How soldiers deal with the job of killing

[JMA]

Thank You JMA, I will be looking forward to the threads to the other videos.

I currently teach a class on Human Factors at the Infantry Officers Course in Quantico, VA. We base our classes mostly off of the works of Lt Col. Grossman as well as some articles that we have read. We constantly talk about the need for Officers to understand killing. They need to not only understand it but be capable of talking about it to their Marines. We also teach a follow on class called Human Factors II that deals with PTSD and combat stress. This class is based on personal experience and pulling some information from the Marine Corps reference publication.

I say all this to say that overall as a military community we do not discuss this enough. Like the podcasts talk about and it has been highlighted we often call it something different and fail to spend time understanding "killing."

I am very interested in learning more about this and developing a continuous dialogue about the topic. Thank You.

Has anyone every read the book mentioned in the podcast "An Intimate History of Killing"? Just wondering if it is a good read.

While I am happy that close quarter killing is being studied for all the reasons Grossman states (I have his book on Kindle but have not studied it in detail yet) I await eagerly for such a study by someone who has actually killed themselves. He says that he and other writers on this subject Keegan, Holmes, Griffiths and I suspect neither Joanna Bourke (author of "An Intimate History of Killing" which you mentioned) have not killed in close combat. While I agree with training and preparation (with the rationale and emotional elements included) for killing at recruit and officer cadet levels followed by again a post "action" follow-up I tend to believe this issue is somewhat overblown.

By this I mean that I don't believe that for the majority the act of killing at close quarters (looking him in the eye and then shooting him) is as psychologically damaging as one is led to believe. If I had ten years I would wish to cooperate with combat experienced psychologists to attempt to establish how to test individuals as to who are likely to be affected by having personally killed to the extent that they at some point thereafter develop psychological "problems". This for selection and screening purposes. Those with a predisposition for developing "issues" should not be accepted in the military or at least not in the infantry (and maybe the armour - I don't know much about how their type of killing affects them when they get up close and personal).

There is a documentary that is fascinating and covers how and why (in their own words) why soldiers went beyond the accepted bounds in killing prisoners and wounded, mutilating bodies and regarding civilians as fair game when keeping the risk to themselves down. Hell in the Pacific is worth watching and probably can be turned into a teaching tool if presented with a prepared script to explain and expand upon the issues as they are raised. The full 4 part series is available on Youtube in about 10 minute segments. It is a mix of US and Brit experiences and includes some POW stuff. This documentary not to be confused with the Lee Marvin movie of the same name.

Having read only the reviews of "An Intimate History of Killing" I accept that there are those who enjoy killing (who when unchecked can get involved in some pretty bad stuff) but agree with critics that it is a small percentage but probably more than the 2% some suggest (I suggest around 5% from my experience). What do you suggest the % of those who feel nothing is? That is to kill without hesitation but with no enjoyment.

It is often the behaviour of the enemy that draws you in and tempts you to cross the line. For example the outrages carried out by the Japanese against POWs and civilians. Also take WW2 - Normandy where in the first days of the invasion 187 Canadians are said to have been executed by 12 SS. Little surprise then that certainly the Canadians (and other allies) responded with the "well if that's the way you want to play it" and they too entered the atrocity spiral - (D-Day by Antony Beevor). Beevor's book is a must read as are his Berlin and Stalingrad books.

In Beevor's book he deals with combat fatigue and makes mention of a neuro-psychiatrist, Major David Weintrob, who pioneered combat stress treatment there and also improved the manner in which "replacements" were introduced into front line units. You may have access to more records on Weintrob's work with Gen Gerhardt's 29th Infantry Division in Normandy.

Interestingly the comment is made that both Brit and US psychiatrists were struck by the few cases of psychoneurosis' among German POWs. This is an area which needs to be studied I suggest.

The officers role in preventing atrocities seems important and in both Hell in the Pacific and Beevor's book reference is made of officers stepping in to bring troops "under control" with pistols drawn. (Beevor reports an officer from The Canadian Regiment de la Chaudiere that after they had got to grips with 12 SS at Carpiquet that "no prisoners were taken this day on either side". Fascinating and horrifying stuff. How does one prepare young officers to exert the authority to bring matters back under control when they boil over (which they will and his sergeant is out there slitting throats and cutting ears off with the rest of them)?

Your subject seems to have more questions than answers. It seems that our job in this regard (30 years ago) was so much easier when we knew what was right and what was wrong (as taught by our mothers and not some military instruction) and did not have the type of politically imposed RoE soldiers have to live with today.