Industrialized Mass Murder [Archive]

Papewaio

09-22-2005, 05:29

How can there be any honour in fighting for a country that has industrialized the extermination of millions of innocent people?

It’s like the Iraqi Republican Guardsmen who fought to defend a country where the Al- Mukhabarat could freely stuff people into acid baths.

You ask an excellent question. It is simple, well-phrased, and connected to a brief real-world example that highlights your theme. I will have to think about this before answering properly. The answer will, necessarily, be less pithy than this question, since a simple yes or no would be an answer but would illuminate nothing.

MODERATOR: Could this be sliced off as its own question? This stands alone very well.

Seamus

:bow:

Soulforged

09-22-2005, 06:19

The moral of the story as far as the average soldier goes is as old as time: You are fighting for your people and your country, not your government. German Soldiers such as Rommel in WW2 being a prime example.

It is honorable to fight for your country, regardless of what your government is doing. To throw away that basic truth would be disastrous. It is this basic concept that a soldier's life is a life without petty political concerns that has governed warfare for thousands of years. It is the job of generals to do what their government tells them to do, whether they agree with them or not. And it is the job of soldiers to do what they're generals tell them to do. I agree, though I totally disagree with nationalism in any form,it separetes people it doesn't unite them. But I'll have to make a correction on your final statement. The soldier doesn't has to do everything the general sais, if the action to be performed is of such disvalue that any reasonable human being should know that disvalue and reject the order, then the soldier can and must reject it, of course it will be different in middle of war, where laws don't exist.

bmolsson

09-22-2005, 07:03

With modern western nations its actually each soldiers responsibility to uphold human rights and international standard. If he disagree, he should refuse orders.

Zalmoxis

09-22-2005, 07:16

Yeah, right. Soldiers are trained to follow orders to the letter, and this is for good reason. It is the officers who are responsible for upholding international warfare conventions.
The jelly man may very well be right on his. But shouldn't soldiers EVER question their commanding officers?

PanzerJaeger

09-22-2005, 08:08

You know WW2 was over 60 years ago guys!? This horse has been dead so long theres nothing left to kick... :shame:

sharrukin

09-22-2005, 08:18

With modern western nations its actually each soldiers responsibility to uphold human rights and international standard. If he disagree, he should refuse orders.

The problem with having soldiers follow their conscience is that they may decide that civilian government is not capable of properly ruling the nation, and thus they should act to correct the situation. You after all will not be the one to decide what they should believe. When that kind of thinking becomes the standard you get men like Saddam Hussein. An apolitical military is an absolute necessity for a stable democratic government.

Meneldil

09-22-2005, 08:26

It is honorable to fight for your country, regardless of what your government is doing. To throw away that basic truth would be disastrous.

Yet, I think it would be more honorable to refuse to fight if your fight is worthless or leading to the extermination of millions of innocent people.

Soldiers who refused to serve as canon fooder during WWI and understood they were fighting for some petty generals' popularity, and who were executed were probably as honorable as the ones who fought and died in the trenches.

Franconicus

09-22-2005, 08:36

Yet, I think it would be more honorable to refuse to fight if your fight is worthless or leading to the extermination of millions of innocent people.

Soldiers who refused to serve as canon fooder during WWI and understood they were fighting for some petty generals' popularity, and who were executed were probably as honorable as the ones who fought and died in the trenches.
Wise words! :bow:
Never understood why you go to the army to serve your country. There are other and better ways:
nurses, fire fighters, police men ...

Lazul

09-22-2005, 09:39

When you join the ranks as a common grunt, you sign your life away.

When we are talking about ww2, the vast majority of soldiers didnt "join" as far as I know, they were drafted. In some cases they joined after being brainwashed with facist propaganda, like the kids and old men defending Berlin when the realistic choice was to run for your life to the west.

Ironside

09-22-2005, 11:36

They are honorable in a different way.

When you join the ranks as a common grunt, you sign your life away. You belong to the state, and your Honour as a matter of measurement is dependant on how well you do your duty. It cannot be equated with any other part of society.

As Lazul already was into, what do you do when the state sign your life away (AKA draft), and if that is done to invade another country?

Proletariat

09-22-2005, 12:34

Short Answer: Never. Ever. Not once.

C'mon, this is ridiculous. You cannot be prosecuted under the UCMJ unless you disobey an unlawful order. There is no 'short' answer about this.

bmolson's, right. It comes down to the individual soldier to follow lawful, as best as he can tell at the time, orders.

Franconicus

09-22-2005, 12:41

Proletariat

09-22-2005, 12:46

No good answer for that, except it demonstrates how important it is to live in a free country with an introspective press (even if it is tendentious).

