More on the potential repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell: The Nazis

Not so interestingly, I was sent several links to articles referring to homosexuality and the Nazis. These covered the span from all the Nazis were homosexuals to only the ranking "elite" to the equating of the holocaust to the current prosecution of homosexuals. There even is a pink-triangle symbol that is supposedly used to commemorate homosexuals prosecuted during the holocaust. So I did some research. I started with William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" went to two biographies about Hitler (One by Bullock and one by Toland) then did a bunch of online research. Some of this was quoted in the emails I received.

The gist of the emails were that the example from history we have of homosexuals in the military was already here and this was the SA run by Ernst Roehm. So is this an accurate model? I don't think any reality of the Nazi experience translates to anything American other than the excesses that can be undertaken when a single purposed group gets control of anything.

Several online articles I read equate homosexuality with perversion and I don't think this is true. When it was discovered that the Roehm and others in the SA were not so closet homosexuals and that promotion in the ranks of the SA was dependent, in part, on sexual involvement, many people used this as a further condemnation of the SA and recently as an opposition to homosexuality in the American military. When I served, disclosure of homosexuality was grounds for being dishonorably discharged. Even with that, many homosexuals served and quietly went their own way. Everyone knew but nobody cared because there wasn't any established structure where sexual favors had to be granted to achieve assignment or promotion.

I am of the position that homosexuals are as much a part of the military and of society but that the military operates under a separate legal system so the freedoms afforded regular citizens do not necessarily apply in the military. So the freedoms that homosexuals enjoy in civilian life don't translate well into military life.

Let's go back to the SA example. In some of the readings, it was stated that Hitler was a homosexual as well as most of the Nazi leadership. Hitler ordered the purge of the SA because he was afraid of being "outed" by Roehm and others who supposedly had over forty-thousand confessions of people being involved in some kind of homosexual activity. Then Hitler specifically targeted homosexuals along with Jews in the holocaust. In other words, they were considered equally vile when "The Final Solution" was drafted. Both assumptions are wrong.

The reason the SA was destroyed during "The Night of the Long Knives" was not sexual at all but political. The leaders of the SA had waged a propaganda war to get the SA adopted as part of the military. The military leaders found the paramilitary tactics and the structure of the SA to be at odds with the long established military tradition. The SA hierarchy tried several tactics to achieve their goal but were thwarted at every turn. The SA were promoting a second revolution that would continue the radicalism that brought the Nazis to power while Hitler wanted to consolidate power and integrate the military into the Nazi party.

Just how much did homosexuality play in the structure of the SA? It seems that certain commanders were openly homosexual and demanded their immediate subordinates were of a similar ilk. In training camps, they had such rituals as mutual washing in showers to break down barriers to openly homosexual behavior. There were exercise regimens and specifically based social activities designed to promote homosexual behavior. But there were still people who didn't get involved and didn't adopt the behaviors. We have letters that highlight just how stressed the activities made some of the heterosexual people who were in the SA. This type of activity was completely in contradiction of military codes which was one of the reason that the generals did not want the SA attached to the military in any way. The SA leadership wanted the protections afforded soldiers in the German system. The Germans had no such law as America which states that the military cannot be deployed against American citizens. (There are, of course, famous exceptions to this. One of the most egregious is when Pershing marched on the veterans camped in Washington.) So the SA wanted protections for crimes they committed against Jews so they could never be prosecuted for their acts.

The Military Channel ran a documentary about the SA/SS and brought out the homosexual connection. In contrary to much current thought, the activity was supposed to enhance unit cohesion and camaraderie overall. In other words, if soldiers were sexually involved, they would be more inclined to operate as a unit than not. Because the SA was, in effect, destroyed by the Nazis themselves, we will never know if the assumption works or not. There are other countries where overt homosexuality is not governed by rule or tradition. But none of these are as extensive or oriented as much as an expeditionary army as the American.

Unit cohesion is important in any military endeavor and successful forces have high cohesion even in the face of overwhelming odds. If military tradition was carried forward in a way that doesn't include family, sons and such, open inclusion may be an interesting experiment. However when at war and when troops are deployed as ours are now, the time for experiments based on sexuality seems wrong. Of course, between WWI and WWII, we had a military based with no mission. Interestingly, homosexuality became more of a stigma.

I think that homosexuals serving openly is more of a political statement than a military statement and when your life and the survival of your unit depends on like-minded thinking, sexual preference is the last thing that soldiers should be thinking about. It shouldn't be a factor. However, if open sexuality is promoted and some do and some don't, I see nothing but problems. The problems may not be with homosexuality in general because most people just don't really care. People (Soldiers are, after all, people.) just want to be left alone. Because homosexuality is being made a political statement, it should be regarded the same as any other political movement. After all, we have socialists and communist in the military and we also have soldiers who think the military should control everything. We have gang members and neo-Nazis in the military but they don't exist as a political entity and don't have meetings, marches or are organized in any way. To afford homosexuals this ability within a military that doesn't allow communist or Nazis or gangs to organize openly would cause a whole set of problems. These kinds of problems destroy military effectiveness and cohesion.

We need a military that can operate effectively and already there are problems with changing ROEs and mission assignments. In many ways the military is being used as an experimental base and this doesn't help anyone especially the soldier looking to make a career in service to his country. Should we ban homosexuals? No, but we shouldn't make any special conditions for them either.

FB