Mensaje
por Chepicoro » Lun Jul 11, 2016 5:08 am
Sé que llegó muy tarde a la discusión, pero en esta ocasión concuerdo con José Luis, es decir, que Rommel sabía del intento de golpe de estado del 20 de Julio y que por consecuencia estaba de acuerdo en matar a Hitler.
Se que hay testimonios de como Rommel hubiera preferido apresar a Hitler en lugar de asesinarlo, pero el último oficial que hablo con él antes del ataque del 17 de Julio fue Eberbach y me parece muy complicado encontrar razones para descalificar su testimonio, porque fue grabado por los ingleses poco tiempo después de ser capturado en Normandía sin que este lo supiera, es decir no había pasado mas de un mes de los sucesos y no tenía ninguna razón para mentir.
Document 159 CSDIC (UK), GRGG 197 Report on information obtained from Senior Officers (PW) on 20– 1 Sept. 44 [TNA, WO 208/ 4363] [Conversation between General HEINZ EBERBACH and his son Oblt. z.S. HEINZ EUGEN EBERBACH]
FATHER: Propaganda within the Army was impossible, the people could only do it amongst themselves: moreover, RUNDSTEDT who is now in command again in the West, was party to it, and so was ROMMEL and–
SON: Well, what does ‘party to it’ mean?
FATHER: They knew about it and were willing and agreed to it, and RUNDSTEDT wanted to arrange an armistice with the Allies and arrange with them that his ‘Armee’ should turn back in order to hold back the Russians until such time as the Allies had occupied the territory at least as far as the ODER. I must say that from what I’ve seen I can unfortunately do nothing else but admit those people were right. Actually I know for certain– I’m not sure about MODEL, I couldn’t speak to those people privately– but KLUGE was also in favour of it.
Document 157 CSDIC (UK), GRGG 195 Report on information obtained from Senior Officers (PW) on 16– 17 Sept. 44 [TNA, WO 208/ 4363]
CHOLTITZ: STAUFFENBERG put the question to me: ‘Is it necessary for the FÜHRER to be killed or not?’ I replied: ‘The thing’s impossible without getting rid of the root of the trouble.’
EBERBACH: ROMMEL also convinced me of that, he said: ‘The FÜHRER must be killed. There’s nothing else for it, the man really has been the driving force in everything.’
CHOLTITZ: I was at POSEN, and saw HITLER there. He was quite mad. From that moment on I knew complete physical destruction was the only answer. But I shouldn’t have thought that ROMMEL would have reach the same conclusion.
EBERBACH: Yes, ROMMEL was very emphatically of that opinion. He said: ‘Heaven knows, I’ve experienced it personally in TUNIS and TRIPOLI. The man must go!’ He was most emphatic. GAUSE, who was my Chief of Staff, and who was formerly ROMMEL’s Chief of Staff, confirmed and amplified . . . in every detail.
Document 163 CSDIC (UK), GRGG 238 Report on information obtained from Senior Officers (PW) on 23– 6 Dec. 44 [TNA, WO 208/ 4364]
BASSENGE: Is that actually so? What did the front-line troops say to that?
EBERBACH: I got it from ROMMEL himself who discussed the matter quite frankly with me; he said he agreed and would take part. Even ROMMEL said at the time: ‘We can’t start it, we can’t start a revolution against HITLER at the front as that would cause our front to collapse. You must first pull off something at home and then we’ll declare ourselves on your side.’ Obviously, all except those who turned it down categorically, like MANSTEIN, took that view, including RUNDSTEDT.
Además Rommel no era ningún tonto, me parece difícil de creer que su jefe de estado mayor Speidel estuviera, Kluge y Stülpnagel estuvieran implicados y Rommel no se enterara de nada.
Finalmente, tenemos el veredicto de la "Corte de Honor" que si absolvió a Speidel fue por encontrar culpable a su jefe, es decir Rommel.
Document 167 CSDIC (UK), GRGG 296 Report on information obtained from Senior Officers (PW) on 6– 9 May 45 [TNA, WO 208/ 4177]
KIRCHHEIM: Now, gentlemen, I wanted to speak to you of my experiences as a member of the Court of Honour.
I will now describe to you the last proceedings against General SPEIDEL, the Chief of Staff to Generalfeldmarschall ROMMEL. At the beginning of the trial we were told that in the FÜHRER’s opinion an investigation must be held in the People’s Court, as he was at any rate guilty of negligence. At the time the Court of Honour consisted of the following: KEITEL, RUNDSTEDT, GUDERIAN, myself, KRIEBEL.
