← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hilaire Belloc
Thread ID: 8273 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2003-07-19
2003-07-19 23:53 | User Profile
I like to know some of you people's opinions on what kind of army we nationalists should be supporting. Should our nations have professional armies like what the US and UK have or have more of a universal military service system like Switzerland.
Historically, Nationalists have always been on the side of universal military service. In fact the terms "Peoples Army" and "Peoples War" have origins in Nationalism, not Communism. The early 19th century Prussian military reformer Scharnhorst first used those terms when he wanted to transform the Prussian army from a professional army to a citizen army. He did so in order for Prussia rid itself of French occupation. Impressed by both the performances of American colonial militias against England's armies and Napoleon's peasent conscripts, Scharnhorst believed that a conscript army motivated by strong nationalist pride would be best for Prussia. He insisted on universal military service, because it help build and spread national unity and pride. Along with reforming the regular army, Scharnhorst help create two main militias: the Landwher and Landsturm. [url=http://napnuts.tripod.com/napwars/frameprussianres.htm]http://napnuts.tripod.com/napwars/frameprussianres.htm[/url]
Scharnhorst's theories and reforms helped Prussia and all of Germany push Napoleon's forces out during the War of Liberation 1813-14. But much of Scharnhorst's theories of a citizens army go back even further than his time.
The Italian political theorist Nicolo Machiavelli in his 1521 work "the Art of War" argued for the creation of a national militia as opposed to a professional army. Machiavelli warned that professional armies make war their only living, so they either start unnecessary wars(like Iraq) or perpetuate wars already being waged. Professional armies have no stake in peace. Also, Machiavelli warns that often professional soldiers will often turn against their masters and set up military dictatorship, Julius Caesar being the best example given in the text.
Like Scharnhorst, Machiavelli argued that universal military service was the best way to promote national unity and patriotism among the populace. Not to mention social stability at home. He gave as examples the early Roman Republic, Sparta, and the Swiss(which today still serve as an example).
I'm sure we all are somewhat aware of America's founding fathers view on military service. Thomas Jefferson himself said, ** "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state." **
Jefferson also once told James Madison in 1813, "We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
Seeing the cruelities done by the King's professional soldiers, many of the founding father advocated for the establishment of militias, hence the 2nd Ammendment in the constitution. One of Washington's military advisors, General von Stueben, even advocated for the US to adopt a military system based on that of the Swiss.
We have seen recently how easily a professional army can be misused by the government and how much it has been seperated from the people. I personally believe in a return to the concept of universal military service can help somewhat. Nationalism and universal military service have always been closely linked to each other.
I like to hear other peoples' opinions on the topic.
:gun: :gun: :gun: :gun: :gun:
2003-07-20 21:26 | User Profile
That certainly is one ingridient of the equation. Another is the image of "bloodless" victories, achieved by pumping lots of money into the best equipment and new warfare tactics. Essentially, people are paying through their nose to fund the military and their contractors, and get stupid foreign policy made possible due to the perceptions that are only possible through massive funding of the war machine. So the people are suckers twice: once through their pocketbook, and the other though the foreign policy that isn't in their best interests.
2003-07-20 22:14 | User Profile
I agree fully with AntiYuppie. In fact I said before that Machiavelli mentioned that in his "Art of War" that professional militaries would either start wars that were not in the nation's true interests or protract them, in order to stay in business. Professional soldiers have no stake in peace, wheras a citizen soldier is happy to fight when neccessary and more eager to get back to his normal civilian life.
**That certainly is one ingridient of the equation. Another is the image of "bloodless" victories, achieved by pumping lots of money into the best equipment and new warfare tactics. Essentially, people are paying through their nose to fund the military and their contractors, and get stupid foreign policy made possible due to the perceptions that are only possible through massive funding of the war machine. So the people are suckers twice: once through their pocketbook, and the other though the foreign policy that isn't in their best interests. **
Yes Edward Luttwark's theories of "post-heroic warfare". Basically high-tech smart weaponry will fight the major battles of the future, thus eliminating the human factor.
Michael Handel critiques this notion in his book "Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought", and criticses the whole preoccupation of modern military thinkers with the technological and material aspects of war instead of the "moral" aspects. Handel also notes that Luttwark's and others' techo-centric theories when put into practice often lead to half-ass measures and results. [url=http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/BOOKS/Handel2.htm]http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/BOOKS/Handel2.htm[/url]
In fact Chapter 8 of Handel's book "The First Element of the Paradoxical Trinity: The People in Arms" talks about many military theories(Machiavelli, Clausewitz, and Jomini) about citizens armies and their possible political implications.
