Rating: 
Summary: Layman's terms of the after effects of war on a man
Review: Colonel Grossman does a wonderful job of conveying in layman's terms what the effects of killing are on the human mind and soul.
After reading this book you will realize what our soldiers have gone through
when returning to our country after fighting in a war. You will probably be more sympathetic to those protecting our interests and rights.
If you want to find out what it is like to kill a person without actually doing it,
I recommend you purchase this book. It will open your heart and mind to the feelings of those that have been fortunate enough to serve our country, yet unfortunate enough to have fought in a war.
I highly recommend this book
Rating:
Summary: Give it a name
Review: I've read Lt. Col. Grossman's book "On Killing" four or five times. So much so that my original copy is dog-eared and battered. I've also attended a seminar where he spoke. I highly recommend it. When I left the auditorium after the presentation, I realized that Lt. Colonel Grossman had given names to things I'd been feeling for years and not had names for. In that way he made my job easier. I'm a twenty-five year peace officer and have been in many critical incidents. I re-read Lt. Col. G's book again after my second officer-involved shooting to ensure that the coping mechanisms I chose and the things I was feeling were resolved and compensated for in a healthy manner. For police, military, trainers, doctors, psychology professionals, teachers or just for the citizen who wants to fully understand today's headlines, you need look no further.
Rating:
Summary: If you are or know a service member...
Review: Buy this book, and read it, or give it too them. While I may not agree with some of the Col's conclusions, the overall book has been a very good read for this veteran. Stop reading review, buy book now. Your uncle/grandfather/self will thank you for it.
Rating: 
Summary: A Soldier's evaluation
Review: I found this to be a useful book and the only one I have come across that captures the "Ranger experience" properly. My background is similar to his but I believe he may be overestimating the hunman response to killing. In any event,it is a valuable contribution that everyone interested in Military Science should read and discuss.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointed
Review: I was recommended this book and hoped it would provide revelatory analysis on those who kill and the psychological consequences of this aberrant human behaviour. On the contrary, the author normalises the act of killing to the point of mundanity and does little delving into the psyches of killers. The writing is not particularly scholarly and the author peppers the text with some pretty banal assumptions. For the most part this text is a regurgitation of other more famous war historians, Sir John Keegan in particular. Don't waste your time with this book, it is a mish mash of other primary sources about warfare and you are better off reading them.
Rating:
Summary: A different view of the Vietnam war.
Review: Grossman, D. (1996). On killing. NY: Back Bay Books.
To read Grossman's gripping study of killing in a military environment requires a degree of courage from the readers. In fact, those Vietnam colleagues who are not travelling well may be better off not reading this book for it peels back the psychological layers of training to kill, and then the guilt that has been generated from being part of the harvesting of the body count. Importantly, the author recognises that Vietnam was different, for a variety of reasons, to any other war that we have fought.
Grossman has impeccable credentials. He rose from the rank of private to lieutenant colonel and served in the 82nd Airborne, 7th Infantry Division and the U.S. Rangers and as a psychology professor at West Point.
After the Second World War, the British and Americans studied the phenomenon of non-firers. American studies confirmed that in battles only 15-20% of the troops shot to kill. In some situations where several riflemen were together firing at the enemy, others in the group would take on supporting roles (getting ammunition, tending the wounded etc.). There was a conspiracy of silence over the non-firers and those involved in a conspiracy to miss, even when their lives were endangered. The British confirmed that among the Argentinean troops in the Falklands, there was a similar rate of non-firers.
However, by the time of the Vietnam War, training techniques had been changed and the firing rates were around 95%. Herein lies the root of the problems faced by Vietnam veterans. As a result of the non-firing data, training methods were re-designed to remove the moral dilemma of taking human lives. Recruits were trained to shoot body shaped targets, not bullseyes and recruits were rewarded for "kills". At Puckapunyal (Recruit Training), recruits for Vietnam were instructed to aim for the chest, so if the enemy doesn't die they become a burden for their medical support teams. Bayonet training, which had probably remained unchanged for over 100 years, was designed to massively damage the enemy soldier's abdominal-thoracic region with a steel instrument possessing two specifically designed blood grooves. And, as the RDI said, "If you are unlucky enough to bayonet the enemy in the head and can't get your bayonet out, discharge a round and it should split the head open."
In, out, on guard! Kill, kill!
The NCOs' and officers' jobs in combat remain to get the troops to kill. I cannot agree with Grossman's observation that British officers do their jobs better because of the class distinction between themselves and their men, which allowed them to make more objective decisions (p. 168). The "fragging" phenomenon in Vietnam occurred because of this perceived officer indifference to the suffering of the troops.
Killing another human being is not a natural act, contrary to what the movies would have us believe. Grossman argued that only 2% of the troops are natural killers (psychopaths/sociopaths), the others need a variety of support strategies to overcome the feeling of guilt that eventually emerge. Perhaps a strongpoint of this book is the excellent diagrams, which capture the essence of key points in this treatise. The diagram showing the predisposition to kill (p.188) is a good example of Grossman's clarity of thought. He shows that the demands of authority, training and conditioning, experience, target attractiveness and group support all come into play before the trigger is pulled.
