But that does not change that no war ever is fair, humane, just. It is inhumane, barbaric, filled with destruction and dying, and all too many innocents suffer dearly from it. Always. A given ending of a war might have been necessary as an objective to achieve, but it never is fair, happy, humane. That's why I say there are wars of needs and wars of desires, and the first must be accepted, but the latter should be avoided at all cost.

And that is not just a German issue, August. When your forefathers had their civil war, I think I read somewhere that most American families suffered casualties and lost loved ones. And even if it is no majority, it still were damn many families whose sons and fathers bled to death and whose wifes and daughters got raped or murdered. The outcome of the war, as an objective to be achieved, might have been necessary. Still, for those having been effected by the war, the end of the war brought relief that it was over. But no happy end.

Or to say it with LaoTse (and I use German since it is my own translation, I am not satisfied with any of the translations to German around, and I cannot put it in better words or adequately transport it to English):

Auch beste Waffen sind Zeichen des Todes,
Der Weise verächtlich meidet sie.
Er wendet sich ab von ihnen.
Die Freude erfüllt sein Leben im Frieden,
Die Trauer erfüllt sein Leben im Krieg.
Waffen sind nicht des Wesens Weise,
Nur gezwungen benutzt sie ein weiser Mensch,
Wenn es gar nicht mehr anders sonst geht.
Nichts weiß er von der Freude am Kämpfen,
Den Sieg zu lieben heißt mordfreudig sein.
Wer mordfreudig ist, ist außerhalb der Freude, zu Leben.
Nach dem Sieg ist der Truppe die Freude,
Des Feldherrn indes sei die Trauer,
Er begehe den Sieg wie eine Trauerfeier.
Töten heißt Trauer schaffen,
Wessen Handeln Trauer schafft,
Dem sei jeder Sieg wie ein Begräbnis.

Let people celebrate in relief that they survived it without own losses to their health, life, family, friends. But never ever mistake that with wars having happy endings. Every warrior is a gravedigger.

Millions of the victor did NOT return to home, it is not anyhow like e.g. this infamous propaganda painter Norman Rockwell depicts his idyllic world.

http://uploads7.wikipaintings.org/im...4.jpg!Blog.jpg


If anyone wins it is the weapon industries, and other war profiteers.

"The conquered mourns, the conqueror is undone" - they sure knew their wars.

A Thin Red Line is so much more than just a war movie. It's almost a religious meditation about so much more than just war. War is just one part of the roundely that "it" all is. I hold that film in very high esteem, it is one of my all time favourites, and the - by far - best of all of Malick's movies, imo.

Band of Brothers also was very good, though obviously setting the scope for a different fix. Although similiar in style and the visual way in which it was relaised to Private ryan, the one thing that imo makes Brothers better than Ryan is that Ryxan at the end has this Hollywood typical timing for a - though pathetic, which makes it even worse - happy ending, the P-47 I think it was sweeping in and cleaning the enemy, and the heroic Captain having given his life to acchieve this ending. Brothers just ran out at the end, showed a slow, nonsensational shift from combat to occupation and relative peace. - Indeed a very very good series, one of the best pieces about WWII ever shot. I find it remarkable that an American crew could ha<ve made a film about American "heroes" withgout either hacking away at them or gloryfying them, simply paionting them as humans without all that usual pathetic glory&patriotism posture on display that you usually expect from a Hollywood movie.

The BBC made a good and probably realistic movie about war as well, the Bosnia war. The film was called "Warriors", and is already a bit older. Sober, tragic, showing the inner conflicts of the British soldiers being eaten up by the impossible and even shameful situation the UN's idiocy had put them into. "Auslandseinsatz" reminded me of that a bit.

Armies' and soldiers' job is not to improve civilian infrastructure and to rebuild schools. Their business is to wage war when there is war, or to train for fighting a war when there is peace currently. Europe has forgotten that. The madnesses we got ourselves entangled in since the Balkan wars, is a direct result of this. The psychic conflicts the actors suffer from in "Auslandseinsatz", also is a result from this illusion. Maybe a well-meant illusion, but still an illusion. The part on "well-meant", actually means nothing in this, it causes no good effects. What causes effects, bad ones, is the illusion.

Yeah but even more millions did return home and lived full and happy lives afterward. The truth is that casualty rates, at least in my country, were about 1 in 15 overall. To listen to you guys one would think that was the survivor rate.

I'm not minimizing the horrible things that happen in war but to act like the worst experiences and later outcomes are the norm is just not realistic.

Having soldiered yourself, you should know that in that closed parallel society the military is (that is no matter of nationality), men tend to avoid talking about what they see as their weaknesses, and they avoid to remind or get reminded of what could happen to them. Appearing to be strong, tough, invincible, is the parole most live by, the boasting is meant to gloss over insecurity in the face of threat by death and injury, and I think this is a coping mechanism to deal with the negative sides of the job that in fact could get you traumatized, injured, crippled, killed. It probably has always been like this, with soldiers of all armies in all times.

It is said that racedrivers hate to be asked about the chance that they could crash and get killed.

Bomber pilots are said to not like being told how many people their bomb dropping killed on the ground.

It is not only about your own troops returning. It also is about the civilian population that inevitably get caught in the crossfire, and mostly suffers the lion's share of the suffering, wounding, killing. For your generation that starts with the Southern Vietnamese who were left behind and were held responsible by the victors for their cooperation with the US and the south, and the many villagers who got caught in the fighting and aerial bombardements, got killed by both sides. It goes on with the Iraqis who were confronted with the outburst of ethnic violence, old bills being settled, organised crime, state's death squads, torture, abduction industry (not mentioning supression of Christians, other Islamic sects, females in general). It then leads to the Afghans being left at the mercy - or lack of mercy - of the Taliban once the last troops have pulled out, they already are victims right now, and have been since years.

The losses of the civilians in all these and almost every other wars, outclasses that of the troops in scale and dimension. From WWII iover the 30-year-war to the wars of the Romans: the civilian population suffers the most, often marginalising that of the armies in numbers.

I googled and found a reference to a study that I vaguely remembered, from some two years ago. I did not find the original which was published, but this CNN update on it. Up to 31% of US troops in Iraq return with PTSD, and half of these see serious problems and limitations in their daily life. That is pretty much within my own estimation I mentioned earlier, 15-25% I said, actually the total the study here mentions even exceeds my estimations.

Add to these 14%/31% of the study the almost 40,000 physically injured the official counting marks (and that until today excludes PTSD as far as I know). How many troops have been rotating in and out in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past ten years? Several hundred thousand? 14%/31% of these makes a worrying high number.

I dare to bet against you, August, that much, much more vets return from their servicetime in Iraq or Afghanistan than just that one in 15 you mentioned who actually suffer issues from their time in war. It's just that they have become used to hide that as long as possible and not to talk about it as long as they can avoid it. It is against what I tried to summarize in the opening paragraph. You do not show your fears or weaknesses. You just don't. You instead smile and say "All okay." The vacuum consuming you when you sit alone in your room or the isolation you feel when being in the middle of a crowd and the adrenaline starts pumping or the memories turning your sleep into hell - is something you guys even do not tell a doctor as long as you still can uphold the illusion that you "have evertyhing under control". Loss of control is weakness.

:-?

We had to learn this lesson on 7/6/2003

http://www.faz.net/polopoly_fs/1.132.../849237566.jpg

29 Wounded
4 Killed

Andreas Beljo (†28)
Carsten Kühlmorgen (†32)
Jörg Baasch (†23)
Helmi Jimeniz-Paradis (†29)

Don't try to tell a soldier and the son (and grandson and great grandson) of a soldier how soldiers feel Skybird. We had something like 15 million people under arms during WW2. The overwhelming majority of them went on to lead great lives. Now you can claim that they all suffered some kind of hidden damage but if so it wasn't so great that it left them damaged goods. It did not stop them from living long and happy lives afterwards.

We have a saying over here that goes "the proof is in the pudding". The real lives of millions trumps your claims to the contrary.

I agree. Whatever war is in question, plenty of vets have returned to a normal life.

But, I also kinda agree with Skybird. I'm sure war changes most of the people
that go through it, some just learn to cope with it while others dont. :hmmm:

I doubt you are int he nbpsoition to make claims on behalf of millions of people, becasue you have noit made any systmatic effort to estzblish a methdolgoicvially correct statistic on it. I however trust such statistics better than individual cklaims basing onb a handful of personal exmaple spomebody knows, because when statistics are done well, this is what they excel in: deribing huge populationsd regharding the features and characterists of interst as exmained by such statistics.

And the statistics from according reasearch projects prove you wrong as far as the wars of modern times are concerned, the era when such counting projects were started to detemrine how wides-pread the issues in fact are.

Your family history is just this: your family history. A handful of individuals. And this should counter the weight of numericla findings from a statistic covering army staff from ten years of war, for example? If you thinbk that, then the whole purpose of why statiszics are doine has escape you so far. I could throw in the history of my family and two grandfathers, their fathers and brothers, and a history of war ravaging all of Europe and over hundreds and hundreds of years. A family history and a continental history that is slightly different from what you claim for America. Even beyond their physical injruioes, about which they never made much words, I know that my grandfathers carried inner scars, and certain mental handicaps derived from that. So do most soldiers who fought on any side in that war, or those after that.

If you want to claim those statistics are wrong, you have to show them to be wrong, methodologically. In other words you must run an accoridng reserchg yourself and check the methodology of it, and then present it and disucss why your statistic defeats the other. There were quite some researches done ion various countries, since '91, and even since Vietnam, as a matter of fact first such attempts already were done in Korea and WWII, though not with the pressing will like in recent years. On my own part, I got my first input on such data from a doctor who for some time was my direct boss when I helped in a medical aid project during the Balkan wars, a doctors' initiative that brought heavily traumatized - I would say: almost destroyed - torture victims from the Balkans to places in Northern Germany, Holland and Denmark for therapeuitical treatmnent. Very hard job, I must say, very stressing. I have highest respect for people working on such things all day in and out, and I think you inevitably get damaged yourself more or less if you do it too long. I was still studying, but had good contacts to get that job, and some other reasons why I was allowed to help there. My boss in that was a former Bundeswehr doctor, and expert for (especially war-induced) traumatizations. He had done two historical analysis and studies on PTSD in wars since WWII for the Bundeswehr, which unfortunately at least back then were only internally circulating, and were not allowed by the ministry for public release. Name was Helmut Boehring, if somebody knows of according studies being released since the mid-90s and under this name, let me know.

