Declaring Independence From Fear

Have you ever heard of the Kindermort?  I hadn’t either, until listening to Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast on World War I Blueprint for Armageddon. Long-story short, the Kindermort was at the first battle of Ypres, when German volunteer students exempt from the draft marched, almost arm-in-arm into the blazing guns of well-trained and rapid-firing British Fusiliers. All 25,000 of these fresh-faced youth were mowed down, having achieved nothing for their side.  A lack of training more than made up for the zeal with which they originally approached the battlefield.  Of all of the blatant disregard for troops survival demonstrated throughout World War I, the Kindermort may rank as possibly the most egregious waste of life so far revealed.

War is a constant waste of life, resources, national treasure, and the human capacity for thought.  World War I is one of the most demonstrable examples of this, but every war in history, from the shortest (38 minutes), to the longest (anyone?) continues this utter waste.  On a strategic level war is simply stupid: the waste is not worth the potential gain.  On a personal level, all war is a tragedy. The wars of history have taken sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers from the arms of their loved ones, thrust them into terrifying circumstances from which none can possibly return whole, if they return at all.

As a father of a 4 year-old son, the threat of war changing my son, or taking him from us forever, haunts me daily.  I look around the world, understanding the propensity toward war, and I am fearful.  Fearful for his future, for his life, and for humanity as a whole.  How can we keep having these wars?  How can we make war a thing of the past?  My fear drives a desire to turn the human mind away from war, if for no other selfish reason than to save the life of my son.

What I’ve come upon in my research is that wars are based off of fear.  Fear of the unknown, fear of what those we classify as the enemy is doing. Fear of the outcome if we do not fight.  Yet, as Peter Englund puts it so eloquently in his great work The Beauty and The Sorrow:

“Wars are and always have been paradoxical and deeply ironic phenomena that frequently change what people want to preserve, promote what people want to prevent and demolish what people want to protect.”

For anyone wanting to protect his son, and the son, daughter, mother, father, sister, and brother of everyone else, how do we stop war?  Not simply, we stop fear.  We can never get away from fear, but we can harness fear to stop war.  There are two ways to deal with fear: address it head-on and use the resources you have available to reduce its power over you, or let fear control your actions and limit your mind so that your only recourse is violence against yourself and others.  When you do not act out of fear you can make your most clear, reasonable, and rational choices, none of which will lead you to war. When you act out of fear, violence is the result.

Let’s take a look at how we can use fear to avoid war.

Addressing fear head on is one of the two methods of using fear.  If you invite in your lack of knowledge of “the other” and begin to learn about them you may come to realize that what you feared is simply what you misunderstood.  Beyond greater understanding of “the other”, you can also begin to look at what makes you fearful.  What are you afraid of?  Is it that you’ll lose something if you do not protect it?  Is it that you’ll be hurt in some way?  If so, think about how your actions will or will not lead to that thing being lost or that harm being inflicted.  It is your fear that will lead to those outcomes, not your ability to think beyond the fear.  Therefore, it behooves us to look at all cases of casus belli as opportunities to examine what we’re afraid of, and find within ourselves that there is no existential threat, but rather our nerves that are making us act out of fear.

Beyond confronting your fear, there is another, even more powerful, approach to using fear.  Look around you and take stock of your resources, your allies, your opportunities.  Whatever you are afraid of pales in comparison to your true power to produce the results you seek.  Think of all the strength you can muster, not merely military strength.  Can you achieve your desired outcome in another, less expensive, way?   Almost exclusively, the answer to that question is yes.

Let’s bring this back to a real-world example.  Tomes have been written on Germany’s actions leading up to and including their entry into World War I.  Yet, little has been written on how Germany could have achieved all of its goals through confronting its fears and tapping into its vast resources to gain the great power status it so coveted.  Germany, acting through fear, built the world’s second largest navy so that it could counter the British at sea.  From fear, Germany also produced the second largest army in the world (no one could outnumber the Russians at the time.)  Fear forced Germany to confront an international geopolitical system that demanded a three-front war: At sea, in the West, and in the East. This was a war Germany was ill-prepared to fight. It was a misapplication of resources due to fear of everything outside of Germany.  Germany held on tight to the one friend it had in the world, Austria-Hungary, compelling the Germans to do anything they could not to lose that friend, including entering into a war for which they were not equipped.

Instead, what if the Germans had looked around and realized that yes, there was the potential for the rest of Europe to gang up on them.  Instead of building arms, what if they had reached out to make friends with their potential rivals?  What if the Germans had worked with the French to figure out a way to administer Alsace-Lorraine so that both sides got what they wanted out of the deal (coal and steel)?  What if the Germans, instead of building a navy which achieved nothing in the war, used all of those resources to increase their industrial capacity, their ability to trade by building the largest merchant fleet in the world, and improving their infrastructure?  What if the Germans had maintained their friendship with the Russians?  What if the Germans, upon request from the Austrians to enter a war together against Russia, thought beyond their fear of encirclement, and realized that a war on 3 fronts was just not in their best interest?

The Germans committed one of the most frequent mistakes countries make when it comes time to consider international politics.  They heightened the tension, rather than released the pressure.  This was true of all of the countries of Europe in 1914, as I don’t want to single out the Germans.  Yet, compare that to what occurred after World War II.  The Germans, French, Italians, and most of the rest of Europe came together to build a coal and steel community, a common market, and eventually a customs, monetary, and hopefully soon a banking union.  These actions were driven by fear (of the Soviet Union) as well as by encouragement (The Marshall Plan). Harnessed fear drove the creation of the most stable, economically vibrant, and enduring Europe the world has seen since the height of the Roman Empire (also built on fear, but that’s for another article).

We can look at East Asia and see another region dominated by fear.  Japan and China are the two biggest countries in the region economically, militarily, and politically.  They have a common fear of each other, for good cause.  China has a history of dominating the region.  Japan has a history of violently doing so during the last century.  Both sides hold strong animosity toward each other not too different than what existed between the French and Germans until the end of World War II.  China and Japan, and to a lesser but still very important extent the United States, Korea, Australia, and several other countries, are locked in a ratcheting up of tension based on fear of the other, their actions, and projected intent.  A lack of understanding on both sides simply increases this tension.  Each side does what it can on a daily basis to manage the relationship, while at the same time increasing the pressure by taking actions that destabilize it.  There will be a shock to this system, and unless that is managed well, war will be the result.

Instead, though, there is an option.  By learning more about the other side, both sides can begin to see what is going on, rather than base decisions on perceptions of what is going on.  This can be done by educating the citizens of these countries truthfully.  Who’s doing what, how, and why?  Not using propaganda to make one government or the other look good.

Beyond that, the potential adversaries can invite the other in to economic cooperative programs that harness the resources of the region in a way that allows every party to benefit from their exploitation. 

Finally, the countries can consider an economic union that ties together their financial systems and future in a way that makes war between them much harder to start. 

Germany and France had to exhaust themselves through a massive blood-letting in order to make this happen.  Japan and China should not have to learn the same lesson.

For the sake of the sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers the world over, let’s use the fear that we’re building around the world to harness the true resources we have available.  Let’s declare our independence from our Lizard Mind by thinking beyond fight or flight.  What can you do to harness the world’s fear of war?  Invite in your enemy.  Learn from them.  Work with them.  Build something together.  Only in this way can we end the pestilence that is war.  Only in this way can your family, as well as mine, be safe in the knowledge that our little ones will never be called upon to die for nothing.

Tear Down The Walls

In honor of the 71st anniversary of the Normandy landings (June 6, 1944), here is a brief on the inutility of Walls. May we never build them, rely upon them, or have to breach them again.

