Survivalist Forum banner

3641 - 3658 of 3658 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,616 Posts
Cantankerous mostly.
And antithetical to popular venerations of him, so common in today’s milieu; but Sun Tzu was a punk, all the same.

The guy killed without remorse, pretty much like a psychopath would do. It is one thing to be a good fighter, and a great general, but it is another to be a cold blooded killer. That is something that no one should be: and he killed the innocent, when he murdered the concubines.
True but he was very efficient in his use of Mett-tsl.
 

·
Stop YOLOing
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
The guy killed without remorse, pretty much like a psychopath would do. It is one thing to be a good fighter, and a great general, but it is another to be a cold blooded killer. That is something that no one should be: and he killed the innocent, when he murdered the concubines.
Innocents aside, I don't think we should use killing without remorse as the standard here. Plenty of our troops have killed a lot of people and only feel remorse about a few of them. Not many combat vets are mentally unscathed by years of combat experience, but to suggest that they should feel remorse for justified combat kills fundamentally misrepresents morality in warfare, and it's unhelpful in resolving the PTSD/etc problems we're dealing with now.

If your avatar pic is an indicator, I'm sure you understand more than what's in that short post, but I'm only responding to what you wrote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Jeans or cargo pants white t shirts, rucksack with ammo, supplies, tan in color, semi auto rifles of common availability, some rifleman with bolt action rifles, and a few shotgunners, helmets if available, work boots, folding 5" knife that clips in pocket, zipties, homemade small explosives,, flashlight led, small folding shovel, light hatchet, handheld radio, water resistant smartphone,prepaid
That's a lotta weight. Are you imaging the modern minuteman as an overweight meat eater, or a skinny and frail vegan? Either way, it's a lot of weight to carry. I agree they will be wearing a t-shirt...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,768 Posts
And that’s before any shooting took place, everywhere in the Colonies. And I am certain that the Hessians were more than happy to burn the houses and barns, of any Minute Man that they captured.
While there may have been instances of this (there definitely was with the British forces), there are actually more than a few reports from colonists that debunked the "brutal mercenary" label of the Hessians. One colonist woman said the Hessians were protesting the execution of the colonist prisoners by the British. The Hessians were also upset that many of the colonists in NY, some who were or German-descent, were being executed by the British. Many Hessians who were captured, ended up fighting for the colonial army and a very large percentage remained in America following the war.

As a military force, they were as well trained (or better as some historians point out) than the British military; their officers were equally well educated, and their tactics were actually seen as superior to the British. While not technically "mercenaries", they were actually considered auxiliary forces (there is a difference); however the term mercenary played well into the hands of the colonial leaders to say King George violated his own terms...giving more credence to the revolution and helping with recruiting.

ROCK6
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,616 Posts
In most scenarios historically it always comes down to attrition , logistics and breaking the will to fight , in one form or another. We won WW2 by killing more German and Japanese civilians bombing their cities than soldiers on the battlefield. And very few Japan surrendered and same for the Germans facing the Russians at the End. Future wars will likely be no different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,768 Posts
In most scenarios historically it always comes down to attrition , logistics and breaking the will to fight , in one form or another. We won WW2 by killing more German and Japanese civilians bombing their cities than soldiers on the battlefield. And very few Japan surrendered and same for the Germans facing the Russians at the End. Future wars will likely be no different.
Don't forget political appetites and public support. I've done extensive research into numerous insurgencies. The French executed a brutal counter-insurgency occupation in Algeria. There was a lot of conflicting propaganda on the success, but the public lost their appetite and the politics of that occupation lost its momentum. You could also commend the insurgents for their persistence and resistance for eight years. I find it ironic that the Algerian COIN strategy was heavily studied when we were in Iraq, but as Clausewitz warned: "There is little value in a vision of warfare that doesn’t fit with the realities of history".

ROCK6
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
Cantankerous mostly.
And antithetical to popular venerations of him, so common in today’s milieu; but Sun Tzu was a punk, all the same.

The guy killed without remorse, pretty much like a psychopath would do. It is one thing to be a good fighter, and a great general, but it is another to be a cold blooded killer. That is something that no one should be: and he killed the innocent, when he murdered the concubines.
You don't have to venerate him to drag the nuggets out of his writings and apply them , and knowing the tactics and thought processes of such examples of human detritus can be beneficial.

Frankly many of such examples of idolatry that you may have put some degree of study into at certain schools had Feet of Clay to one degree or another , take what's of value and leave the rest.

As corollary to your other point...........“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”

Generally attributed to Heraclitus , still carries a degree of validity however.
 

·
Stop YOLOing
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
I find it ironic that the Algerian COIN strategy was heavily studied when we were in Iraq, but as Clausewitz warned: "There is little value in a vision of warfare that doesn’t fit with the realities of history".
Yeah...the Pentagon screened Battle of Algiers and most of them took exactly the wrong lessons from it. It's like they just ignored the part where France lost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,768 Posts
Yeah...the Pentagon screened Battle of Algiers and most of them took exactly the wrong lessons from it. It's like they just ignored the part where France lost.
We sort of did the same thing...after a military "victory", you implement your state-department strategy and not use your military as a 15-year police force...we studied a problem and ignored the lessons learned. I would say Algeria was only a failure because the French government never determined the objectives that would drive their political and military priorities.

Communists have zero problems with their solution. Commit genocide to any ethnicity you don't like; kill any and all dissenters, make it profitable to turn in family members, establish political prisons, and leverage a draconian, tyrannical police/intel-state, to surveil, harass, and censor citizens. Oh, and own the media to push your propaganda and perpetuate the false narratives...we're half way there!

ROCK6
 

·
Stop YOLOing
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
Algeria, AFG, and Iraq were failures for many reasons, but what you identified is certainly near the top. We have a habit of saying our military doesn't "do nation building," even though have done it basically since we've been a military. Reconstruction, the Marshall Plan, etc. That approach prevents us from creating a grand strategy, or anything that could properly be called a "strategy" at all, really.

After the Algerian loss, several generals revolted. Interestingly, last week a group of French generals published an open letter in the media warning of civil war. They seem to have a measure of popular support, at least for the issues identified. They're weren't proposing civil war as a solution, but just warning of it.

Interesting times....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,616 Posts
The thing that puzzle's me , brothers is how can the General staff study the same history , War and Battle studies etc we did and come up with BS plans that those on the ground KNOW will not work. I tend to think that the pinheads in the matrix and the district of Criminals are just as delusional about reality as the German high command in WWII. The only conclusion I can come up with is selfishness and greed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,768 Posts
The thing that puzzle's me , brothers is how can the General staff study the same history , War and Battle studies etc we did and come up with BS plans that those on the ground KNOW will not work. I tend to think that the pinheads in the matrix and the district of Criminals are just as delusional about reality as the German high command in WWII. The only conclusion I can come up with is selfishness and greed
Combat is profitable, or at least great potential for profits. The military fights war (or conflicts given the definition changes) and while many plan on detailed OPLANs where they assume there will be a national/political strategy, some know that drawn out conflict is an opportunity as well either for increased budgets, getting new toys funded, or personal gain. I work as a defense contractor and I think many of the military leaders walk a fine line of ethics. While they don't violate regulations, you find many position themselves to take advantage of lucrative defense contracts and services once they hang up the uniform, many of them as a well-paid, gray-beard advisor. These are the corporate leaders in the military and they're no different than your typical corrupt politician. It pains me to say that, but I've seen some of it first hand.

I love the National Guard; I enlisted in the WAARNG as a young Infantry Soldier many moons ago. However, I as I work with our Reserve Component on certain forces to augment the Active Duty, they are really mercenary-prostitutes. I say that with a little sarcasm and jest. They want to grow their forces but they need validated requests to do so. While the spoken words are they'll do anything they're ordered to do, the joke is that they'll do anything you pay them to do. The big Army processes are driven by funding...

ROCK6
 

·
NRA Life 1971
Joined
·
8,713 Posts
Beside the fact that the military is tasked with a critical defense mission, it is not much different than most government agencies. They all seek to insulate and increase their fiefdoms by advocating for more funding for problems real or perceived.
Take the EPA for example. We have the cleanest air and water since the 60s but peruse their website and be prepared to be educated on how the planet will soon evaporate unless they receive the requested resources.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
Beside the fact that the military is tasked with a critical defense mission, it is not much different than most government agencies. They all seek to insulate and increase their fiefdoms by advocating for more funding for problems real or perceived.
Take the EPA for example. We have the cleanest air and water since the 60s but peruse their website and be prepared to be educated on how the planet will soon evaporate unless they receive the requested resources.

Rhetorical question just for sake of discussion. Can anyone name a single government entity that isn't at this juncture a buncha money hustlers equivalent to worst televangelist you every saw?

Just a singular example will suffice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
You don't have to venerate him to drag the nuggets out of his writings and apply them , and knowing the tactics and thought processes of such examples of human detritus can be beneficial.

Frankly many of such examples of idolatry that you may have put some degree of study into at certain schools had Feet of Clay to one degree or another , take what's of value and leave the rest.

As corollary to your other point...........“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”

Generally attributed to Heraclitus , still carries a degree of validity however.
What knowledge did you take away from Sun Tzu? I took some away, like that he was brilliant, but he still had a bold streak of criminality. I will read Rommel if I live long enough, because he was a better man and general.

But look at who he worked for, Hitler; who was an animal and in the end Rommel forfeited his life, to Hitler. Life is tricky but it is always better to look at people as people. They are not there to be fashioned into the likeness of the latest dictator/animal, that happens to be in control of things.

I started reading the Pelo Wars by Thucydides, but life interfered. What I have taken from it so far is, don’t start a fight that you can’t finish. The Athenians weren’t up to the job of beating Sparta, just because they thought that they were.

In closing, Love thy neighbor as thyself is the ruling spirit in all of what I wrote. Beheading giggling women like Sun Tzu did, turns that on its head.
And to me, he was an abomination; which is an opinion which goes against general beliefs, but that does not make the opinion false.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
While there may have been instances of this (there definitely was with the British forces), there are actually more than a few reports from colonists that debunked the "brutal mercenary" label of the Hessians. One colonist woman said the Hessians were protesting the execution of the colonist prisoners by the British. The Hessians were also upset that many of the colonists in NY, some who were or German-descent, were being executed by the British. Many Hessians who were captured, ended up fighting for the colonial army and a very large percentage remained in America following the war.

As a military force, they were as well trained (or better as some historians point out) than the British military; their officers were equally well educated, and their tactics were actually seen as superior to the British. While not technically "mercenaries", they were actually considered auxiliary forces (there is a difference); however the term mercenary played well into the hands of the colonial leaders to say King George violated his own terms...giving more credence to the revolution and helping with recruiting.

ROCK6
My primary documentation and reference work is the Declaration of Independence: and within it the Brits are described as having committed murders and then receiving mock trials. I can safely assume that it applied to the Hessians as well: and the Brits had become power mad lunatics, with King George III as the primary crackpot.

There was a tyranny in America, and there is no such thing as a soft or kind tyrant. It is illusory to think that an iron fist is not within every velvet glove, that is wielded by a tyrant.

How kind is the IRS, or the EPA? You know that they are merciless.

And if you were ever so unfortunate as to live inside of a HUD project, you will find that petty tyrants abound there. It’s almost like that was intended from the start: me personally I think that it is very basic mechanism, used for control purposes, of the tenants.

And if many Hessians remained in America after the war, it is a testament that they didn’t have anything to return to. The German state of Hesse did not want them, I am pretty sure of that.

(Note: look at how America treats its war veterans, all that most people hear is that those returnees might have PTSD, which is a soft slander. So a fear is spread, and not respect.)

If the German soldiers remained here, then God bless them: but if the aims of their masters had won out,America would be like England . I don’t think that anybody here would want that.

Finally, an auxiliary force from Hesse, how are they anything but mercenaries, and what is the difference ? Who paid them? Because whoever footed the bill was their master.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,768 Posts
@MisterMills357

My primary documentation and reference work is the Declaration of Independence: and within it the Brits are described as having committed murders and then receiving mock trials. I can safely assume that it applied to the Hessians as well: and the Brits had become power mad lunatics, with King George III as the primary crackpot.
The Hessians had a solid reputation as combat forces in that period. My only assumption is some of the Hessian forces didn't care for the way the British were doing business (which is why many switched sides). I don't know the political climate in the two largest German/Hessian states, but I suspect freedom in American beat working for a government that hired you out to other countries and if they broke the Hessian state contract with the British empire, it might very well made them a traitor.

Finally, an auxiliary force from Hesse, how are they anything but mercenaries, and what is the difference ? Who paid them? Because whoever footed the bill was their master.
The Colonial Army used the term "mercenary" as (effective) propaganda and recruitment material. While I won't debate the whole "state funded" aspect of mercenary units, technically, the the German-loaned forces were not mercenaries.

Although frequently referred to by scholars as mercenaries, Hessians were legally and politically distinguished as auxiliaries; unlike mercenaries, who served a foreign government on their own accord, auxiliaries were soldiers hired out to a foreign party by their own government, to which they remained in service. As a source of funding throughout the 18th century, many German states regularly rented out the services of their troops to fight in wars in which they had no other involvement. Like most auxiliaries of this period, Hessians served with foreign armies as entire units, fighting under their own flags, commanded by their usual officers, and wearing their existing uniforms.
Pay is deceptive. My assumption is that either the British paid the units directly, or more likely paid their state head, and then paid through their normal means. I guess you could also say that since the Hessians were paid the same as the British Soldiers, that doesn't quite qualify as "mercenary pay", which is often more than the forces they're supporting.

Hessians would not be categorized as mercenaries under modern international law. Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Convention defines a mercenary as "any person who ... has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces." Hessian troops served in America on official duty from the armed forces of Hesse-Cassel and Hesse-Hanau. Protocol I also requires a mercenary to be "promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party." While not formally incorporated into the British military, Hessian troops were paid the same wages as British soldiers.
That said, I could very well see the day when the UN has some foothold with our corrupt administration and the use of "peacekeeping forces" on American soil conducting security (aka combat) operations would be a similar definition. The UN is comprised of nation-state units and would be considered "auxiliaries" as well, but I would have no heartburn calling them foreign invaders and mercenaries...

ROCK6
 
3641 - 3658 of 3658 Posts
Top