So I've had this marvellous conversation with someone who calls himself "Socrates of the rebellion" on YouTube...

First some Arab pops up with a line about Rommel that made me burst into laughter:

he was a real hero for germans, he foresaw Hitler's madness and wanted the coup in 1944 to succeed, a true hero and a true martyr.

Then the rebellious Socrates starts his argument:

Absolutely true, Rommel wanted an anti-communist pact with the western allies after Normandy landings and defeat was inevitable, but knowing what Hitler had done there was no chance for that. So they plotted his assasination. The plot was uncovered and Rommel was forced to commit suicide. If the plot had succeded, the soviet union might not have had so much influence in eastern Europe and the cold war might not have happened.

I say Rommel was more likely a scapegoat for the plot.

Ok fine, maybe he wasnt involved in the plot, but he still put Germany above his private interest in the last months of the war, unlike Hitler (you could argue the last months of the war were essentialy only continued to keep Hitler alive). Theres no denying nazi germany had great generals and ideology wasnt as black and white then, as it was now. If you just declare nazis were the bad guys and allies were peace loving that has no basis in reality. Churchill was an ignorant glory seeking war hawk who trusted Stalin implicitly (before his death he admited to this mistake) and the United states proved 10 years later in vietnam just how civilised they are. Rommel was no politician, he was a great general who won admiration even from the allies is my point. Being friend with Adolf Hitler doesnt disqualify every other thing he has done.

Ofcourse its no secret Stalin had plans to invade europe. The insanity of Chruchill is essentialy declaring war on an anglophile Hitler in 1939, and becouse Britain had no land army the plan was to align with the commitern. Did Hitler provoke the allies to do that with the annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia? Yes he did, but Britain had no strategic interests in the region and no power projection in that part of the continent (Stalin invaded Poland in 1939 as well, but the guarantee was implicitly against Hitler).At the same time Hitler offered to guarantee Polands borders for an alliance. After the fall of France Hitler had most european jews in his territory and that made the holocaust possible. Remember there were 3 assasination attepmts against hitler in the years of the war, the chance Germany would democratize after the war were a lot better than those of the soviet union - especialy with the added legitimacy of a war of national defense

I call Rommel overrated. I also call him out of the anti-Churchill talk. "The insanity of Churchill? Are you mad? What did you want the bloody allies of Poland to do when Germany invaded? Say "oops" and break the alliance!? Plus Churchill became prime minister in 1940, after war had been declared."

"Plus Churchill became prime minister in 1940, after war had been declared" -Churchill was the one who pressed Chamberlain to declare war. The fact of the matter is that Britain declared an unwinnable war. I wanted Poland to return 90% german Danzig and give Germany military help in defeating the Soviet Union. There was no alliance and the guarantee was a mistake - it had the oposite effect. The guarantee was suposed to facilitate the peacefull return of danzig, but the Polish governemnt, headed by Beck with illusions of grandure and dreams of a regional coalition interpreted it as a sign that they dont need to negotiate anymore (which was idiotic to say the least - how could they not have known Britain cannot muster a continental army after the great war and France is commited to defense?). The guarantee essentialy chained Britains fate to an agressive, antisemitic autocracy (afterwar Poland), who participated in the partition of Czechoslovakia, and the result was the loss of the Empire and Soviet supremacy in Eastern Europe

Declaring war on Germany was the correct choice, I say.

It was not the correct decision, becouse no matter what Britain would do, Poland could not be defended. 200 divisions of the Red Army were waiting to invade a war exhausted Europe and the wersailles treaty was not a recipe for a stable europe. Western allies should have conceded defeat and prepared for all possibilities. America was sending 400 thousand trucks of supplies a month durring barbarossa to prevent soviet collapse, and since there was no moral difference between Stalin and Hitler, arguably in 1939 Stalin allready murdered millions of ukrainians while what Hitler does with the jews was not clear. Since war with the Soviet union was inevitable, and the Western allies CHOSE to side with Stalin, does it not follow that communist dominance and the cold war were effects of Yalta? They didnt need to promise to fight untill unconditional surrender. Hitler would loose support in germany after the disasterous war anyway. It was a terrible strategic decision and Britain came close to loosing the war, and came out of the war utterly dependant on the United States.

As for the Mannstein plan, the only miracle is that the German General staff approved it, becouse they could not see its brilliance.

I argue, pointlessly...

Invading the Rheinland in 1936 before Mussolini was pushed into axis by league of nations treatment over Ethiopia would indeed be a good strategic decision. You seem to argue how the alliance with Poland was somehow the right thing to do implicitly. And Poland at that time was no free state, so the moral level of the alliance was the same as allying with Hitler, why would it be the right thing to do? Why not remain neutral?

There was actualy a plan to win the war on the side of Germany, and that is the fundamental reason why Rommel went to Africa - to take Suez and force the Royal Navy to retreat from the Mediterrenean and to take the oil fields of Iraq. From Iraqi airports German bombers could have range to the Baku oil fields, and knowing that Stalin would do everything in his power to keep Nazi Germany as an ally. Its fascinating becouse the British were well aware of this, but Hitler wasnt a general couldnt see the broad strategic vision needed to win the war. If after the fall of France Hitler sent just 4 of his 20 panzer divisions to clear these objectives, today everyone in europe would speak German. Hitler would be in a position to build up his country and even the United States would retreat to isolation, far too scared to use the atom bomb on him.

Remember this is a war that Britain declared.

Sure in a just and peacefull world agression is a crime. But 1939 Europe was not a just and peacefull world. The threat of Soviet expansion made militarism and imperialism ideology inevitable and the Versallies treaty and the starvation blockade of germany were not yet forgiven. You cannot forget the context.

Thank you for the conversation, i will keep replying if you wish

The boo... the boo never changes.