Who was better: Patton or Rommel

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

vonRom
Just a short question: Is there any commander from any other country participating in ww2 that is Pattons equal or better in your opinion?

The problem I have found is this:

There is a great deal of misinformation and out-right lies that have ben perpetrated about Patton, especially by historians.

I am now on my 5th book about Patton, and I can now see why some people on this forum believe what they do about him - a lot of the information being written about him by authors is simply wrong.

In particular, I would point to D'Este and his book "Patton A Genius for War".

It is a good book. However, on many key points D'Este simply gets it wrong. It is hard to explain why he does so, whether it is a result of his poor research, his researchers, his editors, or simply because he is parroting the official army line about Patton.

If people really want to learn more about Patton, and especially about the MISconduct of the war by the Allied High Command, then I would urge many of you to read:

Ladislas, Farago, Patton: Ordeal and Triumph (New York: Astor-Honor, Inc., 1964)

This book took the author 12 years to research and write, and is the most candid and frank book I have read about Patton, the war, and about the Allied High Command. It is also the book upon which the movie "Patton" has been based.

Some questions it answers:

1) Why did General McNair try to sabatoge Patton's armoured training maneuvers in 1941?

2) Who really planned Operation Cobra and the subsequent breakout?

3) Why was Patton really deprived of gas before the Mosselle River? Was there really a shortage of trucks in France as has been claimed by some historians?

4) What was the scandal in Monty's army that occurred at the same time that Patton's Third Army was being deprived of gas in Lorraine? Why has it been covered up?

5) Who was trying to kill Patton?

6) Why did the Allied High Command's order to stop Patton in Lorraine coincide at the same time with Hitler's order to also stop Patton in Lorraine?

7) Why were a small group of reporters trying to remove Patton from command?

8) Why was Allied top secret information being leaked to outside sources?

9) Why have some historians purposely (and wrongly) tried to discredit Patton?

10) Patton often said that he was fighting two enemies. One was the Germans. Who was the other enemy?


These are a just a few of the many, many questions that will be answered.

I highly recommend the book.

It's an eye-opener. . .

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

As I mentioned before:

Manstein, as many German Generals did, achieved his early blitzkrieg victories against inferior forces in Poland, Belgium, Denmark, France and in Barbarossa (against ill equipped and poorly trained Russian troops).

Manstein failed to take Leningrad (twice); failed to relieve Stalingrad; failed at Kursk; and failed to stem the Soviet advances.

Yeah, that's one way to put it. [8|] One can also argue that Stalingrad was a failure because the 6th Army and 4th Panzer had their hands tied as they were not allowed to cross the Volga. Had they done that, Stalingrad could have been taken in a matter of weeks. It's not necessarily Manstein's fault that the rules of the game were changed - by his own superiors.

Also, it's true that he failed to relieve Stalingrad. But the fact that he was successful in closing the absolutely enormous hole left after the collapse of 6th Army says more. There were literally no units in the rear, yet the Soviet offensive after Operation Saturn was stopped.

He did achieve a temporary victory at Kharkov - but even this was against exhausted and worn out Soviet troops, who surrendered in droves. But he failed to stop their advances.

With arguments like this it's easy to belittle anything, the same could (I guess) be said about Operation Overlord. And the Wehrmacht, too, was exhausted and worn out.

Manstein had a policy of starving the Soviet populace; he did not join the conspirators to kill Hitler as Rommel, Stauffenberg, etc did; and he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for war crimes.

Nothing to debate there. Keep in mind though that Manstein was an aristocrat, and an officer raised with Prussian ideals. Treason was beyond his frame of imagination, albeit for a greater good.

Belisarius:

I wrote what I did for this simple reason:

I applied the same standard to Manstein as some others have applied to Patton in the past.

As you can see, this type of approach can be applied to any general in WW2, even to Manstein, who has been considered one of Germany's best generals.

That is why when looking at any general in WW2, a person must consider the circumstances around which an action takes place.

