Civilian losses acceptance?

[Spook]

Steve:

If you'll pardon my doing so, I'm going to have to "call you" on your mention of 15,000 dead Panama civilians as a result of Operation Just Cause. As that particular operation was militarily concluded in the space of days, and given further that somehow all of the international media wouldn't pick up on this in 1989 (really hard to hide something like that in this day & age), I am particularly curious to the source of this estimate. I'd like to do some cross-referencing.

Furthermore, in regard to your main issue of US military forces causing undue civilian losses in war, I also am compelled to dispel what could be a deceptive misunderstanding (intended or otherwise).

To the upfront charge of many international civilians dying at the hands of US forces, I will agree with you at the US stands "guilty as charged." To even add to your point, I will give another example: Manila, Philippines, 1945. In the battle to clear that city, 100,000 Filipinos were killed in the crossfire, but likely most died to US artillery & air support. The historic old "Intramuros" section was flattened. We could go on further with other examples, like the recent revelations of Korean civilians being targeted in a couple spots during the initial 1950 rout.

But this is the thing that must be now pointed out. While the USA certainly doesn't deserve to presume a "moral pedestal" over other nations, I must add on the flip side that the USA was hardly worse than any other combatant in a major 20th-Century war. And in more recent wars, it seems that the US & NATO countries are at least a BIT more willing to apply some "rules of engagement" regarding civilian areas and special historic/religious locations. During Desert Storm, there were still some SNAFU's like the killing of several hundred civilians in a Baghdad bomb shelter, but Iraq in turn knew that the Coalition wouldn't target mosques, thus parking SAM's & other major weapons in there for safekeeping (per Kinzey, 1992). Do we have evidence yet of a comparable "ROE" in Chechnya & the capital city of Grozny?

Just be prepared to look at reversed situations. Manila bled in 1945, while the Japanese conquest of this city in 1941 was virtually bloodless. But the situations weren't comparable, because MacArthur chose not to defend in Manila in 1941. If he did so, would the Japanese had been more careful regarding civilian losses? Not hardly. An added subnote is that about 1 million Filipinos died at the hands of the Japanese during its occupation. At Fort Santiago (Manila), if you go to where I went, you'll find a jail cell complex that the Japanese used to deal with Filipino dissidents. These cells, by the Pasig river, would flood with high tide.

Now let's address a corollary to your point, Steve, that many international civilians died as a result of the US doctrine of firepower (the "Nuke & mop up" style of artillery & air support) in WW2. One could draw from your point that the US way of waging war was needlessly wasteful. In many cases, you're probably right. But we often will also cite by history that the US Army ground forces were hardly masterful in small unit tactics, combined arms, and direct-fire weapons in the same way as other combatants like the Germans in WW2. So it must then be proved as to whether or not the US Army had much other choice in its style of firepower if it wanted to press the attack.

So in closing, the US certainly gets its hands dirty like every other warring nation. But it's hardly a unique champion at warring on civilians too.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 01-22-2000).]

[MarkEzra]

Fionn: Why off on a tangent? Steve's post said the US killed more civilians through military action. I gave statistics that showed that Japan had killed more from direct military action...Your suggestion that rear area troops killing civilians wasn't military action seems silly to me, frankly...but OK...sure I'll ignore those millions of Russian and others. My statistical evidence was always given with accuracy in mind. In no way did/would I mislead the readers of this forum. As for you view of Amnerican "comfort myths"...What in the world do you think we talk about here in this country? Dresden, Nagasaki, Heroshima are known to most literate Americans. There is a general understanding of the overkill created by mass bombings, ect. Generally speaking people in this country have done more and tried harder to protect civilian's than any other country I know of. I have always felt that the terrible destruction and loss of life visited on the German population in 1945 shocked our post war leaders. There is a strong view that something needed to be done to stop the Nazi domination of Europe. I wouldn't call it a comfort myth, though.

[MarkEzra]

Fionn I just reread your last post...I gave you the source for my information. I'll give it again...Harper Collins Atlas of Second World War, Edited by John Keegan, Pub 1989 Times Books Ltd, London. The maps I reviewed specifically seperated concentration camp victims. Rear echolon, no. Nor did I ever say that those stastical facts given indicated anything other than civilians killed in WW2. I hope any person doubting my sincerity or motives will check out the book I used. I feel that my honor has been assulted and I wish to make clear that what I said was documented for all to see.

[Fionn]

Mark,

Well, only recently I remember being attacked by many Americans on the TGN Steel Panthers forum for simply stating that all sides in WW2 shot prisoners and that it was almost SOP for SS members and snipers to be shot if they attempted to surrender (we're talking post-firefight here).

