Link: https://alexanderwolfheze.substack.com/p/polaris-ep-6-bellum-iustum
Reference: hansvogel.substack.com/p/kill-those-civilians
Summary:
### Hague Conventions Discussion Meeting
The team discussed presenting an article about international law and rules of war, particularly focusing on the Hague conventions and their historical context. Charles questioned the naivety of these agreements, citing examples of violations in World War I and II. Hans explained the historical background, noting that conventions were signed after the devastating Thirty Years’ War, when civilian populations were largely spared from direct conflict until the First World War. The discussion highlighted the contrast between historical practices and the intentions behind the Hague conventions to protect civilians.
### Historical Warfare and International Law
The discussion focused on the historical context of warfare and international law, particularly regarding civilian targeting during conflicts. Hans shared insights about German military discipline during WWII, noting that over 12,000 German soldiers were executed for violating rules about targeting civilians. Sietze commented on the historical shift in European combat practices, noting how the concept of honorable combat evolved and how WWII marked a departure from traditional European military codes. Alexander then discussed Carl Schmitt’s concept of “European public law” or “nomos of the world,” explaining how this European tradition of international law was applied globally but had limitations, particularly regarding the United States which operated outside this framework.
### Post-WWII International Law Evolution
Alexander discussed the historical context of international law following World War II, noting that both major winners, the United States and Soviet Union, were not bound by existing legal frameworks, leading to the Nuremberg trials of the losers. He compared this situation to the current state of international affairs, arguing that the United Nations is effectively bankrupt and that a new order needs to be invented. Sietze asked for Hans’ remarks, to which Hans agreed with Alexander’s assessment, emphasizing the necessity of rules for any organization or society to function effectively.
### Warrior Ethics and Strategic Priorities
Charles questioned the prioritization of rules over human existence in warfare and argued that historical armies often targeted other soldiers by necessity rather than choice. He challenged the notion that early modern European warfare should serve as a standard, noting that non-European groups like the Huns, Vandals, and Vikings did not follow similar rules. The discussion centered on whether destroying enemy armies is the most effective strategy in warfare, with Charles arguing that this approach fails to consider long-term vengeance from the enemy’s relatives and children. Sietze concluded by highlighting a regression toward barbarism in modern warfare, referencing Israeli soldiers’ admissions about targeting children to prevent future vengeance.
### International Law in Modern Conflicts
The discussion focused on the challenges of international law in modern conflicts, with Charles and Alexander highlighting how adherence to such laws can be a disadvantage in existential battles. They noted examples of how both Russia and Iran have restricted their military efforts due to moral and legal constraints, which has impacted their effectiveness in conflict. The conversation also touched on the historical origins of international law, tracing it back to an honor code among European aristocrats, and included an anecdote about the Austrian War of Succession to illustrate the strict adherence to these rules during past conflicts.
### Combat Aesthetics and Honor Discussion
The group discussed the concept of treating large-scale combat as an enlarged version of duels, with Sietze and Charles highlighting the aesthetic rather than ethical considerations involved. Alexander connected this to 18th-century aristocrats who prioritized aesthetics over ethics, drawing parallels to modern elite classes. Sietze referenced Evola’s work “The Metaphysics of War” and Carl Jung’s writings about World War I to emphasize that true honor in combat involves facing death without fear, contrasting with modern warfare practices that Evola would find appallingly dishonorable.
### Honor in Warfare Discussion
Charles and Sietze discussed the concept of honor in warfare, using historical examples to explore how different societies have viewed tactics and strategies. Charles questioned whether certain weapons or tactics were considered honorable, while Sietze provided examples from the Second World War to illustrate how the German army maintained strict ethical codes despite facing dishonorable tactics. The discussion highlighted how powerful nations often set the rules of warfare to maintain their advantage, while weaker nations may adopt more flexible approaches to gain an edge.
### War Motivations Through History
The group discussed the motivations behind warfare, comparing ancient and modern approaches to combat. Alexander highlighted how different cultures throughout history have viewed war, from seeking immortality to fighting for survival, while Charles argued that modern conscripted armies cannot be held to the same heroic standards as voluntary warrior groups from ancient times. Sietze provided examples of voluntary military units like the Japanese kamikaze pilots and Nazi soldiers who fought for what they believed in, contrasting with modern conscripted forces where motivation and morale can be significantly different. The discussion concluded with a brief mention of American military traditions, including references to the movie “Gone with the Wind” and General Patton’s approach to warfare.