Just for the record I am NOT American.

I was born in Germany. [;)]

Why do I defend Patton?

Simply because I consider Patton to have been a pure warrior in a similar mode to that of Rommel. I admire their war-like qualities. There is also a reason why most German Generals admired Patton.

Both Rommel and Patton were highly competent, professional soldiers.

And a great deal of what has been written about Patton is simply wrong.

If Rommel had been subjected to the same type of criticism and misinformation as has been applied to Patton, I would also defend him in the same manner.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: max_h

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

FAILURES:
* von Manstein's Army Group South FAILED in its attack at Kursk in 1943.

* After the unsuccessful outcome of the Operation "Citadel" (July/August of 1943), Erich von Manstein was driven into a long RETREAT by the Russian counteroffensive.

hear, hear... so Manstein was ordered to do something where he adviced something else (he proposed a completely different operation and after that plea was dismissed he constantly pleaded to start citadel as early as possible b4 the soviet fortification events were finished). how is this different to your beloved Pattons "failure" to close the Falaise gap. obviously Patton - with the rules you apply to Manstein - is to be taken responsible for it.

you probably still believe the Prokhorovka battle was a large tank melee with heavy losses for both sides, but that´s completely wrong. in this battle the russian guards tank corps was almost anhiliated with only 40+ german tanks destroyed and damaged. that´s the reason why Manstein wanted to continue the attack (the 1st SS Panzerkorps hardly lost its strength), only the allied invasion of sicily and the advance (rather lack of) of the northern pincer forced the german high command to cancel this operation. for reference check the journal of military history, the data became available during the last few years.

I really ask you to read more than just Patton fanbooks.

Ah, now I think you are beginning to see what I have been trying to get at over the past few weeks.

You see, the approach I took above, is the exact same approach a few other Patton critics have applied to Patton.

As you can see, this critical approach can be applied to ANY general, even to Germany's best - Manstein.

Do I actually believe in this type of lop-sided, myopic analysis?

Of course I don't.

That is why when anyone looks at generals such as Patton, Rommel, Manstein, etc, they need to consider ALL the circumstances under which they fought.

And most importantly, people need to make sure that their opinions about these generals is based on correct information.

[Von Rom]

If anyone wants, I will take the time and write up an example (with sources) of where D'Este in his book is wrong (or provides misleading information) about an important aspect of Patton.

[max_h]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Ah, now I think you are beginning to see what I have been trying to get at over the past few weeks.

You see, the approach I took above, is the exact same approach a few other Patton critics have applied to Patton.

As you can see, this critical approach can be applied to ANY general, even to Germany's best - Manstein.

Do I actually believe in this type of lop-sided, myopic analysis?

Of course I don't.

That is why when anyone looks at generals such as Patton, Rommel, Manstein, etc, they need to consider ALL the circumstances under which they fought.

And most importantly, people need to make sure that their opinions about these generals is based on correct information.

rofl, ok [:D]

[Jane Doe]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Ah, now I think you are beginning to see what I have been trying to get at over the past few weeks.

You see, the approach I took above, is the exact same approach a few other Patton critics have applied to Patton.

As you can see, this critical approach can be applied to ANY general, even to Germany's best - Manstein.

Do I actually believe in this type of lop-sided, myopic analysis?

Of course I don't.

That is why when anyone looks at generals such as Patton, Rommel, Manstein, etc, they need to consider ALL the circumstances under which they fought.

And most importantly, people need to make sure that their opinions about these generals is based on correct information.

Straw men

I intervened in case max_h didn't read the entire patton thread... this is simply not true. Ironduke kicked his @55 in that thread. ID's analysis was better; more objective, less obtuse, based on facts, way less emotional, clearly presented, was not driven by an agenda, exempt of rhetoric with no straw men, did I mention way less emotional; a scholarly analysis quoi.

It was certainly not a kind of argument we seem to read a lot recently that goes like (ex) "Napoleon was a bad commander because he lost in the end"...[8|]

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

vonRom
Just a short question: Is there any commander from any other country participating in ww2 that is Pattons equal or better in your opinion?

The problem I have found is this:

There is a great deal of misinformation and out-right lies that have ben perpetrated about Patton, especially by historians.

I am now on my 5th book about Patton, and I can now see why some people on this forum believe what they do about him - a lot of the information being written about him by authors is simply wrong.

In particular, I would point to D'Este and his book "Patton A Genius for War".

It is a good book. However, on many key points D'Este simply gets it wrong. It is hard to explain why he does so, whether it is a result of his poor research, his researchers, his editors, or simply because he is parroting the official army line about Patton.

If people really want to learn more about Patton, and especially about the MISconduct of the war by the Allied High Command, then I would urge many of you to read:

Ladislas, Farago, Patton: Ordeal and Triumph (New York: Astor-Honor, Inc., 1964)

This book took the author 12 years to research and write, and is the most candid and frank book I have read about Patton, the war, and about the Allied High Command. It is also the book upon which the movie "Patton" has been based.

Some questions it answers:

1) Why did General McNair try to sabatoge Patton's armoured training maneuvers in 1941?

2) Who really planned Operation Cobra and the subsequent breakout?

3) Why was Patton really deprived of gas before the Mosselle River? Was there really a shortage of trucks in France as has been claimed by some historians?

4) What was the scandal in Monty's army that occurred at the same time that Patton's Third Army was being deprived of gas in Lorraine? Why has it been covered up?

5) Who was trying to kill Patton?

6) Why did the Allied High Command's order to stop Patton in Lorraine coincide at the same time with Hitler's order to also stop Patton in Lorraine?

7) Why were a small group of reporters trying to remove Patton from command?

8) Why was Allied top secret information being leaked to outside sources?

9) Why have some historians purposely (and wrongly) tried to discredit Patton?

10) Patton often said that he was fighting two enemies. One was the Germans. Who was the other enemy?


These are a just a few of the many, many questions that will be answered.

I highly recommend the book.

It's an eye-opener. . .

I am not accusing you of anything. I am just interested in your answer. It should be very easy to answer. If you feel for it, even a Yes/No answer would suffice.


JT

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Jane Doe

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Ah, now I think you are beginning to see what I have been trying to get at over the past few weeks.

You see, the approach I took above, is the exact same approach a few other Patton critics have applied to Patton.

As you can see, this critical approach can be applied to ANY general, even to Germany's best - Manstein.

Do I actually believe in this type of lop-sided, myopic analysis?

Of course I don't.

That is why when anyone looks at generals such as Patton, Rommel, Manstein, etc, they need to consider ALL the circumstances under which they fought.

And most importantly, people need to make sure that their opinions about these generals is based on correct information.

Straw men

I intervened in case max_h didn't read the entire patton thread... this is simply not true. Ironduke kicked his @55 in that thread. ID's analysis was better; more objective, less obtuse, based on facts, way less emotional, clearly presented, was not driven by an agenda, exempt of rhetoric with no straw men, did I mention way less emotional; a scholarly analysis quoi.

It was certainly not a kind of argument we seem to read a lot recently that goes like (ex) "Napoleon was a bad commander because he lost in the end"...[8|]

Well, well, how nice of you to jump to max_h's aid [8|]

Many of ID's arguments were simply not arguments.

Many of his assumptions were based on FALSE information.

I did not even respond to some of his arguments simply because they were ridiculous on the face of them.

Surely, my example of criticizing von Manstein has shown you how someone with an agenda can tear apart any general - yes, even von Manstein. And I did that without even trying. You are aware, aren't you, that von Manstein - that vaunted German general - was tried as a war criminal and sentenced to 18 years in prison?

And ID had an agenda. . .

As to being enotional - I seem to recall you jumping into that other thread and pinning degoratory remarks on me.

Of course, it appears you are only interested in supporting the information that coincides with what you, yourself, believe.

BTW, Jane Doe, since you seem to know all about Patton - you must since you agree with ID - please tell me who originated Operation Cobra. And please provide sources.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

vonRom
Just a short question: Is there any commander from any other country participating in ww2 that is Pattons equal or better in your opinion?

The problem I have found is this:

There is a great deal of misinformation and out-right lies that have ben perpetrated about Patton, especially by historians.

I am now on my 5th book about Patton, and I can now see why some people on this forum believe what they do about him - a lot of the information being written about him by authors is simply wrong.

In particular, I would point to D'Este and his book "Patton A Genius for War".

It is a good book. However, on many key points D'Este simply gets it wrong. It is hard to explain why he does so, whether it is a result of his poor research, his researchers, his editors, or simply because he is parroting the official army line about Patton.

If people really want to learn more about Patton, and especially about the MISconduct of the war by the Allied High Command, then I would urge many of you to read:

Ladislas, Farago, Patton: Ordeal and Triumph (New York: Astor-Honor, Inc., 1964)

This book took the author 12 years to research and write, and is the most candid and frank book I have read about Patton, the war, and about the Allied High Command. It is also the book upon which the movie "Patton" has been based.

Some questions it answers:

1) Why did General McNair try to sabatoge Patton's armoured training maneuvers in 1941?

2) Who really planned Operation Cobra and the subsequent breakout?

3) Why was Patton really deprived of gas before the Mosselle River? Was there really a shortage of trucks in France as has been claimed by some historians?

4) What was the scandal in Monty's army that occurred at the same time that Patton's Third Army was being deprived of gas in Lorraine? Why has it been covered up?

5) Who was trying to kill Patton?

6) Why did the Allied High Command's order to stop Patton in Lorraine coincide at the same time with Hitler's order to also stop Patton in Lorraine?

7) Why were a small group of reporters trying to remove Patton from command?

8) Why was Allied top secret information being leaked to outside sources?

9) Why have some historians purposely (and wrongly) tried to discredit Patton?

10) Patton often said that he was fighting two enemies. One was the Germans. Who was the other enemy?


These are a just a few of the many, many questions that will be answered.

I highly recommend the book.

It's an eye-opener. . .

I am not accusing you of anything. I am just interested in your answer. It should be very easy to answer. If you feel for it, even a Yes/No answer would suffice.


JT

If you feel for it, even a Yes/No answer would suffice.

OK, yes and no. [;)]

[Jane Doe]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Well, well, how nice of you to jump to max_h's aid [8|]

Many of ID's arguments were simply not arguments.

Many of his assumptions were based on FALSE information.

yeah, right...

I did not even respond to some of his arguments simply because they were ridiculous on the face of them.

[8|]

Surely, my example of criticizing von Manstein has shown you how someone with an agenda can tear apart any general - yes, even von Manstein. And I did that without even trying. You are aware, aren't you, that von Manstein - that vaunted German general - was tried as a war criminal and sentenced to 18 years in prison?

Nope, your straw men only showed me how bad you were at debating

And ID had an agenda. . .

He had opinions, not agenda. And IMHO his opinion seemed to be baked up pretty well by lots of research on the subject.

As to being enotional - I seem to recall you jumping into that other thread and pinning degoratory remarks on me.

Hey, I was only trying to help you. That's why i posted a quick guide on how to debate.

Of course, it appears you are only interested in supporting the information that coincides with what you, yourself, believe.

If you say so

BTW, Jane Doe, since you seem to know all about Patton - you must since you agree with ID - please tell me who originated Operation Cobra. And please provide sources.

Operation Cobra was originated from God, because God is everywhere, in substance and in everyone's thoughts. AND Patton believed in God. Yeah Patton was a firm beliver. Heck Patton would have even crossed the highway with his eyes shut to show his faith in thy Lord. So it's normal that God chose Patton to be his voice on earth and be the great general who thought of operation cobra...

