Proof that American middle class has become too alienated from the reality of warfare

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
But what you're saying is that its part of your "collective memory" to be averted to war? Well isn't that noble, but "memory" is a function of an organ inside your head called your brain, and last time I checked countries don't have brains, and therefore can't remember anything. People have brains, and everyone is different, and for you to assume that just because YOUR brain happens to be averted to war, that the brains of your countrymen must be as well (simply by virtue of them being your countrymen) is a dangerous assumption, which borders on ethnocentricsm and even narcicism.

Thank you.
I guess nobody educated you, nobody taught you your language, your values, your faith if you have one, in short the contents of your brain. You just happened to speak English by the grace of birth, and you just had an innate ability to evaluate and enjoy the video we are talking about.

Countries aren't human beings and don't have brains. But countries, cultural groups etc, do influence the contents of individual brains. When I'm driving next to Verdun or the Somme, the cemetaries I see have no brains. Yet for some reason, they ring a bell in mine, as in the brains of all those who pass there. When a person living in Le Havre sees the only remaining pre-1944 building, the building doesn't have a brain, yet it rings a bell in this person. When a geezer who has lost his home and family during the war tells his story to children, he is contributing to the collective memory as well.

Even you Yanks should have an idea of what a collective scar is. 140 years after, we still see the rift between southerners and northerners in the US. We still see pissing contests, and even here on 'Poly we have our share of threads reviving the old grudges. This is collective memory too. Too bad you Yanks didn't keep in memory that war is horrible. I guess the fact that you hadn't any war on your ground ever since is a reason to that.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

This is collective memory too. Too bad you Yanks didn't keep in memory that war is horrible. I guess the fact that you hadn't any war on your ground ever since is a reason to that.

What you mean is "national character", which is also a bad and inaccurate term, but more accurate than "collective memory", which implies biology and is an anthropomorphism.

Of course I was taught my language and my customs, human beings are designed to soak all that in. However, this isn't the point at all.

But when you say "Too bad you Yanks didn't keep in memory that war is horrible", where are you getting this information from? Based on what do you believe that "yanks" have "forgotten" (as if we could all collectively forget somehow) how "horrible war is"? If you make a claim, back it up. Its your job to disprove the null hypothesis that Americans haven't forgotten the horrors of war, not the other way around. You've already taken the position that Europeans have not forgotten the horrors of war, now you need to prove that Americans have forgotten. Catch my drift?

Anything else is just a generalization, and generalizations have no place in a discussion like this.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Ok, Spiffor and friends. This discussion has no direction and is basically just a bullshitfest. So I have six questions I want you to answer

1. Have Americans forgotten the Horrors of War?

2. If so, have Americans forgotten moreso than Europeans have?

3. Why and how have Americans forgotten the HoW?

4. Is direct experience with war the only way to learn the HoW?

5. Prove it (1, 2, 3, 4 and 6).

If you're not prepared to answer these questions seriously, how can I take you seriously?

Edit: 6. What are the inherent differences between North America (or the USA) and Europe? And don't just say "wars were fought here".

[GePap]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
1. Have Americans forgotten the Horrors of War?

Yes

2. If so, have Americans forgotten moreso than Europeans have?

Yes

3. Why and how have Americans forgotten the HoW

4. Is direct experience with war the only way to learn the HoW??

Edit: 6. What are the inherent differences between North America (or the USA) and Europe? And don't just say "wars were fought here".

The how is simple- the same way people always forget things. The why is mor significant and it is tied to the other two: American civilians and the population at large have not been ravashed by war, or faced significant loss or derevation from war since the 1860's. The experience of WW2 for the US was generally an affirming experience- people were deeply connected to the war effort, given that 50% plus of GNP went towards the war, but again, people for the most part, unless they were veterans, failed to see the ugly side of war. Think about the notion that war is good for the economy- only in the US do you really see that said, or by American trained individuals- why? cause the US did see huge economic gains from WW2 (from reved up production, and destruction of competitors) but none of the participants which experience war first hand over thier industrial centers could even begin to make such a claim.
NOw, since WW2, the US has faced 3 big wars (I combine both gulf wars)- again, none affected the homeland. Korea in general had little public impact even though it killed nearly as many as Vietnam. Vietnam was full of public significance, but mainly on question about the US political process and the mechianism of going to war and waging war. The Gulf was may lead to similar question but not yet.

