Is violence against civilians sometimes justified?

[alfred russel]

The problem with this thought experiment is that when you get down to it, the only people that ever kill civilians for the sake of it are those engaging in genocide, or serial killers.  In every other situation, you can make an argument that death of civilians is just a cost incurred along the way to achieving an objective.  Even terrorists are not be killing people for the sake of it, that's just the means to an end.

That seems like a poor analogy. Terrorists killing civilians may be a means to an end, but it is the means.

The theoretical distinction grumbler poses is that the means to the end of defeating nazi germany was destroying the industrial infrastructure, including apartment buildings for armament workers and I presume the apartment workers themselves. The old lady was collateral damage, and not a part of the means to the end.

[grumbler]

A better summary can be found here:

http://historum.com/war-military-history/100659-war-civilians-3.html

Uh, that's an online forum.  It is as authoritative as anything written here.

[grumbler]

The problem with this thought experiment is that when you get down to it, the only people that ever kill civilians for the sake of it are those engaging in genocide, or serial killers.  In every other situation, you can make an argument that death of civilians is just a cost incurred along the way to achieving an objective.  Even terrorists are not be killing people for the sake of it, that's just the means to an end.

Ding Ding Ding!  You win the prize.  This is the position I have been arguing all along; that it is absurd to argue that the Allies were killing civilians for the sake of it unless you have some pretty extraordinary evidence to support that assertion.

[The Brain]

[Malthus]

We weren't killing people, we were ruining their clothing to destroy their morale. If people happen to be inside those clothes, that was just collateral damage. 

Some people understand the concept of collateral damage, and some think it a mockery.  Either position is tenable, but neither is an argument in and of itself.

A thought experiment will clarify the issue for you:  a bomb is falling out of a british bomber, and Winston Churchill is given, miraculously, the power to direct that bomb to one of two positions, at his discretion.  Position one will destroy an apartment building but kill no one.  The second will kill one little old lady on a bicycle but harm no other person nor any building.

Which position does Churchill direct the bomb to?  If you believe that he was trying to "kill civilians for the sake of it," then you believe that he will target the woman, not the building.  If you believe that he would target the building, then you acknowledge that he is not (in that case) targeting civilians.

Your thought experiment addresses the question of which target was higher status to Churchill.

It does not address the question of whether Churchill thought killing enemy civilians was overall a good thing, and added bonus of the bombing campaign - or a regrettable necessity for reaching other, vital war targets.

It creates, in short, a false dilemma. Your hypothetical Churchill could well say 'if given only those two choices I'd prefer the building - but best of all is getting the building and the woman, too: that's more likely to break civilian morale and shorten the war'.

I don't think anyone seriously argues that the *only* reason for the bombing campaign was to kill people, only that it was one of a list of benefits the allies hoped to derive from the bombing campaign, ranking higher in some circumstances, lower in others. In short, the killing of civilians was not "collateral", but additive: not a regrettable necessity for attacking other targets, but a target as well (albeit, of course, not the only target).

[Berkut]

We weren't killing people, we were ruining their clothing to destroy their morale. If people happen to be inside those clothes, that was just collateral damage. 

Some people understand the concept of collateral damage, and some think it a mockery.  Either position is tenable, but neither is an argument in and of itself.

A thought experiment will clarify the issue for you:  a bomb is falling out of a british bomber, and Winston Churchill is given, miraculously, the power to direct that bomb to one of two positions, at his discretion.  Position one will destroy an apartment building but kill no one.  The second will kill one little old lady on a bicycle but harm no other person nor any building.

Which position does Churchill direct the bomb to?  If you believe that he was trying to "kill civilians for the sake of it," then you believe that he will target the woman, not the building.  If you believe that he would target the building, then you acknowledge that he is not (in that case) targeting civilians.

I think the better though experiment is whether he would drop the bomb on some random civilian (where the civilian was the only damage done) and letting it drop in the ocean.

Your hypothetical just ranks two relative values, it doesn't determine whether one of them has zero intrinsic value.

[Norgy]

Actually, that sums up the argument well. It was okay because the good guys did it.

The "okay"-ness of it is pretty controversial actually.

My issue is not so much whether or not people were "good guys" or "bad guys" but rather if we can learn from the experience. The fact that people either rationalize what happened or just say "well Churchill and company were just BAD PEOPLE and we are GOOD PEOPLE" does not make me very optimistic that people understand or care why what happened occurred.

I agree with you fully.
Now, Churchill was like Bismarck someone who understood realpolitik. He was also a leader of a country that basically had little else to offer than bombing the shit out of Germany. He was often stopped by the Norwegian government in exile wanting to send commandos out for raids. You could say the Norwegian cabinet was cowardly in some sense, not wanting to anger the occupier unnecessarily, because there would be reprisals. After one raid in 1941, the Germans killed 150 civilians. While it may not seem like much, in a country counting just 3 million plus souls, it was.

