Quote from: Cain on August 18, 2012, 05:32:39 AM
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 17, 2012, 11:17:40 PM
Yep. But the 17 year old isn't the responsible party.
That depends on exactly what he was doing and where he was placed.
On the Eastern Front, looting, raping, torture, murder and the destruction of entire villages were entirely encouraged by the Wehrmacht's chain of command. In Belarus, one of the favoured methods to punish partisans was to get the members of that partisan's village, round them all up, shove them in a barn and then set it on fire. Soldiers would then shoot anyone who tried to escape.
The German Army also enthusiastically took part in the sorting, detainment and mass killings of Jewish civilians. In some parts of Poland and Ukraine, they were actually beating the SS when it came to Jewish deaths.
While joining the SS certainly shows more intent to do vicious and evil acts, it doesn't necessarily follow that it made it any more likely. Going by Snyder's figures on former Soviet territorial casualties, the German Army was a thoroughly wicked institution on a par with the Nazi paramilitary units, and had it not been for the fact they were needed after the war to defend Western Germany against the Soviet Union, a lot more members of the military would have joined the leading Nazis in being executed.
Of course, if the Soviets had also told the truth about what happened on the Eastern Front, instead of spending all their time concocting their bullshit propaganda about the "Great Patriotic War" and how the noble Russians were the real victims/had saved the world, it might have been harder for the Wehrmacht's history to have been whitewashed so effectively.
A lot of it comes down to where a soldier served. On the Western Front, and in North Africa, the German Army was a lot more constrained, probably due to their acceptance of Nazi racial policy and the privileged place the British and French had in that schema when compared with Slavs.
But there is no comparison, for instance, between a German PoW camp for British soldiers, and one for Soviet soldiers. You can't even compare the Russian gulags, in terms of death rates, to the German PoW camps for Soviet troops camps. I believe the latter had something like a 90% casualty rate, most of it caused by enforced starvation, torture and refusing to provide basic clothing. The belief was that Slavs were more resistant to the cold, and so didn't need to be given footwear when snow was on the ground, for example.
Whoops. Hit post too soon. One moment please.
These were kids doing horrible things, yes? People of all ages, but many young men, right? What makes Germans any different than British and Soviet troops? Or any troops for that matter?
It's clear that people all contain a certain sense of rottenness in them. It's highly unlikely that any of the genes that survived to make the brains that sit in our skulls weren't gotten by some truly cruel acts that may have been seen as self-preservation, may have at time
been for self-preservation. Maybe simple violence to ensure what you have is your own. Isn't that how German citizens were swayed?
Their economy, their country was in the shitter. Piles of worthless money better used for kindling because of inflation. And they were talked into a great idea, that their dream was only out of their reach because The Enemy had it in their grubby hands.
And when you accept something as everyday fact: Jews are subhumans who have taken your due entitlement.
I guess what I'm saying is: There's not a whole lot separating those Germans from other people besides the situation they were in.
If that's the case, who exactly is to blame? And where does accountability for committing those acts with your hands begin? Where does it end? How do we keep that from happening?
I mean, the Germans have worked pretty hard to eradicate those kinds of thoughts socially. Americans take it for granted that they're Not Like That. It's sort of terrifying how quickly the methods the Nazis used are requisitioned and liberally applied, and people can't see them for what they are.
Those kids with the kittens, they were clearly human, but they weren't above killing, and much worse than killing. But they were still human.
Something else but I've forgotten.
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2012, 08:28:05 AM
Those kids with the kittens, they were clearly human, but they weren't above killing, and much worse than killing. But they were still human.
But who
isnt human?
Most people have "good intentions", most people have grand plans on how "THIS will solve EVERYTHING"... hey, thats fine and dandy, we all need a plan and hopes and whatever...
The problem starts when these representations go unhinged, do not act based on the reality nor facts, but rather a distorted and twisted perspective that only suits themselves and their groupality.
"OMFG THE JEWS! ZIONISTS! IF WE GET THEM ALL WILL BE FIXED" is basicly targeting a groupality that is easy prey and has a clear distinction of Otherness (race/religion)... this is what is called a scapegoat, place the blame to where it does not belong so that guilt is exhumed from everyone else...
Who was the real cause behind the German's economic downfall? Dont take my word for it, but if im correct, it was the economic blockade and sanctions resulting from WWI... so in a sense, the guilt to how shitty the country was running was no other than themselves, guilt that was projected on the jewish people.
Yes, everyone is human, everyone has a plan, and everyone has good intentions - too bad that its rarely attached to reality.
Society might put stupid ideas, norms and traditions into your head, or incentivize fucked up actions, often to such extent that even decent people go along with it, but ultimately the responsibility for your actions lie on you. Most humans will strive for the safe and comfortable, and will kill a Jew or ten if that's what they need to do achieve that, and that's understandable but not acceptable in any way and fucks us up as human beings. The future of humanity depends on people who dare to be the Giordano Brunos of their part of spacetime. It might not be comfortable, but it's the right thing to do.
The Milgram experiments.
The thing isn't that we aren't responsible for our own actions, the problem is that we are smart monkeys whose wiring too easily influenced to do terrible things because other people are doing them or because someone in charge said it was all right. Soldiers everywhere are going to act like soldiers, and that should scare you.
Troof! You can't even completely blame the guys in charge. Chances are they believe that war is the only answer. If you're organising a war your mission is to make a lot of young men kill the enemy and stay alive. Making them kill isn't as easy as it first might sound. You have to rewire their brains a bit. You do this by dehumanising the enemy. They're hun, they're gooks, they're towel heads...
When you're done then, in the eyes of your footsoldiers, what they're dealing with aren't proper human beings. Why would you treat them like human beings? Just cos the rules say so but the rules also say kill the fucking things so there's no harm in flaunting those rules a bit. "Quick, no one's looking, lets pile up a bunch of the things, butt nekkit, and take some pictures of us sitting on them and fucking with them and shit. The guys in Charlie company will piss themselves when they see them"
It's might seem horrifying to non-combatants but to people who have been trained not to have nightmares for the rest of their lives, every time they send a bullet through one of these target's chest cavities, it's just a bit of harmless fun. No actual people are harmed.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 18, 2012, 05:30:02 PM
Troof! You can't even completely blame the guys in charge. Chances are they believe that war is the only answer. If you're organising a war your mission is to make a lot of young men kill the enemy and stay alive. Making them kill isn't as easy as it first might sound. You have to rewire their brains a bit. You do this by dehumanising the enemy. They're hun, they're gooks, they're towel heads...
When you're done then, in the eyes of your footsoldiers, what they're dealing with aren't proper human beings. Why would you treat them like human beings? Just cos the rules say so but the rules also say kill the fucking things so there's no harm in flaunting those rules a bit. "Quick, no one's looking, lets pile up a bunch of the things, butt nekkit, and take some pictures of us sitting on them and fucking with them and shit. The guys in Charlie company will piss themselves when they see them"
It's might seem horrifying to non-combatants but to people who have been trained not to have nightmares for the rest of their lives, every time they send a bullet through one of these target's chest cavities, it's just a bit of harmless fun. No actual people are harmed.
Right. And it's really not all that surprising that, if the enemy aren't proper human beings, therefore neither are their wives and children and elderlies.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 07:07:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 18, 2012, 05:30:02 PM
Troof! You can't even completely blame the guys in charge. Chances are they believe that war is the only answer. If you're organising a war your mission is to make a lot of young men kill the enemy and stay alive. Making them kill isn't as easy as it first might sound. You have to rewire their brains a bit. You do this by dehumanising the enemy. They're hun, they're gooks, they're towel heads...
When you're done then, in the eyes of your footsoldiers, what they're dealing with aren't proper human beings. Why would you treat them like human beings? Just cos the rules say so but the rules also say kill the fucking things so there's no harm in flaunting those rules a bit. "Quick, no one's looking, lets pile up a bunch of the things, butt nekkit, and take some pictures of us sitting on them and fucking with them and shit. The guys in Charlie company will piss themselves when they see them"
It's might seem horrifying to non-combatants but to people who have been trained not to have nightmares for the rest of their lives, every time they send a bullet through one of these target's chest cavities, it's just a bit of harmless fun. No actual people are harmed.
Right. And it's really not all that surprising that, if the enemy aren't proper human beings, therefore neither are their wives and children and elderlies.
