Do we tend to neglect the stress leaders face as a reason to understand and empathize with them?

Griffith

Banned
I made this post last year.

https://old.reddit.com/r/HistoryWha...ve_you_notice_people_criticizing_blunders_in/

And this is a specific issue I'd like to talk about. I've been reading Waterloo and one of the reasons Napoleon lost was because he went to sleep so mistakes that never would have occurred were made. Historians credit Napoleon's aging and weary body as the reason he went to sleep during such a crucial moment in the battle.

In addition one of the reasons why torture was used in Algeria including rapes was because French officers were so desperate to prevent bombings on French civilians. Especially when if there's evidence a terrorist attack might come in a day or two. French first person accounts often write about how they were so worried throughout the torture about the bombing happening as they speak. Accounts literally state they feel they are running out of time even if the person being tortured was captured 30 minutes ago and the torture only started 15 minutes ago.

So this makes ask a question. Do many people who analyze the past and criticize them forget they are facing extremely stressful situations? For example despite how pro domino theory people criticize Johnson for not putting as much troops in Vietnam as needed, they ignore he had an immense mental hurdle trying to balance out military actions with his social program? Or how Chamberlain felt stressed about trying find a peaceful solution with Hitler even flying to Germany on a rough rowdy plane DESPITE HAVING a TERMINAL ILLNESS?

Thoughts? I used to criticize historical figures too until I went through the stress of leadership myself as a manager in a restaurant.
 
Some of your examples run the risk of circular logic. "I did the bad thing to prevent the worse thing and the fact that the worse thing didn't happen therefore justifies the bad thing." But it really doesn't, right?

For the ones where you bring up diminished capacity due to infirmity...well, to answer your specific question, yes, I think we do see people on the board take that into account quite often, even if their conclusions are (often rightly) that it proves that person shouldn't have been in that place at that time.

To answer the broader philosophical point you raise with it- is diminished capacity a mitigating factor in our judgment of peoples' actions?- well...I mean think about it legally: that is certainly a defense you can make in court, it often results in a reduction of charges. Most moral systems wouldn't split hairs about it, though. Wrong is wrong, right is right.

So I guess it depends how exactly you think people are judging historical figures. It's pretty normative behavior to apply moral judgments to the result of an action without much time spent on the intent. Which isn't to say you can't find logical holes in that approach, but for many blanks of just getting on with things, simplified decisions are required.

For example, this board invites a certain amount of...controversial opinion. Most members would agree that fairly strict policies are needed to maintain a community that exists adjacent to some...dark impulses. Taking a morally absolute stance against, for example, torture and rape in Algeria, is a correct step. I know that's easy for me to say because I happen to agree that what happened in Algeria is indefensible whatever the mitigating circumstances, but I've certainly fallen into the trap of defending the free speech rights of members who have turned out to advocate for some pretty sick stuff, ultimately. While I don't feel bad about my earlier defense, I do feel some shame and gullibility after it turns out they were kinda garbage later on.
 

Griffith

Banned
Some of your examples run the risk of circular logic. "I did the bad thing to prevent the worse thing and the fact that the worse thing didn't happen therefore justifies the bad thing." But it really doesn't, right?

For the ones where you bring up diminished capacity due to infirmity...well, to answer your specific question, yes, I think we do see people on the board take that into account quite often, even if their conclusions are (often rightly) that it proves that person shouldn't have been in that place at that time.

To answer the broader philosophical point you raise with it- is diminished capacity a mitigating factor in our judgment of peoples' actions?- well...I mean think about it legally: that is certainly a defense you can make in court, it often results in a reduction of charges. Most moral systems wouldn't split hairs about it, though. Wrong is wrong, right is right.

So I guess it depends how exactly you think people are judging historical figures. It's pretty normative behavior to apply moral judgments to the result of an action without much time spent on the intent. Which isn't to say you can't find logical holes in that approach, but for many blanks of just getting on with things, simplified decisions are required.

