Actions are thus amplified and the anticipated dishonor of cowardice keeps most troop on the heroic, if terrified, path. Killing from afar is relatively easy, be it by command, trigger or button. Almost like a video game, the people you are killing are distant objects and it is relatively easy to forget that they are living, breathing people like you.
Killing is very different when you can see the whites of their eyes and the fear in their face. When you shoot or slash close-in or grapple and throttle with your bare hands. This is the territory of special forces who start with killing and eating animals in survival training and who become immured to human death through intensive training. There are two states in which we can kill close in. One is the cold professional who dispatches the enemy with the same dispassion as the abattoir worker slaughtering an animal.
The other, and more common in the common soldier is in a state of high emotion such as rage or terror which enables us to work from an animal state of unthinking action. Such people can become a hazard back in normal civilization.
When you are trained as a killing machine, how do you handle everyday life? Emotion and decision , Bonding principle. Quotes Guest articles Analysis Books Help. More Kindle book s: And the big paperback book. Look inside. Please help and share:. More Kindle book s:. Home Top Menu Quick Links. Why Fight? It is commonly assumed, at least in the West, that the glorification of war is a thing of the past.
Even more prevalent is the assumption that such war-related phenomena as expulsions and deportations, ethnic cleansing and mass rape, massacre and genocide would be universally condemned in any civilized country.
Indeed, such condemnation is viewed as a mark of civilization, and groups or nations that still conduct policies of this nature are considered to be, by definition, beyond the pale. And yet, only a few decades ago, war was seen by most Europeans as a glorious undertaking, and many of the actions we would describe today as war crimes were celebrated as an inherent part of the conduct of war and the consolidation of victory or, at the very least, were perceived as regrettable but unavoidable features of modern warfare.
That non-Western nations, countries that straddle the ill-defined line between Europe and Asia, and a variety of despicable regimes, have engaged in the recent past or are still engaged today in widespread crimes and abuses of human rights is, of course, readily conceded.
Yet such crimes have rarely led to their expulsion from the international community. Since the end of World War II, the collapse or disintegration of such regimes was more often the result of their own incompetence or self-destructive dynamics, and at best of indirect international pressure. Hence the main difference between the first and the second parts of this century is not so much that war has lost its potential to inspire self-glorification, and certainly not that war has been any less murderous.
Indeed, the ratio of innocent civilians killed in war has grown progressively since The difference is that following the devastation of World War II, Western nations have had both less inclination and less need to fight each other; when they did go to war, it was against non-Western lands, and it was the latter that took the main brunt of human and material destruction.
Thoughts of war throughout history and in many civilizations have revolved around two contradictory, though not perforce mutually exclusive, sets of images. The first postulated war as an elevating, heroic experience. The second described war as a site of destruction and desolation. This polarity between the portrayal of war as an occasion for humanity to express its nobility and its perception as providing the opportunity for human savagery is thus deeply embedded in culture and civilization.
During the last two centuries, however, major transformations in demographic patterns and social organization, in politics and industry, and in science and technology have had an immense impact on the practice and theory of war, as well as on its imagery and mythology. The availability of unprecedented quantities of ever more effective weapons, along with seemingly unlimited and increasingly pliable human reserves, and the growing capacity to mobilize these resources by the modern industrialized nation-state, greatly enhanced war's destructive potential.
This was a prospect both terrifying and exhilarating, repulsive and fascinating. It has evoked the wildest fantasies and the most nightmarish visions. Characteristically for an age of rapid changes, the reality of total war and genocide consistently remained one step ahead of its image.
Ours is a century in which man's imagination has been conducting a desperate race with the practice of humanity. And precisely because the mind could no longer catch up with man-made reality, it conjured up visions of the future that surpassed all known forms and dimensions of destruction and thereby created the preconditions for even greater suffering, pain, and depravity.
What is most crucial about Europe's first industrial war in is not the enthusiasm with which its outbreak was greeted in the major combatant nations. To be sure, even if the extent of what has come to be called "the spirit of " has been somewhat exaggerated, one cannot ignore the fact that youthful volunteerism, mass industrial mobilization, intellectual and academic propagandistic engagement, and political consensus all combined to provide the early phases of the war with a bizarre mixture of anxiety and elation, a festive atmosphere permeated with premonitions of disaster.
However much disillusionment was to set in during the latter parts of the war, this was still an extraordinary expression of devotion not merely to the nation but also to the notion of war itself as a noble, purifying, and elevating experience. Yet in some ways, this early phenomenon harks back to the past; what makes World War I into the true baptism by fire of the twentieth century is not the high spirits of but the grim reality that followed.
If World War I is remembered primarily for the continuous front of trenches that stretched all the way from the Swiss border to the Atlantic, another crucial factor of the fighting was, in fact, the growing porousness of the boundaries between soldiers and civilians both as combatants and as targets of destruction. Civilians had been the main victims of war often in the past, but none of the great cataclysms of destruction in previous centuries could compare in sheer scale and lasting impact to For while vast numbers of men were transformed into soldiers, all other civilians became exposed to the human, economic, and psychological cost of total war.
The war invaded the most remote corners of the land, and the huge conscript armies at the front contained members of every social stratum and region of the country.
This was truly a war of nations, and for this reason none of the major participants was spared its consequences. The enthusiasm of the first months of the war was rooted in an imagery of military glory that bore no relationship to the reality of the battlefield. Search Problems. You are here Home. Other Names:. The dead Spaniards, whose garments are besmirched with blood, are carelessly flung aside to allow the angels of evil and death to continue their genocidal activity.
Although the viewers cannot see the physiognomies of the emotionless soldiers, they can imagine the fierce expression which translates into terror in the eyes of the remaining villagers. Soldiers on mission do not value human life and, with a weapon in their hands, are instantly transformed into cruel murdering machines.
Individuals should help each other on the path to success—instead of killing to gain power and wealth. Life is extremely precious, and the fate of a human being should not rely upon the simple decision of another imperfect individual. Goya effectively demonstrates the agony his country went through during the impetuous French invasion and condemns armed conflicts as a result of their immorality.
The viewer may initially discern elements of glorification of war as Napoleon sends his Old Guard, his elite veteran soldiers, off to battle on a suicide mission against the Anglo-allied forces in an attempt to avoid defeat.
Surrounded by his horsed suite, Napoleon imposingly lifts his hat and addresses one of the commanders of the clean, colorful elite group while watching the experienced fighters march confidently with the French standard towards opposition. However, the reputation of war is tarnished since the unscrupulous big wig knows that his fate will be decided shortly as surrender is the only option left.
Napoleon, to the contrary, may be perceived as an analogue to Hitler during the Second World War. Both historical figures have cruelly decided the fates of countless individuals to gain unnecessary power.
Additionally, the viewer notices the bodies of dead and wounded soldiers lying on the ground. Napoleon is not paying any attention or respect to those who have fallen in battle.
0コメント