Industrialized Mass Murder

[Papewaio]

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

[Soulforged]

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]

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

[Zalmoxis]

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]

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

[Proletariat]

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]

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!

[sharrukin]

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.

[bmolsson]

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]

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

[A.Saturnus]

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.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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]

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

[Kagemusha]

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?

[Kraxis]

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.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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]

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]

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.

[Meneldil]

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]

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!
Never understood why you go to the army to serve your country. There are other and better ways:
nurses, fire fighters, police men ...

[Lazul]

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]

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?

[Rodion Romanovich]

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]

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.

[Steppe Merc]

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.

[Brenus]

“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”?

[Proletariat]

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



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]

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.

[Papewaio]

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?

[Papewaio]

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...