Every other author on WW1:
>oh the humanity, such horror, war is bad, when you stare into the abyss yada yada
Ernst Junger on WW1:
>holy shit what a rush, I've never felt more alive
What gives? Were the artists of the day just huge pussies or was Junger a bona-fide Ubermensch?
People react to combat in different ways.
It's not actually that uncommon for people to enjoy it. Like 2% of soldiers if I remember right.
Hitler said he enjoyed WW1 and was sad when it ended. Than again he never even fought and just ran around delivering messages and getting shot at.
Most people don't have the stomach for combat and hate the thought of having to actually shoot a weapon.
A minority of these people adjust well to combat and actually get some enjoyment out of it. In the past, these people would be some of the few who actually fought in wars while the peasants stayed home, but the advent of total war and the drafted army changed that permanently.
The whole WW1 was hell meme was started by mothers and betas during after the blitz. They experienced war for the first time and then transplanted their experience and views to WW1 by using selective sources, focussing/buying books/poetry on how war is hell.
Stop reading only middle/upper class English speaking authors if you want to see something besides the "oh, the mud. Tragedy, here's a poem" narratives
What did Ernst jung think about people not wanting to be in the war still having to fight in it?
>Than again he never even fought and just ran around delivering messages and getting shot at.
Hitler 'just' had one of the most dangerous jobs around. He was sitting in the same trenches, being under the same threat of being blown to shreds from artillery as everyone else, except that he actually had to leave that relative safety now and then, having to run through direct enemy fire in order to deliver a message. I find it amusing when people try to play down that job, just because Hitler happened to do it. There were other messengers than Hitler. Just because one of them turned out to be a bad guy doesn't mean that it's fair to talk shit about the job itself.
There's a ton of passages where Junger is totally shaken by what he just experiences. Stop spreading this myth.
There's a ton of variables that go into this:
-how the war is fought (small tribal bands versus mass industrialized slaughter in the trenches).
-how much an individual "buys" into the war's purpose and his dedication to his unit
- how successful your unit and side is in in the war, contributing to a sense of triumph versus humiliation/disillusionment
- psychological composition of the individual
Based on my reading and what I've known of people who have served in the military a majority of the male population, particularly when they're young and fit enough (in a mental and physical sense), are perfectly capable of becoming good soldiers when given the proper training and structure. Most young men would probably derive benefit from peacetime military service even if they never see combat.
A smaller part of the male population doesn't: they possess maladaptive character traits (cowardice, squeamishness, selfishness, sensitivity, resistance to authority/discipline etc.) or are simply physically unable to perform the tasks necessary. Sometimes they have ideological or moral objections to the war, often they'd rather just be doing something else.
A smaller portion of the male population, typically those with greater intelligence, physical fitness, and particular character traits (aggression, fearlessness, toughness, attraction to dangerous yet exciting life styles) make up an elite "warrior" class that are a pretty consistent part of armies throughout history. These are the types that join the special forces or become fighter pilots in our own time, but in the past they often constituted the bulk of the military castes that various societies have had.. Ernst Junger was almost certainly part of this group.
I've been wanting to read this for a while but I read somewhere that the Hofmann translation had edited out portions of the original that were still present in older translations. It seems like the Hofmann translation is the only one available though; can anyone confirm whether or not this is true, or where to get an older copy?
You used to be able to read it for free on archive.org. I don't know what translation it is though.
I think that's getting somewhere. Though I wouldn't attribute reluctance to fight to be simple cowardice or likewise, for valor to be because of intelegence. There were plenty of smart/strong people who were deathly afraid of fighting in battle, and likewise there are plenty of weak/cowardly soldiers who could in the right circumstances peform amazing acts of bravery.
I think a lot of it comes down to culture and how well one handles combat stress, of which you'll find a tiny percentage of people able to operate unimpeded by high casualties. In the past, these were people that fought in much larger percentages, when you start drafting huge armies like during the Great War coupled with high casualties, those people become marginalized and those that were usually found their breaking point.
You've said almost nothing here.
Absolutely. It depends on the war and the specific reasons why an individual would be reluctant to fight. I also don't think that physically weak/scrawny people are cowards (Audie Murphy was a tiny dude) or that being big and strong makes you some sort of Viking either, but there's probably some sort of correlation to it.
> I think a lot of it comes down to culture and how well one handles combat stress, of which you'll find a tiny percentage of people able to operate unimpeded by high casualties. In the past, these were people that fought in much larger percentages, when you start drafting huge armies like during the Great War coupled with high casualties, those people become marginalized and those that were usually found their breaking point.
No disagreements here
I like you
anons like that faggot should get called out on their shit more often
Thanks, friend.
Have this aesthetically pleasing Pepe.
look at the futurists OP
>maladaptive character traits (cowardice, squeamishness, selfishness, sensitivity, resistance to authority/discipline etc.)
Sums me up, I wish I had enlisted after graduating HS, but I know that I suffer from all of these traits and would have hated being in the military. Just wish I could practice and work out naked with ancient Greek bros, lather up with oil and be the peak of masculine physical perfection and dominance before writing philosophy.
You should just join the gay subculture, to be quite honest with you.