English assassin

09-22-2005, 13:08

When you join the ranks as a common grunt, you sign your life away. You belong to the state, and your Honour as a matter of measurement is dependant on how well you do your duty. It cannot be equated with any other part of society.

This cannot be true. Joining the army, or any other organisation for that matter, does not deprive you of being a moral being responsible for your own actions. You don't become a machine or an animal. As Prole has rightly said, there are legally recognised limits to the orders an officer can give, never mind the moral issue.

Of course, that is not to say that a soldier given an unlawful order is not personally in a difficult position. The ethics are clear, he must refuse no matter the consequences. And if he shoots the civilian, if can in principle he tried and punished, and he can't possibly hope that the fact that he was ordered to do so will help him. But if he does not shoot, well, the difficulties that may cause him are obvious.

Except, I read or heard recently that in fact, in some units at least, soldiers on the Eastern front were given the chance to say that they did not wish to take part in executions. Not very many did, but those who did were assigned other duties and not punished. So, "I had to do it" may turn out to have been an overworked argument.

Very interesting.

When was the point when a simple German soldier should have stopped following the orders? Austria? CSR? Poland? Norway? France? England? Greek? USSR? Please keep in mind that he hardly had any other information besides official propaganda!

This I think is a different issue. Fighting, in accordance with the laws of war, to protect a country, even if the country's regime is terrible, is not itself wrong. To use Dariush's word it may not be honorable (although per se I don't see why such a soldier might not be said to have behaved honorably personally). But the soldiers duty not to follow an unlawful order relates to things he himself is ordered to do, like killing a civilian, not to a moral judgement about the nature of the government he serves.

Redleg

09-22-2005, 13:26

People who have never been in the military should not make blanket statments about what a soldier must do and what they can do in regards to following orders.

Soldiers in the United States Army are given several yearly classes and refreshers on just this subject (at least when I was in from 1985-2000) even the National Guard is given these annual classes. Unlawful orders are always instructed to be disobeyed.

bmolsson

09-22-2005, 13:58

People who have never been in the military should not make blanket statments about what a soldier must do and what they can do in regards to following orders.

I disagree. Every citizen in a democratic society is responsible for its military and therefore they should be aware what is put on their soldiers even if they are not soldiers themselves.

bmolsson

09-22-2005, 14:03

Yeah, right. Soldiers are trained to follow orders to the letter, and this is for good reason. It is the officers who are responsible for upholding international warfare conventions.

Not true. Furthermore, the officers where privates before they became officers. There is a difference between good teamwork and leadership compared to tyranny and horror mastering.

Proletariat

09-22-2005, 14:22

Erm, you're concuring with Redleg, I believe.

el_slapper

09-22-2005, 14:51

A.Saturnus

09-22-2005, 15:29

I've always been of the opinion that a Soldier my not oppose his general's orders for political reasons. Outside that, it's really up to the other officers below the general to refine the orders into something workable. The soldier himself should always do what his officers say, to do otherwise would break the system that's been in place for thousands of years.

Without that system the last thousands of years may have been a bit more fun.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-22-2005, 15:31

When was the point when a simple German soldier should have stopped following the orders? Austria? CSR? Poland? Norway? France? England? Greek? USSR? Please keep in mind that he hardly had any other information besides official propaganda!

A valid point, and one that was considered at Nuremberg. Soldiers captured by the western Allies were treated as POWs and, unless participation in war crimes could be documented, and POWs were released when appropriate (Soviet definition of this may differ). This included soldiers of the SS who were not part of the Einsatzgruppen. The lack of information available to a footsoldier was true of all armies in that conflict, and I am sure that the Germans have their stories akin to those of the 101st AB, many of whom found out that Bastogne was in Belgium days after they had begun defending it, and didn't know jack about what was happening only 10 miles back.

Seamus

Gawain of Orkeny

09-22-2005, 15:40

Furthermore, the officers where privates before they became officers.

The ranks of enlisted men who become officers is small undded and are usually the best officers. Most officers are never privates. They go straight to officers school like West Point or Annapolis. Or they went to some other college and go to some other officers school or basic trainging if thats what you want to call it.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-22-2005, 15:45

The ranks of enlisted men who become officers is small undded and are usually the best officers. Most officers are never privates. They go straight to officers school like West Point or Annapolis. Or they went to some other college and go to some other officers school or basic trainging if thats what you want to call it.

Gawain:

Oddly enough, the "mustang" officer was more likely in the Wermacht than in any other army of WW2. Most of them never made it to the high staff positions -- no Prussian Junkers in their pedigrees -- but quite a few of the non-field grade leaders had started behind a bayonet.

Only the USA came even close in terms of promotion from the ranks.

