Posted: 15/January/2006 at 08:03 | IP Logged  |

Rommel was not that much a close buddy of Hitler, but of course he was used for propaganda reasons because of his successes - and he enjoyed it. Later he started to think mor critically of the Nazi regime.

But even if he would have been - the fact that somebody was a buddy of Hitler wouldn't have been good enought to punish him.

When you watch anglo-American documentaries then Rommel gets always mentioned as an outstanding and honorable German commander, who fought hard but fair.

Nonetheless Rommel commanded in a war that was considererd as criminal by the Nuremberg tribunal. The point of my question was: Is somebody who is following orders - as Rommel did - a criminal, when these orders are subjectively legal but objectively illegal (a crime) ?

Posted: 15/January/2006 at 08:16 | IP Logged  |

Quote: It was said that the U.S. had matched the superior quality of the German tanks only by superior quantities of American tanks.

And you know why?

Quote: the typical rate of exchange was three Shermans for every Tiger tank knocked out.

So three times the allied solders died!

Quote: The U.S. tanks had to be transported by ship from Detroit, across a vast ocean to land amphibiously on enemy shores. This reality placed great limitations on the size and weight of the tanks. Especially with the frequent U-boat sinkings, the number of U.S. ships was dropping, and the bigger the tank, the fewer a ship could carry

If you only had to take 1/3 as many tanks think of all the room you would have for other stuff you could carry.

Quote: Once these bridges were destroyed, U.S. tanks would have to cross the streams on temporary bridges. Heavy tanks could not have crossed, but the lightweight and nimble Shermans could.

I have more faith in the U.S. Army Engineer Corp than that. Don't you agree ES?

Quote: the Sherman was designed for deep thrusts into the enemy's rear,

Quote: where it would destroy supply installations and communications. This demanded great speed and minimal fuel consumption.

yea, uh huh. Oh please, now he's making stuff up.

Posted: 15/January/2006 at 08:31 | IP Logged  |

Much more. The 3:1 ratio is based on the numbers of all disabled Tigers - and most of them were abandoned because of technical problems or fuel shortage. And even when a Tiger was disabled by allied tanks the Tiger crew often survived since the damage done was not deadly to the German crews.

Shermans and Sherman crews were an "expendable good". The tanks as well as the crews could be mass produced.

It can be compared a little bit to Stalins method of sending men against machines. Sheer numbers would finally overrun the enemy. Well, the US did not send men against machines, they sent completely inferior Shermans against far superior German tanks. But to the crews it didn't matter.

Posted: 16/January/2006 at 09:44 | IP Logged  |

twiw wrote: What would his fate have been? Spandau? Hung? Gone free?

Aquitted..Heinz Guderian ring any bells??

Quote: I mean when he wouldn't have commited that "forced" suicide

Rommel despised the Reichs atrocities hence why they thought he backed the attempt on Hitlers life.....

Quote: planning, starting or participating in an attacking war.

What did Rommel have to do with starting the war???Nor was every German participant in WW2 guilty of crimes.........

Quote: (That question arose when I watched today a 40 minutes American "documentary" about how the Sherman was a better tank than the Tiger in WW2 - particularly in combat.  That was even more ridiculous than the average History Channel crap. )

This I agree with though the History Channel has some good shows.....

Posted: 18/January/2006 at 13:38 | IP Logged  |

Not with starting. But with (partly) leading, particpiating, planning and organizing.

Quote: Nor was every German participant in WW2 guilty of crimes.........

I never said that. Though many people today see the Germans of that time as criminal simply for being "Nazis". It looks like most people are not aware anymore that only a tiny minority of Germans were actually Nazis.

Posted: 18/January/2006 at 14:04 | IP Logged  |

twiw wrote: It looks like most people are not aware anymore that only a tiny minority of Germans were actually Nazis.

How did they get in power then?

Posted: 18/January/2006 at 14:16 | IP Logged  |

Voting for Nazis doesn't make one a Nazi. A Nazi was a member of the NSDAP, and only a few more than 2 million Germans were allowed to become members. The NSDAP was not as elitist as the SS, but the party didn't take everybody, absolutely not. Even German government members requests to become NSDAP members where declined, others weren't members because they didn't want to.

"Nazis" gets abused for everybody in Germany from 33-45, but that is complete bullshit.

And they didn't get into power because they were Nazis but because they promised to create a though, powerful and stable Germany. And they stayed in power because they achieved exactly what they promised, even more. The Nazis wouldn't have been able to rule Germany with the means of terror only, it was required that a majority of Germans supported them and their goals. But that doesn't make that majority Nazis, a majority that only existed after Hitler actually got into power, not before.

Just because I think that the FC Bayern Munchen is great and I support the team that doesn't make me a Bavarian nor a member of the club.

Posted: 18/January/2006 at 14:32 | IP Logged  |

twiw wrote: Germany. And they stayed in power because they achieved exactly what they promised, even more. The Nazis wouldn't have been able to rule Germany with the means of terror only, it was required that a majority of Germans supported them and their goals. But that doesn't make that majority Nazis,

splitting hairs are we!

Posted: 18/January/2006 at 14:35 | IP Logged  |

Huh?

Nobody was a Nazi just because he lived in Germany!

Posted: 18/January/2006 at 14:39 | IP Logged  |

Rommel was a protector of Hitler, guarded his life. Led a unit, division or whatever into France.

An obvious subject for war crimes of aggression etc., whatever you can throw at that bastard.

I am really sickened at all the good press he got because he was suspected of being in on a plot to kill his buddy.

Posted: 18/January/2006 at 14:46 | IP Logged  |

That is very much my opinion. We might differ on the reasons why he should have hung, but he should have.

Fighting honorable in a criminal war and by this making the atrocities possible although not participating in them doesn't make a man a good man. Military brillance or success doesn't either.

Posted: 18/January/2006 at 16:12 | IP Logged  |

OF course not, the French and the Swiss were guilty too.

Posted: 18/January/2006 at 19:07 | IP Logged  |

twiw wrote: Not with starting.

Well dont say starting then

twiw wrote: But with (partly) leading, particpiating, planning and organizing.

Thats what he was supposed to do with the Wermacht..If Guderian wasnt tried then neither would Rommel..

twiw wrote: Though many people today see the Germans of that time as criminal simply for being "Nazis". It looks like most people are not aware anymore that only a tiny minority of Germans were actually Nazis.

Thats a fair point......

tude dog wrote: Rommel was a protector of Hitler, guarded his life. Led a unit, division or whatever into France.

He was a good soldier and had a family to think about.......Still doesnt mean he didnt despise Hitler and his atrocities against the Jews and others........

tude dog wrote: I am really sickened at all the good press he got because he was suspected of being in on a plot to kill his buddy.

Actually he didnt weant to kill him because he thought it would make him a martyr..He wanted him arrested and tried for crimes against humanity....

Posted: 19/January/2006 at 00:34 | IP Logged  |

There, I edited the stupid shit out of your post. Now I agree with you.

I guarantee that I can make a tank that can take a shot from any tank you want. I also guarantee that I can make tank that carries a gun to kill any tank you want. It takes more than that to win a war.

Posted: 20/January/2006 at 22:00 | IP Logged  |

 And while we are talking about Tigers...

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O13X_BNOAeI

p.s. get over it ES, the Tiger was a superior tank... end of report