For example, this board invites a certain amount of...controversial opinion. Most members would agree that fairly strict policies are needed to maintain a community that exists adjacent to some...dark impulses. Taking a morally absolute stance against, for example, torture and rape in Algeria, is a correct step. I know that's easy for me to say because I happen to agree that what happened in Algeria is indefensible whatever the mitigating circumstances, but I've certainly fallen into the trap of defending the free speech rights of members who have turned out to advocate for some pretty sick stuff, ultimately. While I don't feel bad about my earlier defense, I do feel some shame and gullibility after it turns out they were kinda garbage later on.

You are aware the French military was doing the exact same thing many American conservatives are doing today right? To prevent terrorist attacks many American rightwingers support the US military and CIA using torture to extract information. By that logic should the USA be criticized for having done torture for useful purposes such as Abu Gharib? I mean I myself find a lot of torture stories sick but I can understand why the CIA had to do them and for that reason I cannot bash the French army for what it did in Algeria. As wrong as it was for the French government to stay in Algeria, the French army was only doing its job and the USA would have done the same thing too if they found themselves occupying Algeria in the 60s as they are already repeating some of the French brutalities. Not on an official level and most in the US military definitely oppose stuff like Guantanamo Bay however there's definitely been individuals in the American government and armed forces who done dirty stuff behind the scenes. I can understand why since even though torturing innocent MidEastern civilians is flatout wrong, the conservatives are right the SAFETY OF AMERICAN CIVILIANS GO FIRST. So as disgusting as the rapes and other torture methods the French did, the military was only desperate in defending their country's citizens.

This is what I meant by stress. Its easy to criticize some German generals like Rommel for not taking a more direct opposition to Hitler. But if your family's safety was at risk, would you do it? Most of us can't even risk using our free speech against our bosses because we fear getting fired. You expect German troops who personally oppose antisemitism to risk getting sent to concentration camps to openly disagree with the Nazi regime?

Same with attacking Johnson for not escalating military engagement in Vietnam. Even without his social reforms, you honestly expect him to draft in more than 2 million more troops than we already had in Vietnam OTL or even invade North Vietnam? The political, domestic, and international backlash would be too great even if Johnson was an aggressive warhawk. Criticize the Germans for accepting Hitler? When basic needs like having a descent apartment room to live in is already difficult enough to afford without risk of getting evicted, it changes your priorities from supporting democracy to simply only caring about getting the paycheck so you can pay for nutritious food and a room to stay in.

Stress forces people to do things they'd never do under average conditions which I learned the hard way the first few days after being promoted to manager and handling a leadership position for the first time.
 

Jack Brisco

Banned
In some cases, yes. Think of the stress George Washington was under as the first President. The stress Abraham Lincoln was under must have been enormous. He also had to fight depression. In my opinion, Woodrow Wilson was under so much stress due to World War I that less than a year after the end of the war he suffered a debilitating stroke.

One President who was under almost unimaginable stress from the very day of his inauguration until the day he died of a brain aneurysm was Franklin D. Roosevelt. First, he had to get the country back on track at the nadir of the Depression. Then, later, he also had to build up the American military as a runup to World War II. After Pearl Harbor, there was the stress not just of fighting the war, but dealing with sometimes problematic allies. Keep in mind that FDR had been disabled by polio, and was a heavy smoker. As time went by FDR suffered from high blood pressure, and offhand I'm sure there were other medical problems. To make a long story short, in my opinion FDR worked himself to death.

Ike had his share of health problems in office - heart attack in 1955, surgery for bowel obstruction in 1956, mild stroke in 1957. Believe stress contributed to the heart attack and stroke. Ike had had the bowel problems for a number of years.

