Honour in Combat

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Black Jack Pershing II:

And I will reiterate, the point of a trial is to ascertain facts; if there is no dispute as to the facts, there is no need for a trial.

To what extent does summarily executing defendants reduce their ability to dispute the facts of a case?

[Black Jack Pershing II]

Andreas:

Do you have any reliable stats on the number of conscripts in the SS? Doing internet research on questions like this ends to lead to websites that I would really prefer not to have in my log.

My understanding had always been that although the SS relaxed its entrance requirements as the war went on, it continued to attract volunteers. There may have been some conscription late in the war, but the absolute numbers were very low.

Grimthane:

I am curious what you think the purpose of a trial is, if not to ascertain facts.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

If a film can make otherwise reasonable people like you or me at least temporarily abandon precepts about fairness and law we have been taught all our lives, then ask yourself: What must if have been like for those U.S. soldiers, who were in a real total war and confronted by not images of a concentration camp, but the actual stinking real thing?

This is an entirely fair point; but the idea of a "crime of passion" is that the perpetrator can claim strength of emotion as a mitigating circumstance, not that extreme emotion renders legal or just those things that would not otherwise be.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

As some one who almost always supports due process and restraint on the power of government, I can see how I ticked you off. But reread my previous post. I see a concentration camp as an exception to the rule. That is far from saying due process needs to be thrown out the window, all the time in all situaitons.

I didn't say anything even remotely resembling an accusation that you wanted due process thrown out of the window all the time. I asked if we could conclude from your utterances that the other 1% of the time you're opposed to due process when it's a question of protecting the innocent. It seems that we can.

I fail to see what this has got to do with limiting the power of government, by the way -- insofar as the blokes who massacred the KZ guards were not following legal orders of their superior officers, they were not acting as agents of government, and I do not believe that the US government has or would have made any claim that they were acting other than ultra vires and unofficially.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

In my opinion, at least from a technical point of view, there is such a thing as collective guilt.

[snips]

So, do I advocate punishing each and every German, judically or maybe some other way, for that comlicity? I do not.

[snips]

I would say a concentration camp staffed by S.S. guards is a different kettle of fish.

So it seems clear that you indeed believe in both collective guilt and collective punishment, and I had indeed correctly interpreted your position. I find it impossible to imagine how someone who believes in collective punishment -- which inevitably entails the punishment of an individual for a wrong they did not commit -- can fairly complain about being told he doesn't know what justice is.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

So what's just, under these conditions?

What's just doesn't change with conditions. What's practical does; and it may be that under some circumstances there are choices to be made about the lesser of two evils. But I cannot see how not shooting the wrong bunch of people is a lesser evil than declining to do so, nor how killing someone who wasn't a KZ guard brings any measure of justice to a KZ guard who legged it and is miles away at the time.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

I submit that the scale of the crime demands punishment, full stop. It was so bad, and it was so critical society acknowledge it was bad in order to prevent repetition, that the need for punishment of the guilty trumps the need for protection of the innocent.

Again, I say that I cannot tell the difference between your position and the idea that "some crimes are so terrible that people must be punished whether they are guilty or not".

No crime demands "punishment, full stop", they only ever demand punishment for the perpetrator.

Nor, on a matter of practicality, do I believe that indiscriminate retribution does anything to "prevent repetition". On the contrary, I suspect it's usually more likely to encourage it.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

The innocent in this group were terribly few, in any case. Even the western legal system acknowledges that precents may be set aside in extreme circumstances: for instance the suspension of habeus corpus in a wartime society.

I'd be interested to know of any case where such measures were justufued on grounds of justice, rather than on grounds of practicality; and especially, those in which they involved killing people.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

You can disagree with that attitude, I think I understand your concerns. But I think, at minimum, you owe me an apology by accusing me of not knowing due process "if it bit me."

I didn't accuse you of not knowing due process, I accused you of not recognising justice. Since you seem to have made it perfectly clear that you consider killing people for a crime they were not guilty of, I think the allegation is perfectly fair. I'll apologise if I have somehow managed to misunderstand your position, but you seem to have made it quite clear. As I can't bring myself to see how a little colourful language is somehow more reprehensible than advocating murder, I'm afraid no apology will be forthcoming otherwise.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

In my opinion just because a rule is writting in a Mililtary Justice Code, a person in a uniform is certainly not freed from the obligation of thinking about right and wrong. Yes, I am quite aware this undermines combat efficiency, and I am also aware young men in particular are not inclined to think this way.

