The Warrior Society

[grydth]

A few points of disagreement...

I sincerely doubt Hitler was half Jewish; his insane hatred of the Jews and his scapegoating them for a wide variety of major disasters is apparent in Mein Kampf. Were Hitler Jewish, he would have been suicidal long before May 1945.

In truth, some WWII German soldiers were part Jewish and had to be cleared for continued service. I believe the Captain who awarded Hitler the Iron Cross I in the First World War was a Jewish officer.

Hitler was not gay, and his hatred for gaysled, in part, to the purging of the SA leadership... Ernst Rohm, among other SA officers, was gay. Gays were later sent to concentration camps and forced to wear the pink triangle. Hitler had a number of relationships with women, many of whom found him quite attractive (!!!) A much more likely diagnosis, in my opinion, would be that he was a misogynist.

The organization of the German economy is, in significant part, a myth. There was not even a conversion to a total war economy until after Stalingrad in 1943... almost inexplicable. Both Russia and America out produced Germany so greatly that some feel the war itself was decided in the factories.

As a matter of conquest, Europe was defeated in just over 2 years. But many today overlook that the Allied reconquest was as rapid or even more so during major campaigns.

Many modern historians, especially those with access to Soviet Archives, feel that had Hitler taken that 4 year break.... he would have found Stalin on his front porch. The world, after all, had more than one expansionist psychotic to cope with..........

 

[Makalakumu]

I think a good argument could be made that the US, with its military industrial congressional complex is a warrior society. Sure, US society is quite variegated, but a massive portion of our wealth (more then any of these societies and more then any other nation in the world) is not only dedicated to maintaining a large military, but it is also dedicated to maintaining hegemony throughout the world.

Further, I would say that the US propaganda machine, while not as pervasive as some of the societies aforementioned, is more then good enough to keep the numbers of an all volunteer army up. And when you couple that with the way that everyone in our society is taught venerates soldiers and veterans, I think the argument gets better and better.

Lastly, once you become part of the military machine, the armed forces specifically fashion a warrior mythos for its soldiers. The "Band of Brothers" and "Fighting for Freedom" slogans are just part of that indoctrination process.

This movie makes a powerful case, IMHO. I think if you watch it, you'll definitely see the parallels between it and this thread.

"Why We Fight" by Eugene Jarecki

 

[CuongNhuka]

A few points of disagreement...

I sincerely doubt Hitler was half Jewish; his insane hatred of the Jews and his scapegoating them for a wide variety of major disasters is apparent in Mein Kampf. Were Hitler Jewish, he would have been suicidal long before May 1945.

In truth, some WWII German soldiers were part Jewish and had to be cleared for continued service. I believe the Captain who awarded Hitler the Iron Cross I in the First World War was a Jewish officer.

Hitler was not gay, and his hatred for gaysled, in part, to the purging of the SA leadership... Ernst Rohm, among other SA officers, was gay. Gays were later sent to concentration camps and forced to wear the pink triangle. Hitler had a number of relationships with women, many of whom found him quite attractive (!!!) A much more likely diagnosis, in my opinion, would be that he was a misogynist.

Actualy, it's all but been proven that his father was half Jewish, so he was a quarter. Small problem with my math...

As for him being gay, his house keepers never found any proof he was actually having sex. Atleast with Eva Brown.

 

[grydth]

I have seen the allegations many times over the years about Hitler's alleged Jewish ancestry... but I have yet to see a credible and documented source for it. Since Hitler based so much of his maniacal Third Reich on anti-Semitism, it is obvious why opponents would attempt such an allegation. The dirt digging/rumor mongering/opposition research we see in modern politics is by no means a modern innovation.

Hitler is known to have had close women associates well before Eva Braun... at least one and possibly more committed suicide. Again, I have never seen any credible evidence of gay affairs or tendencies.

