• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

A problem with the book "Rommel" by Charles Messenger

Klaus

Grizzled Veteran
Feb 22, 2006
803
188
99
Israel, Tel-Aviv
front11.jpg


I recently got myself this book to read, as I enjoy reading biographies like this. Now, Charles Messenger from what I know is supposed to be a proffesional writer.
It maybe a fault in translation (As I am reading it in hebrew) but something I read in the first chapter kinda bothered me. Perhaps if anyone read it in english, they could tell me if it is indeed the translation or do I need to send an angry email to mister messenger.
Just afew pages before the 2nd chapter, the book says (and im translating this from hebrew):
"...Towards the Jews, Rommel did not have any personal hate, But he realized their double loyalties are a problem..."

Now, if it would've said that Rommel thought the jews have double loyalties, I would be ok with it.. but the book describes it as if it was a fact the "jews had double loyalties". It is a known fact that many many jews in Germany pre-war saw themselves as Germans like everyone, many even voted for Hitler. Thus it bothers me when it is pointed out like a fact in this book.
What do you guys think?
 
In the English version (I'm reading it now) that passage reads somewhat differently.

Rommel said:
As for the Jews, Rommel had no personal enmity toward them, but he did understand that there was a question over their divided loyalties.


I think this might be a case of extremely piss-poor translation. The whole character of the text is changed. Completely changed.
 
Upvote 0
In the English version (I'm reading it now) that passage reads somewhat differently.




I think this might be a case of extremely piss-poor translation. The whole character of the text is changed. Completely changed.

Still, what divided loyalties? the text in both my version and yours make it feel as if they were unloyal to germany or atleast had questionable loyalty
 
Upvote 0
Still, what divided loyalties? the text in both my version and yours make it feel as if they were unloyal to germany or atleast had questionable loyalty

As Antisemitism was nothing new to Germany in the late 20's and early 30's and a broad base of the population didn't like jews it is at last understandable for a military person to be at last aware of dangers rising from this, even if the jews were not expelled from any activity or military service at that time.
 
Upvote 0
As Antisemitism was nothing new to Germany in the late 20's and early 30's and a broad base of the population didn't like jews it is at last understandable for a military person to be at last aware of dangers rising from this, even if the jews were not expelled from any activity or military service at that time.
You entirely misunderstood what I was talking about
 
Upvote 0
Klaus said:
Now, if it would've said that Rommel thought the jews have double loyalties, I would be ok with it.. but the book describes it as if it was a fact the "jews had double loyalties". It is a known fact that many many jews in Germany pre-war saw themselves as Germans like everyone, many even voted for Hitler. Thus it bothers me when it is pointed out like a fact in this book.

Klaus said:
Still, what divided loyalties? the text in both my version and yours make it feel as if they were unloyal to germany or atleast had questionable loyalty




Your Hebrew translation implies that the author believes that there were divided loyalties, and that Rommel accepted that there were divided loyalties. The English original text states that Rommel accepted that there were questions being asked about the divided loyalties.

It IS a generally accepted fact that questions were being asked about whether or not a Jew could be a loyal German. It's a bull**** question, yeah ... just like it's a bull**** question to ask whether a Catholic can be a loyal citizen, because of their divided loyalties. But the questions were asked.

So, it's a case of bad translation. The essential character of the statement has been changed.
 
Upvote 0
Yeah, it is trying to say what Peter.Steele is saying. For example, when JFK was running for president here, people were wondering if he would be more loyal to the US or to the Pope (since he was Catholic). Of course those people were just being paranoid. People always question the loyalties of other groups, hell look back at the Passover story where the Egyptians are all like "Oh noes in a few years there will be a lot of Jews and if there is a war they will join our enemies D:!!!!"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You entirely misunderstood what I was talking about

I take it you would you have expected the passage to read either -

"...Towards the Jews, Rommel did not have any personal hate, But he considered them to have double loyalties, which was to him a problem..."

or
"...Towards the Jews, Rommel did not have any personal hate, But he realized the double loyalties of some was a problem..."

or
"...Towards the Jews, Rommel did not have any personal hate, But he realized the potential for double loyalties to be a problem..."

ie, the passage in it's orgional form suggests all (i presume German) Jews had double loyalties - irrespective Rommel's viewpoint.

Peter's post is prob correct in suggesting a translation issue, but i agree even the english text isn't clear over the origin and validity of the loyalty argument
 
Upvote 0
I take it you would you have expected the passage to read either -

"...Towards the Jews, Rommel did not have any personal hate, But he considered them to have double loyalties, which was to him a problem..."

or
"...Towards the Jews, Rommel did not have any personal hate, But he realized the double loyalties of some was a problem..."

or
"...Towards the Jews, Rommel did not have any personal hate, But he realized the potential for double loyalties to be a problem..."

ie, the passage in it's orgional form suggests all (i presume German) Jews had double loyalties - irrespective Rommel's viewpoint.

Peter's post is prob correct in suggesting a translation issue, but i agree even the english text isn't clear over the origin and validity of the loyalty argument

Thats the thing, in this paragraph you could go from the worse, an antisemitic remark and to "questionable remark" at best.
I expected more from Charles Messenger.
I think I would send an email, see what they have to say for themslevs
 
Upvote 0
Just for the sake of context, here's a larger selection of the text that surrounds that sentence.


