why is Rommel admired by some people?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Locked
Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

#91

Post by Peter89 » 11 Apr 2020, 21:55

ljadw wrote:
11 Apr 2020, 21:39
The NSDAP had 43 % and with the conservatives of Hugenberg/Papen ( 8 % ) they had a majority .Not only had the Hitler government a majority in parliament, it was also supported by article 46 of the constitution .
The Weimar regime had disappeared already in 1930 when Germany was ruled by a praesidial kabinet,depending on Hugenberg .Brüning, Papen and Schleicherwere governing by Notverordnungen signed by the president ,who used article 48 of the Constitution . The Reichstag was eliminated already in 1930 .
The Constitutional Court said that everything was legal .
The Notverordnungen ( Presidential decrees ) were already used in 1919 and 44 times in 1931.
You are right, I was using the numbers for the last election. But even with 43%, they formed a minority, and they systematically overthrew democracy, it does not change my basic argument.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

#92

Post by Sid Guttridge » 11 Apr 2020, 22:05

Hi Aida1,

The relevant part of the Hague Convention says, "The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited." It says nothing about ground attack.

As such, Hitler was free to declare Dresden "Open" under international law, provided it was undefended and no military activity took place there. The Yugoslavs, Hungarians and Italians had all made approaches about declaring Belgrade, Budapest and Florence "Open" to avoid bombing, so this was not an original idea.

Hitler came to office with a reasonable appearance of legality, (if one ignores, for instance, the 50.000 "monitors" Goering mobilized to watch over the vote in Prussia), but he pushed through his dictatorial powers after first barring all Communist deputies and trying to prevent others attending. Thus his regime's constitutionality was dubious from spring 1933.

As no attempt was made to rectify this by holding parliamentary elections at any point over the next 12 years, his regime's legitimacy also came increasngly into question. The fact that the Austrian and Sudetenland plebiscites were publicly rigged (probably unnecessarily) does not help the legitimacy case, either.

The legitimacy question is something else Hitler could have avoided, by simply holding open elections, which in the 1930s he would probably have won more convincingly than in 1933. But he didn't even make a pretence of it.

Cheers,

Sid.


Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

#93

Post by Michael Kenny » 12 Apr 2020, 03:38

Aida1 wrote:
11 Apr 2020, 20:18

The allies did intentionally target civilians on a large scale and that means there is no reason to present them as saints. And they went to bed with Stalin who was a mass murderer. So no moral high ground for the western allies.
You seem confused over the difference between 'saints', 'mass murder', 'moral high ground' and the legal term 'War Crime'.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

#94

Post by Sid Guttridge » 12 Apr 2020, 09:26

Hi Aida1,

I think you will find that Hitler pushed Stalin into the Allies' bed after kicking him out of his own!

You are aware, I presume, of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, that Hitler attacked the USSR in 1941 (not the other way around) and declared war on the USA first?

Hitler constructed the alliance against him by his own aggressive actions. The Allies were not a pre-existing coalition and did not choose each other.

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4504
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

#95

Post by Aida1 » 12 Apr 2020, 10:14

Sid Guttridge wrote:
11 Apr 2020, 22:05
Hi Aida1,

The relevant part of the Hague Convention says, "The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited." It says nothing about ground attack.

As such, Hitler was free to declare Dresden "Open" under international law, provided it was undefended and no military activity took place there. The Yugoslavs, Hungarians and Italians had all made approaches about declaring Belgrade, Budapest and Florence "Open" to avoid bombing, so this was not an original idea.

Hitler came to office with a reasonable appearance of legality, (if one ignores, for instance, the 50.000 "monitors" Goering mobilized to watch over the vote in Prussia), but he pushed through his dictatorial powers after first barring all Communist deputies and trying to prevent others attending. Thus his regime's constitutionality was dubious from spring 1933.

As no attempt was made to rectify this by holding parliamentary elections at any point over the next 12 years, his regime's legitimacy also came increasngly into question. The fact that the Austrian and Sudetenland plebiscites were publicly rigged (probably unnecessarily) does not help the legitimacy case, either.

The legitimacy question is something else Hitler could have avoided, by simply holding open elections, which in the 1930s he would probably have won more convincingly than in 1933. But he didn't even make a pretence of it.

Cheers,

Sid.
The hague convention was written before air forces existed so one cannot get away with this argument. And british bombardments against German cities were always intended to terrorise the German population. So do not come up with this open city garbage. Dresden was not the first German city bombed. At least US bombers went for military targets in the broad sense and caused less civilian casualties and were the only ones that really hurt the German effort.
There was never any doubt that the government lead by Hitler was considered the legal government of Germany at the time .And it is wellestablished that he did have the support of the German population at the time.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4504
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

#96

Post by Aida1 » 12 Apr 2020, 10:21

Peter89 wrote:
11 Apr 2020, 21:05
Aida1 wrote:
11 Apr 2020, 20:14
Peter89 wrote:
11 Apr 2020, 15:08

the Führer Oath was only refused by martyrs, such as Franz Jägerstätter. Otherwise, military people took that oath just as they did the 3 previous ones before (and broke all of them, too). The pledge of alliagence to Wilhelm II, and the Reichswehreid varied a lot (1919, 1933) from up until the Führereid (1935).

1. Imperial Germany
I swear to God the Omniscient and Almighty a bodily oath, that I may grant His Majesty the King of Prussia, William II, my most gracious sovereign, in all and every incidents, on land and on water, in times of war and peace time, and whereever it may be, to serve faithfully and honestly, to promote the utmost and the best, but to avert damage and disadvantage, to strictly obey the war articles I have read and the instructions and orders given to me wants me to have to behave as befits a righteous, unprecedented, dutiful and respectful soldier. So help me God through Jesus Christ and his holy Gospel!
2. Reichswehreid (1919)
I swear loyalty to the Reich's constitution and pledge, that I as a courageous soldier always want to protect the German Reich and its legal institutions, (and) be obedient to the Reichspräsident and to my superiors.
3. Reichswehreid (1933)
I swear by God this holy oath, that I want to ever loyally and sincerely serve my people and fatherland and be prepared as a brave and obedient soldier to risk my life for this oath at any time.
4. Führereid (1935)
I swear by God this holy oath, that I want to offer unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, the commander-in-chief of the Wehrmacht, and be prepared as a brave soldier to risk my life for this oath at any time.

First, they failed to obey articles of war.
Second, they failed to protect the legal institutions of the German Reich.
Third, they failed to serve their people and country sincerely, in compliance their previous oaths.
Then last but not least, they stuck with the worst oath. But the idea that they took any oath seriously...
Nothing is true of this.
I quoted the words of the German High Command's oaths.

1. They clearly failed to comply with the articles of war, when they started the unrestricted submarine warfare, for example
2. They clearly failed to protect the legal institutions of the Weimar Republic
3. Even an imbecile could see that Germany had a superb position to win the global competition without guns, and provide for her people. So remilitarization was a very, very stupid idea. The German generals, instead of focusing their efforts for an alliance with the West, started a hopeless war against them, thus they failed to serve the German people and their country. As we can see now, the Germans are number 4. in the GDP game (Japan is number 3.). Both of them, after losing a terrible war.
4. The Führereid was in direct violation of everything they swore upon before.

The German high command simply did not obeyed their oaths.

So using it as an argument is folly (in both directions).
Aida1 wrote:
11 Apr 2020, 20:14
Hitler came to power legally and so obviously no order was given to the army to overthrow his government. You are making blanket accusations against a lot of people.
Hitler did NOT came to power legally, at the March 1933 elections, no single party secured a majority. The NSDAP had 33.09%, while the SPD had 20.43% and the KPD had 16.86%. When Hitler banned the KPD, he overthrew the democratic system. Btw there is no such thing as unlimited power in a democracy, so the whole idea of Führership was antidemocratic, thus illegal under the Weimar law.

When Hindenburg died and Hitler merged the President and the Chancellor offices, the Army should have intervened and take him into custody. But they've failed.
A complete falsification of history as you know very well Hitler led a coalition government which had a majority. So his government was legal and Hitler becoming president was done legally too.
So the army had no obligation to overthrow Hitler. And their oath to the head of state was perfectly normal.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4504
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

#97

Post by Aida1 » 12 Apr 2020, 10:24

Peter89 wrote:
11 Apr 2020, 21:55
ljadw wrote:
11 Apr 2020, 21:39
The NSDAP had 43 % and with the conservatives of Hugenberg/Papen ( 8 % ) they had a majority .Not only had the Hitler government a majority in parliament, it was also supported by article 46 of the constitution .
The Weimar regime had disappeared already in 1930 when Germany was ruled by a praesidial kabinet,depending on Hugenberg .Brüning, Papen and Schleicherwere governing by Notverordnungen signed by the president ,who used article 48 of the Constitution . The Reichstag was eliminated already in 1930 .
The Constitutional Court said that everything was legal .
The Notverordnungen ( Presidential decrees ) were already used in 1919 and 44 times in 1931.
You are right, I was using the numbers for the last election. But even with 43%, they formed a minority, and they systematically overthrew democracy, it does not change my basic argument.
Hitler led a coalition government so you are playing fast and loose with the historical facts. Everything was done legally.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 4504
Joined: 04 Aug 2019, 09:46
Location: Brussels

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

#98

Post by Aida1 » 12 Apr 2020, 10:25

ljadw wrote:
11 Apr 2020, 21:39
The NSDAP had 43 % and with the conservatives of Hugenberg/Papen ( 8 % ) they had a majority .Not only had the Hitler government a majority in parliament, it was also supported by article 46 of the constitution .
The Weimar regime had disappeared already in 1930 when Germany was ruled by a praesidial kabinet,depending on Hugenberg .Brüning, Papen and Schleicherwere governing by Notverordnungen signed by the president ,who used article 48 of the Constitution . The Reichstag was eliminated already in 1930 .
The Constitutional Court said that everything was legal .
The Notverordnungen ( Presidential decrees ) were already used in 1919 and 44 times in 1931.
For once you got it right.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

#99

Post by Michael Kenny » 12 Apr 2020, 10:40

Aida1 wrote:
12 Apr 2020, 10:24
Everything was done legally.
Yet earlier you are claiming that civilian bombing was a 'War Crime' even though it too was Legal.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

#100

Post by Michael Kenny » 12 Apr 2020, 10:44

Aida1 wrote:
12 Apr 2020, 10:14
. Dresden was not the first German city bombed.
Or even 'Dresden was not the first city bombed'. Indeed we can go back to 1939 for such a bombing in for example Warsaw. Do not forget Rotterdam and London in 1940.
What category of bombing does the VI and V2 fall into?

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

#101

Post by Peter89 » 12 Apr 2020, 11:18

Aida1 wrote:
12 Apr 2020, 10:21

A complete falsification of history as you know very well Hitler led a coalition government which had a majority. So his government was legal and Hitler becoming president was done legally too.
So the army had no obligation to overthrow Hitler. And their oath to the head of state was perfectly normal.
On the contrary, actually. Democracy does not mean that if you have the majority of votes, you can do anything. It also does not mean if you once achieved a relative majority in legislation, then you can control other branches and offices of the state.

If you pass a law that the Jews from now on are second-rate citizens, deprived of their basic human rights, you are not standing on a democratic constitutional ground anymore. It is not even debatable, otherwise we will invent that nazism was a form of democracy where the NSDAP just happened to form a coalition at the right time. The thin veil of formalities lasted a few months only, and it was clear that the legislation that was passed after the spring of 1933 did not count as democratic legislation anymore.

Please just analyze what the Führer said: "Nicht der Staat befiehlt uns, sondern wir befehlen dem Staate!" This is absolutely a program for a direct assult on the legal institutions of the Weimar Republic, the ones that the German high command swore to protect.

Part of the history is that the German high command was a bunch of corrupt oathbreakers, taking bribes and breaking oaths in order to cooperate with nazism. The other part of history is that they were qualified military professionals, another part is that a lot of them committed war crimes, and another part is that some of them turned on nazism near the end.

For some reason, it is hard for you to see them anything else but qualified military professionals.

