“All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.” This quote from Adolf Hitler reflects the way society’s attitude towards war has changed over time. Society’s view of war can and always has changed based on the circumstances of the war and how their country approaches it. Another thing that has contributed to society’s attitude towards war is the sense of nationalism running throughout the country at the time. The last thing that can affect a nation’s attitude towards war is the state of the country before and during the time of the war. The way a country approaches a war is something that greatly can change a nation’s view of war. When the United States entered WWII, the nation was itching for war against Germany for a second time. The people completely supported the nation’s attack on the enemy of …show more content…
When this mentality is compared to that of the Vietnamese War, there are many large differences in the nation’s attitude. Scott Seibert said in an interview, “I thought getting home would be the best day of my life. After all I had lost while I was there [in Vietnam], I thought I would finally be home. Boy was I wrong. Not one man who returned alongside me was greeted with as much as a compliment about serving.” Not only were the soldiers treated completely differently by the people than after WWII, but most people in the nation were fighting the war the entire time it was occurring. History.com
According to Christopher and James Collier,”War turns men into beasts.” It is true because many people are willing to
Throughout history, war has been the catalyst that has compelled otherwise-ordinary people to discard, at least for its duration, their longstanding beliefs about the immorality of killing their fellow human beings. In sum, during periods of war, people’s views about killing others are fundamentally transformed from abhorrence to glorification due in large part to the decisions that are made by their political leaders. In this regard, McMahan points out that, “As soon as conditions arise to which the word ‘war’ can be applied, our scruples vanish and killing people no longer seems a horrifying crime but becomes instead a glorious achievement” (vii). Therefore, McMahan argues that the transformation of mainstream views about the morality of killing during times of war are misguided and flawed since they have been based on the traditional view that different moral principles somehow apply in these circumstances. This traditional view about a just war presupposes the morality of the decision to go to war on the part of political leaders in the first place and the need to suspend traditional views about the morality of killing based on this
Clausewitz emphasizes that “war is a branch of political activity, that it is in no sense autonomous” (Clausewitz, 605). This principle is especially applicable to the post-war period of World War II. The political struggle between the ideologies of democracy and communism would entail global focus for the next 50 years, and the events that brought about the defeat of Germany shaped the landscape of this political struggle.
Vietnam was a highly debated war among citizens of the United States. This war was like no other with regards to how it affected people on the home front. In past war’s, the population of the United States mainly supported the war and admired soldiers for their courage. During the Vietnam War, citizens of the U.S. had a contradictory view than in the past. This dilemma of not having the support of the people originates from the culture and the time period.
The Young People of Today, a series of opinion polls conducted among young educated Frenchmen by Henri Massis and Alfred de Tarde find romantic sentiments for war much like von Treitschke. The two authors interviewed a professor who tried to explain that there were in fact unjust wars, however, according to the professor, “the class obviously did not follow me; they rejected that distinction” (Massis and de Tarde 224). Massis and de Tarde go on to write about the many young men who left their high studies to pursue lives as soldiers because for them “it is not enough, for them to learn history: they are making it” (Massis and de Tarde 224).
Words and images were silent weapons used by all governments involved during World War II. Wars are generally fought between soldiers, but the different ideologies often meet on the battlefield as well. The support of the people is crucial during these times since general knowledge of strength relies on numbers. Propaganda targets people’s emotions and feelings and changes people’s perception about a particular idea, people, or situation. Propaganda goes hand in hand with the art of persuasion and convincing; these tools can control and manipulate the collective minds of a massive amount of its audience.
The human race has long been assumed to have a warlike nature, involving itself in many violent endeavors. Philosophers such as Hobbs firmly asserted such an ideal throughout their teachings, their theories revolving around said notion. Yet some occasions throughout history point to the contrary, specifically those in which war was the unpopular choice. Perhaps the most exemplary of unpopular wars was the Vietnam War, which spurred a myriad of anti-war sentiment. These ideals manifested themselves in a wide variety of protests and draft evasion. Despite its unpopularity, the government pushed forward with its efforts to remain involved for a number of years, drawing more negative attention to the divide that existed between the popular opinion
In All Quiet on the Western Front, it becomes very apparent that some of the soldiers do not feel as if World War I was their fight, when comrades begin discussing the origin of war. One comrade, Albert states that a war is initiated by “one country badly offending the other” (204). This lead to a discussion over why the soldiers are fighting when truly it is one person or a small group of people that are directly offended by an opposing group in a similar position of power. Therefore, why must they discover the true horrors of war while simultaneously putting their lives on the line, when the ones who began the predicament, propelled false advertisement with propagandas that romanticized and glorified war don’t have to live as if the next second may be their
Nothing can impact society like war. War can be viewed as noble and just, or cruel and inhuman, as well as everything in between. War affects everyone in society whether they are fighting in a foreign country or waiting at home for a loved one to return. War is an indispensable part of civilization; found at every chapter of human history. It is the culmination of the basic survival instinct when provoked. As has the technique of battle; society's view on war has changed as well. Today the act of war has become almost shameful, whereas in earlier eras war was glorified and heroic. American society's view on war has changed also. Our history, even as a young country has seen a great deal of conflict.
War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, written by the talented author Chris Hedges, gives us provoking thoughts that are somewhat painful to read but at the same time are quite personal confessions. Chris Hedges, a talented journalist to say the least, brings nearly 15 years of being a foreign correspondent to this book and subjectively concludes how all of his world experiences tie together. Throughout his book, he unifies themes present in all wars he experienced first hand. The most important themes I was able to draw from this book were, war skews reality, dominates culture, seduces society with its heroic attributes, distorts memory, and supports a cause, and allures us by a constant battle between death and love.
The war of 1898 and 1917 were pivotal events in American foreign relations. Both wars shaped the way America is seen from a global lens and also offers insight into the foundation for how we respond to future crisis. Though these wars were drastically different in reasons and outcome, they share close similarities and obvious differences that help us to better understand the decision making process in America’s war efforts abroad.
Since the unification of Germany in the late 19th century, attitudes of nationalism, Prussian militarism and expansionism saturated German society. As one can clearly see in the writings of the influential German historian, Heinrich von Treitschke, war and territorial expansion were seen as being necessary to the preservation and advancement of German society. He states that, “War is for an afflicted people the only remedy… Those who preach the nonsense about everlasting peace do not understand the life of the Aryan race, the Aryans are before all brave.” The mobilization of the people and resources, for the purpose of making war, were believed to be the means of preservation and advancement of German society. These ultra-nationalistic attitudes and beliefs resulted in widespread German enthusiasm with the coming of war in 1914. As expressed in a German newspaper, The Post, “Another forty years of peace would be a national misfortune for Germany.”
Nationalism influenced people’s thoughts about war, twisting their minds to believe that their government and military was supreme and would win a war quickly. Because “most European countries, with the exception of France and Prussia, had not had any major wars within the 19th century, they stepped into the 20th century thinking that they were immune to defeat. This idea of immunity developed as countries forgot of their past wars and sufferings. The British were confident in their naval forces, the Germans in their arms and ships, and the Russians thought their land was protected by God. Citizens strongly believed that their country was the best and would do just about anything to help their country. It became a school boy’s duty to enlist in the army upon his graduation. As Erich Maria Remarque states in his book, All Quiet on the Western Front, the “young men of twenty... whom Kantorek calls the ‘Iron Youth,’” are the ones sent off to war in Germany. Their teachers drilled this message into their minds from a young age. The boys were told that it was their duty to their country to fight. Zara Steiner, British Historian, related that British teachers were told “to teach boys that success in w...
Carl von Clausewitz, “What is War?” On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, 89-112. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.
Wars are now fought with media coverage. In American culture, it is common to watch the media cover current international conflicts. This coverage is broadcasted into the homes of millions of viewers in America every night. Today, each American knows the military strategy of the United States and can make assumptions on the correct strategy to use. The citizens then vote for the people who will make policy decisions in the future. This culture also puts pressure on policymakers to make decisions on who and what to attack. These decisions affect their jobs immensely because they rely on votes to keep their jobs. The culture and overall beliefs of America will determine who is elected, and policy decisions are made because of this factor, portraying the influence of the culture of