The Role of Morale in War
Article published November 9 1941 of the Year, "The New York Times", Otto D. Tolischus
The recognized specialist talks about the resilience of various nations in the context of the global crisis.
The area of our planet is 55 million square miles, and the population is 2 billion people. Today, 80% of this territory and population are directly or indirectly involved in the war. In terms of the size of theaters of military operations, the number of people and equipment participating in them, and the comprehensive impact on both combatants and civilians, the current conflict has already surpassed all wars in stories of humanity. At the same time, its scale is still limited compared to what may happen if the two wars that are now going on in Europe and Asia turn into a single confrontation, and the United States from the reserve will advance to the front line.
Thus, for the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the Earth, the current war is no longer a theory, not a subject for abstract moral and philosophical reflections, but an inexorable reality, forcing every country and every person to take urgent and decisive actions.
Moreover, given the nature of the ideological differences of the parties and the inevitable world-historic consequences of the victory of one of them, not just bits of territory and a lot of other things for which wars were fought in the past are at stake. For many countries, it is about life and death, and for all nations - the path that civilization will take, and their own way of life. As in the times of the Punic wars or invasions of Europe by Persians, Arabs and Huns, the fate of the world is once again decided by the sword, and his sentence cannot be appealed. The course of the current war has already demonstrated the meaning of the words "woe to the vanquished."
According to the military, the basic principles of warfare have not changed: the laws of strategy are eternal, and military art cannot be replaced with anything. But at least two other factors related to the activities of the state are of no less importance. If before it was said that God is on the side of the big battalions, today he is on the side of better trained and equipped armies. In addition, as the development of events showed, such a concept as “short local war” - the dream of any militarist - has sunk into oblivion. In today's closely interconnected world with its fragile balance, any war turns into a world-scale issue, which ultimately is decided by the economic potential of each side - and the quantity and quality of armaments in a decisive battle depends on it. And this economic potential, in turn, is determined by moral factors that cannot be calculated, which change the composition of the participants in each new Armageddon.
At the same time, the wars are still not won by economists alone - of which France and Britain were convinced by their own hard experience. Each nation, as before, has to wage its own struggle, the victory in which depends not only on the generals and weapons, but also from that elusive, indefinite substance, which is called the morale - the spirit of the soldiers at the front and the whole people. A person who is in mortal danger can use some hidden reserves, which are inherent in him by nature, not expressed by any chemical formula, which double and triple his powers.
Similarly, entire nations during a war often stun the world, discovering hidden and unknown forces in themselves — bodily and spiritual, overthrowing all calculations, and, as has often happened in history, even turning a military defeat into victory. And only those countries that are able to awaken these reserves in the hour of danger can hope to survive. Indeed, despite the well-known expression “war does not solve anything,” during periods of “world-historic decisions” like those that Hitler now proclaims, even powerful empires crumble into dust.
Today, the morale requirements of soldiers and the general public are much tougher than ever before. Before the beginning of the previous world conflict, the war remained something romantic and “gallant” in the minds of people - a kind of adventure that excites young people. The war began on a wave of turbulent enthusiasm, amid flowery speeches about "the girl who is waiting for you at home," who supported the soldier at least until the first battle. The former life continued in the rear: perhaps only a little more exciting and allowing some people to make fabulous profits. Today, the whole world knows that in the war there is nothing “beautiful” - it is blood, sweat and tears, that for a soldier at the front it comes down to firing the most often invisible enemy and waiting for his response bullets and shells. At the same time, his spirit does not support the “elbow of a friend” or the rage of hand-to-hand that causes blood to boil, at least partially overshadowing fear.
In the rear, in addition to the bombing, war means grief, hardship and exhausting labor. And the way each nation reacts to these tough realities depends on its inherited and, so to speak, “acquired” features. The former relate to the national character and remain unchanged, while the latter are the fruit of the existing system of education and upbringing, socio-economic conditions and, above all, the ideology prevailing at this particular moment.
Ideology then prompts some countries to take the path to conquering the world, then plunges them into hibernation. And the story largely consists of differences in the ideological "graphs" of peoples. Similarly, in war there are no absolute values — there are only relative values, and victory or defeat is determined by the ratio between the negative and positive factors inherent in each of the warring parties. There was a time when France was considered the first military power of the world, and others copied the organization of its army, to the extent that most of the military terms in most languages are borrowed from French. Today, the standards in this area are set by Nazi Germany, and the world will, willy-nilly, become acquainted with German military terminology. Every country striving to defeat Nazi Germany will have to catch up with it and surpass it in efficiency - both military and organizational, because in our century of total war there is no easy way to win.
The Germans have always been good, although not always the best soldiers. In the past, they supplied the world with mercenaries, and the rich military traditions developed from their generals a military sense, often, however, becoming the fruit of the collective mind of the general staff, rather than the insights of individual geniuses. They are accustomed to discipline, obedience and submission, hardy and not prone to whining, capable of the greatest physical, if not moral courage and patriotic, no less than citizens of any other Western country.
At the level of individuals, Germans are divided, quarrelsome, inflexible and narrow-minded, but as an antidote to these qualities they have developed a real organizational genius, which gives them, as a nation, effectiveness far beyond the capacity of each of them. In addition, the relative scarcity of resources, and therefore the need to use everything to the maximum, taught them thrift and meticulousness. The ability of the Germans to be content with little is known to everyone, and in their ability to endure deprivations they are superior to most other nations of the West.
Hitler and the Nazi regime used and maximally developed all these qualities: on the one hand, the Nazis suppressed any opposition and turned the whole of Germany into a gigantic military machine, and on the other, brought up the fanatical will to victory of youth based on the dogmas about the superiority of the German “masters” race "And the principle:" be racks! ". The German army has already revolutionized military affairs, its fighting spirit remains unsurpassed, and its achievements will be studied as classics by more than one generation of military specialists.
At the same time, the character of the Germans - both individually and as a whole nation - is still in the formative stage, it was not settled, unlike the French, the British, and in many respects even the Americans. The reason that the Germans love to talk about the worldview so much is that they don’t have it. Being, as they call themselves, “young people”, the Germans are not self-confident and tend to save themselves from this lack of confidence in the collective or doctrinal mysticism - that is why there have always been a lot of “unions” and parties based on ideology, of which Nazism - just the last example. The amorphous soul of the German is capable of the most violent "bursts" - from the Reformation to Hitlerism.
With the exception of a few people with strong convictions, the Germans accept any state system that they impose. They become his followers, fight and suffer for him - but only as long as the system works successfully, because success in their eyes proves its correctness. But if success stops, the system loses its justification, and the organization of the state instantly and completely crumbles like a house of cards.
During the last war, despite losses at the front and a half-starved existence in the rear, with which any deprivations are incomparable, which the Germans have so far experienced during the current conflict, the German armies even in the spring of 1918 managed to carry out large-scale offensive of the Allies . But after 18 in August, General Ludendorff was forced to notify Berlin that it was impossible to win the war with military means, after three months the German state system collapsed. And the constant statements of Hitler, Goebbels, and indeed, all the official representatives of the Nazi regime, that 1918 will not repeat the year, only say that they are afraid of it.
Until now, however, Hitler won all the battles, and while this happens, he will remain in power thanks to the hopes of the Germans for a final victory. Frederick the Great at one time led the Seven Years War, and Hitler, back in 1939, announced that he was ready to fight for the same period. Only when the German people realizes that this war cannot be won by military means, and all their sufferings and hardships were in vain, is it possible to repeat the 1918 of the year. When - and if - this understanding comes, this outcome can be considered guaranteed. Another thing is that this will require a decisive defeat of the German armies or the entry into the war against Germany of such forces that the German generals, guided by cold calculation, will come to the conclusion that victory is impossible.
Oddly enough, the British - racially closest to the Germans - have a completely opposite national character. If the Germans are trying to create an empire by force of arms and carefully planned actions, then the British acquired their own almost by accident, mainly due to the enterprise of individual merchants, emigrants and self-appointed “empire builders” who brought the English flag to all four edges of the world with indifference, and often hostile to their own "isolationists." The British, pragmatic, suspicious of the procrustes of dogma and logic, highly individualistic, restrained and not loving to interfere in their lives - to the extent that their integration into the social system is possible only due to unwritten standards of behavior and respect for traditions, are incapable of as meticulous and effective organization as the Germans. And if the latter admire professionals, then the ideal of the British, as Stanley Baldwin noted, is “the lifestyle of an amateur”.
