Shiho Nishizumi

Not our problem if you kept airstriking soldiers into bankruptcy.

Public consistency's never been his forte.

Rommel and Hitler actually got along very well. They had a bit of a symbiotic relationship going on, given that Rommel saw on Hitler an able politician that could do what was needed to be done, while Hitler saw on Rommel an able general and a self-made man, rather than someone that was just there due to birthplace. Rommel was also perfectly happy with taking advantage of this relationship (as was the case of the appointment of the 7th Panzer to him). Rommel wasn't in support of the plot (at the time, he was knocked out cold because his ride had been strafed and he got wounded as a result), and in fact, when he came to learn of it, his first reaction something among the lines of "I can't fathom that anyone would want to kill the [email protected]#$.". While his reputation is overblown, to say that he's just "above average" is a bit of a disservice. And he certainly possessed, if not at least developed, a strategic grasp. This can be seen when he argued with Kesselring over the handling of the German forces in Italy, where Rommel favored a more defensive approach on northern Italy, as he foresaw a rapid collapse of the front lines otherwise (owing the materiel disparity between both sides), Kesselring favored to hold the line far, far south, with optimism that'd be more appropriate following the string of successes in 1940, rather than the chain of defeats of '42 and '43. While Kesselring was ultimately right, it was in part due to reasons that he could've certainly not foreseen (such as Clark opting to go capture Rome, rather than trap and wipe out the 10th Army following the breakthrough on Monte Cassino). Furthermore, Rommel's grasp of the disparity at a strategic level (in contrast with how other German Generals and Field Marshals saw it) also manifested on how he wished to conduct the defense on the event of the landings, with him favoring concentrating the forces closer to the frontlines in order to defeat any attempts of establishing a beach head (and minimizing the possibility of the Allies leveraging their advantages), while the general stance was to have them set in reserves in the rear lines, and then be mobilized in counter attacks. Which of course, was a problem when these were intercepted and harassed by Allied aircraft (one of the many things that Rommel had accounted for when trying to put his defensive plan in motion). Granted, stuff such as going off to celebrate your wife's birthday on the day the landings took place (in a timeframe where aggression was to be expected) is simply too much of a foolish mistake to make for someone of his position. Then again, his superiors didn't act in a much less inept way, and the complete lack of intelligence and reconnaissance on the German part only made things much, much harder. So, while Rommel was far from a strategic mastermind (even if he wanted to believe he was one as), he was far from having virtually zero grasp on that aspect. While luck's certainly been at play, recognizing openings and opportunities to strike are, in fact, capacities that a shrewd commander has. You don't make it through the near-entirety of World War 1 (accounting for the times he wasn't on the front lines due to injury or refit), and much of World War 2 by just being a luck sack, especially considering how much of a daredevil he was. Less capable men would've either perished or been sacked far, far earlier than when Rommel took the pill.

Can't let facts get in the way of the narrative.

Not really valorizing "huggers" (they can't hug if they've got frick all pixels worth hugging), but sure thing.

Surely, it's got nothing to do with being NKVD' by your own allies. Nope.

I've indeed noticed that more has been let out than what Yammie took in from Skate.

There's no need to worry about reasonable terms leaking, because there's no benefit to leaking them. As such, the refusal to present them as a whole is an implicit acknowledgement that they're no good. Thank you for playing.

Nah. Given what leaked (I don't care for your "We DidN't PrEsEnT tHe TeRmS" excuse), I know I'm right.

I was actually specifically referring to the Carthago meme. But yes, it was very much feigning. Especially given the behavior seen in private. >These two AA's that disprove such excuse are the exception. So convenient isn't it? That doesn't explain t$ even if such were to be true (it's not). You'll probably spout something about being questionable allies, which would be rich coming from you. Alas, I guess some lie, even if proven false the moment it's been written, out of compulsion.

There would be no need for such a secrecy and/or piecemeal release, if the terms were reasonable. /Thread.

Nah, you don't feign appallment for the moral high ground and then come around it. You especially don't call out others on memes and then seriously pray for that to happen to AA's that were not part of said narrative. t$ and it's allies being held to similar if not worse treatment in spite of having made no remarks of the likes is indicative that this is just a thinly veiled excuse. So yah, no. Try again.

Glad to see that it was all pearl clutching all along.

You're free to respond to him. But accusing him of something in a process he isn't a part of makes you look like a fool who has no idea of what you're talking about. In fairness, you had made that much clear a couple of pages ago already.

Roberts isn't even in the war.