why is Rommel admired by some people?

[ljadw]

The Kommmissars were members of the Red Army and the Germans were obliged to treat them as soldiers .
As the NSFO were not shot, the Kommissars should not be shot, the fact that a lot of them were responsible for criminal actions against the Soviet population/members of the Red Army,is irrelevant .

[Aida1]

The Kommmissars were members of the Red Army and the Germans were obliged to treat them as soldiers .
As the NSFO were not shot, the Kommissars should not be shot, the fact that a lot of them were responsible for criminal actions against the Soviet population/members of the Red Army,is irrelevant .

Your concern about the wellbeing of Kommissars is very amusing. I will not shed tears for them.

[doogal]

Buck Bradley wrote - Collectively Responsibility? No thanks.

An officer who rose directly due to Hitler ,and who supported Hitler until he saw that the war was going to be lost or futile
The fact that he decided half way through to consider resisting a regime he had supported does not exonerate him.
And yes collective responsibility he was a member of the Wehrmacht they all bear responsibility. It doesnt change the fact that he was a talented commander, but he cant side step his part in the Nazi state.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi doogal,

I am not sure how closely Rommel was integrated into the anti-Nazi movement by 1944, but it should be remembered that a prime objective of the military July bomb plotters was to remove Hitler while the German Army still stood on foreign soil and the country might still be able to negotiate the retention of some of his gains. They were German nationalists first and foremost, which still presented an obstacle to any compromise peace, even without the Allied unconditional surrender policy.

An anecdote I read in a book on San Marino was that, when Rommel passed through there in late 1943, he commented that he had now visited a dozen countries, but San Marino was the first with which he had not been at war. He was undoubtedly part of Germany's collective activities in both world wars and shares any responsibilities that go along with that.

Cheers,

Sid.

[doogal]

Am in complete agreement with you sid, responsibility just cant be side stepped.

[Aida1]

Buck Bradley wrote - Collectively Responsibility? No thanks.

An officer who rose directly due to Hitler ,and who supported Hitler until he saw that the war was going to be lost or futile
The fact that he decided half way through to consider resisting a regime he had supported does not exonerate him.
And yes collective responsibility he was a member of the Wehrmacht they all bear responsibility. It doesnt change the fact that he was a talented commander, but he cant side step his part in the Nazi state.

He did his job as a professional soldier, nothing more. The notion of collective responsability is a gimmick which betrays having anything substantial against him.

[Aida1]

Hi doogal,

I am not sure how closely Rommel was integrated into the anti-Nazi movement by 1944, but it should be remembered that a prime objective of the military July bomb plotters was to remove Hitler while the German Army still stood on foreign soil and the country might still be able to negotiate the retention of some of his gains. They were German nationalists first and foremost, which still presented an obstacle to any compromise peace, even without the Allied unconditional surrender policy.

An anecdote I read in a book on San Marino was that, when Rommel passed through there in late 1943, he commented that he had now visited a dozen countries, but San Marino was the first with which he had not been at war. He was undoubtedly part of Germany's collective activities in both world wars and shares any responsibilities that go along with that.

Cheers,

Sid.

He did his job as a soldier in both world wars which is what he is supposed to do.

[Peter89]

Hi doogal,

I am not sure how closely Rommel was integrated into the anti-Nazi movement by 1944, but it should be remembered that a prime objective of the military July bomb plotters was to remove Hitler while the German Army still stood on foreign soil and the country might still be able to negotiate the retention of some of his gains. They were German nationalists first and foremost, which still presented an obstacle to any compromise peace, even without the Allied unconditional surrender policy.

An anecdote I read in a book on San Marino was that, when Rommel passed through there in late 1943, he commented that he had now visited a dozen countries, but San Marino was the first with which he had not been at war. He was undoubtedly part of Germany's collective activities in both world wars and shares any responsibilities that go along with that.

Cheers,

Sid.

Well, not quite. In the July plot some of the staff realized that the war was lost AND they knew that the Western democracies will be keen to avoid another year of war, especially with Japan at the backyard. They also realized that the German military has to be distinguished from the Nazi party asap, and it doesn't matter what happened before, if the German military gets rid of the Nazis. I've never reas it anywhere that they were trying to cling on to territorial gains, and given the blessings of hindsight, keeping their prewar borders would have been good enough.

Yes, Rommel was responsible to some degree, but in that sense, Montgomery was responsible for the civilian casualties in the bombing of Dresden. Contrary to that, Rommel died as a victim of nazism, and not as a servant of it. That is why the largest barracks in Germany is named after him.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Peter89,

The July 1944 plotters came from a variety of backgrounds, but all the military plotters were German nationalists and, almost without exception, had served the Nazis as long as it looked as though Germany might win. None wanted to go back to the 1933 borders if they could avoid it. The "pre-war borders" you refer to include Austria, Sudetenland and Memel, which, as German nationalists, all would have prefered to retain.

The timing of the plot was the last possible moment when Germany's own territory was inviolate and it still had foreign territory it might concede for a compromise peace.

If only some of them realised the war was lost, then they were well behind the plot.

Similarly, if they thought the western Allies were prepared to cut a compromise peace, thery were also wrong. That ship had sailed a year and a half earlier.

They were also not entirely prepared to cut all links with the Nazi past as, at least initially, they proposed to absorb the Waffen-SS into the Army.

I would suggest that Hitler was responsible for the civilian casualties in Dresden, not any Allied soldier. He always had the option of demilitarizing Dresden and declaring it an Open City, but did not. If the Allies had still bombed it after it had been declared an Open City, then their leaders would have come into the frame for culpability.

As a German nationalist, Rommel had approved of and participated in Hitler's expansionism, despite the questionable constitutional basis of the Nazi state. By contrast, Montgomery was only in the war because of that same German expansionism. Perhaps Montgomery would have acted as did Rommel, if he had been German, but he wasn't, so we are not in a position to make a judgement on this.

As a soldier, Rommel seems to have acted professionally on the field of battle. However, he never served on the Eastern Front and so was not tested in the same way as his colleagues in that theatre. We will never know, for example, if he would have enforced Hitler's Commissar or not. Perhaps he would have done but, again, he was never in that position and so we are not in a position to make a judgement on this.

Cheers,

Sid

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Aida1,

No, the concept of collective responsibility is not a gimmick. The German officer corps was engaged in a joint enterprise in both world wars. Any general credit or discredit is therefore shared collectively.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Peter89]

Hi Peter89,

The July 1944 plotters came from a variety of backgrounds, but all the military plotters were German nationalists and, almost without exception, had served the Nazis as long as it looked as though Germany might win. None wanted to go back to the 1933 borders if they could avoid it. The "pre-war borders" you refer to include Austria, Sudetenland and Memel, which, as German nationalists, all would have prefered to retain.

The timing of the plot was the last possible moment when Germany's own territory was inviolate and it still had foreign territory it might concede for a compromise peace.

If only some of them realised the war was lost, then they were well behind the plot.

Similarly, if they thought the western Allies were prepared to cut a compromise peace, thery were also wrong. That ship had sailed a year and a half earlier.

They were also not entirely prepared to cut all links with the Nazi past as, at least initially, they proposed to absorb the Waffen-SS into the Army.

I would suggest that Hitler was responsible for the civilian casualties in Dresden, not any Allied soldier. He always had the option of demilitarizing Dresden and declaring it an Open City, but did not. If the Allies had still bombed it after it had been declared an Open City, then their leaders would have come into the frame for culpability.

As a German nationalist, Rommel had approved of and participated in Hitler's expansionism, despite the questionable constitutional basis of the Nazi state. By contrast, Montgomery was only in the war because of that same German expansionism. Perhaps Montgomery would have acted as did Rommel, if he had been German, but he wasn't, so we are not in a position to make a judgement on this.

As a soldier, Rommel seems to have acted professionally on the field of battle. However, he never served on the Eastern Front and so was not tested in the same way as his colleagues in that theatre. We will never know, for example, if he would have enforced Hitler's Commissar or not. Perhaps he would have done but, again, he was never in that position and so we are not in a position to make a judgement on this.

Cheers,

Sid

Hello Sid,

regarding Rommel & other German officiers who started out as servants of the regime and ended up as victims of it: by your definition, there is no room for improvement. The "once a nazi, always a nazi" argument is not working. These people paid the highest price for standing out or plotting against nazism. It does not erase their record of serving the regime, but they definately regained a lot of respect and human quality by doing so.

As for Dresden and other unnecessary civilian casualties: I would say that those who ordered the bombing of a militarily unimportant target were the responsible. I think it is quite obvious.

As for Montgomery & other Wallied generals, they served a regime that commenced a nuclear attack on civilian targets, they served a regime that flattened Axis cities without any military impact, and they served a coalition which committed an extraordinary number of looting, deportation, forced labor and rape. If you believe in collective responsibility, you have to take those into account, too.

As for myself, I believe that there are collective and individual responsibilities at the same time, and the individual one is the more important. Eg. you can say that the German high command was responsible as a group, but you can't say that the diehard nazis and the july20 plotters were equally responsible.

[Michael Kenny]

These people paid the highest price for standing out or plotting against nazism. It does not erase their record of serving the regime, but they definately regained a lot of respect and human quality by doing so.

Surely that depends on when they turned. Self-preservation of either themselves or their country was the prime-mover so I would look more towards Sophie Scholl for lessons as to how respect is earned.

As for Dresden and other unnecessary civilian casualties: I would say that those who ordered the bombing of a militarily unimportant target were the responsible. I think it is quite obvious.

As for Montgomery & other Wallied generals, they served a regime that commenced a nuclear attack on civilian targets, they served a regime that flattened Axis cities without any military impact, and they served a coalition which committed an extraordinary number of looting, deportation, forced labor and rape. If you believe in collective responsibility, you have to take those into account, too.

As for myself, I believe that there are collective and individual responsibilities at the same time, and the individual one is the more important. Eg. you can say that the German high command was responsible as a group, but you can't say that the diehard nazis and the july 20 plotters were equally responsible.

The usual pathetic attempts to excuse the Nazi barbarity. The equivalent of cockney actresses trying to excuse local celebrity gangsters with the revelation 'they was good to their muvvers'.

[Peter89]

The usual pathetic attempts to excuse the Nazi barbarity. The equivalent of cockney actresses trying to excuse local celebrity gangsters with the revelation 'they was good to their muvvers'.

I simply doubt that you have actually read what I wrote. You are probably projecting a former discussion into my words.
I never tried to excuse any crime against humanity or whatnot.

The fact that the Wallied and the Soviets also waged a war in a barbarian manner, directly aiming at the civilian population, it is not an excuse, it is a fact. It does not minimize the nazi war crimes at all.

It does not erase their record of serving the regime

I cannot say it more clearly.

Surely that depends on when they turned. Self-preservation of either themselves or their country was the prime-mover so I would look more towards Sophie Scholl for lessons as to how respect is earned.

Sophie Scholl & co is a different story, she was of the civilian resistance. By the way, when she got caught, she did not face the system at first, only when she realized that the situation is hopeless. It also does not inflate her sacrifice and bravery, it is just part of the story.

If we want to look for a real, face-to-face hero, who would not kill for the Nazi regime under any circumstances, we can find Franz Jägerstätter.

[Michael Kenny]

I never tried to excuse any crime against humanity or whatnot.

They why introduce the 'they were as bad as each other' excuse?
There was no comparison between Allied War Crimes and German War Crimes. What did Rommel think would happen if he (for example) helped conquer Russia? He can not have been unaware of the fate that awaited the former inhabitants.

The fact that the Wallied and the Soviets also waged a war in a barbarian manner, directly aiming at the civilian population, it is not an excuse, it is a fact. It does not minimize the nazi war crimes at all.

Rules is rules. When you enter a game knowing the conditions then either keep to those conditions or accept consequences. You may think bombing was a 'crime' but it was not. You might have a case if you said it was immoral.

Sophie Scholl & co is a different story, she was of the civilian resistance. By the way, when she got caught, she did not face the system at first, only when she realized that the situation is hopeless. It also does not inflate her sacrifice and bravery, it is just part of the story.

I believe you have no idea how petty that sounds. You really need to know when to keep your thoughts to yourself.

If we want to look for a real, face-to-face hero, .............

Is that another way of saying Sophie Scholl was not?

[Aida1]

Hi Aida1,

No, the concept of collective responsibility is not a gimmick. The German officer corps was engaged in a joint enterprise in both world wars. Any general credit or discredit is therefore shared collectively.

Cheers,

Sid.

The officer corps does the job they are supposed to do and that is not decide on war and place which is the prorogative of the political leadership.