In Order To Process Your Request In A Timely Manner, We Ask That You Submit This For: Fill & Download for Free

This is a good question and very relevant for today when we are constantly encountering scandals involving “fake” babas sadhus, gurus etc.There is already a checks and balances system in Vedanta which I call the GGG script (Good Guru Guide). Before one applies for entrance to a University one would do all manner of research - on the school, the quality of the teaching, the academic results, the professors who teach and the methodology of teaching etc. etc. But when it comes to studying spirituality it seems people surrender themselves completely submissively without doing any background checks!!! And then are astonished when they are exploited.There is a deluded belief among Hindus that gurus are all infallible and should be obeyed without question! There was even a movie which proved this point.Here is a guide for testing Gurus. When considering taking anyone as your guru you need to check the following:–1. The lineage.The guru should belong to a recognised lineage (sampradaya) and be part of an authentic transmission (parampara). This can easily be done by “googling” the guru or simply by asking him (or her) what their lineage is or who their guru was. This question is a culturally valid question and one should not feel shy about doing so.2. The level of knowledge of the guru.This is difficult because to ascertain the level of knowledge one needs to have some grounding in the Dharma and Vedanta. Generally one should check if the guru encourages questions or not and if questions are answered satisfactorily. If the guru does not encourage questions, discussions, debate and argument - then head for the door!3. The ability to teach and transmit.A guru may have the knowledge and all the qualifications but be unable to teach effectively. The purpose of the guru-disciple relationship is to instruct, educate and transform the disciple (shishya) if the guru is technically unable to do this then there is no point to the relationship.4. If the teacher “embodies” the teachings.The guru must be an exemplar of the Dharma and must embody the teachings and be a good role-model. They should be teaching by example — this is the meaning of the term acharya. Their every action should be observed and if they are deviating from the principles of ahimsa — non-aggression, satyam — truth, asteyam — not taking that which is not freely given, brahmacarya – continence if single and monogamous if married and aparigraha — non-acquisitiveness i.e. not amassing wealth and property or seeking to “expand” the business; then they should be rejected.5. The Nature of the teachings.Does the guru teach what other gurus teach or is it something “new.” Is the teaching something only he/she has “intuited” or does it conform with the standard teaching of Vedanta acharyas? The function of a guru is to interpret the Vedanta in a novel form to suit the capabilities of the disciples and not to invent new teachings.6. The effect on disciples and followers.One should observe the behaviour and inter-personal dynamic of the disciples and followers and note if they are in concord with the Dharma teachings delivered by the guru. Does he or she have a positive effect on people?Likewise the disciple is also tested by the guru to ascertain whether he/she is a fit person to receive the transmission.The teaching itself.The teaching itself should be submitted to scrutiny as well and in order for a spiritual teaching or ideology to be valid it must fulfill 3 conditions: —1. Satyam — it must be intellectually satisfying and must be able to stand up to criticism and logical scrutiny. One is encouraged to debate, discuss and argue until the guru can rationally establish that which he/she is trying to convey.2. Sivam — it must be universally beneficial, have an all-inclusive ethic and be directed at the well-being of all sentient creatures. It must be free from oppression, exploitation, division and any form of physical, mental or spiritual harm.3. Sundaram — it must have an aesthetic component — promoting all forms of beauty, music, art, architecture, and dance etc. It must be pervaded by joy and happiness.The ultimate outcome must be Shanti — personal, social as well as world peace.The Disciplic ContractAccording to the great Acharya Pillai Lokacharya the guru and disciple must demonstrate a mutual beneficial and affectionate relationship.The disciple should be committed to ensuring the physical and material wellbeing of the guru.The guru should be committed to teaching, instructing and guiding the disciple in his/her spiritual practice and the unfolding of the inherent spiritual qualities which are — knowledge, firm resolve, universal compassion, good conduct and service.The acharya should never display anger towards the disciples, the disciples should never offend the acharya.Both acharya and disciple have the right to mutually reprimand each other at any time. But this criticism must be constructive and done in private – the faults of either should never be revealed in public to others.The disciple should never give personal property to the guru neither should the guru request such property.Attitude towards a GuruTraditionally a guru is either a family guru or one can choose a guru.Once chosen a guru should be treated with the utmost veneration and respect, and one is required to submit totally to the teaching and the transformative guidance of the guru.But unfortunately this submissive dynamic can lead to excesses and exploitation by gurus — especially within the realm of spiritual materialism.All of these exploitative situations could be remedied by understanding the authentic Hindu cultural attitudes towards this venerable institution.Before accepting and committing oneself to a guru one must first do some market research — only after you have satisfied yourself that the prospective guru is the genuine article and can deliver the product should you submit to the didactic process with some reservation and skepticism until your confidence is established.

