Honour in War

[TheRealCJ]

I've been reading on the histories of the great wars (history, blegh, but it's actually quite interesting). As I've read from the wars of the late British Empire all the way through to modern combats, and I've noticed that there seems to be a decrease in, well, humanity with each subsequent conflict. It could be that I'm just reading the wrong books, but I'd love to hear what you think.

For example, in WWI, there was the "Christmas Truces" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce), and many other stories of Human spirit in the face of adversity (my favourite is the story of the German machine gunner, who, at the exact point of the 11 O'Clock Armistice, finished his last round of ammunition, stood up, removed his helmet, bowed to the the enemy, and walked to the back of the lines).

WWII had it's moments, but there seems to be many less documented cases of people being people, rather than just faceless enemies (again, could be the books I'm reading)

Vietnam, even less so. Charlie were dirty communists with no sense of right or justice, and only good for killing. (Edit: Due to some confusion, I'll add this: Note Sarcasm directed towards popular interpretations of the VietCong) That's the same sentiment I hear repeatedly in regards to the War in the Middle East, although that could just be because we're in the middle of it, and so the propaganda machine (as it were) is still running hot.

Anyway, what do you all think?

 

[similar.squirrel]

As the technology improves, we care less. That's how I see it.

 

[Ciarang]

my favourite is the story of the German machine gunner, who, at the exact point of the 11 O'Clock Armistice, finished his last round of ammunition, stood up, removed his helmet, bowed to the the enemy, and walked to the back of the lines.

Could you picture a solider doing that now ?
I thought not

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Vietnam, even less so. Charlie were dirty communists with no sense of right or justice, and only good for killing.

Oh, Charlie were dirty communist with no sense or right or justice? I suggest you read up on the atrocties committed by American G.I.s too before making such one-sided comments.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Oh, Charlie were dirty communist with no sense or right or justice? I suggest you read up on the atrocties committed by American G.I.s too before making such one-sided comments.

You misunderstand me, that's the impression I receive from the current annals I'm reading regarding the history of that particular war. Unfortunately, I'd assume that most of the english-language books regarding that particular conflict are all from the viewpoint of the US/allied countries.

"I'm a strong believe in 'two sides to every story'." Ye gods that was bad grammar!

I meant to say: I'm a strong believer in 'Two sides to every story'.

 

[LockHeart]

As we have progressed further into the era of modern warfare, insurgency and guerilla tactics have grown in popularity in their use against regular armies - if someone tried to be honourable today, his enemies would exploit it and use it as a tool against him. It's just impractical.

Besides, the whole notion of honour in warfare has been wonderfully double-edged over the years: in Medieval times, when the notion of chivalry was running rampant, it was commonplace for the victor of a battle to mutilate and/or execute captured enemy soldiers of common origin; during the Second Boer War (1899-1902), the British uprooted thousands of civilians and placed them in concentration camps so that they knew who the insurgents were, many civilians died of disease. During WWII, the Japanese (whose culture was based around honour and shame) committed some of the most hideous atrocities against civilians and POWs that the world has ever seen.

Honour in war is a rare thing, and true honour on the battlefield is even rarer.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Oh, Charlie were dirty communist with no sense or right or justice? I suggest you read up on the atrocties committed by American G.I.s too before making such one-sided comments.

You misunderstand me, that's the impression I receive from the current annals I'm reading regarding the history of that particular war. Unfortunately, I'd assume that most of the english-language books regarding that particular conflict are all from the viewpoint of the US/allied countries.

I'm a strong believe in 'two sides to every story'.

Oh, that really isn't that clear from what you posted. Either that, or I'm starting to become stupid.

 

[Reep]

I read that in WWI, the ANZACs sometimes played cricket with the Turkish soldiers and i also heard that some of the soldiers threw messages/food and other things over in empty grenade cans.

Also, the honour in the Japanese during WWII was so strong it lead to civilians even taking their own lives. A squad of allied soldiers were intending to take some Japanese civilians as prisoners, but they jumped off a cliff instead (literally).

 

[Dok Zombie]

I once heard a story about a squad of British soldiers in WW1 trying to drag a wounded man back across No-Man's-Land to their own trench, keeping down to avoid German fire. The German commander ordered his men to stop firing, stoop up and shouted "Carry him".

I think I heard this in an interview with a veteran, not sure exactly when/where it happened though.

 

[ygetoff]

With the invention of more and more impersonal weapons (Predator drones, long-range artillery), soldiers become more distanced from the fact that they are fighting other human beings.

A shared culture and history were the reasons why such things occured during both World Wars. Even the US was fundamentally similiar to Germany.

Vietnam was a strange country on the other side of the world, and after WW2 the training was changed so that soldiers would more readily kill the enemy.

This may be a factor also.

 

[TheFacelessOne]

The Christmas Truce...when I saw it on the History Channel, I thought it was the most touching thing that has ever happened in war. Despite being enemies, they both managed to celebrate Christmas, together.

 

[A.A.K]

Before we fought because we had to. We didnt want to but we were forced to decide between our life or theirs.

Now we dont have that choice, we fight because we revel in it all and having the biggest toys.

Before - we saw fellow man who were just put in the same situation as us and was just forced to do their duty.

Now - we see moving meatbags and targets for our toys- WITH a reason to use them now.

 

[bodyklok]

The Jackal from Far Cry 2 said something about honour in war that I can't remember right now, which is annoying because I want to quote it.

Anyway, I beg to differ.

You see, in the last 2,000 years of human history I don't think there's been a single day where two nations haven't been at war, through out that feudal period there were few conventions surrounding warfare, those that did exist were more focused on things like holy days and not fighting in winter. They had nothing to do with treating prisoners respectfully or making sure they had food, but today we have things like the UN and the Geneva conventions devoted to serving that very purpose.

Sure most of the bloodiest wars in history have been fought in the space of a century, and in many of those conflicts people have been remarkably inhumane, but similar things have happened before, similar things have happened in most wars. It's difficult to recall agreed to use certain weapons because they caused to much damage though.

What I'm trying to say is, all though there are plenty of atrocities in modern war, there are also more restrictions and rules put in place to try and limit destruction and lose of life.

 

[curlycrouton]

The Christmas Truce...when I saw it on the History Channel, I thought it was the most touching thing that has ever happened in war. Despite being enemies, they both managed to celebrate Christmas, together.

And then had three more where they killed each other.

Such is life.

Although I admit it's very touching, it's a shame they didn't continue the tradition. Hell, it's a shame they didn't just refuse to fight.

 

['Stache]

I think this is a myth. We tend to view the past through rose-colored glasses, and I think touching events from older wars tend to get blown out of proportion, while the same events in more recent wars are largely ignored.

 

[Nickolai77]

Despite all the propaganda demonising the German soldiers in WW1, British soldiers quickly saw that the Germans where not that different from them. After all, it was basically Anglo-Saxons versus Saxons- the Germans and the British are not all that different, in fact around half of the words i've used so far have German origin. We even had nicknames for eachother, we called them "Jerries" whilst they called us "Tommy"

I think humanity is most likely to occur when cultures that are similar to each other are similar, as we see in a few cases in WW1. In WW2, the British treated German POW's well, and likewise the Germans treated us well. However, looking at how they treated the Russians, or how the Japanese treated captured allied soldiers, we can see cultural differences translating into brutality.

I don't think war has become any less humane as time has gone on, for instance in Agincourt the English longbowmen had to massacre most of the French prisoners of war, because they took three times as many prisoners as their actual number. While England and France are fairly similar in terms of culture, the English longbowen where peasants, while most of the French captured where noble knights- as you can imagine the peasants did not have a high opinion of nobility at that time.