Also the recent "How Wars are won: the 13 rules of war from Ancient Greece to the war on terror", author Bevin Alexander states
"The great danger in coming years will be from commanders who put too much reliance on technology and machines, and who assume they can go virtually anywhere because their aircraft can always get them out if the situation gets dicey." page 230
[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609610392/002-6749343-2286405?vi=glance]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...86405?vi=glance[/url]
Another good book critiquing the techno-centric theories of how wars are fought is MacGregor Knox's and Williamson Murray's " The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300ââ¬â2050". They conclude that the great revolutions in warfare were and are driven mostly by social and political changes, not technology alone. [url=http://books.cambridge.org/052180079X.htm]http://books.cambridge.org/052180079X.htm[/url]
A good example is the introduction of the gun into warfare. The gun itself didn't change warfare, in fact the medieval long bow was more accurate and reliable. What made the gun so effective was the reintroduction of Greco-Roman military tactics and formations during the Renaisance. Such an infantry formation was what made the gun so effective in battle, not the weapon itself.
As we're already seeing in Iraq, our high-tech weapons are not helping us win against irregular guerrillas.
I should also say that another good book on the topic is Gary Hart's "The Minuteman, Restoring an Army of the People" which calls for a return to the citizens army with universal service that our founding fathers wanted. He talks in detail about how the professional militaryis undermining American democracy.
** "Even advanced weapons have weaknesses." Vo Nguyen Giap**
:gun: :gun: :gun:
2003-07-20 22:20 | User Profile
Another consideration is how powerless the best military in the world to protect its own country from the invasion of the illegals. And does pussifying of whites have something to do that many of them can run away from fights and the "darkies", having never to serve and be in a collective?
2003-07-20 22:32 | User Profile
**Another consideration is how powerless the best military in the world to protect its own country from the invasion of the illegals. And does pussifying of whites have something to do that many of them can run away from fights and the "darkies", having never to serve and be in a collective? **
The pussification of the white males. We've lost our chivalric fighting traditions. Even men who didn't serve in the military nevertheless defended themselves and their honor at some time or another, or was fully prepared to do so. Carrying a sword or even a gun(like in the American West) was part of fashion as well as neccessity back in the 18th and 19th century and even before that. Duelling and also common brawls at the local tarven and pub were part of everyday life. I know that if a man refused to fight a duel he could be disowned by his family for being a coward. [url=http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/dueling/]http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/dueling/[/url]
I'm sure MadRussian you're aware of the fact that the great Russian poet Alexander Pushkin was never a soldier(though I believe he tried to join the army) but was an accomplished duelist and lost his life in a duel.
Warriorship is not limited to just soldiers, its a calling for all males. Many of history's greatest warriors weren't soldiers. The men who fought the British at Lexington and Concord or those who fought the Mexicans at the Alamo weren't soldiers in the professional sense but they were warriors. Neither were the Highlanders of Scotland professionals yet they were among Europe's bravest.
:gun: :gun: :gun: :gun:
2003-07-20 23:20 | User Profile
*Originally posted by perun1201@Jul 19 2003, 17:53 * ** I like to know some of you people's opinions on what kind of army we nationalists should be supporting. Should our nations have professional armies like what the US and UK have or have more of a universal military service system like Switzerland.
**
I believe in a universal military. The founding fathers themselves had this kind of Army, or rather "militia" in mind when they drafted a constitution. Military service also serves as a male initation ritual, if you will-which teaches young men the discipline they need in order to be responsible citizens. This kind of thing is sadly lacking in our society. Furthermore, as AY pointed out, people will be far less eager to send "the boys" to die for Israel when they boys are their own sons.
2003-07-21 01:28 | User Profile
I'm in favour of a Swiss style defensive militia, but there are risks.
I read a report a while ago by a Swede who compared Swedish conscription to the UKs regimental system. His conclusion was that the Swedish system had the merit of binding the military into the wider society, but it made them a notably less effective fighting force.