Oh, and did you know that Patton was afraid of snakes.. talk about a coincidence... Hey but as you know, Patton was known to overcome even his worst fears! And Patton did just that when he executed the cobra. Yeah Patton was the best.

Hourra for Patton!
Join the witnesses of Patton
Hourra for Patton!

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Jane Doe

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Well, well, how nice of you to jump to max_h's aid [8|]

Many of ID's arguments were simply not arguments.

Many of his assumptions were based on FALSE information.

yeah, right...

I did not even respond to some of his arguments simply because they were ridiculous on the face of them.

[8|]

Surely, my example of criticizing von Manstein has shown you how someone with an agenda can tear apart any general - yes, even von Manstein. And I did that without even trying. You are aware, aren't you, that von Manstein - that vaunted German general - was tried as a war criminal and sentenced to 18 years in prison?

Nope, your straw men only showed me how bad you were at debating

And ID had an agenda. . .

He had opinions, not agenda. And IMHO his opinion seemed to be baked up pretty well by lots of research on the subject.

As to being enotional - I seem to recall you jumping into that other thread and pinning degoratory remarks on me.

Hey, I was only trying to help you. That's why i posted a quick guide on how to debate.

Of course, it appears you are only interested in supporting the information that coincides with what you, yourself, believe.

If you say so

BTW, Jane Doe, since you seem to know all about Patton - you must since you agree with ID - please tell me who originated Operation Cobra. And please provide sources.

Operation Cobra was originated from God, because God is everywhere, in substance and in everyone's thoughts. AND Patton believed in God. Yeah Patton was a firm beliver. Heck Patton would have even crossed the highway with his eyes shut to show his faith in thy Lord. So it's normal that God chose Patton to be his voice on earth and be the great general who thought of operation cobra...

Oh, and did you know that Patton was afraid of snakes.. talk about a coincidence... Hey but as you know, Patton was known to overcome even his worst fears! And Patton did just that when he executed the cobra. Yeah Patton was the best.

Hourra for Patton!
Join the witnesses of Patton
Hourra for Patton!

And IMHO his opinion seemed to be baked up pretty well by lots of research on the subject.

A lot of his information was wrong.

So, if I present evidence proving the earth is flat, then you would believe that too? [8|]

Operation Cobra was originated from God, because God is everywhere, in substance and in everyone's thoughts. AND Patton believed in God. Yeah Patton was a firm beliver. Heck Patton would have even crossed the highway with his eyes shut to show his faith in thy Lord. So it's normal that God chose Patton to be his voice on earth and be the great general who thought of operation cobra...

Oh, and did you know that Patton was afraid of snakes.. talk about a coincidence... Hey but as you know, Patton was known to overcome even his worst fears! And Patton did just that when he executed the cobra. Yeah Patton was the best.

Quite the emotional outburst.

It was the kind of response I expected from you.

You are a scary individual.

[EricGuitarJames]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

vonRom
Just a short question: Is there any commander from any other country participating in ww2 that is Pattons equal or better in your opinion?

The problem I have found is this:

There is a great deal of misinformation and out-right lies that have ben perpetrated about Patton, especially by historians.

I am now on my 5th book about Patton, and I can now see why some people on this forum believe what they do about him - a lot of the information being written about him by authors is simply wrong.

In particular, I would point to D'Este and his book "Patton A Genius for War".

It is a good book. However, on many key points D'Este simply gets it wrong. It is hard to explain why he does so, whether it is a result of his poor research, his researchers, his editors, or simply because he is parroting the official army line about Patton.

If people really want to learn more about Patton, and especially about the MISconduct of the war by the Allied High Command, then I would urge many of you to read:

Ladislas, Farago, Patton: Ordeal and Triumph (New York: Astor-Honor, Inc., 1964)

This book took the author 12 years to research and write, and is the most candid and frank book I have read about Patton, the war, and about the Allied High Command. It is also the book upon which the movie "Patton" has been based.

