4 ms·

Imagine being brainwashed to the point that you purposefully get yourself killed because you only have a minute left to kill the others.

agapon 7y ago
I think that the kind of brainwash that we typically think about evaporates very quickly at front lines. But the actual fighting -- trying not to get killed, seeing your comrades killed, killing in return -- is a 'brainwash' of its own.
Rebelgecko 7y ago
Henry Gunther's story is particularly sad. He was a sergeant who got demoted due to private after writing a friend a letter containing some antiwar comments that were perceived as cowardice. He was obsessed with regaining what he perceived as his lost honor, which is why he led a futile charge in the final moments of the war. IIRC the Germans he was charging were reluctant to actually shoot at him
CaptArmchair 7y ago
It wasn't so much plain brainwashing as it was a total lack of modern communication on the battlefield. Especially in 1918. Back then, communication happened via carrier pigeon, runners, telegram, telephone or telegraph. In extremely hostile conditions. Trench newspapers were the only alternate source soldiers and availability depended entirely on the situation on the ground. In fact, fighting didn't necessarily seize at 11AM all over the world because communication was hard: https://history.blog.gov.uk/2018/11/09/the-war-that-did-not-end-at-11am-on-11-november/ https://history.blog.gov.uk/2018/11/09/the-war-that-did-not-... As for the Western front in particular, it didn't help that some generals disapproved of the ceasefire and armistice: > General John Pershing, Commander of the American Expeditionary Force, did not approve of the armistice. Consequently he gave no instructions to his commanders to suspend any new offensive action during the remaining hours until 11am. This gave individual commanders latitude to determine their actions in the last few hours and in some quarters there was fierce fighting up to 11am which was difficult to stop. On 11 November alone were nearly 11,000 casualties, dead, missing and injured, exceeding those on D-Day in 1944. Over 3,500 of these were American. Pershing had to face a Congressional hearing to explain why there were so many deaths when the hour of the armistice was known in advance. Officers at the front at that time pretty much were left to their own devices. With an absolute minimum of orders or context, the 'safe' approach was to assume that the enemy might have ignored the cease fire and overwhelmed those who would have let their guard down. Being partly blind, many of them doubled down on the fighting "just in case". Let's not forget. 4 years of atrocious fighting had passed by. By then, soldiers new perfectly well that life on the front carried little value. They could only hope for a break as refusing to fight or dodging orders meant martial punishment. Plus, it wouldn't have done them any good anyway since there was little to no practical way out of that theater anyway. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/service_records/courts_martial.htm http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/se...
- DubiousPusher 7y ago
  There are many historical examples of generals and frontline troops continuing conflict after the fact for multiple reasons. Some as innocuous as communication issues. Some as numbing as military bureaucratics. Some as terrible as hatred. My point was never to attribute all such instances to hate or a desire to kill. But I see that all demonstrate well why war should be avoided at all costs.

agapon 7y ago

I think that the kind of brainwash that we typically think about evaporates very quickly at front lines. But the actual fighting -- trying not to get killed, seeing your comrades killed, killing in return -- is a 'brainwash' of its own.

Rebelgecko 7y ago

Henry Gunther's story is particularly sad. He was a sergeant who got demoted due to private after writing a friend a letter containing some antiwar comments that were perceived as cowardice. He was obsessed with regaining what he perceived as his lost honor, which is why he led a futile charge in the final moments of the war. IIRC the Germans he was charging were reluctant to actually shoot at him

CaptArmchair 7y ago

It wasn't so much plain brainwashing as it was a total lack of modern communication on the battlefield. Especially in 1918. Back then, communication happened via carrier pigeon, runners, telegram, telephone or telegraph. In extremely hostile conditions. Trench newspapers were the only alternate source soldiers and availability depended entirely on the situation on the ground. In fact, fighting didn't necessarily seize at 11AM all over the world because communication was hard: https://history.blog.gov.uk/2018/11/09/the-war-that-did-not-end-at-11am-on-11-november/ https://history.blog.gov.uk/2018/11/09/the-war-that-did-not-... As for the Western front in particular, it didn't help that some generals disapproved of the ceasefire and armistice: > General John Pershing, Commander of the American Expeditionary Force, did not approve of the armistice. Consequently he gave no instructions to his commanders to suspend any new offensive action during the remaining hours until 11am. This gave individual commanders latitude to determine their actions in the last few hours and in some quarters there was fierce fighting up to 11am which was difficult to stop. On 11 November alone were nearly 11,000 casualties, dead, missing and injured, exceeding those on D-Day in 1944. Over 3,500 of these were American. Pershing had to face a Congressional hearing to explain why there were so many deaths when the hour of the armistice was known in advance. Officers at the front at that time pretty much were left to their own devices. With an absolute minimum of orders or context, the 'safe' approach was to assume that the enemy might have ignored the cease fire and overwhelmed those who would have let their guard down. Being partly blind, many of them doubled down on the fighting "just in case". Let's not forget. 4 years of atrocious fighting had passed by. By then, soldiers new perfectly well that life on the front carried little value. They could only hope for a break as refusing to fight or dodging orders meant martial punishment. Plus, it wouldn't have done them any good anyway since there was little to no practical way out of that theater anyway. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/service_records/courts_martial.htm http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/se...

DubiousPusher 7y ago
There are many historical examples of generals and frontline troops continuing conflict after the fact for multiple reasons. Some as innocuous as communication issues. Some as numbing as military bureaucratics. Some as terrible as hatred. My point was never to attribute all such instances to hate or a desire to kill. But I see that all demonstrate well why war should be avoided at all costs.