Serious Thought experiment - dead soldier letters are manipulative

[AsiaCel]

I was researching how the Nazis comforted the families of dead soldiers, taking advantage of the emotions to shift blame to the traitors within. Suddenly, I realized the vagueness in language is actually a potent tool.

I had a thought about the letters notifying families of fallen soldiers. Now, I have not exactly dived deep into the letters themselves, but I've only used the Google AI summary.

Apparently armies often include actual details written by commanders, so I thought up a few scenarios and how they can be exaggerated but technically correct.

Scenario 1:

A soldier walked into the field, fired a single bullet at nowhere, got sniped.

Letter 1:

"He bravely marched into the field and inspired his comrades by his presence, and fought effectively by suppressing the enemy ensuring his comrades' safety"

Analysis:

The letter is techanically correct. A soldier's mere presence can inspire comrades. Firing a single bullet is considered suppressing the enemy and fighting effectively.

Scenario 2:

A office logistics soldier, part of an elite unit, panicking and running then blown up by a drone

Letter 2:

"The soldier, always with his meticulous attention, contributed to the destruction of the enemy. He and his unit inflicted extremely heavy casualty on the enemy forces. The soldier's final moment lies in his struggle against a drone, tactically repositioning himself with such lightning speed unseen before."

Analysis:

Techanically correct, even cleaning the toilet is contributing to heavy casualties of the enemies indirectly (via morale). Panicking and running away can be considered tactical repositioning.

Scenario 3:

A sniper missed a shot, alerted the enemy base and got counter sniped

Letter 3:

"He was a sharp shot; he met his end in the top of the line combat mission, in which he met his unfortunate exit in the hands of overwhelming forces.

Analysis:

He fucked up a mission. So what is a sharp shot? No standard definition! Militaries usually hide details for missions like that.

 

[The Death Devil]

Well yes, but if you're going to go out of your way to contact a fallen soldier's family, you may as well make it sound like their deaths sound far more valiant than they really were. After all, who is going to say anything to contradict it? You don't want to leave the bereaved family feeling even more sorrowful if you can avoid it—such things would also lower the chance that more people sign up to the military since nobody wants to die in some pathetic way.

 

[AsiaCel]

Well yes, but if you're going to go out of your way to contact a fallen soldier's family, you may as well make it sound like their deaths sound far more valiant than they really were. After all, who is going to say anything to contradict it? You don't want to leave the bereaved family feeling even more sorrowful if you can avoid it—such things would also lower the chance that more people sign up to the military since nobody wants to die in some pathetic way.

Correct. It's not like the families can fight it anyway, because like I said, firing a shot is considered fighting effectively. No standard definition for these things, and it's a valid tactic (suppressive fire)

 

[SmhChan]

They do this when they get killed in training or an accidental friendly fire.

 

[AsiaCel]

They do this when they get killed in training or an accidental friendly fire.

The second one is so easy to frame under war by excluding the details.

You can literally describe the situation as is, just omitting where the bullet came from"

"He was fighting but got shot by a bullet"