[ImJustAnotherOkie]

I love how people on this forum love to call people ignorant just because they disagree.

Rommel did Hitlers bidding, he may not have been a member if their party but be carried out their orders. That’s enough for me. You cannot state he didn’t know of atrocities under his command. He had SS troops under his command. Stick the head back into the sand.

[Pelham]

I’m glad you enjoy it. It’s easy to do in your case because you demonstrate that quality for all of us to see.

The first link that I posted which says that Rommel “was not tainted by Nazism” is from the Jewish Virtual Library.

I guess in the World of Ignorance it’s assumed that Jews are in the habit of covering for Nazis. Apparently you do anyway. Go figure.

[ozzymandus]

Your historical ignorance is not something to be proud of.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Obviously the SS were worse than most, but in war atrocities occur on all sides. There are even documents written by Patton about how he hoped to cover up the murder of prisoners by some of his more raw troops.

Unfortunately, it happens. Unless there is a clear link of complicity (such a command to commit a given crime), or a steady consistency of a given crime (systematic rape for example), you can't really hold a general responsible for isolated actions by certain troops under his command.