More stupid U.S. Marines

[Raellus]

Waiting for Something,

No one is saying that the SS was the most evil military organization in history. Many, many others have committed terrible attrocities. I could go on and on and on with example after example. That's not the argument here.

The argument that I am trying to make is that the SS, as an organization, was pretty awful and should not be lauded or celebrated by the fighting men and women of the United States, a nation instrumental in the downfall of the Nazi regime/war machine.

Your argument appears to be that the SS are simply misunderstood and are being treated unfairly by us "politically correct" types. In your reply to Legbreaker, you imply that the Nazis/SS did some good things and that, taken as a whole, the good the Nazis did outweighs the bad. Is that a fair characterization of your point? What, may I ask, are the good things that they did? I'm curious.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Raellus

What, may I ask, are the good things that they did? I'm curious.

They had great bonfires.

Books! I'm talking about the books!

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Raellus

What, may I ask, are the good things that they did? I'm curious.

Made cool uniforms ja!



Sorry Rae... I know you are trying to have a serious conversation.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Made cool uniforms ja!

Remember, the side with the better uniforms loses

[Legbreaker]

Yes, many, MANY other entities have committed attrocities of varying horror, however as far as I am aware, only the Nazis (and perhaps USSR) made a concerted effort to specifically wipe out an entire ethnicity with clinical and industrial precision.
We can indeed abhore the actions carried out by others, but only the nazis deserve 100% of our revulsion and loathing.
By comparison, people like Charles Manson barely got their toes wet in the shallow end of the kiddies paddling pool.

The question of this thread should be simple. Should the US Marines be using insignia which can at best be mistaken as that of another unit guilty of some of the most heinous crimes against humanity - or not?
My answer - HELL NO!!!

[micromachine]

Hello All;

I enjoy the commentary on this site in general, however, I am finding this somewhat offensive. Cooler heads need to prevail on this, as we all have polarized opinions on the subject of "SS" runes and the morality of soldiers and the command structure. That it has garnered this much attention is disturbing enough. Let's just say that elite forces tend to try and emulate other elite forces and move on.

Just my opinion!

[Webstral]

Micromachine, on almost any other subject I'd endorse your advise about moving on. The presence of Nazi symbology in the US military is a subject on which I cannot agree to disagree, for all the reasons I have already given. If put into practice in the US, the Nazi philosophy would mean the end of the American way of life and the end of life for tens of millions of Americans. Regardless of motivation, we cannot tolerate open Nazi hero worship and/or emulation in the US military. If these guys want to be like the SS, they are in the wrong military. If they simply admire the fighting prowess of the SS (which is very understandable), they need to find a way of expressing themselves in a way that does not juxtapose the national colors and Nazi symbols.

[manunancy]

I'lm wondering what kind of reaction would have be caused by a display of soviet-related iconography. Unlikely since they're generaly viewed as losers, but I'm curious.

[micromachine]

Hey Webstral;

I agree with you, however, we are dealing with a different sort here. Let us all remember that soldiers are not the same as average people. They are volunteers for the most part who are at peak strength and conditioning, who are taught they are "supermen" from basic training onwards. I know that is not in any field manual, but let us be honest. No military wants the soldiers to be a collection of worry warts and politically correct hole punchers, as this will lead to conflict. Once again, I do not condone this activity, however I can see the attraction to it by young soldiers who probably are not totally aware of the meaning of the symbology.
Look at some of the legendary figures of US soldiery(or any countries military) and I am sure you will see at least some of the "dark side" of these figures has helped make them legends in the first place.
As for Soviet area icons in the military, look at the NTC training units. They use modified US pattern gear ( to look like the real deal), captured or purchased equipment, and not to mention Soviet style tactics. Taken out of context, that would look like an endorsement of the same!

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Waiting for Something,

No one is saying that the SS was the most evil military organization in history. Many, many others have committed terrible attrocities. I could go on and on and on with example after example. That's not the argument here.

The argument that I am trying to make is that the SS, as an organization, was pretty awful and should not be lauded or celebrated by the fighting men and women of the United States, a nation instrumental in the downfall of the Nazi regime/war machine.

Your argument appears to be that the SS are simply misunderstood and are being treated unfairly by us "politically correct" types. In your reply to Legbreaker, you imply that the Nazis/SS did some good things and that, taken as a whole, the good the Nazis did outweighs the bad. Is that a fair characterization of your point? What, may I ask, are the good things that they did? I'm curious.

