Crisis War vs. Non Crisis was and impact on next generations

Awakening eras, crisis eras, crisis wars, generational financial crashes, as applied to historical and current events
Post Reply
tobyguy
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:53 pm

Crisis War vs. Non Crisis was and impact on next generations

Post by tobyguy »

I'm trying to better understand a Crisis War vs. a Non Crisis War and how they impact future generations, but I am having difficulty understanding why a a serious non-crisis war wouldn't lead to the same kinds of impact on society and it's members that a crisis war would have (and restart the generational process and how they are labelled).

Lets use a fictional war as an example (to avoid getting into details about any particular war).

If such a war was a crisis war for country A but a non-crisis war for country B, if many members of both countries die (eg. a historically high number), why would it make any difference on the social impact of country B? (crisis war or not).

The soldiers still come home never the same. What if many civilians died. They still saw things they would never want anyone to experience again having gone through the experience themselves. They are still as traumatized as could be. Why does their willingness to go into the conflict (or support it) have anything to do with it's impact on future generations?

Why doesn't the whole generational process start over again? (assuming it was a serious non-crisis war where many soldiers and civilians died).

Tobyguy

Matt1989
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:30 am

Re: Crisis War vs. Non Crisis was and impact on next generations

Post by Matt1989 »

tobyguy wrote:I'm trying to better understand a Crisis War vs. a Non Crisis War and how they impact future generations, but I am having difficulty understanding why a a serious non-crisis war wouldn't lead to the same kinds of impact on society and it's members that a crisis war would have (and restart the generational process and how they are labelled).

Lets use a fictional war as an example (to avoid getting into details about any particular war).

If such a war was a crisis war for country A but a non-crisis war for country B, if many members of both countries die (eg. a historically high number), why would it make any difference on the social impact of country B? (crisis war or not).

The soldiers still come home never the same. What if many civilians died. They still saw things they would never want anyone to experience again having gone through the experience themselves. They are still as traumatized as could be. Why does their willingness to go into the conflict (or support it) have anything to do with it's impact on future generations?

Why doesn't the whole generational process start over again? (assuming it was a serious non-crisis war where many soldiers and civilians died).

Tobyguy
Because there is more to this than wars. There is a whole generational cycle and the societal corollaries that stem from the generational constellation. I know it's a bit unintuitive to think that the same guys who fought in All Quiet on the Western Front could bring about a warmongering genocidal monster like Adolph Hitler a generation later, but it happened. The trauma that you speak of undeniably led to anger.

tobyguy
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: Crisis War vs. Non Crisis was and impact on next generations

Post by tobyguy »

Matt1989 wrote: Because there is more to this than wars. There is a whole generational cycle and the societal corollaries that stem from the generational constellation. I know it's a bit unintuitive to think that the same guys who fought in All Quiet on the Western Front could bring about a warmongering genocidal monster like Adolph Hitler a generation later, but it happened. The trauma that you speak of undeniably led to anger.
I understand it did happen, but that's the problem. It cuts both ways. It's too convenient to just ignore.

IMO, I need to understand why. There has to be more to it than that (that it just happened). Otherwise it's just a distinction for distinction's sake. And IMO, it is a fairly significant hole to fill in accepting such a theory. You are correct it is unintuitive, especially since the argument is that when the people who faught those wars die off, we're more likely to get into another one as time goes on (eventually will happen). So either they remember or they do not. And if they do not in certain wars, why not? (especially war like WWI where 37 Million people died).

Also, in WWI, many, many soldiers were sent to certain death in wave after wave of attacks and counter attacks, gaining ground and losing it the next day. Life was hardly worth much to the leaders of those countries and military leaders as well. This easily falls under John's genocidal definition.

I do understand that the war was different than WWII, but it's impact on society was unprecendented until WWII and we can't dismiss that. Perhaps not in the US, but definately in both western and eastern europe and the English commonwealth countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.).

Remember, it was WWI that was termed "the war to end all wars".

Tobyguy

Matt1989
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:30 am

Re: Crisis War vs. Non Crisis was and impact on next generations

Post by Matt1989 »

Toby, I'm afraid I don't have much of an explanation besides referring to the generational archetypes and their tendencies. Are you looking for something more?

tobyguy
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: Crisis War vs. Non Crisis was and impact on next generations

Post by tobyguy »

Matt1989 wrote:Toby, I'm afraid I don't have much of an explanation besides referring to the generational archetypes and their tendencies. Are you looking for something more?
Just trying to better understand that's all.
When I first started reading John's online book I was kind of perplexed of the reasoning for downplaying WWI. Seemed more like trying to put a square peg in a round hole to make the theory work (so the square peg was modified to fit).

I'm not surprised someone from the US would downplay it. Growing up in a country that fought most of the war and paid a heavy price, I can tell you that the history of WWI and WWII were both equally important to us growing up. For Americans, I can understand why more emphasis is placed on WWII. But that does not change how a society and it's members were affected by a war like WWI (I'm namely talking about west, eastern europe and the commonwealth countries).

As I continued reading the blogs and comments such as [paraphrasing here]... the survivors of the depression or this war and that war die off, another crisis war is soon to come, I thought something's not clicking here for me. WWI was a very costly war and took an unprecedented toll on human life. To simply brush it off didn't make sense to me.

The wars are different yes. I can understand the argument for a war like vietnam or the falkland islands.

But dismissing the impact of WWI on the societies involved just doesn't make sense to me.

Tobyguy

John
Posts: 11479
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Crisis War vs. Non Crisis was and impact on next generations

Post by John »

tobyguy wrote: > I'm trying to better understand a Crisis War vs. a Non Crisis War
> and how they impact future generations, but I am having difficulty
> understanding why a a serious non-crisis war wouldn't lead to the
> same kinds of impact on society and it's members that a crisis war
> would have (and restart the generational process and how they are
> labelled).
In a recent posting in the "Generational Crises and Methods for
Evaluation" thread,
http://generationaldynamics.com/forum/v ... 2053#p2053

I wrote the following: However, it is possible to enter a first
turning from another turning when a massive population relocation
occurs, destroying the generational relationships that existed prior
to the relocation.

This is sometimes called a "first turning reset," because the entire
saeculum is reset back to the beginning, from whatever turning the
society had been in previously.

There's an important distinction to be made here, because people
sometimes get confused by this concept. A society will ALWAYS behave
during a war according to their generational era. Some people
suggest that if an unexpected invasion occurs during an Awakening era,
then the society will immediately transition to a fourth turning
Crisis era. This is most emphatically not true. The society will
fight the war in an Awakening era style. There are no exceptions.

However, if the war is so brutal, that the society is effectively
destroyed (possibly almost exterminated), then the survivors will
experience a first turning reset after the war is over, and enter a
Recovery era.

A first turning reset is very rare, but here are some examples: (1)
That Palestinians were in an Awakening era in 1948-49, during the war
with Israel, but because of the massive relocation, they entered a
Recovery era. (2) Chechnya was in an awakening era after WW II, but
entered a Recovery era because they were exiled by Stalin to
Kazakhstan and Siberia. (3) In the 1830s, in what is now South
Africa, tens of thousands of Boers moved north into the Transvaal,
after the Zulus had exterminated everyone in the region in the
Mfecane; this was the Great Trek, and the Boers transitioned into a
Recovery Era. (4) When the Pilgrims came from Holland to what is now
North America in the 1620s, they transitioned to a Recovery era.
tobyguy wrote: > I'm not surprised someone from the US would downplay it. Growing
> up in a country that fought most of the war and paid a heavy
> price, I can tell you that the history of WWI and WWII were both
> equally important to us growing up. For Americans, I can
> understand why more emphasis is placed on WWII. But that does not
> change how a society and it's members were affected by a war like
> WWI (I'm namely talking about west, eastern europe and the
> commonwealth countries).
The question about WW I is one of the most frequent questions I get.

There were a lot of deaths in western Europe in WW I, but the number
of deaths doesn't determine a crisis war. Far more significant, for
example, is the "Christmas truce" between British and German soldiers
in 1914, and Germany's unnecessary capitulation in 1918.

See the following:

** Tomorrow is the 90th Anniversary of the 1914 Christmas Truce
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 23#e041223


** Politicians commemorate Battle of the Somme, July 1, 1916
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 02#e060702

tobyguy wrote: > But dismissing the impact of WWI on the societies involved just
> doesn't make sense to me.
I have certainly never dismissed the impact of WW I. Even non-crisis
wars are horrible to the people who have to fight in them. The term
"crisis war" is a technical term, describing a war with certain
attributes. But that doesn't mean that non-crisis wars are
unimportant.

However, WW I in fact WAS a crisis war -- but not for America,
Britain, France or Germany.

WW I was a crisis war for Eastern Europe -- the Balkans, Russia, the
Ottoman empire.

Sincerely,

John

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests