Would Rommel be a War Criminal?

[David Thompson]

Penn44 -- To hold Rommel responsible for the actions of the 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend" at Normandy, it would be necessary to show (1) that he was aware that the unit had committed war crimes; and (2) that notwithstanding that knowledge, he refused to investigate the allegations or take measures to curb or prevent further atrocities. I haven't seen anything yet to indicate that Rommel was aware of the incidents. Do you have more information on this issue?

kamehouse -- We're not really interested in agitprop here, much less unsourced agitprop. Our readers come here for information, not for undocumented points of view. I'm usually fairly tolerant, but you're laying it on a little thick in your post. Have a look at the section rules for how things operate here:

H&WC Section Rules
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962

[dabbydo]

The war crimes trials consisted of a four point indictment.
1. Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace.
2. Planning, initiating, and waging wars of aggression.
3. War crimes.
4. Crimes against humanity.

For information on the war crimes trials go to http://www4.justiz.bayern.de/olgn/imt/imte.htm

There are also links for good sources on the trials here.

I'm going to summarize my position and then shut my mouth.(You're welcome!)

Would Rommel be a war criminal? No.

David

[Penn44]

Penn44 -- To hold Rommel responsible for the actions of the 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend" at Normandy, it would be necessary to show (1) that he was aware that the unit had committed war crimes; and (2) that notwithstanding that knowledge, he refused to investigate the allegations or take measures to curb or prevent further atrocities. I haven't seen anything yet to indicate that Rommel was aware of the incidents. Do you have more information on this issue?

David:

No, I do not. I was actually thinking of the US military's relative free wheeling use of the concept of command authority at the Yamashita trial. I agree with your points one and two, but would add a third, "what the commander should have known because a commander has the responsibility to know what his troops are doing." I think this third point is highly dubious from a military and from a legal point of view, and as you know, subsequently downplayed since Yamashita. However, had Rommel lived, and had the western Allies wanted to try him, the Yamashita trial and the concept of command authority at that trial certainly had set some legal precedence, at least for the very early postwar years. However, among several reasons, I think Rommel's popularity with the Allied public would have kept him from being tried.
See Richard A. Lael's The Yamashita Precedent: War Crimes and Command Authority.

Was Rommel in command of any Waffen SS formations in May 1944? If I remember correctly from a case on file in the National Archives, in May 1944 elements of the 17th SS PGD allegedly participated in the killing of French civilians in reprisals for French resistance activities. If the 17th SS PGD was under Rommel's command at the time, I wonder what knowledge Rommel had of the activities of the formations.

Who was in command of these anti-partisan activities in France? Rommel or the HSSPF? If these W-SS were detached from Rommel's control, and attached to the area HSSPF's control then Rommel did not have any command authority over the actions of these units. If, however, these units remained under Rommel's control while they participated in these operations, Rommel had a responsibility to supervise their activities and act to prevent or punish war crimes.

Penn44

.
.

[David Thompson]

Penn44 -- I agree with you about the third point. See "The Ghost of Tomoyuki Yamashita" at
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 655#124655

[kamehouse]

kamehouse -- We're not really interested in agitprop here, much less unsourced agitprop. Our readers come here for information, not for undocumented points of view. I'm usually fairly tolerant, but you're laying it on a little thick in your post. Have a look at the section rules for how things operate here:

H&WC Section Rules
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962[/quote]
Ouch that must be my 4th post and got told off already.
Sorry i just wanted to point out we all know what the 12th has done as atrocities(otherwise we wouldn't be in these forum) and thought that remind it was not putting the discussion forward at this point.
The incident i mentionned was in "Grenadiers" by Kurt Meyer.Page 233 stackpole books.
I don't believe it's first account(Meyer was a bit busy at the time with the war to lose and all) but if he wrote it i,it should be taken into consideration?
Anyway sorry again.
So many rules so little time.
Regards,
K

[phippsaw]

Bit late to reply but he was a Nazi supporter initially as was virtually most military men of the era in Germany. I did my exam thesis on him years ago at school and even interviewed 2 ex Desert Rats about him. Both had immense respect for him. I don't think we will ever get the exact truth about his support or lack of lack for the 20th July plot but war criminal, No way. The post war navy even named a warship after him.. not the actions of a government concerned about supposed war crimes.....Rommel, The Bogey man...

[LineDoggie]

Let's say this: Field Marshal Erwin Rommel does not commit suicide and he survives the war. But, here is my question: would he have been tried for War Crimes? If so, what would his sentence hace been?

