Why would anyone willingly fight in a war? Ever?
Seems a little gay to me even if propaganda does their utmost to convince us that it's manly.
You are surrounded by sweat, blood and filth... you have to participate in sadomasochistic shit and you can literally become disabled or an eunuch.
Even worse, you are fighting for the upper classes and for their right to be superior to you.
Rapists have a good reason to
Dunno about the rest
>tfw you live in an era where people don't understand fighting for their nation
>>492702
Or maybe they're starting to understand that fighting for "the nation" is pointless.
>>492735
I mean not like i wouldn't be part of a resistance if my country is invaded but i don't see why i should fight for any other reason
>>492735
t. Frankfurt school
Le workers unite will never happen
>>492735
>Or maybe they're starting to understand that fighting for "the nation" is pointless
You take a lot of things in life for granted I'd wager.
>>492740
Uh, so any not-nationalist has to be a commie now? Nice
>>492609
Someone on /k/ posted a very interesting piece by a veteran about that subject. It basically boils down to the fact that there are various reasons why men love war.
Wish I could find it.
Many people in the late 19th and early 20th century understood that fighting "for king of country" is absurd and pointless and literally only did so at gunpoint. Those were the golden days of anarchism, remember.
>>492745
Workers of the world uniting is the biggest fallacy of the Marxism
His followers are not workers they are just "intellectuals" who are lazy fucks who leach just like Marx did
>>492743
not wanting to die violently is not taking things for granted
why is it so hard to just chill the fuck out and not murder people
>>492609
Some men like to hear, To hear the cannonball roarin'
>doesn't have dreams of running through the >mud of the Western front while artillery rains >down
m8 pls
>>492743
"We're given the idea that if we didn't have these people to exploit then America wouldn't be rich enough to let us have these little petty material things in our lives and basic standards of living. No, that's wrong. It's the business giants and the government officials who make all the real money. We have whatever they kick down to us"
Immortal Technique - Poverty Of Philosophy
I don't get what could convince a man to kill people he's never met because the folk in charge say so
One in four human men died in warfare during the stone age
>>492609
"If you can't understand why someone would fight in a war you're just as stupid as the ones fighting"
Ludwig van Mozart - Ich bin ein Berliner
>>492861
for king and country you peasant swine
>>492826
That is not how you greentext newfag, back to le leddit.
>>492609
Yes, but only in a war against our neighbor countries, no matter if we were the invader or the victim. I would not go to middle-east to die for benefit of bankers and politicians.
War is delightful to those who have never experienced it - Erasmus
If our lands are going to be taken and the alternative government is worse, why not?
>>492609
>Why would anyone willingly fight in a war?
If your homeland is being invaded.
>you are fighting for the upper classes and for their right to be superior to you.
Or you are fighting to prevent foreigners from destroying your home and culture.
>>492861
You get paid or you get shot. Those seem to be the most important reasons.
>>492906
pls no bully newfigs
>>493321
the vast majority of soldiers aren't fighting for their homeland.
>>492861
dat GI bill nigga
>>493327
>let me tell you about your homeland
Okay enlightened one.
>>493327
That's fine but OP asked why anyone would willingly fight a war and defense of one's homeland is a legitimate reason.
>>492609
it's licence to do things that society has banned on civvie street, like killing, rapine and loot.
it's a reasonably well paid job and most of your time is spent preparing for war rather than actually fighting (even during a war - "hurry up and wait"). this is particularly important in ye olden days where you had a large class of peasantry and urban poor with few opportunities for steady employment.
in ye olden days it actually represented an opportunity to get rich. take a rich army's baggage train, win a battle or capture a town, and the opportunities for looting were plentiful. there were actual rules for dividing the spoils (at least in the navy where there was a set proprtion for splitting the money paid after taking a prize)
free pussy and the opportunity for slave pussy (when that was still a thing)
adventure - this still kind of applies. better than doing a call centre or retail job and definitely better than being a field hand or mill worker having to tug your forelock to the squire for a pittance.
sexy uniform and battle gear - this has always been a thing - again it's a passport to pussy because women love the smell of death on a man.
all the other supplementary motivations, like religion, nationalism, king & country and all that bullshit, but these dissipate pretty quickly when the shot and shell starts flying.
your pals - this kicks in when you're actually in the unit. you don't want to let your m8s down. this is why routs are a thing, when your m8s collectively make the decision to drop weapons and fuck off, the whole unit can rout at once. this is why discipline was and is harsh, to make sure that thought doesn't catch on.
>>492764
Did Marx ever leach off of the welfare system Bismarck implemented to make the poor shut up?
>>492861
I wonder if cavemen practiced necrophilia.
>>492609
>Why would anyone willingly fight in a war? Ever?
Some people do it for the money.
Some people do it for their Kings.
Some people do it for their Gods.
Some people do it because they like fucking shit up.
Most people do it because they want to protect their families.
And really all of them do it for a combination of these.
Most people that went to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq would tell you they are fighting terrorism and making the world safer. But they also got paid a ton. And as we've learned now, a lot of them were psychopaths to begin with.
>>492609
>willingly
History is the history of intraclass conflict between the wealthy. They just hire poor people to force other poor people into fighting for them.
>>493327
Go tell that to all the soldiers of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Somalia, Mali and some people in the African Union
>>493423
Bismark implemented it because that's how a modern state has to function. If you get the state to destroy local support networks, as it always does, it has to replace them with something.
We are no longer primarily self-employed, with a family farm to return to. Instead, you must have a job, something that barely existed before a century or two ago.
>>492788
Because not everybody thinks that way. Your way of thinking is the same reason why libertarianism and Marxism are doomed from the start. You can't force 7 billion people to all get along.
Depends on the time period and nation desu
>>493368
Peasantry and urban poor weren't goign anywhere NEAR the army in "ye olden days".
Mass conscription or recruitment of the poor is an invention of the early modern period, for the most part.
With the exception of the roman empire, if you WERE being levied, you weren't looking at easy pay and a solid job-
you were going to battle, likely not being paid on time if at all, and would be first in line to stop being fed if supplies ran low, with zero access to medical care if wounded.
>uniform
Uniforms basically haven't existed for almost all of human history.
>disciipline
>was and is harsh
>discipline was harsh
Except this has almost never been the case, anywhere.
Greeks would put over harsh generals on trial or kill them outright. Romans would be considered poorly disciplined by most modern standards, though punishments were harsh when actually used.
Short of treasonous activity, most indiscretions simply weren't going to be punished in any given army.
>>493536
Past the initial invasion, an absolutely ridiculopsu number of the insurgents in iraq were not iraqis.
You have to remember, US occupation meant, if they're not being shot at, a bunch of white men driving around, defusing landmines, giving candy to kids, and sinking money into your infrastructure.
>>492743
I respect the nation I live in, and want it to be better. The fact I live in it is the only reason it's special to me though. Nationalism is dumb.
>>493638
And having a military makes it better by keeping it safe from outside threats.
It would be something to do
>>493633
the question was why would you willingly fight in a war.
and for volunteer armies - even the militias of the poleis those reasons were valid.
unwilling conscripts are a different matter. those guys were basically chaff.
and i'm aware uniforms weren't a thing for most of the modern period, which is why i also mentioned battle gear. this can be weaponry, armour, whatever sets you apart as a soldier or warrior.
mercenaries, for example, fought for many of the reasons i stipulated, the primary one being money, but also pussy, adventure, licence to kill etc.
>>493633
So you are saying that the Iraqi army that is fighting isis now is not Iraqi soldiers fighting for Iraq?
>>493661
>clearing refer to american invasion and occupation
>BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ISIS?
No, because I never commented on the iraqi army of today.
>>493655
>and i'm aware uniforms weren't a thing for most of the modern period, which is why i also mentioned battle gear. this can be weaponry, armour, whatever sets you apart as a soldier or warrior.
You mean shit you had to buy yourself?
Or the handfuls of societies (IE, persians) that handed you weapons but took them away when you were done dying for them?
Most societies have simply required that males be armed, and a requirement of X armament for Y level of wealth is common.
Wealth is a valid reason for a lot of people, but fighters are just as often motivated by cultural tenets.
The actual answer to OP is "it really depends on who, where, and when."
>>492702
I think OP means fighting in a war of aggression. such wars usually serve only to enrich the interests of the ruling elite and can give no benefit whatsoever to the common soldier or citizen
For glory. Is there a better way to die than in battle?
>>493538
Anon, I want you to look up guilds. Jobs have always been a thing, people just hung on to it longer than before.
>>492609
For me it is about fucking people up you hate.
>>492766
>How many of those reasons apply to dying in the trenches?
Not him, but that's the mindset why many people dislike war. They fear death. Those who don't, have a lot of reasons why war is necessary.
>>492739
How about fighting so your country is never invaded in the first place?
>>492609
Fora number of reasons: can't do anything else (lack of education), others want to use it to pay for uni/colleg, want to kill legally, believe they can do good, etc.
>>492609
the opportunity of ingratiating yourself with the ranks of the second estate
and a conceptually easy way to escape from a shitty/boring life
"Gee, I sure don't want my mum and sister raped and killed by those fucking huns somewhere down the line, better pick up our arms and wipe them out while we have the upper hand"
Makes sense to me senpai
>>492609
Dumb soldiers fight for country
Smart soldiers fight for money
>>492609
War has always been a delusion of the masses in favor of the elites.
Read about the very ancient wars of Sumer, Egypt and Babylon. "X king wanted more land so he went and raided Y country". It was very honest. The elite wanted more land and gold.
Now its about "ideologies" and "human rights" and "muh country honor". But its all the same shit veiled with silk.
War only serves the elite unless its a defensive war against an an enemy that seriously hates you and threatens to exterminate or enslave the common people. There is hardly such a thing these days.
I mean, seriously, what would be the difference, lets say, for the common polish man if one day modern Germany took possesion of their country?. They would have the same rights. Who are the only people that loses with this? The polish elite. Same for evey country.
>>495712
Even in an aggressive war, the soldiers were typically assured of rapine in the event of victory, and increased prestige relative to noncombatant peers in their own society (i.e., access to more/better women). So there were incentives for the lower classes to fight, even if it is a risky prospect.
>>492609
We intend to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and fearlessness.
Courage, audacity, and revolt will be essential elements of our poetry.
We affirm that the world’s magnificence has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing car whose hood is adorned with great pipes, like serpents of explosive breath—a roaring car that seems to ride on grapeshot is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace.
We want to hymn the man at the wheel, who hurls the lance of his spirit across the Earth, along the circle of its orbit.
The poet must spend himself with ardor, splendor, and generosity, to swell the enthusiastic fervor of the primordial elements.
Except in struggle, there is no more beauty. No work without an aggressive character can be a masterpiece. Poetry must be conceived as a violent attack on unknown forces, to reduce and prostrate them before man.
We stand on the last promontory of the centuries!… Why should we look back, when what we want is to break down the mysterious doors of the Impossible? Time and Space died yesterday. We already live in the absolute, because we have created eternal, omnipresent speed.
>>492609
>wow, war...so gay!
>ur just pawns of the ruling elite!
You'll be the first to die OP so don't you worry your precious little head about it.
>>492609
>Why would anyone willingly fight in a war? Ever?
Respect and honor.
Both are very important to men.
>>493428
its not necrophilia if they were alive when you started
>>493809
yeah, in bed surrounded by loved ones after having lived a long and fulfilling life
>>495712
>human rights = any ideology
>there is hardly such a thing today as people that seriously hate other people and wish to exterminate or enslave someone else.
>A Kings actions have never befitted his subjects...everything he does is for his own benefit.
how does one get this divorced from reality?
>>496156
What is honor?
>>496193
admiration and respect of your community.
>>496156
If you don't live your everyday life without respect and honor, then you sure as hell aren't going to find it in war.
>>496187
>how does one get this divorced from reality?
By being a smug teenager.
>>492609
Love to kill
>>496187
>human rights = any ideology
Its an excuse like any other this days, i thought it was obvious.
>there is hardly such a thing today as people that seriously hate other people and wish to exterminate or enslave someone else.
Like 90% of ethnicities in this planet dont have anybody that hates them so much.
Most countries that have been at war have been for petty stuff like border towns, trade disputes, small breakaway regions and country "honor" (nobody ever wants to be the one who backs down). The country and the people were never in real existential danger.
>A Kings actions have never befitted his subjects...everything he does is for his own benefit.
Really, the elite always considers the people, the land, the gold as tools of power. Tools that can bring them more power so they can fight the next war to have even more.
French revolution anyone? Good, people-loving heads of state are always so rare that everybody remembers them for this very same reason. Exceptions to the rule.
>>493321
>muh culture
>muh tradition
Fuck off cuckservative
>>492764
>Workers =! Proletariat
Because it is in the Alfa male' nature.
Get lost betacuck.
>Why would anyone willingly fight in a war?
I can think of a few reasons...
>exploitation of our primal group behavior
Throughout human evolution it has been very much preferable for the individual to "pick a side" and join a group, because we have needed help from a group in order to survive.
>ideals and propaganda
The state, and other institutions, have pushed an image of the soldier as brave and honorable and manly, in order to get more cannon fodder for their wars
>anger and vengeance
Personal revenge for misdeeds that have been done against the person in question. Blaming the enemy for his ills and taking his anger out on them.
>a sense of invincibility
The person in question thinking "it won't happen to me! I'll emerge unscathed!" even though statistically, say 85% of soldiers die, everyone goes around thinking it won't happen to them, and that they will return as heroes.
>>492609
fighting in the hopes of your wife and daughter don't get raped or killed is probably the only one i could think of.
>>497372
>even though statistically, say 85% of soldiers die
sources please
I dunno, seems fun
>>497372
>85% of soldiers die
That number seems massively inflated
>>496714
Kek
Militarist in the XXIst century are nearly always beta losers with shit jobs
>>492609
that's what roman citizens said in their last days aswell when uncivilized barbarians invaded their territories
now european citizens are saying the same thing when uncivilized barbarians invades europe
h m
>>498240
>uncivilized
Wrong.
