Civilian losses acceptance?

[Hawk]

In a post from Mars last year, BTS state that there will be no listing of civilian casulties. While I agree that a tactical game like CM shouldn't put much weight in that area, it would have been sobering to get the following message in the debriefing screen:

"Civilian casulties: 523. The <enemy> High Command has named you a war criminal and your superior officer wants a detailed report about why you felt it neccessary to accept a high rate of civilian casulties!"

But I am digressing. I have a question to all you historians out there. Is there any evidence that some forces participating in WWII cared less about civilian casulties than other? For example, I live in a small town called Bodo in norther Norway (Power's U2 flight, anyone? ). For some reason the German High Command thought it neccessary to level the town during the invasion in April 1940, using carpet bombing with incendiary bombs. 97% of the buildings where lost. The local brewery was spared (marked on the target maps as a no-go area), the hospital was not (even tough it was clearly marked with a big red cross painted on the roof). I guess we all know of some incidents where civilian casulties where disregarded (and even encuraged, V2 missiles etc), but what was the SOPs (if any) regarding civilians on a tactical scale?

Hawk

------------------

Our's is not to reason "why", our's is but to do and die!

[Fionn]

The bombing of Bodo was a STRATEGIC action and not tactical.

Same as the bombing of Caen, the firebombing of Japanese cities, German cities etc etc..

On the strategic scale no side in WW2 cared much for civilians.

Most sides didn't TRY to kill civies most of the time but if achieving a military objective killed 10,000 civilians then so be it.. That was the attitude.

[Hawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

The bombing of Bodo was a STRATEGIC action and not tactical.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yes of course, but I can't for my dear life understand what strategic value was gained from it. But then, that would probably be the case for many of those kind of actions!

Thanks for your answer, Fionn!

Hawk

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh yes of course, but I can't for my dear life understand what strategic value was gained from it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is Bodo in reference to the German invaders and the defending forces? During the "Blitzkreig" days, the Germans would bomb civilian targets to choke the roads with refugees. This ploy would slow up reserves from reinforcing the front.

[Major Tom]

Yep, and there was the firebombing of Dresdon, the two nuclear bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. These three places did not have large armaments production, and, were purposely previously left unscathed. This results in most refugees from other bombed out cities to go there, as, they feel it is safe since it hasn't been bombed. Then, the allies threw everything they had agaist these Civilian targets, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Some might say that this is just cooincidence, but, it was all part of their plan to demoralize.

Every single Allied or Axis nation would have if they had the capability, or did if they were able to. Some were just better capable.

In 1941 the Russians sent bomber raids over Berlin in retaliation for invasion. The Japanese bombed Civilian targets in China as early as 1937. The Italians bombed the civilian population of Malta. The Allied airforces (including many nationalities) firebombed Germany. The Americans firebombed Japan. The Germans bombed the Dutch, Norwegans, Belgians, French, British, Russian and just about everyone else they were fighting. The return on these attacks were all pathetic for what they put into the training of the crews, the cost of the aircraft and bombs, and the loss of a significant number of these. And the destruction on the ground was even more unbearable.

[tss]

I think that for just about all armies the policy about civilian casualties on battlefield could be summarised as: "**** happens".

In tactical operations one would try not to kill civilians, but if the enemy was defending an unevacuated village it would be bombarded with artillery, nevertheless.

It's interesting to note that while Russians are usually regarded (and not without a cause) as caring the least about civilian lives, for a time they had the most strict orders on civilian safety: in the early days of Winter War there was a standing order that no population center may be shot with weapons that were larger than rifle calibere (I don't know how they conciled this policy with the fact that the Red Air Force started terror bombing cities on the first day of the war).

At least one artillery lieutenant was actually arrested because he had brought one of his guns forward to fire directly against a Finnish MG nest that was positioned in a stone church. I don't know what happened to the lieutenant in the end, but his men did not see him again.

However, this policy lasted only for three or four days until someone with enough power realized that the order was quite senseless, in military sense.

- Tommi

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yes, unfortunately civilian destruction was a common tool and/or side effect of military and political goals. The nation that probably racked up the largest body count of civilians through military action (as opposed to concentration camps) would have to be the US. Not only did they kill hundreds of thousands from the air, but they also killed large numbers from ground attacks as well. In fact, the US forces were not smiled upon by all the liberated masses because of their sometimes overuse of artillery to minimize friendly casualties.