As for whether first hand experience is needed- Yes, sadly it is. Watching on TV, movies, or reading in a newspaper does not have the same impact, since you then get to switch over to other messages. You could, in theory, not know there was a war in Iraq by watching only cable TV and ignoring the topic in conversations.

As for differences between the US an Europe: both sides defined themselves on WW2, and the difference in experience shows- for the US, it was an affirmartion- the eocnomy got a huge boost, the war could be labelled as a great crusdade- everyone chipped in (but did not face real hardship becuase of this)..The Good War as it is called. And it ushered in US supremacy in the globe. For Europe the war was an utter disaster- vast devastation and death, eventual loss of Empire even for the victors. I don;t know if even the Brits consider WW2 a good war- for the Russians it was also a crusade "the Great Patriotic War", and saw the beginning of their second place in the world, but it was a human catastrophe, and the actions of thier government compounded the misery.

Add this to the general fact American ignore history and the past, while Europeans still primarily define themselves on it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Being an immigrant myself, it would be hard for me to forget, no? And Sava's parents are first generation immigrants, no? Interestingly, the classes of people who on average are the most jingoistic are those that ignore what you said most often.

Clarify the last sentence, please. I know plenty of immigrants and children of immigrants who are flag wavers of the very kind Europeans despise, and AFAIK they are just as hawkish as old stock americans. Maybe they are nationalists rather than jingoists (the way i like to think of myself)

If i understand the point of this thread, its that americans are more jingoistic/nationalistic/wahtever than Europeans due to Americans lesser experience of war. I rather suspect that if divided the populations of Europe and the US into 3 groups - Europeans living in europe, Americans born to american born parents, and americans born in europe or to European born parents (apologies to americans and europeans of asia, african, lat am, etc birth) we would find that the the third group is much closer to the second group on these issues than to the first - which would suggest, IMHO, that the differences between Europeans and Americans is NOT due to collective memory, to contemporary political reality - Americans of European birth are citizens of the "hyperpower" and have a stake in it, while Europeans living in Europe rely more on international institutions for their security and their role in the world, and thus have an incentive to see nationalism/jingoism. etc weakened. Why appeal to speculative ideas about collective memory when national interest explains things so well - for example does not UK have more "collective memory of war" than say Canada - yet UK, both govt and apparently public opinion, is more sympathetic to US actions than Canada. Easily explained in power politics terms.

Occams law invoked.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

As for whether first hand experience is needed- Yes, sadly it is. Watching on TV, movies, or reading in a newspaper does not have the same impact, since you then get to switch over to other messages. You could, in theory, not know there was a war in Iraq by watching only cable TV and ignoring the topic in conversations.

Certainly. Seeing your house blown up is alot different than seeing someone elses get blown up on TV. No argument. I would point you to other continents though, like Africa, where this sort of thing happens everyday and continues to, while in Europe it may have happened more recently than in America, but still a long time ago. But I agree with your statement in general.

The how is simple- the same way people always forget things. The why is mor significant and it is tied to the other two: American civilians and the population at large have not been ravashed by war, or faced significant loss or derevation from war since the 1860's.

This was the point I was driving at earlier. What will happen in 2050 or 2100 when it will have been 100-150 years since the last war (assuming there isn't one in the meantime, which I for one doubt there will be)? Will Europeans forget, since its a simple matter of forgetting such as was the case in America since the Civil War? You're basically implying that peace inevitably leads to ignorance of war. Are you saying its a cyclical thing, because you must be if you adhere to this logic.

for the US, it was an affirmartion- the eocnomy got a huge boost, the war could be labelled as a great crusdade

Not necessarily true. When the vets got home with no job and no welfare system to support them, it caused much uproar. It prompted the creation of the modern American welfare state... one of the first in the world (one of, not the first... I don't know who was first so I'm saying one of).

You could, in theory, not know there was a war in Iraq by watching only cable TV

Yes, but only in theory. Either that or if the viewer was mentally retarded. But I know what you're getting at... its different than actually witnessing it.

As for whether first hand experience is needed- Yes, sadly it is. Watching on TV, movies, or reading in a newspaper does not have the same impact, since you then get to switch over to other messages.

I don't believe it is, in fact I refuse to. But if you're saying that the only way Americans can become educated on the evils war is to have a huge bloody conflict on our soil, then I'm sorry, but I'm content with peaceful ignorance. This is assuming you're correct though, which I don't believe you are... you fail to address the issue of what will happen in Europe in 50 or 100 or 150 years when there haven't been any wars there. Either, Europeans will become ignorant like Americans, or, there will be a war in Europe and people will remain informed, however, if there is a war, wouldn't that suggest that the Euros weren't as enlightened to the HoW as you thought they were? These are questions that deserve answers... especially in the face of such bold claims.

Add this to the general fact American ignore history and the past, while Europeans still primarily define themselves on it.

Tsk, tsk. A general fact equals a generalization, and as I've said before, it has no place in this discussion. I would hardly call this a "fact" either, there's no way to quantitatively prove it. I, for one, define myself on my history and the history of my state and country. I know many others who are the same.

[lord of the mark]

again lets seperate jingoism from nationalism and hawkishness

as case in point Israel - plenty of hawks and nationalists there, but few who see war as entertainment, an occasion for cheering and parades, etc.

I will admit that there are some of the latter in the US - but overall that is NOT what i see the mood as since 9/11, and that is just as true of Iraq war supporters as others. The mood IS of horror of war, and a longing for peace, security and a freer world, but a resolve and perserverance to see through to those goals.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Clarify the last sentence, please. I know plenty of immigrants and children of immigrants who are flag wavers of the very kind Europeans despise, and AFAIK they are just as hawkish as old stock americans. Maybe they are nationalists rather than jingoists (the way i like to think of myself)

Good question, and how would you differentiate between the two short of handing our surveys and asking them? AFAIK, this hasn't been done yet...

If i understand the point of this thread, its that americans are more jingoistic/nationalistic/wahtever than Europeans due to Americans lesser experience of war. I rather suspect that if divided the populations of Europe and the US into 3 groups - Europeans living in europe, Americans born to american born parents, and americans born in europe or to European born parents (apologies to americans and europeans of asia, african, lat am, etc birth) we would find that the the third group is much closer to the second group on these issues than to the first - which would suggest, IMHO, that the differences between Europeans and Americans is NOT due to collective memory, to contemporary political reality - Americans of European birth are citizens of the "hyperpower" and have a stake in it, while Europeans living in Europe rely more on international institutions for their security and their role in the world, and thus have an incentive to see nationalism/jingoism. etc weakened. Why appeal to speculative ideas about collective memory when national interest explains things so well - for example does not UK have more "collective memory of war" than say Canada - yet UK, both govt and apparently public opinion, is more sympathetic to US actions than Canada. Easily explained in power politics terms.

Occams law invoked.

Good questions and points. Its about time the Euros were made to back up their claims.

[lord of the mark]

If experience leads to aversion of the horrors of war, then why didnt the horrors of World war one manage to avert world war two? Why did they instead lead in Germany, Italy, and much of eastern europe to fascism, while in France they led to a unilateralist reliance on force and distrust of international institutions that would make Dubya proud, while the greatest advocates of international institutions as reliable for keeping the peace, were in the off shore balancers, the US and UK? Why was the euro reaction to world war 2 so different from world war one?

A power political arguement, rather than a collective argeument makes sense of it. World war one was terrible, but it did not eliminate the European states as great powers. World war two left european states reduced in power, and reliant on the US for support against the USSR. Essentially sovereignty was no longer politically meaningful - why then honor the symbols of sovereignty? (Especially so for the smaller states and the ex-fascist states - leaving nationalism somewhat more alive in France and UK)


Was not the France that fought in Indochina and Algeria jingoistic? ISTR a french movie set in the 1950's when some callow rightwing youth speaks of the need to have colonies for a nations honor. Was it the horrors of WW2 that changed the French view, or the recognition post-Algeria that France's hope for greatness was through European institutions? Was it the war that took place on French soil, or the way 2 wars that did NOT take place on French soil that changed France?

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
But when you say "Too bad you Yanks didn't keep in memory that war is horrible", where are you getting this information from? Based on what do you believe that "yanks" have "forgotten" (as if we could all collectively forget somehow) how "horrible war is"?

Simple. We've carried out some military operations in the past two years instead of doing what they wanted us to do so of course we must not know how horrible war is!

[GePap]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
This was the point I was driving at earlier. What will happen in 2050 or 2100 when it will have been 100-150 years since the last war (assuming there isn't one in the meantime, which I for one doubt there will be)? Will Europeans forget, since its a simple matter of forgetting such as was the case in America since the Civil War? You're basically implying that peace inevitably leads to ignorance of war. Are you saying its a cyclical thing, because you must be if you adhere to this logic.

Certainly by 2050 aversion to war will not be as strong.And yes, anytime there is a logn peace, people do seem to forget- remember war fever in 1914-how unlikely people in 1848 would have been to war fever.

Not necessarily true. When the vets got home with no job and no welfare system to support them, it caused much uproar. It prompted the creation of the modern American welfare state... one of the first in the world (one of, not the first... I don't know who was first so I'm saying one of).

The US after WW2 was richer than before it, and the destruction of competitors allowed for a huge boom. I am surprised you have never heard the refrain of "war is good for the economy". I hear it all the time, and this comes from our WW2 experience.

I don't believe it is, in fact I refuse to. But if you're saying that the only way Americans can become educated on the evils war is to have a huge bloody conflict on our soil, then I'm sorry, but I'm content with peaceful ignorance. This is assuming you're correct though, which I don't believe you are... you fail to address the issue of what will happen in Europe in 50 or 100 or 150 years when there haven't been any wars there. Either, Europeans will become ignorant like Americans, or, there will be a war in Europe and people will remain informed, however, if there is a war, wouldn't that suggest that the Euros weren't as enlightened to the HoW as you thought they were? These are questions that deserve answers... especially in the face of such bold claims.

How else can you be educated to the horrors of war? given fieldtrips? As I said, in 50 years Europe will be less war averse, as the memory of the last huge war fades away.

Tsk, tsk. A general fact equals a generalization, and as I've said before, it has no place in this discussion. I would hardly call this a "fact" either, there's no way to quantitatively prove it. I, for one, define myself on my history and the history of my state and country. I know many others who are the same.

I believ this to be a very correct generalization.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
If experience leads to aversion of the horrors of war, then why didnt the horrors of World war one manage to avert world war two? Why did they instead lead in Germany, Italy, and much of eastern europe to fascism, while in France they led to a unilateralist reliance on force and distrust of international institutions that would make Dubya proud, while the greatest advocates of international institutions as reliable for keeping the peace, were in the off shore balancers, the US and UK? Why was the euro reaction to world war 2 so different from world war one?

Becuase:
1. World war 2 hit much harder. Most of the suffering of WW1 stayed at the battlefield. Most of the suffering of WW2 happened at home. No one could come up with a "stabbed in the back" myth for WW2 given that the losers lost when their home armies were at ho,me, thier cities in ruble and besieged. Poeple in Italy could , regardless of the 250,000 dead, still smart that they did not get all of the land they wanted- thus question the whole enterprise and demand thier "soldier worth"- but after the second, with much of Italy in ruins, it seem pretty clear what the value of the wars was.

A power political arguement, rather than a collective argeument makes sense of it. World war one was terrible, but it did not eliminate the European states as great powers. World war two left european states reduced in power, and reliant on the US for support against the USSR. Essentially sovereignty was no longer politically meaningful - why then honor the symbols of sovereignty? (Especially so for the smaller states and the ex-fascist states - leaving nationalism somewhat more alive in France and UK)

European powers like France and the UK attempted to keep thier international power after WW2, and failed. And besides, these being democratic states for the most part int he west, long term political acts do at some level recognize popular whims. Plus of course, the fact that European powers were no longer great powers was aidrect result of the utter destruction of WW2.

Was not the France that fought in Indochina and Algeria jingoistic? ISTR a french movie set in the 1950's when some callow rightwing youth speaks of the need to have colonies for a nations honor. Was it the horrors of WW2 that changed the French view, or the recognition post-Algeria that France's hope for greatness was through European institutions? Was it the war that took place on French soil, or the way 2 wars that did NOT take place on French soil that changed France?

The Algeria war took place on French soil- Nothern Algeria was composed of 3 departments of France- Algeria colons were part of the national assembly. The war also lead the military to twice interfere with French politics, going so far as an attemted coup- challenges to the very democratic system of France. Certainly the French resisted the anti-war stream in Europe more than anyone else, even the Brits- but maybe there one does need to dissect French thinking

[Q Classic]

i hate this flash junk. damn thing takes far too long to download. it's complete crap.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Osweld


Exactly.

They're coddling the ignorant and basically saying "Everything's going to be all right. You just keep on praying at night and writing sappy tribute poems, and the big strong rangers will protect you from the bogey man."

Just because you are miserable with your life, doesn't mean everyone else has to be so cynical about things.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by JohnT
This is possibly one of the dumbest threads I've seen here.

I thought the ideal is so everybody becomes "alienated from the realities of warfare"? Now people are complaining because hundreds of millions are?

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by GePap


Certainly by 2050 aversion to war will not be as strong.And yes, anytime there is a logn peace, people do seem to forget- remember war fever in 1914-how unlikely people in 1848 would have been to war fever.

Ok, this is somewhat true. But this also means that your time as pacifists is coming to and end, while our time is about to begin. Does it not? And if it does, what does this indicate?

The US after WW2 was richer than before it, and the destruction of competitors allowed for a huge boom. I am surprised you have never heard the refrain of "war is good for the economy". I hear it all the time, and this comes from our WW2 experience.

I have heard this many times in the main stream media and in main stream history, but I've also heard it retuted many times by university academics and in non-mainstream academic periodicals. There are many ways to judge the benefits of war to economies... sometimes it can be good, but to say it is necessarily a good thing is simply an over-simplification. Certainly there are many earea of the US economy after WW2 that is suggestive of this, else why would the modern American welfare state have been established? Because times were tough for alot of people and the need was established...

How else can you be educated to the horrors of war? given fieldtrips? As I said, in 50 years Europe will be less war averse, as the memory of the last huge war fades away.

Well, there has to be a way besides blasting eachother to bits. In neurobiological terms seeing something is the same, as far as the brain is concerned, as imagining it. This is how hypnotism and neumonics is effective. and Surely we can utilize this process. And I think this is exactly what war memorials and national cemeteries (including field trips!) in the US are attempting to do. I would even argue that it has been successful to a large degree. Besides, would you rather us resort to violence? I would hope not.

I believ this to be a very correct generalization.

You believe that Americans ignore history absolutely? Find me one American who doesn't (hey, guess what, you just did!) and your statement is false. And if you want to further claim that more Europeans do not ignore history compared to Americans, I would ask you to show some numbers or something to prove it. Otherwise its just hearsay.

[GePap]

If war is waged becuase people ignore the horrorf of war, then you recreate the horrors of war for somebody.

That is the issue. Now stop beating yourself up JohnT.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Becuase:
1. World war 2 hit much harder. Most of the suffering of WW1 stayed at the battlefield. Most of the suffering of WW2 happened at home. No one could come up with a "stabbed in the back" myth for WW2 given that the losers lost when their home armies were at ho,me, thier cities in ruble and besieged. Poeple in Italy could , regardless of the 250,000 dead, still smart that they did not get all of the land they wanted- thus question the whole enterprise and demand thier "soldier worth"- but after the second, with much of Italy in ruins, it seem pretty clear what the value of the wars was.

Quote:

A power political arguement, rather than a collective argeument makes sense of it. World war one was terrible, but it did not eliminate the European states as great powers. World war two left european states reduced in power, and reliant on the US for support against the USSR. Essentially sovereignty was no longer politically meaningful - why then honor the symbols of sovereignty? (Especially so for the smaller states and the ex-fascist states - leaving nationalism somewhat more alive in France and UK)

European powers like France and the UK attempted to keep thier international power after WW2, and failed. And besides, these being democratic states for the most part int he west, long term political acts do at some level recognize popular whims. Plus of course, the fact that European powers were no longer great powers was aidrect result of the utter destruction of WW2.



The Algeria war took place on French soil- Nothern Algeria was composed of 3 departments of France- Algeria colons were part of the national assembly. The war also lead the military to twice interfere with French politics, going so far as an attemted coup- challenges to the very democratic system of France. Certainly the French resisted the anti-war stream in Europe more than anyone else, even the Brits- but maybe there one does need to dissect French thinking

1. WW1 cost plenty at home - in the areas where the trenches passed in the west, a huge swath of France and Belgium, and in wide areas of eastern europe. and of course associated shortages and famines in the central powers and Russian.

2. the politics, as you say was different. Exactly my point - so why should we state that diffferences between the US and Europe are based on HoW, rather than power politics.

As you point out, both France and UK tried to maintain great power status after WW2. And both resisted trend in europe not just toward pacifism towards stigmitzing nationalism. Till they suffered devastating colonial defeats. And since their paths have differed, France pursuing power as leader of integrated "3rd force" europe, and UK as bridge between US and Europe - with resultant different views of international institutionms and of nationalism.

[GePap]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Ok, this is somewhat true. But this also means that your time as pacifists is coming to and end, while our time is about to begin. Does it not? And if it does, what does this indicate?

Only if we don't witness some immense war in the next few years- thus buying more time. What it indicates is that if we want to avert war, we must trust to mechanism independent form political opinons.

Well, there has to be a way besides blasting eachother to bits. In neurobiological terms seeing something is the same, as far as the brain is concerned, as imagining it. This is how hypnotism and neumonics is effective. and Surely we can utilize this process. And I think this is exactly what war memorials and national cemeteries (including field trips!) in the US are attempting to do. I would even argue that it has been successful to a large degree. Besides, would you rather us resort to violence? I would hope not.

One of the reasons the Vietnam war memorial is so powerful is that it does nothing to aggrandize the cause fo war, only to show you what it costs. The coming WW2 memorial on the other hand will be more Soviet-like -some massive edifice to the glory of that war.

You believe that Americans ignore history absolutely? Find me one American who doesn't (hey, guess what, you just did!) and your statement is false. And if you want to further claim that more Europeans do not ignore history compared to Americans, I would ask you to show some numbers or something to prove it. Otherwise its just hearsay.

Wh siad American ignore history? (though most do)- it is an issue of always lookign ahead or today: think of how much people in the uS styrive for things to be quick, or disposable? Think about it-we are a nation obessed with making sure we have the new thing, and are able to, without worry, get rid of what we once had. To some degree this is general ocnsumer trend, but I have bene i Europe and Latin America, and the throwaway society is stronger here than elsewhere. In how many towns is something hisotrical of any interest in the US? Beyond that fact most towns in this country are two young to hold much of historical value, beyond places like plymouth planation, most greet tourist attractions are not based on history, but on size, grandeur or achievement, which are not the same criteria. I live in NYC, a city with huge history, but until the 1960's no one cared if some great historic hall got torn down to make room for the next new modern building- it took until 1964 and the tearing down od a huge landmark for people to start trying to save thier history.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Sprayber



Just because you are miserable with your life, doesn't mean everyone else has to be so cynical about things.

Do you want to live in a society of children and sing lullabies to everyone while bombs are droping on the rest of the world?

Reminds me of the world in Farenheit 451.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. WW1 cost plenty at home - in the areas where the trenches passed in the west, a huge swath of France and Belgium, and in wide areas of eastern europe. and of course associated shortages and famines in the central powers and Russian.

NOt on the same level as WW2. 80% of WW1 dead were on the battlefield. Only 15% of WW2 dead were on the battlefield. In WW2 mutiple large cities were utterly flattened, seeign 90-100% of the city destroyed. No major cities sufefred as much in WW1- plenty of smaller towns yes, but no citiesof 100,000 or more sufefred that fate in WW1.

2. the politics, as you say was different. Exactly my point - so why should we state that diffferences between the US and Europe are based on HoW, rather than power politics.

As you point out, both France and UK tried to maintain great power status after WW2. And both resisted trend in europe not just toward pacifism towards stigmitzing nationalism. Till they suffered devastating colonial defeats. And since their paths have differed, France pursuing power as leader of integrated "3rd force" europe, and UK as bridge between US and Europe - with resultant different views of international institutionms and of nationalism.

The reason why these states could not maintain the power polticis game were the horrors of war- ie, the immense cost in men, and primarilyl treasure that the war cost them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Thank you.
I guess nobody educated you, nobody taught you your language, your values, your faith if you have one, in short the contents of your brain. You just happened to speak English by the grace of birth, and you just had an innate ability to evaluate and enjoy the video we are talking about.

Countries aren't human beings and don't have brains. But countries, cultural groups etc, do influence the contents of individual brains. When I'm driving next to Verdun or the Somme, the cemetaries I see have no brains.

I live within 40 minutes drive of the site of first and second Manassas, within an hour of Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, the Wilderness, and a couple of hours from Gettysburg and Antietam, the site of the battle which was the largest one day loss of American lives by violence prior to 9/11. One of the biggest hit movies this year, is likely to be Cold Mountain, which will show the civil war in very unglorious terms.

This notion that Americans dont know the horrors of war like you good euros with your collective memories is without foundation. If you want to go to individual memory most of us dont have it, but neither do most of you. And if you want to go to collective memory, we have it as well as you, through a hundred different paths, from experience of war overseas, to immigrant experiences, to the HUGE collective memory of the American Civil War. Your only evidence that we lack such memory is that we do not respond to war, militarism or nationalism in the same way you do. Yet there have been many times and places, from Europe in the '30s to the middle east today, where people with greater experience of the horror of war then you have nonetheless reacted differently then you do now. The differences between the US and Europe are explicable on other bases, and do not require the distasteful rhetoric you employ.

[Ned]

Why all this talk of WWII? We have had Korea and Vietnam afterwards. Both were f*cking nightmares that somewhat traumatized us and made us reluctant to get involved without some clear "objective" and some clear "exit strategy." The thunderclap of Vietnam is still echoing in this year's debate over Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

also

I would point out that America stayed out of WW2 for two years when it had good strategic reasons for going in largely out of an aversion to the horrors of war. To this day there are people here who think that FDR tricked the Japanese into attacking.

The cold war fights were possible only in the context of the global struggle with the SU, and in light of beliefs that the US by trying to stay out of ww2 had made the horrors of war worse. Ulitimately both interventins were ended due to the "horrors of war".

Post cold war turned away in revulsion from the horrors of war in Somalia, and the intervention in Kosovo was contoversial at home.

We are a nation of reluctant warriors, despite our flag waving and such.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
We are a nation of reluctant warriors, despite our flag waving and such.

This is true, which is why the admin had to go to such great lenghts to exagerate the evidence we had on Saddam- becuase if the objecitve had been only one of humanitarian intervention and had not been sold as a critical, right now emergency that war would never have happened.

[Japher]

1. Have Americans forgotten the Horrors of War?

Yes? Or have we grown accustom to them? Not in the same way as someone raised with war all around them, but in the way that games, movies, television shows all tailor to the idea of war... Calming our minds to it, great propoganda; living in a world without fear of war, because one has become so use to it..

2. If so, have Americans forgotten moreso than Europeans have?

As need pointed out Korea and 'Nam are much closer in American history than WWII for the Europeans. Both of these wars, Korea and Nam, were not met with victory, and instead gave unto America only the casualties and horrors that come with war. While these horrors took on "shell shock", resentment, injuries, and losses for those of WWII the nightmare that was the aftermath of Korea and Nam are must closer to the heart, within both local and national societies.

I had grandparents who fought in WWII and they suffered their whole lives for it. One of my grandparents has since died, and the other has learned to forget. Yet, my uncles and own father have fought in one of those other two wars since WWII, and I have cousins who fought in the first gulf war. I have you ever had to take out your uncle because of a flashback due to a helicopter flying over the house?

3. Why and how have Americans forgotten the HoW?

We have not. While smoe care to try and forget I see America doing more to remember than most other countries. Though, not having lived in those countries I could be wrong.

4. Is direct experience with war the only way to learn the HoW?

Is the only ways to learn the horrors of nuclear attacks to have gone through one? Is the only way to learn of the horrors of death to die? This is a stupid question IMO.

Edit: 6. What are the inherent differences between North America (or the USA) and Europe? And don't just say "wars were fought here".

No idea, I have lived here all my life. The only difference between the two continents is that Europeans like to call the American's ignorant of ways outside our culture, but it seems to me that Eurpoeans are more xenophobic, in general, than America... That doesn't make sense to me.

LotM

If this an attempt to take "bragging rights" away from the US, so be it, we have nothing to brag about. If it were true that Americans are ignorant of the horrors of war, than America really would be the greatest country in the world.

[Ned]

I can also tell you that my Dad's own experiences in the Pacific Theater were so bad that he simply did not want to talk about them.

So much for the glory of war.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


This is true, which is why the admin had to go to such great lenghts to exagerate the evidence we had on Saddam- becuase if the objecitve had been only one of humanitarian intervention and had not been sold as a critical, right now emergency that war would never have happened.

refuse to be tempted by threadjacking.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
I can also tell you that my Dad's own experiences in the Pacific Theater were so bad that he simply did not want to talk about them.

So much for the glory of war.

Sadly you Dad and men like him are not the ones building the new WW2 memorial, but instead the children, weaned on "Greatest Generation" crap.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

refuse to be tempted by threadjacking.

I was adding evidence to my agreement of your point of Americans as generally reluctant warriors. That they are reluctant warriors though has less to do with fear of the horrors of war but with other values, inherently more inward looking ones.