Hatred

[KG Erwin]

This is a subject that sometimes comes up on the Pacific War forum, but here, especially, I need to choose my words carefully.

Now, we realize that these are just little pixallated icons, but the concept of "national characteristics" has a psychological implication that taps into some old prejudices, depending on your reading and interpretation of history.

I won't get into the "German" issue, as it's well-worn, so I'll go to the other side of the world, and my favorite theater, the PTO.

We all know what the Japanese soldier of WWII vintage was capable of extreme brutality towards POWs and civilians, and it is also well-known that US propaganda films (think Capra's "Why We Fight"), tried to reinforce negative stereotypes of the Japanese.

How well did this indoctrination take hold? The attitudes of some US soldiers and Marines reflected it, as is demonstated in certain passages of Eugene B. Sledge's "With the Old Breed". He was quite explicit in describing his hatred, and I don't know if he ever reconciled himself with it post-war. He died in 2001.

I contrast this to the postings of Bob Allen, an Iwo Jima vet and frequent contributor to the Pac War forum. He's taken a healthier attitude towards his former enemy with the passage of time. This is commendable.

With this amateur historian and gamer, it's a bit more complicated. Psychologically, I can identify with the "Pearl Harbor" mentality and desire for revenge quite easily, for obvious reasons. The clash of cultures and the different attitudes towards sacrificing oneself, while taking your enemy with you, also has contemporary echoes.

Perhaps this bit of psychobabble makes some sense to some of you. I'm a pacificist, and despise war, but sometimes, it's the right thing to do. This carries over into my gameplay, and how I conduct my battles.

Thanks for bearing with this rant. In writing my thoughts, I do it in an attempt to clarify my thinking, and for my friends here, to help them understand what makes the Gunny the way he is.

[vahauser]

Erwin,

The enemy must be turned into a sub-human monster, otherwise it makes it harder to kill them with a clear conscience.


"There has never been a just one, never an honorable one--on the part of
the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this
rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud
little handful--as usual--will shout for the war. The pulpit will--
warily and cautiously--object--at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the
nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a
war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, 'It is unjust and
dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.' Then the handful will
shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason
against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and
be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them,
and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity.
Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the
platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their
secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers--as earlier--
but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation--pulpit and all--
will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man
who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to
open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon
the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince
himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he
enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." – Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger (1916)


"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." – Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials, 1945

[chief]

Vahauser:  Two excellent quotes young man, unfortunately so true to life.

[Twotribes]

Sorry, but there are good reasons for a nation to go to war. A nation must protect itself or it must desolve itself. Attributing personal feelings and rules of conduct to an entity that is responsible for millions of people simply doesnt work.

The first and foremost purpose of a society ( nation) is to protect itself. It must protect its citizens from internal as well as external threats or it has no reason to exsist. To espouse the concept that no war is justified ignores the reality that is man.

There are bad people in this world ( I would say there are evil people, but bad works) and they can and do rule nations. WW2 is a perfect example of a JUST war. Unless you subscribe to the creed of slavery and no freedom or rights then there will continue to be just reasons to wage war, until such time as man evolves past violance , greed and a desire for power.

To many people think they can just ignore what goes on outside the range of their vision and hearing and it ALWAYS ends up coming back to bite them in the arse. Despots dont just go away.

[Korpraali V]

A good question relating to issue is that has there ever been a war with purely non-selfish reasons? When a nation goes to war, it has purpose and goal to achieve. Something to gain to itself. Are there any exceptions, where some country would have gone to war to sacrifice something of her own to gain something to someone other?

[Twotribes]

Once again you are attributing personal morals or beliefs on an entity that has none. Countries dont have friends nor do they have human emotions or motivations.

Countries have responsibilities. The actions of a country have apurpose. Generally that purpose is to improve the position of said country. Even in a Just war a country has a purpose or it simply wouldnt be in said war.

A country can do things for others that seem to be altruistic, but in the end you will find there is some benefit to said country. The US gives millions in aid every year. They get little in return for it. But it serves a purpose for the country.

