commander Request to add a historical commander

[Karasu_Browarszky]

3 minutes ago, _Mad_Thom_ said:

What about radio communication or even a telephone?

 

In 1939?

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

2 hours ago, UltraShirou said:

You mixed up everything i said in one heap and now you wonder why you got no cake, but a heap. Officers honor creates the difference between the crowd of rapists and murderers and an army. Without officers soldiers will turn into wild horde. Without soldiers trust and faith in their officers that horde will burn and rape. War is uncivilized. Always. Only officers honor can keep that wild mess in civilized borders, so dear to you. 

Nope. The cake is a lie. The filling is bovine excrement.

 

Uncivilized people create crowds of rapists and murderers - a parallel society with outdated concepts of honor like you propose enable that behaviour in the fist place! For example, soldiers not questioning immoral orders enable this - they just do, what they're told, when their morally superior deceided that raping and pillaging that village of rebel fighters will teach them a lession.

 

It's not a heroic officer standing between his soldiers and atrocious war crimes, it's the soldiers not wanting to commit war crimes!

 

 

19 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

 You are thinking in the way of your time, your culture and your understanding. Whats right for you isnt right for middle 40s of the twenty century. Because your way of thinking is a result of what happened back then.

Exactly. This is what I mean by "civilized". We don't do bovine excrement we did back then anymore. Because we realized just how bad that is.

 

19 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

And yes, soldiers without officers are wild animals prone to kill and rape. Because yesterday they was civilians like you and me, often without any clue about laws of war and warriors honor, even honor at all. And if you are moral and civilized it doesnt mean all in your squad will be. In the war there is only one way not to follow orders. And this is death. Soldier disobedience is judged by his officer. Officer disobedience is judged by his honor. Honor says you what to do, but not how. 

That must be the worst of the bovine excrement you wrote (yet?) and it its plain and utterly wrong. Only the morally corrupt would follow the order to commit war crimes - to "just follow orders" was the excuse of many german officers on trial but that didn't count!

Your bronze age concept of honor is obsolete, immoral and thus invalid. Don't let me stop you from arguing further, just going to grab something to eat...

 

 

 

[fumtu]

 

13 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

 You are thinking in the way of your time, your culture and your understanding. Whats right for you isnt right for middle 40s of the twenty century.

 

Oh sorry, I wasn't aware that in the middle of 40s was right to sloughed anyone just because of race, religion, culture of just for fun. Especially if your "officer honor" is demanding it. Silly me

 

Quote

And yes, soldiers without officers are wild animals prone to kill and rape.

 

Lol, I think you don't have a clue about military or, even worse, have some perverted notion how it should work.

 

Quote

In the war there is only one way not to follow orders. And this is death. Soldier disobedience is judged by his officer. Officer disobedience is judged by his honor. Honor says you what to do, but not how.

 

So tell me, in that case who is a hero, those who blindly follow the orders no matter what or those who actually stud up and fight against such regime, even if that mean costing them life? And against their "officer honor" but because they were, above all, a human being. Honor is stupid thing, even dangerous, if it does not include using your brain and distinct what is wrong and what is right. There is nothing honorable in murdering other just because "officer honor" is requiring from you to do it as you pledge allegiance to follow orders of some maniac.

[fumtu]

33 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

@fumtu It says here that Hitler gave the order for the scuttling:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/century/1930-1939/Story/0,,127248,00.html

 

However... read that in the context and think what sort of psychic powers Hitler would have needed to have the necessarily up to date information and then being able to not only assess the situation and have the order dispatched so that it would have reached the Graf Spee and Langsdorff on time.

 

Not sure that I understand, are you suggesting that Hitler order for scuttling did not reached Langsdorff on time? Are you have some source for that? Graf Spee was in Montevideo during this period, consulting with Germany, it is not like they were in the nick of battle. I am not assuming anything, I can only speak about what I find in the source and I couldn't find, so far, anything that would suggest that Langsdorff was not aware of Hitler order. 

 

19 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

In 1939?

 

Yes, even in 1939 you could get orders in couple of hours even if their origin is in Germany and receiver in Uruguay, even in real time. How do you think people communicated during that period?

[Karasu_Browarszky]

1 minute ago, fumtu said:

Yes, even in 1939 you could get orders in couple of hours even if their origin is in Germany and receiver in Uruguay, even in real time. How do you think people communicated during that period?

