Influence on Panzerwaffe Following the Second World War Liddell Hart pointed out that the German
Wehrmacht adopted theories developed from those of
J. F. C. Fuller and from his own, and that it used them against the Allies in
Blitzkrieg warfare. Some scholars, such as the political scientist
John Mearsheimer, have questioned the extent of the influence which the British officers, and in particular Liddell Hart, had in the development of the method of war practised by the
Panzerwaffe in 1939–1941. During the post-war debriefs of the former Wehrmacht generals, Liddell Hart attempted to tease out his influence on their war practices. Following these interviews, many of the generals said that Liddell Hart had been an influence on their strategies, something that had not been claimed previously nor has any contemporary, pre-war, documentation been found to support their assertions. Liddell Hart thus put "words in the mouths of German Generals" with the aim, according to Mearsheimer, to "resurrect a lost reputation". Shimon Naveh, the founder and former head of the
Israel Defense Forces' Operational Theory Research Institute, stated that after World War II Liddell Hart "created" the idea of Blitzkrieg as a military doctrine: "It was the opposite of a doctrine. Blitzkrieg consisted of an avalanche of actions that were sorted out less by design and more by success." Naveh stated that, by manipulation and contrivance, Liddell Hart distorted the actual circumstances of the Blitzkrieg formation and obscured its origins. Through his indoctrinated idealization of an ostentatious concept, he reinforced the myth of Blitzkrieg. By imposing, retrospectively, his own perceptions of mobile warfare upon the shallow concept of Blitzkrieg, he created a theoretical imbroglio that has taken 40 years to unravel. In 1997, Naveh stated that in his letters to German generals
Erich von Manstein and Guderian, as well as to relatives and associates of Rommel, Liddell Hart "imposed his own fabricated version of Blitzkrieg on the latter and compelled him to proclaim it as original formula". Naveh pointed out that the edition of Guderian's memoirs published in Germany differed from the one published in the United Kingdom. Guderian neglected to mention the influence of the English theorists such as
Fuller and Liddell Hart in the German-language versions. One example of the influence of these men on Guderian was the report on the
Battle of Cambrai published by Fuller in 1920, who at the time served as a staff officer at the
Royal Tank Corps. Liddell Hart alleged that his findings and theories on armoured warfare were read and later taken in by Guderian, which thus helped to formulate the basis of operations that would become known as Blitzkrieg warfare. These tactics involved deep penetration of the armoured formations supported behind enemy lines by bomb-carrying aircraft. Dive bombers were the principal agents of delivery of high explosives in support of the forward units. Though the German version of the Guderian memoirs mentions Liddell Hart, it did not ascribe to him his role in developing the theories behind armoured warfare. An explanation for the difference between the two translations can be found in the correspondence between the two men. In one letter to Guderian, Liddell Hart reminded the German general that he should provide him the credit he was due, offering "You might care to insert a remark that I emphasise the use of armoured forces for long-range operations against the opposing Army's communications, and also the proposed type of armoured division combining Panzer and Panzer-infantry units – and that these points particularly impressed you." Richard M. Swain comments that while some arguments against Liddell Hart's thinking are deserved, Liddell Hart the man himself was not a knave and Mearsheimer's attempt of character assassination is unwarranted. Historian
Jay Luvaas commented in 1990 that Liddell Hart and Fuller did actually anticipate the role of the armoured forces in a blitzkrieg. Luvaas opined that Liddell Hart overestimated, in a sincere way, his influence on German generals, but the fact that many military leaders in Germany and other countries, including generals like
Yigal Allon and
Andre Beaufre, knew about his theories and considered his opinions as worth thinking about is true. According to Luvaas,
von Mellenthin recounted that Rommel mentioned Liddell Hart many times and had a good opinion about him – although, in Luvaas's opinion, this would not make him a pupil. Luvass saw Liddell Hart as a scholar who needed public recognition and influence, but also a naturally generous person whose efforts in building a connection to other people should not be assigned motives without evidence. Joseph Forbes dismissed the claim that Liddell Hart, Guderian and Rommel's friends and relatives were in a conspiracy to misrepresent Liddell Hart's influence as baseless insinuations, considering that: Liddell Hart's chapter on Guderian quotes Guderian as having faith in the theories of Hobart and not of Liddell Hart; the fact that
Desmond Young once recommended Liddell Hart to Manfred Rommel as a person who might help to publish his father's memoirs should not be used as proof that there was a conspiracy to give undue recognition to Liddell Hart; and the whole book
The German Generals Talk contains one statement about Liddell Hart's influence. According to
Forbes, Mearsheimer relies less on the actual text than on Frank Mahin's review, to make the claim that Hart fills the book with fabricated comments by Germans to exaggerate his role.
