The Nazi holocaust did not begin with The Wannsee Conference. Prior to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, representatives of the racial state – most likely Reinhardt Heydrich would have led this contingent – communicated with Wehrmacht generals to define the nature of military conduct in a war that Hitler conceptualized as a merciless struggle for racial supremacy. Twenty four German generals were indicted for war crimes at Nuremberg. Nazi troops coordinated with the Einsatzgruppen, participated in roundups and mass executions of Soviet commissars, Jews, partisans, Soviet prisoners of war, Slavic racial inferiors and anyone deemed to be an enemy of the Nazi regime. One should not view the July, 20, 1944 plot against Hitler as a gauge of Wehrmacht moral discomfort, but as a belated coup attempt to hasten German surrender. The generals involved understood that Hitler failed to acknowledge hopeless military realities.

The worst crimes of fascism invariably begin with military complicity. That understanding provides the critical context to the surrealistic, horrifying meeting between Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump and the massive assembly of high level military staff members being lectured, bullied and threatened into surrendering to the fascist order at Quantico, Virginia.

Two themes emerged in Hegseth’s hyper-fascist, self-aggrandizing monologue: 1) that military violence must no longer be constrained by moral guardrails such as the rules of war as specified in the Geneva Convention 2) That military force can and will be enacted against US citizens. Hegseth and Trump clearly attempt to circumvent the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that forbids federal troops from engaging in police action against civilians.

Trump, in a rambling, disjointed series of narcissistic fantasies spoke of “straightening out the cities” run by “radical left Democrats.” He called the inner cities, “a big part of war” and bizarrely likened domestic military operations to training exercises for international wars to come. As if Trump’s rant wasn’t delusional enough, he contrived a tale of “animals” shooting at firemen while they were up on ladders. While Trump has yet to declare martial law as a means of suspending constitutional protections for his “enemies,” the convenient use of the word “invasion” implies that the MAGA regime has reason to take emergency measures. Trump, who once created the fiction of a “migrant invasion,” now warns of an “invasion from within.” These invaders wear no uniforms – Trump tells us. If they did the invaders from within would be “taken out.” This ought to be terrifying enough to convince many misguided optimists that TACO is no longer a thing. Trump’s explicitly promised intention to initiate acts of unrestrained force, via domestic military deployment, ought to clarify our predicament, but the habit of denial has deeply entrenched roots in our national psyche.

Across social media, the public is being told that military authorities blanched upon hearing the masculinist bile and the Trump/Hegseth call to legitimize federally authorized lethal force against US residents. This mandate for systematic, unambiguous violence ran side by side with an attack on the allegedly feminized military that Hegseth sneeringly categorized as “soldiers in skirts.” It may well be that some generals recoiled at being fat shamed and dressed down by a Trump appointed novice who only reached the rank of major and had limited combat engagement. But the public discussion taking place seeks to consider something more than the private dismay of US military elites. A dangerous fantasy about high level military resistance to MAGA will inevitably disrupt the public understanding of its own agency. Whether we believe that Trump will imminently drop dead of a heart attack, or that he has advanced dementia, or that the MAGA base will abandon Trump over tariffs and inflation, or that the right will implode with the release of the Epstein Files, we disempower ourselves. We ought not dilute our resolve with fatuous hopes.

Eugene Fidell – a Yale faculty authority on military law – told Juan Gonzales in a “Democracy Now” interview, that high ranking military officials ought to consult with private attorneys regarding the legal risk of violating the Posse Comitatus Act. While Fidell’s suggestion strikes me as good personal advice, it rather conveys an overly optimistic perspective on the moral autonomy of those within the military hierarchy. The idealization of US military brass dangerously disempowers the will to organize and resist. Military leaders will not, using history as a guide, save us from fascism.

In the long history of US colonial expansion and military adventures to maintain its empire, active generals have never pushed back against war crimes and corporate interests. Carpet bombing in Vietnam and Southeast Asia with massive civilian casualties provoked a huge international protest movement and condemnation from human rights organizations, but inspired no resistance from top level military brass. Danny Sjursen, in a 2020 piece published in Open Democracy, observed:

“ Today, with about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised, remarkably unsuccessful American wars. As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are more of them today than there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a public critic of today’s failing wars.”

While the Posse Comitatus Act may seem to introduce a new moral hurdle for military brass, committing war crimes by employing massive air superiority against defenseless civilians has been an almost mundane feature of US military strategy. The proxy genocide unfolding in Gaza with US encouragement and military hardware might be seen as a continuation of US habits of war established in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Many of the military officials listening to Hegseth and Trump were involved in perpetrating the nearly half million civilian deaths in post 9/11 wars. Do we really expect generals with blood drenched hands to act as a moral barrier against Trump?

Hamilton Nolan recently wrote a compelling piece – an open letter of sorts to the captive military brass forced to endure the humiliating Hegseth lecture and the meandering, unhinged Trump explanation for the planned unleashing of military violence against US civilians. Nolan encourages top military leaders to resign:

“They took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and to imply that their allegiance to that oath would prevent them from carrying out truly unjust orders………

Like any large organization, the military is full of all types of people who got into it for all types of reasons. Despite my own objections to the things that politicians make the military do, I do believe that the military itself is full of people who sincerely value patriotism, sacrifice, and public service. And there can be no doubt that the military is full of people who have demonstrated great personal bravery, perseverance, and willingness to overcome daunting obstacles in order to do a job that they believe is honorable and necessary. In 2025, all of these admirable qualities demand a very particular action: to leave the military. Before you find yourself doing things that do not comport with the values that you hold. Before you find that you have become the bad guy. If you can run into a gunfight, you can find the bravery to quit. That’s what patriotism means today.”

Like Eugene Fidell’s suggestion that military elites “lawyer up,” Nolan’s advice is morally sound. I doubt, however, that generals and admirals will pay any attention to either Fidell or Nolan. Their true audience, consumers of alternative, left leaning media may get the false notion of a military hierarchy rife with rebellious agency.

The true importance of the meeting with the military brass seems clear enough – Trump and Hegseth need the cooperation of the military to completely dismantle constitutional protections, and to unleash violence sufficiently fierce enough to destroy the resolve of US residents to resist.

Resistance within the military does have a significant precedent during the Vietnam war era, but it did not emerge from the ranks of generals, but from ordinary recruits and draftees. Men returned home in flag draped coffins or in wheel chairs for an abstract cause. Some suffered life-long complications and risks from “agent orange,” while others had their dreams destroyed from concussive, brain damaging explosions. The “domino theory” lost credibility in direct proportion to US body counts. Troops printed antiwar newsletters and forged connections with the larger antiwar movement. On occasion platoon leaders took gunfire in the back.

This historical context may not have relevance to Trump’s intent to use military force against poor people, the homeless, immigrants or political dissidents. Soldiers assaulting unarmed civilians will endure virtually no risk of becoming casualties. There is no war to be fought, only atrocities to commit. The Nazi military leaders dealt with squeamish murderers by excusing them from the traumatic task of shooting women, children and elderly victims at point blank range. Those who lacked the fortitude for such necessary jobs were assigned to do paperwork or sort the belongings of the victims. Perhaps soldiers who haven’t the stomach to punish the “invaders from within” will be reassigned to less stressful activities.

I believe that the performative chaos of Trump and his appointees distracts us from a simple narrative – fascism will either evolve into daily rituals of violence, terror and capitulation, or people will organize and destroy Trump’s fascism before it consolidates. The generals have no ambiguous role to play. Veterans will be a major factor in organized civil disobedience, military leaders will not be. They will not save us, we can only save ourselves.

Phil Wilson writes at Nobody’s Voice.