I am not saying that bad actions by any group should be over looked over another. The nazi's just get this spot light, because they are the token or popular bad guys of history. So it's always Nazi this Nazi that. Nobody evers says Khmer Rouge this Khmer Rouge that. They just aren't popular enough. I know your thinking "wow" how could you make commit like that, but that is how people judge things by. If you don't get the converage, you don't get the votes. Good things that the SS did? They killed Russians of course! But on a more serious note, they where some hard ass fighters and had a war mongor type idealism to them which would and does appeal to a young man that wish to go out and kill. Take away some of the racial tone of the Nazi Germany and you have a society any war mongor could be proud of.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by micromachine

Look at some of the legendary figures of US soldiery(or any countries military) and I am sure you will see at least some of the "dark side" of these figures has helped make them legends in the first place.

Name a legendary US military officer of the 20th century who had an evil, tyrannical, genocidal trait. Go on...

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Yes, many, MANY other entities have committed attrocities of varying horror, however as far as I am aware, only the Nazis (and perhaps USSR) made a concerted effort to specifically wipe out an entire ethnicity with clinical and industrial precision.
We can indeed abhore the actions carried out by others, but only the nazis deserve 100% of our revulsion and loathing.
By comparison, people like Charles Manson barely got their toes wet in the shallow end of the kiddies paddling pool.

The question of this thread should be simple. Should the US Marines be using insignia which can at best be mistaken as that of another unit guilty of some of the most heinous crimes against humanity - or not?
My answer - HELL NO!!!

My reference to Charlie Mansion was used to show that he is the most popular. Everyone knows the name, maybe not what the story behind him was, but they know the name. You say names like John Wayne Gacy, Richard Speck, or Richard Ramirez half the people look at you like they must be some forgotten about actor that recently appeared on dancing with the stars. Of course Richard Ramirez does have a slick sound to it and John Wayne Gacy does have the whole John Wayne thing going for him.

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Name a legendary US military officer of the 20th century who had an evil, tyrannical, genocidal trait. Go on...

2ND LT William Calley of the My Lai Massacre is the easiest that comes to mind. Sure it was only 22 people, but sometimes you have to take baby steps. Gerenal Macarther aka "dug out Doug" was all for nuking the shit out of everything and leaving his own personel to rot. General Curtis Lemay was another one that had no probelm with doing a Nuclear Holocaust.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Name a legendary US military officer of the 20th century who had an evil, tyrannical, genocidal trait. Go on...

General Jacob "kill everyone over the age of ten" Smith demonstrated such a trait in the the Filipino campaigns during the early part of that century. He wasn't alone either.

[Legbreaker]

The Khmer Rouge are a good example of evil, but even though they decimated their own country and managed to kill a sizable percentage in a short time, they didn't exactly industrialise it like the nazis, nor did they wage war on an entire continent and import victims. They were also a fairly unsophisticated and unskilled lot who I'm sure nobody looks up to (even the nutcases). They certainly didn't have any elite units or insignia anyone wants, or is able to copy like the SS (which is what this thread is really all about).

Evil in any form should not be glorified, and that includes the use of their symbols, wherever they may come from. What the marines in question did is just plain wrong and there's no defending them. Whether or not those in the photo were aware of the significance (and I'm sure at least some were) somebody around them certainly would have, and should have slapped them all over the back of their collective heads for the idiots they were.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Name a legendary US military officer of the 20th century who had an evil, tyrannical, genocidal trait. Go on...

I really hate absolutist statements like this, because as a couple posts after this one did, many isolated individuals can be held as an example of having one of those traits.

Let's narrow the constraints a little with an addendum of displaying those traits and subsequently being condoned or lauded by even half of the United States' population.

Calley? He's generally seen as a weak, immoral leader who fell victim to his own poor command climate. And subsequently punished.

MacArthur? Why didn't he carry through that course of action? Because of popular opinion and the desire not to glow in the dark for 500 years.

Generals Lemay and Smith? I don't think they meet the metric of 'legendary US military officer' but for argument's sake, cooler heads prevailed in the former and the scope of Smith's influence was very small.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

General Jacob "kill everyone over the age of ten" Smith demonstrated such a trait in the the Filipino campaigns during the early part of that century. He wasn't alone either.

Wrong century, and he's not a "legendary US military officer". But thank you for mentioning him. I've learned something today, at least.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Eddie

Generals Lemay and Smith? I don't think they meet the metric of 'legendary US military officer' but for argument's sake, cooler heads prevailed in the former and the scope of Smith's influence was very small.

Regarding Smith and others like him in the Philippines, I'd have to disagree.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Eddie

MacArthur? Why didn't he carry through that course of action? Because of popular opinion and the desire not to glow in the dark for 500 years

Now there's someone who is considered "legendary". As is Lemay. MacAuthur, for all his faults, including his arrogance in thinking that he could go up against the POTUS in a public argument and win, has been proven right in hindsight. Had the US dropped nukes along the Chinese-NK border (or further into China), we'd likely not have a nuclear armed NK today -- or any NK at all. We'd have won the Korean War. And we might never have had the Vietnam War. At that time the USSR lacked the means to deliver nukes to the US. Europe, OTOH, might have borne the consequences of Mac's idea. Which is why Truman didn't stand up to the Chinese-Soviet aggression. So, for the sake of Europe, the world has had to put up with NK madness, and a China that thinks it can push its neighbors around without consequences, for over half a century.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Wrong century, and he's not a "legendary US military officer". But thank you for mentioning him. I've learned something today, at least.

