Battle Field

For this contest, I'm looking for stories about war. I want big battles, destruction. I want death and suffering, emotionally and physically.

BONUS POINTS FOR:
- making the story about two comrades, one of which dies or gets wounded
- setting the story during WWII (particularly the bombing of Pearl Harbor)

RULES:
- no bashing any religion, ethinicity, etc. I want a war story, not a statement of hate
- make sure to choose a font color that is legible on top of your background
- please check your spelling and grammar before entering. If either is horrible, I will remove you from the contest, end of story.

The more entries I get, the more points I will add.

Have fun, put your hearts into it, and give me all you've got! Good luck, guys!

Contest is Over

  • Contest was judged on February 9, 2008
  • Rewards: Gold: 150, Silver: 100, Bronze: 50, Honorable mention: 3 people
  • Final notes:
    I have to admit, it was very hard to choose the winners for this contest. I got so many entries that all seemed to say, pick me! But it had to be done, in the end. They were all amazing.
    Sorry I took so long to judge this, but the last month or so has been crazy. Thanks to you all, and congrats to the winners!

Contest Winners

  1. In Enemies Land
    Chapter 11 / 'You ready Pete?' I grinned as I spoke into the speaker.2 / 'As ready as I'll ever be Nathan, I just wish I had taken a leak b
    by Peachy 1800 words, 5 comments, on Jan 20 2:10 AM 2008. In Action, Death, Pain, Sad, Tragedy, Unfinished
    Gold trophy winner
    • Commented on by judge. [remove]
  2. Why Am I Here
    The coppery scent of blood is filling my nose. Screams permeate the air around me. I must live. I must survive. Bullets fly, my comrades ar
    by J-Menz223 1200 words, 26 comments, on Nov 9 1:23 PM 2007
    Silver trophy winner
    • Commented on by judge. Prewrite [remove]
  3. Error: Unable to find finalist item 136742, it seems to have been deleted :( [remove]
  4. The Bombs Keep Falling
    John and I were sitting on our usual patrol placement, smoking and talking about the war that was going on as we usually do. We sat there
    by MidnightMoonStar 600 words, 8 comments, on Jan 19 11:33 AM 2008. In , Historical fiction, Teen, War
    Honorable mention
    • Commented on by judge. Prewrite [remove]
  5. Patrol
    Specialist Landon James sat cleaning his gun under the shade of the overhanging roof at his post in Iraq. He looked at the picture of the
    by crosscountry07 1200 words, 4 comments, on Jan 20 6:24 PM 2008
    Honorable mention
    • Commented on by judge. [remove]
  6. When Things Fell Silent
    Pearl Harbor, December 19411 / It's funny how people can say that one should value everyday like it was the last. But for some reason, I felt as though something was gonna happen- something any o
    by B Chandler 300 words, 6 comments, on Jan 27 1:35 AM 2008. In Fiction, Short story
    Honorable mention
    • Commented on by judge. [remove]

Entries [11]

1 - 11 of 11

Add a comment

    : Comment:

Comments

1 - 13 of 13

  • asthray.heart
    January 17, 2008
    Edit | Reply
    If I knew more about War, and cared to no more I might have entered this. Could you do a journal entry explaining a peice of the War?

    • the shorty
      January 18, 2008
      Edit | Reply
      um... you want to do a journal entry about war? or you want me to do one?
      ...sorry, a bit confused.


  • Trinity Dragon
    January 18, 2008
    Edit | Reply
    There's more to war than just death and suffering. War is an art, it takes training and talent to cultivate it and keep it from spiraling out of control. Master tacticians like Patton understood this, that there is also honor in war, loyalty and sentiment.

    I just thought you might like to know that.

    • the shorty
      January 18, 2008
      Edit | Reply
      yeah, I know.
      But that's not what I was looking for, although I probably will someday.


    • Bloody Chaplain
      January 18, 2008
      Edit | Reply
      What do you mean Patton understood this, now don't get me wrong he was a key piece to the victory in Europe but he sent more soldiers to their deaths then any one. He did want to look good in the papers rather then be successful; the battles had a very high casualty rate and could be done much easier. Hell Eisenhower even said he was brash. No, a better example would be Macarthur; he was a brilliant commander, if mostly unsuccessful. And has there ever been a war without suffering and death no! They go hand in hand like milk and a glass and for most soldiers with exceptions there is no honor, they try to kill me I try to kill them that is what it always breaks down into no matter how it looks.


      • Krazy Scott
        January 19, 2008
        Edit | Reply
        Err, not to be argumentative, but Hitler sent more people to their deaths than anyone.

        And Patton, while certainly brash, was the ONLY Allied General that the Nazi's were completely, unilaterally terrified of. Field Marshal Montgomery certainly couldn't claim that, nor could Eisenhower. And if he was SO brash, then why did his men love him so much? No General who routinely throws away the lives of his men--as you seem to be saying-- maintains that sort of support from his troops for long. He lost so many men because he was so effective that he always got the hot spots. And he took them back, every time.

        Albeit I grant you that MacArthur was certainly a good example, as well, but I think you don't quite understand the war that Patton was fighting. I'm NOT saying that the man was without flaw--he was reprimanded several times by the Allied High Command for being out of line, both to his own troops for calling 'shell-shock' cowardice and slapping a soldier, AND for disrespecting our Soviet allies--even though the Soviets eventually proved him right. But his war record has stood the test of time.

        • Bloody Chaplain
          January 20, 2008
          Edit | Reply
          Sorry I didn't phrase that right, he would not take the path to victory with the smallest amount of casualties, he would instead do some crazy plan that would put him in the papers. And yes his men loved him, he won more battles then he lost. I'm not even saying he purposfully sent men to their deaths I'm saying that he was a news reel man.

      • Trinity Dragon
        January 30, 2008
        Edit | Reply
        Remember: Patton went with his soldiers. He cared little for the papers, that's why he was so successful. A good commander is a successful commander, and General Patton was the one to liberate Morocco and France. You can't say that about Macarthur.

        And I never said that death was not a part of war. I'm wholly aware that death is a major part of war, but it is not the whole of it. You're one of those guys who likes to twist words, right?

        • Bloody Chaplain
          January 30, 2008
          Edit | Reply
          do you know anything about military history? Hell Eisenhower even said patton was one of the most flashy military leaders of the war! He was always ready to get into the papers! And about Macarthur, he had do to a hell of alot more battles then Patton that had a very small succsess rate! The Philipines ring a bell, going across a country is one thing landing on an Island with five enemy soldiers per yard is a different thing all together. Especially when your pows would be killed if you succseded. I never said that Patton wasn't a great general, he just wasn't the most succsesful one. I'm sorry to disapoint you, he was good and all but fame was a big deal to him, alot more then other generals.


          And yes, when it helps me get out of potentially horrible situations then yes I will twist words to avoid that problem, like a know you do. There isn't one person on this site who doesn;t at some time or another, some just do it to much for no real reason. Besides you one of those mamas boys who beileves they're right without looking at the facts?

          • Krazy Scott
            February 3, 2008
            Edit | Reply
            Well, you're very wrong about Patton, dude. His primary concern was killing the enemy, not getting in the papers--where THAT came into play was the personal rivalry between him and Montgomery, who was also a grandstander, but not a successful field commander. Patton wanted it understood by the papers who was doing what, so that the people back home would know. It wasn't about personal glory, because he felt that was completely assured anyway, he didn't need the papers for that. But he never threw away the lives of his men uselessly for personal gain. If you're going to jump someone about not knowing their history, then you should first make sure that you have yours correct, or you end up looking kinda dumb. He possibly could have saved lives by changing his tactics, yes, but that would have put his operations at risk, and as a field commander and part of a unified front, he wouldn't do that.

            That said, he never let a victory by his men go unmentioned in the papers if he could get it out there--both for the sake of his men, and the war effort in America and England. But being in the papers wasn't his 'driving force' as you seem to think. He hated the press personally.

            I'll take the word of West Point military historians--who agree with Patton's tactics, by the way--over you any day. Sorry, but you're very, very wrong here.


  • B Chandler Greeters member
    January 20, 2008
    Edit | Reply

    Good Grief

    So many good entries! Im gonna see if I can do some kind of justice with an entry...

    Better trying than not trying at all is my motto

1 - 13 of 13