I was listening to a discussion today about how it was super-awful that millions of civilians were killed in WWII by air attack. Undeniably, being burned alive, blown up, torn apart by exploding buildings, asphyxiated, etc., through aerial bombardment is pretty lousy. However, what did not come up, and almost never comes up when the subject of air war is talked about, is how it compares, morally, to ordinary frontline warfare in World War II, to which even more fell victim, through equally terrifying means, such as artillery shells arriving from apparently nowhere and immolation by flamethrower.
Most people, it seems, distinguish between, say, the burning of Dresden and the destruction by firepower of, say, a German army, even though the number of dead and wounded may be the same. I imagine it is a distinction made by most people here.
I'm curious as to what reasoning leads to this distinction, especially given that WWII armies were conscript armies, and most soliders in them were compelled to serve, therefore no more capable of opting out of the struggle than factory workers. This invalidates the idea that holds once an enemy dons a uniform, they may be killed with whatever means available; at least, it does if also paired with the notion that the civilians supporting uniformed aggression are sacrosanct.
There's the argument, I suppose, that regular warfare permitted surrender, while aerial warfare did not, but as a practical matter individual surrender was a very risky proposition, involving much the same level of danger as seeking shelter from an air raid. There's also the argument that civilians are not threats in the same way uniformed soldiers are, that they are not actively engaged in trying to kill their enemy. This is pretty stupid, given that civilian labor makes the soldier's existence possible; whether building panzers or growing food, they are part of the common enterprise and they are trying to kill you, just not directly.
The only key difference I can see is that air war killed women and children as well as adult males. Half of that is sexist, at least when considering the fact that women's contribution to the war effort during the Second World War was immense and vital.
At most, you could claim that women and children, being denied participation in the political process that led to war, escape collective responsibility. But 1)collective responsibility or collective guilt is not the sole justification for city bombing, and is not being argued here; and 2)even if disengagement from the original sin that led to war were a defense, in the dictatorships which were the targets of city bombing, is this defense not shared amongst almost the entire population, including frontline soldiers whose lives can be claimed without moral reflection?
Tl;dr--is there a viable moral distinction between civilians and soldiers in the wars against Germany and Japan, and if so, what is your reasoning for valuing certain life more based on status, age and gender?
The soldier-civilian divide is probably the key. Going into the Great War, there was the idea that you didn't slaughter civilians and that they were to be protected from the horrors of war. Things changed, and now we live in an age where flying passenger aircraft full of people into a building with no military value is a completely legitimate tactic. Sometimes, people like to pretend that the world hasn't changed, and that's when you get into those arguments.
Quote from: Neil on January 13, 2013, 11:10:45 PM
The soldier-civilian divide is probably the key.
Historically, it's been the exception to the rule.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 13, 2013, 11:41:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 13, 2013, 11:10:45 PM
The soldier-civilian divide is probably the key.
Historically, it's been the exception to the rule.
Yeah, but modern morality is a very recent invention, as is weak, faggy sentiment.
I'm sure the Jews would've appreciated the effort.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2013, 10:50:34 PM
I was listening to a discussion today about how it was super-awful that millions of civilians were killed in WWII by air attack.
It was pretty super-awful. But then most of the things that happened in WWII were pretty horrible. It was just a time when firebombing a major urban area was considered a rational act. Was it justified? I think that is a question we can only answer in hindsight. But I am not sure you can debate it was not horrible and shocking, it was designed to be horrible and shocking.
But it is pretty likely, as McNamara said, that if the Axis had won alot of our guys doing those air campaigns would have been hung as war criminals.
I imagine if I was given a rifle, a hole and a metal hat to protect me from artillery bombardments anything that brings that situation to an end even one day faster would be highly moral.
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2013, 12:39:22 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2013, 10:50:34 PM
I was listening to a discussion today about how it was super-awful that millions of civilians were killed in WWII by air attack.
It was pretty super-awful. But then most of the things that happened in WWII were pretty horrible. It was just a time when firebombing a major urban area was considered a rational act. Was it justified? I think that is a question we can only answer in hindsight. But I am not sure you can debate it was not horrible and shocking, it was designed to be horrible and shocking.
But it is pretty likely, as McNamara said, that if the Axis had won alot of our guys doing those air campaigns would have been hung as war criminals.
I kind of doubt that. Mostly they would have just been slaughtered out of hand as subhumans or undesirables.
Is that really in line with your expectations of treatment western allies could expect from axis postwar?
Oh God. :bleeding:
It is a little absurd to say the English or French were going to be "..slaughtered out of hand", is all, to say nothing of Americans.