The youngest had to speak first, so I had to give my opinion first. I said: ‘The General made his report to his immediate superior. In the case of a personage such as Generalfeldmarschall ROMMEL, he couldn’t have any doubts that the report would be passed on; therefore he is not guilty, not under suspicion.’ Then it was said: ‘But as Chief of Staff he must have known that the report was not passed on.’ I said: ‘Well, the Generalfeldmarschall, in view of his relations with the FÜHRER, might have passed on the information in a private letter.’ Afterwards the sentence read– it was undoubtedly not quite watertight from the legal point of view, because as Chief of Staff he must have known, it was negligence at least– the sentence read: Not guilty! But as he must have known that the report was not passed on an investigation must follow in order that he may be cleared of all suspicion. Therefore a temporary removal from the Army is considered necessary, but the Court of Honour adds a rider that they hope and expect that he would return to the Army with full honours after a short time. I don’t think more could have been done for General SPEIDEL under the circumstances. Just imagine what would have happened if the Court of Honour hadn’t been available; he’d have been handed over the People’s Court.
Document 166 CSDIC (UK), GRGG 294 Report on information obtained from Senior Officers (PW) on 2– 5 May 45 [TNA, WO 208/ 4177]
[Generalleutnant KIRCHHEIM: ‘No, he is above suspicion.’ Although that wasn’t quite the case, as he (Speidel) had heard about the plot and reported it to ROMMEL. But ROMMEL hadn’t passed the information on.
BASSENGE: ROMMEL knew about it.
KIRCHHEIM: We don’t know that. Suddenly I got the dreadful thought: ‘If ROMMEL didn’t pass it on then he, too, must be implicated. Could ROMMEL have had anything to do with it?’
BASSENGE: Most of us here think that he did.
KIRCHHEIM: I think so too now. If one had only asked the question: ‘How much time had lapsed in between?’, that would have forced the prosecuting counsel to delve deeper into the question: ‘Maybe ROMMEL himself is the one to blame?’ However, all I said was: ‘In view of ROMMEL’s character, SPEIDEL was compelled to assume that the information would not be withheld by ROMMEL. If that information was not passed through ordinary channels, it is quite possible that, taking into account ROMMEL’s close relations with the FÜHRER, he may have informed him of it in some other way.’ Anyway, I cast my vote for ‘not guilty’, but I was out-voted. Naturally, even though I regard myself as released from my oath of secrecy, I can no longer say who voted for and who
La fuente de las conversaciones es Tapping Hitler's Generals: Transcripts of Secret Conversations 1942–45 Kindle Edition
Hay bastantes testimonios, todos en el mismo sentido, de que Rommel estaba implicado, la posición de los historiadores que piensan que Rommel no estuvo involucrado lo hacen basándose en desacreditar cada uno de los testimonios utilizando especulaciones pero jamás algo en concreto y francamente me empieza a parecer una posición absurda y con tintes políticos (ser políticamente correcto desacreditando la reputación de cualquier militar alemán de la época).
- Speidel no puede ser tomado en serio porque quería avanzar en su carrera en el nuevo ejército de Alemania Federal y la OTAN, entonces su testimonio es interesado.
- Liddel Hart y el hijo de Rommel Manfred tampoco porque el hijo de Rommel tenía interés en promocionar o mejorar la imagen de su padre y Hart se tragaba cualquier cosa que le dijeran... ok si cometió errores pero no por eso hay que desacreditar todo lo que escribió.
- Si Hofacker y Stülpnagel implicaron a Rommel, pues tampoco vale porque los testimonios los consiguió la Gestapo bajo tortura.
- Si la "Corte de honor" absolvió a Speidel el 10 de Agosto de 1944 y al mismo tiempo encontró responsable a Rommel, que se suicida el 14 de ese mes como no tomar en consideración esto??
Si lo que quieren los historiadores es un documento por escrito que compruebe la participación de Rommel en el golpe, que se queden esperando sentados, porque no creo que exista. Quién en su sano juicio deja evidencia por escrito de su participación en un golpe de estado, donde si se es descubierto solo puede esperar una ejecución?
Testimonios a estas alturas, si no los quieren aceptar es más por una agenda política que por otra cosa. Esos mismos historiadores no dudarían en señalar a Hitler como responsable del Holocausto a pesar de que no hay un documento por escrito firmado por Hitler donde él lo ordene... no pretendo decir que Hitler haya sido inocente, lo que digo es que si hay varios testimonios de personas sin relación alguna y todos apuntan en la misma dirección, de que Rommel estuvo involucrado, a mi me parece prueba suficiente.
"No creas todo lo que se escribe en internet" Abraham Lincon