Deserter leads anti-war march

[HUGGY]

Depends on who are you refusing to obey and on who are you refusing to fight.

Their are instance when refusing orders is more brave than following orders, I kinda doubt that this is the case here though.

Also, openly refusing orders and making a public statement most certainly is more brave than refusing orders and totally hiding from the public, which is what the majority of the deserters are likely doing.

I believe more follow orders out of fear than duty. Unless one thinks its ones duty to murder people for the benefit of a handfull of international energy corporations.

 

[HUGGY]

For craps sake, HUGGY. Give the English/Irish thing a rest - it's old, tired, and passe. You're an American.

For craps sake Si Modo..didn't you ever see roots? You wouln'd say it's old ***** if I was black!

 

[mightypeon]

@ Huggy, that could very well be, but I would rather not attempt to guess what motivates the majority of the US troops. I would also argue that the reasons cited by anti war deserters should not neccessary be taken for face value.

Who do you think was the "braver" German, Guderian or Stauffenberg?

 

[uscitizen]

Boosh was a deserter?

 

[HUGGY]

@ Huggy, that could very well be, but I would rather not attempt to guess what motivates the majority of the US troops. I would also argue that the reasons cited by anti war deserters should not neccessary be taken for face value.

Who do you think was the "braver" German, Guderian or Stauffenberg?

I've watched hundreds of documenteries of Germany over the years and those two names don't ring a bell. Care to define who they are?

I don't speak for soldiers in uniform. As many do on this MB I offer my own opinion. I believe most enlist because of economic conditions in thier lives. Even the dumbest soldier knows or should know that Iraq was a mistake and the training camps in Afgahnistan were cleared out 6 years ago. It is comon knowledge that there are only a few dozen Al Queda left in the border mountains and now the reason to be there is mute.

I doubt any that enlist are afraid to die...in that sense being a coward. What I have to respect is someone that does not want to kill wrongfully or die wasting that sacrifice for a wrongfull military adventure.

Don't even try to call me a pacifist. I love to fight. I am not one of those foolish lads that challenges every car that pulls up next to me at a stop sign. I pick my enemies carefully. I reject out of hand any attemp to have my enemy picked for me.

 

[germanguy]

To add to your enlightenment:

General Heinz Guderian, was a very famous tank general in WWII, proclaimed inventor of the Blitzkrieg (Lightning War), the german tactics of combined use of air force, infantry, tanks and artillery.
Actually he wrote a small book "Achtung Panzer !" (Attention tanks" )which advocated the use of massed tanks buildt up on one Schwerpunkt (point of weight) at the front and punch through it, while using close air support and armored and motorized infantry to follow. This use of combined arms made the early successes in WWII possible.

Although he had several rows with Hitler about how to lead the war, he never joined the opposition. He was never accused of any war crimes and especially the British often invited him to discuss former battles.
He can be seen as one example of the professional soldier who served personally honorable, but in service to an inhumane government.

Oberst Claus Graf Schenck von Stauffenberg, a suebian aristocrat who had a flawless career as a professional soldier.
Lost three fingers of his right hand and one eye in battle.
At the 20. July 1944 he made the attempt to kill Hitler with a bomb in his Headquarters in East Prussia.
After the explosion he flew to Berlin and unsuccessfully tried to initiate a coup d´etat with the "Operation Walküre (Operation Valkyrie)". For details watch Valkyrie with Tom Cruise, it is pretty accurate.

When it was clear that Hitler survived the blast, the coup failed. Stauffenberg and his fellow officers were shot in the inner courtyard of the Bendlerblock.
His last words were "Long live sacred Germany".

One of the initiator of this coup, General-Major Henning von Tresckow, blew himself up with a tank mine. Other received a show trial and were hanged with piano-wires.
Their death was filmed and shown to Hitler, later on it was shown to cadets as a warning.

The place he and his followers were shot at is a memorial today. The inscription says:
"You bear no shame. You have resisted".

Stauffenberg was, so to say, the other extreme of Guderian.

On one side the brilliant soldier, serving his state without bearing any personal guilt. Still his government had let him fight an immoral war.
The other extreme the aristocrat with a long familiy history in military service.
He decided, that it was impossible for him to fulfil his oath and therefore made an attempt to save his country and millions of future victims from death.
By doing so he needed a different kind of bravery than is needed on a battlefield.
Not only following his own conscience, but also risking the very life of his wife and four children. But he was determined to do what he considered was right and just.

To compare these men with the mentioned british deserter will lead a little bit too far.
Being a deserter today will not bring you in front of a firing squad.

Still, the question remains: How far any government can go and can any soldier decide for himself, that his government is doing wrong ?

Is the refusal to participate in a war, even for the professional soldier, mutiny or can he claim, that his conscience commands him to refuse an order ?

I personally can only cite two prussian soldiers:

I have chosen disgrace, when obedience brought no honor (inscription on the tomb of Johann Friedrich Adolf von der Marwitz, who disobeyed an order to plunder)

Next one is from Henning von Tresckow, one of Stauffenberg´s co-conspirateurs:

The idea of freedom can never be disassociated from real Prussia. The real Prussian spirit means a synthesis between restraint and freedom, between voluntary subordination and conscientious leadership, between pride in oneself and consideration for others, between rigor and compassion. Unless a balance is kept between these qualities, the Prussian spirit is in danger of degenerating into soulless routine and narrow-minded dogmatism.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[Sunni Man]

Stauffenberg is still viewed as a traitor by many Germans today.

And in fact, he was a traitor to both Germany and the German people.

 

[mightypeon]

No he is not.
Period.

 

[germanguy]

Sunni Man, you are a wee man.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[Munin]

Stauffenberg would have saved many German lives, if the coup would have succeeded. The same could be said of Guderian if he succeeded in his superior military strategies, so both of them saved many german lives.

Obviously, now looking back at history (which is easy for us to say now): we can say that Stauffenberg would have saved the most German lives.

I d say that Stauffenberg deserves most credit, his actions were bolder and took more risk than Guderian ever had to take and would have changed the war on a bigger scale. He risked his life, family, friends, kids, ... (everything) for his people. What personal risk did Guderian take (that he wouldn't have to take otherwise: as a general?)

But it also depends on how the coup would have affected germany: if it would have been more occupied by the Soviets than it was Guderian who had made the best choice (the same way that stalin took poland and the other eastern countries through negotiations with Roosevelt).

Looking back now, we can say that Hitler was the real traitor (he didn't really give what he promised the german people during the elections).



I wonder if we can say the same now about Bush and Blair?

 

[Sunni Man]

Hitler had the right idea, but he wasn't much of a general.

We should have left him alone and let him defeat the bolshevik communist Jews in Russia.

 

[HUGGY]

Hitler had the right idea, but he wasn't much of a general.

We should have left him alone and let him defeat the bolshevik communist Jews in Russia.

Hitler was not a general of any kind. He had lots of them working for him. His problem was that he was not honorable. He was a liar and a back stabber. He had many of his own top guys murdered. That made his people start to act in thier own best interests and not in his.

 

[Alvin]

No he is not.
Period.

Technically he was. - At the time. Just as the founding fathers of the United States and our founders were...
However after 1945, Staffenberg can not be considered a traitor.

 

[Alvin]

Hitler had the right idea, but he wasn't much of a general.

We should have left him alone and let him defeat the bolshevik communist Jews in Russia.

Hitler was not a general of any kind. He had lots of them working for him. His problem was that he was not honorable. He was a liar and a back stabber. He had many of his own top guys murdered. That made his people start to act in thier own best interests and not in his.

Hitler was an idiot, who was blinded by his own success early on and finally bit off more than he could chew.
Napolean made the same mistake. All of the honour in the world would not have saved him once he took on the Russians. If he ad have consolodated his gains in western Europe then waited until the 50's before taking on Russia...the world would certainly be a different place today.

 

[Munin]

Hitler had the right idea, but he wasn't much of a general.

We should have left him alone and let him defeat the bolshevik communist Jews in Russia.

Hitler was not a general of any kind. He had lots of them working for him. His problem was that he was not honorable. He was a liar and a back stabber. He had many of his own top guys murdered. That made his people start to act in thier own best interests and not in his.

You seem to be confusing hitler with stalin: hitler was some kind of general (but he did not do a great purge or anything like it, most of the old generals were still in place: fe manstein) he constantly interfered with his generals decisions, his interference was part of the reason why the germans lost the war against the Soviet Union and the global war. And this is also why the allies stopped their assasination attemps on him: because he was doing more harm by his military decisions than they could do by taking him out.

Hitler was an idiot, who was blinded by his own success early on and finally bit off more than he could chew.
Napolean made the same mistake. All of the honour in the world would not have saved him once he took on the Russians. If he ad have consolodated his gains in western Europe then waited until the 50's before taking on Russia...the world would certainly be a different place today.

Although most of what you say is right, I m not so sure that the Soviet Union was so invincible at that time. In the first months of the war the Russian army was practically defeated (because of the succes of the blitzkrieg doctrine), if they then had concentrated (instead of separating their armies) their assault on moskow fe they might have had different results. It is true that the SU was one of the hardest ennemies to defeat, mainly because the ennemy of the SU does not only have to face armies but also hostile terrain and weather. (which were also areas where the germans made mistakes) But even a difficult ennemy can be defeated, the germans proved it by closing in to about 30 or 40 miles from moscow despite the many unforgivable mistakes (not being prepared for winter being one major mistakes, another one was withdrawing tanks from the battle of the bulge to fight in italy, ...) that were made.

 

[Sunni Man]

Hitler was an idiot, who was blinded by his own success early on and finally bit off more than he could chew.
Napolean made the same mistake. All of the honour in the world would not have saved him once he took on the Russians. If he ad have consolodated his gains in western Europe then waited until the 50's before taking on Russia...the world would certainly be a different place today.

Although, Napolean was vilified for years by his people.

He is now seen as a nation hero and patriot in France.

Hitler is currently disliked in German and seen as a villan.

But a hundred years from now.

Hitler's image will be rehabilited in Germany, and he will be seen as a hero and a patriot to the Fatherland.

 

[Alvin]

Hitler was an idiot, who was blinded by his own success early on and finally bit off more than he could chew.
Napolean made the same mistake. All of the honour in the world would not have saved him once he took on the Russians. If he ad have consolodated his gains in western Europe then waited until the 50's before taking on Russia...the world would certainly be a different place today.

Although, Napolean was vilified for years by his people.

He is now seen as a nation hero and patriot in France.

Hitler is currently disliked in German and seen as a villan.

But a hundred years from now.

Hitler's image will be rehabilited in Germany, and he will be seen as a hero and a patriot to the Fatherland.

No.
He won't.

Simple as that.

 

[Munin]

Hitler was an idiot, who was blinded by his own success early on and finally bit off more than he could chew.
Napolean made the same mistake. All of the honour in the world would not have saved him once he took on the Russians. If he ad have consolodated his gains in western Europe then waited until the 50's before taking on Russia...the world would certainly be a different place today.

Although, Napolean was vilified for years by his people.

He is now seen as a nation hero and patriot in France.

Hitler is currently disliked in German and seen as a villan.

But a hundred years from now.

Hitler's image will be rehabilited in Germany, and he will be seen as a hero and a patriot to the Fatherland.

Napoleon has signigicant differences from hitler (both ideologically and morally), also the age that his actions took place in was completely different (different moral values and different view of war). If seen in the context of history: Hitler will still look bad, unlike napoleon (who had also done some significant individual heroic accomplishments). History is also better preserved these days, concentration camps and other cruelties that Hitler used against his own people (yes, even germans were placed in concentration camps) and foreigners will not as soon be forgotten.

 

[publicprotector]

This thread should be titled brave man leads anti war march. The current wars in the ME are illegal and the actions taking place against the countries involved are war crimes in which the participants be they politicians and combatents should be arrested and tried for war crimes.

 

[Colin]

This thread should be titled brave man leads anti war march. The current wars in the ME are illegal and the actions taking place against the countries involved are war crimes in which the participants be they politicians and combatents should be arrested and tried for war crimes.

Wrong! The war in Afghanistan is not illegal. Just the smallest amount of research will illustrate that.