Become A Member Of Our Very Proud Volunteer Team: Fill & Download for Free

​​Honestly to say, I was uninclined to answer this question, as to what close quarters I have seen and interacted with RSS and it's many Pracharaks, they outrightly believe in doing their service to the people, the society and the nation keeping themselves very low profile, and they without indulging in advertising their deeds and services, but just sometime back I read a post on Facebook from a celebrity author, who is so calls himself a great liberal and secular and he tries to prove himself so by calling the names against RSS and it's office bearers , telling any kind of false rumor and propaganda against RSS, then my mind could not refrain to share my thoughts here on this subject .Some wrong myths have been established against RSS by the certain political parties and a certain community for their political and communal vested interests -There are many myths manufactured by certain political parties and the people belonging to a certain community to serve their vested political and communal interests. Some of their favorites against RSS are -Myth no.1.RSS conspired killing of Mahatma Gandhi -If RSS is held responsible for killing Mahatma Gandhi (he was killed by Nathuram Godse, Ex RSS person, who already left RSS in 1934 ), then why not the Congress Party should be held responsible for the pre independence Direct Action call by Md Ali Jinnah,(Jinnah was a Congress man for many years, 1904 to 1920, and afterwards he joined Mushlim League ) and the massacre of the millions of Hindus in the roits organized by Mushlim league and responsible for dreadful partition of our mother nation? Why not today's Congress party, which boasts of its history and legacy of more than 130 years takes the responsibility of the ghastly misdeeds of Md Ali Jinnah against India?Those who criticise and express their hate against RSS have their strongest logic that Nathuram Godse, a RSS man, killed Mahatma Gandhi in 1948. Certainly killing Mahatma Gandhi was the most ghastly incident in the history of India and the person who killed him deserves to be hated the most, but question is why to spread hatred against RSS in name of murder of Mahatma Gandhi? We should know that Godse had left RSS in 1930s itself. This has been reiterated countless number of times by RSS, and the recent one is from December 2010, when Ram Madhav of RSS claimed court records clearly showing RSS had nothing to do with Gandhi's murder. Justice Kapur Commission Report clearly says:"RSS as such were not responsible for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, meaning thereby that one could not name the organisation as such as being responsible for that most diabolical crime, the murder of the apostle of peace. It has not been proved that they (the accused) were members of the RSS"Also, Nathuram, the convict was hanged within months, bringing justice to the whole incident.Blaming RSS for Gandhi's murder just because Godse was a former member of RSS, logics that Congress party should be blamed for the Muslim League's mass murder and atrocities during Partition, because Jinnah was a member of Congress earlier. Jinnah was a member of Congress party between 1906 and 1920. So someone who was a member of Congress for long 14 years, was instrumental in inciting Direct Action Day and other mass atrocities against Hindus, resulting in 1000s of deaths. Will today's Congress party, which proclaims the legacy of 130 years of political struggle and it's legacy, will also own tge responsibility for all the wrong doings of Mr Jinnah, including breaking up an age old civilization, an ancient nation into parts, resulting in millions of deaths and displacements from their homes ?​​​Myth no. 2. RSS is fundamentalist and communalRSS is pro India, pro Hindu that, and hindutva in its broader philosophy, in sense of Indian culture, not in confines of any a narrow religious practice . RSS' ideology says that there are only two kinds of Hindus in India. Those who are Hindu today and those who were Hindus yesterday. That makes every single human in India (and rest of Indian subcontinent), Hindus by culture, ancestry and tradition. That is the Hindut-va (Hindu essence). Tva in Sanskrit means characteristic, essence or hood - like Bhratrutva (brotherhood), Maatrutva (motherhood), Shatrutva (Enmity) and so on. RSS never preaches any religious doctrine using any sacred book with the eventual goal of converting everyone to that doctrine 100%. RSS does not believe in converting anyone to its "religion". So calling such organization fundamentalist is silly. If at all RSS has any fundamentals, it is that of calling India as Bharat, and treating her as the mother of every single human in Indian subcontinent. In fact, RSS supports uniform civil code in India, meaning one type of marriage/divorce/inheritance laws for ALL citizen, which is opposed by so called progressive parties like Communists and Congress,and these parties only have manufactured such false rumors and concepts against RSS, to serve their own vested political interests !Myth no 3 . RSS is fascist and Hindu terrorist organizationWhen you show the long list of social service organizations that are a part of Sangh Parivar (family), the favourite line of Jihad supporters is that Jamat ud Da'wah also does social service. But they don't understand the basics that RSS does not preach violence in any of its shakha. It only teaches people to be proud of India's glorious 5000+ years culture and tradition. It teaches swayamsevaks (volunteers for the nation), self defence. Every human on this planet has the right to defend himself or herself. RSS never advocated for killing or converting "non-believers", like Jihadi terrorists or radical evangelicals do. If any person who claims to be associated with RSS is convicted of any crime, RSS won't play communal or victim card. RSS believes in law taking its own course and punishment for anyone who violates law, unlike Congress party that still supports a convict Lalu Yadav or those charged with mass murder like Sajjan Kumar, or those caught giving genocidal "15 minutes" hate speeches like Akbaruddin Owaisi. While Nehru was unable to stop the blood shed during partition, it was the RSS that organised over 3000 relief camps for the Hindu Refugees from Pakistan after the Partition. In short, every effort to frame RSS to a fictional "Hindutva terror" or "Saffron terror" has failed till date. The explosion in Dargah Sharif and the Congress government tried to falsely framing RSS associated group in this terror attack is one of the example of the continuous effort from Congress party to frame RSS in wrong image.Myth no. 4. RSS is anti Mushlims, anti ChristiansThis is also the continuous propaganda and rumor propagated by Congress and other few political parties against RSS.What I have seen and experienced from the very close quarters, RSS treats Muslims, Christians and everyone else in India, irrespective of her caste and creed and religion, as cultural Hindus. Hindutva is an all encompassing ideology of RSS. This is the reason why RSS never has RSS Muslim shakha (daily assembly) or RSS Christian shakha. Anyone can become a member of RSS as long as they are ready to respect Bharat Mata (Mother India). RSS is against only those whose work against India's soverignty and heritage. In the famous Ranganathacharya Agnihotri case, "Primafacie the RSS is a non-political cultural organization without any hatred or ill will towards non-Hindus", declared Karnataka High Court (then Mysore HC).In fact, RSS is a strong nationalistic and patriotic organization :RSS is strongly nationalistic and patriotic organization. In fact, even the most bitter opponent of RSS, the first prime minister of India, Pt Jawaharlal Nehru, invited RSS to come participate in the 1963 Republic day parade. 3500 Swayamsevaks marched on that day, in their typical Gana Vesha. During his final years, Nehru realized the patriotic pulse of RSS, that too only when his Congress party's foreign policy went seriously wrong resulting in a humiliating defeat at the hands of China. It was RSS that helped Indian soldiers and civilians greatly in 1962, for which even Nehru was forced to invite them to be a part of 1963 Republic Day parade. I am sure the icon of secularism, Nehru would not invite an anti national organization to march with Indian army during republic day. In fact, the so-called secular folks like members of Indian communist parties, were busy raising donations for India's enemy China during 1962 war! During the 1965 Indo-Pak war PM Shastri requested nationalist RSS to help control traffic in Delhi so policemen could be freed for defence duties. When Pakistanis were trying to take over Jammu and Kashmir, it was swayamsevaks who cleared the snow, so that Indian air force could land their aircrafts.RSS ever rises to the occasion, whether it's any natural calamity or a disaster, they are the first to reach, stand and serve a savior to the people.There is any natural calamity, disaster or even a train accident the RSS swayamsewaks are one of the the first to reach the site and extend their help to the needy people voluntarily. As a railway man I have attended many of railway accident sites, unfortunately some of them of the worst kind, many casualties and it's odd our of the night and the accident site the almost inaccessible easily, but when the rescue team reaches there, the swayamsewaks from the nearby area were always at the spot and trying to help the people in distress. Same I have noticed they voluntarily extending their help in any contingency.​

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.

Identifying faulty premisesThis question only makes sense if you believe that the EU is a state that demands allegiance - a premise that I regard as faulty.Brexit is a process, not an event: For the last four decades the UK has chosen to favour open and free trade with its European neighbours. Some Brexit supporters seem to want less freedom and openness. Some say that they want more freedom and openness. Whilst the objectives may be contested, Brexit is a rearrangement of the legal, political and commercial arrangements with our neighbours. Our European neighbours are not going away. Britain is not leaving its geographical position. The UK must still conduct relationships with its neighbours regardless of if, when and how Brexit is conducted. Pretending that Brexit is some sort of great liberation from a foreign oppressor demanding allegiance is a delusion that denies reality.Brexit is not a contest of allegiance: Is Brexit a battle for allegiance either to Britain or to the EU? I assert that is a false dichotomy. I have never been asked to express allegiance to the EU. I see no reason why I would ever be asked. I see value in the United Kingdom. I see value in UK membership of the EU. The UK is not perfect. The EU is not perfect. UK membership of the EU is not perfect. The UK and the EU will continue to evolve. I will continue to see value in both of them according to how they behave and evolve.Voting to Remain does not demonstrate allegiance to anything: I voted to remain because my knowledge of constitutional law and business change processes led me to believe that the 2016 referendum question was badly defined and failed to define an appropriate process or clear objective, the Leave campaign was tainted with lies and misinformation that failed to make a compelling case for change, the change that was sought was not defined, the nation was unprepared for the process that would be forced upon it, and the result would be unnecessarily damaging and divisive. So far I have been vindicated. None of my reasons had anything to do with allegiance, and everything to do with a recognition of the value of good governance, and the high cost of bad process. Do you demonstrate allegiance to your nation by inflicting unnecessary damage on it by refusing to allow time for good process? I think not.Voting either way says nothing about allegiance: Belief that the UK should hold a leadership position in the EU is not in conflict with allegiance to the United Kingdom. On the contrary - it is a belief that the UK has much to offer the people of Europe and should step up to that leadership challenge. It is a belief that the people of the United Kingdom can and should be willing to make some compromises in order to pursue the greater prize of peace, order and good government for all the people of Europe. It is a belief that the United Kingdom is better able to face the coming challenges and exploit regional opportunities by retaining that leadership position. Above all, it is an expression of willingness to cooperate with people. It is a recognition that our foreign trading partners are just as entitled as any UK citizen or business to benefit from an impartial dispute resolution system like the ECJ that works equally for all the peoples of the EU.Above all, Brexit bears the hallmarks of many a failed project - people who have fallen in love with their product and have lost sight of the problems that need to be solved, lost touch with the people they say they are helping, and have stopped asking whether their product is still the best solution available to improve the lives of all the stakeholders affected.Losing sight of what is true and important to the nation is creating the conditions for the United Kingdom to be mugged by reality.Do I more strongly assert my allegiance to my people by saying they are consumed by self-interest, unwilling to submit to the same rules as everybody else, unwilling to share and cooperate with others? Do I demonstrate allegiance by insisting that my nation is unwilling or unfit to cope with the benefits and obligations of international leadership?I think not.The dangers of questioning national allegianceWhat purpose is served by questioning a person’s allegiance to the nation - other than to create division in the interests of extreme nationalism?Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term Fascist for his political party in 1915, described fascism in Doctrine of Fascism as follows: …The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. …...everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state.See Definitions of fascism - WikipediaWe must be careful how we use the term Fascism, because it is over-used as a term of general derision because of the excessively oppressive behaviour of people who have claimed to be Fascist. In its original context, Fascism tried to bind the citizen to the state so tightly that all other allegiances are subordinated. The Fascist insists that allegiance to the state must come above and to the exclusion of allegiances to colleagues, family, religion, culture, team, or any other competing bond.Fascism seeks to divide people and break down relationships other than the relationship with the state. Fascism becomes totalitarianism precisely because it demands that loyalty to the leadership of the state must prevail above all other considerations. This divisiveness creates unnecessary conflict and serves no purpose other than to reinforce the control of a political regime. Fascism suppresses our regard for humanity in favour of loyalty to the state. This conflict has been especially apparent because of its deeply divisive consequences in a place like Europe where so many people have family, cultural and business relationships that cross national borders.Some commentators on Fascism see it as a response to a perception of national dysfunction. The Fascist response is to cleanse the society by attacking elements within that are disloyal and expelling foreigners that are perceived as threatening the purity of the community. Both responses rely upon a belief that problems come from “the other” - somebody not like us. Both are destined to failure because they deny that we have created our problems for ourselves. Blaming others is nothing more than a distraction. Questioning the loyalty of others obscures the real problems and stops us engaging everybody in finding solutions.The expression “blood is thicker than water” is a reminder that the ties of blood and family - the strongest ties that bind most people - are stronger than the ties of holy water (religion or ideology). And both these ties are much stronger than national allegiance. For many people, their allegiance to their football team is stronger than their allegiance to their nation.For most people, allegiances are complex, do not fit into neat hierarchies, and can change for reasons that may not be obvious, or easily explicable. Suggesting that a person’s actions demonstrate national allegiance, or insisting that they should behave in some way in order to show national allegiance is likely to create unnecessary division and unproductive conflict. For these reasons I consider we should be very wary of people who promote national allegiance as a way of justifying separation from or oppression of others.Is national allegiance consistent with British values?I would challenge anybody to assert that they could hold their allegiances to the state above everything. That is not how normal humans behave. You only need to attend a football match in any code to see how strong are the bonds that cut across nationalities.Even those British people who do so much to maintain our security - the members of the armed forces who put their lives on the line to protect us all - are trained that their first thought should be for the members of their team, to build trust and ensure their own survival by supporting the people around them. They are not asked to swear an oath of allegiance to any nation, but to the person of our monarch whose family hails from many European nations, and whose position is monarch of many nations. Similarly, the members of the parliament and the judiciary are required to swear allegiance to the monarch, not the nation.Britain has historically been a very diverse and open society - welcoming of outsiders (many from other European nations) who are willing to tolerate and be tolerated. Britain continues to be tolerant of dissent and protest by its citizens against the nation’s leadership.In the era before passports, Britain strongly resisted the demand for citizens to carry documents proving their citizenship when crossing borders. Even now, Britain allows dual nationality when many nations insist that a citizen must surrender one nationality when taking up another.The reason that the United Kingdom prevailed with its allies in the last two major conflicts in Europe was because it was able to call upon the assistance of a diverse range of networks outside the state and amongst people with ancestors from many European nations - not because those foreigners were commanded to show allegiance, but because they volunteered to stand and fall together to uphold the values of tolerance and openness, and to stand against those who demanded loyalty to the state above all.Openness and tolerance are strengths that increase diversity, allow progressive ideas to be heard and progressive change to be evaluated on its merits. Tolerance and openness have allowed the United Kingdom to build and maintain the diverse international relationships and trading networks that have brought great wealth and resilience to the people of the nation.Nationalism is a declining bondPeople have always been mobile between geographies regardless of political boundaries. Most UK citizens who trace their family tree back a few generations find that their ancestors are a mixed bunch from a range of geographies, religions and cultural groups.Attempting to denigrate, ostracize or expel people who acknowledge allegiances outside the state is a mistake often made by those who hold fundamentalist delusions of racial or national purity - a delusion that cannot withstand close scrutiny.We often find that nationalist political movements are primarily motivated by grievances that have little to do with nation and everything to do with economic marginalisation of the less powerful. UKIP’s support is strongest in England where centralised austerity policies have starved the regions of development and government support. Similarly, resurgent German nationalism is motivated by grievances of former Eastern European citizens who feel that German reunification left them behind in favour of West Germans. See BBC Radio 4 - The Wolves Are Coming BackWrapping ourselves in the flag and declaring allegiance often distracts attention from the real cause of the problems, and focuses the anger of the mob on “outsiders” - whether refugees or Remainers or people who look or sound or behave differently. This rallying call has been used repeatedly throughout history. And often, the flaw in its logic is only recognised after lives, property and relationships have been destroyed or damaged irreparably. We would all be wiser if we sought to find common ground with our opponents, searching for what we can do together to solve our problems, rather than imagining that vilifying the “other” will help us to improve our position by oppressing somebody else.Business is becoming increasingly global. Communication networks are allowing us to contact, build bonds and join allegiances with people regardless of which nation they choose to live in. The world is becoming more interconnected. People are joining together in larger groups for the benefit of all. Young people of today are strongly demonstrating their willingness to engage cooperatively with people that their elders identify as foreigners. Humans have been working together in groups from more diverse origins ever since humans lived in caves. Some people find the presence of foreigners confronting. But that does not mean we should treat the shock of the new as a threat or a danger. Human societies that seek isolation often perish in isolation. Human societies that seek links with outsiders find new ways to survive and prosper. Opposing that trend is to oppose the march of history.The United Kingdom is a federation of kingdoms. It has prospered from its willingness to build links abroad and welcome foreigners. It has repeatedly formed links with its nearest neighbours and will continue to do so. Characterising those links as being in conflict with the interests of its people is bizarre in an era of increasing cooperation and mutual support.Questioning national allegiances may be necessary in wartime to identify friend and foe. But in a modern peaceful nation, it is at best unnecessarily divisive, and at worst offensive. Being patriotic and proud of the achievements of our nation is a good thing. Being excessively nationalist and trying to divide - blaming our problems on foreigners, and whipping up fear and distrust of foreigners, trying to create enemies, is always destructive and dangerous. Worse, it distracts us from understanding the complexity of our problems and realising the potential of possible solutions.The EU is a cooperative organisation formed by treaties between national governments to benefit all of their peoples. Trying to characterise support for UK membership of the EU as being in conflict with allegiance to your nation is to misunderstand the nature of the organisation, its purposes and processes. It is a misrepresentation of the nature of the EU - an organisation that neither expects nor demands any declaration of allegiance from the people of its member nations.Whatever a person’s reasons for voting, please don’t confuse the issue by suggesting a vote says anything about allegiances.Is it possible that the people that oppose Brexit, do so because they have assessed that its open borders, easy access to the single market, international cooperation and dispute resolution mechanisms offer value to UK citizens on a cost:benefit basis?