Hitler went so far to annihilate both Jews and gays, his prejudices and views of each were so poisonous, that I cannot accept that he was either.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Hitler went so far to annihilate both Jews and gays, his prejudices and views of each were so poisonous, that I cannot accept that he was either.

And self haters tend to be the most agressive in that haterd. And again, I never he was openly homosexual. There is evidence that he was a represded homosexual.

 

[qi-tah]

And self haters tend to be the most agressive in that haterd. And again, I never he was openly homosexual. There is evidence that he was a represded homosexual.

I saw an interesting doco once, i think it was called "Hitler's Women"? It talked about how Hitler had a string of women hanging around him at various times during his life, who he pretty much sought to subjegate and control. It was hypothisised that Hitler saw the withholding of sex and marriage as avenues thru which he could exercise this control. But then, apparently he only had half the usual quota of testicles, so maybe he felt a bit self-concious about that on some level...

Maybe you are getting the homosexual stuff from the rather homoerotic overtones of Nazi society? Doesn't follow that Hitler was gay himself, tho i'm willing to bet he was repressed about something! Who knows, maybe if he'd had a few good roots, we would have been spared WWII..

No argument that Hitler was a total nutjob (with one nut!

) tho.

 

[grydth]

And self haters tend to be the most agressive in that haterd. And again, I never he was openly homosexual. There is evidence that he was a represded homosexual.

Hitler was not a Jew. Hitler was not openly gay, in the closet gay or wannabe gay.

I don't want to pick on you. But here is why the point is so important: Hitler , with Stalin, were the two worst monsters of the last century. There are apologists, kindly known as revisionist historians, who'd like to gloss their murders over.... who would deny or minimize their crimes... or place the blame elsewhere.

To allow the falsehoods that Hitler was a gay Jew...makes the Holocaust: a gay crime of self loathing! The Holocaust becomes, under this irrationale, a Jewish crime!

NO! Jews and Gays were amongst the millions of victims of a mass extermination planned and implemented by German National Socialists.They were NOT the perpetrators, nor were they the same as the perpetrators.

I do not for a moment believe this is where you personally were coming from... but it is a dark place we never must visit.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Hitler was not a Jew. Hitler was not openly gay, in the closet gay or wannabe gay.

I don't want to pick on you. But here is why the point is so important: Hitler , with Stalin, were the two worst monsters of the last century. There are apologists, kindly known as revisionist historians, who'd like to gloss their murders over.... who would deny or minimize their crimes... or place the blame elsewhere.

To allow the falsehoods that Hitler was a gay Jew...makes the Holocaust: a gay crime of self loathing! The Holocaust becomes, under this irrationale, a Jewish crime!

NO! Jews and Gays were amongst the millions of victims of a mass extermination planned and implemented by German National Socialists.They were NOT the perpetrators, nor were they the same as the perpetrators.

I do not for a moment believe this is where you personally were coming from... but it is a dark place we never must visit.

All I said was there is evidence to suggest he was 1/4 Jewish and a severly repressed Homosexual. I don't care one way or anouther. All I know is that I know nothing. Aristolian quote intended.

Now then, lets try getting back on subject here... Could I put it out there that Radical Muslim groups is warrior society(s)? or is that going out there?

 

[Steel Tiger]

I think a good argument could be made that the US, with its military industrial congressional complex is a warrior society. Sure, US society is quite variegated, but a massive portion of our wealth (more then any of these societies and more then any other nation in the world) is not only dedicated to maintaining a large military, but it is also dedicated to maintaining hegemony throughout the world.

Further, I would say that the US propaganda machine, while not as pervasive as some of the societies aforementioned, is more then good enough to keep the numbers of an all volunteer army up. And when you couple that with the way that everyone in our society is taught venerates soldiers and veterans, I think the argument gets better and better.

Lastly, once you become part of the military machine, the armed forces specifically fashion a warrior mythos for its soldiers. The "Band of Brothers" and "Fighting for Freedom" slogans are just part of that indoctrination process.

This movie makes a powerful case, IMHO. I think if you watch it, you'll definitely see the parallels between it and this thread.

"Why We Fight" by Eugene Jarecki

In the normal course of things I would describe the US as a militarised society, not a warrior one. But you mentioned propoganda and this is an interesting point. The military propoganda machine uses the honoured warrior image to draw people into the military. And it works. Here, in Australia, we don't do this so much. We present the miltary as a good job opportunity and little more. We don't celebrate military victories even though we have had many. Our most important military event, ANZAC Day, is a commemorative day which remembers Gallipoli, an ill-fated campaign that saw thousands die, foremost and then all other service. As a consequence of all this our armed forces have seen numbers falling over the years.

Propoganda is a very important element of a modern military society, whether that society be a full blown warrior one or a somewhat lesser militarised one.

 

[Makalakumu]

In the normal course of things I would describe the US as a militarised society, not a warrior one. But you mentioned propoganda and this is an interesting point. The military propoganda machine uses the honoured warrior image to draw people into the military. And it works. Here, in Australia, we don't do this so much. We present the miltary as a good job opportunity and little more. We don't celebrate military victories even though we have had many. Our most important military event, ANZAC Day, is a commemorative day which remembers Gallipoli, an ill-fated campaign that saw thousands die, foremost and then all other service. As a consequence of all this our armed forces have seen numbers falling over the years.

Propoganda is a very important element of a modern military society, whether that society be a full blown warrior one or a somewhat lesser militarised one.

I've got a couple of points here...

1. I think that it's important to remember that even in these "warrior societies" most people weren't warriors. We tend to think that every man with blood running through his veins was trained to fight and this never was the case. In many of the cases cited above, the warriors belonged to specific families or they came from a place of special social status in order to earn that label. They were few and far between.

2. With that being said, I think we really need to take a look at the amount of propaganda it would take to convince a society to devote nearly half of its tax revenue and literally millions of its citizens to the propagation of a standing army? Further, think about the amount of propaganda would be needed to send this army off for offensive actions on multiple fronts?

The only reason I think that this is possible is because we have a deeply ingrained warrior mythos in the US.

 

[Steel Tiger]

I've got a couple of points here...

1. I think that it's important to remember that even in these "warrior societies" most people weren't warriors. We tend to think that every man with blood running through his veins was trained to fight and this never was the case. In many of the cases cited above, the warriors belonged to specific families or they came from a place of special social status in order to earn that label. They were few and far between.

2. With that being said, I think we really need to take a look at the amount of propaganda it would take to convince a society to devote nearly half of its tax revenue and literally millions of its citizens to the propagation of a standing army? Further, think about the amount of propaganda would be needed to send this army off for offensive actions on multiple fronts?

The only reason I think that this is possible is because we have a deeply ingrained warrior mythos in the US.

Both good points. Can't have a war without politicians afterall. Though in many pre-industrial societies all men were trained in war arts even if they were not going to be involved in extraterritorial conflict. It is a good way to have a large force available to defend the homeland. Doesn't make a society a warrior society, however.

Interesting that you mention the warrior mythos in the US. Having studied both the American Civil War and the later Indian Wars, I can see where it comes from and what drives it, to an extent.

Just to compare the US and Australia again.

The Us has a longer history of involvement in conflict, going back to the mid eighteenth century and including the French-Indian Wars, the War of Independence, the War of 1812, the war with Mexico, the Civil War, the Indian Wars, and the Spanish-American War. These are the conflicts that have given rise to much of the warrior mythos in the US.