Affirmative. But, going back to your original point - the people who are doing this are not teh Satan OMG Demonspawn. They're just ordinary joes who have gone through The Process
tm
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 18, 2012, 08:21:27 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 07:07:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 18, 2012, 05:30:02 PM
Troof! You can't even completely blame the guys in charge. Chances are they believe that war is the only answer. If you're organising a war your mission is to make a lot of young men kill the enemy and stay alive. Making them kill isn't as easy as it first might sound. You have to rewire their brains a bit. You do this by dehumanising the enemy. They're hun, they're gooks, they're towel heads...
When you're done then, in the eyes of your footsoldiers, what they're dealing with aren't proper human beings. Why would you treat them like human beings? Just cos the rules say so but the rules also say kill the fucking things so there's no harm in flaunting those rules a bit. "Quick, no one's looking, lets pile up a bunch of the things, butt nekkit, and take some pictures of us sitting on them and fucking with them and shit. The guys in Charlie company will piss themselves when they see them"
It's might seem horrifying to non-combatants but to people who have been trained not to have nightmares for the rest of their lives, every time they send a bullet through one of these target's chest cavities, it's just a bit of harmless fun. No actual people are harmed.
Right. And it's really not all that surprising that, if the enemy aren't proper human beings, therefore neither are their wives and children and elderlies.
Affirmative. But, going back to your original point - the people who are doing this are not teh Satan OMG Demonspawn. They're just ordinary joes who have gone through The Processtm
Yes, exactly. You can't have your conditioned killers without the collateral damage that comes with the conditioning. The real danger comes in when we fail to recognize this, and start dismissing them as only having been capable of doing those acts because they were aberrant monsters. Maybe not even fully human.
I think what I was trying to get at is that genocide is a VERY human thing to do.
To separate the horror that lies inside every human from the happy, kitten loving ape is to deny something integral to the species. I've seen how chimps will make makeshift weapons to kill other tribes of chimps. But man, no other species comes even close to genocide, certainly nowhere near the intent.
QuoteThe real danger comes in when we fail to recognize this, and start dismissing them as only having been capable of doing those acts because they were aberrant monsters. Maybe not even fully human.
This. I dunno about the rest of you, but as much as I say I hate humanity...it isn't true. At all. I am absolutely
terrified at the thought of humanity because we all have that inside us. Sure, Discordians are BETTER than that. Yeah, right. I am scared of my neighbors because I've seen how they react to perceived threats, and I am scared because they think they're somehow incapable of committing such horrors. A thought they're likely to have right up until they're slitting the throats of whomever happens to be this century's subhumans.
I am terrified because, as a human, I have that potential inside me as well, given the correct set of circumstances. And so do you.
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2012, 09:18:13 PM
I think what I was trying to get at is that genocide is a VERY human thing to do.
To separate the horror that lies inside every human from the happy, kitten loving ape is to deny something integral to the species. I've seen how chimps will make makeshift weapons to kill other tribes of chimps. But man, no other species comes even close to genocide, certainly nowhere near the intent.
At the risk of falling off the cliff of speculation, I'd say that the only reason other animals don't do genocide is because their minds are incapable of conceptualising something that abstract. I'm personally of the opinion that, if the Goddess Hypothesis waved her wand and gave Koala bears our level of consciousness tomorrow, by about lunchtime there'd be at least half a dozen genocides in progress in Australia.
What everybody said - Pent with The Processtm and Alty about how it's dangerous for people to think they're "not like that".
I've been around a huge number of people of German descent for most of my life, because a big part of central TX was settled by Germans in the 1800's. Many of them don't even like stepping on a bug. Others are assholes, but nothing approaching nazi levels. So there's no inherent "nazi gene". They're the same as anybody else.
Germany itself? From what I hear, while they do have neonazis and jerks over there (so do we), it's generally a decent place. They might even be MORE tolerant in some areas, since they have something to live down. Kind of like the way Salem, Mass tolerates a lot of goofy pagans walking around. (Of course Salem makes big bucks from this kind of thing, but that came AFTER they decided to let the witchy types swarm the place if they wanted to. And I'm NOT equating Jews to the Pendragons. :horrormirth: Just talking about places trying to redeem themselves.)
So, they got mindfucked. Same as people got minducked here about "Welfare Queens", only it ended up with ovens.
Those guys? Just kids. Their facial features remind me of people I've known. It's the uniform I'd be shooting at, if that makes any sense. It's like if my dog got rabies and came at me, I'd have to shoot it. That would fuck me up. I can't imagine what dad went though.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 18, 2012, 09:38:18 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2012, 09:18:13 PM
I think what I was trying to get at is that genocide is a VERY human thing to do.
To separate the horror that lies inside every human from the happy, kitten loving ape is to deny something integral to the species. I've seen how chimps will make makeshift weapons to kill other tribes of chimps. But man, no other species comes even close to genocide, certainly nowhere near the intent.
At the risk of falling off the cliff of speculation, I'd say that the only reason other animals don't do genocide is because their minds are incapable of conceptualising something that abstract. I'm personally of the opinion that, if the Goddess Hypothesis waved her wand and gave Koala bears our level of consciousness tomorrow, by about lunchtime there'd be at least half a dozen genocides in progress in Australia.
Ah, but that's just it. People think of those guilty of genocide as monsters, something that doesn't conform to the ideals of rationl, developed humans we are
supposed to be. It's our fancy frontal lobes that keep us from beating the skulls in of those who oppose us and attempt reason instead. But it's that same brain meat that makes genocide possible.
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2012, 08:28:05 AM
These were kids doing horrible things, yes? People of all ages, but many young men, right? What makes Germans any different than British and Soviet troops? Or any troops for that matter?
Well, that they were killing vast numbers of civilians and soldiers they had captured, far more quickly than any other side in the war, even taking into account demographic and population statistics, is what makes them different. The combined forces of Germany killed upwards of 12 million civilians in four years. It took Stalin, a notoriously bloodthirsty dictator, a decade to achieve half that casualty rate with his mass starvations and deportations and gulags. It is, in fact, the swiftest and largest elimination of civilian life in all of military history, on a scale that has never been seen before or since.
This isn't a case of "every side kills civilians" because, although they do, they didn't target them in the same way the German Army did, that German military policy called for, and that was enthusiastically engaged in. And that can be traced directly back to how enthusiastically the German Army embraced Nazi racial ideology, which called for the racial cleansing of Eastern Europe, to form the German subcontinental empire.
QuoteThere's not a whole lot separating those Germans from other people besides the situation they were in.
Actually, lots of other country's were hit just as hard as Germany. The Great Depression was global in scale, and helped fill the ranks of Communist and Fascist organizations all over the world.
What was different in Germany was the institutions, when compared to France, or Britain or America. Germany never had a strong parliamentary tradition - the Chancellor and the Kaiser always truly ruled, backed by the Junkers, and the Weimer Constitution reflected that. An independent bureaucracy - while developed by a German thinker - was again something that the British excelled at, due to the need to administer the Empire. And while we're on that particular topic, the experience of Empire required a certain ethnic and racial tolerance that was absent from the German political history.
In a healthy democracy, there are other powerful institutional actors who can constrain political parties. The army, intelligence services, other parties, broadcasting corporations, the civil service, an independent judiciary...in Germany, all of these things were weak or unheard of concepts until the foundation of the Weimer Republic. If a British group had tried a Mussolini style "march on London", the army would have been mobilised to stop them, the intelligence services would infiltrate their ranks and spread dissension, and the unions would shut down the industrial capacity of the city in the event of a takeover. In fact, it should be recalled the head of the British Union of Fascists own intelligence arm was none other than Maxwell Knight, MI5's counterespionage genius (and some say the inspiration for "M" in Ian Fleming's novels).
Let us recall that, opposed to this, in Germany, the Army frequently supported acts of rightwing terrorism, and Hitler's own introduction to the German Workers Party was as a spy for the German Army. Why the difference? Because in Germany, the idea that the Army should follow orders from civilians had never caught on, as the Kaiser was not a civilian, and by the end of the war, those really running Germany (Generals Ludendorff and Hindenburg) were not either. The Army considered itself as a political actor, and those politicians who disagreed often ended up being assassinated.
Also, let us not forget, the idea that the Nazi Party could exclusively come to power in such a situation was not so clear at the time. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, support rose massively for both the Nazis and the KPD, the German Communist Party. Much like the Nazis, the KPD had their own militant wing, covert sympathisers within government and other organisations, and outside support from the Soviet Union, which could theoretically counter the German Army's might. It was the violence of both the Nazis and the Communists that led to Carl Schmitt proposing Hindenburg take over the country as a military dictatorship and use Article 48 of the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_48_%28Weimar_Constitution%29) to smash both parties and restore order (that this would also fit in with Schmitt's own preferred model of government is nothing more than coincidence).
In addition to this, both von Papen and Kurt von Schleicher were hoping to manipulate Hitler, use the lure of governmental power to destroy their own political enemies, before disposing of the Nazis entirely. Von Papen represented the interests of Germany's arch-conservatives, and Schleicher the Army respectively. The Nazis would be useful to fight the Communists and put the Socialists in their place...and then after that, I'm sure a terrible accident would be planned for the "corporal from Bohemia". Hitler was surging in the polls, it is true, but that was a temporary phenomenon, brought on by the Great Depression.
If government had been stronger, then it would not have fallen so easily. But Germany's politicians and military officials schemed and plotted and thought themselves so clever...and invited in someone who could steal the entire country from under them. Had he been kept on the outside, he quite likely would have faded back into obscurity, but no, they all thought they could use and manipulate him, use him to attack and undermine their own enemies. Such a situation would not have arisen in a state with stronger institutions and limits on governmental power, where winning elections is what matters, and where politicians view other parties as opponents, not existential foes (note: take care, House Republicans...).
In short, political institutions matter. Most strongly grounded liberal democracies have them. Germany did not, which is why it's own liberal democracy was usurped and destroyed.
QuoteIf that's the case, who exactly is to blame? And where does accountability for committing those acts with your hands begin? Where does it end?
Ultimately, it has to be down to the individual who carries out the orders. Policy means nothing if no-one actually follows it. Saying you had orders isn't an especially good excuse, as many found out after the war. There are, of course levels of repsonsibility. Putting such policies into practice is more heinous than simply doing them, but neither actor is innocent, in such a situation.
Quotemean, the Germans have worked pretty hard to eradicate those kinds of thoughts socially.
Not strictly accurate. Sure, among the general public it did. But within the military and intelligence services, there were strong, marked Nazi sympathies for a very long time, right up to the present day, in fact (the "National Socialist Underground" managed to commit a string of murders, while being spied on by German internal intelligence, and the existence of the NSU was not revealed until just last year). The BND, German foreign intelligence, was founded from the Gehlen Org, a postwar intelligence organization answerable to the CIA, but run by one Reinhardt Gehlen. Gehlen was the Nazi spymaster with responsibility for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and many of the CIA's (abysmal) 1950s operations behind the Iron Curtain were entirely reliant on his intelligence.
QuoteThose kids with the kittens, they were clearly human, but they weren't above killing, and much worse than killing. But they were still human.
Sure. I'm not denying that. I'm perfectly at home with the idea that perfectly normal people commit atrocities that make a serial killer look pathetic in comparison. I studied such people for a few years, recall. I strongly suspect the psychological profile of a terrorist and a member of the SS or German Army would not be that dissimilar - not obviously mentally ill, of average or above average intelligence, married or otherwise reasonably successful with women, middle class background. They have a cause, and it's regrettable, but you gotta die. And after a while, you get used to the killing. And then, the killing becomes boring. So you spice it up. You have babies thrown up into the air and then shot. You cut people's limbs off. You torture. You rape - something you wouldn't have dreamed off back home, but they're going to die anyway, so what does it matter? Just because you're doing the dirty work of Saving The World doesnt mean you can't have some fun while you're at it.
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2012, 08:28:05 AM
There's not a whole lot separating those Germans from other people besides the situation they were in.
If that's the case, who exactly is to blame? And where does accountability for committing those acts with your hands begin? Where does it end?
Accountability begins and ends in the individual. The more power over other people one has and the more rational ability to understand the consequences of one's actions, the more blame one deserves.
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2012, 09:18:13 PM
I am terrified because, as a human, I have that potential inside me as well, given the correct set of circumstances. And so do you.
The potential to do what exactly?
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 18, 2012, 10:58:03 AM
Who was the real cause behind the German's economic downfall? Dont take my word for it, but if im correct, it was the economic blockade and sanctions resulting from WWI... so in a sense, the guilt to how shitty the country was running was no other than themselves, guilt that was projected on the jewish people.
The war repayments were part of the issue, yes.
The original demands for repayment simply could not be met - which was why repayments were significantly revised in 1928, under the Young Plan. This could have been paid off...but German politicans defaulted as part of a strategy for electoral success at home and in hope of undermining the Treaty of Versailles more generally. The treaty that they were violating anyway, by having an army larger than allowed and secretly training them in advanced warfare techniques in the Soviet Union. This army was being trained because there was a broad German political consensus on the right that eastward expansion was desirable, and the sooner they could get out from under the yoke of the Treaty of Versailles and conquer the weak, fragmented states of Eastern Europe, the better.
It is worth noting that the idea for reparations came from the French experience after the Franco-Prussian War, where they were made to pay for the Prussians costs in conquering the French territory. The French argued, not without justification, that German military policy should be applied to Germany, since they are so keen on it. Of course, the French also wanted Germany as a nation broken into a series of minor statelets, never to be reunited so their position was a bit...extreme. Then again, so was the Morgenthau Plan after WWII, the American led project to reduce Germany to a pre-industrial state.
No, Jews were blamed for the "stab in the back" myth. Jews, socialists, communists and unionists. According to the myth, Germany was winning WWI, but the nerve of the above groups broke, and they undermined Germany, causing the government to collapse and then shamefully capitulating to the Allies. There were still German troops on foreign territory, so Germany was, apparently winning. Never mind their economy was one step away from total collapse, their supply lines a shambles and their troops in constant retreat. That part of the story never got told, not least because it might make Ludendorff and Hindenburg look like shameless liars and incompetents, instead of brave and noble military officers betrayed by radicals and outsiders.
Jews were also accused of being war profiteers and, after 1929, of having a hand in the Great Depression. Jews were frequently associated with the Soviet Union as well (which contradicts the whole "capitalist Jews" conspiracy theory, but never mind), not least because of the leading positions held by several Russian and Georgian Jews among the Bolsheviks.
Edit: Forgot to say, the German economy after 1933 was uniquely geared towards military expansionsim. The structural tensions caused by rearmament and dictatorship could only lead to regime collapse or war. Autarky made plunder and warfare inevitable, the militarism of the Germany Army and Nazi Party made selling it easier.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 04:11:14 PM
The Milgram experiments.
The thing isn't that we aren't responsible for our own actions, the problem is that we are smart monkeys whose wiring too easily influenced to do terrible things because other people are doing them or because someone in charge said it was all right. Soldiers everywhere are going to act like soldiers, and that should scare you.
3/40 in the Milgram experiments refused, though. It's not a high number. But it shows resistance is possible.
Above and beyond that, the cultural cues soldiers are raised with can have a massive influence on the conduct of the conflict. In the English Civil War, levels of violence were far lower than earlier models suggested they should be, and it wasn't until the models were revised for the cultural environment the war took place in. In fact, the English Civil War is an ideal case study for how institutions, leaders and culture interact to constrain political violence. Leadership, could in fact be the deciding factor, as Neil J Mitchell has suggested, in explaining the incidence of atrocities. As he notes, Cromwell and Sherman's armies, while having a reputation for ruthlessness in the field, were marked by exceptionally low incidences of rape, plunder and murder.
And military leadership will come down to how the institution of the military is structured. How are leaders selected? What talents are they looking for, what backgrounds, what qualities? The American Army, much like the British, had banned the buying of commissions, I believe, and instituted advanced officer training fairly early on, and such training was generally consummerate with the political environment of the nation in question. In Germany, Junkers were made military officers. No matter how incompetent or cruel, a Junker would be considered more suitable to lead troops than a commoner. Modern liberal democracies select for leadership skill, mental stability and political loyalty. The German Army selected based on aristocratic family connections and impressive mustaches.
Quote from: Cain on August 18, 2012, 11:25:49 PM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 04:11:14 PM
The Milgram experiments.
The thing isn't that we aren't responsible for our own actions, the problem is that we are smart monkeys whose wiring too easily influenced to do terrible things because other people are doing them or because someone in charge said it was all right. Soldiers everywhere are going to act like soldiers, and that should scare you.
3/40 in the Milgram experiments refused, though. It's not a high number. But it shows resistance is possible.
Above and beyond that, the cultural cues soldiers are raised with can have a massive influence on the conduct of the conflict. In the English Civil War, levels of violence were far lower than earlier models suggested they should be, and it wasn't until the models were revised for the cultural environment the war took place in. In fact, the English Civil War is an ideal case study for how institutions, leaders and culture interact to constrain political violence. Leadership, could in fact be the deciding factor, as Neil J Mitchell has suggested, in explaining the incidence of atrocities. As he notes, Cromwell and Sherman's armies, while having a reputation for ruthlessness in the field, were marked by exceptionally low incidences of rape, plunder and murder.
And military leadership will come down to how the institution of the military is structured. How are leaders selected? What talents are they looking for, what backgrounds, what qualities? The American Army, much like the British, had banned the buying of commissions, I believe, and instituted advanced officer training fairly early on, and such training was generally consummerate with the political environment of the nation in question. In Germany, Junkers were made military officers. No matter how incompetent or cruel, a Junker would be considered more suitable to lead troops than a commoner. Modern liberal democracies select for leadership skill, mental stability and political loyalty. The German Army selected based on aristocratic family connections and impressive mustaches.
It was more than that; I believe it was close to 1/5, and after dissenters were planted, the number of subjects who refused to go further skyrocketed, which shows the power of public dissent.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 18, 2012, 05:30:02 PM
Troof! You can't even completely blame the guys in charge. Chances are they believe that war is the only answer.
Sure you can. Just because your belief is sincere, it doesn't absolve you of any responsibility. "I sincerely believed rounding up the citizens of Lidice and killing every male over the age of 16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice#Massacre) was justified, in revenge for the muder of Reinhard Heydrich. I mean, one of his assassins came from there!" Yeah, I'm not buying it.
QuoteMaking them kill isn't as easy as it first might sound. You have to rewire their brains a bit. You do this by dehumanising the enemy. They're hun, they're gooks, they're towel heads...
Yes, every army has a tendency to dehumanise the enemy, to make killing them easier. But not every army goes on to slaughter 12 million civilians. Not every army grabs people off the streets, cuts the arms off of women, sets them on fire and then sends them running in the direction of enemy position. Not every army bayonets babies and then displays the corpses to break the will of the enemy. Not every army selects chosen ethnic groups for complete extermination, especially when they are not even ethnic groups doing most of the military resistance.
QuoteWhen you're done then, in the eyes of your footsoldiers, what they're dealing with aren't proper human beings. Why would you treat them like human beings? Just cos the rules say so but the rules also say kill the fucking things so there's no harm in flaunting those rules a bit.
Why? Because you have orders to do so. Because once looting and raping becomes endemic, army discipline breaks down. Because if you don't follow the rules, the enemy has no reason to do so either, and they might be a lot fucking scarier than you. Because your officer corps are even scarier than the enemy, and they'll sure as fuck hang you for engaging in such things. Armies do not need psychopaths, do not want them. They want people who follow orders. Furthermore, there are good strategic reasons to keep a lid on any soldiers more base desires. If the German Army had positioned themselves as liberators, rather than slaughterers, they would have faced less resistance. Their supply lines would have been more robust. Hell, Ukrainian crop yields could have supplied the entire Army, most likely. They would have had more material and personnel for fighting the Soviets on the front line, and just maybe, they would have smashed through Stalingrad and gained access to the Caucasian oil fields, thereby winning a massive strategic victory and possibly knocking the Soviet Union out of the war.
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 11:35:48 PM
It was more than that; I believe it was close to 1/5, and after dissenters were planted, the number of subjects who refused to go further skyrocketed, which shows the power of public dissent.
I'm using the only figures I have to hand, which are specifically for Milgram's 18th variation on the electrocution experiment, where the subject was the one taking notes from the actor being tortured.
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2012, 09:18:13 PM
I think what I was trying to get at is that genocide is a VERY human thing to do.
Depends what you mean by "genocide". The deliberate wiping out of an entire ethnic group is actually a fairly modern phenomenon, and has a lot to do with pseduo-science racial theories and how they link into nationalistic myths (also a relatively recent pheomonenon). Sure, human history is full of acts of massacres, cities being reduced to rubble and then salted (or not), but the concept of ethnic groups with innate characteristics simply didn't exist until a couple of hundred years ago, and so neither did the idea of wiping particular ones out. Furthermore, most historical examples of warfare were part of the process of empire-building and, as we know, empires tend to be much more cosmopolitan that nation-states. Genghis Khan, for example, was very keen that his subjects keep following their own native religions.
There is also the logistical aspect. Unless you're dealing with a very small ethnic group, genocide is impossible for anything less than an industralised state to undertake.
It still may be a very human thing to do, but it's only actually been conceptually and logistically possible since about 1800 or so.
It looks as though, as with so many things, my view on this has been over simplistic. Perhaps partially to blame is the education I got in Germany re: That Stuff. The lectures I got were certainly apologetic, heavily focused on This Can Never Happen Again. With weary, slightly disdainful looks in my general direction when the US came up.
But it's kind of funny because they didn't really focus on the way in which civilians were murdered in such numbers. At all. But I imagine that's gotta be something hard to live with, even if, especially if, it's your own not-distant-enough family who did those things.
When looking for blame though, there seems to be enough to go around. It almost seems to grossly oversimplify things to even try. Yes those people that hanged. Yes also to the troops on the ground who got lost in the frenzy of a fucked up command structure. It seems, very worryingly, as though much blame goes to the people who allowed such a weak government to exist.
It also seems like it doesn't really matter if people failed to develop a government that could withstand takeover, or if that government built a society where those things could happen. Rather, even if every group of people have the capability to commit crimes like that as a whole, it doesn't matter if the Germans were "just people". It doesn't rationalize away their acts as a result of humanity run wild because the results of those acts don't go away.
What does that say for the way the US more or less eradicated the Native Americans?
What does that say for
NET:
It's silly to guess what someone like you or someone like me would do if we were soldiers in that war, we have experiences that can't have been had by those people. Namely, we can see exactly what the wrong kind of leadership can lead us to. We have an acute awareness of these things, which is why when we see the US government doing certain things we get edgy.
I'm starting to rethink what you quoted quite a bit though.
BTW, Cain, I sure hope I get to meet you someday, have a couple drinks in a noisy place, and talk loudly about the ways in which people harm one another.
Quote from: Cain on August 18, 2012, 11:55:37 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2012, 09:18:13 PM
I think what I was trying to get at is that genocide is a VERY human thing to do.
Depends what you mean by "genocide". The deliberate wiping out of an entire ethnic group is actually a fairly modern phenomenon, and has a lot to do with pseduo-science racial theories and how they link into nationalistic myths (also a relatively recent pheomonenon). Sure, human history is full of acts of massacres, cities being reduced to rubble and then salted (or not), but the concept of ethnic groups with innate characteristics simply didn't exist until a couple of hundred years ago, and so neither did the idea of wiping particular ones out. Furthermore, most historical examples of warfare were part of the process of empire-building and, as we know, empires tend to be much more cosmopolitan that nation-states. Genghis Khan, for example, was very keen that his subjects keep following their own native religions.
There is also the logistical aspect. Unless you're dealing with a very small ethnic group, genocide is impossible for anything less than an industralised state to undertake.
It still may be a very human thing to do, but it's only actually been conceptually and logistically possible since about 1800 or so.
Columbus managed it with the Tainos, but a lot of that was probably smallpox. :x
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 04:11:14 PM
The Milgram experiments.
The thing isn't that we aren't responsible for our own actions, the problem is that we are smart monkeys whose wiring too easily influenced to do terrible things because other people are doing them or because someone in charge said it was all right. Soldiers everywhere are going to act like soldiers, and that should scare you.
And if you want to know whose fault it is, look around you. It's the fault of the nation that committed the troops. Not the policiticans, etc. The people.
Quote from: Prototype Jesus on August 19, 2012, 03:09:32 AM
Quote from: Dear Departed Uncle Nigel on August 18, 2012, 04:11:14 PM
The Milgram experiments.
The thing isn't that we aren't responsible for our own actions, the problem is that we are smart monkeys whose wiring too easily influenced to do terrible things because other people are doing them or because someone in charge said it was all right. Soldiers everywhere are going to act like soldiers, and that should scare you.
And if you want to know whose fault it is, look around you. It's the fault of the nation that committed the troops. Not the policiticans, etc. The people.
I voted Obama. (Yeah, I know..) Otherwise we'd have had McCain and the stress would have killed him in like, 3 months and PALIN would be running the show now. So yeah. Obama. Drone strikes. Dead kids. Blood's on my hands. Not that my vote COUNTED, but the intent to support Obama was there.
Alternative du jour? Romney. FUCK NO. Two man con, etc. etc.
Options: Vote drone strikes, loony sociopathic GOP guy, throw away a vote on somebody without a snowball's chance in hell (Green Party, etc.) or just sit it out and say "I didn't vote for none o those motherfuckers".
Solution? SCRAP THE WHOLE MOTHERFUCKER. Revolution, y'all. Yeah, we'd all be dead. And they'd still be blowing up little kids.
It's like trying to boycott products from China. We're fucked. [/obvious]