Citizen Soldier

Sleepy · 15-06-2004 12:04am #1

Monty - if this is in the wrong forum feel free to move it...

I've been watching quite a few war movies etc lately and I'm reading "Despatches" by Michael Herr. It's got me thinking about the main theme explored in a lot of war media: the idea of the Citizen Soldier. From Platoon through to Band of Brothers the same theme is there: the ordinary man doing the extraordinary.

It was Band of Brothers that hit this home for me most (possibly because it's simply the longest in length, but I also think it's extremely emotively filmed and performed), watching men younger than I am now (23) endure hell on earth in the name of freedom. I like to think that were I around in those times I would have been involved but when you ask yourself honestly, could you really have done it?

Watching documentaries involving the survivors I get quite choked up at times; thinking of what they went through to give us our freedom and how we treat it. You have to wonder what some of these men feel about the whiny nature of our generation: completely materialistic, greedy and totally self obsessed. We feel like we have it so tough in life because we don't have the perfect girl/guy in our lives and feel cheated if we don't have a top of the line mobile/computer when those men would have given almost anything for a hot shower and a decent meal.

One of the many things I found so memorable in the last few months was watching one of the veterans of Easy Company (a company that suffered an 150% casualty rate during the war) describe his answer to his grandson's question: "Grandad, were you a hero in the war?". He replied "No, but I served with a company of heroes". Another was Michael Herr's description of the horrors of the Vietnam War (yes, it was a pointless war but that doesn't detract from what the men forced to fight it went through) when he wrote "it was at this point that I realised: the only corpse I couldn't bear to look at was the only one I'd never have to see".

Given the amount of documentaries on the telly about D-Day at the moment to mark the 60th anniversary of the largest ocean based invasion ever carried out in history. I'm wondering has anyone else been thinking the same lately or what your opinions on this subject are? How would we deal with being in that situation? Would it, as Fight Club put it, give us a great purpose to our lives? Or would we cower away from it, too weak to follow in the footsteps of those great men that gave so much?

ARGINITE · 15-06-2004 12:15am

Its something that we will hopefully never have to find out, but if it came to it i think we would do the right thing and do what ever it took to ensure our freedom juat like they did.
But it would take something like that to really show us how valuable our freedom is!

ARGINITE · 15-06-2004 12:17am

on another point would i step up and join up i dont know i can only guess, yes hopefully.
get cross of iron its very good.

Sleepy · 15-06-2004 12:23am

Hmmm, I'd imagine most of us will say the same. We'd like to think we could do it.

I guess as much as asking that question I'm curious as to what other people's attitudes are towards those men that have gone before us. It seems to me that a lot of us don't think about or them half enough or more acccurately, I don't think we hold their courage and actions in half the regard that we should.

ARGINITE · 15-06-2004 12:30am

that is very true.

dudara · 15-06-2004 9:05am

It really annoys me when people criticise the irishmen who joined the english army in WW2. These men stepped up at a time when the world was in danger and they put their lives on the line. They weren't fighting for England as such, they were fighting for freedom as they knew it. They should be honoured as heroes.

All the d-day commemorations put me thinking. I just hope that if ever the call comes, that I can find the courage to answer it. We live in a different age somehow from that of our grandfathers. They fought for freedom from the English and then from the fascists.

Stephen · 15-06-2004 9:18am

I think the way American troops returning from Vietnam were treated was terrible. I know it was an unpopular war with atrocities commited by both sides, but they were by and large drafted citizen soldiers just doing a job and they went through hell for it. When they returned home they were treated like traitors.

I read a great book about this recently but i can't remember what the hell the name of it was.

Raz · 15-06-2004 9:46am

When I was between 12 to 16 I used to think I'd love to be a soldier. I thought I be the great super marine who'd take on the enemy stronghold single handedly. (Hollywood anyone??) When I finished my junior cert I went to see Saving Private Ryan in the cinema with a friend.
The opening squence scared the s**t outta me.
It really struck home that no matter how skilled you are as a soldier you're essentially just fodder. In a situation like that anyway. There was no way to know if you were being targeted and if you were there was nothing you could do about it.

Wars these days arn't fought the same but I don't think I'd be able to do anything in a situation like that.
I'd say if I was drafted in I'd be a fine example of a soldier during training but once it got to the point of life or death in a combat situation I'd be pretty useless. Too terrified to move from my spot.

pork99 · 15-06-2004 9:57am

Originally posted by Stephen
I think the way American troops returning from Vietnam were treated was terrible. I know it was an unpopular war with atrocities commited by both sides, but they were by and large drafted citizen soldiers just doing a job and they went through hell for it. When they returned home they were treated like traitors.

I think it split roughly along class lines; the bluecollar class people who supplied most of the grunts never had any doubts the war was right, the liberal middle class anti-war people mostly dodged the draft or got deferrements.

In other words the Vietnam vet tended to be a hero in working class communities and a villain in middle class ones. Very broad generalisation.

Zulu · 15-06-2004 10:11am

Very interesting Sleepy, I've been pondering the same myself for a while now - might I suggest you read "Anthony Beevors : Stalingrad", or follow up book "Berlin", or Stephen E Ambrose's "D-Day". Stalingrad is an unbelievable story, that really captured the horror of WW2. D-Day, is a bit of a long haul, but worth it in the end. (Same guy who wrote Band of Brothers, similar style - documents EVERYTHING about D-Day, people, defences, weaponry, it's pretty hard core.)

Now to answer your question, I honestly think if I was there now, I would be like the guy crying in the fox hole (either episode Carentan or Replacements can't remember which). ...but would love to think I would be like "Winters". The simple fact is that noone has a clue what they would be like.

I spent much of last year contemplating joining the army (I'm too old now, 26). It's something I've always wanted to do since I can remember, but I genuinely feel it's a waste in today's society.

Sleepy · 15-06-2004 10:13am

For anyone interested in Vietnam, I'd strongly recommend Despatches by Michael Herr. Fantastic Book.

pork99 · 15-06-2004 10:14am

Originally posted by Zulu
Very interesting Sleepy, I've been pondering the same myself for a while now - might I suggest you read "Anthony Beevors : Stalingrad", or follow up book "Berlin", or Stephen E Ambrose's "D-Day". Stalingrad is an unbelievable story, that really captured the horror of WW2. D-Day, is a bit of a long haul, but worth it in the end. (Same guy who wrote Band of Brothers, similar style - documents EVERYTHING about D-Day, people, defences, weaponry, it's pretty hard core.)

Also "Citizen Soldiers" by Stephen Ambrose and "The Sharp End" by John Ellis.

Sleepy · 15-06-2004 10:16am

Been meaning to read some of Ambrose's stuff for quite a while because I found Band of Brothers so moving.

Originally posted by Zulu
I spent much of last year contemplating joining the army (I'm too old now, 26). It's something I've always wanted to do since I can remember, but I genuinely feel it's a waste in today's society.

Thought about it myself but there's no way I'd pass the medical so I gave up the thought before reaching a decision. Can you clarify what you mean be "it's a waste in today's society"? What's the it that you're referring to?

whosurpaddy · 15-06-2004 10:37am

Originally posted by Stephen
I think the way American troops returning from Vietnam were treated was terrible. I know it was an unpopular war with atrocities commited by both sides, but they were by and large drafted citizen soldiers just doing a job and they went through hell for it. When they returned home they were treated like traitors.

I read a great book about this recently but i can't remember what the hell the name of it was.

i read this the other day and it pretty much sums up what you've said in your post.

watched the entire band of brothers thing a while back and had a lot of the same emotions as you, along the lines of how young/brave the guys were in it. as has been said it was a differant time and they basically didnt have a choice. i like to think id stand up well but in truth you will (hopefully) never know.

Zulu · 15-06-2004 10:43am

Originally posted by Sleepy
Been meaning to read some of Ambrose's stuff for quite a while because I found Band of Brothers so moving.

Thought about it myself but there's no way I'd pass the medical so I gave up the thought before reaching a decision. Can you clarify what you mean be "it's a waste in today's society"? What's the it that you're referring to?

Ambrose's books tend to be more documentitive in style than the tv B.O.B. so watch out for that. I read another book of his "Wild Blue" that and Air Corp squadron (same idea as B.o.b. but with air corps instead of army) through out WW2 - BORING!!!

Read dispatches alright - very good

when I said it was a "waste" in today's society, what I ment was....
Most wars reciently have been largly economocly based, and shrouded behind an excuse of human rights offences. While I may be niave to believe that other wars were different, I do genuinly believe that WW2 was an exception to this. I do believe that people went to war to protect allies. I think I would feel compelled to join a war in such circumstances.
In todays society, lies are spun so easily; lives are taken for granted. To fight for a cause such as the gulf war part 2 would truly sicken me.

Sleepy · 15-06-2004 10:50am

I'll give the Ambrose books a go, I'm not someone bored by a documentary approach, I've been a WW2 nerd all my life!

I agree with what you say about modern war being different. You summed it up quite well with this oxymoron:

a cause such as the gulf war part 2

Zulu · 15-06-2004 10:59am

Originally posted by Sleepy
I'll give the Ambrose books a go, I'm not someone bored by a documentary approach, I've been a WW2 nerd all my life!

I agree with what you say about modern war being different. You summed it up quite well with this oxymoron:

Cheers

Do yourself a favour. Anthony Beevor, Stalingrad. Best WW2 book to date. What went on, on the Russian front, esp Stalingrad was incrediable.

Lemming · 15-06-2004 11:15am

Another good Vietnam book to read is ChickenHawk. It's the account of a helicoptor pilot during the war. Some of it so insanely off the wall & f*cked up you'll do a double-take

I've read some of Ambrose's stuff and I think it's brilliant. Very compelling reading. I've just finished his 'Pegasus Bridge' book which although short, is still good. I have his D-Day, Citizen Soldiers, and Wild Blue books still to read.

Zulu · 15-06-2004 11:43am

Finished reading "Jarhead" a couple of weeks back - about the Gulf War part 1. Interesting read, give good insight into the modern day us marine corps. I'd give it 6.5/10 - woth a read but nothing too special.

calhob_ie · 15-06-2004 12:51pm

Must admit Ambrose's books are very good, he and Beevor write in a very similar style. Interspersing the broader and "dryer" strategic level goings on with individual and very personal stories from soldiers themselves. Have to agree with everyone else though and say that Stalingrad by Beevor is the best I've read so far with regards giving the historical and personal perspective as well. Which makes them very readable and also informative at the same time.

For an idea of the emotional experience of it all, from a more modern perspective I'd recommend Tim O'Briens "If I die in a combat zone", he vividly describes how close he came to deserting just before he was shipped to Vietnam and his reasons why and how. Excellent book.

Chris

soma · 15-06-2004 1:17pm

Well guys I think there's a little too much romanticising going on on here.

There was an interesting 2-part documentary on channel four a few weeks ago called something like "the truth about killing" which was based on US/UK army research which found that in WW2 only 2% (yes, two percent) of soldiers were actively fighting and killing the enemy and actually firing their weapons with the intention of killing.

It went on to demonstrate how modern army techniques (born out of the need to improve on 2%) pretty much de-humanise a soldier to the state where now it's something like 99% who actively fight.

Also it's incredibily easy to look-back with hindsight and say it was a clear 'good versus evil war' at the time. The true extent of what the nazis were up to wasn't clear to anyone until the first soldiers started coming across concentration camps. (Up until that point everyone from Ireland to the USA were guilty of not providing sanctuary for jews). What I'm driving at here is that if you were a young lad in dublin at the time, then from your perspective the anglo-germanic conflict was a struggle between an imperial super-power (the UK) who had wrought unbelievable devastation throughtout the world [slavery, genocide, wholesale destruction of economies (think 19th century india)] including your own country, against a bunch of facists who were planning on replacing/emulating them.

Never be so naive as to not understand that there was a massive power play in motion and that countries own interests were always paramount and not a 'we have to save humanity' cry which we see in films. I mean for feck's sake american's invested so heavily in nazi germany during the first 2 years of the war to such an extent that the local german populations used to use Ford Factories as air-raid shelters as they would never be bombed.

Larger powers in the modern worlds needs us to believe in the concept of "the good war". And when they need support for military adventures, why they will just tug on the heart-strings and cast the enemy as hitler.

Zulu · 15-06-2004 1:32pm

a strange post to say the least.
You seem to forget what went on on the russian front.

While I agree people didn't know the full extent of the genocide, they knew of the targeting of civilians; they knew that certain social types were targeted and treated worse than others; they knew that the Germans had the wish to take over europe and russia. So your point is a little sketchy.
..as for the 2% - what were the other 98% doing? boiling potatoes?
perhaps it was 2% at any one time firing a rifle. True not everybody on a ship directly kills another; not every pilot see's his victim die; but frankly I don't believe 2% for a minute. The Wermacht was practlly wiped out on the eastren front - all fought, none surrendered. Likewise with the red army. How could so many soliders die in battle if they weren't fighting?

Lemming · 15-06-2004 1:45pm

I think he's referring to the 2% who willingly fired a gun to take a life (and were funnily enough the 2% that were statistically probable to have psychopatic tendancies). The other 98% either never fired at the enemy (this includes ranged ordnance), or *had* to fire their weapon at the enemy.

I seem to recall readign that somewhere recently ...

pork99 · 15-06-2004 1:58pm

There was an interesting 2-part documentary on channel four a few weeks ago called something like "the truth about killing" which was based on US/UK army research which found that in WW2 only 2% (yes, two percent) of soldiers were actively fighting and killing the enemy and actually firing their weapons with the intention of killing.

They were refering in that documentary to a survey by Colonel S L A Marshall of US WWII combat veterans. It was based on a fairly small sample from 2 actions. His figure was that 15%-20% of soldiers engaged the enemy. (according to "An Intimate History of Killing" by Joanna Bourke). His figures have been challenged, it's not proven.

For the other side of the argument read "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust" by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. Goldhagen looks at an German police battalion consisting mostly of middle aged reservists not fanatic young Nazis and examines their record carrying out massacres and atrocities in Nazi occupied Eastern Europe. These were ordinary working/middle class guys who happily carried out orders to murder unarmed defenceless men women and children. There was no coercion, anyone who did not like what they were doing could simply transfer to other duties but very few chose to.

soma · 15-06-2004 3:21pm

"You seem to forget what went on on the russian front."

What exactly are you referring to..? One of the things that drives me barmy about looking at WW2 thru rose-tinted glasses is the complete lack of respect & credit given to the russians who quite simply were responsible for breaking the nazis' back.

Oh and by the way.. what I'm arguing below here is purely on a logical basis.. believe me Im quite glad facism was defeated!

While I agree people didn't know the full extent of the genocide, they knew of the targeting of civilians; they knew that certain social types were targeted and treated worse than others;

And I can point out that it was not long after the 40's before the US government fully institutionalized the sterilization of native americans & african-americans (altho only in key areas).

And WW2 was only 20 years after britain completed the genocide of the tazmanians. Altho for anyone with a deeply macarbe sense of humour you might be interested to know that the brittish defence for the claim that they had commited genocide was that they had perpetrated genocide because "there are 11 left".

they knew that the Germans had the wish to take over europe and russia.

And the allies had almighty designs on the middle east, indochina & Africa.

Again just to re-iterate - the US/UK/Russian alliance was the "best of a bad lot". Not the clear-cut good vs evil crap we're forced to digest via media.

The Wermacht was practlly wiped out on the eastren front - all fought, none surrendered. Likewise with the red army. How could so many soliders die in battle if they weren't fighting?

Again I point out that the numbers were based on a UK/US study of their soldiers. The study had some really interesting other anecdotes like records from the american civil war where there were dozens and dozens of men with un-fired riffles after large battles. The whole premise of the theory was that there was an innate reluctance to kill another human being.

The remaining 2% were broken into "1% psychopaths" (think serial killers) and "1% psychopaths with empathy" think genuine war heroes who go out of their way to prtoect or fight for their comrades.

While you might not take the study very seriously - it was enough for the US/UK armies that they gave their training methods an almighty kick up the arse to get to level of conditioning that soldiers go thru today.

Someone else also touched on american civilains not supporting the action in vietnam. Well it's quite conveniently forgotten that the american population was vehemently anti-war for the 1st 2 years of the war. However Roosevelt was quite eager to enter the war and cleverly baited the japanese into attacking US interests by blocking their supply lines using american ships. The japanese promptly walloped pearl harbour. (located on a island the US was busily annexing).

Zulu · 15-06-2004 4:49pm

Originally posted by soma
"You seem to forget what went on on the russian front."

What exactly are you referring to..? One of the things that drives me barmy about looking at WW2 thru rose-tinted glasses is the complete lack of respect & credit given to the russians who quite simply were responsible for breaking the nazis' back.

I was referring to the millions of "pesants" who died on the russian front fighting for socialism, not stalin.

Originally posted by soma
And I can point out that it was not long after the 40's before the US government fully institutionalized the sterilization of native americans & african-americans (altho only in key areas).

And WW2 was only 20 years after britain completed the genocide of the tazmanians. Altho for anyone with a deeply macarbe sense of humour you might be interested to know that the brittish defence for the claim that they had commited genocide was that they had perpetrated genocide because "there are 11 left".

OK but nither of these are directly related to WW2.
I agree that they were terriable crimes - but they, like Sunday Bloody Sunday, and 9/11 have no direct link to WW2.

Originally posted by soma
And the allies had almighty designs on the middle east, indochina & Africa.

They certianly did, and made a balls of it too, but that wasn't the reason they went to war.

Originally posted by soma
Again just to re-iterate - the US/UK/Russian alliance was the "best of a bad lot". Not the clear-cut good vs evil crap we're forced to digest via media.

the "crap" we're "forced to digest" is in rememberence to the regular people who died for very good intentions. Wheither or not you agree with the politicians at the time, your comment here is a bit harsh. I'm sure anyone who survived the dead camps would strongly disagree with you.

