Heroes fighting for the wrong cause?

[The Iron Ninja]

Hitler has flying saucers!
He has been waiting behind the moon for the last 43 years, and now... He shall strike!
Hopefully the whole thread will now dissolve into Hitlers flying saucer posts now, just so when Thaliur comes back he isn't disapointed.

Rommel is my homeboy

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

I'm with Capt. Jack. Fighting for your country would mean trying to fend off an aggressor, not ruthlessly conquering other nations on behalf of a facist dictator.

If you're interested in a real tough-call situation, look at some of the generals on both sides of the American Civil War. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were probably the most heroic of the military leaders in that war. Ulysses Grant was a drunk and from what I've read Sherman seems a bit psychotic. Granted, he did pioneer (or, perhaps, reintroduce) the concept of Total War.

Well atleast the drunk got the job done, Robert E. Lee trounced all other generals in the game of war at a party.

The drunk came to the party and crashed it.

 

[Capt_Jack_Doicy]

Doicy, I've learned a very, VERY important lesson while in the Royal Canadian Army Cadets:

You may not want to carry out an order, but you HAVE to, and may bring it up after. Obviously,

well then you mislearnt the lesson as in no nato or common law country is that the case.
it is illegal for you follow an illegal order, and the argument that your "were just following orders" is called the Nuremberg Defence. also in many common law countries there is what called the Galahad principle, this means it not an acceptable defence to say you only did you action (commit murder) to save your own life. Please speak to whoever taught you that tripe as they are obviously incompetent.

Rommel did not want to get his hide shot out by the SS, as he KNEW he was the one of the few actual German hero's in World War II.

thats a risk every member of the SPD or anyone helping jews ran everyday, what did he actually do that was heroic? apply tactics that delayed and defeated the allies? that delayed them?

"Yes, those that defected were heroes, but so were some of those who didn't."

no none of the ones that fought for germany were heroes, at best they were misguided, but they aided their government so are just as guilty, ignorance or cowardice are no defence.

The only way he spearheaded the operation into the Middle East was by being the one in charge of the Afrika Corps. That "documentary" only states that a special SS unit was formed to FOLLOW the Afrika Corps,"

oh that wasn't the documentary i was referring to, thats by a German team, the one to which i initial referred was on Channel 4 in the UK

not to take ORDERS under Rommel, and that the Arabs were REALLY FUCKING STUPID. The page itself quite clearly states that the SS Unit was led by Walther Rauff, NOT Erwin Rommel.

oh so if he just knew of it, and did nothing thats ok?

Since YOU and the idiots that made that "documentary" don't actually look at history, it stands to reason why you wouldn't know that the SS were NOT under the command of Rommel, nor did he have any power to stop them.

he had guns and soldiers what exactly was stopping him?

Rommel was a hero. Maybe a hero fighting for the wrong side, but a hero none the less.

I like how the Nazis are just the wrong side, he was no hero

although Rommel assisted in the 1944 plot against Hitler,

no he didn't he was wrongly accused.

the Nazi's STILL painted him as a hero?

you mean a man who'd been starring in nazi propaganda films for years? why denounce him if you didn't have to? he was a good Nazi Hero to prop up the failing moral of the German Army.

Didn't it occur to you that maybe, just MAYBE, whatever documents those "historians" found were fakes, made AFTER Rommel committed suicide, meant to ruin his heroism?

lol thats pretty piss poor defence, particularly since the Nazis were merticulous in there record keeping and what exactly is the motive?

Yes, SOME of it might be true, like the SS atrocities, but Rommel HAD NO POWER TO STOP THE SS. Now please, stop using bullshit to support your claim that Rommel was a bastard.

he had soldiers and guns so why exactly couldn't he stop them?

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

I'm flaming because i disagree? because you want to make heroes out of accomplices to genocide?

first Rommel was wrongly accused of participation in the plot and even if he had been a member that would of been no sign of heroism, the plot, which was merely the German army attempt to rid themselves of hitler once he had become a liability. his country was Nazi Germany by 1939 you couldn't extracate one from the other so he was fighting for the Nazi.

but here a simple question for you if rommel had surrender the afika corp to the allies as soon as it arrived, do you think that would of help or hindered the allies in winning the war?