 

Well.. if there was an intercontinental cable within reasonable distance, and outside allied territory, then, yes. I think radio communications would not have worked because they would have needed to set up the links to relay the message. The U boats had radios but still...

[fumtu]

13 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

Well.. if there was an intercontinental cable within reasonable distance, and outside allied territory, then, yes. I think radio communications would not have worked because they would have needed to set up the links to relay the message. The U boats had radios but still...

 

There were regular communication channels between foreign office and embassies over the world. Also they could always communicate via telegraph if radio is not working, even in real time. So yes, Langsdorff was aware of orders from Berlin do not doubt about that.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

2 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

There were regular communication channels between foreign office and embassies over the world. Also they could always communicate via telegraph if radio is not working, even in real time. So yes, Langsdorff was aware of orders from Berlin do not doubt about that.

 

Then, the only problem is finding the facts about what those orders were. We have contradictory statements, according to this site here, "Hitler's order is actually to go down fighting with the flag waving.":

 

https://www.br.de/radio/bayern2/sendungen/radiowelt/beruehmte-schiffe-graf-spee-100.html

 

[fumtu]

15 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

Then, the only problem is finding the facts about what those orders were. We have contradictory statements, according to this site here, "Hitler's order is actually to go down fighting with the flag waving.":

 

https://www.br.de/radio/bayern2/sendungen/radiowelt/beruehmte-schiffe-graf-spee-100.html

 

As I said, I used book from 1956 which could be outdated and there might me some better sources now. Still I doubt everything from such articles which are not even giving sources for their claims. I am not saying it is wrong or that it is right, I am just saying that it is not credible. If you have some newer books to quote that would be better.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

18 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

As I said, I used book from 1956 which could be outdated and there might me some better sources now. Still I doubt everything from such articles which are not even giving sources for their claims. I am not saying it is wrong or that it is right, I am just saying that it is not credible. If you have some newer books to quote that would be better.

 

I don't, but what I would like to see is if any historians have tackled the subject more recently. Couldn't find anything solid on the Internet on short notice.

[fumtu]

From The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler By Robert Payne from 2005

 

Quote

 

Hans Langsdorff, the captain, radioed Berlin for instructions, offering three alternatives: a breakthrough to Buenos Aires, internment in Montevideo, scuttling the ship. Hitler, who had very little understanding of naval matters, found itself in a quandary, for none of the alternatives offered any hope of glory. Finally, over Admiral Raeder's signature, he radioed the order:

 

Attempt by all means to extend time in neutral waters in order to guarantee freedom of action as long as possible

Fight your way through to Buenos Aires, using remaining ammunition.

No internment in Uruguay. Attempt effective destruction if ship is scuttled.

 

 

I doubt Hitler cared much about fate of the crew, more about public image of Germany, still I doubt he ordered to fight till last man. Even fighting to reach Buenos Aires was actually considered by Landsdorff by himself, and offered as solution, but he was afraid that he might get stuck on the way as waters in that area are quite shallow and muddy so he opted for scuttling. While Hitler might prefer fight, he actually did not rule out scuttling. 

 

Hope someone will give some better source, but I couldn't find any confirmation that Hitler ordered "glorious death" and Landsdorff defy this order because of his honor. I don't think he is some glorified hero as some here wants him to be, but probably somewhat better than many other German officers during that time. Yes, his decision saved lives but not against Hitler's order, as he approved scuttling, but because he did not want to uselessly waste lives of his man. His ship was doomed anyway so he chose less bloody option.  

 

[Karasu_Browarszky]

13 minutes ago, fumtu said:

From The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler By Robert Payne from 2005

 

 

I doubt Hitler cared much about fate of the crew, more about public image of Germany, still I doubt he ordered to fight till last man. Even fighting to reach Buenos Aires was actually considered by Landsdorff by himself, and offered as solution, but he was afraid that he might get stuck on the way as waters in that area are quite shallow and muddy so he opted for scuttling. While Hitler might prefer fight, he actually did not rule out scuttling. 

 

Hope someone will give some better source, but I couldn't find any confirmation that Hitler ordered "glorious death" and Landsdorff defy this order because of his honor. I don't think he is some glorified hero as some here wants him to be, but probably somewhat better than many other German officers during that time. Yes, his decision saved lives but not against Hitler's order, as he approved scuttling, but because he did not want to uselessly waste lives of his man. His ship was doomed anyway so he chose less bloody option.  

 

 

At least he seems to have won the respect of the British as an honorable enemy.

[_The_Wolff_]

V 25. 11. 2022 v 22:09 Ronchabale řekl/a:

Konteradmiral Erich Bey commander of Kms Scharnhorst

 

Admiral Bruce Fraser’s compliment to Scharnhorst 

Later in the evening, Fraser briefed his officers on board Duke of York: “Gentlemen, the battle against Scharnhorst has ended in victory for us. I hope that if any of you are ever called upon to lead a ship into action against an opponent many times superior, you will command your ship as gallantly as Scharnhorst was commanded today”

Erich Bey wasnt good battleship commander. He did many mistakes. Scharnhorst crew saved his honor.. :)

[UltraShirou]

2 hours ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

That must be the worst of the bovine excrement you wrote (yet?) and it its plain and utterly wrong. Only the morally corrupt would follow the order to commit war crimes - to "just follow orders" was the excuse of many german officers on trial but that didn't count!

Your bronze age concept of honor is obsolete, immoral and thus invalid. Don't let me stop you from arguing further, just going to grab something to eat...

 Do you know why? Because the winners judge the defeated. Winners write history. Thats why. Thats the only reason you're thinking the way you do. And "my" concept of honor isn't mine. This concept is universal. Either you accept it or you dont, it matters not. 

 

2 hours ago, fumtu said:

So tell me, in that case who is a hero, those who blindly follow the orders no matter what or those who actually stud up and fight against such regime, even if that mean costing them life? And against their "officer honor" but because they were, above all, a human being. Honor is stupid thing, even dangerous, if it does not include using your brain and distinct what is wrong and what is right. There is nothing honorable in murdering other just because "officer honor" is requiring from you to do it as you pledge allegiance to follow orders of some maniac.

 But this is the way it works. No one stops you from deserting or betraying. You will be shot for that of course, but again these are the laws of war. Yep, war is dirty, insane, immoral thing you cannot imagine sitting in your warm house on a soft chair. War does not care about your moral code, about your beliefs, about your humanity. The only thing what matters - are you a winner or a loser. Winners are not judged. Officers honor is the a pillar of victory. To do what needs to be done. No matter what.

[fumtu]

15 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

 Do you know why? Because the winners judge the defeated. Winners write history. Thats why. Thats the only reason you're thinking the way you do. And "my" concept of honor isn't mine. This concept is universal. Either you accept it or you dont, it matters not. 

 

There is no universal concept of honor, and your "understanding" of honor is purely yours or you would not write half of things you wrote. 

 

15 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

Yep, war is dirty, insane, immoral thing you cannot imagine sitting in your warm house on a soft chair. War does not care about your moral code, about your beliefs, about your humanity. The only thing what matters - are you a winner or a loser. Winners are not judged. Officers honor is the a pillar of victory. To do what needs to be done. No matter what.

 

There is no honor in killing innocents. For you it is just a fancy word to hide behind it, like some kind of shield to justify any wrongdoings. As long as your side win so you don't have to live is consequences of your crimes. You have no idea what honor is, just your own perverted concept of it. And don't talk to me about war, I lived trough one, I know how ugly it can be. And I know that what you are saying is just a load of crap. 

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

31 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

 Do you know why? Because the winners judge the defeated. Winners write history. Thats why. Thats the only reason you're thinking the way you do. And "my" concept of honor isn't mine. This concept is universal. Either you accept it or you dont, it matters not. 

I totally reject the silly suggestion that you are qualified to comment upon my honour, as you have proven again and again that you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

41 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

Officers honor is the a pillar of victory. To do what needs to be done. No matter what. 

Rudolf Höß also only did what needs to be done. No matter what. Like so many others.

And it wasn't wrong what he did because he was on the losing side, it was wrong because it was wrong in the first place.

 

To be honest, this has gone long enough - it's arduous talking to you, as you dig the hole in which you are standing ever deeper and I feel there is little in the way of realization just how disgusting you sound to a civilized person. How does one come up with such bovine excrement?

