why is Rommel admired by some people?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

Post by Aida1 » 13 Apr 2020 08:05

Peter89 wrote:
13 Apr 2020 06:41
Aida1 wrote:
12 Apr 2020 20:10
Peter89 wrote:
12 Apr 2020 20:01


Some A-S historians have a balanced view of him, but that did not make him admired.
He is admired a lot particularly by military professionals into mobile warfare. You seem to think there are dozens of biographies of Rommel as you suddenly admit some :lol: :lol: were balanced. I suspect you read none.
1. Historians express opinions about historical characters in all sorts of books and other media, not just in biographies. I never said that I've read any balanced biographies of him.

2. Biographies cannot make a general "admired by so many people".

3. Rommel received good press in A-S news and in many A-S media about the war. Just take a look at the Battlefield series. These media did actually formed the opinion about him.

4. I have read a few sort of biographies about him in Hungarian. I was a kid and I didn't have a better taste.

5. Had the general public have a balanced opinion about him, he wouldn't be admired so much, especially not for his military achievements.
You clearly do not know much about Rommel and why he is admired.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

Post by Aida1 » 13 Apr 2020 08:08

ljadw wrote:
12 Apr 2020 21:22
Without the Italians, Rommel would be a British POW in April 1941 .
Contrarian as always. :lol: Italians were inferior to the German army. Not that Rommel ever blamed the italian soldiers.They were not well equipped and badly led.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7441
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Apr 2020 08:10

Hi Aida1,

First you posted, "You are still ignoring that the rules of 1907 were completely outdated by ww2."

You then try to quote a Japanese court ruling from 1963. Consistency is clearly not your middle name!

You now post, "At least i could support my opinion by an actual court decision." Yup, one not about events in Dresden and about a different subject.

You add, "Only took me 5 minutes of googling to find it." I am blinded by your brilliance, though I would question your maths, as it is four days since the subject of "Open Cities" came up!

Cheers,

Sid
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 13 Apr 2020 08:14, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

Post by Aida1 » 13 Apr 2020 08:11

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
12 Apr 2020 21:42
Sid Guttridge wrote:
12 Apr 2020 20:13
Hi Yuri,

Rommel was an extraordinarily successful soldier in both world wars.

It is often said that he was better as a regimental soldier than a general. However, he was such an exceptional regimental soldier that this still leaves plenty of scope for him to be an outstanding general as well.

I cannot think of any occasion when Rommel was bested by Allied forces weaker than his own. With only a handful of divisions he was the main focus of British land combat for nearly two years and, once the US Army arrived, he made it work hard for its victories as well.

But he was also a lucky general, in that he did not have to deal with the moral quagmire on the Eastern Front, which sullied the reputations of others.

Cheers,

Sid.
Rommel was be average division commander. In France he was not do anything special.

Rommel was be under average korps and army commander. In Afrika he was get description genius by British commanders. But his success was be much because British were most under average than Rommel.

He was not be lucky general. It was not be luck that most British generals were so bad.
The internet is full,of contrarians. :lol: No great commanders ever exist according to them. It was always the opponent wo was inferior. :lol: Read a book about Rommel. That will help you a lot.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

Post by Aida1 » 13 Apr 2020 08:16

Sid Guttridge wrote:
13 Apr 2020 08:10
Hi Aida1,

First you posted, "You are still ignoring that the rules of 1907 were completely outdated by ww2."

You then try to quote a Japanese court ruling from 1963. Consistency is clearly not your middle name!

You now post, "At least i could support my opinion by an actual court decision." Yup, one not about events in Dresden and about a different subject.

You add, "Only took me 5 minutes of googling to find it." I am blinded by your brilliance, though I would question your maths.

Cheers,

Sid
Nonsense as usual. You clearly did not even bother to read my posting. The japanese court applied the The Hague convention of 1907 on air warfare during ww2 and explained what was acceptable and not. By the standards it applied the attack on Dresden would have been considered illegal as it was an area attack against a city far behind the front.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7441
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Apr 2020 08:31

Hi Aida!,

To repeat:

First you posted, "You are still ignoring that the rules of 1907 were completely outdated by ww2."

You then try to quote a Japanese court ruling from 1963.

Do you not see the inconsistency?

You do realise that a Japanese court opinion (in, I would add, a lost case) has no legal bearing on the Dresden case or, indeed, any bearing outside Japan?

You are also, I presume, aware that the 1907 Hague Convention also contains the provision for "Open Towns"?