2003-07-21 15:09 | User Profile
I read a report a while ago by a Swede who compared Swedish conscription to the UKs regimental system. His conclusion was that the Swedish system had the merit of binding the military into the wider society, but it made them a notably less effective fighting force.
I haven't read the report, perhaps if you gave some references onto where it can be read would help.
Yes, a militia system is not neccessarily better than a professional military, but neither is a professional military automatically better than a militia. That's just neo-con Rumsfeld BS!
Take Switzerland for example. They have a militia and its one of the best in the world. Swiss military expertise is sought after througout the world in the military, law enforcement, and private security. Swiss weaponry is also sought after throughout the world. Many American weapons systems are based on Swiss designs. So as a militia, the Swiss Army must not be that bad if even professional militaries seek their expertise.
The German Bundswher also relies on conscription and are among the best in Europe if not the world(correct me if I'm wrong). [url=http://www.sasev.de/sasDOKUzAA/SAStexte/05web.htm]http://www.sasev.de/sasDOKUzAA/SAStexte/05web.htm[/url]
History also teaches that professional soldiers not neccessarily better. The Roman Army of the Republic was based on conscription and they were the best in the world. The Imperial Roman army was good but corrupt. It often assassinated Emperors, terrorized civilians, and launched wars that help bring Rome down. Also the Condottiere and Landskhect of the Renaisance era were professonals but often thugs in uniforms: they looted and terrorized innocent civilians and often lacked discipline in battle (which is why Machiavelli held such contempt for them).
Adam Smith critiqued the militia concept in his "Wealth of Nations, claiming that men who only drill once a month cannot defeat men who drill everyday. That maybe true in conventional warfare but not neccessarily in low-intensity fighting(which is becoming more common around the world like in Iraq or Palestine).
Plus this problem that Smith talks about can be addressed if we adopt something like Scharnhorst's Kruemper system where a recruit goes through basic military training and then spends a certain amount of time in regular military service(say 2 years). After completing regular military service, the recruit can enter civilian life but is still liable to be called up for service in the reserves/militia. So for during the time of regular service, you have a full time soldier. Only when entering civilian life does he become part time untill he reaches a certain age(around 50).
I know many European militaries had a similar system from the 19th century to the mid-20th. I know the German army of WW1 had a system that after 2 years of regular service a man then entered the reserves/militia was only to be called up in war/national emergencies untill he reached the age of 50.
Hitler and the National Socialists continued this basic concept in the Whermacht. Towards the end of WW2, they even created the last-ditch militia the Volkssturm. [url=http://www.adeq.net/volksarm.htm]http://www.adeq.net/volksarm.htm[/url]
I forgot what speech, but in one speech Hitler claimed that National Socialists must be in favor of full universal service. To the NS, no honor is greater than military service. Something along those lines. In fact point 22 of the original 25 points of the Nazi Party program stated
** 22. We demand the abolition of a paid army and the formation of a national citizens army.**
:gun: :gun: :gun:
2003-07-21 15:21 | User Profile
**Military service also serves as a male initatian ritual if you will-which teaches young men the discipline that they need in order to be responsible citizens. This kind of thing is sadly lacking in our society. Furthermore, as AY pointed out, people will be far less eager to send "the boys" to die for Israel when they boys are their own sons. **
I fully agree. In fact Machiavelli again talks about this in his "Art of War" that war teaches citizens the virtues of courage and discipline, virtues they need to be good citizens anyways. One sociologists talked about how our society lacks rituals of manhood like military service, which is why often young men in our society look for it elsewhere(often in gangs or in other forms of deliquent behavior).
2003-07-21 15:45 | User Profile
*Originally posted by perun1201@Jul 21 2003, 15:09 * ** I haven't read the report, perhaps if you gave some references onto where it can be read would help. **
sorry Perun, I do quote references when I have them, but I don't have a link to that report (I did read it online originally, but I can no longer find the site).
2003-07-21 16:38 | User Profile
**sorry Perun, I do quote references when I have them, but I don't have a link to that report (I did read it online originally, but I can no longer find the site). **
I understand, there are thousands of interesting websites that I find that I can't find anymore. Its not your fault the internet is filled up with so many worthless sites that you can't find the interesting and informational ones :D .
2003-07-21 17:11 | User Profile
I'm in favour of both a small professional military and a large civillian military.