Upon the conquest of Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium and France, Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich owned the European coast from the Arctic Ocean in the North to the Bay of Biscay at Nationalist Spain’s border in the West. Hitler, in a boastful speech about this success, declared “It is my unshakable decision to make this front impregnable against every enemy.” He immediately set Fritz Todt’s military public work’s agency, Organization Todt, to work on the project of building fortifications along an over 3000 mile frontier.  During the next four years enormous resources were devoted to the construction of what became known as The Atlantic Wall.  Built by 250,000 slaves, low-paid laborers, and over-age military men, the 15,000 bunkers, block houses, lookout posts, and gun emplacements were protected by enough barbed wire to stretch around the world multiple times, enough landmines to completely cover the surface of Belgium (call out to fellow fans of Mike Pesca!), and so many field obstacles, flooded fields, and other obstructions to invasion that from the outside it did look to be an impregnable barrier to invasion.  Manned by over 300,000 men, The Atlantic Wall was a formidable obstacle that drained massive resources from the German war effort, especially much needed soldiers from the meat-grinder of the Eastern Front.

In the end, this enormous investment in time, money, material resources, and manpower was overcome with a well-designed, planned, and executed onslaught by the Allies. Even without the amphibious invasion from the Western Allies, the Soviets were working their way into the heart of the Third Reich, sealing its fate.  With the Normandy invasion, the eventual defeat of Germany was brought forth far sooner. The Atlantic Wall was an obstacle, but it was also the way.  Through its construction, Germany weakened itself.  Behind it the Soviets advanced at unprecedented rates. Through breaches made in it, the Western Allies returned to the fields of France, made their way to the Rhine River, and eventually the Elbe River, where they met the Soviets in May 1945. 

The history of walls is replete with failures: Internet Firewalls, The Maginot Line, Hadrian’s Wall, The Great Wall of China, and Athens Sea Wall all offer prime examples.  Walls just do not work as intended.  They are a huge sunk cost of immobile architecture utterly inadaptable to the changing nature of the environment that require constant manning and maintenance. Opponents find ways around, under, over, or through them. Relying upon walls is staking everything on chance, locking yourself into a fixed position, and expecting your opponent to limit their actions to only the items you can imagine.  This is a sure recipe for disaster, as can be proven with research on the walls mentioned above. In all cases, walls fail to achieve the objective set for them.

Rather than spend time diving into each of those failures, it would be more interesting to look at what compels the construction of walls, and if there are better alternatives out there.  This lesson is not just for those attempting to defend territory against an enemy, but also for those wanting to have any social relations with anyone else in the world.  Walls, whether of concrete or emotion, are detrimental to achieving positive outcomes, whatever the goal. 

Walls are built because someone wants to protect something of value from an outsider. The thinking behind construction of walls is that they make the acquisition of that valuable item more difficult; therefore the outsider will not be able, or will be deterred, from attempting acquisition.  Though somewhat true, walls do create obstacles, every obstacle can be overcome.  With a little ingenuity, planning, and implementation, one can begin operations from behind a wall, over a wall, under it, or simply breach it to get through.  Walls themselves are not the answer to protecting what you hold most dear.

Instead, considering things from a strategic vantage point, one must ask “Is this item, whatever it is, really important?”  Often the things around which we build walls are not as valuable as the resources we put into the walls.  Think about the walls in your life, whether between you and your spouse, coworkers, friends, or strangers.  What are you trying to protect?  Is it worth protecting? Chances are, in most cases, it’s not.  When put into context, the things we often define as valuable have little real value.  An example of this is the 1994 Northridge earthquake, which knocked down almost every wall in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles.  Initially after the earthquake people realized that all of these downed walls did not leave them open to any kind of security breach.  Instead, communities were brought together, neighbors met neighbors, and shared actions led to greater outcomes for all involved.  Walls were not needed.  It took at earthquake for people to realize that that.  Over time, though, people reverted back to their original thinking about walls, all of which and more have since returned to the San Fernando Valley, one of the most walled communities in the United States.

