Thoughts Upon Finishing Part Two and the Epilogue and the Appendices

Remind me again, what was it that motivated Rohmer to write write this book? Oh, yeah, something about a Time article about Kluge’s attempt to “discuss surrender”, the Dulles book’s claim that the feldmarschall had “made a futile attempt to surrender”, Dr. Udo Esch’s recollection that Kluge “considered surrendering” and, finally, Hitler’s statement that “Feldmarschall von Kluge planned to lead the whole of the Western Army into capitulation…”

Emphasis mine.

Webster’s dictionary defines marriage as something tangentially related to surrender, capitulation and copulation. Armistice is a different thing altogether. Still, I was willing to give Rohmer a chance. Really, who can resist a tease like this: “Hitler’s statement was only a hint at what had happened on 15 August. It was the tip of the iceberg.”

Surely Rohmer doesn’t mean to suggest that the day’s events depicted in Rommel and Patton are in some way based on fact.

Apparently so.

Thoughts Upon Finishing Part One

You're way ahead of me, Chris. I could offer all sorts of excuses, throwing in a couple of gruelling drives between London and Montreal into the mix, but in truth blame falls on the general himself. I was brought down by his Foreword… No, wait, that was by Sir William Stevenson. I mean after the Foreword, and after the Acknowledgements, and after “German Military Titles and Terms". What I'm referring to is the Prologue, in which Rohmer introduces the idea of an armistice attempt in the Falaise Gap.

Oh, man, the Falaise Gap. Again? Do I have to?

I admit that I found it surprising, but in no way intriguing, that Rohmer used "Falaise Gap" instead of "Patton's Gap". You know he wanted to.

About Patton's Gap – the book, not the space between two consecutive elements proceeding on the same route – in Rommel and Patton Rohmer writes:

By the time I had finished I had discovered several very important pieces of evidence suggesting that there had indeed been a secret armistice attempt.

Had he? Had he, really?

Rohmer's discoveries consist of an unsupportive half-sentence pulled from Allan Dulles' 1947 New York Times bestseller and an old Time article that Rohmer himself acknowledges is inaccurate and unreliable. He tries to shore these up with quotes from Udo Esch and Adolf Hitler. From whence come they? Rohmer won't tell you, but I will. Both are lifted translations made of original documents found in Anthony Cave Brown’s The Bodyguard of Lies (1975).

In short, Rohmer discovered nothing. What he should have written is:

By the time I had finished I had read several previously published, highly accessible writings that led me to believe there had indeed been a secret armistice attempt.

This brings to mind the “four unusual research ‘accidents’ that allowed" Patton’s Gap to be written:

1. Rohmer discovers the 430 Squadron log book. Because it's on display.
2. Rohmer asks the widow of a squadron member whether she might have copies of two photographs. She does.
3. Rohmer reads Dirk Bogard’s Snakes and Ladders and learns that the actor was likely the man who interpreted his photographs. Bogard agrees.
4. Rohmer tells the Director of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Historical Research Foundation that he is researching a book. The director shares some old notes.

I'm probably taking things too personally, spending so much of my time researching and all… when I'm not driving between London and Montreal.

Bloomer :

Naturally he [Patton] would seize the opportunity to speak to these young boys, pump them up.