Outside of Lyndon Johnson with his gall bladder operation and Ronald Reagan's surgery to remove a bullet after his assassination attempt, can't think of any Presidents who have been hospitalized in office. Doesn't mean these men didn't have a huge amount of stress, just that the physical manifestations were being treated at home, as it were. And if you will, look at a picture of any President on the Inauguration Day of the first term and then look at a picture of that same President as he leaves the White House on his last day. Every President, except maybe Gerald Ford due to his short time in office, looks measurably older and grayer. Ronald Reagan may have been an exception re the gray hair, but believe he dyed it anyway. Obama is a very notable recent example. When he came into office, he had no gray hair. As time went on, his hair started becoming gray, and he left office with a good deal of gray hair. I believe stress is cumulative, and four or eight years of Presidential-level stress take a heavy toll on the body, one way or another.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
You are aware the French military was doing the exact same thing many American conservatives are doing today right? To prevent terrorist attacks many American rightwingers support the US military and CIA using torture to extract information. By that logic should the USA be criticized for having done torture for useful purposes such as Abu Gharib? I mean I myself find a lot of torture stories sick but I can understand why the CIA had to do them and for that reason I cannot bash the French army for what it did in Algeria. As wrong as it was for the French government to stay in Algeria, the French army was only doing its job and the USA would have done the same thing too if they found themselves occupying Algeria in the 60s as they are already repeating some of the French brutalities. Not on an official level and most in the US military definitely oppose stuff like Guantanamo Bay however there's definitely been individuals in the American government and armed forces who done dirty stuff behind the scenes. I can understand why since even though torturing innocent MidEastern civilians is flatout wrong, the conservatives are right the SAFETY OF AMERICAN CIVILIANS GO FIRST. So as disgusting as the rapes and other torture methods the French did, the military was only desperate in defending their country's citizens.
Despite what some movies and television shows would have you believe, torture doesn’t work. If you put someone under torture and they speak, they’ll just be telling you what you want to hear, not the truth. This isn’t new information, it’s been known for hundreds of years. The Eighth Amendment was created with the express purpose of banning torture because it was both inhuman and ineffective. People who actually do torture are just sickos looking to hide behind a veneer of “patriotism” or “national security” as a way to act out their perverted fantasies.
Same with attacking Johnson for not escalating military engagement in Vietnam. Even without his social reforms, you honestly expect him to draft in more than 2 million more troops than we already had in Vietnam OTL or even invade North Vietnam? The political, domestic, and international backlash would be too great even if Johnson was an aggressive warhawk.
Or you know, he could have followed the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and called up the Reserves and National Guard instead of drafting unmotivated Americans, ensuring that public opinion of the war would never get as bad as it did in OTL. Or better yet, he shouldn’t have gotten involved at all if he didn’t have the guts to finish the job.

I also believe we should hold heads of state and members of the armed forces and security services to a higher standard than the average bloke on the street.
 
Last edited:
Historiography doesn't deal with right and wrong but the past "as it was" (Ranke). We acknowledge the beliefs held by people in the past, much like we acknowledge the evidenced stresses in their lives.

For example, one of the major reasons for a movement towards gas vans and camp systems in Germany's extermination campaign in the Soviet Union was the high level of stress evidenced in the einsatzgruppen. Einsatzgruppen members were killing themselves more often and engaging in higher levels of substance abuse than considered acceptable.

There are two fallacies bound up with examining the stress of individuals in the past and its effects on their actions. The first being the great man fallacy. The second being a fallacy of teleological desire: a belief in the historian about what should have happened, which was prevented due to (x).

The soc.history.what-if tradition, followed largely by the non asb forums here, has a tradition of submerging teleological desires. While an author may be desperately interested in a Hoxhaite San Marino, convention is that they posit a plausible single change and explore the outcomes of that change. Unlike the frankly tripe published elsewhere we esteem plausible extrapolation over wish fulfilment.
 

Griffith

Banned
Ban
Despite what some movies and television shows would have you believe, torture doesn’t work. If you put someone under torture and they speak, they’ll just be telling you what you want to hear, not the truth. This isn’t new information, it’s been known for hundreds of years. The Eighth Amendment was created with the express purpose of banning torture because it was both inhuman and ineffective. People who actually do torture are just sickos looking to hide behind a veneer of “patriotism” or “national security” as a way to act out their perverted fantasies.

Or you know, he could have followed the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and called up the Reserves and National Guard instead of drafting unmotivated Americans, ensuring that public opinion of the war would never get as bad as it did in OTL. Or better yet, he shouldn’t have gotten involved at all if he didn’t have the guts to finish the job.

I also believe we should hold heads of state and members of the armed forces and security services to a higher standard than the average bloke on the street.

