British WWI captain released by Kaiser from German prison camp so he could see his dying mother in K - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ezhik;42076579]my history skills aren't all that great, but afaik: it was ww1 that showed that war is hell before that there was a gentleman's war shit going on and in ww1 it still clashed with what the world was becoming, with crazy destructive weapons and all.[/QUOTE] Battles before WWI might have been romanticized but I wouldn't really call it a gentleman's sort of thing. After the unification of the German Empire most european powers were done with subjugating eachother and really only fought over disputed territory. Holy wars were also dying off, easing the tension between Europe and the Ottoman Empire. As a result the most destructive wars in that time period were extremely strong nation vs. extremely weak nation; something history tends to gloss over. Then WWI happened and multiple strong nations fought eachother for a very long period of time. The contrast is too great to ignore.

I recall a german air force commander who threatened his pilots with serious punishment if they shot at pilots after they bailed and were chuting to safety. There was also the german pilot who escorted a B-17 out of an engagement zone after it was critically damaged and was attempting to escape. But these are isolated events.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42079144]I recall a german air force commander who threatened his pilots with serious punishment if they shot at pilots after they bailed and were chuting to safety. [U]There was also the german pilot who escorted a B-17 out of an engagement zone after it was critically damaged and was attempting to escape.[/U] But these are isolated events.[/QUOTE] That would be World War 2.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;42079159]That would be World War 2.[/QUOTE] I know. Regardless, point stands.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;42079075]How so? Most of the devices and tactics implemented during the war later went on to be banned under the Geneva conventions as acts against humans. What happened in the article was a random act of kindness which is just that - random this shit didn't occur regularly. This is not to discredit any kind acts during the war, although there are quite a few you need to keep in mind this is still an era where we used maces and bayonets for close range and sent men off to be literally mowed down and lit alight in droves. If any war in history effectively ended the concept of honor or valor, it sure as hell was World War 1.[/QUOTE] Well.... cause he knows more stuff then me...

[QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;42078493]No really. Back then honor actually meant something to people, now they just do shit whenever they can because they can.[/QUOTE] Lol this isn't true at all.

Other examples of this that pop to mind are the football game on Christmas day on the front and the duels between biplanes before machine guns were fitted. The pilots would draw something like a pistol or shotgun and shoot at each other, if they ran out of ammo they both just buggered off honourably. All wars have moments of honour. In WW2 there are quite a few examples, the first that comes to mind is the story where a Polish man working for the German army or something similar was ordered to investigate a loft in a house to find a community of Jews. When he poked his head above the hole into the left he was met by the terrified glares of all of the Jews. Despite how he would have been given a promotion if he told his Officer they were in the loft, he chose not to.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;42079075]If any war in history effectively ended the concept of honor or valor, it sure as hell was World War 1.[/QUOTE] What wars demonstrated the concepts of honor or valor? In the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance it was common to slaughter defeated enemies (only nobles or knights might be captured and then either publicly executed or held for ransom) and rape/pillage conquered towns. In the American Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, and Civil War, fleeing troops were run down by cavalry while officers were specifically targeted by snipers, and infantry mixed lead shot in with their musket balls to increase the likelihood of inflicting a debilitating but not immediately fatal injury so infection could do the rest. In the Sengoku period, honor meant committing suicide in lieu of failure yet sneak attacks and assassinations were just peachy and slaughtering peasants was a typical way of doing business. In the Zulu Wars, Russo-Japanese War, and Sino-Japanese War blatant racism and describing the enemy as 'subhuman' was the order of the day, as it made massacres much easier to carry out. The notion of the honorable war was primarily reinforced by the upper-class officers/knights/nobles who led them, leaving out the unsavory details. It was the combination of the camera and printing press that ultimately dispelled this romanticized view of warfare. [QUOTE=Dr.Critic;42079626]and the duels between biplanes before machine guns were fitted. The pilots would draw something like a pistol or shotgun and shoot at each other, if they ran out of ammo they both just buggered off honourably.[/QUOTE] Before they brought guns with them they threw bricks and chains at each other to try to destroy the enemy's engine. In a plane with no parachute that meant certain death. Just think about that: before they had any weapons on aircraft at all (since they were used strictly for observation), they tried to improvise ways to kill each other. That is not an 'honorable' fight.

On a side note, did anyone else have their facial hair growl at the sight of that glorious mustache in the article? Mine won't stop, and the bird nest that was in my beard was disturbed and now there's sparrows flying around all over the place.

War [I]is[/I] hell, and the majority of occurrences in it are shit, but that doesn't mean the best displays of human kindness and empathy can't be celebrated.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42079682]What wars demonstrated the concepts of honor or valor? In the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance it was common to slaughter defeated enemies (only nobles or knights might be captured and then either publicly executed or held for ransom) and rape/pillage conquered towns. In the American Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, and Civil War, fleeing troops were run down by cavalry while officers were specifically targeted by snipers, and infantry mixed lead shot in with their musket balls to increase the likelihood of inflicting a debilitating but not immediately fatal injury so infection could do the rest. In the Sengoku period, honor meant committing suicide in lieu of failure yet sneak attacks and assassinations were just peachy and slaughtering peasants was a typical way of doing business. In the Zulu Wars, Russo-Japanese War, and Sino-Japanese War blatant racism and describing the enemy as 'subhuman' was the order of the day, as it made massacres much easier to carry out. The notion of the honorable war was primarily reinforced by the upper-class officers/knights/nobles who led them, leaving out the unsavory details. It was the combination of the camera and printing press that ultimately dispelled this romanticized view of warfare. Before they brought guns with them they threw bricks and chains at each other to try to destroy the enemy's engine. In a plane with no parachute that meant certain death. Just think about that: before they had any weapons on aircraft at all (since they were used strictly for observation), they tried to improvise ways to kill each other. That is not an 'honorable' fight.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XPZQ0LAlR4[/media] Just post this.

[QUOTE=Ylsid;42076543]War is no excuse for inhumanity[/QUOTE] War is inhumanity.

world war 1 was a gentlemans war what with christmas truces and war horses i dont know much about world war 1

[QUOTE=St. Burke;42080052]world war 1 was a gentlemans war what with christmas truces and war horses i dont know much about world war 1[/QUOTE] :suicide:

[QUOTE=Ezhik;42076579]my history skills aren't all that great, but afaik: it was ww1 that showed that war is hell before that there was a gentleman's war shit going on and in ww1 it still clashed with what the world was becoming, with crazy destructive weapons and all.[/QUOTE] WWI was the first truly hellish war. It was 20th century boys, fighting for 19th century generals, using 18th century tactics. There were no good guys or bad guys, just men, fighting so that some old men in arm chairs could see what weapons worked the best. It wasn't, however, the first modern war. That award goes more or less to the American Civil War, another war of boys fighting for men.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;42079626]All wars have moments of honour. In WW2 there are quite a few examples[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]You want to know about my motivation, don't you? Well. It is the kind of sentiments anyone would have when he actually sees refugees face to face, begging with tears in their eyes. He just cannot help but sympathize with them. Among the refugees were the elderly and women. They were so desperate that they went so far as to kiss my shoes, Yes, I actually witnessed such scenes with my own eyes. Also, I felt at that time, that the Japanese government did not have any uniform opinion in Tokyo. Some Japanese military leaders were just scared because of the pressure from the Nazis; while other officials in the Home Ministry were simply ambivalent. People in Tokyo were not united. I felt it silly to deal with them. So, I made up my mind not to wait for their reply. I knew that somebody would surely complain about me in the future. But, I myself thought this would be the right thing to do. There is nothing wrong in saving many people's lives....The spirit of humanity, philanthropy...neighborly friendship...with this spirit, I ventured to do what I did, confronting this most difficult situation—and because of this reason, I went ahead with redoubled courage.[/QUOTE] -[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiune_Sugihara"]Chiune Sugihara[/URL]

[QUOTE=ashton93;42076528]WW1 was pretty odd when it comes to the subject of PoW's. Some captured officers and high-ranking soldiers would get paid for doing work in the trenches by the Germans if they behaved good enough.[/QUOTE] People still had a sense of honor and dignity back then, even in war, more so in wars before WW1, and less so in wars after. Now days there almost isn't any aside from actually being in the service

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42078034]He gave his word as an officer. That shit means a lot to some people.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;42078353]Honor and Pride.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;42078493]No really. Back then honor actually meant something to people, now they just do shit whenever they can because they can.[/QUOTE] its like im in some shitty third rate military movie SHE GAVE HER LIFE FOR HER COUNTY SNAKE! [editline]4th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TheTalon;42081571]People still had a sense of honor and dignity back then, even in war, more so in wars before WW1, and less so in wars after. Now days there almost isn't any aside from actually being in the service[/QUOTE] [img]http://nortvoods.net/rrs/siberia/deadatvlad.jpg[/img] "dignity"

[QUOTE=thisispain;42083044] -image- "dignity"[/QUOTE] So in order to prove your point about WW1, a war between soldiers who are only fighting because of their job, or for what they believe in personally, and not knowing the men and their personal ideals, having no dignity is to post a picture from the Russian Civil War in 1918 where men who hated one another for previous disputes and eventually drove eachother over the edge into war on themselves. There's a difference between fighting for your country and fighting against it.

[QUOTE=WoodzyX88;42083105]So in order to prove your point about WW1, a war between soldiers who are only fighting because of their job, or for what they believe in personally, and not knowing the men and their personal ideals, having no dignity is to post a picture from the Russian Civil War in 1918 where men who hated one another for previous disputes and eventually drove eachother over the edge into war on themselves. There's a difference between fighting for your country and fighting against it.[/QUOTE] Missing the point. The question of whether honor or dignity exist on a battlefield is readily answered with mustard gas and prisoner executions, yet somehow people have this bullshit romantic notion of past conflicts. Warfare has never been 'honorable'. Best way to kill a knight in full plate? Knock him to the ground, pin him in the mud, and jab a knife in his visor until he dies. Officer is leading his lines in volley fire? Aim for him first. Enemies are Muslim? Pack the ammunition with bacon grease. Warfare has never, ever been the sanitized version that officers boasting of their past glories would recount. It has always been ugly and brutal. If [i]anything[/i] warfare has gotten cleaner and more 'honorable' now that we actually have directives like the Hague agreement and Geneva Convention. Before them it was no-holds-barred. Weapons were designed to maim when possible rather than kill, prisoners were routinely executed, civilian populations were liable to be slaughtered or pressed into slavery by their conquerers. 'Honor and dignity' my ass.

[QUOTE=WoodzyX88;42083105]So in order to prove your point about WW1, a war between soldiers who are only fighting because of their job, or for what they believe in personally, and not knowing the men and their personal ideals, having no dignity is to post a picture from the Russian Civil War in 1918 where men who hated one another for previous disputes and eventually drove eachother over the edge into war on themselves. There's a difference between fighting for your country and fighting against it.[/QUOTE] thats not what thats a picture from, and either way theres no dignity involved fighting "FOR" or "AGAINST" your country. countries are flimsy and WW1 proves how flimsy they were when you look at the fate of many of the forces involved with WW1. honour, pride, and dignity are simply crass rationalisations to explain things which in reality make no sense. it's a form of control, to get kids to grab a gun and get themselves killed in the name of nothing. watch all quiet on the western front, its a better exploration than anything i could ever hope to write.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42083169]Missing the point. The question of whether honor or dignity exist on a battlefield is readily answered with mustard gas and prisoner executions, yet somehow people have this bullshit romantic notion of past conflicts. Warfare has never been 'honorable'. Best way to kill a knight in full plate? Knock him to the ground, pin him in the mud, and jab a knife in his visor until he dies. Officer is leading his lines in volley fire? Aim for him first. Enemies are Muslim? Pack the ammunition with bacon grease. Warfare has never, ever been the sanitized version that officers boasting of their past glories would recount.[/QUOTE] Yes, but another thing people have to remember is, and what I tried to prove is, that maybe from your standpoint war is/was never honorable, but honorable is a loose term. Think about the soldiers, fighting to save their own country, their homeland, or even dying for their country is considered honorable to them. Whether its the Germans in WW1, or even the Japanese in WW2, sure they did horrible things, everyone did in war, yet the way they were taught in school, and training, just like how us in the U.S. are taught that fighting for your country is courage. What I was trying to prove is that honor in war is a term that bounces around through every war and every nation to ever fight in a war, except like a civil war which is true indignity, where people kill their neighbors, family, friends, just because they have different personal belief. Whether you agree with me or not, I know it is my opinion and not mine only that there is a huge difference between honor/dignity between letting an opposing force's soldier leave and possibly not return back, where he might return to his men with information and other plans, compared to seeing people around town daily, then the next week trying to take away their lives because they don't like the same thing as you. That is what I personally believe Indignity in war is. Also even though it may not look like it, I majorly respect the boys overseas and in foreign or home lands fighting for us.

[QUOTE=ashton93;42076528]WW1 was pretty odd when it comes to the subject of PoW's. Some captured officers and high-ranking soldiers would get paid for doing work in the trenches by the Germans if they behaved good enough.[/QUOTE] I can imagine the Germans were a lot more nice too. World War I was more like red vs. blue while World War II was more like good vs evil.

[QUOTE=Ezhik;42076579]my history skills aren't all that great, but afaik: it was ww1 that showed that war is hell before that there was a gentleman's war shit going on and in ww1 it still clashed with what the world was becoming, with crazy destructive weapons and all.[/QUOTE] lol are you serious? War has [i]always[/i] sucked. It only sucked slightly more during WWI because we learned how to properly use artillery and chemical weaponry. If you want to know the truth, war sucked pretty badly prior to WWI, mostly because of medicine. Doctors didn't know jack shit back then; they didn't clean their tools, they didn't know the difference between blood types, and tons of other stuff that would make a modern doctor puke. During the American Civil War, if you were shot in the gut, you had the choice to bleed out or end it yourself. If you were shot in a limb, you lost that limb. After that you had to pray you got the right type of blood from the doctors and hope you didn't die of infection afterwards because the doctor/butcher/barber/dentist had amputated 55 other arms and legs without cleaning his tools prior to seeing you. Don't say any bull shit like war was for gentlemen or any nonsense like that. Just because volley firing was still a thing during the musket age doesn't mean enemies were shaking hands after they eviscerated each other. Prior to the musket age it was the poor, the uneducated, and the criminals being sent to die by nobility for something as trivial as switching religions. War has always been brutal and evil and it always will be. Looking back on wars you didn't even participate in and calling them "gentlemanly" is pretty offensive to those who were actually in them. [editline]5th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=cqbcat;42084551]World War I was more like red vs. blue while World War II was more like good vs evil.[/QUOTE] not even fucking close dood, war is [b]never[/b] that black and white, especially not WWII.

[QUOTE=thisispain;42083227]thats not what thats a picture from, and either way theres no dignity involved fighting "FOR" or "AGAINST" your country. countries are flimsy and WW1 proves how flimsy they were when you look at the fate of many of the forces involved with WW1. honour, pride, and dignity are simply crass rationalisations to explain things which in reality make no sense. [B]it's a form of control, to get kids to grab a gun and get themselves killed in the name of nothing.[/B] watch all quiet on the western front, its a better exploration than anything i could ever hope to write.[/QUOTE] I take issue with that. Wars are always waged in the name of something; no general has ever said "let's send these guys into battle because lol". Now, whether or not that cause is justified is a whole other barrel of fish.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42084774]I take issue with that. Wars are always waged in the name of something; no general has ever said "let's send these guys into battle because lol". Now, whether or not that cause is justified is a whole other barrel of fish.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Passchendaele"]yo[/URL] and a million other battles to take strategically useless hills and a thousand other wars that were started over name calling, border conflicts, and women. Hell, the Trojan war was waged because the king's wife ran off with another man. You're completely blind if you think every war is waged for a reason.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;42084774]I take issue with that. Wars are always waged in the name of something; no general has ever said "let's send these guys into battle because lol". Now, whether or not that cause is justified is a whole other barrel of fish.[/QUOTE] plenty of generals have sent kids to die for useless reasons in history, not as much today because now theyre accountable, but in the past petty squabbles between the ruling class constantly resulted in useless conflicts. i said in the name of nothing, and that still stands. what are you dying in the name of when you die in a conflict like that? honour and pride? honour and pride mean nothing, you're dead either way. im not trying to be edgy, i just find this concept of honour and pride deplorable. i think we're better off not thinking that way.

I'm trying to remember the name of a certain battle, that happened after a cease fire had been announced, but before it went into effect. The sole reason for the battle was so that the guy in charge could say he had captured that land before the war officially ended. Edit: It was over something stupid like a field or hill, nothing of strategic importance in the last hours of the war.

Society glorifies soldiers precisely because it views war as the same thing we view it as: an absolute horror, and thus must find a way to incentivize the average individual to partake in it when the situation calls for it, lest they never will. I used to get sick of people spouting this truism at the drop of the hat, but large scale violence will probably exist for quite some time until human nature changes, and before that happens, an armed organization capable of deterring foreign transgressions will be necessary. Ergo, I think attributing moralistic qualities like 'honor' and 'valor' to soldiers' exploits is not an entirely meaningless or disingenous task.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;42081179]WWI was the first truly hellish war. It was 20th century boys, fighting for 19th century generals, using 18th century tactics. There were no good guys or bad guys, just men, fighting so that some old men in arm chairs could see what weapons worked the best. It wasn't, however, the first modern war. That award goes more or less to the American Civil War, another war of boys fighting for men.[/QUOTE] I don't know, I feel like war has always been hell. I can't imagine any that can't be described as hellish. Even back when they didn't have guns, charging an enemy formation only to get crushed to death when the two sides slam into eachother. Or being injured but buried in corpses and shit and blood. War will always be hell. [editline]5th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;42084755]not even fucking close dood, war is [B]never[/B] that black and white, especially not WWII.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say especially WWII, there's plenty more battles where the lines are blurred much more.