Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> ...entire nations were trying to kill them.

That’s not what the article says.

> Throughout the war, stretches of the Western Front observed an unofficial “live and let live” policy between Germans and their French or British enemies. By mutual agreement, both sides agreed not to attack the other unless ordered — and would even schedule truces for meals and bathroom breaks.



Should it be hard to imagine launching a war of that scale without inciting hatred of the enemy in your soldiers?


That's not what my great-great-grandfathers service record says, or the extremely long list of Canadians killed or injured in WW1.

The German that shot him was probably just messing around, you're right.


There are no simple situations in war. The soldiers on all sides of this one were, by and large, eager to be anywhere else. It was a stupid war that accomplished little besides the pointless bloodshed.

It’s likely your grandfather was a good man with no desire to kill Germans. It’s likely whoever shot him felt the same.


> The soldiers on all sides of this one were, by and large, eager to be anywhere else

No doubt they were. But we do tend to forget that large swathes of them had originally volunteered, often with enthusiasm.


Back than that was normal thing. Just watch, or read, All Quite in the West. Especially the scene right before the boys graduate highschool. Also, the war was supposed to be over by Christmas. And once reality hit it was too late.


I am well aware of that, and have read Im Westen Nichts Neues a number of times. This doesn't affect my point: Huge numbers volunteered for slaughtering and being slaughtered, many with gusto and in great haste.


My grandfather served in WW2, not WW1. In his case, he actually lied about his age to join, and also was made to temporarily change the German surname you might notice in my username. He was enlisted for the duration and stayed on for decades after. Only left when they made him (medical).


Well try reading some more.


Personal attacks will get you banned here. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended?


I don't think its quite fair to label this a personal attack, and I don't agree with it getting flagged.

Your link also states "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation"

Both their parent and GP were talking about reading conflicting things. Reading around to get a better sense of the truth of the matter would seem, reasonable.

Of course a less pithy comment, where the meaning was clear would be best of all.


Perhaps it would be better to call it a shallow dismissal. Those are also in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.


Yes that seems reasonable. :)


Even though you disagree with me, and probably my tone, this is a useless and unproductive comment.


It is good for a nation to explore it's past no matter what might turn up.

It's far worse to uncritically examine our ancestors behaviour.


I agree with you actually, I've just examined this part of our past myself and come to a different conclusion than you.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: