The logic of targeting civilians in war an its moral implications

[Argeus the Paladin]

Taken from the "Allied War Crime in WWII" thread in Vestigia Vetustatis

How do you know that, exactly?

And even if there were some unwilling people, did they, or didn't they, work on the factories which produced bombs to kill American people? Women, babies? So if their unwilling work produced death, why shouldn't we do everything we can, including killing them, in order to stop this production?

Besides, it was their responsibility: if the government did not represent their interests they should have rebelled. But they continued aiding and helping to manufacture death in Japan, not only for American babies, but for the holocaust perpetrated on the Chinese people, on Korea, and others. And they did not do a single thing to stop it, to rebel and put an end. Thus even the civilians were responsible, morally responsible, declaring themselves guilty and their lives forfeit.

Short question: If a government wage war and their population does not revolt for any reason at all does that mean their citizens are fair game?

[motiv-8]

That's not what the situation during the Second World War was and that's not what the basis of targetting civilians was. It wasn't that civilians did not revolt, but they were an active and willing part of various states' war efforts. The participants couldn't have conducted their wars without the employment of civilians in factories or their development of cottage industries for producing armaments and goods.

Either way, attitudes, laws, and the nature of fighting wars has changed dramatically since the 1940s, at least in the West, so using the experience of the Second World War to discuss moral implications in warfighting today isn't quite precise except as a foil. That war must be considered according to the norms of its time, not today's, and vice-versa.

[The spartan]

Current moral codes would say no. It is assumed that, being citizens of the government, that the government (or faction in power) has coercive power over the citizens, meaning that they may just be making bombs to stay alive.

[hellheaven1987]

Current moral codes would say no. It is assumed that, being citizens of the government, that the government (or faction in power) has coercive power over the citizens, meaning that they may just be making bombs to stay alive.

Blah, and the government was elected by the citizens, at least in democractic countries.

[Elfdude]

Blah, and the government was elected by the citizens, at least in democractic countries.

I've never understood how a handful of people in the government successfully usurp the power of the people in many third and second world countries. Perhaps my western bias is showing but just about every great first world nation had to go through a couple of revolutions to end the tyranny peoples in second and third world countries seem to simply deal with. Of course there's new tyrannies afoot but I'll first world tyranny's over third world any day.

[motiv-8]

I've never understood how a handful of people in the government successfully usurp the power of the people in many third and second world countries. Perhaps my western bias is showing but just about every great first world nation had to go through a couple of revolutions to end the tyranny peoples in second and third world countries seem to simply deal with. Of course there's new tyrannies afoot but I'll first world tyranny's over third world any day.

Read the history of any such country that has suffered under tyranny and you will begin to understand. It's a combination of factors both internal and external. I'd suggest reading the history of Iraq from, at the very least, 1958 onwards. Since it's topical and everything.

[The spartan]

Blah, and the government was elected by the citizens, at least in democractic countries.

Really? By ALL the citizens?

If you start killing civilians in a completely democratic country, 49% of them could not have wanted the government in power to begin with for all you know.

[SigniferOne]

Current moral codes would say no. It is assumed that, being citizens of the government, that the government (or faction in power) has coercive power over the citizens, meaning that they may just be making bombs to stay alive.

Correct, but they are staying alive by killing someone else. That person being me, or you. I may have no particular ill will, or anger towards them, but I still may have to kill them in order to stop them from making bombs.

[handsome pete]

Watch this clip from Robert McNamara about the firebombing of Japan. Makes you wonder what possible justification there is for using the nuclear weapons when the Allies had already burnt Japan to the ground.

best not to use hyperboles in an argument like this.

i think the reason they had, was that they had not already surrendered.

the Japanese's own assessment was that they would hold out longer. the number of people killed in the nuclear explosions was 200,000, as compared to the 500,000 that had been killed in air raids so far without a surrender. probably it was more effective because they were killed in one day, the point being that it would shock the enemy into surrender. the assessment made was that if they had invaded millions if not tens of millions of Japanese would have died not to mention about a million allied personnel.

[eisenkopf]

Correct, but they are staying alive by killing someone else. That person being me, or you. I may have no particular ill will, or anger towards them, but I still may have to kill them in order to stop them from making bombs.

