Irwin Rommel Emmigrates

No, no, no, no, no. If we're discussing cigarette taxes or censorship laws and I compare my opponent's views to that of the Nazis, that's a confirmation of Godwin's law and a flawed ad hominem argument. When your opponent actually defends Nazis, that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Except he's not defending Nazis. I thought we already went over this: Rommel was not a nazi. MOst of the average Wehrmacht soldiers were not Nazis.

Calling him a Nazi is just a really low blow. It shows you have no argument and are just resorting to insults to cover it up. If you can't counter his points, then don't counter them and admit defeat. But if you can, then actually try to. Obviously it seems, you can't so you are resorting to insulting him.

It was an uncalled for insult and a highly offensive one at that.
 
No, no, no, no, no. If we're discussing cigarette taxes or censorship laws and I compare my opponent's views to that of the Nazis, that's a confirmation of Godwin's law and a flawed ad hominem argument. When your opponent actually defends Nazis, that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
But, I'm not defending Nazis.

I'm defending soldiers who served in the Wehrmacht at the orders of the Nazis. There's a difference.

Frankly, calling me a Nazi was uncalled for.
 
Rommel did exactly what you are saying everyone should have done. He defied orders to kill civilians

Cite? When and where?

tried his best to save civilians in France and North Africa

What civilians in North Africa? The only "enemy civilians" around were the Libyan Arabs, brutally subjugated by Italy and therefore pro-Allied. (See the memoirs of Major Vladmir "Popski" Peniakoff.) There is no evidence that Rommel ever did anythng to restrain Italian violence toward the Libyan Arabs, or that he was even aware of them except in the most remote way.

and treated prisoners so well in North Africa

White prisoners in North Africa. During the 1940 campaign in France, Rommel's 7th Panzer Division routinely murdered any black French colonial troops they captured.

...that he gained respect amongst the British during the war. This isn't some Nazi apologist propaganda invented after the war. The allied soldiers very much respected Rommel themselves.

Many British and Americans who wanted to destroy the Nazis didn't want to be perceived as seeking the destruction of Germany. So there was an itch during the war to find "good Germans" who were "honorable" soldiers, and thereby distinguish "Germans" from "Nazis". The absence of the SS and Gestapo from Africa made it relatively easy to elevate Rommel in that way. It was also comforting to the British to think that if they were losing battles, at least it was to a real soldier and not some Nazi butcher.

Postwer, Rommel was a useful example to hold up to the German people. Here was a genuine German hero who was anti-Hitler and de facto murdered by Hitler. The discreditable parts of his record were ignored to preserve his heroic image - and the contrast with other German commanders whose crimes were known.
 
I have came to the conclusion that you didn't read anything else. Others have already provided evidence for the stuff you are asking me to cite and provide evidence for.
 
But, I'm not defending Nazis.

I'm defending soldiers who served in the Wehrmacht at the orders of the Nazis. There's a difference.

A difference you are making far too much of. The Wehrmacht was as much a part of the Nazi state as the SS or the Gestapo. It was not as directly concerned in Nazi crimes, but it shared responsibility.
 
A difference you are making far too much of. The Wehrmacht was as much a part of the Nazi state as the SS or the Gestapo. It was not as directly concerned in Nazi crimes, but it shared responsibility.

Most soldiers in the Wehrmacht were not Nazis though. That's his point.
 
Most soldiers in the Wehrmacht were not Nazis though. That's his point.

So? They where defending the Nazi Regime. Frankly even if they see that as defending Germany I see very little difference between that kind of passive support and active civillian support for the regime.
 
So? They where defending the Nazi Regime. Frankly even if they see that as defending Germany I see very little difference between that kind of passive support and active civillian support for the regime.

I cannot continue to argue with you if you are going to basically claim every soldier who ever fought on the German side in WWII was essentially a war criminal. It makes no sense and is frankly ridiculous.
 
I cannot continue to argue with you if you are going to basically claim every soldier who ever fought on the German side in WWII was essentially a war criminal. It makes no sense and is frankly ridiculous.

I don't really see the ridiculousness in it. It is a fact that they where keeping Germany fighting which allowed the Nazi atrocities to keep on happening, which by the way a lot of German regulars took part in even in france. Its more indirect then the people literally gassing people and the people ordering the gassing but they are enabling the gassing to go on by keeping up their fight. I seriously don't see how that doesn't in the very least make them partially responsible for what was going on.
 
I don't really see the ridiculousness in it. It is a fact that they where keeping Germany fighting which allowed the Nazi atrocities to keep on happening, which by the way a lot of German regulars took part in even in france. Its more indirect then the people literally gassing people and the people ordering the gassing but they are enabling the gassing to go on by keeping up their fight. I seriously don't see how that doesn't in the very least make them partially responsible for what was going on.

Query: Is every soldier who fought in the Red Army partially responsible for Stalinist atrocities? Y/N

Is every soldier who fought on the Communist side in China partially responsible for Maoist atrocities? Y/N

Is every soldier who served in the British army during the Empire partially responsible for assorted imperialist atrocities? Y/N

Is every soldier who fought in the American army partially responsible for atrocities against Native Americans and Filipinos, Jim Crow laws, and various 'missions' to Latin America? Y/N

In all these cases, soldiers aided and abetted their nations, even if it is just by cleaning latrines in a remote outpost, helping them to do not nice things. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

And while the Nazis were worse than the above, I will not condemn someone as a horrible person for not committing treason, even against a horrific state. Since treason is arguably the most foul crime in the mind of man; the lowest circle of hell in Dante's Inferno is for traitors.

By that standard, the Allies in the 1930s are also partially responsible for Nazi crimes, as if they'd had a spine and brains Hitler never would have got going and caused so much damage.

To me, Rommel is the classic example of 'good man, bad cause'. That he earned respect from his foes during wartime speaks a great deal for his character.
 
Query: Is every soldier who fought in the Red Army partially responsible for Stalinist atrocities? Y/N

Is every soldier who fought on the Communist side in China partially responsible for Maoist atrocities? Y/N

Is every soldier who served in the British army during the Empire partially responsible for assorted imperialist atrocities? Y/N

Is every soldier who fought in the American army partially responsible for atrocities against Native Americans and Filipinos, Jim Crow laws, and various 'missions' to Latin America? Y/N

In all these cases, soldiers aided and abetted their nations, even if it is just by cleaning latrines in a remote outpost, helping them to do not nice things. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

And while the Nazis were worse than the above, I will not condemn someone as a horrible person for not committing treason, even against a horrific state. Since treason is arguably the most foul crime in the mind of man; the lowest circle of hell in Dante's Inferno is for traitors.

To me, Rommel is the classic example of 'good man, bad cause'. That he earned respect from his foes during wartime speaks a great deal for his character.

In order:
Yes for the most part, they are responsible for a lot of them, especially the Atrocities in WWII since those often where not directly ordered of them. I wouldn't say all of them in the very least because the army was just as much the target as any other group with the only people truly guilty of aiding and abetting everything actively being the secret police.
Yes, although Mao's China had far less active maliciousness and far more terrible mismanagement leading to horrific disaster. The cultural revolution is the only bit I'd describe as entirely malicious rather than just incompetent or a mix of maliciousness and incompetence.
No, this is one of the few cases where I can say completely most of them aren't at fault here since the British Empire was so massive, did not necessarily rely on the military to continue (although that was a large part of it) and if you where posted to for example Canada nothing you do there has any chance of prolonging or shortening the imperial era. Although a lot of the British troops who served in India where at least partially responsible although that ones further complicated by the huge number of Indians who if anything played more of a part then your average British Soldier.

I really don't believe in the whole good man bad cause for someone like Rommel is that as far as I can tell he could not possibly have not known what was going on in the concentration camps or the eastern front. He wasn't a total bastard but simply personally upholding some ethics does not excuse prolonging a broken corrupt dictatorship which has no place existing in the modern world and which was killing millions of people. Of course I also really disagree with the whole "treason is the worst crime ever" notion, frankly if your group whatever it is doesn't deserve the support you give it why give it? Peoples loyalty should not be expected but earned.
 
In order:
Yes for the most part, they are responsible for a lot of them, especially the Atrocities in WWII since those often where not directly ordered of them. I wouldn't say all of them in the very least because the army was just as much the target as any other group with the only people truly guilty of aiding and abetting everything actively being the secret police.
Yes, although Mao's China had far less active maliciousness and far more terrible mismanagement leading to horrific disaster. The cultural revolution is the only bit I'd describe as entirely malicious rather than just incompetent or a mix of maliciousness and incompetence.
No, this is one of the few cases where I can say completely most of them aren't at fault here since the British Empire was so massive, did not necessarily rely on the military to continue (although that was a large part of it) and if you where posted to for example Canada nothing you do there has any chance of prolonging or shortening the imperial era. Although a lot of the British troops who served in India where at least partially responsible although that ones further complicated by the huge number of Indians who if anything played more of a part then your average British Soldier.

I really don't believe in the whole good man bad cause for someone like Rommel is that as far as I can tell he could not possibly have not known what was going on in the concentration camps or the eastern front. He wasn't a total bastard but simply personally upholding some ethics does not excuse prolonging a broken corrupt dictatorship which has no place existing in the modern world and which was killing millions of people. Of course I also really disagree with the whole "treason is the worst crime ever" notion, frankly if your group whatever it is doesn't deserve the support you give it why give it? Peoples loyalty should not be expected but earned.

Fair enough. You're consistent, so even though I disagree with your opinion, I do respect you for sticking to your guns.

Regarding treason though, even though you may personally not find it to be the worst crime ever, there is a very strong cultural imperative in western society toward that end (note Dante's Inferno again). And I would suspect that would be especially strong in Rommel's cultural milieu.

I guess in the end I have a pickier standard for evil than you do. To be evil one has to, in my book, overtly commit evil deeds. Without that explicitness, the worst one can be is negligent or stupid. And I do consider the 'just following orders' line to be a legitimate defense, at least for lower-ranking officers and the enlisted, provided it is true.
 
I really don't believe in the whole good man bad cause for someone like Rommel is that as far as I can tell he could not possibly have not known what was going on in the concentration camps or the eastern front. He wasn't a total bastard but simply personally upholding some ethics does not excuse prolonging a broken corrupt dictatorship which has no place existing in the modern world and which was killing millions of people. Of course I also really disagree with the whole "treason is the worst crime ever" notion, frankly if your group whatever it is doesn't deserve the support you give it why give it? Peoples loyalty should not be expected but earned.



Even if turning against it means supporting foreign invaders whose victory would reduce your country to rubble?

On top of which, your country's principal enemy is run by a dictator little if any less nasty than the one who runs your own, so that your country's defeat may well just replace one set of gangsters by another ?

And if nasty behaviour by your own country is an excuse for betraying it to a foreign enemy, does that mean that Black troops in the US Army should have gone over to the Japanese, as a protest against racism in the old South?
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
Query: Is every soldier who fought in the Red Army partially responsible for Stalinist atrocities? Y/N

Is every soldier who fought on the Communist side in China partially responsible for Maoist atrocities? Y/N

Is every soldier who served in the British army during the Empire partially responsible for assorted imperialist atrocities? Y/N

Is every soldier who fought in the American army partially responsible for atrocities against Native Americans and Filipinos, Jim Crow laws, and various 'missions' to Latin America? Y/N

In all these cases, soldiers aided and abetted their nations, even if it is just by cleaning latrines in a remote outpost, helping them to do not nice things. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

And while the Nazis were worse than the above, I will not condemn someone as a horrible person for not committing treason, even against a horrific state. Since treason is arguably the most foul crime in the mind of man; the lowest circle of hell in Dante's Inferno is for traitors.

By that standard, the Allies in the 1930s are also partially responsible for Nazi crimes, as if they'd had a spine and brains Hitler never would have got going and caused so much damage.

To me, Rommel is the classic example of 'good man, bad cause'. That he earned respect from his foes during wartime speaks a great deal for his character.

Yes to all of the above. Soldiers who fight for regimes are, as enforcers of policy, at least partially responsible for atrocities committed by said regimes if they were aware of them.

And yes, the Allies in the 1930's are partially responsible for Nazi crimes.
 
Yes to all of the above. Soldiers who fight for regimes are, as enforcers of policy, at least partially responsible for atrocities committed by said regimes if they were aware of them.

That is because military's are tools of governments in general.

But, not every soldier should be damned because they choose to wear the uniform. You must ask the questions: why they joined? And, what were their actions while in? Then make a judgement.

But, following your line of thought, because of the war crimes that the Allies committed in WW2, every member of Bomber Command who participated in the allied strategic bombing campaign of German cities should be classed as a war criminal then. Now, I know events like the Firebombing of Dresden are horrible, and I am not condoning them. But, every airman who was involved (risking their lives for their countries and simply doing their jobs) should not be depicted as a war criminal.

Do not generalize when discussing history. If you do, then you are doing it wrong.
 
Yes to all of the above. Soldiers who fight for regimes are, as enforcers of policy, at least partially responsible for atrocities committed by said regimes if they were aware of them.

And yes, the Allies in the 1930's are partially responsible for Nazi crimes.

Okay then. I'm waiting for you to start calling them evil and war criminals and horrible human beings now.
 
So? They where defending the Nazi Regime. Frankly even if they see that as defending Germany I see very little difference between that kind of passive support and active civillian support for the regime.


Does that mean that on the Eastern Front - where the war was between two murderous dictatorships - all the soldiers on both sides should be viewed as "war criminals"?
 
Top