Australians really started participating in war in the 1860s, fighting for the British in China and New Zealand. From that point on Australian troops served the Empire in many theatres including South Africa, India, the Middle East, Europe, North Africa, the Pacific, and Malaysia. This is nearly 100 years of fighting someone elses wars. It produces a very different mythology. We do not have the image of the gallant hero leading charges and defending the homeland and people. A very good ad for the military.
What we have is an unconventional, nasty, frightening colonial soldier who just doesn't give up. The Boers, the Germans, the Turks, the Japanese and the Vietnamese encountered him. We are very proud of him but he is not a good advertisement for joining the military.

What I am trying to illustrate is that the different reasons and places for the conflicts both nations have been involved in has produced very different mythologies for the military. Both are proud warrior figures but one is more prone to encourage enlistment and involvement in overseas conflicts.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Now then, lets try getting back on subject here... Could I put it out there that Radical Muslim groups is warrior society(s)? or is that going out there?

I think that a strong case could be argued for such groups as being warrior societies. My opinion is that they are not, but I can see how they might see themselves in the same way as a warrior society. There is a lot of talk about honourable battle, and the honoured dead, and how death in battle against the enemies of the faith is the best. The iconography of the warrior society is present, but they are just a subset of their large society, whatever that might be. In this they remind me of the religious fighting orders of Europe, the Templars, Hospitalers, or Teutonic Knights.

 

[grydth]

I've got a couple of points here...

1. I think that it's important to remember that even in these "warrior societies" most people weren't warriors. We tend to think that every man with blood running through his veins was trained to fight and this never was the case. In many of the cases cited above, the warriors belonged to specific families or they came from a place of special social status in order to earn that label. They were few and far between.

2. With that being said, I think we really need to take a look at the amount of propaganda it would take to convince a society to devote nearly half of its tax revenue and literally millions of its citizens to the propagation of a standing army? Further, think about the amount of propaganda would be needed to send this army off for offensive actions on multiple fronts?

The only reason I think that this is possible is because we have a deeply ingrained warrior mythos in the US.

I think the infernal Third Reich, of all modern societies, comes the closest to a warrior society. Not only was there an extremely large active army, but there were numerous paramilitary organizations that supported and fed it.... the glider clubs were intended to produce pilots, the NSKK drivers. Both the Hitler Youth and the RAD labor service fed youth into the Army, and were involved directly in military operations. (Note the 12th SS Hitler Jugend or the kids with Panzerfausts in Berlin.) The police were militarized, the 4th SS Polizei Division being but one example. This is not counting the rail and postal guards, the Luftschutze, the Gestapo....... the Nazis, after all, were National SOCIALISTS....A monstrous regime in which the propaganda glorifying imaginary victories and evil leaders was all one heard.

As to the modern USA, I believe our society is far too divided, across many planes and fault lines, to be generalized as being anything. I believe those divisions are so deep and so profound that we may well lapse into civil war in the next 5 years. Don't wish for it, don't advocate it.... but I think its coming. United We Do Not Stand - and I believe that a militarized/warrior society needs that consensus to exist and thrive.

 

[Makalakumu]

ST - when I was in NZ, I went to a bookstore and just happened to run across a book entitled "ANZAC Soldier Stories" and I think your assessment is dead on. However, I think I would take if further, especially after talking to a good many old kiwis and getting to know a number of others online.

My feeling is that after Gallipoli, the ANZACs really came to resent being involved in these conflicts that were generated from so far away. I went fishing with a chap who was in his 60s and I think he put it best, "How can you American's be so flippant where you send your sons and daughters? You spend so much energy raising them and giving them all that they need to be healthy and strong and then you send them away to die in places where it really doesn't matter."

That, to me, really summed up the ANZAC mentality. I feel that it really helped me understand the celebration of ANZAC day in your culture. And I have to say, I am really sympathetic to that.

This sort of idea does not really exist in the US. Instead, we have slogans that drive our society to drive our most precious commodity to far away wars. According to a large percentage of our population, our soldiers are dying in Iraq and in ALL other military action that have ever undertaken in order to "Protect our Freedom," or some other conformation of that phrase.

This, IMO, is the kind of propaganda that any "warrior" society would use in order to propagate itself.

