"Suicide to death" always seems to be the symbol of a hero. It has also become the most extreme and thorough way to evaluate a person's courage and loyalty to a certain belief, team or leader himself. As a bright red symbol and a "patent image", it has been firmly engraved in people's daily psychology, and has been added and strengthened over and over again by historical brushstrokes throughout the ages ... With this solid impression, the word "captured" immediately became gloomy and suspicious.
After the outbreak of the Soviet-German War, the Soviet authorities lacked contingency preparations and made wrong decisions (another important reason for the failure of the war was probably Stalin's long-term policy of "eliminating counter-revolutionaries" and "eliminating". According to Memoirs of simonov, as early as five or six years before the war, the middle and senior generals in the Red Army were almost completely annihilated, and even the field officers were killed to pieces. On the battlefield, the commander-in-chief officers frequently acted as brigade commanders, causing heavy losses to the Red Army. In the summer of 194 1 year alone, the number of prisoners reached more than 2 million. According to the statistics of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, during the whole war, the total number of prisoners of the Soviet Red Army reached 4.59 million. But even so, we can't deny the tenacity and courage of Soviet officers and men. Even the German war logs fully confirmed that most Red Army officers and men were captured when they were injured, ran out of ammunition and food, and were on the verge of difficulties. It should be said that they did their best for the country, and even in the prison camp, the honor and national dignity of the Red Army were not lost.
But what happened to them later was extremely tragic. The most unbearable thing is not the fascist abuse and strangulation, but the trial from the "anti-traitor department" of the motherland. Jakovleff, the former propaganda minister of the Soviet Union, recalled in "A Cup of Bitter Wine"-
In the early days of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet authorities even regarded those who only stayed on the other side of the front for a short time as traitors of the motherland. In fact, whether they were tried or not, they were severely suppressed. Army special forces executed all suspected officers and soldiers who escaped or escaped without trial ... The Soviet National Defense Commission also passed a resolution to set up a special concentration camp during the war to review the "former Red Army soldiers" released from the prison camp and found in the liberated areas. The special concentration camp is a well-managed military prison ...1August 1945 18, the National Security Council passed a resolution on sending Red Army soldiers released from German prison camps and repatriated people of military service age to work in the industrial sector. According to this resolution, they were all incorporated into the "Labor Camp of the People's Committee of the Ministry of National Defense", which is no different in nature from the labor camp of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. ...
As early as 1940, the attitude of Soviet leaders towards the captured Red Army personnel was determined: Finland handed over 55,000 prisoners of war to the Soviet authorities as soon as the Soviet-Finnish war ended. They were all sent to a special concentration camp in Yuza town, Ivanovo state, surrounded by barbed wire and guarded by escort teams of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and were not allowed to communicate and meet relatives and friends. Most of them were sentenced to different terms of imprisonment, and the rest were escorted to the far north in the spring of 194 1. Their future fate is unknown. (A cup of bitter wine, Xinhua Publishing House,1August 1999)
Obviously, in the eyes of the authorities, the first duty of a soldier is to give up his life, and every task is equivalent to life. When the war fails and the task is not completed, "living" becomes a crime! No matter what the reason and background, it is a shame to be caught! This is a betrayal of orders! Cowardly compromise without exhausting strength is a disproof!
In fact, the fate of any soldier is nothing more than three possibilities: triumph, martyr or prisoner of war. For a Soviet soldier who participated in the Great Patriotic War, being the last "triumphalist" may be the most glorious and proud thing in the world. Once he becomes a "prisoner of war", he will become the most unfortunate and painful person in the world ... even if he is released, he will fall into darkness and hardship for the rest of his life. Not only will he not get a pension and care, but he will also bear a heavy "scarlet letter" symbolizing shame all his life, suffering from discrimination and personality torture. Just like Hamlet's famous choice: to be or not to be? This is indeed a dilemma for Soviet soldiers.
Perhaps it is precisely because of the authorities' sober estimation and understanding that the fate of future prisoners of war has long been cruelly interpreted by the experience of more than 50 thousand soldiers after the "Sufen War." At the end of World War II, as many as 450,000 Soviet citizens refused to return to the motherland, including172,000 former soldiers. They are far away from their beloved motherland and relatives with fear of national politics.
It should be admitted that no matter in the past, present or future, it is hard to expect a country or a nation to naturally treat prisoners of war like heroes. This can be found from the perspectives of history and culture, human psychology and psychoanalysis. Totally understandable. However, an extreme example like the Soviet Union, which almost regards prisoners of war as traitors, is not only justified for cultural reasons, but also far from "simplicity" and far beyond the normal understanding and behavior of human nature ... In the final analysis, this is the result of totalitarian line, abnormal political psychology and rude beliefs that violate human nature and irrationality.
Fortunately, I also accepted my former comrades in the concentration camp. On the warm Pacific coast, I saw another opposite scenery-
1September 2, 945, the Japanese surrender ceremony was held on the Missouri. At nine o'clock in the morning, General douglas macarthur, the supreme commander of the occupying forces, appeared on the deck, which was a great scene that attracted the attention and excitement of the whole world. In the face of hundreds of journalists and photographers, MacArthur suddenly made a surprising move. A reporter recalled that historical moment like this: "When MacArthur, a five-star general of the Army, signed the surrender letter on behalf of the Allied Forces, he suddenly called Major General Jonathan Wineriter and Lieutenant Colonel Arthur percival of the British Army and asked them to stand behind him. 1942, Wainewright surrendered to the Japanese in the Philippines and Percival surrendered to the Japanese in Singapore. Both of them had just been released from a prison camp in Manchuria, China, and then flew here in a hurry.
It can be said that this move surprised, envied and moved almost everyone present. Because they now occupy the most prominent position in front of the historical lens, they should belong to the ever-victorious generals who have made great achievements. Now this great honor has been assigned to two people who were captured at the beginning of the war. Why did MacArthur do this? It is of great significance: both of them accepted the will of their superiors and gave up their resistance because they were outnumbered and had no reinforcements, in order to avoid the unnecessary sacrifice of more young people. I have seen a photo and recorded the scene at that time. The two "prisoners of war" looked haggard and in a trance. Compared with the burly commanders, they are as thin as two sick bamboo poles, which shows that they have suffered a lot in the prison camp.
However, in the view of General Douglas, it seems not enough to just let them stand there. He did something even more amazing-
"General * * * used five pens to sign the surrender book in English and Japanese. The first pen was returned to Winster after Doug was finished, the second pen was sent to percival after Lars was finished, and the other pens were distributed to the US government archives, West Point Military Academy (his alma mater) and his wife after completing all the formalities ... "
MacArthur means well. In the form of special honor, he expressed his respect and understanding to the two shipwrecked people who completed their work and did their duty, and thanked them for making great sacrifices of personal reputation and pain in order to save the lives of their compatriots. ...
This is not so much an expression of the general's own warmth as a choice of rational belief, which comes from a healthy and normal attitude towards life and an understanding of war. It is not an impulse of personal feelings, nor is it an act of personal friendship, but represents a national will to warmly embrace those who have made special contributions to this war. Extraordinary courtesy is a kind of compensation and heartfelt thanks for their great inferiority and mental loss-in the eyes of the general, only double compensation is the real compensation! That pen loudly tells each other: don't forget, you are heroes, too! You deserve victory and this great moment!
Yes, is death the highest honor and value standard for soldiers? Is it the best reward for the motherland and compatriots? Are the motherland and compatriots who put forward such demands too selfish, too narrow and too harsh? Cherish the life of every member of society and respect the value of others' existence, isn't it the performance of a human rights society?
Usually we can often see similar swearing lines in war novels or movies: "Don't come back alive unless ..." "Why are you still alive when others are dead? ! "Of course, such indecent words are mostly' anti-each other'. Although the description of "Zheng Fang" skillfully avoids such embarrassment in words, it can't hide the same tendency in values: both writers, screenwriters and readers show binary opposition in their expectation and design of the fate of "losers of our army": martyrs or traitors ... This has almost become a deep-rooted thinking inertia and creative mode. In a word, the hero in our mind must never be captured, otherwise it will be unbearable emotionally. Once caught, either cleverly design him to escape from prison, or arrange him to play the "glory bomb" early ... With the sound of "mutually assured destruction", our souls seem to be suddenly released, "relaxed" and "gratified" a lot. The failure of the body won the victory for the spirit in the tragic climax! The victory of popular psychology! Collective unconscious victory!
This is quite profound. Perhaps, in our eyes, arranging a person to "die" is precisely the result of "maintaining" "defending" and "attaching importance to" his honor and value? ..... "Death" becomes a vague "love"? It seems a little shy to say it, but it is what many people really think. What makes us afraid that the hero is still alive? Yes, choosing to be captured and giving up destruction is indeed a treasure of life-even a sense of "fear of death". Is it wrong to "cherish" ("fear of death")? Why is it that even the survival of not betraying the enemy and the comrades-in-arms is regarded as a kind of "betrayal" by us? Will people who value him and love him feel sorry, embarrassed, cheated and hurt? -Is it fair for us to make that kind of secret expectation for "heroes" in advance? Can it be called healthy, reasonable and normal?
Regardless of political factors, does this also expose the fragility and speculation of a historical psychology? A deformity or injury of life culture?
We often see reports on the rescue of "hostages" in the news media. In the eyes of all people, "hostages" are obviously regarded as "victims" and "weak people", and we rarely make such paranoia: why do these hostages prefer to be hostages honestly-rather than resist and fight to the death with gangsters? In this way, it saves the government trouble, doesn't it? In fact, prisoners of war are also "hostages" and "victims" in another sense. They have made contributions to the country-victims of physical and mental grievances and serving sentences. In the eyes of reason, being captured is a kind of "failure", but it can only be regarded as a material effect and a temporary failure. It is a "negative" result obtained by the utilitarian calculation method of war, and it cannot be used as an evaluation of a person's ultimate personality value and vitality. Accurately and fairly speaking, "captured" itself is also a powerful existence. It has not lost its spiritual hardness and tenacity, but it has dignity and tenacity. Any captured soldier has the right to say, "Yes, I failed, but I fought more!" " "... I always think that a person's contribution to the collective and society is limited, and his responsibility is limited-not unlimited-and he should not sacrifice his personal interests or even his life in an absolute way regardless of reason.
Encouraging sacrifice, advocating giving one's life and praising selflessness ... this is narrow political heroism, not practical humanitarianism. It is not based on real concern for individuals and life, but completely takes the realization of absolute group goals as the only value standard.
The different experiences of American and Soviet prisoners of war reflect two different cultural spirits and values, one emphasizes politics and the other emphasizes life. One is full of expressions and death threats, and the other is generous compassion; One is to narrowly maintain the integrity of team honor and seek the maximum value of political interests, and the other is to care about individual value and individual safety as much as possible. ...
Although the former is majestic and heroic, it also has a cold smell of blood ... Although the latter knows "fear" and is suspected of "cowardice" and "compromise", it also has human nature and human warmth ... Does "not afraid of death" really conform to the beauty of reason and the glorious principle of soldiers? Hitler's soldiers, Japan's "Kamikaze Commandos" and Bushido were also urged and moved by this rigid military harsh law and sacrifice spirit. Did they kill, commit suicide or be killed? For example, in the final stage of the Pacific War, the outcome was decided. Almost all the 5,000 Japanese soldiers guarding the island of Corregidor were killed, and only 26 disabled people were captured by the US military. Such figures are both surprising and frightening, which is worth pondering. From a purely military professional point of view, it can be called the most powerful and dignified army in the world, which makes commanders most satisfied and proud. Every politician also hopes to have such a group of "dead" soldiers under his command, but in the sense of humanity and life conscience, the crimes they actually committed, the threat to human security and the harm to others are the most cruel and terrible.