More stupid U.S. Marines

[Eddie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

'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.

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)

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]

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]

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]

Public relations

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.

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.