David Jeavons 0606283 2,575 words (including Bibliography) 1
Can war be anything other than barbaric?
The answer to this question is quite simple: war can never be anything other than barbaric as it essentially will always involve killing. However, within wars there are acts that are not only non-barbaric, but a source of pride, honour and even some acts of shared joyful experiences with the enemy. There are two forms of the word barbaric in the Oxford English Dictionary: ‘1) savagely cruel, 2) primitive; unsophisticated[1]’ War is not always savagely cruel, as men do not often take ‘pleasure in the pain and suffering of others’ (as one derivative in the English dictionary of cruel puts it), yet it does always ‘cause pain and suffering[2]’ (as part two proclaims).
Savageness is often a part of war, in that the objective usually involves the killing of others, namely the enemy; also occasionally innocent people are killed as either targets or collateral damage. In these instances war is most definitely barbaric. In fact, there are numerous examples where war can be excessively barbaric, mainly in the form of mass killings, poor treatment of prisoners of war, and genocide. On the flipside not all wars are fought in a primitive or unsophisticated manner. Most disciplined armies follow international conventions and fight as a team based on national and international protocols. In this we can see examples where war may not always be seen as barbaric. Essentially then war always is, and always will be barbaric based upon certain aspects of the word; however, in some forms war can take a more noble route, and can be fought in ways that are non-barbaric through discipline, protocol, and international conventions.
War always has been and always will be barbaric, unless politicians or militaries can find a way of fighting wars without actually killing any people. There are many examples that show that war is barbaric, even in relatively modern conflicts. Stanley Whitehouse, quoted by Ken Tout wrote of his experience of checking the crew of a tank that had been knocked out during Operation Totalize 1 in Normandy, 1944: ‘we did not expect to intrude on the privacy of the crew still seated inside, charred to the size of wizened monkeys, and to the consistency of burned sausages. The roasting of human flesh and the combustion of ammunition and the defecation of a million voracious flies created an aura of such sense-assaulting horror that we recoiled from it.[3]’ Personal accounts such as this demonstrate the sheer horrors faced by ordinary soldiers fighting in an industrial war of attrition,
the very nature of which involves the need for the mass destruction of one’s enemy. The Russian Revolution is an example of the barbarisation of a Civil War. William Henry Chamberlaine highlights an incident where reprisals were taken for the assassination of Uritzky and the attack of Lennin:‘On September 3 it was officially announced that more than five hundred persons had been shot in Petrograd as a reprisal for the killing of Uritzky.[4]’What with public executions of civilians, terrorist attacks on public places, and the infamous Pogroms the Russian Revolution was an extremely barbaric instance of a civil war.
Another war that was fought barbarically was the Korean War, in which many United States soldiers perished for a cause that they did not always understand. Not only was the war itself vicious and bloody, but atrocities were also committed by the Koreans.
Upon finding the bodies of 26 executed American soldiers Robert Leckie reports what American troops found: ‘The boys lay packed tightly, shoulder to shoulder, lying on their sides, curled like babies sleeping in the sun. Their feet, bloody and bare, from walking on the rocks, stuck out stiffly.[5]’ These examples demonstrate cases where barbarisation is either part and parcel of, or merely a small part of warfare. Either way it is inexcusable, morally wrong, and should not be a feature of modern warfare in a civilised world. Another case for war being barbaric lies in some decisions made by commanders and political leaders during war, whereby men have been sacrificed attritionally in order to achieve a potentially dubious objective. A case in point is demonstrated by the India-Pakistan conflict; during the Kargil incursions India’s ‘leaders were willing to accept heavy casualties by attempting to scale the Himalayan peaks under heavy fire, rather than extending the war horizontally by attacking a more favourable [sic] point along the LoC.[6]’ Other examples of this exist in many wars throughout history, such as barbarian hordes being dashed against the Roman Phalanxes and other formations, the Japanese culture of Kamikaze (recklessly killing themselves in an attack against the enemy), or more extremely by both Allied and Triple Entente commanders during the war of attrition that was the First World War.
When a commander of any sort makes the decision to apportion human lives towards achieving an objective he is arguably acting barbarically, in that he is causing death and suffering. Of course, the act of war will always require the loss of human lives; however a conscientious leader should always attempt to preserve the lives of their troops to the best of their ability. In the case of the First World War the blame must lie with the supreme commanders, as it was they who ordered the offensives that cost so many lives; however ultimately it must lie with the politicians who got into the war in the first place, as such a war was always destined to be fought with many men. Inshort war has always been barbaric, and always will be, because of its violent nature.
As long as war consists of groups of men attempting to take each other’s lives in order to achieve a political outcome, in line with Clausewitz’ theory that ‘war is a continuation of politics other means’, barbarisation will remain to be a key feature of conflicts. War is often necessary in order to protect freedoms, ideals, or to defend oneself; yet theses wars, however great the cause, will always harbour a barbaric element. This means that war can never be anything other than barbaric.
Extreme cases of barbaric actions in war can be found throughout history. Genocide, mass murder of civilians, and terrorist attacks are all amongst the most horrible manifestations of war that exist in the world, and have existed, therefore they are the most barbaric. Not only are these acts of grand scale barbarity, there are also the war atrocities committed by individual soldiers, such as rape, murder and pillaging.
With regards to genocide there have been many vicious well recorded cases over the centuries. The recent genocide most commonly commented on is of course the Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. Adolf Hitler’s attempt to rid the world of the Jewish faith consumed the lives of around 6 million Jews from the countries occupied by the Germans during the period. The mayor of Auschwitz told one of the new guards at the I G Farben plant at Auschwitz ‘‘‘new prisoners arrive every week, but the total number never changes.”[7]’ The systematic destruction of individuals considered as a natural enemy to the state is a clear example of extreme barbarism. However, it is not the only case by far. The recent Rwandan genocide is another case that highlights mankind’s ability to destroy one and other to achieve an idealistic goal. Further back in history the sacking of enemy lands was a common occurrence; the destruction of a group of people ordered by a commander, although this was sometimes for practical reasons, such as the invading party being unable to feed the population. An example of individual soldiers committing atrocities can be found in the crisis of Hunan in China in 1917. The northern Chinese armies marched into Hunan bringing destruction and chaos to the inhabitants. As Edward A McCord puts it: ‘the scale of violence and the nature of atrocities directed against Hunan’s civilian population in the 1918 campaign was without precendent in Hunan’s recent history. As Zhang Jingyao entered Changsha, his troops were reported to have been “unrestrained in their violence; killing, robbing, and raping, there was nothing they did not do.”[8]’ Individual soldiers make the choice to rape, murder or pillage the people of the countries that they invade, constituting individual acts of barbarisation in welfare. Is there a difference between extreme cases of barbarisation being committed by individual soldiers or that commanded by their leaders? To the population that suffers the answer is invariably no. Such extreme cases rarely happen in western wars, with the exception of a form of warfare that has been around for a long time but has recently come into its own: terrorism. Wyn Q.Bowen makes an interesting point about the reasons that groups resort to terrorism: ‘developing states and terrorist organisations do not possess, and cannot afford, the capabilities to guarantee victory in a conveniently symmetrical conflict with the United States… the only option is to circumvent US superiority by avoiding direct force-on-force confrontation and to focus instead on key political and military weaknesses…[such as creating] casualties (friendly, civilian and enemy military).[9]’
Whether this is the only means of waging war for the Taliban or not it is still atrocious, barbaric, and an example of how wars can be fought in a completely barbaric manner. These examples of extreme barbarism by states, groups, and individuals highlight the notion that war is always barbaric, because these incidents continue to happen on a regular basis.
Having acknowledged the fact that war cannot be anything but barbaric by its very nature, it is time to look at ways in which it can be carried out in a non-barbaric fashion. For examples, can a war fought in self defence be viewed the same way as a war fought in an aggressive stance? Considering a defensive force has no choice but to fight and kill they are not acting barbarically, they are merely fighting and killing for their own existence. Similarly, can other reasons for going to war balance out the barbarity that occurs during them? In the example of the Second World War, the Allies invading Europe to free it from an oppressive regime that was actively killing people for no other reason than they exist was just a moral and just motivation for exacting violence upon Nazi Germany in order to bring about a free and peaceful world. In this case the barbarisation can be justified; and if that is the case then the barbaric side of the conflict should not matter. Another example of situations where war can lack barbarity is in the pride of units, the honour that they fight with, and the controlling protocols that ensure armies know who and when to shoot, how to go about combat without killing unnecessarily, and that they have a knowledge of what is right and wrong. Countries that adhere to the Geneva Convention, as well as the Hague Convention, tend to fight, when they have to, without causing unnecessary loss of life to non-combatants. This is a move towards a style of warfare that is not as barbaric as most wars in the past. To demonstrate the effect that military law has on British soldiers we must turn to Michael Goodspeed: ‘The force of moral tradition in regimental life is a much stronger influence than Queen’s Regulations and Orders. It would be false to pretend that military law had little to do with the maintenance of discipline and morale, but in British Regimental life it has been a secondary influence to personal and unit pride. [10]’ This moral approach to warfare presents itself in the ‘hearts and minds’ approach that the British Army have adopted in Iraq. Whilst they have no problem with killing anyone who poses a threat to local and international security, i.e. insurgents, they are actively seeking to solve local problems, talk with people in the area, and work with them to train their security forces as well as their governments. The actual war was of course slightly barbaric in nature, as each side was trying to take the lives of the other, but the general conduct of the British Army in Iraq has followed both a moral and just code: that of pride and honour. A final example of a situation where war has been both barbaric and also non-barbaric at the same time is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima by the USA. Whilst the actual bombing was a barbaric act, leaving 300,000 victims[11], the bombing saved countless American soldiers’ lives, who otherwise would have had to launch a conventional war involving invasion. Whilst war will always have a barbaric nature due to the act of killing being involved in all wars, this paragraph has demonstrated that there are aspects of war that are not Barbaric.
To conclude, all wars are barbaric by nature, as they all involve the taking of lives. The kind of barbarisation that is usually reported to the public is the extreme kind, barbaric acts where mass slaughter, genocide and terrorist attacks are committed against civilian non-combatants. However, within these wars there are often selfless acts based on moral judgments by soldiers who see pride, honour and morality as their driving force. International protocols such as the Geneva and Hague Conventions have helped to make war as non-barbaric as possible, whilst acknowledging the fact that in war there will always be killing. It is my opinion that in the matter of extreme cases barbarisation is the most evident flaw in these wars. However, in conventional warfare barbarisation is not a major factor; instead focus should be put on the reasons for going to war, and finding ways to eliminate these reasons; because after all, as long as there is war it will always be barbaric. Instead of trying to eliminate the barbaric act of killing from war the world should focus on preventing the wars themselves, and intervening in barbaric atrocities that are committed outside the realm of conventional warfare. The only way to eliminate barbarisation from warfare is to eliminate warfare itself; as war itself can not be anything other than barbaric by its very nature.
EEK! 9 words missing from this document, where?!
Bibliography
Oxford English Dictionary,
Stanley Whitehouse, in ‘A Fine Night For Tanks: The Road To Falaise’, by Ken Tout, published in 2002 by Sutton Publishing Limited, page 10.
William Henry Chamberlaine, ‘The Russian Revolution 1918-1921, From The Civil War To The Consolidation Of Power Volume 2’, Published by Princeton University Press 1987, page 66
Robert Leckie, Conflict, The History of the Korean War’, Published by De Capo Press Inc 1996, page 114.
T.V Paul, The Indi-Pakistan Conflict; And Enduring Rivalry, Published by Cambridge University Press 2005, page 117.
Norbert Frei, in Nazism, War and Genocide, ed. Neil Gregor, Published by University of Exeter Press 2005, page 148.
Edward A McCord in Scars of War, by Lary, Diana (Editor). Published Vancouver, BC, CAN: UBC Press, 2001. p21.
Wyn Q Bowen, in ‘The conflict in Iraq, 2003, by Paul Cornish (Ed), Published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2004, page 159.
Goodspeed, Michael. When Reason Fails: Portraits of Armies at War: America, Britain, Israel & the Future. Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated, 2001. p67.
Ray, Gene, Terror and the Sublime in Art and Critical Theory: From Auschwitz to Hiroshima to September 11, Published by Palgrave Macmillan 2005
[1] Oxford English Dictionary, http: //
[2] [ibid]
[3] Stanley Whitehouse, in ‘A Fine Night For Tanks: The Road To Falaise’, by Ken Tout, published in 2002 by Sutton Publishing Limited, page 10.
[4] William Henry Chamberlaine, ‘The Russian Revolution 1918-1921, From The Civil War To The Consolidation Of Power Volume 2’, Published by Princeton University Press 1987, page 66
[5] Robert Leckie, Conflict, The History of the Korean War’, Published by De Capo Press Inc 1996,
page 114.
[6] T.V Paul, The Indi-Pakistan Conflict; And Enduring Rivalry, Published by CambridgeUniversity
Press 2005, page 117.
[7] Norbert Frei, in Nazism, War and Genocide, ed. Neil Gregor, Published by University of Exeter Press 2005, page 148.
[8] Edward A McCord in Scars of War, by Lary, Diana (Editor). Published Vancouver, BC, CAN: UBC Press, 2001. p21.
[9] Wyn Q Bowen, in ‘The conflict in Iraq, 2003, by Paul Cornish (Ed), Published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2004, page 159.
[10] Goodspeed, Michael. When Reason Fails: Portraits of Armies at War: America, Britain, Israel & the Future. Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated, 2001. p67.
[11] Ray, Gene, Terror and the Sublime in Art and Critical Theory: From Auschwitz to Hiroshima to September 11, Published by Palgrave Macmillan 2005.