Role in Rommel myth Liddell Hart was instrumental in the creation of the "
Rommel myth", a view that the German field marshal
Erwin Rommel was an apolitical, brilliant commander and a victim of the
Third Reich due to his participation in the
20 July plot against
Adolf Hitler. The myth was initially fueled by
Nazi propagandists, with Rommel's participation, as a means of praising the
Wehrmacht and instilling optimism in the German public. Starting in 1941, it was picked up by the British press and disseminated in
the West as an element of explaining Britain's continued inability to defeat the
Axis forces in the
North Africa campaign. Following the war, the Western Allies, and particularly the British, depicted Rommel as the "good German" and "our friend Rommel". His reputation for conducting a clean war was used to support
West German rearmament and reconciliation between the former enemies – Britain and the United States on one side and the new
Federal Republic on the other. After the outbreak of the
Korean War in 1950, it became clear to the Americans and the British that a German army would have to be revived to help face off against the Soviet Union. Many former German officers were convinced that no future German army would be possible without the rehabilitation of the
Wehrmacht. Thus, in the atmosphere of the
Cold War, Rommel's former enemies, especially the British, played a key role in the manufacture and propagation of the myth. German rearmament was highly dependent upon an image boost that the Wehrmacht needed. Liddell Hart, an early proponent of these two interconnected initiatives, provided the first widely available source on Rommel in his 1948 book on Hitler's generals. He devoted a chapter to Rommel, portraying him as an outsider to the
Nazi regime. Additions to the chapter published in 1951 concluded with laudatory comments about Rommel's "gifts and performance" that "qualified him for a place in the role of the 'Great Captains' of history". 1953 saw the publication of Rommel's war writings in
The Rommel Papers, edited by Liddell Hart, the former Wehrmacht officer
Fritz Bayerlein, and Rommel's widow and
son, with an introduction by Liddell Hart. The historian
Mark Connelly argues that
The Rommel Papers was one of the two foundational works that lead to a "Rommel renaissance", the other being Desmond Young's biography
Rommel: The Desert Fox. The book contributed to the perception of Rommel as a brilliant commander. In an introduction, Liddell Hart drew comparisons between Rommel and
Lawrence of Arabia, "two masters of desert warfare", according to Liddell Hart. Liddell Hart's work on the book was also self-serving: he had coaxed Rommel's widow into adding material that suggested that Rommel was influenced by Liddell Hart's theories on mechanised warfare, making Rommel his "pupil" and giving Liddell Hart credit for Rommel's dramatic successes in 1940. The controversy was described by the political scientist
John Mearsheimer in his work
The Weight of History. A review of Mearsheimer's work, published by the
Strategic Studies Institute, pointed out that Mearsheimer "correctly takes 'The Captain' [Liddell Hart] to task for ... manipulating history". According to Connelly, Young and Liddell Hart laid the foundation for the Anglo-American myth, which consisted of three themes: Rommel's ambivalence towards Nazism; his military genius; and the emphasis of the chivalrous nature of the fighting in North Africa. Their works lent support to the image of the "
clean Wehrmacht" and were generally not questioned, since they came from British authors, rather than German
revisionists.
MI5 controversy On 4 September 2006,
MI5 files were released which showed that in early 1944 MI5 had suspicions that plans for the
D-Day invasion had been leaked. Liddell Hart had prepared a treatise titled
Some Reflections on the Problems of Invading the Continent which he circulated amongst political and military figures. It is possible that in his treatise Liddell Hart had correctly deduced a number of aspects of the upcoming Allied invasion, including the location of the landings. MI5 suspected that Liddell Hart had received plans of the invasion from General
Sir Alfred "Tim" Pile who was in command of Britain's anti-aircraft defences. MI5 placed him under surveillance, intercepting his telephone calls and letters. The investigation showed no suggestion that Liddell Hart was involved in any subversive activity. No case was ever brought against Pile. Liddell Hart stated his work was merely speculative. It would appear that Liddell Hart had simply perceived the same problems and arrived at similar conclusions as the Allied general staff. ==Personal life==