They couldn't shoot back at the commanding officers and military police forcing them to the front.
Indeed All's Quiet on the Western Front depicts what happened to soldiers who refused to go into battle on nov 11th after the armistice had been signed but before 11am when it went into effect.
They couldn't shoot back at the commanding officers and military police forcing them to the front.
I mean... we really think 'fragging' wasn't a thing in WW1? Who's gonna do a forensic investigation when during the night an unpopular officer dies to a hand grenade:
Its not Germans, its all conscripts across all nations.
Their were mutinies in the French, British, and German armies including the german navy... I think that's a pretty dramatic statement that they didn't want to be there
In addition to the fact the conscription was neccessary to begin with. There wasn't an all volunteer army on any side of WW1
There wasn't an all volunteer army on any side of WW1
Notably, this is not true for the Australian Imperial Force, which was entirely volunteer - the split over conscription (a referendum which narrowly failed) ended up splitting the Australian Labor Party and ultimately shaped the modern Liberal and Labor Parties.
Then the goalposts are receding faster than the Maginot line twenty years later.
I think claiming German suffering in WWI was a Holocaust 1.0 is in poor taste. Going further to suggest
“Was Hitler’s crime simply doing what the civilized nations of the world… the French Republic, the British Empire, the German Nation… had done to him when he was young?”
That’s rather bold apologetics, and it’s also laughably inaccurate. Hitler, at least, was a red-blooded volunteer, and conflating him with downtrodden conscripts is buying into the laziest of Weimar-era Nazi propaganda.
Boys 14-25 are the most discriminated against group in human history. Full stop.
No group has suffered such violence so Deeply in the moment, vastly across nations, and consistently across time.
The bloodiest day of the holocaust it was calculated 15,000 people were killed.
Bloodiest day of WW1 20,000 British! boys were killed (not counting all the other powers)
.
And notably this is a holocaust that never ended
The world screamed never again after the holocaust... but even our "humane" "modern" "progressive" welfare states reserve the right to drag teenagers from their home and massacre them by the million.
Indeed both Ukraine and Russia are doing this now without a fucking mummer of protest
Actually if you cut out the mra-djacent whining about the sin of conscription I think it actually cashes out as a fourth grade essay question level of analysis of Hitler:
Hitler was really bad because he treated people who weren't soldiers like soldiers. Everyone knows it's ok to kill soldiers in a war, but you can't kill people who aren't soldiers.
I'll also point out that, per prior comparisons to slavery and the Holocaust, 8-14% of WWI soldiers died in the war. 80% of Auschwitz inmates died there. American Black slaves died in slavery better than 80% of the time.
So if you took the question at the time of conscription, the vast majority of young men would choose the trenches. I doubt the option of "take up anti conscription terrorism" has better odds, outside the Vietnam era.
Sure, if you ask them as they go over the top at the Somme you might get more takers, but that's just letting people cash out their bet mid game. At the time of conscription, materially, getting drafted is a better pick.
Indeed All's Quiet on the Western Front depicts what happened to soldiers who refused to go into battle on nov 11th after the armistice had been signed but before 11am when it went into effect.
That's of course a complete fabrication of the film though, and to the detriment of the book's ending (and themes). At that point the German Revolution was already starting; the High Seas Fleet famously mutinied rather than carry out a final attack.
In the last days of the war it was the Entente who were still launching attacks, either out of general eagerness (the Americans) or the belief that Germany either wouldn't surrender, or would need to be completely defeated to avoid a repeat.
The fabrication of the film was moving events that happened in various armies around to make a statement about the war... the filmmakers have said the commander who ordered the 11th of Nov attack was explicitly based on a British General known for being a butcher
Yes that struck me as well. Another point to consider is that at the time of the Armistice the Germans had actually gained territory. Along much of the front, the lines of contact were in what had been Entente territory. The ceding of land that German soldiers had spent years fighting and dying for was a significant element in the birth the whole "great betrayal" narrative.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
They couldn't shoot back at the commanding officers and military police forcing them to the front.
Indeed All's Quiet on the Western Front depicts what happened to soldiers who refused to go into battle on nov 11th after the armistice had been signed but before 11am when it went into effect.
The filmmakers make a very dramatic case...
I mean... we really think 'fragging' wasn't a thing in WW1? Who's gonna do a forensic investigation when during the night an unpopular officer dies to a hand grenade:
More options
Context Copy link
I’m sure they do.
How many of the Germans would you say were there involuntarily? Hitler, at least, was quite enthusiastic in his enlistment.
Its not Germans, its all conscripts across all nations.
Their were mutinies in the French, British, and German armies including the german navy... I think that's a pretty dramatic statement that they didn't want to be there
In addition to the fact the conscription was neccessary to begin with. There wasn't an all volunteer army on any side of WW1
Notably, this is not true for the Australian Imperial Force, which was entirely volunteer - the split over conscription (a referendum which narrowly failed) ended up splitting the Australian Labor Party and ultimately shaped the modern Liberal and Labor Parties.
More options
Context Copy link
Then the goalposts are receding faster than the Maginot line twenty years later.
I think claiming German suffering in WWI was a Holocaust 1.0 is in poor taste. Going further to suggest
That’s rather bold apologetics, and it’s also laughably inaccurate. Hitler, at least, was a red-blooded volunteer, and conflating him with downtrodden conscripts is buying into the laziest of Weimar-era Nazi propaganda.
I never claimed Germany suffered a holocaust.
Boys suffered a holocaust.
Boys 14-25 are the most discriminated against group in human history. Full stop.
No group has suffered such violence so Deeply in the moment, vastly across nations, and consistently across time.
The bloodiest day of the holocaust it was calculated 15,000 people were killed.
Bloodiest day of WW1 20,000 British! boys were killed (not counting all the other powers)
.
And notably this is a holocaust that never ended
The world screamed never again after the holocaust... but even our "humane" "modern" "progressive" welfare states reserve the right to drag teenagers from their home and massacre them by the million.
Indeed both Ukraine and Russia are doing this now without a fucking mummer of protest
More options
Context Copy link
Actually if you cut out the mra-djacent whining about the sin of conscription I think it actually cashes out as a fourth grade essay question level of analysis of Hitler:
Hitler was really bad because he treated people who weren't soldiers like soldiers. Everyone knows it's ok to kill soldiers in a war, but you can't kill people who aren't soldiers.
I'll also point out that, per prior comparisons to slavery and the Holocaust, 8-14% of WWI soldiers died in the war. 80% of Auschwitz inmates died there. American Black slaves died in slavery better than 80% of the time.
So if you took the question at the time of conscription, the vast majority of young men would choose the trenches. I doubt the option of "take up anti conscription terrorism" has better odds, outside the Vietnam era.
Sure, if you ask them as they go over the top at the Somme you might get more takers, but that's just letting people cash out their bet mid game. At the time of conscription, materially, getting drafted is a better pick.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's of course a complete fabrication of the film though, and to the detriment of the book's ending (and themes). At that point the German Revolution was already starting; the High Seas Fleet famously mutinied rather than carry out a final attack.
In the last days of the war it was the Entente who were still launching attacks, either out of general eagerness (the Americans) or the belief that Germany either wouldn't surrender, or would need to be completely defeated to avoid a repeat.
The fabrication of the film was moving events that happened in various armies around to make a statement about the war... the filmmakers have said the commander who ordered the 11th of Nov attack was explicitly based on a British General known for being a butcher
More options
Context Copy link
Yes that struck me as well. Another point to consider is that at the time of the Armistice the Germans had actually gained territory. Along much of the front, the lines of contact were in what had been Entente territory. The ceding of land that German soldiers had spent years fighting and dying for was a significant element in the birth the whole "great betrayal" narrative.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link