In this world heroism is nothing more than just clever devised propaganda of the state. The truth of the matter is that there are no heroes in this world especially that of soldiers who are paid mercenaries or enforcers of the state.
Now, how is it that the imperial expansion military machine of the United States is any different from that of Nazi Germany again?
The whole support the troops argument when generally the Executive branch has tossed them in harm’s way and now wants Money to keep them in harm’s way is so imbecilic that despite my enormous cynicism I am surprised by how well it works.
Indeed Moreno.
When a majority population is ignorant and mentally asleep it is actually not that surprising at all how easily manipulated everything has become. It is however disgusting, not because of the acts by the soldiers or militarily industrial complex themselves, but how such a majority can be so utterly fooled and pursuaded being led by the nose. It is what is unfortunately and it more than likely will continue unchanged.
Another thing that disgusts me is the concept of heroism altogether. When one kills for the establishment they’re a hero, but when anybody does it any other way outside of the establishment’s influence they’re villains. I really wish everybody would see how much of a fraud this concept really is and maybe this is why deep down I have a thing for the villains of this world.
I’ve never been a fan of heroism. For me the heroes are a fake construct of what otherwise is the state’s mercenaries or enforcers. Heroism is nothing more than state propaganda of what otherwise are useful human military tools utilized for its own success.
I instead celebrate the outlaws, not because they’re heroes either, but because of their ability to take a stand for their own convictions out of life.
What a era we live in when we send out soldiers who kill thousands of people overseas and then pat them on their backs by calling them heroes for doing so.
Where as the National Socialists were openly proud of the Military and promoted it as an essential and integral part of the nation to the point of raising it socially as one of the most desirable roles in society. Modelling the dress of the leaders on that of a militaristic fashion rather than one of business (suit and tie).
And promoted the virtues of the Soldier as a Warrior.
Then then sought to use the Military as a vehicle to bring about greater German prosperity.
And also made sure that the Families of the Soldier and soldiers themselves were taken care of to the best of thir ability.
The U.S. Government on the other hand, pays lip service to the Military in public events.
All “tributes” to soldiers are not grand events but small ceremonies.
Their way of attracting recruits is not promoting the virtues of the Soldier but of promoting financial benefits that can crossover in a post military civilian career.
In their sort of plastic disingenuine way.
The Military itself is full of a great number of our best countrymen, of course there are always the bad ones as well, the ones unfit for duty.
But they differ because while the Wehrmacht were utilized to bring prosperity to Germany.
The current U.S. government uses the Military to safguard the interests of international businesses.
Denying the existance of heroism is like denying oxygen.
I just wanted to point out here how the imperialism of Nazi Germany is no different from the military imperialism of the current United States oligarchy. That is all.
Heroism? No, there is no heroism in this world. That is all propaganda and fantasy.
There are only cold blooded killers doing what they’re told and then deluding themselves that they are a making a difference in the world.
I prefer a honest killer that knows they’re a killer that doesn’t self delude themselves to be anything else otherwise.
Sending the Soldiers into Russia, especially know the history of Campaigns in Russia, taking into account the several front war the Germans were waging, was not taking care of the Soldiers. Nor was the inability to admit defeat, which led to the recruitment of both very Young and very old men into the armed forces. The overreaching aspects of WW2 on Germans side, led to incredible losses of Soldiers also. Then there was the damage to Soldiers who had to work in concentration camps or participate in other aspects of the Holocaust, including firing squads on unarmed civilians.
These and other poor decisions by the National Socialists did not lead to prosperity.
When the leaders Place war in the center of government, both symbolically the way you pointed out but also in planning and carrying out, it is damaging to the Soldiers, obviously, since many will die or be maimed or be forced to participate in atrocities.
Except for that they are completely differant right?
Right,because heroism and beinga killer are mutually exclusive…
Imlplying having soldiers fight wars is = to not taking care of them.
Whats your point?
Because none of the other armies did similiar things…
Losing a war usually doesn’t.
Your miscontruing the hassles and dangers inherent in wartime service with what i was reffering to which was supporting the welfare of the Soldier and their family in their civilian life.
Heroism implies fighting and killing for some higher purpose. That higher purpose is non existent in this world. It makes for great controlling propaganda and fantasy however in duping the population at large.
Stoic, beyond your sarcasm with the imagery you can’t even argue that down.
You got nothing on my position.
I’d just like to point out that “heroism” has nothing to do with fighting and/or killing people or things.
It’s not like it says “one who kills or maims for a higher purpose” under “hero” in the dictionary.
Heroism is broad and can be found in many places.
A lot of people call me a hero all the time.
Bringing prosperity by relocating, murdering and enslaving the population of the conquered eastern territories.
The German army collaborated with the SS death squads to make that dream come true.
War is War.
How else would they have been able to settle in the east?
Do you think the defeated russians and their descendents would have just been ok with it?
It’s no differant then what the Romans did.
Pedophilia is pedophilia, how else can the pedophile get what he wants.
They didn’t need to.
Sure, but then perhaps it was immoral of the Romans to Think they had the right to take over other Cultures and the lands of other peoples. And crime could be justified by pointing out previous criminals that committed the same crimes.
Good Point. And one cannot tell simply from acts what is heroic. Some people are bloodthirsty and reckless with their own lives - they may be a bit dim, they may hate themselves, whatever. But to those who Think being a warrior is the route to heroism these guys will look like heroes when it is something else entirely.
Not necessarily at all. I made specific Points about the military CHOICES, extremely poor ones, made by the Nazis. One need not be expansionist or imperialist. One can have an army for defense.
You know what. I am tired of your what is your Point. You did not respond in your other thread to a number of posts of mine, even after getting clarification of a perfectly clear post. It was clear here what I meant. You were saying they valued Soldiers and did what they could to support the Soldiers and their families. Well, no, obviously not. The Nazis refused to surrender a lost war, recruited Children and old men to fight against well trained adults in the Allied forces. These were unnecessary losses by a leadership that precisely did not care about the Soldiers.
None of the other armies carried out a Holocaust.
Let’s get this out on the table. Do you Think the Holocaust happened and was an immoral set of acts?
IOW are you a Holocaust denier or do you Think that kind of genocide against a few Groups of people, not just Jews, was OK?
This is a shallow response to what I wrote. I speficially talked about continuing to fight when the war was clearly lost, trying to fight a war on several fronts, including the well-known problematic idea of attacking Russia and having large lines and long supply lines during Winter there. I mean this was a Military 101 error, given Napoleon’s problems there. The Nazi’s overextended in all directions and misjudged the various opponents severely. It was a poorly run war. And it was an aggressive war. Uniting with Austria is one thing. Taking over France and Poland and diving into Russia and more was idiocy. And it led to the near complete destruction of Germany. Predictably.
The atrocities were systematic with top down approval. They were not hassles and dangers. fascism, including National Socialism, is war as a way of Life. They value war, and that’s why their leaders wear military like uniforms. Fascism needs wars, it values wars and seeks out wars. It’s not like nazi Germany simply honored Soldiers and then, Oh, a war came up. Part of the mythology and sense of what is noble in fascism leads fascist nations to go to war as a rule. And the comparisom to Rome is apt. War was an ongoing way of Life for Rome. And not just or even primarily defensive wars.
That means more soliders will die and be maimed. Given that fasicms is intimately tied with racism, atrocities are much more likely. large scale ones. Ongoing systematic ones.
Fascism is anti-individualistic - individualism is seen as liberal and decadent. Individual Soldiers are simply doing their duty to the state which is important in fascism. Dying for the state is fine and noble and the state has Little value for the individual Soldiers AND THIS IS UTTERLY clear in the way the Nazis used German Soldiers.
And sure, other nations have done bad things, but you keep saying that fascism is this (good thing), fascism is that (good thing) and when asked you hold up as examples Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy. These show the good values in fascism. I’m sorry, they do not.
…What?
The belief was that after the revolution,civil wars and purges that the Soviet Union was in a vastley weakened state, Communism was seen as an enemy of National Socialism which threatend to invade Europe (which it did post war) and much of the Territory that was to be taken was not Ethnically Russian but composed of Groups quite opposed to the soviets (the Baltic States, the Ukraine etc. Which was true as a sizable amount of people from these regions volunteered for the fight against Russia, Even “White Russians”)
They beleived that this was a Golden opporotunity to seize the most prosperous parts of Russian territory (up to the Volga river of which Stalingrad was situated next to) , and that this land would be colonized by German settlers and used as Germanys Agricultural base in order to achieve Self sufficent Autarky in order to prevent being starved to defeat by blockade in the event of a future war as had ocured in WWI.
They beleive that if they passed this opprotunity up the Soviet Union would gain in strength and it would no longer be an option.
Obviously this did not succeed, it was a big gamble that they lost.
But if it had suceeded Germany would be a Superpower today.
Perhaps it was, then again perhaps that was all part of a Greater good.
If they were shown to have long lasting benefit perhaps.
This is not the thread for this though if you want to continue this line of discussion do it in another thread.
This basically says that if I see that my neighbor has a larger house than I do and I estimate him to be weaker than me, then I am justified in breaking into his house , killing him and taking possession of his property. If I success, then I will be an important person living in a mansion.
Again. If I pull it off, then it becomes a ‘greater good’ for me. Everything that benefits me is a greater good.
Any crime is justified when it provides a lasting benefit to the criminal.
There is no morality in any of this. Anything goes. Might makes right.
Heroism exists, does it? What is heroism? What is a hero?
What is heroic? I stand by my propaganda mythology of the state argument.
In fact, what is a just war?
Someone who has the courage to do what needs doing despite the danger.