Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How not to win hearts and minds . . .

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    xflyer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    That's exactly bothered me about that picture. It's all very well some good ole enlisted men thinking they're cool but many Marine Corps officers came through the Naval Academy. Were they all on leave during the WW2 history portion? But you don't have to be a WW2 buff to understand EXACTLY what those runes mean. Maybe the Marine Corps don't remember when the SS massacred US prisoners at Malmedy? Or any of the other atrocities perpetrated by the Waffen SS. SS fanboys don't like anyone to bring that up.

    It's was stupid and the deserve to have their knuckles rapped.

    Imagine how pleased we'd be if the Paras added 'Londonderry 1972' to their battle honours.:mad:


  • Options
    #63
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    xflyer wrote: »
    That's exactly bothered me about that picture. It's all very well some good ole enlisted men thinking they're cool but many Marine Corps officers came through the Naval Academy. Were they all on leave during the WW2 history portion? But you don't have to be a WW2 buff to understand EXACTLY what those runes mean. Maybe the Marine Corps don't remember when the SS massacred US prisoners at Malmedy? Or any of the other atrocities perpetrated by the Waffen SS. SS fanboys don't like anyone to bring that up.

    It's was stupid and the deserve to have their knuckles rapped.

    Imagine how pleased we'd be if the Paras added 'Londonderry 1972' to their battle honours.:mad:

    Perhaps you believe in the Commando comic view of the war where the Americans are whiter than white and the germans were irredeemably evil but in reality the American forces also committed war crimes but there aren't many instances in history where the victors put their own on trial. And in case you try and think I'm making a moral equivalance between the two sides, I'm not.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,692037,00.html
    Given the high number of casualties they suffered, Allied paratroopers were particularly determined to exact bloody revenge. Near one village, Audouville-la-Hubert, they massacred 30 captured Wehrmacht soldiers in a single killing spree.


  • Options
    #64
    RMD
    Registered Users Posts: 2,662 ✭✭✭RMD


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Not only that they risk dragging down the reputation of their predecessors.

    If you think Scout Snipers' are just a regular bunch of infantry soldiers with more powerful rifles I suggest you do some research. They're on an entirely different level.

    I think the main point that is being missed here in Manic's argument is that only 2 of 28 divisions of the SS were involved in the Holocaust. The other 26 were just the elite of the German army. Blame those who were the scum directly involved in the holocaust, not the people who were just fighting for their country.


  • Options
    #65
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Poccington wrote: »
    USMC Scout Snipers have been using runic s' for years now.

    They're not glorifying the SS, they're not praising them... They're using runic s' to denote the term Scout Sniper, something they're obviously very proud of being.

    **** sake. People get outraged for the sake of getting outraged these days.

    Lets be clear here, are you (or anyone else) saying that these guys didn't flat out swipe the double sig symbol from the SS?


  • Options
    #66
    Wicklowrider
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭Wicklowrider


    RMD wrote: »
    I think the main point that is being missed here in Manic's argument is that only 2 of 28 divisions of the SS were involved in the Holocaust.

    Manic knew full well what I'd posted meant but chose to strawman.
    I said you cannot compare the SS and the Afrika Korps.

    Just 'cos they weren't directly involved in death camps does not mean
    the remaining SS units were pure as the Ardennes snow.

    Here are just a handful of examples .....


    Malmedy_massacre (Kampfgruppe Peiper,part of the 1st SS Panzer division)

    Stavelot massacre ( same unit as above, day after)

    Oradour-sur-Glane massacre ( SS's Das Reich Division)

    Maillé Massacre ( SS-Feldersatzbataillon)

    Wereth Massacre ( 3./SS-PzAA1 LSSAH)

    ORADOUR-SUR-GLANE ( 2nd SS Panzer Division 'Das Reich)

    Normandy Massacre ( 12th SS Panzer division)

    LE PARADIS massacre ( 2nd Infantry Regiment, SS 'Totenkopf')

    Wormhoudt massacre ( 2nd Battalion , SS Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler)

    ORADOUR-SUR-GLANE massacre ( 2nd SS Panzer Division 'Das Reich')


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Hows about these "good ole boys" too?