Another simple question for you. Please answer this before you get my answer to yours...
If Rommel hadn't commanded the Afrika corps, and the troops had fought under a true Nazi who closely followed the Goebbels propaganda. How many more people do you think would have died a horrible death? Please use your brain and think a bit before you read on to my answer, because I don't want to use another post for it.

At the time Rommel commanded the Afrika corps Nazi Germany was highly capable of warfare. The moment he would surrender, he would have been replaced by a commander sufficiently fanatic to not really think about his orders (much like some people don't actually think about their posts, apparently), and conduct all the genocide and whatever else Rommel was ordered to do.
Rommel instead made the best out of his situation and fought with honour. More than today's greatest army could ever claim to have done.

Though i think it somewhat impolite to ask me to answer your question before you answer mine, i shall.
Typically when a General Surrendered so did his troops, but even if you took that just Rommel surrendered, first Germany's most capable general is lost to her, second he is a high ranking officer privy to tactical, strategical and logistical information all of which would of aided the allies, thirdly it would of been a massive propaganda blow for the Nazis, forthly it would of made the nazis to become more paranoid more suspisious of the officer core more likely to trust the incompentant SS, meaning Hitler is surrounded with inept yes men, and lastly it would set an example for other german soldiers to follow.

as to your second example, first that general would likely be tactically far less capable than Rommel, meaning an easier victory, second there weren't alot of genocide targets in the stretches of desert the war is fought over and the story about the orders that rommel ignored (that rommel should execute the Jewish Brigade if they were captured) has no reliable sources and is likely apochrypal particularly since the Jewish brigand didn't come into being until 1944.

your last statement is blatantly untrue, i don't know to whom your refering when you say greatest army, but lets assume its the Americans, the US army can not only claim but actually prove to have acted with more honour, because in World War 2 over a million young americans went to far off war that was not their own to liberate it from the horrors of the tyranny and behaved with unimpeachable honour, there were a few incidents the only one i can recall off hand was the incident at Dachau where the american soldiers gave guns to the inmates who proceeded to execute their tormentors, but can anyone judge them for that?

I hate to say this, But take your "Allie" Patriotic bullshit else where.

I idolize hitler because he is the greatest man alive, Not only did he climb to the top of a party after being a poor citizen. He led people to believe in him enough to fight for him, And conquer they did. What he did is an afterthought, Because if your against killing people then your a pussy. Would you not fight back against people bullying you?

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Doicy, I've learned a very, VERY important lesson while in the Royal Canadian Army Cadets:

You may not want to carry out an order, but you HAVE to, and may bring it up after. Obviously,

well then you mislearnt the lesson as in no nato or common law country is that the case.
it is illegal for you follow an illegal order, and the argument that your "were just following orders" is called the Nuremberg Defence. also in many common law countries there is what called the Galahad principle, this means it not an acceptable defence to say you only did you action (commit murder) to save your own life. Please speak to whoever taught you that tripe as they are obviously incompetent.

No the army is above the law, They kill people for no other reason then orders.

 

[Capt_Jack_Doicy]

Oh, yes, they defeated the Nazis, big deal...

i can't believe you just said that, thats just a truly disgusting statement.

 

[fulano]

I hate to say this, But take your "Allie" Patriotic bullshit else where.

I idolize hitler because he is the greatest man alive, Not only did he climb to the top of a party after being a poor citizen. He led people to believe in him enough to fight for him, And conquer they did. What he did is an afterthought, Because if your against killing people then your a pussy. Would you not fight back against people bullying you?

WTF?!
Ehm...people...CALM DOWN...

 

[Capt_Jack_Doicy]

Its easy to say you wouldn't follow such orders, but in the field it frequently leads to your imprisonment for the duration of the war,

your be in prison alot longer if you do. also in the field does conscience, compassion and humanity all disappear?

and someone else with less scruples completing them.

oh is better you violate the law and your own basic humanity because you'll understand it and what feel guilty? accept your punishment for being a disgrace to the uniform more willing?

