What if Rommel had succeeded in arresting Hitler?

Do you understand how far you've sunk? You've reduced yourself to citing alternate history fiction instead of historical fact.

I was under the impression this forum was for discussing possible alternate histories. IE if Rommel had been victorious at Normandy or had surrendered X, Y, or Z might have happened differently. Obviously there is going to be different very different opinions about how the Western Allies might have responded, how Stalin might have responded, and how the Germans might have responded and isn't that the whole point.

The fact is no one can say for total certainty what would have happened if X, Y, or Z had happened differently. Its all opinion, none of these alternate histories are historical fact. My point was that there are very different legitimate opinions then yours or mine about what might have happened if events transpired differently in late 1944.

Those books had no plausibility

I did have real problems with aspects of the books and there were certainly (what I felt were quite OOC moments) such as Rommel being shocked (and breaking down emotionally) at finding out about the mass murders of civilians the SS were carrying out after re-entering Germany with the Allies.

The reality is after returning from Africa in late 1943/early 1944 Rommel found out from his intelligence sources that the SS and Waffen SS were carrying out mass killings of civilians. Rommel's son as one can see from his own words below believed him finding out about the Final Solution via his intelligence sources is what allowed him to cross the mental Rubicon and support high treason against the Nazi Party.

scan0002.jpg
 
I was under the impression this forum was for discussing possible alternate histories...


Plausible alternate histories, my dear little hole digger, and not possible alternate histories.

Try to discuss, for example, Harrison's completely "possible" Stars & Stripes trilogy here outside of ASB or Books and Media and be prepared to... well... be prepared to get what you've already been getting in this thread. ;)
 

Typo

Banned
The fact is no one can say for total certainty what would have happened if X, Y, or Z had happened differently. Its all opinion, none of these alternate histories are historical fact. My point was that there are very different legitimate opinions then yours or mine about what might have happened if events transpired differently in late 1944.
One person's opinion is not always as valid as another's
 
Try to discuss, for example, Harrison's completely "possible" Stars & Stripes trilogy here outside of ASB or Books and Media and be prepared to... well... be prepared to get what you've already been getting in this thread. ;)

I have been quite happy with the discussion and disagreement in the thread. Except you telling me repeately to "stop digging and move on to something else."

Well at least talking to you is better then trying to talk to the people that believe Rommel wanted to "bring the Holocaust to the Middle East".

'Chivalrous' Rommel wanted to bring Holocaust to Middle East

Erwin Rommel's reputation as one of Nazi Germany's few chivalrous generals has been blackened by a new documentary film which depicts the legendary "Desert Fox" as an unscrupulous commander who spearheaded Hitler's attempts to take the Holocaust to the Middle East.

Rommel, the head of the German Afrika Korps who won fame for his initial successes against the British in North Africa in 1942, was widely respected during and after the Second World War. Churchill once referred to him in parliament as a "great general". Defeated by General Bernard Montgomery's "Desert Rats" at the battle of El Alamein in Egypt the same year, Field Marshal Rommel once claimed that his military campaign against the British was a chivalrous affair and the nearest thing to "war without hate".

However, a new two-part documentary series being broadcast on Germany's ZDF television channel provides evidence that Rommel played a key role in the Nazis' drive to invade Palestine and exterminate the Jews of the Middle East.

The historian Jörg Müllner, who made the film Rommel's War with co-author Jean-Christoph Caron, yesterday dismissed as a "myth" the notion that Rommel fought a clean war in the desert. "With his victories, he was simply preparing the way for the Nazi extermination machine," he added.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...to-bring-holocaust-to-middle-east-450304.html

I have read WW2 history books, movies, and documentaries created in the mid 1940s to today and since the Cold War ended there has been a strong push by a number of historians to revise the history regarding Rommel. I was reading a WW2 book the other day that said that Rommel was falsely accused of treason and though "he continued to love the Fuhrer" he was forced to commit suicide. I had to look up where the hell they were getting this crap and it came from Gestapo documents about what he supposedly told the Gestapo as he was being dragged away by them for high treason.

Myth of 'humane' Nazi Erwin Rommel debunked

A new exhibition in Stuttgart calls into question the true nature of the man known as the "Desert Fox". "The Rommel Myth" strips away the legends that surround the man who faced off against Britain's Desert Rats in North Africa and who committed suicide after being implicated in a plot to kill Adolf Hitler, the Daily Mail reports.

Germans have traditionally been taught that Rommel was a good man, surrounded by evil. But Gestapo documents in the exhibition paint a different picture.

They reveal that even as he was being led away by secret policeman he spoke of his devotion to Hitler. "I loved the Fuhrer and I love him still. I am innocent of any involvement in the assassination attempt,' he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...yth-of-humane-Nazi-Erwin-Rommel-debunked.html

Yes, because Rommel at his most honest was obviously when he was being dragged away by the secret police for treason. :rolleyes:

Fighting over disagreements over what might or might not have happened if events had occured differently in past wars is far far more fun then trying to argue with revisionist historians who are dead set on trying to change how history views a person or event.
 
Last edited:
Top