4th May NL memorial day WW-II

edward

That is my feeling exactly. Reflecting on your OP. I too am old enough to remember some things about WWII. Luckily I mostly remember the rationing of food and gas and the fact that my father couldn't get tires for his car. I didn't learn about the atrocities until I was an adult.

In the 1960's I spent three and a half years in ICBM silos. The Titan ll missiles were topped with a 10 megaton hydrogen dirty bombs. We used the term enhanced yield instead of dirty at that time. There was a nuclear fission reaction to start the hydrogen fusion reaction and then the the heat and pressure on a canister of radioactive tritium gas from the fusion reaction would trigger a second nuclear explosion.

All of that time I had been trained to believed that the threat was not only real but imminent. I later learned that the "enemy" only had a fraction of the nuclear weapons that I had been taught to believe.



Moving on; we have seen, just in the landmark game alone, a number of great civilizations that have risen and then fallen all because they were either enticed or forced to believe in an idea and then grouped around it.

The ideas varied from alerting people to a real enemy or a fictitious enemy. It didn't seem to matter whether that enemy was real or imagined. Many wars were strictly about financial gain.

I think that the precipitating factor to convincing people that there is an enemy is to use "fear" to incite the people. Fear is a powerful motivating factor whether real or imagined.

In my opinion we really haven't changed that much over the last several thousand years. Only the weaponry has changed.

More recently, for many Americans, the so called enemy has evolved from being an invader to being the "fear" of losing a freedom, or of being subjugated to an unwanted form of government.

just venting

edward

The media does a good job of spreading the hatred and fear in the political arena.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpzeI8sgIHU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THYBC...eature=related

zoobyshoe

Andre, I got your PM, which you are not sure is postable because it incidentally involves a subject banned here. Your point is not to discuss that subject, but to dispute that only juveniles gang up on people.

I'm not asserting that only juveniles are prone to fall prey to mob psychology. My point is that juvenile males are vastly more susceptible to ganging up and to actively performing direct physical violence than any other age group.

Here in the US, Latin American drug lords make pacts with local youth gangs to sell drugs on the street. In Africa, war lords systematically indoctrinate young men to spread their terror among the local villages. Legal national militaries the world around enlist young men. Chinese Tongs in US Chinatowns hire young men when they need someone physically intimidated or killed. It was the same in Germany: young men in Nazi uniforms were out on the streets in numbers, making their presence known, beating up National Democrats, Socialists, Communists, and Jews. Hitler probably never even thought twice about this being the demographic to tap for raw physical force, because of his experience in the military.

If you show me there is a "crew" of physical intimidators, all over the age of 30, somewhere in history (perhaps in the Sicilian Mafia, both Native and US versions, perhaps also in the Russian mob), I could probably demonstrate that the members actually started engaging in that activity before the age of 20.

Notice, I am not saying enemy-mongering is a youth thing. I'm saying that enemy-mongers tap the male youth as their enforcers. To the extent you can prevent that, you prevent enemy-mongers from gaining a power base.

Andre

I agree on that, there is little doubt that angry young testosteron producers can be easy executors of hate thoughts, but the co-ordination is likely originating from victims from the processes decribed by people like Irving Janis and Stanley Cohen

After all in WW-II the 'wrong' side was not particularly restricted to juveniles.

zoobyshoe

You're right, the organizers aren't the young.

I brought this up in response to your earlier question about how to prevent future occurrences of holocaust type tragedies. Most would say we have to teach tolerance. My solution was meant to be a more out-of-the-box, practical one: look for and hit the pressure point where hate mongers tap into their power base.

Andre

Thanks Zoobyshoe.

The OP wondered about how a decent nice population could turn into monsters that seemed to have only one objective, to eradicate another group. The question that dominated my life was "why?".

The second question was, should it ever emerge again, can we prevent it?

The first major breakthrough for me was 1989, the fall of the Berlin wall. Finally, freedom, no more threat; we could work at our well being again. However this initial joy of relief was silenced quickly. this east/west mutual destruction threat was replaced with an incredible speed by other fear factors, the Balkan conflict, many hot spots in the equatorial regions, the year two kay bug (Y2K), weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and of course a subject that should not be mentioned.

That made me think, what would we be, without our favorite enemy/threat?

More later.

mheslep

I doubt anyone exaggerated Saddam's evil; he earned it well. It was his WMD and military capability people got wrong, at least in 2003. I think though that the Iraq rush to action came in some part from the same theme you've mentioned here: a remembering of WWII and that it can never be allowed to happen again. You'll recall one factor in WWII was a group think in the other direction - a deliberate discounting of Nazi military capability and intention. People are determined not to make that mistake again.

Andre

Well, let's try to put that in context. Obviously there is little doubt that Saddam was not a very honorable gentleman, considering his coup. Now, I'm not trying to justify anything he did, but try to think as him. Couldn't it be that he too saw so many enemies, threatening whatever was sacred to him, that he felt justified to do whatever evil he did? Maybe, because he was dead sure that his enemies would do the same to him, if he didn't prevent it.

ViewsofMars

I wasn't born during World War II, but my father was at Pearl Harbor when the bombs hit. He was in charge of the Electrical Engineering shops. My mother told me that he called home and told her not to worry. She said the sky turned black in an instant. Thank you Andre for remembering World War II. I have over the years gathered quite a bit of information about it since I was very young when my dad died though I do have a little bit of memorabilia from him in a box. I should mention I was born to very old parents. And great parents they were! Thanks for bringing back some fond memories of my childhood.

My father later died of cancer. I have always wondered if it was the dust on the ships and planes that returned form Hiroshima and Nagasaki that caused it. The Atomic Bomb's dust. My mother told me that the ships and planes had a lot of dust on them when they returned to Pearl Harbor after the bombings. I think the dust had radiation?

mheslep

Could you not apply the same defense to Hitler or Stalin or any other grotesque tyrant?

Andre

You're welcome, but obviously the thread is about understanding why things happened as they happened.

It's not a defense, it's trying to understand how the human mind works in the face of threats and enemies. But certainly, those tyrants have been/are convinced for themselves that they had to do what they did. Of course one big factor in the process towards genocide is stage 3, dehumanization, demonisation of the enemy. That threat for them is subhuman, and should not exist in the first place.

Now is it imaginable that this line of thought is still happening today? ...among us?

ViewsofMars

Duh! The event happened because Japan attacked the United States of America! We fought back! And foremost above all else, my father didn't die during the attack at Pearl Harbor even though he was there. Fortunately, I derive pleasure in the memory of my father!

If someone breaks into my home, I won't hesitate to shoot the person.

mheslep

Ok, I understand. But I reject the premise of "in the face of threats". I think these actions are more about more about psychopathic and/or sociopathic power trips. Once so engaged, yes of course one is going to make enemies, but that does not justify the action in the first instance.

Can a a modern society dump moral impediments that prevent unhinged power trips? It might. The US had many dabbling in totalitarian movements in the 1920s and 30s, both fascist and socialist.

-Cole Porter Broadway tune 1933-34

ViewsofMars

I think it best for you to explain yourself. Making a sweeping generalization such as, " But I reject the premise of "in the face of threats". I think these actions are more about more about psychopathic and/or sociopathic power trips. Once so engaged, yes of course one is going to make enemies, but that does not justify the action in the first instance."

The reason I ask for clarification is that you are implying by your statement that soldiers and President(s) of the United States are sociopath(s)s and/or psychopathic(s), and people who defend their own home from intruders (ex. serial killers). Thus, I must state that there is no evidence of such. I haven't seen any courts (legal system) within the U.S. stating a U.S. soldier or President was convicted of a crime nor a person who shot a intruder once in a person's home. And, I would like to remind you that the topic is "Re: 4th May NL memorial day WW-II" so I hope that helps a tad bit.

zoobyshoe

I believe you are confusing the effects of post traumatic stress with hardwired human "need". We actually do not need enemies. Those suffering from post traumatic stress, however, find it almost impossible to relinquish the hyper-vigilance acquired during war, or when otherwise threatened. Rather than a "need", you should recognize it as an artificially acquired habit which becomes an insistant psychological addiction.

For soldiers, the trauma starts in boot camp, before they ever see any battles. The drill instructor's goal is to churn out killers. Humane impulses are mocked and made to seem ridiculous:



A huge segment of any population is always scouting for enemies. It's not a basic human need, it's a sad fact that results from the traumatized not being able to overcome their trauma.

ViewsofMars

The U-Tube video states "Scene from Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket (1987), novel by Gustav Hasford" and it is a fiction novel. I have a few friends in the military and don't think they *need* enemies. To make a statement "For soldiers, the trauma starts in boot camp, before they ever see any battles. The drill instructor's goal is to churn out killers. Humane impulses are mocked and made to seem ridiculous" seems to me to be the idea shown on the video. I know some soldiers that have returned from war and they seem perfectly normal to their family and friends. Protecting American's from harm appears to be an honor for those few that I do know.

berkeman

And I have friends for whom PTSD is very, very real. And not just in the military -- it is an issue in EMS (emergency medical services) and in law enforcement as well.

The video clip is from an intense mainstream movie that explores some of the issues involved in military service and traumatic stress. It is unpleasant, but there are unfortunately some very real aspects to it, IMO.