Quote:
Originally Posted by Avimimus
One can look at the treatment of draft dodgers or people who went AWOL in the past decade - in America - during wars of lower intensity, less ideology and less risk to the home country.
|
Exactly. Let's make a comparison between then and now, in an effort to have the differences point out a possible explanation.
A lot of european countries are fighting a war along with America that takes place way over the other side of the globe with no clear objective, unattainable goals, moral justifications that often contradict actual events on the field and for no apparent gain when the net resuls of things is assessed might i add, neither for the men fighting, not for the public back home and certainly not for the local populations, on behalf of whom these wars are partly supposed to be fought, instead of tightening up border control, funneling all those funds into the secret services and special police branches and focusing on nipping the situation in the bud (what creates anti-western sentiment in the east, which is all too oten foreigners meddling in their domestic affairs) instead of waiting till it blows over and having to put boots on the ground.
Looking at the treatment of news reporters who raise doubts about the whole situation makes it clear what the treatment of servicemen who oppose this would be. And while it's considered and legislated an act of treason often punishable by death to disobey orders during war time, there is no formal war declaration for what's happening over there, which is in direct contrast to WWII. So, first of all, back in WWII you could get shot.
If this wasn't reason enough to go and do what you're told, the other big difference with WWII and the reason we all had to start running out of money to fund our countries before conceding the point is simple: modern wars are mostly fought by professional soldiers, a situation that combined with the far away places the fighting occurs by and large shields the bulk of the population back home from experiencing the war.
If there was a draft and a civilian army fighting along with the pros, criticism and public intervention in how things are run would be a lot higher. For people to be against war, they have to experience war. And for people to understand how war ties your hands into doing things you don't like, they also have to experience it first hand.
At the very least, in order to even sympathize with these two lines of thought when there is no direct danger to the home grounds, they need to have an indirect personal investment in it, like a relative in the armed forces, which has the effect of shortening the geographical distance of war. The smaller, professional armies of today mean that less of the civilian population is indirectly invested in the war, as opposed to the massive conscripted armies of WWI, WWII and Vietnam which touched entire neighbourhoods despite the distance between home and battlefield.
In that sense, it's pretty obvious how stark the contrast is to WWII when most of the fighting was done by conscripts, a lot of times within their own neighborhood. Having your relatives die or your local school carpet bombed tends to bring out the self-preservation in people and since we are naturally distrustful of each other, most of us think it's better to have a corrupt government of our own to try and overthrow, than be a subject of a foreign occupying power that will meet all such efforts with increased force.
It's the same reason Greece fought on the allied side in WWII, even though we were ruled by a military dictatorship that ideologically had much more in common with the axis: the guy in charge knew that a world war rests a lot on projecting naval power so he threw his chips in with the side the UK took, but he also knew that the general public would have none of it if he announced an intention to give away land to Mussolini's armies as per the ultimatum delivered to him, because it's easier to overthrow your local dictator than a foreign one. Plain and simple, if your local dictator sends the army to shoot at civilian protesters, there's a higher chance of your countrymen missing on purpose than if they were a foreign occupation force, or having a friend/relative at the other end of your gun barrel.
This was illustrated in the fall of the Greek junta back in 1974, when on one hand a tank smashed the gate into the Athens polytechnic university to end the student uprising that had taken up HQ there, but on the other one most of the military units posted all along the city (some of them commando units no less) didn't lift a finger to harm the protesters, whom in turn had already appealed to the soldier's (again, mostly conscripted) sense of a common ancestry. In fact, the majority of torture, killings and deportations during the 7 year dictatorship were carried out by the police forces and certain special military police groups, not the rank and file of the conscripted youth.
Finally, people often do wrong for the right reasons and vice versa. Studies have been coming to light that show most normal and well adjusted human beings are naturally averse both to violence and injustice, wether that means having it imposed on you or exerting it on others. It seems that despite our overall shitty nature, we instictively know what's wrong and our own body has mechanisms to punish us for straying from what is considered ethically acceptable.
This is why post traumatic stress disorder was experienced a lot during WWI (the condition defined as shell-shock back then) with the appaling living conditions and the mass loss of life in cannon fodder attacks that served minimal tactical or strategic purpose, why a lot of the SS troops who were posted to death camps actually went clinically certified insane and committed suicide after witnessing and causing all that violence, why Soviet troops fared better and had more resolve despite their enormous casualties, why it has resurfaced in the morally ambiguous military undertakings of recent years but mostly on the western side, but also why PTSD was not encountered as often in WWII veterans of the western front.
Political and religious beliefs, justification of actions to oneself and accepting that nobody is 100% pure good or evil can only go so far, if the wrong we do starts outweighing the right as we perceive them instinctively, it starts taking its toll on us. If people are inclined to feel (not believe, but instinctively feel) they are morally justified in what they do, or at the very least that their hands are tied and they have no other way out, they tend to have a higher morale level and less objections.
Summing it all up, it's clear that airmen experienced the war in a more isolated, cleaner way than the troops on the ground, especially on the western front. Especially during the early conquest of France and the low countries, most of the luftwaffe pilots were carrying the remnants of the WWI aviator's tradition: professionals engaging in deadly combat proving one's superiority with an air of sport, competition and respect for the opponent's abilities.
Even as early as that however, the missions they mostly disliked was ground attack taskings. It wasn't only because a fighter pilot would find a freijagd mission more enjoyable, it was also the fact that ground attack would take away that air of sportive cleanliness that pervaded fighting against an opponent flying an evenly matched machine as equals and put them closer to the dirty side of death, in a position of superiority over the grunts on the ground, the friendlies to be anxious of protecting and the enemies to ruthlessly kill in a way that makes them seem almost defenseless to you. Having also in the back of your mind that you are not defending your home but ruining somebody else's is enough to create some resentment for the task. This situation was further exacerbated in the Eastern front, were wanton violence and destruction on anything that moved (not only on military targets) was coupled with worse living conditions and an increased amount of close air support needs.
Finally, as the war drew to a close, moral was low but resolve sprang back up, due once more to moral justification. The strategic bombing campaign gave the Luftwaffe pilots the moral justification they needed to keep fighting, in their mind's eye they probably weren't fighting the enemy as much as trying to minimize devastation wrought on their civilian population. Even though bomber interceptions (especially at the face of complete allied air superiority late in the war, but even during the early stages of no long range escorts) was considered a very undesirable mission that sapped morale levels, they drew on the instictive "self preservation justifies me morally" attitude that's found in all human beings to keep at it until no longer feasible.
This is all pretty much summed up in the saying of one of the luftwaffe aces (i don't know but i think it was Priller, please correct me if i'm wrong as i would welcome someone reminding me who actually said it) about air combat, where he stated something to the effect of: "To tangle with Spitifres over the channel or even with 20 Russians trying to take a bite off of one of yours is enjoyable, but turning into the pursuit curve towards a formation of a few hundred Fortresses makes your life flash in front of your eyes every single time."
I know someone will be along shortly to flame me as a LW appologizer or a traitor to modern western standrds, but first of all this would simply prove my point and second, i live in a country that's up to its neck in debt, due in large part to the wars we've been forced to fight (99% of them defensive ones, fought on our land and with our civilians right on the line of fire) and the need to maintain a military half the size of Germany with 1/7th of Germany's population, in which we are all inducted and serve as coscripts before we turn 30.
Please, keep that in mind and realize i'm trying to paint a picture of how humans react to war regardless of race or religion through examples from history, not point fingers or give pats on the back. Disagree with me just like it's your right to do and state your objections, but let's not turn this from a statement of uncomfortable truths about human nature to a personal slagging match. Thank you for reading this far 