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2013, 12:39:22 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2013, 10:50:34 PM
I was listening to a discussion today about how it was super-awful that millions of civilians were killed in WWII by air attack.
It was pretty super-awful. But then most of the things that happened in WWII were pretty horrible. It was just a time when firebombing a major urban area was considered a rational act. Was it justified? I think that is a question we can only answer in hindsight. But I am not sure you can debate it was not horrible and shocking, it was designed to be horrible and shocking.
But it is pretty likely, as McNamara said, that if the Axis had won alot of our guys doing those air campaigns would have been hung as war criminals.
Both Harris and LeMay speculated on the issue. Perhaps this is why the allies did not prosecute anybody for area bombing of cities (to the best of my knowledge). Dönitz was found guilting of waging unrestricted submarine war including neutral vessels, but was found innocent of war crimes related to sinking british and allied ships. Harris, LeMay and Nimitz may have been tried for war crimes by the nazis and japanese but they would not have been found innocent of the bombing and sinking of ships like Sperrle, Kesselring and Dönitz, the three germans were not found guilty of bombing or sinking ships of belligerents; they were found guilty of planning and waging an illegal war and brutalizing and murdering occupied civilians and pows.
In my mind the morality of means of war are set by either universal standards or bilateral behaviour. Ultimately the moral obligation to protect the german and japanese civilians killed in area bombing of cities during the war falls on the German and Japanese governments. In each case they initiated area bombing of cities unprovoked as a means of war. Japan even used biological agents in it's terror bombing in china; which is one of the reasons atomic, biological and chemical weapons keep getting classified together despite having little in common other than their usefulness against untrained civilians; justifying the nuclear bombing of japan post-haste.
However the argument that moral standards apply to the good guy regardless of how the bad guys behave still has merit. Comparing cops to the 8th army air force can be done. I tend, however, to agree that there is an us/them distinction here. What I said in the paragraph above and the fact that policing is constant is enough for me to disregard this. Cops don't exist in conflicts between states, while the do exist in conflicts between citizens.
Deontology and vitue ethics might suggest that bombing cities is wrong because it kills civilians. The same goes for utilitarianism and consequentialist ethics given how many civilians were killed. However in all cases it falls to defining the scope of the effects. Military ethics does open the issue in it's view of proportionality (is the civilian death toll proportional to the military effect of the operation). Ultimately this boils down to did the men involved think that strategic warfare helped achieve military goals and were the civilian casualties proportionate to those objectives.
The strategic bombing campaign destroyed the luftwaffe and crippled german production during the last year of the war. The atom bombs were the reason japan surrendered. There are a lot of historical what ifs, but these are facts.
A personal story of relevance is when I was in japan with a group of japanese friends they looked up to see a four engine propeller plane flying across the sky. This disturbed them, they wondered if it was a B-29. I could see it was a C-130 Hercules and probably Japanese SDF and told them so. This relieved them clearly. Having live for over a year i german in many stages in multiple cities I also know. Both societies still have a visceral memory of the bombing. The bombing of cities is what war is to these people and both people are pacifists to the core. The horror of WWII ended fascism, nationalism and militarism as viable ideas for civilized thinking men and the world is better for that horror.
In total war with unlimited objectives, the civilian-soldier line is blurred. In the context of total war, where every citizen is contributing to the war effort, I don't see how the lives of civilians should warrant any more protection than those of soldiers, apart from practical considerations of realpolitik.... e.g. will it undermine our ability to work with that population later? Will it invite reprisals we can't deal with on our population? etc.
Quote from: Lettow77 on January 14, 2013, 01:33:52 AM
It is a little absurd to say the English or French were going to be "..slaughtered out of hand", is all, to say nothing of Americans.
I had a neighbor who was a Bataan. Spent the rest of the war as a guests of the Japanese. Hear him talk, they got off to easy.
Ide, the distinction is one of "necessary force to accomplish the military objective." Neither civilians nor wounded-hors-de-combat/surrendered soldiers can lawfully be targeted by military force, since force used against them cannot accomplish any military objectives and is thus perforce excessive. Such "protected persons' are subject to collateral attack, so long as the primary attack is one that is reasonable to accomplish a military objective.
That WW2 saw more collateral attacks on civilians than WW1 was a matter of changing technology, not changing morality. I don't think the moral reasoning has changed since WW2, either, except for those bizarroids like Neil that believe that "flying passenger aircraft full of people into a building with no military value is a completely legitimate tactic." But nobody ever confused Neil with an adult human being.
Does the violation of laws of war on one side allow the violation of the laws of war on the other side as well? In other words if one side targets civilians in war the other side may be able to respond in kind?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 07:35:38 AM
Does the violation of laws of war on one side allow the violation of the laws of war on the other side as well?
