Links Between East and West 47 Warfare Revisited 东西方的连接47 - 再论战争

On the Paradoxes of War

Human civilization has never been devoid of war. From the earliest battles between Sumerian city-states to the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, wars constitute an integral element of history and social development. There is abundant research on the causes and consequences of war. The conflict theories of German philosophers Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Hegel that the author explored a few months ago are only minuscule tips of an iceberg of academic work. However, since countries are still waging wars currently and the prospects of World War III loom in the background, it is crucial to investigate the nature of war. Warfare should not be understood from a single lens. This essay will examine the intrinsic political, economic, social, and psychological paradoxes of warfare. It will demonstrate the variety of impacts that warfare can deliver and how the paradoxes can reveal inner complex facets of human nature.

Wars possess two political paradoxes. One paradox is manifested in the relationship between various states during a warfare. First, it is undeniable that wars deteriorate the relationship between states and cause them to be belligerent towards one another politically. In some cases, the belligerence that wars fan up can last for decades or even centuries, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being a prime example. Wars can also easily tear apart previous political allies. From 1941 to 1945, during World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union were political allies. However, the Cold War that ensued pitted them against each other. At the same time, though, one must recognize the ability of war to facilitate cooperation between states. Some of the most powerful relations between states occurred during wars. Alliances usually mean that states not only support each other’s growth through different means, but they are also responsible for protecting their alliesin case they are threatened. Wartime leaders have the chance to collaborate on multiple fronts, not just on the military one. Some of the political bonds forged during war may become long-lasting. For example, the European Union formed in the aftermath of World War II. The devastating impact of the war and the desire for lasting peace led several European countries, who were allies during World War II, to come together and form close partnerships. The establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 and subsequently the European Economic Community in 1957 was aimed at fostering economic cooperation and political integration. This union has evolved over time, leading to economic, political, and social integration among member states, creating lasting political bonds. The above selection of examples illustrates that while wars disrupt political engagement and communication, they can simultaneously prompt governments to work together and even establish long-term friendly relationships.

Another political paradox of warfare is that wars can both foster and destroy institutional authority. To successfully wage a war, the government must take a dominant role in the organization of resources and manpower, exerting a greater control over the country. Especially for a country that is suffering from internal discord, parties can employ war to establish a government that wields authority. For instance, in the 1930s, the rise of a militaristic administration in Japan allowed the government to strengthen their hold on the country. Most of the Japanese revered, willingly or not, the militaristic government and their goals to stretch their empire overseas. The power of the Japanese government increased significantly with the onset of the invasion of China and the Pacific islands. But it was eventually the war that destroyed the same government. As Japan’s war efforts were unsustainable and provoked the U.S. to join after the Pearl Harbor incident, the government’s authority began to waver. Following Japan’s total loss in 1945, the Japanese military was completely disarmed. The militaristic government lost its authority that rested with the army and navy. The U.S. decided to indirectly influence Japanese politics through the existing government. Wars exhibit this political paradox primarily because governments usually employ fear or coercion to gain authority, making such authority volatile in the long run.

Aside from politics, wars also possess economic paradoxes. For a particular state, wars stimulate and yet stunt economic growth. In the preparation stages for warfare, the government often leads campaigns to boost industrial production and expand the labor force. When Adolf Hitler rose as the Chancellor of Germany, he quickly revived the German economy through effective plans to build infrastructure and construct war-related industries. Hitler claimed in 1935, “What we have achieved in two and a half years…was considered a few years ago to be absolutely impossible.” His government devised a scheme to build the Autobahn, gave subsidies to private firms to encourage them to hire, and froze the wage on 1933 levels to control inflation. These actions boosted a rapid growth of the German economy.

However, war efforts can stunt the economy as time progresses. In the case of Nazi Germany, Hitler’s efforts led to asymmetric growth that was unsustainable, especially after the war ended, lowering the demand for war-related products and industries. Additionally, to maintain the war economy, Hitler’s government must exploit forced labor. The Dachau concentration camps, for example, grew to include nearly 100 sub-camps by 1935. As one historian puts it, “The brutal treatment of the state’s enemies brought economic benefits. It satisfied people’s economic interests and played upon their greed.” Yet forced labor rarely proves to be a reliable source of economic production, and when the unsustainable nature of the German economy started to expose itself by the early 1940s, the overexploitation of workers only worsened the instability.

