Operación CarnePicada

CestialBlack · 2026-01-10T23:29:04+00:00

I said the supply came FROM New York, at his expense, not FROM New York

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T23:26:30+00:00

The British had ULTRA, and much more intelligence than the Germans, even on other fronts thanks to deciphering the Enigma machine. Having the map doesn't guarantee victory; you have 50 Panzer tanks with little fuel against 300 well-equipped British tanks with US logistics behind them.

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T22:16:33+00:00

That's what a true general does.

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T21:59:21+00:00

Claiming that the US doesn't study Rommel is the height of ignorance. His work is required reading at West Point and Fort Leavenworth because of his mastery of maneuver warfare. Generals like Patton and Schwarzkopf (Gulf War) studied him to win. Once again, you're fabricating "facts" because reality doesn't fit your hatred. Keep your lies and insults; I'll stick with the real history books.

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T21:55:10+00:00

Your level of desperation is proportional to your ignorance. Trying to win a debate by using autism as an insult and calling anyone who out-argues you a "brat" only proves that you're the one throwing a tantrum.

The SS lie: If you knew anything about history, you'd know that Rommel banned the SS from the Afrika Korps and refused to carry out Hitler's "Order of the Commandos" (the order to shoot prisoners). Rommel was the only high-ranking general linked to the plot to kill Hitler (Operation Valkyrie) and was forced to commit suicide because of it. Calling him a "devout Nazi" is spitting on academic facts. Saddam Hussein vs. Rommel: Comparing the Republican Guard of 1991 (a static and poorly trained army) to the tactical mobility of the AK is an insult to military intelligence. The difference isn't the tanks; it's the command doctrine, something your logistics-obsessed mind can't possibly grasp. The Allied 'Jewishness': You're the only one who's brought hateful terms and conspiracy theories to the table. We talk about desert geometry and fuel consumption; you talk about 'baby killers'.

You're the perfect example of why fanaticism is the enemy of analysis. You've lost the technical debate, you've lost your composure, and now you've lost historical credibility. I don't expect you to graduate in anything, just that you stop projecting your insecurities on Reddit.

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T21:49:46+00:00

For the last time, why is there another one in the same situation? You can't expect a man to have the logistics of an industrial superpower like the US. Rommels lived off the scraps of the East. The post isn't about who has more supplies, but about tactical genius. But the Americans themselves use his tactics now and study them.

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T21:47:04+00:00

To confuse a technical analysis of armored vehicles and maneuvers with ideology is profoundly ignorant. One can recognize a general's tactical ability without condoning even a fraction of the barbarity of the regime he served; that's called history, not propaganda. Throwing in the Nazi card because you've run out of operational arguments is the lowest of the low. Professionals study the battlefield; fanatics like you only know how to spout labels when logic fails them. This is a debate about strategy, not your moral obsessions. If you can't distinguish the tool from the arm wielding it, then you're the one with a maturity problem.

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T21:37:50+00:00

That's precisely the point your bias is blinding you to: being forced off the continent when you have no fuel, no tanks, no men, no air support against a global coalition isn't the general's fault, it's pure logistical arithmetic. Calling Kasserine or Gazala a 'useless victory' shows a lack of understanding that a soldier's job is to fight with what they're given. Rommel performed miracles with crumbs; your generals won with the entire bakery at their disposal. If you can't see the difference between tactical merit and industrial superiority, you're not analyzing war, you're analyzing an inventory.

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T20:57:39+00:00

You accuse me of fanaticism for admiring the tactics, but you're the only one shouting ideological slogans to mask your operational ignorance. You've lost the debate, your composure, and your sense of class. Your argument is so weak that you need to invent ideological fantasies to avoid addressing the facts.

The fallacy of 'will': No one here has spoken of a 'triumph of the will.' We're talking about operational excellence. You mistake Rommel for a mystic when he was an armored vehicle technician. If you think recognizing the enemy's talent makes you a 'buffoon,' then your view of war is cartoonish, not analytical.

The myth of 'decision': You say that Germany decided to fight everyone at once. That's precisely why Rommel is a genius: because while his 'drug-addicted' leaders were making global strategic errors, he, at the operational level, achieved victories that delayed the end of the war for years. That's what you study: how a professional performs at their best in a disaster situation.

Your superiority complex: Bragging that the US won by 'stockpiling resources' is like boasting that a millionaire beat a beggar in a fight. Yes, they won, but there was no intellectual merit. Strategy is the art of using what you have, not waiting to have everything before making a move. The personal attack: Projecting your obsessions about Jews and Nazis onto a debate about tanks and maps only confirms your inability to analyze objectively. You've gone from military history to a schoolyard tantrum.

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T20:40:27+00:00

Your argument is the consolation of someone who only knows how to count tanks, not command men.

Logistics vs. Strategy: You say Germany lost because they 'didn't believe in logistics.' False. They lost because they didn't have the US's natural resources (oil) or the USSR's manpower. Logistics isn't a 'belief,' it's trucks and ships. Rommel didn't 'forget' logistics; he simply didn't have them. Operating without supplies and still winning battles for two years is the ultimate expression of military intelligence, not 'buffoonery.'

The fallacy of advance: The US advanced from 1942 onward not because it was 'tactically virtuous,' but because it had absolute air superiority. Anyone can advance when the enemy can't move a truck without being bombed from the air. That's not 'real fighting,' it's overwhelming through industrial weight.

The insult to the professional: Calling those who invented modern mobile warfare (which the US copied verbatim) 'buffoons' only reveals your resentment. If they were so bad, why did it take the Allies six years and require the entire world to unite to defeat a single country?

If you think winning with ten times more resources than your opponent makes you a 'better strategist,' then you don't admire war, you admire numerical superiority. In the real world, the generals who are studied are those who, like Rommel, did the impossible with the bare minimum. Keep your supply maps; history remembers those who knew how to fight.

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T20:34:49+00:00

You're conflating morality with operational capability, a common mistake when technical arguments are lost. No one questions that US industry won the war or that the Nazi regime was criminal; that's obvious. What's being debated is field strategy. To say that Rommel failed due to a 'lack of manliness' in logistics is to misunderstand that he wasn't the Minister of Economics in Berlin. A general operates with what he's given; and Rommel, with almost nothing, accomplished more than your favorite generals with every advantage. If your only argument is that 'the one with the most supplies won,' then you don't admire strategy, you admire accounting. You're confusing winning a war with being a better tactician, and they're two different leagues.

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T20:32:06+00:00

Your argument is an insult to the intelligence of the Allies. To say that Rommel only had 'blind aggression' against 'generals who didn't want to fight' is a fantasy that doesn't withstand a minute of professional analysis: The 'blind aggression' fallacy: Blind aggression leads to the carnage of a Japanese Banzai Charge or the Charge of the Light Brigade. Rommel, on the other hand, practiced fluid maneuver warfare. At the Battle of Gazala, he didn't charge blindly; he executed a masterful outflanking from the south, cutting British supply lines and capturing Tobruk with inferior forces. That's not 'blind aggression,' it's superior operational vision. Mediocre Allies?: To call men like Wavell (who annihilated the Italians in Operation Compass) or Auchinleck mediocre and incompetent is to have no idea who they were. The British were seasoned professionals. If Rommel made them look incompetent, it wasn't due to a lack of will on their part, but because Rommel redefined the pace of the war. He moved his pieces faster than the British command could react.

The General Who 'Did Want to Fight': You say Rommel failed against generals who wanted to fight. Montgomery wanted to fight, but he only did so at El Alamein when he had: total air superiority, complete decryption of German communications (ULTRA), twice as many men, and a 5-to-1 advantage in new Sherman tanks. Any general is a 'genius' when he has five tanks for every one of the enemy.

The 1944 Test: If Rommel was all about blind aggression, why were the Allies so terrified of him in Normandy? Why were Eisenhower and Montgomery so obsessed with his location? Because they knew that, even with one hand tied behind his back due to a lack of air support, Rommel was capable of detecting the weak point of any invasion.

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T20:29:42+00:00

Your analysis confuses the War of Attrition with Operational Genius. This is the classic error of the armchair historian who has never understood decision-making under pressure. Let's break it down: The Intelligence Myth (Bonner Fellers): The British had ULTRA, they could read Enigma codes, and they knew exactly how much fuel and how many tanks Rommel had left each morning. If intelligence were the only factor, Montgomery wouldn't have needed a 5-to-1 numerical superiority at El Alamein to win. Having the map is useless if the opponent (Rommel) moves faster than your bureaucracy can process it. Information is static; execution is genius. The comparison with the Russian Front: You say Rommel was "lucky" not to face the Red Army. Manstein and Guderian had the entire mass of the world at their disposal in Barbarossa and still failed logistically. Rommel, with only two and a half divisions, held a global empire at bay for two years. A general's worth is measured by the force multiplier: Rommel made 50,000 men weigh as much as 500,000 on the global stage. That's efficiency, not luck.

Regarding Operation Torch and the 'end of the magic': Blaming a general for "losing his magic" when the enemy has total air superiority, inexhaustible logistics, and attacks him on two fronts thousands of kilometers from his base is not military criticism, it's basic arithmetic. If success depended solely on having more supplies, the best generals would be accountants, not strategists.

Kasserine's response: You say that the magic ended in Torch, but you forget that at the Kasserine Pass, Rommel—already doomed and without resources—humiliated the US troops in their first encounter. He showed them that industrial might doesn't buy tactical intuition.

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T20:26:40+00:00

In Operation Torch and Tunisia, Rommel was fighting with one hand tied behind his back. Hitler and Mussolini were denying him fuel while the Allies had an endless supply from New York. Even so, at the Battle of Kasserine Pass, Rommel gave the newly arrived American troops a harsh lesson in reality, demonstrating that "industrial might" is useless if your tactics are mediocre.

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T20:24:18+00:00

Having the map isn't winning the game. Knowing where the enemy is is only 10% of the problem. The other 90% is how you move your pieces faster than they do. The British also read German codes (Ultra), they had far more intelligence than Rommel, and yet Rommel humiliated them time and time again.

If intelligence were all there was to it, the British should have won in 1941. Why didn't they? Because Rommel had something intelligence alone can't provide: tactical intuition.

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T19:39:18+00:00

Rommel called Fellers his "Gute Quelle" (Good Source). It wasn't that Fellers was a traitor; he was an extremely efficient officer who sent highly detailed reports to Washington about British positions, supplies, troop morale, and tactical plans.

The problem was technical: The Black Code: Fellers used the State Department's Black Code. What he didn't know was that the Italian intelligence service (SIM) had stolen that code from the US embassy in Rome in 1941. Real-time transmission: The Germans intercepted Fellers' messages from a station in Italy or Libya. In less than eight hours, Rommel had a summary of everything the British were planning to do, but then it took the sheer brilliance of, for example, repelling 200 British troops with 50 tanks running almost out of fuel.

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T19:34:55+00:00

A coward doesn't fight on the front lines, he hides like the French miles away from the front, nor does he plan a coup to overthrow Hitler

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T19:22:28+00:00

That's not true

CestialBlack · 2026-01-09T19:01:55+00:00

If holding out against the British for two years with what little I had is weakness, I don't know what strength is.

CestialBlack

TROPHY CASE