What about the approx. 10 million Germans that were born between 1930 and 1939 (I don't have statistics for the war-time years)? Clearly, they are too young to have voted Hitler into power. Clearly, they are too young to make bombs.

Yet the Allied bombing of civilian (residential) areas targeted them, too.

[SigniferOne]

What about the approx. 10 million Germans that were born between 1930 and 1939 (I don't have statistics for the war-time years)? Clearly, they are too young to have voted Hitler into power. Clearly, they are too young to make bombs.

But they weren't too young to take part in the Hitler Youth, and during the later parts of the war in the defense of Berlin.

Once you have a political organization that has a total control over a society, including brainwashing and cradle-to-grave indoctrination, all bets are off, you may have to kill even the young and the elderly, for they certainly will kill you. In the aftermath of World War II, many American GIs were decapitated after the Japanese hung up thin metal strings at certain heights on the street, decapitating soldiers as they drove by on their Jeeps.

[MaximiIian]

Yet the Allied bombing of civilian (residential) areas targeted them, too.

World War II was a very special, very surreal case. It should not be taken, as a whole, as a metric for how to wage war except in the most dire and terrifying of circumstances.

[eisenkopf]

But they weren't too young to take part in the Hitler Youth, and during the later parts of the war in the defense of Berlin.

Yes, they were (except the those born 1930). The Hitlerjugend was for those aged 14-18. Same for the defense of Berlin. While you had teenagers armed with Panzerfäusten, they were not 14-year-olds.

Once you have a political organization that has a total control over a society, including brainwashing and cradle-to-grave indoctrination, all bets are off, you may have to kill even the young and the elderly, for they certainly will kill you. In the aftermath of World War II, many American GIs were decapitated after the Japanese hung up thin metal strings at certain heights on the street, decapitating soldiers as they drove by on their Jeeps.

According to your logic, millions of Werwölfe would have roamed central Europe for years on end. The very fact that the young (teenage) "Nazis" offered almost no resistance to Allied forces refutes your argument. Did they fight until death, until the last drop of blood left their body, like Nazi propaganda would want to make us believe (and obviously succeeded in your case)? No.

Never mind some horror stories from Japan. How many Allied soldiers were decapitated?

World War II was a very special, very surreal case. It should not be taken, as a whole, as a metric for how to wage war except in the most dire and terrifying of circumstances.

Then we don't need to discuss anything, because every war is fought under the most dire and terrifying circumstances, at least for one side. Following your logic, at least the loosing side can always claim that its survival justifies all means.

[Elfdude]

Quite simply war isn't moral in the first place.

[Boyar Son]

Quite simply war isn't moral in the first place.

Right, it just "is". a mere action made by anyone.

[Wolfgang von Zweibrücken]

Collatoral damage - accidental deaths of civilians caught in the crossfire - is one thing; It is excusable, while also being regrettable, and something that should be avoided as much as possible. Specifically targeting non-combattants is evil, and arguably genocidal.

[43rdFoot]

War is a horrible, dirty, immoral, brutal endeavor. There are no, and there should be no, "safe" or "protected" people in war.


People would be less eager to go to war if they new it would be a hard fight for everyone.

[Burnum]

War is a horrible, dirty, immoral, brutal endeavor. There are no, and there should be no, "safe" or "protected" people in war.


People would be less eager to go to war if they new it would be a hard fight for everyone.

Doesn't that mean victims of the 9/11 attacks were fair game?

[43rdFoot]

Doesn't that mean victims of the 9/11 attacks were fair game?

Yes. This, of course, means that the U.S. ought to act entirely unrestricted in how it retaliates. If it wants to napalm every living thing in Afghanistan, so be it.

I wouldn't liek to see that happen, but I don't believe you can call any shade of war more moral or immoral than another.

[SigniferOne]

Then what and just why are international laws on war conduct been issued, if we are to believe that all is fair in love and war?

I can issue any kinds of laws I want. Does that mean they are binding or in any way natural? Many in the US detest the UN, as well as its policies and resolutions. Part of this is seen as infringing on the American sovereignty, and part because those resolutions have no basis whatsoever. Nevertheless politicians sometimes officially accede to them for political advantage e.g. trade with Europe.