View Full Version : German film looks at ties between Rommel and Hitler
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/2738/638799880163848591.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/259/638799880163848591.jpg/)
Erwin Rommel (foreground) is played by Ulrich Tukur in the new film.
A new film about Erwin Rommel has been shown on German television, depicting the general as a weak man undone by his links to Adolf Hitler.
Dubbed the "Desert Fox" when he fought the Allies in North Africa during World War II, he was admired by enemies for his skills on the battlefield.
He finally killed himself, under pressure from the Nazi leader, who suspected him of taking part in a plot.But the TV film questions depictions of Rommel as a tragic anti-Nazi hero.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20180010
Note: 2 November 2012 Last updated at 12:16 GMT
Skybird
11-03-12, 11:57 AM
I have seen the film.
Ulrich Tukur is a well-known theatre and movie actor in Germany. He played Rommel, and not badly so. Other roles also had good actors, especially the Generals von Kluge and Speidel took my attention. The acting by Hitler was not good. But that has been remarked in German media as well.
The film sowed only the past weeks of Rommel, and left out all the African glory-catching. At that phase of the war, when Rommel took over the defence of the defence lines at the channel, most Wehrmacht generals knew that the war was lost, and wanted to negotiate a peace in the west in order to focus on the war in the East, which illustrates their irrationality nicely. They allowed to get paralysed by their perceived obligation to obey and stay loyal to the Fuhrer, even if they dispised him. The movie opened with a line by Hanna Arend, which says all that is to be said about this idiotic understanding of loyalty "no matter what what":
We are responsible for our obedience.
The film depicts Rommel as both a victim of situational circumstances beyond his control (regarding why after failed Valkyre his name appeared in the crosshair of investigators), and a naive man who until the end puts loyalty and military codex to obey above reason and own responsibility. He even does not resist at the very end, which would have been a sign of rebellion. Desperate and knowing of the war's end he was. But he drew no consequences, like so many others. When being contacted by the group around Stauffenberg, the film shows a man who seriously considered it possible to get rid of Hitler without needing to kill him.
One should know that the anglosaxon and the German view and perception of Rommel could not be any more different. In America and Britain, he seems to be perceived as a noble knight who deserved respect for both his military competence and the fair treatement of prisoners that his army took in africa. Comfortably one seems to leave it to this perception. In Germany, however, the question on his responsibility of having helped the Nazi regime by his successes, and his naivety and bvlind obedience and loyalty, gets asked much louder than in overseas. I cannot help but remind of another quote by Hanna Arend: "In politics, obedience is active support."
Personally, I see Rommel as politically naive (which many professional militaries seem to be until today, maybe in an effort to justify to their consciousness the object of the profession they have chosen), and militarily obviously competent. He may not have been a Nazi and may not even have liked the Nazis - but by his deeds and his loyalty, he supported their murderous cause. This is what also must be reminded of when talking about Rommel.
I once alked with a historian, who said sometign interesting with which I tend to agree. He said the Americans demonise the Japanese for their "honourless" attack at Pearl Harbour until today becaseu by doing so they can gloss over the fact that the militarily allowed to get sacked and spanked on their bare bottoms by their very own fault. Compatravble to that, the Brits maye glorify Rommel even until today and admire him so much becasue intially he delivered the Allies so severe a spanking. -. And if you get spanked and kicked around, then at least you want to say that you where overwheömed by either a giant three m eters high who brought his big brothers with him, or you turn him into a glorious hero who is of a knighthood that dserves respect even when getting defeated. This might explain why the views of Rommel in Germany and Anglosaxonistan are so very different.
Well. I do not have what it takes to understand such sentiments, it seems. In a war movie on the air battles in WWI (Was it "Der blaue Max?"), there comes this American pilot who is much more to my taste: He arrives in a British squadron and cannot believe how much admiration the English pilots pay to the skill and noble attitude of the Germans - who at that time shot them out of the sky at will. Not respecting these perverted rules of gentleman'S war and fair sportsmanship, he plays dirty and kicks the Germans between the legs at every opportunity. The Brits are shocked, and displeased, whole he wins air duels and kills German pilots. Less Brits get killed, the balance shifts, the Germans lose their dominance. That American pilot knew much more about what counts in war, than all his British colleagues together.
In the end, Rommel may have been a noble man or not, but he was naive, and he definitely played for the wrong team. And by wrong I do not mean just "loosing team", but I mean the moral side of the whole mess that the Nazi regime was. If Wehrmacht generals would have rebelled against Hitler and his regime and would have taken out, both Germany and Europe would have been saved from many more millions of people getting killed and cities destroyed. For not having helped in trying to achieve that, Rommel does not deserve the respect that is being payed to him in other countries.
We are responsible for our obedience. Back then. And in wars of today.
I agree and disagree with you Skybird.
Rommel was a shrewd tactician, but perhaps not the godlike figure that some people paint him to be, he was impatient, hard to work with, and prone to overextend himself at times. A good example of this was the dash to the coast, where he smashed through French lines, kept going without contacting his superiors and was written off as killed in action, it was only when he ran out of fuel and radioed in that they realised he was still alive and then they had to arrange for a supply train to meet him. Rommel may have obeyed the state, but he struggled to obey the High Command, and even some of Hitlers orders were negotiated around, such as commands to execute commandos, Jewish soldiers or civilians.
But he was far from perfect, far too brash, too aggressive, and his biggest weakness was logistics, and his own ego.
In regards to your comments on guilt through compliance, does that count for every single German soldier, airman or sailor who served the Reich in the war?
Skybird
11-03-12, 04:37 PM
In regards to your comments on guilt through compliance, does that count for every single German soldier, airman or sailor who served the Reich in the war?
The words I used, were responsibility for one's own obedience.
Yes, that is true for every single soldier in the German army in that war. And all other soldiers in all other armies in that and all other wars, from WWII over Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. That has many aspects and nuances, and factors increasing and relativising the amount of guilt. But the principle remain true: you are responsible for your obedience. May it be regarding a command. Ma yit be regarding loyalty to a person, commander, president, government, nation.
It is you deciding whether to comply with the situation you are in, or to refuse to do so. Consequences of your choice will be like this or like that, may even cost you your life. But still: you are responsible for your obedience. If not you - who else would it be? You choose the decision to comply with orders or not, to follow leaders or not, to believe what's being told you or not.
One could think of it as karma, too.
During the Nurmeberg trials, quite some of the accused argued that they just followed orders. Still the court thought that by that they were responsible for the consequences of their obedience.
You have noted probably that in thread son election and why I say people should not vote, the same issue appears. Because people are repsmsible for the leaders they legitimise by voting, the system they legitimise by voting, the lies they allow to be taken for argument when voting for the liars. You not only can choose to vote or not to vote - you are responsible for your choice.
If you want to avoid responsibility and want to be totally free, you need to live on an empty planet where there is just you alone.
mookiemookie
11-03-12, 06:17 PM
Wow....the physical resemblance is impressive.
The words I used, were responsibility for one's own obedience.
Yes, that is true for every single soldier in the German army in that war. And all other soldiers in all other armies in that and all other wars, from WWII over Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. That has many aspects and nuances, and factors increasing and relativising the amount of guilt. But the principle remain true: you are responsible for your obedience. May it be regarding a command. Ma yit be regarding loyalty to a person, commander, president, government, nation.