French officers beg to disagree and they were able to extract info. So does hardcore criminals esp members of organized large rings such as Cartels. And inquisitions where Jews betrayed their relatives and other religious persecution. Lets not forget torture isn't just "hit him for hours". There's a technique to blending friendliness, analyzing statements, etc and also getting clues of where to go next. You still get info even if the person is completely innocent because now you know stuff like moving onto the next target. French may have used brutal torture in Algeria but they combined it with stuff such as analyzing the person's notebooks, interrogating relatives without violence, etc and thats how successful torture work. You don't just beat the shit out of the guy, you analyze the whole situation and switch tactics during the process. Also even if an individual refuses to consent or lies you have backup actions to verify the truth such as relatives or intel scouting, etc. Its basically a puzzle piece, not you get the info right away when the person spits out something.

US military involvement probably would have involved a draft anyway even without Johnson considering how paranoid the political subculture was at the time (especially warhawks) about the domino theory. And he also didn't start off most of the policies, Eisenhower and Kennedy did. He simply followed up a lot of them and even canceled some.

And the military did call up elements of the reserves and national guard at various points in the war as well as even sending a large marine detachment initially. Thing is even with the complete US Army at the time, that wouldn't have been enough manpower to hold the nation indefinitely. Lets not forget most of the US military was around the world and busy doing other stuff like counterinsurgency in South America or training European soldiers in Germany, etc. And even calling up the complete reserves and national guard is foolish-who will defend the country's borders while they are fighting in Vietnam? Vietnam is quite a large country, taking up a fair amount of Texas's area. Draftees or some other method of gaining troops WILL be required to fight such a war Johnson or no Johnson.

You obviously never worked as a manager have you? Or been the head of a family? Or some other leadership position. A lot of simple actions like "fire that bum cashier!" is a lot harder and more time consuming to do than you think and you still have to follow up with consequences like hiring and training a new worker or pickup up a child you sent to the asylum months later and paying for his bills. Its not that easy even at a lower less vital role of leadership such as running a small business. While its only natural to expect to put higher standards on them, lets not forget how complicated politics, military, business, and government legislation can be and how much stress impacts your decision making. Thats the problem with armchair quarterbacking, most of us have no experience in even small petty leadership position such as managing a team of secretaries or directing auditors in the officer. Just even being leader of your small ring of high school friends is complicated and stressful enough esp if you are sincerely looking out for their well-being.
 
In some cases, yes. Think of the stress George Washington was under as the first President. The stress Abraham Lincoln was under must have been enormous. He also had to fight depression. In my opinion, Woodrow Wilson was under so much stress due to World War I that less than a year after the end of the war he suffered a debilitating stroke.
Lincoln was one of the more noticeable, if only because they had so many photos back then. I am glad that the last photo of Lincoln had him smiling. Though not as much of a smile as I remembered in my head. The pictures of him and Davis shows the intense stress of a few years with your catalyst being a day or so from the frontlines. I believe Lincoln suffered sleep loss and didn't eat for many periods as well. When we get two term presidents, with photos showing every grey hair, the changes are still obvious, though rather less intense. By the way, anyone know if Reagan dyed his hair? And Kennedy apparently looked young, but his medical ailments had that as a side effect, giving him a glossy look.
 
Despite what some movies and television shows would have you believe, torture doesn’t work. If you put someone under torture and they speak, they’ll just be telling you what you want to hear, not the truth. This isn’t new information, it’s been known for hundreds of years. The Eighth Amendment was created with the express purpose of banning torture because it was both inhuman and ineffective. People who actually do torture are just sickos looking to hide behind a veneer of “patriotism” or “national security” as a way to act out their perverted fantasies.

I am not sure what movies you watch, far too many I have seen suggest a subject can beat torture. Which is not the case, no documented training I have seen on resisting torture ever tried to sell the notion you can beat torture. You will break and you will very likely reveal things you do not want to. What however does not work as effectively as people think is in fact interrogation. Interrogators frequently miss important data because they ask the wrong questions or simply fail to ask the right ones. Even debriefing willing participants has often resulted in intelligence results that are, at best, dubious.

I fully concur torture is inhumane and should be banned but the reason it should be banned is because interrogation in itself is always an unreliable source of information and thus the apparent benefits of torture are likely to be wasted while the full cost to both subjects and interrogators and society at large has to be born in full.

The insinuation that victims of torture could somehow have held out or misled their interrogators in your post is I believe unintentionally derogatory but it is derogatory.
 
You are aware the French military was doing the exact same thing many American conservatives are doing today right? To prevent terrorist attacks many American rightwingers support the US military and CIA using torture to extract information. By that logic should the USA be criticized for having done torture for useful purposes such as Abu Gharib? I mean I myself find a lot of torture stories sick but I can understand why the CIA had to do them and for that reason I cannot bash the French army for what it did in Algeria. As wrong as it was for the French government to stay in Algeria, the French army was only doing its job and the USA would have done the same thing too if they found themselves occupying Algeria in the 60s as they are already repeating some of the French brutalities. Not on an official level and most in the US military definitely oppose stuff like Guantanamo Bay however there's definitely been individuals in the American government and armed forces who done dirty stuff behind the scenes. I can understand why since even though torturing innocent MidEastern civilians is flatout wrong, the conservatives are right the SAFETY OF AMERICAN CIVILIANS GO FIRST. So as disgusting as the rapes and other torture methods the French did, the military was only desperate in defending their country's citizens.

This is what I meant by stress. Its easy to criticize some German generals like Rommel for not taking a more direct opposition to Hitler. But if your family's safety was at risk, would you do it? Most of us can't even risk using our free speech against our bosses because we fear getting fired. You expect German troops who personally oppose antisemitism to risk getting sent to concentration camps to openly disagree with the Nazi regime?

Same with attacking Johnson for not escalating military engagement in Vietnam. Even without his social reforms, you honestly expect him to draft in more than 2 million more troops than we already had in Vietnam OTL or even invade North Vietnam? The political, domestic, and international backlash would be too great even if Johnson was an aggressive warhawk. Criticize the Germans for accepting Hitler? When basic needs like having a descent apartment room to live in is already difficult enough to afford without risk of getting evicted, it changes your priorities from supporting democracy to simply only caring about getting the paycheck so you can pay for nutritious food and a room to stay in.

Stress forces people to do things they'd never do under average conditions which I learned the hard way the first few days after being promoted to manager and handling a leadership position for the first time.

Under various circumstances we all might do horrible things. And we would all be wrong to do them. And hopefully, if we’re lucky and things get better at some point, we will be judged by history for what we did.
 
This is what I meant by stress. Its easy to criticize some German generals like Rommel for not taking a more direct opposition to Hitler. But if your family's safety was at risk, would you do it? Most of us can't even risk using our free speech against our bosses because we fear getting fired. You expect German troops who personally oppose antisemitism to risk getting sent to concentration camps to openly disagree with the Nazi regime?
To be fair, a lot of the issue is how many military leaders only tried their fabled Operation Valkyrie when Hitler was finally starting to lose, and had been fairly steadfast in silent support ever since the purge of the SA, and being all for destroying Poland, France, etc and performing numerous atrocities. And I don't think people would be sent to concentration camps for disagreeing with the Nazi regime as long as they followed orders and didn't start getting too much attention. If they didn't support genocide, massacres, pogroms, etc? Fair enough. You get out of the safer, and more lucrative, jobs in the camps and have to actually put your life at risk on the frontlines. Of course not everyone knew what was happening to Jews, but there were hints to it around given the massacres in the East, and how they kept disappearing. It is part of why they made concentration camps industrial. Make everyone look like corpses, force Jews to cremate the bodies, have Kapos run the show inside the camps... I kind of prefer the more direct methods used before, but only in that it caused so many people to blow their own brains out, unable to cope with becoming monsters. But yes, you may actually be right to an extent. I recall that after Hess got arrested in the U.K. Hitler had his family, allies, and associates locked up. Unfortunately, this gave them some leeway after the war, as they got to say they had been in a prison or concentration camp when they had actually been loyal Nazis.
 
The big question in all this is "what would you do?"

It's the same about resistance, torture, fighting the enemy or leading a state. You have to ask yourself, if I was in those shoes, having to make those choices, what would you do?

I do not condone torture at all, and looking back at what happened, torture in Algeria only fed the deeply violent cycle of terror on both sides of the fence.
A lot of French soldiers were conscript, civilians dressed up with a uniform and a gun, sent in the desert with the mission of getting information, and averting bombings. They were under intense stress all the time, so they did this, which is not justifiable with hindsight

For a very interesting look at the Algerian War, I heartily recommend "L'Ennemi Intime", a fairly recent French movie which explores a young corporal sent from the Métropole into Algeria and the choices he has to make. It's very balanced and extremely interesting
 
The big question in all this is "what would you do?"

It's the same about resistance, torture, fighting the enemy or leading a state. You have to ask yourself, if I was in those shoes, having to make those choices, what would you do?
Why? Am I a saint? Is right or wrong the same as "what I do or don't do"?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
French officers beg to disagree and they were able to extract info. So does hardcore criminals esp members of organized large rings such as Cartels. And inquisitions where Jews betrayed their relatives and other religious persecution. Lets not forget torture isn't just "hit him for hours". There's a technique to blending friendliness, analyzing statements, etc and also getting clues of where to go next. You still get info even if the person is completely innocent because now you know stuff like moving onto the next target. French may have used brutal torture in Algeria but they combined it with stuff such as analyzing the person's notebooks, interrogating relatives without violence, etc and thats how successful torture work. You don't just beat the shit out of the guy, you analyze the whole situation and switch tactics during the process. Also even if an individual refuses to consent or lies you have backup actions to verify the truth such as relatives or intel scouting, etc. Its basically a puzzle piece, not you get the info right away when the person spits out something.

US military involvement probably would have involved a draft anyway even without Johnson considering how paranoid the political subculture was at the time (especially warhawks) about the domino theory. And he also didn't start off most of the policies, Eisenhower and Kennedy did. He simply followed up a lot of them and even canceled some.

And the military did call up elements of the reserves and national guard at various points in the war as well as even sending a large marine detachment initially. Thing is even with the complete US Army at the time, that wouldn't have been enough manpower to hold the nation indefinitely. Lets not forget most of the US military was around the world and busy doing other stuff like counterinsurgency in South America or training European soldiers in Germany, etc. And even calling up the complete reserves and national guard is foolish-who will defend the country's borders while they are fighting in Vietnam? Vietnam is quite a large country, taking up a fair amount of Texas's area. Draftees or some other method of gaining troops WILL be required to fight such a war Johnson or no Johnson.

You obviously never worked as a manager have you? Or been the head of a family? Or some other leadership position. A lot of simple actions like "fire that bum cashier!" is a lot harder and more time consuming to do than you think and you still have to follow up with consequences like hiring and training a new worker or pickup up a child you sent to the asylum months later and paying for his bills. Its not that easy even at a lower less vital role of leadership such as running a small business. While its only natural to expect to put higher standards on them, lets not forget how complicated politics, military, business, and government legislation can be and how much stress impacts your decision making. Thats the problem with armchair quarterbacking, most of us have no experience in even small petty leadership position such as managing a team of secretaries or directing auditors in the officer. Just even being leader of your small ring of high school friends is complicated and stressful enough esp if you are sincerely looking out for their well-being.
I was going to let this go with a really strong kick message about justification of war crimes (and, yes, the U.S. was guilty of them, according to John McCain, which is good enough for me), but in reviewing your history, you already have a "look crooked and your gone" kick for war crime apologia.

Makes it an easy decision. As promised: You are on the 5:46 to Coventry

We divorce you.

To Coventry with you.
 
Why? Am I a saint? Is right or wrong the same as "what I do or don't do"?
Not sure I completely understand so sorry if my answer is not quite right :)

It's not to make a moral judgement on this. In absolutes, murder and torture is wrong and should be avoided.
My point was more in a "let the one who never sinned throw the first stone" kind of way: it is easy from the comfort of a living room to say "Why did they do this?" or "I would never have done the same" while we're not nearly in the same situation and would probably have done the same coming from the same environment
 

Rostov

Donor
Outside of Lyndon Johnson with his gall bladder operation and Ronald Reagan's surgery to remove a bullet after his assassination attempt, can't think of any Presidents who have been hospitalized in office.
I think Bush Sr was hospitalized briefly after his flu incident and I think Dick Chaney was standing-by when Bush Jr had surgery, but nothing else comes to mind.
 
Top