7 ms·

It is so weird that men in army are willing to go and kill each other and later behave as friends "because they have a shared experience". Is it a coping mechan

by effie 6y ago

It is so weird that men in army are willing to go and kill each other and later behave as friends "because they have a shared experience". Is it a coping mechanism to help oneself' conscience? Or maybe just an example that we really are just machines following the program of the day?

mhh__ 6y ago
Modern warfare is increasingly buttons rather than bullets, so the psychology is different to (say) meeting the man who bayonetted you after the end of the great war.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- creato 6y ago
  There are similar and even more extreme examples from when war was definitely not "buttons": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce I think the sibling comment to yours is a better explanation.
hellotomyrars 6y ago
They had the same experience. They didn’t choose to fight each other as a matter of specificity, they chose to serve their country. Soldiers are effectively tools of a nation and most of them understand that. They were both doing their jobs and why should they take it personally? They both came out the other side and if their roles had been reversed they would have done the same thing.
- effie 6y ago
  Yeah I get that point of view, "I'm here just following orders, no hard feelings". And that is part of what is weird to me in these stories from wars, that people are so malleable and empty and later talk big about respecting the other side. Well respect them and don't bomb/shoot missiles at them then. Also, the article sounds very artistic and fake, I'm not totally buying it.
  - cassepipe 6y ago
    Can't agree more. "Just doing my job" is a pretty shallow justification for killing another person on vague grounds of "defend my country". Even more so when flying an airplane and just dropping bombs all over the fucking place.
    - effie 6y ago
      Glad I'm not alone here. I can respect people in 2nd WW thinking "I believe they are evil and must be stopped and I will do anything to help that goal". I can't respect "I'm just working here".
      - redis_mlc 6y ago
        > Glad I'm not alone here. Well, a lot of people don't know anything about history, so you will get uninformed sympathetic comments. > I can't respect "I'm just working here". The thing is, nobody asked for your opinion, either in 1939 or today. You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't carry any weight. I can explain what WW2 was about. Germany felt they were being overly punished after WW1 for meeting their treaty obligations with the the Austro-Hungarian empire in WW1. Later Germany started WW2 largely to compensate for that. Japan wanted to colonize Asia as Britain had done previously. Eventually that required destroying the US Navy. Italy wanted to revive the Roman Empire. Britain and the US had to defend against that after seeing their allies destroyed and enslaved. Individual diagreement played no role in the above.
      - hellotomyrars 6y ago
        Do you only respect that if you agree with their reasons as well? The kind of rah-rah patriotism for your country isn't one sided. Plenty of axis troops thought they were fighting against evil. Let's also not ignore the fact that service wasn't always voluntary. It really just seems like you're looking at this with a very limited, black and white perspective. That's your prerogative but it doesn't really line up with the experience of most of the service members I've known and spoken with both personally and professionally. I can't speak much to the experience of soldiers from other countries but people come into military service in the US from the full spectrum of the country. Wealthy families with generations of decorated officers to young people who really have no better option when it comes to their future. You may disagree with the entire idea of the armed forces but the reality is, especially for those who come from poor socio-economic backgrounds, there is no better option. A stable job that will provide housing, healthcare and education and a ticket away from whatever other negative things that may be going in their life. It's an alluring prospect. (Recruitment practices get pretty gross, I'm sure we can both agree there, but the benefits are very real). Whether or not that is right is certainly something we can and should debate as a society, but there are a vast number of reasons people joined the armed forces and most of them aren't because they want to do bad things.
pluto9 6y ago
It's not weird at all. Soldiers on opposite sides have a lot in common, just as you might have a lot in common with someone of your profession from a different country. Their conflict is that of their respective countries, or they may think they're serving a good cause. But in either case, it's not personal. It's also a mistake to think that every time a soldier shows an ounce of humanity, they're only doing it to "help their conscience". Soldiers are usually not the tortured individuals Hollywood portrays them to be. Why should these two men's consciences bother them? NATO troops thought they were defending the oppressed, and Serbian troops thought they were defending their sovereignty.
- effie 6y ago
  > Why should these two men's consciences bother them? It would bother me, so I'm projecting. But good points. I am also more inclined to understand this as a case of people "just working here". Like Germans were.
  - pluto9 6y ago
    There's an element of the "just working here" mentality, but it's more than that. I was in Afghanistan more than a decade ago, and in my mind, we were fighting against the abuses and brutality of the Taliban. The guy shooting at me from a mountainside with a PKM was "one of them", a legitimate bad guy. In retrospect, I realize that guy was probably much like me. A young guy, full of testosterone and looking for adventure, with notions of being part of something grand and heroic (repelling an invader) and a certain naivete about the larger forces and agendas that were using him. We'd probably get along if we met now. Awhile back I saw a conversation on Reddit between an American soldier who fought in Ramadi (or maybe Fallujah, I can't remember) and an Iraqi soldier who was there at the same time fighting against the Americans. There was no ill will at all, just storytelling and reminiscing, and talking about the courses of their lives, families, and careers since then. The fact was that these guys had almost everything in common about that time in their lives, and had similar motivations for taking part in it. The only difference was that they happened to be on opposite sides.
    - 6y ago
arminiusreturns 6y ago
Anecdotal, but I've witnessed this effect in more than just military men, but rather in males in general. I know lots of guys who tell a story that contains something like; "we got into a fight, but later we became friends"... I'm both, and have done the same. Perhaps there is some more fundamental male psychology at play here?
- Sharlin 6y ago
  Ritualistic fights are a common mechanism to resolve conflicts among social animals. Typically neither individual involved wants to get hurt, one of them yields or submits sooner or later, and afterwards there’s no need to remain hostile.

by effie 6y ago

mhh__ 6y ago

Modern warfare is increasingly buttons rather than bullets, so the psychology is different to (say) meeting the man who bayonetted you after the end of the great war.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
creato 6y ago
There are similar and even more extreme examples from when war was definitely not "buttons": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce I think the sibling comment to yours is a better explanation.

hellotomyrars 6y ago

They had the same experience. They didn’t choose to fight each other as a matter of specificity, they chose to serve their country. Soldiers are effectively tools of a nation and most of them understand that. They were both doing their jobs and why should they take it personally? They both came out the other side and if their roles had been reversed they would have done the same thing.

effie 6y ago
Yeah I get that point of view, "I'm here just following orders, no hard feelings". And that is part of what is weird to me in these stories from wars, that people are so malleable and empty and later talk big about respecting the other side. Well respect them and don't bomb/shoot missiles at them then. Also, the article sounds very artistic and fake, I'm not totally buying it.
- cassepipe 6y ago
  Can't agree more. "Just doing my job" is a pretty shallow justification for killing another person on vague grounds of "defend my country". Even more so when flying an airplane and just dropping bombs all over the fucking place.
  - effie 6y ago
    Glad I'm not alone here. I can respect people in 2nd WW thinking "I believe they are evil and must be stopped and I will do anything to help that goal". I can't respect "I'm just working here".
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      > Glad I'm not alone here. Well, a lot of people don't know anything about history, so you will get uninformed sympathetic comments. > I can't respect "I'm just working here". The thing is, nobody asked for your opinion, either in 1939 or today. You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't carry any weight. I can explain what WW2 was about. Germany felt they were being overly punished after WW1 for meeting their treaty obligations with the the Austro-Hungarian empire in WW1. Later Germany started WW2 largely to compensate for that. Japan wanted to colonize Asia as Britain had done previously. Eventually that required destroying the US Navy. Italy wanted to revive the Roman Empire. Britain and the US had to defend against that after seeing their allies destroyed and enslaved. Individual diagreement played no role in the above.
    - hellotomyrars 6y ago
      Do you only respect that if you agree with their reasons as well? The kind of rah-rah patriotism for your country isn't one sided. Plenty of axis troops thought they were fighting against evil. Let's also not ignore the fact that service wasn't always voluntary. It really just seems like you're looking at this with a very limited, black and white perspective. That's your prerogative but it doesn't really line up with the experience of most of the service members I've known and spoken with both personally and professionally. I can't speak much to the experience of soldiers from other countries but people come into military service in the US from the full spectrum of the country. Wealthy families with generations of decorated officers to young people who really have no better option when it comes to their future. You may disagree with the entire idea of the armed forces but the reality is, especially for those who come from poor socio-economic backgrounds, there is no better option. A stable job that will provide housing, healthcare and education and a ticket away from whatever other negative things that may be going in their life. It's an alluring prospect. (Recruitment practices get pretty gross, I'm sure we can both agree there, but the benefits are very real). Whether or not that is right is certainly something we can and should debate as a society, but there are a vast number of reasons people joined the armed forces and most of them aren't because they want to do bad things.

pluto9 6y ago

It's not weird at all. Soldiers on opposite sides have a lot in common, just as you might have a lot in common with someone of your profession from a different country. Their conflict is that of their respective countries, or they may think they're serving a good cause. But in either case, it's not personal. It's also a mistake to think that every time a soldier shows an ounce of humanity, they're only doing it to "help their conscience". Soldiers are usually not the tortured individuals Hollywood portrays them to be. Why should these two men's consciences bother them? NATO troops thought they were defending the oppressed, and Serbian troops thought they were defending their sovereignty.

effie 6y ago
> Why should these two men's consciences bother them? It would bother me, so I'm projecting. But good points. I am also more inclined to understand this as a case of people "just working here". Like Germans were.
- pluto9 6y ago
  There's an element of the "just working here" mentality, but it's more than that. I was in Afghanistan more than a decade ago, and in my mind, we were fighting against the abuses and brutality of the Taliban. The guy shooting at me from a mountainside with a PKM was "one of them", a legitimate bad guy. In retrospect, I realize that guy was probably much like me. A young guy, full of testosterone and looking for adventure, with notions of being part of something grand and heroic (repelling an invader) and a certain naivete about the larger forces and agendas that were using him. We'd probably get along if we met now. Awhile back I saw a conversation on Reddit between an American soldier who fought in Ramadi (or maybe Fallujah, I can't remember) and an Iraqi soldier who was there at the same time fighting against the Americans. There was no ill will at all, just storytelling and reminiscing, and talking about the courses of their lives, families, and careers since then. The fact was that these guys had almost everything in common about that time in their lives, and had similar motivations for taking part in it. The only difference was that they happened to be on opposite sides.
  - 6y ago

arminiusreturns 6y ago

Anecdotal, but I've witnessed this effect in more than just military men, but rather in males in general. I know lots of guys who tell a story that contains something like; "we got into a fight, but later we became friends"... I'm both, and have done the same. Perhaps there is some more fundamental male psychology at play here?

Sharlin 6y ago
Ritualistic fights are a common mechanism to resolve conflicts among social animals. Typically neither individual involved wants to get hurt, one of them yields or submits sooner or later, and afterwards there’s no need to remain hostile.