Again, lets contrast this to my experiences in NZ. One of the capters in a popular history book written by a professor at the University of Canterbury was called, "All Blood is as grass." This very chapter described NZs involvement in WWI and its subsequent estrangement from Imperial Britain. The idea is an exact parallel to the sentiment I expressed above with my fisherman quotation.

ANZACs grow their children like they grow anything else and they are far to precious to send away to die in places where that death will have absolutely no real benefit.

 

[Makalakumu]

I think the infernal Third Reich, of all modern societies, comes the closest to a warrior society. Not only was there an extremely large active army, but there were numerous paramilitary organizations that supported and fed it.... the glider clubs were intended to produce pilots, the NSKK drivers. Both the Hitler Youth and the RAD labor service fed youth into the Army, and were involved directly in military operations. (Note the 12th SS Hitler Jugend or the kids with Panzerfausts in Berlin.) The police were militarized, the 4th SS Polizei Division being but one example. This is not counting the rail and postal guards, the Luftschutze, the Gestapo....... the Nazis, after all, were National SOCIALISTS....A monstrous regime in which the propaganda glorifying imaginary victories and evil leaders was all one heard.

As to the modern USA, I believe our society is far too divided, across many planes and fault lines, to be generalized as being anything. I believe those divisions are so deep and so profound that we may well lapse into civil war in the next 5 years. Don't wish for it, don't advocate it.... but I think its coming. United We Do Not Stand - and I believe that a militarized/warrior society needs that consensus to exist and thrive.

I agree with you regarding the Nazi regime. However, I must point out that neither political party really gives anything but lip service to the topic of peace. They both vote as fervently to feed the war machine. There may be divisions in other areas, but as far as the Military Industrial Complex is concerned, our politicians are united.

 

[Steel Tiger]

ST - when I was in NZ, I went to a bookstore and just happened to run across a book entitled "ANZAC Soldier Stories" and I think your assessment is dead on. However, I think I would take if further, especially after talking to a good many old kiwis and getting to know a number of others online.

My feeling is that after Gallipoli, the ANZACs really came to resent being involved in these conflicts that were generated from so far away. I went fishing with a chap who was in his 60s and I think he put it best, "How can you American's be so flippant where you send your sons and daughters? You spend so much energy raising them and giving them all that they need to be healthy and strong and then you send them away to die in places where it really doesn't matter."

That, to me, really summed up the ANZAC mentality. I feel that it really helped me understand the celebration of ANZAC day in your culture. And I have to say, I am really sympathetic to that.

This sort of idea does not really exist in the US. Instead, we have slogans that drive our society to drive our most precious commodity to far away wars. According to a large percentage of our population, our soldiers are dying in Iraq and in ALL other military action that have ever undertaken in order to "Protect our Freedom," or some other conformation of that phrase.

This, IMO, is the kind of propaganda that any "warrior" society would use in order to propagate itself.

Again, lets contrast this to my experiences in NZ. One of the capters in a popular history book written by a professor at the University of Canterbury was called, "All Blood is as grass." This very chapter described NZs involvement in WWI and its subsequent estrangement from Imperial Britain. The idea is an exact parallel to the sentiment I expressed above with my fisherman quotation.

ANZACs grow their children like they grow anything else and they are far to precious to send away to die in places where that death will have absolutely no real benefit.

What can I say?

The Kiwis have had very similar experiences to us but with the added input of having fought a war against invasion and accepting and honouring aspects of their indigenous warrior culture.

With this as a base I can easily see why they do not look at conflict external to NZ as beneficial or protecting them in any way. That being said, where there are Australian troops you will usually find New Zealanders. Our relationship is that strong in all honesty.

Maori culture is a good example of a warrior society that did not go to an extreme. It was not self-destructive as was the Aztec or Zulu. Many aspects of that society have manifest in NZ sporting endeavours, especially rugby.

