OK. I have been getting some details wrong. "Un-Men" is spelled "Un-men" and not all "Un-men" are Brothers (genetic copies of Stefan Rostomily) although this story about a Brother is entitled "Un-Man."
Donner had snatched an Americanist and interrogated him under truth drugs:
"Naysmith didn't ask what had happened to the victim; the struggle was utterly ruthless, with all history at stake." (V, p. 42)
Is all history ever at stake? Maybe sometimes. Although Naysmith does not ask, there is a major moral issue there. Do we just accept the characters' morality while reading the story?
Here is another moral question. Naysmith, who exactly resembles Donner, is ordered to take Donner's wife to safety by pretending to be Donner. If, while they are together, they have sex, then Naysmith is guilty of rape. Jeanne Donner would have consented to sex with her husband who Naysmith is not.
17 comments:
The gloves were rather thoroughly off during WWII, and not just on one side. That was probably the frame of reference Poul was using.
You can also make a good case that excessive restraint in a violent conflict, apart from its impact on the outcome, serves mainly to prolong it.
Kaor, Paul!
You asked hard questions which deserves and needs to be seriously pondered. And Stirling's remarks also needs to be taken seriously.
I think there will be times it simply won't be possible to always honor the rules set by the Marquess of Queensbury.
Happy New Year! Sean
I would be no use in a civil war. I would want to release a prisoner, not shoot him, and certainly not torture anyone. I would be better off behind the lines, doing something useful there.
Kaor, Paul!
Not all men have what it takes to be a soldier and leader like Gratillonius. Or a crafty Intelligence agent like Flandry.
Happy New Year! Sean
Also, there are rules, and then there are rules.
There's a reason a "work to rule" (strictly obeying every regulation) strike is so effective: you're using the formal written rules, not the unspoken ones, and everything jams up and screeches to a halt in total chaos, but you can't be blamed because you can point at the rulebook.
Eg., in WWII my father-in-law's unit shot Germans who attempted to surrender as individuals or in small groups about 50% of the time -- generally because they simply didn't have the time or personnel to take them to the rear without endangering their own lives or the immediate mission.
They weren't alone in this; everybody on both sides did that, even in the NW Europe campaign in 1944-45, where both sides were (mostly) making a good-faith attempt to play by the rules.
(At least the German regular army was; the SS was another matter.)
His unit even had two separate orders for it: "take them back to the trucks" (for actually taking them back to the trucks) and "take them down to the end of the road" , which had an unspoken codicil: 'and shoot them'.
My father-in-law usually got this job because he carried a BAR, an automatic rifle, and it was easier with a rapid-fire weapon.
There was nothing personal involved, just what was practical.
Bill Maudlin, the combat-cartoonist (the guy who did the famous "Willie & Joe" cartoons, and who was a combat soldier himself) remarked on the same thing in his book about his WWII experiences -- he came across a wounded German officer who'd been captured, and one of his soldiers who'd stayed with him so that there would be someone to help him move, which made it much less likely that he'd be shot as an inconvenience.
He remarked on the fact that you had about a 50% chance of being shot in those circumstances -- and that he didn't know any American officers who were popular enough that someone would volunteer to stay with them that way.
In the TV series "Band of Brothers", which is closely based on real people and events in an American airborne unit fighting in NW Europe in 44-45 from Nordmandy one, there's an incident where an officer everyone regards as slightly mad gives some prisoners (about a dozen of them) cigarettes and then turns around and kills them all with a submachine gun.
Nobody reports him and he's not disciplined.
In his case, his superiors don't do anything because he's the best small-unit combat leader in the company, and his subordinates don't either.
Because of the same thing (a competent leader keeps you alive), and also because they''re terrified of him.
This is completely realistic, and it almost certainly really happened as shown.
I used to work with guys who'd been in WWII. Now they're all retired or dead. One said, "There was one [British] officer who was such a bloody nuisance we had to get rid of him ourselves."
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
While I regret how things like that happened, enemy soldiers being killed while trying to surrender, I can see why that happened--it wasn't always practical taking them to the rear.
I remember that incident from BAND OF BROTHERS. And what that officer did has to be condemned, because I think those German soldiers had been ordered "taken to the trucks."
Happy New Year! Sean
Yes; the point there was that the best soldiers aren't necessarily the nicest people or even fully sane by peacetime standards.
The father of a friend of mine was highly decorated in Korea, mostly for volunteering repeatedly for dangerous missions like night-raids on the enemy trenches.
On the ship taking him back after the armistice, an NCO started bawling him out for improper uniform, and he picked the guy up and threw him overboard. If he hadn't fallen past a porthole with someone looking out he'd have "just vanished", a "mystery of the sea".
It was hushed up because it would have been bad publicity after he got the medal.
I looked into it in the records because it piqued my curiosity, and this guy was -serious - bad news.
He killed dozens of enemy soldiers, usually at very close range with an entrenching tool or a pistol and while they were trying to fight back; he was death on two legs.
But he was not safe to have around, either. Killing people just didn't affect him any more than swatting a fly does ordinary folk.
He was a good enough father -- in a rather distant way -- but one day he just left in the morning and never came back.
Paul: my father (he was an officer in WWII) mentioned that sort of obliquely.
His way of putting it was that you could be strict and even disliked by your men, as long as you were competent and lead them well; but if you were disliked -and- incompetent, 'things would happen' and you probably wouldn't make it back.
He also said that if you were competent, -and- showed that you were looking out for your men (made sure they got what they were due, stood up for them with those higher up the chain of command, etc.) they'd 'go the extra mile' and take risks to protect you.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I believe you, that some very good soldiers are also not nice or quite sane.
Yes, your friend's father sure as heck was not safe to have around. He reminds me of your Draka fighters. I'm glad he was at least a fairly good father before walking out on his family. And that your father was a decent man with his screwed on straight.
"Fragging," as I believe the term is, was what sometimes happened to incompetent officers at the front.
Happy New Year! Sean
Note that killing off an incompetent officer isn't necessarily an expression of dislike: it's self-defense in an odd sort of way. He's likely to get you killed to no purpose.
"Would've got us all killed." That's what one of my work-mates said.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Far better, of course, for incompetent officers not getting appointed to their commands. But, it generally takes hard actual experience for an officer to show what he is like.
Happy New Year! Sean
My father also said that in his experience, coal-miners made the best recruits. They were already used to working in dangerous situations, in teams where everybody had to do it right under pressure and be reliable or death and maiming could result for all.
So they tended to demand that everyone 'do his bit', and pressure slackers to perform, which created an atmosphere were people did their best.
This was in the artillery, which was his branch, btw.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That makes sense. I would expect the needs of dangerous jobs and professions to strongly encourage such a mindset.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment