FC Bayern Forum

Yes he did... They say his experience with chemical weapons back then kept him from using then (at the front )

Definitely... The guy was a madman drunk with power...
His generals were actually quite capable - but didn't dare to oppose him...
It's for the better though

#12 wrote:Oh yeah, I "skipped" that "executed" - it was in fact kind of a suicide...

I don't agree with you though Hardrade... He is still held in high regard in Germany - in fact he was against the plan to hold back tank units behind the front before the Allied landing in Normandy... They were of no use there later because of the blatant superiority of the Allies in air...

Of course he is held in high regard, I don't doubt that. But I claim that it's not for his martial prowess, but for the fact that he was carefully manufactured to be an icon. The ascension of his mythos did not only come from the need for a German hero, it was also greatly supported by the need of Alies to have a formidabble opponent whom they managed to beat (if I pretend that my enemy was stronger then I look stronger for defeating him). At that point of the war, the Alies were in dire need of a morale boost. That's why he is such a memorable figure - strangely enough, both sides contributed to the legend of Rommel.

However, if you analyze his moves, it's clear that he is a human being like the rest of us, and that he made many mistakes. I will try to tackle some of the most popular 'facts' about him:

1) He was not a National Socialist/ He despised Hitler
- This is a very popular one, but highly controversial to say the least. Not only did he wholeheartedly enjoy Fuhrer's favoritism toward him, he exploited it. A common point made is that he just enjoyed his country being strong again - sure, yeah, but if he had any problem with the ideology, he did not express it in any way whatsoever.
Thanks to Hitler's paranoia, he was under suspicion of preparing a coup d'etat, but there is no clear indication of his involvement. And most importantly, his drift away from the Fuhrer began only when it was crystal clear that the war was lost.
Not only he cooperated with Hitler, he benefited directly from their mutual affection. Hitler made him a general out of love for him, and skiped a whole rank in the process, which might sound like a small step but it is a huge difference when it comes to operational responsibility. Which brings us to the second common 'fact'...

2) Rommel was a brilliant strategist and a masterful planner
- This is even more controversial topic among the experts. Truth be told, he had a keen tactical sense, and there are multiple accounts of that in history. However, many of his moves came with a hefty strategic price, which is a category that generally outweights tactical gains. First, in Africa, his tactics overextended his supply lines so much that it cost him the whole bloody theater. You know the phrase - winning the battle but losing the war.
He was infamous for contesting the chain of command and exploiting general low quality of communication and coordination among the Axis to be able to use his own strategic solutions without confronting with the rest of the generals, leaving his colleagues and superiors in the dark, thus making their plans very vulnerable. Later, on the D-Day, he was absent from the front. On the very day of the largest naval invasion of europe, the commander of defending troops was home with his wife, celebrating her birthday. For someone who is praised for his discipline, he was dangerously irresponsible at times.

But, he is not one and only mythical creature from the WWII. Both MacArthur and Zhukov were wildly overhyped and had even greater failures than Rommel if I might add. Both were adept political icons and rather unremarkable generals compared to some others. The first one, consumed by his vanity, cared more about taking pictures for newspapers than defending his soldiers whom he valiantly left on the Philippines to die. Actually, I believe that the spoils of war, when it comes to USA, belong mainly to their brilliant admirals.

The second one, hero of the Soviet union, was Stalin's personal project of a great national general, led his army straight into the maws of german encirclement, and that horrific slaughterfest was later named Rzhev Meat-Grinder (The battle of Rzhev-Vyazma, over 400k soviets dead). This severely crippled Soviet prospects for an early counteroffensive and prolonged the war.

I feel a need to add that defining a "good general" is not an easy task. Wars are chaotic, battles are inherently uncontrollable, the process of maintaining an unified command is incredibly hard, and the political factor beyond all the winning and losing is very important to bear in mind.

ramsej84 wrote:

#12 wrote:Definitely... The guy was a madman drunk with power...
His generals were actually quite capable - but didn't dare to oppose him...
It's for the better though

But forget the nazi thing for a moment...
Who knows what would have happened...

Churchill was a war criminal as much as Stalin Hitler and Roosevelt... and to certain extent the Jap leader (not sure if it was the Emperor in command)
There are many stories which confirm that he too was a fat bastard...
You may know what I am referring to.
Stalin no comments...




Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Not the Nazi thing... I wouldn't wanna live in an oppressed/occupied Europe, with weird rules and some sort of cult...

@Hardrade: I'm fairly certain there IS evidence of Rommel being part of or at least definitely knowing about that plot...

Of course he's glorified, bit he definitely WAS one of the best on the German side...

I have never heard that he despised Hitler... That's BS, they had a very close relationship... But none of what you said really adds to him being a Nazi... Back then almost everyone was a party member - but they weren't nearly all Nazis... Rommel was no member... He adored Hitler because he was a means to exert his work and to bring Germany back to what he felt it deserved... Rommel was actually a patriot, at least for the idea of Germany or for the former empire... But it's pretty safe to assume he was no Nazi... Just an opportunist

Well, now we are kind of blurring the lines, aren't we? Shouldn't we establish a benchmark for what being a Nazi means in this context?

1) Being a member of the NSDAP?
2) Partaking in the war effort in any capacity? (bearing in mind that moral foundations of the war are deeply rooted in ideology!)
3) Supporting Hitler?
4) Being part of the regime in any capacity?
5) Supporting the idea of innate superiority of the german people?
6) Ordering, or carrying out commands that are directly inspired by Nazi ideology, but not instrumental for the war effort?
7) Assuming or maintaining a position of authority to carry out commands, or give orders that are in favour of securing victory of Nazi Germany, therefore providing a geopolitical platform for enforcing its ideology?
8.) And finaly, conspiring or planning to put Nazi ideology to practice?
...

If we take Heydrich for example, he fits the list perfectly. Rommel obviously does not fit into some of these categories, but he stands firm in the others. Which ones are more crucial? It's hard to tell, frankly.

I understand that there is a need to be favorable and apologetic to Rommel. It was a particulary dark period of european history and there is a sense of guilt that still lingers on, therefore a different figure is needed, one that was influential and that opposed the horrific nature of those times. Rommel was a good candidate because he did, on occasions, openly defy Hitler, the evil figure.

ramsej84 wrote:what strikes me the most is that there is no sign of any collective memory about how evil the Red army and Stalin were... and also their war crimes...(which some were revealed not a long time ago) Why it seems that only the Germans were the evil? Maybe cause certain people were affected the most? Just asking...
Churchill too qualifies as a war criminal ... with all the refugees he sent back to stalin (Read Satan)

What are you talking about?

Of course there is... There has been "evidence" for decades... But neither the red army nor Stalin was the aggressor in that war... You just have to understand that a war - especially of that global scale - is not the fault of those that were attacked...

FCBayernMunchen wrote:

ramsej84 wrote:Imo had it been another one in charge or hitler left it in the hands if his generals today we would be studying a different outcome.

Coincidentally I am currently reading The Man in the High Castle which is about an alternate history where the Axis won the war. There's also a series with the same name which I haven't yet watched.

In the book there's a book which describes an alternate history where the Allies win the war. It's similar but I think not entirely like the actual history.

Here's an extract, thought it might interest you

'It's called 'The Grasshopper something?'

'The Grasshopper Lies Heavy. That's a quote from the Bible.'

'And Japan is defeated because there's no Pearl Harbor. Listen. Japan would have won anyhow. Even if there had been no Pearl Harbor.'

'The U.S. fleet — in his book — keeps them from taking the Philippines and Australia.'

'They would have taken them anyhow; their fleet was superior. I know the Japanese fairly well, and it was their destiny to assume dominance in the Pacific. The U.S. was on the decline ever since World War One. Every country on the Allied side was mined in that war, morally and spiritually.'

With stubbornness, the girl said, 'And if the Germans hadn't taken Malta, Churchill would have stayed in power and guided England to victory.'