Some questions it answers:

1) Why did General McNair try to sabatoge Patton's armoured training maneuvers in 1941?

2) Who really planned Operation Cobra and the subsequent breakout?

3) Why was Patton really deprived of gas before the Mosselle River? Was there really a shortage of trucks in France as has been claimed by some historians?

4) What was the scandal in Monty's army that occurred at the same time that Patton's Third Army was being deprived of gas in Lorraine? Why has it been covered up?

5) Who was trying to kill Patton?

6) Why did the Allied High Command's order to stop Patton in Lorraine coincide at the same time with Hitler's order to also stop Patton in Lorraine?

7) Why were a small group of reporters trying to remove Patton from command?

8) Why was Allied top secret information being leaked to outside sources?

9) Why have some historians purposely (and wrongly) tried to discredit Patton?

10) Patton often said that he was fighting two enemies. One was the Germans. Who was the other enemy?


These are a just a few of the many, many questions that will be answered.

I highly recommend the book.

It's an eye-opener. . .

Would this be the same journalist who wrote a book claiming that Martin Bormann escaped to South America and also managed to 'spirit away' millions of dollars worth of Nazi Gold? Hmmm, seems like a reliable source to be quoting[8|] By his own admission - http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10254 - he's not even a proper historian!

[Sarge]

Hey Von Rom we get it [>:] your a Patton fan

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

vonRom
Just a short question: Is there any commander from any other country participating in ww2 that is Pattons equal or better in your opinion?

The problem I have found is this:

There is a great deal of misinformation and out-right lies that have ben perpetrated about Patton, especially by historians.

I am now on my 5th book about Patton, and I can now see why some people on this forum believe what they do about him - a lot of the information being written about him by authors is simply wrong.

In particular, I would point to D'Este and his book "Patton A Genius for War".

It is a good book. However, on many key points D'Este simply gets it wrong. It is hard to explain why he does so, whether it is a result of his poor research, his researchers, his editors, or simply because he is parroting the official army line about Patton.

If people really want to learn more about Patton, and especially about the MISconduct of the war by the Allied High Command, then I would urge many of you to read:

Ladislas, Farago, Patton: Ordeal and Triumph (New York: Astor-Honor, Inc., 1964)

This book took the author 12 years to research and write, and is the most candid and frank book I have read about Patton, the war, and about the Allied High Command. It is also the book upon which the movie "Patton" has been based.

Some questions it answers:

1) Why did General McNair try to sabatoge Patton's armoured training maneuvers in 1941?

2) Who really planned Operation Cobra and the subsequent breakout?

3) Why was Patton really deprived of gas before the Mosselle River? Was there really a shortage of trucks in France as has been claimed by some historians?

4) What was the scandal in Monty's army that occurred at the same time that Patton's Third Army was being deprived of gas in Lorraine? Why has it been covered up?

5) Who was trying to kill Patton?

6) Why did the Allied High Command's order to stop Patton in Lorraine coincide at the same time with Hitler's order to also stop Patton in Lorraine?

7) Why were a small group of reporters trying to remove Patton from command?

8) Why was Allied top secret information being leaked to outside sources?

9) Why have some historians purposely (and wrongly) tried to discredit Patton?

10) Patton often said that he was fighting two enemies. One was the Germans. Who was the other enemy?


These are a just a few of the many, many questions that will be answered.

I highly recommend the book.

It's an eye-opener. . .

Would this be the same journalist who wrote a book claiming that Martin Bormann escaped to South America and also managed to 'spirit away' millions of dollars worth of Nazi Gold? Hmmm, seems like a reliable source to be quoting[8|] By his own admission - http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10254 - he's not even a proper historian!

Would this be the same journalist who wrote a book claiming that Martin Bormann escaped to South America and also managed to 'spirit away' millions of dollars worth of Nazi Gold? Hmmm, seems like a reliable source to be quoting By his own admission - http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10254 - he's not even a proper historian!

