Proof that American middle class has become too alienated from the reality of warfare

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by GePap


Certainly by 2050 aversion to war will not be as strong.And yes, anytime there is a logn peace, people do seem to forget- remember war fever in 1914-how unlikely people in 1848 would have been to war fever.

Ok, this is somewhat true. But this also means that your time as pacifists is coming to and end, while our time is about to begin. Does it not? And if it does, what does this indicate?

The US after WW2 was richer than before it, and the destruction of competitors allowed for a huge boom. I am surprised you have never heard the refrain of "war is good for the economy". I hear it all the time, and this comes from our WW2 experience.

I have heard this many times in the main stream media and in main stream history, but I've also heard it retuted many times by university academics and in non-mainstream academic periodicals. There are many ways to judge the benefits of war to economies... sometimes it can be good, but to say it is necessarily a good thing is simply an over-simplification. Certainly there are many earea of the US economy after WW2 that is suggestive of this, else why would the modern American welfare state have been established? Because times were tough for alot of people and the need was established...

How else can you be educated to the horrors of war? given fieldtrips? As I said, in 50 years Europe will be less war averse, as the memory of the last huge war fades away.

Well, there has to be a way besides blasting eachother to bits. In neurobiological terms seeing something is the same, as far as the brain is concerned, as imagining it. This is how hypnotism and neumonics is effective. and Surely we can utilize this process. And I think this is exactly what war memorials and national cemeteries (including field trips!) in the US are attempting to do. I would even argue that it has been successful to a large degree. Besides, would you rather us resort to violence? I would hope not.

I believ this to be a very correct generalization.

You believe that Americans ignore history absolutely? Find me one American who doesn't (hey, guess what, you just did!) and your statement is false. And if you want to further claim that more Europeans do not ignore history compared to Americans, I would ask you to show some numbers or something to prove it. Otherwise its just hearsay.

[GePap]

If war is waged becuase people ignore the horrorf of war, then you recreate the horrors of war for somebody.

That is the issue. Now stop beating yourself up JohnT.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Becuase:
1. World war 2 hit much harder. Most of the suffering of WW1 stayed at the battlefield. Most of the suffering of WW2 happened at home. No one could come up with a "stabbed in the back" myth for WW2 given that the losers lost when their home armies were at ho,me, thier cities in ruble and besieged. Poeple in Italy could , regardless of the 250,000 dead, still smart that they did not get all of the land they wanted- thus question the whole enterprise and demand thier "soldier worth"- but after the second, with much of Italy in ruins, it seem pretty clear what the value of the wars was.

A power political arguement, rather than a collective argeument makes sense of it. World war one was terrible, but it did not eliminate the European states as great powers. World war two left european states reduced in power, and reliant on the US for support against the USSR. Essentially sovereignty was no longer politically meaningful - why then honor the symbols of sovereignty? (Especially so for the smaller states and the ex-fascist states - leaving nationalism somewhat more alive in France and UK)

European powers like France and the UK attempted to keep thier international power after WW2, and failed. And besides, these being democratic states for the most part int he west, long term political acts do at some level recognize popular whims. Plus of course, the fact that European powers were no longer great powers was aidrect result of the utter destruction of WW2.



The Algeria war took place on French soil- Nothern Algeria was composed of 3 departments of France- Algeria colons were part of the national assembly. The war also lead the military to twice interfere with French politics, going so far as an attemted coup- challenges to the very democratic system of France. Certainly the French resisted the anti-war stream in Europe more than anyone else, even the Brits- but maybe there one does need to dissect French thinking

1. WW1 cost plenty at home - in the areas where the trenches passed in the west, a huge swath of France and Belgium, and in wide areas of eastern europe. and of course associated shortages and famines in the central powers and Russian.

2. the politics, as you say was different. Exactly my point - so why should we state that diffferences between the US and Europe are based on HoW, rather than power politics.

As you point out, both France and UK tried to maintain great power status after WW2. And both resisted trend in europe not just toward pacifism towards stigmitzing nationalism. Till they suffered devastating colonial defeats. And since their paths have differed, France pursuing power as leader of integrated "3rd force" europe, and UK as bridge between US and Europe - with resultant different views of international institutionms and of nationalism.

[GePap]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Ok, this is somewhat true. But this also means that your time as pacifists is coming to and end, while our time is about to begin. Does it not? And if it does, what does this indicate?

