Trench Warfare, PTSD, and Live and Let Live System - Essay Example

Trench Warfare, PTSD, and Live and Let Live System While humanity abhors war and violence in general, it is unfortunatelya core human trait to engage in violence as a means of attaining an advantage over others. This is true, from times past to the present, as depicted in various social contexts in various arenas of the global community. The evolutionary track charted by Mankind, resulted in greater advancements and developments; in various spheres of society; with war and warfare being no exception. This in time resulted in greater sophistication of warfare, especially in terms of weaponry and ammunition. Naturally, this resulted in greater efficiency, in curtailing the enemy’s advance; abate the huge loss of lives. No forms of warfare and battles, best attest to his circumstances, as the two global wars of the 19th century. Both WWI and WWII brought the global community to its knees, portraying the worst aspects of human society – violence and the lust for power both as means for self-interest advancement. Both wars, and many more throughout human civilization, were and continue being fought on specific grounds such as: - religious ideologies, geo-political advancement and socio-economic contexts. Of specific interest to this paper’s approach, will be the First World War, fought between the years 1914-18 largely within the European arena. Focus will be on the aspect of – Trench warfare – as portrayed during the war that unfortunately decimated Europe to the core. Analysis will be on the two aspects of the Live and Let Live System, which uniquely displayed a different side of human nature (Ashworth 42). In addition, will be an analysis of PTSD – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – the most common of psychological conditions, which are found amongst soldiers engaged in warfare. Specific focus will be on this ailment, as a result of individual’s engagement in warfare particularly those participating in trench warfare. It is a known fact that continuous experience of warfare conditions does influence and affect an individual’s nature. Not only are soldiers exposed to physical harm and ultimately death, but also psychological impacts, which fundamentally alter their bio-chemical makeup. During WWI, trench warfare was necessary, as either camp, made frantic efforts to gain ground. To be noted is that warfare is tactical in nature, and hence necessitates strategic implementation of moves critical to either party’s success (Lembcke 63). WWI: Trench Warfare WWI, showcased humanity’s capacity, in terms of various contexts such as the struggle for geo-political power and influence, which would ultimately enhance the status quo of various actor; within the international arena. Thus, not only was/ is warfare fought over geo-political contexts, but also as a means towards socio-economic advancement, as well as religio-cultural dominance. It is upon the issue of geo-politics, as Thompson (2004) portrays, and particularly the Imperialism’s resurgence that this global war was fought, resulting from the death of Austria’s Archduke – Franz Ferdinand. His assassination was the catalyst needed to ignite the war, as he was the heir to the throne of the Austria-Hungary Empire. The diplomatic crisis that was to follow was unfortunately to end up in war; first between the Austria-Hungary Empire, and the Kingdom of Serbia, which was accused of harboring the responsible assassin. As a Yugoslav nationalist, Gavrilo Princip’s actions resulted in the invoking of various international alliances, which brought about the entry of other nations into the war. Within weeks, the prevailing European Powers were at war with other nations joining later on around the globe. The first shots were to be fired by Austro-Hungarians, in their preparation for Serbia’s invasion. As this was taking place, Russia was mobilizing its troops, which necessitated Germany’s invasion of Luxembourg and Belgium, and the subsequent move towards France. These moves it should be noted were strategic in nature, as they were viewed as essential in enacting the previous agreements between various European nations. Germany’s invasion of France, was to subsequently result in Britain’s entry into the war, as a fulfillment of its pact with France one amongst various bilateral and multilateral pacts and agreements. The German march towards France was halted in what was termed as the Western Front settling into a battle of attrition. This phase of the war is essential to the paper’s focus, as it entailed a significant amount of time, resources and pressure on both sides of the trench line. This line was to change insignificantly for most of the subsequent war, until 1917, as neither side was able to make crucial advancement onto the enemy’s camp (Thompson 39). Trench Warfare: An analysis Trench warfare, as Ashworth (1980) further alludes, was the main aspect of attrition, where both sides sought to minimize the enemy’s advance, historically was tried when other forms of warfare failed; or were deemed unfeasible. This was usually carried out as the main avenue of wearing the enemy down, to sufficient levels, which enabled the utility of other strategies. This is usually the last result, to be abandoned once other avenues were gained. A direct reason for this was that while it proved vital in the war, amongst various others, it was indeed costly. It necessitated one’s attempt, at gradually weakening the opponent, through eventual unacceptable and hence unsustainable levels. This was while gradually limiting own losses to sustainable levels. The above, was considered in terms of resources (logistics, ammunition and machinery) and human lives; as attrition, warfare drained both camps to great extents for continued attrition. As military strategists and theorists such as Sun Tzu, would have eluded attrition warfare ought to be the last resort in warfare to be utilized strategically and decisively towards gaining advantages. To be avoided, attrition and especially trench warfare, was viewed as representing the opposite of prevailing principles of war. These usually encompass the attempts of achieving decisive victories, through utility of minimal periods, and necessary resources. By engaging in strategic maneuver, the element of surprise, concentration of force, and tactical retreat/ regrouping, even the smallest of bands would be able to achieve decisive victory. Thus, attrition was essentially the converse of warfare strategy, engaged-in on very limited contexts. Conversely, this was usually when one side perceived itself at being at a disadvantage, especially in unit tactics or maneuver warfare. The ‘Western Front’ best depicts the aspect of attrition, where trench warfare was utilized by both sides. The great trench line, a system of trenches running from the English Channel to Switzerland, provided the static defensive context of the war. For a long period of time, and without any chance of strategic maneuvering, many soldiers engaged in repeated attacks on the enemies, resulting in great human loss (Ashworth 38). Strategically, as Thompson (2004) further espouses, this was viewed, as being a viable option, by the high command; which thought that repeated attacks on the enemy, head on, would eventually grind/wear the other party down. The – Battle of Verdun provides another example of attrition, in which the German offensive aimed at wearing the French armies down, without consideration for the massive losses to be incurred. Trench warfare it should be noted occurred in the event that humanity’s revolution, in terms of firepower advancement, was not matched in terms of mobility advancement. In such contexts, it is the defending party, which upheld the advantages of ‘crippling’ the advancing enemy. During the global war, both opposing sides did maintain this strategy, through construction of elaborate dugout and trench systems. These were constructed in such a way, as to oppose the other side, along a front that was further reinforced by barbed wire. This region, between the two opposing camps was adequately referred to as ‘no man’s land’, where full exposure to artillery fire from both sides rendered success, a costly affair. The huge losses incurred notwithstanding, trench warfare enabled a defender, being shielded from enemy fire, to incapacitate several approaching foes before the enemy was able to closing in on his position. This was true especially in contexts where both the rate and range of fire, of rifled small arms increased tremendously. Such forms of attrition, were only made more lethal, as a result of the introduction of greater rapid-firing artillery i.e. high explosive fragmentation rounds and the French 75 amongst other advanced technologies. It is this increase, in terms of firepower that resulted in the outstripping of both cavalry and infantry mobility, in addition to reducing armor ability of withstanding firepower. Thus, it was to take great losses, for the generals of both sides, to see the futility of warfare. No contexts exemplify the despicable results of trench warfare as the slaughter and shock experienced in the battles of Verdun, Passchendaele and Somme (Thompson 24). The Live and Let Live System: A Conceptual Analysis The aforementioned in contextual settings, provided for cooperation to emerge in circumstances where it is least expected. During the first global war, the Western Front, experienced the most horrible of battles, with the advantages being gained or being receded being just a few yards of territory. However, during such times it should be noted, both opposing sides tried to exercise considerable restraint. This occurred in contexts where opposing soldiers would be within firing-range of each other, yet restrain in engaging in direct conflict. As it would be viewed by pundits later on, both opposing sides apparently believed, and subsequently enacted the policy of – live and let live. In such contexts, the live-and-let-live concept became endemic, flourishing despite both sides efforts in terms of senior command orders and evocations. This was further despite the military logic behind warfare, ‘to kill or be killed’ and the passions aroused through combat. This was despite the high command’s ease of capacity in repressing local efforts towards various arrangements of direct truces. Thus, this concept was essentially a case of cooperation, which emerged, despite the great sense of antagonism, which existed between the opposing parties. Hence, it provided a direct challenge, in the case of conceptual theories of warfare and strategic capacity. Core issues requisite in understanding such unique phenomenon included how and why this system became initiated how it was to subsequently become sustainable and eventually, why it broke down towards the Great War’s end/ conclusion. The historical contexts within these quiet sectors of the Western Front, was to provide an iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. In such contexts, choices present are limited i.e. to shot to kill, or the deliberate utility of firepower as a deterrent measure. This was towards limiting the damage caused, as well as deaths and casualties sustained. The concept, thus established that in essence, mutual defection was, and is still, a preferred choice to unilateral cooperation. Further still, is the fact that unilateral restraint was viewed as being better, than mutual cooperation between the two sides with the reward from such mutual restraint being better than the resulting outcome of mutual punishment. The latter, was especially avoided in such instances, as it would result in both sides suffering little or no relative gains. Therefore, both sides did prefer mutual restraint, to the random alternatives of successful hostilities. It is essentially this situational context, which meet conditions essential for a Prisoner’s Dilemma. As players in these potentially deadly dilemmas, opposing camps were able to survive for a longer time, bringing both sides to some form of sustenance (Ashworth 80). While the high command of both sides initiated the concept of ‘zero-sum game’, Thompson provides that local contexts resulted in the dilemma persisting; thereby resulting in the different units facing off in immobile sectors. The game changed from a ‘one-move Prisoner’s Dilemma, to that of an iterated context as the war progressed; especially as a result of the stabilization of both sides advancement. Non-aggression became the core essence of the system, as it emerged spontaneously along the front. This was influenced by the need for supplies, which later on resulted in extensive fraternization that was frowned upon by headquarters. This was to eventually result in the presence of various occasions, where direct truces would become arranged occasionally by way of signals or shouts. However, the theories of sustainable and decisive warfare necessitated the suppression of such direct truces being informed by the need for gaining grounds against the enemy. Such arrangements thus became easily suppressed by way of whole battalions being punished, as well as soldiers being court-martial led. Other contexts, which necessitated mutual restraint; hence the prevailing context of the live-and-let-live system, were the recurrent spells of miserable weather. In such bad weather, it was almost impossible for either side, to make decisive gains therefore resulting in different ad hoc weather truces (Thompson 56). From verbal agreements, the concept was to evolve through different effective methods, thereby resulting in both sides coordination of their actions and activities. A core realization was the fact that if one side of the trench was to engage in a specific kind of restraint, the other reciprocated the same. It is these similarities, in terms of basic activities and needs that resulted in the soldiers’ appreciation of each other’s side. Direct combat, which resulted in the huge losses, casualties and deaths experienced, influenced the combatants in terms of psychological impacts. This is what mainly led to the occurrence of PTSD – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. PTSD, as a psychological disorder, usually develops as a result of continuous exposure to a single or many cases of traumatic events. In warfare, especially as depicted in attrition as characterized by trench warfare, the threat of death or serious injury did affect the soldiers’ lives. The continuous engagement was to further aggravate the levels of PTSD experienced during the war; resulting in different negative symptoms. These included hyper-arousal the numbing/ avoidance of memories, especially of such traumatic events, and the disturbing recurrence of flashbacks. Definitively classified as an anxiety disorder, PTSD-affected individuals usually tried to avoid all forms of emotions and thoughts, especially those associated with violent traumatic events (Lembcke, 76). In conclusion, this usually affecting their later lives in terms of relationships and family kinship once back to normal social settings. Violent settings usually resulted in individuals becoming accustomed to such contexts, which if swapped with normal human contexts, became a bit confusing to affected individuals. Trench warfare, while being the worst form of warfare, was unique in its own way; especially concerning the – live-and-let-live system. This concept enabled the soldiers exercise some sense of humanism, in which another aspect of human positive socialization was portrayed – ‘that Mankind does not have an affinity for violence and war, but rather it is contexts and resulting consequences, which necessitate such human reactions. Work Cited Ashworth, Tony. Trench Warfare, 1914-1918. New York, N.Y.: Holmes & Meier, 1980. Print. Lembcke, Jerry. PTSD. Lexington Books: 2013. 2014. Print. Thompson, Hugh S. Trench Knives and Mustard Gas. College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 2004. Print. Read More