How do people handle cognitive dissonance when discussing history?

I've met several people face to face, and many online, who would agree with both of the following statements.

>America really won the war in Vietnam on the ground
>The Soviets lost the war on the ground in Afghanistan.

I have never seen someone reach both conclusions by applying a consistent set of criteria. And while this is probably the most explicit example of such I'm personally aware of, there are plenty others.

So, I mean, in a crude way, I get it. We idealize and idolize figures and institutions that we connect with on some level, and then dismiss their faults while highlighting those in others. But what happens to people when they're exposed to information that obviously highlights flaws in their theories? (for lack of a better term.) Clearly, some kind of rationalization goes on, but I have trouble seeing how people manage to delude themselves to that extent, even when surrounded by evidence that people do in fact delude themselves to such extents.


How does it work?

This is my favorite subject i.e. pure ideology. But I have no clue.
I sometimes wonder if some people are just too, um, something to see inconsistencies in their thinking.

I guess to believe America did not win militarily before a cease fire, you'd need to throw out data like casualties, etc. No one won the whole thing considering 2 million people probably died.

The fault really lies with the French. They broke rank so quickly, the inevitable power vacuum was what destroyed that society. I haven't seen them be much help in the world, since, except for themselves.

>How do people handle cognitive dissonance
They ignore it, or make up excuses. You actually seem to know how people rationalize or downplay evidence that contradicts their position. So I don't see where your doubts are laid.

If you are asking why do some people show more biases than others, that is because they feel more strongly about some subjects than other people. This keeps them from more dispassionate, objective perspectives.

>The Soviets lost the war on the ground in Afghanistan

They didn't only lose, the failed campaign was a contributing factor to the fall of the entire Soviet Union.

>The Europeans created Middle East countries out of thin air, forcing all sorts of tribes, cultures, and religions into one country -- no wonder the ME is falling apart! we need to establish an ethnostate for the Kurds. If you disagree with me you're a colonialist bigot.
>Importing millions of people with different religions, languages, and cultures is progressive. Multiculturalism is our strength. If you disagree with me you're a bigot. What's that, ethnostates in Europe?! are you a nazi?

France lasted for ~8 years of active fighting in Vietnam, with a rapid collapse during the final stages of that war.
America lasted for ~8 years of active fighting in Vietnam, with a rapid collapse during the final stages of that war.

Not really seeing the difference between the American and French backed regimes and war efforts and their ultimate conclusions, and why the American one was better.

Wut. French colonialism in Vietnam lasted over 6 decades, then they pulled out without even trying to organize any subsequent infrastructure. They just left these exploited and oppressed people to their own devices and subject to anarchy. That's pretty rotten.

> You actually seem to know how people rationalize or downplay evidence that contradicts their position.

I know that people do rationalize or downplay evidence that contradicts their position.

What I'm not clear on is how someone goes

>Hmm, Fact X really throws my position in a loop.
>Well, better ignore it then.

I don't see how someone can do it consciously, and if it's an unconscious process, it seems to be awfully selective.

But it's not the same user! (complete absence of coherent arguments to explain why is not the same)

The war of Indochina lasted 8 years.

>without even trying to organize any subsequent infrastructure. They just left these exploited and oppressed people to their own devices and subject to anarchy. That's pretty rotten.

And they did well, violent separatists deserve nothing if you're the metropoli.

In my own experience. Whenever something conflicts I simply "do not believe it" and seek out opposition to it - which is simple with Google.

Examples are:

>the g factor, which seems to have enough support but it won't stop me from being skeptical of it and searching for contrarian opinions
>personality testing, something like the Myers-Briggs actually has little to no support from the scientific community but Big Five Personality has, but here I have found a bit of compromision by thinking it is the "best until something better comes along"
>knowledge being liberating, someone showed me Less Wrong and how you can be more rational and so on and it was backed up with numerous scientific sources - but that didn't stop me from fully rejecting it: it is not even skeptisism but full rejection

It is interesting how my conformation bias works so well. Numerous books support my ideas a-priori i.e. before reading it and knowing what it is about.

But to add: I always seek for scientific sources.

"active fighting"
Come on, its said exactly in my writing, I never said "French imperial polity lasted for 8 years", I said "active fighting".

I get confused - an odd sort of mixture of confusion and pity when I hear Americans say they won "the war". They mostly refer to WW2. When in all other allied countries I hear the allies won the war. I never really believed the stereotypes about American education but hearing the quite frequently has made me rethink that.

Mostly because, nobody won the war. Millions of people died. It is not a cause for celebration but a time to learn and grow past the mistakes that put us in such a position in the first place.

I don't how reactionaries still exist. Every single period had people moaning about their current period being shit and wanting, how can current reactionaries look at this and still desire to go back? you either go full primitivist or you are simply picking an arbitrary period in time based on your opinion.

That is it, pure ideology. People subtract the pretty things and ignore the baddies.

I used to to be extremely shocked and disappointed in the existence of reactionaries. Until I started to think about how (a) closed off to information (b) influenced by their own environment (parents and guardians with older beliefs) and (c) quite honestly laziness.

I feel like a and b are pretty straight forward but with c, the laziness is quite far reaching. Think about people in democratic countries, why do they vote for parties or politicians who are exactly against their interests (financially for example)? In a world that's so fast tracked and becoming more convenience oriented (and I don't mean to suggest that in the past people weren't lazy or as lazy) a simplistic answer sticks to people's minds. People seem to think that politics doesn't affect them and they're not interested in it and economics is hard to keep track off.

The liberties of democracy and freedom to choose are almost wasted at these lazy people. I wish that they would take hold of their freedoms, like their right to assemble and speech so they can voice their complaints to the politicians they hate and the governments that they supposedly have lost faith in but keep voting in.

Why do they not do this? They're lazy.

Or maybe it's something else, I don't know I'm just an user on the Internet.

I also say laziness because they think the past was easier. So they want to return to lazier times.

They don't want to really move forward. People don't like change, humans are creatures of habit, not because they don't believe in it. They don't like to put in that effort. To get up and make that change.

The past is known, while the future is unknown.
Or at least that's how it seems to us. It's debatable how well a lot of reactionaries really understand the past, but it doesn't matter as long as they think they do.
It's much easier to accept change back into the "known" rather than stepping into the unknown.
If you, like most reactionaries, are convinced that everything went disastrously wrong at some point, you can kind of see why it seems logical to argue to take things a step back.

I'm not saying this is the major appeal of reactionary thought, but I think it factors into it.

Quality post: it makes sense.

But they are right.
USA won the war. War put USA as a real Superpower. Make it rich and powerfull hen it destroy, bleed or weakened others.
>Germany, destroyed and divided
>Japan, nuked and subdued
>Soviets suffer massive casaulties and destruction, sure they get some spoils but not that much considrng their losses
>France and UK suffer massive reputation loss and soon loss of their colonials empires.

USA won WW II. The best type of winning when somebody else bleed and suffer when you count the profits.

The USA did probably come out in the most favourable position of al major powers in ww2. but what is usually implied by people who say that the USA won the war is that the USA contributed most to the allied war effort and the defeat of Germany, which I would disagree with.
And the Soviets got out of ww2 with only some spoils? Are you delusional? The Soviet union came out of ww2 with a massive army and military industrial complex and complete hegemony over eastern europe. It established itself as global superpower no. 2 for several decades.

Only recently talking anonymously became something anyone could do in the sense of being able to express yourself without being personalyl implicated by it and suffering consequences.

When you talk to someone personally and he has an opposite oppinion on political matters that touch you persoanlly how can you be critical of your position? It defeats the whole purpose of such a discussion, which is to make your side win.
Only behind a veil of anonymity can we discuss political issues that touch us personaly in a manner critical of our own position because we are not the same people when we interact anonymously, we actually in part become anonymous entities.

How its even compare to USA losses and profits.
USA main teritory never even attacked when Soviets get line of fronts rolling no once but 2 times over their core teritores. Not even mention al that soldiers and civies dead or maimed.
All Soviets get were some buffor states that not really help them in long run.
Soviet military industrial complex were no match to USA one.

Soviets lost WW II. Sure they destroy Germany but it cost them to much.

Absolutely. Sometimes when discussing with say a friend, I might say something to gauge his reaction and this reaction determines whatever I will say next on the subject. Simply to stay diplomatic.

Othertimes I wish to express myself but am holding myself back in fear of a negative reaction but actually would prefer to be honest.

>Mostly because, nobody won the war. Millions of people died. It is not a cause for celebration but a time to learn and grow past the mistakes that put us in such a position in the first place.

I'm not American nor am I one of the people that thinks the USA singlehandedly won the war but fuck off with this, WW2 had very clear victors. Germany was overrun and surrendered unconditionally. Japan was nuked, surrendered, and occupied. Massive trials were carried out to persecute the leadership in the defeated states. You can say "nobody won" with practically any war and cite human suffering, but the fact of the matter is that the Allies and the Soviets very clearly won that war. Allied countries still celebrate Victory in Europe day for crying out loud, how delusional are you to think that "we won" is a uniquely American outlook?

Because it touches on an inherent problem of personal communication. You can never be compeltely sure of the intentions of the other person.
It takes special people, that know both themselves and the other as such special people, for political discussions being about finding some reasonable resolution as oppose to winning a debate.

you might be critical of your own position and your discussion aprtner might use it against you because your abilities of self examination and self criticism are on different levels.

Only certain epople are worth actually talking honestly to, as for others, you have to either win using any menas possible including pr sophistry and even lies, or avoid talking to them on such matters.

Is this another one of these arguments where an American is going to say they've won every war since the end of WWII because they came out on top at the end of the Cold War? Like because you succeeded in aggregate it means you succeeded in every specific case? It's like saying the Americans won all the battles preceding the battle of Midway merely by virtue of the fact they eventually won the war.

I see it said all the time in regards to Vietnam, people saying (long after the Vietnam war was over) "well the Soviet union fell so communism failed, USA! USA!" as a convenient way to shift goalposts.

No, user, Soviets won WWII. They lost the Cold War almost half a century later, don't conflate these two events for a more convenient argument.

>It defeats the whole purpose of such a discussion, which is to make your side win.

If the only reason you discuss things is to "win arguments" you're doing it wrong. If you believe something with conviction you should certainly support your argument, but not because you have to win and they have to lose.

The wars aren't really similar

The U.S. was protecting the South from Northern incursions

The Soviets were helping the puppet Afghan government quell its own uprisings.

Dunno ask some american.
Soviets were in winning camp(not to long) but the war cost them to much.
Instead Germany as their enemy they now have their former allies as opposition with a massive untouched powerbase that is beyond their reach.
If Soviets liberate whole Europe that would be another stroy but they not. Heck they don't get even whole Germany.
The Germans and Soviets bleed when USA grow.

Don't forget that Soviets generals armed insurection trading weapons and supplies for dollars and gold.
It was great opportunity to get rich for rmy officials too.

Its not what I want, it is simply the result of how such a situation is structured.
It is an interaction that does not favor absolute honesty and distancing. It becomes much moe evident as you start engaging in anonymous converastions where you can distance yourself from even your personal life.

The rules of discussions and conversations are dictated by the physical realities of the from under which the discussion takes place.
Personal face toface discussions favor a personal ego driven discussion.
Its of course all relative but i mean when it is compared to anonymous diwscussions.
Like I wrote in another post, you can find a person with whom you can feel you can talk completely honestly but those are rare occasions since it requires a devotion of both parties to be as self critical as possible.
Since each person cannot be fully sure of the intentions of his converastion partner a discussion dynamic is formed, favoring the support of one's ego and the desire/goal of winning and persauding the other of your position.
Farm more so if there is an audiance.

It's more of a solemn "Victory". I'be travelled enough to see Dday, Gallepoli etc services.

That's why I don't feel the need to fuck off.

No, they didn't. Just because you suffered the least doesn't mean you can come in last minute, Nuke a country that was already losing and about to surrender and claim yourself the winner.

>USA
>Rapid collapse at the end of the war.

Vietnamization was not a rapid collapse. It was the turnover to South Vietnam. It lasted 4 years and apparently the South Vietnamese were too dependent on US forces. The Paris Peace Accord was signed in Jan 73 and US started the last of the withdrawal. South and North still bickering and North decided on a window that they could attack Saigon before South was ready and they did despite the South having more firepower.

Unlike the French who were literally kicked out.

>It's more of a solemn "Victory". I'be travelled enough to see Dday, Gallepoli etc services.

Me as well. Victory being bought at a high price doesn't make it not victory, and a clear-cut one at that. WWII's end is probably one of the least ambiguous you can for that.

>Just because you suffered the least doesn't mean you can come in last minute, Nuke a country that was already losing and about to surrender and claim yourself the winner.

If you call 1942-45 and the bulk of the fighting in the western front "last minute". Plenty of Americans overstate their contribution but it's equally stupid to undersell it, their assistance was vital to the victory of the western allies.

>Nuke a country that was already losing

How was Japan "already losing" in 1942? They had conquered large amounts of China, were expanding in the pacific, and even had the Americans on their heels until Midway. The only way you could justify that Japan was "already losing"is by saying they didn't have enough oil, which was also America's doing anyway.

I actually really appreciate your response. I totally overreacted in my original post. I refer to it as a solemn victory because of the European perspective I was considering. I was thinking about how great of an impact the war had on mostly Europe, in the way it had drastically affected European lives,the socio-political relationships between countries and the massive damage it had on the European economy. In that sense I claimed it was a solemn victory in that yes the allies won but at such a great cost to both sides that there was hardly much to celebrate over.

I do believe their contribution added to the Allied victory but I'd not consider it such a great amount. More like a third of the success.

In the last years of the war Japan could no longe maintain its hold over their conquered land, and south-asian/allied/ANZAC efforts had greatly affected the Japanese forces. With that in view, it looks unnecessary to use such a powerful weapon as the atom bomb on civilians in order to end the war between the two forces.

I replied this in the best manner I could without outright going into details - if I do that I tend to ramble on so I tried to avoid that. Never the less, sorry for the overreaction but it's been interesting talking to you.

I can't even put on pants boy you expect me to know that?

Not him, but

>In the last years of the war Japan could no longe maintain its hold over their conquered land,

Is almost entirely due to the Americans reasserting control over the Philippines and cutting the major lines of communication (as well as fuel shipping) between the Japanese homeland and their colonial empire.

> south-asian/allied/ANZAC efforts had greatly affected the Japanese forces.

Exactly how did they do this? The only major non-American theaters were China, where the KMT was getting its butt kicked even in 1944, and Burma, which did admittedly force the commitment of major Japanese forces, but didn't prevent them from actually acquring resources or ruling over their domains. And CBI was about the same size as the Solomons, which was again an American dominated theater, to say nothing of the "middle route" which is where the vital thrusts that led to Japan's blockade came from.

You can argue limited American effect in Europe way better than you can argue it in the Pacific.

The South Vietnamese situation post-war in Vietnam collapsed very suddenly in 1975, 2 years after the Americans had left. For referring to the regimes and relative effect of the nations it was identical.

The French situation collapsed very rapidly in 1954, although their position in the south of the country wasn't actually removed until 1956; thus if we're counting post-war times they actually lasted about the exact same period of time from the start of hostilities.

What was wrong 200 years ago is still wrong now.