Dear author,

I’ve found this interesting article just a day ago.
I have been an enthusiast amateur researcher of military history since I’ve learned reading some 33 years ago.
Let me please share my thoughts about the topic with you.
I think there are several reasons why the war in the North-African theater at that time could have really happen to be a “Krieg ohne Hass”, a war without hate.
First of all, the adversaries (it is not by chance I do not write of enemies) were the citizens of two militant nations: The British Empire and Germany, both countries(and of course their ancestor states/empires) being notable for their long record of wars waged against an astonishingly high number of enemy countries/empires througout their history.
So at the time of the North African campaign, two professional armies composed of soldiers of two highly military-minded nations had to face their adversary, for which their felt a high degree of respect, not lastly for the above mentioned reason. In this two countries, military career was a nation-wide respected occupation. When it came to granting higher military ranks and promotions, both countries were known to be highly conservative and restrictive in the sense that only a relatively low percentage of their middle to high-rank officers came from the lower social classes.
This means that quite all the officers had ties with the aristocracy of their country and had been educated to behave as per the ancient code of chivalry and soldierly honour.
Another important reason for the opponents to behave as you mentioned in yor article was the fact that Germans considered the British to be a “German-originated”, or “Germanly” or “German-like”, but whichever was the expression to be used, in all respects an ARIAN, pure nation.
One of the reasons of the horrific war crimes committed by both sides on a daily bases on the eastern front was the fact that the Germans considered the Russians and all the other inhatbitants of the Soviet Union to be inferior arians (”untermensch”), to be treated at maximum as slaves, but in most cases like talking animals. The Soviets, on the other hand considered all Germans to be “fascist beasts” and treated them like that, once facing them in battle or captivity.
The third reason for the described kind of “chivalric contest” between the Germans and British I suppose is the fact that neither parties had to battle the other on their home-ground. Even without wishing to diminish the significance and losses for both involved parties during the long years of hard fightings of the theater, it could be compared to the fightings between two medieval aristocratic armies composed of knights and paladins for a third county or barony.
In your article you write about Feldmarschal Rommel’s deeds and chivalric behaviour. Although Rommel was not born in an aristocratic family, (this was one of the reasons why some German generals did unlike him, like von Arnim, an old aristocrat leading another army of the African theater) I think he had an innate sense of honor, paired with a superb military education from his quite early years of life, that brought him to be arguably the most respected military leader of WWII by all participants. Besides being a very good tactician, Rommel is known being the first, or one of the first modern military leaders willingly and very efiiciently employing PR and contemporary media in building his reputation of an inerring, invincible general.
Perhaps some of his chivalric deeds were exagerated and/or augmented during the process, but there are several real and controlled proofs of his deeds and conduct.
In his book “Krieg ohne Hass” he has written about his esteem of the British as individual soldiers more than once…

By Toerpoerdoeg on Aug 20, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Interesting question Steven.

The chivalrous conduct experienced in North Africa apparently was based upon a common respect that each side had
for their enemy. Both were world powers that previously combatted each other in WWI, and that loss stuck hard in
many German’s minds. They knew they had a formidable adversary, yet the advancements they made since that
first confrontation was indeed astounding and confidence ran high.

However, the Germans’ other enemies included the Poles, Slavs and of course the Jews. These peoples did not earn
the “respect” of the Germans, who looked down upon these groups as vermin.

Even Hitler harbored chivalrous traits, oddly favoring single shot rifles to machine guns, which he perceived as
cowardly. Valor counted against a respected foe, however, those he viewed as parasites could be brutally dealt with.
Hitler was temporarily blinded in WWI by mustard gas, and knew how horrible and inhumane that was. Yet, he
condone its use on exterminating the Jews. Here is where the deep belief in a foe being inferior vermin or even
hostile to one’s own superior “Aryan” existence takes precedence, and turns ugly.

You mention the war against Iraq, or in essence radical Islam, and this is based upon religious beliefs that are extremely deep rooted. The Koran clearly states that all infidels should be smitten at their necks. Therefore, Daniel
Pearl’s horrible and disgusting death should not come as a shock to those that “read and know” what the Koran truly
professes. A command from a highly sacred and allegedly irrefutable source is not something that will instill
chivalrous behavior in its warriors.

Radical Muslims view Americans as vermin and parasites just like Hitler viewed the Jews. That volatile core belief
system is noxious and deadly, hence why the war against radical Islam is going to be nasty business. When “some”
Americans see their comrades butchered it incites that primal response, which we don’t wish to see. In another light,
however, that is actually a Biblical response, an eye for an eye. Here too, the Germans and British eventually
condoned bombing innocent civilians in cities in lieu of military installations. It got progressively worse with the
“eye for an eye” mentality. So just how do humans gain a proper perspective when even holy scriptures profess
baffling and brutal actions? Hence, “all” of our sources need to be seriously examined.

However, suicide bombers that kill innocent civilians or random attacks that brutally decapitate Christians or Jews
will be the order of the day for this current battle. Unpleasant and unfortunate, but that appears to be the grim
reality. Fortunately, most Muslims do not practice those brutal passages, yet their silence does not help the radicals
in their midst that are fermenting. A message of tolerance and active grooming by peaceful Muslims would be far
more effective than a message of tolerance emanating from the Christian or Jewish infidels. Hence, the peaceful
Muslim community has a responsibility, and they too must take action if things are to change.

My recent book “The Winds of Time” covers a great deal of history and analyzes the titans that shaped Western
civilization. During that treatise the book touches upon various impetuses and ideologies that caused various wars
throughout Western history, as well as the many great deeds that we should all examine and emulate. Yet, the fight
for survival is always ugly business, and if we learn one major lesson from history, it’s that irreconcilable differences
have always been a part of mankind, and conflict will always be a part of our existence. The day that every human
being believes in the same god or the same form of government or truly believes that our different-looking,
different-speaking earthly brothers are equals is the day that we all will reside in Heaven….as Paradise (World
Peace) never has and never will exist on Earth.

Not to leave off on such a negative note…there is much hope. In fact a great deal of hope, as we can learn a great deal
by studying great leaders. There are many to chose from. In that regard, I applaud your efforts with Rommel, and in
enlightening us to this very honorable man, even if he was our foe. We humans may strongly disagree but if we can
at least conduct ourselves with some modicum of sanity amidst the insanity of war, that’s a plus. I look forward to
hearing your POV.

By Rich DiSilvio on Nov 3, 2008 at 2:00 pm