Thankfully a handful of members of the US military stepped in when civies got all mad at me and said that of course such things happened. They're a fact of war.

It's those kinds of things which I refer to as "comfort myths". it's comforting to have myths which tell you your guys only did what was necessary or that the other guys were worse. My simple point was that IMO this wasn't the case.

I believe that US and German commanders would have reacted in exactly the same way if given the same mission and same resources.

As for saying that "direct military action" excludes what extermination squad did and you thinking this distinction isn't valid.. Well I must say I'm surprised.

I simply cannot understand a mindset which would hold that ethnic cleansing occuring weeks and months after the fighting in the area had stopped and carried out by an entirely different branch of the armes services could be equated to "direct military action" involved in the fighting of the enemy army as we are discussing here.

Well, I never doubted you were quoting figures from that book. I merely expressed my belief that you knew how false they were.

Ok, I stand corrected. you don't know how incorrect many of those figures are. It looks to me like Keegan got some stuff wrong ...

Some of the figures you give include camp deaths, others do not so, in effect, you're not comparing like with like when quoting those figures... I accept this wasn't your intent and that is was simply due to your quoting incorrect data from a book in good faith.

I'd go check another few books if I was you though for some more accurate figures..

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[MarkEzra]

How False Keegan's figures are and I should have known it? I've just got to shake my head about that. Attack away, chum...Keegan and I are both just lying bastards...and you've caught us both!

[Fionn]

Whoa Mark. Pull the horns in...

Listen I didn't call either you or Keegan a lying bastard. I merely said he got his figures wrong if those are the figures he is giving.

You didn't realise they were wrong and gave them here in good faith. As for attacking you... My god, why are so many Americans totally and completely unable to take criticism/disagreement impresonally ? ... EVERY time someone disagrees with you you think you're being attacked. For God's sake stop acting like spoilt 5 year olds and realise that it is QUITE possible for someone to disagree with you and point out flaws in your argument/ make their own points known without attacking you.

Let's dissect it... I said I thought you knew the figures you were giving were wrong.. You said you were quoting from a book so I said "ok, those figures are wrong but I accept you were giving them IN GOOD FAITH". If you think that's an ATTACK you must have a pretty horrible life-view. EVERYONE must be interpreted as attacking you if a conciliatory gesture is taken as an attack. Now either you're annoyed and reading into this things which aren't there OR you are just determined to have a fight. Either way it would do you good just to go away for a day from this thread and then come back and read WHAT I WROTE and not imagine that I'm saying something different.

Now firstly I SAID you gave the figures in GOOD FAITH. If you think that means I'm calling you a "lying bastard" then:

a) you need to get a dictionary.

a better grasp of the english language and

c) some chill pills.

Why don't you just not post to this thread for a day and calm down a bit... When you get back I think you might just have calmed down enough to realise that my saying "you quoted incorrect figures in good faith" is NOWHERE NEAR the same as saying you were lying...

I honestly thought you would know Keegans figures were wrong though but seemingly you didn't. it's no big deal, I've quoted wrong figures by mistake on the forum too... In reality this is no big deal UNLESS you want to keep trying to pick a fight here by putting words in my mouth.

In our previous correspondences you've seemed quite nice so I'm willing to just figure you got annoyed and read something into my message which wasn't there.

Do yourself a favour, take 1 day away from the thread and accept the SECOND olive branch I've offered, there won't be a third.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[guachi]

As an American I don't think we have some "comfort myth" about accidental civilian casualties. I don't think that the civilian casualties caused by bombings were necessarily accidental. Some were quite deliberate, and many others were just byproducts of the strategic bombing.

I don't know about other countries but in America the dropping if the Atomic bombs made it into the top 5 of every 100 most important news stories of the century. The four things that most Americans, even the stupid ones, could list about WWII are Pearl Harbor, the Holocaust, the dropping of the atomic bombs, and D-Day. Most Amercans know what we did with the atomic bombs.

Yes, many Americans don't know about some of the terrible things we did in the war. But that's because most Americans knowledge of WWII (and history in general) is extremely poor. They don't know much of anything about WWII, good or bad.

In any case, differentiating between those killed by direct military action or not is semantical bull****. Wars are directed by governments and ultimately the deaths are the result of the politicians and the populace that backs them.