So, what made Vietnam different to previous and subsequent wars? Firstly, the training was different and the re-socialisation of recruits, particularly those conscripted into the military, was designed to make certain that the troops would kill. The troop rotations generally had new members of units arriving and leaving as individuals, thus denying them the support and absolutions for what they had taken part in. Thirdly, there was no safe rear area and troops had to be battle ready, always. The Swank and Marchand research of 1946 showed that after 25 days in combat troops suffered combat exhaustion, with a reduction in their effectiveness and ending after 50 days in a vegetative phase. Fourthly, the lack of support from the home communities turned many Vietnam veterans into pariahs and it took over a decade to begin to remedy this dreadful, politically driven alienation. As a result, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) manifested itself in many returning troops, who often left Vietnam and were expected to be civilians again within 12 hours. It was interesting that the British sent troops home from the Falklands by boat to overcome this specific problem of the lack of group absolution.
For me, this book was an interesting read, but importantly it made me understand myself and my colleagues a little better.
Grossman runs a site in America called Killology- http://www.killology.com/cgi-bin/contact.cgi. It is worth a look.
Neil MacNeill, 31 Charlie.
Rating:
Summary: Makes a good case
Review: The hypothesis put forward that conditioning is required to overcome a human beings natural reluctance to kill a fellow human being is made very well by this book. One factor the book does not cover is the impact of race, relegion or ideology on the ability to kill. If the enemey is not similar, killing is easier. In particular if there is pre-existing prejudice. (Wonder if non firing rates were similar on the eastern front between the soviets and Germans).
The suggestion that television and video games provide children with conditioning to kill probably has validity (I would agree with this opinion). However, this book provides no proof. Hunting and sport shooting provide far more effective conditioning than a game consol with graphics (that although vivid have a way to go before they can be considered "realistic"). Even the most violent such as Grand Theft Auto have a way to go. They will soon get there though ...
My point - before we blame TV, video games, paintball and even shooting - there are far more important things to address. Like instilling the value of human life and the value of all people in the first place. Maybe video games and TV aren't the most important of issues. Perhaps, more importantly, an absence of discipline, control and ethics reduce our natural aversion to killing more than any video game.
Rating:
Summary: Groundbreaking book on battlefield psychology
Review: This groundbreaking book masterfully examines battlefield psychology and the individual soldier's emotional struggle through violence. The author, Lt. Col Dave Grossman, is both a psychiatrist and a lieutenant colonel in the US army. Using decades of interviews with veterans (especially those from Vietnam), he unravels an extremely complex mix of conflicting emotional states and responses.
Grossman starts with the basic psychology of fight vs. flight and adds in a couple more options of posture or submit (straight from the animal kingdom and surprisingly applicable even in combat situations). He then references SLA Marshall's low firing statistics for WWII (15-20%) and Korean War(40%), comparing them to Vietnam (90%), and explains how vastly improved conditioning prepared Vietnam soldiers to pull the trigger. Then he goes on to explain the very numerous reasons why soldiers are reluctant to kill their fellow man. With this foundation, Grossman then discusses post-combat killing trauma, the dramatic effect of physical distance between killer and victim, peer pressure, authoritarian demands, how committing atrocities really does force soldiers to become ever more ruthless, the killing response stages, and the uniquely dreadful experience Vietnam vets had to deal with upon their return to the US.
The last section of the book then argues how increasingly graphic violence and gore in movies and videogames is desensitizing children and young people to violence. I must admit that I was VERY SKEPTICAL of this last claim, but the author makes some truly compelling arguments. The best one is on p. 328, "...television executives have for years claimed that they are not capable of influencing our actions or changing behavior, but for decades America's major corporations have paid them billions of dollars for a paltry few seconds or a minute to do just that." Then take a lot at the graph displaying an exponential increase in aggravated assaults since the late 1950's to the present (coincidental with the rise of TV?).
Battlefield psychology is perhaps one of the least documented but most important aspects of combat. Grossman's book makes an outstanding contribution to this field. I am sure this will become a classic in military leadership circles.
Rating:
Summary: An eye opening experience
Review: When I read the overview for this book I was a not doubtful, but the idea did not seem that unplausable. I looked the book up in the local library, walked over and borrowed it. This book turned out to be one of the most revolutionary, yet common sense books that I have ever read. I use the word revolutionary deliberately because it has literally destroyed my previous naive understanding of killing in war. It is so good that I eventually bought a copy from amazon.com for future reference.
Sometimes an argument makes no sense, but this one just clicks into place. Now when I read other narratives on war I can see the writing between the lines. War is not an orgy of killing as the movies suggest.
I felt let down by last part of the book dealing with children playing killing games. I felt that Grossman was moving out of his area of expertise as his logic and understanding of the matter seemed to break down.
This book is an excellent insight into the effect that killing has on the human mind. This is an important issue, one on which people should have understanding. This book is a must read.
Rating:
Summary: Superior
Review: A fascinating study into the psycology of humanity dealing with conflict and death. My interpretation of Dr. Grossman's writings is that as a species, we do not inherently want to kill and that our environmental conditioning has much to do with violence in society. If we can only get violence off T.V. and off video games we may survive. I recommend it highly.
|