Since a country is NOT a single person entity it can not be truely judged by the method one would a person.

Name a country where millions of its citizens woke up one morning and for no other reason then "it was the right thing to do" started a war. Countries dont work like that. Even dictatorhips general are not so simple.

[Korpraali V]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Once again you are attributing personal morals or beliefs on an entity that has none. Countries dont have friends nor do they have human emotions or motivations.

Countries have responsibilities. The actions of a country have apurpose. Generally that purpose is to improve the position of said country. Even in a Just war a country has a purpose or it simply wouldnt be in said war.

A country can do things for others that seem to be altruistic, but in the end you will find there is some benefit to said country. The US gives millions in aid every year. They get little in return for it. But it serves a purpose for the country.

Since a country is NOT a single person entity it can not be truely judged by the method one would a person.

Name a country where millions of its citizens woke up one morning and for no other reason then "it was the right thing to do" started a war. Countries dont work like that. Even dictatorhips general are not so simple.

Once again? [&:] huh?

What I said was a question, not a claim.

I agree that a country is not a single person. But those leading it (one or several hundreds) are. And they have motives. So I can't say personal and country levels should be totally separated. Although not totally mixed either.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Korpraali V

A good question relating to issue is that has there ever been a war with purely non-selfish reasons? When a nation goes to war, it has purpose and goal to achieve. Something to gain to itself. Are there any exceptions, where some country would have gone to war to sacrifice something of her own to gain something to someone other?

That's a difficult question to answer. You would have to almost have to eliminate any country that starts a war. If they start the war, they most certainly have a reason that is probably not altruistic. The country attacked is also has selfish motivations: Self defense. So it almost has to be a nation that involves itself in an existing war. Even then, the motivation could be political, economic, emperialistic, etc. I, for one, can't think of a war where the participants didn't have some selfish motivations.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Once again you are attributing personal morals or beliefs on an entity that has none. Countries dont have friends nor do they have human emotions or motivations.

Yes, but countries are run by people and those leaders do have human emotions. and motivations.

Countries have responsibilities. The actions of a country have apurpose. Generally that purpose is to improve the position of said country. Even in a Just war a country has a purpose or it simply wouldnt be in said war.

A country can do things for others that seem to be altruistic, but in the end you will find there is some benefit to said country. The US gives millions in aid every year. They get little in return for it. But it serves a purpose for the country.

Agreed

Since a country is NOT a single person entity it can not be truely judged by the method one would a person.

Name a country where millions of its citizens woke up one morning and for no other reason then "it was the right thing to do" started a war. Countries dont work like that. Even dictatorhips general are not so simple.

In a few sentences, you've made a very complex statement. While a country is not a single person entity, some individuals have complete control over their country. Such people could enter a war for altruistic reason. But the very nature of such people (dictators) makes that extremely unlikely. If I could think of one instance where one country came to the aid of another for purely unselfish reasons, maybe I could make a rational arguement. Sadly, I can't.

[SireChaos]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

ORIGINAL: Korpraali V

A good question relating to issue is that has there ever been a war with purely non-selfish reasons? When a nation goes to war, it has purpose and goal to achieve. Something to gain to itself. Are there any exceptions, where some country would have gone to war to sacrifice something of her own to gain something to someone other?

That's a difficult question to answer. You would have to almost have to eliminate any country that starts a war. If they start the war, they most certainly have a reason that is probably not altruistic. The country attacked is also has selfish motivations: Self defense. So it almost has to be a nation that involves itself in an existing war. Even then, the motivation could be political, economic, emperialistic, etc. I, for one, can't think of a war where the participants didn't have some selfish motivations.

I wouldn´t go quite that far. A nation defending itself from an unprovoked attack (I´d use Poland in ´39 as an example) doesn´t really have a purpose in going to war, other than keeping the enemy from achieving its own purpose. I would definitely consider "survival of the people" (something of an issue for Poland in ´39), "survival of the culture" (very probably an issue for Poland in ´39) and, with certain caveats, "survival as a political entity" (*definitely* an issue for Poland in ´39) to be un-selfish reasons for going to war, or rather "being taken to war", i.e. war was declared on you, and/or the other guys attacked first.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: SireChaos

I wouldn´t go quite that far. A nation defending itself from an unprovoked attack (I´d use Poland in ´39 as an example) doesn´t really have a purpose in going to war, other than keeping the enemy from achieving its own purpose. I would definitely consider "survival of the people" (something of an issue for Poland in ´39), "survival of the culture" (very probably an issue for Poland in ´39) and, with certain caveats, "survival as a political entity" (*definitely* an issue for Poland in ´39) to be un-selfish reasons for going to war, or rather "being taken to war", i.e. war was declared on you, and/or the other guys attacked first.

I think the basis of Korpraali's question was essentually, "Has nation ever chosen to go to war because it was the (morally) right thing to do?"(Korpraali - correct me if I'm wrong) If we want to get technical, a nation attacked doesn't get the choice. No one is going to fault a nation for defending itself if they are attacked, but it considered to be altruistic?

It's much easier to define on an personal level, a bystander intervening when a stranger is attacked on the street. The bystander could remain as such and not suffer any loss, short of maybe feeling safe on the street. By getting involved, the bystander risks injury or worse, without any realistic expectation of gain.

I would think France and England declaring war on Germany when Poland was attacked would be closer, but still doesn't seem quite correct. France and England considered Hilter's Germany a threat, so self-preservation could be a motivation. Nations are just too large to not have some motivation for doing the things they do, IMHO.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Getting back to the fact we are talking about the Japanese, their nation their culture, and how it impacted their conduct during the war.

Their actions were not deemed "evil" by their people, because they were Japanese. Different culture, different rules.

The only thing of significance during the war with Japan, was they were completely out done logistically. They lost that war from an inability to keep up with the productive values of their opponents.

The hatred directed at the Japanese, is based solely on the culture of their opponents, and how it clashed with the culture of the Japanese.

They lost the war, the winner's rules were what counted.

[Twotribes]

I call feces on this. Whether a nation BELIEVES it is evil or not has no bearing on their actions, using that as a code for what and how to judge actions would mean almost no nation could ever be deemed "evil" .

Like it or not the winner generally WILL decide whether actions were "evil" based on THEIR national morals and society. Thats how the world works.

Well until years later when others try to rewrite history and gloss over facts with crap like "golly they were just doing what their society thought was acceptable".

It simply amazes me that it is ok to condemn the actions of certain countries like Briton or the US for the wrongs they did 150 or 200 years ago, but the same people make excuses for why Nazi Germany, Japan and Italy did what they did in WW2.

Evil actions are something that can be layed at the feet of nations. And like it or not the winner in a conflict generally gets to make that judgement. But more importantly certain actions simply are worthy of condemning nations that do them.

The systematic murder of prisoners, attempted genoicide, conducting horrific scientific experimentation on prisoners, starving prisoners, beheading prisoners, mutilating prisoners, using prisoners as human shields, hiding in civilian populations while attacking enemy forces, purposefully targetting civilians for no other reason then they are easier to kill. All those things are actions that if a nation or society condones and practices then other nations can proclaim them "evil". I would include slavery and subjegation of populations with force against their will.

We can not judge nations as we judge individuals BUT we can recognize practices and actions that are uncivilized and for a lack of a better term "evil" And we can label the population /society of said nations that practice them if the vast majority condone and support such actions, or turn a blind eye to those actions. This includes religions as they can be societies.

[Korpraali V]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

I think the basis of Korpraali's question was essentually, "Has nation ever chosen to go to war because it was the (morally) right thing to do?"(Korpraali - correct me if I'm wrong)

Exactly.






What I ment by using word "nation" was not the way that someone could claim that "nation X is/was evil, and nation Y is/was good". What I ment was that what are/were the intentions and motives of those who make choises and lead nations. When nation goes to war it is the leader/s who makes the decision, not "nation" as a whole.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I call feces on this. Whether a nation BELIEVES it is evil or not has no bearing on their actions, using that as a code for what and how to judge actions would mean almost no nation could ever be deemed "evil" .

Like it or not the winner generally WILL decide whether actions were "evil" based on THEIR national morals and society. Thats how the world works.

Well until years later when others try to rewrite history and gloss over facts with crap like "golly they were just doing what their society thought was acceptable".

It simply amazes me that it is ok to condemn the actions of certain countries like Briton or the US for the wrongs they did 150 or 200 years ago, but the same people make excuses for why Nazi Germany, Japan and Italy did what they did in WW2.

Evil actions are something that can be layed at the feet of nations. And like it or not the winner in a conflict generally gets to make that judgement. But more importantly certain actions simply are worthy of condemning nations that do them.

The systematic murder of prisoners, attempted genoicide, conducting horrific scientific experimentation on prisoners, starving prisoners, beheading prisoners, mutilating prisoners, using prisoners as human shields, hiding in civilian populations while attacking enemy forces, purposefully targetting civilians for no other reason then they are easier to kill. All those things are actions that if a nation or society condones and practices then other nations can proclaim them "evil". I would include slavery and subjegation of populations with force against their will.

We can not judge nations as we judge individuals BUT we can recognize practices and actions that are uncivilized and for a lack of a better term "evil" And we can label the population /society of said nations that practice them if the vast majority condone and support such actions, or turn a blind eye to those actions. This includes religions as they can be societies.

I don't think Two Tribes gets it, Japan didn't think squat of defeated soldiers. It was their culture to be that way. Calling their treatment of captured soldiers "evil" is a matter of opinion. Theirs vs yours. If they had won the war, your opinion wouldn't mean anything to them. As it goes though, they lost, and they had our values rammed down their throats, willing or not.

Winners write the history.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

I don't think Two Tribes gets it, Japan didn't think squat of defeated soldiers. It was their culture to be that way. Calling their treatment of captured soldiers "evil" is a matter of opinion. Theirs vs yours. If they had won the war, your opinion wouldn't mean anything to them. As it goes though, they lost, and they had our values rammed down their throats, willing or not.

Winners write the history.

Much of this is dependant on perspective. Two Tribes' view seems to be more global. If you use "morally reprehensible" as the definition of "evil", it only gets you halfway there. Within Japanese society, I agree with you. Globally, however, Japanese treatment of prisoners could be defined as "evil". Japan's 1930-40's contemporary nations felt prisoners should be treated a certain way, thus the Geneva Convention. Japan disagreed, for cultural reasons and refused to sign.

Slavery falls in the same category. The contemporary nations of the 1860's United States undoubtably view slavery as "evil", while the contemporary "civilizations" of 100AD Rome probably wouldn't view it the same way. Slavery was much more common and widely accepted then.

Viewing into history with modern morality also can skew perspectives. It is difficult to judge a past practice with a modern magnifying glass. Practices that were commonly accepted hundreds of years ago are certainly considered "morally reprehensible" today. Drawing and quartering comes to mind. That form of death penalty is unthinkable today, even by nations where a death penalty is viewed as acceptible for certain crimes.

It all boils down to individual opinion. Points could be argued all day, but you can never prove or disprove another person's opinion.

While it is true that winners write history, time also rewrites history. Many 1800s Americans had a biased view of what happened to Native Americans. Many people now view it as a tragedy.

[KG Erwin]

RERomine, I agree with your above post, but I wanted to avoid any broad-based arguments.
 
This is why my original post was focused on specifics.  After Pearl Harbor, there were few Americans who would argue that Japan was NOT enemy number 1.
 
Even more narrowly focused, it's easy for me, personally, to regard the Japanese in SPWaW terms as "the bad guys". 
 
Look at it this way -- I wouldn't have any problem playing as the Russians, as they were our Allies, the prolonged Cold War notwithstanding.
 
Some of the other guys were trying to take this thread on a different tangent.  I have no comment on that.   

[Zardoz]

I think that this discussion run a bit out of course. I think now several problems are described.

1. Why do countries go to war?
I realy think that only in very rare cases countries go to war without important economic, politcal or strategic reasons. The only examples I remember are the Franco-German war 1870/71 because the French had no other reason to declare war on Germany as the misintertpretation of the so called "Emser Depesche". So it was from French side a matter of honor. The Germans had trapped them as they wanted the war for political and strategic reasons...

Another example could be the so called "football war" between El Salvador and Honduras in the 70ies. But if this can be called a war is the question.

Btw. I remember no case in which democraties made war against each other

2. Can people be manipulated that they are "war-ready"
Depends.... . The last Iraq- war shows that it is possible even in a democracy. I think this heavily depends on the history of a country or nation. The UK and the US have never lost a "real war". Vietnam was not a real war....the bombs dropped far away and the number of losses for the US was very low compared with the Vietnamese losses. Ok..the US lost a war against the British in th 19th century. However, actions were also very limited if I remember this correctly. And the Civil War was lost only by the minor part of the US.
Same is true for the UK

Countries like France, Germany, BeNeLux and also the people in Russia (no the government) cannot be manipulated easily in a war direction because they suffered heavly in 1 or 2 world wars.

3. Propaganda
It is true that in many wars of the last century the enemy was alway described as evil. This is a consequence of the masses armies and industrial warfare. To motivate even the stupid, politicans think it is better to give easy understandable reasons so that even the most stupid soldier understand for what he fights.

So, the Germans were children-eating monsters in WW 1
Russians subhuman beings in WW 2
Germans and Japanese killing machines in WW 2

Before the 19 century this was different. wWr was made only for politcal reasons without asking the people. In Germany, we call this "Kabinettskrieg". War was performed more gentlemen-like as it was also mainly a matter for aristocrats 8as officers..of course the ordinary riflemen did not count).

I think..the breaking point was the French revolution...

[Korpraali V]

ORIGINAL: Zardoz
I think that this discussion run a bit out of course. I think now several problems are described.

So it seems. My apologies from my part of the problem. My first post was a question that rose to my mind from Gunny's post. Perhaps shouldn't have posted it at all...

ORIGINAL: Zardoz
3. Propaganda
It is true that in many wars of the last century the enemy was alway described as evil. This is a consequence of the masses armies and industrial warfare. To motivate even the stupid, politicans think it is better to give easy understandable reasons so that even the most stupid soldier understand for what he fights.

So, the Germans were children-eating monsters in WW 1
Russians subhuman beings in WW 2
Germans and Japanese killing machines in WW 2

Before the 19 century this was different. wWr was made only for politcal reasons without asking the people. In Germany, we call this "Kabinettskrieg". War was performed more gentlemen-like as it was also mainly a matter for aristocrats 8as officers..of course the ordinary riflemen did not count).

I think..the breaking point was the French revolution...

I think that is only part of the picture. The wars between Protestants and Catholics in 16th and 17th centuries were extremely propagandists - even when f.e. Catholic France was on Protestant's side making some wars only namely religious wars. Also "muslim threat" before that was full of propaganda. But then there were many "gentleman-like wars" as you said. Not sure how they were motivated on ground levels though.

[Zardoz]

Kopraali,

I do not know the background about the conflict in France between Catholics and Protestants very well.

However, you are right with regard to the 30 Years war in Germany. The religious reasons were propaganda and camouflaged important political reasons....conflict between the German dukes and the Kaiser, French interest to paralyse Germany, Swedish interest to take the German Baltic coast and so on.

Nevertheless, the situation was a bit different as the propaganda's goal was not to motivate the soldiers....if I see it correctly, they were all mercenaries often changing the sides...and their main motivation was making a fortune

I think my comment must be restricted to the period beginning with 18th century....