In a war that is a Total War, I see little difference between the man who makes the gun and the man who fires it. Wars are political and the strategies used today are no different than those of the past. The objective is to defeat the opponents will to fight, not necessarily his ability. The Israelites genocided the Canaanites in the Bible, a warlord in the thirteenth century slaughtered an entire city and piled the skulls up to warn his enemies, and the US vaporized two cities.

Net result, all three strategies were successful.

Jason

[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 01-22-2000).]

[Heibis]

Good discussion, everybody!

I always thougt that it was the night bombings made by RAF's bomber command who killed so many german civilians in WW2. I recall that the policy of old "bomber Harris" was to demotivate the german soldiers by bombing the homes of their families. The brits even made a german language radio station that broadcast detailed info on which streets, blocks etc. that had been bombed and destroyed for the german soldiers to listen to.

One more thing, a little off topic maybe. On the discussion of how we interpret history I have a story from my own country, Norway. After the war, the german soldiers guarding norway were put away in camps, guarded mostly by former resistance men and under the command of british officers. A norwegian sailor who had only recently arrived in Norway with his destroyer then committed a terrible crime. After drinking very much, he grabbed his sten-gun and entered one of the POW-camps. There he killed several defenseless germans. He was later tried before court, but found not guilty because he obviously had good reasons for doing such a thing. Basically his defence was that he did not get a chance to kill a german during the war, so he was justified (??) in doing so after.

Only recently have such incidents become the subject of discussion as norwegian historians now are able to dig into material before hidden by those who actually participated in the war...

Jens

[MarkEzra]

Marks List of things to do today:

1. Buy a dictionary (English)

2. Enroll in English Class

3. Call MD get Rx for chill pills.

Fionn: As you can see I'll be busy for awhile...Would you do me a favor?

Provide a source or two that refute Keengan's numbers.

[Fionn]

Couldn't take the advice could you?

Pity.

[WendellM]

War really is hell and the civilians are the victims. I hate war (though I'm fascinated by modeling it), and I *fully* agree that the best way to avoid it is to be prepared to wage it. If you're weak, then your enemy will try to take advantage of you; if you're strong, then he won't. Cuts in military spending cost human lives.

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, let's settle down.

Some have questioned why there is a difference between "military" and "rear" actions when calculating civilian deaths. There is a VERY good reason for drawing a line between the two. There is *possible* justification for killing civilians during a military action against an enemy military force. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for killing civilians in a rear area system of slaughter. Something like the firebombing of Dresden is borderline between the two (BTW, the British helped out on that one). So I don't think it is "bull****" to discuss the difference between the two. All of war is Hell, but some of it (concentration camps) goes beyond it.

Mark, I ask you to review my points about casualties using Keegen's own statistics. And if you don't want to do that, and instead wish to do a back and forth with Fionn, then I suggest dropping it. While it is IMPOSSIBLE to accurately count up who killed who in what way and when, the figures you have brought out and defended are bloated when looking at civilian deaths due to direct military action. And a point about Lenningrad, the siege might have lasted for roughly 900 days, but the city was not cut off for the whole time, which is why I used the figure of 2 years. And in any case, Lenningrad was a totally unique event for not only WWII but the 20th century as a whole (perhaps even for the 19th century as well).

Ed, the statistics I heard on Panama came from a 60 Minutes show many years ago (while the Pentagon was in active cover up mode) and from a recent NPR show within the last year. I might be mistaken, but 15,000 is what I remember being cited from both. I assume this figure includes wounded as well as killed. And never underestimate the power of the media. They fall short on truth very often, especially when they know the population they get ratings from doesn't care.

The point about the US being more likely to spare civilian lives is well taken. But it has only come about through the exposure of military excesses that ran contrary to the goals of perserving human life. In WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, and the smaller wars since have seen a progression of making the rhetoric closer to reality. Other nations, like Russia, don't give a damn even when the cameras are running.

I want to make it clear that I am not trying to demonize the US and its military policies and practices. I only wish to criticize the popular belief that has been propagated in US schools and society that the US doesn't kill civilians as a matter of principle AND reality. I can accept certain degrees of pain and suffering inflicted upon civilians in a justifiable military action (and there are several which are debatable on this point!), but I would like the government and its people to be a bit more willing to accept the full wieght of responsibility instead of pretending that it didn't happen.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-22-2000).]

[Heibis]

On the subject of the glorious US army always fighting for the just cause... Do you think that "collateral" damage is justified by a greater goal, or is it situation dependant?

Just wondering...

[Heibis]

Just wondering cause lately we have seen a lot of civilian deaths in actions against the "enemy". Enemy is mostly Iraq, Yugoslavia, Checnya etc.

In Yugoslavia and Checnya the civilan deaths were due to direct military actions, but in Iraq the deaths are due to direct diplomat actions.

Anyway, what is the difference between these two? The goal of operation is always the same: TO KILL THE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO GET RID OF SOME LEADER.

Just trying to settle things. Civilian casualties are just as common today as it was in WW2. Just as I am just another grognard with a strong compassion for those who dies in the "line of duty", I am also very concerned with the sufferings of many, many thousands of people beeing shelled at this very moment.

Jens, trying to not be too direct... And not succeeding

[Spook]

I will solidly agree with your last paragraph, Steve, because I have no patience for seeing a mythological "history" being taught either. (This is nothing, however, compared to the contention that rises in how the American Civil War is taught.)

As to the Panama civilian loss figure coming from 60 Minutes, well, I'd prefer to dig deeper first. That's a mainstream media source, and regardless of its consistent popularity, it and other mainstream media outlets have a poor record of reliability when reporting on military affairs, military operations, weapon systems, and second-guessing on higher strategy, IMO. So I certainy won't underestimate the media's ability to take some liberties in the pursuit of a shock story for higher ratings.

All the same, I might do some web-news referencing. I still find it surprising that such a casualty figure, even if true, would escape all national & international media in 1989.

[Zamo]

Indeed Fionn, that was a dark and sinister activity to say the least. Especially of the SS prisoners. Not that some of them may have deserved it, but then, this was "after" the war and done by the suposedly "Good" allied forces. I cannot remember right now where I read about the willful starvation of post-war German POW's, but it was incredibly damning and just as disturbing to me as Dachau or Bergen-Belsin or any of the Axis death camps. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me I remember reading that the British camps were amoung the worst. I would expect such things in Stalinist Soviet Union, but we have all been "educated" that English and American troops would never behave so. Do you have any stats or source info? I think this erradication really needs to be made more public. Same with Allied refusal to pick up floating German Naval Survivors, some ghastly stories there as well. As is all too common in war it's as though we had become that which we fought against.

Zamo

[Bigggie]

I whole heartedly agree with Heibis. Civilian casualties occur in todays wars just as they did in WWII. Despite what the government/media shows, I read a statistic in the NY Times (it was an article that appeared this past fall in the Science Section - I don't remember the date)that just over 80% of the bombs dropped on Yugoslavia struck their intended target. That means that for every 100 bombs dropped about 20 missed their target. Furthermore, the intended target may not have been a military position (bridges, power plants, fuel refineries, or misinteligence like the Chinese Embassy) where civilians were located.

During the gulf war, the US also struck civilian targets intentionally because Saddam had a habit of placing SAMS near them for propoganda purposes.

I am not trying to villify the US, but mearly point out that military action is a manifestation of political policy. Sometimes the policy may include attacking areas that may or do have civilians in order to accomplish that policy. Some policies are more defensable than others. Shelling a town in order to clear out hidden defenses is more legitamate as compared to bombing a city out of revenge (Dresden, for example)

I also wanted to thank BigTime software for allowing this discussion to take place on their forum, even thought this is a huge digression from the discussion of their upcoming game. We know that it takes time to read all of these posts, and your time is limited as it is. I think that most people here are very consious of history and appreciate being given a forum to discuss/debate it.

I know some posts got quite heated because we all are steadfast in our beliefs/opinions and have trouble being wrong. As students of history, we should all be willing to listen to what others have to say without getting offended or taking things personal.

Basically - can't we all just get along!

[Neutral Party]

Zamo.

The concepts of absolute good or absolute evil are perhaps more appropriate in a discussion of theology than of war. I agree that there were a number of policies adopted by the western allies that fail the morality test (e.g., strategic bombing of population centers). However most sane persons would accept that the western allies had no state policy of genocide - unlike the Germans. If you are suggesting, as you appear to be, that the Anglo-Americans operated death-camps where German POWs were systematically starved to death, then I suggest you provide a bit more evidence than " I read somewhere that ...".

Just because you read it doesn't make it true, but let's not discuss the bible here

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Same with Allied refusal to pick up floating German Naval Survivors, some ghastly stories there as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ghastly stories indeed. The whole war was a collection of ghastly stories. Many allied seaman were abandoned to die in the North Atlantic and Arctic Convoys by their own side. This was, in the main, due to fears of U-boat attacks. It was such a fear that prevented more of Bismark's crew being picked up, for example.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As is all too common in war it's as though we had become that which we fought against.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given the common cultural heritage of Western Europe and the US we were pretty similar to start with. This is perhaps the most worrying thing of all.

Joe