[zozbot234]

Kids just don't know any better. I would imagine that those who actually spent some of their childhood in a war zone would have a very different perspective. What's toxic is when grownups end up glorifying war or thinking of it as a solution to hard problems.

[schroeding]

(Second-hand) Anecdata: My Grandpa was born in '39, was 6 when the war ended and lived very close to a big city / region that was bombed regularly by the Allies from '42-'45. He was old enough to remember this and the (light) fighting when the Americans arrived.

After the war, he and the local kids played with live guns that the German soldiers just threw away. They used a Flak (anti aircraft cannon) as a carousel, played with the shells of it and used the local bunkers to play "soldier", with some playing the Germans and some playing the Americans.

So I'm not sure whether or not spending the childhood in a war zone actually changes the perspective of children (to the better). It sure can later, when they become adults, though.

[bombcar]

Adults are often more traumatized by it than children are; for them it's just the new normal, and something to play with.

[zweifuss]

As a small child in Essen, my mother lived through the bombing nights of 44/45 and the also harsh post-war period. The trauma that people close to her can suddenly disappear (e.g. suicide, abandonment, sometimes result of canibalism) still shapes her behavior today.

[Pamar]

Did you know anything about role preferences (if any)?

I mean: would children prefer to be Allies (because they won) or Germans (because, well, they were Germans)...

[schroeding]

My grandpa prefered the Americans, because the local soldiers gave him (and the other kids) sometimes sweets or stuff like an orange (which he thought was a ball at first, being disappointed that it didn't bounce :D) and were generally very nice to them.

Some older kids only wanted to play as the Germans or Hungarians (at the end of the war, apparently some Hungarian troops were stationed in the local bunkers to fight off the Americans).

I don't know what the other kids in his age group prefered, though.

[WesolyKubeczek]

> I would imagine that those who actually spent some of their childhood in a war zone would have a very different perspective.

They very much play war games, even incorporating the realities around them into the games, like checkpoints, airstrike alarms, and such.

[roywiggins]

Speaking of:

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/ukraine-war-children-with-toy...

[indymike]

> Kids just don't know any better.

Either that, or they are dealing with a scary, unknowable, potential direction their life might take and working through it by playing. This is normal, and how kids try to understand situations they might find themselves in. A kind in a war zone knows war and does not have to play to understand it.

[aqsalose]

>I would imagine that those who actually spent some of their childhood in a war zone would have a very different perspective.

Not sure if it would imply less war. Around the Napoleonic wars, many officers started their careers as teenagers or pre-teens. Nelson joined the navy as about 12-year old, which wasn't unexceptional age during the Napoleonic times. Napoleon was 10 when he was enrolled in a military academy. He was admitted to Ecole Militaire around 15 years old, graduated in one year, and got a commission as 2nd lieutenant.

[notch656a]

I spent some time in Northern Syria and there were quite a few "child" soldiers there (mostly teenagers), as well as people who grew up as children in war. I'm sure it was partially a coping mechanism, but I found many of them embraced and enjoyed their existence fighting the enemy that claimed the lives of their family members. The military also provides a sort of place for brotherhood and oddly stability (food / depending on where youre stationed shelter) at least until things really go sidewise.

[watwut]

The people who started and promoted and wanted WWI experienced WWI - either as soldiers or as kids. The young ones glorified army and wanted to prove themselves.

Wars don't make people peaceful. Instead, they normalize violence, hate and desperation.

[alex_sf]

I don't think this counts as Godwin's law given the context, but:

What exactly is your solution to the sort of naked aggression by Hitler in WW2? Is war not a solution to that problem?

[likeclockwork]

Lets translate your question.

What exactly is your solution to the sort of [war] by Hitler in [war]. Is war not a solution to [war]?

[alex_sf]

Yep. I know what you meant to do here, and I still agree.

You do not get to choose whether someone else is violent or not. If you aren't prepared for violence, you can only be a victim of it.

[likeclockwork]

I guess you appreciate any opportunity to restate your beliefs.

I was just suggesting that offering war as a solution to the problem of already being at war is pretty circular.

[alex_sf]

I appreciate an opportunity to provide clarity when it seems like a point was missed.

Whether it's circular or not isn't a meaningful property when bombs are dropping.

In that spirit of providing clarity: what is your answer to the un-translated question I asked?

> What exactly is your solution to the sort of naked aggression by Hitler in WW2? Is war not a solution to that problem?

[rhizome31]

> What exactly is your solution to the sort of naked aggression by Hitler in WW2? Is war not a solution to that problem?

With a 70–85 million death toll, I find it hard to describe it as a success. Saying there was no other choice seems fair but calling it a solution seems a bit far-fetched.

[anigbrowl]

No, those things are not synonymous.

[sillysaurusx]

Eh, war is simply fun. It’s appealing to males in particular, and our testosterone tends to lock in the intoxication. There’s a reason that Battlefield is one of the most successful gaming franchises of all time, and that it’s very hard to find any videogame that doesn’t involve some kind of warfare. (There are dozens of wonderful counter examples: Minecraft, celeste, undertale, sim city, stardew valley. But for every one of those, there are dozens of Halo wannabes, and even Quake and Doom were one-man wars against demons.)

[landryraccoon]

> Eh, war is simply fun.

Well an idealized version of war that’s designed to glorify it could be fun.

Is actual war fun? Is the Ukraine war fun? I doubt it’s fun for any of the participants. It’s not fun for Ukrainian soldiers, it’s not fun for Russian soldiers, and it’s not fun for Russian or Ukrainian civilians.

Maybe it’s fun for some onlookers that like to cheer and spectate, but I would argue that speaks more to the nature of the spectators than to the nature of war.

[scarier]

Experiences in war vary greatly, and feelings about them are complicated and conflicted. I've met many people who genuinely seemed to enjoy it. This article nails it: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a28718/why-men-lo...

[notch656a]

"There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter." --Hemingway

[landryraccoon]

That doesn't sound like fun to me. That sounds more like a nightmarish psychosis.

[ClumsyPilot]

Strong or weak, in the long run all of them break down. All, that is to say, of those who are initially sane. For, ironically enough, the only people who can hold up indefinitely under the stress of modern war are psychotics. Individual insanity is immune to the consequences of collective insanity

[notch656a]

Eh it is fun to an extent. When I fought with the YPG I saw a lot of Kurds jumping with exuberance cheering at the enemy "he tried to shoot me" and then joyfully shooting back. Many wars are mostly intense boredom, punctuated by occasional bouts of terror or joy. Also there's a weird sort of release from the typical responsibilities of life -- _all_ you have to do is fight (which as fucked up as it sounds, can be more simple than worrying about the next side hustle / the wife / the kids). If you're on a rear-guard type of situation it's mostly drinking chai and smoking cigarettes.

[inglor_cz]

It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it.

Robert E. Lee

There definitely seem to be combatants that enjoy at least some aspects of war. If you look at the historical military literature, including poetry, it is not all just negative.

It is true that with increasing industrialization of war during the last 150 years, the overall tenor has changed.

[MomoXenosaga]

Look how they re-enact the civil war. Nobody wants the historical truth of dying from cholera in a Confederate stockade or burning down farms in Georgia with crying families in the background. Humans are really good at cognitive dissonance.

[8jef]

War is a way for mindless and aggressive men to do whatever they really crave (which is escaping from a state of victimhood), without much justification and little immediate consequences to themselves, mostly under cover of patriotism. To kill and rape for fun and pleasure, and hopefully die fast, absolutely ecstatic.

To such men, please note: life never really ends, and you and your offspring gets eternally impacted by all miserable and soulless destruction of life's beauty you may have caused, inflicting more hardship and perpetuating novel state of misery upon flocks of others.

[notch656a]

War is a terrible waste. On the other hand, an able bodied man not willing to use destructive faculties to defend young and old against perpetrators of violence is as irrational as the able bodied man who refuses to use constructive faculties to provide necessities of life to same.

[8jef]

Defensive action is for the most part formidable and magnificent. The stuff that builds and creates heroism, myths and legends. Never miserable or soulless, unless it goes beyond its original purpose.

Every reality has at least two versions of it, or more.

[ThrowawayR2]

There's a video floating around of Ukrainian soldiers managing the unusual feat of destroying a helicopter (and obviously its pilot) using a Stugna-P anti-tank guided missile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT8Um69fbHA Fun might not be the right word for it but you can't tell me that the cheer from the soldiers when the missile struck home wasn't born of positive emotion, even in the midst of the hell of war.

[jgwil2]

Yes, victory is a great thrill. Especially, I'm sure, a rare victory against a powerful enemy that has invaded your homeland. That doesn't mean that in the aggregate war is great fun.

[psi75]

> Is actual war fun? Is the Ukraine war fun? I doubt it’s fun for any of the participants. It’s not fun for Ukrainian soldiers, it’s not fun for Russian soldiers, and it’s not fun for Russian or Ukrainian civilians.

War seems to rewrite the brain. People are miserable and bored most of the time, are terrified while in combat, and come back with psychological issues we're still just beginning to understand. It's hell. And yet, people do get addicted to the mayhem and the rush. The mercenary life is attractive to a lot of people. There's still a lot being debated here, but one of the theories about PTSD is that much of the damage is done (or, at least, is made permanent) when people return to civilian life. Having been exposed to life-or-death situations, they find daily life to be low-stakes and artificial; the time in which they were most alive as in combat (even if they hated the experience and what it did to them).

Still, I agree that actual war is not at all "fun".

[zozbot234]

War is plenty of fun as long as nobody gets hurt - but that's kind of tautological. Real wars are no fun, and that's what pacifists argue against.

[whatshisface]

>Eh, war is simply fun. It’s appealing to males in particular, and our testosterone tends to lock in the intoxication. There’s a reason that Battlefield is one of the most successful gaming franchises of all time, and that it’s very hard to find any videogame that doesn’t involve some kind of warfare.

I think there is an argument to be made that Battlefield doesn't involve any warfare.

[zbrozek]

Outer Wilds! I just played it on the basis of a recommendation in an earlier HN thread and loved it.

[claudiawerner]

>Eh, war is simply fun. It’s appealing to males in particular, and our testosterone tends to lock in the intoxication. There’s a reason that Battlefield is one of the most successful gaming franchises of all time

This seems like it's essentializing psychology into core biological elements (with a shaky, uncited relationship to evolutionary psychology) without question. When statements are made this way, don't you think it closes off possible avenues for research beyond the bare facts of war and competition in future societies, at least without genetic modification? I think questions like these should be left open rather than dismissed as "war is fun, testosterone".

[8jef]

> There are dozens of wonderful counter examples: Minecraft ...

Younger boy of mine spent years fighting and smashing and destroying other avatars /players in Minecraft, not so interested in _building_ anything. One's experience may vary.

[nazka]

Sometimes it's a little too much. And it starts to be a little dumb. One time on an Assassin's Creed I was like wow why kill that guy?? It wasn't even for the part to gather info. That was so unnecessary (even for the story itself). Can I just talk to him and persuade him first or something?

[MichaelCollins]

Even minecraft has combat in the default game mode. No guns, but it does have swords, axes, arrows, and numerous kinds of explosives.

Obviously it's better than Grand Theft Auto, but it definitely falls short of pure pacifism.

[Coolerbythelake]

I'm fairly certain you haven't been involved in a war if you make a statement like "it's fun"!! Or at least you've never had to kill someone !!

[axiomsEnd]

But Battlefield is not war, it's a simulation of war. It lacks real stakes, extensive physical activity, death and basically everything that make war a war.

[watwut]

None of the things you mentioned is like war, like not at all. They are fantasies designed to be as pleasant as possible.