General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: mores in War
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: March 13, 2001 02:08AM
<HTML>Thanks for the Celtic history lesson, John! And the relief from worrying that some of my posts seem \'off topic\'!
Anyway, Ranier, I respectfully disagree. Most atrocity in war has probably less to do with grand stategy like intimidation and more to do with pure hatred on a human level, and the ability to do anything, and get away with it. Humans are not a nice species when, as Abe Lincoln said, they listen to the darker angels of their nature.
Each front in WWII, as other widespread wars, (WWI, etc.) developed their own dynamics and morals. In my reading, they seem to be driven by many factors, but most center around how you feel the other side has treated you and your own, and whether or not he \'played fair\'. The other two main factors would be how hard you feel driven up against the wall, and how long the war lasts. As the US general Sherman noted, the longer a war lasts, the more vicous it tends to get. One side does something the other feels is \'out of bounds\', retaliates, and then there is an escalating round of atrocities. Some forces (German SS, the Imperial Japanese) added a lot of racial superiority thinking to the mix, and set the tone for how combat in WWII would be - dirty and viscous.
For example, the ghastly behavior of the SS in Russia led to a huge store of Soviet payback (just as wrong morally, but perhaps more understandable - if less publicized), as did Japanese behavior in the Far East. The more refined nature of the U-boat war, (as well as, say the land war in the desert) reflects the greater restraint and respect with which the respective sides fought. And, it is a good thing! If the U-boats had fought with the mores of the SS, it would not be politically acceptable today to share this interest in U-boat history!
</HTML>
Anyway, Ranier, I respectfully disagree. Most atrocity in war has probably less to do with grand stategy like intimidation and more to do with pure hatred on a human level, and the ability to do anything, and get away with it. Humans are not a nice species when, as Abe Lincoln said, they listen to the darker angels of their nature.
Each front in WWII, as other widespread wars, (WWI, etc.) developed their own dynamics and morals. In my reading, they seem to be driven by many factors, but most center around how you feel the other side has treated you and your own, and whether or not he \'played fair\'. The other two main factors would be how hard you feel driven up against the wall, and how long the war lasts. As the US general Sherman noted, the longer a war lasts, the more vicous it tends to get. One side does something the other feels is \'out of bounds\', retaliates, and then there is an escalating round of atrocities. Some forces (German SS, the Imperial Japanese) added a lot of racial superiority thinking to the mix, and set the tone for how combat in WWII would be - dirty and viscous.
For example, the ghastly behavior of the SS in Russia led to a huge store of Soviet payback (just as wrong morally, but perhaps more understandable - if less publicized), as did Japanese behavior in the Far East. The more refined nature of the U-boat war, (as well as, say the land war in the desert) reflects the greater restraint and respect with which the respective sides fought. And, it is a good thing! If the U-boats had fought with the mores of the SS, it would not be politically acceptable today to share this interest in U-boat history!
</HTML>
