patton vs.rommel

[waltero]

Patton vs Rommel, Who do you think the people loved? Rommel was loved by his men, and enemies.

I believe his men would of followed him anywhere.

The key to figuring out who might be the better General would be looking at how "their" men thought of them.

You cant beat love! (Just my opinion)

Furthermore, Dresden was a crime! We talk about how evil Hitler was for bringing the war to the civilians (bombing of UK cities) and then we turn around and do the same thing.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima was not a crime. It is just Ironic! The materials used to make the "bomb" was the same materials that Germany was sending over to Japan to use against us!

So we used their own weapon against them! :eek:

[JerseyJohn]

Waltero,

Great post and nowhere near as longwinded as most of mine.

I agree with what you've said. Another general who fits in that category was the US's Joe Stilwell. The correspondants dubbed him "Vinegar Joe," but he was known among his men as "Uncle Joe." Typical of him was during the forced march retreat from Burma, Stilwell, a three star general at the time, kept going to the rear of the column to keep the stragglers moving. He'd help them up and say, "Come on son, you don't want to stay back and let the Japs get you." That's something utterly unimaginable not only for a man of that rank, but also for a man his age. He was trekking along on foot just like the troops, and also carrying a carbine, exactly like the troops.

Also agree on Dresden. Not only was the fire bombing planned in several deliberate stages, but it was obviously chosen for the loss of life that would be inflicted -- the place had very little strategic value. BTW, I'd recommend Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five to anyone interested -- it's a terrific novel and also an excellent movie as well. Even Vonnegut liked the movie, which is usually not the case with novel authors.

[roqf77]

?????? i disagree. either dresden was a crime or it wasnt either way the a-bomb droppings will ahev the same morality. after all an a-bomb is more or less just a big uber firebomb. besides we were only doing what the germans did to us, only better. (dont agree just following the above threads logic)

[JerseyJohn]

By the summer of 1945 the USAAF was having difficulty finding a Japanese city that had enough left to fire bomb. It set a few aside for the A-bomb. It wanted something relatively untouched by earlier bombings, partly so it would be able to evaluate the nuclear device's effect, and partly so the Japanese would see how devasting the weapon was.

This moral issue goes way back. In the mid-70s I felt the United States should have just blocaded the Japanese home islands and waited for them submit from starvation and lack of raw materials.

-- Since then I've swung a bit toward feeling the A-bombs were justified in that it might have taken years for Japan to succumb to a siege, and probably a many times greater loss of civilian lives through disease and hunger than what was lost in the two blasts.

One thing I've never thought should even been considered was a land invasion of the place.

-- The original idea of inviting the USSR to join in against the Japanese was to put them in a position of contributing troops to the landings. Later, the Americans had misgivings about that and were suddenly in a hurry lest the Russkies take over too much of the Far East. I think that was the primary reason we dropped the bombs -- and that was about the time the USSR finally got it's troops going into Manchuria.

[jon_j_rambo]

Governments have an obligation to protect its citizens. I personally do not believe Dresden or the nukings of Japan were crimes, rather they were justice. The Axis powers put the whole planet on tilt with their plans, the Allies stop them & needed to destroy them. If the Axis powers would have surrendered sooner, then it would have saved lives.

[roqf77]

sorry not you john but the one above. if one is a crime they both are. plus i believe the old line but theystarted it first applies.!!!!!!

[jon_j_rambo]

@Waltero --- Yeah man, how can Dresden be a crime yet the nukings be okay? What's the logic behind that? (I've already shared my comments) What's the reasoning you have?

To keep this with SC, is there going to be nukes & fire bombing in SC-2?

[JerseyJohn]

rog,

I pretty much agree morally, I hate the idea of targetting civilians as part of a wartime strategy. We're finally entering an age where it isn't necessary, at least for the countries wealthy enough to afford sophisticated weapons.

But the thing is, going back through history, civilians have always been targeted, even in ancient times. The standard proceedure was to cart the locals off as slaves! If they had no economic value, they were killed on the spot -- the idea being to elimate tomorrows enemies.

In principal I agree that if a country starts a war it deserves whatever it gets. Which, of course, doesn't negate the fact that countries are really the human beings within, 99% of whom have no effect upon the immediate decisions of their leaders.

In World War Two, I think it was pretty obvious that from the start all countries involved felt the enemy's civilians were valid targets on the grounds that (1) they were the work force and source of troops and (2) killing them would weaken the national desire to fight (which turns out to be false). What makes it strange is that every country always denies it ever targets civilians.

There was that brief period right up to the early stages of the Battle of Britain, where both the British and Germans were trying not to bomb each other's civilians, but that ended with those stray bombs that dropped on civilians in London and the British counter measures on Berlin. It was inevitable that it would have ceased in any case. I think the only reason it kept up as long as it did is Hitler was still entertaining the idea of the UK agreeing to a peace treaty, leaving him free to turn on the USSR.