Not if you want to be "the Good Guys".
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2013, 07:35:38 AM
Does the violation of laws of war on one side allow the violation of the laws of war on the other side as well? In other words if one side targets civilians in war the other side may be able to respond in kind?
No. The purpose of these laws is to protect civilians, not states, so actions of one state do not invalidate obligations of another state. Not to mention, this would make actual enforcement and observance of these laws even more farcial that it is now.
Nb, Germans in WW2 apparently claimed that Soviet soldiers do not deserve Geneva conventions' treatment because the Soviet Union itself was not a party. This was found to be a wrong line of reasoning at Nurnberg.
Wikipedia to the rescue:
QuoteAll four Geneva Conventions prohibit reprisals against, respectively, battlefield casualties, shipwreck survivors, prisoners of war and civilians, as well as certain buildings and property. An additional 1977 protocol extends this to cover historic monuments, works of art, and places of worship.
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2013, 07:43:57 AM
No. The purpose of these laws is to protect civilians, not states, so actions of one state do not invalidate obligations of another state. Not to mention, this would make actual enforcement and observance of these laws even more farcial that it is now.
Nb, Germans in WW2 apparently claimed that Soviet soldiers do not deserve Geneva conventions' treatment because the Soviet Union itself was not a party. This was found to be a wrong line of reasoning at Nurnberg.
This is correct. However, perfidy (the deliberate misuse of a protected status by non-protected forces) removes the obligation of the other side to recognize any protected status of the offending power. That is why you saw (and see) so little abuse of the red cross and red crescent.
I think a distinction has to be drawn between those bombing raids where the target was of military significance- factories, power plants, rail mustering yards, etc.... and bombing half a city was the only way to be sure it was hit, and those raids which primarily were about killing civilians.
Its not a binary comparison of course. It all comes in degrees with different attacks being more, or less immoral. A lot of the supposed non-combatants were part of the war in some perhaps indirect way, but then there were some who weren't anything to do with it at all.
Also there was a shit tonne of an eye for an eye stuff going on. Which is pretty nasty but...well, what is a government to do when its people demand nastyness?
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2013, 07:43:57 AM
Nb, Germans in WW2 apparently claimed that Soviet soldiers do not deserve Geneva conventions' treatment because the Soviet Union itself was not a party. This was found to be a wrong line of reasoningThe Germans were found to have lost the war at Nurnberg.
Quote from: Tyr on January 14, 2013, 08:11:21 AM
I think a distinction has to be drawn between those bombing raids where the target was of military significance- factories, power plants, rail mustering yards, etc.... and bombing half a city was the only way to be sure it was hit, and those raids which primarily were about killing civilians.
Well, yes - the distinction you are calling for is the distinction between legitimate military operations and war crimes.
Quote from: grumbler on January 14, 2013, 09:01:22 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 14, 2013, 08:11:21 AM
I think a distinction has to be drawn between those bombing raids where the target was of military significance- factories, power plants, rail mustering yards, etc.... and bombing half a city was the only way to be sure it was hit, and those raids which primarily were about killing civilians.
Well, yes - the distinction you are calling for is the distinction between legitimate military operations and war crimes.
The distinction starts to get pretty fine when the objective is something like destroying civilian housing stock in the hope that will indirectly impact on worker productivity in war materials and production facilities.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 14, 2013, 01:07:43 PM
The distinction starts to get pretty fine when the objective is something like destroying civilian housing stock in the hope that will indirectly impact on worker productivity in war materials and production facilities.
That's not really close to the line, IMO, so long as the intent is to de-house factory workers that contribute to the actual war effort, rather than intending to de-house, say, farmers and hospital attendants. If the factory building itself is a legitimate military target, then so are the other infrastructure elements that allow the factory to operate.
It certainly can be argued that the British bombing campaign over Germany (or the American one over Japan) was so indiscriminate that it went beyond what was permissible under the articles of war, but that wasn't because of what they targeted, but rather how they went about hitting what they were ostensibly targeting.
Quote from: grumbler on January 14, 2013, 02:43:59 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 14, 2013, 01:07:43 PM
The distinction starts to get pretty fine when the objective is something like destroying civilian housing stock in the hope that will indirectly impact on worker productivity in war materials and production facilities.
That's not really close to the line, IMO, so long as the intent is to de-house factory workers that contribute to the actual war effort, rather than intending to de-house, say, farmers and hospital attendants. If the factory building itself is a legitimate military target, then so are the other infrastructure elements that allow the factory to operate.
That can work if there is dedicated on site worker housing. But a typical urban pattern is that workers live in unsegregated working class districts. My understanding of the WW2 "de-housing" rationale was that the idea was that you just bombed urban residential quarters relatively indisriminately, you would achieve the desired effect.
I think the morality of city bombing relates more to the overall moral problems of waging total war.
The norms and laws of war in the Western world evolved in an era when complete mobilisation and utter destruction of an enemy state's ability to fight was not perceived to be a necessary condition of victory. So it is unsurprising that even in the relatively civilised war in Europe between the Western Allies and the Axis such quandries emerge from the deliberate policy of the Good Guys.
Thankfully, total war seems to be infrequent occurrence (I can just think of three instances).
Interestingly, the same moral problem arises in nuclear war, except that no one survives to discuss it.
Quote from: Warspite on January 14, 2013, 05:36:47 PM
Thankfully, total war seems to be infrequent occurrence (I can just think of three instances).
That probably doesn't include the dozens of genocidal total war carried on by balkan, pre-historic, barbaric and third world shithole tribes and gangs. You can conduct total war with machetes.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 14, 2013, 02:53:12 PM
That can work if there is dedicated on site worker housing. But a typical urban pattern is that workers live in unsegregated working class districts. My understanding of the WW2 "de-housing" rationale was that the idea was that you just bombed urban residential quarters relatively indisriminately, you would achieve the desired effect.
So long as the desired effect is a military one, and the force used isn't excessive to the objective, then this would probably be within the law. If the objective is to simply terrorize and demoralize the population , it isn't.
Quote from: Warspite on January 14, 2013, 05:36:47 PM
I think the morality of city bombing relates more to the overall moral problems of waging total war.
The norms and laws of war in the Western world evolved in an era when complete mobilisation and utter destruction of an enemy state's ability to fight was not perceived to be a necessary condition of victory. So it is unsurprising that even in the relatively civilised war in Europe between the Western Allies and the Axis such quandries emerge from the deliberate policy of the Good Guys.
Thankfully, total war seems to be infrequent occurrence (I can just think of three instances).
Interestingly, the same moral problem arises in nuclear war, except that no one survives to discuss it.
Wrong. Nuclear combat toe-to-toe with the Russkies would kill less than half the populations of the United States, Europe, and the Soviet Union, and practically no one in the southern hemisphere, and probably not in the PRC (depending upon the scenario).
Also, I believe there have been many more than three total wars (you probably refer to the ACW, WWI, and WWII). If you mean wars where the single overriding goal was to destroy the enemy's state or even its people, you can add the Third Punic War at least, and almost certainly the Chinese Civil War, and I suspect total war would describe the strategy of some during the Thirty Years War, though I know little of the 30YW (however, I do know that many of our rules of war and general international law arise from that war, e.g. that pussy Grotius).
Curious where you get the numbers. I do recall reading accidentally declassified military stuff that said they believed they could directly cause about 40% causalities in the Soviet Union with nukes.
Books on the Cold War. I own a few, and I've read a few more. Long time ago. The only one I recall is SIOP (a history of the SIOPs and their predecessors), by somebody.
Thing is, if you were really after full extermination, the respective arsenals could get pretty far, but wiping out the entire population of the U.S., Europe, and the U.S.S.R., and effectively rendering their width and breadth uninhabitable, no. Also, targeting weights were shifted mightily toward opponents' nuclear weapons, which usually were in less populated zones; redundant coverage of these targets reduced the number of weapons targeting cities, and destruction of nuclear weapons in counterforce strikes, of course, reduces the overall number of nuclear weapons that may have been used. Finally, it was expected that Washington and Moscow would survive (Moscow was on the withhold list in most SIOP scenarios), and that an end to the war would be reached, probably prior to expending all weapons.
Also, the complexion of nuclear war would have been vastly different depending upon time period. Extermination was a total impossibility in the 1950s, and even in the 1960s and 70s the respective governments were expected to survive, the economies rebuild (importnat targets included "recovery targets"--nuclear power facilities were pretty high on the list of non-counterforce targets, as were other infrastructural targets, such as hydroelectric dams and oil refining facilities, targets which make no sense if you believe you're utterly destroying your enemies).
By the 1980s the number of nuclear weapons on either side might have been enough to seriously degrade entire continental environments, if expended. That's where people draw the apocalyptic scenarios from. However, though there would be some effect, the southern hemisphere is not going to be horrifically physically effected even if every city over 100,000 in the north burns.
Interestingly, it was only the very first proto-SIOP (it went by a different name, that eludes me at the moment) that called for massive countervalue attacks (i.e. civilian/city bombing, although this is before the phrase is coined) as a first resort, and across the entire communist world (including Red China, whether or not it was involved in the war; and, believe it or not, including non-Soviet Warsaw Pact cities). It was a shockingly inflexible plan and Eisenhower pretty much immediately disregarded it and told them go back to the drawing board, but iirc it was theoretically in effect for a few years before new plans were created and implemented under Kennedy, which emphasized warfighting over extermination.
What about Nuclear winter scenarios?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2013, 11:56:52 PM
Also, I believe there have been many more than three total wars (you probably refer to the ACW, WWI, and WWII). If you mean wars where the single overriding goal was to destroy the enemy's state or even its people, you can add the Third Punic War at least, and almost certainly the Chinese Civil War, and I suspect total war would describe the strategy of some during the Thirty Years War, though I know little of the 30YW (however, I do know that many of our rules of war and general international law arise from that war, e.g. that pussy Grotius).
If you define "total war" as a war in which at least one side aims at the total destruction of the enemy, then most civil wars are total wars. Most wars between independent states aren't. Of course, how one defines "the enemy" can affect this definition.
I never said most. Here's another contender: the final phase of the Reconquista. Or, similarly, Cortez' expedition against the Aztec Empire rapidly became a total war (including accidental biological warfare--used by both sides!).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 13, 2013, 11:41:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 13, 2013, 11:10:45 PM
The soldier-civilian divide is probably the key.
Historically, it's been the exception to the rule.
True. But that was normally as a by-product of war, a way of paying for war or simply as a right of the soldiers.
I agree with PP that this is a consequence of total war. Because it becomes a war of the entire nation, which requires all of its resources and productivity it becomes a war against civilians: your own and the enemy's. Strategic bombing and forced labour, in my view, are both acts of violence against civilians that could be militarily justified.
On the total war debate my view of it would be that it requires the state infrastructure (and probably physical infrastructure) of a 19th century or subsequent nation to count as we understand it.
The Thirty Years War certainly wasn't a total war, though it was one with awful effects.
So no Third Punic War, a war predicated on the total cultural and physical destruction of the enemy state?
To clarify: you can have the equivalent outcome of total war in many different conflicts. Though I would suggest total war is less to do with genocide and wiping states off the map, than it is about the complete mobilisation of every arm of state, of the population itself whether in the factory or in the trench, for the singular purpose of victory.
For this, you need centralised, modern state apparatus. I know there are scholars who disagree, and there is a lot to Viking's and Ideologue's line that total war could be a much older phenomenon. But I would contend there is something unique about total war of the modern era: the combination of nationalism, mass communication, the wielding of the arms of state and industry as well as the arms of the battlefield. The extension of this is that the enemy civilian is a legitimate target, not because of visceral hatred or reprisal, but for the simple fact that there is little to no distinction between combatant and civilian in a total war.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 15, 2013, 07:01:47 AM
Books on the Cold War. I own a few, and I've read a few more. Long time ago. The only one I recall is SIOP (a history of the SIOPs and their predecessors), by somebody. etc etc
You need to better identify throw-away quips.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 15, 2013, 12:31:02 PM
So no Third Punic War, a war predicated on the total cultural and physical destruction of the enemy state?
Hmm.
To me, that is the logic of genocide, not necessarily total war. There can, of course, be an overlap between the two. Total war is not a policy (a desired end), it is a strategy (means): it is in the means of waging war that the line between civilian and combatant are blurred.
This way of looking at it also lets you conceive of total war fought for genocidal ends (Nazi Germany) as opposed to total war fought for civilised ends (Western Allies).
Quote from: Ideologue on January 15, 2013, 12:31:02 PM
So no Third Punic War, a war predicated on the total cultural and physical destruction of the enemy state?
Basically I agree with Ark. I think total war requires that the sole purpose of the nation is victory, which requires the full coercive power of a modern state. The consequence is that it can make all parts of that state - including infrastructure or factories or workers - legitimate targets.
Well, if the full mobilization of all society is what's required, rather than a pursuit of total victory, how about the Second Punic War, or at least the phase after Cannae?
You really can't have total war until you get the modern industrialized state. There is just not enough centralization until the late 19th century for such a thing to be possible - at least that is a major view among historians/political science types who study such things.
Quote from: PDH on January 15, 2013, 01:21:50 PM
You really can't have total war until you get the modern industrialized state. There is just not enough centralization until the late 19th century for such a thing to be possible - at least that is a major view among historians/political science types who study such things.
If you are a tribe or a city state then you don't need a centralized state. You just need to gather the citizens or men of the tribe together.
Quote from: Viking on January 15, 2013, 01:54:55 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 15, 2013, 01:21:50 PM
You really can't have total war until you get the modern industrialized state. There is just not enough centralization until the late 19th century for such a thing to be possible - at least that is a major view among historians/political science types who study such things.
If you are a tribe or a city state then you don't need a centralized state. You just need to gather the citizens or men of the tribe together.
Tribes don't fight war that way, for one thing. Total war is not about getting everyone together to fight a battle, it is a strategy of mobilizing the entire resources of the country to the goal of fighting a war. Even the knock down drag-out of the Greek cities was never such a mobilization of resources.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 15, 2013, 12:31:02 PM
So no Third Punic War, a war predicated on the total cultural and physical destruction of the enemy state?
Rome wanted to destroy Carthage the city, not Punic Africa the cultural region (much of which was still part of the Carthaginian state at the time); you're stretching a little far here.
The ambit of the Carthaginian state (and other ancient states) is a pretty vague thing anyway. Was Utica part of the Carthaginian state? How about Barcid Spain? Was Qart Hadasht a subordinate of Sur? If so, was it ever part of the Achamaenid Empire?
In any event, Carthage the city, which can definitely be considered a statelike entity, got fucked up beyond repair.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 15, 2013, 02:04:53 PM
The ambit of the Carthaginian state (and other ancient states) is a pretty vague thing anyway. Was Utica part of the Carthaginian state? How about Barcid Spain? Was Qart Hadasht a subordinate of Sur? If so, was it ever part of the Achamaenid Empire?
In any event, Carthage the city, which can definitely be considered a statelike entity, got fucked up beyond repair.
No question, but I'd ask this: what role did the women of Rome play in the destruction of Carthage? If little to no role, other than as tradespeople and encouragers of the men, then I'd argue Rome wasn't fighting a total war.
Quote from: grumbler on January 15, 2013, 02:49:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 15, 2013, 02:04:53 PM
The ambit of the Carthaginian state (and other ancient states) is a pretty vague thing anyway. Was Utica part of the Carthaginian state? How about Barcid Spain? Was Qart Hadasht a subordinate of Sur? If so, was it ever part of the Achamaenid Empire?
In any event, Carthage the city, which can definitely be considered a statelike entity, got fucked up beyond repair.
No question, but I'd ask this: what role did the women of Rome play in the destruction of Carthage? If little to no role, other than as tradespeople and encouragers of the men, then I'd argue Rome wasn't fighting a total war.
I wonder if Sparta might be an example of a pre-industrial society that did engage in total war. The sole role of men was to prepare for war and the sole role of females was to be fit enough to give birth to warriors - or at least more females who could do so.
Others (Helots, slaves etc) did everything else. But I suppose you and PDH would counter that excluding the Others from the war effort by definition means Sparta did not engage in total war.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2013, 03:27:52 PM
I wonder if Sparta might be an example of a pre-industrial society that did engage in total war. The sole role of men was to prepare for war and the sole role of females was to be fit enough to give birth to warriors - or at least more females who could do so.
If the women weren't doing everything they could for the war effort, then it wasn't total war. Simply being mothers isn't doing everything possible.
Quote from: grumbler on January 15, 2013, 03:42:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2013, 03:27:52 PM
I wonder if Sparta might be an example of a pre-industrial society that did engage in total war. The sole role of men was to prepare for war and the sole role of females was to be fit enough to give birth to warriors - or at least more females who could do so.
If the women weren't doing everything they could for the war effort, then it wasn't total war. Simply being mothers isn't doing everything possible.
If the definition is doing everything possible then has there ever been an occasion of total war?
Quote from: grumbler on January 15, 2013, 03:42:07 PM
If the women weren't doing everything they could for the war effort, then it wasn't total war. Simply being mothers isn't doing everything possible.
What about making baby soldiers? Sons avenging the fathers, and all that old school stuff?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2013, 03:51:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 15, 2013, 03:42:07 PM
If the women weren't doing everything they could for the war effort, then it wasn't total war. Simply being mothers isn't doing everything possible.
What about making baby soldiers? Sons avenging the fathers, and all that old school stuff?
Also chicks did a lot of the farming back then.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2013, 03:51:59 PM
What about making baby soldiers? Sons avenging the fathers, and all that old school stuff?
That occurs in every war. If that's all it takes to make a wara total war, then the term "total war" has no meaning.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2013, 03:49:37 PM
If the definition is doing everything possible then has there ever been an occasion of total war?
Germany after Feb 1942 v USSR after June 1941.
Quote from: crazy canuck
I wonder if Sparta might be an example of a pre-industrial society that did engage in total war. The sole role of men was to prepare for war and the sole role of females was to be fit enough to give birth to warriors - or at least more females who could do so.
For the record, Spartan women were also trained physically (something that shocked the Athenians), had weapons training and were fully expected to fight if Sparta was attacked when most males were absent. Also - and unlike the other Greek cities - Spartan women did the hunting for food.
Strategic bombing is immoral because it is ineffective.
Quote from: Martim Silva on January 16, 2013, 08:40:14 AM
For the record, Spartan women were also trained physically (something that shocked the Athenians), had weapons training and were fully expected to fight if Sparta was attacked when most males were absent. Also - and unlike the other Greek cities - Spartan women did the hunting for food.
For the record, I think you are vastly over-stating the abilities and position of Spartan women. I have never seen anything that indicates that they received military training or fought in any wars. Hunting was the most popular leisure activity of the Spartan men, though it is possible that women did some hunting when their husbands were off at war.
It is certainly true that Spartan women had more freedoms and power than did other Greek women, not least because of the peculiar Spartan customs of having them men dine and often sleep in the barracks rather than with their wives and families. However, there is no evidence that Spartan women were mobilized for war - or, for that matter, that their lives changed much at all when Sparta went to war.
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2013, 07:54:18 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2013, 03:49:37 PM
If the definition is doing everything possible then has there ever been an occasion of total war?
Germany after Feb 1942 v USSR after June 1941.
Can't agree with Germany on this point--there were a lot of things that they could have done but didn't do.
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2013, 09:21:30 AM
Strategic bombing is immoral because it is ineffective.
:wacko:
Quote from: dps on January 16, 2013, 12:03:27 PM
Can't agree with Germany on this point--there were a lot of things that they could have done but didn't do.
Germany probably couldn't have done significantly more than they did starting in Feb '42. Before that, they devoted less of a percentage of GDP to the war effort than any other major power, but ramped up military efforts to almost Britain's level (and above the USSR's level) starting in Feb '42.
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2013, 01:34:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2013, 09:21:30 AM
Strategic bombing is immoral because it is ineffective.
:wacko:
It never lived up to the claims it made. Indeed, the strategic bombing offensive actually hindered the war effort by taking resources away from Coastal Command and the Battle of the Atlantic, and wasting them by dropping bombs on the German countryside nowhere near their target.
Chemical bombs are useless.
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2013, 03:11:13 PM
Chemical bombs are useless.
Not at all. Chemical bombs are perfect for obtaining limited objectives. Ground support and tank-busting are places where chemical bombs really shine, for example.
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2013, 03:15:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2013, 03:11:13 PM
Chemical bombs are useless.
Not at all. Chemical bombs are perfect for obtaining limited objectives. Ground support and tank-busting are places where chemical bombs really shine, for example.
Rarely done in strategic bombing.
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2013, 03:20:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2013, 03:15:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2013, 03:11:13 PM
Chemical bombs are useless.
Not at all. Chemical bombs are perfect for obtaining limited objectives. Ground support and tank-busting are places where chemical bombs really shine, for example.
Rarely done in strategic bombing.
But you didn't say that chemical bombs are useless for strategic bombing. You just said they're useless.
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2013, 03:26:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2013, 03:20:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2013, 03:15:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2013, 03:11:13 PM
Chemical bombs are useless.
Not at all. Chemical bombs are perfect for obtaining limited objectives. Ground support and tank-busting are places where chemical bombs really shine, for example.
Rarely done in strategic bombing.
But you didn't say that chemical bombs are useless for strategic bombing. You just said they're useless.
Really, Neil?
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2013, 03:35:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2013, 03:26:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2013, 03:20:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2013, 03:15:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 16, 2013, 03:11:13 PM
Chemical bombs are useless.
Not at all. Chemical bombs are perfect for obtaining limited objectives. Ground support and tank-busting are places where chemical bombs really shine, for example.
Rarely done in strategic bombing.
But you didn't say that chemical bombs are useless for strategic bombing. You just said they're useless.
Really, Neil?
Really. Besides, even nuclear strategic bombing isn't all that useful, because of the stigma.
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2013, 07:54:18 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2013, 03:49:37 PM
If the definition is doing everything possible then has there ever been an occasion of total war?
Germany after Feb 1942 v USSR after June 1941.
Also, North Vietnam.
Quote from: Syt on January 16, 2013, 03:42:48 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2013, 07:54:18 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2013, 03:49:37 PM
If the definition is doing everything possible then has there ever been an occasion of total war?
Germany after Feb 1942 v USSR after June 1941.
Also, North Vietnam.
Congress didn't declare war.
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2013, 09:21:30 AM
Strategic bombing is immoral because it is ineffective.
We've discussed this before. Atomic weapons count as strategic bombing. They're very effective. Edit: Stigma aside, I suppose.