Em.

I find it amusing the OP has been arrested for assaulting federal agents and is a wannabe jihadist. just sentenced to 8.5 years in federal penitentiary


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/1 ... 05876.html

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/07/18/wa ... erm-video/


And No Rommel was not a war criminal

[seaburn]

Wow ...sad but very sinister. Well spotted !

[Marv Steinhagen]

I know this REALLY late (I just found this site). Even if Rommel had not ordered or participated in crimes. he could have been charged with making unlawful war on other nations. Others at Nuremburg were so charged.

[Marv Steinhagen]

Had Rommel survived WWII I believe he would have stood trial @ Nuremburg. He did "make unjustified war" on Deutschland's neighbors. Others were indicted for that reason. Convicted? Probably. Executed? I like to think not. Imprisoned? Again probably. Died in his own bed? Maybe.

[shamirnewell]

Had Rommel survived WWII I believe he would have stood trial @ Nuremburg. He did "make unjustified war" on Deutschland's neighbors. Others were indicted for that reason. Convicted? Probably. Executed? I like to think not. Imprisoned? Again probably. Died in his own bed? Maybe.

Take a look at this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Command_Trial

I am pretty sure that this proceeding would have been the closest that could have indicted Rommel under your statement that he made unjustified war.

Note that the men indicted were all senior staff or army commanders. Hoth, Rommels CO in France was indicted. But Hoth or none of the others were convicted on count 1 and were convicted based on actions or plans on the eastern front.

I can find no evidence to support even an indictment of Rommel on the three other counts.

Guderian and Manstein were not indicted, although they surely could have for actions on the eastern front. I am pretty sure they mistreated prisoners and or cooperated with "security" measures.

Rommel was way down the chain of command to be indicted on count 1. I can find no evidence of criminal behavior to justify anything else.

[Sarge3525]

I am not a legal expert but for fun here is my comment on this.
Numerous field marshals were tried for crimes or alleged crimes which the units they commanded partook in.
So the question is did divisions under Rommel commit warcrimes?

Rommel's first major division command was that of the 7th Panzer division, which participated in the French 1940 campaign.
This is the famous "Ghost division" which often overran French lines before they found out the division was even upon them.
There are major war crimes this division and its sister division the 5th Panzer division are accused of taking part in, during the French 1940 campaign. Essentially they massacred Black French colonial troops. This is detailed in Raffael Scheck's study book "Hitler's African victims" but I have not read it. These crimes are well documented.
These crimes are "interesting" for another reason, that it was Wehrmacht troops not SS troops who committed them. But this is for another discussion at another time.

Then there is his overall command of the Afrika Korps and the entirety of the African campaign.
From what I gather this was a pretty clean campaign altogether with no major crimes to deplore.

Finally he led Army Group B for one year (July 1943- July 1944), where he was involved in Italy (1943) and France Atlantic wall (1944). Army Group B included II SS Panzer Corps, so he had under his command units like SS Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler.

All these units committed more or less war crimes, especially SS divisions.
So its obvious to me Rommel would be at a trial and for a long time in prison, similar to other Field Marshals like Goering, Kesserling, etc. He would be held responsible for the crimes committed under his command.

What I find more interesting is how much he knew of the crimes?
This is irrelevant from legal point of view, but important for us as to decide how much of a monster he was.
- In the case of Army Group B, obviously I think he knew not so much, because the group consisted an immense amount of forces, and he was concerned only about overall strategy.
- In the case of Africa, I do not know any major war crimes committed by the AK.
- So the real interesting and suspicious case is the 7th Panzer division command, because in that case he really was in direct command of only one division, so he knew and decided what was going on.

I am quite sure the French would have tried him for the murders of Black troops by the 7th Panzer.

[Marv Steinhagen]

Thanks for the replies. It would be interesting to know what a legal scholar would have to say on this subject. One thing soldiers have not learned, if you are going to do something questionable don't make selfies doing it. Witness abu gareb (sic). NAZIes provided much of the evidence for their own convictions themselves.

[David Thompson]

As for a charge of "aggressive war," or crimes against peace, the requirements are covered in detail in this thread:

Crimes Against Peace (Waging Aggressive War)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=21755

and summarized (to the extent that the subject can be summarized) in the posting at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 42#p187342

Note that the charge requires more than knowledge and participation in a conflict; the defendant must be in a decision-making capacity in planning for the war. Note also that not all wars meet the definition of "aggressive war."