ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, January 16, 2015

Rules of war, and the violations therein

Bill Whittle writes a poignant explanation of the challenge facing a 2GW military that finds itself in a 4GW war:
War is hell, and soldiers have to live there. It is an unbearable burden; unbearable in the sense that not a single man and woman who has been fully exposed to war has ever come back home. Someone else comes back home. Sometimes, it is a better person. Sometimes a worse one. But they are different, all changed in the horror and crucible of war.

And so from the beginning of war, there exists between soldiers a bond that cannot be described. There is the obvious connection of a soldier to his comrades, but there is too a strong sense of respect and kinship with the soldier on the other side of No Man’s Land, shivering in cold wet places just the same, under orders and doing his job, too — just wanting to get the thing over with and go home.

Surrender is a mercy in such a place. The idea that certain death may be avoided, that one might be willing to simply give up fighting and still survive, is mercy of the deepest blue. Surrendering enemy soldiers are often greeted with a warmth and understanding that friendly civilians do not receive, for they have shared in the misery and hardship of war in ways that we comfortable and safe civilians can never know.

Surrender, in war, is perhaps the ultimate of Sanctuaries. It is a way out when hope and rescue have fled the field. Honorable surrender has never been treated with shame by any American unit I have ever heard of.

And so, when groups of un-uniformed enemy soldiers waving white flags suddenly drop and open fire on unsuspecting, generous and honorable Americans, then the masters of these men have made a terrible bargain. They have destroyed the Sanctuary of Surrender, and eliminated for their own men a deep and abiding refuge in the nightmare of the battlefield.

They have done this to their own men. Not us. We have known of the brutality of the Iraqi army regarding prisoners from at least as far back as those taken and beaten during the first Gulf War, and as far as improvements over the intervening years, we might perhaps call Jessica Lynch to tell us of any newfound magnanimity on the part of the Ba’athists.

False surrender as a weapon of ambush is an abomination. When it is repeated, it is obvious that is not an aberration; it is policy. It is, like the abandonment of the uniform, a tactic to gain a short-term advantage that leads to long-term hardship and misery for their own troops. It is a Devil’s bargain, and they have had the Devil to pay for it — as have we.

They violate the Sanctuary of the Uniform. They violate the Sanctuary of Surrender. And the most reprehensible of all is the violation of the Sanctuary of Mercy.
What Whittle fails to understand is that the Eastern enemy the Western militaries are engaging have NEVER respected the rules of Westphalian war. As William S. Lind notes, uniforms are an aspect of 1GW order.

As long as Western armies insist on attempting to fight a 4GW war with 2GW tactics, they are going to be at a significant disadvantage, and one that likely outweights their various advantages. When the rules change, the players have to change with the rules.

Note that few, if any, Western armies have ever succeeded in causing an Eastern foe to modify its non-Westphalian tactics in imitation of the Western army.

However, Whittle needs to be corrected about this historically erroneous statement: "Honorable surrender has never been treated with shame by any American unit I have ever heard of."

One incident of which I am aware is when the 45th Division of the US Army killed between 30 and 50 prisoners of war after the liberation of Dachau. It appears they mistook Hungarian Waffen-SS troops who had retreated to the camp with the SS-Totenkopf guards, not that killing the camp guards would have been acceptable under the principle of Sanctuary anyway.

The incident was buried by Gen. George Patton.

Labels:

236 Comments:

1 – 200 of 236 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Aquila Aquilonis January 16, 2015 9:57 AM  

When it comes down to it and after we have suffered enough and we are no longer fat and happy, then we will slaughter like we used to. And hopefully the next period of civilization will last longer than the previous one did.

Blogger Plump Pleasant Plumber January 16, 2015 9:59 AM  

The basic facts stem from a completely different mindset. Tribal warfare is different. The hatred runs much deeper. Literally anything goes. That's why these types of wars generally end up killing women and children also. Western thought is despised. Any advantage is good. Short term thinking, to be sure. The only way to defeat such tribalism is to use their own tactics. Nothing else will work. You can't negotiate with them. All you can really do is burn their corpses. The Romans understood this essential truth for a long time. Until they became weak. And the tribes didn't fear them anymore. There's a point in that, somewhere.

Blogger Bodichi January 16, 2015 10:02 AM  

Just as Lind says our Generals think this is a jousting match, light entertainment. Who has the best tank? Who has the best jet? They are unable to comprehend the fact that they face an enemy who doesn't want to joust but who wants them to die.

Blogger Chris Mallory January 16, 2015 10:05 AM  

"Honorable surrender has never been treated with shame by any American unit I have ever heard of."

Some German units might disagree.

Blogger Matt@Occidentalism.org January 16, 2015 10:12 AM  

The tactics are ineffective if you want to win the a war.

The best way is to simply declare certain areas to be subject to a pacification, meaning the everyone that remains in the declared area after a deadline is shot or bombed.

Anonymous Meh January 16, 2015 10:14 AM  

They are unable to comprehend the fact that they face an enemy who doesn't want to joust but who wants them to die.

Oh I think plenty of American generals would be happy to take the gloves off and annihilate the enemy. But they have to play by the rules the politicians set. From Vietnam to today, the absurdities flow down from Washington to the field, where the grunts bear the consequences.

Anonymous Stilicho January 16, 2015 10:16 AM  

I'm going to save Kratman the trouble of pointing out the obvious: those who do not adhere to the Westphalian laws of war are entitled to none of its protections. The solution is built into the Westphalian rules. Those who developed those rules understood this and accounted for it. We forget it or abandon it in the name of political correctness or "niceness" at our peril.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 10:16 AM  

The problem is people are trying to answer the wrong question. People keep thinking of ways to defeat 4G warfare... but that is merely the strategy employed. You don't defeat a strategy. You defeat people.

And the easterners have always... always always... cowed before blatant large scale brutality.

Blogger Bodichi January 16, 2015 10:17 AM  

@Meh

I want to believe you, I really do. I have been in the service for 10 years now, 6 enlisted and 4 on the other side. In the schools you are slathered with PC, hearts and minds BS. If you don't believe me ask Kratman. We have yes men concerned with a pension, and we have some (God help them) who believe the garbage they peddle.

Anonymous VD January 16, 2015 10:22 AM  

You don't defeat a strategy. You defeat people.

The strategic solution to 4GW is 0GW.

Anonymous Bah January 16, 2015 10:29 AM  

"One incident of which I am aware is when the 45th Division of the US Army killed between 30 and 50 prisoners of war after the liberation of Dachau."

US troops did not consider the camp guards to be honorable soldiers, but criminals deserving summary execution.

They were perfectly correct on that score.

Blogger Darth Toolpodicus January 16, 2015 10:31 AM  

@Nate

"And the easterners have always... always always... cowed before blatant large scale brutality."

Could not agree more. Kill sufficient numbers of the enemy so as to break their will to fight. Sufficient.

What that means fighting jumped up semicivilized over-proud tribal cultures is al least another order of magnitude, maybe two orders more, of bodies on the pyre before the knuckle under.

Anonymous Meh January 16, 2015 10:31 AM  

"In the schools you are slathered with PC, hearts and minds BS."

Yeah, that is coming from the top, too.

Including in the sense that even without explicit direction, cowardly flag officers will do what they think their PC masters want.

Anonymous Eric Ashley January 16, 2015 10:34 AM  

And Westphalian war offers plenty of opportunity for blatant, large-scale brutality. Its not that we can't win, its that with Jimmy Carter (America is a helpless giant) and not Ronald Reagan, we can't win. 4GW is largely missing the point.

Anonymous Meh January 16, 2015 10:34 AM  

The Japanese also got excluded from the "honorable surrender" policy. But in that case, the Japanese did not want to surrender, and we did not want to let them surrender, so it worked out nicely.

Pacific War vet once told me, "we all knew what they'd done to our boys in the Philippines, and we paid them back with interest."

Blogger skiballa January 16, 2015 10:36 AM  

VD,
0GW? Is that the pre-civilization, total war approach? As in kill them all, women, children, and even domesticated animals, then salt the earth?

I've been working my way through Lawrence Keeley's War Before Civilization, good book for any interested in such things.

Anonymous Culture War Draftee January 16, 2015 10:37 AM  

Arab abuse of surrender is nothing new, and should be nothing new to Americans. Stephen Decatur's name is all over our landscape. Yet his brother Lt. James Decatur is ill-remembered. In 1804 he was killed by the captain of a Tripolitanian vessel that had just surrendered. When Lt. Decatur came aboard to accept their surrender, he was treacherously shot.

Anonymous Lucius January 16, 2015 10:39 AM  

Tell it to the Storm Troopers who fell after the rebel troops' false surrednder on Endor! Whose skulls were used as drums by the smiling aboriginals. Rebel scum.

Anonymous Mike M. January 16, 2015 10:42 AM  

Stilicho is right. The Laws of Land Warfare are quite specific about permitting reprisals.

You have to remember that the traditional Laws of War were a rough-and-ready code for fighting men in the field, not a toy for attorneys in a courtroom.

Anonymous Porky January 16, 2015 10:42 AM  

You guys really buy into the whole Westphalia myth, don't you?

Blogger Bodichi January 16, 2015 10:44 AM  

Porky why don't you regale us with how we can win the peace in Iraq by bringing democracy there, and how the terrorists only hate us for our freedums.

Blogger Josh January 16, 2015 10:45 AM  

0GW? Is that the pre-civilization, total war approach? As in kill them all, women, children, and even domesticated animals, then salt the earth?

You only kill the men and boys. The women and girls are for your harem. Duh.

Blogger skiballa January 16, 2015 10:50 AM  

Josh,
Historically that may have held true in most cases, I'm thinking more along the biblical "leave no stone standing upon another" sense. It really depends on how completely they could be integrated.

Anonymous Native Baltimoron January 16, 2015 10:51 AM  

I think 4GW is, on the balance, pretty similar to pre-civilizational warfare. There aren't any real rules, because it's a bare-knuckle contest for survival.

