Machiavelli And the Defense of Nations

[Sunstone]

Machiavelli: "When the entire safety of our country is at stake, no consideration of what is just or unjust, merciful or cruel...must intervene."

Is this so? Why or why not?

 

[Karl R]

Machiavelli: "When the entire safety of our country is at stake, no consideration of what is just or unjust, merciful or cruel...must intervene."

Machiavelli was a pragmatist. His advice was based around what was best for the despotic ruler of a nation-state.

Let's look at the current situation for the US:

• We're fighting an enemy that is difficult to damage or defeat using conventional means.
• We're fighting an enemy which has the ability to damage us, but no ability to defeat us.
• Actions of injustice and cruelty will bolster our enemies' ranks and increase their resources.
• Actions of injustice and cruelty will turn the US population against the US government.

This conflict will not be won in the short-term. Pragmatism would indicate that we should modify our actions to accomplish our long-term goals. Without recruits or resources, al-Qaeda loses. Therefore, justice and mercy become important, not for their own sake, but for what they accomplish.

 

[Buttercup]

Machiavelli: "When the entire safety of our country is at stake, no consideration of what is just or unjust, merciful or cruel...must intervene."

Is this so? Why or why not?

If you take out the word 'country' and substitute 'religion' (extremist Islam comes to mind first)....you have exactly what the terrorist's agenda is. At least in my mind. They believe their cause to be justified under those terms.

Mercy should always be maintained. And justice should be strived for at all times.

 

[michel]

Machiavelli: "When the entire safety of our country is at stake, no consideration of what is just or unjust, merciful or cruel...must intervene."

Is this so? Why or why not?

Quite; that sounds very much like Machiavelli. In answer to your question, it could be so? I dare say that the allies did some pretty horrendous acts with that mentality in mind.............well, one thought that immediately comes to mind is the Bomb on Hiroshima.

But I am sure (on a smaller scale) things that would normally be considered immoral by an individual were carried out in the name of 'desperate measures'.

It depends entirely on the subjective mentality of the leader (be it in agression, or defence). I would hope that I would never be tempted to commit what I would normally consider to be an immoral act, but one never knows until its "crunch time".


I suppose this is when people say "All's fair in Love and war" (well, at least the second bit)

 

[Krie]

Machiavelli: "When the entire safety of our country is at stake, no consideration of what is just or unjust, merciful or cruel...must intervene."

Is this so? Why or why not?

I think that it is untrue b/c they all have guily so if they cause anything to happen they will feel good about theirselves

 

[Sunstone]

Does Machiavelli come across to you as advocating even unnecessary injustice and cruelity, perhaps for the purpose of creating terror in an enemy? If so, what do you think about that? Did unnecessary injustice and cruelity help the German SS divisions in World War ll?

 

[michel]

Does Machiavelli come across to you as advocating even unnecessary injustice and cruelity, perhaps for the purpose of creating terror in an enemy? If so, what do you think about that? Did unnecessary injustice and cruelity help the German SS divisions in World War ll?

yes, and yes. If I remember rightly, while occupiying European countries, the Germans even had squads of "werewolves";

I found a reference to it!
http://www.knox.army.mil/armormag/CameronIndex/6glasshof04c.pdf

(a comparisson to guerilla warfare in Iraq and in Europe in WWII)
An extract...............

As German leaders grappled with a failing
military campaign, some resurrected
the centuries-old concept of guerrilla tactics.
General Heinrich Himmler, leader
of the Schutzstaffel (SS) and commander
in chief of the home army, undertook​

the responsibility to develop an organization,

later named “Werewolf,” to “fight
behind the front as a diversionary force,”
and subsequently lead a paramilitary resistance,
once the regular military capitulated.​

1

Himmler placed SS Police General​

Pruetzmann in charge of this new secret

organization, which successfully executed
missions both behind enemy lines
in the west, and in Berlin to counter the
Russian advance. These Werewolf missions
are similar in purpose and endstate
to current Iraqi resistance and provide historical,
as well as tactical perspective, to
guerrilla resistance.
Initially, Werewolf activity focused on
local leaders that cooperated with occupational
forces. The most famous and successful
of these attacks was in the city of
Aachen against the American appointed
Chief Burgomaster (mayor), Franz Oppenhoff.
Aachen is a small town in the
southwestern region of Germany that allied
troops conquered.​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The SS were known for putting the fear of God into anyone (frankly, I believe that was why the Gestapo dressed as they did); frightening your enemy is half the battle.

edit: an afterthought; the construction of the wings of the Stukas were such that they would make a dreadful noise when in a dive, ready to attack. What would be more designed solely for the purpose of frightening people than that.
​

​

​

​

​

 

[Buttercup]

Does Machiavelli come across to you as advocating even unnecessary injustice and cruelity, perhaps for the purpose of creating terror in an enemy?

If we are speaking of just the one sentence quoted above, then yes it seems as though he's promoting that stance. I would have to read the rest of the passages that go with it, if there are any, to come to any other conclusions. I am pretending I've never heard of the guy for these postings.

Did unnecessary injustice and cruelity help the German SS divisions in World War ll?

Without question, yes. And we all know what happened after that, unfortunately. Michel included a good link.

 

[Sunstone]

I've read that, following the massacre of about 200 allied prisoners on the Western Front by the 2nd SS Division, the allies paid that division special attention, and that within a month or so, the division was reduced to about 80 individuals and two tanks. In that case, at least, it did not pay for an SS division to indulge in terror.

 

[Buttercup]

I've read that, following the massacre of about 200 allied prisoners on the Western Front by the 2nd SS Division, the allies paid that division special attention, and that within a month or so, the division was reduced to about 80 individuals and two tanks. In that case, at least, it did not pay for an SS division to indulge in terror.

Well, yes I'm sure you could find instances like that. I am meaning a general proclivity of cruelty, injustice and no mercy used as frequent tactics. And you would have to say that overall Hilter used these methods again and again.