Calling me names and "falsifier of history" is a bright example of why some people can't history from multiple angles, but I don't mind it at all. Productive disagreement is what we all need.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

#102

Post by ljadw » 12 Apr 2020, 11:53

Peter89 wrote:
11 Apr 2020, 21:55
ljadw wrote:
11 Apr 2020, 21:39
The NSDAP had 43 % and with the conservatives of Hugenberg/Papen ( 8 % ) they had a majority .Not only had the Hitler government a majority in parliament, it was also supported by article 46 of the constitution .
The Weimar regime had disappeared already in 1930 when Germany was ruled by a praesidial kabinet,depending on Hugenberg .Brüning, Papen and Schleicherwere governing by Notverordnungen signed by the president ,who used article 48 of the Constitution . The Reichstag was eliminated already in 1930 .
The Constitutional Court said that everything was legal .
The Notverordnungen ( Presidential decrees ) were already used in 1919 and 44 times in 1931.
You are right, I was using the numbers for the last election. But even with 43%, they formed a minority, and they systematically overthrew democracy, it does not change my basic argument.
After March 1933 Germany became a dictatorship, but that had the support of the majority of the Germans.The persecution of (potential ) opponents was not possible without the approval and help of the majority of the German people. But,already before 1933 the Weimar regime had disappeared ,which made the transformation of Germany in a dictatorship easier and quicker .
And, a big part of the military leadership had never accepted the Weimar regime , which does not mean that they were nazis .They were (co) responsible,as were the socialists, catholics,communists, the majority of the Germans . Without the help of the German people, Hitler would not have been able to do anything .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

#103

Post by ljadw » 12 Apr 2020, 13:00

About Rommel :
was he a nazi ? NO
was he an opponent of Hitler? NO
As a lot(most ? ) people he was an ambitious opportunist without backbone,German word is Zivil / Civil Courage .
Even he,whose name shall not be mentioned on this forum, was very critical about Rommel .
was he a military genius ? NO
was he an incompetent general ? NO

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

#104

Post by ljadw » 12 Apr 2020, 13:31

About the German generals :
they have some arguments /excuses
1 Although the reality is that they did nothing to prevent Hitler to become dictator, they had no hindsight : they did not know in 1933 that in 1941 Auschwitz would exist .One can argue with some justification that when they knew about Auschwitz they did nothing .
2 They will answer that there was a war going on in 1941 and that it was not their business : a very feeble excuse
3 On the accusation that they did nothing while when they were in Russia the Einsatzgruppen murdered millions, they have as an even weaker excuse that they were doing other things,and that it was not their business : it is very easy to demolish this excuse . The truth is that they did not care about these victims, it were only Untermenschen and that they lacked Zivil Courage .
4 On the accusation that they (Manstein, Reichenau, Hoeppner,etc ) approved what the SS did and were helping them, they remain silent .
5 A more serious excuse is that they could not do anything : that there was no other possibility than a government led by Hitler as a military dictatorship was not possible . The reply is easy : given their attitude during the Third Reich,they would have done nothing to prevent the Third Reich,even if it was possible
6 After the war they said that Hitler only was responsible for the defeat and for the Holocaust . Why ? To hide their responsibility and to have a new future in the Bundeswehr .Their feeble excuse is the Tu Quoque : after the death of Stalin,his successors said that he alone was responsible for the Gulag .
They are maybe/probably more excuses/arguments, but ,whatever .
The end conclusion could/should be the following well known dictum :
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing .
On which certain people will reply : victory has a thousand fathers, defeat is an orphan,which means that if Hitler had won,no one would attack the generals . And : evil and good are decided by the winner .
After the war, the propaganda has transformed Rommel in a military genius and a ''good '' German .He was neither of both. He was also not the opposite .He was a good general and an average German. He does not deserve praise neither condemnation .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

#105

Post by ljadw » 12 Apr 2020, 13:34

Michael Kenny wrote:
12 Apr 2020, 10:44
Aida1 wrote:
12 Apr 2020, 10:14
. Dresden was not the first German city bombed.
Or even 'Dresden was not the first city bombed'. Indeed we can go back to 1939 for such a bombing in for example Warsaw. Do not forget Rotterdam and London in 1940.
What category of bombing does the VI and V2 fall into?
There was also Guernica : it is curious that those who whine about the air attacks on German cities remain silent about air attacks on allied cities .

Locked

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”