It is much like what the logging industry does. They are only after tress that have market value. However, to get at those trees they cause great destruction upon the land, vegitation, and trees that are too small to harvest. The logging companies that are of the "rape and pillage" type go in and take what they want with little thought of all the side effects of their harvesting practices, even though they are incredible harmful. Other logging companies take great pains to avoid unnecessary damage and destruction, but some is still a fact of life. Then there are some that practice a mix of both. Avoid extra damage when it is economically possible, don't when it isn't. I would say that in general all nations of WWII were of the latter type. None of them actively tried to kill civilians all the time, but certainly did when it was "necessary" to do so.

Steve

[Bullethead]

Steve said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In fact, the US forces were not smiled upon by all the liberated masses because of their sometimes overuse of artillery to minimize friendly casualties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No matter what the politicians and top brass say on the matter, it still always comes down to the man on the spot. And I can guarantee you that if you asked the guy in the trench, he'd tell you that there isn't any amount of civilians worth 1 drop of the blood of himself or his buddies. Especially if these civilians were too dumb to move away when the war moved in. Besides, when all you've been doing every day since the war started is killing as many people as possible, you tend to lose a lot of the inhibitions against murder you have in civilian life.

Put yourself in these boondockers: you're a squad leader with orders to clear a certain area. You and your squad have been together through some serious ****; they've saved your ass, you've saved theirs. You don't have any time to waste and only your basic weapons and ammo load, but you do have a radio. You come upon a house containing some die-hard enemy soldiers who still want to fight. You are also very sure the civilian owners are being held hostage or are at least still in the building.

What do you do?

a) assault the house and then battle through it room by room.

call in supporting arms, flatten the house, deal with any survivors, and move on.

c) ignore the building and leave the die-hard enemy free to operate in your rear.

d) break down crying under the stress of the decision.

Remember, any answer you choose will haunt you for the rest of your life.

Is that your final answer? OK, pencils down.

If you chose a), if you are lucky you'll be killed in the ensuing action. If you are unlucky and survive, one of your suviving troops will probably frag you. Even if this doesn't happen, your boss won't be happy because now your squad won't be available for tomorrow's tasks. In any case, the civilians are probably going to die in the battle.

If you chose c), if you are lucky the enemy has 2nd thoughts and surrenders later to a passing supply convoy. If you are unlucky, they simply slip away, rejoin their unit, and kill you later. If you are very unlucky, they ambush the supply convoy bringing up your mail, kill a buddy of yours who was in the convoy, and then kill you later after rejoining their unit. In any case, the enemy will have already killed the civilians if they were of a mind to do so.

If you chose d) you will be branded LMF, with all associated future consequences. In the meantime, however, your next senior troop has to take command and face exactly the same decision, only with reduced available manpower to influence his decision.

If you chose , then you and your troops can go on with the war and the enemy troops are no longer a problem. Sure, probably a few more dead civilians, but what's that matter in the midst of all this carnage? If you are unlucky, however, some rich, liberal, pampered, never-done-a-real-day's-work, never-been-there journalist will find out about it later and have you branded as a war criminal.

-Bullethead

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-20-2000).]

[MarkEzra]

America the biggest killer of civilians in World War Two?....Can anybody count 20 Million Russian Dead? I don't know guys? Did Those terrible Americans bomb there, too!

[MarkEzra]

My Reference is Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War, edited by John Keegan

Civilian casualties 1939-1945

France 173,260 Holland 236,00

Britin 60,595 Germany 2,300,000

Soviet Union 7 million Poland 5 million

Italy 93,000 Japan 300,000

China up to 10 million

What was it that Stalin said..." the death of single person is a tragic, the death of millions merely a statistic.

[Fionn]

Mark,

Steve specified "in military action".. Thus murders in the course of retributions for partisan attacks, concentration camps, gulags etc aren't included.

Bullethead,

I'm sure it's no surprise to you but I'd choose B and would expect any man under my command to do the same. Its the way which leaves your side with the greatest combat power still available after the enemy strongpoint is dealt with.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[MarkEzra]

Fionn My source excluded concentration camp body counts from the totals...that's a whole other list...Looks to me that military actions by German forces in Poland and the USSR as well as IJA war tactics in China from '37-45 make the Steve's comments in error to statical evidence. If you or Steve would care to show some data that indicates some sort of relutance on the part of the Axis to kill civilians while in engaging in "military action", I would be interested to see it and consider changing my opinion. Otherwise I stand by what I said.

[Fionn]

I didn't say they had a reluctance to kill civilians in the pursuit of military operations BUT I did say that they, as an army, didn't go out of their way to kill civilians.

They bombarded towns etc when it seemed militarily advantageous to do so (same as the Allies).

It is estimated that roughly 2 million German civilians were killed by Allied terror bombing flights during the war. Compare this with about 60,000 UK civilians killed in the so-called "massive blitz".

WELL over 100,000 French Civilians were killed by Allied strategic bombing in France. Many more were killed by bombing of factories in Germany in which they were forced to work.

Tens of thousands of Belgians and Dutch civilians died due to Allied Aerial and Artillery actions and more died during infantry fighting too obviously but those are harder to quantify.

The German MILITARY campaign in Poland actually killed FEWER Polish civilians than the ALLIED MILITARY Campaign against the Germans in France. IOW the Allies killed MORE of their French Allies' civilians during the preparation for and the campaign in France than the Germans killed Poles in 1939.

Of course most people don't think about this at all but it is so. The reason your figure for the Poles is so high is that it DOES include Poles killed when no fighting was occuring by "cleansing" units.

Personally I think the IJA killed the most civilians while fighting or in the IMMEDIATE aftermath of a fight followed closely by the Soviet Union (purely due to the scale of its activities), America (don't forget America killed FAR FAR more than 300,000 Japanese Civilians. Hell between the 2 nukes and the 2 biggest firebombing raids on Tokyo they killed over 300,000... That figure for the Japanese is totally bogus.) , Germany and then Britain.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[MarkEzra]

Sigh Fionn Are we perhaps forgetting the Russian Civil population. Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kharkov, Kiev? What of the directives to obliterate the Russian landscape. 7 million dead civilian can't be accounted for as reprisals. By the way reprisals are "Military action"...Do you begin to see Bombing a city, terror bombing if you like, rounding up civilian populations and killing them are both "Military actions" Sherman actions demonstrate the effectiveness and efficacy of Military action directed at the civilian population. Steve's comment was America "Racked up the largest body count". The facts I've presented refute that. His differentiation was "Military action not concentration camps" The statistical evidence I provided did not include 6 million dead in concentration camps. I think we can conclude that Japan "racked up" more civilian casualties with Germany not so far behind. The United States and the Allies "racked up" civilians at a fine clip. But not the most.

[Fionn]

Umm I suggest you have a look at who governed the Occupied Eastern Territories.

Most of the time these regions were under the kindly control of SS guys who did all the ethnic cleansing. At these times I wouldn't count deaths in these regions as being "due to military action". At those times deaths were due to these SS officers carrying out a policy of genocide but NOT due to military action.

Those who died in Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kiev etc DURING the stormings (or attempted capture) of those cities died due to military action BUT there weren't all that many of them.. maybe 200,000. Hell, the US could rack that up over 4 or 5 days of terror-bombing if it wanted...

Dresden--- 1 day, probably well over 100,000 dead. More than were killed by each individual nuke dropped.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Bigggie]

ll

[Bigggie]

I think that the arguments over which country killed the most civilians or cared the least about civilians is pointless.

WWII brought out evils never before seen. EVERY nation involved killed civilians unnecessarily. I define unnecessary civilian killings as those where there are no or minimal tactical advantages gained from the killings.

This policy of killing fot no real military goals occurred on every level - from the politicians, to the generals, to the grunts on the field.

Without writing a treatise on the subject, it is a fact that both powers killed millions of civilians. Comparing statistics is an exercise in futility and degrades (IMO) the true tragedy of what occured.

[Major Tom]

I saw an interesting, yet short, show about the German campiagn into Russia. There were some neat shots of actual anti-tank guns engaging Russian armour, indeed, it looked like I was watching a turn in CM. But, from what this, and just about every other book and or movie about the German invasion of Russia it states that the German Military was very good to the Russian civilians. So, good were the Germans, and so bad were their previous Russian overlords most of the population was willing to raise up in arms with the Germans! It wasn't until after the army left and the occupying SS troops came in when the attitude of the population changed. This goes for Kharkov and Kiev. Stalingrad and Leningrad don't really fit into this scenario, as, they were never fully occupied by the Germans, and long durations of combat between ARMIES was the result of the multitude of deaths. Leningrad was shelled to all hell not because of it's civilians, but, of it's military. If Leningrad was occupied the army would not have gone around shooting civilians, and raping women, that was for the Russians in 1944-45. Stalningrad was reduced to rubble as the Russians and Germans had to fight for every single house. They didn't call for 150mm shells to fall on a house cause they expected a few civilians to be hiding in the cellars.

The Japanese, however, were much more bruital. They massacred tens of thousands of people with BAYONETTES. You can't get much more personal killing someone with a knife. Dresdon, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all non military targets, yet, the USAAF bombed the heck out of these places.

If a German soldier was caught raping a civilian they could be court marshalled and executed. In 1944-45, Russian soldiers had an unwritten agreement with their commanders allowing them to do such things.

Remember, history is written by the victors, very few books are about the allied autrocitices. It is easier to send out your young men to kill an enemy who is percieved as evil. A lot of history is actually propaganda.

[tss]

If a German soldier was caught raping a civilian they could be court marshalled and executed. In 1944-45, Russian soldiers had an unwritten agreement with their commanders allowing them to do such things.

I think that you are simplifying matters too much. A German soldier would likely not be court martialled if he committed crimes against Russian civilians and definitely not if the victims were Jews. Actually, I've read a claim that there is not a single documented case where a German soldier was punished for crimes committed against civilians in Soviet Union. I don't know whether that claim is true.

Certainly Russian soldiers committed a lot of crimes in the last days of the war and most of them went unpunished. On the other hand it is too much to say that they did it freely. For example, Marshall Rokosovsky issued an order that raping, murdering, and stealing was to be punished with death. With no mitigating circumstances accepted. _Many_ (I don't remember the actual number but it was more than ten thousand) soldiers were sentenced to death or transported into Siberia for 10 years. In many cases NKVD troops would shoot rapists without even bothering to ask their names or units.

Leningrad was shelled to all hell not because of it's civilians, but, of it's military.

No, Leningrad was shelled because Hitler decided that the whole city should be destroyed. IIRC, he even forbade the German commander to accept surrender if the Soviets should offer one.

- Tommi

[MarkEzra]

Sigh....Fionn you might want to check some facts. Here's just one. This is again from Keegan's Atlas of WW2, page 65: "The official death toll for the seige of Leningrad is 632,000 although the victims probably numbered nearer a million". One town, no SS, just a good old fashioned artillery pounding (including 100,000 incendiary shell). A bit more than your 200,000 figure for all civilian casualties in Russia. I'ld be interested to know your source for that figure of yours.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well Mark, in all fairness you are also misrepresenting "facts" to poke holes in our statements. The bulk of the casualties caused at Lenningrad were not caused by "just a good old fashioned artillery pounding", but rather nearly two years of starvation. So the DIRECT cause of the bulk of these 600k to 1m civilian deaths was starvation, not DIRECT military action which I was talking about. However, there were no other force at work (besides the Soviet's refusal to evacuate civilians for the most part) to have caused these casualties, so it wouldn't be totally incorrect to say they were as a direct result of military action. Still, it wasn't German air or artillery force that killed those people, but the lack of access to food caused by the air and artillery force.

The large number of Soviet civilian deaths you have cited a few times are inflated by the actions of non-frontline military actions. Certainly Germany was responsible for more total civilians deaths than any other nation, but I still contend that the US racked up more deaths due to direct military actions. If not, it is a CLOSE second.

Remember that the US killed civilians in vast quantities in both the ETO and PTO. With few exceptions, these were all as a direct result of military action. I put the total to be upwards of 3-3.5 million or so, including Japan, Germany, and the nations the US fought over with each. So excluding all the non-combat deaths the Germans caused to civilian populations, the US either comes in first, or perhaps a close second.