Sorry, I trust him and trust data statistically researched in the past 20-30 years in several countries and by several different researchers and projects, slightly more than you. What you say about the people in your family, may be correct for right these persons. But your family is just this:; one family, it is no representative sample in itself, not even a specially big one. You, your father, your grandfather, you said. For other families' experiences and internal history, you cannot speak. Statistics can speak for greater samples and populations. That's what they are being done for.

If you think statistics must not be trusted, I recommend you never take any pill and accept enver any injection the doctor subscribes to you. Because all medical research is - statistically founded. Empiry. Heck, all science business bases on that. ;) Don't let down statistics too easily just because you do not like what they tell you. Check their methods for flaws, but when you find none, then take their data for what it is.

BTW, there is more such research available via internet. Google is your friend.

Skybird the only statistic I need is that nearly all of those 15 million men came back home and got on with their lives and did so successfully. They got married, they got civilian careers, they had kids and they lived full and happy lives as are the great majority of our soldiers who have served in every war before and since. How can you call that a sad story?

You seem to be under the impression that a little adversity in ones life means nothing but sadness and failure thereafter. Well sorry but most people thankfully do not see it that way.

Getting married, becoming a father, running a civilian career etc. does not automatically say you are happy and/or dont have to fight with PTSS for the rest of your life and suffer to a certain degree...

Nor does it mean that a former soldier is by definition unhappy and nor does it mean that war is the only source of unhappiness or PTSD but degree matters here.

As they say "Life sucks then we die". Now you can sit through life feeling sorry for yourself or you can get on living it. The overwhelming majority of people who go through war do the latter and somehow still manage to do so quite happily.

Isn't it something we want to believe that is was so? That they just continued as nothing had happened?

I have and had relatives and friends father, who lived through WWII and the story I have been told by them give me the impression that most of them didn't take brain damage.

As my working colleagues father once told me(was in 1989).

We celebrated the end of the war and the day after we spitted in our hands and started to rebuild our country(England)

But I do know, from science program that many soldier and civilians got some kind of PTSD and had to live with it a very long time after the war was ended.

Markus

I never said that soldiers are automatically unhappy? And I dont think Skybird did. From my experience with soldiers (I have been one myself btw), they suffer a lot from PTSD (Its PTSS here, so dont wonder...). Ive seen people change dramatically after a tour in Afghanistan. Of course, those are just my experiences but again: I never said they all are destroyed afterwards, of course not.

Suffering from PTSD has nothing to do with "man the heck up and get your crap together, life goes on!".

Not that easy, unfortunately.

Damn. I was wondering, and thus rereading the thread - and just relaised that I forgot to put in the link about that report by CNN about the study from earlier last year that I mentioned. Completely my own fault, but explains maybe why August ignores it so strictly.

The CNN article mentioning the one study I was after I again did niot find again, they have plenty of articles about NCC from the past few years. However, there is so much more interesting material as well. I admit I only flew over most of it, checking abstracts, methods, samples, and conclusions.


Vietnam veterans (sample 108 thousand) face an almost doubled risk for developing dmeentia in later years when having suffered from PTSD from combat action. Summer 2010.
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/data...12_608_613.pdf

Changes in brain structure and loss of grey matter in neo-cortex due to combat stress exposition and following severe PTSD in Vietnam and Gulf war veterans.
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/data...12_608_613.pdf

Literature survey on PTSD in Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom:
http://epublications.marquette.edu/c...4&context=gjcp

I remind of my own estimation I gave earlier, that soldiers effected from combat PTSD numercially range from 1:6 to as many as 1:4.

http://winoverptsd.com/wp/persian-gu...q-combat-vets/

http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/...erly/v22n2.pdf

http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-int...stan-wars.html

The last article mentions (in 2009) the number of troops having done more than one tour in AF or IR to be around 420 thousand, and then plus x, x being those having done one tour so far. Most research done on how many people become victims of PTSD, range from 15-30%, extremes even go as high as 50%, which is a number I do not trust, however. When now taking the mean of my own estimation, as many as 1 in 4 or as few as 1 in 6 falling victim to PTSD, I would have a mark of 20% (1 in 5). Estimating those doing their first tour to be 80.000 for the comfort of pushing the total number of troops having been part of AF and IR to be roughly half a million, that would mean that 100.000 veterans returned home while suffering various degrees of PTSD. The official number for wounded soldiers in these wars is approaching 40 thousand, and it excludes PTSD patients.