# How wars and large-scale conflicts work

People have [conflicts](people-conflicts.md) among each other one-on-one. However, when people have significant [power](power.md) over others, they wage conflicts using their groups instead of as individuals.

Some of these conflicts are [moralized](morality.md) issues, but most of them are simplified battles over [power](power.md) toward a future [purpose](purpose.md), group [control](people-boundaries.md), or an ego battle over who has more power.

APPLICATION: There is very little [justice](morality-justice.md) to any large-scale conflict. With the exception of preventing [genocidal evil](morality-evil.md) (e.g., Nazis), there are very few good [reasons](purpose.md) for war. However, every attacker will [work to appear](image-distortion.md) [virtuous](morality.md) to gain support for their side. Even the [lessons](education.md) everyone learns could have just as easily (and less violently) been gained without the social revolution.

Individuals won't normally see the benefits of attacking a different set of people. To keep everyone [motivated](purpose.md), most groups portray the [appearance](image.md) of their "[good](morality.md)" versus their opponents' "[evil](morality-evil.md)" using elaborate, [large-scale media](stories-storytellers.md). The strongest motivation to attack other groups comes from overstating [fears](mind-feelings-fear.md) of what may happen if the other group wins.

Each group can (and usually will) damage other groups to the degree that larger groups don't have [power](power.md) over them. If they're the highest government in the land, they can kill at will and do almost anything they want. If they're a corporation or colony that a more powerful group (e.g., a government) could dismantle, they'll only act within their [privileges](people-boundaries.md) unless they're making a strategic and significant [decision](people-decisions.md).

These dramatic conflicts have *many* interconnected elements, and each element is its own sub-conflict driven by unique [decisions](people-decisions.md) separate from the [large groups' leadership](groups-large.md). Alliances often shuffle around, but nothing quite solidifies the group's loyalty like an outside threat.

## Inevitable

The problem with any [group](groups-small.md) is that it's bound together by [feelings](mind-feelings.md) aligned toward a specific [purpose](purpose.md). Since feelings are low-resolution, they generate a presumed shared [value](values.md) but the granular details will be discrepant in light of larger matters. Once the larger issues are sorted out, *then* comes the smaller problems.

The differences in opinion, combined with a few individuals' [unscrupulous](morality-evil.md) desire for [power](power.md) by a minority of individuals, [guarantees](people-5_conflicts.md) there will *always* be [smaller-scale conflicts](people-conflicts.md). Since there's simply not enough time to resolve all the smaller conflicts, some of them will eventually become larger and spill out into becoming larger-scale. Most leaders, in seeing conflicts, are [afraid](mind-feelings-fear.md) enough to address many conflicts (due to their scope of destroying the group), and that inaction will often magnify the force of the ideas.

Groups can coexist for *much* longer with conflicting values than individuals alongside each other, but once a [trend](trends.md) has turned toward crushing the competition, it's difficult to stop [humanity's competitive or destructive nature](humanity.md).

Usually, the trigger for a large-scale conflict comes through an existing disagreement among groups where a leader develops at least one of a few specific [desires](purpose.md):

- Gaining [power](power.md) from the other group becomes more important than [peace](safety.md) from that group (often by getting money or resources).
- Losing patience with the unease that comes from a looming conflict.
- The leader harshly interprets a [religious](religion.md) text or a previous leader's desires.
- [Irrational](logic.md) [hatred](morality-evil.md) of another people group.
- A leader has a self-interested reason, so they deceive the entire group to do one of the above.

APPLICATION: Nuclear weapons will never be as popular as the *threat* of nuclear weaponry, simply because the winner inherits a crater that's uninhabitable for a long time.

Most groups tend to protect their most [educated and intelligent](education.md) members as much as possible from the group's highest risks. Strategists, among others, are often working closely with (or are) the ruling [class](classes.md) of the group, while less advantaged individuals (e.g., young, unintelligent) are far more exposed and disposable. To keep everyone in line, the lower class is implied to have access to those privileged positions if they work hard enough.

When outright physical conflict isn't as advantageous to win, [legal battles](legal-safety.md) can become just as fierce. [Low-agreeableness personalities](personality.md) can even make *[sports](fun-sports.md)* a constrained form of warfare.

APPLICATION: [Legal](people-rules.md) battles operate under the authority of that government (e.g., [intellectual property](legal-ip.md)), but [reach](influence.md) *much* farther than the two groups or their conflict. The [laws](people-rules.md) their conflict establishes create [philosophical](philosophy.md) [boundaries](people-boundaries.md) for *every* pair of groups with a similar conflict in the future, and often across regional boundaries.

The resource costs for war preparedness are high. Any slack in [discipline](habits.md), even for a week or two, is enough to make the group lazy and ineffective.

APPLICATION: Most effective large-scale leaders are either always interacting with a large-scale conflict or [have a plan](imagination.md) for one. They'll avoid it when possible, but aren't [afraid](mind-feelings-fear.md) of it.

## Defusing a war

There are a few ways to avoid or stall a large-scale conflict. Occasionally, these tactics can be used *within* a large-scale conflict as well.

### Appeasement

By trying to satisfy another group's desires, a group hopes the other group will stop [wanting](purpose.md) a conflict.

If both sides are willing to appease, they can settle it with a [negotiation](people-conflicts-negotiation.md). However, leaders with [evil](morality-evil.md) intent will often [lie](people-lying.md) to benefit more than their opponent from an agreement.

However, if one side doesn't want to relent, the other side's reconciliation only trades time until the inevitable conflict while giving their opponent more [power](power.md).

Very often, people will behave as if they don't [understand](understanding.md) the other side. Understanding *sometimes* resolves [conflicts](people-conflicts.md), but those people are often trying to [distort how things look](image-distortion.md) to take advantage of others' grace.

As an appeased group gains more [power](power.md), they'll make increasingly more unreasonable demands over time. Often, because the appeasing leaders are [fearful](mind-feelings-fear.md) and have made a [habit](habits.md) of [compromising boundaries](people-boundaries.md), they'll keep conceding indefinitely, all the way until the demanding group gives an impossible request.

APPLICATION: When making concessions, closely observe the [attitude](purpose.md) of the requesting party. If they don't concede [in kind](morality-justice.md) for your group, prepare for a direct conflict.

### Converging

Creating an alliance, merger, union, or truce can prevent conflicts by making multiple smaller groups under threat into a *larger* group. However, because of the [inner conflicts](conflicts-inner.md) present in all of humanity, people need a shared opposition or they start fighting amongst themselves.

### Subversion

Destroying key components of a larger group can delay or nullify that group's [purposes](purpose.md), typically by making them [ineffective](mgmt-badsystems.md). This can create [power](power.md) vacuums the subverting group can then fill:

- [Destroy that group's image](image-distortion.md) to make the people fight with each other or destroy their reputation outside the group. The easiest way is to draw extra attention to one of that group's past [decisions](people-decisions.md), which often includes [starting](trends.md) a protest.
- Sabotage resources or the means to acquire resources, usually by attacking the weakest points (which is often their [communications](people-conversation.md) [technology](technology.md)).
- Redirect and reroute resources toward the subverting group's [purposes](purpose.md). This can involve redirecting physical things (e.g., raw materials) or mental things (e.g., information).
- Building [trust](understanding-certainty.md) with that group to do one of the above a later time, but by hiding [power](power.md) or having a key [decision-making](people-decisions.md) ability.

If enough people already agreed with the minority group, the idea was already waiting to happen and simply needed [brave enough](mind-feelings-fear.md) people who were willing to take the [risk](socialrisk.md) against their [authorities](power.md) to start the [trend](trends.md).

### Demonstrating

By using demonstrations of [power](power.md), a group can [imply](image.md) they're comparably stronger than their opponents. The message they're trying to communicate is that they're bigger than they may seem and not worth contending with.

This bluff only works if the other group doesn't want to risk the resources to test that impression, for one of two reasons:

- The other group has a scarcity of resources.
- The bluffing group is relatively unimportant to the other group.

Often, these demonstrations of power can involving partnering with other groups to give a shared [image](image.md) that implies the separate groups are one group more than [reality](reality.md).

If multiple groups demonstrate at the same time to outperform each other, they're engaged in a cold war. A cold war can persist as long as both sides have enough [ego](humanity.md) to persist demonstrating, but they're both [afraid](mind-feelings-fear.md) to start an engagement.

### Divestment

By separating *all* resource usage from another group (e.g., sanctions), that group may be severely weakened from the lack of something they may need.

This only works if that group is heavily reliant on something. If they don't need any outside help, or can make it themselves, the strategy will only harm the defending group.

Of course, that group will always [seek](purpose.md) another source for it, and the entire endeavor can backfire spectacularly: the opponent has another source for what they need, and they're not happy that they had the inconvenience of having to find it.

## Engagement in a conflict

Unless the conflict is relatively short, there's a general calculus that approximates how well each group will do:

1. Take everything that can be [purposed](purpose.md) toward destroying the enemy.
2. Distribute it among the people who are both [willing](people-decisions.md) and able to fight.
3. Add in the long-term capacity for other people who are both willing and able to make supplies for the fighters (e.g., food, more weapons).
4. Diminish the capacity by the risks toward non-fighters from opponents (i.e., [logistical supply chain](logistics.md) disruption).
5. Multiply or divide by prevailing [philosophical values](values.md) that can affect everyone:
   - Belief in the importance of the conflict (as opposed to doing it out of [potential](imagination.md) personal gain).
   - Brutality toward enemies (as opposed to the polar opposite of taking prisoners and treating them well).
   - The relative [education](understanding.md) of the groups (which will hinder the like-mindedness of [purpose](purpose.md) but increase [results](results.md) as it scales).
   - Any sense of ownership by the groups over what they're trying to take or defend.

When two or more groups attack each other, their relative size makes a profound difference in the fight's events.

But, there are a few universal aspects irrespective of size or context:

- The lowest-ranking members, unrelated groups, and bystanders are *always* the most harmed. Most of the leadership are using others' power, but tend to [care](people-love.md) more about the [power](power.md) they wield and who they're destroying than any concern over their own [members](groups-member.md).
- If the leaders are [unscrupulous](morality-evil.md), they'll attack their opponents' [symbolic](symbols.md) treasures. By damaging symbols, they damage their opponents' [cultural values](people-culture.md). Depending on the culture, this will sometimes provoke their [desire](purpose.md) for [vengeance](hardship-ptsd.md), but the long-term consequence of this is that the culture is diluted or dismantled.
- If a group starts losing, the [loyalty](trust.md) and [desires](purpose.md) of the individuals in the conflict determine how far and how long they'll keep fighting. If people are driven strictly by [money or opportunities](power-types.md), they won't fight for nearly as long or as hard as those driven by an ideal. People will risk their life for any purpose they want (and are more easily dissuaded from their [duties](people-rules.md) by conflicting opportunities), but will only sacrifice their lives for a perceived [noble](morality.md) cause.
- The members' loyalty determines how much the entire endeavor can advance forward purely to satisfy the [ego](humanity.md) of the attacking leadership. This can only persist, however, as long as those members can advance their own self-interest as well.
- The methods that any groups will even *think* of tie very closely to the group's long-term interests:
  - Nuclear warfare obliterates *everything* (land, possessions, [human labor](results.md), [human skills](understanding.md)), so it's only a last-ditch effort as a means to survive.
  - Constraining power when the other group has a *different* type of power creates a "cold war" or "trade war", which ends up dramatically hurting both sides.

The organization's ability to [educate](education.md) means of attacking and defending (e.g., military training) is frequently the determining factor in a tightly contested battle. However, the ability of an organization to [change](people-changes.md) their tactics relative to what the *other* side is doing can quickly determine whether a group can succeed.

When the organization is [larger than ~50 people](groups-large.md), the [older](maturity.md) leaders will send the younger members with something to prove into the [highest-risk](safety.md) parts of the conflict. The youth will often risk dying for another person's decision, meaning nearly all large-group conflicts that aren't preventing a decidedly [evil](morality-evil.md) thing are in some capacity [immoral](morality.md).

### Large vs. small: large

Larger and more powerful groups tend to assume they have an automatic victory before they start proportional to their [perceived](image.md) relative size, which is a *major* disadvantage.

The large group will act quickly, but always slower than the smaller group, since they have more to move and often less of a [compulsion to survive](mind-feelings-fear.md).

The larger group's effort will be focused on preserving resources as much as possible. The leadership will constantly [calculate](people-decisions.md) if the effort is worth the cost, since they're usually free to back out any time.

Because of large groups' size, they're a bit more impersonal, and individuals must trust strangers they don't know directly much more frequently. These two factors together mean distrust within a group is disastrous to the harmony of the group proportionally to its size.

Often, a sufficiently [motivated](purpose.md) smaller group can [scare](mind-feelings-fear.md) the larger group away.

### Large vs. small: small

Smaller groups, if [motivated](purpose.md) by an [influential](influence.md) leader, are usually *far* more determined and focused than their larger opponents. In lieu of those leaders, the group *can* consist of [determined](purpose.md) [self-leaders](success-1_why.md). However, without any leadership, the group will focus strictly on [surviving](mind-feelings-fear.md) and won't make any sensible long-term strategies.

When that group is significantly smaller, their only reliable tactics come through [fear](mind-feelings-fear.md) (e.g., terrorism and guerrilla warfare) and [creatively](mind-creativity.md) using their environment (i.e., tactics). Both of these techniques can often give the means for a group to confront another group 10 times larger than they are.

Often, the smaller group will try to gain support from another group or increase their members. They'll [show stories](stories-storytellers.md) of suffering, destruction, oppression, and devastation, from the larger group and will usually portray themselves as [innocent](morality-justice.md) [victims](hardship-ptsd.md). Sometimes, they'll merely appeal to [morality](morality.md).

Their victory will [appear](image.md) decisive and usually is, though the smaller group has a slim chance of winning if they have at least a specific resources:

- A superior tactician to the larger group who can more efficiently use everything.
- Superior [technology](technology.md) to the larger group that magnifies group members' combat effectiveness.
- Time to spread out the engagement, which give more room to strategically think and wear down the larger group's morale and resources.
- Enough of a [social revolution](trends.md) to empower the smaller group where the larger group is [afraid](mind-feelings-fear.md) of them.

However, victory for the smaller group is far more complex than the opportunistic goals of their larger opponent:

- The "[win conditions](math-gametheory.md)" for the smaller group are far more specific, and are sometimes simply survival.
- They've put up enough of a fight that the larger group doesn't [anticipate](imagination.md) their victory is worth the cost. This can be either in lost resources or bad [image](image.md).
- The larger group has lost so much to the conflict that they can't continue it.
- The smaller group has lost everything the larger group would have [wanted](purpose.md).
- Another group has distracted the large group. This often arises from that third group seizing the opportunity to take that large group's [power](power.md) while they're distracted.

Often, to become the larger group against a common enemy, several groups will ally together for that specific [purpose](purpose.md) alone. Their alliance is almost always temporary. It's not uncommon for *that* alliance to become its own conflict after the other group is eliminated. Often, one group will betray the other group's [trust](trust.md) from that previous alliance to gain [power](power.md) in the exchange.

However, the smaller group will often surrender. If they do, they're either absorbed into the larger group as [slaves](slavery.md) or permitted to persist as [subsidiary groups](mgmt-badsystems.md). In modern society, the slavery is often much more nuanced and goes by other names.

### Evenly matched

Groups *hate* to be evenly matched both from how much destruction it can cause and how [uncertain](understanding-certainty.md) the results will be. Thus, they work very hard to overwhelm their opposition as much as possible, and typically do it at the same time.

A close battle between two [large groups](groups-large.md) quickly becomes extremely dramatic and intense. Since both sides have similar [resources](power.md), both of them will do *anything* to get an edge on the other:

- Military and communications [technology](technology.md) developments.
- Recruiting *any* other groups. This can include pretty much anyone who sympathizes with the battling group, and can be public or private.
- [Manipulating their image](image-distortion.md) to imply their opponents are less capable. This is especially useful when the groups are contending for the [decision](people-decisions.md) of a third group, but works when there's anyone undecided over where they want to [place their allegiance](understanding-certainty.md).
- Most war strategies involve cutting off resources from their opponent. This can include core needs (e.g., food, water), military supplies (e.g., guns, ammunition), or communications technology. At the farthest, a group can destroy its *own* supplies so the enemy doesn't receive it (scorched earth policy).
  - Each unit, squadron, battalion, and legion must be as self-reliant as possible to ensure they're safe from any disruptions.
- Diplomatically ending any further conflict is the greatest net win for everyone, but it's not always in the interests of a group that's significantly more powerful.

APPLICATION: Large-scale conflicts still involve individuals with uniquely separate [purposes](purpose.md), and people shift their loyalties as they gain [understanding](understanding.md). It's not uncommon for low-ranking soldiers who saw the horrors of combat to hate a sustained conflict more than their comparatively well-protected commanders. Only [highly influential](influence.md) people can draw everyone together.

For the sake of [drama](stories-storytellers.md), [history](stories-storytellers.md) tends to portray battles as evenly matched when they were decisive and overwhelming victories.

### 3+ groups

Often, when a match persists evenly among two groups, a *third* group may gain enough [power](power.md) to destroy either of the original two. If that happens to where both groups see that third group as a threat, the two groups will often stop their conflict and attack the third group. The teamwork from the joint effort often provokes a shared desire for peace after they defeat that third enemy, though it can create a new, smaller conflict among those two if [resources](power-types.md) are scarce.

Sometimes, the smaller group has *more* power than the larger group (e.g., governments give individuals more rights than a corporation). When this happens, the larger group will see themselves as evenly matched or outclassed, and *they* adopt the attitude and [perspective](image.md) of a more mobile and fast-acting small group.

APPLICATION: A third attacker in a large conflict may be advantageous by either side, but they can't be [trusted](trust.md). They may attack either group at any time or change sides.

## Inter-organizational conflicts

Each large group will typically act as one unified force until a [trend](trends.md) reaches maturity to question the leadership's decisions. At that point, the group becomes unstable. This is most clearly onset when people aren't getting what they [need or want](purpose.md), and the violence of war guarantees at least *some* of the people will oppose their leadership.

The best way to placate members is with a rewards system, typically with decorated medals. By using incentives that create a sense of [meaning](meaning.md), people can keep fighting *long* after it makes any [rational](logic.md) sense.

One of the easiest ways to [influence](influence.md) the group toward a continued effort against the opponent is to generate a disaster or emergency. If there's a crisis, people are more likely to act in [overt fear](mind-feelings-fear.md) and rally behind their leadership. This disaster can either be a relatively smaller legitimate problem [enhanced into a larger one](image-distortion.md), or can be a complete fabrication.

Sometimes this group will express as protesting or rioting, with the people who incite the protest starting a [trend](trends.md) of opposition. This taps into a [base](mind-feelings.md) urge to rebel and directs it against the leadership.

APPLICATION: Controlling and directing a riot is very difficult. While some people, especially the [Left](politics-leftism.md), are somewhat skilled at it, an anti-leadership movement will eventually take out its own [leaders](groups-small.md) unless someone can skillfully [influence](influence.md) the [anger](mind-feelings-anger.md) and [fear](mind-feelings-fear.md) toward a [moral-looking](morality.md) [cause](purpose.md).

However, since the protesters are leaders of an opposition force that may run the system soon, the current leadership can often backfire spectacularly in how they handle the unruly dissenters. The leaders who oppose the rioters are typically [laggards](trends.md) of the rioting trend, and it's not uncommon for them to be ejected or die from it.

Sometimes, a lower tier/subdivision of a group with a different culture can oppose the large group. In that case, it quickly becomes a small vs. large group conflict ("civil war") as soon as the small group's leadership make a public [decision](people-decisions.md) that the small group majority approves. Otherwise, the small group will quietly subvert the larger group and wait for an opportunity.

APPLICATION: To guarantee a war, [oppress](morality-justice.md) a large group (e.g, a nation) for at least a decade, then give them [economic power](economics.md) for a couple years. They *will* try to get revenge and seize [power](power.md) as soon as they interpret an opportunity (which often comes from other [weak leaders](mgmt-badsystems.md) who leave openings for it).

If there's enough opposition, that protesting group can split off into its own group altogether. If the original group [disagrees](people-conflicts.md) (which is common because it's a tremendous loss of [power](power.md)) this will incite a large-scale civil war, and the former leader will almost always fight the split with everything they can employ.

On occasion, if there's any chance of [compassion or love](people-love.md), there will be a bitter departure without a conflict between the smaller and larger groups. After enough time, they'll often ally later on future [purposes](purpose.md).

However, the more frequent reality is that the large group will commission a "secret police" to track the dissidents (e.g., Gestapo, FBI). High-ranking and vocal opponents will disappear in their sleep, civil disobedience will somehow become violent, and attempts to overtake the larger system will fail.

The only way for any smaller group to fight the larger group comes through a unique type of group [social risk](socialrisk.md):

1. Get together to discuss what everyone [understands](understanding.md).
2. Give enough time together to cross-pollinate [new ideas](mind-creativity.md) on how to solve the problems.
3. Agree on a good decision, then [take action on it](results.md).

## Complications to the facts

Modern warfare has tried to create some form of civility to war, especially as [technology](technology.md) has made warfare absolutely horrific. Dozens of organizations have responded afterward to the gruesome war [stories](stories.md) by banning certain forms of combat (e.g., chemical/biological warfare).

The reasoning that drives the [rules](people-rules.md) around forbidden weapons is absurd. Beyond torture, killing a person is the worst thing you can do to them, and war is built around the threats and means of killing people. Some implements of war create devastating results that *don't* kill people (e.g., landmines), but the purpose of others is to make killing more [efficient](results.md) (e.g., hollow-point bullets).

Further, the "rules of engagement" imply that only combatants should be harmed, and not civilians. While this may make sense in a war where the attacking and defending force are in relatively new territory, this is practically unenforceable when the defender is in their homeland and the [culture](people-culture.md) of the defender's [family](people-family.md) advocates for revenge. At that point, every civilian is a *possible* combatant.

There are other rules that often become war crimes if not followed, most of them coming from the four Geneva Conventions:

- If an aircraft has been disabled, the soldiers parachuting down are helpless and can't be fired on.
- If a soldier wishes to surrender, they should wave something large and white (or sometimes black) and raise their hands. They're forbidden to "fake surrender". The other side may search and restrain them, and confiscate their items. The soldier only has to state their name, rank, and number, though it can sometimes include [religious preference](religion.md) and other small details that wouldn't run the risk of a court martial.
- Prisoners of war (POWs) can be taken to a camp and treated well. They can only be [forced to work](slavery.md), but in non-military capacities that isn't dangerous or unhealthy, and they must be allowed to perform medical/ministerial duties. Prisoners are allowed to escape or impersonate the opposing force's officers, and executing them is a war crime.
- Torture and medical experiments that aren't benefiting the health of the prisoners are also war crimes.
- Further, any soldier who performs a war crime can't say they were "just following orders".
- If there's ever a cease-fire or an armistice (i.e., when the war is finishing), nobody is allowed to attack each other anymore.

APPLICATION: Any issues with war crimes is a misplaced [morality](morality.md). War itself is horrible, and to make rules for warfare without outright killing everyone who tries to kill anyone is technically a double standard.

This gets more [complicated](mgmt-badsystems.md), but the idea is to create a [fair and equal](morality-justice.md) opportunity for combatants to fight for themselves. However, this entire idea is ridiculous when you consider that any combatant who has the means to kill their opponent will.

The simple reality of humanity is that they're capable of unending [evil](morality-evil.md) that is most prevalent in war, and only way to stop a war crime is to stop the war criminal, which usually means killing them.

One of the benefits of a well-trained military is that it builds [habits](habits.md) into its members that empower more [success](results.md) in other endeavors. For that reason, even when there are *zero* [risks](safety.md) from opposing forces, a military can still serve a useful purpose in times of peace by drawing out people from the [lower class](classes.md) into the middle and upper class.

## Resolving the conflict

When two groups fight, there are too many unknown factors to know exactly what's going on at any given moment ("fog of war"). However, leaders still must make [decisions](people-decisions.md) with their limited information and often try to increase the fog of war for their opponent whenever possible.

In practice, strategic decisions are essentially [game theory](math-gametheory.md), with the entire engagement built around at least two actors. Even seemingly harmless activities that simply [change how things look](image-distortion.md) can be *highly* effective in deterring purposes (e.g., "false flag operation").

Large-scale conflicts resolve when everyone involved is sick of fighting. This can often take a *long* time, especially if more than two groups were involved.

The outcome of a large-scale conflict is never straightforward. Between the [trauma](hardship-ptsd.md) on both sides that can provoke irrational behavior, the [reasons](purpose.md) why people fight, and the inter-group conflicts that often play out at the same time, it's *very* hard to predict who will be left standing and in what position by the end.

If a leader who won't end a conflict (mostly from a lack of [compassion](people-love.md) for their own group's losses), the group must be utterly devastated until the leadership is stripped of their [power](power.md). In those situations, their immediate lower-ranking leadership will depose that leader to save the [group](groups-large.md), and their "betrayal" will typically be exonerated by [history](stories-storytellers.md).

APPLICATION: The losing side of a battle will have the same [story](stories.md) as the winning side. But, they'll have completely opposite [values](values.md) and the roles reversed. The [truth](reality.md) is somewhere between both of them, but their [traditional beliefs](people-culture.md) will [diverge](people-conflicts.md) wildly from the same event.

On occasion, depending on the situation, the new opposition's leadership will have enough skills [influencing others](influence.md) that they'll negotiate a compromise. That new compromise won't necessarily please *anyone*, and will often create further [bureaucracy](mgmt-badsystems.md) (e.g., trade unions, national coalitions). This will sometimes happen without any violence or loss, but can create larger-scale conflicts later.

APPLICATION: Often, the only grace a large group will give is to [maintain image](image-distortion.md). Don't *ever* [expect](imagination.md) [virtue](morality.md) from a conqueror.

Wars can sometimes persist for a *very* long time, and it only comes through two possible reasons. Either the goals keep changing (which often comes through the leaders lying about what they really want) or the attacker severely underestimated the defender.

Sometimes, the *allies* drawn into the conflict will fight among each other longer than the original antagonists.

Whoever wins gets to claim all the resources. The members' continued [loyalty](image.md) comes from how [fair](morality-justice.md) they feel their portion is.

After the event, the winners get to [write the story](stories-storytellers.md), and it becomes part of their [culture](people-culture.md). In it, their group is *always* the [protagonist](stories.md), barring certain cases of [leftism](politics-leftism.md) and [Christianity](history-church.md).

APPLICATION: The losing side isn't always innocent or a victim. Often, they're only [distorting their image](image-distortion.md) to gain [favor](image.md) from you.

Typically, the [youth](maturity.md) will hear the [stories](stories.md) and take them at [face value](image.md), and will often become the most powerful advocates for future conflicts about the subject. Some people, such as the Nazis and [leftists](politics-leftism.md), adapt those [stories](stories.md) to re-educate young people and [empower](power.md) future conflicts with them.