Now, let me make my point clear again. The US military most likely killed more civilians as a DIRECT result of frontline military force. I am going to say that one more time. DIRECT. The bulk of the deaths in the East were caused by rear, deliberate actions that were not of a combat nature. The US had no such large scale program of killing, so the number attributed to them is obviously more accurate.

Also, take into account that the Germans were waging war against 4 major armies and about two dozen local populations for almost 5 years. The US, on the other hand, was in the war for less than 4 years and was only combating 3 (then 2) enemy nations. Therefore, the Germans had far more opportunity to kill civilians, on purpose or by mistake, than the US did. Then factor in that the bulk of the casualties were caused in the deep rear of the enemy states and I think the US comes out ahead in terms of efficency in killing non combatants using standard military forces. The Germans, obviously, devised far more efficent means of killing civilians, but this can not be considered military in nature even if military type forces were used in part or in full.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Biggie wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Without writing a treatise on the subject, it is a fact that both powers killed millions of civilians. Comparing statistics is an exercise in futility and degrades (IMO) the true tragedy of what occured.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree to a large extent. However, the US has a history of violating its own rhetoric about the value of human life and getting away with it. Therefore, there is value in showing that the US (the good guys) should not throw stones at glass houses.

Recent example... after years of deliberate lies and coverups, it is coming out that the US forces killed about 15,000 Panamanian civilians during operation Just Cause. That action happend almost 15 years ago and only NOW are these facts coming to light to the more informed, and probably not at all to the majority of Americans. Sad thing is that the majority doesn't care...

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-21-2000).]

[MarkEzra]

Steve Fact...Leningrad was under a state of sige for some 900 hundred days...Stravation of the population was a result of that siege.

As to your comment: "Certainly Germany was responsible for more total civilian deaths than any other country", Couldn't agree more.

[AndyRoss]

Major Tom;

In what way did the occupied territories rise up against the Russians? I can't see why you believe there was a time of harmony after the German advance. There was little time between German advance and the massacres. Places like Kaunas were subject to brutal rule immediately. Uprisings in Ukraine were directed against Germans as well as Russians.

Why would an occupied Leningrad be treated any differently than the other occupied areas? Did Himmler have a list of exempt cities from the "Final Solution"?

Where on earth did you get the idea of German compassion toward civilians in Stalingrad? There was a huge amount of merciless pounding of that city (no worse than any other streetfighting, but it was in no way a war solely against the military). If the citizens were treated adequately, then why did so many take up arms for brutal conflict against the invaders?

What evidence do you have for this "unwritten agreement"? Which commanders approved of such practises? You've already heard of people who tried their best to stop it.

The vast majority of Russian atrocities were not commited by the frontline forces, but by the second echelon armies which occupied territory while the other forces advanced further. These armies contained a lot of liberated POWs and former partisans. They knew what had been happening behind German lines from the propaganda lessons given. Who can comment on how they would change if they had been abused in a POW camp for years while their kin were exterminated? I certainly can't pass judgement. The Russian atrocities were revenge: the German atrocities were not. I can see an explanation for the Russian atrocites (not an excuse, but a reason), but not the German.

Sometimes history might well be propaganda, but that is no excuse for you toning down the conduct of the German soldiers while emphasising that of the Russians. If you post objectively then you are open to less criticism.

[Fionn]

Mark,

I don't think anyone said that German killed less civilians than America. Several posters have, however, stated that in DIRECT military action it seems probable that America killed more civies than Germany.

We specifically excluded death camps and REMF extermination squads etc.

"Comfort myths" are nice and good BUT they shouldn't be hidden behind to the exclusion of reality.

America has a "comfort myth" whereby all military actions were above board and civies don't get exterminated in large numbers by mistake by US forces in combat.

Well, I'm sorry to say that ANY time you enter into combat civies die. No-one is trying to single out the US some people are just trying to present the best facts they have about the death tolls and are being frustrated by others who, I feel knowingly, are quoting disingenuous and misleading figures (some of Mark's figures include deaths in concentration camps, deaths from rear area exterminations etc. It's interesting that he quotes these for Germany and others but not for the "good guys").

Let's talk about the quite possibly purposeful starvation of surrendering Germans in 1945 in the camps shall we?

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers