Who was the better soldier?

As one who has also been in life-or-death situations, I can say I'd rather have a solid, earnest officer like Barrow at my back than a drunken buffoon like Sinclair who is only in it for his own ego and who is far more likely to retaliate against a perceived slight by one of his men, resulting in bailing out on them on the battlefield and smirking about it afterward. The man was untrustworthy. Do you really think Sinclair's priority was the best interests of his men? All that "hail fellow well met" stuff cloaked a colossal ego.

As for suicide, yes, people can "cause" suicide in another, as Barrow's case exemplifies. Why do you think one of the first questions asked of a suicidal woman is, "Were you an incest victim?" -- since such a high rate of suicide in women is caused by incest -- "caused by an outside agent". As one who has worked in suicide intervention, I can tell you that the wrong word said to an at-risk person can indeed put them over the edge. And someone like Barrow who was repeatedly tortured in a prison camp while Sinclair was boozing with his cronies is definitely an at-risk person -- he was clearly suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Yes, many former POWs do not commit suicide but psychologists will tell you that this often depends on the extent and duration of their torture and confinement, and the level of support they receive afterward. Barrow received no support -- just the opposite. He was baited and disrespected by Sinclair just to show off -- a very adolescent childish game.

It was clearly Sinclair's malicious intent to push Barrow over the edge because of the most trivial of disagreements, with no regard to the man's horrific war experience or his charitable decision in Sinclair's favor. If Sinclair's treatment of Barrow is an example of his "care for his men", I would certainly hate to have him at my back in a life-or-death situation. He would slip the knife in your back over a disagreement about who took the last scone at tea.



"The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power."
- Julius Caesar, act 2 sc 1

Same here-Jock was a fighting soldier at his best in battle. Barrow was,apart from being neurotic, the kind of man who would wear Y-fronts under his kilt! Scott the real villain for obvious reasons-CO tops himself, 2-i--c cracks up, 3-i-c gets that long overdue promotion!

Some interesting perspectives here, however, I get the distinct feeling they are inspired by US military background as opposed to UK or Commonwealth.

Most of the initial errors have been corrected (Japanese prison camp, Jock was not drinking and partying while Barrow was tortured - he was fighting a war...).

I know that "mess culture" in the US military is very different than in Commonwealth units. The messes (clubs stratified along lines of rank: junior ranks: Sergeants and Warrant Officers: and officers) are very important for bonding with one's peers. They have bars and sell alcohol which can be the cause of bad behaviour, but, also acts as an aide to blowing steam.

The US military's attitude toward alcohol is downright puritanical. At least 2posters have commented on the behaviour in the mess being drunken debauchery etc (sounds more like Caligula). They also said it would never happen with the "Enlisted Men" what we call the Other Ranks (ORs)or, in Canada, Non-Commissioned Members (NCMs). Obviously, you've never set foot in proper Commonwealth messes on a particularly wild night. A degree of wildness is tolerated (even encouraged) as it allows them to blow off steam and builds cohesion in the privacy of their respective club and not in public.

Admittedly, there is a time and a place for certain behaviour. The officers' behaviour at the cocktail party was in contravention to the CO's orders and not appropriate for a function attended by civilians and ladies. This is the true transgression - thumbing their noses at the new CO's orders. The behaviour itself was not all that bad: dancing with arms held high, loud whooping etc...Remember, these officers (except for the newest subbies like Mackinnon)had just spent as much as 6 years at war. The transition is a tough one.

Barrow was obviously dealing with some demons and mental instability. I think it goes further back than being a POW - his father, grandfather etc had all commanded the battalion - lots of pressure. He didn't appear to fit in even as a subaltern (whiskey doesn't agree with him) and it seems he was moved out on ERE fairly early outside of the battalion. It is my assessment that his mental instability meant he was not a good choice to be CO.

Jock was commissioned from the ranks, popular and rough around the edges. He was effective as CO (to a point) but suffered from some character flaws. Being CO is about respect and not popularity. The CO (with the RSM to advise him) sets standards that keep the battalion an effective fighting unit. Many of these standards are not going to be popular. In that respect, Jock was lacking as a CO.

It has been mentioned that Charlie Scott was the real villain. I think this is treating this too much like The Caine Mutiny and Fred McMurry's character. Scott was honest and knew the right answers. Jock had committed a serious crime and should have faced judgement for his actions. Barrow faltered and compromised his principals in pursuit of the popular decision vs the right decision. When he fully realizes this (aided by Scott's comment) he snaps and commits suicide. The novel is less clear in the end. Barrow simply disappears at the river's edge and is never seen again, presumed dead.