Furthermore, wars deliver an often-unseen social paradox. On the one hand, wars can act as a glue that pulls diverse groups together. On the other hand, wars have the power to annihilate existing social structures and cause social division. Wars create social adhesion through many ways. One common way is the idolization of real or imaginary figures and ideas. In Nazi Germany, the German citizens hailed and deified Hitler as the supreme leader. Similarly, in Japan, the citizens worshipped the militaristic government and Emperor Hirohito during the 1930s and 40s. Undoubtedly, ideas can be held as sacred as well. Mao Zedong managed to unify the diverse Chinese population and organize a successful resistance effort against the Japanese primarily because everyone was unified under his ideals. The phenomenon that idolization plays a major part in the unification of wartime society can be attributed to the natural ability of the human language and mind to come up with fictional entities and persuade others to believe in the same doctrines. Another way that wars create social adhesion is through promoting mobility within a state. War efforts sometimes allow certain neglected or minor social groups to break traditional constraints and play a greater role in social development. For instance, to fill up the labor shortages, women in the U.K. undertook jobs previously performed only by men during the World War I. According to the U.K. parliament, “Between 1914 and 1918, an estimated two million women replaced men in employment, resulting in an increase in the proportion of women in total employment from 24 percent in July 1914 to 37 percent by November 1918.” Such a dramatic increase in women employment raised awareness of women suffrage and inequality, helping activism for feminist rights gain greater momentum after the war.

Wars, though, have the potential to widen social gaps and create new divisions. Wars can enlarge ethnic conflicts, ideological differences, and power struggles. One historical example of how wars created social divisions is the Bosnian War (1992-1995). It was part of the larger breakup of Yugoslavia, sparked by escalating ethnic tensions. As Yugoslavia disintegrated, Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence. Its three ethnic groups – the Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), Croats, and Serbs – became embroiled in war. Social divisions appeared as different groups sought to establish their dominance. Neighborhoods and cities that were once multi-ethnic became segregated along ethnic lines. Schools, workplaces, and public spaces became divisive, further entrenching social divisions. The war also intensified religious and cultural differences, leading to the destruction of mosques and churches. The Bosnian War illustrates that when a society is already extremely diverse and simultaneously lacks an adhesive force, wars can be powerful weapons to leave deep social scars.

Finally, wars present a psychological paradox related to an individual. Wars can bring the best out of every involved man and woman. The pursuit of heroism, the sense of honor, and the desire to demonstrate the traits of an “ideal human being” lead to courage and leadership. The triumph that victory brings additionally fulfills self-esteem and pride. However, wars bring the worst out of individuals. The battleground is a tempting place to unleash violence, exert brutal control, and impose oneself completely over another. Wars release and magnify the animosity of human nature, and they further distort it. When men conduct violence to others in wars, many appear calm and normal, as if imposing violence is a daily routine. Some of the most horrific actions in history were carried out by men guided by rationality. The examples of Hitler and other war leaders may imply that wars are often initiated by madmen. This implication is misleading. Wars do not need psychotic madmen. As wars alienate individuals from their basic sense of kindness, normal people – the average citizen - can tend towards choosing violence.

Overall, wars possess political, economic, social, and psychological paradoxes that make up their inherently complex nature. The idea that wars are paradoxical points to the complicated human nature. As Kant explains, individuals display an “unsocial sociability,” meaning that they fluctuate between choosing to bond with others and isolate oneself from others. The “unsocial sociability” explains the fundamental reason behind warfare: Humankind is always destroying and rebuilding their societies. It is through every rebuild that human civilization progresses by a small increment. From a sociological perspective, wars allow people to understand how societies work. A war shows a society’s general goals, internal dynamics, and ways of organization. This perspective is valuable. It hints at the notion that to contain war, if not solve it, governments must consider how their societies are organized, how different social groups interact, how individuals react to various events and pieces of information. Most importantly, governments have the obligation to use these considerations to put nationalism in check, enforce law and order, and encourage their citizens to embrace the diversity of the world.

WORKS CITED

Overy, Richard. “Hitler’s War Plans and the German Economy, 1933–1939.” Oxford University Press EBooks, Mar. 1994, pp. 176–204, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198202905.003.0007. Accessed 31 Oct. 2023.

“Suffrage in Wartime.” Parliament.uk, 2023, www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/overview/suffragetteswartime/. Accessed 31 Oct. 2023.

《论战争的悖论》

人类文明从未缺少战争。从最早的苏美尔城邦之间的战争，到现在的俄乌冲突与巴以冲突，战争是历史及社会发展的重要组成部分。针对战争的原因与后果已经存在大量的研究及讨论。笔者几个月前探讨的德国哲学家伊曼纽尔-康德与弗里德里希-黑格尔的冲突理论只是这方面学术研究的冰山一角。然而，由于目前各国之间仍在相互发动战争，第三次世界大战的前景也隐约可见，因此研究战争的本质至关重要，人们不能从单一视角理解战争。本文将探讨战争本质上的政治、经济、社会与心理悖论。文章将展示战争可能带来的各种影响，以及这些悖论如何揭示人性的内在复杂面。

战争具有两种政治悖论。一种悖论体现在战争期间不同国家之间的关系上。首先，不可否认的是，战争会恶化国家之间的关系，使其在政治上相互好战。在某些情况下，战争引发的交战可能会持续几十年甚至上百年，巴以冲突就是一个典型的例子。战争也很容易撕裂以前的政治盟友。1941 年至 1945 年二战期间，美国和苏联是政治盟友。然而，随之而来的冷战却使它们彼此对立。与此同时，人们必须认识到战争却能够促进国家间的合作。一些最强大稳固的国家间关系就建立在战争期间。结盟通常意味着各国不仅通过不同方式支持彼此的发展，而且在盟国受到威胁时，还负责直接保护盟国的战略安全。战时领导人有机会在多条战线上合作，而不仅仅是在军事方面。战争期间建立的一些政治纽带可能会长期存在。例如，欧盟就是在二战后成立的。战争的破坏性影响和对持久和平的渴望促使二战期间的欧洲盟国走到一起，结成紧密的伙伴关系。1951 年成立的欧洲煤钢共同体与1957 年成立的欧洲经济共同体，即欧盟的前身，旨在促进经济合作及政治一体化。随着时间的推移，这一联盟不断发展，导致成员国之间的经济、政治和社会交融，形成了持久的政治纽带。上述例子说明，战争虽然会破坏政治接触与沟通，但同时也能促使各国政府合作，甚至建立长期友好关系。

战争的另一个政治悖论是，战争既能促进也能摧毁制度权威。要成功发动一场战争，政府必须在资源与人力组织方面发挥主导作用，对国家实施更广泛的控制。特别是对于一个内部不和谐的国家，政党可以利用战争来建立一个掌握实权的政府。例如，20 世纪 30 年代，日本军国主义政府的崛起使政府得以加强对国家的控制。大多数日本人心甘情愿地崇敬军国主义政府并支持其向海外扩张帝国的目标。随着侵华战争和太平洋岛屿战争的爆发，日本政府的控制力显著增强。然而，战争最终摧毁了这个政府。由于日本的战争努力难以为继，并在珍珠港事件后激怒美国加入战争，日本政府的权力开始动摇。1945 年日本彻底战败后，其军队被解除武装。因为军国主义政府依靠陆军与海军的强大镇压维持权威统治，因此当其军队瓦解后，政府也失去了权威。美国决定通过当时被重创的日本政府间接影响日本政治。战争之所以表现出这种政治悖论，主要是因为政府通常利用恐惧或胁迫来获得权威，从长远来看，这种权威是不稳定的。

除了政治，战争还具有经济悖论。对于特定国家而言，战争既刺激经济又毁灭经济。在战争的准备阶段，政府往往会领导促进工业生产和扩大劳动力的运动。阿道夫-希特勒就任德国总理后，通过有效的基础设施建设计划以及与战争相关的工业建设，迅速振兴了德国经济。希特勒在 1935 年声称："我们在两年半时间里取得的成就......在几年前被认为是绝对不可能的"。他的政府制定了修建高速公路的宏伟蓝图，向私营企业发放补贴以鼓励它们雇佣员工，并将工资冻结在 1933 年的水平上以控制通货膨胀。这些行动推动了德国经济的快速增长。

然而，随着时间的推移，战争努力可能会阻碍经济的发展。就纳粹德国而言，希特勒的行为导致了不可持续的非对称增长，尤其是在战争结束后，对战争相关产品和产业的需求迅速下降。此外，为了维持战争经济，希特勒政府必须利用强迫劳动。以达豪集中营为例，到 1935 年，集中营已发展到近 100 个分营，正如一位历史学家所说："残酷对待国家的敌人带来了经济利益。它满足了人们的经济利益，利用了他们的贪婪"。然而，强迫劳动很少被证明是经济生产的可靠来源，当德国经济难以为继的本质在 20 世纪 40 年代初开始暴露出来时，对工人的过度剥削只会加剧其不稳定性与迅速的衰落。