I am going to assume that by ‘tougher’ you mean better at fighting, more resilient in the face of combat conditions and capable of accomplishing missions. Since you specify ‘elite’ German troops, I will assume you mean something on the order of Fallschirmjaeger, SS-Jagdverbande or the very best Waffen SS divisions like the 2nd Das Reich or 5th Wiking. Given that, no, not at all. On the contrary, such a German unit could be expected to outperform US Marine infantry by a significant margin.Fallschirmjaeger resting during a lull in Italy. These elite troops were part of the Luftwaffe rather than the Army during WWII. The one in the foreground carries an FG.42, the first assault rifle used in combat.Otto Skorzeny (centre) and other members of unit that rescued Mussolini from Gran Sasso, photographed with the Italian leader in the aftermath of the raid. Though credited as an SS commando operation, only Skorzeny and 26 other members of the unit were SS Jaeger from SS-Sonderverband z.b.V. Freidenthal. The other 82, including the men who commanded the operation on the ground, Major Otto-Harald Mors (foreground, left) and Oberleutnant Georg Freiherr von Berlepsch (left of Mors), were members of I.Fallschirmjaeger-Lehr-Bataillon, 7.Fallschirmjaeger-Regiment, demonstrating the longstanding commando traditions of the Fallschirmjaeger.Hauptsturmfuehrer (Captain) Karl Ullrich of the highly decorated 5th SS Panzer-Division Wiking. Awarded the knight’s Cross with Oak leaves, he would later be the division’s last commander.Aside from a few Marines crewing shipboard weapons during landings, the Marines did not face German forces during WWII, so we cannot make a direct comparison. However, we can compare the performance of Marines to US Army units in the Pacific and then US Army units against German ones. In the Pacific, US Marines tended to demonstrate a 70% greater casualty exchange rate per man than US Army units fighting against the Japanese in comparable circumstances. The key phrase here is ‘in comparable circumstances.’ The Marines participated in a number of unnecessary and badly supported head-on beach assaults that resulted in high losses. The Army tended to avoid such showy operations.Meanwhile, in late 1943 through 1944, the Germans tended to enjoy a roughly 100% superiority in casualties inflicted per man against the US Army. So, looked at like that, average German units were actually slightly better than US Marine infantry by about 17%, while elite units like the Hermann-Goering Panzer-Fallschirmjaeger Division enjoyed casualty exchange rates twice as good as the average German unit.Looking back famous battle of Belleau Woods in WWI, where US Marines did face the Germans, at the end of the first day, Marine losses were 2.5 times as high as German losses. Using T.N. Dupuy’s numbers for the advantages of a defensive position, and considering the Germans were somewhat outnumbered, this would tend to corroborate the numbers above, suggesting a slight German advantage amongst their average troops.Why? Well, let’s look at how they were trained and selected:The US Marines had a more comprehensive marksmanship program than the US Army, one which placed much greater emphasis on fire discipline and accuracy. This is born out in combat footage. In a US military study of combat footage from WWII through Vietnam it was observed that Marines, 90% of the time are seen to aim carefully, to fire predominately on semi-automatic when armed with automatic weapons, and to fire off shots on semi-auto more slowly and with greater deliberation. By contrast, Army soldiers are seen to rapidly fire off shots, often emptying their magazine, with less time taken to acquire their a target or assess range. Where the US Army relied on volume of fire, and many officers had little faith in marksmanship under combat conditions, the Marines valued precision shooting.However, the Germans were known for having a similarly superior marksmanship program which, as far back as WWI and before, placed great emphasis on teaching soldiers to evaluate ranges under combat conditions, to prize accuracy over speed, encouraged concentration of fire to suppress or destroy targets, and taught that one should withhold fire until within effective range to cause significant damage, and preferably until the minimum possible range, to achieve the most decisive effect.As early as the turn-of-the-century, the Germans had devised pop-up targets and moving targets for marksmanship practice to improve realism. Soldiers who identified a target and evaluated the range were taught to immediately call out this information, so that other soldiers nearby could quickly adjust their sights and engage the target. Every platoon and squad had a designated observer, generally a more senior soldier picked for proven ability to accurately identify range and target, who would report this information to their commander to allow them to assess how best to allocate fire and make sure everyone’s sights were correctly set. In the infantry squad, this individual was typically placed with the machingunner, who was seen as the major source of firepower.Unlike the US system, where recruits learned on rifles, followed by only cursory familiarisation with their other weapons, unless they were designated a BAR gunner, Germans were trained from the start on rifles, submachineguns, pistols and machineguns, learning how to fire the latter from the bipod, from the very stable four-legged mount made for it, which could be fitted with a scope for accurate fire to 2000m, and even from the hip in “assault fire.” (And