Rommel supposedly took part in the conspiracy to kill Hitler in 1944—and was forced to commit suicide as a result. If so, he deserves to be on the list.
Whether or not Romnel deserves to be on the list has nothing to do with the plot to kill Hitler, unless you consider gentlemanly opposition to tyranny one of the chief qualities of great generals, which is a possibility. But then he’d be in line behind several other anti-Hitler generals.
By the way, one reason among many that the Nuremberg trials were such a travesty of justice is that here we are, 70 years later, giving the benefit of the doubt to Nazi generals as monsters unless demonstrated otherwise. I might ask what genocide Rommel committed that he needed to be saved by joining the plot? Or why various Nazis were convicted for the exact same acts for which no one slapped British, American, and especially Russian hands? Or why some went to prison despite being demonstrably more restrained than allied generals?
The guilty until Provence innocent standard might be fun and instructive, if not just. But only if applied equally to Sherman, for instance, as men who happened to be German in 1939.
Only after the war began going badly for Germany. .
What does any of that have to do with his military acumen?
Rommel would qualify as a great general for two reasons. His mastery of tank warfare, and most importantly that he supported assassinating Adolph (who was a lousy strategist and war planner).
I read that the evidence against him was highly circumstantial; specifically, that he may have had some knowledge of the plot but did not participate.
They gave him a choice of sacrificing himself or having his family sacrificed. He chose himself.
Militarily, he was controversial among the Nazi general staff. He was not universally loved. Historians will debate his merits as a general forever, I suppose.