this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
617 points (97.0% liked)

Malicious Compliance

21319 readers
322 users here now

People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.

======

======

Also check out the following communities:

!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I don’t know if that’s really a counterpoint. The Nazis started as a terrorist organization.

And I’d argue that, based on available historical evidence, a lot of the Wehrmacht were fighting for Germany, not the Nazis (a subtle distinction, I know, but I think an important one in this context), whereas IDF soldiers, according to many interviews with them, are definitely fighting for both Israel and Zionism. I would argue that IDF soldiers are far more committed to their geo/sociopolitical cause than were the typical soldier in the Wehrmacht.

The IDF’s fascist zeal is more akin to that of the SS. Although, as an organization, the US Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement is far more similar to the Nazi SS.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Nazis started as a terrorist organization.

True, but they evolved into something more terrible than that, just like Zionist militias did in 1948. I feel that calling the IDF a terrorist organization, while catchy, is an understatement of the depth and scale of evil they're committing and have committed. They're closer to the raping, pillaging and murderous hordes of Genghis Khan.

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 1 points 1 day ago

Yes, your explanation is more succinct. I was just trying to add a bit of historical context and comparative analysis.

[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Wehrmacht was sworn to Hitler and to nothing else.

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Wrong. They were sworn to Germany, and nothing else.

The vast majority of them also joined so they didn’t starve to death. And in the second half of the war, it was forced conscription. They said what they had to say not to get shot in the head. While I don’t doubt that many, even most, were loyal to the Nazis, a lot of of them were not. a great many joined because they had no other choice.

It’s a historical detail that is worth mentioning

[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Wrong. They were sworn to Germany, and nothing else.

This was the oath they took in the Wehrmacht:

„Ich schwöre bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, daß ich dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Obersten Befehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit für diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.“

"I swear by God this holy oath, that I shall render unconditional obedience to the Leader of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."

They were sworn to Hitler and to Hitler only. Google Führereid.