The History Book Club discussion
THE SECOND WORLD WAR
>
WE ARE OPEN - WEEK TWO - MILITARY SERIES: HANNS AND RUDOLF - May 19th - May 25th - Chapter(s) Two and Three: 2: Hanns, Berlin, Germany, 1917 and 3: Rudolf, Berlin, Germany, 1918 (17 - 43) No Spoilers, Please
Rudolf truly is complicated. I was surprised to see how offended he was about the murder of a family while he was in jail.
Good point, Libby. When you are depending on your fighting companions to "watch your back", a relationship develops which is often closer than that of family. We have all seen photos of men who fought together meeting again after many years and falling into each other's arms like long lost brothers. It becomes a special relationship and one can see how Rudolf would identify with the military so strongly.
I agree that Rudolf's lack of a strong father-son bond, either with his own father or a father figure, left him seeking a substitute for this relationship - in the military, the Friedcorps, and the the National Socialists. Each choice leads him further down the path toward a belief that violence and murder are justified to further the "cause" or when his core group is threatened somehow.
Good point, Libby, it makes sense. I wonder if he would have the same reaction if they were a Jewish family.
Jill wrote: "Good point, Libby. When you are depending on your fighting companions to "watch your back", a relationship develops which is often closer than that of family. We have all seen photos of men who fou..."From a less than fair and totally stable upbringing to a place, the army, where the same was expected of each and all were equal must have seemed so much fairer to Rudolf. In as far as the expectations and benefits they were all equal - very much like brohters in a fair family
Mod
Yes, Bryan - he is full of contradictions - things that should bother him do not and things that should not bother him as much do. He must have had a convoluted code system and value structure for his life. He simply compartmentalized his existence.
Rudolf...He originated from a family that from what we can understand was not close; nor did it support one another. He then at the age of 16, killed another human being. Subsequently in his life he was exposed to a violent society in which even women and children were eliminated in the most horrific fashion. How would you view the world if you had this background? Rudolf was somewhat intelligent and continued to learn and strive to accomplish an addition to the knowledge base. His memoirs are somewhat revealing.Yes, Bentley, there is a species of life on this planet known as human beings; it supposedly is the most intelligent that has inhabited the planet. Yet, it continues to kill and attack others of the species in an horrific fashion. It destroys it's environment and ignores history and fact. What are we to do with this situation?
Rudolf's personality came in front and center for me in Chapter 3...he is fiercely loyal to the cause he follows (like the Freikorps), but sees any violence outside of this as being unnerving (through his time if prison). I can see how easy it would be for him to follow the most despicable acts in the name of taking orders; and his demonstrated leadership skills makes him a good soldier to follow orders that would make most men cringe and writhe in disgust...for Rudolph if the cause is just then so be it. Throughout the chapter, we see a repeating pattern with Rudolf...find a new man's ideal to follow and be loyal to it no matter what.
Hanns to me seems the prototypical spoiled child. Like Rudolf, his father had spent time in the military. There wasn't a mention of his father telling Hanns stories of his time in the army; was this because Dr. Alexander was too busy with his practice, because the doctor felt the stories inappropriate, or was the storytelling skipped or cut out of the book?
I found it interesting that although believing in Hitler and the NSDAP enough to join, he went back to his childhood love of animals and farming vs. a party job.
As I'm sure it shows above, I find Rudolph's personality much more intriguing than Hanns. I wonder if/when in the book this will change, and how often the change will occur?
Mod
@Harry - one thing that bothers me about Rudolf among many others - is that he is supposed to be human but the end result was a man who did inhuman things with no sense of empathy. Did he feel that nobody empathized with him when he was growing up - did he bottle up his true feelings and then lost touch with whatever they were. It is really hard to judge right now. But already he is on a path of no return. I have no answer for why history repeats itself of why we learn from history that we do not learn from history.
@Cary - I think you should take the question in your third paragraph and post it as a question for Thomas. I am sure that he has more background information on Dr. Alexander and may be able to shed some light.
Somehow I see Hanns and Rudolf as being almost book ends of each other. Even though their upbringing was very different and their parents as different as night and day. And even though Hanns rightfully found Rudolf and Rudolf paid for his actions - I think we see both of them as antagonists in each other's life. I think we can readily see how Hanns was Rudolf's antagonist but I am wondering how we will discern how Rudolf is Hann's. At some level, my gut reaction is that they both will have a profound impact on each other's lives (good or bad)
While in jail, Rudolf was absorbing prison life in a real sense as a psychological phenomenon, and if he was around in 1971, I think he would absorb the Stanford Prison Experiment. He didn't need to, because he was living in it for real. Interesting.(Please understand that I don't equate Stanford's action to the Holocaust, but it just came to mind as a psychological study).
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford...
Mod
Radio Lab did an incredible podcast on the Milgram studies with the electric shocks. The speaker's interpretations are very different than what we're used to hearing: http://www.radiolab.org/story/180103-...
Mod
Cary wrote: "Hanns to me seems the prototypical spoiled child."I don't understand why you use such a negative term to describe what seemed to be a perfectly normal and loving family. Is it because the Alexanders were wealthy?
I agree with you Kressel. We've only had the 1 chapter on Hanns as a young playful boy.
I found Rudolf's statement about prayer in chapter 3 so interesting: "At that time I could still pray, and I did." Acknowledging that there was a point in time where he had crossed too far with no way of going back? Not necessarily that God no longer existed for him later in life, but that he could no longer have a relationship with God through prayer (given the person he had become, one can assume). I'm seeing many contradictions in his character - how can one reconcile what happened to Kadow with Rudolf's reaction to the prison story of the farmer's family?!
I keep thinking of Hanna Arendt's explanation of evil (in her case it was Eichmann) but the "banality of evil" says it all.“The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.”
Hannah Arendt
Mod
Mod
These last few posts are excellent reading! Thank you Kressel, Kristen, & Jill.
Kressel wrote: "Cary wrote: "Hanns to me seems the prototypical spoiled child."I don't understand why you use such a negative term to describe what seemed to be a perfectly normal and loving family. Is it becaus..."
Kressel wrote: "Cary wrote: "Hanns to me seems the prototypical spoiled child."
I don't understand why you use such a negative term to describe what seemed to be a perfectly normal and loving family. Is it becaus..."
Actually, it is meant in more of a grandparent spoiling their grandchildren rotten sort of way...I should have clarified this in my initial post. While we have only had one chapter on young Hanns, they are definitely, as Bentley put it, "bookends".
We should also keep in mind Rudolf was competing for the Reichfuhrer's attention.....or should I refer to him as "The Decent One" ? There were men such as Franz Stangl....commandant of Treblinka.......who took over a poorly run death camp (2000 to 3000) Jews a day and proceeded to run production up to 12,000 per day....................then there was Joef Kramer, known as the beast of Belsen.........or perhaps Theodor Eicke, commandant of Dachau who persnoally trained all the death camp commandants, including Rudolf..........or perhaps Franz Ziereis commandant of Mauthausen.........the father image we all look up to.....you see for his son's eleventh birthday.....he gave him a gun........and 50 Jews for target practice. Rudolf was not a unique case in the competitive environment of the death camp world; there were many more; which we need to keep in mind as we proceed.
Mod
Bentley wrote: "Discussion Topic: (Fathers and Sons)
In Chapter Two we meet the family of Hanns Hermann Alexander who was born on May 6th, 1917, fifteen minutes before his twin brother, Paul, at his parents' expa..."
Bentley wrote: "Discussion Topic: (Fathers and Sons)
In Chapter Two we meet the family of Hanns Hermann Alexander who was born on May 6th, 1917, fifteen minutes before his twin brother, Paul, at his parents' expa..."
Dr Alexander appeared to be an absent presence, most likely part of the scheme of the times. Although away from his family, position and responsibility in the providing of his family contributed to his phantom presence. He didn't come across as controlling or overly dominant as Rudolf's father. Hanns seems to have been embraced by more of a 'family' environment. He also had his twin and sisters to interact with. He certainly didn't come across as lonely or withdrawn, morose as Rudolf. Hanns experienced what seems to be a loving tender surrounding as opposed to Rudolf's emotionally sterile household as well as family. A dichotomy of climate with Hanns as an example of a 'normal/acceptable' household.
I believe Dr Alexander had more impact. He wasn't controlling and domineering. He had reasonable expectations and didn't suffocate Hanns. Expectations were clear and obvious, perhaps another 'given' during this era.
Hanns experienced more of a home life. A tolerant mother involved in her sons life, siblings, a sense of family. A hard working professional as a father. Rudolf basically experienced a cold detached 'family' life. Both fathers come across as quasi polar opposites. Hanns' father rather aloof, Rudolf's father too involved with controlling and domineering behavior. I'm sure both father's relationships with their sons impacted both in negative/positive ways - such is the way of parenting. Obviously something within Rudolf went horribly ugly. Despite his pathetic homelife, I feel his participation in battle, the witnessing and violent participation had a strong negative influence towards his development. Rudolf was wired all wrong, we might never reach the core to his despicable actions.
He was able to enjoy his childhood. He had a relatively healthy family life. His family was financially secure. He had siblings to enjoy. Relatively happy all around. Mother seemed to be well balanced and motherly.
In Chapter Two we meet the family of Hanns Hermann Alexander who was born on May 6th, 1917, fifteen minutes before his twin brother, Paul, at his parents' expa..."
Bentley wrote: "Discussion Topic: (Fathers and Sons)
In Chapter Two we meet the family of Hanns Hermann Alexander who was born on May 6th, 1917, fifteen minutes before his twin brother, Paul, at his parents' expa..."
Dr Alexander appeared to be an absent presence, most likely part of the scheme of the times. Although away from his family, position and responsibility in the providing of his family contributed to his phantom presence. He didn't come across as controlling or overly dominant as Rudolf's father. Hanns seems to have been embraced by more of a 'family' environment. He also had his twin and sisters to interact with. He certainly didn't come across as lonely or withdrawn, morose as Rudolf. Hanns experienced what seems to be a loving tender surrounding as opposed to Rudolf's emotionally sterile household as well as family. A dichotomy of climate with Hanns as an example of a 'normal/acceptable' household.
I believe Dr Alexander had more impact. He wasn't controlling and domineering. He had reasonable expectations and didn't suffocate Hanns. Expectations were clear and obvious, perhaps another 'given' during this era.
Hanns experienced more of a home life. A tolerant mother involved in her sons life, siblings, a sense of family. A hard working professional as a father. Rudolf basically experienced a cold detached 'family' life. Both fathers come across as quasi polar opposites. Hanns' father rather aloof, Rudolf's father too involved with controlling and domineering behavior. I'm sure both father's relationships with their sons impacted both in negative/positive ways - such is the way of parenting. Obviously something within Rudolf went horribly ugly. Despite his pathetic homelife, I feel his participation in battle, the witnessing and violent participation had a strong negative influence towards his development. Rudolf was wired all wrong, we might never reach the core to his despicable actions.
He was able to enjoy his childhood. He had a relatively healthy family life. His family was financially secure. He had siblings to enjoy. Relatively happy all around. Mother seemed to be well balanced and motherly.
Very indicative of the man Hanns was to become. A man of integrity was being molded by his choices and his family environment. He didn't go rogue as Rudolf did. Although Rudolf reemerged after his military time to no family, completely alone. Certainly this solitary life could have played a key role in the roads he selected moving forward. As we read, he didn't exactly associate with the pillars of society.
Bentley wrote: "G you bring up a very good point:
Discussion Question:
What were the differences between the two mothers?
Rudolf's versus Hanns?"
Rudolf's mother appears depressed. Withdrawn with her affection and attention. Distant. No tenderness.
Rudolf is a silent sufferer. Introvert, a loose cannon as times goes by, alone, unsure of how he feels about himself, but I assume he suffers from very low self-esteem. Hanns fits an example of normalicy. Stable probably due to his upbringing and positive environment. Hanns experienced love where Rudolf never had this nicety.
Discussion Question:
What were the differences between the two mothers?
Rudolf's versus Hanns?"
Rudolf's mother appears depressed. Withdrawn with her affection and attention. Distant. No tenderness.
Rudolf is a silent sufferer. Introvert, a loose cannon as times goes by, alone, unsure of how he feels about himself, but I assume he suffers from very low self-esteem. Hanns fits an example of normalicy. Stable probably due to his upbringing and positive environment. Hanns experienced love where Rudolf never had this nicety.
Kristen wrote: "I found Rudolf's statement about prayer in chapter 3 so interesting: "At that time I could still pray, and I did." Acknowledging that there was a point in time where he had crossed too far with no..."I found this interesting also Kristen, I also felt the struggle he had sleeping once in jail (p.41), might have actually been a time in which he continues to loose any relationship he had with God. He remembers being pursued, struck down, or shot.
I also agree with Bentley's point that Rudolf is able to compartmentalize his world.
I'm disappointed that he ends up only serving 4 years of his 10 year sentence. Isn't it ironic that he suffers "prison psychosis" and gets treatment, compared to all the suffering of the Jews at his hands and others?
Sarah wrote: "I have so many thoughts on these two chapters, I don't know where to begin. I did find it interesting that Hanns and his twin were rarely disciplined. Was this because they were twins? Boys? Or be..."I don't think this was really unusual. My own parents had three daughters and then twin boys. My own brothers were rarely disciplined or had many chores they were assigned to do around the farm. In fact my sisters and I were taught to wait upon our brothers. I am old, but not as old as Hanns.
As far as the differences between Rudolf and Hanns -- I think that Rudolf's prison experience had to be a main difference. Here he heard terrible stories and language. "Until now, Rudolf had considered himself worldly, but prison made him realize how limited his horizons had been." (page 40)
Mod
I found the chapter on Hanns' childhood to be very interesting, but it was mainly about his father. I still don't feel like I understand Hanns himself. I look forward to reading more about him.Rudolf, on the other hand, I feel like the information is very rich. His experience with the army is fascinating. The part that stood out to me was this,
"strange to say I, a loner who had to deal with all my internal turmoil for myself, was always drawn to a kind of companionship in which men could depend unconditionally on each other in distress and danger."
It seems to me that he had a very complex personality, needing to be alone, but finding companionship most useful in highly stressful times. I wonder if he was able to compartmentalize his emotions and if so, did that play a role in his future positions with the Nazis.
Mod
I think we have more information on Rudolf and what he felt personally because he wrote about himself and his experiences.
We discussed his being able to compartmentalize his various roles in life - however your last sentence might be turned into a good question for Thomas on the Q&A thread.
David wrote: "I found the activities of the Friekorp to be very interesting. Not something that I was all to familiar with. Rudolf appeared to be someone who was deeply affected by his experiences in WWI and h..."I also an intrigued about the Friekorp as this part of history that I did not know
Mod
I feel like it was a great way to learn who thr people actually was it was useful knowledge
Mod
It seems Rudolph is in a very adolescent mindset. And the moment he realized he had somebody who cared about him he became unequivocally loyal. And whatever that man told him to do he did, like pick up a gun for the first time and kill someone. This is very like gang mentality. If one of "your own" dies it causes sadness, anger, thoughts of revenge. Rival gangs on the other hand are considered the enemy, less than human,and must be eliminated. The only feeling in response to their death is one of victory.
I found these chapters quite revealing in terms of the divergent paths these two men will ultimately take. Hanns seems to have the benefit of enjoying a childhood, while Rudolph loses his innocence quite young. One.taught the values of life at home, the other taught the values of survival at the front. One has the luxury of being able to financially endure the economic devastation following World War I, the other has nothing or no one to return to after the war other than the bitter company of his defeated comrades. I honestly think, by this point, Hoss has already been numbed by the thought and sight of death and the seeds of bitterness and anger have already been planted/cultivated. The whole act of joining the Friekorps to continue fighting after the War is indicative of his willingness to kill/die for a cause when guided by a charismatic leader ... Just the type of individual the Nazis were eager to sign up.
Mod
Mod
Cary wrote: "Actually, it is meant in more of a grandparent spoiling their grandchildren rotten sort of way...I should have clarified this in my initial post. While we have only had one chapter on young Hanns, they are definitely, as Bentley put it, "bookends"."That being the case, the question still stands. How can you call the Alexanders "rotten" when Rudolf was the one responsible for two and a half million deaths?
Mod
Rudolf did not do the Holocaust alone - he had a lot of folks assisting him and all of them are as guilty as he is - having said that what was done to the Jewish people was horrible - but Rudolf is not the only guilty party.
Let us not make this personal. Cary did not say anything that could be misinterpreted as you have interpreted it. He is also entitled to his respectful opinion without being attacked for it. I think you are calling him out for an innocent post and you seem to be circling back to Cary who even tried to make his post clearer and not offend you. By the way Cary's original post was fine - he just disagrees with your assessment.
Also, I understand that you have strong feelings about the Holocaust - a lot of us do but everybody is entitled to their opinions and their assessments. I agree with Cary's assessment of the Alexander children and how the home was described. The twins were out of control and allowed to be that way.
I have to agree with Bentley (msg. 98) the Holocaust does not make all other acts not bad or evil.I think that comparing these two youngsters is hard as that is not I think the purpose - rather to give background - one is already at war the other is still at home.
As far as Rudolf's "loyalty" to his comrades this is what military units form all their men/people to do. They are more loyal to each other than others and will justify/ignore harm done to others to defend and protect and take revenge for things done to their comrades. This is true, I think, of all armies - not just the ones Rudolf was in
Mod
Under our own Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.
And I do not hesitate to believe that someone would have placed a gun to Rudolf's head without hesitation or a military tribunal.
Here is an excerpt from about.com about Military Orders -
"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.
The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.
The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity).
Probably the most famous case of the "I was only following orders" defense was the court-martial (and conviction for premeditated murder) of First Lieutenant William Calley for his part in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968. The military court rejected Calley's argument of obeying the order of his superiors. On March 29, 1971, Calley was sentenced to life in prison. However, the public outcry in the United States following this very publicized and controversial trial was such that President Nixon granted him clemency. Calley wound up spending 3 1/2 years under house arrest at Fort Benning Georgia, where a federal judge ultimately ordered his release.
