Nice read but doesn't mention much about the modern decline of battlefield drinking. My understanding is that it's due to deployed women being at high risk of assault from a fellow soldier when alcohol is involved, but I've never really read a comprehensive analysis about it.
The decline of alcohol in the services predates even serious consideration of integrating the services. A combination of factors have changed matters, but the two biggest are:
-Alcohol has always been trouble for discipline and getting work done. It was just... unavoidable. People didn't drink water, they drank weak (or strong) booze, and that shaped cultures. It was still trouble, "What do you do with a drunken sailor?"
-Other drugs came to dominate, either openly or prescribed (Go and No-Go pills for example) or covertly and for fun.
Your understanding is wrong. It has more to do with pent up emotions of soldiers and dealing with the trauma of war in violent and unhealthy ways when alcohol is involved.
Also Marines get roudy when drunk (source: 5 years in the corps) and the culture there encourages fighting and violence.
If you find this topic interesting, I suggest reading "Drink: A Cultural History of Alcohol" by Iain Gately. It's a breezy history of western civilization through the lens of alcohol.
It's strange that it doesn't mention alcohol's ability to lower inhibitions. Getting over people's natural reluctance to kill has been a serious issue for gun based combat, and alcohol is a cheap way to help with that. It's downturn is likely the lack of the draft and the military using people that already have lower inhibitions on the front lines.
Modern training techniques and technology also have a lot to do with lowered inhibitions to killing, at least as far as I understand after reading Grossman's "On Killing".
I found that book interesting, but AFAICT it is has a pretty terrible reputation among historians. Mostly for relying heavily on the work of SLA Marshall, who appears to have skewed or outright invented much of his evidence.
Killing another human without any real direct threat doesn't seem that natural to me. If some guy is actively trying to hurt me then it seems entirely natural to kill.
He's wearing the wrong uniform seems less of a reason. Volume is also a problem. Basically, killing seems traumatic in and of itself.
Drinking fermented beverages is a sure way to avoid water borne disease, and keeping your forces healthy was the determining factor in these historical contexts.
Until fairly recently alcohol also helped with the problem of contaminated water causing massive casualties eg more died through disease during the napolionic wars than through firefights.
It may be diuretic but, for obvious reasons, no alcoholic drink is entirely made of ethanol.
Just like sugared soda might not be the most healthy choice of hydration, it's still gonna keep you hydrated.
I wish I could find the link now, but there was a very interesting (and, based on my admittedly rudimentary knowledge of history, high quality) thread on reddit's /r/askHistorians that dispelled this 'myth'.
Article mentions that Hitler didn't drink alcohol, but he sure was a speed freak and took a lot of other drugs. Also worth mentioning that the Axis and Allied sides both utilized amphetamines heavily during the war.
I think that alcohol use on the battlefield has declined largely because in modern warfare, the kind of impairment that you get from alcohol is a huge liability, but the kind of edge that a driver or pilot can potentially get from a strong stimulant can really benefit the effort.
Never heard that the allied side also did that. All they tell you in Germany is that the Nazis did it. There are some documentaries on German public television about that.
Amphetamines were in common civil use, available over the counter and only restricted in the US in the 70s. They were in diet pills and pep pills etc. You grandparents may very well have taken amphetamines at some point in their lives.
But no, not commonly part of the narrative. Remember, drugs are literally Hitler.
Alcohol in modern battlefield contexts is still a consideration. For Western military forces (especially American), alcohol is forbidden in warzones. It's considered contraband and is confiscated from inbound mail. But soldiers do often buy alcohol from locals, get it smuggled in through the mail, or -- as I did once -- make it like prison pruno. In addition, some warzones are different than others. For example, since there aren't really any regular (American) Army units in the Philippines, only Special Forces (et al), there aren't restrictions on alcohol like there are in other places. Very interesting and unique being in a warzone where alcohol use was sanctioned by commanders. On the one hand I understand why it's restricted, but on the other hand, in my experience, most folks can handle some amount of alcohol in their lives on tour. I guess the military's playing a numbers game and they take zero chances. Officially, at least.
37 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 27.3 ms ] thread-Alcohol has always been trouble for discipline and getting work done. It was just... unavoidable. People didn't drink water, they drank weak (or strong) booze, and that shaped cultures. It was still trouble, "What do you do with a drunken sailor?"
-Other drugs came to dominate, either openly or prescribed (Go and No-Go pills for example) or covertly and for fun.
http://theconversation.com/the-enemy-within-the-battle-over-...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207276/
Also Marines get roudy when drunk (source: 5 years in the corps) and the culture there encourages fighting and violence.
It has very little to do with sexual assault.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall#Controversy_af...
Just a few centuries ago beheadings, blood feuds, lynch mobs and such were commonplace.
He's wearing the wrong uniform seems less of a reason. Volume is also a problem. Basically, killing seems traumatic in and of itself.
Alcohol is a diuretic, if that was all you drank, you'd succumb to dehydration.
I think that alcohol use on the battlefield has declined largely because in modern warfare, the kind of impairment that you get from alcohol is a huge liability, but the kind of edge that a driver or pilot can potentially get from a strong stimulant can really benefit the effort.
Edit: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3bjp4y/total-intoxication...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377281/
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/294543/blitzed/
But no, not commonly part of the narrative. Remember, drugs are literally Hitler.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_culture_of_subst...