Oakvillian

"Back then" - back when, exactly?

Different war, different social structure (largely as a result of what happened after the first war), different quantum of zealotry and fanaticism. I don't think it's even remotely possible to compare the actions of a Schutzstaffel unit in 1944 to the code of honour amongst officers (on both sides of the fighting) in 1914.

The WWI prisoner story - and the honour-driven motivation behind it - is perfectly believable given its context at the very beginning of the war - less than a month after the declaration of war, in fact. At that time ideals of honour and chivalry amongst officers, built up through regimental folklore and tradition, were still very much a part of the fabric of military life. For sure, it had all become rather more sordid by the middle of 1915, and even more so through the remaining three years of hostilities.

Society was already beginning to undergo fundamental change at the beginning of the war (look at what happened in Russia, what was begun in 1905 and was accelerated throughout wartime to its culmination in 1917). Cynicism and a questioning of the moral authority of (largely upper-class) politicians, generals and admirals increased dramatically after the first year of fighting. Wilfred Owen's Dulce et Decorum poem is as fine an example of sacrcasm at the expense of authority as you can find. "That old lie" was no longer enough, one would not have expected the same application of an outdated honour code in August 1918 as had been exhibited in August 1914.

Oakvillian

That's a bit of a non-sequitur, AC. What has an individual's personal experience of the Armed Forces to do with an opinion on a 100-year-old story of honourable behaviour?

Nobody would have the opportunity to prove honourable or otherwise in these circumstances today. The circumstances wouldn't arise. And (it says in the BBC article) it didn't again in the Great War either, largely because the British politicians denied the same compassionate parole to German prisoners held in the UK.

Shard

Interesting points which seem to support the notion that honour in the early part of the 20th century ("back then" in the parlance) was not as pervasive as some of us now believe it was. And what we are construing as "honour" may simply have been following orders/protocol because the alternative (of punishment or destitution) would be harsh. I think it's a case of rose tinted specs. Honour and chivalry still exist in the military and in human nature. In a hundred years times tales of honour will be told about soldiers' actions in Afghanistan.

Almost Canadian

I was enquiring as to whether this opinion was based upon personal experience of how "honourable" officers in the Armed Forces are now, or something else. As s/he has responded, we won't know.

I propose that, if the opportunity was presented to an officer today the officer, knowing that others may be punished for his/her failure to return, would return. This is based upon my experience of serving in the Armed Forces. I appreciate that others may have a different opinion.

Former Lancastrian

The legal system has something similar to this its called a promise to appear or bail and look how well that works

Oakvillian

I don't think it supports that notion at all: quite the opposite, in fact. You were comparing the actions of a young officer in August 1914 to those of a group of Nazis in 1944. I was simply pointing out that that wasn't a very valid comparison: notions of honour and chivalry had changed in the intervening 30 years. Which "back then" were you referring to - the outbreak of the first world war or the latter stages of the second?

Social structures and societal mores are constantly shifting. Would the same fuss have been made about the (despicable, by today's standards) chanting of the St Mary's undergrads in frosh week of 1983? I suspect not: that's progress. It's also the time difference between the two incidents noted in this thread.

Of course honour and chivalry still exist, within and beyond the military. Stories of valour, self-sacrifice, "doing the right thing" abound. But the benchmarks against which we judge such behaviour or actions have moved.

Oakvillian

people are frequently bailed "on their own recognizance" or whatever the phrase is. In the vast majority of cases it works very well.

Honour among thieves, perhaps?

Shard

How do we know that "the notions of honour and chivalry had changed in the intervening years"? Especially when notions of honour and chivalry persist to this day (particularly in the military). From your earlier post you even seem to suggest that a breakdown in the honour code occurred between 1914 and 1918 which given the nebulous concept of honour is rather a precise a date range. I don't see a problem with using a later atrocity to refute the general assertion that honour used to exist ("back then") but no longer exists, because I don't except that banal assertion.

Oakvillian

You're dead right, that would be a banal assertion. And it's one that hasn't been made by me, or indeed anyone else on this thread except yourself.

Shard

So what is the implication of CM's comment? That honour codes persist??

Oakvillian

that the values by which honourable behaviour was judged in 1914 differ from those by which honourable behaviour is judged today. By the middle of the war, with general conscription and all, officers were no longer all "gentlemen" in the way that term was understood in the 19th century (when commissions were frequently granted to those younger sons of noble families who didn't take holy orders...) and was still mostly prevalent at the outbreak of WWI.

In today's armed forces, one doesn't rely on a code of honour. One has rules of engagement and 24-hour news media to deal with instead. That doesn't mean that honour is dead, of course.

Shard

Really? All that? The words "back then there was still..." imply that something that used to exist no longer exists. If you were a 19th century man you might concede this truth

cheeky_monkey

My point was that society has changed enormously in the last 100 years..values and morals are different now..would soldiers blindly go over the top and walk to certain death today?...certainly they wouldn't..rules of engagement have changed.

Novocastrian

Are suicide bombers soldiers?

MillieF

I'm finding all this "latest bit" thing a bit confusing..my dad was born in 1910 and he remembered his nanny saying goodbye to lads in 1914....my Dad was in the next one he lost his brother in the Battle of Britain, but he himself bailed out, at the end and received the DFM. I know my Dads rules of engagement changed...he knows he should not have bombed Dresden