That said, the technological and sociopolitical context of war has a profound effect on tactics and strategy. In the context of wealthy citizen-soldiers in ancient Greece or Italy, heavy infantry in lines with cavalry on the flanks and skirmishers out front dominated the battlefield. In medieval Europe, heavy cavalry briefly displaced infantry. Artillery changed tactics somewhat, especially after Napoleon. Tanks and halftracks enabled rapid movement toward undefended areas, making static fortifications less effective.

In modern combat, states are largely deterred from total war because of the threat of a nuclear exchange. This leaves non-state actors a comparatively large amount of freedom, because they offer no targets for ICBMs.

I think a large part of our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan was rooted in the idea that we could implement some kind of Mideast Marshall Plan and turn both countries into stable, Westernized democracies. It would have been better to go in, kill the malefactors, and go home.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 10:58 AM  

"Could not agree more. Kill sufficient numbers of the enemy so as to break their will to fight. Sufficient."

Brutality is the key. You don't have to kill all of them or even a huge chunk of them. You just have to kill them brutally. Impaling for example...

The eastern mind sees mercy as weakness. It sees brutality as strength of will. demonstrate sufficient strength of will through brutality... and they turn to submissive little lap dogs.

Blogger skiballa January 16, 2015 11:00 AM  

NB,

I'll have to disagree, neither have set rules, but there are tremendous differences. The primary difference is that 4GW is fought and won at a moral level, while pre-civ war victory is contingent on permanently removing the threat. Ask the Neanderthals.

Anonymous VD January 16, 2015 11:05 AM  

US troops did not consider the camp guards to be honorable soldiers, but criminals deserving summary execution.

What part of "Hungarian Waffen-SS" did you not understand? They weren't camp guards. They weren't even Germans. They were elite combat soldiers who surrendered, and then were lined up against a wall and machine-gunned. By American troops.

Anonymous Porky January 16, 2015 11:05 AM  

@Bodichi

First, why don't you describe for us these supposed "rules of Westphalian war".

Have you ever even read the treaties of Westphalia?

Blogger Bodichi January 16, 2015 11:05 AM  

@Nate

I agree with you but the army that spends 161.8 M on SHARP training will not and cannot do that.

Blogger Nate Winchester January 16, 2015 11:05 AM  

"But Vox, that all violates the principles of Just War and stuff!"

Seriously, there are times I'd like to see you or Lind debate some of the folk who argue over just war.

Anonymous Micah January 16, 2015 11:06 AM  

Nate, can you give some examples of this type of brutality in war that shows the easterners backing down? Or do you believe if we employ this tactic it will produce the turn tail and run effect?

Blogger Bodichi January 16, 2015 11:09 AM  

@Porky

No I have not read all of the treaties. There were a large number of them and most are very dry. Are my opinions invalid because I have not read every treaty that helped to bring about coexisting nation sates?

Anonymous Bitterclinger January 16, 2015 11:09 AM  

My grandfather served 4th division, Huertgen forest, Bulge, etc and said they would throw captured SS in with Wehrmacht prisoners who often beat the SS to death. Even some Germans viewed them as criminals.

Anonymous Roundtine January 16, 2015 11:15 AM  

You don't even have to do atrocities, just claim to have done them. The left-wing media would print it as truth and it would be repeated far and wide.

Anonymous Porky January 16, 2015 11:17 AM  

Are my opinions invalid because I have not read every treaty that helped to bring about coexisting nation sates?

No. Your opinion is invalid because it includes the belief that Westphalia was about coexisting.

Westphalia was simply several street brawlers who had run out of gas and needed a way to exit the fight gracefully. Once they had rested they went happily back to slaughtering each other.


Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 16, 2015 11:17 AM  

The 4th Marine Regiment would also disagree with Whittle. The regiment that can never come home.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus January 16, 2015 11:19 AM  

False surrender as a weapon of ambush is an abomination.

Easy solution? Don't take prisoners.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 11:23 AM  

The most obvious example is the turks running like bitches from Vlad Tepes.

no offense Tommy.

Blogger CarpeOro January 16, 2015 11:23 AM  

There was a point in the first Gulf War when the Iraqis were fleeing and the US forces could have annihilated them. Colin Powell advised not to do so. I think that having done so would have been far more effective than going in for a second time and trying to "build democracy".

Blogger Owen January 16, 2015 11:25 AM  

CarpeOro,
Well, there was the Highway of Death. Not much quarter given then (not surrendering, just fleeing troops).

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 11:26 AM  

Mostly though my theory is simply based on pattern recognition. There is a reason people like Saddam end up being leaders over there. The fact that they are all brutal is not an accident. They are picked for it.

They get those leaders because those are the leaders they want.

The arab wants a boot on his throat. He respects violence and the will to do violence. Again... the eastern mind sees a willingness to do violence as strength of will. That is why they say we are weak when we refuse to torture them.

meakness... which is not weakness but power restrained... is a foreign concept to them. It is a way to rationalize weakness.

Blogger David January 16, 2015 11:27 AM  

US Marines in the Pacific reportedly killed Japanese prisoners rather frequently. Said prisoners were "escaping" and were shot down. Marines in the landing forces were steeped in tales of the Bataan Death March and were seething with hatred (my father, 3rd wave on Guadalcanal, still hated the Japanese on some levels 60 years later.)

War does not look half as "clean and neat" as recruiting posters portray, not now, not ever.

Blogger Owen January 16, 2015 11:29 AM  

Forgot about the battle of Rummela, as well (Persian Gulf War). I never knew what to make of that. The main media presence was Seymour Hersh, who is a jackass.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 11:29 AM  

"Well, there was the Highway of Death. Not much quarter given then (not surrendering, just fleeing troops)"

note that Saddam surrendered after that.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 11:32 AM  

" Marines in the landing forces were steeped in tales of the Bataan Death March and were seething with hatred (my father, 3rd wave on Guadalcanal, still hated the Japanese on some levels 60 years later.)"

yep. I know a couple old men that still hate "those yellow devils". One once corrected me after i referred to them as bastards... he said "calling them bastards ain't right. They ain't human enough for that."

Anonymous Giuseppe January 16, 2015 11:34 AM  

Vox,
We must read similar books. An excellent one was written by a doctor and he mentioned his friend, a Redskin like you, was the one who basically made the decision. His friend died of TB and the doc went on to specialise in chest diseases. I tried to get in touch with him to clarify some stuff he wrote in another book about Nazis in Antarcrica, but he died a few years back and I could not track down any relatives. I didn't read the Dachau book but am aware of it as it was mentioned in the other books he wrote.
Weirdly, he wrote the other two books together with an enemy soldier.

Blogger David January 16, 2015 11:34 AM  

How does the Christmas Truce of World War One fit Whittle's narrative?

The war was in danger of "going out of business," much to the dismay of the generals on both sides (war being a massive catalyst for military career advancement.)

One has to wonder how the 20th century might have differed, had Wilson's hatred for monarchy not animated his pushing the USA into the war and decisively breaking the otherwise normal fight-to-a-draw,-then-negotiate-a-peace Europe tended to experience. No Treaty of Versailles, no crushing war debts, perhaps no rise of the Third Reich, possibly no successful Bolshevik Revolution.

Or we could go back to Lincoln's War, and wonder what the world would be like had not the USA remained a single political entity and Lincoln's centralization of the previous, relatively looser polity failed. Counterfactuals are always fun....

Blogger Hammer6 Actual January 16, 2015 11:41 AM  

Once men face the enemy, and it is determined that the nature of the combat will be Black-Flag, hate becomes visceral, and the it is difficult to regain control of the unit until there is no enemy left to kill.

That process changes you. You've seen the darkness of your own soul, and hopefully it makes you a better man, for you can relish life in a way others can't.

Blogger Giraffe January 16, 2015 11:44 AM  

We treated the Japanese like sub-humans and they acted like sub-humans.

Anonymous Bah January 16, 2015 11:44 AM  


What part of "Hungarian Waffen-SS" did you not understand? They weren't camp guards. They weren't even Germans. They were elite combat soldiers who surrendered, and then were lined up against a wall and machine-gunned. By American troops.


Ha. Describing Hungarian troops of any kind as elite combat troops amuses me. The Hungarian SS were worthless rabble best suited for shooting partisans, not elite troops.

It is well known (though apparently not to you) that the distinction between "good" Waffen SS combat troops and "bad" SS camp guards is largely false. Waffen SS troops were often rotated into and out of the camp system as required.

It is absurd to expect the US troops who had just liberated a concentration camp to make any distinctions between "good" SS and "bad" SS -- which likely did not exist in any case.

Blogger Owen January 16, 2015 11:44 AM  

note that Saddam surrendered after that.

That was a weird war. I enlisted in April of 90. The build up was that we were going to meet the third largest army, battle-tested from the long Iraq/Iran War. He was going to gas the hell out of us. On and on. I never developed the lung problems others did, but they did inject the hell out of us and I never really knew what each was. I did develop a heart disease though (HCM).

I ended up in the north with the Kurds (incidentally, I saw some of the most beautiful women in Kurdish tribes, though that doesn't last past 25).

The line soldiers for Arab armies were terrible. No morale. We'd see Turk NCOs beat the snot out of a private just to show us he could do it. Who the hell would die for NCOs like that or leaders from other tribes who don't even allow for basic human decency to be central to soldiers' lives?

They rolled over, but it was more about lack of will to die for Saddam than anything.

Heck, I think the SU-24 wing outright defected. IIRC, they were owned and piloted by a separate tribe.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 11:44 AM  

"They were elite combat soldiers who surrendered, and then were lined up against a wall and machine-gunned. By American troops."

considering most of them were driven insane or near to it...by what they discovered in dachau... it was probably the merciful thing to do.

sorry... this sort of thing doesn't bother me at all. I can totally see myself reacting exactly the same way.

Anonymous Bah January 16, 2015 11:45 AM  

"Not being German" hardly even matters. The SS recruited a lot of non-Germans, especially for distasteful duties.

Anonymous Heh January 16, 2015 11:46 AM  

"Well, there was the Highway of Death. Not much quarter given then (not surrendering, just fleeing troops)"

It's a little hard to surrender to a jet aircraft.

