April

Shirer 1960
This passage is cited to Shirer's 1960 work:


 * The conspirators scored a major boost in early July when they managed to initiate Erwin Rommel, the famed "Desert Fox", into their ranks. Rommel was by far the most popular officer in Germany and was also the first active-duty field marshal to lend support to the plot. (Witzleben had been inactive since 1942.) Although Rommel felt he had to, as he put it, "come to the rescue of Germany," he thought killing Hitler would make him a martyr. Like some others, he wanted Hitler arrested and hauled before a court-martial for his many crimes.  Rommel was not directly involved in any Resistance operations, but he had explicit knowledge of the plot to depose Hitler and withheld the information from him.

Contemporary scholarship has arrived at a different conclusion. For example, in the 2009 afterword to Messenger's book, Klaus Naumann writes "He was not part of the German resistance against Adolf Hitler. What is known of Rommel for sure was that he was strictly opposed to any idea of assassinating Hitler and that he was in favor of peace talks with the Western Powers".

Ralf Georg Reuth: Re July 9 meeting with Hofaker: Based on the 'need to know' principles of the conspirators, Rommel ought not to have been made privy to the attempt on Hitler -- and he surely was not. (...) The Field Marshal declared that he was willing to be involved in making peace with the West. (...) There was no indication of any active participation of Rommel in the conspiracy, and apparently none was assumed (by Hitler or Kaltenbrunner who investigated the plotters).

Sources:

The two historians listed arrive at different conclusion: Rommel was not "initiated" into the conspirators' ranks; he did not have "explicit knowledge of the plot". I suggest this passage be reworded to reflect the recent historiography. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this needs more research. The information from Shirer seems a bit contradictory, indicating that Rommel was opposed to assassination. Both the historians you cite indicate some uncertainty about the issue. Reuth says "he surely was not" privy to the plot. It seems to me that there was a "Black Orchestra" or whatever you want to call it and many people were aware that something was going on, even if they weren't exactly participants. In the absence of further research, I think we should say that it is unclear how far Rommel was involved. Whatever it says here should match the Rommel article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Rommel article also uses Shirer, and needs updating too. I will bring forth some sources. I think we can begin by removing Rommel's portrait from the list of participants, as he was clearly not a member of the 20 July conspiracy. Would that be okay? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be balanced out with the contemporary historians opinion, but it certainly is not clear cut what his exact involvement was; I agree with Jack Upland as to stating it is "unclear" the extent Rommel was involved. I also do not like the wording there now that he was "initiated" into the conspirators' ranks. A more neutral presentation of wording should be used. Based on what we know, how about, "According to journalist and author William L. Shirer, the conspirators scored a boost in early July when they managed to obtain support from Rommel for the idea of arresting Hitler and having him tried for his crimes. Rommel reportedly stated, he had to "come to the rescue of Germany"; although the thought killing Hitler would make him a martyr. According to Shirer, Rommel was not directly involved in any Resistance operations, but he had knowledge of the plot to depose Hitler and withheld the information from the dictator." Kierzek (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did take out the word "major", as that is subjective and not needed; awaiting you guys thoughts on the above; as discussed on 14 April. Kierzek (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I looked at Shirer and I believe there are some issues in using him:
 * "I believe it's my duty to come to the rescue of Germany" (page 1031) is cited to Young's Rommel: The Desert Fox, to whom Karl Strölin gave an account of the meeting after the war. So here we are getting hearsay (Stroelin), put through Young's filter; see Rommel_myth. Pages 1032 onwards are cited to Hans Speidel, in whose interest it was to portray Rommel as an active participant (see below).

This passage is cited to Shirer, but no page is provided so I cannot verify what parts are cited to him, vs Evans:


 * While Stülpnagel was being treated, he blurted out Rommel's name. A few days later, Stülpnagel's personal adviser, Caesar von Hofacker, admitted under gruesome torture that Rommel was an active member of the conspiracy. The extent to which Rommel had been involved has been debated, but many historians have concluded that he at least knew of the plot and accepted it even if he wasn't involved directly, and made no effort to warn Hitler that he had been marked for death. Hitler, however, knew it would cause a major scandal on the home front to have the popular Rommel publicly branded as a traitor. With this in mind, he opted to give Rommel the option of suicide via cyanide or a public trial by Freisler's People's Court. Had Rommel chosen to stand trial, his family would have been severely punished even before the all-but-certain conviction and execution, and would have been executed along with his staff. Rommel was well aware that being hauled before the People's Court was tantamount to a death sentence.  He also got word that the SS had his village surrounded, meaning that he would have likely been murdered before he even made it to Berlin.  With this in mind, he committed suicide on 14 October 1944. He was buried with full military honours; his role in the conspiracy did not come to light until after the war.

Contemporary sources (Reuth, Caddick-Adams, Kitchen, etc), argue that Rommel was not aware of a planned attempt on Hitler's life and it was a complete shock to him. So stating, in Wikidia's voice, that "many historians have concluded that he at least knew of the plot and accepted it even if he wasn't involved directly, and made no effort to warn Hitler that he had been marked for death" is incorrect. For example, Russel A. Hart writes:


 * The true extent of Rommel's involvement is very difficult to ascertain. ... His involvement remains ambiguous and unclear, but clearly it was much more minor than both his Gestapo inquisitors and many historians have subsequently concluded. In reality, Rommel was not a member of the 20 July plot, abhorred assassination, was only superficially connected to anti-Hitler resistance, and, therefore, it's highly improbable that he would have actively aided the coup of 20 July if he had not been incapacitated. Much of the legend of Rommel's involvement stems from his postwar hagiography, linked to two of his closest staff officers and confidantes: his chief of staff, Speidel, and his naval advisor, vice-admiral Friedrich Ruge. Etc.

So I think Rommel's role in in the plot is part of the post-war myth-making, unfortunately. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is clear the matter is not clear cut; I believe the quote should be removed about "saving Germany". I checked Evans and he does not say much about it; more in passing as to Rommel on page 642 - only stating: "known about the conspiracy but not approved of it, had nevertheless told Hitler to his face he should bring the war to an end." Kershaw mentions the written implication and the fact Rommel does not deny it. (p. 875) Evans and Kershaw are well regarded, objective sources.
 * We should write something like: The true extent of Rommel's involvement is "difficult to ascertain" and unclear. (add cite) Journalist and author William L. Shirer claims Rommel not only knew about the plot but was involved to the extent, he thought Hitler should be arrested and placed on trial. (cite) Historian Richard Evans concluded that he at least knew of a plot, but was not involved. (add cites - p. 642) Other contemporary sources argue that Rommel was not aware of this planned attempt on Hitler's life and it was a complete shock to him. (add cites) That is about the best we can do, I believe, per the RS sources given. Kierzek (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that Shirer is worth keeping -- his writing is based on accounts from the participants (who had different motivations, some possibly self-serving, as in the case of Speidel). Hart argues that Speidel himself had a rather superficial connection to the Berlin leaders of the 20 July plot. In contrast, Hart writes that when the latter group wrote to Allen Dulles on 16 May, they were not aware of any support from Rommel. They informed the Western Allies that Rommel could not be counted on to support the conspiracy. Hart considers this the strongest proof that Rommel never committed to the plot.


 * I'm reworking the Erwin Rommel 20 July section now; I'll see what the reaction is. Coincidently, Rommel is not mentioned in the German resistance to Nazism article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting reading therein. Kierzek (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we have to note the uncertainty. Ideally, plots have to be based on a need-to-know basis, but the reality is, people talk, and it is impossible to construct a conspiracy without communication. I think it's clear that many people in the German military had heard whispers that something was happening. It seems clear that Rommel was one of those. If he knew, and did nothing, that was highly significant: a general acquiescing to mutiny, to a coup d'etat. The problem with only using recent authors is that history tends to go in waves of revisionism. Historians now are picking holes in the icon of Rommel the resistance icon. But, in fact, we really don't know. The historians themselves are "self-serving", in that they are making a name for themselves by staking out new historiographical territory. I think Kierzek's suggestion is good.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Many in the military knew, for example Rundstedt (Gerd_von_Rundstedt and Manstein. They chose not to betray the plotters, which is also significant, but they are not listed in the article as participants. It's one thing to possibly support the idea and do nothing, and another to actively participate. The language can be tweaked, sure, to reflect the uncertainty and the wide perception (perhaps erroneous) that Rommel was actively involved. But to have Rommel's portrait in the gallery and a section "Rommel's car strafed" could be misleading, no? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It needs to be mentioned why he was at home and recovering; but I agree not in a separate section; and I agree his photo should be removed. The way it is presented in the Rommel main article could be used, copy edited over and condensed down (with cites). I do agree with Jack Upland that "we have to note the uncertainty" and that one cannot place all faith in "...only using recent authors [in] that history tends to go in waves of revisionism". Kierzek (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's the suggested condensed section from Erwin Rommel:

Rommel and 20 July Plot

 * The role that Rommel played in the military's resistance against Hitler or the 20 July plot is extremely difficult to ascertain, as people most directly involved did not survive and limited documentation on the conspirators' plans and preparations exists. Thus, Rommel's participation remains ambiguous and the perception of it largely has its source in the subsequent events (especially Rommel's forced suicide) and the post-war accounts by surviving participants. What is known is that Rommel vehemently opposed assassination and that he was in favor of negotiating with the Western Allies.


 * According to a post-war account by Karl Strölin, the Oberbürgermeister of Stuttgart at that time, he and two other conspirators, Alexander von Falkenhausen and Carl Heinrich von Stülpnagel began efforts to bring Rommel into the anti-Hitler conspiracy in early 1944. On 15 April 1944 Rommel's new chief of staff, Hans Speidel, arrived in Normandy and reintroduced Rommel to Stülpnagel. Speidel had previously been connected to Carl Goerdeler, the civilian leader of the resistance, but not to the plotters led by Stauffenberg, and only came to the attention of Stauffenberg due to his appointment to Rommel's headquarters. The conspirators felt they needed the support of a field marshal on active duty, and gave instructions to Speidel to bring Rommel into their circle.


 * Speidel met with former foreign minister Konstantin von Neurath and Strölin on 27 May in Germany, ostensibly at Rommel's request, although the latter was not present. Neurath and Strölin suggested opening immediate surrender negotiations in the West, and, according to Speidel, Rommel agreed to further discussions and preparations. Around the same timeframe, however, the plotters in Berlin were not aware that Rommel had allegedly decided to take part in the conspiracy. On 16 May, they informed Allen Dulles, through whom they hoped to negotiate with the Western Allies, that Rommel could not be counted on for support.


 * Rommel opposed assassinating Hitler. After the war, his widow maintained that Rommel believed an assassination attempt would spark civil war. Instead, Rommel allegedly suggested that Hitler be arrested and brought to trial for his crimes, however improbably this plan would have been given the extremely tight security around Hitler. There is no credible evidence that Rommel committed to this plan.


 * After the failed bomb attack of 20 July, many conspirators were arrested and the dragnet expanded to thousands. Consequently, it did not take long for Rommel to come under suspicion. Rommel was primarily implicated through his connection to Kluge. Rommel's name also came up in forced confessions by Stülpnagel and Hofacker, and was included in Goerdeler's papers on a list of potential supporters.

It's difficult to write a conclusion, but this Note # 60, from Disobedience and Conspiracy in the German Army, 1918-1945 , seems to summarise it well. On an interesting note, I came across this 1964 book Nemesis of Power by John Wheeler-Bennett. He seems to be retelling the Strölin/Speidel accounts, and then a bit further down (p. 609), says "Such is the first part of the Rommel Saga of the Resistance, and it is full of problems for the historian". Anyone has it on hand? It would be interesting to compare to Shirer as these two books came out almost at the same time.

Here's what I have from the sources:


 * Referencing Russell Hart's analysis in the 2014 book Rommel Reconsidered, Ian Becket argues that "there is no credible evidence that Rommel had more than limited and superficial knowledge of the plot" and concludes that Rommel would not have acted to aid the plotters on 20 July. Klaus Naumann, former chief of staff of the Bundeswehr, writes "He was not part of the German resistance against Adolf Hitler", while Ralf Georg Reuth contends that "there was no indication of any active participation of Rommel in the conspiracy, and apparently none was assumed" (by Hitler or Kaltenbrunner who led the investigated into the plot).

Thoughts/improvements? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, I will adjust the gallery to remove Rommel's portrait. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * How about this: The extent of Rommel's involvement in the military's resistance against Hitler or the 20 July plot is difficult to ascertain, as people most directly involved did not survive and limited documentation on the conspirators' plans and preparations exists. Thus, Rommel's participation remains ambiguous and the perception of it largely has its source in the subsequent events (especially Rommel's forced suicide) and the post-war accounts by surviving participants.


