Military Buffs I need your help.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by TerranC:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Now about those civilians. In a war, there are no civilians. Every person that is able to contribute to the economy is a target. Every farm that produces food is a target. Every worker in a factory is a target. Every home that shelters a worker is a target. Every medical facility that contributes to the well being of these workers is a target. Every school that educates the next generation of workers will become a target if the war is allowed to continue long enough. To say that only combatants should be targeted is short sighted and naive.

I don't get what you're trying to say here thermo; are you saying that any and every body who just happens to be a fellow citizen of the enemy nation should be wiped out?

---

If I were forced to say it bluntly in one sentence, then yes. I would prefer to say that any and all aspects of a nation’s economy are subject to attack when at war. And this includes the people that give comfort and support to said economy. As a point of clarification, we are speaking of total war, the likes of WWI and WWII. These actions would not apply in the cases of police actions and interventions.

[rextorres]

Well the Germans used that same exact argument as they were rolling across the Soviet Union. The only difference was that instead of firebombing people (the firebombing was a terror weapon btw) they rounded them up and shot them. I don't think you believe this. So how is it OK in one instance and not the other?

[ December 14, 2003, 04:23: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by oleg:
Thermo' arguments are valid in the situation when the outcome of the war has not been decided yet. That was most certainly not true in the case of Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Please read my older Posts with quotes of people intimately involved in the desision. I regard their opinions much higher than canonised official US history books.

That is too simplistic a point of view. To say that the war was won at that point is easy to say now. But at that time, Japan still had several million men fighting in the field. And based on the losses in the previous battles, the prospects of invading Japan were costly at best. Had we paused, there is little evidence that Japan would have surrendered and allowed an occupation. Had we continued to bomb and relied on a blockade, then how many would have died in the next six months? And with the way politics functioned in Japan, it could easily have taken six months to replace the military majority of Japans government. It should be remembered that the emperors hold on the nation was not so strong that he could defy the wishes of the majority of the military. A final point that is seldom mentioned is the need to limit the Soviet advances into the area. While the alliance was still in place at the time, Soviet intentions were known for what they were. And there was a recognized need to contain their expansion into the Pacific basin. Several of the gamed results showed the Americans holding only the southern Island at wars end, the rest having fallen to the Soviets. I think we can all agree that American occupation was a kinder result than Soviet occupation would have been.

[ December 14, 2003, 04:26: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Well the Germans used that same exact argument as they were rolling across the Soviet Union. The only difference was that instead of firebombing people (the firebombing was a terror weapon btw) they rounded them up and shot them. I don't think you believe this. So how is it OK in one instance and not the other?

Which argument are you speaking of?

And I doubt you know much of what I do or don’t believe. I know that the Germans killed many civilians by mass execution. I also know that the resistance was a big problem for the Germans. They in turn relied on terror as a means of countering this activity. I also know that in many areas of the western Soviet Union, the Germans were initially seen as liberators. I guess it was the lesser of two evils logic at work there. But I also have no love for the Russia of Stalin. It must have been very distasteful to have to sit down with them as allies.

Don’t misunderstand me here; I am not a supporter of the German involvement in the war. I do have a certain amount of respect for the skill with which the military practiced the art of war. But I do not support the reasons for it or the actions of the government and it special organizations. And I also have nothing but contempt for the existing command structures that existed in the allied camps at the start of the war. England was poorly led at the start and the inaction of the government after declaring the war was borderline stupidity. And they continued to be poorly lead all through the war. This was offset by exceptional political leadership in large part. And as for the French actions, well let’s just not go there. There is nothing good that can be said of it. As for America, we were not much better off. We were reliant on out of date ideas and technology, and totally unprepared. The fact that we were able to reverse this in less than two years is a tribute to the abilities of the American people of the times.

[rextorres]

Well your right I don't know what you believe. All I can glean about what you believe is based on what you write in this forum.

I won't repeat your whole argument back to you but you did eloquently state that "Every person that is able to contribute to the economy is a target." etc. etc. It's written just below.

Those were some of the same arguments the Nazis used when they rounded up whole villages and shot them.

And the point I was trying to make is that it's a slippery slope when you make arguments like these. Where do you draw the line?

