On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society

It is imperative to understand first “the existence, extent, and nature of the average human being’s resistance to killing his fellow human” (2). S.L.A. Marshall, who was a general in World War II and later an official historian of war, found that only 15-20% of soldiers fired at the enemy in that war (See: Background). Grossman wants to understand this resistance to killing. He draws an analogy between the study of sex and killing, describing each as a private, intimate experience of great intensity (2).

Grossman argues that the “fight-or-flight” dichotomy is applicable only to dangers from another species. When threatened by a member of the same species, there are two other options: posturing and submission. Animals first choose between flight and posturing. If posturing fails to thwart the threat, there is typically a non-lethal fight or mock battle that ends with submission, not death. That sequence is critical to the survival of species.

When human beings are scared, they act similarly. Grossman provides multiple examples from wartime of soldiers posturing, such as war cries, the noise of gunpowder, and puffed-up uniforms. During the American Civil War, soldiers postured by firing over the enemy’s heads. There was a significant gap between the killing potential of weapons and casualties. Throughout military history, there has been a “lack of enthusiasm for killing” (16).

In preparation for the black-powder battles of the American Civil War, military leaders sought to make soldiers cogs in a machine via repetitive drills so that they would be conditioned to fire repeatedly at the enemy. However, in combat, very few individuals shot at the enemy. Most busied themselves with other tasks or fired to miss the enemy.

In the Battle of Gettysburg, of the 27,574 muskets recovered, 90% were loaded. Grossman explains that soldiers loaded the weapons but did not fire them. In the Battle of Cold Harbor, 7,000 Union soldiers were killed over an eight-hour period. However, most of the killing was done by artillery, not infantry. Grossman concludes that the “lack of enthusiasm for killing” (16) dates back at least to the black-powder era. It is a powerful psychological force in combat.

There is a resistance to killing. In World War II, most fighter pilots did not shoot down any enemy planes. Indeed, 30-40% of the planes destroyed were attributable to 1% of pilots. Grossman argues that looking a person in the eye, making the decision to kill that person, and watching that person die as a result “combine to form one of the most basic, important, primal, and potentially traumatic consequences of war” (31).

However, soldiers will not let it be known that they did not kill. Self-deception and lying are as common in combat as they are in matters of love and sex. There is a conspiracy of silence about this resistance to killing. The media helps to perpetuate the myth of easy killing via its movies. The US Army, however, has taken notice and instituted stronger conditioning of recruits. That conditioning has improved firing rates to 55% in Korea and 90-95% in Vietnam. Grossman seeks to expose the nature of war and this resistance to killing to the public.

From where does the resistance to kill come? Grossman cites Sigmund Freud’s findings of a "life instinct,” or Eros, and a “death instinct,” or Thanatos. Perhaps the life force is stronger, or perhaps individuals understand at a basic level that all of humanity is interdependent and that to harm any individual part is therefore to harm both the whole and the self. While it might not be possible to understand this force of resistance to killing completely, the force exists and is a “powerful combination of instinctive, rational, environmental, hereditary, cultural and social factors” (40).