>"This is a more realistic depiction of war"
>"More gritty and realistic"
> More realistic = anti-war and anti-violence
Is this a Western Neoliberalism thing or what? I find the idea that war is an inherently negative or terrible thing is absurd. Furthermore, the idea that violence itself is an inherently bad or immoral thing is so bafflingly fucking retarded I don't even know where to begin.
How do we fix this?
I can't really name a just war off the top of my mind apart from WW2 so I suppose that would be why.
Usually when people talk about making depictions of war more realistic it's because a lot of war media depicts it as glorious, which it never really was.
You see this in any film presentation of Agincourt such as Henry V, but the reality was a bunch of english archers wracked with dysentry beating mud-stuck French nobility to death with mallets.
>>938193
War isn't pretty, usually.
It's dirty. People used to die more by infection outside combat than by combat. The runs could be as scary as a bayonet.
Even today, when you ask purported war heroes why they fought, the standard reply is "so other people wouldn't have to" or something along those lines.
Personally, I'd say war is a means and peace is a goal.
>>938193
Go to war, come back, then tell us that it's not an awful thing no one should ever have to go through.
>>938193
Anti-war is a realistic depiction of war ever since WWI.
Modern war is objectively shit for everyone involved.
>war isn't pretty
>war is hell
No shit, Sherlocks, that wasn't the question. To say violence and war have no political purpose or value is absurdly naive and incorrect.
>>938193
When did you go to war and how many firefights were you in OP?
>>938237
I don't think you'll find any western neoliberal media that argues WW2 wasn't necassary, despite being incredibly unsavoury. What are you basing your opinions on?
>>938237
But that wasn't the question at all. You just said "how do we fix people thinking that war isn't inherantly terrible and that violence isn't inherantly bad"
When they both are -because- of what we have said. Even if there's a good reason. (which lets be honest, there is very, very, rarely a "good reason")
Just because violence is "natural" doesn't mean it's good or preferable. War kills people, traumatises people, scars people, destroys cities and countries. Why would that be good? Because of stupid politics? WW1 was the result of a pissing contest with all European countries and WW2 could've very easily been avoided if we didn't shit all over Germany.
>>938237
>To say violence and war have no political purpose or value
No one said this. Not even in the OP straw man
>>938210
Both the Branagh and Hollow Crown portrays of Agincourt show it as mud and slaughter.
>>938259
>Agincourt
>not mud and slaughter
>>938262
Did I say that it wasn't?
>>938210
Reminds me of the Agincourt scene in Hyperion
>>938267
good book desu.
But yeah, lots of mates have had their lives pretty much ruined by something which barely classifies as a war, so I'm pretty fucking terrified by anything bigger and worse than glorified skirmishes.
Some people get really butthurt about war being depicted realistically for some reason. Over here in Finland after ww2 a guy basically released a book that was practically a diary of his experience in the war with a few details edited. When it was first released a lot of contreversy started because before that most depictions of the war had been more unrealistic and heroic. I'm not really sure why some people get assblasted by the thought that in war you, your friends, your higher ups and your enemy are all going to do some disgusting crap.
>>938210
Winter War and, arguably, the Continuation War.
>>938193
t. Battle hardened veteran of 6 call of duty games
>>938228
>>938213
It's true that war is hell, but many soldiers report never feeling more alive than when fighting for their lives, voluntarily heading into mortal danger, especially if they see some purpose in it. That's why a lot of the light infantry types who see lots of action (DEVGRU, Delta, Rangers, etc.) go to work for military contractors after retiring.
War is hell, but it's still glorious/fun/etc. too, and to deny that is dishonest.
>>938465
>many soldiers report never feeling more alive than when fighting for their lives
High doses of adrenaline will do that to you.
>>938465
I think it's worth noting that all the people who "love war" seem to be doIng it voluntarily and for the winning side (western soldiers who become contractors, ISIS dudes who go around brutalizing demoralized Iraqi army units, etc). Opinions seem to change fairly quickly when you're forced to fight, the battles stop being guaranteed victories, and all of your friends start dying.
>>938319
maybe war really is heroic and his experience was the unrealistic one
>>938484
are you perhaps butthurt?
>>938481
True, but that's not always the case, such as the author of the book I posted, Timothy O'Brien. He was an anti war liberal who got drafted to fight in Vietnam, was traumatized by when he killed someone, watched friends die, and went home ingloriously. And even then, he told his story and made it a point to say that war is all those things and more.
Very good read btw.
>>938465
>it's still glorious/fun
Man, dying of infection or getting shell shock sure is fun, innit?
>>938484
His real experience was unrealistic?
>>938559
t. never been to war
tbf neither have I, but several people I know who have been say it was fun sometimes, and they are pretty normal people.
>>938210
>I can't really name a just war off the top of my mind apart from WW2 so I suppose that would be why.
>apart from WW2
Wow, when they said Humanities majors were bad at maths, they weren't kidding.
>>938193
>Furthermore, the idea that violence itself is an inherently bad or immoral thing is so bafflingly fucking retarded I don't even know where to begin.
You only think that because you live in the 21st century West and have never been in a war.
What an idiotic post. Kill yourself.
>>938568
War is kind of fun if you're a soldier, but it's utter shit when you're a civilian. Most people that experience war are always civilians and they constitute around 50% of the casualties.
>>938568
Stop lying: you don't even have friends, fucking loser.
>>938559
Hypothermia and Altitude Sickness aren't fun either, but people still love mountain climbing.
>>938193
>tfw I joined the army so I could get away with killing people
War is damn fun, if you have the predisposition
>>938465
It's always "fun" at the beginning when you're just having male camaraderie and steamrolling everyone: all fun and games until you start losing and rations start being reduced and you're given suicidal orders and you see your comrades getting blown up, captured and tortured, executed, die of disease/starvation, desert.
Yeah, "fun". It's never been fun.
Even Medieval battles weren't fun: most of the soldiers were conscripted peasants, not professional soldiers. Weapons of the day usually did not cause immediate death, but a slow and torturous one.
>>938562
Either his was, or everyone else's was.
>>938999
>>939000
Also, when you say war, most people think of some WW2 situation where you're holed up in a ruined building, artillery shells are dropping left and right, you're freezing to death, hungry and suffering from typhus.
While in reality, in modern war like Iraq and Afghanistan you stay at air conditioned base most of the day, drink coke, shitpost on the internet and play videogames and only go out for like 5 hours a day. "War is hell" doesn't really apply there.
Because modern violence and war causes more gdp damage than ever before, so they're right.
>>939036
Modern war is literally nothing. It's practically a picnic compared to WW1, WW2, Napoleonic wars or 30 years war.
>>939036
Only someone born in the modern era could be so much of a pussy to think this is true
>>939023
Except of many people claiming that it was fun. Like Ernst Junger who served as a stormtrooper on the Western Front of WWI, during the battle of Somme among others.
Or the meme that is Jack Churchill.
>Even Medieval battles weren't fun: most of the soldiers were conscripted peasants, not professional soldiers.
Who the fuck even let you come to this board.
>I find the idea that war is an inherently negative or terrible thing is absurd.
That's because you've never been in a war. You'd be thinking something else if you weren't a whiny, pampered, neckbearded millenial
>make a statement about the political usefulness of war
>get called a neckbeard and fat while not refuting any points
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>>939061
>Like Ernst Junger who served as a stormtrooper on the Western Front of WWI, during the battle of Somme among others.
Have you ever read Storm of Steel? Junger literally goes insane for a few hours after nearly half of his company is obliterated by a single shell right before the German Spring Offensive.
>>939084
You can prove us all wrong by signing up for the military and finding out yourself how wonderful war is
>>938193
>most of the soldiers were conscripted peasants
This is a meme
The serfs were not conscripted as per the feudal contract. Feudal lord's had retinues of freemen who protected the peasants
>>939071
>You'd be thinking something else if you weren't a whiny, pampered, neckbearded millenial
But the "hurr durr, war is terrible" meme is something that is only espoused excessively by civilians who've never been a soldier.
>>938193
Major pls go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1pXBLFIPK8
>>939090
you're doing it again
>>939099
>Soldiers think war can be fun
Yes, and then they get hit in the face by a piece of shrapnel, or watch one of their friends' brain turn into explosive jelly pudding in front of them, and either commit suicide, or spend their entire lives in isolation and misery
>>939105
What, actually linking your retarded ideas to the real world consequences?
>>939110
>all soldiers had the same experience while enlisted and any who say otherwise are lying
okay bud
>>939089
Obviously he doesn't claim that it was a walk in the park. But he doesn't criticize war as something bad. It is terrible, but also glorious.
And in his later political journalism of 1920-33 (which I believe might not be available in English) he berates pacifism as childish and wrong.
>>939115
>war is bad because soldiers die
wow, thanks for the tip jefe I'm sure everyone in this thread could use the heads up
soldiers dying is bad? okay, got it, almost forgot
>>939118
My general impression of soldiers that came back from war is that they found it either really boring, or really dreadful.
But anyway, like I said, if you don't believe me, and think war is a fucking great time, put your money where your mouth is and sign up. I'm sure the army would be very happy with you to send to the Middle East or Africa or some other civil war torn hellhole
While many people can and do become traumatized by certain aspects of war, most PTSD and trauma cases today come from the fact that the soldiers don't have the support of the people they think they are fighting for. You can't justify killing and dying unless you see the war itself as justified, during and especially after, and this "thank you for your service" meme isn't helping them whatsoever.
>>939135
>thank you for your service
That's just the American military version of m'lady. It's pretty cringey.
And generally the American military worship is pretty damn stupid.
>be at a baseball stadium on Veteran's day
>please stand up for the anthem
>5 minutes later
>please stand up and clap for Sgt. Cripplecuck who served in Afghanistan and is here with us today
>20 minutes later
>please stand up for a minute of silence honoring our fallen heroes
>the baseball team plays in fucking camo uniforms
A fucking sports game.
>>939032
Professionalism has also reduced, but not eliminated, lots of other petty bullshit you have to deal with in war, like soldiers robbing and mugging other units on their own side, or deaths from poor muzzle discipline, or floggings.
>>939122
>modern war is nothing like that
for our side, maybe
I don't really think contemporary westerners, including most soldiers, have much authority to say that "war is fun" when they've most likely never experienced the really shitty aspects of war (mass civilian casualties, weaponized rape, whole towns wiped out, actually losing battles etc etc). It's easy to say war is "fun" or "not that bad" when you're on the winning side and have a relatively low chance of dying or getting crippled. Not so much in a more serious sort of war. Just look at how collectively traumatized the USA was by 9/11, and imagine that happening on a weekly basis.
Now, that said, there are probably still some nutcases who will genuinely enjoy war even in the most horrific circumstances, but I doubt that's a widespread thing. And I'm also aware that an experience on the level of what WWII was for Europe may never happen to Western nations again. My concern is that if we think of war as "fun", even if that's not a wholly inaccurate description for the kinds of mini-wars the West fights today, we may become too willing to go to war. And if we become too willing to go to war, the chances of accidentally getting into the not-so-fun kind of war get higher.
>>938319
What was the book called & is there an English translation?
Read storm of steel, sounds like what you're looking for OP
>>939603
Best post I've read ITT.
War will be different for everyone because everyone has a different experience of it and people process experiences differently. One guy might be indifferent to executing a crying 14yr girl, another might get a kick out of it, most would probably be traumatised to some degree if they were forced to do it, even if she was a captured enemy sniper. And it's obviously no picnic for the executed prisoner, or her family and friends, or the soldiers she shot, or their families etc.
There's a thread up atm: (http://boards.4chan.org/his/thread/925455/terror) all about the horror of war. Thread's admittedly biased, but war is the perfect breeding ground for the scenes being posted there, and any soldier on the ground would no doubt see some shit like that eventually.
Platoon is probably a realistic depiction of most soldier's experience of the Vietnam war that came out of Hollywood and hit the mainstream. After all, it was written and directed by a man who was there, and based much of the film on his own experiences. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it.
>>938193
War is always a negative and terrible thing, faggot. It's just sometimes necessary.
War is horrible and the most depraved thing humans can do, but as with many things we romanticize it because we need to rationalize the unnecessary murder of civilians.
>>938193
>I have never even been near a battlefield: the thread
>>938193
Why do people assume that Wars have always been like what they have been in the last century?
War was actually pretty tame before that with a few exceptions
>>938193
>Is this a Western Neoliberalism thing or what?
It's not. My grandpa was very conservative and he fought in WWII, and he made my mom promise him she would never let me join the military. He said it was because not only is war terrible but the whole military and how the military and government treat you is, to quote him, bullshit. He wasn't even a rank and file soldier, he was an engineer and bombardier. He ended up with several medals, a good resume, and retirement money, and he still thought it was straight up bullshit. I can't argue with that (both because he died when I was little and because he was in the thick of it for four years).
>>939727
False, because we keep doing it. You can't expect a species that spent 90% of its existence running our prey to death by exhaustion to be nonviolent animals. All of our functions, the way the human form is engineered, is to assist in us killing things. 2 legs are more efficient over long distances than 4 (this comes in handy when we have no tools), we have hands to carry water to rehydrate the liquid we lose as sweat, which also cools us down.
Our entire existence as an ape has been brutally killing things with our bare hands to try and keep our families from starving to death and modern neoliberals act surprised when people have violent tendencies. Uh, yeah?
Violence is an incredibly effective way of getting things done. Most of International Politics is simply doing things by force then using a lazy legal justification after the fact - at that point it doesn't matter, your men with guns are already there.
>>938193
well, "war is sweet to those who have no experience of it" says a lot about your post
but just yesterday we had a thread about war photographs, next time you see a similar thread check it out and you'll notice why war is "bad"
>>939785
You're essentially saying what I'm saying.
Any justification for murdering innocent people after the fact is the "Romantization" that I'm talking about you moron.
>>938465
Your post is pretty shit. While war maybe fun for the highest command, drone commanders or professional soldiers who came and fight because they want to have fun, for the average guy who is defending his country or was thrown in a battle by his military, then war is no fun at all.
Why would sitting around in a tent all day, then drive around in mined streets and probably getting shot by some random guy from the roof be any fun? Why should making decisions about others lives be any fun? Why should walking around in a fucking desert catering to the needs of your commander be any fun?
Sure there are some good things to remember in a war, but war is neither fun nor glory
>>938465
>highly trained special forces soldiers who fight pajamas-wearing guerillas think war is fun
Color me not surprised in the least. Turn the tables around on them and suddenly combat wouldn't be so fun.
Violence inherently causes suffering on the person that's being assaulted. Inherently violence is bad, it can only be justified through external things.
Why do a lot of people not seem to understand that war being unpleasant and horrifying doesn't cancel out the usefulness of war as a concept.
War being awful and miserable doesn't mean war is not a valid or useful tool, it is a challenge to make that tool more efficient and better.
>>939832
That's a bit like saying we should perfect amputation instead of developing antibiotics.
>>939603
The not-so-fun war will never happen again because of our technology. We no longer need a 10 man crew to operate a bomber, shit we don't even need bombers anymore. We reduced the amount of casualties to a reasonable minimum, not because we're bleeding heart humanitarians full of empathy, but simply because we no longer need to send tens of thousands of people to a meat grinder to win a war.
Just consider that a SINGLE BATTLE in WW2 like Stalingrad had over 2 million casualties casualties. Iraq War, a campaign spanning over 10 years? Barely over 100k.
>>939827
Suffering is not inherently bad.
>>939843
unless an all-out war between two world powers happens, in which case we will see trench warfare, tank columns and tactical nukes flying all over the place like hail
>>939832
>Why do a lot of people not seem to understand that war being unpleasant and horrifying doesn't cancel out the usefulness of war as a concept.
>War being awful and miserable doesn't mean war is not a valid or useful tool, it is a challenge to make that tool more efficient and better.
sure, but useful toward what end? What is worth breaking the lives of your own citizens to accomplish? Defense of the motherland? Gold? Oil? Taking that sausage factory in Tanganyika from the Hun?
Was WWI worth it for anyone?
>>939832
>>939865
You are both operating on a misapprehension.
What you are talking about is violence in general, or rather you should talk about violence in general.
War is just the most extreme expression of violence, and yes, violence is a useful tool, but clearly violence that is out of control creates genocides and all other manner of depraved shit, which is why war should be avoided, e.g because the violence is uncontrolled, and unaccountable.
>>939861
No, we won't. Thanks to precision missile strikes and automatization of warfare we physically don't need to and neither do the Chinese or the Russians. Some neckbeard sitting in a room and playing with a joystick can deliver more damage than a WW2 bomber nowadays.
Of course, a nuclear war could happen, in which case most of us are admittedly fucked, but it won't be a total mobilization conflict like WW2.
>>939861
I can't believe you just said "trench warfare" and "tank columns" in the same sentence
lmfao
>>938267
Such a good book, shame the author had to spaz out and absolutely shit on the sequels
>>938193
>I find the idea that war is an inherently negative or terrible thing is absurd.
t. someone who has never been to war and has never read a real account of warfare
>>939861
The concept of trench warfare literally became obsolete by WW2. You might as well say we'll see massive line formations shooting muskets, it would be just as moronic.
>>939865
>Was WWI worth it for anyone?
It was worth it for Serbs and Americans, for sure.
>>939878
>Gee it sure is fun to have drones rain down hellfire on me
>>938193
>the idea that violence itself is an inherently bad or immoral thing is so bafflingly fucking retarded I don't even know where to begin
>>939878
No, we have not reached this level of automatization of warfare yet. Tanks, aircraft, warships are still operated and serviced by humans. There is no drone or combination of drones in use today that could replace a manned combined arms force or make it obsolete. A total war will be fought by men.
>>939883
It won't be trench warfare like in WW1 obviously, poor wording on my part but trenches would still be used, the USSR was preparing for that big time for example.
>>939905
Thanks to precision strikes, drones also minimize civilian casualties, which is why we don't see total gorefests like the Dresden bombing in the drone era. The number of civilian casualties caused by drones numbers in a few thousands over 15 years, that's fucking nothing compared to the wars of old. The firebombing raids on Tokyo alone killed 300 000 civilians over three years.
>>939911
There won't be a "total war" again. Sorry to evoke the >current year meme, but it's baffling how many people still think in WW2 terms when we are discussing modern warfare.
And yes, UGVs and UAVs are a thing already.
>>939911
>the USSR
>bringing up strategic concepts from 50 years ago when discussing modern war
>>939925
UGVs in use today are largely experimental and can't stand up to other armored vehicles. UAVs will not accomplish anything against a real opponent without people flying fighter aircraft and launching missiles to establish air superiority.
If we could fight wars with nothing but unmanned precision strikes at this point, chances are powers wouldn't be developing new tanks, fighters and warships.
>>939947
Russia is the country that relies heavily on tank warfare and they maintain a grand fucking total or 16 000 tanks.
>>939982
I don't understand, are you implying that's a low number or what? And Russia has introduced a new generation tank recently, they're certainly not planning to do away with them any time soon
>>939995
Yes it's a relatively low number considering they're the most tank-heavy country on Earth.
>a new generation tanks
So what? It's a heavily specialized system that won't be produced massively like the T-34.
>>940009
For modern MBTs that's a very high number; consider also that these days they will be accompanied by AFVs, of which Russia and the US have tens of thousands. The reason there's less of them than T-34s is because they're entirely different beasts that are harder and more expensive to manufacture, not because they're obsolete. There's still enough of them to wage total war using modern doctrine.
Russia plans to produce 2,300 T-14. That's fairly massive.
>>940052
>they're entirely different beasts that are harder and more expensive to manufacture
Exactly, modern warfare is quality over quantity.
>Russia plans to produce 2,300 T-14
There were more than 150 000 T-34s produced if we count all models. 2300 tanks is nothing.
>>939941
To be fair the chinese also train to dig themselves into foxholes under fire that are then connected as trenches.
Yes I know that sounds pretty fucking retarded but the chinese have so many drafts they throw into the fight that loosing ground can be worse than soliders.
>>940068
Try to envision a battle between US and Russia, involving hundreds of modern tanks, supported by infantry, AFVs, artillery, aircraft, AA vehicles and such; a battle that has been envisioned by both US and USSR doctrine throughout the Cold War and that is still on the books because no breakthrough has been yet made to make it obsolete. Indeed similar battles albeit at a smaller scale have taken place recently, in Iraq, Georgia, Donbass etc. Yes the sheer physical numbers wouldn't be as impressive as in say Stalingrad but it would still be far from a tactical skirmish with a few UAVs flying about. Many thousands would assuredly be dying, languishing in entrenchments and being vaporized by tactical nukes.
>>939147
Were you that fat and disgusting pasty dough boy that sat next to me at Opening Day yesterday? The only pathetic part about their service is the fact that they had to defend your right to shitpost and eat Cheetos while collecting neetbux.
>>940097
No, I wasn't there yesterday, you fedoralord.
>m'service
>>939832
the dispute is rarely about the effectiveness of it, it's usually about the cost/benefit analysis (however rough it may be); many people think it's not worth the cost
>>939911
almost no one is fighting with tanks or fighter planes or battleships these days, because they're engaging small fries who don't warrant those things, or they're fighting in places where they aren't as useful, or they're having cold standoffs with what are usually supposed to be their allies
Russia is not going to fucking go to war with the US, neither is China, because it would be fucking stupid
the same applies to every major power unless you count India and Pakistan or Israel and the Arabs, which are both a joke
>>938193
>War is'nt inherently negative
>baffingly fucking retarded I don't even know where to begin
>Provides Z E R O arguments himself as to war is not an inherently negative thing
>baffingly fucking retarded
Here are some arguments why war is inherently negative:
Millions of people suffer and die
Economic damage is enormous
Leaves huge grievances in society and between regions/countries
Having to kill someone you dont personally know and has done nothing personally to you
All because the "though guys" at the top want to make war they sent millions of outsiders to die.
>>940106
>he idealizes the violent acts of men confused and younger than himself if only for the fact that he wishes he was as brave as they were
>he probably thinks he's tough because he collects images of WWII and watches John Wayne movies
>Sometimes in the movies, there are scenes from the Uprising, but there is nothing that I've seen. I haven't told that to anybody yet with such great detail. You ask about everything. It’s your right, but everything is coming to life again. Back then we had no idea that those killed will never die, that they will always be with us. Everything happened so quickly. Shouting, shooting. Singular faces. All this is stuck in my memory very strongly.”
>(Schenk hides his face in his hands).
>“We blew up the doors, I think of a school. Children were standing in the hall and on the stairs. Lots of children. All with their small hands up. We looked at them for a few moments until Dirlewanger ran in. He ordered to kill them all. They shot them and then they were walking over their bodies and breaking their little heads with butt ends. Blood streamed down the stairs. There is a memorial plaque in that place stating that 350 children were killed. I think there were many more, maybe 500."
>>940153
“Or that Polish woman" (Schenk doesn't remember which action it was). "Every time, when we stormed the cellars and women were inside the Dirlewanger soldiers raped them. Many times a group raped the same woman, quickly, still holding weapons in their hands. Then after one of the fights, I was standing shaking by the wall and couldn't calm my nerves. Dirlewanger soldiers burst in. One of them took a woman. She was pretty. She wasn't screaming. Then he was raping her, pushing her head strongly against the table, holding a bayonet in the other hand. First he cut open her blouse. Then one cut from stomach to throat. Blood gushed. Do you know, how fast blood congeals in August?"
“There is also that small child in Dirlewanger’s hands. He took it from a woman who was standing in the crowd in the street. He lifted the child high and then threw it into the fire. Then he shot the mother."
>>940162
>“Or that little girl who unexpectedly came out of the cellar. She was thin and short, something about 12 years old. Torn clothes, disheveled hair. On one side we, on the other Poles. She was standing by the wall not knowing where to run. She raised her hands, and said Nicht Partizan. I waved with my hand that she shouldn't be afraid and should come closer. She was walking with her little hands up. She was squeezing something in one of her hands. She was very close when I heard a shot. Her head bounced. A piece of bread fell out from her hand. In the evening the platoon leader, he was from Berlin, came up to me and said proudly: ‘It was a master shot. Wasn’t it?’ He smiled proudly."
>“Frequently children came to us. They couldn't find their parents. They wanted bread. A small Polish boy brought us food when we were on guard duty. I don't think he was a captive. I don't know. I was then on guard in a cellar of a textile factory. The boy didn't know German, but we could communicate with gestures. When I had, I gave him cigarettes. Passing by was a SS-man. He waved at the boy to follow him. The boy went after him. Then I heard a shot. I ran. The dead boy was lying on the stairs. The SS-man pointed the gun at me. He gave me a long look, but eventually left. This is how matters were in Warsaw."
>“Our mascot was a crippled boy. Also 12 years old. He lost one leg, but could jump very fast on the other one. He was very proud of that. He always jumped around the soldiers, back and forth. We said it was for luck. He helped a little. One day the SS-men called him. He jumped to them willingly. They were laughing and asked him to jump to the trees. From far I saw that they put 2 grenades into his bag. He didn't notice. He was jumping and they laughed at him shouting: Schneller, schneller! (faster, faster). The boy blew up."
Good on you OP for attacking this neoliberal pansy meme "war isn't good"
>implying violence isn't good
meme.
I love these "war isn't that bad guys!" posts. They're usually written from the perspective of a soldier from an advanced country taking part in what is basically a colonial war. Imagine if you're a US soldier in Iraq, living in an air-conditioned barracks with a Subway sandwich stand next to you. War is pretty sweet and you get paid to sit around and do nothing.
Now imagine you're an 18 year old conscript in the British Army in 1918, where the end of the war is in sight but hundreds of thousands of casualties are still being accrued. War is a nightmare that only ends with your death, whether it be from a shell splinter or old age after years of repressed memories and PTSD.
>>939147
>A fucking sports game.
well you just explained why it's so weird, didn't you?
and it's baseball, they're doing anything they can to hold on to people
but yeah, it's endemic, only the newest and stupidest and most jaded and depressed edgelords will say they don't care about soldiers because even the most Marxist fucking lefty in America wants to string you up in the street if you say you don't respect the troops
that's not to say they don't deserve appreciation, but it gets out of hand sometimes, and people seem to confuse appreciation and respect with actually helping these people
>>940201
I'm not even anti-military or anti-war, much less a lefty, I just don't get this idiotic cult behavior.
>>940126
The thing is, if you can jam a drone aircraft you can probably shoot it down anyway, so it's not that much more vulnerable than a manned craft.
Tanks and ships are harder to kill. Putting lives at risk may be worth it to stop your tank from being mission-killed by electronic warfare.
>>940215
yeah I figured, I was saying even most people that are will say day and night night how much they support the troops
it is weird, you would expect more variation in a country with free speech
>>940198
>War is a nightmare that only ends with your death, whether it be from a shell splinter or old age after years of repressed memories and PTSD.
And worse, the single accounts of veterans who for whatever reason enjoyed their experience thoroughly enough not to simply say they believe their actions brought peace or that they were proud of their service, but that they loved everything about it and would go back if possible are thrust up beyond surrounding accounts of suffering and ignoble deaths to defend their arguments.
As a forge of nations and greatness war deserve the awe it receives, but I believe some take it too far.
Only seen about half of this thread, it's all a group of civvies wailing about "muh mud muh infections muh bayonets". It's basically the most exciting time of your life, and one of the saddest. You make friends and bond with the people around you in ways civilians will never know (no homo) and see them die in all kinds of horrible ways. It's not just fun and it's not just sad either, it's basically life dialed up to 11. Actually a lot of the lads find it much worse when they get back because it's like going from 90 mph to 10 mph, hence the suicides. Yoy see things you never would have done otherwise, the Hindu kush is one of the most beautiful places in the world. It's like that bit in fight club where he says "You just had a near life experience".
>>939843
>never
wew lad
>>940260
Most people? Well, who's going to stand up and say fuck the troops or maybe the troops a get a little too cocksucked these days? Oh, I'm certain there are people who are, but at the risk of alienating some people and for what? To make a statement that will achieve virtually nothing?
Personally, I don't mind going along with public displays of troop appreciation in large groups. I'd rather have shit dick MPs get a little more credit than they deserve for their "service" then have the Vietnam era's troop "appreciation".
just think about how wrong people where about how they thought ww1 would play out. Sure speculating is fun but I doubt any of you really know what you are talking about
Age <20 = "Omg war is so cool and awesome XD"
age>20 = "War needs to be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
>>940278
We're discussing big boy wars. Vietnam vets or older and courageous action medal recipients only.
>>940302
The goal posts just shifted dramatically I see.
>>940289
that's fair, I just hope it doesn't turn into something darker by way of putting warriors on a pedestal
>>940316
You don't need to be have seen combat in Afghanistan to understand that shooting at Taliban from behind a mud wall is a much different animal than having to advance on foot alongside a Panzer attacking Soviet lines through a whirlwind of steel at Kursk.
>>939036
I think war nowadays is much, much less of a taxation or burden on countries than in any time in human history, especially for Western civilizations (the US excluded because it's not really western when you consider Europe the west).
In times before ours, where war is basically a business, people had so much more to worry about, nowadays is so standardized that something like ISIS/Daesh/IS/whatever, basically a guerrilla rebel army that executes POW or prisoners in general is seen as the most outrageous barbaric thing, where as only 200-300 years before this was common practice all around the globe, let alone in ancient or medieval times.
