Split thread - How/why/when did War lose its lustre?

[marcus]

Hi Semiramis,

Even before your first example, the Austro-Hungarians performed the first aerial attack, on Venice, in around 1859/1860 (can't remember exactly when), by dropping bombs out of hot air balloons.

ATB

[karen]

I'm afraid bombing civilian centers with airplanes began earlier than WWII. This is what I could get my hands on at short notice and I doubt this list is comprehensive.

1911 - Italians bomb Libya as part of their invasion.
etc
etc
etc
etc

I stand corrected... if depressed.

I guess WWII is the first instance I had heard about because (aside from my not being much interested in modern military history) it was the first case of really large-scale bombing... of course, being a world war, it had large-scale everything.

Was there no bombing in WWI, though?

Re the reputation of war: I am assuming, first off, that all along we've been talking about the reputation of war in the English-speaking western world. How good or bad a reputation it has in other parts of the world, I have no idea. (Anyone here who has?)

But for the English-speaking western world, I think we can use as a marker something we all know well -- the changing fortunes of Alexander's reputation. While everyone but the most extreme pacifists agrees that defensive war is morally defensible, it's aggressive war that the real debate is about. And having done what he did, Alexander is seen as a symbol of aggressive war, its poster boy if you will.

What we see is that his reputation was unTarnished, as it were, in the early twentieth century, then took a dive in the late. My feeling is that this is due to a general turning of English-speaking western culture against wars of conquest and hence conquerors due to WWII, and perhaps some later conflicts, notably, for America, the Vietnam War. Who was the most famous twentieth century conqueror? Adolf Hitler... (though the most successful empire-building nation has been the United States) ...who turned out in the end to be not even an enemy deserving of respect.

Previous to him, it was possible for a conqueror to be seen as a civilizer, the bringer of a better way of life to the "benighted savage" -- that was an old British tradition after all. After Hitler and the cataclysm that was WWII, a new image of the conqueror arose: the genocidal megalomaniac, motivated by nothing but anger, ambition and greed, whose already-psychopathic character degenerates as his life goes on (all these things being fairly-well documented truths about Hitler). So Alexander began to be portrayed this way. He is really the perfect indicator for viewpoint changes about conquest, actually, because he's so ancient that the evidence is scanty, leaving the ground wide open for speculation and interpretation (which each side of the debate decries in the other, of course).

I'm not sure the blackening of his name is not a good thing, these days, in truth -- I'm no fan of wars of aggression myself, and in that sense he's not the most wholesome role-model. But that's a moral position; scientifically, it is worthless. Neither the image of civilizing gentleman nor the image of genocidal megalomaniac tell us anything about who he really was, because they're tropes of a later time superimposed on him. It may be that we'll never know... like many famous people, he created such an emotionally-charged public image, that the real him got buried in it, I think, even in his own time. But if you want to even begin to understand Alexander in the slightest -- let alone do him justice -- you have to look at his actions in the context of the ethics, culture and worldview that actually influenced them, i.e. the ones in which he lived (as well as we know them). (I know this gets said a lot, but to me it bears repeating. Over and over and over.)

But I digress......... what I am saying is that, if the academic consensus on Alexander is any indication, aggressive war is looked down upon more now than it was in the pre-WWII period of the twentieth century, in the English-speaking world. Are there other indications? The strength of the anti-war movement in the Vietnam era in the USA springs to mind, as does the fact that racism, which aids and abets aggressive war, was generally socially acceptable in the early twentieth-century but is no longer. The notion that war has lost its lustre has to have come from somewhere, so perhaps others have some other indicators.

As always my .02......

Peace,
Karen

[marcus]

Was there no bombing in WWI, though?

Actually, there was - the British town of Whitby (I think it was) was bombed by the Germans in 1915 (I think it was - you can see that I'm a bit hazy off the top of my head) and a number of civilians were killed. The British used this as a piece of propaganda to gain recruits, calling for revenge, etc. It was the only attack on British soil during WWI.

I don't have any figures for French or Belgian civilian casualties during the Great War, but 750,000 homes were destroyed, as well as 23,000 factories. I find it hard to believe that there were no civilian casualties, therefore.

ATB

[Semiramis]

Re the reputation of war: I am assuming, first off, that all along we've been talking about the reputation of war in the English-speaking western world. How good or bad a reputation it has in other parts of the world, I have no idea. (Anyone here who has?)

But for the English-speaking western world, I think we can use as a marker something we all know well -- the changing fortunes of Alexander's reputation. While everyone but the most extreme pacifists agrees that defensive war is morally defensible, it's aggressive war that the real debate is about. And having done what he did, Alexander is seen as a
symbol of aggressive war, its poster boy if you will.

What we see is that his reputation was unTarnished, as it were, in the early twentieth century, then took a dive in the late. My feeling is that this is due to a general turning of English-speaking western culture against wars of conquest and hence conquerors due to WWII, and perhaps some later conflicts, notably, for America, the Vietnam War.

It’s hard to talk about the attitudes of the general populace towards war pre-WWII in the English-speaking western countries, as the working-class grunt is rather ignored in the history books. Setting aside the cannon-fodder for the purposes of this discussion, if we look at the education system aimed at the sons of the English upper classes - the future cogs in the machine of the Empire - it’s obvious that some conquests and wars are glorified while others are derided as savage, violent and destroyers of civilization.

British Empire is of course referred to as a positive, benevolent force in the world. Alexander is recruited to the cause and parallels are drawn (forced?). Tarn and Lane Fox generally followed this trend even though it was a bit anachronistic by the time their books were published. Romans too are held up as an example of “good empire”, carrying on with Alexander’s “civilizing mission” to Hellenize the world.

The Western Roman empire gets far more glory than the Eastern Roman empire. The poor Eastern Roman empire is renamed the Byzantine empire (a word that would’ve certainly confused the ancients), while the Western Roman empire is allowed to monopolize the term “Roman empire”. While the British are praised for their courage and sacrifice in carrying the “White Man’s Burden”, even the competing are French, Spanish and Portugese are given a nod for their “Mission Civilatrice” etc., other conquerors such as Hannibal "the Cannibal", Persians, Arabs, Genghis Khan, the Ottomans or the Mughals become the villains of history. So the view of the education system of the dominant elite on war, conquest and empire itself is far from uniformly positive.

If it is difficult to assess the attitude of the general populace in the “English speaking western world” towards something as politically charged and spun as war, it is equally difficult to assess “the rest”. The pitfalls of making broad generalizations about "the Orient" is something I try to avoid, but in this case, it seems even worse to completely ignore the huge swathes of non-English-speaking non-western peoples and their histories.

As even the very short list of the aerial bombardment of civilian populations in my previous post suggests, what we do know is that many of the conquered areas rebelled and ultimately overthrew their colonial overlords in the middle part of the 20th century. These uprisings were generally popular uprisings, lending credence to the idea that that “savages” were much less thrilled at the glory of war and conquest than the “civilizers”, at least when they were at the receiving end of a successful colonial mission.

Going back again to the English-speaking western world,

After Hitler and the cataclysm that was WWII, a new image of the conqueror arose: the genocidal megalomaniac, motivated by nothing but anger, ambition and greed, whose already-psychopathic character degenerates as his life goes on (all these things being fairly-well documented truths about Hitler).

what I am saying is that, if the academic consensus on Alexander is any indication, aggressive war is looked down upon more now than it was in the pre-WWII period of the twentieth century, in the English-speaking world.

I thought you were speaking about Curtius’ account of Alexander in the bold part, till I read the parenthesis. In the English-speaking western world, Badian may have been the first to offer a similar take on Alexander, giving more credit to those ancient Greek and Latin sources critical to Alexander, than the British and German historians before him.

Bosworth too seems to have little love for the glory of war. In his work, he displays the intention and ability to look at the human cost of war and conquest on its victims – the attacked, killed and the conquered. He is also my favourite Alexander historian. These two facts are, as you may have guessed, closely connected...

Regards

Semiramis

[derek]

The theme of this thread is that war has become less popular than it was in the past. No, I don't see that. War is still viewed as glamorous, and it's only when it starts to drag out and casualties mount that opinion changes. I lived in Britain during the Falklands War and now live in the US, so the Falklands and Iraq are my examples.

The Falklands was an extremely popular war in Britain. All the English on this website will remember the crowds seeing off the fleet, women whipping their tops off for the troops, Thatcher standing outside number 10 and crowing "Rejoice" when they recaptured South Georgia. How about the victory parade afterwards? The Falklands was a popular war then and is still viewed as justified by the British public. Why? Because it was short, there weren't too many casualties, and we won.

Americans expected the same for Iraq. They wouldn't have been so enthusiatic for another Vietnam, but no one expected that. They'd had a run of short, relatively bloodless campaigns (Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, the Gulf War, Afghanistan) and the Cheney/Rumsfeld propaganda led them to think Iraq would be another. War should be the last resort, but America was so firmly behind Bush that he was able to send in the troops long before all other options had been exhausted. Public opinion only started to turn when it became protracted and the casualty figures began to mount.

As for the troops who take part in these wars? I'll guarantee that when the Falklands flared up, every soldier in the British army hoped his unit would be picked, and when Bush singled out Iraq, every US soldier hoped his unit would be picked. Why? Because every soldier (and man for that matter) wants the chance to at least experience war. When WW1 broke out, everyone thought it would be over by christmas and flocked to the recruiting stations, because none of them wanted to "miss out."

War as a concept should be so obscene that civilized people never reach a stage where it's necessary, so how come the armed forces of supposedly civilized countries are always embroiled somewhere or other? The British army had, and probably still has, a recruiting poster that boasted how there'd only been one year since 1945 that a British soldier hadn't died in action. War is still popular and always will be.

Derek

[sikander]

Greetings Derek,

As per my post of 24 August, we are on the same path of thought.

You said:
"War as a concept should be so obscene that civilized people never reach a stage where it's necessary, so how come the armed forces of supposedly civilized countries are always embroiled somewhere or other?"

Because of several factors:
1) The world has become small and the business interests and military/political interests of many nations are so entangled that"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has become *the* way of perceiving things
2) There is a tendency to feel compelled to interfere when "atrocities" are committed, which can be a noble thing but to be frank, this compulsion is often determined by race, religion or economic importance of the peoples or region being affected
3) War has not lost its glamour, only its sutainability. Every generation is coerced or seduced into thinking war is a "proving ground" for glory, immortality and patriotism
4) War is highly profitable for private interests. I know of no war that has not enriched those who builkd the weapons, make the uniforms, feed the troupes, house the troops, shod them, or even bury the dead and clean up afterwards.
5) Ignorance of government policies leads people to perceive "The Other" as less civilized than "us", so it is easier to market war as a "civilizing" influence, perceiving The Other as someone whose people, race, nation, what have you is in need of civilizing, the importation of the aggressors culture, the importation or imposition of the "right" religion, the "right" method of government, and the list goes on..

Finally, there *are* times that a nation must engage in war, in order to protect its own borders.. but those usually do not require the propaganda machine. The more the propaganda, the less likely it is that a war is "justified" or conducted as a defensive action. Sadly, truth *is* the first casualty of war.. yet it should be the first stand on war

You said" " War is still popular and always will be."
and I agree. While you have a large number of people globally who speak of an end to war, if you examine the actions and policies of *governments* as well as specific ideological groups within each government, you will find those who, while crying loudly how much they value peace, beat the drums for war.

You have to teach the average man or woman to kill; it is not "natural" to do so. Few people are born with an inherest desire to kill. To kill in a fit of passion is more possible for the average person than to kill with full awareness of what you are doing, looking the other man in the eye. (one of the reasons they have built some awesome war machinery is that it enables killing without consequence to the conscience or guilt) .

