[转帖LT]老外讨论中国的尚武精神

原帖转载自LT链接没权限，向那位LZ（airil）道个歉，等有权限的时候补上吧，希望LZ没火星。

How would you define China's Warrior Ethos?
你怎样看待中国的尚武精神
#1 ABC78
I say a presentation by the author of "The Warrior Ethos" and the author mostly western references. And I was wondering what would China's warrior ethos be built on beyond the Mao red era "Long March, Anti-Japan and Civil War" tradition.
我做了一个关于尚武精神的演讲，内容大部分来源于西方的资料。我想知道建立在毛泽东红色时代（长征、抗日和国共内战）传统上的中国尚武精神是什么样的。
（楼主在原帖一楼贴了那个演讲的视频，不过我打不开，懒得翻墙，有兴趣的tx可以去看看）

#2 paintgun
nationalism, patriotism and loyalty to the party
these are the pillars PLA can fall back to define this 'warrior ethos'
usually such thing evolve and stem from culture, like mentioned in the C-SPAN about duty and honor, but Chinese culture is currently in a limbo, and it has never emphasized much on warrior or war, in fact an averse subject, the core of chinese culture has always been family
民族主义、爱国主义和对党的忠诚，这些是解放军赖以形成尚武精神的支柱。这些东西植根于文化中并逐步演进，正如C-SPAN里（指一楼的视频）提到的责任和荣誉。但是中国文化现在固步自封，不再强调武力和战争，事实上正相反，中国文化的核心一直是家族。

#3 delft
It is remarkable how different the conduct of military with a similar background can be. During the liberation of the Netherlands in 1944-45 the Poles and Canadians had the reputation of waging their lives to reconnoiter places that might still be occupied by the German army and try to spare the lives and property of the people living there, while the US army had the reputation of pouting artillery fire into anything suspicious without such concerns.
In the next war the Netherlands was concerned with, the war against newly independent Indonesia, war crimes were committed that could not be acknowledged until a short while ago. There were complaints at the time, in the mid-fifties a cousin of my mother's said this unit had taken part in terrible things he didn't want to talk about, in 1969 someone wrote a book about those war crimes that led to a temporally loud discussion that died down pretty soon but only this year the Dutch government lost a court case in The Hague that forced them to pay compensation to survivors of a massacre on Java in 1949. In the late '90's a short article in my newspaper by a veteran from that war described how he was send out as an officer with a small detachment to retrieve the administration of a forestry company on Sumatra. He took prisoner a small number of members of the Indonesian army but because he had too few men to guard them he had them shot. Quite clearly he didn't recognize that he was a war criminal and the newspaper didn't notice it either.
So this presentation by Mr. Pressfield compares "the" US military ethics with those of antique Greeks and with the Japanese army of WWI and WWII, and wonders about those strange beings in South Asia with but little comprehension of the differences between Western armies at a given time and as they developed through time. It was altogether a rather shallow presentation, although not as shallow as paintgun's remarks.
在相似的战争背景下，军队行为准则的差异可能是显著的。在1944年到1945年的荷兰解放战争中，波兰人和加拿大人愿意不惜性命去侦察德占区并尽力保全当地民众和财产，而美军则不管这么多，他们会向任何可疑物体投掷炮火。
在涉及荷兰的另一场战争，即反印尼独立战争中，存在战争犯罪，但一直到最近才被承认。当时就存在谴责之声，上世纪50年代，我母亲的一位表亲说军队干的一些龌龊事连他也不愿意提起。1969年有人写了一本关于那些战争犯罪的书并引发了一场大讨论，然而很快便消弭于无声。直到今年荷兰政府在海牙法庭的一场官司中败诉，并被判向1949年爪哇大屠杀的幸存者支付赔偿金。上世纪90年代末，一位老兵的一篇短文刊登在我的报纸上，文章描述他作为一个军官如何带领一支小分队收回苏门答腊岛的一家林业公司的管理权。他俘虏过一些印尼士兵，但是因为没有足够看守兵力，他射杀了那些俘虏。很显然，他并未意识到他是一个战犯，报纸同样也没有意识到这一点。
普莱斯菲尔德先生的演讲比较了美军、古希腊人和一战二战日军的军队行为准则，对奇怪的南亚人感到疑惑，但对同一时期西方军队之间的差异和发展缺乏了解。总体来说，这是一个十分肤浅的演讲，虽然比paintgun（2楼的那位仁兄）的言论稍好一些。

#4 paintgun
hey i knew someone was gonna shoot at me i almost put a final sentence : just a ramble don't shoot, and it did happen lol
cmon delft, ABC78 was asking about what is the defining values of modern Chinese 'warrior ethos' in PLA
let us be honest, noone is a saint in war and as they say as well, all is fair in love and war, what we are really looking into is what motivates and becomes the basis for such warrior ethos, the C-SPAN video is certainly speaking from American perspective, and remember he is speaking in front of an audience of military professionals to promote his work
now try answering ABC78's good question about this interesting topic without trying to put anyone down
嘿，我知道有人想要揍我，让我先说完最后一句话：大家就是随便逛逛，别激动lol
拜托，Delft（3楼），ABC78（楼主）问的是现代中国解放军中的尚武精神的确切核心价值是什么。
我们都诚实点看问题吧，没有人能在战争中做圣人，所有人在爱和战争中都是一样的。我们所能判断的是这种尚武精神的动机和基础是什么。那个C-SPAN的视频（指主楼的那个视频）确实是从美军的角度，但是请记住他为了促进自己的研究，正面对着一众军事专家进行演讲。
现在回答ABC78提出的关于这个有趣话题的问题，而不要试图打压别人。