It is you deciding whether to comply with the situation you are in, or to refuse to do so. Consequences of your choice will be like this or like that, may even cost you your life. But still: you are responsible for your obedience. If not you - who else would it be? You choose the decision to comply with orders or not, to follow leaders or not, to believe what's being told you or not.
One could think of it as karma, too.
During the Nurmeberg trials, quite some of the accused argued that they just followed orders. Still the court thought that by that they were responsible for the consequences of their obedience.
You have noted probably that in thread son election and why I say people should not vote, the same issue appears. Because people are repsmsible for the leaders they legitimise by voting, the system they legitimise by voting, the lies they allow to be taken for argument when voting for the liars. You not only can choose to vote or not to vote - you are responsible for your choice.
If you want to avoid responsibility and want to be totally free, you need to live on an empty planet where there is just you alone.
Well, this is true, "I was just following orders" has been used for lots of excuses for vile acts. The trouble occurs when you boil it down to self-preservation. In a regime where disobedience equals death, do you disregard self-preservation and seek death for your morals or do you avoid death by being obedient? Heroes certainly would put morals before self-preservation, and many did, but many of us, and I'd would count myself as amongst them, would not have that strength of character to take your moral beliefs to your grave with you.
There are ways and means to disobey the regime without being obvious about it, and many Germans did in some form or another, from listening to foreign radios all the way up to hiding Jews, what manner of disobedience is greater? Both would put you in severe trouble if you were found out, but that didn't stop many from doing so, and some from dying whilst doing so.
What didn't help matters was the old Prussian mentality which had gotten Germany through the early 20th century, that "my country, right or wrong" sort of nationalism which meant that they may not have approved of Hitlers methods, but he was the leader and they fought for him as an extension of fighting for Germany, powerful propaganda helped that, and I think we've all been taken in by propaganda at least once in our lives, usually through negative stereotypes enforced by propaganda.
Personally I don't hold Germans responsible for the war, if anything I hold Britain, France and America responsible for creating the conditions that allowed Hitler to rise to power through the Treaty of Versailles, but that's another matter entirely. People like the thugs of the SS, their actions are unforgivable, but you get people like that in all sides in war, those that will take things too far, that will cross the line. Is that true war? When the SS lock the people of a village up in a church and set it on fire, they are preventing the working populace from falling into enemy hands and providing resources for them, so does that make it right? When the Japanese slaughtered POWs or worked them to death, they are denying the enemy from reinforcing themselves if the POWs are recaptured, is that right? Both examples are, by the modern laws of war, completely unacceptable, however every wartime atrocity can be given a military excuse which makes it viable.
As I understand it Rommel only agreed to suicide in order to protect his family from retribution, so his reasons for cooperating in his death were somewhat more practical than meekness or loyalty to the state.
If he'd have demanded a trial he would still have been executed but so would his wife and son.
Skybird
11-04-12, 06:14 AM
August,
Rommel was a people's hero and he was also told that due to that circumstance one would be willing to not put him on trial, in order to save the public image. Seen that way, Rommel may also have agreed in order to leave the image - or illusion - intact. I think the public and the family motive both played a role.
Oberon,
you are right and I agree with what you say, and still - you took note that in your first asnwers you talked of "guilt and compliance", and I immediately corrected that and reminded you that I called it "responsibility and obedience". It is not always easy to fully see what long-range consequences our decisions and actions have or have not, and by becoming a reality what new new consequences this might trigger. And the amount of moral guilt one has to accept for being obedient, gets heavier or lighter due to the individual characteristics and variables the person is in. For the Germans, you could for example ask what would have happened if a majority of them would not have complied with the Nazis's rules, and would have revolted. I think that while most Nazis in Europe were Germans and Austrians, not all Germans and Austrians were Nazis. Believing Nazis probably only formed a minority, meaning: a group smaller than 50%, how many there actually were, we will never know. Maybe as little as 10% only. However, those accepting to nevertheless play ball and follow rules and look the other way, although they may not have been Nazis and may not have pulled a trigger still helped by that that the Nazis could secure their power. The silent majority that sat put and tolerated the darkness during the war, as well as those desperate workers before 39 who fell for the Nazi's paroles because Hitler indeed brought them back into work and put money and bread and butter on their home's kitchentables, have to accept that by doing so they made decisions that had effects - and that they share a responsibility for this.
We all need to make choices, almost everyday. And we are responsible for our decisions. Maybe I have a somewhat radical view there, put I stick to it: the freedom to chose between decisions, you always have. Maybe your choice will get you killed, but still, the choice is yours, and if your choice means you get killed, you have freedom that way, then.
On the German spirit that you summarised as "my nation, right or wrong", you still see that even in the wars of today, don't you, so it is not typically a German thing, nor was it exclusively in that era only.
Oberon,
you are right and I agree with what you say, and still - you took note that in your first asnwers you talked of "guilt and compliance", and I immediately corrected that and reminded you that I called it "responsibility and obedience". It is not always easy to fully see what long-range consequences our decisions and actions have or have not, and by becoming a reality what new new consequences this might trigger. And the amount of moral guilt one has to accept for being obedient, gets heavier or lighter due to the individual characteristics and variables the person is in. For the Germans, you could for example ask what would have happened if a majority of them would not have complied with the Nazis's rules, and would have revolted. I think that while most Nazis in Europe were Germans and Austrians, not all Germans and Austrians were Nazis. Believing Nazis probably only formed a minority, meaning: a group smaller than 50%, how many there actually were, we will never know. Maybe as little as 10% only. However, those accepting to nevertheless play ball and follow rules and look the other way, although they may not have been Nazis and may not have pulled a trigger still helped by that that the Nazis could secure their power. The silent majority that sat put and tolerated the darkness during the war, as well as those desperate workers before 39 who fell for the Nazi's paroles because Hitler indeed brought them back into work and put money and bread and butter on their home's kitchentables, have to accept that by doing so they made decisions that had effects - and that they share a responsibility for this.
We all need to make choices, almost everyday. And we are responsible for our decisions. Maybe I have a somewhat radical view there, put I stick to it: the freedom to chose between decisions, you always have. Maybe your choice will get you killed, but still, the choice is yours, and if your choice means you get killed, you have freedom that way, then.
On the German spirit that you summarised as "my nation, right or wrong", you still see that even in the wars of today, don't you, so it is not typically a German thing, nor was it exclusively in that era only.
I see where you're coming from, and I think that was where the Nazis were at their most devious, if the German people had seen them in the full light of day at the start, they'd have struggled to get into power, but as it was it was clever propaganda and machinations that presented the German people (and Austrian for that matter) with...dare I say it...'Hope' and 'Change' which are perhaps two of the more powerful words in the English language when it comes to motivating a populace. They promised a lot, and even delivered some of it, fancy schemes such as 'Kraft der Freude', the HJ, the Autobahns, which in hindsight are recognisable as either military preparation or bread and circuses, but at the time were gifts from a regime which, if you weren't politically minded and didn't fall into one of the undesirable categories, gave you a job, gave you money and gave you hope for a better future for a Germany which had been crushed in WWI, betrayed by its bureaucracy and buried under a decade of mismanagement and corruption. With all that glittering promise, it's little wonder that Hitler was, to many, the best thing since sliced bread (which was now affordable without having to use a wheelbarrow of paper notes).
It's only with hindsight that we hold those people responsible for making a wrong decision, if the Nazis had won the war, then this conversation would be completely different.
But I do see where you're coming from, and it's not that radical a view, the concept of free will dove-tails nicely into having a responsibility for ones decisions, however the concept does not always work equally across the board, sometimes things occur that are not intended consequences of your actions. For example, if you were to walk down a street at night and be mugged, would you hold responsibility for walking down that street at night? Certainly there are actions one can take to limit such occurrences, for example if the street is a known trouble spot, don't walk down it at night, or better still avoid it altogether.
The concept also breaks down when it encounters another common human occurrence, deceit, certainly most common in politics. For example, do the people who voted for Tony Blair and the Labour Party in the 2001 election take responsibility for the Prime Ministers decision to invade Iraq alongside the United States in 2003? It was not a stated goal of the PM to do so, in fact, in June 2001 few could have foreseen the events of a few months later and the results that they would have on the world.
If a person lies to you, and you believe them, do you take responsibility for believing them?
Oh, and don't worry, I don't believe for a second that the mentality of 'my country right or wrong' is limited to just Germany of that era, it is a founding principle of nationalism and jingoism that's been all around the world since the dawn of the nation state. :yep:
In conclusion, I do understand where you're coming from, and agree, but it's a hard concept to put across the board on a planet with so many variables, but if people did take more responsibility for their actions instead of blaming it solely on others, well...this world would be quite a different place, wouldn't it? :yep:
Skybird
11-04-12, 12:37 PM
the Autobahns
Wait a moment there. It is a great myth that the Nazis "invented " the Autobahn, or that the Autobahn program helped to massively battle mass unemployment. The idea for building specialized high-speed streets reserved for car traffic exclusively was introduced already in 1924 or 25 in Frankfurt, an organisation was founded to boost that idea and get that project started. And the building of just more of the same had a minor impact on the unemployment only. Ober 6 million workers had no jobs, but the autobahn projects of the Nazis bound only around 125 thousand workers, and maybe another 125 thousand at max in attached business companies who delivered the material. It was a propaganda coup in the main, because to the wide public the Autobahnen were sold as "the Führer's roads". At the same time the working conditions were extremely primitive even for the conditions of that time, machinery was rarely used, for the most it was all done by worker's hand, with shovels.
The Autobahnen and the Führer, that is a long-living story of myth and misperception.
It's only with hindsight that we hold those people responsible for making a wrong decision, if the Nazis had won the war, then this conversation would be completely different.
I think you mix up the moral guilt aspect and the aspect of technical responsibility, in a causal understanding, too easily. Keep both more separate, but linked. Decisions you form on the basis of knowledge that you have and deal with, or that you ignore. Basing on indeed misinformation or wrong data, is something different. However, one then must ask whether or not you share responsibility for not having better information, or having helped in establishing a mechanism that feeds you false information. And so on and on. If you get lied to by a person who before always spoke the truth, that is one thing. If you believe a person whom is known to be a notorious liar, that is something different.
But I do see where you're coming from, and it's not that radical a view, the concept of free will dove-tails nicely into having a responsibility for ones decisions, however the concept does not always work equally across the board, sometimes things occur that are not intended consequences of your actions. For example, if you were to walk down a street at night and be mugged, would you hold responsibility for walking down that street at night?
The quesiton you seem to ask is whether the victim is morally guilty of havign walked down a lon ely street at night!?
Certainly there are actions one can take to limit such occurrences, for example if the street is a known trouble spot, don't walk down it at night, or better still avoid it altogether.
However. I see that we get distracted here. The issue is "responsibility for your obedience". I remind of the other Hannah Arendt quote I gave: "In politics, loyalty is active support." Obedience implies you stay loyal to an authority you accept to rate above yourself in the power hierarchy. That it is more powerful in said hierarchy, must not necessarily mean it is right. You make a decision to comply with its claims for power, or not. You are obedient, or not. You either support it in its intentions, or you don't. You obey your general's order, or you don't. Both has consequences. Your choice on whether or not to comply, and the consequences that you knowingly accept by that, tell something about you. And here is where you can stay conform with to the authority's demand, you comply - and by that become morally guilty, not just responsible in a causal-technical manner. Obviously, conscience has a lot to do with it. And to me, my conscience is the highest authority to which I indeed owe justification for my decisions and actions. Not a deity. Not a general or president. Not a people electing me. Not my family and not my friends. But my conscience. If I am not in congruence with my conscience, then I'm in trouble. Do I allow to get bought? Do I comply with something my conscience protests over, because else my life is in danger? And how relates a decision for or against compliance with an external authority, to the thread that if I do not violate my conscience, other people, innocents, will suffer or die?
Tricky. And I am responsible for how I navigate through this labyrinth. Me. Nobody else. The external authority manipulating me and blackmailing me, just is what it is and does what it does,. How I face that challenge - that si what it is about.
The concept also breaks down when it encounters another common human occurrence, deceit, certainly most common in politics. For example, do the people who voted for Tony Blair and the Labour Party in the 2001 election take responsibility for the Prime Ministers decision to invade Iraq alongside the United States in 2003? It was not a stated goal of the PM to do so, in fact, in June 2001 few could have foreseen the events of a few months later and the results that they would have on the world.
If a person lies to you, and you believe them, do you take responsibility for believing them?
Technically, yes, but the moral guilt is reduced when you had no reason to not trust the other whose lies you believed. But in case of politicians I do argue - as you have noticed in other threads, I'm sure - that lies are part of their daily business ands manipulation of opinion is their profession. You are responsible for having believed somebody I would label as a known liar. And that is a moral guilt as well.
Oh, and don't worry, I don't believe for a second that the mentality of 'my country right or wrong' is limited to just Germany of that era, it is a founding principle of nationalism and jingoism that's been all around the world since the dawn of the nation state. :yep:
It's not just nationalism and extremism. Take the Western idealists in uniform who seriously believed their leaders who send them to Afghanistan or Iraq. Two weeks ago, I touched upon the naivety of German soldiers depicted in a German TV film I had a thread about. There is a certain kind of opportunistic gullibility amongst professional soldiers, especially those without too much experience. They indeed believe they go to Afghanistan to help build democracy. They indeed believed the lies told by Bush. You see, while seeing the good will of theirs, I also hold them responsible for their naivety - a naivety that maybe already starts with the decision to voluntarily join the army. To what degree a moral guilt results from that, again is a follow-on question depending on many variables.
In conclusion, I do understand where you're coming from, and agree, but it's a hard concept to put across the board on a planet with so many variables, but if people did take more responsibility for their actions instead of blaming it solely on others, well...this world would be quite a different place, wouldn't it? :yep:
Accepting responsibility for your decision and actions, can plot you a course into troubled seas, that is for certain. And before we have never faced existential challenges, we cannot claim with certainty what we would do in an extreme situation. We only can say what we hope we would be courageous and honest - may I say: noble? - enough to do or to decide. As long as we have not been in such a situation, we do not know for sure.
Wait a moment there. It is a great myth that the Nazis "invented " the Autobahn, or that the Autobahn program helped to massively battle mass unemployment. The idea for building specialized high-speed streets reserved for car traffic exclusively was introduced already in 1924 or 25 in Frankfurt, an organisation was founded to boost that idea and get that project started. And the building of just more of the same had a minor impact on the unemployment only. Ober 6 million workers had no jobs, but the autobahn projects of the Nazis bound only around 125 thousand workers, and maybe another 125 thousand at max in attached business companies who delivered the material. It was a propaganda coup in the main, because to the wide public the Autobahnen were sold as "the Führer's roads". At the same time the working conditions were extremely primitive even for the conditions of that time, machinery was rarely used, for the most it was all done by worker's hand, with shovels.
The Autobahnen and the Führer, that is a long-living story of myth and misperception.
Well, you learn something new every day, it just goes to show how pervasive the propaganda machine of the Reich was to have such myths continue to this day.
I think you mix up the moral guilt aspect and the aspect of technical responsibility, in a causal understanding, too easily. Keep both more separate, but linked. Decisions you form on the basis of knowledge that you have and deal with, or that you ignore. Basing on indeed misinformation or wrong data, is something different. However, one then must ask whether or not you share responsibility for not having better information, or having helped in establishing a mechanism that feeds you false information. And so on and on. If you get lied to by a person who before always spoke the truth, that is one thing. If you believe a person whom is known to be a notorious liar, that is something different.
Question, Question, always question, I think is the lesson to be learnt in many things, life in general. Sometimes though, human laziness strikes and we find it easier not to question in order to live a simple life. You see it a lot in people who couldn't tell you where Iran is on a map but won't miss an episode of the latest reality television show, ignorance is bliss as the old saying goes, but ignorance is also a trap, since eventually life has a funny habit of putting you in situations where your ignorance leads to a downfall.
Besides, as another saying goes, "If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?" :03:
Sometimes though, even when given the truth, people chose to believe a lie because it either sounds better, or the truth itself is too terrible for them to behold. Be it conspiracy theorists who think that 9/11 was an inside job, or those who believed the propaganda machine of the Reich even as the Soviets marched on Berlin. The human mind sometimes just simply cannot input the information presented to it, sometimes that leads to death like rabbits trapped in headlights, or a complete psychological breakdown, or strict denial that it happened.
But that is straying a tad off course from our subject at hand, but I will refer back to a quote that someone had as their sig for a while, and I think (but I am not 100% sure) that you said it:
"We all, in life, sometimes ignore a truth in favour of a lie that sounds better."
The quesiton you seem to ask is whether the victim is morally guilty of havign walked down a lon ely street at night!?
I guess there is the fine line between what is morally responsible and what is common sense.
However. I see that we get distracted here. The issue is "responsibility for your obedience". I remind of the other Hannah Arendt quote I gave: "In politics, loyalty is active support." Obedience implies you stay loyal to an authority you accept to rate above yourself in the power hierarchy. That it is more powerful in said hierarchy, must not necessarily mean it is right. You make a decision to comply with its claims for power, or not. You are obedient, or not. You either support it in its intentions, or you don't. You obey your general's order, or you don't. Both has consequences. Your choice on whether or not to comply, and the consequences that you knowingly accept by that, tell something about you. And here is where you can stay conform with to the authority's demand, you comply - and by that become morally guilty, not just responsible in a causal-technical manner. Obviously, conscience has a lot to do with it. And to me, my conscience is the highest authority to which I indeed owe justification for my decisions and actions. Not a deity. Not a general or president. Not a people electing me. Not my family and not my friends. But my conscience. If I am not in congruence with my conscience, then I'm in trouble. Do I allow to get bought? Do I comply with something my conscience protests over, because else my life is in danger? And how relates a decision for or against compliance with an external authority, to the thread that if I do not violate my conscience, other people, innocents, will suffer or die?
Tricky. And I am responsible for how I navigate through this labyrinth. Me. Nobody else. The external authority manipulating me and blackmailing me, just is what it is and does what it does,. How I face that challenge - that si what it is about.
It is tricky indeed, and I think that it's something that's run down through society, and religion (sometimes) in history. Do you make the just decision, or the easy one? Often the answers are so vague that it's hard to know if you've made the right decision, rarely is it so simple that the consequences of your actions in either direction are spelled out to you beforehand since you cannot predict the future. Which leads you into the quandry of making the right choice.
I certainly don't disagree with you, when I say that it is your responsibility for navigating this labyrinth, just as it is mine to navigate my own, but sometimes, as they say, a burden shared is a burden halved, and sometimes you can seek advice as to what direction to take, but ultimately, you and only you can walk that path.
Technically, yes, but the moral guilt is reduced when you had no reason to not trust the other whose lies you believed. But in case of politicians I do argue - as you have noticed in other threads, I'm sure - that lies are part of their daily business ands manipulation of opinion is their profession. You are responsible for having believed somebody I would label as a known liar. And that is a moral guilt as well.
Lies certainly are part of the daily business of politicians, although I do ponder, as commented in another thread myself, in a quotation of a comment written by Neil deGrass Tyson on twitter, who has more of the responsibility. A politician will say what they think you want them to say. Are we the ones at fault for just wanting to hear what we want to hear from them? Certainly no politician has ever been praised for bad news, so again we come back to that decision, to take the difficult path and be honest (and probably never be re-elected) or to take the easiest path and lie, and as we both know, humanity is like water and electricity, it tends to take the path of least resistance.
However, I would argue a third factor in our viewpoint of politicians, and that's education. Does a person who is unaware of their ignorance bear the same moral guilt as someone who is aware of it? Personally, I would argue that they do not, as no one person can know all things in the universe, but the person who does know of their ignorance and yet chooses to remain so is counter to all of humanity which has constantly sought for answers.
If I really wanted to derail this thread, I could bring modern religion in at this point, but I think both of us have talked about that for long enough in this forum and I don't know if Neals bandwidth would like it if we started again. :haha:
It's not just nationalism and extremism. Take the Western idealists in uniform who seriously believed their leaders who send them to Afghanistan or Iraq. Two weeks ago, I touched upon the naivety of German soldiers depicted in a German TV film I had a thread about. There is a certain kind of opportunistic gullibility amongst professional soldiers, especially those without too much experience. They indeed believe they go to Afghanistan to help build democracy. They indeed believed the lies told by Bush. You see, while seeing the good will of theirs, I also hold them responsible for their naivety - a naivety that maybe already starts with the decision to voluntarily join the army. To what degree a moral guilt results from that, again is a follow-on question depending on many variables.
You will always get the rosy cheeked recruit who believes the poster and walks out to the battlefield ignorant of the nature of war. From the young teens of Flanders fields, to the lads who go to Afghanistan today. However, they soon learn different.
Joining the army, it's a difficult decision to morally make. Once upon a time it was a religious duty, then a national one, now with so many questions asked over the point of conflict, well, you can see the difference in the size of volunteer armies over the years in western nations.
Often these days it is a family matter, the father educates the son about his military experience and instills a desire in the son to emulate his father, be it for many reasons, for recognition, for self-pride, or for a sense of community. I am the first generation for about four or five generations in my family not to have been involved in any branch of the armed forces for any amount of time. However my upbringing instilled no desire in me to emulate my grandfather, but society and my sometimes 19th century way of thinking does put a small twinge of guilt in the back of my mind from time to time.
In regards to the soldiers who think that they are building 'democracy' in Afghanistan, I think that again boils back down to believing a less painful lie rather than the truth, it makes it easier for them to go back out there and come back again. A coping mechanism perhaps. However, I cannot ultimately decide or judge their mindset since I lack the necessary first hand experience to do so. Until I have walked in their shoes and experienced their upbringing, training and warzone tours, I do not aspire to judge them or their beliefs. Do I hold them responsible for their beliefs? In a non-accusationary manner, perhaps, only in so much as I hold you responsible for yours and myself for my own. When it comes to moral guilt, the emphasis placed upon it varies from man to man, some will live their lives as morally sound as possible, others will pay little heed to it.
Accepting responsibility for your decision and actions, can plot you a course into troubled seas, that is for certain. And before we have never faced existential challenges, we cannot claim with certainty what we would do in an extreme situation. We only can say what we hope we would be courageous and honest - may I say: noble? - enough to do or to decide. As long as we have not been in such a situation, we do not know for sure.
I cannot disagree at all, and these are wise words. Our hopes and our realities often have vast gulfs between them, but sometimes, just sometimes, we can excel ourselves and create such virtues of note, such great moral deeds, and at the same time such despicable acts.
Of course, what is morally right is another big question. What judges our ethics? Society? Religion? Our own personal decisions? What is right for me may be wrong for you...so who is right and who is wrong?
Skybird
11-05-12, 07:22 AM
I think your closing questions are of greater value if being left as they are, technically unanswered in this phase of our talking. Because that way they force everybody noting them to think himself, and always new. I tend to not believe in blueprints for answers to questions like this. What is the right thing to do in times of peace and civilised orders, jmight be the wrong thing to do in times of war and chaos, might even cause more chaos and "evil" then. I tend to see both times, peace and war, by totally different set of rules. Judging the one by standards used to describe the other, for me makes little sense. A pacifist might do that, and by doing so even refuses to fight against an obvious evil. a notorious militarist might do so as well, and by that even in times of peace threatens to impose rules basing on the logic of war, in the name of protecting freedom and peace. Seeing war by moral standards of peace, and seeing peace by the standards of war, does not seem to work. The killing I do in peace, is illegal and is a crime. The killing of the same person in war, is called legitimate, and "duty". I may even get rewarded for it. Context is all.
I have little to add or reply to what you said, I agree with too much of it and we seem to be not that much apart in our views on these things. And if we would start on religion again, Takeda's two heads probably would explode. :88)
Thanks for a decent talk done! I appreciate that.:up:
Rockstar
11-05-12, 07:49 AM
I too appreciate this talk it was an extremely interesting discussion. Truly it opened my eyes to something new.
I had no idea Takeda had two heads.
< Ba-dum-dum-tssshhh >
Jimbuna
11-05-12, 08:27 AM
As I understand it Rommel only agreed to suicide in order to protect his family from retribution, so his reasons for cooperating in his death were somewhat more practical than meekness or loyalty to the state.
If he'd have demanded a trial he would still have been executed but so would his wife and son.
That was my understanding too but I'm amazed he accepted said reassurances.....not that he'd have had much choice.
I too appreciate this talk it was an extremely interesting discussion. Truly it opened my eyes to something new.
I had no idea Takeda had two heads.
< Ba-dum-dum-tssshhh >
Probably me me but I don't understand your reference to Takeda :hmm2:
Thanks for a decent talk done! I appreciate that.:up:
Likewise, I always enjoy our talks. :yep:
Catfish
11-06-12, 02:38 AM
Had not seen the film, but downloaded it via Mediathek view and VLC-player, so only saw it yesterday.
I have to say, i was positively astonished, the film does not take away the guilt nor the soldier's oath and obedience, staid hard on reality while not becoming boring. Also some historical film mixed in, indeed the very beginning, where the coloured film emerges out of a historical propaganda take, is well made.
Also i did not know Germany had been making an offer for peace, a unilateral one with the west, against Stalin. Certainly, it was turned down by the Allies. It seems the real decision to assassinate Hitler, was made when the group around Stauffenberg heard of this, and then wanted to set a mark, to the world.
And best, it was not made by, or with, Guido Knopp :D
Greetings,
Catfish
Skybird
11-06-12, 09:49 AM
And best, it was not made by, or with, Guido Knopp :D
:D
Don't worry, he has retired now. No more films by him.
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3254/2bannerx.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/441/2bannerx.jpg/)
Skybird
11-06-12, 12:40 PM
^ :06:
Catfish
11-06-12, 01:35 PM
This is an 'open source' film about Germany and the blame for the war, this time favouring Germany, including a lot of errors.
YouTube tells me "Dieses Video ist in Deinem Land nicht verfügbar"
(This video is not available in your country)
:D
(it certainly is, all over the web)
Maybe will wtach it, but not today.
This is an 'open source' film about Germany and the blame for the war, this time favouring Germany, including a lot of errors.
YouTube tells me "Dieses Video ist in Deinem Land nicht verfügbar"
(This video is not available in your country)
:D
(it certainly is, all over the web)
Maybe will wtach it, but not today. Everything can be available if ya want :D
Catfish
11-07-12, 05:38 AM
^it can - it is also obvious, with the historical footage and music of the time, in which direction the film points.
However, watched the first two parts. I knew of Locarno, and France's behaviour, but there's an awful lot i was not taught at school. Not another direction, just nothing. So was this just a product of the re-education project ?
Vendor, did you see the film ? What do you think ? :hmmm:
Hello everyone, I used to be a big fan of both tank games and ship vs u-boat battles, and reciently I have been getting back into it which drew me here.
I studied Rommel in depth including from the primary sources at the time and his life is a very interesting story. I watched the German film on him and can only say that what they created was an interesting character, but it is nothing like Erwin Rommel. It was also clear watching it they used the work of David Irving a Holocaust denier that wrote a book on Rommel that he admitted he wrote to Neo-Nazis so that they could look up to Rommel again and not see him as a traitor to Hitler.
In the end, Rommel may have been a noble man or not, but he was naive, and he definitely played for the wrong team. And by wrong I do not mean just "loosing team", but I mean the moral side of the whole mess that the Nazi regime was. If Wehrmacht generals would have rebelled against Hitler and his regime and would have taken out, both Germany and Europe would have been saved from many more millions of people getting killed and cities destroyed. For not having helped in trying to achieve that, Rommel does not deserve the respect that is being payed to him in other countries.
We are responsible for our obedience. Back then. And in wars of today.
Rommel was disconnected from the horror that was going on in Eastern Europe having never served there and spending two years fighting in Africa.
After he returned home and got out of the hospital in mid 1943 he started hearing stories about SS death squads going around Eastern Europe killing people on mass. He talked about this with his son Manfred Rommel in December of 1943 when Manfred decided he wanted to join the Waffen SS.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/scan0002-1.jpg
Karl Strolin a WW1 friend who had become Mayor of Stuttgart after the first World War and was a member of the Nazi Party and deported Jews to Poland had turned against the leadership of the party and in early 1944 he told Rommel of the death camps in the East.
Rommel's response to Strolin was 'what does one do if ones government itself becomes criminal'.
Rommel before knew the Nazi party was mistreating and oppressing Jews, but not mass murdering them. How do we know that? Rommel is on paper from 1937-1944 writing letters protesting the treatment of Jews and even talked to Hitler in person about bringing Jews into the German government in the early 40s. So, we have a pretty good view of the evolution on his understanding of how the Jews were being treated at various times and it didn't always match reality.
During Rommel's time in France, Hitler ordered him to deport the country's Jewish population; Rommel disobeyed. Several times he wrote letters protesting against the treatment of the Jews.
Also, during the construction of the Atlantic Wall, Rommel directed that French workers were not to be used as slaves, but were to be paid for their labour. Nazi party officials in France reported that Rommel extensively and scornfully criticised Nazi incompetence and crimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel
Rommel always hated the SS even back to 1934 when he held up a military parade because he refused to have his troops march with them. He viewed them as more loyal to the Nazi Party then to Germany which is why he did everything he could to keep them out of Africa. He also kept Islamic Extremists from killing Jews in his areas of operations. There was 100,000 Jews in Libya and a little over 100,000 in Tunisia before the war and there was the same number in both countries after the war. Almost all of them left for Israel after the state was created and to honor Rommel and all he did to keep them alive they made his son the honorary Guardian of Jerusalem.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/Rommelson.png
Keep in mind he also told Hitler to piss off when he ordered him in 1944 to deport the Jews of France to Poland.
As for the final months of his life. He spent his days preparing for the Allied invasion of France. At this point in time he knew the war was long since lost, but he believed that if he kicked ass at the beaches he could sit down with his old frenemies Monty and Ike get a much better peace deal out for Germany. At this point in time he believed that the Nazi Party needed to be overthrown, but Hitler needed to be made to stand trial for his crimes in order to break the image of him in the minds of the German people as a great and honorable man.
The Allies invaded Normandy as we all know and for a number of reasons his hopes of doing well enough to achieve something short of unconditional surrender were dashed.
At this point Rommel came to the view that Hitler had to be killed in order for him to be able to surrender all German forces in the West so that the Western Allies get to Germany before the Soviet's as he believed if the Soviet's took Germany it would be the end of the country.
the British after nearly 70 years declassifing their secret audio recordings that they knew a month before Rommel was killed that he was telling other generals in France that Hitler had to be killed. A short preview from an hour long National Geographic TV special they made on the topic is in the You Tube link below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9SFwVMlMIc&feature=plcp
The documentary shows he knew everything about the July Plot at that point and supported it as the only way left to save Germany.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/IMG_0791.jpg
But, one has to understand in order for the plan to work it had to be the July Plotters who kill Hitler and he had to be the one as a Field Marshal to pull a Lee at Appomattox and surrender German forces in the West so that the war ends in the fall of 1944 with Western Allied forces occupying all of central Europe.
Bad luck intervened and July Plotter's bomb failed to kill Hitler and Rommel's car was strafed by a plane three days before the attack and he was put out of commission.
After the war Germans were quite divided about the July Plotters. To be blunt much of German society in the early Cold War considered the attempt to kill Hitler dishonorable or high treason. The U.S. and the U.K. wanted Rommel to be an apolitical military symbol to support German re-armament during the Cold War so they decided to promote the middle ground notion that Rommel supported overthrowing the Nazi Party, but wanted Hitler tried not murdered outright. That was in fact his position at one time, but the Western Allies knew even a month before Rommel was suicided that his position evolved to fully supporting the July Plot.
The attempt mainly in Germany to alter the history of Rommel to turn him into nothing more then a mindless puppet of Hitler, who didn't do significant things to prevent the deaths of innocent civilians and Jews in his areas of operations, and who never turned against Hitler goes back to the fact that the Western Allies turned him into a symbol for West Germans to believe that their is honor in having a military and that includes a Navy. Hell, the U.S. built the guided-missile destroyer Rommel for West Germany.
But, the Cold War is over and the attempt in Germany by various factions to make Rommel into a mindless loser and puppet is based on the desire of aspects of German society to support the complete demilitarization of Germany by trying to destroy one of the very few remaining positive military symbols Germans had.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/w2.jpg
Erwin Rommel was many things, but he was no weak willed puppet as the film shows. How many men would dare scream at Hitler in person telling him the war is lost and "Do you really believe you can win this". How many would burn Hitler's orders to kill POWs and deport Jews? How many would tell other generals that Hitler must be killed knowing the cost of high treason is not only death for you, but the usual procedure is consignment of your family to a concentration camp?
If you want a film on the real Rommel he would actually be a fair bit more brutal and tough then we saw in the film. This is a man who in battle could be very fanatical far more then shown on the film, but had a strong view civilians were not to be harmed intentionally in war. His response to the SS massacre of civilians in France in the film was a joke. In reality after he found out about the massacre his response was not impotent shock it was outrage and he confronted Hitler personally and demanded that Himmler's dogs be leashed and that the officer who ordered the massacre be put on trial by him.
Don't get me wrong the character in the film was interesting and somewhat sympathetic as victim and a weak and cowardly man, but as a depiction of Erwin Rommel it was far off the mark intentionally so to send a political message. There are positive and negative messages to be had about Rommel's actions in service to Germany from before WW1 to 1944, but this film made the critical error of having a political point and then designing the character around that point and cherry picking their history from weak and discredited sources including from a Holocaust denier to make it fit.
Instead they should have looked at the solid facts of his history and you could find alot of interesting negative and positive messages from that and go from there. Like how his personal ambition to rise to the top of the German Army and love of combat helped to cloud his better judgement for some time about the real nature of the regime he was serving. That would be an interesting film with a somewhat anti war message that at least would be true to Rommel as a historical figure. However, any film on him shouldn't leave out the side who cared more about Germany then his own life and had no fear of anyone and was more then willing to tell Hitler to piss off to his face when asked to deport the Jews from his area of operations or to kill POWs.
^it can - it is also obvious, with the historical footage and music of the time, in which direction the film points.
However, watched the first two parts. I knew of Locarno, and France's behaviour, but there's an awful lot i was not taught at school. Not another direction, just nothing. So was this just a product of the re-education project ?
Vendor, did you see the film ? What do you think ? :hmmm: I've only seen parts, and it's not enough to make an overall assessment, but I'll see more in the future.
Catfish
11-17-12, 08:25 AM
@Jmc247 excellent analysis, thanks a LOT !
And I did not know this David Irving thing -
German officers or better the whole military had to vow their oath to Hitler, not to Germany. Hitler knew exactly why he demanded this.
When it was obvious that Germany was threatened to lose the war (although a lot of people said it was lost when England declared war, including my father), the military could then have made an effort for a truce, which was impossible as long as Hitler refused - until the Allies met, in Berlin.
Thanks and greetings,
and welcome to Subsim :sunny:
Catfish
Takeda Shingen
11-17-12, 08:43 AM
I have little to add or reply to what you said, I agree with too much of it and we seem to be not that much apart in our views on these things. And if we would start on religion again, Takeda's two heads probably would explode. :88)
And here I was reading this thread and thinking that you've turned a corner. Nope. Even in a thread that was actually pretty good, underneath you're the same old angry Skybird. :down:
@jmc247,Very good,and welcome to SubSim :sunny:
@Jmc247 excellent analysis, thanks a LOT !
And I did not know this David Irving thing -
German officers or better the whole military had to vow their oath to Hitler, not to Germany. Hitler knew exactly why he demanded this.
When it was obvious that Germany was threatened to lose the war (although a lot of people said it was lost when England declared war, including my father), the military could then have made an effort for a truce, which was impossible as long as Hitler refused - until the Allies met, in Berlin.
Thanks and greetings,
and welcome to Subsim :sunny:
Catfish
Thanks for the welcome everyone.
You are correct, Hitler had too much power over the German officer corps because of the loyalty oath they swore to him personally for Rommel to be able to personally effect a surrender of all German forces in France in the Summer of 1944 to end the war nearly a year early and get the Western Allies to occupy all of central Europe... as long as Hitler was living that is.
The British from wiretapping various generals conversations did know exactly what Rommel was trying to do in France before the end of the war and said so at the time.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/23d-1.jpg
u crank
11-17-12, 08:58 AM
Welcome to SUBSIM jmc247.
Very interesting posts. :salute:
Jimbuna
11-17-12, 09:52 AM
Thanks for the welcome everyone.
http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/welcome.gif
http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/welcome.gif
Thanks for the welcome again. I long like to play cat and mouse games between u-boats and warships.
My feeling about the movie can best be summed up by this reviewer who points out not only Rommel's family was enraged, but one of the historians hired for the film resigned in disgust over the film relying so much on the history written by a Holocaust denier.
Rommel - Do We Really Need to Deconstruct Him?
Was Germany's Second World War general, Erwin Rommel, really the chivalrous "Desert Fox" commander of legend who is reputed to have plotted against Hitler? Or was he a deeply convinced Nazi and anti-Semite driven by an egotistical desire for fame?
German viewers will get an opportunity to make up their own minds on Thursday evening when Rommel, a controversial television drama about the celebrated wartime general, will be broadcast. The production has infuriated the surviving relatives of the general who committed suicide in 1944. Its authors stand accused of relying on the works of the discredited Holocaust-denying British historian David Irving. A German historian involved walked out in disgust.
http://warreview.blogspot.com/2012/10/rommel-do-we-really-need-to-deconstruct.html
As one can guess my main focus is learning and teaching history. It was nice to be able to include a picture of a guided missile destroyer in construction in my first post on a historical matter. Here was the finished product... it met its end in 1999 after a few decades of service.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/yt.jpg
Obviously, its hard for people living today who have only a general view of the things Rommel did during the war to understand the man and why he isn't a post war creation and a 'myth' as the makers of this film and other people today say he was.
His biggest contribution to Germany though failing to end the war in 1944 under more favorable conditions for his country was he treated the French very well as occupation commander at a very critical time compared to German occupation commanders elsewhere. Becase he refused to treat the French as slaves and made a massive stink to prevent future massacres like the SS carried out against the French in 1944 killing over 600 civilians he avoided a French uprising at that critical time like the Poles did in 1944. German forces in response would have followed Hitler's orders to burn down French cities and the relationship between France and Germany would have been cold as ice for decades after the war. The French would probably delay the creation of West Germany for many years and then do all they can to veto West Germany being allowed to have a military. It would have effected French and German relations for generations.
Instead you have a military occupation commander who actually was nice enough to the French people after his car was shot up the French resistance found him and brought him to a French doctor who saved his life... at least for a couple months until he was suicided by his own government.
After his death even in the middle of the most ugly war Europe has had since the 30 years war the Western Allies from Churchill, to American commanders, to Rommel's main British opponent paid tribute to him publicly.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/Monty2.png
The problem people in Germany and elsewhere have today with him is they unlike the people then didn't see the things Rommel was doing throughout the war to protect civilians and to keep it from becoming a war with hate like the war in the East became by burning Hitler's illegal orders and doing everything he could to minimize and leash the number of Waffen SS forces in his areas of operations.
Its hard from a modern context to understand how a man who got his Iron Cross in WW1 for out of fear of his troops being boxed in leading a fanatical bayonet attack on French forces, personally bayonetting two soldiers, shooting two others with his side arm and then getting shot in the leg running away could also be fanatically opposed to killing POWs and civilians. The only way to think about it in my view is that he had an iron clad sense of what is right and wrong in war and was not going to let anyone get him to do things he didn't believe were morally acceptable in a time of war. His reaction to recieving Hitler's Commando Order is an example of that.
Rommel was one of the 12 recipients of Hitler's infamous, illegal Commando Order issued on 18th October 1942. This order to senior commanders ordered the immediate execution of all Allied Commando troops irrespective of circumstances of combat or capture. On receipt of the order Rommel called his Staff Officers together and invited them to each individually read the order. He then took it and instructed them that under no circumstances was this order ever to be put into effect by men under his command, he then burnt the order in front of them commenting as he did so - "And thus, in such a fashion is infamy dealt with".
The other 11 recipients of the had no problem with following it. And, that sums up the difference between Rommel and other German commanders during the war. He did what he could to keep it a clean war against the Americans and British unlike the Generals in the East who followed Hitler's illegal orders and helped to turn it into a very dirty war. He also did what he could to protect Jews and civilians in general in his area of operations and he did care more about Germany and its future then his own life. Rommel being too liked by the Anglo-Americans helped Himmler convince Hitler that he was a traitor who needed to die so he paid a high price for being too nice.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/him.png
So what was he a hero or villain? I think people should view him as just a man who served his country in two World Wars and tried to do what he thought was best for his country and what he believed was honorable and right during two horrible world wars no matter what the cost to himself.
Right now I feel bad for Manfred Rommel over this whole conflict with the film. The man served his country all his life in and out of politics, he knew what kind of man his father was and was told all his life no matter where he went be it England, France, the U.S., or even Israel about how his father treated them and their POWs or civilians with honor during the war and protected them. Now at the end of his life as he is dying of Parkinson's his own people decide to turn the image of his father upside down and depict him as either a coward, a puppet or a monster.
That according to his daughter has really effected him emotionally as he nears death (he can't walk anymore) as that isn't the man that tought him about what is right and wrong, kept him from joining the Waffen SS, was willing to kill himself against his Catholic beliefs to keep him and his mom from going to a concentraton camp or the person who taught him to ride a bicycle or took him to the beach.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/Rommel.jpg
If I could tell Manfred something before he dies it would be that a few wars are etched in the collective memory of civilization for all time (and I am certain WW2 will be one of those wars) and certain leaders in those wars are remembered for thousands of years. The wars that ended the Roman Republic are an example of that with Pompey, Caesar, Anthony, Cleopatra and Augustus being remembered around the world to this day.
500 years from now or hell even 2000 years from now after we are long dead, unless humanity wipes itself out there is no doubt in my mind that three Germans from the war will be etched into the collective memory of civilization. Hitler of course, Himmler as Germany's warrior for genocide and mass murder and Rommel as Germany's respected honorable warrior. Only few military or political leaders get the honor or infamy of being etched in history and I would tell Manfred that his father I believe will be one of those leaders and regardless of what people in Germany are saying about him now and showing him as today it won't be what people are saying about him and showing him as a hundred years from now.
Takeda Shingen
11-17-12, 07:05 PM
.....
I like this guy. He can stay.
The quality of your research and your presentation is remarkable. Well done that man. :yep:
u crank
11-17-12, 07:56 PM
I like this guy. He can stay.
The quality of your research and your presentation is remarkable. Well done that man. :yep:
Agreed. Excellent reading jmc247. :up:
Red Brow
11-17-12, 10:38 PM
You know I found that Ruskies feel that Rommel was way over rated by the West. They basically chased my butt off a forum they held in about 2002. But I always liked the way Rommel fought in North Africa (in the early part) on a shoestring and captured British supplies. I liked the way he was always at the front much of the time (like some SS Brigadeführer or something). He was also quite an officer from WWI as you all know.