此外，战争带来的社会悖论往往是不为人知的。一方面，战争可以成为一种粘合剂，将不同的群体凝聚在一起。另一方面，战争又能摧毁现有的社会结构，造成社会分裂。战争通过多种方式产生社会粘合力。一种常见的方式是将真实或想象中的人物与思想偶像化。在纳粹德国，德国公民将希特勒奉为最高领袖，并将其神化。同样，在二十世纪三四十年代的日本，国民崇拜军国主义政府与裕仁天皇。毫无疑问，思想也可以被奉为是神圣的。毛泽东之所以能够团结广大中国民众，成功组织抗日斗争，主要是因为所有人都团结在他的“分田地”理想之下。偶像化在战时社会的统一中发挥了重要作用，这一现象可归因于人类语言和思想的天然能力，即提出虚构的实体并说服他人信奉相同的教义或理想。战争产生社会凝聚力的另一种方式是促进国家内部的社会流动。战争有时会让某些被忽视的或次要的社会群体打破传统束缚，在社会发展中发挥更大作用。例如，在第一次世界大战期间，为了填补劳动力短缺，英国妇女承担了以前只有男性才能从事的工作。据英国议会称，"1914 年至 1918 年间，估计有 200 万妇女取代了男性就业，导致妇女在总就业人口中所占比例从 1914 年 7 月的 24% 增加到 1918 年 11 月的 37%"。妇女就业人数的大幅增加提高了人们对妇女选举权和不平等的认识，有助于女权运动在战后获得更大的发展动力。

不过，战争有可能扩大社会差距，制造新的分裂。战争会扩大种族冲突、意识形态分歧与权力斗争。波斯尼亚战争（1992-1995 年）就是战争如何造成社会分裂的一个历史性例子。这场战争是南斯拉夫解体的一部分，由不断升级的种族紧张局势引发。随着南斯拉夫的解体，波黑宣布独立，而波黑的三个民族--波什尼亚克族（波斯尼亚穆斯林）、克罗地亚族和塞尔维亚族--陷入了战争。由于不同的族群试图建立自己的统治地位，社会出现了严重的裂痕。曾经的多民族社区与城市变成了种族隔离区；学校、工作地点与公共场所充满分裂性、歧视性偏见，进一步加速了社会分化。战争还加剧了宗教与文化差异，导致众多清真寺与教堂被毁。波斯尼亚战争表明，当一个社会已经极度多元化，同时又缺乏粘合力时，战争就会成为留下深刻社会伤痕的有力武器。

最后，战争呈现出一种与个人有关的心理悖论。战争可以激发每个参战男女的最佳潜能。对英雄主义的追求、荣誉感以及展现 "理想人类 "特质的渴望，都会带来勇气与领导力。胜利带来的成就感与光荣感还能满足自尊心与自豪。然而，战争也会使人展现出最恶的一面。战场是一个可以释放暴力、实施残酷的控制，并将自己的意志完全强加于他人的场所。战争释放并放大了人性中的深层敌意，并进一步扭曲了人性。当人们在战争中对他人施暴时，许多人却显得平静而正常，似乎施暴再平常不过。同样，历史上一些最可怕的恶行与惨剧往往是由理性引导的人实施的。有些人可能觉得希特勒和其他战争领导人的例子意味着战争往往是由疯子发起的。这种暗示具有误导性。战争并不需要精神失常的疯子。由于战争使个人远离基本的善良意识，正常人--普通公民--可能更会倾向于平静地、理性地选择暴力。

总体而言，战争具有政治、经济、社会与心理悖论，这些悖论构成了战争的内在复杂性。战争本身的悖论性这一观点指向人性本身的繁杂本质。正如康德所解释的那样，个人会表现出一种 "非社会与社会性"，这意味着他们会在选择与他人建立联系还是选择将自己与他人隔离开来之间徘徊。非社会性与社会性解释了战争背后的根本原因：人类总是在摧毁并重建自己的社会。正是通过每一次重建，人类文明才得以一点点进步。从社会学的角度来看，战争可以让人们了解社会是如何运转的。战争展示了一个社会的总体目标、内部运动力与组织方式。这种观点很有价值，它暗示了人们，要想遏制战争，政府必须考虑社会是如何组织的，不同的社会群体是如何互动的，个人是如何对各种事件与信息做出反应的。最重要的是，政府有义务利用这些考量来执行法律，遏制极端民族主义，并鼓励其公民大胆拥抱探索世界本身的多样性。