Comrade Trapp Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Originally posted by Avatar: You're all amateurs of history, with the possible exception of HR. Where'd you guys pick up this garbage you call 'facts' anyways?You saying my American History lesson was incorrect?!? :mad: :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Originally posted by Avatar: You're all amateurs of history, with the possible exception of HR. Where'd you guys pick up this garbage you call 'facts' anyways? How many books have you people read on the subject of WWII, 1 or 2? Because I've read around 50. To any peruser of this website, please ignore what you read, it's for entertainment value only. Rambo probably gets his historical facts from fox news... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellraiser Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 or fox kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roqf77 Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 avatar, hitlers willing executioners is a leading book in the study. and actualy yes ive read more than 50 books on the subject. give me some time and i can list them for you if you realy want? besides what makes you the oracle of truth? this is a discussion forum not a historical truth forum. if you dont wanna take part dont, dont take it out on us. ramb is saying a load of rubbish but it dont mean we all are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoat Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Reading books does not intelligence gain. Dresden was no war crime. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes. They were steps deemed necessary to destroy the enemy's will to fight and to obliterate any supply or command and control functions they had left. If were going to consider carpet bombing to be a war crime, let's not just point a finger at one side or the other. Any man who loaded, flew, or commanded the bombers would then be criminals, or at least accesories to mass murder. Will anyone respect this post if I don't state how many books I have read? Give me a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoat Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 P.S. Patton won his battles, and Rommel won a fair amount of his. But you cannot truly compare commanders if they did not face the same scenarios or enemies. Also, don't forget the part that Rommel played in the plot to kill Hitler. If he hadn't committed suicide, France may have been harder to take. We will never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Actually not true... I do not blame Europe anymore than I blame Chamberlain or FDR and the Isolated Americans for WW2. Churchill was known Anti-Semite and half of Europe would've collaberated with the Nazis if they licked their boots... LOL What John says is correct, France, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, portions of the Eastern European Nations. I can go on and on and on... They contributed very well to the Waffen Units... Did they have options? Well, look at the reality, your kids are starving and your wife is too, so become a Nazi garantuee their safety and food and shelter for 'em. Simple isn't it? Do not join and beware! What is a Nazi anyways, there were plenty of American Nazis before they became unpopular. We probably have the largest amount of Neo Nazis in the world to this day. So we cannot point fingers, it's the great freedom of the USA to believe what you want and no matter how radical it is our Nation. You must learn to respect this as Europeans. We are a nation of Ideals and a Nation of Extremes... however we're not evil... Nazism was in essential fact in WW2 Germany an Evil Tool. Hitler used this, he could be an AntiChrist. He murdered Innocence for the sake of a Ideal that was beyond sick.. The Goal of a Greater Germany I do not disagree with, if I would've been the Chancellor of Germany I'd of damned well conquored Europe, but I would've done so under a Righteous Flag and I would've won! As I would left the General Staff to make decisions and I would've broken Europe into Acceptable Chunks of a New World Order.. Instead Europe is a divived little bish... Reds are broken and what's left? USA, United States of America. Hell, half our States wanted out at one time, our bloodiest war with 1 shot Self Breech loading Rifles. 600k dead! We wrote the book on trenchwar and WW1 We're all brothers and sisters, our fates are intertwined but the Power is nolonger in Europe.. It's still undivided, if joined that could change things possibly, but unlikely. the Next MasterPower Will be Asian IMO or Russian. Look at the Extreme and Psycho Ideals comming out of those Places. You needn't fear the USA, but you ignore the fact of what is truly dangerous again the World screws up and wait, just wait! We'll suffer for the mistakes of Fathers, and our sons will been pissing on our graves too about not stepping to bat and kicking ass when you could've! Don't even need guns for this just Help, political pressure, and Money... Greed my friends... that's what makes this world go round, when you get over that then you get over the ills of the planet and then we can really accomplish something I'm a 2nd Generation American on one side, I had Nazis I'm sure I don't know.. I'm half German distantly, I'm proud of all my heritage. I find it a shame the world doesn't realize that War, Genocide, insanity isn't just a part of the World as it always has been it is human nature. When cave man A bangs Caveman B over the head to steal his wife, Bam, there ya go... That's our mentality... We're a few thousands years outta the trees, evolved Monkeys. Read closely the History books Sorry if this sounds fully like Anarchy but noone accepts their wrongs, they just point fingers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Comrade Trapp, I learnt much from you oh wise one! Go ahead, please tell the naive bunch of lurkers and participants how the valiant Americans dashed and destroy the puny British in their most glorious of victories, the War of 1812! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roqf77 Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 stoat i was simply replying to avatars previous post. not trying to impress anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roqf77 Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Churchill was known Anti-Semite, realy i suppose he was responsible for the boer war aswell right? and the book on trench warfare? which one would that be exactly? "it's the great freedom of the USA to believe what you want and no matter how radical it is" just like most western nations then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 roqf77 I believe Liam is referring to the various American Civil War city sieges, Vicksburg-Atlanta-Richmond, where the trenche warfare was much more like what came about in WWI than anything that came before it. Naturally, it wasn't exactly like WWI, barbed wire hadn't come out yet and nobody thought to use Gatling guns the way machine guns would be used half a century later; but the essentials were pretty close. Liam, I've been inactive recently because I figure I said most of what I had to say last year and the year before, but your very interesting and insightful post pulled me out. I really had to say, Bravo! Regarding Europeans who "collaborated" with the Germans i.e. nazis, I'd like to recommend a book, Hitler's Jewish Soldiers by Bryan M. Rigg. There were half-Jews in the concentration camps but there were also half-Jews in the German military, most notably fieldmarshal Erhard Milch, second in commander of the Luftwaffe (to Goering). And he wasn't the only half-Jewish general officer serving the nazi regime. These issues aren't as simple as good or bad and right or wrong. As Liam said, people do what they have to for the survival of their families and themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Originally posted by pino: I just wonder why Rommel H.Q. gets 8 en Patton H.Q. only 7. This doesn't make any sence because patton has beaton Rommel in every battle thay fought against eachother(or am I wrong?) As was pointed out earlier, at the times they faced each other the scales were set too heavily in Patton's favor to make a fair evaluation. In Tunisia Rommel's plan was carried out but he wasn't there to direct it. Considering Rommel, like Patton, always commanded at the front, that might well have made a significant difference. In my opinion, there isn't much to choose between them. Rommel's main weakness was neglect of his logistics. In North Africa his German and Italian divisions had a major calling the shots on supplies. Considering the size of the force involved it had to be someone of a higher rank and with more clout. But that's indicative of Rommel's free-wheeling style, start the attack and worry about a secure supply line after the smoke clears. That was exactly what he did in going into Egypt. He caused Kesselring to cancel the assault on Malta, after it had been reduced by constant pounding, so he could have the troops in North Africa. When reminded about his supply line he said he'd be in Alexandria and the new supply line would go through Greece. Optimism is a great attribute, but he carried it to an extreme, usually with great success. If it's hard to guage Patton's strengths it's also hard to guage his weaknesses and for the same reason, the Germans were seldom if ever in a position to counter punch against him. Toward the end of the war he made some boners after crossing over into Germany, one of which was trying to take a concentration camp before he was able to support the striking force, the result was a costly repulse but there was no counter attack -- the Germans didn't have enough left to do so. In both cases their best was very good and I think it really would have been interesting to have seen a battle between them with comparatively equal resources at their dispossal. For game purposes I think they should have the same rating if it's a single overall figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 6+ million Jews stuffed into ovens in Europe & nobody is a Nazi except Hitler, what joke. Then all I get is blah-blah-blah, what about Stalin, how a few half-jews helped the Nazis, & how great Rommell was. Germany had it coming. You know what? I still don't trust those Tutonic (spelling) Knight blood for soil freaks, they're probably helping deliver WMD today. Rommell sucked, why did the idiots even goto Africa? It was a lost cause from the start, it wasn't like SC plays. Patton kicked his ass in