Mennonites and War

[Bootstrap]

I agree that no military is perfect, including our own, and that some individual soldiers commit terrible acts in any war. But there’s an important distinction between a country where such acts are condemned and punished and one where they are encouraged or used deliberately as a tool of war.

I don’t think all countries are morally equivalent in this regard.

Please understand I’m not defending Russia or Ukraine when I say this… but unless you can actually show documentation that the military is encouraging these actions… then it’s just propaganda.
Certainly militaries engage in these actions, but I very much doubt you can show official documentation from any military supporting these actions.

In this thread, my main point is that there ARE moral distinctions. I imagine you are aware that there are countries where such acts are condemned and punished and countries where they are encouraged or used deliberately as a tool of war.

If you want to discuss specific evidence that Russia is doing that in the current war, I can start a separate thread for that. I don't think the evidence is hard to find. I don't want to flood out this thread with that topic, though.

[Bootstrap]

Were you making a specific point about Germany and Russia? If so, it would help to state it directly so we can address it without talking past each other.

I answered your question as I understood it, and brought in the broader context because I think it’s essential to a meaningful answer. If you had a different angle in mind, I’m open to hearing it.

There are quite a few unanswered questions in this thread. I don’t think there’s a set order or any way to make people answer them, but addressing each other’s points directly might move the discussion forward.

I’m guessing that there is no point. You keep reframing the questions or sidestepping them.
You obviously didn’t answer my question and you understood it because you specifically stated you wanted to broaden it rather than answer what I asked.

I chose to broaden the comparison because looking only at Germany vs. Russia risks overlooking the bigger picture.

I’m not trying to dodge your question. I looked at the bigger picture because I thought it was important for understanding my answer. If you’d prefer, I can keep it just about Germany and Russia, but that leaves out the moral point I was making.

Maybe it would help if you simply said what you wanted to say about that comparison. I’m honestly not sure what your point was, and I’d like to understand it.

[Soloist]

In this thread, my main point is that there ARE moral distinctions. I imagine you are aware that there are countries where such acts are condemned and punished and countries where they are encouraged or used deliberately as a tool of war.

If you want to discuss specific evidence that Russia is doing that in the current war, I can start a separate thread for that. I don't think the evidence is hard to find. I don't want to flood out this thread with that topic, though.

I know of no military in the world where that is the official policy.

[Bootstrap]

In this thread, my main point is that there ARE moral distinctions. I imagine you are aware that there are countries where such acts are condemned and punished and countries where they are encouraged or used deliberately as a tool of war.

If you want to discuss specific evidence that Russia is doing that in the current war, I can start a separate thread for that. I don't think the evidence is hard to find. I don't want to flood out this thread with that topic, though.

I know of no military in the world where that is the official policy.

You’re right — almost no military will ever write “torture” into its official rulebook.

But in practice, some armies set things up so that abuse is almost certain to happen — for example, by giving prisoners to units known for cruelty, looking the other way when it happens, or quietly encouraging harsh treatment without calling it torture. That’s not an accident. That’s making it happen without putting it in writing.

The U.S. has done this too — places like Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and secret CIA prisons are examples. Officially, leaders said they followed the rules. But the systems they built allowed abuse to happen again and again, and often nobody in power was punished.

So “it’s not official policy” may sound good on paper, but if the reality on the ground is cruelty and abuse, the paper doesn’t matter much.

I don't think "official policy" is the most important moral distinction.

[Soloist]

Sure. It's never official.

But I think you know that this is the actual policy in some places.

No, I don’t. There might be a rogue officer who is promoting a particular tactic, but I can produce evidence where Ukraine does the same thing so that’s not really the point you’re trying to argue for a moral superiority position based off of speculative evidence.

As I said before, this is how military works. 99% of the time it’s done by the occupying nation.

I would challenge you to find any invading nation where this doesn’t happen. You are trying to make a case for it being an official undocumented policy… the only basis for this would be from Ukrainian propaganda.

[Soloist]

You’re right — almost no military will ever write “torture” into its official rulebook.

But in practice, some armies set things up so that abuse is almost certain to happen — for example, by giving prisoners to units known for cruelty, looking the other way when it happens, or quietly encouraging harsh treatment without calling it torture. That’s not an accident. That’s making it happen without putting it in writing.

The U.S. has done this too — places like Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and secret CIA prisons are examples. Officially, leaders said they followed the rules. But the systems they built allowed abuse to happen again and again, and often nobody in power was punished.

So “it’s not official policy” may sound good on paper, but if the reality on the ground is cruelty and abuse, the paper doesn’t matter much.

I don't think "official policy" is the most important moral distinction.

Yeah, the same thing happens in the US prison system. They call it diesel therapy… at least that’s one of them.
So all you’ve proven is that countries will do unethical things when it suits them.

[Bootstrap]

Sure. It's never official.

But I think you know that this is the actual policy in some places.

No, I don’t. There might be a rogue officer who is promoting a particular tactic, but I can produce evidence where Ukraine does the same thing so that’s not really the point you’re trying to argue for a moral superiority position based off of speculative evidence.

As I said before, this is how military works. 99% of the time it’s done by the occupying nation.

I would challenge you to find any invading nation where this doesn’t happen. You are trying to make a case for it being an official undocumented policy… the only basis for this would be from Ukrainian propaganda.

If you want, I can start a thread with a set of reports exploring some of this. But "who is more guilty, Ukraine or Russia" is not the subject of this thread, and I don't want the actual subject to get lost here.

[Soloist]

If you want, I can start a thread with a set of reports exploring some of this. But "who is more guilty, Ukraine or Russia" is not the subject of this thread, and I don't want the actual subject to get lost here.

If it’s not the point, why do you keep focusing on it?
You seem to be very focused on convincing people that there is a moral difference.

[Bootstrap]

You’re right — almost no military will ever write “torture” into its official rulebook.

But in practice, some armies set things up so that abuse is almost certain to happen — for example, by giving prisoners to units known for cruelty, looking the other way when it happens, or quietly encouraging harsh treatment without calling it torture. That’s not an accident. That’s making it happen without putting it in writing.

The U.S. has done this too — places like Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and secret CIA prisons are examples. Officially, leaders said they followed the rules. But the systems they built allowed abuse to happen again and again, and often nobody in power was punished.

So “it’s not official policy” may sound good on paper, but if the reality on the ground is cruelty and abuse, the paper doesn’t matter much.

I don't think "official policy" is the most important moral distinction.

Yeah, the same thing happens in the US prison system. They call it diesel therapy… at least that’s one of them.
So all you’ve proven is that countries will do unethical things when it suits them.

I get what you’re saying — no country has a perfect record, and abuse happens everywhere.

But there’s a difference between a place where abuse is treated as a crime and a place where it’s treated as a perk. In some countries, if soldiers are caught committing war crimes, they can be court-martialed, imprisoned, or lose their careers. In others, they get promoted, praised, or quietly protected.

The real moral difference isn’t whether bad things ever happen — they happen everywhere. The difference is whether the system is set up to stop it and punish it, or to enable it and cover it up.

[Soloist]

I get what you’re saying — no country has a perfect record, and abuse happens everywhere.

But there’s a difference between a place where abuse is treated as a crime and a place where it’s treated as a perk. In some countries, if soldiers are caught committing war crimes, they can be court-martialed, imprisoned, or lose their careers. In others, they get promoted, praised, or quietly protected.

The real moral difference isn’t whether bad things ever happen — they happen everywhere. The difference is whether the system is set up to stop it and punish it, or to enable it and cover it up.

Well, when you look at Germany, they had official documentation.
Russia probably does have the rules in place, but they tend to be a fairly corrupt nation.
Ukraine similarly.
The US actually does occasionally have this problem, but tends to have less case cases that people find out about.
But there is a strong pressure to handle things in house so to speak… because if you can’t handle it, then you get demoted or removed from your command. There’s a lot of problems with sexual abuse in the military and commanders have a great deal of pressure to keep it in the house and quiet.

Again, you’re basically alluding to a particular nation having a systemic problem, but your proof comes from documentation from either nation opposing them or the opposing allies. The only reason I know about the problems in the US specifically in the military it’s because I actually did this. I was a sapr advocate. Beats me what they’re calling it nowadays. also, there have been a few high profile cases….
We could go to Iranian websites or Russian websites and find all sorts of propaganda about how bad the US has it. That doesn’t prove anything.