Well, it seems that you know as much about Farago as you do about Bormann.


Ladislas Farago

Mr. Farago is very qualified to write books on military history and intelligence.

He is internationally known as a writer, military historian, biographer, and as an expert in espionage and intelligence.

He served in WWII as Chief of Research and Planning, Special Warfare Branch, Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy.

He is the author of 18 books on intelligence and military history, and has edited Corps Diplomatique and United Nations World.

He wrote The War of Wits which is a classic of military and political intelligence.

He also wrote The Tenth Fleet which has been heralded as the classic study of US anti-submarine action in WWII.

Both his books on Patton: Patton: Ordeal and Triumph (which took 12 years to research and write) as well as The Last Days of Patton were made into movies. And both books have stood the test of time for their content.

The screenplay for the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! was written by Ladislas Farago, Larry Forrester, Ryuzo Kikushima, and Hideo Oguni.

I have found that many so-called qualified historians make mistakes; they can undertake questionable research; and that they sometimes omit information or slant information for a purpose (in D'Este's book on Patton I found several).

So being an historian in and of itself is only ONE criteria.


Martin Bormann


As the end of the war drew near, many of the top Nazis were fleeing. Hermann Goring had fled west, and had been captured by American soldiers, after the death of Hitler had been announced. In Hitler’s political will, Goring had been expelled from the party while Martin Bormann had been named Party Minister . According to Jochen Von Lang, Gobbels and Bormann had "held a military briefing on the night of May 2, 1945." Gobbels had already decided to commit suicide but Bormann desperately wanted to survive. The last entry into his diary was "escape attempt!" Martin Bormann’s whereabouts after this night is unknown.

At the end of the war, the allied leaders decided to prosecute top Nazis as War Criminals in Nuremberg. As Martin Bormann was missing, it was decided that he would be tried in absentia.

The International Tribunal sentenced Reichsleiter Martin Bormann to death.

The fate of Martin Bormann will most likely never be completely solved but the mystery surrounding his disappearance has intrigued a great many. The legend has been kept alive by Nazi-hunters who want to bring guilty parties to justice which is legitimate.

In 1961, Dr. Fritz Bauer, a well-known prosecutor of Nazi War Criminals, declared that he was convinced that Bormann was still alive based on credible evidence and eye-witness accounts.

It is well known that tens of thousands of Nazis escaped Germany and fled to North and South American as well as Africa. Also well known is the fact that billions of dollars worth of Reich gold has also gone missing.

Mr. Farago's book on Bormann is a sober and well researched attempt to trace the evidence as to Bormann's escape and probably of being alive.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

Hey Von Rom we get it [>:] your a Patton fan

And you're still a troll [>:]

[EricGuitarJames]

Bormann alive! They found his body in 1972 exactly where Artur Axmann said he'd seen it together with the body of Dr. Ludwig Stumpfegger following the 'breakout' from the Berlin bunker. Just because he was supposedly spotted in various locations around the World doesn't mean he escaped. 'Elvis Presley' has been seen repeatedly since his death in 1977, it doesn't mean he's alive. Farago (or should that be 'Farrago'[:D]) is a journalist who likes conspiracy theories, he has little credibility as a historian no matter how readable his books are!

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Manstein had a policy of starving the Soviet populace; he did not join the conspirators to kill Hitler as Rommel, Stauffenberg, etc did; and he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for war crimes.

Speaking of atrocities. Who was responsible for the Dresden bombing 1945? Did anyone of them face trial? It is the winning team who dictates what is war crimes.



Some of the civilians that were actually found after the firestorms in Dresden caused by RAF and USAAF.

[EricGuitarJames]

A couple of points.

Jallatryne, you'll have a hard time justifying 'Dresden '45' as a war crime. At the time Germany did not appear to be that close to defeat, 'area bombing' (or 'terror bombing' depending on your pov) had been in practice for around three years and the city could be claimed as a legitimate military target.

