In Desperate Battle: Normandy 1944

[JonS]

And even in the case of the civilians that were ardent Nazis, you can't kill them just for supporting Hitler.

They weren't just killed for that. They were killed for opposing the Allies.

[JonS]

Because we are supposed to be the good guys, that means we should protect innocent life, and IMO good guys don't decide that the entire population of a nation are as culpable as it's leaders, especially the children of that nation.

They weren't killed as a punishment. They were killed because they kept getting in the way of peace. Just like soldiers on a battlefield - surrender and it's all good. Keep fighting and you'll pay.

There is a huge difference, which you should acquaint yourself with.

[JonS]

There's no need for that sort of talk

I think there is. I've about had it up to here with revisionists who keep trying to blame the Good Guys for killing Bad Guys. Fvk the bad guys. If you don't want to die, stop doing bad things.

(Hint: in WWII the Germans and Japanese were indisputably the bad guys. Well, indisputable to most folk )

[noob]

You are wrong. The CBO had a major impact on Germany's ability to prosecute the war.

Even if you are correct, there is still no justification in targeting civilians, unless you are willing to play the numbers game where it's ok to kill 1,000,000 civilians to save 2,000,000, which i certainly would not do, especially when there is an army prepared to take the hit on behalf of what should be "all" civilians.

[noob]

They weren't just killed for that. They were killed for opposing the Allies.

Were there any German citizens that didn't oppose the Allies apart from children ?

[noob]

They weren't killed as a punishment. They were killed because they kept getting in the way of peace. Just like soldiers on a battlefield - surrender and it's all good. Keep fighting and you'll pay.

So in your world, civilians are soldiers ?

[noob]

I think there is. I've about had it up to here with revisionists who keep trying to blame the Good Guys for killing Bad Guys.

I'm assuming the Bad Guys, in your example, include women and children ?

Fvk the bad guys. If you don't want to die, stop doing bad things.

You weren't an advisor to G.W.Bush were you ?

[sburke]

heh heh heh yeah this one is spiraling down pretty quick.

Back on point, I almost completely agree with you noob as I think we do have to hold ourselves to a higher standard if we are going to regard ourselves as the "good guys". Whether we really are that or not is a different question.

However I still can't say I believe the "right" thing to do was to be willing to allow upwards of a million allied casualties to prevent Japan from suffering more. I think that is asking too much and putting one on a moral highground that simply becomes words. If I were Truman as much as I would like to think of myself as a moral person, I am not sure I would not have done the same thing. How could I face a million American families and tell them I sacrificed their family members to prevent civilian casualties to the nation that had attacked them.

I think the moral issue here is simply not that easily delineated. Is it more moral to allow Americans to die than it is to allow the aggressor population to suffer? Is it simply age or gender that defines morality? Did we end up actually saving more total lives by doing what we did than if we hadn't? How do you frame the question of what is the correct moral stance? If you really want to lay out the higher ground position we should have used peaceful nonviolent resistance to the Axis powers. Once you decide violence is a legitimate response you have already made a moral decision that killing is okay. Justifying it that "they attacked us" is a pretty thin veneer to hold on to for the moral high ground.

[noob]

I think the moral issue here is simply not that easily delineated. Is it more moral to allow Americans to die than it is to allow the aggressor population to suffer?

Yes, if the Americans are soldiers, and there should be no such thing as an aggressor population, otherwise you remove the difference between a soldier and a civilian, and thus create a precedent for the deliberate targeting of civilians as a standard military practice

Is it simply age or gender that defines morality?

No, but it is consent and power that establishes a level of responsibility, so a Japanese child does not give the Japanese government consent, and Japanese women did not have much power, but even if your making ammunition in a factory, you are still a civilian, and should not be targeted at home.

Did we end up actually saving more total lives by doing what we did than if we hadn't?

Morality cannot be relative.

How do you frame the question of what is the correct moral stance?

One should ask if a principal can be relative, i would say no, if it is a principal to regard civilians as non combatants, and to regard the unnecessary loss of civilian life as unacceptable, then it has to be applied to the civilians of both sides.

Once you decide violence is a legitimate response you have already made a moral decision that killing is okay.

But how do you decide who has decided that violence is a legitimate response ?, and if it is not everyone in the country that decided that violence is a legitimate response, then you are going to be killing innocent people that, according to your rule, do not deserve to die, as they have not agreed to violence.

[Michael Emrys]

Since when has the deliberate targeting of civilians to reduce the casualties of soldiers been an acceptable use of force ?

Acceptable to whom? Sherman's march to the sea was certainly acceptable to his Union commanders Grant and Lincoln. But it goes back much farther than that. When armies could not score decisive victories in the field, then given that they had the means and opportunity, they were quite willing to begin measures against the civilian populations of their enemies. The Romans carried out systematic genocide against states that were chronically in rebellion against them. So did the Mongols. In fact, the list is rather a long one. To bring it up to date, the Intifada is "war by other means" by a people who have no other way to strike at their enemies.

Don't take this as a ringing endorsement of the strategy; I expect I hate it every bit as much as you seem to. But it's what people have done in the past and likely will continue to do for the foreseeable future.

Michael

[Mord]

Noob...you are gonna pass out from lack of oxygen.

Ask the Jews or the Chinese (especially in Nanking) if they give two ****s about Dresden or Hiroshima. Both countries got what they deserved...we are all "friends" now and it's over. But when it comes to war, you do what needs to be done to win...especially when you are looking at being enslaved. I don't think England had the luxury or taking this ultra sensitive "I am more moral than thee" high road like you can 70 years later. Neville Chamberlain had his moment and he gave away half of Europe.

Even with all the history and proof there's always gonna be apologists.

Mord.

[Michael Emrys]

...even if the Japanese government would not surrender, the onus is on us, the good guys, to minimise civilian casualties as we carry on in an endeavor to force a surrender.

The argument can be made that that is exactly what came about. There were two alternative strategies to using the A-bomb to shock the Japanese leadership into surrender. One was by invasion. The military leadership was determined to go down fighting, which would have inevitably have been extremely bloody and costly of civilian lives as well as the military casualties on both sides. The second was to simply maintain the close blockade of the country. This would have entailed the starvation of millions, first of all among the civilians because whatever food was left would have gone to the fighting men first. This would also have required a year or more before the leadership of Japan would have conceded defeat. This would have resulted in continuing depredations of the civilian populations in Japanese-occupied countries, which some have estimated at 100,000 per month.

Use of the Bomb meant that none of that happened.

Michael

[noob]

Don't take this as a ringing endorsement of the strategy; I expect I hate it every bit as much as you seem to. But it's what people have done in the past and likely will continue to do for the foreseeable future.

Michael

I understand the realpolitik behind war and conquest, i just don't think it should be justified or encouraged, i want the good guys, unlike the bad guys, to feel guilty when they commit an atrocity.

[Michael Emrys]

...you remove the difference between a soldier and a civilian, and thus create a precedent for the deliberate targeting of civilians as a standard military practice.

My reading of history suggests that the line between legitimate military targets and civilians has seldom been as sharply drawn as you seem to think. Even food growing peasants can become targets; after all, they are feeding the enemy soldiers. What's more, in some societies they are apt to provide recruits to the army/militia.

In modern societies, the line has become even more blurred as the conflicts have increasingly become between nations in arms, with most of the citizenry engaged in support of the war effort.

Civilian casualties and destruction of civilian property are a very nasty business, but until the entire human race is firmly committed to a policy that strictly excludes warfare, I think we are stuck with it.

Michael

[noob]

My reading of history suggests that the line between legitimate military targets and civilians has seldom been as sharply drawn as you seem to think.

I'm not saying it has, i'm saying it should be.

Even food growing peasants can become targets; after all, they are feeding the enemy soldiers. What's more, in some societies they are apt to provide recruits to the army/militia.

Which means it's even more important to make a distinction, otherwise we are green lighting the use of force against civilians that may / or may not be aiding and abetting the enemy.

In modern societies, the line has become even more blurred as the conflicts have increasingly become between nations in arms, with most of the citizenry engaged in support of the war effort.

