Text 21206, 139 rader
Skriven 2008-09-22 01:34:50 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
  Kommentar till text 21186 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
Ärende: Duty Honor Count
========================
Hello Lee.

21 Sep 08 14:59, you wrote to me:

 LL> Hello Jeff,

 >> RB>All depends on the circumstances. After 1934, German solders
 >> RB>swore their oath of allegiance directly to Adolf Hitler, not to
 >> RB>the constitution or to Germany.

 >> JS>Part of the problem is when one swears an oath of allegiance
 >> JS>to a person or individual instead of to a document or office of
 >> JS>leadership.

 LL> That is why the oath of enlistment for a US soldier is for an ideal,
 LL> rather than to a politician and/or political party.

    The current US army oath also includes an oath to the president which
in effect ties a soldiers oath to the wishes of a single person. I agree
that a soldiers oath of alegience should be to an ideal or to a document
such as a constitution.


 >> JS>I would think that even limiting a oath of allegiance
 >> JS>to a single office of leadership could pose problems.

 LL> Nazi Germany was built around a cult of personality, that of
 LL> Adolf Hitler.  Soviet Russia was built around a cult of personality,
 LL> that of Josef Stalin.  Fascist Italy was built around a cult of
 LL> personality, that of Benito Mussolini.  Imperial Japan was built
 LL> around a cult of personality, that of Emperor Hirohito.  Red China
 LL> was built around a cult of personality, that of Chairman Mao.

 LL> However, America was not built around a personality cult, but rather
 LL> for an ideal, that ideal exemplified by the Declaration of
 LL> Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

    That probably was the intent in the beginning. Back when politicians
only lied half the time. <g> While I think that is still the intent the
integrity of the politicians has diminished. Which raises my concern
about the inclusion of "and that I will obey the orders of the President
of the United States" in the army's oath.


 >> JS>My point being that the more focused one's oath is toward a
 >> JS>single person or office the bigger the chance for that allegiance
 >> JS>to be led astray.

 LL> Which is why the oath of enlistment for a US soldier is not to
 LL> any politician and/or political party, but for an ideal.

    Not sure what the age of the oath you are remembering is. The current
oath I am refering to is:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey
the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers
appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the
wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Source: http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm


 >> RB>How true. Wikepedia states:

 >> RB>Some of them broke that oath when they later attempted to
 >> RB>assassinate Hitler. Were they traitors or patriots, a disgrace or
 >> RB>an honor to their uniform? Even now you can still get some
 >> RB>disagreements on this point.

 JS>> I would guess they felt more patriotism toward their country than
 JS>> their leader. I couldn't really blame them.

 LL> Patriotism?  What is patriotism?  For most Germans, it was not
 LL> Germany which was the aggressor, but other countries which chose
 LL> to attack Germany.

     I am sure that the surviving people of those countries that Hitler
invaded might look at it differantly.

 LL>  To them, Hitler was just a politician.  Not
 LL> some evil madman.  And he was their leader.  Germans, like all
 LL> other peoples, will fight to protect themselves and their loved
 LL> ones.  Much more so than for any "leader", or even "country".

 JS>> I get close to feeling that way here sometimes too. <g>

 LL> Politicians are just that.  Politicians.  No politician is
 LL> an ideal.  No political party is an ideal.  However, when a
 LL> politician becomes the center of a personality cult, that
 LL> politician can become extremely dangerous, both for his
 LL> own people and the rest of the world.

German Oath of Allegiance before August 2, 1934

"I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: I will at all times loyally
and honestly serve my people and country and, as a brave soldier, I
will be ready at any time to stake my life for this oath."


The Fuehrer Oath (effective August 2, 1934)

"I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: I will render unconditional
obedience to the Fuehrer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler,
Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, and, as a brave soldier, I will be
ready at any time to stake my life for this oath."

    Notice the differance when an alegience to a single person is
added? Fortunately there are currently safeguards in the US to help
minimise unlawfull orders being given. But hey...


 >> JS>Did they break their oath to Hitler or to Germany?

 >> RB>Good question. See the oath above.

 LL> Those who acted against Hitler did so for reasons of their own.

    Couldn't they have been people that were patriots of Germany and
the ideal that it had represented prior to Hitler's forced aquisition
of power?

[...]

 LL> --Lee


 LL>  * SLMR 2.1a * We all live in a yellow subroutine.

 LL> --- Maximus 3.01
 LL>  * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.thebbs.org
 LL> (3:800/432)

Jeff

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - region14.us (1:14/5)