What gives you the idea that thinking about right and wrong undermines combat efficiency? Soldiers are unlikely to fight very well if they don't believe they are doing the right thing. And I think it is generally acknowledged that the prospect of personal extinction makes people think furiously about this sort of thing at any age. Certainly when I shot my first APWT at TA recruit camp, there was a good deal of discussion in the hut that night about the moral questions that would arise if ever those figure-11 targets were replaced by living, breathing people.

If we were to haul ourselves for a moment out of the current rabbit-hole the thread has disappeared down, I think Mr. Jingles might be able to make something of the surmise that it is necessary to convince soldiers that it is honourable to kill, and so military effectivness depends critically on imbuing such a sense of honour (unless the implications of the act of killing can be diluted by technological distancing). After all, the Waffen-SS were fiends for honour; just not the sort of honour I recognise.

All the best,

John.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Black Jack Pershing II:

I am curious what you think the purpose of a trial is, if not to ascertain facts.

To try the accused in a proceeding that is equal and fair to both sides.

The trial is merely a proceeding in which those facts, which are ascertained long beforehand, are made public to thus prove the accused's guilt or innocence.

I have to admit I am blown away by the fact that I am explaining this to you given your line of work.

[Grimthane]

To expand a little on what Kingfish has pointed out, the ascertainment of facts is certainly part of a trial. But it doesn't end there. There is that odd business of due process, establishing an appropriate punishment, the avoidance of undesirable precedent setting, the exposure to public comment, the sampling of a range of opinion as to guilt and I expect quite a few other matters that lawyers would know best about.

At the risk of being bagged for straying off topic, there are a bunch of Aussies who just got sentenced to the firing squad for being caught with heroin strapped to them in Bali airport. This is a killing offence there (like it or not). By your line of reasoning the arresting officer would have been justified in pulling out his sidearm and blowing them away on the spot.

There was no dispute about the facts, so why have a trial, right?

If even countries like Indonesia think there's something wrong with that, perhaps those representing the forces of truth and justice in the West might do well to consider why.

But back to honour in combat.

From the report of proceedings at Dachau, I got the impression that there were a couple of officers mentioned who intervened to stop the shootings.

Bigduke and others have made much of the red mist, and we all agree that a worse sight can scarcely be imagined. But if it was so bad that any decent man would reach for his gun, how could those officers have stepped in to stop it? Why didn't they join in?

I agree with Michael - there is a code, they knew it, and the guys doing the shooting knew they were breaking it. We can sympathise with their lack of self control, but we cannot say it was unavoidable, because people there did avoid it.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Black Jack Pershing II:

Andreas:

Do you have any reliable stats on the number of conscripts in the SS? Doing internet research on questions like this ends to lead to websites that I would really prefer not to have in my log.

No, all I can tell you is that it was not insignificant, since it co-incided with the expansion of the W-SS and the heavy losses of the late war that needed to be replaced. But if you are really interested, you can ask the question on the AHF.

For the purpose of this discussion, I thought it would be clear that one would be one too many, if he ended up in the group at Dachau.

All the best

Andreas

[Bigduke6]

John D. Salt,

There is a difference between thinking about justice, and concluding that the scale of a crime is so big that punishing the guilty outweighs the rights of the innocent; and not thinking about justice at all.

My definition of justice might be rendered as: "What is right and fair for society." If there is a conflict in assigning value to the legal rights of, for instance, victims and accused, as a practical thing I almost always will come down on the side of the accused, but in any case I try and weigh the values from my starting point: What is right and fair for society.

I do not assume that the rights of the individual must, at all times, under all circumstances, outweigh the rights of the accused, or - in this case. I try and place in my "scales of justice" a moral need to make sure the guilty are punished severely, completely, and in a way so the really bad crimes never get repeated again.

Your definition of justice seems to be narrower. For there to be justice, as I read you, the rights of the innocent must be protected, always, completely, full stop, at the expense of everything else if necesary. If guilty go free as a result of that, in your opinion, that is a price society must pay for the greater good of ensuring proper legal protections to its members.

You say: What is just does not vary due to conditions.

Well, I disagree. That is the crux of my arguement.

I say: An organization of thousands of people devoted to the systematic commitment of the worst possible crimes, and with the individual crimes probably numbering in at least the millions (multiply camp personnel by days by individual incidents of cruelty and worse) is off the scale.

I say: The concentration camp crimes clearly took place, and the western legal system is incapable of serving justice to the perpetrators of those crimes. The scale of the crimes were simply too massive, the brutality of those crimes was too depraved, and the ability of the perpetrators to avoid punishment too good, for proper judicial proceedings to have rendered justice.

I say: A slavish, unwavering, unthinking, unreasoned devotion to due process, in the face of crimes due process is incapable of dealing with, amounts to sacrificing justice at the alter of due process.

Here's a challenge for you. For practical purposes, the system for rendering justice to people complicit in concentration camp crime - courts, due process, etc. - was in place in the latter days of the war and after the war ended. Summary executions by soldiers hit with the red mist were an exception. So we don't have to speculate, we have a historical test case of how well your approach to justice - protect the innocent, let the courts handle it, etc. - dealt with people involved in running concentration camps:

So what do you think? Was justice done? Did all the people involved in running the concentration camps get just punishments? A significant number? Even a few? Were all, some, or a few of the perpetrators tried? Was there even a serious effort to find suspects? Could there have been? As a rule, were the guilty prevented from re-entering society?

This is why I say the soldiers executing the S.S. guards were probably rendering justice. Due process, no matter how much one likes it, was not going to work, even remotely, in the case of concentration camps. Unless individual soldiers did something - summary executions - for practical purposes, the individual perpetrators were going to get away scot free.

But if you can show me how the western legal system - to use a pat phrase - did a better job than that at punishing people complicit in running concentration camps, I'll make you an apology.

What you and I are in conflict over is where the greater good for society is. We both want justice, it's just that we assign different values to the practical components of justice, and so come up with a different recipe for achieving justice.

I am thinking about justice, the whole point behind this discussion, as far as I am concerned, is how to find the most justice in a situation where the scale of the crime makes the normal means of ensuring justice is done pretty much ineffective.

Just because my definition of justice differs from yours does not give you good grounds to accuse me of not being able to recognize it, unless of course your definition of justice is "Justice only as defined by John D. Salt".

[JonS]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

I do not assume that the rights of the individual must, at all times, under all circumstances, outweigh the rights of the accused, or - in this case. I try and place in my "scales of justice" a moral need to make sure the guilty are punished severely, completely, and in a way so the really bad crimes never get repeated again.

That is all very well, but you have not, and cannot, show that any guilty men were actually punished at Dachau. And if no guilty men were 'punished', then were does that leave us? 30+ dead Germans, and a group of murdering GIs.

[GasMask]

Any way you slice it, war is hell, and honor and chivelry only comes after the war when stories are told. Durring the conflict, it's survival and the mission at hand. If that's recueing an inslaved people then fine, that's chivalress, but war is still war until it's over, then you can call it other things.

(yes my spelling is bad)

[flamingknives]

GasMask:

I would have thought that a Marine would have some comprehension of the word 'Discipline'?

In any case, can I recommend that you read Sydney Jary's "18 Platoon"? He disagrees that soldiers must be brutal to be effective. As an infantry platoon commander for nearly the whole NWE campaign, I rather suspect he knows his subject.

Basically, life and death are what you make of them. If you go into something thinking that it is going to be hell, guess what? You'll probably get what you make of it.

[GasMask]

I don't understand why you say I'm not comprehending discipline. That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I said that war is hell, and there is nothing good about it. Sometimes you must fight for what is right, or for freedom, or to stop an evil enemy. The United States has done that quite a few times, but it doesn't change the fact that war, is war, and it's not fun, and it's not good, and it's men dying, and it's little kids dying.

I joined the Marine Corps to help people and to do a service to my country, so I'm not saying going to war is wrong, I'm just saying that it's war and when a man is fighting in it, he's not thinking, oh this is honorable, or this is chivelress; he's thinking, I hope I can survive this and complete the mission at hand to the best of my abilities.

So don't go saying that I don't understand discipline, and please don't try to shove any more words down my throat.

Basically I'm just saying that the outcome or the justification for a war can be honorable, however it doesn't change the fact that a war is brutle and it's about death and distruction. Just because you try to do your best to preserve life doesn't mean there will be no life lost, because the other guy isn't going to want to play nice, and that is why we have wars.

Do you think the United States went into WWII saying, we're going to kill everyone? No, they went in thinking of the best way to end it and as fast as possible, but the Germens didn't want to be conquered so you thus have death. Honor and Chivelry are just words to suger coat the horrors of war, and reading a book doesn't put you on the front lines. And I'm sure thatSydney Jary doesn't like war either; just because you are serving, or doing your duty or you have strong discipline and do what your told, doesn't mean you love war, no man should love war. Yeah, I'm sure Patton did, but he was a General; and with all do respect, I love the man, but he's not in the trenches. It's easy to love war when you're directing it and not fighting it.

War is fun as a video game, but as real life, it should be the last option always because innocent lives always get lost, and that's a tragedy.

You know what? I'll put a link on here to a web site that shows videos of attacks in Iraq. Click on the video called IRAQI SNIPER DEDICATES 9 BULLETS TO BUSH. It shows 9 US troops being sniped in the head as they talk to kids in Iraq. Sure they went in there to be nice and talk to kids and make peace, but this sniper asshole shoots them, if that's not HELL, then you tell me what it is. I'm sick of people acting like war is a passtime to watch on the news and discuss at work.

http://www.ogrish.com/index2.html

[Tagwyn]

Gas Mask: I have already tried to tell the ninnies on this forum this same thing. They ridiculed me and will probably do the same to you. You can't tell anything to people who have preconcieved notions of what a "true Soldier(?) is. If you have to burn a few plantations and a couple of vills and a city or two, then so be it. Until the enemy surrenders they are all targets. Tag

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Tagwyn:

If you have to burn a few plantations and a couple of vills and a city or two, then so be it. Until the enemy surrenders they are all targets. Tag

All well and good if the enemy is actively defending those plantations, vills and cities, which is not what we are talking about here.

[Nidan1]

Nice website GasMask, posting that crap will get you banned AGAIN.

[GasMask]

I don't see why that web site will get me banned. It shows history in the making. I guess videos and images of REAL war upsets you, well why don't you try actually being there like me; then maybe you'd get half the stuff I talk about.

And please, stop saying I'm someone else. I've never been banned and this is my first account here. If you want proof why don't you ask the Administrators of the website for my IP, then compare my IP with the IP of the person you think I am. I can tell you now they are differnt because I'm new to this site. So I'm asking you nicely and man to man; stay off my back and stop calling me a lyer. These boards arn't for harrassment, so either discuss the topic or be quiet. I'm beginning to think you are some school kid; please don't embarrass your self more.

[Nidan1]

Gack!!! I'm going to gag...."history in the making"???? Yeah, I guess "raped and murdered in Brazil" is your idea of history?

[GasMask]

I'm not talking about that stuff man. Even though that stuff is reality, I'm talking about the war footage it has. By watching the insurgents film thier attacks you can see how they think, and act, and thus what they will do in the future. I don't go there all the time, and when I do it's not for enjoyment.

If you go to search, it also has footage of WWII vietnam, and many other wars. Maybe this is the only way you can actually get a feel for the real world because you sound like you are still drinking from the nipple, and are oblivious to reality.

[Nidan1]

There is a lot more to the real world than death, mayhem and war.

[GasMask]

I know that, but you can't ignore it, especially if you are going to play war games, and come on this website acting like you know all about the military; because death, mayhem, and war is what's always on a fighting man's mind. Sorry, if my head is full of gloom, I try my best to keep my mind off it, but in todays world it can be difficult. As I said before I don't wish to argue with you, but if you'd like to discuss then I'm all for that.

[76mm]

This is why I say the soldiers executing the S.S. guards were probably rendering justice. Due process, no matter how much one likes it, was not going to work, even remotely, in the case of concentration camps. Unless individual soldiers did something - summary executions - for practical purposes, the individual perpetrators were going to get away scot free.

Big Duke--just so that I understand your position--are you saying that because due process has unjustly protected thousands of concentration camp guards until the present day, that I or anyone else would be perfectly justified in simply walking up and killing someone that I had a reasonable belief might have been a concentration camp guard? Presumbably no statute of limitations should apply, because such statutes are after all, another manifestation of due process preventing true justice being done.

And another question: I know that you are extremely knowledgeable about the Soviet Union and currently live in Ukraine. I am a bit shocked that someone with this background could condone collective responsibility, given the horrific uses to which it was put by the Soviets. The wholesale slaughter of the kulaks and unnumbered other categories of people whose existence supposedly threatened the Soviet state--was that "justice" (assuming that the commissars really believed that they posed a threat)? And where does collective responsibility stop? Why not also kill the families of those SS camp guards? After all, they no doubt benefitted from their position and moreover such a policy would presumably contribute to justice by deterring some people from becoming guards. And now that we're at it, how about wiping out the villages where the camps where located? Their inhabitants surely knew what was going on and yet enabled the camps' existence by providing rations, etc.