And harder for the aircraft to accept it.

Blogger David January 16, 2015 11:51 AM  

"We treated the Japanese like sub-humans and they acted like sub-humans."

Were the stories about the Bataan Death March exaggerated? I don't know. The Rape of Nanking? Some of it was well-documented. "Comfort Women" taken from Korea to populate Japanese military brothels? Hmmmm.

War gives people the opportunity to live out the deepest anger in their souls at that moment. Sherman, writing to his wife during his "March," said if it was up to him he'd murder every man, woman and child his forces came across...showing that the War to Prevent Secession was the first Total War of the 20th Century (albeit a little early.)

Illinois prohibited, by its Constitution, all entry by blacks free or slave, and the horrors of the battle front were well-reported in the newspapers of the time. Why then did Illinoisans volunteer in droves to join the Union Army? What was their motivation?

Anonymous Porky January 16, 2015 11:52 AM  

We likely wouldn't even be talking about this now if the Westphalia model hadn't been imposed on the middle east by the west. We could have let the Ottomans slowly disintegrate and let the region stay in the 11th century.

But no. We had to have secure trade routes to support Westphalian mercantilism. Now we need oil for our cars and gum arabic for our Big Gulps. And here we are today wondering how we can superglue the Westphalian model back together in a region that wants nothing to do with it.

Western civilization, like a spoiled rotten child, is incapable of keeping it's hands to itself - even as it congratulates itself for being the standard bearer of Westphalian respect for boundaries. Which is why the west continually gets kicked in the balls on the playground. They are utterly delusional.

And because of this, WWIII is going to suck.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 11:53 AM  

"It's a little hard to surrender to a jet aircraft. "

Azrael was a c130a spectre. She did most of the killing on that highway. And coincidentally she is in the National Air Force Museum today.

Blogger Owen January 16, 2015 11:54 AM  

Hearing about "Hungarian SS" reminds me of post-breakup discoveries about the Spetsnaz. The Soviets boasted so many of those units. Then, we found that the term was thrown around pretty liberally, to include soldiers who know a second language. We'd learn a particular Spetsnaz unit was really a bunch or transcriptionists.

Blogger Mekadave January 16, 2015 11:55 AM  

My grandfather served 4th division, Huertgen forest, Bulge, etc and said they would throw captured SS in with Wehrmacht prisoners who often beat the SS to death. Even some Germans viewed them as criminals.

At least one SS unit was made up exclusively of criminals. Their commander was a known sadist and convicted pedophile. The Nazi Party expelled him in 1934 and forced him to reapply later when they needed more people. The entry below is really bloodcurdling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/36th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS

Anonymous Eric Ashley January 16, 2015 11:57 AM  

Besides fleeing ain't surrender. IOW's shooting the routed enemy, or boots and saddles, and sabres out to chase down the routed army was pretty standard. More men died in the rout than on the field.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 11:57 AM  

"Hearing about "Hungarian SS" reminds me of post-breakup discoveries about the Spetsnaz. The Soviets boasted so many of those units. Then, we found that the term was thrown around pretty liberally, to include soldiers who know a second language. We'd learn a particular Spetsnaz unit was really a bunch or transcriptionists."

we're guilty of the same thing. Everyone hears Spec Ops and thinks SEALS and Green Berets... but the Teams have been watered down so bad now the old school guys are practically ashamed of them... and the same goes for every other Spec Ops unit.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 16, 2015 11:59 AM  

considering most of them were driven insane or near to it...by what they discovered in dachau... it was probably the merciful thing to do.

sorry... this sort of thing doesn't bother me at all. I can totally see myself reacting exactly the same way.


I have some audio recordings from one of my grandfathers squad mates during the war. The only time I heard anger in his voice was when he was talking about the SS. If anecdotal evidence means anything many US soldiers going all the way up the chain of command held the SS as the lowest of the low. Patton held them in utter contempt if the story about the interrogation SS Major General Dunckern by General Patton actually happened.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/patton.htm

Blogger Mekadave January 16, 2015 12:04 PM  

If anecdotal evidence means anything many US soldiers going all the way up the chain of command held the SS as the lowest of the low.

Sample from the link I posted a few back of the 36th Waffen SS (Dirlewanger's Brigade):

Thanks to Mathias Schenck from Belgium, many previously unknown episodes of the carnage have been revealed. The brutal murder of 500 small children was committed by Dirlewanger during the 1944 Wola massacre. Schenck testified,

"After the door of the building was blown off we saw a daycare-full of small children, around 500; all with small hands in the air. Even Dirlewanger's own people called him a butcher; he ordered to kill them all. The shots were fired, but he requested his men to save the ammo and finish them off by rifle-butts and bayonets. Blood and brain matter flowed in streams down the stairs."

Schenck (a sapper serving in the Wehrmacht) testified seeing a Dirlewanger man raping a girl while wielding a knife, and then cutting her wide open along the entire length of her torso after ejaculation. Up to 40,000 civilians were murdered in Wola in less than two weeks of August, including all hospital patients and staff.

Anonymous Anubis January 16, 2015 12:05 PM  

"Honorable surrender has never been treated with shame by any American unit I have ever heard of."

More Germans died after WWII was over than during the war, Patton was killed a few days after he said the US fought the wrong people.
http://www.hellstormdocumentary.com/

"There was a point in the first Gulf War when the Iraqis were fleeing and the US forces could have annihilated them. Colin Powell advised not to do so. I think that having done so would have been far more effective than going in for a second time and trying to "build democracy"

Hussein & Syria's president where the only secular powers in the middle east, who also made it safe for Christians & Jews. US taxes put Kuwait back on the map but 2 ramadans ago a male foreign travel nurse got thrown in Kuwaiti jail for drinking bottled water during the day which mudslimes are allowed to do but non mudslimes are not., it wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact mudslum nations have to import all their skilled labor with oil money.

Anonymous VD January 16, 2015 12:10 PM  

Hearing about "Hungarian SS" reminds me of post-breakup discoveries about the Spetsnaz. The Soviets boasted so many of those units. Then, we found that the term was thrown around pretty liberally, to include soldiers who know a second language.

It's worse in a way. They were Hungarian, but they weren't real SS. And they certainly weren't elite.

Established in November 1944 following the German overthrow of the Hungarian regime of Miklós Horthy, it consisted mainly of troops drawn from the Royal Hungarian Army's 13th Honvéd Division. It was never properly formed, trained, or equipped, and after being evacuated from its training camp in the face of the advancing Soviet Red Army, it surrendered to the United States Army in Austria in May 1945.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 16, 2015 12:19 PM  

Killed 500 children with rifle butts and bayonets to save ammo? Tell me more about those far right wing Nazis.

Anonymous Samuel Scott January 16, 2015 12:20 PM  

This is exactly why I laugh when the West criticizes Israeli actions during, for example, the war this past summer. The West is completely ignorant of the type of warfare that Hamas and others wage.

Countries that use 2GW tactics are criticizing a country for trying to deal with an organization that uses 4GW tactics. They just don't get it. And if Israel ever used 4GW tactics in response, those countries would the first to condemn Israel.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 16, 2015 12:24 PM  

My apologies I left out Far right wing Christian Nazis.

Anonymous Stilicho January 16, 2015 12:30 PM  

OT humor: Instapundit has a link to a story about a girl's college (Mt. Holyoke) that cancelled its annual presentation of The Vagina Monologues because it apparently excludes women without vaginas. I suppose they just wanted to create a "safe space" for John Scalzi where he wouldn't feel excluded.

Blogger Darth Toolpodicus January 16, 2015 12:32 PM  

“Nate, can you give some examples of this type of brutality in war that shows the easterners backing down?”

Not just open war, but even in Diplomacy:

An example of brutality Understood

Details missing from the article:

The KGB snatched the Hezbollah leader’s son, castrated him, stuffed his balls in his mouth, shot him in the head, and dropped him off in front of his dad’s house with THEIR demand note nailed to his chest. The penis arrived separately, and the note said somehting along the lines of "there wll be more"

The Hezbolla repsonse was basically: 'the KGB understands us, there will be no more 'misunderstandings' between us".

It was decades before another Russian diplomat was violated.

Blogger Nathan January 16, 2015 12:35 PM  

The problem with 4GW theory is that it’s based on historical misapprehensions and leads to a confused and invalid view of what is currently transpiring in the several conflicts with radical Islamist sects in the Middle and Far East. 4GW theory does not accurately describe the West’s execution of warfare since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 due to its historically false tenet that the State as it is exists in the conception of Western culture holds a monopoly on violence and the execution of warfare. This has never been in the case. Many Western nations have successfully faced non-State actors in several conflicts since 1648. The most prominent examples include the Barbary War in which the United States Navy and Marine Corps engaged pirates acting with autonomy out of North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, the United States Army’s conflicts with Native American tribes (the Battle of Little Big Horn is an excellent example I’ll get to shortly), and the Philippine-American War (particularly the Battle of Bud Dajo). These are examples of non-State belligerents in conflict with Western States, but 4GW theory would also lead us to believe that, at least as far as Western civilization is concerned, the State holds a monopoly on violence. This is also erroneous, as even a cursory examination of the activities of the British East India Company will quickly prove. The idea that war has undergone progressive stages from the conception of uniformed Soldiers engaging in conflict under the banner of secular Western States through stages of massing fires and later maneuver is simply incorrect since these stages can’t be shown to follow in a continuous, logical chain from each other. The Battles of Little Big Horn and Bud Dajo look to all outward appearances to fit the description of 4GW. At little Big Horn, uniformed Soldiers were defeated by a non-State group of tribes utilizing superior technology in the form of privately purchased repeating rifles. This would seem to be an excellent historical example of 4GW, as would the Battle of Bud Dajo in which Islamic insurgents were defeated and slaughtered, but which was a disaster in terms of public perception. These battles occurred in 1876 and 1906 respectively, predating what 4GW theory tells us was even the advent of 2GW.