Charles Messenger said:
Apart from the rapid expansion of the German armed forces, the years 1936–1938 saw the country increasingly flexing its muscles. This began in March 1936 when Hitler broke the last shackle of Versailles by marching his troops into the demilitarized Rhineland. This was a gamble. The army was still undergoing a rapid expansion, and little of it was operationally prepared should the French and British choose to oppose the move, which they did not. Hitler’s next target was Austria. He struck in March 1938 and again achieved a bloodless coup and incorporated that country into the Third Reich. There is no doubt that Rommel, like many others of his countrymen, was impressed by Hitler’s boldness. While he was not a Nazi per se, Rommel did attend indoctrination courses and clearly supported many of the National Socialist objectives. As a patriot he was fully behind Hitler’s aim to make Germany great again, especially by restoring its pre-1914 borders. The social reforms designed to restore full employment also met with his approval. All this outweighed the often thuggish behavior of the SS and SA. As for the Jews, Rommel had no personal enmity toward them, but he did understand that there was a question over their divided loyalties. He also supported Hitler’s demand that his soldiers should be political and be prepared to fight for National Socialist policies. Yet Rommel saw this in the context of motivating his soldiers rather than making them into Nazis. Like his peers, he had sworn an oath of personal loyalty to Hitler, and in the German military code such an oath could not be broken. It was very much “My country, right or wrong,” and raises a question about the degree to which soldiers of any country, as servants of the state, should support a regime that clearly has an evil streak in it.
 
Upvote 0
Just for the sake of context, here's a larger selection of the text that surrounds that sentence.

I feel like I am grinding water here but ill go at it again: "...but he did understand that there was a question over their divided loyalties..."
The quote clearly indicates that jews had divided loyalties which they didnt. I realize this is hardly whats important in this chapter but it does bother me that it is stated like a fact in the book.
 
Upvote 0
I feel like I am grinding water here but ill go at it again: "...but he did understand that there was a question over their divided loyalties..."
The quote clearly indicates that jews had divided loyalties which they didnt. I realize this is hardly whats important in this chapter but it does bother me that it is stated like a fact in the book.




Oh, for [insert deity name]'s sake.

THIS TEXT, IN THE ORIGINAL ENGLISH, DOES NOT INDICATE THAT JEWS WERE DISLOYAL OR HAD DIVIDED LOYALTIES OR WERE ANYTHING BUT GOOD GERMANS. IT INDICATES THAT THERE WERE PEOPLE IN GERMANY THAT QUESTIONED THEIR LOYALTY. IT FURTHER STATES THAT ROMMEL ACCEPTED THAT THERE WERE QUESTIONS.

The text, translated into Hebrew, changes the character of this statement. This translation was quite poorly done.


(Incidentally, you grind gears. You tread water.)
 
Upvote 0
Oh, for [insert deity name]'s sake.

THIS TEXT, IN THE ORIGINAL ENGLISH, DOES NOT INDICATE THAT JEWS WERE DISLOYAL OR HAD DIVIDED LOYALTIES OR WERE ANYTHING BUT GOOD GERMANS. IT INDICATES THAT THERE WERE PEOPLE IN GERMANY THAT QUESTIONED THEIR LOYALTY. IT FURTHER STATES THAT ROMMEL ACCEPTED THAT THERE WERE QUESTIONS.

The text, translated into Hebrew, changes the character of this statement. This translation was quite poorly done.


(Incidentally, you grind gears. You tread water.)

ok i understand now, thank you :D
 
Upvote 0
RE: Divided Loyalties...

I read it as Peter.Steele expresses it.

But none the less, wouldn't that be referring to loyalty between country (and in particular with Hitler and the National Socialists policies) and religious doctrine? Very plausible concern, imo. Apparently, in his own heart, even Rommel was not on board 100% with the movement.

And the author qualifies both:
It was very much
 
Upvote 0
Even among the integrated German Jews there was still the Zionist movement, the desire for a Jewish Israel. Ultranationalists naturally condemned Zionism as traitorous to Germany (nevermind the belief that a Jewish Israel would become some kind of nerve center for the world wide conspiracy). Rommel did not hate Jews, in fact he risked his own neck to save them among the prisoners captured during the African campaign, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that he may have questioned "some" (however many that may be) Jews' self-identity and how that translated into their political beliefs. And that's not even taking into consideration Judaism as a religion. You know, it wasn't just the Nazis that thought of the Jews as a race or a "nation".

I think that the author of the book was probably trying to state Rommel's fairness without gushing over him and in the process, created a confusing statement about Jewish loyalty.

On the topic of Rommel and his behaviour in the war, I think the only real blemish you'll find is the use of slave labour in the construction of the Atlantic Wall, but that wasn't his decision to make.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You entirely misunderstood what I was talking about

No I did not, I was just pointing out that that sentence did not state that he himself didn't like jews, but knew there were problems arising due to the political direction most people and the politics took.

I was basically pointing out the possible context behind his thinking.
 
Upvote 0
show me a link to the hebrew book thanks

show me a link to the hebrew book thanks

Your Hebrew translation implies that the author believes that there were divided loyalties, and that Rommel accepted that there were divided loyalties. The English original text states that Rommel accepted that there were questions being asked about the divided loyalties.

It IS a generally accepted fact that questions were being asked about whether or not a Jew could be a loyal German. It's a bull**** question, yeah ... just like it's a bull**** question to ask whether a Catholic can be a loyal citizen, because of their divided loyalties. But the questions were asked.

So, it's a case of bad translation. The essential character of the statement has been changed.
show me link to book in hebrew thanx sam
 
Upvote 0