Africa. Don't give me this apples & oranges stuff. Then Rommell kills himself? What a coward, what a loser way to die. [ July 29, 2005, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Brother Rambo, It isn't that simple. And whether people admitted to being a nazi or not plenty of Germans and other Europeans were arrested after the war and either given prison sentences or executed for their crimes. Where do you want to draw your line? Were kids in the Hitler Youth (mandatory by WWII) as guilty as Adolf Eichmann and Heinrich Himmler? Was the guy who drove the train as guilty as the one who dropped the XyclonB into the death chambers? As far as I've seen most of those who claimed they were only following orders were dealt with. Anyhow, what has that got to do with the discussion about Patton and Rommel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: Then Rommell kills himself? What a coward, what a loser way to die. It's never been confirmed that he actually did kill himself, he might have been forcibly poisoned. A coward's way to die? That doesn't deserve an answer as you don't seem to be aware that most of the suspected plotters were slowly hanged with piano wire after being tortured. If he committed suicide, and I think he did, it was so his family would be treated as the survivors of a war hero instead of a traitor. Of all the people to associate with the nazis. Don't you know Rommel was killed precisely because he finally turned against Hitler and company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Rommel NOT a Nazi? Who do you think he was working for? Who paid his precious bunta family's bills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I personally believe that Ike (or some high power) had Patton killed, because George could have made a run for the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roqf77 Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 okay rambo. One like i said in a previous post, a senior figure on the matter puts the number of germans with express knowledge of the holocaust at around 100k i believe. your comment about wmd's is total crap, and becareful your beginnig to make your self sound like a racist bigot(the nazi's were too). and lastly patton kicked ass in africa how? you mean like at kesserine pass and faid pass right? The torch landings more than anything else were to gain us troops combat experience., he rose to prominece in a blight of failures. not exactly kicking rommels ass. especialy as the majority of the time it was monty and the eith army that did the vast majority of the fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 As I said, where do you draw your line? The nazis were in power. Rommel, von Rundstedt, von Manstein and most of the other German generals tried to stay out of the political side of things. If they hadn't they would have been replaced by people who really were nazis. A lot of German generals, such as Manstein and Rundstedt, didn't allow the SS to conduct their "special" operations in the areas they commanded in. That took a lot of balls, really, because anyone in Germany could have been arrested in secret by the Gestapo, framed and sent to prison or executed. Most people didn't want to risk it, so any general who did was exhibiting a lot of balls. Much more than any of us have ever been called upon to exhibit and they don't deserve to be lumped together with the death squads and concentration camps. No, Rommel was not a nazi. Period. Who paid his bills and all that -- you're saying that the 60 or 70 million Germans of that era were all nazis. Does that include the ones who were ultimately executed for working against them? Anyway, I was starting to wonder why I stopped posting here and thanks for reminding me. The floor is yours, I won't be back for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 @roqf77 --- Dude, I got the History Channel, I know all about these Tutonic Knights, they still exist today and it's "within the realm of possibility that they could be seeking WMD". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 @Sir Jersey --- Dude, relax, take a deep breathe, this is only cyberspace Okay, for the sake of discussion, say Rommel was not a Nazi, lets say Rommel was a very loving individual. In that case, why was Rommel leading troops to kill others that did nothing to him? Why were the very nice Germans nicely killing people even though they weren't Nazis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I love you guys, wanna come over for a German brew & watch the History Channel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Trapp Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: In that case, why was Rommel leading troops to kill others that did nothing to him? Define "others", if you mean Allied soldiers, what else would you expect him to do. His country was at war, he was a German Field Marshall, he was doing what he was supposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 C-Trapp --- dude, you hiding again on ICQ? Lets play SC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Trapp Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: C-Trapp --- dude, you hiding again on ICQ? Lets play SC. Sorry, playing a game as we speak. Define "others". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts