On Killing (English Edition) und über 1,5 Millionen weitere Bücher verfügbar für Amazon Kindle. Erfahren Sie mehr


oder
Loggen Sie sich ein, um 1-Click® einzuschalten.
oder
Mit kostenloser Probeteilnahme bei Amazon Prime. Melden Sie sich während des Bestellvorgangs an.
Jetzt eintauschen
und EUR 3,00 Gutschein erhalten
Eintausch
Alle Angebote
Möchten Sie verkaufen? Hier verkaufen
Der Artikel ist in folgender Variante leider nicht verfügbar
Keine Abbildung vorhanden für
Farbe:
Keine Abbildung vorhanden

 
Beginnen Sie mit dem Lesen von On Killing (English Edition) auf Ihrem Kindle in weniger als einer Minute.

Sie haben keinen Kindle? Hier kaufen oder eine gratis Kindle Lese-App herunterladen.

On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

Dave Grossman
4.3 von 5 Sternen  Alle Rezensionen anzeigen (3 Kundenrezensionen)
Preis: EUR 12,95 kostenlose Lieferung. Siehe Details.
  Alle Preisangaben inkl. MwSt.
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Nur noch 9 auf Lager (mehr ist unterwegs).
Verkauf und Versand durch Amazon. Geschenkverpackung verfügbar.
Lieferung bis Samstag, 20. September: Wählen Sie an der Kasse Morning-Express. Siehe Details.

Weitere Ausgaben

Amazon-Preis Neu ab Gebraucht ab
Kindle Edition EUR 7,20  
Taschenbuch EUR 12,95  
Audio CD, Audiobook, Ungekürzte Ausgabe EUR 22,59  

Kurzbeschreibung

22. Juni 2009
The good news is that most soldiers are loath to kill. But armies have developed sophisticated ways of overcoming this instinctive aversion. And contemporary civilian society, particularly the media, replicates the army's conditioning techniques, and, according to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's thesis, is responsible for our rising rate of murder among the young.

Upon its initial publication, ON KILLING was hailed as a landmark study of the techniques the military uses to overcome the powerful reluctance to kill, of how killing affects soldiers, and of the societal implications of escalating violence. Now, Grossman has updated this classic work to include information on 21st-century military conflicts, recent trends in crime, suicide bombings, school shootings, and more. The result is a work certain to be relevant and important for decades to come.

Wird oft zusammen gekauft

On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society + On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace + The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence
Preis für alle drei: EUR 37,05

Die ausgewählten Artikel zusammen kaufen


Produktinformation

  • Taschenbuch: 416 Seiten
  • Verlag: Back Bay Books; Auflage: Revised. (22. Juni 2009)
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • ISBN-10: 0316040932
  • ISBN-13: 978-0316040938
  • Größe und/oder Gewicht: 20,6 x 13,7 x 3 cm
  • Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: 4.3 von 5 Sternen  Alle Rezensionen anzeigen (3 Kundenrezensionen)
  • Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 28.841 in Fremdsprachige Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Fremdsprachige Bücher)

Mehr über den Autor

Entdecken Sie Bücher, lesen Sie über Autoren und mehr

Produktbeschreibungen

Über den Autor und weitere Mitwirkende

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

Welche anderen Artikel kaufen Kunden, nachdem sie diesen Artikel angesehen haben?


Kundenrezensionen

3 Sterne
0
2 Sterne
0
1 Sterne
0
4.3 von 5 Sternen
4.3 von 5 Sternen
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen
11 von 12 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
4.0 von 5 Sternen Aufregend - im guten und im schlechten Sinne 12. Februar 2010
Format:Taschenbuch|Verifizierter Kauf
Wer sich mit Themen wie Militärgeschichte und Militärsoziologie mittels der Instrumente des wissenschaftlichen Handwerks deutscher Ausprägung befasst, der ist durch den ersten Eindruck von Grossmans Buch ersteinmal verwirrt oder gereizt - je nach Gemütslage: Eine extrem knappe Bibliographie und die ist weder besonders eklektisch noch aktuell. Keine Belegarbeit - Fußnoten tauchen zwar vereinzelt auf, sind aber nur Anker für Exkurse. Die Struktur des Buches ist so untergliedert, dass die einzelenen Fließtexte praktisch auf jeder zweiten Seite von einer Unterunterüberschrift durchbrochen sind - lange, kontemplative Texte auf der Basis wissenschaftlicher Forschung mit präziser Belegarbeit sind hier also Fehlanzeige.

Steigt man dann in das Buch selber ein, so verstärkt sich dieser Eindruck noch: Ein für deutsche Begriffe stilistisch flapsiger Schreibstil, der eine Argumentation darlegt, die nicht zwischen Pros und Contras mändert, sondern definitiv formulierte Aussage an definitiv formulierte Aussage reiht - hier liest der kritische Leser in Stil und Argumentation deutlich Grossmans militärische Provenienz heraus. Dazu kommen mehr als kühzne Generalisierungen, die mehr als einmal nicht nur für den historischen Bereich fragwürdig erscheinen, sondern gleich noch andere Disziplinen mit ankratzen. Das Buch erhält durch diese Kombination einen beinahe stammtischartigen Beigeschmack.

Warum ist es dann dennoch zu empfehlen? Weil Grossman in diesem aufreizenden Stil ein Buch vorlegt, das eine so faszinierende These durchdekliniert, dass man das Buch einfach nicht weglegen will. Der Untertitel des Buches grenzt die Frage ein: "The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society".
Lesen Sie weiter... ›
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?
1 von 1 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Von Silsi
Format:Taschenbuch|Verifizierter Kauf
Die Menschen als blutrünstige Raubtiere, die man nur mit List und Tücke davon abhalten kann, sich gegenseitig zu zerfleischen? Alles falsch! In Wirklichkeit - so die Aussage von "On Killing" - ist es verdammt schwer, einen Menschen dazu zu bringen, einen anderen zu töten.

Der Ausgangspunkt des Buches ist eine Studie aus dem 2. Weltkrieg von General Marshall, der heraus fand, dass in einem Gefecht nur 15-20% der Soldaten auf den Feind schießen. 80-85% der Soldaten (die Non-Firers) hatten Besseres zu tun: Nachschub organisieren, Nachrichten weiterleiten oder - unter Einsatz ihres Lebens - Verwundete bergen. Was für die Generäle der Welt ein Riesen-Problem ist, ist für mich ein Anlass zur Hoffnung: Menschen wollen nicht töten.

Grossman zeigt, wie die Armeen der Welt (leider) aus der Marshall-Studie gelernt haben und es mit "verbesserten" Trainingsmethoden geschafft haben, die Quote der Non-Firers zu senken. Er zeigt, was es für die Psyche der Soldaten bedeutet, gegen ihre Urinstinkte zu verstoßen. Für uns Zivilisten zeigt das Buch, was es bedeutet, wenn Filme und Bücher uns ständig vorgaukeln, es wäre einfach zu töten - insbesondere "böse" Menschen zu töten. Und wie gefährlich es für unsere Gesellschaft ist, dass unsere Kinder in Video-Spielen spielerisch lernen, ihre Abneigung gegen das Töten von Menschen zu überwinden.

Aber die Kernaussage des Buches bleibt: Menschen wollen nicht töten. Und das ist doch mal eine hoffnungsvolle Aussage.
Hoffentlich wird dieses wichtige Buch bald ins Deutsche übersetzt, um noch mehr Leser zu finden.
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?
1 von 1 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Format:Taschenbuch
Der Militärpsychologe Dave Grossman befasst sich in diesem Buch mit der Psychologie des Tötens. Zunächst bespricht er den menschlichen Widerstand gegen die Tötung eines Mitmenschen. Diese Hemmung führte bis vor dem Vietnamkrieg dazu, dass die große Mehrheit aller Soldaten ihre Waffe nie auf einen feindlichen Soldaten richtete. Er erklärt, wie moderne Armeen die "firing rate" ihrer Soldaten erhöhen, also mehr Soldaten dazu bringen, ihre Waffe auch tatsächlich einzusetzen, und welche Faktoren entscheiden, ob die natürliche Tötungshemmung tatsächlich zum Tragen kommt. Je größer die (soziale, kulturelle, räumliche ...) Distanz zum Opfer, je stärker die Tötungshemmung durch Konditionierung und Desensitisierung (Reduzierung der Empfindlichkeit gegen das Töten) im Training abgeschwächt wird, desto höher ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass jemand tatsächlich tötet. Dieses Modell überträgt der Autor im letzten Kapitel auch auf die amerikanische Gesellschaft, in der das Training in Form von Computerspielen und Fernsehen stattfindet.
Auch für die Entstehung von Kriegsverbrechen und die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Kriegstraumatisierung liefert Grossman nachvollziehbare psychologische Modelle.
Das Buch ist gut lesbar und spannend geschrieben. Meine anfängliche Befürchtung, ein Militärpsychologe müsse zwangsläufig ein "Lehrbuch" zum erfolgreichen Töten im Krieg schreiben, hat sich nicht bestätigt. Lediglich die Inhalte sind etwas redundant, so dass das Buch auch kürzer hätte ausfallen können.
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 4.4 von 5 Sternen  262 Rezensionen
85 von 89 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
4.0 von 5 Sternen Exception work but disagree with the fundemental thesis 18. November 2012
Von William R. Forstchen - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format:Kindle Edition|Verifizierter Kauf
I've debated for several days after reading "On Killing" whether to post a review or not. I have tremendous respect for the author and his professional credentials but must disagree with his thesis and especially his use of two sources in particular. The author is a devotee of S.L.A. Marshall as were many until two works in the late 1980s cast serious doubts on Marshall's methodology and even his personal character. This blew open while I was a graduate student, specializing in military history and therefore became a topic of intense debate within my circle of fellow students and professors, especially my mentor, who was a British Commando in WWII. The second source I would debate is some of the information the author took from Paddy Griffith's works on the American Civil War.

The underlying thesis of "On Killing" is that mankind is instinctively hard wired Not To Kill. How I wish that was true, and yet our bloody record across recorded history and plenty of evidence even prior to recorded history shows the exact opposite. We are, by instinct "killer angels." Read "War Before Civilization" as but one counter argument. But directly to my concern about the author's sources. "SLAM" Marshall's reputation was built on alleged interviews, hundreds of them, immediately after combat during WWII in which he asserts that at least 75% of combat infantry never fired their weapons, thereby proving that soldiers, at least American soldiers abhor killing and try to avoid doing so even at the risk of their lives.

Marshall's work was called into serious doubt in the late 1980s by one history who simply ran a "time analysis" on how many soldiers Marshall claimed to have interviewed and came up with an impossible number of hours to have achieved the number of interviews he claimed, in other words falsified data which was turned about to fit his thesis. David Hackworth, who served with Marshall was scathing in his comments about serving directly with the man. When it comes to WWII I feel the author of "On Killing" neglected a near infinite number of variables that affect men in combat. . .green vs. veterans, nature of combat, open field vs. the terror of close up urban where indeed one or two of a squad are usually heavily engaged with the rest provide cover, hauling ammunition for machine guns and back up, etc. Even more significant, as Keegan repeatedly points out in his exceptional works, the level of brutality rapidly escalates due to such issues as defense, especially if defending one's own country from invasion verse offense, difference in ethnicity and especially difference in race and religion which truly trigger the darker side of our nature. But one example, German troops transferred from the Russian front to France were actually briefed that this was now a different enemy and rules of war again apply. As to "our guys" in that war, I have yet to interview a vet of the Pacific War who said there was any civility or urge not to kill, the hatred ran that deep, fueled as well by racial difference. In the European theater any vet I interviewed would almost smile when discussing combat against Italian troops, but when confronting the Waffen SS it was to the death and usually no prisoners and fought by all with hatred.

I know this is a long review but I must comment on a second topic the author covers at length and that is our Civil War and what I felt was his over reliance on the works of "Paddy" Griffith, yet another author I have respect for even when I disagree. The author of "On Killing" dwells repeatedly on the fact that on average between 200-250 rounds were fired for each casualty inflicted and thus again leaps to the conclusion that this demonstrates his thesis that soldiers on both sides, either deliberately aimed high, or even went so far as to mimic loading their guns and not firing at all.

I must counter on several points. The author asserts that the typical range of Civil War combat was 30 yards. Definitely not true! (a belief shored up by such films as Patriot or even the opening scene in Glory). Typical range, especially as the war dragged out and killing effectiveness increased, was typically two hundred yards or more. Close in volley fights, at fifty yards or less, such as Groveton, August 1862 were indeed rare, except when opposing sides tangled into each other in woods such as at the Wilderness.

I've personally run some live fire tests with others and not just reenactments with everyone running about shooting blanks. The biggest factor affecting aimed fire. . .smoke, and smoke and more smoke, carpets of it that within minutes all but blinded both sides. At two hundred and fifty yards a mis-aim of even a few millimeters too high translates into a minie ball into the tree tops four hundred yards away. Third, try putting a percussion cap on the nipple of a rifled musket when all is confusion and terror, and finally something we of course could not simulate, the fear because "they are shooting back." Add in exhaustion, bad food, close friends torn apart by your side, these were the deciders of rifle fire effectiveness, not a 75% rate of those who refused to kill no matter what the situation. The author cites the number or rifles found at Gettysburg with two or more bullets rammed into them and to my amazement asserts that to actually then put on a percussion cap and fire it for real would clean out the half dozen or more minie balls and powder charges jammed in. I would suggest handing that assignment over to Myth Busters and standing well clear. I ascribe this to terrified kids who in many cases first jammed a bullet down the barrel rather than the powder and in the confusion did not even know they were no longer shooting. I actually have done that a few times with loading, thinking I had fired but the percussion cap had fallen off then loaded again, (firing blanks only) and the kickback was certainly a shocker and realization that even in a simulation I could get rattled!

Definitely time for a conclusion I think. I give this book four stars because it is obviously well researched even though I think the author has "chased his thesis up the wrong tree," I nevertheless welcome the debate it creates. I do wish I could hold a more optimistic view of humanity when it comes to the subject of our brutality towards each other. A point I do wish had been covered in more detail is my own belief that high technology weapons and media now make killing even easier. We no longer look directly into the eyes of the man we kill, hear his screams and see that "inner light" go dark. Our alleged entertainment usually involves brutal deaths, the more the better in the latest James Bond movie for example, Youtube and other sources are flooded with "cool" night vision footage of enemies being blown apart and though I do detest the Taliban and their creed as an enemy we must confront, it is a bit disturbing when watching a human being shredded by 30mm cannon fire and to read the comments that it is "cool." It has become the desensitizing conditioning of first person "shoot `em ups" of Xbox translated into realities.

Even if you disagree with the author's thesis that we as a species recoil from killing, the book will nevertheless provoke reflective thought and I am seriously considering using it as text book in my classes that deal with warfare.
99 von 125 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
1.0 von 5 Sternen Terribly overrated 14. Januar 2011
Von G. R. - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format:Taschenbuch|Verifizierter Kauf
I cannot recommend this book to anyone. I hoped I would find in it a well-documented, well-thought-out treatment of the subject matter. To my surprise, I found instead a sensationalized polemic advocating the censorship of violent video games.

The author was unconvincing in his arguments. It is clear from his cherry-picking of statistics that he wants us to believe that we live in a society of ever-increasing violence. Unfortunately for Grossman, US Department of Justice statistics contradict this assertion. According to DOJ numbers easily found through a Google search, violent crime rates (including homicide)in America skyrocketed from about 1960 to the early 1990s, but have been falling steadily since then. Would anyone argue that the use of violent video games in the US is falling steadily as well? He also fails to mention that certain societies with arguably even more violent video games than the US have much lower rates of violent crime than we do, for example Japan.

The author seems to rely heavily on a few secondary sources, particularly John Keegan's Face of Battle and Richard Holmes' Acts of War. His few primary sources include articles from Soldier of Fortune magazine; he appears to take them at face value that they are true, accurate first-person accounts of combat experiences. He claims that he himself conducted several hundred interviews of combat veterans, but didn't seem to use their accounts as sources.

His personal bias in on display here, but he seems unaware of it. He lionizes the American soldier. I served as an American soldier for two decades before retiring in 2001. I came to view my fellow soldiers as ordinary fallen beings sometimes performing unpleasant tasks in unpleasant places. Hero worship is a poor tool when one seeks the truth.

Most troubling is Grossman's frequent citing of controversial assertions by Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall. Marshall, better known as SLA Marshall, or SLAM, a newspaper columnist and US Army officer, claimed to conduct hundreds of interviews with US combat veterans in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. His claimed insights about the reticence of men in combat to fire their weapons were influential in how the US Army shaped its training in the latter half of the 20th Century. As an enthusiastic young Army officer in the 1980s, I eagerly read his works.

In the early to mid 1990s, several people began to re-examine Marshall's assertions (google Roger J. Spiller and Harold Leinbaugh). Attempts to confirm Marshall's claims of how he conducted his research have cast serious doubts on the accuracy of his assertions. First-person accounts of people who were present during his claimed interviews in WWII and Korea differed dramatically from SLAM's accounts of how many interviews were conducted, how they were conducted, what subjects were discussed, etc. Attempts to confirm SLAM's accounts with physical evidence have been unsuccessful. At some point, he claimed to have filled about 800 notebooks with the results of his interviews, but only two of his notebooks have surfaced, despite the fact that his voluminous personal and professional papers are in the possession of the University of Texas at El Paso library, and have been extensively searched.

Marshall established a reputation for exaggerating his personal accomplishments, including those in wartime. He claimed to have won a battlefield commission in WWI but records indicate he was commissioned in 1919, after the war ended. He claimed to have been an infantryman leading other infantrymen in combat in WWI, but records indicate that he was instead a sergeant of engineers, attached to the 90th Infantry Division, doing construction and repair work on roads.

In the Introduction to the June 2009 edition of On Killing, Grossman quickly addresses the controversy over Marshall and simply dismisses it out of hand. This suggests much about Grossman's mindset. An objective writer simply seeking the truth might have been hesitant to continue to rely heavily on a figure such as Marshall whose credibility had been so called into question. Instead Grossman charges forward, continuing to rely on Marshall, despite the serious doubts about his credibility.
57 von 72 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
1.0 von 5 Sternen One-sided? Of course not... 11. März 2012
Von d.hall - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format:Kindle Edition
I've owned two printed copies of this book. Very thought-provoking, and a good read, but with one major flaw...LTC Grossman forms much of his work around data that the military has (for many years now) considered to be flawed (at best) and out-right false (at worst). Knowing that Grossman bases so much of his thesis on fictional data involving the percentage of combatants who shot to kill in past conflicts causes one to wonder if his data on, say, PTSD is legitimate, or if he searched hundreds of sources to find a few obscure studies that matched his ideology. A reader should not need to fact-check a book on a subject as profound as this.
For those interested, do a quick online search on this title, check out the now-refuted references he relies heavily on, and note that the military (who funded the original research) debunked it long before the author first published this work.

Summary: Exceptionally written, but by using disproven information to make his case, the author has presented a work of fiction and called it something more.
33 von 41 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
2.0 von 5 Sternen Over hyped underbelievable 18. September 2011
Von jam - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format:Taschenbuch|Verifizierter Kauf
This book is found on many reading lists to include the Commadant of the Marine Corps. I have heard great things from several sources and when I finally sat down and read it for myself I found it to be hard to really get through. As a combat veteran serving with the USMC during OIF in several tours many things Grossman talks about I feel are valid. Conditioning and realistic training making it reflexive to kill without weighing all of the peramiters set in a previous chapter in the book, Unit cohesion being important not only in combat but during a work up and even post deployment. I do like the stories used to convey the messages he is trying to get across but feel that some of them are a stretch. That being said I really have a hard time believeing that any trained military force when engaged in close combat only 15-20% in previous wars would engage an enemy with legitimate intent to kill. And furthermore in my own military experience (in which Grossman brands my entire generation "pseudo sociopaths" thank you rambo and playstation) killing was excepted as a part of the job and the idea of a woman or adolecent shooting at us and having to return fire had no greater psycological effect then a military aged male.

He further talks about the distance involved making killing easier the farther away and less humanized a target is which i guess has makes some sense however, to use a hypothetical example. A trained soldier underneith an enemy at knife range is going to clearly go into condition red, revert to the lowest level of training (and survival) instinct and react to that situation in kind. What they will not do, is lay there and identify the enemy as some poor kid like them scared out of their mind too, analize how hard it is to kill another human being because it is wrong and that since they are so close that instict is even stronger "so i am going to lay here and hope that you have the same underlying anti killing their own species feelings inside of you I do.

Overall there were some alright charts that were backed up with alright theories but I would encourage anyone who reads this to not look at this book as the end all on the subject.
7 von 7 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
2.0 von 5 Sternen Pseudo-Science and wrong on many counts 6. September 2013
Von A. C. Rooney - Veröffentlicht auf Amazon.com
Format:Kindle Edition|Verifizierter Kauf
I bought this book on the understanding it contained "case studies". It does not. Apart from meeting veterans in bars and reciting other peoples works and then leaping to conclusions, there are no "Case Studies" as such. I'm sure Col. Grossman has had many veterans on his couch, but as one reviewer pointed out, this is "underbelievable". It is not scientific in any way and is purely anecdotal. I served in the Rhodesian Air Force and it was a simple fact that the terrorists preferred automatic fire. If Grossman knew even a little he would know that the AK-47 does not behave well on full-auto (it climbs radically). It wasn't because these terrorists did not want to kill us and were firing over our heads - it was because they couldn't shoot. They had no problem performing the most unspeakable atrocities, I think it very unlikely they were reluctant to shoot us. And to say the Rhodesian military had no air support is evidence of Grossman's complete ignorance on the topic. On some issues he was correct, but really, the fact that it's easier to kill from a distance is not exactly ground breaking information. Despite what this man who has never seen combat says in his book, it's pretty easy to kill someone who pisses you off by shooting at you and your mates. Oh but then I must be one of the 2% he talks about. Not in my experience. I cannot believe that people hold this tripe in such high regard. As one US soldier told him: "You're a virgin that says he's a expert on sex". Pretty appropriate I think.
Waren diese Rezensionen hilfreich?   Wir wollen von Ihnen hören.
Kundenrezensionen suchen
Nur in den Rezensionen zu diesem Produkt suchen

Kunden diskutieren

Das Forum zu diesem Produkt
Diskussion Antworten Jüngster Beitrag
Noch keine Diskussionen

Fragen stellen, Meinungen austauschen, Einblicke gewinnen
Neue Diskussion starten
Thema:
Erster Beitrag:
Eingabe des Log-ins
 

Kundendiskussionen durchsuchen
Alle Amazon-Diskussionen durchsuchen
   


Ähnliche Artikel finden


Ihr Kommentar