yes, this can be done effectively in real life, provided the weapon is braced properly and the range is short. There are a number of accounts of German machinegunners using this technique to good effect against enemy squads caught in the open at 50–75m during assaults.) Those demonstrating the best marksmanship with the weapon were made the machinegunners, but everyone was effectively trained in it’s use to 1000m and could quickly take over the weapon. Every Marine was a rifleman, but every German soldier was both rifleman and machinegunner.The US Marine Corps had developed a strong tradition and unique sense of espirit d’corps that the Army, outside of a few individual units, lacked. Despite civilian jokes about the narrow-minded, quaint, stubborn ways of the Marines, they had and have the reputation of an elite service, which attracted higher quality volunteers than the Army got. However, Marine training was built on the same psychologically backwards, counterproductive “break them down and build them up” approach the Army used, only with greater intensity and brutality. Random beatings, sadistic hazing and petty harassment were a regular feature of training. This tended to stifle some of the very initiative that would later be encouraged, alienate more intelligent recruits, and leave Marines with mixed, conflicted feelings about the service, something of a love-hate relationship. The Marines also tried to buttress this tradition by wasting a lot of training time on an obsession with such militarily useless matters as Napoleonic marching drill, something they are still famous for their skill at. On top of that, the Marines, like the US Amy, had a centralised depot training system, which meant that initial training was conducted by instructors who would not form part of the recruits’ unit, giving the whole thing a more distant, impersonal, factory assembly line feel.Drill and ceremony training took up a significant portion of a US Marine recruit’s time.The Germans, in contrast, had largely discarded hazing as a training methodology, recognising it to be out-dated and counterproductive. Instead of mindless sadism, the Germans tried to make training tough in realistic, combat-orientated ways that soldiers could appreciate as actually teaching important battlefield lessons. Breaking the individual personality of the recruit was frowned on in favour of trying to find and build on strong points in their character. Off duty time in training was far more relaxed, and relations between all ranks considerably more congenial than what was found in the very stratified, class-conscious US services. Officers led the training most of the time, rather than farming it out to NCOs as was the US practice. The Germans created a degree of camaraderie across all ranks that was the envy of every other fighting force.Contrary to the popular stereotype of the precise German formation doing the Prussian Slow March (“Goose Step”) down the Unter der Linden, as far back as WWI the German Army had begun to discard such drill and ceremony training as useless. Only a few specially selected units such as the Leibstandarte and the Grossdeutschland’s demonstration battalion trained for such displays. Most German soldiers learned only a few rudimentary movements like Present Arms, and instead of marching about in formation, they were drilled in practical combat movement, such as taking cover rapidly under sudden fire, and rushing from cover to cover.The Germans placed great emphasis on combat movement and fieldcraft, and this proved to be one of the greatest differences between German and Allied units on the battlefield. Much of the fire and movement tactics and fieldcraft practiced by armies today was adapted from the Germans, and where the soldiers of our time might find their Allied counterparts’ battlefield behavior old-fashioned, most of what German soldiers did back then would seem quite familiar and modern.The Germans retained greater combat mobility by never going into combat with the kind of ridiculous loads many Marines were forced to lug ashore, as they knew that was suicidal. Germans were trained to leave non-essential equipment behind (in their platoon carts in land operations) and were taught to never go into battle with more than 22kg on them. All the other stuff would have be brought ashore by follow-on troops once the beach was taken, in amphibious landings.Training was conducted by each regiment, so that some of the NCOs and officers conducting training would be going to the front with the new troops, ensuring that they had leaders who were familiar to them, and who were likewise acquinted with them, knowing their strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, German troops were rarely put straight into combat when they reached the front. Instead, frontline units organised their own training courses, so that newly arriving troops could be taught all the latest tactics by the very officers and NCOs who would lead them in battle.A short anecdote from the training of the SS-Verfungstruppe that would later become 2nd SS “Das Reich” will serve to illustrate a number of German training principles:‘One of our platoon leaders loved that piece of ground, so we were often “in Paradise.” One Autumn day we marched out through a steady drizzle of rain to “Paradise.” We arrived just as the farmer had finished spreading the area with manure. There was a terrible stink of cows and pigs in the air. The prayer, “Lord let this cup pass from me”, was not granted and on our officer’s lips was a satisfied smile as he explained the tactical situation. He waved his hand across the dung-covered “Paradise” and pointed to a small wood. There, he explained, were the enemy trenches and went on to say that it was our task to carry out an attack and to drive him from those positions.‘The machineguns opened up and we fired our blanks at the imaginary enemy. Then we had to rush forward and fling ourselves flat. Some recruits tried to find a nice place on which to lie down. This caused our officer to order a new movement. “The enemy barrage is too heavy. As we cannot pas through it we will roll over and over on the ground in order to reach a new assault position. Follow me”, and he flung himself on to that dung covered field and rolled over and over. With rifles pressed between our knees and tight to out chests we, too, rolled over and over, cursing and swearing.‘We returned to barracks stinking from the filth which encrusted our uniforms. But our officer marched at out head as proud as a Spaniard, as if we had just won a battle. Before he dismissed us he spoke a few words. “Lads, think of this. If we were under fire you would not have time to find a nice place to fling yourself down You would hit the deck quickly, irrespective of whether it was a field of flowers or a pile of shit.” He was right, of course.’I would draw your attention to the following points from this story:1.) The officer leads the training personally, and specifically participates in the most unpleasant aspect of it, demonstrating leadership by example.2.) He explains the tactical situation the exercise takes place in beforehand, and he further explains the specific necessity of the exercise afterwards; the German armed forces made great effort to get recruits to understand the purpose of everything they did, and encourage active, thinking obedience, rather than mindless automaton behavior.3.) The officer speaks to his troops in a friendly, comradely manner; he is their teacher, and they are his worthy students. He does not treat them with disdain or belittle them.4.)The officer does not care that the recruits voice dissatisfaction in the form of cursing, so long as they do what is ordered. No special punishment follows for them having the insolence to do this. German soldiers were expected to be willful individuals who had opinions of their own and were free to voice them to a much greater degree than most Allied troops were.5.) The story shows the great degree to which the German ground forces trained to reflexively and instantly throw themselves flat under fire. Many Allied soldiers hesitated to do so, or preferred to only kneel in place, exposing themselves to fire in the process.6.) The Germans made great use of lateral movement while prone to confuse the enemy about their location, and frequently altered the exact axis of their attack to find the best place to infiltrate close to enemy positions safely.Contrary to stereotype, the Germans had long ago abandoned their own mania for precision marching drill in favour of practical combat skills. Note that no NCO is wasting the time to correct these 5th SS-Division soldiers on their casual attitude to Shoulder Arms.The US Marine Corps’ background as a shipborne, expeditionary service meant the Marines were often deployed in small landing parties, and at one time, in boarding actions that tended to be much more fluid and individualistic than massed field battles on land, leaving them with a much greater tradition of initiative at the small unit level than the Army. To this day the Marines show more comfort with “Mission-type Orders” than the US Army, though the latter has narrowed that gap a fair amount since the 1940s. NCOs typically enjoyed greater autonomy and responsibility than their Army counterparts.Germans, on the other hand, invented “Mission-type Orders” or Auftragstaktik. Encouraging initiative down to the lowest soldier, stressing wide latitude in executing orders, rapid and flexible reaction to changing events, and thriving in chaos were the hallmarks of the German military. Of all the combatants in WWII, only the Finnish made comparable demands on the tactical thinking and active participation of their lowest-ranking soldiers, and their system had been created by a German officer.The Germans possessed one final advantage that added to both their initiative and morale: the selection and training of leaders. In the US, a college degree guaranteed (as today) an officer rank, despite the lack of correlation between either the affluence to pay for college or academic success with combat leadership. The Marines did happen to have a much tougher training course for their infantry officers than the Army (modern Marine Infantry Officer’s Course is of similar difficulty to Army Ranger School), however, the difficulty was mostly in the physical intensity, rather than in tactics and leadership. Marine officers could (and still can) often outrun their whole platoon with ease, but typically lacked the degree of practical job knowledge their platoon NCO possessed. Training for a US Marine officer was also much shorter than what his German counterpart received. Marine officer training was around 6.5 months, which is actually less than what a German NCO had to go through.Additionally, the US has tended towards a ‘management’ style of command that focuses on choreographing what everyone else is doing, but leaving most of the physical leadership to NCOs. Many US officers have chosen to ignore this and lead from the front, but they were the exceptions, rather then the rule, and the system has tended to discourage this behaviour. This command-post leadership creates to a sterile, brittle, and uninspiring command style, which can’t react to events on the spot.In Germany, merely having an Abitur and an awesome physique wouldn’t guarantee you the coveted silver shoulder straps. First, you had to submit to a detailed psychological examination conducted by a team of officers and psychologists which sought to test your willpower and determination in adversity, your decisiveness and quick-thinking under stress, and your ability to communicate