Blogger Nathan January 16, 2015 12:35 PM  

Perhaps, even if 4GW theory is based on a dubious understanding of history, it remains a useful rubric to understand today’s conflicts with organizations like ISIS and Boko Haram, and the United States’ difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan. Examining the evidence will prove this is not the case. ISIS, for example, calls itself an Islamic State. It intends to control a large area under the banner of a caliphate, sell the oil in that area under traditional concepts of the property rights accruing to states that control land, and mint its own gold-backed currency. ISIS calls itself an Islamic State, and why should we question it or shoe-horn it into a category that it clearly does not see itself belonging to (a non-State actor) to fit our rubric of warfare? ISIS is a State, and is in conflict with the States around it. Clearly, everywhere you look, the State is NOT losing. What then of the United States’ much trumpeted “defeat” in Iraq and Afghanistan? The prevailing attitude seems to be that the Military Industrial Complex has conspired to spend fortunes on high-tech weaponry that was of no avail against plucky tribesmen and their righteous anger with the imperial West. This in some ways is a comforting attitude, since it allows for clear villains in Washington and at the Pentagon, and would seem at least to give some idea of what the way ahead would be (scrap the weapons, don’t fight insurgencies, etc.). However, the reality is that those responsible for executing the war DID understand many of the concepts described in 4GW, shared in at least some of its philosophy, and that this unquestionably made thing worse. The problems on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq were poor execution of what were supposed to be population-centric counter insurgency tactics. Anyone that’s ever complained about the F35 or Congress’ mandated M1 Abrams purchases is outing himself as ignorant of what the real wastes over the last fourteen years were. The MAAWS-A is almost certainly the most dangerous, odious, and destructive pieces of doctrine to come down the pike… maybe ever. Do you know what the MAAWS-A is? It’s Money As A Weapons System… A… Afghanistan. If you just visualized a machine gun that spat out hundred dollar bills, then you’ve conceived of something that would have been more effectual and less wasteful than what this actually is. The intent was to use money, vast sums of it, to build projects throughout Afghanistan to pacify the insurgents through work and improved public works. For a really good idea of what actually happened, I recommend Vice’s Afghan Money Pit documentary. The sort of things documented there happened at almost all levels, from massive State Department projects all the way down to the Battalion level. At least with F35s and tanks, you get, you know, F35s and tanks. And you can believe me that the people responsible for all this where not thinking in terms of maneuver warfare. That’s why 4GW warfare is really a terrible concept; it shifts the narrative to absolve some of the biggest perpetrators of military incompetency of recent times and focuses it on easy targets that have virtually nothing to do with it.

Blogger Josh January 16, 2015 12:38 PM  

Nathan...

Dude, paragraphs...

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 12:38 PM  

"Not just open war, but even in Diplomacy:"

another example is the surrender of the Japs.

We nuke two cities... and they lay down. Note that is was basically 4G warfare on our part. We simply ignored their military and went and blew up two big cities.

To the eastern mind... that says.. "whoa... these guys are serious. They will kill us... every one... man woman and child." and thus they surrendered.

Anonymous zen0 January 16, 2015 12:39 PM  

@ Samuel Scott

This is exactly why I laugh when the West criticizes Israeli actions during, for example, the war this past summer.

Avigdor Lieberman, Isreali Foreign Minister wrote on his FB page (after the Belgium operation)

"It will be interesting if the European Union will publish condemnations against the governments of Belgium and France for the excessive use of force, and call for them to negotiate with the terrorists and solve the issues around the negotiating table...interesting,...

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 12:40 PM  

"Dude, paragraphs..."

Amen.

Wall o' text much?

Blogger Josh January 16, 2015 12:40 PM  

another example is the surrender of the Japs.

We nuke two cities... and they lay down. Note that is was basically 4G warfare on our part. We simply ignored their military and went and blew up two big cities.

To the eastern mind... that says.. "whoa... these guys are serious. They will kill us... every one... man woman and child." and thus they surrendered.


The Jap high command had already asked to surrender before the bombs were dropped.

Anonymous RandyBeck January 16, 2015 12:43 PM  

A little context, it's not readily apparent in John C. Wright's blog, but Bill Whittle wrote that in 2005. It was written partly in reaction to the Marine shooting of an Iraqi who was pretending to be dead, while a reporter was nearby.

I recall that the reporter understood why he had to do that, but the so-called "human rights" activists will always lie and pretend anything Americans do is a war crime even if it isn't.

Blogger Owen January 16, 2015 12:43 PM  

The Jap high command had already asked to surrender before the bombs were dropped.

Think it had anything to do with bombing Tokyo to the stone ages?

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 12:43 PM  

"The Jap high command had already asked to surrender before the bombs were dropped."

Conditional surrender.

Blogger Nathan January 16, 2015 12:43 PM  

Hey, you've got one paragraph per post.

Anonymous . January 16, 2015 12:45 PM  

Short version:

"Imperialism" was 4GW.

Except the West won.

Anonymous Bah January 16, 2015 12:48 PM  

"The Jap high command had already asked to surrender before the bombs were dropped."

They were trying to end the war without removing the prospects for a future resurgence of Japanese militarism. Quite properly rejected.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 12:51 PM  

exactly. The Japs were basically the now quadraplegic Black Knight saying.. "right... we'll call it a draw."

No. We won't. BOOM. BOOM.

Blogger Darth Toolpodicus January 16, 2015 12:51 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Nathan January 16, 2015 12:52 PM  

"Imperialism" was 4GW.

Closer to what fits the theory of 4GW than what are described as 4GW concepts today.

Blogger Brad Andrews January 16, 2015 12:55 PM  

The bombs were dropped on Japan in an attempt to warn the Soviet Union. They had no military value in reality and didn't even get revenge against the right people if that was the goal.

We let them keep their emperor anyway, the only condition they wanted if I have learned correctly.

VD wrote:

It's worse in a way. They were Hungarian, but they weren't real SS. And they certainly weren't elite.

And exactly how were the US soldiers supposed to know that? Did they were dunce caps?

Blogger Darth Toolpodicus January 16, 2015 12:55 PM  

Whoops, link got fixed:

lesson in brutality Understood

Blogger Josh January 16, 2015 12:58 PM  

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/05/harry-truman-was-war-criminal.html?m=1

Lots of info at the link.

"There is simply no room for debate on this. The historical facts are documented and indisputable. There is no honest, informed defense of the Truman administration's actions. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely unnecessary war crimes worthy of being ranked with the Holocaust and other great historical atrocities."

Coincidentally, Bill whittle is mentioned as well.

Anonymous VD January 16, 2015 12:58 PM  

Conditional surrender.

Yes, of the sort that had been previously accepted in most wars. Americans have had absolutely no call to whine about their civilians being slaughtered anywhere, by anyone, after their "total war" attacks targeting civilians in WWII.

It's obnoxious. All the crying about how unfair it is... it looks insane to everyone in the rest of the world. Remember, the concept of "total war" involving civilian populations is a Western concept was largely invented by the Americans and the British. It's a byproduct of democracy.

Blogger Owen January 16, 2015 12:59 PM  

The bombs were dropped on Japan in an attempt to warn the Soviet Union.

The tends of thousands of US troops training to storm the Japanese mainland was one helluva psyop, then?

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 16, 2015 1:00 PM  

The real reason we dropped the bombs was to forestall the impending Japanese invasion of the West Coast.

Anonymous VD January 16, 2015 1:00 PM  

And exactly how were the US soldiers supposed to know that? Did they were dunce caps?

They weren't wearing Totenkopf insignia, among other things. And the US soldiers weren't supposed to have executed prisoners in any case. That's the whole point; Whittle was factually wrong.

Anonymous VD January 16, 2015 1:07 PM  

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
- The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, July 1, 1946

More importantly, it is also not true that Japan had been unwilling to surrender prior to the atomic bombings, because it is an established and readily verifiable historical fact that the Japanese had offered to surrender on almost exactly the same terms that were subsequently accepted months before the bombs were dropped.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

* Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
* Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
* Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
* Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
* Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
* Surrender of designated war criminals.


The dropping of the atomic bombs was an American war crime and a historical atrocity that murdered more than 100,000 noncombatants. Deal with it. America was not the worst bad guy, but it was not the good guy either. Learn to think in non-binary terms.

They murdered over 100,000 Japanese civilians, men, women, and children, solely in order to formally obtain what they would already have complete control over, the person of the Emperor. That is what you are attempting to justify when you defend the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Blogger Josh January 16, 2015 1:07 PM  

Remember, the concept of "total war" involving civilian populations is a Western concept was largely invented by the Americans and the British. It's a byproduct of democracy.

The unholy trinity of Sheridan, Sherman, and Churchill.

And yes, Kitchener is probably more responsible than Churchill, but Churchill is more recognizable.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 1:07 PM  

"
Yes, of the sort that had been previously accepted in most wars. Americans have had absolutely no call to whine about their civilians being slaughtered anywhere, by anyone, after their "total war" attacks targeting civilians in WWII. "

Who's complaining? I called it 4G warfare didn't I? Reap what you sew and all that. Appears to me the US still has a lot more reaping to do.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 16, 2015 1:09 PM  

I have to agree with Nathan. I do see merits in the 4GW theory but there have been plenty of examples of state actors defeating non-state actors since the treaty of Westphalia. I also think Nate's point about brutality is accurate, and coupled with proper incentives provides an effective, if morally repugnant, way to deal with insurgencies. The Romans understood this intuitively. For a modern day example I would point to the US occupation of the Philippines. The US brutally put down the insurgency, there is a story where General MacArthur, father of the famous WWII general, lined up a bunch of Moros, had the US soldiers grease their bullets in pig fat, and then shot them in front of their comrades. There were also reports that when Filipino insurgents refused to surrender their arms that the US soldiers would simply set their hut alight. On the other end the US government offered land for lease at a very cheap rate to landless farmers among many institutional improvements. It probably also helped that the American administrators were more competent and not quite as corrupt as the Colonial Spaniard administrators; a low bar I know.

Blogger Darth Toolpodicus January 16, 2015 1:12 PM  

Yeah, Can't say as I don't appreciate Whittle's *sentiment*... in truth surrender is one of the most dangerous times for a soldier. I remember learning in Basic that you can expect a 50% chance of being dispatched while offerring a surrender during wartime, often for the simple reason that the soldiers accpepting the surrender had no logistical way to deal with POWs and in stead choose to shoot them, historically speaking, particularly in WWII.