    36th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS

    "During the fighting in Wola and Ochota district in Warsaw the unit engaged in an orgy of violence, rape, and murder, as well as simple thievery, with its men often under influence of alcohol; all together, 10,000 civilians were murdered."


  • Options
    #68
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    RMD wrote: »
    I think the main point that is being missed here in Manic's argument is that only 2 of 28 divisions of the SS were involved in the Holocaust. The other 26 were just the elite of the German army. Blame those who were the scum directly involved in the holocaust, not the people who were just fighting for their country.

    Define "involved" - the Holocaust couldn't have happened (at least outside Germany) without the invasion and occupation forces of which the Waffen SS comprised a very significant part.


  • Options
    #69
    krissovo
    Registered Users Posts: 2,645 ✭✭✭krissovo


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Define "involved" - the Holocaust couldn't have happened (at least outside Germany) without the invasion and occupation forces of which the Waffen SS comprised a very significant part.

    By that statement the Wehrmacht is also guilty which was largely honorable. Come on how weak is that statement!

    Also by the same thought process of banning symbols associated with atrocities.

    UASF/RAF - Dropping bombs on civilians in Dresden, Cologne had no real military value but was flattened as well. Oh and a great big Atom bomb hit a couple of Japanese cities.

    Chevrons (Rank stripes) - Broken lance, lots of wrong doing associated with many who wear these symbols.

    Cross, eagles head, eagle in flight, death heads (jolly Rodger etc not just SS) have all had their fair share of bad press.

    The most unfortunate thing with this association is that they are "Scout Snipers" with the same initials as the SS.


  • Options
    #70
    xflyer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Perhaps you believe in the Commando comic view of the war where the Americans are whiter than white and the germans were irredeemably evil but in reality the American forces also committed war crimes but there aren't many instances in history where the victors put their own on trial. And in case you try and think I'm making a moral equivalance between the two sides, I'm not.
    It's a bit patronising to assume my view of the war is all black and white. I don't even think the Waffen SS were irredeemably evil. But you can't escape their record and whatever atrocities were committed by the allies. They were never as systematic as the SS. There are no towns in Germany where the Americans arrived and cold bloodedly slaughtered the entire population to a man, woman and child.

    Their use of the SS runes is a stain on the Marine Corps because ultimately the SS was established as Hitler's bodyguard originally and went on to be complicit in some of the most monstrous crimes against humanity, ever known in history. For members of the Marine Corps to find themselves pleased to be associated with this history beggars belief.

    Yes I know soldiers/marines like to use fierce symbols, skull and crossbones etc. And yes combat hardens men, separates them ordinary people. In the tight world of the combat scout sniper, the flag might seem appropriate. But it isn't and there should have been a senior officer on hand to point this out.

    I'm not fit to sit in judgement of these men as they would readily point out. Perhaps of all us here only our esteemed moderator MM would be allowed an input. In the end I wouldn't blame the men involved. I'd blame their officers.


  • Options
    #71
    secondopinion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭secondopinion


    krissovo wrote: »
    By that statement the Wehrmacht is also guilty which was largely honorable. Come on how weak is that statement!

    Also by the same thought process of banning symbols associated with atrocities.

    UASF/RAF - Dropping bombs on civilians in Dresden, Cologne had no real military value but was flattened as well. Oh and a great big Atom bomb hit a couple of Japanese cities.

    Chevrons (Rank stripes) - Broken lance, lots of wrong doing associated with many who wear these symbols.

    Cross, eagles head, eagle in flight, death heads (jolly Rodger etc not just SS) have all had their fair share of bad press.

    The most unfortunate thing with this association is that they are "Scout Snipers" with the same initials as the SS.

    Wehrmacht largely honourable? Apart from standing round maps with The Fuhrer planning invasions of other countries?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    secondopinion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭secondopinion


    xflyer wrote: »
    It's a bit patronising to assume my view of the war is all black and white. I don't even think the Waffen SS were irredeemably evil. But you can't escape their record and whatever atrocities were committed by the allies. They were never as systematic as the SS. There are no towns in Germany where the Americans arrived and cold bloodedly slaughtered the entire population to a man, woman and child.

