Honour in War

[Motti]

There is no honor in war, you're still fucking killing people. Besides, if you study ancient wars and civilizations you would see how tame our methods are in comparison to our ancestors

Back in the day, war was far more brutal, far less humane. You would crush people's skulls in with hammers, watch heads, limbs and bodies being turned to red paste by cannonballs and god help you if you got captured. It was dressed up in chivalry though, so it was all right.

Personally I don't think there is honour in war per se, but there definately is honour in going to hell and back while looking out for your mates, to the point of dying for them. I'm not religious at all, but I do still think that Jesus was a great man who said some pretty relevant things:

'The greatest love a man can show for others is to lay down his life for his friends,'

To that, Jesus, I have only one thing to say: this.

 

[AvsJoe]

I dunno. We're being less humane than we were 200 years ago, but we're still more humane than 1000 years ago and further. I wish the days where we saw the enemy as other humans, rather than godless swine or whatever were still here, but they aren't. I can't seem to make a cohesive statement about this topic so I'll just shut my mouth.

 

[cprs_]

there is no honour today because most armies are professional, therefore they are no better than mercenaries.

You, sir, should pull your head in quick, smart and in a fucking hurry. Don't jaw off about shit you don't know about. I'll assure you that professional armies that are placed in situations where they fight a counter-insurgency fight and act in a professional manner due to a) their professional pride and b) international law. My enemy didn't have to obey those same international laws which is why a professional army fights with one armed tied behind its back and still conducts itself in an honourable manner.

There are a lot of people in this thread who don't know what they're talking about, and while the discussion is being carried out well, idiots should gtfo.

 

[Nickolai77]

War has always been brutal, because of what war is nature war can never be humane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k8Lj-cV7Ls

^ This video puts it across well.

 

[Knight Templar]

There is Honour in war for many reasons, but the one most people can agree on no matter how they view the idea of "honour" is moral.

If people belive they are right they will fight to the death, its hard to do these things when you're killing kids and commiting the acts you were told to stop. Was has allways been hell, it's just so easy to show it these days.

 

[Lonan]

I've only heard the Canadian side of the story, but it seems there's plenty of honour in war. I heard a soldier say he didn't hate the Taliban, that they were just the enemy. Also, when a roadside bomb detonated under the first vehicle in a Canadian convoy, and they found a person nearby who had a shed with bomb making materials and was found with what could be a detonator, they didn't even say a word. They just arrested him for further questioning. No harm to him, just silence.

 

[Seanchaidh]

There is no honor in war, you're still fucking killing people. Besides, if you study ancient wars and civilizations you would see how tame our methods are in comparison to our ancestors

Yeah, we kill civilians from far away and usually by accident. They did it up close and personal!

 

[oppp7]

I think it's just your imagination. WW1 was not more civil than the Korean War. Trench warfare was horrible and cost millions of lives due to lack of a better strategy. WW2 had the Russians sending their own soldiers to die because of horrible tactics. Vietnam had chemical warfare and drugs involved. But the Korean war didn't seem too horrible (of course, that's only because of a lack of information on it). And the Iraq war and War in Afghanistan doesn't seeem as bad as WW1 or 2. I mean, the main reason we're still in Iraq is to help build a democacy (it's the soldier's reason, not the government's).

 

[Legion]

I think it could be the fact that conscription isn't around in this country.
Those soldiers in the trenches didn't want to be there and kill, they were forced to.
Now its all choice, the soldiers choose to go and fight.

Exactly. The 'Great War' was a conscription of men (both sides) fighting each other for no valid reason and dying by the millions for it. Nobody who had an inkling of what it was like wanted to be there but they had to.

Although we could argue that the wars of today are just as pointless. Those fighting in them at least chose to die for whatever the 'reasons' are.

there is no honour today because most armies are professional, therefore they are no better than mercenaries.

You, sir, should pull your head in quick, smart and in a fucking hurry. Don't jaw off about shit you don't know about. I'll assure you that professional armies that are placed in situations where they fight a counter-insurgency fight and act in a professional manner due to a) their professional pride and b) international law. My enemy didn't have to obey those same international laws which is why a professional army fights with one armed tied behind its back and still conducts itself in an honourable manner.

There are a lot of people in this thread who don't know what they're talking about, and while the discussion is being carried out well, idiots should gtfo.

I may be wrong but I believe what he means is that before, soldiers were needed to fight. In World War 2 if we didn't have soldiers then more and more countries would be invaded. The soldiers didn't fight for money, or see it as a job, they fought for country and saw it as duty.

The US and UK are not under direct threat of invasion and therefore have no real need for such large armed forces. Our soldiers are not fighting out of necessity but because it's a job.

 

[Lord George]

I'd blame the Media as it seeks nowadays to demonise the other side in a far more effective way then ever before, take the situation in the middle east, the American media in particular seems to depict anyone who looks slightly middle easternish to be a raving fanatic who want nothing more then to kill everyone you know and love and likewise lots of places such as Iraq are being fed that the west wants to come over and occupy there county and destroy there culture. This leads to both sides being very angry at the enemy and devote to their own cause thus making them less humane towards there opposite numbers and more cold hearted.

 

[mklnjbh]

I would say that this is less honour in warfare, and more of loyalty to their Emperor. Jumping off the cliffs was, in the interpretation I heard from the History channel (or "The Only One True Network") was that propaganda in the Empire stated that surrender can be likened to killing your first born child, skinning it and suffocating every family member you know of with the flayed hide.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

From my understnading (after talking to historians, this isn't just random judgements), the ways we behave dishonourably have changed, making past problems less recognisable as problems. Increased media coverage also makes it easier to find fault nowerdays.

 

[Latinidiot]

there is no honor in wars. there is just honor in personal conflict

 

[AfterAscon]

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.

How is that Humanity? The German gunner must have been aware of the Armistice to stop at 11am, yet still continued to shoot at people until then!

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Actually no....

Depending on how back in history you go you will see more of a curve. Take the middle ages for example: where it was common place to target and raze villages of the 'enemy,' killing and raping people who just had the misfortune of being virtual slaves to the local lord and of course torture and cold blooded murder of the prisoners of war. It didn't change much throughout history, even as we took up long arms and cannons.

The war period around WW1, and a handful of others, where more of a statistical error if you take the whole human actions and look at them side by side. It was as if we really where trying to make a war to end all wars, by painting the enemy as just normal people forced to fight in a war, but for the other side. All so the troops, after the war, would feel the pain and suffering they had caused and never wish to cause it again. Sadly those who start wars rarely fight in them, the few who do... they seem to ravage in the worse possible ways and see war as glorious.

Now... no, now we are back to them being 'soulless savages who need to be wiped out for god and country.'

"We berried ours, and the Turks berried theirs...
and we started all over again."
- And the band played waltzing Matilda.

Always gets me that line, well the whole song does but the Turks and Australians didn't seem to have any personal hatred for each other. It was a war, they where fighting it, and after wards they even honoured each other in ways that still stand today. Such as the Suvla bay memorial to our troops and the name we earned, diggers.

 

[Ladius]

"Honour or Honor (see spelling differences), (from the Latin word honos, honoris) is the evaluation of a person's trustworthiness and social status based on that individual's espousals and actions. Honour is deemed exactly what determines a person's character: whether or not the person reflects honesty, respect, integrity, or fairness. Accordingly, individuals are assigned worth and stature based on the harmony of their actions, code of honour, and that of the society at large."

thats off of wiki... but it is still quite accurate regardless.

there is no honor in war, because honor is a trait of human character and perception, NOT a trait of countries and faceless masses.

but in wars the best and worse of people are brought out, regardless of the era, and as such, some of the best examples of people showing honor (honesty, respect, integrity, fairness) can be found... along side some of the worst atrocities ever...

 

[Hikikomori Ookami]

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'.

I reccomend a book called NAM if you can find it. It's a narrative of events in Vietnam from the viewpoint of Americans who served there. Some of the things these guys admit to doing is insane.

 

[Agema]

In terms of soldiers, honour is really about killing and harming people when you need to, and not killing or harming people (especially noncombatants including POWs) when you don't need to.