In Japan's case, for good or ill, it was widely known what they did to POWs, ironically driven by their own sense of warrior code radically different from our own regarding surrender, and as always, when one side voids "the rules" the other side reciprocates.

Whittle's sentiment is correct in that knowing surrender is not an *automatic 100% death penalty* rather than just being very dangerous still serves its purpose as a last-resort safety valve.

In the Sandbox, troops were often explicity instructed "don't be taken alive or you will end up in a pink jumpsuit on Youtube getting your head cut off".

Anonymous Porky January 16, 2015 1:14 PM  

Remember, the concept of "total war" involving civilian populations is a Western concept was largely invented by the Americans and the British.

1 Sam 15:3?

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 1:16 PM  

War Crimes... what a retarded concept...

You'd think a Southron and Redskinned Savage would see eye to eye on this... based on the history of brutality our people suffered at yankee hands.

Blogger Brad Andrews January 16, 2015 1:22 PM  

Owen,

The tends of thousands of US troops training to storm the Japanese mainland was one helluva psyop, then?

That was the bugaboo used to justify the bombs, but it was not a necessity. A serious blockade could have done the job in a bit more time, if that was really necessary.

Vox noted that they were already willing to surrender as well with only the condition of not charging their emperor with war crimes. No invasion needed for that.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 16, 2015 1:22 PM  

"The most obvious example is the turks running like bitches from Vlad Tepes.

no offense Tommy."

Just because Mehmed was disgusted enough to contemplate breaking off the campaign, doesn't mean they were running like bitches, lol. His generals convinced him otherwise.

Is it that you are referring to?

Btw, is the Dachau incident the one that is referred to in Shutter Island?

I think you guys do not employ family targeted retaliation well enough. It would require far less resources and would be doubly effective.

Also, you say that this works against Middle Easterners. Does it not work against westerners?

And you are absolutely right in saying that we see mercy as a weakness, because, well, it is....

If killing is necessary, you should do it, because it is necessary. If it isn't necessary, well, don't do it. that is the only thing you should ask yourself.

Blogger Josh January 16, 2015 1:25 PM  

1 Sam 15:3?

0gw

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 1:26 PM  

"Also, you say that this works against Middle Easterners. Does it not work against westerners? "

generally speaking no.

It just pisses westerners off more. The more brutal you are... the more the western mind wants to kill you.

As I have said forever... The Western mind is ignorant of the eastern mind.. but the western mind is entirely incomprehensible to the eastern mind.

Blogger Darth Toolpodicus January 16, 2015 1:29 PM  

Someone correct me if I wrong on this, but wasn't the prosecution of war crimes against ememy leadership, and especially "crimes against peace and crimes against humanity" largely an invention of the Nuremburg Trials?

Ironic given that we certainly were all about Total War (a concept I dont have any heartburn about). The main difference being that we won and they lost.

Anonymous VD January 16, 2015 1:30 PM  

War Crimes... what a retarded concept...

Rules are rules. They can be ignored or utilized. My point is that the USA's hands are far from clean in that particular regard, so lamenting how the enemy doesn't honor Sanctuary is fundementally misplaced.

My belief is in utilizing the necessary amount of force to achieve the objective, by the rules in effect, if any. Even if there are no rules in effect, it is wrong to knowingly use more force than is required. The USA has used far too little force in its war with the Dar al-Islam. It used too much in its war with Japan; there was no need to storm Iwo Jima or any of the Pacific islands once the IJN was beaten.

Islands. Where was the IJA going to go?

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 1:33 PM  

"My belief is in utilizing the necessary amount of force to achieve the objective, by the rules in effect, if any. Even if there are no rules in effect, it is wrong to knowingly use more force than is required. The USA has used far too little force in its war with the Dar al-Islam. It used too much in its war with Japan; there was no need to storm Iwo Jima or any of the Pacific islands once the IJN was beaten."

Its amazing to me that you could have spent so much time in Japan... studying what you've studied... and still not get this. But I suppose the veil of civilization effects us all... western civilization in this case.

Vox...

There is no such thing as to much force when dealing with the eastern mind. You deal with them as harshly and brutally as you can imagine. Because there is no peace until you do. If you pussyfoot around and do "just enough" you will never do enough... because by definition you are always showing some level of restraint... and therefore to them... you're displaying some level of weakness.

This kind of thinking is what gets us killed.

Blogger Owen January 16, 2015 1:34 PM  

it is wrong to knowingly use more force than is required.

I heard it years ago. Victory is achieved by inflicting unacceptable losses upon the enemy.

It's easier to spot too much force in hindsight. When you're trying to achieve victory and minimize your losses, it's not nearly as clear.

Blogger Owen January 16, 2015 1:35 PM  

Or, "I don't want soldiers who will die for their country. I want soldiers who will make the other poor SOB die for their country."

Blogger Cataline Sergius January 16, 2015 1:39 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Cataline Sergius January 16, 2015 1:41 PM  

The false surrender thing did happen quite a bit during the active phase of OIF.

In theory we were supposed to stop shooting whenever they waved a white flag. That's what ROE said to do anyway.

Mind you this was the uniformed Iraqii military pulling this shit. I think it was Saddam's idea, he was certain that if he could inflict XX,XXX number of casualties America would just give up and go home. He was wrong and right. He never did learn to understand us.

As for those on the sharp edge. Unofficial policy became. They get one chance to surrender. If an enemy unit fired under a white flag, there wouldn't get another chance to surrender. If a white flag was waving, we simply assumed they were trying to determine windage.

It says something about how enraging it is to loose a man under a white flag, that the embeded reporters, never mentioned the improvised ROE.

Blogger Josh January 16, 2015 1:42 PM  

This Bill whittle guy sounds like a hack.

Anonymous Samuel Scott January 16, 2015 1:46 PM  

What's a "Southron"? Just asking -- I don't know that reference.

Anonymous 11B January 16, 2015 1:47 PM  

Speaking of rules of war, well at least an unwritten one anyway, isn't it pretty much common knowledge that whenever you are engaged in conflict with another side, you do not allow millions of their citizens to immigrate into your country?

Anonymous dw January 16, 2015 1:47 PM  

@Samuel Scott

An American.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 16, 2015 1:47 PM  

"generally speaking no.

It just pisses westerners off more. The more brutal you are... the more the western mind wants to kill you."

Seems like chauvinism. Nobody wants to be impaled or firebombed. This whole "it just pisses them off more" only works if you have a good chance of destroying them.

Blogger Josh January 16, 2015 1:48 PM  

An American

You're goddamn right.

Blogger Cataline Sergius January 16, 2015 1:48 PM  

I think part of it, is that there is a certain degree of trust that goes on when you surrender.

Arab culture is probably the lowest trust culture on earth. They honestly do hold you in contempt if you trust anyone outside your family. For that matter trusting family isn't a great idea.

"Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. Me and my cousin against the world."

Not taking advantage of an advantage gained by someone else's trust in you, is perhaps unthinkable to an arab. Even if the price tag for doing so would be the cost of your own life.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 1:51 PM  

"@Samuel Scott

An American."

No.

Definately not an American.

A southron is a person from the South. that's a capital S there... As in the Old Confederacy.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 16, 2015 1:52 PM  

Maybe I'm ignorantm but what is this whole "western capacity for ridiculous violence" that you are talking about? You keep mentioning WW2, but that wasn't particularly cruel to my knowledge. The only thing that made the west stand out was competence, not ferocity or dispoassionate ruthlessness.

I just don't see anything the west has done as particularly ruthless. Wow, you bombed entire cities in a war that cost you tons of money. Other people would do the same if they could.

Blogger Brad Andrews January 16, 2015 1:54 PM  

Josh,

This Bill whittle guy sounds like a hack.

I can't comment on the full range of his ideas, but he has some decent videos at

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCy9VHF_ihqzBsx9tr0_XZIQ

I like the ones by Andrew Klavan better, as they have better satire, but Whittle's vidoes have seemed generally interesting, if leaning toward the neocon approach.

Check out Klavan's videos if you have not.

Blogger Josh January 16, 2015 1:54 PM  

As in the Old Confederacy.

And may or may not include Missouri, Kentucky, west Virginia, and Oklahoma on a provisional basis.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 16, 2015 1:54 PM  

Tom Kratman mentioned the war against Mexicans and Indians as an example, but wasn't that normal warfare for the time?

Blogger Nate Winchester January 16, 2015 1:55 PM  

The dropping of the atomic bombs was an American war crime and a historical atrocity that murdered more than 100,000 noncombatants. Deal with it. America was not the worst bad guy, but it was not the good guy either. Learn to think in non-binary terms.

Vox, then why do you insist on thinking in binary when it comes to parts of this subject? Like...

More importantly, it is also not true that Japan had been unwilling to surrender prior to the atomic bombings, because it is an established and readily verifiable historical fact that the Japanese had offered to surrender on almost exactly the same terms that were subsequently accepted months before the bombs were dropped.

Because that treaty and terms were completely honest?
As chronicled here: http://rerum-novarum.blogspot.com/2008_08_17_archive.html#6939017498346018448

Even after the dropping of two atomic bombs and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union, the Council was deadlocked on whether to surrender or not. Among the demands being made were:

--The retention of the Emperor but also that the Emperor would have real sovereign authority.

--Retention of the military caste style of governance.

--That the issue of war criminals would be dealt with entirely by the Japanese government and not by the Allies.

--Japan was not to be occupied in the execution of the Potsdam Declaration terms.

Now these were the terms which were still being hashed out after the bomb drop on Hiroshima, the Soviets declared war on Japan, and the bomb drop on Nagasaki!!!


That's nothing like the terms Japan actually surrendered to. The guy has a wealth of material on that old site and it is well worth checking out to (yes) break binary thinking. (like the idea that it was non combatants hit by the bomb)

Blogger Josh January 16, 2015 1:56 PM  

Check out Klavan's videos if you have not.

Ugh. Videos are the least efficient way of communicating ideas.

Blogger Owen January 16, 2015 1:56 PM  

Arab culture is probably the lowest trust culture on earth.

I had been recently assigned to a new unit. Got in thick-as-thieves with my OIC because we're both half-Jameson. Two weeks after meeting him for the first time, he hands me the keys to his place so I can house-sit while he and his wife go to the Keys.

Wife: Are you sure you can trust him with everything in the house?

OIC: Bah, he's got too much Irish blood in him. Worst that happens is the liquor cabinet is busted open and a dog gets pregnant.

Anonymous dw January 16, 2015 1:58 PM  

@Nate

I was under the impression Southrons consider(ed) themselves the true Americans. Or did the CSA do away with that moniker at the time?

Anonymous Porky January 16, 2015 1:59 PM  

What's a "Southron"? Just asking.

Think Jameis Winston.

Or Billy Carter.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 2:00 PM  

"I just don't see anything the west has done as particularly ruthless. Wow, you bombed entire cities in a war that cost you tons of money. Other people would do the same if they could."

As usual Tommy... you don't understand the point being made. I am not in anyway saying the west is more brutal than the east.

I am saying the west fights with gloves on and the east sees that as weakness.

Anonymous Porky January 16, 2015 2:03 PM  

You'd think a Southron and Redskinned Savage would see eye to eye on this...

I'll tell you what...if I have to follow someone into battle I'd rather it be the brutal Southron than the contemplative Indian.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 2:05 PM  

"I was under the impression Southrons consider(ed) themselves the true Americans. Or did the CSA do away with that moniker at the time?"

I shall respond with a classic verse.

O, I'm a good old Rebel,
Now that's just what I am,
For this "Fair Land of Freedom"
I do not give a damn.

I'm glad I fit against it --
I only wish we'd won,
And I don't want no pardon
For anything I done.

I hates the Constitution,
This Great Republic too,
I hates the Freedman's Buro,
In uniforms of blue;

I hates the nasty eagle,
With all his brags and fuss,
The lyin', thievin' Yankees,
I hates 'em worse and worse.

I hates the Yankee nation
And everything they do,
I hates the Declaration
Of Independence too;

I hates the glorious Union --
'Tis dripping with our blood --
I hates their striped banner,
I fit it all I could.

I followed old mass' Robert
For four year, near about,
Got wounded in three places
And starved at Point Lookout;

I catched the rheumatism
A campin' in the snow,
But I killed a chance of Yankees,
I'd like to kill some mo'.

Three hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in Southern dust;
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us;

They died of Southern fever
And Southern steel and shot,
I wish they was three million
Instead of what we got.

I can't take up my musket
And fight 'em now no more,
But I ain't going to love 'em,
Now that is sarten sure;

And I don't want no pardon
For what I was and am,
I won't be reconstructed
And I don't care a damn.

Blogger Owen January 16, 2015 2:08 PM  

That song is even better in the voice of Golem.

Blogger Nate Winchester January 16, 2015 2:08 PM  

I was under the impression Southrons consider(ed) themselves the true Americans. Or did the CSA do away with that moniker at the time?

Hmmm... I thought Southrons were fighting for Sauron...
http://lotrtcgwiki.com/wiki/lotr04251

Alright, had to get that out of my system.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 16, 2015 2:08 PM  

"I am saying the west fights with gloves on and the east sees that as weakness."

Well...duh?

Tbh, it is natural that the west fights with gloves on because most wars it has fought were wars of luxury. If they lay down their arms, the war is over. It's hard to let your inner BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD, SKULLS FOR THE SKULLS THRONE out if you could take it or leave it.

Blogger Josh January 16, 2015 2:09 PM  

Preach it brother nate!

Can I get a witness?

Anonymous 11B January 16, 2015 2:09 PM  

This is exactly why I laugh when the West criticizes Israeli actions during, for example, the war this past summer.

Right. Because the issue of muslim immigrants and their kids in Europe is the same as muslims living in conquered territory in the middle east.

"It will be interesting if the European Union will publish condemnations against the governments of Belgium and France for the excessive use of force, and call for them to negotiate with the terrorists and solve the issues around the negotiating table...interesting,...

Well the EU has already issued public condemnations against European right wingers for even entertaining the idea of ending mass muslim immigration into Europe. They just had a huge march in France proclaiming in effect that muslims are, and will be, a part of the EU citizenry. The EU has publicly embraced the idea that Europe is NOT the exclusive home to Europeans, and that it matters not if Europeans become a minority in their own lands. In effect the EU has no intentions on ensuring Europe remains European.

Now when the Israelis decide to welcome more muslim immigrants, extend citizenship to the Palis of Gaza and the West Bank, and no longer proclaim that Israel must remain a Jewish state, then maybe Mr. Lieberman might have a point.

I'd say the Europeans are practicing what they are preaching. They are crazy as hell for doing it, but hypocrites they are not. Israelis should not even attempt to engage in a game of one-upmanship with Europeans on this issue. You don't play a game of chicken with someone who wants to die.

Anonymous VD January 16, 2015 2:09 PM  

Vox, then why do you insist on thinking in binary when it comes to parts of this subject? Like...

Don't be a fucking moron. You obviously don't even understand what "thinking in binary" means. It's not clever to use terms and concepts you don't properly grasp.

That's nothing like the terms Japan actually surrendered to.

Again, don't be a fucking moron. McCarthur sent FIVE separate proposals to Roosevelt. None of them were accepted. The fact that the Japanese were later discussing different proposals than the five previous ones is not only unsurprising, it is logically necessary. In fact, it may well have been the failure of the US to accept the previous proposals that gave the die-hards more power in subsequent surrender discussions.

like the idea that it was non combatants hit by the bomb

That's insanely stupid. You cannot possibly be asserting that all of the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were combatants. Let's be specific. What percentage of the minimum 129,000 people killed in the two bombings do you claim were combatants?

Anonymous VD January 16, 2015 2:11 PM  

I'll tell you what...if I have to follow someone into battle I'd rather it be the brutal Southron than the contemplative Indian.

Probably wise. I'm a better strategist than tactician.

Blogger Brad Andrews January 16, 2015 2:13 PM  

Josh,

Ugh. Videos are the least efficient way of communicating ideas.

Have you watched even one of his videos? I would dispute your claim. He is definitely off on a few things (such as the motivation of the US Civil War), but Klavan uses satire very effectively to make his point. They are things to make you think, not huge treatises to learn all the details.

Claiming videos are bad is like claiming the old stories told to the young by the old are the worst way to pass on knowledge. They were very effective for the same reason.

Anonymous The Lost Verse January 16, 2015 2:14 PM  

I'm happy, fat, and toothless
Drink whiskey instead of water
My IQ's in the doubles
And I married my sister's daughter.

Blogger Danby January 16, 2015 2:16 PM  

@Tommy
Ever read the Return of the King. That scene with the Rohirrim?

But at that same moment there was a flash, as if lightning had sprung from the earth beneath the City. For a searing second it stood dazzling far off in black and white, its topmost tower like a glittering needle; and then as the darkness closed there came rolling over the fields a great boom.

At that sound the bent shape of the king sprang suddenly erect. Tall and proud he seemed again; and rising in his stirrups he cried in a loud voice, more clear than any there had ever heard a mortal man achieve before,

Arise,arise, Riders of Theoden!
Fell deeds awake: fire and slaughter!
spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered,
a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!
Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!

With that he seized a great horn from Guthlaf his banner-bearer and he blew such a blast upon it that it burst asunder. And straightway all horns in the host were lifted up in music, and the blowing of the horns of Rohan in that hour was like a storm upon the plain and a thunder in the mountains.

Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!

Suddenly the king cried to Snowmane and the horse sprang away. Behind him his banner blew in the wind, white horse upon a field of green, but he outpaced it. After him thundered the knights of his house, but he was ever before them. Eomer rode there, the white horsetail on his helm floating in his speed, and the front of the first eored roared like a breaker foaming to the shore, but Theoden could not be outpaced. Fey he seemed, or the battle-fury of his fathers ran like new fire in his veins, and he was borne up on Snowmane like a god of old, even as Orome the Great in the battle of the Valar when the world was young. His golden shield was uncovered, and lo! it shone like an image of the Sun, and the grass flamed into green about the white feet of his steed. For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and darkness was removed, and the hosts of Sauron wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them.

And then all the host of Rohan burst into song, and the sang as they slew, for the joy of battle was on them, and the sound of their singing that was fair and terrible came even to the City.


These are men who are convinced that they are going to die. That all their kin are either already dead or doomed to torture, slavery, rape and death. And they sang as they slew.

That's what we are talking about.

Anonymous Porky January 16, 2015 2:16 PM  

Probably wise. I'm a better strategist than tactician.

Of course, I'd probably have gotten shredded at Iwo Jima now that I think about it.

Anonymous Samuel Scott January 16, 2015 2:16 PM  

Sorry, to go off-topic, but I'm just genuinely curious as to the history of the word "Southron" in the United States because I'm a writer who thinks too much about words. Why not just say "southerner" or something similar?

"Southron" just sounds weird as a noun, but that may just be because I've never heard it before. Is it an attempt to turn an identity into a proper noun?

Objective, fact-based answers preferred.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 2:16 PM  

'I'm happy, fat, and toothless
Drink whiskey instead of water
My IQ's in the doubles
And I married my sister's daughter."

Brother...

I do believe you're a few iams short of a full pentameter.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 16, 2015 2:17 PM  

Guys, why do you think the West has better militaries than the rest these days? Primary reason of course.

Cutting edge tech? Best production capabilities? Organization/doctrine?

I doubt it is individual ferocity/bravery, because lots of the inferiors have that in spades. It's gotta be one of the others.

Blogger Owen January 16, 2015 2:19 PM  

Guys, why do you think the West has better militaries than the rest these days? Primary reason of course.

If you're asking honestly, I'd say it's "discipline."

Discipline comes from training, ethos, military tradition, and education.

Anonymous 11B January 16, 2015 2:19 PM  

Sorry, to go off-topic, but I'm just genuinely curious as to the history of the word "Southron" in the United States because I'm a writer who thinks too much about words. Why not just say "southerner" or something similar?

I learn something new everyday. I always thought it was an American term, but after Sam asked, I had to look. I never realized it came from Scotland.

Anonymous Samuel Scott January 16, 2015 2:20 PM  

Right. Because the issue of muslim immigrants and their kids in Europe is the same as muslims living in conquered territory in the middle east.

Here's what I see happening:

Hamas uses 4GW against Israel.
Israel responds.
Europe condemns Israel for responding.
Israel says, "Just wait until they use 4GW against you. Then we'll talk."

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 2:20 PM  

'Sorry, to go off-topic, but I'm just genuinely curious as to the history of the word "Southron" in the United States because I'm a writer who thinks too much about words. Why not just say "southerner" or something similar?"

becuase the language of the south was very different than the language of the north. People in the south rejected Webster's Dictionary for decades because he was a yankee.

In the south its not "color". Its "colour". Its not "favor". Its "favour". They used oxford's not websters.

A subculture of modern secessionists like myself adopted the policy and to some extent stuck with it. I don't always type honour instead of honor... because honestly dealing with autocorrect is a pain in the ass. but I aspire to.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 2:21 PM  

" I never realized it came from Scotland."

why would that surprise you? Take a good look at the battle flag. recognize it?

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 2:24 PM  

"Hamas uses 4GW against Israel.
Israel responds.
Europe condemns Israel for responding.
Israel says, "Just wait until they use 4GW against you. Then we'll talk." "

I agree.

but why does Israel give a damn?

Its not like France cares when the rest of the world bitches about how they handle this or that. Grow a pair of balls and handle shit once and for all.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 16, 2015 2:25 PM  

"I doubt it is individual ferocity/bravery, because lots of the inferiors have that in spades. It's gotta be one of the others."

With the US it is partially due to better battle efficiency of green troops. There's a whole study about it somewhere on the net.....maybe I'll find it.....maybe not...

tl:dr version, a considerable higher percentage of green, US soldiers will effectively use their weapons and fire on the enemy during their first combat experience than just about any other military in the world, or something like that.....it has increased a lot since WWII, where at the start it was about 10%, now it's up to about 60%...IIRC....

Not necessarily related to ferocity or brutality etc.

Blogger Danby January 16, 2015 2:25 PM  

@NAte
but why does Israel give a damn?

Because we pay for it.

Blogger Josh January 16, 2015 2:26 PM  

" I never realized it came from Scotland."

why would that surprise you? Take a good look at the battle flag. recognize it?


There's a direct line from the Jacobites to the American and southern wars of independence.

Blogger Owen January 16, 2015 2:26 PM  

Not necessarily related to ferocity or brutality etc.

Discipline.

Blogger Josh January 16, 2015 2:27 PM  

Guys, why do you think the West has better militaries than the rest these days? Primary reason of course.

Cutting edge tech? Best production capabilities? Organization/doctrine?


Because we will absolutely call in an air strike on your ass asap.

Anonymous Sam thre Man January 16, 2015 2:31 PM  

Regarding the Dachau incident:

I knew a man, now dead who was there on the US side. He was not part of the shooting party, but was there just after it occurred. Here is what he said:

1) The US soldiers were not so angry at the SS because of what they saw in the camp, but in the train of death, which was a train full of dead women and children that they opened up near the camp. He saw this train and it was horrific.


2) The soldiers lined up any SS they caught. Now next to the concentration camp was a SS hospital. A lot of the SS shot came from there. A number of them were wounded and they were Waffens SS, not Totenkopfbande, or camp guards. Hence it was officially a atrocity.

3) The number was much higher than 45, a total of over 200 were shot. Some of them were camp guards, so one could argue some in the lot deserved it.

4) The incident was covered up, so to speak, folks knew about it but no one was punished. In fairness to the US soldiers, Officers did step in to halt the massacre, had they not a lot more men would have died.
Link to details
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauLiberation/DeathTrain.html


All of the above is open source, I am sure anyone could verify it. Now here is the hard part, I have never verified this but questioned him at detail about this. He claims the following

1) The train was full not of camp internees, but bodies recovered at Dresden or some other Bombing raid. They were dried out because they had been cooked in underground air-raid shelters. The imagery was horrifying, all children, women and old men.


2) The Germans were still finding bodies in March/April, which is when these bodies were sent to Dachau. They were sent there to be burned in disposal ovens. Ovens….hmmmmm….


3) The actual camp internees were not in that bad shape, it was not a death camp. Most of the badly off prisoners were the ones with Typhus; there was an epidemic at the camp.


4) Not all the dead SS men were liked by the US , a number of guards were killed by the camp internees, which were pretty much ok in his book.

The fellow ran a black powder gun shop in Ottsville PA, died da few years ago. Not a Nazi fan, always struck me as an American patriot. In any case, he believed the killing of the SS from the SS hospital/barracks outside of the camp was a crime, oddly enough caused by US soldier’s righteous indignation over what they thought was an SS crime and was actually due to US bombing. Irony of war.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 2:33 PM  

"Guys, why do you think the West has better militaries than the rest these days? Primary reason of course. "

one word.

Professionalism

Blogger Tommy Hass January 16, 2015 2:33 PM  

"Discipline comes from training, ethos, military tradition, and education."

As you know, I live in Germany.

I went to the parmacy to buy some painkillers for my mother. She got a generic version of the one she ususally takes and wanted the correct one. So she went to her doctor and had the prescription signed again, this time, explicitly asking for the brandnamed version. Thing is, the signature was very different from the first one.

When I went to the pharmacy with the updated prescription, the intern/apprentice refused to give it to me, because the signature looked so different. That would've never happened in my home country. They would've been like, "Sure, whatever, here you go". Not this chick.

Seems annoying in moments like this, but I believe this is the secret for Germany's (and more broadly, germanic speaking protestant white westerners') success, be it military or other things.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 2:34 PM  

'Because we pay for it."

i think you grossly over state isaeli reliance on foreign aid. Its nice to have.. but they don't need it anymore.

Anonymous Samuel Scott January 16, 2015 2:38 PM  

but why does Israel give a damn?

Because geopolitics is a mix of idealistic and realistic concerns.

It's easy to be an idealist and say, "Israel should tell Europe to go f*ck itself." But the realistic, day-to-day reality is more complicated. Israel has very few resources. Almost everything I buy on a daily basis -- food, deodorant, and more -- is imported from Europe. Say Israel pissed Europe off so that the trade stops. Then, daily life is a lot harder. Israel and Egypt and Turkey and more have agreements as far as sharing oil, water, and more. If you push too much in either direction, those resources are threatened.

Here's a great geopolitical analysis of ancient and modern Israel from Stratfor:
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/geopolitics-israel-biblical-and-modern#axzz3P0yjkWbu

Nutshell: Israel's geopolitical situation mandates that it create, manage, and change external alliances as needed. Its survival depends on external relationships -- this was true in biblical Israel and it's true today.

That's why Israel cannot just thumb its nose at other countries without consequence.

Blogger Josh January 16, 2015 2:42 PM  

Seems annoying in moments like this, but I believe this is the secret for Germany's (and more broadly, germanic speaking protestant white westerners') success, be it military or other things.

Yup

Anonymous Samuel Scott January 16, 2015 2:44 PM  

i think you grossly over state isaeli reliance on foreign aid. Its nice to have.. but they don't need it anymore.

The vast majority of "aid" to Israel from the United States is in the form of loans to the Israeli government to by arms from U.S. weapons manufacturers.

A lesser portion is R&D funding for things such as the Iron Dome -- which intercepts incoming rockets and saved my city of Tel Aviv from Hamas last summer and whose technology is then shared with the United States for its own use.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 2:46 PM  

"It's easy to be an idealist and say, "Israel should tell Europe to go f*ck itself." But the realistic, day-to-day reality is more complicated. Israel has very few resources. "

meh.

I think you're being pussies and vastly over estimating what the world wide reaction would be. By draggigng the conflict out and half assing it you're making it worse.

if you'd just busted heads 20 hears ago it would've been forgotten by now.

Blogger Nate Winchester January 16, 2015 2:48 PM  

Don't be a fucking moron. You obviously don't even understand what "thinking in binary" means. It's not clever to use terms and concepts you don't properly grasp.

I understand it quite well as you demonstrated it once awhile back when we debated vaccines and had to keep reiterating to you and spacebunny that wasn't an "either/or" proposition between those and sanitation but "both/and". And you're demonstrating it here that all words and records are exactly as written with no duplicity by anybody or even that one side might suspect the other of duplicity.

Again, don't be a fucking moron. McCarthur sent FIVE separate proposals to Roosevelt. None of them were accepted. The fact that the Japanese were later discussing different proposals than the five previous ones is not only unsurprising, it is logically necessary. In fact, it may well have been the failure of the US to accept the previous proposals that gave the die-hards more power in subsequent surrender discussions.

Which ones are you specifically referring to? The MAGIC transcripts or another one? Because of everything I've found, although Sato was advocating for unconditional surrender (but keep the emperor), Togo told him that Japan was "unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatsoever" and that was the official Japanese stance before the bombs dropped.

Indeed not only did Togo tell Sato that his proposal --and the one commonly espoused by critics of the use of the bombs-- was a no-go but that Japan was "unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatsoever." This was the stance officially of Japan before the dropping of the bombs. Furthermore, that was not all that was considered "on the table" by the Japanese before agreeing to a policy of surrender.

That's insanely stupid. You cannot possibly be asserting that all of the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were combatants. Let's be specific. What percentage of the minimum 129,000 people killed in the two bombings do you claim were combatants?

Ummm....
All males aged fifteen to sixty, and all females ages seventeen to forty-five, had been conscripted. Their weapons included ancient bronze cannon, muzzle loaded muskets, bamboo spears, and bows and arrows. Even little children had been trained to strap explosives around their waists, roll under tank treads, and blow themselves up. They were called “Sherman’s carpets.” -William Manchester: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 510-511
Or are we now arguing that conscripted people training to fight invaders are no longer combatants? I'll have to find the cencus for the cities of that time or do some back of the envelope calcs. I see estimations of 340,000–350,000 but no breakdown yet of how many of those would have been conscripted.

Anonymous zen0 January 16, 2015 2:51 PM  

Seems annoying in moments like this, but I believe this is the secret for Germany's (and more broadly, germanic speaking protestant white westerners') success, be it military or other things.

For example, It was the failure of a United Airlines ticket agent to follow protocols that allowed Mohammed Atta on the flight.

Anonymous Samuel Scott January 16, 2015 2:55 PM  

if you'd just busted heads 20 hears ago it would've been forgotten by now.

There's a strain of thought here that -- from a cold, rational, and logical perspective -- you would be right. If Israel had expelled the Palestinian Arabs and destroyed the Dome of the Rock in the Six Day War, then things would be much better today in terms of long-term strategy. But that didn't happen.

(Note: I'm not necessarily advocating that past policy -- it's just an objective observation.)

So, we've got a mess.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 3:00 PM  

"
(Note: I'm not necessarily advocating that past policy -- it's just an objective observation.)

So, we've got a mess."

Like Vox... you're half-assing things. As our own resident raghead as testified... they see that as weakness and it only encourages them to hit you harder.

like the US... you will abandon this idiocy of fighting fair and being the good-guys... or you will be destroyed.

Take it from me.

My people tried that bullshit and all it got us was conquered.

We've learned now.

Next time... we're killing everyone.

Anonymous Salt January 16, 2015 3:04 PM  

My people tried that bullshit and all it got us was conquered.

Leave it to a Yankee to teach a south'ron how to fight.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 16, 2015 3:09 PM  

Samuel Scott,

When my brother and I attended AMHSI in 1994, my buddies and I suggested just that. Formally add the West Bank to Israel and raze the Dome of the Rock.

No one listened to us then. Just to enrage the American Jews there from NYC and Miami, we proposed rebuilding the Temple.

Anonymous Samuel Scott January 16, 2015 3:09 PM  

Well, Nate, here's what I can say.

There's an Israeli election in two months, and it literally makes me feel sick sometimes. Because, unlike in the United States, my vote actually matters -- and the election could actually determine the future of Israel based on current events. (Unlike in the US, where every election is the "most important election ever.")

When I lived in Massachusetts, I knew that the state would go Democratic, regardless of for whom I would vote. But here in Israel, we have a proportional-representation system based on party. If a party gets X% of the national vote, then it gets X% of the seats in parliament.

So that fact, combined with the fact that Israel is the size of New Jersey, means that every individual vote matters. My vote could determine whether the party for whom I vote gets an extra parliament seat and whether it will join the governing coalition. That's an immense responsibility.

I guess it helps that Election Day is a vacation day here.

So, I don't know what will happen and whether Israel will do what you advocate (for better or for worse).

Blogger Tommy Hass January 16, 2015 3:09 PM  

" you would be right. If Israel had expelled the Palestinian Arabs and destroyed the Dome of the Rock in the Six Day War, "

I don't understand why you believe that destroying religious sites will ake them LESS mad at you. It is utterly superfluous.

"Like Vox... you're half-assing things. As our own resident raghead as testified... they see that as weakness and it only encourages them to hit you harder."

Misrepresenting me there. I never advocated for mindless brutality at all times. I said it is a weakness to not do what is necessary. Only things that are unnecessary should be avoided.

Not going on an all out genocidal war isn't weakness or mercy. It is common sense. But playing on gear 1 while the enemy is on gear 3 is....well, stupid and weak.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 16, 2015 3:11 PM  

Nate's right. We aren't stopping at the Potomac next time. Check out how many survivors of the Communist revolution in Prussia 1848 wound up as officers in the Union army. You might be surprised.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 16, 2015 3:12 PM  

That isn't cruelty, that is merely strategic prudence.

Anonymous Samuel Scott January 16, 2015 3:19 PM  

I don't understand why you believe that destroying religious sites will ake them LESS mad at you. It is utterly superfluous.

It's easy to understand. Israel's victory in the Six Day War was humiliating to the Arab world. If Israel had destroyed the Dome of the Rock, the Arab world would have been dealt a further psychological blow from which it may never have recovered.

(Again, I'm not necessarily advocating that. I'm giving an objective analysis.)

It would have been akin to the US dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. I personally think that fact scarred the Japanese for generations, and they have yet to recover in a sociological context.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 3:21 PM  

"I don't understand why you believe that destroying religious sites will ake them LESS mad at you. It is utterly superfluous."

No one cares if they are mad Tommy.

Mad is fine. So long as there is a healthy dose of fear as well.

Blogger Brad Andrews January 16, 2015 3:21 PM  

Nate, do you also use "maths" and "aluminium"? I always found those terms jumped out at me when I used to listen to the audio version of the Economist a few years back. I believe both are the English spelling.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 3:22 PM  

"It would have been akin to the US dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. "

more akin to the Rape of Nanking I would think.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother January 16, 2015 3:22 PM  

Samuel Scott,

I'm advocating it.

Blogger Brad Andrews January 16, 2015 3:23 PM  

If Israel had destroyed the Dome of the Rock, the Arab world would have been dealt a further psychological blow from which it may never have recovered.

I doubt that. These problems have lasted many millennia. Things will spring up over and over no matter what.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 3:23 PM  

'Nate, do you also use "maths" and "aluminium"? I always found those terms jumped out at me when I used to listen to the audio version of the Economist a few years back. I believe both are the English spelling."

as I said... I aspire to use English according to Oxfords. I don't live up to that standard as often I would like.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 16, 2015 3:25 PM  

The difference is that Japan was the aggressor and the nuclear bombs killed a lot of people. Destroying the Dome of the Rock is more comparable to the Persians destroying the Acropolis. Ask them how that turned out for them.

Anonymous Stilicho January 16, 2015 3:25 PM  

Nate, do you also use "maths" and "aluminium"? I always found those terms jumped out at me when I used to listen to the audio version of the Economist a few years back. I believe both are the English spelling.

No, but honour, harbour, and even armour are fairly common.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 3:26 PM  

'Leave it to a Yankee to teach a south'ron how to fight."

Hardly. You should research the history of the formation of the NRA. You'll see why I'm not a member.

its interesting though to note that the South made exactly the same mistakes Israel is making now... for exactly the same reasons.

The South believed it needed allies... France and England... and therefore did everything it could be seen as the good guys in the conflict.

Just as israel is doing today.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 16, 2015 3:27 PM  

"Mad is fine. So long as there is a healthy dose of fear as well."

Destroying religious sites doesn't cause fear. Not enough people in that building.

Wanna cause fear, you need to kill people. What you do kills almost no one and ONLY increases resentment.

Anonymous Stilicho January 16, 2015 3:28 PM  

I aspire to use English according to Oxfords. I don't live up to that standard as often I would like.
...isn't that... a bit...to much...to ask...?

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother January 16, 2015 3:30 PM  

Tommy Hass,

What if we nuked the Kaaba? Will you pay attention then?

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 3:31 PM  

'Destroying religious sites doesn't cause fear. Not enough people in that building. "

you're leaving out the other part Tommy. You know...the 6 days war?

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 3:32 PM  

"...isn't that... a bit...to much...to ask...?"

style mate. its not improper grammar. Especially considering there is no such thing as improper grammar in english. There are only conventions... and those conventions change over time.

Anonymous . January 16, 2015 3:34 PM  

The South believed it needed allies... France and England... and therefore did everything it could be seen as the good guys in the conflict.

The South actually did need allies. It was totally outmatched in industry and manpower.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 16, 2015 3:35 PM  

"What if we nuked the Kaaba? Will you pay attention then?"

It won't cause fear. Fear of what exactly? Death? Nuking population centers would cause similar effects (think Cairo or so) but less hatred. Nuking Kaaba would make a war of extinction necessary. In other words, it would be piss poor as a threat/deterrent.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother January 16, 2015 3:37 PM  

Isn't Allah supposed to live there or something?

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 3:38 PM  

"The South actually did need allies. It was totally outmatched in industry and manpower."

no doubt the israelis say the same thing today.

No doubt when Round 2 starts there will be southrons saying it as well. Even though now the manufacturing is all fleeing South.

Blogger Nate January 16, 2015 3:40 PM  

"It won't cause fear. Fear of what exactly? Death? Nuking population centers would cause similar effects (think Cairo or so) but less hatred. Nuking Kaaba would make a war of extinction necessary. In other words, it would be piss poor as a threat/deterrent."

***chuckle***

keep telling yourself that Tommy.

at heart you're all dogs looking for a boot lick. We just need to provide it for you.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 16, 2015 3:41 PM  

Not really, no. Omnipresent. Kaaba is supposed to be a place that Abraham built, or something.

It is a holy place, but it's destruction won't make anyone think twice about acting up. So if that's your goal, you would be better served with a different target.

Destroying Mecca or the Dome of the Rock only serve the purpose of "teabagging" enemies in Halo. Amusing yourself is not a practical, strategic goal.

Anonymous Athor Pel January 16, 2015 3:42 PM  

" Stg58 / Animal MotherJanuary 16, 2015 3:30 PM
Tommy Hass,

What if we nuked the Kaaba? Will you pay attention then? "



During the Hajj.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother January 16, 2015 3:43 PM  

Don't they teabag each other any way?

Blogger Tommy Hass January 16, 2015 3:45 PM  

"at heart you're all dogs looking for a boot lick. We just need to provide it for you."

Don't be disrespectful to your conqueror. :)

Even if that were true, I still don't understand how attacking religious sites would be particularly advantageous. Killing people works much better. Starvation/blockade as well.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother January 16, 2015 3:48 PM  

Tommy,

Are you trying to provoke the Saxon's hate?

Anonymous Stilicho January 16, 2015 3:50 PM  


Destroying Mecca or the Dome of the Rock only serve the purpose of "teabagging" enemies in Halo. Amusing yourself is not a practical, strategic goal.


It certainly is if it builds and maintains morale. Just ask Jimmy Doolittle.

1 – 200 of 236 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts