A Culture of War by Martin van Creveld

The Culture of War

The Culture of War describes the psychology behind war and how most common perceptions of war are incorrect. War is something that nearly all people at all times in history have enjoyed and wanted to engage in. The most outspoken pacifists often become the biggest proponents of war when the opportunity to fight arrives. Martin van Creveld is one of the best military historians in the world and he does a good job drawings lessons about mankind from his vast array of experience.

The section of the book which I found most interesting was Section Five: Contrasts. In this section van Creveld describes how the culture of war can broken down in a society. This does not mean that people don't fight any more--that will never happen--it means that the rules and traditions governing combat are destroyed. He desribes four ways that this can occur: two of them were particularly interesting to me.

1. The Wild Horde: All discipline breaks down and so an army warriors or a society dissolves into a unruly mob which is only capable of pillaging not winning battles. Peasant revolts are an example of this.
   
2. The Soulless Machine: Here the culture surrounding war becomes more important than war itself and hinders the army in combat. This can come from placing too much importance on traditions or deciding that war itself is something to be avoided. The first case happened in Germany before its defeats to Napoleon and the second happened in Germany after World War II.
   
3. Men Without Chests: Here men begin to look down on themselves and refuse to defend themselves or their culture. An example of this is European Jews before World War II.
   
4. Feminism: Here women's wishes and actions destroy a culture's warrior ethic by demanding to fight themselves or demeaning men who fight.
   

Case 3: Men Without Chests

The Jews in Europe were brave, but they were brave at enduring suffering not defending themselves. They had suffered all sorts of tribulations from the Europeans before the Holocaust and decided it was better not to fight back. They held the same beliefs about themselves as the anti-Semites. This came to an end when the state of Israel was founded because the Zionists deliberately began building a culture for the new Jewish state which allowed fighting,honored warriors, and expected military success.

I can see this mentality in myself today. I don't think the US is worth defending. I don't begrudge anyone else the opportunity to risk life and limb for the government, but my loyalty is only to my family and personal friends. I think I could be a successful warrior, but I don't feel I there is much worth the risk of defending. It would be interesting knowing more about the mentality of these cultures: they seem to come from powerlessness and a lack of confidence.

Case 4: Feminism

Women are integral to any warrior culture. Women's sexual lust for warriors and disdain for men who won't defend them is a key factor in motivating men to fight to protect them. Two of the best documented cases I know of are the women of the Confederate States of America and the women of England during the First World War. In both cases the women promised not to marry men who didn't fight in order to shame those who saw the pointlessness of the wars into throwing away their lives. They purposefully wore articles of clothing signifying that they held these views.

One way women can destroy a warrior culture is to not love the men who fight to defend them. When being a warrior does not help get women, men won't become warriors. I think loving warriors is hard wired into women because on the most common turn-ons for women is a man in uniform.

The second way women can destroy a warrior culture is to demand equality in the military. Their demands will be met in one of two ways.

• First, men and women might are allowed to join the military but held to different standards. Women will enter the military forces, but they will not be seen as equal to men because they are not held to the same standards. They are given the same rewards as men for doing less which demoralizes the male soldiers.
  
• Second, men and women can be held to the same standards int he military. In this case all the women will be almost permanently on the injured list and never make it into the front lines. There are women who can meet the physical standards set for men but they are a very small fraction of the population.
  

America has chosen the first choice here. I know our military is demoralized, but I don't know how much of this is due to the pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how much is due to gender relations in the army. The fact that it has taken us this long to "win" in Iraq and looks like it will lose Afghanistan shows that our military is not operating at close to its capacity.

Eastern Europe 1740-1985 by Robin Okey

Eastern Europe 1740-1985: Feudalism to Communism

There are two versions of this book. The original covers up to 1980 while the version I read goes up to 1985. Both of these dates are before the fall of the Iron Curtain. Before reading this book I had a few ideas about how Eastern Europe had developed, but they were mostly based on assumptions. While reading this book I found most of the assumptions were incorrect. The first chapter gives an overview of Eastern Europe before 1740 (I still don't consider myself an expert on the pre-1740 time period) and the rest of the book covers the time period in the title: 1740-1985.

Eastern Europe started out similar to Western Europe under the feudal system. It was located between Russia and Germany; however, Germany was not yet the powerful centralized state it became under Bismark. For most of this time period (1740-1918) Eastern Europe was split up between great powers. At first it was divided between Turkey, the Hapsburgs, and Poland. Later Poland fell and was partitioned between Prussia and Russia. Following the First World War many of these nations gained independence, but their governments did not fair too well. It seems to be Okey's belief, these governments were already tottering before the Russians and Germans invaded. Today this twenty year period between the world wars is often assumed to be the natural order of things, but it really is not or at least hadn't been for a number of generations. From the revised perspective the cold war does not appear to have been a particularly bad time for Eastern Europe: most nations had their own state although Czechoslovakia (Czechs and Slavs) and Yugoslavia (all the Balkan nations) contained several different peoples. The countries were largely autonomous and seem to be doing compared to pre-World War I history.

A question that often comes up is why Eastern Europe fell behind Western Europe. The first reason seems to be that the nobility in Eastern Europe realized the threat of the tradesmen to their governmental dominance in time to crush their competition. In Western Europe this did not appear to happen, by the time the nobles realized that the growing middle class wanted more political power, they were unable to suppress them. After the nobles reestablished their control, towns in Eastern Europe began to shrink again. I am unclear about why the difference occurred maybe it was because Eastern Europe was controlled by large foreign empires: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and Russians while Western Europe was controlled by home grown dynasties.

In some ways it seems that Eastern Europe has always been playing catch up with the West. Its intellectuals sat in Paris Cafes. It was late joining the enlightenment and never really seems to have caught on to the idea. Still, the idea that they were completely behind everyone else is incorrect. Wages were higher in Western Europe than Eastern Europe during the period from 1850-1914, but Eastern Europeans were still earning more money than Russians and presumably Turks. The earning differential and outsourcing (yes this happened back then) which occurred because of it raised the standard of living of the East Europeans although many of them were still serfs. The Eastern Europeans experienced the problems of many today: there will always be someone with more capital (earning more than you) pushing from above and someone working for less money (with a lower standard of living) pushing from below.

In the period leading up to the first World War, the governing empires were forced to spend more and more energy playing different factions off against each other and suppressing nationalistic feelings. Bismark, the unifier of Germany, made a point of avoiding involvement in the Balkans [advice America would do well to follow today]. During the First World War the Eastern European nations did not rise up to fight for independence. Afterward the region was split up into different countries based upon the haggling of the German, French, and British government. Except for the Czechs, all of these countries drifted from democracy into fascism or communism. The Czechs were the most politically stable of all the countries both before and after the First World War which explains why they are the most prosperous former Soviet Bloc country today.

Following the Second World War, the countries were each liberated again although they quickly moved under communism. Most of the prewar national leadership was eliminated either through being voted out, dying in the war, or execution. Romania and Poland both avoided the show trials which happened in all other countries (it never pays to be the second place dictator). Although all countries were under the sway of the Soviet Union, they each resisted in their own way. Ceauşescu in Romania and Tito in Yugoslavia were able to gain a certain degree of autonomy although they were not very kind (read brutal) to their own people. Polish, Hungarian and other citizens fought and protested but suffered for this at the hands of soldiers.

As the soviet period continued, the Eastern German governments gradually took more and more capitalist ideas. The population moved into the cities and their diets included more meat and sugar and less bread and potatoes. When writing this book, Okey was unsure whether the countries would continue to liberalize or revert to hardcore communism. Thankfully, the former took place.

After reading this book, I am more optimistic about the future of Eastern Europe but more uncertain about the future of mankind. Eastern Europe is happily on a long term upward trend. Unfortunately, I now have a better understanding of how rare and fleeting liberty is in this world.

White Devil by Steven Brumwell

White Devil: A True Story of War, Savagery And Vengeance in Colonial America

I finished reading White Devil by Stephen Brumsell a while ago, but it was very interesting so I read through my notes in order to review it. I have already made one post from this book about Robert Rogers getting scurvy on my primary blog. White Devil tells the story of Robert Roger's raid on St. Francis during the French and Indian War. Although the focus is on one particular battle, Brumwell tells the story within the context of the war as a whole.

While there are a vast number of lessons that can be drawn from this book, the interactions between and differences among the interacting cultures was the most interesting to me. In a way it hearkens back to a hierarchy of cultures I have proposed earlier. The groups discussed will be

1. French and English gentry and officers
2. Town dwellers in the new and old world
3. English farmers
4. French and English woodsmen
5. Native Americans
   

1. French and English gentry and officers

English and French officers and political leaders were at the top of the social ladder. In general they held everyone else in disdain and demanded unquestioning submission from military subordinates. Penalties in the British army were severe; I do not know about the French army. This led the officers to try and replace the independent frontiersmen with more controllable regulars as scouts and skirmishers. Today these officers are are stereotyped as being stupid and having bad tactics (see the movie The Last of the Mohicans as an example). This was sometimes the case as with Thomas Gage who did not perform well during either the French and Indian War or the American Revolution, but he was an exception not the rule. A few examples of skilled leaders who died leading their men are Wolfe, de Montcalm, and Howe. These men were not familiar with the American wilderness having grown up in Europe, but this lack of experience does not mean the lacked in intellect. In any case, it is undisputed that this caste controlled the grand strategy and strategic levels of the war.

1. Town dwellers in the New and Old World

These men formed the backbone of the armies. They were not the best fighters in world history, but modern opinion does not give them enough credit. These people did not live out on the frontier and most of them had spent their entire lives living in urban areas. They were not a warrior caste raised from the cradle to handle a gun and they were not skilled woodsmen; however, they went into battle with arguably the most hardened tribal warriors in the world and the best light infantrymen of all time. American soldiers face similar tribal warriors in Afghanistan today, but the modern Americans have a vast technological superiority. The English line troops had only muskets and so were on a technological parity with their opponents. These men fought realizing that they would most likely be tortured to death if captured. I do not think many from this group served in the ranger units, but their bravery cannot be questioned.

3. British farmers

I don't think Brumwell really distinguishes between the farmers and city dwellers in his book, but I think there is a difference. This category of men were farmers from America or recently conquered highlanders from Scotland. These men had a more martial spirit and were physically stronger than the city folk, but they did not have experience in the back woods. As the British began to field regular light infantry units in hopes of replacing the rangers, this category of men volunteered to fill the ranks. They learned their skills from Robert Rogers and went out on long ranging trips away from the safety of the army. Many of these men met their deaths during these excursions, but the fact that they reached the point of being able to battle the natives on close to equal terms is a wonder in itself. The Highlanders were brought to the colonies by the English for two reasons: first, to kill them off so they would not rebel again and second, because they were a tribal people they might be better able to deal with the natives. This did not turn out to be the case because the highlands were not a dense forest; the Scots were no good in the woods (without training).

French and English woodsmen

These men grew up on the frontier. They were in many ways as the same as the Native Americans, but there were some differences. First, I don't think they ever attained parity in wilderness fighting with the natives. The English at least did not have the cultural background of the Natives and came down with scurvy, a nutritional disease the Indians knew how to avoid. The English officers hated their rangers because of they were rebellious, but knew the officers could not do without them. Like the Indians, there were not many of these frontiersmen. It was impossible to replace casualties and my guess is that most of this class was just about exterminated during the war. The French were friendly with the Native Americans and traded with them as opposed to the British frontiersmen who were their enemies and usually trying to take their land. Consequently, the French woodsmen often went out to fight as one war party with the Natives.

Native Americans

The Native Americans drew upon a much smaller population base than England and France. They were impressed by the bravery of the European soldiers who made frontal assaults while taking lots of casualties, but the Indians would not risk their lives in this manner themselves. Each native death was a tragedy for the small Indian populations, so they quickly broke from contact whenever they were on the losing side of a fight. Even in such British victories as the Battle of Bushy Run, the British suffered more casualties than the Indians. One thing that the Indians could not do was empathize with their white opponents. They depopulated the Colonial countryside killing women and children without remorse, yet they are angry to this day that the English soldiers attacked their women and children at St. Francis. What was an weekly occurrence (having houses torched and families slaughtered) for the Colonists, was a once in a war happening for the Indians. The natives also tortured their captives to death frequently, so our modern image of the noble savage is not entirely true. Their fighting and wilderness skills were second to none. They often defeated vastly superior numbers of European soldiers and the main reason the raid on St. Francis was successful was that most of the Native warriors were gone. The native warriors of the Eastern North America may have been the best light infantry warriors in the history of the world.

Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change
Liberal Fascism was the subject of the third Voxiversity. I read through this book as I have during the other courses. I learned a lot which is par for the course during this experience. There were a few major questions of mine that this book cleared up:

1. What is fascism?
2. How are Stalinists, Nazis, and liberals are related?
   
3. Why do Americans love the government so much?

I will briefly answer these questions and give a the Liberal Fascism Voxiversity links.

1. What is fascism?
Basically, fascism is a state religion. The state plays god and everything is directed by it to achieve some great goal. Every culture is different, so each country's goal is different. Each society has different faults which politicians can use to stir up national fervor. For Germany, it was utopia as a master race and with restored national greatness. For America, it's "leaving no child behind," letting no knee be skinned, and letting no one go without health care.

2. How are Stalinists, Nazis, and liberals related?
I knew that fascism and communism being opposite ends of the spectrum was poppycock before reading this book, but I was unclear about their connections. The Nazis are National-Socialists; the Communists are International-Socialists. The Nazis realized nationalism was a great motivator, so they added this into their socialist routine; in fact many of the Nazis were actually converted communists. The communists would send thugs to start fights at Nazi rallies, but all the thugs would be converted to Nazism before they could get the brawl started. Fascists are pragmatic socialists, so they simply took the nationalism and incorporated it into their socialist ideas.

The ideas which fermented in pre-World War II Italy and Germany were also popular in the US. They were also popular in England as well but this was not the topic of the book. American intelligentsia and politicians were enamored with and fawned over Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. Wilson hatched many of fascist ideas which were incorporated by Mussolini and Hitler. Roosevelt permanently reinstated Wilson' s ideas into American governance.

3. Why do Americans love the government so much?
For a nation which claims to love liberty, Americans seem sycophantically in love with the government. An American's only complaint is that the government should redistribute wealth to different people or that the army is being sent to invade the wrong country. I have long thought that this was almost a religious fervor, but now I realize that it is actually a real religion. Americans worship the government in the same way that ancients worshiped god: they sacrifice to it (taxes), pray that it gives them a good economy (economic stimuli), consider it the true source of knowledge (public schools), and entrust it with their health (medical regulations).

The Germans and Italians during the Second World War were not "bad people." They were normal people just like you and me who happened to be serving a government that did abominable things. Americans have swallowed the same clap-trap as the Germans. Modern Americans will follow their dear leader (whether it be Obama or Bush) into whatever calamity he leads them.

Information

• Wikipedia article on the book
• Wikipedia article on Jonah Goldberg

Classes

• Announcement
• Introduction
• Introduction Review
• Chapter One
• Chapter Two
• Chapter Three
• Chapter Four
• Chapter Five
• Chapter Six
• Chapter Seven
• Chapter Eight
• Chapter Nine
• Chapter Ten
• Afterward
• Final Quiz

The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides

The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War

The Peloponnesian War between Sparta and Athens is one of the most famous wars in history. It involved nearly all the Greek city states who were drawn into the war as allies of one city or the other. Thucydides lived through the war and actually served as a general for Athens during part of the war. The parallels between America's foreign policy and this war make the book especially interesting. Athens sent its largest army ever off to fight in Sicily: it never returned. This experience has been repeated by many successive powers such as Rome in the Teutoburg Forest and Great Britain in Afghanistan.

Overall I found this book entertaining, enlightening, and horrifying. Several times Athens kills all the men inside a city for having the temerity to resist her. From one of these attacks come they saying "the strong do what they may, the weak what they must."

Information

• Wikipedia article on the Peloponnesian War
• Wikipedia article on Thucydides

Voxiversity Classes

• Introduction
• Section 1
• Section 2
• Section 2b
• Section 3
• Section 4
• Section 5
• Section 6
• Section 7
• Section 8
• Section 9
• Final