"The Secret Of The Soldiers Who Didn’t Shoot" Topic

General Grant said, "While a battle is raging one can see his enemy mowed down by the thousand, or the ten thousand, with great composure; but after the battle these scenes are distressing, and one is naturally disposed to do as much to alleviate the suffering of an enemy as a friend." Personal Memoirs I:521.

I think survival is a primal instinct …

I agree survival is a primal instinct. What I meant was thinking the best chance to survive this is to kill as many of them before they get a chance to kill me requires a bit more cognition. The primal instinct for survival has the option flight as well as fight, which is why Wigrams observations have 75% of the platoon putting themselves out of harms way. The will in that situation to take the fight to the enemy requires training and motivation for most and only comes naturally to a few.

I think there is a degree of cross purposes in this discussion.

There is what we might want people to do for maximal military effectiveness. And what individuals might do to maximize their survival chances – or their perceived chances of survival.

It is instinctive to minimize violence, even when there are no legal restrictions. If not humans would not have evolved to live in groups.

Then we can add on generations of conditioning. Most people grew up in a religious society and were taught not to kill each other. Even the Germans could not erase centuries of Christian teaching. Nor the Soviets.

For me – the conclusion I have reached is summarised as follows.

In WW2 most troops in the front line did not try to kill the enemy except when they had no choice. If there was another option….hide, shoot to scare…point out the targets to comrades ….they did so. Some may have even let themselves become casualties rather than kill.

There is also the empty battlefield to consider. It would be rare to get a clear shot at an enemy..often troops would just shoot in the general direction of the enemy. Such fire could contribute of course, but it could also result in return fire. So if possible there may be shirkers who just keep their heads down or fire seldom so as not to give away their position.

Post WW2, more effort was put into training to overcome this and to a larger extent the troops were volunteers. Even though there was a draft for Vietnam, a higher proportion were volunteers than in WW2. The post 911 war on terror is another kettle of fish entirely. It's not comparing like with like.

don[Gen Grant], Fred & Skarper – I generally agree with what all you said.

and one is naturally disposed to do as much to alleviate the suffering of an enemy as a friend

I would never second guess Grant ! I think in ACW, even though side were very polarized. You would probably not see too many "magnanimous actions" overall going on e.g. the Japanese vs. the US and UK troops. Or Korea between the UN[US/UK] forces vs. the Noko and Chicoms. As well as in Vietnam, Somalia, or any Jihadi/terrorists the West faced/facing. I'd think … And the list could go on …

will in that situation to take the fight to the enemy requires training and motivation for most and only comes naturally to a few.

As former Infantry Ldr/Cdr, anyone always would have to balance, "Mission First, Troops Always".
And as I have said before, good training[conditioning] is paramount with creating an effective combat unit. That along with experience.

Post WW2, more effort was put into training to overcome this and to a larger extent the troops were volunteers. Even though there was a draft for Vietnam, a higher proportion were volunteers than in WW2. The post 911 war on terror is another kettle of fish entirely. It's not comparing like with like.

Yes, as far as Vietnam, as the war dragged on more and more Draftees were filling the ranks of military. As the volunteers/professionals after a number of tours in many cases rotated out. Plus the US had to fill the ranks of it's forces all over the Cold War world, e.g. West Germany, the ROK, etc. Some volunteered so they wouldn't get draftee and at least go to a branch of service of their choice. But in some cases the needs of the military comes first as always.

And yes, the 9/11 attack lead to many volunteers who probably would not have otherwise. And it appeared overall the US Forces were generally very motivated. For obvious reasons … again payback/vengeance being one of the most prominent, I'd think.