You might try to argue their your "collective responsibility" is somehow different from what I've outlined above, but I contend that it is no different and indeed cannot be any different, for once you deviate from the principal that an individual is responsible for his own actions and only for his own actions, there is no logical stopping point.

[76mm]

Originally posted by Gasmask

I'll put a link on here to a web site that shows videos of attacks in Iraq. Click on the video called IRAQI SNIPER DEDICATES 9 BULLETS TO BUSH. It shows 9 US troops being sniped in the head as they talk to kids in Iraq. Sure they went in there to be nice and talk to kids and make peace, but this sniper asshole shoots them, if that's not HELL, then you tell me what it is.

Gasmask: clearly the type of situation you describe is horrific and it perfectly illustrates why the current war in Iraq is so difficult, both for the nation (US) and especially for the troops.

But what point are you trying to make? That the US soldiers involved would be justified in retaliating against the kids, who might have been complicit in the sniping? Or that because of the sniping the US forces would be justified in obliterating the surrounding buildings to "accomplish their mission"? Note that I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to determine which side you're arguing.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by GasMask:

I know that, but you can't ignore it, especially if you are going to play war games, and come on this website acting like you know all about the military; because death, mayhem, and war is what's always on a fighting man's mind. Sorry, if my head is full of gloom, I try my best to keep my mind off it, but in todays world it can be difficult. As I said before I don't wish to argue with you, but if you'd like to discuss then I'm all for that.

Maybe that is why you come to this website. Take a survey of how many "fighting men" as you put it are on theis website. We are PLAYING WAR GAMES here, that is the difference. If you want to spout your gung ho, Macho "kill em all and let God sort it out" views of life, then go on the forum from that link you posted. There seems to be a lot of folks with your point of view posting there.

I'm tired of death, killing, war and suffering, I've seen enough of it in my lifetime. GasMask, grow up and take a look at your kids...do you want this kind of world for them? All the killing will not end the problems.

[GasMask]

Once again Nidan1, you have misunderstood me. I never talked of killing everyone. If you actually read my post, I say that war is wrong and brutle; but if the out come is freedom, or helping an enslaved people then it is justified. I also said that the "good guys" usually go into a war thinking that instead of killing everyone, they want to do good and end it as fast as possible; however, the enemy has different plans and thus, that is why we have brutle conflics and innocents dying.

"War is fun as a video game, but as real life, it should be the last option always because innocent lives always get lost, and that's a tragedy."

This is what I said in my other post. Does this sound like a guy who wants death and war? No man, I'm speaking against war, however at the same time I'm saying war can be justified if the out come is for good.

However, durring that war no inocent lives should be harmed on purpose, only the people who are fighting against you. If a kid picks up an ak and points it at you, then you must kill him, but if you go into a village that might be housing terrorist, you can't destroy that village on a hunch; that is wrong.

My views are this. I hate war, you should only fight as a last resort.

However, if the out come is good then war can be for good (such as WWII, and we tried to keep North Vietnam from invading South Vietnam; same thing in Korea, but in Korea we succeeded).

And durring war, only fight the enemey, do not harm those who are not fighting you.

Ok, I've laid it out there, so don't make me sound like a "macho, kill'em all and let god sort'em out" guy, cause I'm not, and how does my views on war seem inmature? I think it's very mature.

As I said earlier though, I was a Marine, and would fight to the gates of hell if that was my mission, so don't think I'm protesting anything.

[GasMask]

"But what point are you trying to make? That the US soldiers involved would be justified in retaliating against the kids, who might have been complicit in the sniping?"

No no no. The kids have nothing to do with it. Usually the kids love us over there. That's why the insurgents piss me off so bad. They know that the kids love us and want to talk to us, and as soon as they get close, they shoot us, and the kids run away terrified, it's very upsetting. You should never take your anger out on kids or civilians unless they are clearly shooting at you. If you watch that video, the kids are happy to see the Marine/Soldier. It's very disturbing; and I hope some how this thing can end soon. But of course we've got to complete the mission first.

[76mm]

Gasmask--OK, just checking!

There's lots of subthreads within this thread and I sort of lost track of what you were arguing about...