On Killing

5. Violence — Psychological aspects. I. Title.

U22.3.G76 1995

355V0019—dc20 95-13888

Illustrations by Mary Reilly

Back Cover

“Full of arresting observations and insights… that make you alter the way you have thought about a certain subjects…. A powerfully argued explanation.”

— New York Times

The good news is that the vast majority of soldiers are loath to kill in battle. Unfortunately, modern armies, using Pavlovian and operant conditioning, have developed sophisticated ways of overcoming this instinctive aversion. The psychological cost for soldiers, as witnessed by the increase in post-traumatic stress, is devastating. The psychological cost for the rest of us is even more so: contemporary civilian society, particularly the media, replicates the army’s conditioning techniques and, according to Grossman’s controversial thesis, is responsible for our rising rate of murder, especially among the young.

On Killing is an important study of the techniques the military uses to overcome the powerful reluctance to kill, of how killing affects the soldier, and of the societal implications of escalating violence.

In the World War II only 15-20 percent of combat infantry were willing to fire they rifles. In Korea, about 50 percent. In Vietnam, the figure rose to over 90 percent.

“Colonel Grossman’s perceptive study ends with a profoundly troubling observation. The desensitizing techniques used to train soldiers are now found in mass media — films, television, and video arcades — and are conditioning our children. His figures on youthful homicides strongly suggest the breeding of teenage Rambos.”

— William Manchester

“A fine piece of work.”

— Dr. Richard Holmes, author of Acts of War

“This important book deserves a wide readership.”

— Library Journal, starred review

A former army Ranger and paratrooper, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman taught psychology at West Point and is currently the Professor of Military Science at Arkansas State University.

Cover design by Kelly Gagnon

Cover photograph courtesy of National Archives #1198

Author photograph by Jeanne Grossman

Visit our Web site at www.twbookmark.com

PRINTED IN THE U.S.A.

,

Notes

1

I would like to note that some friends (such as the noted historian Bill Lind, author of the superb book Retroculture) disagree with this representation of Victorian sexual repression, but I have yet to meet a single individual who disagrees with the analysis of our modern repression outlined here, and that is the pertinent point.

2

There is not even a name for the specific study of killing. “Necrology” would be the study of the dead, and “homicidology” would have undesired connotations of murder. Perhaps we should consider coining the simple and precise term “killology” for this study, just as “suicidology” and “sexology” are terms that have been recently created for the legitimate study of these precise fields.

3

There has been considerable controversy concerning the quality of Marshall’s research in this area. Some modern writers (such as Harold Leinbaugh, author of The Men of Company K), are particularly vociferous in their belief that the firing rate in World War II was significantly higher than Marshall represented it to be. But we shall see that at every turn my research has uncovered information that would corroborate Marshall’s basic thesis, if not his exact percentages. Paddy Griffith’s studies of infantry regimental killing rates in Napoleonic and U.S. Civil War battles; Ardant du Picq’s surveys; the research of soldiers and scholars such as Colonel Dyer, Colonel (Dr.) Gabriel, Colonel (Dr.) Holmes, and General (Dr.) Kinnard; and the observations of World War I and World War II veterans like Colonel Mater and Lieutenant Roupell — all of these corroborate General Marshall’s findings.

Certainly this subject needs more research and study, but I cannot conceive of any motive for these researchers, writers, and veterans to misrepresent the truth. I can, however, understand and appreciate the very noble emotions that could cause men to be offended by anything that would seem to besmirch the honor of those infantrymen who have sacrificed so much in our nation’s (or any nation’s) past.

The latest volley in this ongoing battle was on the side of Marshall. His grandson, John Douglas Marshall, in his book Reconciliation Road put forth one of the most interesting and convincing rebuttals. John Marshall was a conscientious objector in the Vietnam War and was completely disowned by his grandfather. He had no cause to love his grandfather, but he concludes in his book that most of what S. L. A. Marshall wrote “still stands, while much of the way he lived deserves criticism.”