[UltraShirou]

32 minutes ago, fumtu said:

There is no honor in killing innocents. For you it is just a fancy word to hide behind it, like some kind of shield to justify any wrongdoings. As long as your side win so you don't have to live is consequences of your crimes. You have no idea what honor is, just your own perverted concept of it. And don't talk to me about war, I lived trough one, I know how ugly it can be. And I know that what you are saying is just a load of crap. 

 I was waiting for this thesis. Really. To demonstrate you the issue in your understanding. Following orders and committing war crimes for you is the same. As i said - result of postwar brainwashing. And the officer for you is the criminal because his honor may make him to follow criminal orders. May but not necessary will.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

29 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

result of postwar brainwashing

I'd rather be brainwashed than a weak willed person with the moral competence of a wet cardboard. You need someone else to choose what's right and what's wrong for you, because you are incompetent in this regard - But this is not necessarily true for everyone else. Please stop suggesting this, it is insulting.

 

Edit: To be honest, I fear there are many out there who can't deceide for themselves that, say, shooting children is wrong. But this is the forum of the EU servers, you can assume a modicum of civilisation.

[fumtu]

10 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

Following orders and committing war crimes for you is the same.

 

Is that what you get from all I wrote? If those orders resulted in committing war crimes, yes they are the same. But I never said that following orders is war crime by itself. Otherwise no army could not exist at all. It is you who thinks that "officer honor" is justifying everything, even war crimes, if, by your own words, is what needs to be done to achieve "victory". Even if that "victory" means extermination whole group of men because, you know, someone ordered to be done. In that case, yes, following orders is same as ordering those crimes.

 

Quote

Officers honor is the a pillar of victory. To do what needs to be done. No matter what.

 

 

[UltraShirou]

27 minutes ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

In turn I believe you're a weak willed person with the moral competence of a wet cardboard. You need someone else to choose what's right and what's wrong for you, because you are incompetent in this regard - But this is not necessarily true for everyone else. Please stop suggesting this, it is insulting.

As you wish, your opinion does not offend me. We speak here openly. And yes, on the battlefield i need someone else to choose for me. Because that someone can see entire landscape and i can not.

 

26 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

Is that what you get from all I wrote? If those orders resulted in committing war crimes, yes they are the same. But I never said that following orders is war crime by itself. Otherwise no army could not exist at all. It is you who thinks that "officer honor" is justifying everything, even war crimes, if, by your own words, is what needs to be done to achieve "victory". Even if that "victory" means extermination whole group of men because, you know, someone ordered to be done. In that case, yes, following orders is same as ordering those crimes.

 

 

 

IF. "IF those orders resulted in committing war crimes". And please dont place on me things i didn't said. "if that "victory" means extermination whole group of men." I said - honor dictates you what must be done, but not how. You missed this. You started to blame me in justifying crimes. 

1 hour ago, fumtu said:

As long as your side win so you don't have to live is consequences of your crimes.

From the very beginning of our discussion you're trying to convince me of following orders like the honor dictates means inevitably committing war crimes. In attempt to make a rule out of an exception.

[fumtu]

16 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

IF. "IF those orders resulted in committing war crimes".

 

Yes, if. That is what I said.

 

16 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

I said - honor dictates you what must be done, but not how.

 

No it does not. And again you are putting it in the way that if that "honor" demand or require killing innocent, than it "must be done", just it does not matter how, like that change something. And in some perverted way that would be considered "honorable" like some kind of justification.

 

16 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

You started to blame me in justifying crimes. 

 

 

Because what you are writing looks like justifying it. Why do you think that all those people are not agreeing with you? Do you think that I have something personal against you or? 

 

16 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

From the very beginning of our discussion you're trying to convince me of following orders like the honor dictates means inevitably committing war crimes. In attempt to make a rule out of an exception.

 

No, honor does not dictate following orders. Code of service dictate that, you get those two confused. Honor is not blindly following orders no matter what, and if those orders request committing war crimes there is nothing honorable in that. 

[UltraShirou]

2 minutes ago, fumtu said:

No it does not. And again you are putting it in the way that if that "honor" demand or require killing innocent, than it "must be done", just it does not matter how, like that change something. And in some perverted way that would be considered "honorable" like some kind of justification.

All men i know who were considering genocide as an act of honorable service are condemned war criminals. They tried to use concept of honor to excuse their deeds. And that is an exception. Not a rule. On the other side men who served the same country in the same time on the same war, but were never involved in war crimes are not criminals. Hans Wilhelm Langsdorff never was even close to any war crimes. You may not like him for his service to the Grossdeutsches Reich, but his name is clean. His honor is clean. And he did nothing wrong under the guidance of his honor.

 

14 minutes ago, fumtu said:

No it does not. And again you are putting it in the way that if that "honor" demand or require killing innocent, than it "must be done", just it does not matter how, like that change something. And in some perverted way that would be considered "honorable" like some kind of justification.

Honor does not demand committing crimes. Again. You may name anything with any word. Does it mean that thing will automatically become what you named it? I think - No.

 

18 minutes ago, fumtu said:

Because what you are writing looks like justifying it. Why do you think that all those people are not agreeing with you? Do you think that I have something personal against you or? 

I know exactly why. Because being german in 1940s means to be a criminal. I know this setup very well.

 

27 minutes ago, fumtu said:

No, honor does not dictate following orders. Code of service dictate that, you get those two confused. Honor is not blindly following orders no matter what, and if those orders request committing war crimes there is nothing honorable in that. 

Honor dictates to complete your mission no matter what. Or die trying. Or die to not complete this mission. Or pay with your life if you failed your mission. As you can see most ways here are about following orders and only one about disobeying them.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

2 hours ago, UltraShirou said:

 I was waiting for this thesis. Really. To demonstrate you the issue in your understanding. Following orders and committing war crimes for you is the same. As i said - result of postwar brainwashing. And the officer for you is the criminal because his honor may make him to follow criminal orders. May but not necessary will.

 

Technically correct, because the concept was made universal only after WW2 based on what was the US standard that made it illegal to follow orders given by superior officers that were criminal in nature. However, even in the Third Reich death sentences were issued to the SS for committing war crimes... all rescinded, naturally, but it is an indication that even during the war some standards existed though they were not universally upheld, and generally undermined by the Axis powers.

 

Langsdorff himself is an example of someone who chose to uphold civilized standards of honor which, in my book at least, makes him exemplary even if his performance during the battle was not.

[fumtu]

10 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

Hans Wilhelm Langsdorff never was even close to any war crimes. You may not like him for his service to the Grossdeutsches Reich, but his name is clean. His honor is clean. And he did nothing wrong under the guidance of his honor.

 

I never said anything about Langsdorff and his honor, did I?

 

10 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

Honor does not demand committing crimes. Again. You may name anything with any word. Does it mean that thing will automatically become what you named it? I think - No.

 

Depending how someone define his honor. As you said yourself ... 

 

18 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

All men i know who were considering genocide as an act of honorable service are condemned war criminals.

 

Do you think they they did not have ... khm ... honor as they said, even if it is perverted? There is no universal meaning to honor. And you are consistently naming something a honor even tho what you are describing is definitely not that.

 

10 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

I know exactly why. Because being german in 1940s means to be a criminal. I know this setup very well.

 

No, it does not. I don't. And who ever claim that is wrong.

 

10 minutes ago, UltraShirou said:

Honor dictates to complete your mission no matter what. Or die trying. Or die to not complete this mission. Or pay with your life if you failed your mission. As you can see most ways here are about following orders and only one about disobeying them.

 

Well that is stupid. By that definition there is no possibility to retreat if losses become to heavy, for example. By you, you should rather send everyone to death than rethink and find different solution. That is not honor, that is stupidity ... that is what idiots would do. Not a single army in the world would have that philosophy unless they want to lose every war they take part in it. And large proportion of its nation. 

 

You don't even know what honor is or how military is structured and how it operate. This is just showing how arguing with you is pointless.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

This is a complex issue, because code of conduct for one rules out voluntary surrender. Then we have all the possible ethical issues on top of that, and our understanding of honor seems to evolve with times.

 

https://www.ausa.org/code-conduct

 

https://www.e-ir.info/2021/05/25/military-honor-in-the-twenty-first-century-some-contemporary-challenges/

[UltraShirou]

14 minutes ago, fumtu said:

You don't even know what honor is or how military is structured and how it operate.

 Your understanding of honor. Your country military structure. And modus operandi of your military forces. And i'm not going to argue with that. Because of course it's pointless, i agree. I see all of this in every battle on the EU cluster by the way.