I suppose my real favorite was Erich von Manstein. There were times - after the Stalingrad pocket fell to the Russians, that Manstein was able to hold a very thinly held front in the face of 6 to 8 odds against his 1. And these were real combat odds, not just a larger number of soldiers and material. Of course he had to fight Hitler to do what he was doing. Manstein did his feat while maintaining true fluid Panzer tactics. Of course Hitler wanted his soldiers to hold static villages and towns as fortresses while fighting to the last bullet and drop of blood. But somehow Manstein did what he did best - in spite of big fights with his Boss.
Of course another reason I liked Manstein, I only read his book about 3 years ago. But prior to that I had issued my V-Mod for SH3 in early 2006. In V-Mod I had the Germans win the war so that I could generate new reasons for spreading their bases all over the World (such as in Chile). I did this by having Hitler invade England in spite of losses - treating the invasion as he later treated Russian fronts. It also gave me an excuse to revamp the German strategy from hitting British Supply convoys to mainly going after war ships, as well as making humongous patrols from southern Chile to Alaska and back.
Manstein did a small aside in his book (maybe two pages) to speak about what theoretically would have happened had Hitler been gutsy and invaded England. Nearly everything Manstein outlines - such as for example the Brits falling back to Canada to harass Germany's hold on European sea lanes with Britain's Navy in hit and run attacks - were things I described as a backdrop for V-Mod. I am egotistical enough to have changed my most favored WWII German officer from Rommel to Manstein just because of that.
Personally I doubt that 2000 years from now anyone will give Himmler a second thought. There were many butchers in history and few ever make memory lane for the average Joe. And while short empires like that of Alexander the Great are well remembered, the 12 year empire of Hitler will not be well recalled since he left no cities named: Hitlerzandria.
In my humble opinion Karl Donitz may be remembered along with his use of U-boats as a major historical event in warfare.
Stealhead
11-18-12, 12:16 AM
Rommel was a true soldiers general he was always leading from the front line
like a true general should.He was a true professional and being an officer was what he did best.That being said he did not enjoy warfare unlike many other famous generals like Patton or Montgomery.
If I where a nations leader I would want a general like Rommel a man unafraid to disobey foolish orders.
I disagree that Hitler or any major person connected to him will be forgotten anytime soon.
@jmc247! Interesting Articles, :up:
Jimbuna
11-18-12, 05:20 PM
@jmc247! Interesting Articles, :up:
They certainly are :yep:
Penguin
11-19-12, 02:21 PM
hey jmc, impressive first posts! I actually read through all of it. Also welcome :salute: glad to see there are still people who use this crazy concept of sources. :)
Can't tell much about the film, as I haven't seen it yet. Just a little personal anecdote. My old neighbor was a vet who first served on the Eastern Front, later served in North Africa and France. He became a pacifist after his WW2 experiences, pretty understandable in my eyes. He never said anything bad about Rommel - though he had much contempt for most of the rest of the leadership.
By the way if one was interested in some naval facts in regards to the Africa campaign. Rommel was of course highly dependent on the Italian Navy for supplies. They kept telling him to take bigger and more secure ports with Alexandria obviously the biggest of them all in North Africa. He made the lunge for Egypt knowing it was an extremely high risk, high reward mission because taking Egypt and the port of Alexandria would put him in a good position to wage a two front war as he knew the Americans would soon be landing to his west and he would be caught in the middle of two large armies. Egypt would have been the best place in North Africa for him to fight a two front war if he managed to drive the British out and into the Middle East.
The thing is the Italian supply ships kept being sunk one after the other. He was getting desperate for supplies and would ask when the next supply ship is coming in and immediately because the British broke their codes the ships would be tracked and very often sunk. Rommel according to his son had trouble believing the Allied mathematicians were good enough to break the complex code they were using and found it easier to believe at the time that some officer in the Italian Navy had been bribed by the Americans or the British to tell them about the supply ships departing from Italy.
Rommel personally opposed the attack on the Soviet Union and believed Germany should have focused its resources on a Mediterranean centric strategy to knock the British out of the war, which would have included far more resources devoted to the German Navy.
hey jmc, impressive first posts! I actually read through all of it. Also welcome :salute: glad to see there are still people who use this crazy concept of sources. :)
Yes, I read a wide number of sources when learning about a topic and what I have found is most modern books and movies outright ignore the primary sources so very often.
The two biggest issues using primary sources was why did his enemies like him so much during the war and one can't find that out without digging into the primary sources. The other issue is why did something that was known about and totally accepted at the time pre-Cold War that Rommel did want Hitler killed toward the end changed when the Cold War started to he just wanted him put on trial. I mean the surviving members of the July 20th plot who had far from a cozy relationship with him testified in the Nuremberg Trials that he did and the press was unabashed at reporting he did until the Cold War started.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/1b.png
It doesn't make much sense unless one understands how divided Germans were in the early Cold War about the plot to kill their leader. Going with the notion he supported overthrowing the Nazi Party and putting Hitler on trial was a better middle ground option at the time to promote him as a unifying German military figure in post war West Germany.
If future generations want to figure out who Rommel was as a person and a general they are going to have to go back to the primary sources like I did. But, I suspect that won't happen until Rommel as a historical figure becomes less politicized.
Can't tell much about the film, as I haven't seen it yet. Just a little personal anecdote. My old neighbor was a vet who first served on the Eastern Front, later served in North Africa and France. He became a pacifist after his WW2 experiences, pretty understandable in my eyes. He never said anything bad about Rommel - though he had much contempt for most of the rest of the leadership.
Its sort of sad, but a man I knew very well at the local gym just died this month who served in Stalingrad and in the West. He was one of the toughest persons I have ever met.
Basically he took the view that ignoring the coup plot Rommel always acted in such a way during the war to try to further the interests of Germany long term so he hoped there might be a Germany after the war even if they lost. That is no small thing in his view as none of the commanders in the East that could have done so had the spine to do so in his view and allowed it to become a very dirty war.
Basically, his view is only a very very few German generals were willing to put what they believed was morally right and good for Germany in the long run ahead of the risks that doing so would bring to them and potentally their family... of course the punishment for treason was the consignment of ones whole family to a concentration camp. But, there was alot the generals in the East could have done short of high treason to keep the war there from becoming so ugly.
By the way to get into a bit about Rommel the man. Lets just say he had a bigger family then commonly known. He had zipper issues of the kind that reciently brought down General Petraeus, but back then lets just say contraception options were far more limited then they are today.
He had an illegitimate daughter Gertude or 'little mouse' as he called her. She lived a significant amount of time with his legitimite family.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/daugher.jpg
That is his wife and illegitimite daughter.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/gutrude.jpg
That is his son Manfred and Gertude above.
She may have been born to another woman, but she was fully accepted as part of Rommel's family by both his wife and his son. Though Manfred had been told that she was his cousin when he was young and only later told she was his half sister.
By the time Rommel was killed he already had a grandson from Gertude. The difference is back then ones private life and ones public life were viewed as seperate things with only his public actions fair game for the media to discuss and that includes the Allied media at the time. Imagine the scandal it would be today in the U.S. for a general or admiral to have an illegitimite daughter living with his family. The media would go wild.
magic452
11-24-12, 02:36 AM
Great thread. :up::up: Very informative and interesting.
"Zipper issues" love that.
Magic
@jmc247 very good again,:salute:
Jimbuna
11-24-12, 08:14 AM
Very impressive early posts jmc247 :sunny:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.