An interesting view on the motivation for war

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Fleshconsumed, the closest most of us ever get to war and its effects is in video games or movies. It is glorified in, and a central point of, entertainment. We find violenece to be enjoyable. We love to watch bad men on tv be tortured because we imagine ourselves doing the act and being justified in it. We love war reenactment movies, movies about new wars, video games with it, ad tedium. War to North Americans costs money and lives lost and injuries, but to the rest of us we don't see it. We've never been at work wondering if our house was just hit in the last bombing run or whether the needed supply of dry milk made it to the grocer. Interestingly, England loves war and death in its entertainment, too. It is insatiable, our appetite for death. Some of us find it abhorrent more than others. I love it in video games, but I am informed enough to know that in real life it is no joke and would not brush aside collateral damage with the ease that others seem to, because every person who dies could have been me, had I been born like them. Every dead soldier has a mother or a wife.

Movies are very dishonest in a sense that they show only the end result - a glorious victory of good over evil. It's easy to get excited about it. However, what they do not show is thousands or millions of lives lost, mass graves, and decades of suffering before people can recover. It's like Karate Kid sort of movies, they show some weak teenager being able to train to the master level in just one hour and defeat his opponent in a very cool showdown. Yeah... What those movies don't show is that in real life it takes years, years and years to achieve any level of proficiency. Yet, most kids love those movies and imagine themselves to be the protagonist of the story because the movie misleads them by showing end result without showing all the hard work that would normally go into training.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
The interviewer was discussing the subject of war again and said that, contrary to his (Goerings) attitude, he did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, 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 danger. It works the same way in any country."

Discuss.

Hitler and Stalin both said as much. A book called "The Path to Dictatorship" Juggernaut , Albert Carr. New York, Viking Press 1939 also discuses this more in depth (and interestingly enough predicts what would happen in a few short years with Italy and Germany and also shows an idea of why Hitler actually attacked).

Either way, this is not a new idea, but one that has been around a few centuries. On the other hand though, the apathy of people can blind them to the need to fight for most parts. Look around you now, as we lose rights and freedoms and our right to privacy is slowly swept under the rug the apathy of a nation is so strong no one truly cares. So with this level of apathy that has been in existence for a while now (pre 1900) leaders often need to bring there countries to war even if they don't want too, or the people don't. (WW2 and America for example)

 

[Ozoned]

You have 2 choices in life. You can exploit, or be exploited. 1st one pays a lot better.

 

[Genx87]

One can read Hitlers Mein Kampf to see what was going to happen. Why people didnt understand the dangers he and his ideology posed is beyond me. Some say bad translations from German to English made the book sound softer. But I think there was also a sense of delusion into believing they cant be that evil.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Genx87
One can read Hitlers Mein Kampf to see what was going to happen. Why people didnt understand the dangers he and his ideology posed is beyond me. Some say bad translations from German to English made the book sound softer. But I think there was also a sense of delusion into believing they cant be that evil.

I think it was again, just apathy and the depression. People were still weary from WW1 (politically) and the depression had sucked the wealth from a lot of countries, so they did not, could not afford a war.

Not to mention Fascist movements were occurring in both the US and England, it almost looked for a good while that England would be a fascist country coming out of the 30's. The depression really fucked peoples ideologies and ideas up.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Genx87
One can read Hitlers Mein Kampf to see what was going to happen. Why people didnt understand the dangers he and his ideology posed is beyond me. Some say bad translations from German to English made the book sound softer. But I think there was also a sense of delusion into believing they cant be that evil.

Evil is all relative.

The Holocaust is presented as pure evil only because

1. Lots of Jews survived the camps to tell the horror stories.
2. The camps were run by our enemy and thusly, we demonized them to no end.

We had our own Holocaust. The biggest difference is that we ran the camps and we isolated the survivors, so that they had no say in their treatment. By the time the story got out, it was a generation or two later and no one paid much attention.

If you haven't caught on yet, I'm talking about the genocide of the Native Americans. No one really sheds a tear for the hundreds of millions of Native Americans killed to forge our nation, just like no one would have cared for the tens of millions of Jews killed had Hitler won the war. Victor's history. If Hitler won the war, we'd be talking to Jews to "get over it" like we tell African Americans to get over slavery. It's all a matter of time and perspective.


Also, you have to remember that Jews were villified in Europe for the longest time. The French were even more anti-semitic than the Germans. Hitler also did a lot of good for the country. He pulled it from the brink of economic collapse, he restored security to the land, he galvanized the public from a collective depression.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: Genx87
One can read Hitlers Mein Kampf to see what was going to happen. Why people didnt understand the dangers he and his ideology posed is beyond me. Some say bad translations from German to English made the book sound softer. But I think there was also a sense of delusion into believing they cant be that evil.

Evil is all relative.

The Holocaust is presented as pure evil only because

1. Lots of Jews survived the camps to tell the horror stories.
2. The camps were run by our enemy and thusly, we demonized them to no end.

We had our own Holocaust. The biggest difference is that we ran the camps and we isolated the survivors, so that they had no say in their treatment. By the time the story got out, it was a generation or two later and no one paid much attention.

If you haven't caught on yet, I'm talking about the genocide of the Native Americans. No one really sheds a tear for the hundreds of millions of Native Americans killed to forge our nation, just like no one would have cared for the tens of millions of Jews killed had Hitler won the war. Victor's history. If Hitler won the war, we'd be talking to Jews to "get over it" like we tell African Americans to get over slavery. It's all a matter of time and perspective.


Also, you have to remember that Jews were villified in Europe for the longest time. The French were even more anti-semitic than the Germans. Hitler also did a lot of good for the country. He pulled it from the brink of economic collapse, he restored security to the land, he galvanized the public from a collective depression.

Sometimes, history just happens. Sometimes, it is pre-meditated.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: Genx87
One can read Hitlers Mein Kampf to see what was going to happen. Why people didnt understand the dangers he and his ideology posed is beyond me. Some say bad translations from German to English made the book sound softer. But I think there was also a sense of delusion into believing they cant be that evil.

Evil is all relative.

The Holocaust is presented as pure evil only because

1. Lots of Jews survived the camps to tell the horror stories.
2. The camps were run by our enemy and thusly, we demonized them to no end.

We had our own Holocaust. The biggest difference is that we ran the camps and we isolated the survivors, so that they had no say in their treatment. By the time the story got out, it was a generation or two later and no one paid much attention.

If you haven't caught on yet, I'm talking about the genocide of the Native Americans. No one really sheds a tear for the hundreds of millions of Native Americans killed to forge our nation, just like no one would have cared for the tens of millions of Jews killed had Hitler won the war. Victor's history. If Hitler won the war, we'd be talking to Jews to "get over it" like we tell African Americans to get over slavery. It's all a matter of time and perspective.


Also, you have to remember that Jews were villified in Europe for the longest time. The French were even more anti-semitic than the Germans. Hitler also did a lot of good for the country. He pulled it from the brink of economic collapse, he restored security to the land, he galvanized the public from a collective depression.

I think that only about 1 million or so native Americans were admittedly killed. But I kinda guess that is a pretty low ball figure, considering whole tribes were wiped off the face of the Earth in the ethnic cleansing of America. My best guess would be around 5 or 10 million. Including those that were enslaved and forced marched and relocated hundreds of miles away, and died in route from starvation and exposure. You have to also consider how many died from diseases, such as the smallpox blankets reportedly handed out, too. Which was primitive germ warfare.

 

[Arkaign]

^^ Yes. The North American native tribes were never that numerous, both their culture and their pre-industrial infrastructure didn't support massive populations. 3-7 million is a good range.

This statement in no way excuses or downplays the horror of wiping out these populations, but let's not get silly with numbers. There weren't even 100 million Americans in 1908, let alone a gargantuan number of Native Americans before we came along.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
The interviewer was discussing the subject of war again and said that, contrary to his (Goerings) attitude, he did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, 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 danger. It works the same way in any country."

Discuss.

When you go to war, anyone may say you used manipulation.

We were attacked, and we are fools to forget it.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
The interviewer was discussing the subject of war again and said that, contrary to his (Goerings) attitude, he did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, 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 danger. It works the same way in any country."

Discuss.

When you go to war, anyone may say you used manipulation.

We were attacked, and we are fools to forget it.

Attacked, yes, but by whom? Quite obviously a bunch of Saudi nationals, malcontents, and bastards hiding under their twisted manipulation of Islam based in the Afghan/Pakistan region, aligned with Taliban leadership and personnel.

War in Afghanistan = righteous.
War in Iraq = preposterous.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
I think it's an interesting viewpoint that has become a reality today. The man spoke over 50 years ago about that which we are experiencing every day in our modern lives.

Do people see it that way? Do you feel like you are being manipulated in the way described in the last paragraph?

Do I, as in present tense? Then no.

Do I recognize that it was used back in 2002 and early 2003 as the prelude to the Iraq war? Yes.

This is of course besides the point that there are Islamic extremists who need to kill or be killed. The important matter is whether we continue to make mistakes that empower our opponent instead of ourselves. What systemic measures have we taken against radical teachings within Islam, within our own border? I'd say we have done little, if anything.

The actions we are taking are wrong, and have been wrong, but that does not dilute the importance of those living among us who would kill us, of whom we enable by our inaction or wrong action.

If you want to ask us if we?re being manipulated as in that last paragraph, perhaps you should first ask the people of Mumbai. We bleed from the same opponent, they are not figments of our imagination. They are real opponents who must be dealt with.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
I think that only about 1 million or so native Americans were admittedly killed. But I kinda guess that is a pretty low ball figure, considering whole tribes were wiped off the face of the Earth in the ethnic cleansing of America. My best guess would be around 5 or 10 million. Including those that were enslaved and forced marched and relocated hundreds of miles away, and died in route from starvation and exposure. You have to also consider how many died from diseases, such as the smallpox blankets reportedly handed out, too. Which was primitive germ warfare.

Off topic, but that's completely a myth.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
You have 2 choices in life. You can exploit, or be exploited. 1st one pays a lot better.

Thank you for showing the false dilemma which underlies so much of the immorality of the right. Outstanding job.

Our founding fathers, to an extent, and liberals to a larger extent, of course, understand that the purpose of good political systems in large part is to prevent exploitation.

For example, for long while in England, the King being Catholic or Protestant determined which group was the exploiter and which the exploited; and so you either got power for your side and exploited, or you were exploited. Then our founding fathers came along with this nifty idea of the political system protecting the freedom of religion - somewhat, at least, but to the point of prohibitng an 'official' state religion that had such a bad history of alowing exploitation. And guess what? Things got a lot better on the issue.

So while you righties are out being the worst sort of immoral people causing and defending and voting for exploitation of others because of your false dilemma that you have to to avoid getting exploited, liberals are your enemy for advocating systems to end exploitation. You should try our way sometime. Or just read some of the great American speeches making points about how 'no one is free as long as anyone is not free' type of sentiments that tell you to support fairness and equality for everyone, not just you.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Goering is trying to justify what happened -- what the regime he ran did -- by suggesting that all the regimes are the same. England, America, Russia, Germany; democracy, Parliament, fascism, communism; it's all the same; all war is just regimes manipulating their foolish citizens. The German decision to start World War II, by this logic, is the same as the British and American decisions to resist the Germans.

So that, I think, is the problem facing those who use the quote: Their proposed moral equivalence between Goering's Nazi Germany and America only works if they are also willing to accept Goering's moral equivalence of Nazi Germany and Roosevelt's America and Churchill's England. And if they are, like I am, repelled by the latter moral equivalence -- if they think that Americans really did deliberately endorse a war against Germany, or that, even if they were influenced by their elected representatives, their elected representatives were properly doing their job by exercising such leadership -- then what's the point of citing as authority a man (a monster) who was asserting it?

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
I think that only about 1 million or so native Americans were admittedly killed. But I kinda guess that is a pretty low ball figure, considering whole tribes were wiped off the face of the Earth in the ethnic cleansing of America. My best guess would be around 5 or 10 million. Including those that were enslaved and forced marched and relocated hundreds of miles away, and died in route from starvation and exposure. You have to also consider how many died from diseases, such as the smallpox blankets reportedly handed out, too. Which was primitive germ warfare.

Off topic, but that's completely a myth.

No, it's been researched and there was correspondence about this in at least one case. While we don't have the infected blankets to show for it, the fact it was discussed in a serious manner and it appears they might have done it is as much proof as anyone could hope for 240 years later.

Jeffrey Amherst and Smallpox Blankets: Lord Jeffrey Amherst's letters discussing germ warfare against American Indians

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234
So while you righties are out being the worst sort of immoral people causing and defending and voting for exploitation of others because of your false dilemma that you have to to avoid getting exploited, liberals are your enemy for advocating systems to end exploitation. You should try our way sometime. Or just read some of the great American speeches making points about how 'no one is free as long as anyone is not free' type of sentiments that tell you to support fairness and equality for everyone, not just you.

I don't know about Ozoned, but I know where I stand and I feel you need to be corrected. Liberals are the enemy when they stand between us and Islamic extremists. There are a few other causes, but that's the one relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Craig234
So while you righties are out being the worst sort of immoral people causing and defending and voting for exploitation of others because of your false dilemma that you have to to avoid getting exploited, liberals are your enemy for advocating systems to end exploitation. You should try our way sometime. Or just read some of the great American speeches making points about how 'no one is free as long as anyone is not free' type of sentiments that tell you to support fairness and equality for everyone, not just you.

I don't know about Ozoned, but I know where I stand and I feel you need to be corrected. Liberals are the enemy when they stand between us and Islamic extremists. There are a few other causes, but that's the one relevant to the topic at hand.

Good grief, now you sound like conservative chicken little Rush Limbaugh and most of the talk radio conservative brain dead air heads.

So now you are trying to compare a liberal to an Islamic extremist or implying they would want to protect one? If anything, an Islamic extremist has much more in common with those conservative brain dead air heads than liberals, nice try though.

And BTW if you threaten a liberal with certain death, you can bet he will try to kick your ass the first chance he gets. So how does your poor analogy apply to liberals again?

 

[udneekgnim]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero"Oh, that is all well and good, but, 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 danger. It works the same way in any country."

that is not motivation for war. that is manipulation for war.

anyways, I do not think this viewpoint is anything new.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ozoned
You have 2 choices in life. You can exploit, or be exploited. 1st one pays a lot better.

Thank you for showing the false dilemma which underlies so much of the immorality of the right. Outstanding job.

Our founding fathers, to an extent, and liberals to a larger extent, of course, understand that the purpose of good political systems in large part is to prevent exploitation.

For example, for long while in England, the King being Catholic or Protestant determined which group was the exploiter and which the exploited; and so you either got power for your side and exploited, or you were exploited. Then our founding fathers came along with this nifty idea of the political system protecting the freedom of religion - somewhat, at least, but to the point of prohibitng an 'official' state religion that had such a bad history of alowing exploitation. And guess what? Things got a lot better on the issue.

So while you righties are out being the worst sort of immoral people causing and defending and voting for exploitation of others because of your false dilemma that you have to to avoid getting exploited, liberals are your enemy for advocating systems to end exploitation. You should try our way sometime. Or just read some of the great American speeches making points about how 'no one is free as long as anyone is not free' type of sentiments that tell you to support fairness and equality for everyone, not just you.

Well, my statement was made in the context of the motivation of war. But since you bring it up, your concept is rather ironic in that the people that Obama targeted, to deliver the election to him, are the segment of society that has lived in the same level of poverty for 40 years, despite the promises made to them by those that they have voted into office?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Goering is trying to justify what happened -- what the regime he ran did -- by suggesting that all the regimes are the same. England, America, Russia, Germany; democracy, Parliament, fascism, communism; it's all the same; all war is just regimes manipulating their foolish citizens. The German decision to start World War II, by this logic, is the same as the British and American decisions to resist the Germans.

So that, I think, is the problem facing those who use the quote: Their proposed moral equivalence between Goering's Nazi Germany and America only works if they are also willing to accept Goering's moral equivalence of Nazi Germany and Roosevelt's America and Churchill's England. And if they are, like I am, repelled by the latter moral equivalence -- if they think that Americans really did deliberately endorse a war against Germany, or that, even if they were influenced by their elected representatives, their elected representatives were properly doing their job by exercising such leadership -- then what's the point of citing as authority a man (a monster) who was asserting it?

Except that you're wrong, that that's not what Goering was saying. It's pretty clear.

And if you want, there are plenty of examples of the US starting 'wrong' wars.

Goering was making a general comment regardless of how just the war is, and he was making the point that the same issue faces dctatorships and democracies.

To spell it out a bit more: the US public did not want to enter WII, but when 'under attack' (they were), they became willing to. The US public did not want to go to war in Vietnam, but when told (wrongly) that they were threatened, they agreed to do so. Why do you think in so many wars that leaders go to great lengths to create the perception that their country was attacked, from the 'shot heard round the world' in the revolutionary war, to the US civil war's Fort Sumter. to portraying the Mexican government's attack against the lawbreakers at the Alamo as a baseless attack ("Remember the Alamo!"), to the (mostly phony) Gulf of Tonkin incidents to say Vietnam was a 'defensive' war - indeed, why JFK said that the US would never start a war, which held until the second Gulf war, when Bush even then tried to justify the war based on the imminent threat of poison-spreading cropdusters or briefcase nukes.

You're twisting the context, IMO.

 

[Red Dawn]

Bump for Mod Edit and unlocking

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
I think it's an interesting viewpoint that has become a reality today. The man spoke over 50 years ago about that which we are experiencing every day in our modern lives.

His statements weren't prophetic by any means, he was simply recounting what has been going on since long before his time.

and I am sure what he said can be and was tied to the Korean War or Vietnam or any other skirmish from around the world.

A very insightful statement from someone who knew how to manipulate from studying world history, the human psyche and his own people in his own time.

You can take this statement and apply it to any given war at any given time, it does not have any more significance now as it did during any other time in history.

 

[Nemesis 1]

This was a good read for the most part So most you guys do understand what, sheep are. Its always been my dream that man would get off all fours and stand tall and just say no to the machine. Surely it means certain death. But they can't kill everone. Nor can they kill on their own as it would show them as murders. Instead they gather the weak and use numbers to tear down the strong. All the while their lives secure.

JUST SAY NO and they will expose themselves. Travis wasn't the first to draw aline in the dirt daring man to step over.
That Line was drawn ages ago.

Its not about religion or politics its about mans willingness to not cross the line.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
Goering is trying to justify what happened -- what the regime he ran did -- by suggesting that all the regimes are the same. England, America, Russia, Germany; democracy, Parliament, fascism, communism; it's all the same; all war is just regimes manipulating their foolish citizens. The German decision to start World War II, by this logic, is the same as the British and American decisions to resist the Germans.

So that, I think, is the problem facing those who use the quote: Their proposed moral equivalence between Goering's Nazi Germany and America only works if they are also willing to accept Goering's moral equivalence of Nazi Germany and Roosevelt's America and Churchill's England. And if they are, like I am, repelled by the latter moral equivalence -- if they think that Americans really did deliberately endorse a war against Germany, or that, even if they were influenced by their elected representatives, their elected representatives were properly doing their job by exercising such leadership -- then what's the point of citing as authority a man (a monster) who was asserting it?

Except that you're wrong, that that's not what Goering was saying. It's pretty clear.

And if you want, there are plenty of examples of the US starting 'wrong' wars.

Goering was making a general comment regardless of how just the war is, and he was making the point that the same issue faces dctatorships and democracies.

To spell it out a bit more: the US public did not want to enter WII, but when 'under attack' (they were), they became willing to. The US public did not want to go to war in Vietnam, but when told (wrongly) that they were threatened, they agreed to do so. Why do you think in so many wars that leaders go to great lengths to create the perception that their country was attacked, from the 'shot heard round the world' in the revolutionary war, to the US civil war's Fort Sumter. to portraying the Mexican government's attack against the lawbreakers at the Alamo as a baseless attack ("Remember the Alamo!"), to the (mostly phony) Gulf of Tonkin incidents to say Vietnam was a 'defensive' war - indeed, why JFK said that the US would never start a war, which held until the second Gulf war, when Bush even then tried to justify the war based on the imminent threat of poison-spreading cropdusters or briefcase nukes.

You're twisting the context, IMO.

This is a very coherent summary of things.