Understanding the Psychological Conditioning Behind Warfare
Written on
Chapter 1: The Nature of Violence in Warfare
The reality of warfare reveals that the act of killing is not instinctive; rather, it is a product of extensive psychological training and conditioning.
Camaraderie and friendship serve as the driving forces that motivate soldiers in battle, far more than ideological beliefs. In their post-war research, scholars Shils and Janowitz, having interviewed Nazi POWs and examined captured records, concluded that the emotional support derived from close relationships and mutual reliance was paramount. This finding emphasized that political beliefs were secondary.
As articulated in their findings released shortly after the conflict:
"The fundamental group — the squad or section — formed the backbone of the German soldier's resilience in combat. The immediate social structure of the small military unit, built on camaraderie and mutual reliance, was the essential factor that sustained the German soldiers' resolve to fight."
The effectiveness of an army is directly linked to the bonds shared among its soldiers.
Recent evidence supports this idea; transcripts from covertly recorded conversations among German POWs at the American interrogation facility at Fort Hunt near Washington confirm these sentiments. Over 150,000 pages transcribed from 4,000 German WWII prisoners indicated that their motivations stemmed from loyalty, camaraderie, and self-sacrifice, rather than from anti-Semitic ideologies or fervent nationalism.
However, this bond is not unique to German soldiers. American troops also exhibited similar motivations. Patriotism was not their primary incentive; they fought mainly for the sake of their comrades. In "The American Soldier," sociologist Samuel Stouffer surveyed around half a million U.S. veterans from WWII, revealing that the connection with fellow soldiers was their main driving force.
This reality makes intuitive sense. On the battlefield, soldiers faced shared hardships — hunger, fatigue, and pain. Their comrades were the only ones who could truly relate to their experiences. Abstract concepts did not preserve their lives; their fellow soldiers did. Naturally, they would lay down their lives for each other.
This highlights the notion that atrocities may not stem from inherent sadism but rather from the solidarity formed among courageous individuals. Some of humanity's most admirable traits—friendship, loyalty, and solidarity—can lead ordinary people to commit horrific acts.
Contrary to popular belief, individuals do not naturally gravitate toward violence; their instincts are to protect one another. In fact, many soldiers do not even discharge their weapons, as discussed in my previous article.
Human nature is not inherently violent; however, in order to wage war, it must undergo profound reconditioning to enable the act of killing another human being.
War & Human Nature: Crash Course World History 204 explores the complexities of human behavior in wartime settings, delving into how conditioning alters perceptions and actions.
Section 1.1: The Challenge of Harming Others
George Orwell's recollections of his experience during the Spanish Civil War illustrate the struggle of inflicting harm on others when they appear too relatable.
"At this moment a man, presumably carrying a message to an officer, jumped out of the trench and ran along the top of the parapet in full view. He was half-dressed and was holding up his trousers with both hands as he ran. I refrained from shooting at him. It is true that I am a poor shot and unlikely to hit a running man at a hundred yards, and also that I was thinking chiefly about getting back to our trench while the Fascists had their attention fixed on the aeroplanes. Still, I did not shoot partly because of that detail about the trousers. I had come here to shoot at 'Fascists' but a man who is holding up his trousers isn't a 'Fascist'; he is visibly a fellow creature, similar to yourself, and you don't feel like shooting at him."
In this moment, empathy prevented him from harming another human. The decision to pull the trigger is more complex than cinematic portrayals suggest. The closer one is to the enemy, the more challenging it is to inflict harm.
Section 1.2: The Role of Distance in Combat
Examining World War II statistics regarding the causes of death among British soldiers reveals a significant trend (table 57, p.257 from John Ellis' The World War II Databook):
- Mortar, grenade, bomb, shell: 75%
- Bullet, anti-tank mine: 10%
- Landmine & booby trap: 10%
- Blast and crush: 2%
- Chemical: 2%
- Other: 1%
A notable observation is that the majority of fatalities occurred from a distance, whether through bombings, artillery, or mines. Most soldiers died at the hands of adversaries they never encountered face-to-face, certainly not while struggling to maintain their clothing.
This suggests a trend in military technology that favors engagement from a distance, making killing psychologically easier. Does this reflect an innate aversion to violence? To overcome such instincts, one must bury their humanity and temporarily forget it.
The Spanish proverb, "Lejos de los ojos, lejos del corazón," meaning "Out of sight, out of heart," resonates particularly well here. This detachment is essential for maintaining a semblance of "peace of mind" while engaging in acts of violence.
Yet, even with this psychological distance, how many soldiers return home burdened by PTSD? The inclination towards war is not part of our nature; we instinctively shy away from it.
Chapter 2: The Psychological Cost of Warfare
Strategies to bypass innate empathy can also be employed. Besides utilizing long-range weaponry, military leaders often work to create psychological distance from the enemy. They dehumanize their opponents, portraying them as "monsters," which facilitates inhumane treatment.
Another tactic involves administering drugs to soldiers to diminish empathy and reduce their aversion to violence. Historically, various substances have been used during warfare to help soldiers cope with extreme conditions.
Armies have conditioned their personnel to behave mechanically in combat. For instance, boot camps during the Vietnam War included intense drills where soldiers shouted "Kill! Kill! Kill!" until they were hoarse. This practice aimed to desensitize them to violence and encourage instinctual responses.
In combat, hesitation can be detrimental, leading to training that prioritizes unthinking obedience to commands.
It requires significant effort to suppress our natural aversion to violence. If it were simple, violence would be an intrinsic aspect of our nature. The need for multiple strategies to overcome this instinct indicates otherwise; it is not inherent.
However, this conditioning exacts a toll.
It's no surprise that PTSD is widespread among veterans. The most profound trauma faced by soldiers during war is the psychological transformation they undergo to kill. This has been documented in studies regarding Vietnam, the Gulf War, and Iraq, as highlighted by Shira Mague and her research team.
Soldiers may take lives, but they also sacrifice a part of themselves in the process.
War is not embedded in our DNA.
Humans are not inherently killers.
Military organizations must expend significant effort to rewire our minds for effective combat. Why? Because, at our core, we instinctively avoid violence.
To compel individuals to kill, military forces must dehumanize the enemy, desensitize recruits, and implement techniques that override fundamental human empathy. The preparation for battle becomes a process of stripping away our humanity. Consequently, the result is often PTSD, a grim toll of this brutal conditioning.
It is time to confront an uncomfortable truth: war forces us to become something we are not.
Why We Act Perversely | Psychologist Paul Bloom delves into the psychological mechanisms that drive human behavior in the context of violence, exploring the complexities of moral decision-making.