You cannot cherry pick only the bits of the Hague Convention you wish and still sustain a consistent argument. There are two consistent positions - either the Hague Convention applies in its entirety, or not at all.

If it applies in its entirety then declaring Dresden "Open" was a viable option for Hitler which he chose to forego, not just at Dresden but everywhere.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. I was wrong. Apparently Athens was declared an open city by the Germans on 11 October 1944. Furthermore, Hamburg was declared open on 3 May 1945 by the Germans. Some ten other cities were also declared "Open" by assorted countries in WWII.

Only took me four days and ten minutes to google that!

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 2093
Joined: 01 May 2006 19:52
Location: UK

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 13 Apr 2020 08:49

Aida1 wrote:
13 Apr 2020 08:16

the attack on Dresden would have been considered illegal as it was an area attack against a city far behind the front.
I thought Dresden was pretty close to the front by that time? By mid-February 1945, the Soviet forces were surely getting close as, thankfully, Hitler's Nazi Germany neared total defeat?

Regards

Tom

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7441
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Apr 2020 08:55

Hi Tom,

Dresden was close enough to the front line for the Soviet Union to ask the Western Allies to bomb it to help their troops nearby, but it was not yet in it.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. Dresden was apparently 68 miles from the front - less than half the distance Rommel advanced in a single day in France in June 1940. (See what I did there?)

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

Post by Aida1 » 13 Apr 2020 09:08

Sid Guttridge wrote:
13 Apr 2020 08:31
Hi Aida!,

To repeat:

First you posted, "You are still ignoring that the rules of 1907 were completely outdated by ww2."

You then try to quote a Japanese court ruling from 1963.

Do you not see the inconsistency?

You do realise that a Japanese court opinion (in, I would add, a lost case) has no legal bearing on the Dresden case or, indeed, any bearing outside Japan?

You are also, I presume, aware that the 1907 Hague Convention also contains the provision for "Open Towns"?

You cannot cherry pick only the bits of the Hague Convention you wish and still sustain a consistent argument. There are two consistent positions - either the Hague Convention applies in its entirety, or not at all.

If it applies in its entirety then declaring Dresden "Open" was a viable option for Hitler which he chose to forego, not just at Dresden but everywhere.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. I was wrong. Apparently Athens was declared an open city by the Germans on 11 October 1944. Furthermore, Hamburg was declared open on 3 May 1945 by the Germans. Some ten other cities were also declared "Open" by assorted countries in WWII.

Only took me four days and ten minutes to google that!
I am not the japanese court. I did no more than mention that there is jurisprudence which would make the Dresden attack illegal if applied on it. Strictly speaking, the convention of the Hague cannot be applied on air warfare as the concept did not exist at this time. The japanese court applied the spirit of the convention on air warfare and enounced certain standards. Pretty much the principles applicable now so a lot of common sense behind the reasoning.
Invoking the The Hague convention to justify the attack on Dresden is clearly ridiculous. The open city concept has nothing to do with air warfare. Rather funny that you are implying that bomber command would never have bombed a German city if Hitler had declared them all open. Laughable. Bomber command had the stated intention of breaking the morale of German civilians. At least the US went for military targets and actually did achieve something.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

Post by Aida1 » 13 Apr 2020 09:13

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
13 Apr 2020 08:49
Aida1 wrote:
13 Apr 2020 08:16

the attack on Dresden would have been considered illegal as it was an area attack against a city far behind the front.
I thought Dresden was pretty close to the front by that time? By mid-February 1945, the Soviet forces were surely getting close as, thankfully, Hitler's Nazi Germany neared total defeat?

Regards

Tom
Far enough by the standards enounced by the japanese court. And by its standards you could attack targets inside the city so daylight precision attack were acceptable but not area bombing.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

Post by Aida1 » 13 Apr 2020 09:46

Sid Guttridge wrote:
13 Apr 2020 08:55
Hi Tom,

Dresden was close enough to the front line for the Soviet Union to ask the Western Allies to bomb it to help their troops nearby, but it was not yet in it.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. Dresden was apparently 68 miles from the front - less than half the distance Rommel advanced in a single day in France in June 1940. (See what I did there?)
The red army offensive only resumed in mid april 1945 so Dresden was certainly not on the verge of being taken red army ground forces .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7441
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Apr 2020 10:05

Hi Aida1,

You post, "Strictly speaking, the convention of the Hague cannot be applied on air warfare as the concept did not exist at this time." As explained before, the concept already existed as the German Army was already sponsoring long range Zeppelin design and construction.

Furthermore, as also explained before, and not contradicted by you, the Hague Conventions do not specify any weapons, they simply make bombardment illegal against an "Open" place. Are you contending that aerial bombing is not bombardment? That would certainly let the Allies off the hook at Dresden, even if it has been declared "Open".

As I have also pointed out to you previously, this argument is equivalent to saying that killing anyone with a hand gun is OK under Christian values because the prohibition "Thou shalt not kill" in the Ten Commandments predates their invention by about 3,000 years. Try that one in court!

Dresden was attacked for military reasons within the laws of war (the Hague Conventions) as they stood at the time because it had (to repeat for the third time) 19 army barracks, depots and headquarters, (just one of which was in charge of the recruitment and training of 8% of German Army manpower); produced most of the optics for Luftwaffe bomb sights, Heer gun sights and Kriegsarine periscopes; contained the last north-south railway in German hands east of Berlin behind the Eastern Front; and because the Russians requested it to help their forces only 68 miles away.

You post, "Rather funny that you are implying that bomber command would never have bombed a German city if Hitler had declared them all open. Laughable." Why? They didn't bomb Rome or Florence after the Italians declared them "Open" (despite the Germans moving troops through the latter) and they didn't bomb Athens or Hamburg after the Germans declared them "Open".

You post, "The open city concept has nothing to do with air warfare." Wrong. The "open city" concept has to do with all warfare and was used by at least half a dozen countries, including Germany twice, during WWII.

You post, "Bomber command had the stated intention of breaking the morale of German civilians." And your point is?

You post, "At least the US went for military targets and actually did achieve something." As I have already said, the USAAF raids on oil instalations and ball bearing production were certainly very important and little replicated by the RAF. However, the combined bomber offensive, as it was called, achieved a lot. The measure of it is less in the damage caused directly than in how far German military production fell below its plans in 1944-45 - the number of tanks, aircraft, ships and guns the Germans were unable to produce due to relocation of plant, dislocation of supply chains, disruption of the labour force, etc., etc.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. In 1923 there was an attempt to introduce the Hague Rules of Air Warfare, which would have had many of the prohibitions you think should apply to Dresden, but it was apparently rejected by all major powers as impracticable.

Following Japanese, German and Italian bombing of cities in China and Spain before WWII, the British and French proposed similar limitations to air warfare at the League of Nations in the late 1930s. However, the Germans, Italians and Japanese, who had dominant air forces and had already left the league, declined to participate.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 13 Apr 2020 10:28, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

Post by Aida1 » 13 Apr 2020 10:28

Sid Guttridge wrote:
13 Apr 2020 10:05
Hi Aida1,

You post, "Strictly speaking, the convention of the Hague cannot be applied on air warfare as the concept did not exist at this time." As explained before, the concept already existed as the German Army was already sponsoring long range Zeppelin design and construction.

Furthermore, as also explained before, and not contradicted by you, the Hague Conventions do not specify any weapons, they simply make bombardment illegal against an "Open" place. Are you contending that aerial bombing is not bombardment? That would certainly let the Allies off the hook at Dresden, even if it has been declared "Open".

As I have also pointed out to you previously, this argument is equivalent to saying that killing anyone with a hand gun is OK under Christian values because the prohibition "Thou shalt not kill" in the Ten Commandments predates their invention by about 3,000 years. Try that one in court!

Dresden was attacked for military reasons within the laws of war (the Hague Conventions) as they stood at the time because it had (to repeat for the third time) 19 army barracks, depots and headquarters, (just one of which was in charge of the recruitment and training of 8% of German Army manpower), produced most of the optics for Luftwaffe bomb sights, Heer gun sights and Kriegsarine periscopes, contained the last north-south railway in German hands east of Berlin behind the Eastern Front, and because the Russians requested it to help their forces only 68 miles away.

You post, "Rather funny that you are implying that bomber command would never have bombed a German city if Hitler had declared them all open. Laughable." Why? They didn't bomb Rome or Florence after the Italians declared them "Open" (despite the Germans moving troops through the latter) and they didn't bomb Athens or Hamburg after the Germans declared them "Open".

You post, "The open city concept has nothing to do with air warfare." Wrong. The "open city" concept has to do with all warfare and was used by at least half a dozen countries, including Germany twice, during WWII.

You post, "Bomber command had the stated intention of breaking the morale of German civilians." And your point is?