Regarding the 'July Plot', whilst Rommel knew, he was not an active member of the conspiracy. There is some evidence that Manstein knew as well but also refused to participate.

[Error in 0]

Robert Saunby, Deputy Air Marshal at Bomber Command:
"That the bombing of Dresden was a great tragedy none can deny."

A RAF bobmbing crew:
"It struck me at the time, the thought of the women and children down there. We seemed to fly for hours over a sheet of fire - a terrific red glow with thin haze over it. I found myself making comments to the crew: "Oh God, those poor people." It was completely uncalled for. You can't justify it."

Winston Churchill, memorandum to Air Marshall Arthur Harris (28th March 1945):
"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed"


John Black, The Truth about the 1945 Bombing of Dresden (23rd February 1995):
"Dresden was a center of cultural and architectural wonders, including the famous Zwinger Museum and Palace and the cathedral, the Frauenkirche. There were no military objectives of any consequence in the city - its destruction could do nothing to weaken the Nazi war machine. U.S. and British air warfare had left Dresden intact until that point.

By February 1945, refugees fleeing westward before the onrushing Red Army had doubled Dresden's population. The Soviet military forces were poised to seize the city from the Nazis. It was at that moment that the military and political strategists of Britain and the United States decided to launch a terror bombing attack. "

David Pedlow, letter to The Guardian (14th February, 2004):
"Normally, crews were given a strategic aiming point - anything from a major factory in the middle of nowhere to a small but significant railway junction within a built-up area. The smaller the aiming point and the heavier the concentration of housing around it, the greater would be the civilian casualties - but given that the strike was at a strategic aiming point those casualties could be justified.

Only at the Dresden briefing, my father told me, were the crews given no strategic aiming point. They were simply told that anywhere within the built-up area of the city would serve.

He felt that Dresden and its civilian population had been the prime target of the raid and that its destruction and their deaths served no strategic purpose, even in the widest terms; that this was a significant departure from accepting civilian deaths as a regrettable but inevitable consequence of the bomber war; and that he had been complicit in what was, at best, a very dubious operation"


Are you proud of the actions against Dresden? Do you think it was a great victory for the Allieds? If no, search your soul as to why not, and then maybe your refusal of using the term "war crime" is slightly adjusted.

To not call such a tradegy a War Crime will justify the eradication of cities in future wars. I cannot really see how anyone can justify this. After all, War is based upon some moral/etical rules. I think that your defending The firestorm in Dresden is worrying, but hopefully you will never be in command of an army.


JT


PS: The German commander of Paris was ordered to destroy Paris, and all its art and culture. He refused to commit such a crime against humanity. Dresden was an important cultural city, with a massive history. Yet the allied commanders decided to destroy it for future generations. There were ruthless morons on both sides of the war.

[EricGuitarJames]

I think the likelihood have me ever being in command of any REAL army (or navy, or airforce) is minimal so the citizens of the World can sleep safely in their beds at night!

I think it's one of the great disgraces of the war that the destruction of Dresden has been repeatedly used to besmirch the reputation of RAF Bomber Command in WW2. Many brave men lost their lives taking the war to the Germans when no other forces would or could. In hindsight it's quite easy to argue that the bombing of Dresden was an unnecessary act but in February 1945, when the primary concern was to end the war as quickly as possible and by whatever means necessary this was an 'unfact'. In any case, what was the real death toll? People love to cite David Irving's figures from his book 'The Destruction of Dresden' - 135,000 dead! In reality, as the Dresden police-chief of the time said, the best estimate was 25,000 dead and 35,000 missing - about the same as what happened in Hamburg (John Terraine - 'The Right of the Line' - p.678). Was it a tragedy? In terms of the fact that all civilian casualties in war are tragedies then yes! Was it a 'war crime'? Only if you want to include the fire bombing of other cities like Hamburg or Tokyo and the Atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.