However, although the organization of British society is not as effective as that of the Germans, it is at the same time less inert and more stable. Flexibility has so far ensured its preservation. In addition, since the British - or at least the representatives of the ruling class of the country - are descendants of the people who first conquered the British Isles themselves and ruled them, and then ruled an empire that included many nations, they are so sure of their own superiority that they simply cannot imagine imagine that something can be inferior to someone. And this “superiority complex” permeates all strata of society that developed during constant conquests so much that it is equally peculiar to the lord and his butler.
For these reasons, the British most often lightly refer to the looming threat and underestimate the enemy. As in many other countries after the end of the last war, in Britain this frivolity was aggravated by an empty and anemic “porridge in the head”, which was given out as the most current intellectual course, associated with long-haired men and short-haired women, and sublimated the obese displeasure of life into pacifism and amazement . The case inevitably ended in contradiction; opposing any war, these intellectuals simultaneously demanded action against the “aggressors”. In the end, they concluded that "the days of England are over."
But if the Germans draw strength in organization, then the British have gigantic reserves of moral endurance awakening in the hour of personal or national trials - this phenomenon is only to a small extent conveyed by the nickname “Bulldogs” stuck to the English. Many of the youths, who briskly repeated the postulate that the days of England are numbered, are saving the British Empire today, sitting at the helm of fighters. In peacetime, the British can play around with the idea of defeat, but never put up with it if it really threatens them - “they just don’t understand that they are defeated” and “continue to fight even if they are cornered to the wall”.
Perhaps only an Englishman could write those immortal words that a dying polar explorer, Captain Robert Scott, wrote in his diary: “These uneven lines and our dead bodies will tell our story.” They, perhaps, teach the British to show the same perseverance, which, albeit on a different basis, is demonstrated by the Russians, whose resistance to the German war machine surprises the whole world and deserves involuntary respect even from the Germans themselves. The key to Russian perseverance is the Russian soul itself, primitive and violent, darkly pensive and sensitive, burdened with a deep sense of guilt. All this not only turns the Russian into a passive fatalist, but also teaches him to suffer and death, forcing him to firmly hold on to two things that seem clear and eternal — religion and sacred native land.
The “superstructure” to this national character was the Bolshevik regime, following the Russian traditions, but creating a centralized party apparatus capable of bringing together disparate masses of people. In addition, he inspired the people with a unifying ideology that connected the youth and the army with tough discipline and ruthless suppression of any ideological "deviations", including in the Communist Party itself. However, the Russians were never famous for efficiency and organization, and an over-emphasis on the role of workers at the expense of managers clearly did not improve this situation, despite the many years of intensive industrialization.
As a result, the huge masses of people and equipment that the Russian army possesses do not matter in the offensive, but, defending their homeland, Russian soldiers stand to the death. And this selfless desire to protect the homeland is not constrained by ideological frameworks: even White emigres today pray for God to grant Stalin victory over the aggressors.
The fact that the organizational system created by the Bolsheviks withstood the blow completely overturned the calculations of the Germans, but even when - and if - it collapses, this will not be a complete and final collapse, as is the case with the German system. During the last war, when even the defense seemed German soldiers hopeless, they simply went home to work their fields. If the Germans cease resistance when their organizational system collapses, the Russians continue to fight - everywhere, regardless of whether Moscow has fallen or not. In 1812, they destroyed Napoleon’s army, in 1918-19 they rebuffed the Allied expeditionary force; now it was the turn of the Germans. How effective this resistance will be in the conditions of a modern war is not yet clear.
The French are the exact opposite of the Russians: they are over-civilized, skeptical, rationalists and realists to the bone, and their instinctive motive is “the sacred egoism of the Latins.” Because of this egoism, the political life of the country is unstable, because of one-sided rationalism, the French fall victim to their “mind” as often as the Germans - their penchant for mysticism, and realism blinds the eyes to its own opposite.
However, the French have always managed to extend their egoism to something more than their own persona - namely, to their country. For them, the world outside of France looks rude and barbaric - therefore, very few French leave their homeland. This applies particularly to the peasants who formed the backbone of the French army.
Because of this national character in the history of France there have been both brilliant victories and catastrophic defeats. Defending France or fighting for the glory of France, the French soldiers at various times smashed the armies of all European countries, but when they themselves were on the verge of defeat, they stopped the fight because of their rationalism and realism, finding it hopeless. In such cases, there is a high probability of panic, when everyone is saved as much as possible.
