Женчовци

by Martin van Creveld, Мартин ван Кревелд

Как най-добрите и най-свирепи войници на света, които в продължение на векове са се сражавали и побеждавали всички, докато не са постигнали световна власт, са се превърнали в женчовци? Как, когато Стемни е смятал, че с присъствието на „цивилизовани“ бели мъже всичко мърсотно трябва да изчезне, сега изглежда е точно обратното? И защо западните медии продължават да произвеждат какви ли не Рамбовци, които предприемат всевъзможни самоубийствени мисии в страните от Третия свят и побеждават все по-голям брой местни жители, когато в действителност нещата се тръгнали точно в обратната посока?

Какво да правим с тези тъй добри качества, които притежаваме? Може би да ги замразим? Ако направим това, дали ще са там, когато пак ни потрябват? Ако не успеем да ги развием, нима няма да станем женчовци и да се оставим да бъдем лесно победени?

Отговорите в „Женчовци“ от Мартин ван Кревелд.

Genres: War, History, Nonfiction, Cultural

306 pages, Paperback

Published November 3, 2025

About the author

Martin Levi van Creveld is an Israeli military historian and theorist.

Van Creveld was born in the Netherlands in the city of Rotterdam, and has lived in Israel since shortly after his birth. He holds degrees from the London School of Economics and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he has been on the faculty since 1971. He is the author of seventeen books on military history and strategy, of which Command in War (1985), Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton (1977, 2nd edition 2004), The Transformation of War (1991), The Sword and the Olive (1998) and The Rise and Decline of the State (1999) are among the best known. Van Creveld has lectured or taught at many strategic institutes in the Western world, including the U.S. Naval War College.

- wikipedia.org

Reviews

[Andrew Tollemache · Rating 2 out of 5]

Martin van Creveld is a historian and theorist, whose books like "The Sword and the Olive" (history of the Israeli Defense Force) and "Transformation of War" were highly informative and illumiunating. ToW, written over 25 years was remarkably prescient about what conflict in the post-Cold War era would look like.
His new book, "Pussycats" is not one of his finest. By its synopsis and pedigree, I was expecting a very penetrating insight into why Western powers, chiefly the US, have struggled to achieve their stated goals in the last 50 years of military conflict. Why have Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and the GWOT proven so frustrating. I was hoping Creveld would bring a mix of unique insight and deft analysis to the book, instead I should have paid attention to the title.
His main thesis is that the West is a bunch of pussycats...prolly wanted to use something harsher but publisher shot him down. MvC thinks we have gone soft and let our militaries get too feminized. It all seems a bit too facile. Throw in some really amateurish factual errors: (1) Jessica Lynch was wounded and captured in Iraq in 2003, not 1991. (2) Petraeus was booted from CIA, not so much for his affair, as the fact he shared classified intel with his biographer/lover Paula Broadwell and then tried to hide the evidence in his attic....and you have a really shoddy book.
I get his points that something is lost in Western society as rights replace concepts like honor and duty, that our drive to gender integrate our military is maybe a folly born upon the luxury of not having to fight a serious Great Power, "win or die" war in over 70 years, BUT I do not think these things come close to explaining why our wars the last 50 years have been a mix of quagmires and bloody stalemates.
MvC seems to be suffering from what I call "Victor Davis Hanson's disease" in which the author believes citing a lot of ancient Greek, Roman and Persian history will make up for not having much data or well thought out arguments. A shame really

[Stingray · Rating 1 out of 5]

“Pussycats” is Martin van Creveld’s attempt at revealing the reasons for the apparent demise of Western military forces and Western power in general, in which he identifies current developments and lashes out against negative impacts but sadly often fails to make solid arguments.
The starting point for van Creveld’s arguments is the observation of Western military forces to be less effective and Western power to be more constrained today than during the Cold War. This development to Creveld is rooted in several developments within society, the political sphere and the military. He decries how children today are given too little chances to grow but too many save spaces and easy ways to stay childish and immature. The force of the Western military to him has been diminished by de-mobilization of units and abilities, overregulation, softening and feminization of training and general duty. The incorporation of civilian standards and especially the introduction of women into the military had softened forces and made them less effective. The author goes on to decry PTSD to basically be an artificially constructed illness and the increasing containment of warfare to have led to an impractical illegalization of war as a political means, Western countries would inhibit themselves with.
Although van Creveld does raise some interesting points, which do have negative consequences, most of his arguments are also taken over the top. He usually does not bother to analyze why the measures he decries had been taken, but cites their effects and contrasts them to the good old times. So for example he is right with his observation of modern forces having a seriously different balance between enlisted personnel and general officers than 80 years ago, but van Creveld does not even bother to inquire why this might be necessary. Also the author might be right in his assertion enlisted personnel in garrison to often have been inclined to drinking, brawling and all sorts of misdemeanor, but concluding the militaries stricter enforcement of discipline today to result in a less capable fighting force is simply over the top.
While the book is structured along the different factors previously mentioned, the author does wander from one particular behavior to another within the chapters, not going into much depth on individual measures, but contrasting them with historical precedents and ending in rhetorical questions, why this was necessary. This meandering between different anecdotes is seemingly supported by many citations of sources, but when checking out the sources, one often comes to a different understanding of the subject than Creveld describes in his book.
It is the presentation of his arguments, the meandering thoughts and clearly opinion-based research without objective analysis, which make the arguments sometimes comically unconvincing. A good publisher would likely have convinced the author to present his findings in another way, but sadly the book did not attract one. The book is published by DLVC Enterprises of Israel and Amazon lists the publisher CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. This shows in a bad text layout, frequent misspellings, wrong page numbers and no apparent content review. Thus the arguments of an accomplished author of warfare and history appear like the convoluted rant of an old man.
In summary a better publisher might have resulted in a more focused and better researched argument, because van Creveld does point out alarming tendencies deserving of in-depth analysis, but the author simply cannot convince the reader of his arguments, as he does not even try to analyze his observations or present anything but his personal opinion.

[Dominic · Rating 5 out of 5]

Overview

Creveld is an Israeli Jew who identifies with Western culture. He is most well-known as a military historian. I discovered him from reading two of Jonas Nilsson’s books, Anarcho-Fascism: Nature Reborn and When migration becomes conflict. He cites Creveld as one of his biggest influences, and after reading Pussycats, it’s clear that the influence of this book is all over the pages of Anarcho-Fascism.

The book is centered around the failings of Western nations through the lens of botched military efforts and the loosening of global dominance. While those themes serve as the central focus, there are other factors that have contributed to them that are not directly related to the military, but to cultural collapse. These have to do with abandoning in-group ideology, feminism, extending the age range of adolescence, the “mental health” industry, and the liberal idea of “human rights.” This list is not all-inclusive, but are the main topics.

In-Group Ideology and Migration

The problem with feminism should be self-evident, so I won’t waste time covering that topic. The in-group ideology is also self-evident, but Creveld makes interesting points that many often neglect when discussing diversity and immigration. He gives an example of the absorption center near his home town in Israel that houses newly arrived migrants, mostly Ethiopians he says, and notices their behavior in contrast with local Israelis. He notes that the migrants, due to their lack of resources, have no option but to work together. The kids are left unattended, which causes them to learn to fend for themselves, make use of scrap they find, play sports with each other, and even care for the toddlers. By contrast, the local Israelis are coddled and are unaware of responsibility and independence well into adulthood. This is similar to the old adage, “Tough times make strong men, strong men make easy times, easy times make weak men, weak men make tough times,” etc.

The point is that part of the reason many Western nations (I guess Creveld includes Israel in the Western collective) allow their sense of identity and culture to be replaced by foreign ones is because they have things too good. The upper class natives often don’t care about the troubles of the middle class, since they don’t have to mingle with foreigners as much, and the middle and lower classes still feel like cultural replacement is just paranoia, an overreaction, or as Creveld points out, that they are told they are racist for wanting to preserve their culture. But foreigners pay attention to these things, and ironically as the generations progress in the nation they migrate to, they become even more hostile.

Adulthood and Mental Health

There is a connection to the points made about the blurred lines of adulthood and childhood with the mental health industry, and that is the incentive of profit and job protection/creation. Take for instance higher education in the United States. The typical US undergraduate degree takes four years on average, which is longer than most other countries. With the current job market, he also is incentivized to go to graduate school for no other reason than to add a bullet point on his resume, which will add a minimum 1-2 years of schooling. If he goes to law school or medical school, the total years of grad school could add up to a decade, give or take a few years. He then is finally eligible for entry level work, after going into debt several thousand dollars. If he goes to college after serving in the military, this will typically delay the process by about four years. When does adulthood actually begin for most people then? If most men and women spend their lives until their mid to late twenties devoting enough time, resources, energy, and money to schooling, not entirely living on their own, and only working internships, have they not been misled and set to fail by the system? There is something very wrong with this picture. All the while, it is clear that there are people who benefit greatly from this disastrous education system; the schools themselves (the amount of colleges per state is absolutely insane, and some of these schools will accept anyone who breathes), the loan companies, advertisers, merch companies, the older generations who aren't replaceable since the younger generations aren't ready yet, and overqualified graduates who cannot find full-time work. The ability to profit greatly by these institutions is given precedence over the welfare of each generation that is brought up.

Similarly, Creveld also points out that the mental-health industry is a cash cow. People are arbitrarily diagnosed with disorders at record rates and are subsequently put on a lifetime of medication, a lifetime of specialist visits, and even given preferential treatment when applying to schools, jobs, or some form of grants for having one of these “disabilities” (there are several sources noting the trauma-dumping of college admissions essays into elite schools). Besides the monetary value of this wide-spread epidemic of mental health disorders, there is also a social aspect to it as well. People seem to boast about having some form of ADHD, bi-polar disorder, or PTSD, and love talking about it. Creveld even notes that many soldiers are made to convince themselves that they suffer from trauma even when they don’t. Another point he makes tying feminism into all of this is that many of these healthcare workers in the metal health industry choose their careers over motherhood, with the irony being that they do not want to take care of their own children so that they can have a career taking care of other people’s children.

Rights

The most important chapter, in my opinion, is the last one on the topic of rights. I believe the greatest reason we see people in political confusion is because we have all been lied to about the concept of human rights, and this topic is often neglected in political and ethical debates because people assume rights to be axiomatic. Since a right is part of legal code, there is no such thing as a “universal human right,” or any universal right at all. Rights are established by each nation. Nations are established either by conquest or from mutual agreements. One cannot claim to believe in universal rights while at the same time believing in national sovereignty. Creveld rightly notes that such ideas are relatively modern, seeing them first appear during the Enlightenment. He also mentions that nations are very selective with how these rights are applied, almost to the point where these universal declarations are meaningless. Not only that, but he ends by noting that in the vast majority of cases, the only times human rights are brought up are to further legislation and legal decree regarding diversity and feminism. Rights can only be enforced by men and by the nation, yet to be masculine and to be nationalistic is shunned by many people. And while many feel like rights are owed to them, they also feel that they are not bound by any national, ethnic, or cultural duty. This is why, in my opinion, libertarians are worse than Marxists in many ways.

Tying Things Back to the Military

What does any of this have to do with the military? For one, all of the points brought up are applicable to the military just as much as they are in the workforce and education system. The military has become feminized, treats its soldiers like children, rewards stupidity, punishes bravery, so on and so forth. But, what is worse than all of those things is the first point in the book, the one of culture. Most men are not enticed in the slightest to enlist in the military nowadays. The main reason I would argue (And what Creveld discusses) is that they do not feel like it is worth sacrificing years off their life (or potentially their entire life in battle), time away from their families, time away from college, or away from the workforce. And can anyone blame them? Their own people chastise them for being men, for being nationalistic, for their religion, and in many other ways. Men look at the wars that our country has fought (and other Western countries) and ask themselves, “How many of those wars actually helped my nation and my people?” Men would be willing to sacrifice their lives for their people and nation, but not for special interest groups or for people who do not respect them. That is the real reason why there is an enlistment issue.

Negatives

One of the issues I did have with the book is that in some cases I believe Creveld goes too far in the points he is making. For example, I agree with him that children and teenagers need freedom to explore and find ways to support themselves, but I do think it's the community’s job to also limit them in some capacity. He believes, for example, that curfews are too stringent, whereas I would argue there is no reason for kids to be out past midnight. He mentions other things like piercings, tattoos, cigarettes, whereas again I would argue those things should not be available to minors. I understand it is difficult to mark the boundaries where people can grow up and learn things on their own and learn things the hard way, but at the same time part of having a culture is by laying out rules for what will and will not be tolerated. There may not be an easy solution, but that doesn’t mean everything should be permissible.

Another example would be his views on soldiers and fornication. He believes soldiers should be allowed to use prostitutes and view pornography, partly because as soldiers they have earned the right to these things, and also because historically, there have been famous military figures who partook in those things too. I would counter this by saying that just because there have been noble men who have done these things, that it doesn’t mean they are inherently good. Our greatest role models have all had flaws. Secondly, I would argue these things are degenerate and a net-negative to society. On this topic, I would recommend Sex and Culture, which demonstrates that chastity and monogamy are essential for a nation to thrive for both men and women. This point in particular is why I recommend Nilsson’s book, because while his isn’t as formal as this, he at least makes corrections on cultural topics like this.

Lastly, there are many grammatical and typographical errors. The page numbers in the table of contents do not match up either. I’m not sure if this was translated from Hebrew or was originally written in English, but it was very annoying at times dealing with bad formatting and errors.

Conclusion

Despite my criticisms, it is a great book. Creveld provides many citations and references, and so it’s hard to disagree with much of what he says. It’s written in a reader-friendly way, yet is formal enough to be a serious criticism of modernism and liberalism.

[Jefferson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pussycats has a great thesis, and van Creveld backs it up. Unfortunately and especially in comparison to many of his other works, he seems to "phone in" this book. This disappointed me. A reader not sympathetic to the thesis would probably find Pussycats ultimately unconvincing. That is sad, for he has approached this topic in better form elsewhere, such as "Culture of War".

[Matthew Dambro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant analysis of the reasons for the West's decline militarily since World War II. The increasing feminization of society and demeaning of masculinity has set this culture up for defeat at the hands of lesser cultures.

[Илья Дескулин · Rating 3 out of 5]

Funny, edgy and engaging. That being said, "Pussycats" is pretty superficial, and a lot of Creveld's assertions are questionable. Probably, he hadn't done enough research on all of the topics he discussed in the book. Also, his own libertarianism sometimes conflicts with his veneration of some traditional practices. A bestseller type of book, I guess...

[Ariel Fabius · Rating 5 out of 5]

The truth blunt and clearly said

This book is, as few others are a wake up call for the democracies of the world. It illustrates why western armies are losing sight of the real reasons for their existence. Becoming instead bureaucratic nightmares of political correctness

[mike rogers · Rating 5 out of 5]

MvC has faced up to the basic problem, if somewhat superficially.
Western democracy has lost sigh of their armed forces reason for existance, to win wars. CvM then clearly writes the solutions down in the last chapter, but gives no pathway to actually accomplish this

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

Worth a Read

Discuses less desirable effects of the feminization of society. There is need for masculinity for society to progress and survive.

[Elena · Rating 5 out of 5]

Книгата е като шамар — удря те, събужда те и изведнъж започваш да размишляваш върху неща, които иначе подминаваш. Хареса ми точно това.

[Rock · Rating 1 out of 5]

Stack 2 Book 3

Awful.
Blames women for every war ever lost and for any future wars lost.
Just awful.