I *completely* understand that there needs to be a hierarchy, but there seems to be a big discontinuity between these different classifications. When I was in the Navy, I noticed this extended to eating accommodations, and even how ships were built (different hallways for enlisted and officers to walk down). This may have made sense “back in the day”, but why does this separation continue to exist today?
In: 222
In the US, the Navy is on a whole ‘nother level where it comes to officer-enlisted relations. The US Navy derives its traditions from the 18th century Royal Navy, which did have completely separate treatment of officers and enlisted. The US Army, in contrast, derives its traditions from the Prussian Army, and was much more utilitarian. (The American Revolution is right around the time that the Prussians were dropping the whole powdered wig thing and instead expecting soldiers to be field-ready as soon as they woke up rather than having to spend an hour doing their hair and make-up.) That’s not to say there isn’t a separation, but it is far less pronounced, and more for a reason (to avoid conflicts of interest and favoritism) than tradition. I can’t say why the USN has not updated its traditions, but probably because the officers like it that way.
As for prisoners of war, there are actually laws (Geneva Convention) as to how POWs are to be treated, and those laws are international and were developed at a time when officers were often aristocrats, so it was expected if one aristocratic officer captured another, they would get together and dine together and share a sherry and be chums. Whereas the enlisted were just supernumeraries in their story. That is a bit of a caricature, but the laws were made by officers, who had it in their best interests to make sure they were well treated if captured.
Latest Answers