[ December 14, 2003, 05:09: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[President_Elect_Shang]

Here is that comparison to Nazis again. This has come up in another thread. Does anyone here think that comparing acts of genocide can really be equated to what has happened in WW2? I don’t think so; yes America did a terrible thing, however, for what ever reason [surrender of Japan, etc] the fact is it did stop and no one had the intentions of genocide. There are many other closer approximations that can be made when looking into a historical context for comparisons.

[rextorres]

Pulling out the "Nazi card" may have been hyperbolic, but Thermodyne's logic is exactly the same logic the German's were using as they were rounding up Russian civilians and shooting them. You can dismiss me for merely pointing this out or point out to Thermodyne where his logic could lead.

[ December 14, 2003, 05:57: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Puke]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
If I were forced to say it bluntly in one sentence, then yes. I would prefer to say that any and all aspects of a nation’s economy are subject to attack when at war. And this includes the people that give comfort and support to said economy. As a point of clarification, we are speaking of total war, the likes of WWI and WWII. These actions would not apply in the cases of police actions and interventions.

and the US civil war! man, Sherman sure knew how to do it! those Americans really showed those darn Americans who was boss! And dont forget our colonial efforts. Take out all those women and children with smallpox infected blankets, before they breed another generation of redskins.

And lets not leave out Korea. Better nuke those cities and the staging grounds in China before more forces can be mustered. leveling a city not only hits their economy and industrial complex, but puts a quick end to alot of potential soldiers before they even get started.

Oh, wait. we didnt get to nuke Korea and China. I wonder how the world would be now, if we had applied the 'war is hell' doctrine then? Now im not going to tell you that war should be a gentlemans game, and everyone can be expected to play nice - but you have to concede that there are some very good cases for excercising moderation.

[Cyrien]

Korea wasn't a war it was a police action by the UN, the Last "War" the US engaged in was WW2. I believe that exception was already made for those. Of course now someone will come up and ask what the difference is since you are just as dead in one as the other. Well according to US and international laws there are actually quite a few differences. I won't go into those now just stating they exist.

As for thermo's arguments being the same reason that Germany executed whole villages. WRONG!

The Germans didn't kill them because they were potential warriors. The Germans killed them because they were lower than human. They weren't of the superior race and so should be exterminated before they contaminated the superior race.

The Germans were engaged in an act of Genocide that would have continued after the War was over if they had won until there were none of the inferior people left anywhere in the world.

The other argument only applies to such targets during time of actual conflict. They are valid targets to harm the enemy but not for the purpose of total annihilation of the entirety of the people. It is not an act of Genocide but of Total War.

Germany: Kill everything until it is dead forever.

Total War: Kill everything until it surrenders.

I would argue there is a vast morale difference between the two.

Germany killed those people even if they were citizens of Germany. The US might deport or lock away in detention camps (I won't call them concentration camps because they weren't. There is a vast difference between the Nazi concentration camps and the Japanese detention camps in the US. The camps in the US were awfull but not on the German scale.) but it didn't exterminate its own people when it went to war against nations of origin for those people.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
Here is that comparison to Nazis again. This has come up in another thread. Does anyone here think that comparing acts of genocide can really be equated to what has happened in WW2? I don’t think so; yes America did a terrible thing, however, for what ever reason [surrender of Japan, etc] the fact is it did stop and no one had the intentions of genocide. There are many other closer approximations that can be made when looking into a historical context for comparisons.

The bombing of civilian populations in the enemy’s homeland is not genocide. It is not a kind thing to do, but it is not genocide. When a country goes to war, its people go with it. And to support 1 fighting man in the field, about six or seven non-fighting soldiers are needed. Each of these is supported by 7 to 22 civilians. And often, it is these civilians that are found to be the least defended targets. Strategic bombing was tested in Spain. It came of age in WWII. In the late 50’s and early 60’s, the weapon of choice became the rocket. To wage an all out war today would doom all of your major population centers to death in a few hours. I think that this is the only reason that there has not been a third world war. No one is willing to pay the price. When the cost was spread out over a series of years, and the killing of cities took thousands of aircraft, the risks were acceptable. Today they are not. And atomic weapons are the reason this stalemate occurred.

But none of the terrors of a strategic war can be compared to the actions of the Nazis. And the treatment of POW’s by the Japanese is almost as bad. The actions of the allies and the use of atomic weapons are part of war. The government has an overwhelming obligation to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible with as little loss of life by its citizens as can be achieved. The two fission devises dropped on Japan were in keeping with this mandate.