Which means it's even more important to make a distinction, otherwise we are green lighting the use of force against civilians that may / or may not be aiding and abetting the enemy.

but until the entire human race is firmly committed to a policy that strictly excludes warfare, I think we are stuck with it.

That's a good idea, so lets start now, and get rid of our leaders, and the structure that supports them, because peoples do not declare war on peoples.

[Mord]

The bong smoke is getting thick in here.

Mord.

[noob]

Noob...you are gonna pass out from lack of oxygen.

So you agree i have the moral high ground ?

Ask the Jews or the Chinese (especially in Nanking) if they give two ****s about Dresden or Hiroshima.

And because they were the victims they would be the least qualified to make a dispassionate and objective analysis of whether it was acceptable to not minimise civilian casualties, that's why we don't ask the relatives of a murdered person to be the judges in the defendants trial.

Both countries got what they deserved...we are all "friends" now and it's over. But when it comes to war, you do what needs to be done to win...especially when you are looking at being enslaved.

So you would do what needs to be done to win even if you weren't looking at being enslaved ?

I don't think England had the luxury or taking this ultra sensitive "I am more moral than thee" high road like you can 70 years later.

I don't see how having a principal about civilian casualties is taking the moral high ground, unless you think it is the moral high ground.

Neville Chamberlain had his moment and he gave away half of Europe.

So because of Chamberlain's failure to stand up to Hitler we can bomb villages if we think the civilians are making ammo ?

[Michael Emrys]

...peoples do not declare war on peoples.

Actually, I'm afraid they do. Human beings are only semi-rational (at best). Bigotry of all sorts is never in short supply, and hated for "them that ain't like us" gets ratcheted up very quickly. It is well to think of wars as simply well organized riots.

What I think you and I are looking for is some radical evolution in some very basic human behaviors, and I don't think that is just around the corner.

Michael

[mjkerner]

So because of Chamberlain's failure to stand up to Hitler we can bomb villages if we think the civilians are making ammo ?

Yes, in total world war.

My Dad and about a third of the men in my rather small town were slated for the Invasion of Japan, after slogging through the Pacific for 2-3 years of relentless blood-letting. They were pretty damned relieved when the bombs were dropped, and after-the-fact so am I. Japanese leadership, Hirohito included, was gearing for what amounted to near-total annihilation of it's own population in its preparations for resisting the Allied invasion, including all sorts of kamikaze weapons...planes, ships and mass civilian suicide corps.

You can have the moral high ground, noob, but you have to thank Truman in part for being able to do so in relative comfort.

Mord, don't bogart that bong, my friend, pass it over to me.

[noob]

Actually, I'm afraid they do. Human beings are only semi-rational (at best). Bigotry of all sorts is never in short supply, and hated for "them that ain't like us" gets ratcheted up very quickly. It is well to think of wars as simply well organized riots.

What I think you and I are looking for is some radical evolution in some very basic human behaviors, and I don't think that is just around the corner.

Michael

Human behaviour does evolve, but it's like the layers of an onion, you don't remove aspects of human behaviour, you add to the knowledge base that allows people to overcome them, that's why racism is now not tolerated in the West, because each generation gets new perspectives on people from different ethnic backgrounds, and they discover that they are people like themselves, and not they caricatures that were previously presented to them via second hand information, but racism doesn't disappear, it gets marginalised, however that takes a relatively long and peaceful period of time to develop, and those antiquated forms of thinking are just waiting to come back when the **** hits the fan, but the trend is definitely upward, and as, because we know more about war and it's effects, there have arguably been more people willing to get out onto the streets and protest against it in the latter half of the last century than in previous centuries, and this century is certainly no different when it comes to vocal dissent, if you know where to look.

[Mord]

So you agree i have the moral high ground ?

No. I agree you are on a high horse. And have been for the last couple days.

And because they were the victims they would be the least qualified to make a dispassionate and objective analysis of whether it was acceptable to not minimise civilian casualties, that's why we don't ask the relatives of a murdered person to be the judges in the defendants trial.

No. Because they were victims and suffered unfathomable evils they would be the ones most qualified to know that winning as quickly as possible would be the smartest and best thing to do...instead of sitting around and having philosophical debates.

So you would do what needs to be done to win even if you weren't looking at being enslaved ?

Yep. If you send men to fight they shouldn't be subject to Political hand wringing. Their job is to prosecute a war and win it. If we are attacked the other country should be hit back and pounded so completely and devastatingly that they never even fantasize about doing it again. Do I think soldiers should run amok in the street shooting everything that moves? No. But I don't think they should be so over burdened by retarded rules of engagement that they need a hand written note from the President just to load their weapons.

I don't see how having a principal about civilian casualties is taking the moral high ground, unless you think it is the moral high ground.

Your attitude is the moral high ground...you are the one acting superior to people that actually lived through it and dealt with it...70 years after the fact. You can Monday morning quarter back all you want in 2012 but when you are facing the death of your culture and it's enslavement you probably don't have a lot of choices outside of win...or cease to exist. If that comes at the cost of enemy civilians than so be it. England's still around and no one is goosestepping, so they must've done something right. And for that matter, Germany's (and Japan) still around, autonomous and doing pretty good which speaks to the goodwill of their conquerors...much better than they treated the countries they invaded.

So because of Chamberlain's failure to stand up to Hitler we can bomb villages if we think the civilians are making ammo ?

Yep. Because of he'd been on the ball it might not have come to that...one could argue because he wanted to avoid bloodshed he ended up causing much more. Placation is never the answer. Bullies have never understood anything but force...it will always be that way. And if people are making ammo, shoes, tanks, ball bearings or anything else that feeds the war machine, then they are a target...and if that doesn't work...then everything is a target until the enemy has lost it's will to make war.

Mord.

[noob]

Yep. Because of he'd been on the ball it might not have come to that...one could argue because he wanted to avoid bloodshed he ended up causing much more.

But that's appeasement, which is not what i was talking about.

Placation is never the answer.

Again, that's not what i was talking about.

Bullies have never understood anything but force...it will always be that way. And if people are making ammo, shoes, tanks, ball bearings or anything else that feeds the war machine, then they are a target...and if that doesn't work...then everything is a target until the enemy has lost it's will to make war.

I don't think it takes too much of an effort to imagine a certain someone speaking those very words.

[noob]

Yes, in total world war.

My Dad and about a third of the men in my rather small town were slated for the Invasion of Japan, after slogging through the Pacific for 2-3 years of relentless blood-letting. They were pretty damned relieved when the bombs were dropped, and after-the-fact so am I. Japanese leadership, Hirohito included, was gearing for what amounted to near-total annihilation of it's own population in its preparations for resisting the Allied invasion, including all sorts of kamikaze weapons...planes, ships and mass civilian suicide corps.

I'm just repeating myself here, so for the last time, i do not think it's morally justifiable to kill civilians to reduce the harm to soldiers, so your argument won't wash with me, however emotionally you choose to frame it.

Also, your argument rests on the assertion that the Japanese weren't going to surrender despite the carpet bombings of the mainland by B52's, which i believe is debatable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

[Erwin]

You want to talk about civilians and children, Noob? What about the masses of children and civilians that the Japanese and Nazis were killing on a daily basis?

What would you say to them if you could have shortened the war by one day and save thousands of THOSE civilians' lives, and instead you allowed them to be murdered?

Where is YOUR morality?

(My parents lost all their families in the war. Would have been more than happy to drop nukes on Germany, which was the direct cause of their murders and 20+ MILLION other deaths if it meant they would have survived.)

The way you write I can only assume you are young and have been cocooned in a safe bubble your entire life and have not yet been subjected to the realities of life and war.

[noob]

What about the masses of children and civilians that the Japanese and Nazis were killing on a daily basis, Noob?

By all means kill the Japanese and German soldiers that do this, but don't deliberately target and kill their mothers, wives, girlfriends and children, otherwise we are no better than them.

What would you say to them if you could have shortened the war by one day and save thousands of THOSE civilians' lives, and instead you allowed them to be murdered?

That's a straw man argument, your twisting the argument to frame it in such a way that it makes me look like i am advocating the killing of women and children, which i am not, and you know that, which is a good point to take my leave from this debate, i've made my point, and, for fear of constantly repeating myself, i have nothing more to say on the subject.