In the fog of war

fog of war? its not the 18th century officers have realtime imaging, instant communication and secured HQs. hell with land warrior system they have accurate information on every soldier right down to his line of sight.

an officer's decision is assessed when there is the time and information to judge whether it was right or wrong,

the difference between right and wrong is something you have to assess? you don't know it?

inevitably this can only happen in the hindsight of peace.

no not really if your telling me you can only tell the difference after the fact then your not fit to wear any uniform.

Any member of a unit thats been in such a situation will tell you the same thing.

you ever been combat eyclonus?

EDIT: Also the majority of conventions regarding the legitmacy of orders only developed during and after the War Crimes trials in the 1940s.

yes because the world was so shocked men calling themselves soldiers could so deviate from basic humanity that it was codified but it was still held that just following orders was no defence even before the coventions.

 

[Eyclonus]

I think with exception of at least one poster we can agree that Rommel fought with professionalism.

But if were going to get all mudslinging, why not criticize the British for the Cossacks at Lienz? The Americans domestic internment camps? The Australian and US massarces of Japanese POWs? The incredible amount of rape and violence committed against not just Japanese women, but all asian women by Allied and Japanese forces? The use of Axis POWs to clear minefields? The Soviets in general? The US at Dachau?

Hell we can go further back, Breaker Morant:
An Australian Lieutenant executed for killing Boer Commando POWs under a standing order from Lord Kitchener to take no prisoners. Morant said he was following orders but also the unit was getting revenge for the murder of one of their number. This action was not unusual in the Boer War, Canadian Scouts got revenge for the murder of a major by executing Boer POWs.
Much of the trial is unknown, many members of commander gave conflicting evidence and records at the time recording executions and the behaviour of British units in South Africa. While the court records were supposedly sent to England but were recently found in South Africa, its unknown even where the trials took place excepting that it was not in Pietersburg where they were being held.

(Yes I am aware of the charges about murdering the German Missionary but the little evidence about his death points towards a Boer sniper assuming he was a British sympathiser rather than a neutral party trying to "Do the Right thing" in a warzone)

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

I hate to say this, But take your "Allie" Patriotic bullshit else where.

I idolize hitler because he is the greatest man alive, Not only did he climb to the top of a party after being a poor citizen. He led people to believe in him enough to fight for him, And conquer they did. What he did is an afterthought, Because if your against killing people then your a pussy. Would you not fight back against people bullying you?

WTF?!
Ehm...people...CALM DOWN...

I was stating hitlers my hero, He just acted on a wrong cause.

Also jack, Please realize you are not human once you join the army. You then become somebodys pitbull that they use whenever they feel the need.

In the army you cannot talk back to your commander. Your right of freedom of speech? Gone.

If someone higher up says jump you will instantly ask how high, Not why.

 

[Eyclonus]

First of all Captain have you been in Combat?

I haven't but I've lived with 2 army vets, I was in a Journalism degree with at least 14 former soldiers, and pretty much in general about a third of the people I hung out with at that time had served in the armed forces of not only Australia but other nations like Britain, America, New Zealand and Canada.

To rebutt your ignorance,
1) Its you or Him. How do you think fellow soldiers would treat you? Take Abu Ghrahib,
2) Its been true since the start of group warfare that psychotics are more likely to join the armed forces,
3) Landwarior is not universal and your assuming all conflict takes place in areas where all participants can clearly identify each other and civilains and are capable of shooting hostiles and not missing, even with the latest gear there is still confusion,
4) Well how would you try a warcriminal? On heresay? Rumour? Right & Wrong do not come into it when two people are being ordered to kill each other. You could stop and say No, but will that mean the other guy will be sport and sit down too?
5) Could you tell the difference before the fact? Does the Justice system in any country prosecute before or after the murder?
6) No
7) As I've already stated that principle was inconsistently applied prior to Nuremberg, and often used to cover the culpability of Superiors.

Capt_Jack_Doicy you are a troll.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Maybe I should relate a true story about my grandfather for you to finally shut up, Doicy:

My maternal grandfather was in North Africa with the 8th Army, as a Medic. My grandfather didn't care what uniform a person wore, even if they were an Axis soldier, officer, etc.

During one battle, I think El Alamein, not sure, the 8th Army and the Afrika Corps were fighting. As was my grandfathers job, he ran out there to tend to the wounded, get them behind the lines, etc.

At one point, my grandfather ran into the middle of the battlefield, and started taking care of a wounded officer. As he was tending to the injured guy, he suddenly hears someone yelling from the Germans, and the fighting stops. My grandfather asks just WTF is going on, but his colleagues tell him to keep doing his thing. During the ceasefire, Medics from both sides got their wounded medical help.

Eventually, my father had taken the wounded behind the lines, and then asked a friend of his who knew German just what had happened. His friend tells him that the one who yelled was Erwin Rommel, who had ordered a ceasefire on that particular part of the battle. Fighting raged all around, but NOBODY engaged in that spot.

The reason why? My grandfather had been saving a GERMAN Officer, even though there was a Brit nearby. The Brit could move himself to safety now that the fighting had stopped, but the German couldn't. Rommel had ordered that NOBODY shoot at my grandfather, even though they could have easily killed him.

If Rommel was "evil", as you say, why would he have ordered a complete ceasefire?

Also, let me specify: We aren't taught to carry out orders we cannot do, either physically, mentally, etc. THOSE we can bring up immediately and refuse to do. Its only the ones that we have no obvious reason to question that we must do. And with Rommel, even if he DID surrender the entire Afrika Corps, there was STILL the rest of the German army, SS who WERE NOT UNDER HIS COMMAND, possible death-by-sneaky-POW, with a German Special Agent being PURPOSELY captured in order to eliminate Rommel, repercussions towards his family, actual soldiers and officers who were blind Nazi followers that WOULD rebel and carry on the fight, with more possible deaths on BOTH sides (and to civilians), and other things that were VERY good reasons for Rommel NOT to defect and/or surrender.

Oh, and bullshit on Nazi's keeping "very good documents". Rommel WAS incarcerated by the SS, and Rommel was the KEYSTONE in the Officers' Coup. The SS gave him the option between trial-and-execution and suicide. Had he NOT chosen the latter, they probably would've used fake, SS-created documents to help find him guilty.

Rommel was an honourable, chivalrous man, he was just doing what he HAD to do to protect himself, his family AND his country. He did not fight for the Nazi Party or for Hitler, he fought for GERMANY.

I heard this story before, It still is awesome..(Or variations.)

 

[meatloaf231]

Maybe I should relate a true story about my grandfather for you to finally shut up, Doicy:

My maternal grandfather was in North Africa with the 8th Army, as a Medic. My grandfather didn't care what uniform a person wore, even if they were an Axis soldier, officer, etc.

During one battle, I think El Alamein, not sure, the 8th Army and the Afrika Corps were fighting. As was my grandfathers job, he ran out there to tend to the wounded, get them behind the lines, etc.

At one point, my grandfather ran into the middle of the battlefield, and started taking care of a wounded officer. As he was tending to the injured guy, he suddenly hears someone yelling from the Germans, and the fighting stops. My grandfather asks just WTF is going on, but his colleagues tell him to keep doing his thing. During the ceasefire, Medics from both sides got their wounded medical help.

Eventually, my father had taken the wounded behind the lines, and then asked a friend of his who knew German just what had happened. His friend tells him that the one who yelled was Erwin Rommel, who had ordered a ceasefire on that particular part of the battle. Fighting raged all around, but NOBODY engaged in that spot.

The reason why? My grandfather had been saving a GERMAN Officer, even though there was a Brit nearby. The Brit could move himself to safety now that the fighting had stopped, but the German couldn't. Rommel had ordered that NOBODY shoot at my grandfather, even though they could have easily killed him.

If Rommel was "evil", as you say, why would he have ordered a complete ceasefire?

Also, let me specify: We aren't taught to carry out orders we cannot do, either physically, mentally, etc. THOSE we can bring up immediately and refuse to do. Its only the ones that we have no obvious reason to question that we must do. And with Rommel, even if he DID surrender the entire Afrika Corps, there was STILL the rest of the German army, SS who WERE NOT UNDER HIS COMMAND, possible death-by-sneaky-POW, with a German Special Agent being PURPOSELY captured in order to eliminate Rommel, repercussions towards his family, actual soldiers and officers who were blind Nazi followers that WOULD rebel and carry on the fight, with more possible deaths on BOTH sides (and to civilians), and other things that were VERY good reasons for Rommel NOT to defect and/or surrender.

Oh, and bullshit on Nazi's keeping "very good documents". Rommel WAS incarcerated by the SS, and Rommel was the KEYSTONE in the Officers' Coup. The SS gave him the option between trial-and-execution and suicide. Had he NOT chosen the latter, they probably would've used fake, SS-created documents to help find him guilty.

Rommel was an honourable, chivalrous man, he was just doing what he HAD to do to protect himself, his family AND his country. He did not fight for the Nazi Party or for Hitler, he fought for GERMANY.

Win.

Your gramdfather sounds hardcore.

 

[Eyclonus]

I won't quote the post, but yes, Win.

 

[The Iron Ninja]

I third the Win motion *bangs imaginary gabble down on desk, if only for effect*.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

*Bestows a medal to pyromaniac for his story*

 

[Capt_Jack_Doicy]

[edit after reading what the captain posted in the meantime]
OF COURSE he was aiding the Nazi cause. It was their army he fought in, for heaven's sake. .

thus it is impossible for him to be a hero

Sometimes historians seem to think it's their job to restate the obvious.

you seem to be missing the obvious, he helped evil you can't aid evil and be a hero that the opposite of a hero.

He just managed to cause the least possible damage while he was fighting.

your own argument for call him a hero is that he was a great commander so the least possible damage would to be surrender, or delibrate disadvantage his own troops in some way, Not reinforce the atlantic wall.

If he had just refused to command these troops, or even surrendered, some other commander would have been put in Rommel's place, as I said

and? what sort of argument is that if i don't aid the murderers there just get someone else to do it? thats pathetic.

Doicy, I'm talking about the Tobruk siege.

no i'm pretty sure your confusing it with Galipoli.

It consisted of Australian and New Zealand volunteers dug into a coastal city,

it was the australian 9th at tobruk, no New Zealanders they were both however at Galipoli

being ordered by British officers

no the 9th had australian officers,

to go over the fortifications and charge entrenched germans in the desert.

the 9th stayed dug in, it was the relief forces that attack the africa corp.

In Australia and New Zealand their is quite a bitter feeling about this as many soldiers were injured by incompetent officers using obsolete tactics from WW1.

your definitely confusing it with Galipoli which was in WW1.

Considering your just wailing on about Commonwealth and British forces are the same thing,

i don't believe i was wailing but the british commonwealth casuality figures are listed as one group in my sources, plus saying commonwealth is easy shorthand for listing all the commonwealth nations at the time but if offends you so, i shall instead list them
Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bahrain, Belize, Botswana, Brunei, Burma, Bhutan, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Fiji, Hong Kong and other chinese territories, India, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somaliland, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
obviously thats doesn't include the volunteers from other nations that took up British uniforms. it also doesn't include those formations of free forces, Poles, Czechs, Norwegians etc who were under British command. is that better?

I'm going to estimate your one of those despicable Americans who believe all that BS about the Nazis planning to invade while riding Dinosaurs.

Idiocracy was a fun movie, and truely doubt any american believes that

Post WW1 German had Hyper-Inflation, burning firewood was more expensive then burning a mere 10s of thousand Papiermarks. When it costs nearly a weeks wage for an expert craftsman(Note I do mean Expert) to simply buy the minimum amount of food for his family, people are going to blame someone. In this case the countries that forced such ridiculous war debts on the newly formed German republic and stripped most of its valuable assets as Spoils of War.

well they mostly blamed the jews and the Soviets, niether of whom forced any war debts (which was france taking revenge for the equally harsh ones germany had took in the franco prussian war.) but how does that justify it?

As for being offensive, well its the Internet. Get the fuck over it and get on with your life.

really were can't we be civil?

 

[Eyclonus]

Idiocracy was a fun movie,

Well it appears we agree on something.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Jacky boy, Hero has two meanings. The pop meaning is someone who people respect because he does a good job. With him being commander he stopped a lot of deaths. If an SS officer was in charge MANY MANY more people would have died. If he surrendered it would be worse because a SS would be in charge.

 

[Eyclonus]

Alright who wants democracy?

All those in favour of locking this cesspit of thread say Lock, all opposed say Open, in bold.

Lock