 * According to a post-war account by Karl Strölin, the Oberbürgermeister of Stuttgart at that time, he and two other conspirators, Alexander von Falkenhausen and Carl Heinrich von Stülpnagel began efforts to bring Rommel into the anti-Hitler conspiracy in early 1944. On 15 April 1944 Rommel's new chief of staff, Hans Speidel, arrived in Normandy and reintroduced Rommel to Stülpnagel. Speidel had previously been connected to Carl Goerdeler, the civilian leader of the resistance, but not to the plotters led by Stauffenberg, and only came to the attention of Stauffenberg due to his appointment to Rommel's headquarters. The conspirators felt they needed the support of a field marshal on active duty, and gave instructions to Speidel to bring Rommel into their circle.


 * Speidel met with former foreign minister Konstantin von Neurath and Strölin on 27 May in Germany, ostensibly at Rommel's request, although the latter was not present. Neurath and Strölin suggested opening immediate surrender negotiations in the West, and, according to Speidel, Rommel agreed to further discussions and preparations. Around the same timeframe, however, the plotters in Berlin were not aware that Rommel had reportedly decided to take part in the conspiracy. On 16 May, they informed Allen Dulles, through whom they hoped to negotiate with the Western Allies, that Rommel could not be counted on for support.


 * Rommel opposed assassinating Hitler. After the war, his widow maintained that Rommel believed an assassination attempt would spark a civil war. According to Journalist and author William L. Shirer, Rommel not only knew about the conspiracy but was involved to the extent that he thought Hitler should be arrested and placed on trial. Ian Becket argues that "there is no credible evidence that Rommel had more than limited and superficial knowledge of the plot" and concludes that Rommel would not have acted to aid the plotters for this attempt of 20 July, while Ralf Georg Reuth contends that "there was no indication of any active participation of Rommel in the conspiracy." Historian Richard Evans concluded that he knew of a plot, but was not involved.


 * What is not debated to the results of the failed bomb plot of 20 July. Many conspirators were arrested and the dragnet expanded to thousands. Consequently, it did not take long for Rommel to come under suspicion. Rommel was primarily implicated through his connection to Kluge. Rommel's name also came up in forced confessions by Stülpnagel and Hofacker, and was included in Goerdeler's papers on a list of potential supporters.


 * I think this sums it up. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I added a couple of sentences to the second to last para in the above to balance out Shirer, and did some c/e. I find the Shirer statement a bit awkward, as in "...not only knew about the conspiracy but was involved to the extent that he thought ..." --"thinking" is not being involved, and also the idea of having Hitler arrested was pure fantasy at that stage. In the pages of Nemesis of Power that I was able to see it's discussed that the idea of Hitler's forced abdication was the pre-Stalingrad variant of the plan, long abandoned by the bomb plotters, due to its zero chance of success. So giving that idea weight via Shirer (who's relating Strolin's / Speidel's account) is problematic, IMO. If the statement about the arrest is kept, I suggest balancing it out with the language I had above, along the lines of "Instead, Rommel allegedly suggested that Hitler be arrested and brought to trial for his crimes, however improbably this plan would have been given the extremely tight security around Hitler."


 * Reuth, Hart, etc argue that Rommel was not aware that an attempt to kill Hitler was imminent, only that he'd not be opposed if a change of regime did occur. They appear to suggest that Rommel was even less in the plotters' camp than Kluge. Thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it a little, as we don't want there to be WP:Undue weight given to certain opinion. See what you gentlemen think. Kierzek (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm having issue with this statement:
 * Rommel opposed assassinating Hitler. After the war, his widow maintained that Rommel believed an assassination attempt would spark a civil war. According to Journalist and author William L. Shirer, Rommel not only knew about the conspiracy but was involved to the extent that he thought Hitler should be arrested and placed on trial.

especially because the conspiracy, as discussed in the article—the bomb plot, did not include the idea of arresting Hitler and putting him on trial. So it looks incongruent. How about:


 * Rommel opposed assassinating Hitler. After the war, his widow maintained that Rommel believed an assassination attempt would spark a civil war. According to journalist and author William L. Shirer, Rommel knew about the conspiracy and advocated that Hitler be arrested and placed on trial.

Thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's good. Kierzek (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will rework to move Rommel-related content into one area. Probably will need to add a couple of sentence why he's being discussed -- i.e. it was presumed he had an active role, but the current state of research is that the situation was much more ambiguous. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)