DWQA Questions › Tag: World War II
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
One of the most publicized and stark juxtapositions of “standing strong” versus “not standing strong” ever recorded in history is the World War II incidents where General George Patton, Jr. slapped two soldiers during the invasion of Sicily. This is the summary from Wikipedia: “In early August 1943, Lieutenant General George S. Patton slapped two United States Army soldiers under his command … Patton’s hard-driving personality and lack of belief in the medical condition of combat stress reaction, then known as “battle fatigue” or “shell shock,” led to the soldiers’ becoming the subject of his ire in incidents on August 3 and 10, when Patton struck and berated them (in front of other wounded soldiers and medical personnel) after discovering they were patients at evacuation hospitals away from the front lines without apparent physical injuries.” Here is a directive sent to the officers of his command: “It has come to my attention that a very small number of soldiers are going to the hospital on the pretext that they are nervously incapable of combat. Such men are cowards and bring discredit on the army and disgrace to their comrades, whom they heartlessly leave to endure the dangers of battle while they, themselves, use the hospital as a means of escape. You will take measures to see that such cases are not sent to the hospital but dealt with in their units. Those who are not willing to fight will be tried by court-martial for cowardice in the face of the enemy.” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
50 views0 answers0 votes
Patton frequently claimed that he “hated war.” But almost nobody believed him. Such a statement seemed to violate almost everything anyone ever witnessed about his leadership. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
45 views0 answers0 votes
Both Patton and General Douglas MacArthur were considered Prima Donnas. Google defines prima donna as, “A very temperamental person with an inflated view of their own talent or importance.” Or, “Anyone who acted as if they were a world-famous talent.” But the irony is they were, indeed, “world-famous talents.” They were two of the most effective and successful combat leaders the world has EVER known. Yet many observers considered them “arrogant pretenders” nevertheless, and despised them for being so. Is this an example of “faking it ’til you make it,” and how much of this behavior was engaged in fully for “effect” but did not, in fact, reflect the men privately? What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
44 views0 answers0 votes
General MacArthur used to frequently, and many would say recklessly, expose himself to danger in areas with known snipers. In one incident he actually stared out of a window at a sniper training his rifle at him from another building across the street. He then “casually” turned and walked away from the window a split second before a bullet came through the window aimed at him. When asked later about the behavior, he claimed he liked to “test his timing.” This behavior drove his subordinates “nuts.” Yet MacArthur survived the entirety of the war in his early sixties and without so much as a scratch. Patton behaved similarly and also survived the war, only to have his neck broken in the slightest of fender benders. What is Creator’s perspective on this behavior?
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
63 views0 answers0 votes
A lot of terrible and deeply evil figures in history were also prima donnas. So it’s completely understandable that such figures are deeply distrusted. Where does one parse out the positive example versus the arrogant threat? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
49 views0 answers0 votes
What is Creator’s perspective on “combat stress reaction” or “battle fatigue?” So much of GetWisdom has been dedicated to healing historic trauma the deep subconscious reacts to, as this is understood to be the primary culprit behind MOST of our negative karmic issues and even the rise of evil itself in the galaxy. Yet trauma doesn’t have to be deep and can be right in your face, such as experienced by the soldiers Patton slapped (assuming their distress was quite real, and they were not faking it). Fleeing combat by any means certainly aligns with the karmic and divine imperative to protect oneself, but at the cost of abandoning their duty and comrades, not to mention setting an abysmal example of how to comport oneself in the face of danger. What is Creator’s perspective on this dilemma?