You post, "At least the US went for military targets and actually did achieve something." As I have already said, the USAAF raids on oil instalations and ball bearing production were certainly very important and little replicated by the RAF. However, the combined bomber offensive, as it was called, achieved a lot. The measure of it is less in the damage caused directly than in how far German military production fell below its plans in 1944-45 - the number of tanks, aircraft, ships and guns the Germans were unable to produce due to relocation of plant, dislocation of supply chains, disruption of the labour force, etc., etc.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. You are aware that, following Japanese, German and Italian bombing of cities in China and Spain before WWII, the British and French proposed limitations of air warfare to the League of Nations?
Laughable. The convention of the Hague did not deal with air warfare explicitly because the whole concept of particularly strategic bombing of cities did not exist at the time. And when a japanese court was creative and enounced standards for air attack based on the spirit behind the conventions of the Hague it clearly considered indiscriminate air attacks against cities far behind the front illegal.
You are continuously glossing over the fact that Bomber command executed area bombing to destroy the morale of German civilians so mentioning military targets within Dresden is a pretext. Only US bombers went for the military targets doing precision daylight bombing. And that is the only type of bombing that really hurt the German war effort.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7441
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Apr 2020 10:36

Hi Aida1,

You post, "Strictly speaking, the convention of the Hague cannot be applied on air warfare as the concept did not exist at this time." As explained before, the concept already existed as the German Army was already sponsoring long range Zeppelin design and construction.

Furthermore, as also explained before, and not contradicted by you, the Hague Conventions do not specify any weapons, they simply make bombardment illegal against an "Open" place. Are you contending that aerial bombing is not bombardment? That would certainly let the Allies off the hook at Dresden, even if it has been declared "Open".

As I have also pointed out to you previously, this argument is equivalent to saying that killing anyone with a hand gun is OK under Christian values because the prohibition "Thou shalt not kill" in the Ten Commandments predates their invention by about 3,000 years. Try that one in court!

Dresden was attacked for military reasons within the laws of war (the Hague Conventions) as they stood at the time because it had (to repeat for the third time) 19 army barracks, depots and headquarters, (just one of which was in charge of the recruitment and training of 8% of German Army manpower); produced most of the optics for Luftwaffe bomb sights, Heer gun sights and Kriegsarine periscopes; contained the last north-south railway in German hands east of Berlin behind the Eastern Front; and because the Russians requested it to help their forces only 68 miles away.

You post, "Rather funny that you are implying that bomber command would never have bombed a German city if Hitler had declared them all open. Laughable." Why? They didn't bomb Rome or Florence after the Italians declared them "Open" (despite the Germans moving troops through the latter) and they didn't bomb Athens or Hamburg after the Germans declared them "Open".

You post, "The open city concept has nothing to do with air warfare." Wrong. The "open city" concept has to do with all warfare and was used by at least half a dozen countries, including Germany twice, during WWII.

You post, "Bomber command had the stated intention of breaking the morale of German civilians." And your point is? The presence of so many military industrial and communications assets in the city make it a little more than a pretext.

You post, "At least the US went for military targets and actually did achieve something." As I have already said, the USAAF raids on oil instalations and ball bearing production were certainly very important and little replicated by the RAF. However, the combined bomber offensive, as it was called, achieved a lot. The measure of it is less in the damage caused directly than in how far German military production fell below its plans in 1944-45 - the number of tanks, aircraft, ships and guns the Germans were unable to produce due to relocation of plant, dislocation of supply chains, disruption of the labour force, etc., etc.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. In 1923 there was an attempt to introduce the Hague Rules of Air Warfare, which would have had many of the prohibitions you think should apply to Dresden, but it was apparently rejected by all major powers as impracticable.

Following Japanese, German and Italian bombing of cities in China and Spain before WWII, the British and French proposed similar limitations to air warfare at the League of Nations in the late 1930s. However, the Germans, Italians and Japanese, who had dominant air forces and had already left the league, declined to participate.

P.P.S. You post, "The red army offensive only resumed in mid april 1945 so Dresden was certainly not on the verge of being taken red army ground forces." So? Had Dresden's 19 army headquarters, depots and barracks closed down? Had the city stopped producing optical instruments essential to the Luftwaffe, Heer and Kriegsmarine? Had use of the city's rail lines vital to the German defence on the Eastern Front stopped running?
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 13 Apr 2020 10:56, edited 2 times in total.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 7441
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: why is Rommel admired by some people?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Apr 2020 10:42

Hi Aida1,

You are aware that using smilies and repeating "laughable" and "nonsense" are not arguments in themselves?

I have posed about a dozen questions to you in my last few posts. Will you be answering any of them?

An ever inquisitive Sid

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”