Hello.
I’m currently a graduate student in American History, writing (slowly… ever so slowly…) my thesis. Its subject is the trials of returned ex-POWs of the Korean War, and I’ve run into something that may be useful to my paper.
Reading the DOD training pamphlet “The U.S. Fighting Man’s Code” from Nov. 1955 there are a number of references to, bluntly stated, choosing to die. From Nathan Hale on examples are given of men who chose to die (or often expected to die, but were later saved), rather than give up, or worse, betray their country. More importantly, the reader/trainee is told that he is expected to do the same. For example:
“He Who Dies Resisting: The man who dies resisting is not broken. … The man who dies for something in which he believes does so willingly, and without regret, unless the regret is such as that expressed by Nathan Hale…” p. 78
“Suppose a man surrenders while he still has the means to fight… What can he expect to gain? Four out of ten American prisoners of the Communists dies in Korea. Untold numbers were coldly executed shortly after laying down their arms…” p. 108
“The fight is everywhere. Even in the prison camp! … A POW has no alternatives. Either he resists, to death if necessary, or progressively submits, in time completely, to the dictates of his captors.” P. 119
Now it’s always been part and parcel of the warrior ethic to accept death. The more elite, the more likely “death before dishonor” or similar sentiments are held – not only accepting death as perhaps a part of the warrior’s duty but acknowledging almost the inevitability and glory of it.
But I can’t find training literature – stuff put our by the military establishment itself - from prior to 1955 where it was so bluntly stated that the average GI should be prepared to embrace it, especially after surrender or instead of surrender if in an untenable position.
Admittedly my reading of past training literature is limited, so I put it out here. Is anyone aware of WWII or earlier publications that said the type of things I’ve quoted above?
Immense thanks for any and all info you may have and pass on.
NB: I've posted this on a few boards. Sorry for the repetition if you're a mil history board surfer.
I’m currently a graduate student in American History, writing (slowly… ever so slowly…) my thesis. Its subject is the trials of returned ex-POWs of the Korean War, and I’ve run into something that may be useful to my paper.
Reading the DOD training pamphlet “The U.S. Fighting Man’s Code” from Nov. 1955 there are a number of references to, bluntly stated, choosing to die. From Nathan Hale on examples are given of men who chose to die (or often expected to die, but were later saved), rather than give up, or worse, betray their country. More importantly, the reader/trainee is told that he is expected to do the same. For example:
“He Who Dies Resisting: The man who dies resisting is not broken. … The man who dies for something in which he believes does so willingly, and without regret, unless the regret is such as that expressed by Nathan Hale…” p. 78
“Suppose a man surrenders while he still has the means to fight… What can he expect to gain? Four out of ten American prisoners of the Communists dies in Korea. Untold numbers were coldly executed shortly after laying down their arms…” p. 108
“The fight is everywhere. Even in the prison camp! … A POW has no alternatives. Either he resists, to death if necessary, or progressively submits, in time completely, to the dictates of his captors.” P. 119
Now it’s always been part and parcel of the warrior ethic to accept death. The more elite, the more likely “death before dishonor” or similar sentiments are held – not only accepting death as perhaps a part of the warrior’s duty but acknowledging almost the inevitability and glory of it.
But I can’t find training literature – stuff put our by the military establishment itself - from prior to 1955 where it was so bluntly stated that the average GI should be prepared to embrace it, especially after surrender or instead of surrender if in an untenable position.
Admittedly my reading of past training literature is limited, so I put it out here. Is anyone aware of WWII or earlier publications that said the type of things I’ve quoted above?
Immense thanks for any and all info you may have and pass on.
NB: I've posted this on a few boards. Sorry for the repetition if you're a mil history board surfer.