Only if we don't witness some immense war in the next few years- thus buying more time. What it indicates is that if we want to avert war, we must trust to mechanism independent form political opinons.

Well, there has to be a way besides blasting eachother to bits. In neurobiological terms seeing something is the same, as far as the brain is concerned, as imagining it. This is how hypnotism and neumonics is effective. and Surely we can utilize this process. And I think this is exactly what war memorials and national cemeteries (including field trips!) in the US are attempting to do. I would even argue that it has been successful to a large degree. Besides, would you rather us resort to violence? I would hope not.

One of the reasons the Vietnam war memorial is so powerful is that it does nothing to aggrandize the cause fo war, only to show you what it costs. The coming WW2 memorial on the other hand will be more Soviet-like -some massive edifice to the glory of that war.

You believe that Americans ignore history absolutely? Find me one American who doesn't (hey, guess what, you just did!) and your statement is false. And if you want to further claim that more Europeans do not ignore history compared to Americans, I would ask you to show some numbers or something to prove it. Otherwise its just hearsay.

Wh siad American ignore history? (though most do)- it is an issue of always lookign ahead or today: think of how much people in the uS styrive for things to be quick, or disposable? Think about it-we are a nation obessed with making sure we have the new thing, and are able to, without worry, get rid of what we once had. To some degree this is general ocnsumer trend, but I have bene i Europe and Latin America, and the throwaway society is stronger here than elsewhere. In how many towns is something hisotrical of any interest in the US? Beyond that fact most towns in this country are two young to hold much of historical value, beyond places like plymouth planation, most greet tourist attractions are not based on history, but on size, grandeur or achievement, which are not the same criteria. I live in NYC, a city with huge history, but until the 1960's no one cared if some great historic hall got torn down to make room for the next new modern building- it took until 1964 and the tearing down od a huge landmark for people to start trying to save thier history.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Sprayber



Just because you are miserable with your life, doesn't mean everyone else has to be so cynical about things.

Do you want to live in a society of children and sing lullabies to everyone while bombs are droping on the rest of the world?

Reminds me of the world in Farenheit 451.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. WW1 cost plenty at home - in the areas where the trenches passed in the west, a huge swath of France and Belgium, and in wide areas of eastern europe. and of course associated shortages and famines in the central powers and Russian.

NOt on the same level as WW2. 80% of WW1 dead were on the battlefield. Only 15% of WW2 dead were on the battlefield. In WW2 mutiple large cities were utterly flattened, seeign 90-100% of the city destroyed. No major cities sufefred as much in WW1- plenty of smaller towns yes, but no citiesof 100,000 or more sufefred that fate in WW1.

2. the politics, as you say was different. Exactly my point - so why should we state that diffferences between the US and Europe are based on HoW, rather than power politics.

As you point out, both France and UK tried to maintain great power status after WW2. And both resisted trend in europe not just toward pacifism towards stigmitzing nationalism. Till they suffered devastating colonial defeats. And since their paths have differed, France pursuing power as leader of integrated "3rd force" europe, and UK as bridge between US and Europe - with resultant different views of international institutionms and of nationalism.

The reason why these states could not maintain the power polticis game were the horrors of war- ie, the immense cost in men, and primarilyl treasure that the war cost them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Thank you.
I guess nobody educated you, nobody taught you your language, your values, your faith if you have one, in short the contents of your brain. You just happened to speak English by the grace of birth, and you just had an innate ability to evaluate and enjoy the video we are talking about.

Countries aren't human beings and don't have brains. But countries, cultural groups etc, do influence the contents of individual brains. When I'm driving next to Verdun or the Somme, the cemetaries I see have no brains.

I live within 40 minutes drive of the site of first and second Manassas, within an hour of Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, the Wilderness, and a couple of hours from Gettysburg and Antietam, the site of the battle which was the largest one day loss of American lives by violence prior to 9/11. One of the biggest hit movies this year, is likely to be Cold Mountain, which will show the civil war in very unglorious terms.

This notion that Americans dont know the horrors of war like you good euros with your collective memories is without foundation. If you want to go to individual memory most of us dont have it, but neither do most of you. And if you want to go to collective memory, we have it as well as you, through a hundred different paths, from experience of war overseas, to immigrant experiences, to the HUGE collective memory of the American Civil War. Your only evidence that we lack such memory is that we do not respond to war, militarism or nationalism in the same way you do. Yet there have been many times and places, from Europe in the '30s to the middle east today, where people with greater experience of the horror of war then you have nonetheless reacted differently then you do now. The differences between the US and Europe are explicable on other bases, and do not require the distasteful rhetoric you employ.

[Ned]

Why all this talk of WWII? We have had Korea and Vietnam afterwards. Both were f*cking nightmares that somewhat traumatized us and made us reluctant to get involved without some clear "objective" and some clear "exit strategy." The thunderclap of Vietnam is still echoing in this year's debate over Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

also

I would point out that America stayed out of WW2 for two years when it had good strategic reasons for going in largely out of an aversion to the horrors of war. To this day there are people here who think that FDR tricked the Japanese into attacking.

The cold war fights were possible only in the context of the global struggle with the SU, and in light of beliefs that the US by trying to stay out of ww2 had made the horrors of war worse. Ulitimately both interventins were ended due to the "horrors of war".

Post cold war turned away in revulsion from the horrors of war in Somalia, and the intervention in Kosovo was contoversial at home.

We are a nation of reluctant warriors, despite our flag waving and such.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
We are a nation of reluctant warriors, despite our flag waving and such.

This is true, which is why the admin had to go to such great lenghts to exagerate the evidence we had on Saddam- becuase if the objecitve had been only one of humanitarian intervention and had not been sold as a critical, right now emergency that war would never have happened.

[Japher]

1. Have Americans forgotten the Horrors of War?

Yes? Or have we grown accustom to them? Not in the same way as someone raised with war all around them, but in the way that games, movies, television shows all tailor to the idea of war... Calming our minds to it, great propoganda; living in a world without fear of war, because one has become so use to it..

2. If so, have Americans forgotten moreso than Europeans have?

As need pointed out Korea and 'Nam are much closer in American history than WWII for the Europeans. Both of these wars, Korea and Nam, were not met with victory, and instead gave unto America only the casualties and horrors that come with war. While these horrors took on "shell shock", resentment, injuries, and losses for those of WWII the nightmare that was the aftermath of Korea and Nam are must closer to the heart, within both local and national societies.

I had grandparents who fought in WWII and they suffered their whole lives for it. One of my grandparents has since died, and the other has learned to forget. Yet, my uncles and own father have fought in one of those other two wars since WWII, and I have cousins who fought in the first gulf war. I have you ever had to take out your uncle because of a flashback due to a helicopter flying over the house?

3. Why and how have Americans forgotten the HoW?

We have not. While smoe care to try and forget I see America doing more to remember than most other countries. Though, not having lived in those countries I could be wrong.

4. Is direct experience with war the only way to learn the HoW?

Is the only ways to learn the horrors of nuclear attacks to have gone through one? Is the only way to learn of the horrors of death to die? This is a stupid question IMO.

Edit: 6. What are the inherent differences between North America (or the USA) and Europe? And don't just say "wars were fought here".

No idea, I have lived here all my life. The only difference between the two continents is that Europeans like to call the American's ignorant of ways outside our culture, but it seems to me that Eurpoeans are more xenophobic, in general, than America... That doesn't make sense to me.

LotM

If this an attempt to take "bragging rights" away from the US, so be it, we have nothing to brag about. If it were true that Americans are ignorant of the horrors of war, than America really would be the greatest country in the world.

[Ned]

I can also tell you that my Dad's own experiences in the Pacific Theater were so bad that he simply did not want to talk about them.

So much for the glory of war.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
I can also tell you that my Dad's own experiences in the Pacific Theater were so bad that he simply did not want to talk about them.

So much for the glory of war.

Sadly you Dad and men like him are not the ones building the new WW2 memorial, but instead the children, weaned on "Greatest Generation" crap.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


This is true, which is why the admin had to go to such great lenghts to exagerate the evidence we had on Saddam- becuase if the objecitve had been only one of humanitarian intervention and had not been sold as a critical, right now emergency that war would never have happened.

refuse to be tempted by threadjacking.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

refuse to be tempted by threadjacking.

I was adding evidence to my agreement of your point of Americans as generally reluctant warriors. That they are reluctant warriors though has less to do with fear of the horrors of war but with other values, inherently more inward looking ones.