In 2004, the military began court-martials of several military members deployed to Iraq for mistreating prisoners and detainees. Several members claimed that they were only following the orders of military intelligence officials. Unfortunately (for them), that defense won't fly. The mistreatment of prisoners is a crime under both international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (see Article 93 — Cruelty and Maltreatment).
It's clear, under military law, that military members can be held accountable for crimes committed under the guise of "obeying orders," and there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful. However, here's the rub: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful.
Take the case of Michael New. In 1995, Spec-4 Michael New was serving with the 1/15 Battalion of the 3rd infantry Division of the U.S. Army at Schweinfurt, Germany. When assigned as part of a multi-national peacekeeping mission about to be deployed to Macedonia, Spec-4 New and the other soldiers in his unit were ordered to wear United Nations (U.N.) Helmets and arm bands. New refused the order, contending that it was an illegal order. New's superiors disagreed. Ultimately, so did the court-martial panel. New was found guilty of disobeying a lawful order and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the conviction, as did the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces.
What about an order to participate in a dangerous mission? Can the military legally order one to go on a "suicide mission?" You bet they can.
In October 2004, the Army announced that they it were investigating up to 19 members of a platoon from the 343rd Quartermaster Company based in Rock Hill, South Carolina, for refusing to transport supplies in a dangerous area of Iraq.
According to family members, some of the troops thought the mission was "too dangerous" because their vehicles were unarmored (or had little armor), and the route they were scheduled to take is one of the most dangerous in Iraq.
According to reports, these members simply failed to show up for the pre-departure briefing for the mission.
Can they be punished for this? They certainly can. An order to perform a dangerous mission is lawful, because it's not an order to commit a crime. Under current law, and the Manual for Courts-Martial, "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime."
In fact, if it can be shown that one or more of the soldiers influenced others to disobey, they may find the crime of Mutiny, under Article 94 added to the list of charges. Mutiny carries the death penalty, even in "peace time."
So, to obey, or not to obey? It depends on the order. Military members disobey orders at their own risk. They also obey orders at their own risk. An order to commit a crime is unlawful. An order to perform a military duty, no matter how dangerous is lawful, as long as it doesn't involve commission of a crime.
(Source: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milita...)
Net, net - a very interesting dilemma - the Nuremberg Trials have been greatly criticized as Allied forces just exacting revenge and not based upon law at that time. In fact, when we look at what Presidents have done behind the scenes with the CIA etc. - you have to wonder where the moral high ground actually is. So if you disobey an order - you do so at your own risk. I think you make an excellent case about loyalty.
I'd like to pose a question to those who have commented about the Freikorps and the impact they had on Rudolf. The passage Harding selects from Rudolf's words to me really stands out. "The Latvians took cruel revenge on their own countrymen who allowed German or White Russian soldiers into their homes and provided them with supplies. They set fire to their houses and burned the people who lived there alive. I often saw terrible sights: burned-out huts and the bodies of women and children, charred or partly consumed by the fire. The first time I saw such things, I thought that the deranged human desire to destroy could go no further. Although later I was faced with much worse images, I can still see, in my mind's eye, those half-burned houses, in which whole families had died, on the outskirts of the forest on the River Daugava. At that time I could still pray, and I did." (33)
In the previous chapter, I thought Rudolf had broken with religious sentiment at the betrayal of his confession. Clearly he indicates himself this was not the case completely. Additionally, here he is essentially shocked by the "deranged" display of force against defenseless civilians, even those who presumably were considered traitorous. To me, this experience coupled with his tightening relationship with the Freikorps has to be seen as a point of transition for Rudolf. It is at this point in his life he commits himself to a radical, Nazi-like force. It is also at this point that he sees atrocity.
Is anyone else struck by this passage or am I attaching too much importance to it?
Mod
Hard to tell what is heartfelt and what was conjured up for the memoir.
It struck me too, Greg. I think we do see an ethical struggle inside Rudolf's mind about what he sees and even does at this point in his life.
message 100:
by
Jerome, Assisting Moderator - Upcoming Books and Releases
(new)
Mod
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
On Violence (other topics)On Evil (other topics)
The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty (other topics)
The Adversary: A True Story of Monstrous Deception (other topics)
The Eichmann Trial (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Hannah Arendt (other topics)Hannah Arendt (other topics)
Terry Eagleton (other topics)
Simon Baron-Cohen (other topics)
Deborah E. Lipstadt (other topics)
More...
The Freikorps was more or less a bastion of the old army. Many of its commanders and arms-suppliers were serving army officers, but most of the troops were just local toughs.