clearly and teach soldiers, with the latter being tested by literally having the candidate try to teach something they knew to some random soldiers loaned to the psychological board. Assuming you got passable marks, you then had to apply to individual regiments. It was up to the colonel of each regiment to interview you, look over your test results and accept you or not. The German Army couldn’t force any colonel to take a given candidate, and there was no quota system. Having gotten this far, the officer-candidate now attended training as a common soldier in the regiment that accepted them, where they were expected to demonstrate exceptional initiative, decisiveness, determination and integrity. They were tested in their squad command abilities repeatedly. If they didn’t really shine in basic training, they simply became a private soldier.If they passed, then before 1942, they received a promotion to Fahnenjunker-Unteroffizier (Officer Cadet holding the rank of Corporal/Squad Leader) and went on to a 9 month leadership course, the Kriegschule. From 1942, they had to undertake a six week combat tour first. If they did well in battle as a squad leader, they went on to the leadership course. At any point, they could fail and be stuck as a squad leader. Throughout the course, their leadership qualities, particularly their tactical ability was continually scrutinised and tested, and also heavily mentored by the officers running the course. It was a far more intellectually demanding course and mentally focused course. Where a US Marine officer candidate engaged in intense athletics every day, and the most common cause of failure in training was injury or physical inability, a German officer cadet spent 1 hour a week on athletics, but 6 hours a week on tactics, 6 on military history, 3 on weapons technology, 3 on combat engineering, 2 on topography, map reading and navigation, and at least an hour each week on each of air defence, communications and automotive engineering. By far the most common cause of failure at Kriegschule was lack of mental ability. German NCOs had to pass a similar course.If they passed, then before 1942 they got another promotion to Fähnrich (Ensign, equal to Unterfeldwebel/Sergeant) and went on to a much more difficult 9 month Waffenschule, where they learned how to command troops in thweir arm of service. From 1942, they again had to undertake a six week combat tour before proceeding to the advanced course. At the advanced course, the same screening, selection and mentoring was repeated more intensely. Many simply stayed NCOs. But even this course only made them Oberfähnrich (Senior Ensign, equal to Overfeldwebel/Sergeant Major). They the returned to their regiment for an 8 week ‘field probation’ where their officers would scrutinise them to see of they really had what it took to be an officer. Those that finally made it to leutnant rank (which required a final vote by the officers of the regiment) tended to truly be the most gifted soldiers and ablest leaders in their units, in contrast to the ‘Butterbars’ and ‘Shiny Privates’ US enlisted people still joke about.German officers were expected to know their soldiers to a much greater degree than their US counterparts as well. A company commander would be expected to remember to congratulate a soldier not only on his own birthday, but on those of his parents’ as well. German officers at company level were expected to keep up on any problems a soldier was having at home, and to sit down and have a one-on-one talk with every soldier under their command at least once a month, talking about whatever concerned them and trying to address any problems they had. Unless interrupted by sustained combat, a German company would sit down every day while their commander read out current events, which they were given the opportunity to ask questions about. While the National Socialist system encouraged this as a time to disseminate propaganda, in actual practice it was a time when the company would discuss as a unit whatever was on their mind.Perhaps most importantly, German officers were taught to lead from the front always. Even Field Marshals led attacks in person on many occasions, belt full of grenades and submachinegun in hand. This attitude of always doing more themselves than they asked of their subordinates won a degree of respect and devotion from German soldiers that US officers simply couldn’t compete with. Even the most cynical and fatigued German soldier found it hard to shirk battle when they ran across their 72 year old corps commander digging a fighting hole and preparing to form the rearguard with just himself and his staff. (Which is how Paul Hausser re-established the defensive line that held the Falaise-Argentan gap open long enough for most of Army Group West to escape encirclement.) Individual US officers sometimes displayed this attitude, but in the German Army, it was expected as a matter of course. This is perhaps best illustrated by the story of a request for the award of the Iron Cross 1st Class which reached the desk of Field Marshal Schoerner in late 1944. The citation described how, during an attack, a certain regimental commander had taken up an MG.42 and led the foremost assault platoon in the attack, staying at the very point of the advance throughout the day of fighting, despite being wounded. As a consequence, their division commander recommended they be given the medal. Schoerner, however, angrily scrawled across the citation document: “Every German regimental commander is expected to be at the forefront of their men in attack and defence. This action in no way merits a special award!”Leadership from the front:Hauptmann (Captain) Peter Kiesgen, recipient of the Knight’s Cross, with 5 Tank Destruction Badges for the personal destruction of a tank by means of infantry weapons in close combat, instructs Hitlerjugend in the art of tank hunting.Oberleutnant (Senior Lieutenant) Günther Viezenz, wearing 7 Tank Destruction Badges and his Knight’s Cross. He would eventually win 5 Tank Destruction Badges in Gold and 1 in Silver for destruction of 21 enemy tanks.Hauptmann Ferdinand Frech, holder of the Knight’s Cross, 4 Tank Destruction Badges in Silver, and the Close Combat Clasp in Bronze for 15–24 days in hand-to-hand combat.Major Goerg Wenzelburger, holder of the Knight’s Cross, and the Close Combat Clasp in Gold for 78 days of hand-to-hand combat.This Sturmbannfuehrer (Major) of SS-Standarte Germania wears the Knight’s Cross and Close Combat Clasp in Silver for 25–49 days in hand-to-hand combat.SS-Brigadefuehrer and Generalmajor der Waffen-SS Sylvester Stadler, holder of the Knight’s Cross with Oak Leaves and Close Combat Claps in Gold for 50+ days of hand-to-hand combat.Oberst (Colonel) Erich Lorenz, commander of 85.Infanterie-Division, holder of the Knight’s Cross with Oak Leaves, 2 Tank Destruction Badges in Silver, and the Close Combat Claps in Gold for 50+ days of hand-to-hand combat.Generalmajor Otto-Ernst Remer, holder of the Knight’s Cross with Oak Leaves and Close Combat Clasp in Silver for 25–49 days of hand-to-hand combat.Consequently, though the German Army and USMC possessed many similarities, the Germans held the edge in initiative, leadership and morale. And that is just regular units.Felix Steiner, the man who set up the main Waffen-SS training program, had joined the SS merely in order to put his training ideas into effect, having been ignored as an Army major. (He was actually so disinterested in the Nazi Party that, despite repeated admonishments from Himmler, he could never be bothered, even as an SS general to give more than a disinterested wave and lukewarm “Heil” rather than the resounding, crisp “Heil Hitler!” salute expected of him, finding the idea of actually saying “Heil Hitler” simply too ridiculous.) He created a program that aspired to be even more modern than the already avant-garde German Army program, with more combat-oriented physical training, more time using weapons, night movement and night combat training, and even greater emphasis on fieldcraft. All the most renowned Waffen SS divisions like the Leibstandarte, Das Reich, Wiking, Hohenstaufen, and Hitlerjugend divisions went through a version of his school, and the two divisions he personally trained and commanded, 2.SS Das Reich and 5.SS Wiking, were respectively the second and fourth most highly decorated divisions, in terms of awards won by members, in the entire German order of battle. (The first was the famous 7.Flieger/1.Fallschirmjaeger and the third the Army’s 4.Panzer).(It’s worth noting that, contrary to what modern people might think, membership in the NSDAP was not a requirement of joining the Waffen-SS, even for officers. Joachim Pieper, a highly decorated officer of the Leibstandarte, despite being Heinrich’s Himmler’s adjutant for a time, avoided ever joining the party, and only ended up on the membership rolls because Himmler, in exasperation, finally signed a card on his behalf, without his knowledge or permission, and filed it in 1943. Likewise, political education, even in units like the Leibstandarte, Hitler’s bodyguard regiment, was met with derision and hostility by the troops and mockery and biting sarcasm from most of the officers. To most such soldiers, being a good soldier was the pinnacle of being German, and all the rest was just the theoretical babbling of a bunch of behind-the-lines political academics. Many of Himmler’s letters of complaint have survived, concerning lack of cooperation with political officers from the SS Main Office, as well ignoring various SS structures on things like minimum height or geneological purity. Thus, the diminutive Sepp Deitrich, the Leibstandarte’s commanding officer, not only allowed people to join who were, like himself, under the official height requirement of 178cm, he also accepted 3 Armenians as soldiers, before the outbreak of the war and the personnel shortage, and freely let his troops marry Ukrainian and Russian women on the Eastern Front, both in complete contravention of the SS’s racial purity standards.)The Fallschirmjaeger held even more stringent standards than Steiner’s Waffen-SS school, in terms of required minimums of physical ability. They originated out of the Polizei Abteilung z.b.V (zu besonderen Verwendung, or ‘for special use’) Wecke, later Landespolizeigruppe z.B.V. Wecke and Landespolizeigruppe General Goering, a special unit of the Prussian State Police picked members of which had been trained by Hermann Goering (who had been a parachute enthusiast and parachute salesman in the 20s) to parachute onto the roofs of buildings in the middle of cities and conduct rapid surprise assaults similar to what modern special forces like GSG9, the SAS and Delta Force do when storming buildings. (The modern units don’t typically engage in anything as dangerous as urban paradrops, preferring helicopters. However, some of the LPG’s techniques have survived amongst their modern equivalent, the German anti-terrorist commando unit Grenzschuetzegruppen 9, who do still train in the use of parachutes in urban settings, such as to rapidly descend from rooftops to ground level). This background led to the original Fallschirmjaeger receiving a degree of commando-type training not present in German army infantry, as they demonstrated at places like Eben Emael. The original battalion, expanded into the Fallschirmjaeger-Regiment Hermann Goering, itself persisted as the most elite of the elite Fallschirmjaeger, eventuality forming the nucleus of the bizarrely successfully Panzer-Fallschirmjaeger Division Hermann Goering, the best division of the Italian front. The original Fallschirmjaeger division, the 7.Flieger/1.Fallschirmjaeger, also built around elements of the original Regiment-Hermann Goering/Luftlande-Sturmregiment.1, collected more decorations amongst it’s members than any other division in the German armed forces.The Waffen-SS created it’s own special operations troops, SS-Sonderverband z.b.V. Freidenthal, members of which, under former Liebstandarte officer Otto Skorzeny, joined with Fallschirmjaeger to rescue the imprisoned Benito Mussolini from the Gran Sasso Resort. An originally company-sized force, it would expand into SS-Fallschirmjaeger-Bataillon 500, SS-Jaeger-Bataillon 501, SS-Jaeger-Bataillon 502, and SS-Fallschirmjaeger-Bataillon 600, all of which also operated under titles such as SS-Jagdverbande-Mitte, SS-Jagdverbande-Dora II, etc. These were made up of specially selected troops from the best Waffen SS units, trained to conduct direct action raids and operate behind enemy lines, and eventually became their own Amt (department), Amt VI, of the Reichsicherheitshauptamt, under Skorzeny’s command.These units could be expected to be two to three times as good, in casualty efficiency, as US Marine infantry, and somewhat better than the Marine Raider battalions, which HQMC never showed much love for.

In some places it’s comparatively easy so long as you’re a law abiding citizen. In other’s … let’s be generous here… it’s less easy. Some parts of the US are more ‘free’ than others. Let me tell you about my experience in one of the latter locations.I live in New York City, and am one of the very few people who has run the gauntlet of administrative prohibition in order to acquire a legal New York City Firearms Permit.I’m not one of those guys who imagines himself defending freedom from the bedroom window. I’m just a middle aged businessman who has been a competitive skeet shooter and hunter all my life, and was interested in continuing my hobby in spite of my residence in jurisdiction that’s politically hostile to it.I grew up around guns and hunting, am completely comfortable with firearms and firearm safety (in truth I’m a bit of a zealot), and saw no reason I couldn’t continue to engage in a perfectly legal (and in my case, perfectly safe) activity that I enjoy.So here’s how that process went.From start to finish, the entire permit process took me 367 days and it was 373 days in total before I had a legal firearm in my posession.Step one is to apply for the permit and obtain legal council to help you navigate the process. There are specialists in New York who can help you navigate this, and at the low end it will cost you about $1,000. Being a law abiding citizen with a spotless legal record, this is the route I took.First there are the applications where you detail your current and past residences and employers, all of them, over the last 10 years. You’ll be required to provide pay stubs, residency billing records, and documentation for all your claims. You’ll also need three notarized letters of character reference. The specific language used in these letters should be designed by your attorney since vague language has been used in the past to deny applications. All of the people who sign these notarized letters should have known you for a minimum of 5 years and cannot be relatives of yours. Also included should be proof of any professional licensing you hold, or any business certifications, as well as documentation from any other states or jurisdictions which have issued you a firearm or hunting license in the past.Next there is your past legal record. That should include any criminal charges whether you were convicted or not (I had none) and you will also be required to provide a complete history of your driving record, from every state that has ever issued you a driver’s license, going all the way back to your very first driver’s license as a teen. When my attorney saw that I had a bit of a lead foot as a teenager he was concerned, but he felt that the fact that I only had one traffic violation in the last 7 years would probably be enough to get me through the process. All documents needed to be notarized where appropriate. Keep all your receipts.Now we were ready to begin the actual application process. I went down to the police licensing bureau and submitted my primary application for a permit, along with the non refundable fee (bank check only). I was fingerprinted (paid for with a separate bank check) and that was it. I then went home and waited for them to call me back with an appointment for the first of my three interviews. I got a callback from them approximately 11 months later. At this point you call your lawyer back.The prep for my first interview was fairly intense. First, all your paperwork is assembled in the order that it will be asked for. My attorney told me that ‘marginal’ candidates are occasionally denied for not promptly submitted the documents as they’re requested (on the basis of suspicious behavior) but he thought that was unlikely to apply to me.Then we prepped for the questions regarding knowledge of firearms law and the responsibilities of a firearm holder in New York City. This was akin to prep for a trial. At his advice, specific language was to be used in response to the questions. No elaboration, no unsolicited information. There were about 30 questions. Most are fairly common for anyone who comes from ‘gun culture’ as I do. A few were more specific regarding how New York City views the law. These were somewhat less intuitive, but reasonable.For my interview I went to the license bureau of one Police Plaza, told them I was there, and waited my turn. Half an hour later the process began and I reacted to all the requests for documentation and questions in the manner my attorney advised.As a clearly respectable, fairly prosperous businessman with no criminal charges of any kind in his past, my process went pretty easily. The questions and requests for documentation were all asked for by a polite, fairly intelligent and attractive black woman with a lovely smile who was a police ‘civilian employee’, and we got along much better than my attorney led me to believe we would. I was expecting an officious scowling bureaucrat but got a pleasant and diligent civil servant instead. My attorney later told me that I was ‘one of the lucky ones’, but I don’t know if that was true exactly. there had been a fairly big scandal in the licensing bureau in the time between my initial application and interview, and I wondered if the changes weren’t as a result of fallout from that event.At the end of the interview I was told that my documentation would be reviewed, and I should go home and wait for a phone call. About 10 days later, the call came that my permit had been approved and that I should report to one police plaza to pick up my provisional permit, and my order to purchase a firearm.It’s no small irony that in New York City, if you apply for a handgun permit and that permit is approved, you are ‘required’ to purchase a handgun or that permit is revoked. You have 30 days to comply with the order. I was photographed, and after waiting in line for an hour or so with the FBI agents and retired policemen who were also applying, I was given my laminated ‘permit’ with my photo on it, along with my ‘order to purchase’ which would expire in 30 days. It’s worth stating that though there were about a dozen people there waiting for their permits I was the only one who hadn’t worked in law enforcement in some capacity, at some point. The FBI guys seemed impressed that I had gone to the trouble.I had done my prep work and had already ordered my intended firearm, a Glock G30S with a Trijicon RMR site, and had it sent to my chosen firearms dealer for purchase, in advance. Under the terms of the permit you are required to purchase your firearm from a dealer with operations inside New York City. To my knowledge there are only two in the borough of Manhattan where I live, and I believe only one or two each, in each of the other boroughs.At this point in the New York City purchase process, it’s not dissimilar to purchasing a gun in other less restrictive locations. You select a firearm, fill out your paperwork for a Federal background check, and when it’s approved you are given your firearm. If you can get to this point in the New York City process, the Federal process is a breeze, and is performed by the dealer selling you the firearm. Having bought numerous firearms in other states, I was not unfamiliar with it. ‘Gun culture’ guys all know the drill, and everyone is fairly good natured about it.Once I obtained my firearm, there was one final step to the process. I needed to take my firearm, unloaded, with a trigger lock in place, and locked in a sealed container, back to One Police Plaza for its inspection and registration. New York law prohibits any magazine larger than 10 rounds so you should be careful about selecting a weapon that can comply with this law since it’s one of the things they inspect.Since 15 round magazines are common for handguns of standard calibers, this can sometimes be a problem. Under New York law you’re allowed to possess such a magazine, but it’s illegal to load more than 10 rounds into it. I avoided this problem by selecting a firearm with a maximum 10 round capacity.To get into One Police Plaza, it’s necessary to go through a Security Checkpoint that’s separated from the main building and includes a metal detector and three policemen. I walked into the security checkpoint waited until we were alone so as not to alarm the civilians, and as my attorney instructed me, announced to the Police on staff that I was in possession of a firearm. Most police are comfortable around firearms, and they could see that I was too, so they were fairly unperturbed.I was carrying my appropriately locked and unloaded firearm in a case that masquerades as a book (so as not to frighten pedestrians on the street, many of whom would probably call the police at the sight of someone carrying an obvious ‘gun case’ on the sidewalk), and it was the first time they had seen a case like that. So after inspecting my permit and my firearm briefly, we spent a little time chatting about the case, and I sent one of them an amazon link from my phone so he could get one for himself.I then took the firearm into One Police Plaza for its inspection and registration. Once that was completed (by another fairly efficient and pleasant civil servant) the process was complete and I was one of the very rare possessors of a legal firearm in the city of New York.Do you know anyone who flies a Helicopter? On a per capita basis there are more Helicopter pilots in the US than there are ‘legal’ firearm holders in New York City. These regulations may fall short of violating the ‘constitutionally ensured right’, but to say that the civilian population isn’t dissuaded by them would be an understatement.Of course if I didn’t care about the law, I could have gotten a firearm in about 24 hours. I could call one my friends from Brooklyn or Queens, who would then call a friend and so on, and after a few more calls and a few assurances that I wasn’t a cop, I could go to some parking lot in an outer borough and pick a ‘used’ firearm from some hoodlum or drug dealer out of the trunk of a car someplace. If you’re a criminal, that’s an easy thing to do.But for the legal and law abiding citizens of New York who are interested in staying within the law and exercising their constitutional right, it’s a somewhat more complicated process. The lawyer may seem like overkill, but honestly, the paperwork required is so burdensome that I don’t think I’d have managed to complete the process correctly on the first try without him.