2003-07-21 17:29 | User Profile
I may be incorrect, but I believe the USA abolished the draft b/c they realized they could no longer force people to fight for the nation. The WWI/WWII generation gave way to the Vietnam-era hippies, and the government realized they were much different.
no longer slaves to every government whim, many ignored the draft and fled the nation. There's no way that a diverse country will ever agree on war. You can't hold a draft for a war that only 1/2 the country would support - then NOBODY would volunteer to go.
the volunteer army we have today is the only realistic possibility. diversity dictates it.
-Jay
2003-07-21 17:58 | User Profile
**I may be incorrect, but I believe the USA abolished the draft b/c they realized they could no longer force people to fight for the nation. The WWI/WWII generation gave way to the Vietnam-era hippies, and the government realized they were much different.
no longer slaves to every government whim, many ignored the draft and fled the nation. There's no way that a diverse country will ever agree on war. You can't hold a draft for a war that only 1/2 the country would support - then NOBODY would volunteer to go.
the volunteer army we have today is the only realistic possibility. diversity dictates it.
-Jay **
Jay maybe so many people didn't want to fight in vietnam because it wasn't in our nation's interests to do so. In fact in the book "Lies My teacher told me in School" notes that opposition to the war was higher among the working class(those actually doing the fighting) than among the middle class(those more likely to go to college).
When American interests are really at stake(such as the nation being under invasion), people are more willing to make sacrifices. Not over stupid neo-con peacekeeping garbage that don't threaten us at all.
Not only that, Gary Hart in his book "The Minutemen" even saids that if universal military service was reintroduced, people would probally show more real interest in how it's being used and also greater interest in American policies abroad. If it's your life or the life of a loved one on the line, you're going to show more interest in what's going on.
One result of our current professional army is that our nation's defense is becoming more and more dependent on illegal aliens. Yes, many of the current volunteers for the military are illegal aliens! In fact one major news network did a story about the growing number of illegal aliens being recruited into the military as opposed to native-born or even naturalized citizens.
One reason why Rome fell was because it placed so much of its defense on non-citizen barbarians. The emperor rather spend money on foreign mercenaries rather than place potential political power in the hands of the people by giving them arms to defend Rome. Our government is the same now!!
If you honestly think a professional army is the best, read Book I of Machiavelli's "Art of War" and Gary Hart's "the Minutemen: Restoring an Army of the People" for starters. Even Clausewitz was in favor of citizen soldiers as opposed to professionals.
:gun: :gun:
2003-07-21 20:29 | User Profile
Much nonsense has been written about American willingness to fight and share the burden. From my book:> Americans have believed they sacrificed greatly during World War II.ÃÂ War orders from allies and the American war effort caused income for the average factory worker to rise 50 percent in real terms from 1939 to 1944.( James L. Abrahamson, The American Home Front, p153 (National Defense University Press, 1983) quoted US Census, Historical Statistics, series D722-72, 1:164)ÃÂ This huge increase in income has never been approached in peacetime America and has much to do with fond memories of World War II by a populace which has believed the nation sacrificed during those years. Such wilful delusions have not been confined to the proletariat.ÃÂ Nobel laureate Milton Friedman has maintained there was no need of a draft because if threatened, more than enough patriotic citizens would volunteer to defend America.( Jason Berger editor, The Military Draft, pp127-9ÃÂ (H.W. Wilson, 1981)ÃÂ reprint of Newsweek article of Feb 11, 1980)ÃÂ In World War II only one-third of American military forces volunteered.ÃÂ Milton Friedman was not one of them.ÃÂ He used the years of war to pursue his doctorate in economics.ÃÂ His great idol Adam Smith judged "the art of war... is certainly the noblest of all arts" which may surprise many who think of Smith solely in economic terms.ÃÂ Smith thought war the great school for acquiring composure to face death with magnanimity and dignity.ÃÂ Death was king of terrors, and if fear of death were conquered by man, other natural evils were not likely to excite him.ÃÂ This continual contempt of danger and death had ennobled the profession of soldier and had bestowed upon this calling a rank and dignity superior to any other profession.( Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, p239 (Liberty Press, 1981))ÃÂ These sentiments, if voiced in any graduate school in the United States, would be ridiculed by entire faculties who would have no problem extolling their virtue and character from the safety of their lounges.ÃÂ Adam Smith recognized the limits of society driven entirely by greed, and a feeling has persisted that Milton Friedman and his acolytes have not.ÃÂ To them there has been no greater God or force than the "market economy".ÃÂ The cult of libertarianism has listed Friedman as one of its greater saints.
Contrary to popular belief, Americans do not rally around the flag at war. Data for American Army combat divisions for World War II revealed some 137,000 dead in all divisions with the only 5 volunteer divisions, the 11th, 17th, 82nd, and 101st Airborne and the 10th Mountain Divison accounting for little more than 7000 dead, or slightly more than 5%. The vast majority of the dead were drafted.
perun1201 wrote:> **I'm sure we all are somewhat aware of America's founding fathers view on military service. [color=red]Thomas Jefferson[/color] himself said, "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."
[color=red]Jefferson[/color] also once told James Madison in 1813, "We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."**
Thomas Jefferson was most often seen when battle was coming mounted on a horse heading in the other direction. He stated that the tree of liberty had to watered by the blood of tyrants every generation. Jefferson epitomized most Americans. He spoke of high morals and courage, but was reluctant to offer his own.
2003-07-21 21:15 | User Profile
A decentralized militia system is great on defense, but pretty poor on offense, which is the exact opposite of what the neo-con armchair generals need for their current schemes.
A company of rednecks using guerilla tactics on their home turf in say, the woods of Alabama, could tie up, and possibly carve up, a division's worth of troops and their supporting logistics, whereas the same formation doesn't do as well when ordered to bravely charge machine-gun nests thousands of miles from kith and kin.
This is probably the reason that any time someone tries to start a milita, the feds put in the slammer on "conspiracy" charges.
2003-07-21 21:23 | User Profile
There's no way that a diverse country will ever agree on war.
In addition to perun1201's good argument,
Perhaps nations that are too diverse to unite for war are too big to be nations, or to think themselves i-n-d-v-i-s-i-b-l-e, in the first place.
2003-07-21 21:44 | User Profile
**A company of rednecks using guerilla tactics on their home turf in say, the woods of Alabama, could tie up, and possibly carve up, a division's worth of troops and their supporting logistics, whereas the same formation doesn't do as well when ordered to bravely charge machine-gun nests thousands of miles from kith and kin. **
Just like the Confederate Bushwhackers of the Civil War? :D
2003-07-21 21:59 | User Profile
**Much nonsense has been written about American willingness to fight and share the burden. From my book:
Contrary to popular belief, Americans do not rally around the flag at war. Data for American Army combat divisions for World War II revealed some 137,000 dead in all divisions with the only 5 volunteer divisions, the 11th, 17th, 82nd, and 101st Airborne and the 10th Mountain Divison accounting for little more than 7000 dead, or slightly more than 5%. The vast majority of the dead were drafted.**
I said Americans would be more willing to make sacrifices if real American interests were at stake. However I do agree that most Americans who do rally around the flag(especially after 9/11) were assholes who had no intention of joining the military. Most of the neo-con crackheads who advocated for war in Iraq never served in the military.
** perun1201 wrote: QUOTEÃÂ I'm sure we all are somewhat aware of America's founding fathers view on military service. Thomas Jefferson himself said, "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."
Jefferson also once told James Madison in 1813, "We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
Thomas Jefferson was most often seen when battle was coming mounted on a horse heading in the other direction. He stated that the tree of liberty had to watered by the blood of tyrants every generation. Jefferson epitomized most Americans. He spoke of high morals and courage, but was reluctant to offer his own. **
Well that maybe true but it still doesn't diminish what he said. Many who actually saw combat advocated the same things Jefferson wanted. As I said before, Von Stueben(who was an officer in the Prussian Army and later a major-general in the American) advocated to Washington for the need of a Swiss-style military.
I've already given the examples of Clausewitz, Scharnhorst, and Machiavelli. It should also be mentioned that Plato called for a militia system in his works "the Republic" and "the Laws". Plato served in the Athenian Army during the Paloponnesian War, as a cavalry officer I believe. Xenophon also quoted Socrates's support for a citizens army. Socrates also served in the Athenian Army during the Paloponnesian War. The same was true with James Harrington's work "The Commonwealth of Ocenana". Harrington also argued for the close relationship between citizenship and military service.
So I don't exactly know what edward gibbon is trying argue here. Are you in support of a professional army as opposed to a citizens' army? Or were you just trying to refute a few really insignificant arguments I made?