>just ran around delivering messages and getting shot at
Trench courier was maybe the most dangerous job they had, while your friends were hunkered down in trenches taking shits or whatever you had to run through hails of fire
One thing I'd like to point out is that you had a pretty good chance of surviving WW1. The death rate was like 11% in the British Army and a little bit higher for Germany. When you read AQWF and Storm of Steel, it seems like 9/10 people died in the war. At max it would be like a few % of the entire countries population.
Yeah but remember that both of them are about characters at the front line, where the risk goes up significantly
Thats for the entire army. There was like a 60% chance of death if you actually saw combat.
You sound like you just want to be fucked up the ass
>that pic
>that quote
Fucking metal.
Also remember the whole thing lead to the lost generation.
Based de Maistre
Oh mannnn what a rush duuudee!!!
>The death rate was like 11% in the British Army and a little bit higher for Germany
That's fucking high considering that even some slum in Honduras, by far one of the most dangerous countries on the planet, your chances of getting murdered are just barely above 1%.
>Adrian Carton de Wiart
>"Frankly I had enjoyed the war"
He describes literally pissing himself with terror while under bombardment
>greater intelligence
Greater intelligence relative to the 'common' soldier perhaps but still quite dull in their heads in relation to the types of people you can find in math/science faculties.
hahahazhahahhahahaha
Do you not understand how important math and physics and chemistry are in warfare?
They are, but these are left to people who understand them. Soldiers are not part of that demographic, otherwise they would have taken up a different profession.
>Soldiers are not part of that demographic
Not even the ones that have to aim at targets that are very far away, using large and sophisticated equipment?
They need to know how to apply things, they don't need to understand them. Their level of understanding is at that of engineers at best. If you think the best and the brightest end up in a military career then you must be delusional. The military has historically attracted mostly the dregs of society, with a handful of aristocrats in charge of sending them to their deaths.
>Their level of understanding is at that of engineers at best.
What is this even supposed to mean? How is understanding not demonstrated in application?
>The military has historically attracted mostly the dregs of society, with a handful of aristocrats in charge of sending them to their deaths.
I don't think you understand the claims being made in . I suggest you reread it.
>How is understanding not demonstrated in application?
There's a difference in a mostly empiric understanding that allows you to solve a subset of practical problems that occur on your job and being able to formulate the complete theory behind.
>I don't think you understand the claims being made in .
And I think you're wrong in thinking that. I merely wanted to remind you that there are habitats outside of the military where the average IQ is a lot higher.
>What gives?
The anti-war movement really took off in the 20th century, so positive or enthusiastic accounts of war became unfashionable.
I'm sure there were lots of people who enjoyed the war and never wrote about it because it was seen as a brutal sort of thing to express.
>There's a difference in a mostly empiric understanding that allows you to solve a subset of practical problems that occur on your job and being able to formulate the complete theory behind.
Why do you assume that soldiers can't learn calculus?
>I merely wanted to remind you that there are habitats outside of the military where the average IQ is a lot higher.
What is your point, though? Like, what is the significance of this? What are you trying to indicate?
>lets put our spookiest ambient deathgrowlbloodmetal to cherrypicked photography
man what a fair view of the war
This is only semi-true. The Hofmann translation is indeed missing some passages from the original, but this is because Junger himself revised the book multiple times over the course of his life. The Hofmann translations is based on the final version that was intended for Junger's collected works. Hofmann says in the introduction to his translation that some of the stuff that got cut out was the more brutal and nationalistic material, but that the book on the whole is largely the same. However, the original should still be available to buy at least on Amazon, although it's somewhat more expensive. I think this is the version you are looking for amazon.com
> And I think you're wrong in thinking that. I merely wanted to remind you that there are habitats outside of the military where the average IQ is a lot higher.
What the hell is the point of that?
> These guys are smart
> HEY I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT SCIENTISTS ARE SMARTER LOL
jesus christ
Well yeah, its war. I'm not saying its safe. But it's not as deadly as it seems.
>be Erich Maria Remarque
>spend some time in the reserves, never actually see your enemy
>get hurt by artillery shell
>spend the rest of the war in a hospital
Truly a man who could understand the experience of World War I. Not like that reactionary Ernst Junger who actually fought in the front.
t. autistic teen walt
war is a meme and everybody who takes part in the shitshow is a tool
Junger never says explicitly that the war is a positive or negative thing.
He documents his experiences, and if you read the book load of his friends get killed, so the way he presents himself in the book is as a stoic warrior fighting against all odds.
It's easy to say that people were "pussies", when you haven't witnessed hundreds of thousands of soldiers going back home deformed with ptsd, or in body bags. The sheer death orgy of WWI made writers, philosophers and poets as diverse as Thomas Man, T.S. Elliot, Herman Hesse, Sigmund Freud, JRR Tolkien, Tristan Tzara question the very validity of present western civilization.
>The whole WW1 was hell meme was started by mothers and betas during after the blitz.
>countless soldier memoirs and narratives about how horrifying it was
kay
de maistre was a decadent jesuit ,that never even fought beyond his own pantry. Hardly an authority on the topic.
A lot of sympathy you've got there for all those people that died in wars
You aren't making an argument
Not an argument
If you liked Storm of Steel you should give a try to Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Thanks a lot
I'm not sure OP has actually read Storm of Steel.