'How? Where?'

'In North Africa — Churchill would have defeated Rommel finally.'

Wyndam- Matson guffawed.

'And once the British had defeated Rommel, they could move their whole army back and up through Turkey to join remnants of Russian armies and make a stand-in the book, they halt the Germans' eastward advance into Russia at some town on the Volga. We never heard of this town,
but it really exists because I looked it up in the atlas.'

'What's it called?'

'Stalingrad. And the British turn the tide of the war, there. So, in the book, Rommel never would have linked up with those German armies that came down from Russia, von Paulus' armies; remember? And the Germans never would have been able to go on into the Middle East and get the
needed oil, or on into India like they did and link up with the Japanese. And — '

'No strategy on earth could have defeated Erwin Rommel,' Wyndam-Matson said. 'And no events like this guy dreamed up, this town in Russia very heroically called 'Stalingrad,' no holding action
could have done any more than delay the outcome; it couldn't have changed it.

That is - stunningly inaccurate...
Stalingrad was not won - or lost - because of any Brits... The Russians did that... A war against Russia is close to an impossible task... There was a slight chance, but not with that maniac sabotaging his own generals...
But ultimately, this war was lost on Dec7
1941...

Hardrade wrote:Well, now we are kind of blurring the lines, aren't we? Shouldn't we establish a benchmark for what being a Nazi means in this context?

1) Being a member of the NSDAP?
2) Partaking in the war effort in any capacity? (bearing in mind that moral foundations of the war are deeply rooted in ideology!)
3) Supporting Hitler?
4) Being part of the regime in any capacity?
5) Supporting the idea of innate superiority of the german people?
6) Ordering, or carrying out commands that are directly inspired by Nazi ideology, but not instrumental for the war effort?
7) Assuming or maintaining a position of authority to carry out commands, or give orders that are in favour of securing victory of Nazi Germany, therefore providing a geopolitical platform for enforcing its ideology?
8.) And finaly, conspiring or planning to put Nazi ideology to practice?
...

If we take Heydrich for example, he fits the list perfectly. Rommel obviously does not fit into some of these categories, but he stands firm in the others. Which ones are more crucial? It's hard to tell, frankly.

I understand that there is a need to be favorable and apologetic to Rommel. It was a particulary dark period of european history and there is a sense of guilt that still lingers on, therefore a different figure is needed, one that was influential and that opposed the horrific nature of those times. Rommel was a good candidate because he did, on occasions, openly defy Hitler, the evil figure.

Nope we're not... Neither am I apologetic or favorable... There's others I'd include in that lists... None of your points really constitutes a Nazi... As I said, few took actions against the regime... But being a Nazi means believing in - more than that, to completely identify with - all their bullshit ideas, just like today...

ramsej84 wrote:what are your views on Goering ? I am really liking this mature conversation.

From a general, military or personal point of view?

FCBayernMunchen wrote:Yeah, I thought Stalingrad didn't have Brits involved.

To my knowledge the Malta and North African campaign part is accurate though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, more or less - don't think they'd have put someone else than Churchill in charge... The Malta theater was mostly a symbolic and moral victory, like Stalingrad...
Preview on that Göring thing: the Luftwaffe was never really capable of winning the Battle of Britain...

It was still a reaction... An unnecessary one, but nowhere close to the German aggression...
The people there were not blessing and celebrating them long though... And then did it again 4 years later
Stalin was in fact a bad man... And he might have started a war at some point as well - but I think we can at least all agree he didn't?!
History is just the essence of human decisions and actions... Hitler was faster

Göring... Was a tool... Constantly overconfident, barely capable of doing anything, rarely fulfilling missions and duties... Wanted to take Britain (and Malta ) by air, wanted to support Paulus' 6th army in Stalingrad by air... All big failures... Incompetent fat troll (like Ancelotti )
Got what he deserved? Kinda... I think others got away more easily, I'm against death penalty, then again it was a court martial...Don't know, not for me to decide... IMHO he could've rotted in some cage...