The historical and legal context is completely understood - it doesn't change a thing.
The fact that he was a "lifelong petty crook" is meaningless, and does not make him any less deserving of basic human decency than other people.
But that does not mean he could not do his job to the best of his ability.
You're right - sometimes in life we have to do things we don't want to, and we should try to accept those circumstances and make the best of them.
However, I'm not going to send someone to a Siberian gulag and then condemn him for not working "to the best of his ability" in the quarries.
Basically Slovik's execution served as a warning against desertion.
Yep. And a system that requires someone to die as an example and "warning" is deeply, fundamentally flawed. It doesn't matter that it has been going on since the dawn of civilization and war (see: decimation in Roman armies, and probably many other such practices for thousands of years before that) - it's still evil. I know, I know - we tell ourselves that it's inevitable. That it's a "tragic necessity" of war. But, if we're going to be honest with ourselves, Eddie Slovik did not have to die. There are better ways to maintain discipline than shooting someone who doesn't want to fight - ways that allow us to maintain our humanity.
A lot of criticism against the Army made on this board is due to the benefit of hindsight.
No, most of the criticisms are made due to the benefit of having basic human compassion and to the realization that it's wrong to murder someone for cowardice (regardless of whether they're wearing a uniform.) We understand all the claims of "you've got to maintain discipline!," and realize how flimsy and immoral such excuses are.
But I'm afraid to say he did deserve it because in war you cannot have men run away and abandon their units.
In other words, the military ethos is so entrenched that we as a society are able to justify throwing an innocent man into a uniform and then killing him if he gets too scared to fight - that is, if he feels basic human emotions and doesn't respond to them in the way we would like him to.
Millions of Americans served their country faithfully on the front lines during WWII braving the same dangers Pvt. Slovik faced.
And yet, in spite of what the Selective Service would want us to believe, not every able-bodied person with XY chromosomes is a good match for the army. Some of them are actually terrible matches, whether it's because of philosophical/religious objections or because of personality or simply because they aren't able to adjust to the army mentality. Maybe it's a failing, or maybe it's simply evidence of the many different types of people in the world - but even if it is a failing, it shouldn't be a fatal one. Someone can be unfit for the army and still lead a perfectly good life.
Yes, every sufficiently large society must be fairly impersonal in its laws and judgments - they have to view us as groups and statistics rather than individuals - but few acts of "civilized" societies are as dehumanizing and immoral as conscription. Few acts of "civilized" societies are as evil as murdering someone as "an example."
And yet there are those who consider Slovik the hero because he chose to run away when many of his fellow soldiers stayed and fought.
He's not a hero. Just a tragic victim of an unjust system.
I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here
reply
share
philfeeley
10 years ago
Well said, sir. I applaud your reasoning.
Everyone should read David Swanson's book "War is a Lie."
reply
share