    Their use of the SS runes is a stain on the Marine Corps because ultimately the SS was established as Hitler's bodyguard originally and went on to be complicit in some of the most monstrous crimes against humanity, ever known in history. For members of the Marine Corps to find themselves pleased to be associated with this history beggars belief.

    Yes I know soldiers/marines like to use fierce symbols, skull and crossbones etc. And yes combat hardens men, separates them ordinary people. In the tight world of the combat scout sniper, the flag might seem appropriate. But it isn't and there should have been a senior officer on hand to point this out.

    I'm not fit to sit in judgement of these men as they would readily point out. Perhaps of all us here only our esteemed moderator MM would be allowed an input. In the end I wouldn't blame the men involved. I'd blame their officers.

    Perhaps their officers approve of The SS flag?

    Aren't Germans the largest ethnic group in The US?


  • Options
    #73
    krissovo
    Registered Users Posts: 2,645 ✭✭✭krissovo


    secondopinion wrote: »
    Wehrmacht largely honourable? Apart from standing round maps with The Fuhrer planning invasions of other countries?

    You obviously do not know what role a soldier performs, you are very naive to come onto a military forum and make that comment.

    Soldiers are not political (mostly) and follow orders of the political rulers.


  • Options
    #74
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    krissovo wrote: »
    You obviously do not know what role a soldier performs, you are very naive to come onto a military forum and make that comment.

    Soldiers are not political (mostly) and follow orders of the political rulers.

    Soldiers not only can, but must, refuse to follow unlawful orders no matter who they come from - e.g.,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Keenan

    United States v. Keenan was a court case in the United States where the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed an order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." The soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity.


  • Options
    #75
    secondopinion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭secondopinion


    krissovo wrote: »
    You obviously do not know what role a soldier performs, you are very naive to come onto a military forum and make that comment.

    Soldiers are not political (mostly) and follow orders of the political rulers.

    Actually, I think it's you that's being naive about the relationship between The German Armed Forces and The National Socialist political rulers. The German Army supported Hitler's rise to power and did so mainly because it's officer corp was itself indoctrinated with an aggressive military credo. Hitler offered them the opportunity to avenge the defeat of WWI and then satisfy their lust for conquest in Eastern Europe.

    There is little to suggest that the average German soldier (let alone the aristocratic high command) gave two figs about the atrocities carried out by The SS.

    It would appear that the relationship between The German Army and The SS (all The SS) mirrored closely that between The Yugoslav National Army (JNA) and The Bosnian Serb Army (BSA) in Bosnia. Namely that the regular army would take ground and that the auxiliaries would cleanse it of undesirables.

    In any case, The Wehrmacht could not disassociate itself from The SS for the simple reason that they operated hand in glove and under the same command and control structure.

    As a final aside, your comment about soldiers not being political suggests you are completely ignorant of recent world history. Military dictatorships were very common up until recently and still exist. You're confusing a handful of democratically controlled armies (mostly useless and operating under the command of scared rabbits) with the historical norm.


  • Options
    #76
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,252 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Soldiers not only can, but must, refuse to follow unlawful orders no matter who they come from - e.g.,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Keenan

    United States v. Keenan was a court case in the United States where the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed an order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." The soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity.

    With respect to that quote, it is not complete.

    From the Manual for Courts Martial, rule 916:
    Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful

    The is expanded upon by Art 90.
    Inference of lawfulness: An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate.

    Invading a country is patently a military duty and thus the default position must be that the soldiers should carry out such an instruction. Killing unarmed men in a manner contrary to the laws of land warfare is much harder to so categorise.

    NTM


  • Options
    #77
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    krissovo wrote: »
    By that statement the Wehrmacht is also guilty which was largely honorable. Come on how weak is that statement

    I suppose at this point we better deal with this fantasy as well

    War Crimes of the Wehrmacht


  • Options
    #78
    Foghladh
    Registered Users Posts: 393 ✭✭Foghladh


    Ultimately, what exactly has happened here? They're posing in front of a symbol that was used nearly 70 years ago. Is the concensus that this particular unit is following a national socialist creed and trying to emulate the SS? Or are they just trying to look fecking badass? A symbol only has as much power as you bestow upon it.

    Besides, I'd imagine that if you're an Afghani local and you're so inclined to dislike the american presence, seeing a marine unit standing in front of a pair of runic s' won't exactly tip you over the edge.

    Seems to me that the only 'hearts and minds' that are offended here are a bit closer to home


  • Options
    #79
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Soldiers not only can, but must, refuse to follow unlawful orders no matter who they come from - e.g., .[/I]

    "Velcome to ze penal battalion Hans"


  • Options
    #80
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Invading a country is patently a military duty

    Not necessarily. In the case of Malcom Kendall-Smith, who refused as a member of the RAF to deploy to Iraq, the court found that as a junior officer, he could not be guilty of a crime of aggression - the implication must be that a more senior officer potentially could. Certainly, Field Marshal Keitel (a Wehrmacht officer!) found that out the hard way at Nuremberg.


  • Options
    #81
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Foghladh wrote: »
    Ultimately, what exactly has happened here? They're posing in front of a symbol that was used nearly 70 years ago. Is the concensus that this particular unit is following a national socialist creed and trying to emulate the SS? Or are they just trying to look fecking badass? A symbol only has as much power as you bestow upon it.

    Besides, I'd imagine that if you're an Afghani local and you're so inclined to dislike the american presence, seeing a marine unit standing in front of a pair of runic s' won't exactly tip you over the edge.

    Seems to me that the only 'hearts and minds' that are offended here are a bit closer to home

    Exactly. As has already been pointed out, these guys are members of the army of a democratic state which must have the support of its citizens. Why would you go out of your way to alienate a big section of those citizens and give those opposed to their presence in Afghanistan a stick to beat you with?

    It's only exacerbated by the display of their banner alongside the national flag. There have been comments "half joking, all in earnest" in another thread about the potential disrespect shown to the Irish flag because it was on the wrong side of the Minister for Defence's desk. How much respect are these guys showing to the Stars & Stripes by flying it together with the emblem of a criminal organisation centrally involved in the most infamous acts of genocide in history?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Wicklowrider
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭Wicklowrider


    http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/02/marine-scout-snipers-nazi-ss-logo-020912/

    Make of that what you will.....


  • Options
    #83
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,252 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    It's only exacerbated by the display of their banner alongside the national flag. There have been comments "half joking, all in earnest" in another thread about the potential disrespect shown to the Irish flag because it was on the wrong side of the Minister for Defence's desk.

    Speaking for myself, as I'm the one who made the observation initially, I wasn't worried about a lack of respect as much about the irony of the head of a department whose primary organization is based around adherence to protocol, tradition, discipline and regulation screwing up. (Particularly given that that's the subject matter of the news article in question). My personnel would often walk on the wrong side of me, I'd always correct them or hop around to their right, but never did I feel it was disrespect. It was simply incorrect.

    NTM


  • Options
    #84
    discus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,049 ✭✭✭discus


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    "Velcome to ze penal battalion Hans"

    Tell Tiny and the Legionnaire I said hello!


  • Options
    #85
    Foghladh
    Registered Users Posts: 393 ✭✭Foghladh


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Exactly. As has already been pointed out, these guys are members of the army of a democratic state which must have the support of its citizens. Why would you go out of your way to alienate a big section of those citizens and give those opposed to their presence in Afghanistan a stick to beat you with?

    It's only exacerbated by the display of their banner alongside the national flag. There have been comments "half joking, all in earnest" in another thread about the potential disrespect shown to the Irish flag because it was on the wrong side of the Minister for Defence's desk. How much respect are these guys showing to the Stars & Stripes by flying it together with the emblem of a criminal organisation centrally involved in the most infamous acts of genocide in history?


    What's your view on the Jolly Roger? At one time it was symbol of some of the worst criminals afloat. No quarter asked for and none given since the people flying it were likely to be hung on the spot when captured. Now kids wear it on their hats at birthday parties. Or the Red Star? It was worn by fellows who carried out atrocities at least on a par with the boys wearing the lightning strikes.


Advertisement