Ask Hitler what he thought of his generals.
What he should have done was liquidate all the high ranking officers, as Stalin did!
Posted on 11/21/2012 3:39:46 PM PST by nickcarraway
A list of generals made by a college professor?
Hang on, I’m working on my list of great fashion designers right now.
(Maybe a list made by Norman Schwarzkoph I might take seriously.)
/johnny
“were later convicted of war crimes”
Which means nothing in itself, except that they were on the losing side.
My 11th grade social studies teacher was a fan of Erwin Rommell.
Now, now...just because a lot of academia is bent, doesn't mean all profs have been corrupted, and there are a handful that do take their jobs seriously. I would wager that one contributing to a military history magazine at least has a case to make.
Would you discount a list of ancient generals compiled by Victor Davis Hanson just because he's a professor? How about a list of 19th Century American Generals by Dr. Jay Luvaas, or British Generals by John Keegan?
Rommel supposedly took part in the conspiracy to kill Hitler in 1944—and was forced to commit suicide as a result. If so, he deserves to be on the list.
“If you want to reduce war history ti lists, you have to go to America”
Nothing wrong with taking a good swipe at pop-history and top ten lusts in general, but come on. No German publication ever ranks historical figures in like fashion? If that’s true I’ll eat my hat.
By the way, there’s nothing wrong with being deductive persay. A good aphorism like “power corrupts...”can tell us what we need to know better than a full multivolume set. When we call something deductive, of course, we mean falsely reductive, as to “rationalize” means to be irrational. Probably this list and the accompanying story are reductive in a bad way. I’m just saying.
“If you want to reduce war history ti lists, you have to go to America”
Nothing wrong with taking a good swipe at pop-history and top ten lusts in general, but come on. No German publication ever ranks historical figures in like fashion? If that’s true I’ll eat my hat.
By the way, there’s nothing wrong with being reductive persay. A good aphorism like “power corrupts...”can tell us what we need to know better than a full multivolume set. When we call something deductive, of course, we mean falsely reductive, as to “rationalize” means to be irrational. Probably this list and the accompanying story are reductive in a bad way. I’m just saying.
deductive equals reductive
This seems like another case of Germany becoming filled with “consternation” when anybody tries to analyze it’s military history.
Note to Germany : Discussing the greatest German military minds in history is not an endorsement of whatever ideology they served. It’s okay to analyze the military brilliance of the Nazis, despite atrocities that were committed, even during warfare.
We can, and should, discuss these matters in an objective way, and without fear.
I saw a filmed interview of a German general years ago. He was in prison at the time for war crimes.
He was asked who were the best allied generals and he simply said “Patton and Montgomery”. He didn’t mention Zukov or any other allied generals.
I wasn’t surprised at Patton but thought to myself that Montgomery must have been a little better than history portrays him.
Yeah, because we're free thinkers. We don't have to conform to the whims of those in power, don't have to hide from the past. There is nothing wrong with recognizing military brilliance - even in an adversary (past, present, or future). To close your mind based on politics invites military defeat.
Though it is hard to take this seriously. As others say, this is made up by a college professor. History buff? Military buff? I don't know, if he doesn't have Rommel on the list it is hard to take him seriously. I'd like to hear his justification for leaving him off the list.
Relatively speaking, Rommel was mediocre.
The Eastern Front Generals did most of the Reich’s heavy lifting and lasted, despite Hitler’s interference, for a remarkably long time...
I don’t know about being a “fan’ of him? It’s somewhat unfair to cast him as a Nazi, and he later participated in an assassination attempt against Hitler. That doesn’t necessarily absolve him of any responsibility for fighting for them.
/johnny
Yeah, Moltke. Too bad they didn’t stick to the plan.
Came to see Guderian on the list. Left satisfied.
Whether or not Romnel deserves to be on the list has nothing to do with the plot to kill Hitler, unless you consider gentlemanly opposition to tyranny one of the chief qualities of great generals, which is a possibility. But then he’d be in line behind several other anti-Hitler generals.
By the way, one reason among many that the Nuremberg trials were such a travesty of justice is that here we are, 70 years later, giving the benefit of the doubt to Nazi generals as monsters unless demonstrated otherwise. I might ask what genocide Rommel committed that he needed to be saved by joining the plot? Or why various Nazis were convicted for the exact same acts for which no one slapped British, American, and especially Russian hands? Or why some went to prison despite being demonstrably more restrained than allied generals?
The guilty until Provence innocent standard might be fun and instructive, if not just. But only if applied equally to Sherman, for instance, as men who happened to be German in 1939.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.