I'm not sure how 1902 is not part of that century. I'm also now wondering why that really makes much of a difference even if it wasn't.

He may not be legendary in your sense, but he is in others.

You are welcome.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

He may not be legendary in your sense, but he is in others.

You are welcome.

Regardless of his fame status, he was court-martialed for the incident according to the very first paragraph of his Wikipedia entry. Not exactly celebrated and decorated. And the circumstances are a bit different than that of the Nazi hatred based on race. So the point still kind of stands, that yes, we have people who are overzealous in the performance of their duties at best, war criminals at worst; but the majority of our society and the regulatory agencies thereof, propogate ethical behavior and punish violators.

EDIT: Or not. I should have read the remainder of the Wikipedia article to see what he was court-martialed for. The red sentence should be the real takeaway, though.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Eddie

Regardless of his fame status, he was court-martialed for the incident according to the very first paragraph of his Wikipedia entry. Not exactly celebrated and decorated.

I didn't infer that he was celebrated and decorated. Only that he made a name for himself based on being a general who had "an evil, tyrannical, genocidal trait."

There is a reason why he was court-martialed.

Originally Posted by Eddie

And the circumstances are a bit different than that of the Nazi hatred based on race.

Race certainly was a factor in the Filipino campaign. Reading the reports and accounts, you come across nigger and savage more times than I care to count. They may not all be from Smith, but the overwhelming reference to niggers and savages strongly suggests that the soldiers in the Philippines were basing race on their actions against the local populace.

Originally Posted by Eddie

So the point still kind of stands, that yes, we have people who are overzealous in the performance of their duties at best, war criminals at worst; but the majority of our society and the regulatory agencies thereof, proogate ethical behavior and punish violators.

I never suggested differently. This wasn't an attack on the United States military. It was a response to a question asking for evidence of a general showing "an evil, tyrannical, genocidal trait". I am in no way suggesting that the actions in the Philippines represents the whole of the US army and marines, but that there certainly were people, who in contrary to the original question, existed.

[simonmark6]

And that is pretty much the crux of why many of us see using the Sig runes as the thin end of the wedge if not challenged. The US military holds itself to the highest ethical standards and I respect them for that. Any degradation of these standards is something to be rooted out in my opinion and thus my concern.

Saying that, "Hey, these boys aren't buying into the politics of the symbol just the warrior ethos." Is, in my opinion dangerous, because it opens the door up to saying that other aspects of the SS are also acceptable. This is not acceptable in an institution that protects the ideals of Western Society.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by simonmark6

And that is pretty much the crux of why many of us see using the Sig runes as the thin end of the wedge if not challenged. The US military holds itself to the highest ethical standards and I respect them for that. Any degradation of these standards is something to be rooted out in my opinion and thus my concern.

Saying that, "Hey, these boys aren't buying into the politics of the symbol just the warrior ethos." Is, in my opinion dangerous, because it opens the door up to saying that other aspects of the SS are also acceptable. This is not acceptable in an institution that protects the ideals of Western Society.

I've deliberately avoided weighing in on the photos and the reported use of COP 'Aryan'/Arian. However, my posting concerning Smith and the emphasis should be enough for you to infer my feelings on the situation.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

I didn't infer that he was celebrated and decorated.

'Legendary' does imply that. 'Infamous' may be more of what you are looking for, but the words do have completely different connotations.

Race certainly was a factor in the Filipino campaign. Reading the reports and accounts, you come across nigger and savage more times than I care to count. They may not all be from Smith, but the overwhelming reference to niggers and savages strongly suggests that the soldiers in the Philippines were basing race on their actions against the local populace.

At a time in US history when those words were as common as spitting. Don't take the snapshot out of context. We still had a segregated military, segregated society, and rampant racism at that time. Faulting him for using 'nigger' and 'savages' is like faulting him for using a Whites-Only bathroom. Anything else would have been unheard of.

The reaction was based on the slaughter of 40 of his soldiers.

The dehumanization that allowed the reaction was based on the racism of the time.

This wasn't an attack on the United States military.

Nor did I take it as so.

It was a response to a question asking for evidence of a general showing "an evil, tyrannical, genocidal trait".

I am in no way suggesting that the actions in the Philippines represents the whole of the US army and marines, but that there certainly were people, who in contrary to the original question, existed.

However, if you go back throughout history, all cultures' norms and mores have evolved at different times in the lifecycle of said cultures. Military or civilian. Basing a judgment on our behavior and justifying it with a piece of evidence from a different time implies that there has been no progress or education in the time between. Which is solidly not the case.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Eddie

'Legendary' does imply that. 'Infamous' may be more of what you are looking for, but the words do have completely different connotations.

Probably so. However, in the scope of things, I believe it is a moot point... my point anyways.

Originally Posted by Eddie

At a time in US history when those words were as common as spitting. Don't take the snapshot out of context. We still had a segregated military, segregated society, and rampant racism at that time. Faulting him for using 'nigger' and 'savages' is like faulting him for using a Whites-Only bathroom. Anything else would have been unheard of.

The reaction was based on the slaughter of 40 of his soldiers.

The dehumanization that allowed the reaction was based on the racism of the time.

I am aware of the social norms at the time - but I argue that it was these accepted (at the time) beliefs that resulted in poor behavior by soldiers. I also wasn't just referring to that particular massacre, but the campaign against the indigenous people as a whole - which was appallingly criminal.

American military historians' opinions on the Samar campaign are echoed in the February 2011 edition of the US Army's official historical magazine, Army History Bulletin: "...the indiscriminate violence and punishment that U.S. Army and Marine forces under Brig. Gen. Jacob Smith are alleged to have unleashed on Samar have long stained the memory of the United States’ pacification of the Philippine Islands."

Editor's Journal, Army History Bulletin, PB 20-11-2 (No. 79)

Originally Posted by Eddie

However, if you go back throughout history, all cultures' norms and mores have evolved at different times in the lifecycle of said cultures. Military or civilian. Basing a judgment on our behavior and justifying it with a piece of evidence from a different time implies that there has been no progress or education in the time between. Which is solidly not the case.

Morality is generally subjective, but there are some basic moral principals that I believe are objective. The indiscriminate slaughter of unarmed civilians is an example of that.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Eddie

However, if you go back throughout history, all cultures' norms and mores have evolved at different times in the lifecycle of said cultures. Military or civilian. Basing a judgment on our behavior and justifying it with a piece of evidence from a different time implies that there has been no progress or education in the time between.

And this may go a long way towards why Nazi Germany received more attention for the atrocities committed than the Japanese - the Germans pre-war were cultural world leaders, in the 1930s and 40s Japan was seen as a cultural backwater with much maturing to do. Doesn't make what happened any more acceptable to those they did it to, but it does help explain why their soldiers did it without question.
As a more modern example, take Rwanda and the massacres there within the last generation (1993 I think?). Besides a bit of an outcry at the time, we haven't heard much since. This could be because they're a backwater country with little the west wants from it, and therefore the media resources aren't allocated. The point is though they have more in common with early 20th Century Japan than with Nazi Germany.

[Sanjuro]

What made Nazi Germany unique was not the anti-Semitism, or the other abuses of minorities. The unique thing was the combination of overt Government support, and the deliberate allocation of national resources in pursuit of those abuses.
On a lighter note, snipers' use of the SS runes gives a nice set of visible straight lines, which should make them much easier targets.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

On a lighter note, snipers' use of the SS runes gives a nice set of visible straight lines, which should make them much easier targets.

Absolutely.

[headquarters]

The Waffen SS were fearsome and highly skilled warriors - no doubt. But everybody with a tad common sense knows that using their symbols incurs condemnation from all sorts of parties. For ex servicemen who had to kill and fight their way from Normandy to the Rhine I guess the image would be disconcerting. Not to mention victims of the Holocaust an nazi oppression
and their relatives.

More likely than not the guys on the pic are fair mix of opinions - I dont think for a sec that they are nazis - they just want to be bad ass. ( Some of them are probably bigots though..)

Anyways - soldiers get caught doing stuff based on poor judgement and in some cases evil intent and unacceptable values.

This will keep on happening. In all armies. We see these things in Norway and other European countries too from time to time. Grunts shooting feral dogs to help locals - but filming it and adding some good trash metal got headlines a few years back. People were appalled for the poor dogs. Nobody gave a second thought to the villagers that could now let their children walk to school without fear of feral dogpacks..

Third reich symbols are a no go - whatever way you look at it.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Waiting for Something,

No one is saying that the SS was the most evil military organization in history. Many, many others have committed terrible attrocities. I could go on and on and on with example after example. That's not the argument here.

The argument that I am trying to make is that the SS, as an organization, was pretty awful and should not be lauded or celebrated by the fighting men and women of the United States, a nation instrumental in the downfall of the Nazi regime/war machine.

Your argument appears to be that the SS are simply misunderstood and are being treated unfairly by us "politically correct" types. In your reply to Legbreaker, you imply that the Nazis/SS did some good things and that, taken as a whole, the good the Nazis did outweighs the bad. Is that a fair characterization of your point? What, may I ask, are the good things that they did? I'm curious.