The Root Cause of War: Is It Simply Human Nature?

[Andre]

Every year on the 4th of May, the Netherlands memorizes their deaths of world war II

When I was a toddler to teenager, every adult had memories of The War. Yes I am that old. Everybody knew plenty of people who died due to the hostilities or due to the holocaust. And every conversation in those times turned to that subject, invariably, ending to the question, how was it possible? How could a complete population, our neighbors, normally nice and kind people, have turned into such monsters? What could possibly be the force behind that, to drive normal people to such a madness?

And then silence. Of course nobody had any sensible answer to that. But we all vowed that it would never ever happen again.

Nowadays after decades of good progress in sociology studies, things slowly start to get clear.

It seems that everybody needs an enemy.

Does that make sense?

 

[Andre]

8 pm, two minutes silence everywhere in the country

 

[Andre]

But we all vowed that it would never ever happen again.

Actually, the question I intended to discuss in this thread is, can we? Can we prevent that it ever happens again?

Here are some ideas about that.

Maybe that many 'characteristics' are happening today?

 

[Monique]

I've never heard stories from direct relatives of the war. Of course it is taught in school, but I notice that it doesn't really sink in until you get older. Still it is very hard to believe that it happened and that it was so recent, it is good that it is remembered every year.

I live in a Jewish neighborhood so I decided to look up who lived here at the start of the war: a married couple, the man of the house died in 1944 in extern kommando Ludwigsdorf, Poland, his wife already passed away in 1942 in Auschwitz. This realization is really strange, it brings back their spirits and provides a warning to never let it happen again.

Your question might be a bit too vague: I think people are put into boxes every day. Religion or skin color are still issues in society. My landlord told me that the real estate agent warned him that my boyfriend is "colored", to which the landlord replied that the agent looked tanned as well. I reported the agent to the authorities, in case it happens more often. Who knows for how many houses we were declined because of this.

The biggest threat is someone with power to start enforcing those perceived differences. As long that we can communicate freely with the current technologies I think that it will meet with more resistance, I do think we shouldn't take it for granted.

 

[Evo]

WWII was a terrible lesson that I hope is never forgotten.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, there was the Rwandan genocide of 1994, only 18 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

That lead to a civil war.

The first Freedom Ride set off on this date [May 4] in 1961. A group of 13 activists had been recruited by CORE (the Congress of Racial Equality) to ride buses throughout the South to test Supreme Court decisions against segregation in interstate travel. The interracial group, most of them college students, set off from Washington, D.C., on their way to New Orleans. White riders sat in the back of the bus in what was considered the black section, and vice versa. At station stops, the Freedom Riders defied the segregated restrooms and lunch counters. They encountered little resistance in the moderate upper South. The Deep South was another matter entirely.

. . . . The Freedom Riders were met with baseball bats and guns, brutal beatings and firebombs, prison cells and chain gangs. They never made it to New Orleans. . . .

http://writersalmanac.publicradio.org/index.php?date=2012/05/04

I came to the US in 1966, and I remember that it was dangerous to be African American in parts of town, and more so in many cities and counties across the southern US.

And then there is the current situation in DR Congo.
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e45c366.html

I think I've heard that about 5000 +/- people a killed per day in DRC, and I recently read a headline about an estimate of 8 million people (~11% of the population) have been killed in the current, on-going conflict.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/...ories/congothedemocraticrepublicof/index.html

Here's a rather interesting story about "The U.S. Ambassador Inside Hitler's Berlin"
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/04/151378813/the-u-s-ambassador-inside-hitlers-berlin

Many political experts at the time (~1933) wrote Hitler off. Many expected that he was a transient anomaly.
At the time, Consul General George Messersmith wrote, "I wish it were really possible to make our people at home understand how definitely this martial spirit is being developed in Germany. If this government remains in power for another year, and it carries on in the measure in this direction, it will go far toward making Germany a danger to world peace for years to come. With few exceptions, the men who are running the government are of a mentality that you and I cannot understand. Some of them are psychopathic cases and would ordinarily be receiving treatment somewhere." The text was quoted in the NPR interview, but it is found here - Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Messersmith

 

[Andre]

Thanks very much Astronuc for your examples, I like to come back and discuss the details but that requires some preparation and I'm out maxed at the moment.