A knotty issue.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

To keep this with SC, is there going to be nukes & fire bombing in SC-2?

To keep my earlier posts in line with SC, I'm sure that, if he were alive today, Leo Durocher would be playing Strategic Command too!

[roqf77]

not realy jersey. its fairly well documented that hitler wanted britain to enter the third reich. not 100% up on it but i believe an offical offer was made post the decleration of war. ill see if i can find it.

[jon_j_rambo]

Leo Durocher was before my day. Had a baseball card of him with the Cubs or Mets? Leo the Lip was his nickname, I think? I started my baseball manager days with Billy Martin, Whitey Hurzog, Sparkey Anderson, & Tommy Lasorda.

The Pianist was a pretty good movie, a little too graphic for the Legend.

[jon_j_rambo]

Question for you History buffs (nuts): How close was Patton & Rommel actually to the battle? Was either in a tank? How much risk did they take with their own lives? Did Patton really challenge Rommel to a One-On-One battle? How true is the movie 'Patton'? "Rommel, you glorious bastard, I read your book!" --- George C. Scott in Patton.

[JerseyJohn]

rog,

Yes. He even said in Mein Kampf that Germany should have the land empire and Britain should have the sea empire and the two should work together in controling the world.

But as the war moved along, I think he would have been satisfied to just make peace with them. When he was announcing Barbarossa to his generals one of the reasons he stated, was to close the back door on Britain and force them to give in. Backwards logic, of course, but considering who we're talking about what else would be expected?

And, of course, the Rudof Hess flight to Scotland was in 1941, I believe. The accepted explanation is that he went to meet with The Duke of Windsor to arrange a settlement with the UK.

[JerseyJohn]

Brother Rambo,

Yes, Leo the Lip managed the late sixties Cubs. He brought them from being a near joke -- despite some great players like Ernie Banks, Ron Santo and Billy Williams -- to almost winning the 1969 Eastern Division instead of the Mets (back then the NL East was NY, Chi, Phil, Pittsburg, St Louis and Montreal-- it didn't make much sense geographically because Atlanta is east of both St Louis and Chicago, yet it was in the Western Division while those two were in the east).

He was like Martin in that he always wound up overstaying his welcome and being fired either for remarks or some other unnecessary controversy.

Also like Martin, he was a terrific manager and as players they were cast in the same mould -- great glove men with average batting abilities.

[JerseyJohn]

Regarding the History buff question.

I think the movie was essentially correct on most points -- naturally it bugs me that they used the same American 1950s tanks for both sides, which they did in most 1960s movies about WWII.

Rommel's book was on Infantry tactics, I believe. I'm sure Patton read it and probably years before he was shown doing so in the movie.

One thing they didn't mention, unless I missed it, was his remark about the halftrack being the greatest killer of American soldiers because too many of them use it as though it were a tank.

-- The parts about him slapping a battle fatigue victim and killing those two mules, are true, again that's as far as I remember.

The scene of the British and Monty entering Palermo with the Americans already inside the city and waiting to greet them is pure Hollywood, it never happened that way and couldn't have happened like that -- as though the British didn't send any recon in there first -- what a really stupid scene that was.

I seriously doubt either of them ever commanded from a tank.

Rommel was notorious for exposing himself to danger but he always went through the front lines in a staff car. He was almost captured once in Libya while going through a British field hospital that was changing hands for the second time. He bluffed his way through the Tommies who thought he was a Polish Colonel when they saw him entering his command vehicle -- which was a converted captured British radio truck -- the Maltese Crosses on the side must have been covered with dust or he couldn't have pulled it off. On numerous other occasions he conducted his own recon of the quickly shifting front lines in an unarmed Fielser Storch. His generals wanted him to stop doing that and probably he should have for the simple reason that he could have commanded better from behind the lines.

Patton, I believe, also got close to front, but not to the same almost foolhardy extreme as Rommel.

[waltero]

You can read about the bombing of Dresden and realize that it was a slaughter!

Why sink to Germany's level.

The a-bomb was more of a experimental thing, new weapon and all.

Who better to try it on then the enemy who stabbed us in the back!

Some one had to see what it could do, better us then anyone else.

Everybody was trying to get there hand on the a-bomb! it was going to be used.

It would be murder to use it again.

I think it made a believer out of Japan? I think it might of been the only thing that could make a believer out of them?

Although I am truly sorry it had to come to that.

[pino]

"Question for you History buffs (nuts): How close was Patton & Rommel actually to the battle? Was either in a tank? How much risk did they take with their own lives? Did Patton really challenge Rommel to a One-On-One battle? How true is the movie 'Patton'? "Rommel, you glorious bastard, I read your book!" --- George C. Scott in Patton."

Generals aren't supposed to be in danger in combat, if he dies the whole battle might be lost...