 

[grydth]

I agree with you regarding the Nazi regime. However, I must point out that neither political party really gives anything but lip service to the topic of peace. They both vote as fervently to feed the war machine. There may be divisions in other areas, but as far as the Military Industrial Complex is concerned, our politicians are united.

We are poised to have a thoroughly depressing - and amply sourced - debate on exactly whom our politicians have sold out to.... Is it the military and its associated corporations.... or the hostile and corrupting foreign influences that indeed make a victory in war all but impossible?

Who wants to start a week that way?:uhohh:

I think we owe it to other Forum members - especially those who may be eating - not to do this! (Idealists and Masochists may refer to the sections about Milo in Catch 22.)

Let's declare an Armistice vis-a-vis the USA and only debate other places.

 

[CuongNhuka]

I think that a strong case could be argued for such groups as being warrior societies. My opinion is that they are not, but I can see how they might see themselves in the same way as a warrior society. There is a lot of talk about honourable battle, and the honoured dead, and how death in battle against the enemies of the faith is the best. The iconography of the warrior society is present, but they are just a subset of their large society, whatever that might be. In this they remind me of the religious fighting orders of Europe, the Templars, Hospitalers, or Teutonic Knights.

Anouther point against them being a warrior soceity would be, well, they're not nessicarily warrior. In a warrior soceity wouldn't every one be a warrior? Not just the lower ranks? IE, the leaders of warrior nations/terrorist groups would fight, not just the young adults/newbies.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Anouther point against them being a warrior soceity would be, well, they're not nessicarily warrior. In a warrior soceity wouldn't every one be a warrior? Not just the lower ranks? IE, the leaders of warrior nations/terrorist groups would fight, not just the young adults/newbies.

An interesting point. In a theoretically perfect warrior society the leaders would be the best or most respected warriors. In reality we find a very different picture. Let me present two examples from pre-industrial societies.

Shaka was the person who changed Zulu society into an extreme warrior one. Was he the best warrior? No. Instead, I would describe him as a military innovator. Within the system he had to work with he created a fighting method that was unstoppable until he encountered people with superior technology.

The Aztec system was effectively a military meritocracy in which military success was rewarded. How is it then that Moctecuhzuma II could inherit the positions of his father? He was not the greatest warrior in the Aztec world. He was not even a member of the Cuachic order which represented the most fearsome warriors. Well they also inherited the prowess of their fathers but they also needed to establish themselves. This meant inauguration military campaigns. Interestingly most of Moctecuhzoma II campaigns were to quell revolts not to conquer new territory.

Neither of these men were necessarily the greatest warriors their societies produced but both were leaders. The system always seems to break down when you get near the top of the pyramid.

 

[grydth]

I think that a strong case could be argued for such groups as being warrior societies. My opinion is that they are not, but I can see how they might see themselves in the same way as a warrior society. There is a lot of talk about honourable battle, and the honoured dead, and how death in battle against the enemies of the faith is the best. The iconography of the warrior society is present, but they are just a subset of their large society, whatever that might be. In this they remind me of the religious fighting orders of Europe, the Templars, Hospitalers, or Teutonic Knights.

Nothing against any of you personally, but I have a difficult time seeing most of the modern Islamic cannibal terrorists as warriors at all... what these cowards think of themselves in their delusions is immaterial.

I don't see murdering defenseless civilians with bombs or box cutters as being either "honourable" or "death in battle"... As a former soldier, I seeth at seeing these hyenas receive any honor or recognition of the type granted to soldiers... these sneak bombers and child killers have more in common with Thuggee adherents than with warriors - and I am ashamed of my own government's - and media's - passivity on this score.

In one needs examples of true Islamic warriors, one could cite Saladin or Sulieman and the fearsome opponents faced by said Hospitalers and Templars during the crusades, before Vienna, at Rhodes or on Malta. Now THOSE were warriors.