Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 25th, 2017, 08:04 AM   #1
Hellenist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,944
Blog Entries: 2
our nature to war?


:dodgy: Ah, I think history has given us a distorted belief in our nature? "His story" is a story about a person or group of persons who did something remarkable. In the telling of the Persian invasion of Athens, history is not about the citizens who fled the city, leaving it unprotected and open for the Persians to loot and destroy, but the justification for preparing for war and following through with war plans and the power and glory of the victor. Again and again, throughout history, people are fleeing from wars and today with the huge populations of refugees it might be obvious it is not human nature to war, but to flee and steps must be taken to prevent this? Is it possible that our telling of history has resulted in a distorting our understanding of our nature?

In fact, it is so against our nature to war that people must be forced into wars. They can be driven into the enemy against their will. They have been drafted into wars with punishments for those who are drafted but run.

Given these facts, how do we maintain the belief that it is our nature to war?
athena is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 25th, 2017, 09:19 AM   #2

Lord Fairfax's Avatar
Tickling the Dragons tail
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Rupert's Land ;)
Posts: 2,822

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post

In fact, it is so against our nature to war that people must be forced into wars.
Not true, all the major Western powers have volunteer armies, yet there are still wars.
Australia and Canada didn't draft soldiers to fight overseas in Wwii, yet they still had enough soldiers.

Quote:
They can be driven into the enemy against their will. They have been drafted into wars with punishments for those who are drafted but run.

Given these facts, how do we maintain the belief that it is our nature to war?
Looks at the enthusiastic support for the invasion of Iraq, or the 1000s of Islamic Jihadis who volunteer to give their own lives in terrorist attacks.

Nationalism, propaganda and/or ignorace are strong drivers for war and conflict.

The less Americans know about Ukraine’s location, the more they want U.S. to intervene
Lord Fairfax is online now  
Old April 25th, 2017, 09:24 AM   #3
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 6,129

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post

Given these facts, how do we maintain the belief that it is our nature to war?
You actually didn't provide any facts that people don't like to war, only that some people are afraid to die. But most people love destroying their enemies and taking what they want, and in a position where there is low risk of failure they will murder a whole lot of men, women, and kids. Thus there will always be war, and people who are anti-war will always be dominated by those who do. Because nature is "red in tooth and claw."
aggienation is offline  
Old April 25th, 2017, 09:26 AM   #4
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Dispargum
Posts: 2,496

At any one time or in any one war most of society is not directly involved in war. War is much more popular among those who do not have to fight it than among those who do. War is inherently dramatic. It has a protagonist and an antagonist, a good guy and a bad guy, right and wrong, victory and defeat. War is inherently popular.

Then we get into how infrequent war is. In between wars we forget how ugly it is and this makes the next war inherently more attractive.
Chlodio is online now  
Old April 25th, 2017, 10:31 AM   #5
Hellenist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,944
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chlodio View Post
At any one time or in any one war most of society is not directly involved in war. War is much more popular among those who do not have to fight it than among those who do. War is inherently dramatic. It has a protagonist and an antagonist, a good guy and a bad guy, right and wrong, victory and defeat. War is inherently popular.

Then we get into how infrequent war is. In between wars we forget how ugly it is and this makes the next war inherently more attractive.
Given a reason for the US separating from England was not wanting to pay taxes to support the military enforcement of English goals, I do not believe war is popular. Maybe it is just that people don't like paying for wars, so Hitler and Bush both failed to budget for wars they brought their countries into.

However, it was not love of war that made men fight the first world war, but a belief that it was the war to end all wars. We do not go to war because we love killing, but we want to stop it.

However, all our enemies believe you all are right. Good job.
athena is offline  
Old April 25th, 2017, 10:37 AM   #6
Hellenist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,944
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fairfax View Post
Not true, all the major Western powers have volunteer armies, yet there are still wars.
Australia and Canada didn't draft soldiers to fight overseas in Wwii, yet they still had enough soldiers.



Looks at the enthusiastic support for the invasion of Iraq, or the 1000s of Islamic Jihadis who volunteer to give their own lives in terrorist attacks.

Nationalism, propaganda and/or ignorace are strong drivers for war and conflict.

The less Americans know about Ukraine’s location, the more they want U.S. to intervene
And which country do you want to declare war on first? What part in the war do you want to have? Exactly how do you want to hurt other people? What is your expertise going to be, killing children or just destroying the resources they need for life? Convince me you want war.
athena is offline  
Old April 25th, 2017, 10:39 AM   #7
Hellenist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,944
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fairfax View Post
Not true, all the major Western powers have volunteer armies, yet there are still wars.
Australia and Canada didn't draft soldiers to fight overseas in Wwii, yet they still had enough soldiers.



Looks at the enthusiastic support for the invasion of Iraq, or the 1000s of Islamic Jihadis who volunteer to give their own lives in terrorist attacks.

Nationalism, propaganda and/or ignorace are strong drivers for war and conflict.

The less Americans know about Ukraine’s location, the more they want U.S. to intervene
Please, convince me you want war. What country do you want to destroy and what actions of destruction do you want to take? What is your personal reward for this?
athena is offline  
Old April 25th, 2017, 10:41 AM   #8
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: USA
Posts: 6,129

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
Given a reason for the US separating from England was not wanting to pay taxes to support the military enforcement of English goals, I do not believe war is popular.
Good grief. The American Revolution had nothing to do with being anti-war. How can it, when they literally started a new war? It was about taxation without representation in Parliament. American colonists, who saw themselves as British, had less rights than actual British citizens did. Ergo, they wanted that resolved (representation in Parliament), or they wanted independence.

Quote:
However, it was not love of war that made men fight the first world war, but a belief that it was the war to end all wars. We do not go to war because we love killing, but we want to stop it.
The "war to end all wars" moniker was given to WWI after it ended, because nobody believed we could ever fight such a war again. And then humanity did, and it was exponentially worse than WWI. Why? Because most of humanity isn't like you, they LOVE WAR.

Quote:
However, all our enemies believe you all are right. Good job.
Good job? Are blaming others for war? Are you going to get upset because they want to breed and eat too?

Last edited by aggienation; April 25th, 2017 at 10:48 AM.
aggienation is offline  
Old April 25th, 2017, 10:47 AM   #9

Lord Fairfax's Avatar
Tickling the Dragons tail
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Rupert's Land ;)
Posts: 2,822

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
Given a reason for the US separating from England was not wanting to pay taxes to support the military enforcement of English goals, I do not believe war is popular. .
There's always a good reason for war, or so the belligerents think.

Ostensibly the US wasn't taxed to support English (British I assume you mean) "goals", but to pay for the troops and infrastructure needed to defend the colonies against Indians and foreign powers.
If neither side really wanted a war, why couldn't they find a compromise?

Quote:
However, it was not love of war that made men fight the first world war, but a belief that it was the war to end all wars. We do not go to war because we love killing, but we want to stop it.
Totally wrong, that phrase was only coined after war broke out, men fought because they were drafted or called up, not for idealistic reasons. I've never seen any basis for your claim.

Men didn't fight because they wanted to end war, they did because they had no choice, or because they wanted to beat the Hun (or whoever they were fighting against)
Lord Fairfax is online now  
Old April 25th, 2017, 11:03 AM   #10

David Vagamundo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 3,761

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
:dodgy: Ah, I think history has given us a distorted belief in our nature? "His story" is a story about a person or group of persons who did something remarkable. In the telling of the Persian invasion of Athens, history is not about the citizens who fled the city, leaving it unprotected and open for the Persians to loot and destroy, but the justification for preparing for war and following through with war plans and the power and glory of the victor. Again and again, throughout history, people are fleeing from wars and today with the huge populations of refugees it might be obvious it is not human nature to war, but to flee and steps must be taken to prevent this? Is it possible that our telling of history has resulted in a distorting our understanding of our nature?

In fact, it is so against our nature to war that people must be forced into wars. They can be driven into the enemy against their will. They have been drafted into wars with punishments for those who are drafted but run.

Given these facts, how do we maintain the belief that it is our nature to war?
When archaeology examines the remains of almost any human civilization, it finds more than enough evidence of intra-species violence as well as weaponry to engage in it. And when we read ancient literature, it is filled with examples of war (Homer, Herodotus, Virgil. . . ) So, as much as we may not like to face it, war is a part of human nature, not a distortion.
David Vagamundo is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
nature, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Nature of Man Jiujitman Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 15 September 6th, 2013 09:34 AM
The Nature of Philosophy Naomasa298 Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 27 August 17th, 2012 06:46 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.