Adrian Carton de Wiart: The unkillable soldier | Hacker News Reader

Adrian Carton de Wiart: The unkillable soldier

bbc.co.uk

71 pointsgadders42 comments

> Soldiers like Carton de Wiart are a real example for troops serving today. It's quite sad that having sacrificed so much his story isn't particularly well-known.

de Wiart was clearly a man of superhuman grit, but I'm a little confused by the characterization of his personal suffering as "sacrifice".

By his own admission, he was a warfighter who wanted to fight in war. At least as far as the Boer conflict goes, he didn't care much about which side he was on. He was thus neither patriotic nor apparently driven by any other similar notion of "service" to a higher cause.

If the article's characterization is correct, he was principally driven by war for war's sake. This was who he wanted to be and what he wanted to do. He was in fact self-actualizing in a way that most people never do. He followed his true passion and his dream.

Why then are his injuries characterized as "sacrifice"? Would it have been "sacrifice" if he had been injured in the process of pursuing a passion for big game hunting, or as a test pilot in some barely functional bi-plane?

Maybe I'm splitting hairs that don't need to be split or quibbling over minor semantics, but this touched on a lingering issue I've had with the verbiage surrounding war & conflict, and the double standards we collectively employ when talking & thinking about it.

As much as I'm impressed by the man himself, I completely agree. This glorification of war is not exactly healthy, at least not to me.

Currently living in Canada, it was Remembrance day a couple of months ago and I told some of my friends that it made me feel uncomfortable, which wasn't particularly well received. TV would show and tell about "glorious" moments of war, people would gather to remember the heroes who lost their lives or their limbs (in war, any soldier on the winning side is apparently a hero, as for the losing side...), and so on.

It's not that I don't feel bad for all those who lost something throughout wars, I honestly do and it pains me. However these traditions we have instill the idea that war is not just ok, it's something to be proud of. That having countless people on one side or the other end up as canon fodder is not just ok, it's part of the game.

The ironic beauty of History is that everybody has their own version... in the right light, and with enough time passed, it seems like any war could be the pinnacle of honor. Some wars may be necessary but I'd argue that the vast majority aren't.

Also a favorite of mine on the subject: http://www.charliechaplin.com/en/synopsis/articles/29-The-Gr...

I think you're doing the holiday a disservice. I recommend attending one of the services. One of my most memorable experiences growing up was attending a Remembrance Day ceremony at one of the military cemeteries.

There is nothing like standing silently surrounded by Canadian headstones from all walks of life as Last Post is played to remind you that war has a definite cost.

It still makes me emotional.

There is nothing like standing silently surrounded by Canadian headstones from all walks of life as Last Post is played to remind you that war has a definite cost.

It still makes me emotional.

Vonnegut's take on it in Breakfast of Champions seems right:

"I will come to a time in my backwards trip when November eleventh, accidentally my birthday, was a sacred day called Armistice Day. When I was a boy, and when Dwayne Hoover was a boy, all the people of all the nations which had fought in the First World War were silent during the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour of Armistice Day, which was the eleventh day of the eleventh month.

It was during that minute in nineteen hundred and eighteen, that millions upon millions of human beings stopped butchering one another. I have talked to old men who were on battlefields during that minute. They have told me in one way or another that the sudden silence was the Voice of God. So we still have among us some men who can remember when God spoke clearly to mankind.

Armistice Day has become Veterans’ Day. Armistice Day was sacred. Veterans’ Day is not.

So I will throw Veterans’ Day over my shoulder. Armistice Day I will keep. I don’t want to throw away any sacred things.

What else is sacred? Oh, Romeo and Juliet, for instance.

And all music is."

---

The celebration of the armistice is sacred. The jingoism that has been introduced since is utterly profane.

I sometimes think that a lot of the war machine is partly about governments seeking to identify the people within their country who are most capable of organized violence, and then making sure they spend as much time abroad as possible, preferably somewhere very dangerous.

So are you trying to insult the military, the government, or are you just demonstrating lazy thinking? If your thinking was anywhere close to reality: the military would welcome criminals, the infantry would fill the majority of the ranks and be treated like cannon fodder, and very little time and money would be spent on training and support. The opposite is true.

No, it came from a reading a history of the Crusades, which certain Kings and the Church did view at the time as a method of getting troublesome Knights out of Europe, or at least that is what is stated by many historians.

edit - and why give up on a successful strategy? It pays to keep the experts in the use of force busy.

Well history is great, not repeating the same mistakes and all, but some events are more relevant than others :)

Actually, the parallels are striking. All sorts of dangerous idiots on all sides are heading for the big trapdoor erected over the completely and utterly predictable power vacuum we left in Iraq.

re edit: Well I don't know how successful the strategy actually was. Also, a knight would be more like today's generals right? Again, not a super relevant comparison. The time and money spent on getting the actual trigger pullers up to speed and into action is incredibly expensive, there would be a lot of cheaper alternatives to handling troublemakers.

Less like a general and more like a (for the time) state of the art high speed weapons platform, possibly with not much to do. The sort of person you really don't want gallivanting around and raiding nearby castles through boredom. So you tell them that they can kill and still go to heaven, as long as they do it somewhere else. Then you take their confession in advance and give them a nice new shiny sword and send them out of the country.

Well didn't they enjoy titles, land and command of foot-soldiers - in exchange for an oath of loyalty? How would they be more like an inanimate object than today's generals (who have similar benefits to what I just listed)? Also, I understood your original point to be related to the threat from a human bad actor - not a "state of the art high speed weapons platform".

Personally, I'd call a state of the art high speed weapons platform a very animated object. However the reason that I am conflating the person with the technology is because they were. A knight was as much the armour, the horse, the swords and the retinue as it was the person inside the armour. The lesser kings, princes and dukes of the time were more like todays generals. Knights were more like tanks.

lol, well consider that against your comment at the top of this thread - none of this is logically consistent.

Have you read this [0] article yet? Also worth checking out, available if you click on the author's name, are the various responses he's gotten to it.

[0] http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-trag...

Have you read this [0] article yet? Also worth checking out, available if you click on the author's name, are the various responses he's gotten to it.

[0] http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-trag...

Have you read this [0] article yet? Also worth checking out, available if you click on the author's name, are the various responses he's gotten to it.

[0] http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-trag...

Have you read this [0] article yet? Also worth checking out, available if you click on the author's name, are the various responses he's gotten to it.

[0] http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-trag...

The same can be said of firemen, who absolutely love their job. There is nothing wrong with questioning the actual utility or riotousness of an action, but predicating it on the feelings of the actor is illogical. Yes, the concept of a hatecrime, and the additional weight given, is illogical.

Isn't what the workaholics do considered a sacrifice? Even if they do it just because they need it and want it?

You should also read about Leo Major, a real bad ass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9o_Major

- Single-handedly liberated the city of Zwolle in the Netherlands from German army occupation - Won two distinguished conduct medals, one in WWII and one in Korea - Only person whose DCMs were awarded in two different wars - He refuse his WII medal, because it was handed by a general despising french Canadian soldiers - Lost one eye in first days of Normandy campaign - ...

Thank you! When compared to this guy, Chuck Norris no longer holds the title of 'real badass' in my book.

Also don't forget "Mad" Jack Churchill - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill .

That said, I find the fact that the BBC are running this article a touch jingoistic - "Look boys, war is glorious!".

Jingoistic indeed. About the Jack Churchill article, editing Wikipedia seems a bit daunting to me, but maybe someone more experimented could amend or remove the sentence:

"Churchill also carried out the last recorded bow and arrow killing in action"

I'm not sure what they mean by "recorded", but people are still using bows and arrows to kill each other as recently as 2008:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Bows_and_arrows_deadly_weapo...

http://www.ogiek.org/election-war/election-war-4.htm

>He received the Victoria Cross, the highest British military award for gallantry, for his actions at La Boiselle. He, however, declined to even mention the medal in his autobiography, later telling a friend that "it had been won by the 8th Glosters, for every man has done as much as I have".

This is leadership. I didn't win it, we won it, and I happened to be the man in charge at the time.

Would he fall into the ~2% of people that can cope with sustained combat[1], i.e. a sociopath?

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing

Is that a relevant link? I've read both of Grossman's books and don't remember him touching on sociopathy. Was that added it in the 2009 edition?

I shall dig up my copy (1996 edition) later to give you the chapter, but as far as I recall (and I have not read it again recently), the book details that 98% of combatants were observed to suffer some sort of breakdown when in a sustained combat environment for a certain period of time, which I think was 2 months. The other 2% were sociopaths, who did not suffer any emotional distress. That would seem to be behaviour consistent with someone who "enjoyed" the war.

I'd check myself, but I can't find my copy. It'd be a little surprising if that bit was included in either book, and even more surprising if it is more than a footnote, considering how well received Grossman's work is in the military. Traditionally mental health and psychology are areas the military has actively avoided, which is an obvious void when you look at the amount of resources dedicated to performance enhancement.

I just see a prime example of human stupidity. What the heck is wrong with us?

It's not stupidity. He wanted to kill other humans within the confines of the law so he embraced war and went to fight any chance he got.

Wanting to kill humans - can it get any stupider?

Yes. Letting others to kill you

You have a point here, he was just defending against others. But I meant my original comment in a broader sense, going to war in general.

I can strongly recommend Tommy by Richard Holmes for an excellent account of the realities of serving as a soldier in the British army in WW1 - he points out the British generals actually had a higher death rate than lower ranks:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tommy-British-Soldier-Western-Front/...

What is particularly interesting is that he has also done similar books for the Napoleonic and contemporary wars - Redcoat and Dusty Warrior respectively - both also strongly recommended.

What a tough guy. An inspiration for all of us.

Reminds me a bit of Lauri Törni / Larry Thorne. Only really at home in conflict.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauri_T%C3%B6rni

"Frankly, I had enjoyed the war."

The thesis behind the book, "War" [0] by Sebastian Junger. Read this interview, "Missing the Closeness of Brotherhood" to understand why ~ http://goodmenproject.com/arts/sebastian-junger-korengal-int...

[0] http://www.amazon.com/WAR-Sebastian-Junger/dp/B005K5DN5O/ref...

What an absurdly legit leader. Standing on top of a trench, entirely exposed, holding nothing but a stick in his hand. Ya, that would give your men confidence before a charge. I want to be 1/100 this awesome!

Of course, what you really want to use to capture 42 German prisoners in WW2 is a broadsword:

http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/mad-jack-churchi...

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/churchill.html

I always thought Jimmy Stewart was impressive. Not nearly the visceral hand to hand nature of others mentioned here, of course. He seems like a guy who made the most of his life wherever he happened to be. Learning George Bailey was a brigadier general was, well, kinda surprising.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stewart#Military_service

Sociopath?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com