Originally Posted by senojekips

I'd ask General Francis Biddle or his successor about that. At Nuremberg he ordered dozens of men to hang who used that as their main line of defence.

It's a very sticky subject, and I'm damn sure I can't answer it, but I'd rather do 10 years in Leavenworth than have an early appointment with 10 armed riflemen with only one blank round between them.

Come on there spike, you know I said nothing about unlawful orders. I thought you could do better than to throw up a straw man argument.

My answer was not meant to be malicious nor "smart arsed'.

It was merely to make some of our younger and more impressionable readers aware of the fact that we as service persons get no breaks because we are "under orders". And unfortunately every now and then we can be put in a position where it may be VERY hard to determine whether an order is merely improper or illegal.

As I stated, "I definitely don't have the answer". I guess it is something each of us will have to decide for ourselves if ever the occasion arises. I'm certainly glad that I was never put in this position, but there is no denying that it does happen.

If you read it any other way, "I sincerely apologise as this was definitely not my intent".

Fair enough, no apology necessary. Certainly, each person's experience is unique. All I can do is to state things based on my experience. I have always been a foot soldier and I still maintain that the soldier who does his job rather than being distracted by what the underlying reasons may have been that brought him to the battlefield, will serve his fellow soldiers, his country, and himself much better. The men I have been in battle with have never let their personal concerns take away from the job at hand and for that I will always be grateful.
Thank you for the clarification.

To be blatantly honest, I felt quite sorry for many of those executed as war criminals after WWII.

What real choice did they have? A bullet now, or the possibility of a long jump with a short rope, at the end of the war if they lost.

Originally Posted by senojekips

To be blatantly honest, I felt quite sorry for many of those executed as war criminals after WWII.

What real choice did they have? A bullet now, or the possibility of a long jump with a short rope, at the end of the war if they lost.

The SS had a choice, work in concentration camps and on death squads was strictly voluntary. Most didn't mind because they did not view the Jews as being human as therefore they weren't doing anything wrong.

I was always of the belief that men certainly volunteered for the SS, but I have never read any evidence that they had a choice in where their units were deployed.

Remember, the SS were originally raised as an elite, somewhat like the Seals and Rangers, and it was regarded as a privilege to make the grade. But even the SS had various "gradings' with Liebstandarte Adolph Hitler at the top going all the way down to those who had the desire but lacked the fighting ability, these were the "old men's" and former "untermensch" units who were used to guard the death camps etc. The greatest percentage of those who made it, ended up in the Waffen SS where they were given the best in training and weaponry and were expected to be the best, if not, they could very easily end up in one of the penal battalions fighting on the Russian front or clearing minefields (without detectors).

I may be wrong, but I think that it would be somewhat hasty to say that they volunteered to work in the konzentrationslagern and death camps.

I don't deny that some of those who did end up working there took a delight in their work, but much of their acceptance was initially bought about by peer pressure somewhat like that which bought about internal acceptance of Abu Grhaib and similar events since WWII. That's just how easy it happens, if every soldier is not acutely aware of his legal obligations.

Like I've said all the way through, "I could be wrong, but I don't think I'm that far off the mark"

Let's all get back to the original subject of this thread, Is Iraq a second Vietnam?
Feel free to start another thread on the culpability of SS troops during WWII or the like.

Well to solve this NO it is not another Veitnam, sililarity is close but it is not. Doctorine, training, moral, gear, atitude, ect.............all different.

IMO we are actually ing some serious butt.

CS, So you are admitting that the similarity is close, How similar does it have to be?

(1) Gear - It would be ludicrous to expect equipment to be the same 30 years later. The new gear is not making that much difference against the insurgents anyway, as it is designed for set piece warfare. It worked very well at the outset when the fighting was unit for unit, but is now almost useless in the hit and run street battles where the insurgents pick the time, place and target.
(2) Doctrine is different, yes but only insofar as, one was Communist the other is based on muslim precepts. Both of them, virtual dictatorships. In that respect they are quite similar.
(3) Moral, I really don't see what you're getting at. There is no moral involved.
(3a) If you meant "morale", that is also amazingly similar, at the start we were going to "kick arse", but when it all reverted to guerilla warfare and the troops were frustrated by their inability to utilise their superior weaponry and technology to it's best advantage "it all went to hell in a hatbox". That was when we started getting people deserting their units and refusing to be posted,... that is starting now, there was a case mentioned on this site several days ago and he wasn't the first.
(4) Attitude - Ours, the same, in Vietnam we thought we could save a country from Communist oppression. In Iraq we are trying to install a democracy. Their attitude - they said they are not interested and that we were interfering in other's business. Virtually no differences there.

There is one major dissimilarity, as yet we don't have the big moratorium marches and civil disobedience at home that was a hallmark of the latter part of the Vietnam period. This is in part because there is not the huge covering of the war by the free press as there was in Vietnam, non embedded journalists are given little access to information. The reason for this being that our governments remember how the free press swayed the people in the last conflict, Vietnam. This is also one of the reasons why they are cracking down on the controversial home videos being sent home by the troops. As for public marches and "Bring home the troops" rallies, that will come as the body count grows, as it did in Vietnam.

I feel that your reasoning is not based so much on fact, as "desire".

"Patriotism" is a noble cause, but it is foolish to let it blind you to the truth.

I too, wish for nothing more than for the coalition to succeed. Unfortunately I see us falling into the same traps as last time and it doesn't inspire me with any confidence for the future.

Someone once said, "Those who refuse to learn from history, will be forced to relive it". Don't look now, but....

I think there is potential for gear that will be quite helpful against insurgency, though the money and time isn't there to make it happen quite fast enough. Things like acoustic sensors that pinpoint the location of snipers, vehicles with better protection from IEDs and mines, and better communications and surveillance technology are what will help our efforts, not bigger guns or body armor. As the American public becomes more dissatisfied, however, the chances of such equipment reaching the troops drop.