>>940299
Age <= 18 = you
>>940201
It's just the way it is, people will pretend to care about things because it's the social norm and you're alienating yourself if you don't do it, it's like crossing yourself when you're in the church or going to church in general when you're not really Christian at all, you do it because it's expected, here in Germany there is no such thing as a respect for soldiers at all, but people will respect what you do and don't just give you a nod when they see you in uniform or some shit. Americans especially are all about the facade, faking smiles, faking their lifestyle and their own looks, it just needs to look shiny and nice to outsiders, what's behind it doesn't matter, I think this kind of thing is especially dangerous because a lot of people who come out of the war need help, need respect and maybe just a friend but people don't acknowledge the person but only the institution.
You fucking pussies are amazing. You play your fucking video games and think you're all badass.
Let me tell you something about war.
It's fucking beautiful.
Let me tell you something else about war. You won't know it's beautiful until you've been there, and seen it. If war were not fucking beautiful, we wouldn't do it every fucking year somewhere on the planet. Giving a fuck about the wounded? Who the fuck does that? They get shipped out, and you go on killing. And killing. And killing.
It's fucking beautiful, and it's about ready to begin.
>>940605
>If war were not fucking beautiful, we wouldn't do it every fucking year somewhere on the planet.
You know what else gets done about every year? Tax returns.
>>938193
>>940644
The fuck? We didn't even do them a hundred fuckin' years ago. Did the fucking world start when you were fucking born?
>it's an edgy neckbeards wishing for WW3 thread
Whenever people glorified war en masse the reality check was usually pretty bad for them. See WW1 and how that turned out. Anti-war movements were created by those who legitimately participated in some of the worst nightmares of human history.
>>940689
The sad thing is that she divorced him soon after.
>>940729
He wanted her to. He didn't want her to be unhappy for the rest of her life on his account.
And then he got really drunk/high, slipped on some ice, and hit the part of his head that didn't have skull over it. Ded.
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
>>938210
>Usually when people talk about making depictions of war more realistic it's because a lot of war media depicts it as glorious, which it never really was.
I'm sure there were/are plenty of moments of glory for the winners of battles, and the winner of the overall war.
You know, it's like a video game, just not a simulation. Except back in the day, before there was notion of the "simulation," there was also less the notion of "reality" stuck in people's minds (the concepts kind of define each other, you see). When playing a game, you can get stressed after being defeated, but finally overcoming something that's been defeating you repeatedly feels great. We get this feeling now from "simulations," but before the notion existed, people got the feeling from what we now consider the "actual," and our "simulations" today are based on yesterday's "actual."
The world has almost always been in a state of war. We are continuously at war because, guess what? There are people who love it and want it. True, it is often started by people who don't do any up close and personal fighting, but that was not always the case. You really think guys like Atilla the Hun didn't love battle? We all do, at least, those of us who haven't been completely drained of our testosterone and turned into women.
Attitudes like >>939814 may be sincere in this day and age, but back in the day everyone would realize that this was just the blabbering of a weak woman, or faggot at best, and it should still be regarded as such. It's clear that the intention is to emasculate others, or protect the emasculated, but only other emasculated fools do that.
>>940701
Ah, sorry, you're right. The "returns" part is pretty new.
>>940792
I don't remember anyone calling Thucydides effeminate for the Melian Dialogue,
>>940792
>You know, it's like a video game, just not a simulation.
There are no video games that are anything like an actual war. War is boring and soul-sucking. It's walking for weeks on end and dying of disease and/or hunger and/or exposure, mostly. We instinctively WANT to fight and we imagine that it will be fun and we create faux-simulations that ARE fun, but war is not fun, even for those who want it.
>>938193
>Furthermore, the idea that violence itself is an inherently bad or immoral thing is so bafflingly fucking retarded I don't even know where to begin.
You might try and start by arguing your edgy opinions.
>>940792
What about my opinion is that of a woman or a faggot? If the odds are hilariously stacked against you, war is not fun. I don't see how this is hard to understand or how it can be construed as some PC liberal whining.
>>938465
Good lord retarded edgy kids like you ar insufferable.
Yeah I can argue going going on a psychothic rampage could be also "fun" (if the guy doing it is an edgy psycho wanna be like you), maybe it is for some psycho assholes, surely it's not for the majority of people, who still value human life.
>>939941
>implying almost every modern day military doctrine isn't based at least in part on ww2
>>940792
this has to be the edgiest post i've ever seen
>>938193
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.
Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
>>941025
>War is boring and soul-sucking
for you
>>941054
>If the odds are hilariously stacked against you, war is not fun
That's the womanly part. Women desperately want to win. Men want to fight battles in which they may die in.
>>941076
>surely it's not for the majority of people, who still value human life
Valuing life is for the weak, you're afraid to lose it and doubt your ability to keep it so you value it more. This is selfishness that emerges from insecurity and weariness. And this is why young boys who are perfectly well adjusted and full of energy almost always love the idea of war, battle, death, etc.
>>941593
Gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8
>>938210
>I can't really name a just war off the top of my mind apart from WW2
Right and wrong only matters to the people on the front lines who have to live with the guilt of their actions. There is no such thing as a just war, only just actions during a war.
>>941593
>he thinks war isn't just sitting round or moving from place to place with the occasional fighting that may start whether you want it to or not
back to your video games son
>>939110
>a guy who fucked French girls and shot demoralized Germans in the back all day had the same experience as a soviet shock trooper who had to storm machine gun positions on a daily and routinely saw his comrades rape and mutilate German civilians
T. Absolutist
>>941593
>observe, the overweight romantic civvie in his natural habitat
>>940370
You mean jingoism, chicken hawk politicians, and the social acceptability of a low brow approach to foreign policy?
I sure hope not.
>>940729
Anti war movements were more often than not created by the enemy. See: the Cold War.
>this thread
>>942644
>expecting anything else on 4chan
>>942637
No, he was a pretty normal guy in horrific circumstances. You didnt think all those monsters you read about doing terrible things in war were significantly different from you did you?
>>938993
>STEM Autists don't know what "apart from" means
>>939061
How many people claim it was fun? How does it compare with people who say it was hell on earth?
Remember, a percentage of people think that hammering six inch nails through their cock is fun, but it's hardly the majority, mainstream view.
>>942697
Hes saying if you can think of WW2 then its pretty obvious there must have been a WW1
>>940153
What the hell is that video from?
>>942637
Mathias Schenk.
Became a bit of a humanitarian after the war. Those lines are from his book, "My Warsaw Madness: The Other Side of the Warsaw Uprising".
>>942647
>expecting anything else on 4chan
There's plenty more
>>938465
>war is glorious/fun
This is your brain on /pol/v/, ladies and gents.
Modern warfare is shit. Getting rocked by a 12 year old with an AKM isn't cool.
Go back in time and enlist as an archer and have it dicked.
War is an experience for sure. People should go through it, for better or worse.
>>942738
Kicking myself for not seeing that one coming.
>>938193
>I find the idea that war is an inherently negative or terrible thing is absurd.
Spoken like a true armchair general. I wish I could send you to the WW1 trenches for a few months, and then see how you feel about it.
>>940792
war is a soul building experience unless at least 1 of the following is true
1) you die
2) you get maimed or otherwise suffer a serious permanent disability
3) you are genetically predisposed towards PTSD
Contemporary intellectuals do not romanticize wars, they still romanticize violent revolutions instead.
The same people who are claiming that "war is hell" and that anyone who has read Storm of Steel and knows that soldiers can enjoy war is an edgy teen from /pol/ would probably masturbate to the thought of revolutionary chaos engulfing a society and leading to the deaths of millions of your fellow citizens.
Basically, nationalism has been so discredited by the modern intelligentsia that it is more socially acceptable to fantasize about killing domestic citizens with opinions different than yours than to fantasize about killing foreigners.
>>943031
Thats only fantasized by retarded necbeards, try saying that to any normal group of people and see how they react.
Though saying that revolution for example in north korea would be bad is dumb
>>943003
4) No ice cream with Lt. Dan
>>938389
underrated
Violence can achieve pretty nice things. Tho as stated, the only people who should fight are the ones willing to do it.
>>942704
Why do you think the majority is worth talking about in this discussion? In a race, the majority are losers, only the top few receive a trophy. War is a competition like a race. Of course the majority will bitch about it.
>implying if we were invaded by aliums from space myself and hundreds of thousands of others wouldn't be fucking psyched like raving mad niggers to rock some bitches back into the stars
God damn wimps just WANT to be probed I guess.
>>938210
>WW2
>just war
kek
KEK
“Armenia! He who did not know how to die for you in your hour of
need and who will not want to die for you tomorrow – is not your
son, is not an Armenian!”
“Nations that are unwilling to defend their own interests condemn
themselves to death.” - Garegin Nzhden
t. armenian ultranationalist
>>941025
Never played Arma? For most its mindnumbingly boring and the controls are clunky as hell but that only enforces strategy over 720° noscopes and you find especially the autists enjoy it because most of the logistics have to be done by players. Many in larger matches can end up seeing little combat if at all just like real soliders.
Also lets face it the "war is fun" crowd are eighter predisposed or talking out of their ass.
But for many in the military war is a time they bond with comrades and killing becomes less about king and country but about friends and foes.
We see alot of things more in contrast than we like to tell ourselfes. Just like you percieve an object in motion easier than one beeing still. Same goes for life itself and I know we all know we are alive but we only feel so when put in contrast to our mortality.
Like people who survive accidents feel they have been given a second chance or reminded of how quickly their life could end and that they should change this or that before its over.
Same for soliders in war: Mostly sheltered kids who have no notion of how precious their life is because society guarantees it to them.
>>943434
how come they got genocided if they won though
>>943620
Honestly the "war is fun" crowd is just as stupid as the "war is nothing but hell and misery and hunger and disease" crowd. Like you said modern war is a pretty boring excercise.
>>943035
"Normal" is apathy or at best lipservice twards eighter as long as it doesn´t hit home.
Revolutions are often declared grass roots and legitimate but everyone with two braincells knows there is no such thing. Yet people delude themselves with such pipedreams so that they need not come to terms with the reality of it beeing an ends to a means to overthrow the last bunch of pragmatists.
>>938465
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Pd527GN48
>>939023
>Yeah, "fun". It's never been fun.
But you just said it is at the beginning, when your side is winning.
You have loser mentality. You think because it's not fun when you're losing that it's not fun at all. Well, don't lose then. But you consider that a high risk, there is a good chance you will lose — you think that because you have a loser's mentality. You are a loser.
Losers don't find war fun. Winners do. Want to know why? Because when you are used to winning, you get bored of winning. You come to want to lose. That's why war is appealing to winners, because the risk is there, but they feel themselves as winners, so the associated risk increases their sense of daring. Like gambling.
>>944518
>ww1 neurosis
>ww2 footage
hmm
Badass war quotes?
>>944633
I don't think I've come across a more insecure bitch than you on /his/.
>>944673
>100 men
>9 are real fighters
>1 is a warrior
But who are the other ten? Only more proof that the Greeks are garbage
>>944682
I stand by my word. Why don't you give a proper rebuttal if you disagree?
>>944700
they shouldn't be there
>>944713
Alright, here goes.
Your exact mentality would've been held by many German soldiers at the start of Operation Barbarossa. "We'll crush them in three months!" "Those Slavs are a race of losers, we're the winners!" Etc.
Guess what? Wars aren't won or lost based on how much you can stroke your ego. Instead of a swift, glorious victory, those German soldiers got four years of futile hell that would take millions of their lives, sap their fighting spirit and leave their country in ruins and occupied by a malevolent power.
War is not an adventure. War is death. And "fighting spirit" quickly means nothing when the cause you were fighting fit collapses under your feet.
>>944745
Anecdotal evidence isn't very effective here... anyone could dig up evidence of warlords whose conquest was rather successful during their lives. Hell, I am sure plenty of people rejoiced when Nazi Germany fell, a celebratory effect that could only have happened due to having an opposing force to overcome (war).
>War is not an adventure. War is death. And "fighting spirit" quickly means nothing when the cause you were fighting fit collapses under your feet.
Once again you are denouncing the whole because part of it is not enjoyable to you. Loser mentality. But the part that's good can be AMAZING for some people (i.e. it's a gamble), and the stories of war heroes are by far some of the most interesting in history. So if you denounce the whole thing, you are denouncing what is arguably some of the most interesting stories we have created, and some of the greatest moments we have achieved as a species.
To me it seems like you are the one who is more insecure. It takes a greater concern for one's own life to want to denounce war. A greater concern for yourself means a weaker integrity or confidence. Which is fine, but I think it's a lie you tell yourself to believe in to think that war is not in some ways grand and pleasurable.
>>944745
>>944852
I also want to add, to me it's kind of shortsighted to propose that all war is just misery and hell. You aren't going to strengthen future generations by continuously pushing that argument, but weaken them. This is how nations eventually fall and get taken over by others who have not been whining about war's miseries all their lives but were trained for it.
>>944852
>plenty of people rejoiced when Nazi Germany fell, a celebratory effect that could only have happened due to having an opposing force to overcome (war)
Are you playing devil's advocate here? You can't possibly believe that the relief at the eventual winning of the war justifies the war itself.
By that reasoning we should all wear shoes that hurt our feet just for the relief of taking them off at the end of the day. That's ridiculous.
Yes, there was celebrating at the end of the war, but there would've been far more happiness in the world if those people celebrating weren't also mourning the loss of family members and homes for the rest of their lives, or struggling with PTSD because of the fucked up shit they'd lived through.
And you're forgetting the profound level and scale of misery the war brought, which overshadows, by orders of magnitude, the bittersweet party the Allies enjoyed when it was over, and the tales of heroism that future generations enjoy.
Yes there are moments of glory or animal pleasure for some people in war, but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't even begin to compare with the horror and misery suffered by the vast majority, which includes completely innocent people.
I agree that nations still need armies to protect themselves. But pretending that war is fun and glorious in order to recruit soldiers is just a politician's lie that has cost humanity more than anything else in history.
>>944974
>Yes there are moments of glory or animal pleasure for some people in war, but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't even begin to compare with the horror and misery suffered by the vast majority, which includes completely innocent people.
I disagree, and so do the people who have those glorious moments, and the ones who repeatedly start new wars.
If we were to raise this to the level of philosophy I would say denouncing war is similar to denouncing life itself. War is a zoomed-in glimpse of what life as a whole is. There's a finite number of resources and space in this world that everyone competes over. It might be easier to disregard the highly competitive side of life when sitting comfortably in your bedroom, but the fact remains that your comforts are ultimately at the expense of someone else's, or were given to you by those whose actions were at the expense of others. The fact that competing in society does not always result in a physically bloody massacre doesn't mean that on a spiritual level "massacres" happen almost daily—people lose their jobs to others, their mates to others, their businesses to others, their houses and the things they own, etc. Two philosophers going at it in books is almost a war unto itself, with the triumphant philosopher "massacring" the other. If you think about the nature of the world, war, or strife, is present everywhere.
I realize this is beyond the scope of the discussion now. We're talking about the physical act of war. It's plenty different. And yet, I think that we feel a difference in it only because we are not very spiritual. We live comfortably (I assume people of /his/ mostly do) and idly, and the media broadcasts everything to us. In a way, life becomes simulated for us, we are no longer connected to things the same way. Become active again and it's much easier to see the connection. The physical act of war is just a zoomed in glimpse of what the world goes through on a daily basis.
>>939032
no shit, war on the technologically superior side can be pretty comfortable in parts but that doesn't say much about war itself
>>944872
>This is how nations eventually fall and get taken over by others who have not been whining about war's miseries all their lives but were trained for it.
Say that to my drone army and autonomous weapon systems.
>>945818
The war-minded built them first though.
>>938193
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."
t. William Tecumseh Sherman, neoliberal faggot
>>944639
Read the comments, the creator hits on that and apologizes for it you utter cunt.
>>945974
No, the war minded tell the science and engineering mind to build them. We will always have the war minded and they will adapt to a field of battle where a nation's defense need not be assured by it's blood thirst, but by it's ingenuity. If shit hits the fan, a few months of bootcamp and we'll have killers again.
Is this some kind of meme where people use the word "neoliberal" to mean ultra-liberal or something like that?
>>947577
Wow, someones triggered.
Take a chill pill homeboy.
Guys
Guys
Hold up
Guys
WHAT IF
GUYS
What if
GUYS
What if
Whether or not you think war is glorious / good / honorable is entirely dependent on the culture, beliefs, and religion you were born and raised with your entire life, and that western first world cultures inherently think negatively of war?
TT:
>War is 100% hell 100% of the time and it's not real war if you're not being gassed by the British at the Somme while a poilu saws your cock off with a trench knife."
>>938465
Have you even read that book? The characters all end up fucked with depression / PTSD
>>947745
Yeah. Then it's a boyscout retreat.
>>938465
>references The Things They Carried to try and call war "fun"
What the fug? :DDD
>>940181
Jesus fucking christ. If they taught this shit in schools, there wouldn't be any Neo Nazi's left. Tbh I don't mind that they killed a shit load of jews. But this shit is fucked up.
>>938193
>neoliberals
>anti-war
Good to know you throw out terms you know shitall about.
>>938233
where can i eat that food
>>938465
>posts the most unromanticised, miserable account of the most disliked war our country ever fought
>"war is fun XD I'm such an honest freethinker"
>>938389
Kek, good one
>>944852
>Once again you are denouncing the whole because part of it is not enjoyable to you.
Yeah, because I know even if I'm the winner, there's going to be someone just like me on the opposing side who is either defeated or dead. It's called empathy. It's logical as fuck.
>But the part that's good can be AMAZING for some people (i.e. it's a gamble), and the stories of war heroes are by far some of the most interesting in history.
Ok, I can accept that. But what you're essentially saying is that "war isn't all bad because sometimes a few soldiers on the winning side get to play action hero and it gives them a kick." Great, these guys felt adrenaline/power/etc. Guess who else was involved? The people who lost. The soldiers on both sides who died. The families of the dead back home on both sides, who now have to live without a son/brother/husband. Sure, if you're one the side of the winners you can console yourself with the idea that "he died for a good cause," but that's small comfort to having his kids grow up without a dad.
>So if you denounce the whole thing, you are denouncing what is arguably some of the most interesting stories we have created, and some of the greatest moments we have achieved as a species.
... So? Are you really saying that it's preferable to have tens of millions of people die in industrial slaughter than not have that happen, just so you can jerk off to History Channel documentaries about the Eastern Front? Also, I strongly disagree with the notion that it's only war that are capable of giving us stories of triumph. We have tales of explorers, of fire fighters, of policemen, of civil activists, that are all just as inspiring and compelling as any story of Easy Company.
(cont)
>>941593
>>947745
You can't even post right you autistic teenage edgelord. Fuck off back to your mommy
>>944518
Whats the music called?
>>948358
>To me it seems like you are the one who is more insecure. It takes a greater concern for one's own life to want to denounce war. A greater concern for yourself means a weaker integrity or confidence.
Yeah, I'm worried for my own life. You know why? Because we tried to solve a problem that didn't exist through war, and only unleashed a can of worms that's going to be virtually impossible to defeat.
But even moreso, I'm worried about *other* people's security. I don't want the people of the middle east to have to suffer under constant threat of random attacks from terrorists. I don't want a conflict to break out in the South China Sea that grows into a larger conflict involving both China and the United States. I don't want some rogue ultranationalist group in Russia launching a nuke at America, setting the stage for global nuclear annihilation.
Now, I'm not actually a full-blown pacifist, and I think national self-defense is only rational. But I will always oppose offensive wars, and I will fight my damned hardest to prevent conflict from breaking out anywhere, for whatever reason, in any country.
I wish I was a knight under El Cid pillaging moorish cities left and right.
Surely it must have been glorious fighting for an undefeated king, your wealth and glory increasing after every battle. Not only that, you were also fighting for the just cause, the reconquista.
>>948358
>It's called empathy
It's called effeminacy.
I mean you might as well kill yourself with that "logic." It's not like you can exist without some kind of energy transfer to yourself - energy transfer being, while not directly murder, is often indirectly related to the depletion of another's resources, and sometimes definitely the result of another's death. If you eat meat, or even veggies, you are ultimately killing something in order to live.
It's not like you can exist without an "us" and "them" either! All action requires this notion, even this ideological debate. Which is why I find any form of leftist thought fundamentally hypocritical at its base.
>>949060
>a child reads Hegel for the first time
>>949263
Never read Hegel, actually.
>>948473
>Because we tried to solve a problem that didn't exist through war
The urge to go to war in a time of peace is a problem for some. Hell, it is a problem for most. Peace is very boring, this is why even when we live idly in our comfortable homes, we still study new subjects that challenge us mentally, or play games/sports that challenge us physically, or take on jobs that challenge our self-discipline (and pay more of course), etc. Absolute peace is sitting there meditating all day in a nearly-silent environment, not saying a word, not doing anything with your mind, which is boring as fuck.
For wealthy politicians and military generals who are all set in those areas and are now focused on foreign relationships, peace is not having another government or military to rival with, and war breaks that peace. If you are at all empathetic like you are boasting to be, then I don't think you would find this too difficult to imagine and understand.
If you understood war, you wouldn't be advocating for it.
Judgement on the topic should only be reserved to those who actually fought or were caught up in it, not those standing on the sidelines.
>>949298
>If you understood war, you wouldn't be advocating for it.
So are you an antinatalist?
>>941593
>And this is why young boys who are perfectly well adjusted and full of energy almost always love the idea of war, battle, death, etc.
No one ITT has yet properly disputed this.
>>949545
Can I just point to accounts of those some young boys turned into graying 60 years too early in a trench.
Boy scouts and bikes do well enough I think.
>>938193
blame bleeding heart romantics after the first world war that ran around proclaiming that every cultural system that had been in place for the past 5000 years was dead because they felt sad that people died
>>949554
>Can I just point to accounts of those some young boys turned into graying 60 years too early in a trench.
But that doesn't really dispute the fact that most young boys are naturally attracted to the idea of war (i.e. it is a pure, natural desire), or the fact that not all of them turn out like you said.
>>949545
Calling young boys perfectly well adjusted is idiotic. There's a reason we don't take the opinions of the young too seriously.
>>949580
They'll grow out of it and diluted experiences that provide the camaraderie and danger they desire can suffice.
>not all of them turn out
They didn't spend enough time on the front. Rotate them back.
>>949582
>There's a reason we don't take the opinions of the young too seriously.
But we should take the opinions of weary old nervous wrecks seriously?
>>949583
You're assuming everyone experiences the same trauma during war. Not everyone has the same experiences, watching friends die is not the same experience for everyone. Sometimes that is what sparks the desire for war even.
>>949060
Why don't you go live in an anarchic third world country where your edgy "philosophy" is followed to it's natural conclusion - a dog-eat-dog wasteland devoid of compassion and community spirit?
Let me guess, it's because you're unapologetically selfish, just like everyone else, and that's fine because that's nature.
Here is the logical fallacy your argument is subject to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Humans are not animals, most of us have something called "Humanity," which is the entire reason our society will tolerate edgy statements like "it's morally fine to kill people if you call it war," without putting that idiot down like a dog in the interest of public safety. That would be the logical thing to do wouldn't it? If someone is saying they have no problem murdering innocent people, then it could be classed as pre-emptive self-defence to exterminate that person for our own safety. But we don't, because we've evolved beyond primitive instinct and can tolerate huge amounts of stupidity and savagery in a person.
Partly because we don't want ourselves or our families to be exterminated for showing signs of brutality, but mostly because, unlike animals, the vast majority of us are able to see our own humanity, the immeasurable value of our own human life, in another human being.
It's not effeminate to want to protect something that you recognise as being precious. It's wise and noble. Which is why only fools and hypocrites advocate for war.
I had no idea /his/ was this full of whiney bitch-boys who are afraid of conflict.
>>949737
>it's morally fine to kill people in self-defense who are a threat to society aka me
>but I won't recognize that most wars have been started out of the self-defense of individuals from other individuals or the increasingly loathsome majority towards the wealthy elite
Nice slave morality.
But anyway, that is fine. Society is built on slave morality. Everyone has to believe what you believe or this shit wouldn't work out too well.
Unfortunately for society though, individuals are still born into the world occasionally. The individual has no ties to others, no worries about protecting family. Ambition alone drives these people. They improve our society in numerous ways, obtain new knowledge and procure new resources. But they do so by attacking where others aren't expecting; aggression is always needed to advance forward. Sometimes that means killing.
War is hell for 99.9% of the world. It is something they are forced into most of the time, and they do their best to stay away from it. For the 0.1% that are individuals it is a natural state of affairs, around the clock, all year round, with no escape. If you think that's edgy, well life's pretty fucking edgy, sorry to say.
>>949781
Wow, you sound like a real brave guy. We could use some of that bravery in the 6th Army son, whaddya say? Wanna help us smash those dirty Russians? Sure you do, you're no coward! Good man, let's just get you fitted for a uniform and then it's next stop, Stalingrad!
>>949804
You're so right! You understand! Let me tell you about one of those individuals my friend. His name is Mr. Hitler and he's gonna make Germany a wonderful place for aryans like you and me. He'll improve society in numerous ways. All it'll take is a bit of cooperation from the German people. You know, I bet a smart guy like you, someone like you would rise through the ranks in no time!
Sure, war is hell for the losers, but we're no losers! We're warriors! War is our home! And that's why we're the best at it! I won't lie to you, you're an intelligent guy, you see right through me. It's gonna get dirty out there, we'll be doing a lot of killing. Killing's not for everyone. But we're no fools, we look after our families first, right? And those slavic scum are not our families! And the spoils, the glory! What do you say we bring back some good old fashioned glory to the fatherland!
Good man! What size boots do you wear?
>>949993
That's some vexation of the buttocks you got there.
Also, Hitler a shit, try Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Atilla the Hun, Genghis Khan, William Wallace, Lionheart, Sun Tzu, etc. Countless others.
Not to mention all the smaller mercenary and bandit groups that thrived during times of war throughout the ages, Vikings, pirates, etc. Although these guys are all criminals not worth praising much, the higher individual and the criminal do have some common traits.
Not all wars are the same, though. The "war isn't that bad" crowd are people who think all wars are bush/counter-insurgency wars. And the "war is truly hell on Earth" crowd are those who only study total wars like WWII or Mongol conquests.
Of course, those who need war as some sort of self-validation are the worst. If you want a challenge in your life, go run through a ghetto in Detroit armed with only a pistol and two magazines. Now that would be a good test of your endurance and wit.
>>950065
Don't you speak about the Fuhrer like that again! I hope you don't miss the Russians like you just missed the point!
You'd fight for Alexander the Great and Napoleon, sure! Who wouldn't? Why not fight for YOUR country? Germany! Hitler is leading Germany into greatness just like those leaders led theirs!
Sure, he won't be at the head of the army, but do you expect the Fuhrer to captain every U-Boat? We're fighting on numerous fronts here my man, and we need Hitler and his staff right in the centre, where their expertise can direct the whole effort at once.
It'd be great if we could all join him in Berlin but you and I are needed on the Eastern front right now. But when we get back, we'll get a big parade right through Berlin, and Hitler himself will decorate the bravest and the best.
So stop talking rubbish about our leader and get on board!
>>950096
>So stop talking rubbish about our leader and get on board!
No thanks, I would rather stay at home and watch TV safe from harm until I die.
>>950162
Just as I thought. You're all mouth. All that high and mighty talk about the higher individual and glorious warriors, but when it comes to actually fighting you'll let the rest of us do it while you sit and get fat!
What if every German man did that? Even the puny Russians would roll right over us! Is that what you want you traitor?! To see all of Germany raped and killed by those animals? Don't you have any wish to protect your family you coward?
Where is the man who was calling for war? That was a man I could admire, and fight alongside! You wanted war and you got it, now fight it, or else see the Russians march on your hometown and pass your daughters round like playthings!
>>938193
have you ever been trough war?
also, what meaning do you assign to the word 'neoliberalism', in this context, im just curious
>>950248
I don't give a shit about Germany. Now, as a soldier, if I was signing up to fight off some alien invaders with my entire collective human brethren, that would be another story. It would be hell on earth not to be a part of that fight.
>>950350
Your home country (Germany or wherever) is fighting a war, a war of aggression against another country THAT YOU CALLED FOR, and you won't join in the fight (against the Russians or whoever)?
Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
>>950408
you seem really butthurt.
>>950418
Is there an argument coming or are you admitting that I'm right?
>>950430
Right about what? No one has any clue what your point is right now.
>>950430
not seeing much to argue about with someone who's calling anyone who disgarees a neo nazi desu
take a deep breath and relax.
>>950436
I don't know if you're the Anon I've been arguing with because you're not addressing any kind of point. I guess my argument was a bit circuitous.
My point was that (assuming you're the same Anon) you defended war as a tool for individuals to "improve our society" and "procure new resources." You said "aggression is always needed to advance forward. Sometimes that means killing."
Well, let's suppose that argument convinces us all to invade a country. Are you going to be on the front line like pic related? Or are you a hypocrite?
>>939023
Peasants scrambled to go to war if they could help it because getting war loot was about the only way they'd ever make decent money in their lives. The dysentery and misery was worth it if you got to break a siege, fuck some bitches and take some gold home.
>>950477
I am that anon, but first, it's important to note that I never made this claim about myself. Somehow I doubt I would even be allowed to join the military, I get frequent migraines and have asthmatic problems, and I have an epipen. What I was doing was recognizing those rare people in history who not only march at the front line but lead the wars themselves. I am an advocate for those people, despite not being a part of their category at all, because I see them as the cream of the crop, what life is all about. The base of the pyramid supports the tip, etc.
I consider them genuine and strong, not weary over their past mistakes, not burdened by things, child-like and ambitious. Adults would agree with you, but adults are weary people who have lost their childish fervor for life.