Never, however, has France experienced such a collapse as the current one, when it turned against its own traditions. And this has its own special reason. Even before the war, the population of France was shrinking, and it was embraced by the melancholy accompanying this process. In this atmosphere, the egoism of the French acquired an unrestrained character, reaching its apogee in the suicidal policy of the trade unions. France was overcome not only by the Germans and their weapons, but also by their own dismay.
The morale of the Japanese - military and civilian - has nothing to do with the above, because it was formed in completely different conditions. The Japanese are devoted primarily to his family, and later this loyalty spread to the feudal lord and the country as a whole in the person of the emperor. An expression of this was the revival of Shintoism in its original form, fusing together patriotism and religion, and the outward manifestation is the Bushido code (“the way of the warrior”). Bushido teaches the Japanese to be ready to die for the emperor, and Shinto deifies death.
The selfless courage of the Japanese soldiers manifested itself in many battles, and often before the battle they vow to each other — blowing a traditional bowl with cold water in a circle — to die, but not to retreat and not to surrender. And no matter what differences exist in Japanese society, when a country is in danger, all the people rally around the emperor. Moreover, the authorities deliberately cultivate a warrior spirit: they reconcile with violent opposition, if its reason is that circumstances force Tokyo to compromise for peace, and even political murders are treated rather mildly, when those who commit them are guided by patriotic motives - albeit in excessive form.
For these reasons, Japan has always been and remains a dangerous adversary, and it is dangerous to underestimate it. Is it possible to break the morale of the Japanese? It is impossible to answer this question, since this has never happened. Japan often retreated, faced with superior forces, but did not lose a single war.
And what about our country? Is the morale of Americans really as weak as it is often said? The American people, to whose origin the entire Western world contributed, absorbed those positive and negative qualities that we described above, and the factor of the “melting pot”, which remains in force until now, has an additional effect on it. The growing influence of women and education in public life gives the psychology of the American nation a somewhat “feminine” hue: this phenomenon can be considered a boon in peace, but during the war, which men still wage, it can complicate matters. However, this is another story - for “internal use”.
The recognized specialist talks about the resilience of various nations in the context of the global crisis.
The area of our planet is 55 million square miles, and the population is 2 billion people. Today, 80% of this territory and population are directly or indirectly involved in the war. In terms of the size of theaters of military operations, the number of people and equipment participating in them, and the comprehensive impact on both combatants and civilians, the current conflict has already surpassed all wars in stories of humanity. At the same time, its scale is still limited compared to what may happen if the two wars that are now going on in Europe and Asia turn into a single confrontation, and the United States from the reserve will advance to the front line.
Thus, for the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the Earth, the current war is no longer a theory, not a subject for abstract moral and philosophical reflections, but an inexorable reality, forcing every country and every person to take urgent and decisive actions.
Moreover, given the nature of the ideological differences of the parties and the inevitable world-historic consequences of the victory of one of them, not just bits of territory and a lot of other things for which wars were fought in the past are at stake. For many countries, it is about life and death, and for all nations - the path that civilization will take, and their own way of life. As in the times of the Punic wars or invasions of Europe by Persians, Arabs and Huns, the fate of the world is once again decided by the sword, and his sentence cannot be appealed. The course of the current war has already demonstrated the meaning of the words "woe to the vanquished."
According to the military, the basic principles of warfare have not changed: the laws of strategy are eternal, and military art cannot be replaced with anything. But at least two other factors related to the activities of the state are of no less importance. If before it was said that God is on the side of the big battalions, today he is on the side of better trained and equipped armies. In addition, as the development of events showed, such a concept as “short local war” - the dream of any militarist - has sunk into oblivion. In today's closely interconnected world with its fragile balance, any war turns into a world-scale issue, which ultimately is decided by the economic potential of each side - and the quantity and quality of armaments in a decisive battle depends on it. And this economic potential, in turn, is determined by moral factors that cannot be calculated, which change the composition of the participants in each new Armageddon.At the same time, the wars are still not won by economists alone - of which France and Britain were convinced by their own hard experience. Each nation, as before, has to wage its own struggle, the victory in which depends not only on the generals and weapons, but also from that elusive, indefinite substance, which is called the morale - the spirit of the soldiers at the front and the whole people. A person who is in mortal danger can use some hidden reserves, which are inherent in him by nature, not expressed by any chemical formula, which double and triple his powers.
Similarly, entire nations during a war often stun the world, discovering hidden and unknown forces in themselves — bodily and spiritual, overthrowing all calculations, and, as has often happened in history, even turning a military defeat into victory. And only those countries that are able to awaken these reserves in the hour of danger can hope to survive. Indeed, despite the well-known expression “war does not solve anything,” during periods of “world-historic decisions” like those that Hitler now proclaims, even powerful empires crumble into dust.
Today, the morale requirements of soldiers and the general public are much tougher than ever before. Before the beginning of the previous world conflict, the war remained something romantic and “gallant” in the minds of people - a kind of adventure that excites young people. The war began on a wave of turbulent enthusiasm, amid flowery speeches about "the girl who is waiting for you at home," who supported the soldier at least until the first battle. The former life continued in the rear: perhaps only a little more exciting and allowing some people to make fabulous profits. Today, the whole world knows that in the war there is nothing “beautiful” - it is blood, sweat and tears, that for a soldier at the front it comes down to firing the most often invisible enemy and waiting for his response bullets and shells. At the same time, his spirit does not support the “elbow of a friend” or the rage of hand-to-hand that causes blood to boil, at least partially overshadowing fear.
In the rear, in addition to the bombing, war means grief, hardship and exhausting labor. And the way each nation reacts to these tough realities depends on its inherited and, so to speak, “acquired” features. The former relate to the national character and remain unchanged, while the latter are the fruit of the existing system of education and upbringing, socio-economic conditions and, above all, the ideology prevailing at this particular moment.
Ideology then prompts some countries to take the path to conquering the world, then plunges them into hibernation. And the story largely consists of differences in the ideological "graphs" of peoples. Similarly, in war there are no absolute values — there are only relative values, and victory or defeat is determined by the ratio between the negative and positive factors inherent in each of the warring parties. There was a time when France was considered the first military power of the world, and others copied the organization of its army, to the extent that most of the military terms in most languages are borrowed from French. Today, the standards in this area are set by Nazi Germany, and the world will, willy-nilly, become acquainted with German military terminology. Every country striving to defeat Nazi Germany will have to catch up with it and surpass it in efficiency - both military and organizational, because in our century of total war there is no easy way to win.
The Germans have always been good, although not always the best soldiers. In the past, they supplied the world with mercenaries, and the rich military traditions developed from their generals a military sense, often, however, becoming the fruit of the collective mind of the general staff, rather than the insights of individual geniuses. They are accustomed to discipline, obedience and submission, hardy and not prone to whining, capable of the greatest physical, if not moral courage and patriotic, no less than citizens of any other Western country.
At the level of individuals, Germans are divided, quarrelsome, inflexible and narrow-minded, but as an antidote to these qualities they have developed a real organizational genius, which gives them, as a nation, effectiveness far beyond the capacity of each of them. In addition, the relative scarcity of resources, and therefore the need to use everything to the maximum, taught them thrift and meticulousness. The ability of the Germans to be content with little is known to everyone, and in their ability to endure deprivations they are superior to most other nations of the West.
Hitler and the Nazi regime used and maximally developed all these qualities: on the one hand, the Nazis suppressed any opposition and turned the whole of Germany into a gigantic military machine, and on the other, brought up the fanatical will to victory of youth based on the dogmas about the superiority of the German “masters” race "And the principle:" be racks! ". The German army has already revolutionized military affairs, its fighting spirit remains unsurpassed, and its achievements will be studied as classics by more than one generation of military specialists.
At the same time, the character of the Germans - both individually and as a whole nation - is still in the formative stage, it was not settled, unlike the French, the British, and in many respects even the Americans. The reason that the Germans love to talk about the worldview so much is that they don’t have it. Being, as they call themselves, “young people”, the Germans are not self-confident and tend to save themselves from this lack of confidence in the collective or doctrinal mysticism - that is why there have always been a lot of “unions” and parties based on ideology, of which Nazism - just the last example. The amorphous soul of the German is capable of the most violent "bursts" - from the Reformation to Hitlerism.