Also, leaving aside the direct damage done by bombs at Hamburg, Dresden, Ploesti and elsewhere, the Luftwaffe was destroyed defending the Reich. Without the threat of bombing, Germany would have produced more bombers and also still maintained a stronger fighter force. Further, the constant need to deploy its large fighter force exacerbated the fuel issue. All in all, that war of attrition in the skies over Germany was more important for Overlord and subsequent operations on the continent than marginally improving the results obtained in the Battle of the Atlantic.
(Also, it moved 88s back to Germany and off the Eastern Front, as well as forcing Germany to employ its artillery production capacity in the anti-air mission, instead of arming its divisions with more and better anti-tank weapons. This is a minor, but not insubstantial effect, of bombing as well.)
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2013, 07:54:18 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 15, 2013, 03:49:37 PM
If the definition is doing everything possible then has there ever been an occasion of total war?
Germany after Feb 1942 v USSR after June 1941.
Die Sportpalastrede (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportpalast_speech) doesn't happen until february 1943 and the patriachate or moscow isn't reformed until september 1943.
Quote from: Viking on January 16, 2013, 08:47:56 PM
Die Sportpalastrede (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportpalast_speech) doesn't happen until february 1943 and the patriachate or moscow isn't reformed until september 1943.
Okay. :huh:
Quote from: Ideologue on January 16, 2013, 08:41:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2013, 09:21:30 AM
Strategic bombing is immoral because it is ineffective.
We've discussed this before. Atomic weapons count as strategic bombing. They're very effective. Edit: Stigma aside, I suppose.
Also, leaving aside the direct damage done by bombs at Hamburg, Dresden, Ploesti and elsewhere, the Luftwaffe was destroyed defending the Reich. Without the threat of bombing, Germany would have produced more bombers and also still maintained a stronger fighter force. Further, the constant need to deploy its large fighter force exacerbated the fuel issue. All in all, that war of attrition in the skies over Germany was more important for Overlord and subsequent operations on the continent than marginally improving the results obtained in the Battle of the Atlantic.
(Also, it moved 88s back to Germany and off the Eastern Front, as well as forcing Germany to employ its artillery production capacity in the anti-air mission, instead of arming its divisions with more and better anti-tank weapons. This is a minor, but not insubstantial effect, of bombing as well.)
The strategic bombing campaign was totally irrelevant in keeping the flow of supplies open to Britain, and that's how the war was won, not some silly sideshow in the skies over Germany.
I would put forth Paraguay late in the War of the Triple Alliance could be an early contender for a state engaged in total war. While not industrialized, the mobilization of manpower in the military and women to farm was unprecedented. Of course, such mobilization led to horrible losses, maybe 60% of the population (and a post-war very highly skewed male:female ratio).
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2013, 10:13:16 PM
I would put forth Paraguay late in the War of the Triple Alliance could be an early contender for a state engaged in total war. While not industrialized, the mobilization of manpower in the military and women to farm was unprecedented. Of course, such mobilization led to horrible losses, maybe 60% of the population (and a post-war very highly skewed male:female ratio).
That's a pretty good example. I forgot about that one.
Quote from: Neil on January 16, 2013, 10:10:39 PM
The strategic bombing campaign was totally irrelevant in keeping the flow of supplies open to Britain, and that's how the war was won, not some silly sideshow in the skies over Germany.
A historical first for Languish. Neil credits a victory in battle by a nation fielding Dreadnoughts to something other than Dreadnoughts. All hail the Flower Class Corvette
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.modelshipbuilding.com%2Fimages%2FHMSCArrowhead.jpg&hash=a9e64b393eb8b419e2b31278755f7aeafadbc6f5)
Well the Soviet Union had some dreadnoughts and I don't think he them credit for victory on the Eastern Front.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2013, 12:43:45 AM
Well the Soviet Union had some dreadnoughts and I don't think he them credit for victory on the Eastern Front.
The Gangut Class Petropavlovsk was the only thing between success and failure at Leningrad; also sprach Neil.
Quote from: Viking on January 17, 2013, 01:12:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2013, 12:43:45 AM
Well the Soviet Union had some dreadnoughts and I don't think he them credit for victory on the Eastern Front.
The Gangut Class Petropavlovsk was the only thing between success and failure at Leningrad; also sprach Neil.
The what? The only ship I remember from that battle was the Marat and it blew up.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2013, 01:48:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 17, 2013, 01:12:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2013, 12:43:45 AM
Well the Soviet Union had some dreadnoughts and I don't think he them credit for victory on the Eastern Front.
The Gangut Class Petropavlovsk was the only thing between success and failure at Leningrad; also sprach Neil.
The what? The only ship I remember from that battle was the Marat and it blew up.
That was the Marat, it was renamed mid-battle.