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
50 views0 answers0 votes
The word “coward” has come to acquire a deeply negative connotation, so much so that it has fallen out of popular use almost entirely, and anyone attempting to use it faces significant backlash, both privately and especially publicly. And the word “brave” is being liberally used to praise victims and laud behavior that seems to lack any evidence, much less significant evidence, of the recipient actually having stood strong against a dilemma. Today there are certainly people who would call Patton a bully and the battle fatigue suffering soldiers he slapped brave, for merely being on the receiving end of his “despicable tirade.” What is Creator’s perspective on the abandonment of the word “coward” and the accompanying neutering of the word “brave,” a word that used to be reserved ONLY to describe one who displayed SIGNIFICANT evidence of having “stood strong?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
43 views0 answers0 votes
Patton’s slapping incidents became publicly known when journalist Drew Pearson broke the story on his national radio show. Wikipedia reports: “Pearson’s version not only conflated details of both slapping incidents but falsely reported that the private in question was visibly “out of his head,” telling Patton to “duck down or the shells would hit him,” and that in response, “Patton struck the soldier, knocking him down.” Pearson punctuated his broadcast by twice stating that Patton would never again be used in combat, despite the fact that Pearson had no factual basis for this prediction.” The Allied Command, and especially General Eisenhower, deemed Patton critical to the war effort, and this publicity complicated things enormously. That the media tends to conflate things is taken for granted these days. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
40 views0 answers0 votes
Just as things are today, the public was deeply divided over the slapping incidents. So much so, it was said it was the “slap heard round the world.” Half the population defended Patton and the other half demanded his firing. This shows the divide between the application of discipline versus the application of compassion. It is widely assumed that the two are diametric opposites but is that truly the case? What did those soldiers need most—a slap or a hug? What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
45 views0 answers0 votes
Trauma is highly problematic, whether deeply buried or in your face. How can Empowered Prayer, the Lightworker Healing Protocol, Deep Subconscious Mind Reset, and Divine Life Support heal historic trauma, and also help the recipient to “stand strong” when that approach to a dilemma is the most advised and perhaps wisest course of action?
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
48 views0 answers0 votes
A former intelligence agent started a business coaching people in spy techniques and insights that he believed could be applied to everyday life to help people be more effective in accomplishing whatever it is they set out to do. Like most things in life, these techniques and understandings can be used for good or evil. A match can light a birthday candle or start a forest fire. To the extent that others might use these teachings for harm, how much karmic liability attaches to the teacher? Is this a reason why dangerous knowledge was historically reserved for initiates? And even that would seem to have karmic polarity in that it safeguards the innocent and immature on the one hand, but can also be a means to hoard and deny access to resources that one can argue should be more widely shared. What is Creator’s perspective on the “safe handling” and/or dissemination and sharing of material that is potentially helpful but equally dangerous?
ClosedNicola asked 5 months ago • 
170 views0 answers0 votes
Intelligence agencies are in the business of gathering intelligence—information that is difficult to attain through ordinary means; information that people are hesitant and resistant to give up or share. The successful intelligence agent will employ the tools of motivation and manipulation to get this information. These tools are matched to particular means with which to motivate and/or manipulate people to get them to do what you want them to do. These approaches are referred to with the acronym “R.I.C.E.” Reward, Ideology, Coercion, and Ego. Of these four, appealing to ideology is seen as the most effective, and coercion the least. If you successfully appeal to ideology, the “target” will trust you and share almost anything. Coercion is the weakest as, contrary to Hollywood, it may work the first time you use it, but then you destroy trust and will have fewer opportunities for future success with the target. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 5 months ago • 
105 views0 answers0 votes
While being trained as an intelligence officer, this individual learned he was an ideal candidate because he was special (clearly an appeal to ego), or at least that is what he thought. But, in fact, he learned he was special because he had been algorithmically identified as psychologically damaged and traumatized in particular ways that were useful for intelligence gathering. These are people one would rarely label “well adjusted” by society’s standards. The agency was ruthlessly honest in telling him they intended to leverage that dysfunction, give him a vocabulary for understanding the nuances of human motivation and manipulation, and techniques for achieving goals and agendas with targets. In this undertaking, the overall wellbeing of the target is not a top consideration and moral flexibility was a prized capacity for successful agents. What is Creator’s perspective on the moral flexibility so highly prized by intelligence agencies?
ClosedNicola asked 5 months ago • 
98 views0 answers0 votes
This former intelligence officer shared that if you need a target’s cooperation, and there is no means by which to positively and transparently motivate them, then that gives you the green light to manipulate them. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 5 months ago • 
97 views0 answers0 votes
This former intelligence officer warned that the typical person has no idea just how much and on what scale advanced motivation and manipulation techniques are being deployed against them. It’s not a conspiracy theory. Creator has affirmed this as well on multiple occasions. When confronted with this reality, two questions come to mind. Can I avoid it? And if I can’t avoid it, can I successfully resist it? Is there even an answer outside of divine partnership? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 5 months ago • 
112 views0 answers0 votes
123…6Next »