Taking an objective look at the value of any item will determine if it’s worth trying to protect. If, in the end, you determine that the item is worth putting resources toward securing, that is fine.  There are actions you can take to protect it. Begin by asking yourself “How can I secure this item?” Chances are there are many ways to attempt security.  A wall is simply one, as mentioned bad, option. Others are: reaching out to others to create a community of security, engaging the opponent to reduce their desire for the item you are trying to protect, and relocating the item to a less vulnerable place, just to name a few. Do not limit yourself to the obvious methods of security.  Humans have an incredible capacity to imagine and create.  Come up with something that addresses the objective you are attempting to achieve.  Odds are, walls are not the answer.

Bringing this back to The Atlantic Wall for a demonstrable example, what could the Germans have done differently? To start with, on a grand strategic level, they could have avoided war with most of the known world.  Once you start such a conflict, you set yourself up with diminishing odds of success.  The Germans bit off far more than they could chew by conquering so much territory.  Their political leadership led them to take on too much too soon, even against the advice of their military leaders.  Therefore, the first lesson is to be objective in your goals, matching your desired outcomes to your resources, reducing the possibility that chance will derail your initiatives.

Once the Germans realized they could not make Britain sue for peace, The Atlantic Wall became a product of the unexpectedly longer war than German political leadership was prepared to fight.  It was a holding action while other goals were sought (conquest of the U.S.S.R.).  They knew that it would not stop a determined attack, but it could deter one long enough for Germany to refocus on Britain again in the future.  Both German Field Marshalls most responsible for The Atlantic Wall knew it alone would not stop an Allied invasion. Field Marshall Rommel, the man eventually appointed as inspector of coastal defenses in the West, even called it “a figment of Hitler’s cloud cuckoo land.”  These Field Marshalls began creating alternatives to the wall, augmenting where they could, creating a nascent ability to respond with mobility to any attempted breach of the wall on the part of the allies.  They began to integrate the wall into a much broader vision of a mobile defense that simply included the wall as an additional obstacle to an Allied invasion, rather than the end-all defensive line to such an attack. They could not get the resources used to build the wall back, so they used the wall in the most effective way they could to try to achieve the goals set for them. At best, The Atlantic Wall was an extremely expensive addition to an ill-focused defensive strategy built off of poor leadership decision making. Fortunately for the Allies, the German military’s mobility plans were wasted because Hitler refused to release the mobile units in time to make any meaningful impact against the Allied amphibious assault. The wall was left to stand alone.  It, of course, failed.

If the resources spent on the wall were instead put toward the construction of tanks, the manning of new mobile units, and the production of other war materials like fighter aircraft and submarines, the Germans would have performed far better on the Eastern Front, in the air-war, and at sea, which were the true centers of gravity for the war.  Instead, the Germans put up this wall, without providing the resources necessary to plug a breach, while leaving the entire Eastern flank, airspace, and sea-lanes exposed to a revitalized and retribution-driven enemy.  Bad decisions compounded bad decisions, limiting the German chance of successfully preventing, detecting, and mitigating an Allied seaborne invasion.

Walls simply do not work as advertised.  They may add a small element of deterrence to a potential foe’s planning, but such obstacles are relatively easily overcome.  Walls suck away vital resources from actions that will make a difference.  They provide a false sense of security, exposing decision makers to opportunities to take on greater risks (invading the Soviet Union!) than should be contemplated.  Walls are detrimental to security.

When you get the urge to build a wall against any foe, take time to think about your objectives, contemplate your resources, and create a strategy that achieves your desired outcome with the lowest reliance on chance. Do not fall into the deceptively easy decision to build a wall, expecting it to hold your enemy at bay.  Walls fail to do that because wrong objectives, wrong strategy and wasted resource reduce your ability to take necessary actions to achieve your goals.

Think about the walls in your life, career, and relationships.  Where are those walls?  Can you tear them down, possibly achieving your desired outcomes in a more engaged, imaginative, and less resource-intensive way?  Chances are, the answer to that question is a resounding YES!

Jeremy Strozer is a Strategic Leadership Advisor and military historian.  You can find additional creations and more information about Jeremy at www.jeremystrozer.com