Seamus

Rodion Romanovich

09-22-2005, 15:50

Aren't all unjust wars also industrialized mass-murder? Weapons are created in an industrial manner in factories, soldiers are trained industrially, and casualties are pretty evenly distributed per day during war, just like if it had been industrial. People are trained in straight lines, killed in straight lines, and kill in straight lines.

Kraxis

09-22-2005, 16:50

War is statesponsered mass-murder for the sake of the state. That is the result you will find if you look deep into it. But it is often hard to find a situation where you can apply some sort of guilt that is justified enough. War is comlpex in more terms than just the military maneuvers and production.

Just to point it out, nationalism doesn't drive us apart on its own, it needs a catalyst. I'm very much a nationalist for my country, but does that mean I will go to war with Germany? France? Sweden? USA? Heck no! We have too much in common, too much at stake and we are friends.

Nationalism can actually bring people together I have found. Surprising huh? Well, a nationalist likes to brag about his country, that is inherent, another nationalist will try to brag about his. If they have no personal issues with the other's country or people (those can be applies as well) they will most often find a common ground rather than duke it out.
That is what I experienced as an exchange student in Jamaica. Bring 60 people from the entire world togther and you will see. The nationalists makes us see the good in other countries as well as the bad, and we need to know both.

Brenus

09-22-2005, 18:19

“Soldiers are trained to follow orders to the letter” Well, not in the Frencv Army. It is illegal to follow illegal orders, such attacked a bank or kill unarmed prisoners, to participate in illegal operations as definite by International Conventions (Geneva and The Hague). A soldier have to use his/her brain nowadays, we are not in 1900… ~:)

“Short Answer: Never. Ever. Not once.” Hi hi hi, that is a good joke… Never heard about fragging in Vietnam? When an officer was going out of order, received a smoke grenade as warning, the second one was a real one… Never heard about “to be killed in the back in front of the enemy”? ~D

Proletariat

09-22-2005, 18:26

The majority of posters misinterpreting your posts must be an indictment of their comprehension, not the effort you put into your posts, I guess.

:dizzy2:

There are quite a few members of the military on this board who would not like to be painted as a bunch of Bushido Warriors ready to sever the heads of the populace when given the order.

Proletariat

09-22-2005, 18:29

Didn't anyone read the long answer? Shows how quick people in this forum are to jump the gun, without reading the whole post.

Your long answer reads like a slight after-thought when you've already stated that culpability just comes down to the commanding officers and they're property of the government and must follow the letter of the command and so on.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-22-2005, 18:57

Honor, like obscenity, is more readily labeled than defined.

Do I feel that most of the soldiers fighting for the 3rd Reich did so honorably? Yes, or at least I am sure from their writings after the fact that most believed themselves to be behaving honorably at the time.

Yet I do not feel that organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan are honorable, nor were the actions of the Japanese at Nanking, nor was Stalin's forced collectivization of soviet agriculture...the list abounds (sadly). Is there honor in exploding a bomb under a bus full of schoolkids simply because that bus is loaded with kids who go to the Church of Ireland instead of a Catholic one? Is there honor in setting off a bomb that drives nails through the stomach of a pregnant mother simply because she attends a synagogue rather than a mosque?

There is honor in defending one's home, one's family, and - by extension - one's community as well. What is honorable is that which is required to effect that defense. There is honor in maintaining one's humanity in the face of temptation to allow the ends to justify all means. My country has spent billions on weapons designed to hit targets with extreme precision both for effectiveness and to minimize are ability to harm those who are not in direct opposition to us. I recall seeing film of a bridge bombing where the bomb was diverted into the water because of the unexpected presence of one Iraqi civilian vehicle on the bridge. If honor can be maintained in war, I know of no other people working harder to do so.

There are regimes that should not be fought for, causes unworthy and dishonorable. I suppose that all any soldier or person can do is define honor for themselves and then work to fight for that which is honorable. SO both Bush and Cindy Sheehan are, I guess, fighting the good fight. The rights of mankind must be weighed along with the values and beliefs of the individual weighing that decision. I dearly wish my world were as simple as my faith.

Seamus

Papewaio

09-23-2005, 00:11

So GC in a hypothetical fifty years from now after the USA military force has been down er right-sized by a Hippie Liberal Government and China invades.

Will you see the troops as good and honourable as you are herded into an internment camp and anyone who is white is sent to gas chambers?

Steppe Merc

09-23-2005, 00:16

That is a very excellent question. I do think that soldiers are responsible for attrocities they commit. Everyone has a choice, a freewill. You choose, then live with the concequences, but you always have a choice.
Yes I know that a soldier who disobyed orders would be in serious trouble, but everyone has an option.

As for all soldiers who serve a corrupt government, and did commit a war crime, then I would say that they are not evil. They are not right IMO, as I have difficulty agreeing with anyone who chooses to fight in wars, but I do not believe they should all be executed, nor are they automatically evil.

For example, not all SS members were evil. I can not say they were good people, but fighting for a corrupt and evil government does not automatically make the person corrupt and evil.

Kaiser of Arabia

09-23-2005, 00:55

I agree, though I totally disagree with nationalism in any form,it separetes people it doesn't unite them. But I'll have to make a correction on your final statement. The soldier doesn't has to do everything the general sais, if the action to be performed is of such disvalue that any reasonable human being should know that disvalue and reject the order, then the soldier can and must reject it, of course it will be different in middle of war, where laws don't exist.
Anthrapological and biological differances do more to seperate people than nationalism.
-Kaiser

Papewaio

09-23-2005, 00:58

There is more biological diversity within any nation or 'racial' group then there is between any nation or 'racial' group.

Kagemusha

09-23-2005, 03:17

Papewaio

09-23-2005, 03:45

I won't see them that way froma subjective point of view, no. I'd hate them for my own sake and for nationalism's sake.

My point of view at that point however, would be anything but objective.

So it is okay for it to happen as long as it doesn't happen to you...

Kaiser of Arabia

09-23-2005, 03:50

There is more biological diversity within any nation or 'racial' group then there is between any nation or 'racial' group.
Thusforth the willful segregation in many heavily diverse nations. In America, at least, most Blacks keep to themselves, as do Hispanics, Whites, and Asians. There is little intermixing, at least where I live.

People are naturally attracted to others like themselves.

Kagemusha

09-23-2005, 03:57

I most confess now.The reasent genetics studies have showed that we Finns share most Gens with Germans and Dutch.Finland or Norway or Great Britain is not a homogenetic people put people who are bind together with common intrest.Who feel together.I understand that novadays its fashionable to be Worlds citicen.But its always just some part of the world.

Papewaio

09-23-2005, 04:35

Thusforth the willful segregation in many heavily diverse nations. In America, at least, most Blacks keep to themselves, as do Hispanics, Whites, and Asians. There is little intermixing, at least where I live.

People are naturally attracted to others like themselves.

Its not the amount of mixing.

The amount of genetic variation from the norm within a group is greater then the variation between groups.

Franconicus

09-23-2005, 08:10

Soldiers captured by the western Allies were treated as POWs and, unless participation in war crimes could be documented, and POWs were released when appropriate (Soviet definition of this may differ). This included soldiers of the SS who were not part of the Einsatzgruppen.
The POWs is differenet story. Their treatment by the western allies was not always the same.

The lack of information available to a footsoldier was true of all armies in that conflict, and I am sure that the Germans have their stories akin to those of the 101st AB, many of whom found out that Bastogne was in Belgium days after they had begun defending it, and didn't know jack about what was happening only 10 miles back.

Seamus
You are right, of course. But the Nazis used the propaganda to jusify their aggressions. I guess most of the soldiers thought they would defend their country.

Kraxis

09-23-2005, 11:11

Kraxis i love you all ,but if yours or some other state would trye to take our fragile freedom away.I and the five hundred thousand other finish conscripts will do anything ingluding die for it to defend it.You speak of nationalism like its somekind of cursing word.Think how we would have developed under Swedish or Russian yoke?
I think you misunderstood me... I do not consider nationalism a curse (word). I agitated for nationalism.
There are two destinct version of nationalism. The heavy and the light (call it bad and good if you care). The heavy implies that you as a nation is the best and that you have a right to rule something or at least make sure that your superiority isn't impeeded by immigrants. Heavy nationalism can be seriously ugly, take Nazi Germany or the European states in the late 1800s, that is the heavy nationalism.
Light nationalism is quite different. It is basically pride in nation and its past history. Take a look at Mexicans, they are a perfect group of this. They love Mexico, but are they unfriendly, are they aggressive and have a tendency to want to be secluded? No... They like their country but do not deny the rest of us any right to like it as well. It is a love for home and a sense of belonging. Remove that and people will become confused.

I do believe that should we meet another race out there this will drop a little and will see a more general Earth-nationalism, not because we want war but it is the Us-Them mentality playing in. We like to have secure borders, even with those we are most friendly with.
For instance when it comes to Denmark-Norway-Sweden-Iceland (and to a lesser extent Finland) we have a whole lot in common (language, culture and history), but however much we love and care for each other you won't find any more serious football matches (especially the first three), we simply do not want to lose to the oters. But when they are over we go out and drink together. That is the light nationalism in play, and I find it beautiful.