#5 montyp165
The traditional Chinese warrior ethos has basically been that of the intellectual soldier/warrior, i.e, one who uses intelligence and cunning moreso than brute force to achieve goals. In fiction the Romance of the Three Kingdoms has numerous examples of this sort listed, or the Water Margin for that matter, and a modern (albeit from a Japanese novel) example would be Yang Wen-Li from Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Real life traditional warrior heroes would be people like Yue Fei or Qi Jiguang.
传统的中国尚武精神基本上是智将的特质。所谓智将，就是那些运用谋略和诡计而非武力来达到目的的人。在三国演义和水浒传里就有许多这样的例子。银河英雄传说中的杨威利是一个现代的例子（尽管是来自日本小说）。而真实存在的军事英雄就是像岳飞或者戚继光那样的人物。

#6 CottageLV
China is a messed up society since its birth, contradictory at every level. The general population is the most educated and the most uneducated in the world. The people are both most patriotic and least patriotic. Unlike other major civilizations, China was never really a violent culture. It's always about world peace and elevation of personal education. If you look into Chinese history, for the past 1000 years, it's always being China being the most powerful civilization in the realm of its reach. China neither dominate (not including Korea of Vietnam, both were protectorate) or conquer other countries. The mentality of "I'm the best, you don't worth my time" always existed. This creates a society that doesn't look to violence to solve problems.
China was the most developed civilization for the last few thousand years, there was law and order. Unlike Japan and Feudal Europe, no warriors or Samurais were needed. All disputes and violence were suppressed by the law and the political machine.
This is both good and bad for the country. In the modern time of integrated globe, this is a bad thing, because it is becoming more dog eat dog again, not different from jungle justice from few thousand years ago. This cultural tradition softened the people and makes it do nothing but just send out verbal complain, verbal condemnation at the worst. China's foreign affairs department is now nicknamed the complaining department.
So to word it a little more plainly, today's Chinese culture is a wussy culture, it could not and would not stand up for itself.
中国自始就是一个混乱的社会，冲突和矛盾充满了各个层面。那里的人们是世界上最有教养和最没有教养的，最有爱国心和最没有爱国心的。不像其他主要文明，中华文明从未真正崇尚武力，它崇尚的是天下和谐和个人修养的提升。如果你研究一下中国的历史，在过去1000年里，中华文明在它所能触及到的领域里一直是最强大的文明。但是中国没有统治（不包括朝鲜和越南，两者都是附属国）或征服其他国家。那种“我是第一，你们不值得我浪费时间”的心理一直存在。这种心理使整个社会不寻求用武力的方式来解决问题。
中国是近几千年来最发达的国家，那里有法律和秩序。不像日本和中世纪欧洲，中国不需要骑士和武士，所有的纷争和冲突都能被律法和政治机器所镇压。
这对国家来说既有好处也有坏处。在现代的全球化环境下，这是一件坏事，因为世界又变成一个与几千年前一样的弱肉强食的丛林时代。中国这种文质彬彬的传统使人民变得软弱，遇到不平除了口头谴责外一事无成。中国外交部现在有一个绰号叫做谴责部。
一言以蔽之，今天的中国文化就是一种懦弱的文化，它不能也不会保护自己。

#7 paintgun
certainly not a wussy culture, but modern Chinese culture is struggling to find it's identity and soul, ripped away from it by the Cultural revolution
most if not all military organization cultivates the same sense of honor, duty, and servitude or sacrifice as the core values of its members, each with their own methods and reasoning
the nature of conscription, volunteer and professional army also plays a significant effect in how to cultivate this values into a warrior ethos
虽然确实不是懦弱的文化，但是现代中国文化正竭力寻找它被文革撕裂的身份和灵魂。
绝大部分的军事组织都会采用各自的方法，根据士兵的特质将荣誉感、责任感和牺牲精神培养为成员的核心价值观。志愿军和职业军也在其中发挥了重大作用。

#8 montyp165
It would be misleading to characterize the idea of modern Chinese not having any clue about a warrior ethos, especially since the PLA's military conception of service draws not only from the KMT NRA but also the old Chinese military classics, moreso than some are able to recognize.
（回复#7）
认为现代中国的意识形态没有一丝尚武精神是一种误导，因为解放军的军队服务观念不仅汲取于国民党军队也汲取于古代中国的军事著作，（汲取的东西）比某些人认为的还要多。

#9 ABC78
In the author's presentation he mentions how militaries and warrior caste are forms of tribes.
Is there the possibility that the Chinese people and history had evolved beyond tribalism so long ago?
Without that bit of tribal mindset in existence to help forge the warrior ethos narrative.
Here is a presentation by the author of "The Origins of Political Order" it is about how people moved from tribes to nation states. The author those a brief history of early China and how it was established by war.
演讲提到军士和武士阶层怎样形成部族。
中华民族和中国历史早在很久以前就超越部族意识，他们的尚武精神的形成过程中是否可能不受部族心态的影响？
在一个关于政治秩序起源的演讲里，提到人们是如何从部落进化到国家。作者简要介绍了早起中国的历史以及中国如何建立于战争。

#10 montyp165
The Romans would be the best Western parallel to Ancient Chinese political development wrt dealing with scattered tribes to a cohesive unified political entity, and one can see certain similar trends in both.
（回复#9）
在将分散的部落整合成联合的政治体方面，古罗马是西方文明中最能与古中国的政治发展媲美的。大家都能看出这两者有某种相似的趋势。

#11 delft
I see nobody mentions the successful Chinese intervention in the Korean war about 60 years ago. While the British still delight in the honors won by regiments since the seventeenth century and worry about what will happen with tradition that while its army are reduced because of financial trouble, China will have its tradition dating from that war.
我发现没人提到60年前中国对朝鲜战争的成功干预。
当英国一边将十七世纪取得的军事荣耀作为常规沾沾自喜，一边担心因财务问题裁军会给这种常规带来什么影响时，中国将从那场战争开始建立自己的常规。

#12 vesicles 来自德克萨斯州
IMO, every society is as what you described. Can you find any major society that is uniformly educated, or uniformly patriotic? Hardly so. In WWII during Nazi German occupation, many nations had their patriots forming resistance fighting the Nazis to the end while many others tried their best to become friends with the Germans, hence a combination of patriotic and un-patriotic. Every society has a mix of all kinds of different traits, especially those large ones, like China. In the case of China and even the US, which incorporate so many different cultures, you are bound to find many "contradictory" traits.
（回复#6）
在我看来，每个社会都像你所描述的那样。你能找到哪个主流社会有全民同等的教育水平或同等的爱国心吗？几乎不能。二战时的德国占领区，许多国家的爱国者们联合起来反抗纳粹到底，而这些国家的其他一些人则尽力成为德国人的朋友，这是一种爱国主义和非爱国主义的组合模式。每个社会都是不同个性和特质的混合体，尤其是那些规模大的社会，如中国。在中国和美国这种包含多种不同文化的社会，你很容易发现许多互相矛盾的特质。
Well, I have to say that the Chinese is a quite violent society. Your statement shows a serious lack of knowledge of Chinese history. If you look back on the Chinese history, it's filled with bloody conflicts, including bloody conquests and mass execution of POW's. Every change of dynasty has been accompanied by decades of bloody war. And in extreme case, hundreds of years continuing war. I would say that, out of 5000 years of Chinese civilization, the Chinese have spent half of that time fighting in wars. How do you think China got this big? No nation started out the size that China is now. It got to this size because of military conquests. The Spring and Autumn period in the Zhou dynasty was 400+ years of political/military struggle among hundreds of states while the Warring State period afterward was another 400+ years of continuing open war among teens of military states and warlords. Soon after Shi Huangdi unified China, another civil war broke out that led to the destruction of Qin dynasty and the establishment of Han dynasty. During Han dynasty, China had a series of major military conquests that led to the expansion of China to reach modern-day Afghanistan and central Asia on the West, Pacific Ocean on the East, Siberia on the North and Vietnam/Lao/Cambodia on the South, basically the most part of Asia belonged to China.
Then it lost some of the lands because of the decline of the Han dynasty and the subsequent rise of local cultures in those occupied lands, especially in the West. China then gained most of the land back in the Tang and Song dynasties, again through military conquest since no one will willingly yield their land to another civilization. China then lost some lands at the end of the Song dynasty. Mongols then, of course, gained a lot more land, including all of Asia and half of Europe. Of course, according to official Chinese history, the Mongolian empire is also part of China, the Yuan dynasty. Ming and Qing dynasties again saw some major military expansion in the West, Xinjiang and Tibet were mainly the result of those military conquests.
Many people in the West feel that China didn't conquer other nations because China has not conquered anything in the past couple hundred years. And this gives people an impression that China does not use its military a lot. However, the fact was China conquered HUGE amount of lands long long times ago. Ancient China was mostly located near the Central and Eastern end of the Yellow river, the size of a state in the US. And China grew to the current size through continuous military conquests. And since they have conquered pretty much everything they could see and touch, there was nothing left for them to conquer. To the ancient Chinese, they have conquered pretty much everything in the known world. They have reached the Siberia in the North, the desert in the West, and oceans in the East and South. Where else could they go? And unlike many other famous empires in the West, which conquered huge amount of land and only lost them all later on, China managed to hold on to most of its lands and integrate the people living there so effectively that most of them feel they are Chinese. So there was not many dramatic change in size of the Chinese territory later on.
（还是回复#6）
我不得不说中国是一个非常暴力的社会。你的言论显示你严重缺乏中国历史知识。如果你回顾中国历史，它充斥着流血冲突，包括血腥征伐和大量处死战俘。每一次朝代的更迭都伴随着几十年的流血战争。最极端的例子是上百年不断的战争。我敢说，5000年的中国文明史中，中国人花费了其中一半在打仗。不然你以为中国是怎么变成这么大的？没有国家从一建立就能据有像中国现在这么大的面积。中国的国土是通过军事扩张得来的。春秋时期，上百个小国间进行了超过400年的政治和军事斗争。其后400多年的战国时期在新兴国家和军阀之间又发生了持续的战争。秦始皇统一中国不久后，又一场内战爆发了，并最终导致秦朝的灭亡和汉朝的建立。汉朝时，中国又进行了一系列的军事扩张，并使当时中国领土向西延伸至今天的阿富汗和中亚，向东延伸至太平洋，向北延伸至西伯利亚，向南到达越南、老挝和柬埔寨，当时基本上亚洲大部分都属于中国。
后来由于汉朝的衰弱，中国失去了部分领土，而地方文明则占据了那些地方，特别是在西部。唐宋时中国又通过军事征服收回大部分领土，因为没有哪个文明会乐意将他们的土地献给其他文明。宋朝后期，中国又失去了一些领土。蒙古兴起，得到了大部分土地，包括整个亚洲和一半欧洲。当然，在中国的官史看来，蒙古帝国也是中国的一部分，即元朝。明清两朝又见大规模向西军事扩张。新疆和西藏就是这些军事征伐的主要战果。
西方许多人感觉中国不曾占领过其他国家，因为中国在近两百年没有占领过其他国家。这给人一种印象：中国不大使用军事力量。而事实是，中国在很久很久以前就已经占领了广袤的领土。古中国主要处于黄河的中段和东段，相当于美国一个州的面积。经过不断的军事扩张，中国才有了现在的面积。因为他们已经占领了可见可及的一切，没有什么还能让他们去征服了。对于古代中国人来说，他们基本上征服了他们已知世界里的一切。他们向北到达了西伯利亚，向西抵达沙漠，向东向南到达了海洋。他们还能去哪？而且，不像那些著名的曾经征服广阔领土又全部丢失的西方帝国，中国努力保留大部分领土并且有效地促进当地民族融合，以至于他们中的大部分人认为自己是中国人。所以后来中国的领土面积并未发生大的变化。
As I have pointed out above, warlord culture was not only present in China, but actually very prevalent. China spent 800+ years in the state of warlords in the Zhou dynasty. And warlords would appear again and again whenever old dynasty died and new dynasty was born. Most of the new dynasties were actually born from warlords in the old dynasties. And warlords were a huge factor in Chinese culture as late as 1940's
（依然回复#6）
就像我上面提到的，军阀割据在中国存在并且非常普遍。周朝时，中国有超过800年处于军阀混战时期。而且军阀割据还不断地出现在新旧王朝交替时期。大部分新王朝产生于旧王朝的军阀。甚至到了上世纪40年代，军阀仍是当时中国文化的重大特征。
Again, this is a completely wrong assessment of the Chinese culture. As I have described in painful detail, China does not have a "weak" history and is filled with bloody and violent conflict. As a matter of fact, Chinese history is written in blood. As a result, Chinese people are tough in terms of making hard decisions. China suffered over a million casualties in the Korean war. If any Western nation was in a similar boat as China was in the 1950's, they would have stopped the fighting and pulled out of Korea long ago because the casualties would simply be too unbearable for the public to take. Yet the Chinese kept fighting with the full support of the Chinese population back home. No one even thought about pulling out and people kept sending their own sons and husbands to the front willingly. This happened almost immediately after the Chinese civil war, which was after the WWII, which was after the Chinese revolution, which was after the two Opium wars. So pretty much the Chinese had been fighting wars non-stop since the 1840's. Until the beginning of the Korean war, China had lost close to half of its population to wars within 100 years. Can you imagine how many people that was in a nation the size of China?? Any nation with a questionable resolve would have cried out for help and run away long before that point. Yet, the whole population stood behind the govn't and continued fighting. Now, would you think a weak and wussy culture can do such thing?
（仍然回复#6）
这是对中国文化的又一个错误评价（指#6说的“中国这种文质彬彬的传统使人民变得软弱”一段）。正如我描述的那些苦难史，中国没有“软弱”的历史，而是充满了流血和暴力冲突。
事实上，中国史是用鲜血写就的。因此，中国人民下定决心后是坚韧刚强的。在朝鲜战场上，中国军队承受了上百万的伤亡。任何西方国家处于中国上世纪50年代的困难境地，他们早就会停止抵抗并退出朝鲜，因为伤亡已超出了公众所能承受的数量。但是在后方人民的全力支持下中国没有停止抵抗。没有人考虑过退出，人们不断地把儿子和丈夫送上前线。朝鲜战争发生在国共内战结束后不久，而国共内战紧随着二战，二战前是辛亥革命，辛亥革命前是鸦片战争。从十九世纪40年代起，中国人就没有停止过打仗。朝鲜战争开始前，中国在100年间失去了近一半的人口。你能想象在中国这么大的土地上有多少人吗？任何意志不坚定的国家早在那之前就会哭求援助并逃跑。而所有中国人都支持政府继续斗争。现在你还认为一个懦弱软弱的文明能够做这样的事吗？
What do you do if you are the leader of China? Sending bombers out every time someone upsets you? What the Chinese are doing now is purely strategic. They know fully well that their economic and military strength do not allow them to do things in ways that the superpowers do. In order to get there, they need to develop their economy, which needs a peaceful environment. And now, everything they do is for this purpose, i.e. maintaining a peaceful environment both domestically and globally. Once they achieve their build-up, they will do thing differently.
To illustrate my point, I will give you two examples. First one: 1962 Sino-Indian border conflict. China and India had an argument about who should be the leader in Asia. To "teach the Indians a lesson", Chinese leaders ordered an "invasion" into India. Chinese PLA pushed 200 miles into India to teach the Indian a lesson, in the words of the Chinese leaders. then again, 1970's and 80's, China went into Vietnam, again to teach them a lesson. Nothing more, nothing less. In both cases, there was no actual gain involved, only to teach a lesson. Why? Because the strategic goal of China at that time was vastly different from the current goals of China. China was not planning any economic development during those times and was in a mood of dominating Asia. Since India and Vietnam were in their way, they acted to clear the road, so to speak. Thus, the Chinese are not afraid of playing hard-ball if it fits their strategic goals. And the current goal is the develop economy, any military operation would interfere with their goals, so they don't do it. Plain and simply. They are doing a lot of complaining not because they are weak and afraid of budding heads with people, but because they want to make money to fund their build-up.
（继续回复#6）
如果你是中国的领导人你会如何做？每次有人惹恼你就送他一颗炸弹？中国人现在做的只是一种策略。他们充分了解自己目前的经济和军事实力不允许他们像超级大国一样行事。为了成为超级大国，他们需要发展经济，这需要和平的环境。现在，他们所做的一切都是为了这个。比如，维持国内外的和平环境。一旦他们强大起来，他们会以不同的方式行事。
为了证明我的观点，我举两个例子：一是1962年中印边界冲突。中国和印度当时对于谁是亚洲领导者存在分歧。为了“给印度一个教训”，中国领导人下命令“入侵”印度。中国解放军应言挺进印度200公里以教训印度。然后是上世纪70年代和80年代，中国打越南，也是为了给越南一个教训。不多不少，两次都没有什么实际的收获，只是为了教训一下。为什么？因为当时中国的战略目标和现在有很大差异。中国当时并未计划发展经济而是心怀统治亚洲的理念。因为印度和越南挡了道，所以他们清除了道路障碍，如此而已。因此如果强硬手段符合中国战略目标，中国不怕来硬的。当前的目标是发展经济，任何军事行动都会妨碍他们的目标，所以他们不会采取行动。显然，他们发出很多谴责不是因为他们软弱，而是顾及目前的经济萌芽，因为他们想要赚钱以支持国家崛起。
China would not stand for itself not because they are afraid. It's just the time is not right for them yet. A lion is the king the jungle. No one doubts that. But when the lion is still a cub, he better lay low and hide himself since a hyena or even a wild dog can kill him and eat him. A truly confident individual/culture knows when to lay low and when to stand up.
（一直回复#6）
中国不能为自己撑腰不是因为他们害怕，只是因为时机不对。没人能否认狮子是丛林之王。但是当这只狮子还处在幼年期，他最好放低身段以隐藏身影，因为这时一只土狼，甚至一只野狗也能杀掉并吃掉他。一个真正自信的个体/文明懂得什么时候该屈什么时候该伸。
原帖转载自LT链接没权限，向那位LZ（airil）道个歉，等有权限的时候补上吧，希望LZ没火星。

How would you define China's Warrior Ethos?
你怎样看待中国的尚武精神
#1 ABC78
I say a presentation by the author of "The Warrior Ethos" and the author mostly western references. And I was wondering what would China's warrior ethos be built on beyond the Mao red era "Long March, Anti-Japan and Civil War" tradition.
我做了一个关于尚武精神的演讲，内容大部分来源于西方的资料。我想知道建立在毛泽东红色时代（长征、抗日和国共内战）传统上的中国尚武精神是什么样的。
（楼主在原帖一楼贴了那个演讲的视频，不过我打不开，懒得翻墙，有兴趣的tx可以去看看）

#2 paintgun
nationalism, patriotism and loyalty to the party
these are the pillars PLA can fall back to define this 'warrior ethos'
usually such thing evolve and stem from culture, like mentioned in the C-SPAN about duty and honor, but Chinese culture is currently in a limbo, and it has never emphasized much on warrior or war, in fact an averse subject, the core of chinese culture has always been family
民族主义、爱国主义和对党的忠诚，这些是解放军赖以形成尚武精神的支柱。这些东西植根于文化中并逐步演进，正如C-SPAN里（指一楼的视频）提到的责任和荣誉。但是中国文化现在固步自封，不再强调武力和战争，事实上正相反，中国文化的核心一直是家族。

#3 delft
It is remarkable how different the conduct of military with a similar background can be. During the liberation of the Netherlands in 1944-45 the Poles and Canadians had the reputation of waging their lives to reconnoiter places that might still be occupied by the German army and try to spare the lives and property of the people living there, while the US army had the reputation of pouting artillery fire into anything suspicious without such concerns.
In the next war the Netherlands was concerned with, the war against newly independent Indonesia, war crimes were committed that could not be acknowledged until a short while ago. There were complaints at the time, in the mid-fifties a cousin of my mother's said this unit had taken part in terrible things he didn't want to talk about, in 1969 someone wrote a book about those war crimes that led to a temporally loud discussion that died down pretty soon but only this year the Dutch government lost a court case in The Hague that forced them to pay compensation to survivors of a massacre on Java in 1949. In the late '90's a short article in my newspaper by a veteran from that war described how he was send out as an officer with a small detachment to retrieve the administration of a forestry company on Sumatra. He took prisoner a small number of members of the Indonesian army but because he had too few men to guard them he had them shot. Quite clearly he didn't recognize that he was a war criminal and the newspaper didn't notice it either.
So this presentation by Mr. Pressfield compares "the" US military ethics with those of antique Greeks and with the Japanese army of WWI and WWII, and wonders about those strange beings in South Asia with but little comprehension of the differences between Western armies at a given time and as they developed through time. It was altogether a rather shallow presentation, although not as shallow as paintgun's remarks.
在相似的战争背景下，军队行为准则的差异可能是显著的。在1944年到1945年的荷兰解放战争中，波兰人和加拿大人愿意不惜性命去侦察德占区并尽力保全当地民众和财产，而美军则不管这么多，他们会向任何可疑物体投掷炮火。
在涉及荷兰的另一场战争，即反印尼独立战争中，存在战争犯罪，但一直到最近才被承认。当时就存在谴责之声，上世纪50年代，我母亲的一位表亲说军队干的一些龌龊事连他也不愿意提起。1969年有人写了一本关于那些战争犯罪的书并引发了一场大讨论，然而很快便消弭于无声。直到今年荷兰政府在海牙法庭的一场官司中败诉，并被判向1949年爪哇大屠杀的幸存者支付赔偿金。上世纪90年代末，一位老兵的一篇短文刊登在我的报纸上，文章描述他作为一个军官如何带领一支小分队收回苏门答腊岛的一家林业公司的管理权。他俘虏过一些印尼士兵，但是因为没有足够看守兵力，他射杀了那些俘虏。很显然，他并未意识到他是一个战犯，报纸同样也没有意识到这一点。
普莱斯菲尔德先生的演讲比较了美军、古希腊人和一战二战日军的军队行为准则，对奇怪的南亚人感到疑惑，但对同一时期西方军队之间的差异和发展缺乏了解。总体来说，这是一个十分肤浅的演讲，虽然比paintgun（2楼的那位仁兄）的言论稍好一些。

#4 paintgun
hey i knew someone was gonna shoot at me i almost put a final sentence : just a ramble don't shoot, and it did happen lol
cmon delft, ABC78 was asking about what is the defining values of modern Chinese 'warrior ethos' in PLA
let us be honest, noone is a saint in war and as they say as well, all is fair in love and war, what we are really looking into is what motivates and becomes the basis for such warrior ethos, the C-SPAN video is certainly speaking from American perspective, and remember he is speaking in front of an audience of military professionals to promote his work
now try answering ABC78's good question about this interesting topic without trying to put anyone down
嘿，我知道有人想要揍我，让我先说完最后一句话：大家就是随便逛逛，别激动lol
拜托，Delft（3楼），ABC78（楼主）问的是现代中国解放军中的尚武精神的确切核心价值是什么。
我们都诚实点看问题吧，没有人能在战争中做圣人，所有人在爱和战争中都是一样的。我们所能判断的是这种尚武精神的动机和基础是什么。那个C-SPAN的视频（指主楼的那个视频）确实是从美军的角度，但是请记住他为了促进自己的研究，正面对着一众军事专家进行演讲。
现在回答ABC78提出的关于这个有趣话题的问题，而不要试图打压别人。

#5 montyp165
The traditional Chinese warrior ethos has basically been that of the intellectual soldier/warrior, i.e, one who uses intelligence and cunning moreso than brute force to achieve goals. In fiction the Romance of the Three Kingdoms has numerous examples of this sort listed, or the Water Margin for that matter, and a modern (albeit from a Japanese novel) example would be Yang Wen-Li from Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Real life traditional warrior heroes would be people like Yue Fei or Qi Jiguang.
传统的中国尚武精神基本上是智将的特质。所谓智将，就是那些运用谋略和诡计而非武力来达到目的的人。在三国演义和水浒传里就有许多这样的例子。银河英雄传说中的杨威利是一个现代的例子（尽管是来自日本小说）。而真实存在的军事英雄就是像岳飞或者戚继光那样的人物。

#6 CottageLV
China is a messed up society since its birth, contradictory at every level. The general population is the most educated and the most uneducated in the world. The people are both most patriotic and least patriotic. Unlike other major civilizations, China was never really a violent culture. It's always about world peace and elevation of personal education. If you look into Chinese history, for the past 1000 years, it's always being China being the most powerful civilization in the realm of its reach. China neither dominate (not including Korea of Vietnam, both were protectorate) or conquer other countries. The mentality of "I'm the best, you don't worth my time" always existed. This creates a society that doesn't look to violence to solve problems.
China was the most developed civilization for the last few thousand years, there was law and order. Unlike Japan and Feudal Europe, no warriors or Samurais were needed. All disputes and violence were suppressed by the law and the political machine.
This is both good and bad for the country. In the modern time of integrated globe, this is a bad thing, because it is becoming more dog eat dog again, not different from jungle justice from few thousand years ago. This cultural tradition softened the people and makes it do nothing but just send out verbal complain, verbal condemnation at the worst. China's foreign affairs department is now nicknamed the complaining department.
So to word it a little more plainly, today's Chinese culture is a wussy culture, it could not and would not stand up for itself.
中国自始就是一个混乱的社会，冲突和矛盾充满了各个层面。那里的人们是世界上最有教养和最没有教养的，最有爱国心和最没有爱国心的。不像其他主要文明，中华文明从未真正崇尚武力，它崇尚的是天下和谐和个人修养的提升。如果你研究一下中国的历史，在过去1000年里，中华文明在它所能触及到的领域里一直是最强大的文明。但是中国没有统治（不包括朝鲜和越南，两者都是附属国）或征服其他国家。那种“我是第一，你们不值得我浪费时间”的心理一直存在。这种心理使整个社会不寻求用武力的方式来解决问题。
中国是近几千年来最发达的国家，那里有法律和秩序。不像日本和中世纪欧洲，中国不需要骑士和武士，所有的纷争和冲突都能被律法和政治机器所镇压。
这对国家来说既有好处也有坏处。在现代的全球化环境下，这是一件坏事，因为世界又变成一个与几千年前一样的弱肉强食的丛林时代。中国这种文质彬彬的传统使人民变得软弱，遇到不平除了口头谴责外一事无成。中国外交部现在有一个绰号叫做谴责部。
一言以蔽之，今天的中国文化就是一种懦弱的文化，它不能也不会保护自己。

#7 paintgun
certainly not a wussy culture, but modern Chinese culture is struggling to find it's identity and soul, ripped away from it by the Cultural revolution
most if not all military organization cultivates the same sense of honor, duty, and servitude or sacrifice as the core values of its members, each with their own methods and reasoning
the nature of conscription, volunteer and professional army also plays a significant effect in how to cultivate this values into a warrior ethos
虽然确实不是懦弱的文化，但是现代中国文化正竭力寻找它被文革撕裂的身份和灵魂。
绝大部分的军事组织都会采用各自的方法，根据士兵的特质将荣誉感、责任感和牺牲精神培养为成员的核心价值观。志愿军和职业军也在其中发挥了重大作用。

#8 montyp165
It would be misleading to characterize the idea of modern Chinese not having any clue about a warrior ethos, especially since the PLA's military conception of service draws not only from the KMT NRA but also the old Chinese military classics, moreso than some are able to recognize.
（回复#7）
认为现代中国的意识形态没有一丝尚武精神是一种误导，因为解放军的军队服务观念不仅汲取于国民党军队也汲取于古代中国的军事著作，（汲取的东西）比某些人认为的还要多。

#9 ABC78
In the author's presentation he mentions how militaries and warrior caste are forms of tribes.
Is there the possibility that the Chinese people and history had evolved beyond tribalism so long ago?
Without that bit of tribal mindset in existence to help forge the warrior ethos narrative.
Here is a presentation by the author of "The Origins of Political Order" it is about how people moved from tribes to nation states. The author those a brief history of early China and how it was established by war.
演讲提到军士和武士阶层怎样形成部族。
中华民族和中国历史早在很久以前就超越部族意识，他们的尚武精神的形成过程中是否可能不受部族心态的影响？
在一个关于政治秩序起源的演讲里，提到人们是如何从部落进化到国家。作者简要介绍了早起中国的历史以及中国如何建立于战争。

#10 montyp165
The Romans would be the best Western parallel to Ancient Chinese political development wrt dealing with scattered tribes to a cohesive unified political entity, and one can see certain similar trends in both.
（回复#9）
在将分散的部落整合成联合的政治体方面，古罗马是西方文明中最能与古中国的政治发展媲美的。大家都能看出这两者有某种相似的趋势。

#11 delft
I see nobody mentions the successful Chinese intervention in the Korean war about 60 years ago. While the British still delight in the honors won by regiments since the seventeenth century and worry about what will happen with tradition that while its army are reduced because of financial trouble, China will have its tradition dating from that war.
我发现没人提到60年前中国对朝鲜战争的成功干预。
当英国一边将十七世纪取得的军事荣耀作为常规沾沾自喜，一边担心因财务问题裁军会给这种常规带来什么影响时，中国将从那场战争开始建立自己的常规。

#12 vesicles 来自德克萨斯州
IMO, every society is as what you described. Can you find any major society that is uniformly educated, or uniformly patriotic? Hardly so. In WWII during Nazi German occupation, many nations had their patriots forming resistance fighting the Nazis to the end while many others tried their best to become friends with the Germans, hence a combination of patriotic and un-patriotic. Every society has a mix of all kinds of different traits, especially those large ones, like China. In the case of China and even the US, which incorporate so many different cultures, you are bound to find many "contradictory" traits.
（回复#6）
在我看来，每个社会都像你所描述的那样。你能找到哪个主流社会有全民同等的教育水平或同等的爱国心吗？几乎不能。二战时的德国占领区，许多国家的爱国者们联合起来反抗纳粹到底，而这些国家的其他一些人则尽力成为德国人的朋友，这是一种爱国主义和非爱国主义的组合模式。每个社会都是不同个性和特质的混合体，尤其是那些规模大的社会，如中国。在中国和美国这种包含多种不同文化的社会，你很容易发现许多互相矛盾的特质。
Well, I have to say that the Chinese is a quite violent society. Your statement shows a serious lack of knowledge of Chinese history. If you look back on the Chinese history, it's filled with bloody conflicts, including bloody conquests and mass execution of POW's. Every change of dynasty has been accompanied by decades of bloody war. And in extreme case, hundreds of years continuing war. I would say that, out of 5000 years of Chinese civilization, the Chinese have spent half of that time fighting in wars. How do you think China got this big? No nation started out the size that China is now. It got to this size because of military conquests. The Spring and Autumn period in the Zhou dynasty was 400+ years of political/military struggle among hundreds of states while the Warring State period afterward was another 400+ years of continuing open war among teens of military states and warlords. Soon after Shi Huangdi unified China, another civil war broke out that led to the destruction of Qin dynasty and the establishment of Han dynasty. During Han dynasty, China had a series of major military conquests that led to the expansion of China to reach modern-day Afghanistan and central Asia on the West, Pacific Ocean on the East, Siberia on the North and Vietnam/Lao/Cambodia on the South, basically the most part of Asia belonged to China.
Then it lost some of the lands because of the decline of the Han dynasty and the subsequent rise of local cultures in those occupied lands, especially in the West. China then gained most of the land back in the Tang and Song dynasties, again through military conquest since no one will willingly yield their land to another civilization. China then lost some lands at the end of the Song dynasty. Mongols then, of course, gained a lot more land, including all of Asia and half of Europe. Of course, according to official Chinese history, the Mongolian empire is also part of China, the Yuan dynasty. Ming and Qing dynasties again saw some major military expansion in the West, Xinjiang and Tibet were mainly the result of those military conquests.
Many people in the West feel that China didn't conquer other nations because China has not conquered anything in the past couple hundred years. And this gives people an impression that China does not use its military a lot. However, the fact was China conquered HUGE amount of lands long long times ago. Ancient China was mostly located near the Central and Eastern end of the Yellow river, the size of a state in the US. And China grew to the current size through continuous military conquests. And since they have conquered pretty much everything they could see and touch, there was nothing left for them to conquer. To the ancient Chinese, they have conquered pretty much everything in the known world. They have reached the Siberia in the North, the desert in the West, and oceans in the East and South. Where else could they go? And unlike many other famous empires in the West, which conquered huge amount of land and only lost them all later on, China managed to hold on to most of its lands and integrate the people living there so effectively that most of them feel they are Chinese. So there was not many dramatic change in size of the Chinese territory later on.
（还是回复#6）
我不得不说中国是一个非常暴力的社会。你的言论显示你严重缺乏中国历史知识。如果你回顾中国历史，它充斥着流血冲突，包括血腥征伐和大量处死战俘。每一次朝代的更迭都伴随着几十年的流血战争。最极端的例子是上百年不断的战争。我敢说，5000年的中国文明史中，中国人花费了其中一半在打仗。不然你以为中国是怎么变成这么大的？没有国家从一建立就能据有像中国现在这么大的面积。中国的国土是通过军事扩张得来的。春秋时期，上百个小国间进行了超过400年的政治和军事斗争。其后400多年的战国时期在新兴国家和军阀之间又发生了持续的战争。秦始皇统一中国不久后，又一场内战爆发了，并最终导致秦朝的灭亡和汉朝的建立。汉朝时，中国又进行了一系列的军事扩张，并使当时中国领土向西延伸至今天的阿富汗和中亚，向东延伸至太平洋，向北延伸至西伯利亚，向南到达越南、老挝和柬埔寨，当时基本上亚洲大部分都属于中国。
后来由于汉朝的衰弱，中国失去了部分领土，而地方文明则占据了那些地方，特别是在西部。唐宋时中国又通过军事征服收回大部分领土，因为没有哪个文明会乐意将他们的土地献给其他文明。宋朝后期，中国又失去了一些领土。蒙古兴起，得到了大部分土地，包括整个亚洲和一半欧洲。当然，在中国的官史看来，蒙古帝国也是中国的一部分，即元朝。明清两朝又见大规模向西军事扩张。新疆和西藏就是这些军事征伐的主要战果。
西方许多人感觉中国不曾占领过其他国家，因为中国在近两百年没有占领过其他国家。这给人一种印象：中国不大使用军事力量。而事实是，中国在很久很久以前就已经占领了广袤的领土。古中国主要处于黄河的中段和东段，相当于美国一个州的面积。经过不断的军事扩张，中国才有了现在的面积。因为他们已经占领了可见可及的一切，没有什么还能让他们去征服了。对于古代中国人来说，他们基本上征服了他们已知世界里的一切。他们向北到达了西伯利亚，向西抵达沙漠，向东向南到达了海洋。他们还能去哪？而且，不像那些著名的曾经征服广阔领土又全部丢失的西方帝国，中国努力保留大部分领土并且有效地促进当地民族融合，以至于他们中的大部分人认为自己是中国人。所以后来中国的领土面积并未发生大的变化。
As I have pointed out above, warlord culture was not only present in China, but actually very prevalent. China spent 800+ years in the state of warlords in the Zhou dynasty. And warlords would appear again and again whenever old dynasty died and new dynasty was born. Most of the new dynasties were actually born from warlords in the old dynasties. And warlords were a huge factor in Chinese culture as late as 1940's
（依然回复#6）
就像我上面提到的，军阀割据在中国存在并且非常普遍。周朝时，中国有超过800年处于军阀混战时期。而且军阀割据还不断地出现在新旧王朝交替时期。大部分新王朝产生于旧王朝的军阀。甚至到了上世纪40年代，军阀仍是当时中国文化的重大特征。
Again, this is a completely wrong assessment of the Chinese culture. As I have described in painful detail, China does not have a "weak" history and is filled with bloody and violent conflict. As a matter of fact, Chinese history is written in blood. As a result, Chinese people are tough in terms of making hard decisions. China suffered over a million casualties in the Korean war. If any Western nation was in a similar boat as China was in the 1950's, they would have stopped the fighting and pulled out of Korea long ago because the casualties would simply be too unbearable for the public to take. Yet the Chinese kept fighting with the full support of the Chinese population back home. No one even thought about pulling out and people kept sending their own sons and husbands to the front willingly. This happened almost immediately after the Chinese civil war, which was after the WWII, which was after the Chinese revolution, which was after the two Opium wars. So pretty much the Chinese had been fighting wars non-stop since the 1840's. Until the beginning of the Korean war, China had lost close to half of its population to wars within 100 years. Can you imagine how many people that was in a nation the size of China?? Any nation with a questionable resolve would have cried out for help and run away long before that point. Yet, the whole population stood behind the govn't and continued fighting. Now, would you think a weak and wussy culture can do such thing?
（仍然回复#6）
这是对中国文化的又一个错误评价（指#6说的“中国这种文质彬彬的传统使人民变得软弱”一段）。正如我描述的那些苦难史，中国没有“软弱”的历史，而是充满了流血和暴力冲突。
事实上，中国史是用鲜血写就的。因此，中国人民下定决心后是坚韧刚强的。在朝鲜战场上，中国军队承受了上百万的伤亡。任何西方国家处于中国上世纪50年代的困难境地，他们早就会停止抵抗并退出朝鲜，因为伤亡已超出了公众所能承受的数量。但是在后方人民的全力支持下中国没有停止抵抗。没有人考虑过退出，人们不断地把儿子和丈夫送上前线。朝鲜战争发生在国共内战结束后不久，而国共内战紧随着二战，二战前是辛亥革命，辛亥革命前是鸦片战争。从十九世纪40年代起，中国人就没有停止过打仗。朝鲜战争开始前，中国在100年间失去了近一半的人口。你能想象在中国这么大的土地上有多少人吗？任何意志不坚定的国家早在那之前就会哭求援助并逃跑。而所有中国人都支持政府继续斗争。现在你还认为一个懦弱软弱的文明能够做这样的事吗？
What do you do if you are the leader of China? Sending bombers out every time someone upsets you? What the Chinese are doing now is purely strategic. They know fully well that their economic and military strength do not allow them to do things in ways that the superpowers do. In order to get there, they need to develop their economy, which needs a peaceful environment. And now, everything they do is for this purpose, i.e. maintaining a peaceful environment both domestically and globally. Once they achieve their build-up, they will do thing differently.
To illustrate my point, I will give you two examples. First one: 1962 Sino-Indian border conflict. China and India had an argument about who should be the leader in Asia. To "teach the Indians a lesson", Chinese leaders ordered an "invasion" into India. Chinese PLA pushed 200 miles into India to teach the Indian a lesson, in the words of the Chinese leaders. then again, 1970's and 80's, China went into Vietnam, again to teach them a lesson. Nothing more, nothing less. In both cases, there was no actual gain involved, only to teach a lesson. Why? Because the strategic goal of China at that time was vastly different from the current goals of China. China was not planning any economic development during those times and was in a mood of dominating Asia. Since India and Vietnam were in their way, they acted to clear the road, so to speak. Thus, the Chinese are not afraid of playing hard-ball if it fits their strategic goals. And the current goal is the develop economy, any military operation would interfere with their goals, so they don't do it. Plain and simply. They are doing a lot of complaining not because they are weak and afraid of budding heads with people, but because they want to make money to fund their build-up.
（继续回复#6）
如果你是中国的领导人你会如何做？每次有人惹恼你就送他一颗炸弹？中国人现在做的只是一种策略。他们充分了解自己目前的经济和军事实力不允许他们像超级大国一样行事。为了成为超级大国，他们需要发展经济，这需要和平的环境。现在，他们所做的一切都是为了这个。比如，维持国内外的和平环境。一旦他们强大起来，他们会以不同的方式行事。
为了证明我的观点，我举两个例子：一是1962年中印边界冲突。中国和印度当时对于谁是亚洲领导者存在分歧。为了“给印度一个教训”，中国领导人下命令“入侵”印度。中国解放军应言挺进印度200公里以教训印度。然后是上世纪70年代和80年代，中国打越南，也是为了给越南一个教训。不多不少，两次都没有什么实际的收获，只是为了教训一下。为什么？因为当时中国的战略目标和现在有很大差异。中国当时并未计划发展经济而是心怀统治亚洲的理念。因为印度和越南挡了道，所以他们清除了道路障碍，如此而已。因此如果强硬手段符合中国战略目标，中国不怕来硬的。当前的目标是发展经济，任何军事行动都会妨碍他们的目标，所以他们不会采取行动。显然，他们发出很多谴责不是因为他们软弱，而是顾及目前的经济萌芽，因为他们想要赚钱以支持国家崛起。
China would not stand for itself not because they are afraid. It's just the time is not right for them yet. A lion is the king the jungle. No one doubts that. But when the lion is still a cub, he better lay low and hide himself since a hyena or even a wild dog can kill him and eat him. A truly confident individual/culture knows when to lay low and when to stand up.
（一直回复#6）
中国不能为自己撑腰不是因为他们害怕，只是因为时机不对。没人能否认狮子是丛林之王。但是当这只狮子还处在幼年期，他最好放低身段以隐藏身影，因为这时一只土狼，甚至一只野狗也能杀掉并吃掉他。一个真正自信的个体/文明懂得什么时候该屈什么时候该伸。