With the exception of a few people with strong convictions, the Germans accept any state system that they impose. They become his followers, fight and suffer for him - but only as long as the system works successfully, because success in their eyes proves its correctness. But if success stops, the system loses its justification, and the organization of the state instantly and completely crumbles like a house of cards.
During the last war, despite losses at the front and a half-starved existence in the rear, with which any deprivations are incomparable, which the Germans have so far experienced during the current conflict, the German armies even in the spring of 1918 managed to carry out large-scale offensive of the Allies . But after 18 in August, General Ludendorff was forced to notify Berlin that it was impossible to win the war with military means, after three months the German state system collapsed. And the constant statements of Hitler, Goebbels, and indeed, all the official representatives of the Nazi regime, that 1918 will not repeat the year, only say that they are afraid of it.
Until now, however, Hitler won all the battles, and while this happens, he will remain in power thanks to the hopes of the Germans for a final victory. Frederick the Great at one time led the Seven Years War, and Hitler, back in 1939, announced that he was ready to fight for the same period. Only when the German people realizes that this war cannot be won by military means, and all their sufferings and hardships were in vain, is it possible to repeat the 1918 of the year. When - and if - this understanding comes, this outcome can be considered guaranteed. Another thing is that this will require a decisive defeat of the German armies or the entry into the war against Germany of such forces that the German generals, guided by cold calculation, will come to the conclusion that victory is impossible.
Oddly enough, the British - racially closest to the Germans - have a completely opposite national character. If the Germans are trying to create an empire by force of arms and carefully planned actions, then the British acquired their own almost by accident, mainly due to the enterprise of individual merchants, emigrants and self-appointed “empire builders” who brought the English flag to all four edges of the world with indifference, and often hostile to their own "isolationists." The British, pragmatic, suspicious of the procrustes of dogma and logic, highly individualistic, restrained and not loving to interfere in their lives - to the extent that their integration into the social system is possible only due to unwritten standards of behavior and respect for traditions, are incapable of as meticulous and effective organization as the Germans. And if the latter admire professionals, then the ideal of the British, as Stanley Baldwin noted, is “the lifestyle of an amateur”.
However, although the organization of British society is not as effective as that of the Germans, it is at the same time less inert and more stable. Flexibility has so far ensured its preservation. In addition, since the British - or at least the representatives of the ruling class of the country - are descendants of the people who first conquered the British Isles themselves and ruled them, and then ruled an empire that included many nations, they are so sure of their own superiority that they simply cannot imagine imagine that something can be inferior to someone. And this “superiority complex” permeates all strata of society that developed during constant conquests so much that it is equally peculiar to the lord and his butler.
For these reasons, the British most often lightly refer to the looming threat and underestimate the enemy. As in many other countries after the end of the last war, in Britain this frivolity was aggravated by an empty and anemic “porridge in the head”, which was given out as the most current intellectual course, associated with long-haired men and short-haired women, and sublimated the obese displeasure of life into pacifism and amazement . The case inevitably ended in contradiction; opposing any war, these intellectuals simultaneously demanded action against the “aggressors”. In the end, they concluded that "the days of England are over."
But if the Germans draw strength in organization, then the British have gigantic reserves of moral endurance awakening in the hour of personal or national trials - this phenomenon is only to a small extent conveyed by the nickname “Bulldogs” stuck to the English. Many of the youths, who briskly repeated the postulate that the days of England are numbered, are saving the British Empire today, sitting at the helm of fighters. In peacetime, the British can play around with the idea of defeat, but never put up with it if it really threatens them - “they just don’t understand that they are defeated” and “continue to fight even if they are cornered to the wall”.
Perhaps only an Englishman could write those immortal words that a dying polar explorer, Captain Robert Scott, wrote in his diary: “These uneven lines and our dead bodies will tell our story.” They, perhaps, teach the British to show the same perseverance, which, albeit on a different basis, is demonstrated by the Russians, whose resistance to the German war machine surprises the whole world and deserves involuntary respect even from the Germans themselves. The key to Russian perseverance is the Russian soul itself, primitive and violent, darkly pensive and sensitive, burdened with a deep sense of guilt. All this not only turns the Russian into a passive fatalist, but also teaches him to suffer and death, forcing him to firmly hold on to two things that seem clear and eternal — religion and sacred native land.
The “superstructure” to this national character was the Bolshevik regime, following the Russian traditions, but creating a centralized party apparatus capable of bringing together disparate masses of people. In addition, he inspired the people with a unifying ideology that connected the youth and the army with tough discipline and ruthless suppression of any ideological "deviations", including in the Communist Party itself. However, the Russians were never famous for efficiency and organization, and an over-emphasis on the role of workers at the expense of managers clearly did not improve this situation, despite the many years of intensive industrialization.
As a result, the huge masses of people and equipment that the Russian army possesses do not matter in the offensive, but, defending their homeland, Russian soldiers stand to the death. And this selfless desire to protect the homeland is not constrained by ideological frameworks: even White emigres today pray for God to grant Stalin victory over the aggressors.
The fact that the organizational system created by the Bolsheviks withstood the blow completely overturned the calculations of the Germans, but even when - and if - it collapses, this will not be a complete and final collapse, as is the case with the German system. During the last war, when even the defense seemed German soldiers hopeless, they simply went home to work their fields. If the Germans cease resistance when their organizational system collapses, the Russians continue to fight - everywhere, regardless of whether Moscow has fallen or not. In 1812, they destroyed Napoleon’s army, in 1918-19 they rebuffed the Allied expeditionary force; now it was the turn of the Germans. How effective this resistance will be in the conditions of a modern war is not yet clear.
The French are the exact opposite of the Russians: they are over-civilized, skeptical, rationalists and realists to the bone, and their instinctive motive is “the sacred egoism of the Latins.” Because of this egoism, the political life of the country is unstable, because of one-sided rationalism, the French fall victim to their “mind” as often as the Germans - their penchant for mysticism, and realism blinds the eyes to its own opposite.
However, the French have always managed to extend their egoism to something more than their own persona - namely, to their country. For them, the world outside of France looks rude and barbaric - therefore, very few French leave their homeland. This applies particularly to the peasants who formed the backbone of the French army.
Because of this national character in the history of France there have been both brilliant victories and catastrophic defeats. Defending France or fighting for the glory of France, the French soldiers at various times smashed the armies of all European countries, but when they themselves were on the verge of defeat, they stopped the fight because of their rationalism and realism, finding it hopeless. In such cases, there is a high probability of panic, when everyone is saved as much as possible.
Never, however, has France experienced such a collapse as the current one, when it turned against its own traditions. And this has its own special reason. Even before the war, the population of France was shrinking, and it was embraced by the melancholy accompanying this process. In this atmosphere, the egoism of the French acquired an unrestrained character, reaching its apogee in the suicidal policy of the trade unions. France was overcome not only by the Germans and their weapons, but also by their own dismay.
The morale of the Japanese - military and civilian - has nothing to do with the above, because it was formed in completely different conditions. The Japanese are devoted primarily to his family, and later this loyalty spread to the feudal lord and the country as a whole in the person of the emperor. An expression of this was the revival of Shintoism in its original form, fusing together patriotism and religion, and the outward manifestation is the Bushido code (“the way of the warrior”). Bushido teaches the Japanese to be ready to die for the emperor, and Shinto deifies death.
The selfless courage of the Japanese soldiers manifested itself in many battles, and often before the battle they vow to each other — blowing a traditional bowl with cold water in a circle — to die, but not to retreat and not to surrender. And no matter what differences exist in Japanese society, when a country is in danger, all the people rally around the emperor. Moreover, the authorities deliberately cultivate a warrior spirit: they reconcile with violent opposition, if its reason is that circumstances force Tokyo to compromise for peace, and even political murders are treated rather mildly, when those who commit them are guided by patriotic motives - albeit in excessive form.
For these reasons, Japan has always been and remains a dangerous adversary, and it is dangerous to underestimate it. Is it possible to break the morale of the Japanese? It is impossible to answer this question, since this has never happened. Japan often retreated, faced with superior forces, but did not lose a single war.
And what about our country? Is the morale of Americans really as weak as it is often said? The American people, to whose origin the entire Western world contributed, absorbed those positive and negative qualities that we described above, and the factor of the “melting pot”, which remains in force until now, has an additional effect on it. The growing influence of women and education in public life gives the psychology of the American nation a somewhat “feminine” hue: this phenomenon can be considered a boon in peace, but during the war, which men still wage, it can complicate matters. However, this is another story - for “internal use”.
Information