WWII was a terrible lesson that I hope is never forgotten.

Exactly, but did we really learn that lesson? Are we practicing preventive measures? Look at stage 1 classification:

People are divided into "us and them".

And yes, we love to 'fight' - creation versus evolution, left versus right, east versus west, democrats versus republicans, flaming wars that should not be mentioned...

...
The biggest threat is someone with power to start enforcing those perceived differences. As long that we can communicate freely with the current technologies I think that it will meet with more resistance, I do think we shouldn't take it for granted.

Exactly, it's a big part of the story, it looks a lot like demagogy.

More later.

 

[Borek]

You don't have to leave Europe for a recent examples - think decomposition of the Yugoslavia. I am afraid I am a pessimist here - there is no way we can stop it in general. I was much more optimistic when I was younger.

Sure, we should do our best to prevent such things from happening, in many places we are even temporarily quite successful. Let's hope it will be this way as long as possible.

 

[Monique]

You don't have to leave Europe for a recent examples - think decomposition of the Yugoslavia.

I was about to say the same: the Srebrenica massacre of 1995 would arguable be the best example, because it's geographically so close to the atrocities that took place in WWII and Dutchbat peacekeepers were blamed for not preventing the massacre.
The war crime suspects are currently under trial, for instance Ratko Mladić in The Hague, NL.

 

[Astronuc]

I was about to say the same: the Srebrenica massacre of 1995 would arguable be the best example, because it's geographically so close to the atrocities that took place in WWII and Dutchbat peacekeepers were blamed for not preventing the massacre.
The war crime suspects are currently under trial, for instance Ratko Mladić in The Hague, NL.

At the latter end of the Yugoslav War, was the conflict in Kosovo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War (neutrality of article is disputed)

More recently, we have the conflicts (along ethnic/racial lines) in Sudan, one in which South Sudan split away from Sudan, and the other in the Darfur region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

 

[lisab]

You don't have to leave Europe for a recent examples - think decomposition of the Yugoslavia. I am afraid I am a pessimist here - there is no way we can stop it in general. I was much more optimistic when I was younger.

Sure, we should do our best to prevent such things from happening, in many places we are even temporarily quite successful. Let's hope it will be this way as long as possible.

Sadly, I agree.

I think the Holocaust is taught wrong in schools. It's made out to be a "German thing" -- totally, totally wrong (as evidenced by examples given by other posters).

It's a *human* thing. We're all capable of it, and that's really frightening.

 

[Andre]

Thanks, Lisa; that's exactly the direction I wanted to explore into a bit. Of course, as Astronuc illustrated, there were specific circumstances in Germany that seemed fit to develop a nasty murder machine, the humiliating treaty of Versailles, economic misery and a gang of nasty geniuses who knew exactly how to condition the population.

But indeed the many examples show here that's something of all places of all times. How susceptible are we then for the accumulation of conditions that ultimately could lead to disaster?

Let me tell me something about myself. Based on the vow from the OP, never to let it happen again and some other reasons (adventure), I decided for a career as a warrior, and into the 'wild blue yonder' no less, to defend Queen, Patria and Peace, because we were told that a terrible enemy was out there in the east, watching for the slightest opportunity to jump us and then it was going to happen all over again.

So in that time we were told that the threat of the enemy grew with the month, more and more hurdles of huns gathered around our eastern borders, in incredible numbers and we thought that with our limited assets, we would not stand a chance, should the evil aggressor elicit to start the hostilities.

And then suddenly it was all over in the 1989. The "wall fell". Things changed incredibly fast. A military friendship program was established quickly and we got to meet our former adversaries. I had long talks with several of Czech, Hungarian, and Polish colleagues, who were not only kind, honest and actually just like us, but they also told us in turn what kind of incredible villains we had been. From their stories it became clear that our mutual enemy image was somewhat exaggerated.

The conclusion was that the leadership of both our and their side had grossly overestimated and overstated the evilness of the opponent and shockingly, we had accepted all of that eagerly, because it seemed that we wanted it to be true.

I think there is a root of the problem.

 

[NileQueen]

Kennis is macht. Our leaders (and us) need to know the potential enemies and neighbors and they (and us if possible) need to keep an eye on things, and know
what is going on around us.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Sadly, I agree.

I think the Holocaust is taught wrong in schools. It's made out to be a "German thing" -- totally, totally wrong (as evidenced by examples given by other posters).

It's a *human* thing. We're all capable of it, and that's really frightening.

Part of the problem is that it is rare for a country to teach it's own atrocities. Britain has engaged in countless horrific actions in other countries to protect it's own interests (just look at how internal Iranian politics has been interfered with over the last century) but all we learn in school about our history is how good we were in the war and the Tudors...

 

[zoobyshoe]

The conclusion was that the leadership of both our and their side had grossly overestimated and overstated the evilness of the opponent and shockingly, we had accepted all of that eagerly, because it seemed that we wanted it to be true.

I think there is a root of the problem.

Reminds me of the last part of Constantine Cavafy's poem, Waiting for the Barbarians:

"Why this sudden restlessness, this confusion?
(How serious people's faces have become.)
Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
everyone going home so lost in thought?

Because night has fallen and the barbarians have not come.
And some who have just returned from the border say
there are no barbarians any longer.

And now, what's going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution."

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/cavafy.html

 

[Andre]

And now, what's going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution."

Exactly, we need an enemy and we need to feel to be in danger for some reason. Why are horror movies/books so popular? Isn't the destruction of Earth an element in most science fiction stories? It's always the end of the world as we know it as discussed here. Please read the lyrics of that song again. What will become of us without having a decent enemy?

But why would we accept anything our friends tell us about the enemy without question?(remember Saddam Hoesseins weapons of mass destruction). Why do we exagarate his evilness. What's going on in the mind? Something like: "I can easily say that, even if he didn't do it, because he is so evil that he would have done it anyway"

Why?

 

[Danger]

I'm almost afraid to say anything here, because the last time that I expressed this opinion I received 2 non-returnable infraction points, but I'm going to say it anyway. Human rights are a human construct. Nobody has any unless they are in a civilization that imparts them. Even then, they are not rights; they are privileges that we pay for with our taxes or community service. One of those privileges is protection from "enemies of the state". That protection, however, is up to ourselves (actually the able-bodied among us) to provide.
I almost started a thread last week to honour the first anniversary of the first Canadian soldiers to have died in combat since the Korean war, but I know that it would have been deleted because they were deliberately murdered by a US pilot whose only punishment was for dereliction of duty.
Monique, I have to ask you something because it has puzzled me since I joined here. I always had the impression that you're Dutch because you live in the Netherlands, but then I saw some posts that indicated that you were in university in California. Are you a citizen of the Netherlands or of the US? (It doesn't matter either way as to how I regard you. You're highly intelligent and have a gorgeous eye, which is all that matters to me. )
Andre, I have to PM you because this reminded me of one of my favourite jokes which deals with this subject, and your profession, and can't be posted in a PG environment.
Everyone thinks that the proponents and protectors of his/her philosophy is in the right, and the fact is that might does make right. I don't like that, being one who is not mighty, but it's true. Hitler had the IQ of an eggplant, but he had the incredible "street smarts" to assemble one of the most formidable military forces in history. If he hadn't been so stupid as to declare war on the USA the day after the Pearl Harbour attack, the Allies would probably have lost. Until then, the US had refused to help us against him. Once he did, we had some back-up.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm almost afraid to say anything here, because the last time that I expressed this opinion I received 2 non-returnable infraction points, but I'm going to say it anyway.

Danger I don't know why you have said this because it is not true at all. Regardless if you have a problem with a moderation decision then appeal it, we don't discuss it openly.

Human rights are a human construct. Nobody has any unless they are in a civilization that imparts them.

Obviously, if they were somehow enshrined in nature we wouldn't need to include them in our legal system would we? "Rights" are privileges that society holds in such high regard that they are made a foundation of that society's legal system and therefore the physical, social and political processes within that society work towards maintaining them.

 

[Danger]

Danger I don't know why you have said this because it is not true at all. Regardless if you have a problem with a moderation decision then appeal it, we don't discuss it openly.
Obviously, if they were somehow enshrined in nature we wouldn't need to include them in our legal system would we? "Rights" are privileges that society holds in such high regard that they are made a foundation of that society's legal system and therefore the physical, social and political processes within that society work towards maintaining them.

Well, I apologize for the publication of that, but the fact is that I have received infractions just about every time that I have expressed an opinion in the past couple of months, including the fact that not only several posts, but also an entire thread, were deleted because someone on staff didn't like what I said. I think that it is time for others to know why I don't post much any more.
In a couple of cases, the person who issued the infraction disagreed with it having been issued, so I still see some hope on the horizon.
As for the second part, you are essentially backing up what I said, but you do specify "our" legal system. We do not share a legal system, unless you are a Canuck in disguise, and even our two systems are not even close to what exists in the rest of the world. We're about half-way between you and England (our solicitors wear powdered wigs only in the Supreme Court of Canada, or perhaps also in Court of Queen's Bench. Sorry, but I took law only in Grade 10, in 1971, so I'm not up on it).
Every nation has it's own legal system, and a lot of them are not compatible with either of ours. That does not in any way make them less legitimate. Neither one of us has any obligation to agree with them, nor do we have any right to interfere with them.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well, I apologize for the publication of that, but the fact is that I have received infractions just about every time that I have expressed an opinion in the past couple of months, including the fact that not only several posts, but also an entire thread, were deleted because someone on staff didn't like what I said. I think that it is time for others to know why I don't post much any more.
In a couple of cases, the person who issued the infraction disagreed with it having been issued, so I still see some hope on the horizon.

No this is not the case, you did not receive any infractions for expressing your opinion but for the manner in which you expressed them. Let's leave this though because as I said we do not discuss moderation decisions in this way.

As for the second part, you are essentially backing up what I said, but you do specify "our" legal system. We do not share a legal system, unless you are a Canuck in disguise, and even our two systems are not even close to what exists in the rest of the world. We're about half-way between you and England (our solicitors wear powdered wigs only in the Supreme Court of Canada, or perhaps also in Court of Queen's Bench. Sorry, but I took law only in Grade 10, in 1971, so I'm not up on it).
Every nation had it's own legal system, and a lot of them are not compatible with either of ours. That does not in any way make them less legitimate. Neither one of us has any obligation to agree with them, nor do we have any right to interfere with them.

I meant to say "in our legal systems" because many countries throughout the world subscribe to some form of human rights legislation. Of course many disagree on what counts as human rights; whether or not a privilege is valued highly enough to be afforded status as a right is an interplay between the values of the people and the values of the leaders (with more democratic countries favouring the former and more authoritarian the latter). I would argue that a legal system based on the latter is less legitimate purely because it is a legal system forced upon people who do not have a say in it, our right to interfere in this matter comes under the same debate as the right to interfere in any situation which essentially boils down to do you have the capacity to act in a way that will result in a positive outcome for those concerned?

 

[Danger]

Let's leave this though because as I said we do not discuss moderation decisions in this way.

Agreed. Let's just shake on it and leave it behind.

I meant to say "in our legal systems" because many countries throughout the world subscribe to some form of human rights legislation. Of course many disagree on what counts as human rights; whether or not a privilege is valued highly enough to be afforded status as a right is an interplay between the values of the people and the values of the leaders (with more democratic countries favouring the former and more authoritarian the latter). I would argue that a legal system based on the latter is less legitimate purely because it is a legal system forced upon people who do not have a say in it, our right to interfere in this matter comes under the same debate as the right to interfere in any situation which essentially boils down to do you have the capacity to act in a way that will result in a positive outcome for those concerned?

That is exactly what I meant; every society has its own definition of "human rights", none of which are inherent to humans in general. They are all socially imposed. I'm not sure how long you've been around here, but many of us have a young lady friend, a member of PF, who is not really considered a person in her part of the world, despite being a nuclear physicist, simply because her reproductive organs are internal. I would like nothing better than to "internalize", with my boot, the reproductive organs of the men who rule her society.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Exactly, we need an enemy and we need to feel to be in danger for some reason. Why are horror movies/books so popular? Isn't the destruction of Earth an element in most science fiction stories? It's always the end of the world as we know it as discussed here. Please read the lyrics of that song again. What will become of us without having a decent enemy?

But why would we accept anything our friends tell us about the enemy without question?(remember Saddam Hoesseins weapons of mass destruction). Why do we exagarate his evilness. What's going on in the mind? Something like: "I can easily say that, even if he didn't do it, because he is so evil that he would have done it anyway"

Why?

There's a difference between the idea of needing an enemy, which is not an authentic human need, and being taught to expect an enemy only to have it not materialize. The latter situation is actually psychologically troublesome because it represents having your sense of purpose taken away.

The thing you're waiting for needn't be an enemy. The point of the play Waiting for Godot, is that people waste huge portions of their lives waiting for external things, good, bad, or indifferent to change their lives. Consider the Cargo Cults of New Guinea which were built around superstitious rituals intended to entice the return of American planes dropping cargo from the sky, as they did in WWII. Once any practitioner gives up and accepts the planes are never coming back, what happens to their sense of purpose?

The idea there is any enemy is one thing that will give a sense of purpose, but the idea of purpose is the important, operative one.

For the average PFer, purpose is tied to education, not an enemy. The big issue for young people is identity. They are constantly experimenting with defining themselves. Having a purpose leads, quite obviously, into having an identity. Having an enemy is an easy and universal means to have a purpose, but it is not really a human need. Having a purpose seems to be the need, the sought after definer of identity.

 

[Monique]

Danger, why'd you think I'd be a US citizen? No, I grew up wearing wooden shoes. I did live in the States for a few years, but that's already 10 years ago (and not in sunny California)

On the topic: there's a developmental stage when children reach puberty that they start developing their social skills and an identity starts to develop (like zooby mentions), that's exactly the time when groups start to form and the children start judging each other more than they used to. Apparently the need for identity is hard-wired in our development, I am not convinced however that we need an enemy.. but maybe that's my idealism.

 

[Danger]

Danger, why'd you think I'd be a US citizen?
I did live in the States for a few years, but that's already 10 years ago (and not in sunny California)

I have a memory like a sieve. Sorry about that. I joined PF in '05, and for some reason thought that you were posting from university on our side of the pond. Perhaps it was just a matter of you referencing your time over here. You didn't actually post much in those days, so you always seemed rather exotic to me. (You still do, of course, but now the cause is hormonal rather than geographical. )

I grew up wearing wooden shoes.

I never thought of this until you brought it up, but I now have to wonder what the rest of your clothing is made of. Are there trapdoors in strategic locations? Are wooden teaspoons used as training bras, and you work your way up to ladles? What I wouldn't give to be a termite in your culture...

I like the thoughts that both you and Zoob express. Not that I dislike the other opinions, but you two always seem to strike at the heart of the matter without being sidetracked by cultural influences.

 

[Andre]

To get back on track, do we need an enemy?

I pondered a bit about that, feet on the table, relaxed, own ideas, no scientific substantiation for now. Imagine the paleo persons of the paleolithicum, running around in the steppes. Whenever they are safe, unthreatened, they do just their things, study worms, smoking pork, whatever. No adventure.

But now there is a threat, a herd of outraged mammoths. What now? They have to defend the community, work together, save the women and children. Together they can do it, and eventually they survive. Everybody happy, the warriors for proving that they make the difference, the protectees for being protected by the bravest members of the clan. Admiration all around.

The keyword is "happy" here. If you have an enemy, eventually you're going to be happy, happy for the reconciliation within the group. No dutch persons have ever been more happy than on May 5th 1945, when the liberation was complete, the enemy defeated.

So if you have an enemy, the processes to deal with the crisis succesfully lead to happy fraternization and most probably to a boost in reproduction processes.

But what if there is no threat? No enemy around? Everybody is just doing their thing. So boring. Consequently, if there is no enemy, you can always make one. There are always devils and dragons to invent or an outraged deity, or 'them', the others, the outgroup, who are not 'us'.

So everybody needs an enemy, trust me, I am a very experienced enemy.

 

[Danger]

Excellent scenario, Andre. I'm sorry that I contributed to derailing your thread.
One of the things that seems obvious to me, though, is that the prime instigation of politics as a social device is that those who were heroes, voluntarily or otherwise, don't want to relinquish that status after the true threat has passed. Hence the invention of Weapons of Mass Distraction, devils, Communists, Atheists, or whatever else they can con the minions into believing is going to come for them in the night. In some rare cases, those new threats are real, but for the most part they are boogymen or strawmen or what ever you use as a bogus baddie. Scare enough people, and you might remain in office. Luckily, people seem to be getting smarter as of late.

 

[Astronuc]

So everybody needs an enemy, trust me, I am a very experienced enemy.

I don't need any enemies, and I can do without them. I'm not sure why one would need an enemy. Does the term 'enemy' extend to adversary? Evenso, I don't really need adversaries.

Nature and the universe are challenging enough, and certainly interesting and not boring.

 

[Andre]

Dan, it's okay. You may want to check "moral panic".

Astronuc, I don't know, maybe you don't care if your favorite sport team is beat badly, after all footbal is war but I have a tendency to frown about the continuous destruction of rain forests, overhunting of whales and things like that.

I realize I also had a tendency to believe everything that 'our' warriors against those 'crimes' told about the perpetrators.

 

[Borek]

It occurred to me now - we (as a species) have a (sometimes nice) trait of uniting in the face of danger (danger, not Danger). I guess it is deeply rooted in our genes, as herd cooperation was needed for survival. Sadly, seems like this trait can be easily triggered by imaginary dangers, which makes us susceptible to manipulation, especially when we feel insecure.

 

[Andre]

Exactly Borek, exactly.

My two cent addition to that idea is that some people are so eager to unite that way, that they invent imaginary dangers. Moreover, showing that you know how counter such an imaginary threat, promotes you way up in the pecking order. Others accept those dangers happily because they look at the pecking order too and it unites, having a common enemy. After all, The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

[daveb]

There's a great quote in the movie Cast a Deadly Spell: Witch Hunt, in which Eric Bagosian says (paraphrased), "Put ten people in a room, and though they may not choose a leader, I guarantee they'll choose one of the ten to hate" It's a rather pessimistic, albeit probably realistic, vew of humankind.

 

[zoobyshoe]

To get back on track, do we need an enemy?

I addressed this in post #22 and am interested in your response to what I said.

 

[Andre]

Okay Zoobyshoe, sorry to be late. I guess you do have a point and I certainly exaggerated with the generalizing "everybody". The proposed mechanism is probably weak for many individuals, no doubt.

