Comments on: The Demands of Authority https://www.isegoria.net/2014/12/the-demands-of-authority/ From the ancient Greek for equality in freedom of speech; an eclectic mix of thoughts, large and small Thu, 21 May 2026 16:19:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1 By: Bruce https://www.isegoria.net/2014/12/the-demands-of-authority/comment-page-1/#comment-2046333 Bruce Sat, 03 Jan 2015 20:22:06 +0000 http://www.isegoria.net/?p=36960#comment-2046333 J. Glenn Gray’s The Warriors isn’t a bad book, but Paul Fussell’s comments in Thank God for the Atom Bomb should be read with it.

]]> By: Space Nookie https://www.isegoria.net/2014/12/the-demands-of-authority/comment-page-1/#comment-2045739 Space Nookie Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:22:05 +0000 http://www.isegoria.net/?p=36960#comment-2045739 Yeah, I was a big fan of Marshall in the late 1980s, and I was upset enough about this string of posts and the comments to do a little digging, but, yeah, it’s undeniable that (a) he faked the ratio of fire, (b) IMO, staked his entire credibility on ratio of fire by swearing up and down that it had been part of his wartime historical surveys, (c) never admitted to the fraud over the remaining 30 years of his life, and (d) everything else he wrote is supported only by his credibility as an author, i.e. none once you know the full story about the ratio of fire. As a former fan, I am completely disappointed.

Definitely not somebody you should be abstracting and reinterpreting as the main source of a new controversial theory.

]]> By: Gary Foster https://www.isegoria.net/2014/12/the-demands-of-authority/comment-page-1/#comment-2031198 Gary Foster Tue, 30 Dec 2014 00:51:12 +0000 http://www.isegoria.net/?p=36960#comment-2031198 I would highly recommend (if you can find a copy) J. Glenn Gray’s The Warriors. This used to be a highly influential book concerning killing and war and the soldiers that did it. I found this most interesting, and it holds up over time.

]]> By: Isegoria https://www.isegoria.net/2014/12/the-demands-of-authority/comment-page-1/#comment-2030610 Isegoria Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:13:35 +0000 http://www.isegoria.net/?p=36960#comment-2030610 Grossman makes it quite clear that soldiers — especially cavalry — will happily cut down fleeing enemies. What’s rare is true hand-to-hand combat.

]]> By: Slovenian Guest https://www.isegoria.net/2014/12/the-demands-of-authority/comment-page-1/#comment-2030599 Slovenian Guest Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:10:04 +0000 http://www.isegoria.net/?p=36960#comment-2030599 Where do those machete-wielding African soldiers going from village to village, door to door fit into all this? They seem to have the time of their life and only miss targets due to a lack of training, not some moral reluctance, same as in the Middle East, they can’t wait to tear shit up.

]]> By: Isegoria https://www.isegoria.net/2014/12/the-demands-of-authority/comment-page-1/#comment-2030581 Isegoria Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:02:52 +0000 http://www.isegoria.net/?p=36960#comment-2030581 Greg Cochran of course bristles at such silliness and asks, Who came to similar conclusions, from careful observations? I reply:

Grossman cites many, many sources other than S.L.A. Marshall — although many don’t discuss a reluctance to kill, but rather something that Grossman (not unreasonably) interprets that way.

For instance, Grossman cites Swank and Marchand’s World War II study, which noted the existence of 2 percent of combat soldiers who are predisposed to be “aggressive psychopaths” and apparently do not experience the normal resistance to killing or the resultant psychiatric casualties associated with extended periods of combat.

To his credit, Grossman dislikes the term psychopath for such men and suggests a very different term.

(My own post on this should appear in a couple days.)

]]> By: Isegoria https://www.isegoria.net/2014/12/the-demands-of-authority/comment-page-1/#comment-2030439 Isegoria Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:12:29 +0000 http://www.isegoria.net/?p=36960#comment-2030439 My comment at his site awaits moderation:

I’ve been reading Grossman’s work — not On Killing, but Defeating the Enemy’s Will and other essays — and excerpting it on my own blog recently.

As for S.L.A. Marshall, I get the impression that he thought he was “telling it like it is” in his Men Against Fire, but he presented his “findings” from talks over a few beers as systematic data collection via after-action interviews, so it would be scientific.

I don’t know how accurate his impressions were, but many other sources have come to similar conclusions — but with a very different tone and no scientific pretenses.

I can say the same of Grossman, who gains credibility with some audiences by referring to a reluctance to kill, while losing it with others. If you read what he writes, he’s describing when and how soldiers will kill, as well as when they won’t. They will kill if they’re on display — firing a crew-served machine-gun, for instance, or when the sergeant’s at their shoulder — and they will kill if the enemy is sufficiently foreign, or running away, etc.

I find his emphasis on posturing credible, because we know soldiers — and wannabe soldiers — have always emphasized looking badass and making a lot of noise.

]]> By: Gwern https://www.isegoria.net/2014/12/the-demands-of-authority/comment-page-1/#comment-2030314 Gwern Mon, 29 Dec 2014 19:21:11 +0000 http://www.isegoria.net/?p=36960#comment-2030314 He doesn’t provide links to the criticisms, but the key ones seem to be:

The Secret Of The Soldiers Who Didn’t Shoot
Why Does the NYT Continue to Cite Historian S.L.A. Marshall After the Paper Discredited Him in a Front-Page Story Years Ago?

]]> By: Steve Johnson https://www.isegoria.net/2014/12/the-demands-of-authority/comment-page-1/#comment-2029781 Steve Johnson Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:53:39 +0000 http://www.isegoria.net/?p=36960#comment-2029781 Either Grossman is in the news lately or you’ve got a secret reader.

]]>