This is why the cry for war requires an ardent patriotic basis (national defense/expanding borders for defense/national security) , or a people so in need of space that they "justify" conquering others (living room/more fields to plant/more grazing rights) coupled with the threat of The Other (they want to rape our wives/kill our children/enslave us/they are odd/different/weird) and, topped with the glory and glamour of war with its flags, drums and flutes.. one reason few photos are published and few stories are told that show the real side of war- because when such photos appear or such tales come out, people start to find war unpalatable.

For his time, Alexander was "acceptable" . He was a warriot king in a warrior culture, in which boys were trained into men willing to kill both for their nation's expansion and their personal glory. Today, it is harder to sustain the myth, though we still glorify the culture of what governments and religions now term "the just war"..

Mark Twain wrote "The War Prayer" and did not allow it to be pubished until after his death, because he said "It tells the truth and no one wants to hear the truth". If you have read it, you understand what he meant.

In ALexander's day war was, as it is now, a profitable venture with few people free to speak out against it.

Regards,
Sikander

[marcus]

Mark Twain wrote "The War Prayer" and did not allow it to be pubished until after his death, because he said "It tells the truth and no one wants to hear the truth". If you have read it, you understand what he meant.

Thank you, Sikander, for introducing me to this. I had not come across it before, and I am glad that I have now read it.

Pothosians - Google it!

ATB

[sikander]

Greetings Marcus,

You said: "Thank you, Sikander, for introducing me to this. I had not come across it before, and I am glad that I have now read it."

You are welcome. I am glad to see it on the internet now. I read it long ago and thought how powerful it was. Then,sometime in the 1980s, I belie, a television company produced it as a tag-on to Twain's "A Private History of a Campaign That Failed". An American actor, Edward Herrmann, portrayed the Stranger at the end of the film (he has a cameo role n the middle of the programme) His delivery of this prayer is chilling, especially his "Amen" screamed at the end.. if you ever get a chance to obtain the film, do so.

At the time I saw it, I remember thinking I had never heard the true side of wars fervour until that moment.

Apparently, Twain feared repercussions if he printed it in his own time; he later stated he lacked the moral courage to publish it, though he knew he *should* have done so.

Regards,
Sikander

[Semiramis]

War has not lost its glamour, only its sutainability.

Sikander,

Brillant posts. I agree with pretty much everything except the idea that war has lost its sustainability. What about those parts of the economy that are sustainable only through war, or at the very least, the threat of war? Not just the industries directly profiting from war such as weapons manufacturers etc. but other parts of the economy? Some might argue that the oil industry, to use just one example, could not be sustained in it's current form, without direct US military involvement in strategic areas? Maybe the global economy, in its current state, is unsustainable without war?

[sikander]

Greetings Semiramis,

I see war as being unsustainable because its long term impact on the people most affected- the soldiers, the families of soldiers, the overall economy- cannot usually sustain a long-term war.

People whose family members are dying weary after the numbers no longer seem justifiable for the gain received, so you must either keep giving the public reasons to be in fear and/or support the war, or you must create a seemingly viable reason to continue into the next generaiton.. something I would think would become unpalatable, over time.

When the overall economy lessens due to high war costs, when money that could fund needed or desired social programs goes to fund yet more war, eventually the people begin to realize the size of the petard they have hoisted themselves upon.. they begin to comprehend that, while *some* persons/corporaitons are doing extremely well, the majority of people fare less well..

That is what I mean by nonsustainabilty. In the past, the people had no say. These days, I suspect the people have more say than their rulers would like.

Regards,
Sikander

[Semiramis]

Hi Sikander,

Agreed. I guess this is why I'm cynical when it comes to the idea that in the modern day, people are better informed or less susceptible to propaganda. We seem to have just as many war enthusiasts as the past. How else, in the day and age of the vote, are wars of aggression being waged? In defense of the ancients, there were plenty of Greeks who were sceptical of Alexander's democracy, freedom, revenge or pan-civilizational war propaganda.

Take care

[jasonxx]

Semari

I couldnt agree more that people are less suseptable. Infact sadly I think its more and in a tragic way.

Look back at Ancients etc. Morals Merit etc .

I refer today to a throw away culture. Where peoples get fame with no merit watch soever. Im pretty Sure Marcus can look at the Hype surrounding big brother and know exactly where Im comming from.

In times gon past people got famous with Talent Singing. Book Writing Acting even war. now we have a society where fame comes from nothing more than brain dead losers beying to the mob thats the viewing public.

Glossy mags. Whos dating who. Shes wearing this hes done that. Marcus you see where im heading.

Over the weekend in the Uk we had an outpooring of grief etc for Princess Diana. Who in my opinion had no talent other than getting in and out of Limos in flash Frocks preying on media attention. Alexander The Greeks Romans generals etc have merit with what they did achieved Now we have no merit a society thats pretty much plastic.

kenny

[Fiona]

As for the troops who take part in these wars? I'll guarantee that when the Falklands flared up, every soldier in the British army hoped his unit would be picked, and when Bush singled out Iraq, every US soldier hoped his unit would be picked. Why? Because every soldier (and man for that matter) wants the chance to at least experience war. When WW1 broke out, everyone thought it would be over by christmas and flocked to the recruiting stations, because none of them wanted to "miss out."

Derek

So many great posts, and good, thought-provoking comments. I agree very much about this attractiveness of war for the troops concerned. When the lads in 1914 were flocking to the recruiting stations, they were following in the footsteps of many generations before them, who'd felt that same pull.
There's a great line in Thucydides about this - right at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, he makes the beautifully dry comment:
"At the beginning of an undertaking the enthusiasm is always greatest, and at that time in both the Peloponnese and in Athens there were great numbers of young men who had never been in a war and were consequently far from unwilling to join in this one."

The implication being, of course, that once they had experienced war, they wouldn't be so keen on it - but by then, another generation will have come along, equally eager to find out for themselves. And so it goes on, and on, and probably always will.

Fiona

[Vergina Sun]

So many great posts, and good, thought-provoking comments. I agree very much about this attractiveness of war for the troops concerned. When the lads in 1914 were flocking to the recruiting stations, they were following in the footsteps of many generations before them, who'd felt that same pull.
There's a great line in Thucydides about this - right at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, he makes the beautifully dry comment:
"At the beginning of an undertaking the enthusiasm is always greatest, and at that time in both the Peloponnese and in Athens there were great numbers of young men who had never been in a war and were consequently far from unwilling to join in this one."

The implication being, of course, that once they had experienced war, they wouldn't be so keen on it - but by then, another generation will have come along, equally eager to find out for themselves. And so it goes on, and on, and probably always will.

Fiona

First off, welcome Fiona! I hope you like it here. I know that I've missed the forum during the recent downtime. It's great to be back though.

I found your post very interesting. I agree that there will always be young people who have never tasted war and thirst for it. It's odd, though, isn't it? After all those stories and movies about the horrors of war, there are always those who still want to go out. Is it part of human nature to fight? What causes so many brave men and women to risk their lives? I suppose it could be a sense of responsibility. Maybe some feel it their duty to go out into war. Back in Alexander's time, war was for glory and honor. Is it the same now? Before, didn't all young men aspire to go to war? Now, most people have found other pursuits in business and art. People pursue high careers and boast about their positions. Has the competitive world of carrers taken the place of war?

[Paralus]

There's a great line in Thucydides about this - right at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, he makes the beautifully dry comment:
"At the beginning of an undertaking the enthusiasm is always greatest, and at that time in both the Peloponnese and in Athens there were great numbers of young men who had never been in a war and were consequently far from unwilling to join in this one."

Something that was quite appropriate then and even more so in 338 when Athens, yet again indulging in the "Men of Marathon" mirage, called up the lists and sent to war men who'd largely no experience or - at most - little experience of what was to come.

Philip played them for the inexperienced "newbies" they wer. Strarocles and all.