It would be just a waste if a general dies in battle..

[roqf77]

waltero, But they had a fair idea that the a-bomb was very powerful. I mean the scientists told them as much. thats why it was getting built. It churchill n co ignored the advice on massive scale firebombing would that make it okay? i mean are you arguing that ignorance is an excuse?

[JerseyJohn]

Another idea is the United States dropped the two A-Bombs was as a warning to the USSR. But it turned out they had no shock value to Stalin, who knew about them before Truman himself. Stalin also reasoned that the German invasion had been the equivalent of a couple of dozen A-bomb blasts. He figured if Russia survived that it could survive anything the United States could throw it's way.

I believe that was part of the reason, but mainly we dropped them to get Japan to surrender without having to launch Operation Olympic.

The real moral question, regarding the United States is this, if Germany had fought off the Allied invasions and held the Soviets somewhere in their own territory, would the United States have dropped atomic bombs on Germany?

[JerseyJohn]

This photograph appeared in a 1943 issue of Life Magazine. The skull is that of a fallen Japanese soldier and was sent home by an American Marine.

< Wartime Propaganda and Racism Article >

[Blashy]

Look everyone, you can't call it a war crime.

I've always believed that in war they are no rules, the minute war is somewhat civilized that is when it never ends.

If I'm fighting someone I'm going to do everything in my power to kill their will to fight and if that means bombing civilians, than that is of strategical value. It's horrible, but that is war and it should remain so so one day we wake the hell up and see how horrible it is and just stop doing it over and over.

NOTE: Hitler wanted an alliance with Britain since day one. But when Britain signed with Poland it totally crushed his ideas, people close to him who survived have expressed how distraught he was and very frustrated when he heard of this.

He wanted to expand east. That changed everything and from that moment on he lost the war, because he no longer had a clear vision, he went even more cookoo.

[jon_j_rambo]

Generals aren't supposed to be in danger in combat, if he dies the whole battle might be lost...

It would be just a waste if a general dies in battle..

Really, this dude didn't subscribe to that point of view.

[jon_j_rambo]

*** Oakland A's alert !!! What a hot streak, they beat Santana @Minnesota tonight 2-1.

[JerseyJohn]

Some things have to be war crimes: killing POWs, genocide, things along those lines. If your side wins and doesn't consider those things to have been criminal then, in effect, you acted within the law. The law is what societies make of it, nothing more.

I don't believe generals should be executed or sentenced for Planning to wage aggressive war. There were other criminal activities Keitel and Jodl were certainly guilty of, but to me that charge was nonsensical. They were using plans worked out by von Manstein, I don't recall him being tried as war criminal on that pretext.*

*He was convicted of war crimes committed in Russia by a British court, sentenced to 13 years, reduced to 12, and released after 4.

Regarding Hitler and his fixed idea that Germany and Great Britain were bound together and should be allies, true. As I've been saying, he even states that repeatedly in Mein Kampf. The problem with the way he went about doing things, if his intent was to expand east -- which it most certainly was -- he should have made his agreement with Stalin and divided Poland before turning anywhere else. In other words, before Poland had any committment from either France or Britain. He threw this away by grabbing Czechoslovakia first. Why? He wanted the arms factories and natural resources contained within that nation.

If he'd have hit Poland first, without making any claims on the Sudetenland, the Anglo-French committment would have been with Czechoslovakia, and inevitably he'd have gone for that valuable prize and started the war in any case. But the thing is, he could have done it at his own convenience. Britain and France would not have remained on alert indefinitely.

Except, in his mind, all these things needed to be settled quickly because he was very ill and being made worse by a quack physician (Morell?). At fifty, he didn't expect to have more than a few remaining years so he started things rolling in 1939 that he'd originally talked about doing in 41 or 42 at the earliest. That's why Italy was so slow to enter -- only months before the Polish invasion Ribbentrop confided to Count Ciano that Italy should be ready for a major war by 1941.

[SeaMonkey]

"The real moral question, regarding the United States is this, if Germany had fought off the Allied invasions and held the Soviets somewhere in their own territory, would the United States have dropped atomic bombs on Germany?"

It seems I remember reading(qualifying both my memory and the reference as ?)that the original target for the use of the A-bomb was Berlin. Since the Germans surrendered before its deployment the debate arose for its usage against the Japanese.

Regarding the moral question of prosecuting war strategies/tactics....my answer is that war is immoral in the first place. I want it where it belongs, deplorable, despicable, a loathesome activity. Cleaning it up, somehow makes it more of an acceptable alternative, when the thought of it should be banished. There is no justification, reasoning involved, its dirty, messy, ugly and completely unproductive.

Therefore my thoughts, if it comes to it, fight it with all means at your disposable, no holding back....end it as soon as possible, damn the consequences of victory, for the consequences of defeat are far worse.

Let me clarify my definition of, by saying, presently there are no "real" wars going on.