[lit-ideas] Re: Virility and Slaughter
- From: "Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D." <libraryofsocialscience@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:21:09 -0500
Marlena,
As you may have observed, the responses to your inquiry had nothing
to do with what I wrote about.
It's not a question of "strategy." It is a question of the
psychology of self-destruction: why the General that the advance was
"marvelous" in spite of the fact that his men were slaughtered. It is =
very
painful to look at this astonishing episode in history, to actually look =
at
and contemplate what occurred.
Any by the way, often the Generals and leaders were slaughtered as
well. We're talking about something deep and disturbing, this profound
psychopathology of war.
Best regards,
Richard Koenigsberg
--------------------------------------------------
BELOW IS PART OF MY ORIGINAL POSTING
In the following report, British General Rees describes the massacre of =
his
own brigade as they moved toward German lines.
=20
"They advanced in line after line, dressed as if on parade and not a man
shirked going through the extremely heavy barrage, or facing the machine =
gun
and rifle fire that finally wiped them out. I saw the lines, which =
advanced
in such admirable order melting away under fire. Yet not a man wavered,
broke the ranks, or attempted to come back. I have never seen, indeed =
could
never have imagined such a magnificent display of gallantry, discipline =
and
determination. The reports from the very few survivors of this marvelous
advance bear out what I saw with my own eyes: that hardly a man of ours =
got
to the German Front line."
It is evident that in spite of the total failure of the attack, General =
Rees
regarded the destruction of his brigade in a positive light. He observes
that not a man "shirked" in the face of the machine gun and rifle fire =
that
wiped them out. He is proud that even though his troops were "melting =
away
under fire," the soldiers continued to advance "in admirable order." In =
the
face of the barrage of bullets, his men did not waver, break ranks, or
attempt to come back. The General gushes that he had never seen such a
magnificent display of "gallantry, discipline and determination." =
Although
his soldiers were slaughtered and "hardly a man of ours got to the =
German
Front line," he characterizes the advance as "marvelous."
Or perhaps is it more accurate to say that the General believed the =
assault
was marvelous precisely because British soldiers had been slaughtered. =
The
General does not view the battle from the perspective of success or =
failure.
His perception is shaped, rather, by his judgment of the morale and =
spirit
demonstrated by his troops. It is the fact that his soldiers were being
riddled with bullets--yet continued to advance--that leads him to =
conclude
that the attack had been "marvelous."=20
General Rees responded positively to the slaughter of his own men =
because he
viewed their behavior as a testimonial to the depth of their devotion. =
By
virtue of the fact that they did not shirk but continued to advance in =
the
face of machine-gun fire, his troops showed that they were committed
absolutely to the ideals of Great Britain, the British Empire and its
leaders. Willingness to walk into machine-gun fire provided definitive =
proof
that the soldiers loved their country.
Soldiers during the First World War were required to adopt a posture of
absolute submission to their nation and its leaders--obedience unto =
death.
Conscientious objectors in Britain during the First World War were
disenfranchised. Some thought that soldiers who had not seen overseas
service should have the right to vote taken away from them. In the First
World War, the social consensus was that the body of the soldier =
belonged to
the nation-state. The nation could use these bodies as it saw fit.=20
War requires that the soldier hand over his body to his country. In =
order to
encourage men to do be willing to do this, the soldier's role is =
represented
in terms such as honor, masculinity and virility. In the First World =
War,
however, being honorable, masculine and virile was equivalent to =
entering a
situation where there was substantial probability that one would be
slaughtered. One demonstrated one's virility by getting out of a trench =
and
walking into machine gun fire. Such is the strange paradox of war: That
"goodness" or morality requires a posture of abject submission; that =
"love"
requires self- destruction; that willingness to die becomes the highest =
form
of virtue.
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:37 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Virility and Slaughter
=20
In a message dated 1/31/2005 11:30:55 AM Central Standard Time, =20
libraryofsocialscience@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Why didn't Generals alter their battle strategy
when it was evident that what they were doing did not work?=20
Hi,
Where is Lawrence Helm when you need him? <wry look>
=20
I mean...let's talk about this!
=20
I find it fascinating. Ookay...granted, that is distancing myself from =
the
emotions of wondering about the children left behind, the fact that the =
person in CHARGE did not enter into the march forward--and why NOT????
What is=20
leadership anyway?? We were talking about today about how wonderful it =
is
NOW=20
that those on a branch managerial level do not have to clean toilets =
[we
did=20
not, in the past, have enough $$ to have custodial staff--and those of =
us
in=20
charge used to take our turns at cleaning the rest rooms...So, if we,=20
librarians have enough sense of responsibility to at least do the most =
awful
of jobs=20
<g>, then why could not the leaders of those sending people, one after=20
another, to DIE...do it himself?
=20
Is it that those in leadership positions in the military really truly =
(esp =20
then?) have no sense of the Other? Of the fact that these people were
living=20
breathing people with lives, with gifts and talents which might be of =
worth
in the 'regular' world, with families [one of whom might, had he or she =
had
a=20
dad at home [presuming they were dads and not moms in this death march]
been=20
totally together enough to come up with a cure for what ails us now but =
because of the lack of a dad and/or a mom who lost it because dad didn't
come =20
home...was not able to do and be what she/he was supposed to do/be?)
=20
Lawrence? A reaction, please!! (or anyone else...)
=20
I do understand that to obey is greater than sacrifice...but here...they
did=20
both and for what? Did their slaughter, sacrifice, =
submission--whatever
you=20
might call it--end the war more quickly (which is what I hear our =
veterans=20
during our Veterans Round Table have discussed while they have =
discussed=20
whether or not the Atomic Bomb(s) ended WW II more quickly and with =
less
loss of=20
life...
=20
Puzzled,
Marlena
=20
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