I wasn't born with the moral absolutist gene that some here have.

[DGuller]

The problem with this thought experiment is that when you get down to it, the only people that ever kill civilians for the sake of it are those engaging in genocide, or serial killers.  In every other situation, you can make an argument that death of civilians is just a cost incurred along the way to achieving an objective.  Even terrorists are not be killing people for the sake of it, that's just the means to an end.

Ding Ding Ding!  You win the prize.  This is the position I have been arguing all along; that it is absurd to argue that the Allies were killing civilians for the sake of it unless you have some pretty extraordinary evidence to support that assertion.

So your position is to define away the question without ever addressing the substance of it?

[Josquius]

If you believe that he was trying to "kill civilians for the sake of it," then you believe that he will target the woman, not the building.  If you believe that he would target the building, then you acknowledge that he is not (in that case) targeting civilians.

Grumbler:

[grumbler]

Your thought experiment addresses the question of which target was higher status to Churchill.

It addresses the question of what the bomb is targeting, yes.

It does not address the question of whether Churchill thought killing enemy civilians was overall a good thing, and added bonus of the bombing campaign - or a regrettable necessity for reaching other, vital war targets.

It creates, in short, a false dilemma. Your hypothetical Churchill could well say 'if given only those two choices I'd prefer the building - but best of all is getting the building and the woman, too: that's more likely to break civilian morale and shorten the war'.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'd argue that, before you conclude that Churchill would rather see civilians die than live, you really should look to see if there is any evidence that supports that view.

Churchill talked about burning out German cities and creating as many refugees as possible to burden the German social net and complain to their soldiers sons/brothers/fathers/husbands.  He never, insofar as I am aware, mentioned that he preferred that the civilians be dead.

I don't think anyone seriously argues that the *only* reason for the bombing campaign was to kill people, only that it was one of a list of benefits the allies hoped to derive from the bombing campaign, ranking higher in some circumstances, lower in others. In short, the killing of civilians was not "collateral", but additive: not a regrettable necessity for attacking other targets, but a target as well (albeit, of course, not the only target). 

And, again, I'd have to see evidence before I believed that Churchill and his cabinet were lying about the objectives of the bombing campaign they ordered.  the public record with which I am familiar has them (including Lindemann) arguing for "dehousing" as the means to break German morale; refugees, not corpses, were the goal.  Again, uyou may have evidence to refute this argument, but you have not presented it.

Will you at least concede my initial point that that the Allies were not "killing civilians for the sake of it?"

[grumbler]

If you believe that he was trying to "kill civilians for the sake of it," then you believe that he will target the woman, not the building.  If you believe that he would target the building, then you acknowledge that he is not (in that case) targeting civilians.

Grumbler:

You never tire of the ad hom, do you! 

At least you are willing to tacitly concede defeat by abandoning any pretense to adult intellectual discourse and relying on infantile personal attacks.  My job here is done.

[grumbler]

Ding Ding Ding!  You win the prize.  This is the position I have been arguing all along; that it is absurd to argue that the Allies were killing civilians for the sake of it unless you have some pretty extraordinary evidence to support that assertion.

So your position is to define away the question without ever addressing the substance of it?

My position is to object to a classification for the Allied attacks on German and Japanese cities that i thought was absurd hyperbole.  You have acknowledged my position to be correct; in fact, you joined me in considering the idea absurd by noting that " the only people that ever kill civilians for the sake of it are those engaging in genocide, or serial killers."

I didn't define the question of whether it was inaccurate to argue that the Allies "killed civilians for the sake of it" away at all; I raised it and answered it, and you agreed with me.  The end.

Now, if you have another issue you want to debate, then I'd be willing to debate that.  But, you will have to make an argument, else there is nothing to debate.

[garbon]

I don't think anyone seriously argues that the *only* reason for the bombing campaign was to kill people

Well this all started when Jos said that the Allies killed people just for the sake of it but then he also called it terrorism and also said it was done in a belief that it would lower morale and hasten the end of the war. So perhaps just a confused post.

[The Brain]

DG, why do you debate with grumbler? He is challenged.

[Razgovory]

The problem with this thought experiment is that when you get down to it, the only people that ever kill civilians for the sake of it are those engaging in genocide, or serial killers.  In every other situation, you can make an argument that death of civilians is just a cost incurred along the way to achieving an objective.  Even terrorists are not be killing people for the sake of it, that's just the means to an end.

Ding Ding Ding!  You win the prize.  This is the position I have been arguing all along; that it is absurd to argue that the Allies were killing civilians for the sake of it unless you have some pretty extraordinary evidence to support that assertion.

So your position is to define away the question without ever addressing the substance of it?

Does he know how ridiculous he is?  I mean, I know how ridiculous I am, and I point it out occasionally.  He does not.