However observing many conversations, it strikes me that many friendly people get very passionate about those evil ..fill in your favorite opponent... in an attempt to get the attention/admiration of the audience. It's getting so predictable that I got to detest it.

But it's beginning of the processes that ultimately may lead to the worst possible scenarios in the OP.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Okay Zoobyshoe, sorry to be late. I guess you do have a point and I certainly exaggerated with the generalizing "everybody". The proposed mechanism is probably weak for many individuals, no doubt.

However observing many conversations, it strikes me that many friendly people get very passionate about those evil ..fill in your favorite opponent... in an attempt to get the attention/admiration of the audience. It's getting so predictable that I got to detest it.

But it's beginning of the processes that ultimately may lead to the worst possible scenarios in the OP.

In the absence of something better, people will accept the threat of an enemy as the basis for a sense of purpose. I think what we have to worry about is young men, particularly disenfranchised young men and young men with little or no education. They are brimming with hormones, and craving a sense of identity and purpose. It's easy to tip them over into violence and they are easy prey to demagogues who would use them to further their own ends. They are susceptible to accepting pre-packaged enemies.

Hitler's ability to forms gangs of such young men is what allowed him to rise to power, terrorize his own nation and people, and then, when the opposition was cowed, start rounding up Jews.

10 or 15 years ago teenaged boys started hanging out in front of the markets in my neighborhood asking for change. They were in groups of three or more, so people were intimidated and many would give them change out of fear.

They weren't official gangs at all, just a bunch of teenagers who had stumbled on the principles of organized crime by accident and started to explore it.

Anyway, the neighborhood passed an ordinance making illegal for 2 or more high school students to "gather" in public. The cops enforced it rigidly, and the problem went away. Sometimes it's that simple.

Germany did not deal with Hitler properly after the Beer Hall Putch. He and the other party leaders should have been jailed for life for attempting the violent overthrow of the government, prevented from disseminating any propaganda from jail, and the Nazi party dismantled and made illegal.

 

[edward]

Exactly Borek, exactly.

My two cent addition to that idea is that some people are so eager to unite that way, that they invent imaginary dangers. Moreover, showing that you know how counter such an imaginary threat, promotes you way up in the pecking order. Others accept those dangers happily because they look at the pecking order too and it unites, having a common enemy. After all, The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

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]

Okay Zoobyshoe, sorry to be late. I guess you do have a point and I certainly exaggerated with the generalizing "everybody". The proposed mechanism is probably weak for many individuals, no doubt.

However observing many conversations, it strikes me that many friendly people get very passionate about those evil ..fill in your favorite opponent... in an attempt to get the attention/admiration of the audience. It's getting so predictable that I got to detest it.

But it's beginning of the processes that ultimately may lead to the worst possible scenarios in the OP.

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



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THYBCEoxlxI&feature=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]

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.

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]

...

But why would we accept anything our friends tell us about the enemy without question?(remember Saddam Hoesseins weapons of mass destruction). Why do we exagarate his evilness. What's going on in the mind? Something like: "I can easily say that, even if he didn't do it, because he is so evil that he would have done it anyway"

Why?

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]

Every year on the 4th of May, the Netherlands memorizes their deaths of world war II

When I was a toddler to teenager, every adult had memories of The War. Yes I am that old. Everybody knew plenty of people who died due to the hostilities or due to the holocaust. And every conversation in those times turned to that subject, invariably, ending to the question, how was it possible? How could a complete population, our neighbors, normally nice and kind people, have turned into such monsters? What could possibly be the force behind that, to drive normal people to such a madness?

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]

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.

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

 

[Andre]

Thanks for bringing back some fond memories of my childhood.

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

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

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

You're the top!
You're the great Houdini!
You're the top!
You are Mussolini!

-Cole Porter Broadway tune 1933-34

 

[ViewsofMars]

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.

[/URL]

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]

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.

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdytWbl9sh8

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]

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.

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.