Originally posted by soma
Again I point out that the numbers were based on a UK/US study of their soldiers. The study had some really interesting other anecdotes like records from the american civil war where there were dozens and dozens of men with un-fired riffles after large battles. The whole premise of the theory was that there was an innate reluctance to kill another human being.

It's also been proven that people will commit horrendous crimes (re: SS, the said british and american genocide you mentioned previous) if there is a command structure there they believe will assume responsibility.
You speak of genocide in one sentance, and in the next you say that people won't kill each other. You're not making sence.

Originally posted by soma
The remaining 2% were broken into "1% psychopaths" (think serial killers) and "1% psychopaths with empathy" think genuine war heroes who go out of their way to prtoect or fight for their comrades.

War heros are psychopaths! What of Fr. Robbert Maximillion? The priest who took the place of another in a firing line, because they had children? What of the medics that treated others in direct danger?
And on your 2% - I'll take it that this is the same 2% comming the previous said genocide? I'll assume that this 2% was Oliver Cromwell, himself, and a few mates that slaughtered so many Irish?

Originally posted by soma
While you might not take the study very seriously - it was enough for the US/UK armies that they gave their training methods an almighty kick up the arse to get to level of conditioning that soldiers go thru today.

The level of conditioning is arguably milder today that it ever was due to human rights. The Roman army never knew the existance of human rights.

Originally posted by soma
Someone else also touched on american civilains not supporting the action in vietnam. Well it's quite conveniently forgotten that the american population was vehemently anti-war for the 1st 2 years of the war. However Roosevelt was quite eager to enter the war and cleverly baited the japanese into attacking US interests by blocking their supply lines using american ships. The japanese promptly walloped pearl harbour. (located on a island the US was busily annexing).

Where did you get your "book of crazy facts". Support hardly vehemently anti-war for the first few years of the vietnam war - it got worse as time went on ending in the strongly anti-war by the end. At the start it was supported.
As for your Japanese being baited into war comment... what of the invasion of China then? I suppose they were rude?

Sleepy · 15-06-2004 5:39pm

Originally posted by Zulu
The level of conditioning is arguably milder today that it ever was due to human rights. The Roman army never knew the existance of human rights.

Agreed, have you ever heard the term decimation soma? It comes from a Roman tactic used on their own units believed to be cowardly. The troops would be lined up, every tenth man (hence the deci) chosen to be beaten to death by the other 9. Yes, conditioning is MUCH harder today:rolleyes:

How and ever, whatever the motives or practices of the generals, that's not what this thread is about. It's about the ordinary men and women that have been called (forced?) into war during the last century. How we feel about them and what we owe them (if anything). I think these men are to be revered and respected for their part in the first and second world wars. What about Vietnam? Well, to be honest I pity rather than revere them. Most of the grunts out there hadn't a clue where they were, why they were there and given half a chance they wouldn't have been there.

I hold no romantic illusions about war. I know that more than likely were I to be involved in a war like WW2 I'd have been killed, possibly grotesquely and almost certainly not long after arriving at the front.

On another of your tangents, that documentary was a pile of ****e. It was based on a very small survey of survivors (remember, most survivors of war credit the dead as being the real heros), from only 2 of the 100+ countries involved and frankly took a lot of liberties with their "facts". The notion of only 2% of soldiers on a battlefield actively trying to kill the enemy is ridiculous. Sure, factor in the arms factories, engineers, supply chains, command, radio personnel etc. etc. etc. and only a small percentage of those involved were "killers". Don't try to tell yourself that a man/woman radioing German positions on to bomber pilots weren't involved in killing others, nor the people who filled, polished and loaded the shells. They all had their part.

Step onto a paintball field and tell me the first thing you learn: that your gun is a shield. The more you shoot, the less likely you are to be shot. To do that effectively, you have to aim to hit your enemy. That fact is something I was lucky to learn in a position where the worst injury I could have done myself (without being blatantly stupid) was a sprained ankle. 60 years ago, I wouldn't have been so lucky, I'd have most likely died learning that lesson. I, for one, am greatful to the men that went through that so I wouldn't have to.

blondie83 · 15-06-2004 11:44pm

I read an interesting Vietnam book called "Sympathy for the Devil", by Kent Anderson. It dealt with a group of American special forces coldiers, and was very interesting the way it went into the mentality of the men, and how they reacted to different things. The SF guys in it came from all different backrounds, and it showed how their fighting mentality was different to the regular army. It was a good book, I'd recommend it to anyone who was interested.

Citizen Soldier

Comments