If the military was ordered to oppress their own People, what are the chances they would?

We've seen it time and time again where the military has did things because those were the "orders". Soldiers are trained with a strict sense of discipline and compliance to the hierarchy, so it's not surprising, and some of those times the orders were 'unlawful'. Not thinking of the only the Nazis, but the Kent State University incident, My Lai Massacre, Bloody Sunday, the list goes on.



So if Marshal Law was declared and the military was ordered to shoot any civilian that did this or did that, what are the chances they would?If the military was ordered to oppress their own People, what are the chances they would?100% certain they would shoot us down to keep the monarchy.

they would send each regiment to a different area!!!??!?!?



they pray to the queen as head of church and state

so they would kill us all to maintain her tyranny.If the military was ordered to oppress their own People, what are the chances they would?
Most cases of military personnel firing on civilians are just misunderstandings, soldiers think they hear gunfire, a young trooper gets jumpy or weapons are accidental discharged in the commotion of keeping order. In recent history, there are only two cases of soldiers being ordered to fire on unarmed civilians I can think of: Libya and Syria. There are probably more, but I can't think of any at the moment.



Martial Law is different of course. It can be declared for loads of reasons (a rampaging virus, armed uprisings, food shortages etc.) If a civilian is threatening peoples safety, then eliminating that threat is important. Personely, if I was given that order, I would likely follow it to an extent, genuine threats to public safety for exampleIf the military was ordered to oppress their own People, what are the chances they would?I think it would be 50/50, as a lot would leave the forces to join their own families, but some are so browbeaten they would not hesitate.



Yes in Germany the jews were used as they held all the money (and still do), and it's why Hitler wanted to wipe them out. And all the nazi officers after the war said the same thing 'that they were only following orders', which was no excuse.
100% that they would! Witness the reprehensible attack led by General McArthur upon the Bonus Army, starving veterans who were demonstrating to get the government to pay up on money owed them: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/p… Few images from the Great Depression are more indelible than the rout of the Bonus Marchers. At the time, the sight of the federal government turning on its own citizens -- veterans, no less -- raised doubts about the fate of the republic. It still has the power to shock decades later.If the military was ordered to oppress their own People, what are the chances they would?If Marshall law were declared, it would be a disaster since Fender makes better tube amplifiers.

We should declare Fender law instead.

Not sure why the military would want to support a British amplifier manufacturer, but it's your question.If the military was ordered to oppress their own People, what are the chances they would?
Martial Law NOT Marshal law !!!



I would shoot YOU first !!!
Jayde Quit hugging all those trees and get treatment for the bumps on your brain.



Nice comparison Nazi atrocities in WW2 to U.S. Kent State National Guards during the Vietnam era.



Oh Mai Lai who can forget that when discipline broke down amongst U.S. troops in Vietnam the findings of the official inquiry were not so much "following orders" there, but disobeying orders,

the officer in charge getting some jail time.



Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland ultimately kicked off by the IRA terrorists sniping at British soldiers, (still cant get their currant political leader Martin McGuiness) to take the stand and admit he fired the first shots of the affair, as that would mean admitting he is a terrorist.



And even under "Marshall Law" there are rules and regulations governing the use of weapons by troops, and if civilians were in open armed rebellion yes they would get shot, that's the way it works in the civilised world but a tree hugging troll like you probably would support the actions of Timmy McVie and the incident at Oklahoma.If the military was ordered to oppress their own People, what are the chances they would?
An excellent question. I have answered similar on here before but I really can't remember when. I'm surprised that you didn't list the Peterloo Massacre. There was also one in Preston where there is now a hideous modern art statue as testimony to the incident. Just to illustrate that there is a precedent for this sort of thing happening in mainland Britain. Of course our history is littered with such events. However Bloody Sunday aside there has been no such incident in the last 150 years (approx).



The military within the UK are only used in extreme circumstances; such as Northern Ireland during the troubles (or "long war") if you prefer. Even during recent demos, it is usually the police that bears the brunt of injuries sustained. They do not use tear gas or baton rounds (rubber bullets) like they did in Ireland or they do on the continent.



Note it's Martial Law (Marshall Law is a comic book character) has never to my knowledge been declared within the UK during the last 150 years. It is highly unlikely that it would. The examples that you have cited such as the Nazis, is an ideological example and is of course text book. The My Lai massacre is without doubt a war crime; however it was by the US against Vietnamese. You could therefore argue that because of that it made it easier for it happen. Kent State is pretty much a "following orders" type scenario. Bloody Sunday however is slightly different in that the British soldiers in question believed that they were under fire in the Bogside area of Derry and in all honesty I think both sides were to blame.



However to answer you question it would largely depend on the scenario as you have left that quite open ended. It would also depend on the individuals conscience as we have seen examples of in Syria recently where soldiers engaged in suppressing the local population have refused to do so and deserted. You have also not stated what military and what people as this would have a bearing on whether it would or would not happen. In short there are far too many variables for me to answer this question.
That still doesn't explain the situation.



What is the problem that caused marshal law?



Are there violent groups of people killing other people that the police cannot handle?

Was there a contagious disease that had to be controlled?

Was there an armed group that was unlawfully trying to take over the government?

Or a not so simple protest where the protesters started attacking the lines?



What is an "unlawful order" exactly. Is it unlawful because you don't agree with the side it was on?



Mai Lai incident was one person doing the wrong thing and others that stopped him. The troops attacked because they thought they were attacking an enemy on the order of their leader. When it was apparent the order was wrong, it was other troops that stopped it and those responsible were tried.



At Kent State, there was some type of confusion that caused the soldiers to fire. Soldiers felt they were under fire. The "peaceful protesters" intentionally burned down a campus building and then attacked the responding police and firefighters. So the National Guard was called in. It is still unclear to this day if the Guardsmen were fired upon. Some speculation is that it was something being thrown that exploded on impact, light light bulbs. The National Guardsmen fired when the crowd threatened them. Had the crowd only protested and not tried to advance on the Soldiers, nothing would have happened at all. The Soldiers would have never even been called in had the protesters remained peaceful and had not set a building on fire.



So its not just a cut and dry answer to a question like this. The devil is in the details.
I'm pretty sure that they would oppress if they were ordered to, even our forces would in the UK and in the West, because they have been used to suppress riots in the past, and I know they will be in the future if they are given orders to do it. We are now seeing daily evidence of this since the Arab Spring happened. Mainly in Bahrain, Libya and Syria, but to a lesser extent in Tunisia and Egypt. As an ex forces person, I would never have lived with myself if I were ordered to fire on an unarmed person - especially a civilian, but I was very lucky and never put into such a situation, so I cannot judge others that do it, because I wasn't there with them to disobey and face the consequences of not carrying out unreasonable orders. But the forces people are trained to be disciplined and follow those orders like a machine would, and they are therefore at the mercy of the commanders or politicians that give those orders.
you have to keep in mind that many of these soldiers, Ie. Nazi's and Communists are brainwashed and are fed so much propaganda that they only really know what they are told to do. You could even call them 'killing Machines' as to how brainwashed some are.

And if Marshal Law was declared, i think that US soldiers would follow through with the orders, but not because of being brainwashed but because they trust their government better then US civilians, and Government has a reason behind secrets, orders, ecta.
I'd hope not but the public would still probably blindly idolise them as they do anyway.