Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:12 am Post subject: Fanatics and the Soldier
This post is inspired by a recent CCs survey.
I note that a small majority have pushed the fanatic count to the lead in the poll. I find this interesting.
Fanatic by definition usally applies to those who have (or suffers from) a religous fervour. I dont believe that the average SS soldier was a fanatic. Maybe Hitler had some esoteric bent, but im sure his religion was left of Atillas. I would class the average WW2 Japanese soldier as a fanatic.
No doubt some SS soldiers where terroists but since they were uniformed regular soldiers probably sadists would be a better description. These are found in all armies and all walks of life.
So for mine the majority were just patriots like most armies.
Which brings me to my Question for the community.
Religious fanatic v Political fanatic v Warrior class fanatic
Just to quallify this, which is the biggest global threat ?
Is the Muslim minority hardliners with a large moderate Muslim community as a possible back up, our worst threat to world peace. Those i would call Religous fanatics. Or could Iran or North Korea be the real threat of tommorow. Those i would call Political fanatics. Or maybe its China with its fast expanding power and the worlds largest army the latter probably qualifying for a warrior nation these days.
I dont really know the demographic of this community but i dont see to many Muslim countries represented here but i know theres a few and i would like to know there oppinions we also had at least one in the community from Iran but havent heard from him for a long time North Koreans im not sure about.
This post is inspired by a recent CCs survey.
Fanatic by definition usally applies to those who have (or suffers from) a religous fervour.
The definition seems incomplete. It incorporates also a political zeal, not just religious. Fanatic is the one who has no understanding (or if the fanatic is in power than"tolerance") for contrary opinions and/or beliefs.
Quote:
I dont believe that the average SS soldier was a fanatic. Maybe Hitler had some esoteric bent, but im sure his religion was left of Atillas. I would class the average WW2 Japanese soldier as a fanatic.
Since the SS was involved in genocide and persecution on racial and political level, it is more than justified to call them fanatics. I don't hesitate to take a step further and label them TERRORISTS because one of their principal tools was fear. Also, the SS cannot be looked upon as a fragmented organization as many people see it. No sir! Allgemeine SS and Waffen SS are all parts of one big happy, sick family. There are their next to kin to deal with too: Gestapo, Totenkopfverbände, Einsatzgruppen and others. Arguably, the W-SS was the least criminal of all other parts of the organization, but criminal nevertheless. There are but 3-4 SS divisions without records of war crimes, crimes against humanity etc. It is well justified that the SS is labeled as a criminal organization.
Hitler had no esoteric ideas. You are mixing him with Himmler, whom Hitler rediculed because of those [esoteric ideas]. And he was a catholic [Hitler].
Japanese are different story, and cannot be judged through the western prism, although they WERE fanatics, terrorists and often criminals.
Quote:
No doubt some SS soldiers where terroists but since they were uniformed regular soldiers probably sadists would be a better description. These are found in all armies and all walks of life.
Check the Hague Convention. Uniform and other criteria can only distinguish regular and irregular fighters. Uniform speaks nothing about terror[ism], and sadism is only a tool of a terror. And it is a fallacy to regard the W-SS as "regular soldiers". Wehrmacht were regulars. SS was the party's militia.
Quote:
Is the Muslim minority hardliners with a large moderate Muslim community as a possible back up, our worst threat to world peace. Those i would call Religous fanatics.
Islamism is an ideology, loosely based on religion as the greater majority of Muslims comprehend it, and live it. The problem is next, Islam is not "just" a religion, it is a way of life. Islam tends to influence a society as a whole. Therefore, it is impossible to divide religious and secular moments in Islam, unlike in Christianity. And when I already mentioned it, secularism in the West started very late. Only with the end of the Thirty-years War.
In short, the answer is no. The majority of Muslims despise Islamists, and in spite of the uneducated, incompetent and often outright lying western media, an average Muslim doesn't walk around with Kalashnikov eager to kill the Westerners! Also, in spite of the uneducated, incompetent and often outright lying western media, the West isn't the primary target of the Islamists - their primary targets are their domestic countries who are husbanding regimes much more in accordance with the true teaching of Islam, than Islamists can ever be. Therefore no Muslim majority will support Islamists ever.
Quote:
Or could Iran or North Korea be the real threat of tommorow. Those i would call Political fanatics. Or maybe its China with its fast expanding power and the worlds largest army the latter probably qualifying for a warrior nation these days.
I don't think that N.K. or China are dangerous militarily. China has nothing to gain with war. Remember, within past 20 years the new term Chimerica appeared. No more about that.
And because of that N.K. will never get the Chinese support if they chose to make trouble. All China has to do is to deny them food and there will be N.K. no more. Fuckem! Those poor people will eventually rise against that criminal regime, and then the rest of the world must come to their support.
Iran? I don't believe that they will cause trouble. Ahmadinejad just talks, but that's Persia. The craddle of civilisation. I cant imagine that they will be the one to destroy it. Even if they would, who is directly responsible for the 1979 revolution(?). Look on the western shores of the Atlantic.
My guess is that the biggest threat will remain the same one as for the past 500 years. The West.
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 1:40 pm Post subject: Re: Fanatics and the Soldier
Let me see if I got this anti-German crusade right?
-Every German citizens, from 1933 to present days are guilty of the war-crimes committed during WWII?
-The entire German 'army' (including Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine and SS) are guilty of war-crimes and holocaust, regardless if they committed any or not?
Have you forgotten the Nuremberg Trials? The Germans have already been trialled, sentenced or freed from all allegations. (under more, or less, correct forms...)
What about war-crimes, atrocities and crimes against humanity committed by the Allied during WWII? Have there ever been a Nuremberg Trial about that?
No, because the Allied were the 'Good Guys', and 'Good Guys' don't commits crimes... Even now, 66 years after it happened they can sit in international television and say: "...we didn't take any prisoners, since we were so upset about the beach..." (from the documentary 'Bloody Omaha') and no one reacts about the fact that they didn't followed the Third Geneva Convention. I showed my US-loving sister another example of this from the capturing of the Nijmegen bridge, when they killed POW's, murdered and threw wounded Germans in the river, and her reaction was something many people here would say too: "Well, they were only Germans..."
The Western Allied have a 70-year old tradition of terror-bombing their opponents to submission. It has gone from the kindergarten-mentality of WWII that "They started it, look a Spain, Warsaw and Rotterdam" to modern, so called, "surgical-strikes", but it is the same terror-bombings that was a crime when the Germans did it...
GW Bush used lies about WMD to invade Iraq; -But one of the few country that have used WMD in an armed conflict is USA! With excuses about saving lives and shortening the war, Harry S. Truman, USAF and the USAAF committed crimes against humanity when they bombed two Japanese towns, civilian targets, deliberately saved from the rest of the terror-bombing campaign in order to evaluate the new weapon :!:
Fanatics and terrorism comes in many forms; -open your eyes and look around before you beat your chest and claim that your side is the 'Good Guys'! I'm glad that I don't have to salute with my right arm raised and a 'Heil Hitler' today, but does that mean that all crimes committed to achieve that are forgiven? Hate me if you like, call me a Nazi (which I'm not!) or flame me; -But in a war or any other armed conflict, there are no 'good' or 'bad' guys.
"When the tough gets going, I run to live to run another day..."
-The entire German 'army' (including Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine and SS) are guilty of war-crimes and holocaust, regardless if they committed any or not?
Nice try to whitewash the history and hiding behind Holocaust and so called "war crimes". Do you have trouble comprehending why participating in German war of aggression was fucking evil?
WWII was about German soldiers illegally crossing borders of other countries, murdering government servicemen trying to stop them, destroying government property, murdering civilians with bombs and artillery, destroying unimaginable amounts of private property, mass robbery, mass kidnappings, slavery, etc.
The rest was attempt to stop them and to make them give back what they have stolen.
While I can sympathize with German soldiers that fought because they were forced to fight, I absolutely condemn those who participated in German wars of aggression because of stuff like "duty", "honour", "patriotism", "nationalism", etc. or enjoyed the idea of German conquest in any way.
What about war-crimes, atrocities and crimes against humanity committed by the Allied during WWII? Have there ever been a Nuremberg Trial about that?
For the same reason why no one pursued North Vietnamise war criminals, Soviet war criminals, Chinese war criminals, etc. It's very hard to pursue such criminals that are within existing power structures. So, pursuing Allied war criminals would require defeating Allied powers (or these other countries). It would have to involve someone starting a war or uprising about it, which would be quite counter-productive and would create even more innocent victims.
So, Nuremberg trials were basically an exception - it happened just because there was an opportunity. Sadly, in most of cases there wasn't such opportunity.
There's whole North Korean regime that starves it's own citizens and it's practically impossible to bring it to justice or even stop it from doing that.
There were a lot of protests against western wars, but sadly, they didn't lead to any serious investigation.
But hey, I remember reading some story about Polish mercenaries in Iraq defending some base and most of Polish comments were comparing them to SS soldiers murdering citizens of Warsaw during Warsaw uprising, solely on basis of them being on foreign soil. So, it's not like there's any special anti-German hypocrisy going around here.
No, it's a crusade against Nazi Germany, more precisely against German war of aggression.
Isn't all wars wars of aggression?
-There have been many wars of aggression since WWII, why are all people so quick to condemn Nazi-Germany, while another country can start them over and over again with the silent-approval from the rest of the world? My answer: "winners-and-loosers", money and rhetoric...
Nice try to whitewash the history and hiding behind Holocaust and so called "war crimes". Do you have trouble comprehending why participating in German war of aggression was fucking evil?
WWII was about German soldiers illegally crossing borders of other countries, murdering government servicemen trying to stop them, destroying government property, murdering civilians with bombs and artillery, destroying unimaginable amounts of private property, mass robbery, mass kidnappings, slavery, etc.
The rest was attempt to stop them and to make them give back what they have stolen.
I have never, and will never, whitewash the crimes committed by Nazi-Germany! Adolf was a sick puppy, and the crimes committed due to him should never be forgotten. The risk if we forget is another dogmatic leader like Adolf may rise again somewhere and do it all over again.
My point is that there were an unique situation after WWII, with the Nuremberg Trials, so the majority of those guilty of crimes were trialled. We can't keep blaming Germany and those who were born in 'the wrong country' for decade after decade. It's been 65 since the war ended, it's maybe time to forgive and forget some parts of what happened? And maybe we should take the leaf from our eyes? All participants committed crimes, it's the human nature of war to do that...
While I can sympathize with German soldiers that fought because they were forced to fight, I absolutely condemn those who participated in German wars of aggression because of stuff like "duty", "honour", "patriotism", "nationalism", etc. or enjoyed the idea of German conquest in any way.
If those aren't reasons to fight a war, aggressive or not, we better scrap every army in the world. (A good idea on its own, but not a realistic one...) Ask any soldier and that's the reasons he thinks he fights; -Unless he's a cold-hearted realist and does it for money. Any army is indoctrinated with words like "duty", "honour", "patriotism", "nationalism", etc.
But I can agree with your condemnation of those that "...enjoyed the idea of German conquest in any way..."; -but that goes for anyone who think that's a legitimate reason to wage war!
There are bad guys. Those who start wars of aggression and those who willingly participate in them.
And when the 'Good Guys' turns bad? Are they still good, since the end justifies the means? And are all 'Bad Guys' really bad? There were a Swed during WWII that became a Concentration-camp guard, not because he hated Jews or was a hard-core Nazi. -He wanted to go to Germany and become a policeman, since he admired the German society, but once there he ended up as a guard against his intentions since he had applied to SS-vt without knowing it...
"When the tough gets going, I run to live to run another day..."
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:01 pm Post subject: Re: Fanatics and the Soldier
Quote:
The entire German 'army' (including Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine and SS) are guilty of war-crimes and holocaust, regardless if they committed any or not?
it depends on what u are calling war-crimes.. if killing of civies on purpose is a war crime? Yes, then entire German Army is affected.
Quote:
Have you forgotten the Nuremberg Trials? The Germans have already been trialled, sentenced or freed from all allegations. (under more, or less, correct forms...)
how come one could be so naive? :)
Quote:
What about war-crimes, atrocities and crimes against humanity committed by the Allied during WWII? Have there ever been a Nuremberg Trial about that
in comparison to the German atrocities they are nothing..
Quote:
The Western Allied have a 70-year old tradition of terror-bombing their opponents to submission.
ok, the soviets didn;'t do that to the gerries, they didn't even use chems to stop them in 1941 and then they got that Stal bombing...
Quote:
GW Bush used lies about WMD to invade Iraq; -But one of the few country that have used WMD in an armed conflict is USA!
haha, so true for A.Hitler and his army .
Quote:
There were a Swed during WWII that became a Concentration-camp guard, not because he hated Jews or was a hard-core Nazi. -He wanted to go to Germany and become a policeman, since he admired the German society, but once there he ended up as a guard against his intentions since he had applied to SS-vt without knowing it...
there were much more sweds fighing in SS against USSR. If you check CSO site, i quoted number of sweds hold as POW in 1946.
Hopefully, Wiking has very fast people turnover on EF .
Have you forgotten the Nuremberg Trials? The Germans have already been trialled, sentenced or freed from all allegations. (under more, or less, correct forms...)
how come one could be so naive?
So, should I interpret that as a question of the validity of the Nuremberg Trials?
I know that it wasn't just the leading nazis that were trialled there, many other German crimes were prosecuted there as well. Maybe we can agree that it was a show for the galleries as much as it was a case of justice?
What about war-crimes, atrocities and crimes against humanity committed by the Allied during WWII? Have there ever been a Nuremberg Trial about that
in comparison to the German atrocities they are nothing..
Can atrocities and crimes be graded? If the 'Good Guys' kills a POW, it's less of a crime than if a nazi does it? -Didn't the Allies go to war to fight for human rights and freedom? And I'm not talking about the Holocaust or aggressive war here, I'm talking about crimes against the Geneva Convention, rap, murder, pillaging, terror-bombings etc.
GW Bush used lies about WMD to invade Iraq; -But one of the few country that have used WMD in an armed conflict is USA!
haha, so true for A.Hitler and his army .
Maybe you can enlighten me here Dima? I've heard rumours about casualty-numbers on the Eastern Front that indicates the use of gas, but did any side ever use it? We all know 'Grossfa' Adolf was crazy enough to use The Bomb if he had got one, even if the war was lost. But what about gas?
There were a Swed during WWII that became a Concentration-camp guard, not because he hated Jews or was a hard-core Nazi. -He wanted to go to Germany and become a policeman, since he admired the German society, but once there he ended up as a guard against his intentions since he had applied to SS-vt without knowing it...
there were much more sweds fighing in SS against USSR. If you check CSO site, i quoted number of sweds hold as POW in 1946.
Hopefully, Wiking has very fast people turnover on EF .
'Mea culpa'
-As a Swed I live in the biggest brown-nosing country in the free world! There wasn't a country in the entire Europe in the 1930-40 that were as nazified as Sweden (except for Germany). But all of a sudden, after Stalingrad, we turned our cape after the wind and became Allied-friendly, keeping our nazi-sympathies to ourselves, and ever since the end of WWII every Swedish military system developed have been NATO-compatible (by some strange reason..)
A quick look at Feldgrau tells us that some 300 Swedes joined the Rich for the fightings one the Eastern Front, and I'm even less proud of the fact that it was Swedish and Dutch SS-men that fought in the last battle for Berlin...
But I saw a bock a few years ago about the Swedes that fought for the Allied (sadly I bought a crappy book about SS instead) according to review of the other book some 8000 Swedes joined the Allies if you included those that worked in the trade-fleet!
Why I mentioned this guy, was to point out a 'Bad Guys' that didn't mean to become that. All he wanted to do was to patrol the streets and keep order in a system he admired, sadly he was a dumb-f**k and didn't knew what he enlisted for...
"When the tough gets going, I run to live to run another day..."
-There have been many wars of aggression since WWII, why are all people so quick to condemn Nazi-Germany, while another country can start them over and over again with the silent-approval from the rest of the world? My answer: "winners-and-loosers", money and rhetoric...
How about another explanation - people forgetting about the main crime of WWII - the very WWII itself, thus being unable to judge these other wars of aggressions as evil, criminal and unacceptable?
Also, have you missed all the anti-war demonstrations?
I have never, and will never, whitewash the crimes committed by Nazi-Germany! Adolf was a sick puppy, and the crimes committed due to him should never be forgotten. The risk if we forget is another dogmatic leader like Adolf may rise again somewhere and do it all over again.
You're trying to whitewash the German war of aggression.
My point is that there were an unique situation after WWII, with the Nuremberg Trials, so the majority of those guilty of crimes were trialled. We can't keep blaming Germany and those who were born in 'the wrong country' for decade after decade. It's been 65 since the war ended, it's maybe time to forgive and forget some parts of what happened?
Ok. Let's forget Holocaust and concentration camps.
My point is that there were an unique situation after WWII, with the Nuremberg Trials, so the majority of those guilty of crimes were trialled. We can't keep blaming Germany and those who were born in 'the wrong country' for decade after decade. It's been 65 since the war ended, it's maybe time to forgive and forget some parts of what happened? And maybe we should take the leaf from our eyes? All participants committed crimes, it's the human nature of war to do that...
Nice attempt of sidestepping the issue. You keep talking about Holocaust and so called war crimes to pull the attention away from the German war of aggression which was conducted mainly by Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine. It was the supreme crime without which these little "war crimes" would have never happened.
If those aren't reasons to fight a war, aggressive or not, we better scrap every army in the world. (A good idea on its own, but not a realistic one...) Ask any soldier and that's the reasons he thinks he fights; -Unless he's a cold-hearted realist and does it for money. Any army is indoctrinated with words like "duty", "honour", "patriotism", "nationalism", etc.
How about self-defence, protection of innocents, etc. etc. etc?
And are all 'Bad Guys' really bad? There were a Swed during WWII that became a Concentration-camp guard, not because he hated Jews or was a hard-core Nazi. -He wanted to go to Germany and become a policeman, since he admired the German society, but once there he ended up as a guard against his intentions since he had applied to SS-vt without knowing it...
It's like someone who becomes a gangster because he likes gangsta-rap.
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:37 pm Post subject: Re: Fanatics and the Soldier
Quotes upon quotes, I'll try and answer without them...
Every war must start with an aggression, if we could talk or just sit on our own side of the border and flex there wouldn't be any wars.
And yes, the people on the streets demonstrates against the war, then they listen to the political rhetoric of those supporting the war (the self-good, lying, political-bastards in our governments) and votes for them another mandate-period. Sadly, every democracy today is a joke; -It's not the people that rules a country today, it is the money! (and I'll guess that it answers your question if I believe in "justice of courts and politics"?) But, I'm no the one that claims I'm the self-righteous one who defend democracy and freedom. I'm just a grumpy old man that wants people to look beyond the 'truth' they feed us with. And if that means I have to defend the 'wrong side' to create a debate and make people think, so be it.
I'm quite sure I said that we never can forget what happened between 1933-45? We can never forget the Holocaust, the concentration camps, the build-up of the German war of aggression! If we do that we open the door for another Hitler, "a people without history is a people easy to mislead". What I mean is that we can't keep bashing the Germans for what happened over 60 years ago, they don't have a genetic liability for WWII. And you can't blame every soldiers of the Riech for what some of them did with the approval and orders of the system; -Just as little as you can blame the entire US Army for what have happened in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, or every muslim for what some fanatics have done.
It is the nature of an armed force to follow order without discussion. If you don't do it, you are committing a crime, just as much as if you follows an order to murder civilians or bomb a village. The problem for a soldier is the fact that he is bound to follow orders, but he can't use the fact that he followed orders as a defence if he commits a crime...
Self-defence and protection of innocents are beautiful words and a just cause to fight, but sadly you don't here those words very often when professional soldiers talks about why they are fighting. "Even the old Greeks" talked about honour, duty and patriotism, nationalism came much later with the creation of the National states as we know them today. I'm not only defending the Prussian officers who fought for Hitler under those banners, but every soldier that are broken into believing that: -Werther it is before or after enlisting.
"When the tough gets going, I run to live to run another day..."
It is the nature of an armed force to follow order without discussion. If you don't do it, you are committing a crime, just as much as if you follows an order to murder civilians or bomb a village. The problem for a soldier is the fact that he is bound to follow orders, but he can't use the fact that he followed orders as a defence if he commits a crime...
I don't agree that you must follow all and every order [without a discussion]. What about illegal orders? Maybe the German soldiers could have shot f.e. captured partisans because they regarded them as "the bandits" under the German law, but G, signed international treaties that state otherwise and international conventions are stronger than the respective law of signing countries. At least officers knew that, if their men didn't, and they [the officers] are therefore responsible and it is ok that the fact that they just followed orders cannot be their defence.
So not following an order to kill civilians and/or captured combatants is in fact enforcement of the [international] law, regardless of what respective soldier's country might think of it. And it isn't just some idealistic propaganda I am saying.
For instance, Guderian had enough guts and moral firmness to ignore stupid order about non-retreating in face of the Soviet 1941/42 offensive. He was sacked because of it, and he might have been even shot! There is a number of similar happenings in the Wehrmacht 1939-45. Hell, even a number of Japanese officers refused to commit their airmen into kamikaze ops!
Now, where was that same courage when orders like Kommando or Commissar were issued and followed? Where was that courage when killings of POWs and civilians occured, especially in the East and the Balkans? Yes, both sides engaged in crimes, but there is a main difference - it was the German policy to make crime, while with the Allies (even Soviets!) they are incidents. It is sad that most of the crimes of the Allies weren't tried and those that were came out only with light punishments, but it doesn't change the fact that crime was the >German policy.
There was some 600.000 Soviet POWs shot right after being captured, and further 2,5-2,7 milllion died in captivity. Does 3-3,3 mil men dead make an incident or policy?
And what about the German Feldmarschall core. Must of them were bastards, save ones involved in the plot[s] to kill Hitler and take over the country. Others were pure slime. "The German field marshall does not mutiny" my ass! If a field marshall follows order without objections then he should have stayed a battalion commander. Field marshalls must take action as the highest and the most responsible and the most informed part of the officer core even if their actions are regarded as a mutiny. They owe it to their country damit, and it's clear!
And yes, the people on the streets demonstrates against the war, then they listen to the political rhetoric of those supporting the war (the self-good, lying, political-bastards in our governments) and votes for them another mandate-period. Sadly, every democracy today is a joke; -It's not the people that rules a country today, it is the money! (and I'll guess that it answers your question if I believe in "justice of courts and politics"?) But, I'm no the one that claims I'm the self-righteous one who defend democracy and freedom. I'm just a grumpy old man that wants people to look beyond the 'truth' they feed us with. And if that means I have to defend the 'wrong side' to create a debate and make people think, so be it.
Defending that wrong side is precisely the reason why they are getting away with it.
People can't construct sensible arguments against propaganda because there are people prancing around saying that the only wrong thing in WWII was Holocaust and war crimes, while doing everything to bury the concept of crimes against peace, so that their favourite armed forces wouldn't look bad.
How can they condemn other lesser crimes against peace that have occured later when they can't condemn the greatest crime against peace?
I'm just a grumpy old man that wants people to look beyond the 'truth' they feed us with.
Who feeds who with what 'truth'? The concept of crimes against peace and war of aggression being the supreme international crime got practically buried by those who have interest in burying it. In practically every such discussion I see a discussion whenever some German armed forces were evil Jew-killers or good soldiers which were fighting a good fight against Bolsheviks.
And you can't blame every soldiers of the Riech for what some of them did with the approval and orders of the system; -Just as little as you can blame the entire US Army for what have happened in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, or every muslim for what some fanatics have done.
Except that armed forces taking part in German war of aggression wasn't only SS or "some of them". Whole German war machine took part in it.
It is the nature of an armed force to follow order without discussion. If you don't do it, you are committing a crime, just as much as if you follows an order to murder civilians or bomb a village. The problem for a soldier is the fact that he is bound to follow orders, but he can't use the fact that he followed orders as a defence if he commits a crime...
Which is why there is the "forced by threats" part.
Self-defence and protection of innocents are beautiful words and a just cause to fight, but sadly you don't here those words very often when professional soldiers talks about why they are fighting. "Even the old Greeks" talked about honour, duty and patriotism, nationalism came much later with the creation of the National states as we know them today. I'm not only defending the Prussian officers who fought for Hitler under those banners, but every soldier that are broken into believing that: -Werther it is before or after enlisting.
That tells something about soldiers. Something that isn't very flattering.
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:51 am Post subject: Re: Fanatics and the Soldier
As with everything in life, context is important. A fanatic is someone who is intolerant to any alternative (to their view). This does not mean that it is by definition malignant. However, because the psychology of the fanatic is obsessional, it can often manifest maliganantly.
It is not limited to religion; it is more a characteristic of human nature. In most (all?) religions, you can see a distribution of 'believers', who range from the loose to the fundemental. A fundementalist 'Christian' is as dangerous as a fundementalist 'Muslim'. The abherrance is the fundementalism, not the religion.
Unfortunately, we use these terms in so many ways (one of the virtues and frustrations of language), and it is easy to misinterpret or even be misled by what is being said. Do we all mean the same thing by 'Fanatic'? In a general sense yes; there is an accepted meaning based on a behavioural characteristic which is commonly manifest in extreme and anti-social behaviour, but it is clear from the variety of generalisations being promoted here, that there is a divergence in understanding. I am sure there are some who are reading this who will find the language I am using difficult to understand. We are dipping into the realms of semantics, which is a challanging enough activity for born and bred English, never mind all those from foreign lands attempting to use the de-facto (for the time being) 'standard' for international communication.
But there is also ignorance. It is clear from the testimony of German WWII veterans, that atrocities were sanctioned and committed by the Wehrmacht as well as the SS, or any other body, military or otherwise, particularly with regard to Russia. The Party line was that Russians were 'inferior', to the extent that they did not deserve any humane treatment. Any individual whose conscience (or intelligence) found themselves at odds with this, could certainly find themselves suffering the consequences themselves from their own side. There are those who refused to accept the brutalities, and some of those paid with their lives, which merely illustrates the mistake in generalising.
A fanatic is more likely to be inhumane, if the creed demands it, as any counter-argument or alternative perspectives are rejected out of hand. Reason, logic, and such intellectual tools are not available to be used when debating such issues with them.
Even the term 'Soldier' needs some consideration, and is equally open to generalisations. Were all Japanese 'fanatics'? Patently not. We can argue the relative proportions and manifestations, and there is some value in that. There are 2 main types: Conscript and Volunteer. Each can provide fanatics, but that does not make soldiers fanatics. Moreover, it is a mistake to limit the use of fanatics to military or religion. It is a human characteristic, and can therefore exist at any level. Do not assume that it is only the 'other side' that suffers from these kinds of people...
Any individual whose conscience (or intelligence) found themselves at odds with this, could certainly find themselves suffering the consequences themselves from their own side. There are those who refused to accept the brutalities, and some of those paid with their lives, which merely illustrates the mistake in generalising.
Which is why they should be treated as heroes. Instead there's a trend of treating collaborators as heroes.
As with everything in life, context is important. A fanatic is someone who is intolerant to any alternative (to their view). This does not mean that it is by definition malignant. However, because the psychology of the fanatic is obsessional, it can often manifest maliganantly.
It is not limited to religion; it is more a characteristic of human nature. In most (all?) religions, you can see a distribution of 'believers', who range from the loose to the fundemental. A fundementalist 'Christian' is as dangerous as a fundementalist 'Muslim'. The abherrance is the fundementalism, not the religion.
That might be my last opinion on this subject, fanatics might be found everywhere...
And I may add, that my 'favourite' armed forces (strange expression to use) are; -Those that don't need to exist, British units (among them 51st Highlander, SAS, Paras and Guards Armoured), USMC, US 82nd and 101st AB, French foreign Legion and then some of the German units of WWII.
Gibbs, a character in the tv-series NCIS, once said in: "I don't support the war, I support the soldiers."
"When the tough gets going, I run to live to run another day..."
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:59 pm Post subject: Re: Fanatics and the Soldier
Quote:
Can atrocities and crimes be graded? If the 'Good Guys' kills a POW, it's less of a crime than if a nazi does it? -Didn't the Allies go to war to fight for human rights and freedom? And I'm not talking about the Holocaust or aggressive war here, I'm talking about crimes against the Geneva Convention, rap, murder, pillaging, terror-bombings etc.
example:
1)we have number of the Soviet orders (on different levels, from battalion to GHQ) saying that attrocities will be not tolerated on liberated territories, including Germany. And actions were in same manner.
2)we have number of the German orders (on different levels, from battalion to GHQ) saying that attrocities should be commited and will be tolerated on untermensch territories, including Russia. And actions were in same manner.
in general i really like how kawasaky explained it in his post, the whole German nazi policy was an attrocitie.
Quote:
I'm talking about crimes against the Geneva Convention, rap, murder, pillaging, terror-bombings etc.
according to the GC, each country which signed the GC should treat POW according to it, even if the enemy country didn't sign it.
most everything what the Germans were doing with RA POW was against the GC.
Quote:
Maybe you can enlighten me here Dima? I've heard rumours about casualty-numbers on the Eastern Front that indicates the use of gas, but did any side ever use it?
no evidence of gas beeing used on the EF.
problem with WW2 gases was that it was pretty easy to protect against them with simple equipment like gas-mask, etc. They could be only effective against unprepared target like civilians. But that would lead to retaliation and noone wanted it.
Quote:
For instance, Guderian had enough guts and moral firmness to ignore stupid order about non-retreating in face of the Soviet 1941/42 offensive. He was sacked because of it, and he might have been even shot!
that's according to Guderian and other "glorious" german commanders that were lucky enough to live through War and write memoirs. Hitler and the most guys in charge were not available by then so it was save to say "they sucked and i rocked" .
In reality that order was the main reason why they managed to stop RA without much ground losses.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
.
?
