collatoral damage then and now?

[JOC]

In WW2 the USA shelled and bombed cities - areas in France and Italy i.e.: Caen, Monty Casino, etc. that killed 10,000 of civilians in order to take German strongholds. I believe 60K French were killed in Caen alone. What I’m saying is that the US army in Europe never intentional targeted civilians. However they had no qualms about shelling – bombing civilians if it was needed to obtain victory over a well-entrenched, well-armed, resistant enemy. And the German were often masters at defense.The US Army in WW2 did everything possible to win against an enemy that at least early on they could have lost the war to. Since WW2 the US Army has not fought with this type of determination in any other conflict. Nor has it created this much incidental damage. You could say they dropped more tonnage in Viet Nam but not on top of or at people, or destroyed much of Iraq infrastructure but without the numbers in civilian deaths. Yes the technology is better but if a group of insurgents were in hiding in a known building in Iraq we tried not to take out the whole building to get the insurgents whereas in WW2 the whole building would have been shelled or bombed.
My question is with today’s politics and media do you think this type of warfare is even possible?

 

[VDKMS]

Unless they themselves are at risk it will not be possible.

Europe is a strong defender of that principle but when Russia would attack them I bet they will forget it.

Collateral damage plays a huge emotional role in the media and politics but the international laws of war are very clear about it.

You are allowed to hit a target with civilians if the military value of the target is high enough.

I'll give an example. A soldier who is hiding in a home with civilians cannot be targeted, but if that soldier was a General or if the soldier is fighting and causing heavy casualties then it is a legitimate target.

In WWII it was very difficult to hit the target with one bomb, that's why they needed hundreds of them and hoped one of them would hit the target. Now they have pinpont accuracy and small payloads to minimise collateral damage. Mistakes (errant missile, wrong coordinates, faulty intelligence) are few but hit the front pages in the media giving a distorted picture.

 

[George]

. Mistakes (errant missile, wrong coordinates, faulty intelligence) are few but hit the front pages in the media giving a distorted picture.

When/where The Media is probably going to distort it.

 

[JOC]

media and nature of the war

Unless they themselves are at risk it will not be possible.

Europe is a strong defender of that principle but when Russia would attack them I bet they will forget it.

Collateral damage plays a huge emotional role in the media and politics but the international laws of war are very clear about it.

You are allowed to hit a target with civilians if the military value of the target is high enough.

I'll give an example. A soldier who is hiding in a home with civilians cannot be targeted, but if that soldier was a General or if the soldier is fighting and causing heavy casualties then it is a legitimate target.

In WWII it was very difficult to hit the target with one bomb, that's why they needed hundreds of them and hoped one of them would hit the target. Now they have pinpont accuracy and small payloads to minimise collateral damage. Mistakes (errant missile, wrong coordinates, faulty intelligence) are few but hit the front pages in the media giving a distorted picture.

I think the fact that all media coverage for the US Army in WW2 was highly censored which often meant a lot didn't get out during WW2. I also think since we were in a war that we could ill afford to lose, meant they did whatever was needed to win even at the expense of civilians. Of course the inaccuracy of massive artillery barrages and carpet bombing of cities that the Germans had converted into strongholds didn't help. As VDKMS mentioned the weapons accuracy was not that of a cruse missile. The Nazi crimes were beyond compare, but I don't want to sidetrack there. It has been said that even the allies turned a blind eye to 10 of thousands of civilian deaths in Franch, Italy, Germany, etc. during the liberation of and defeat of Germany and perhaps this was necessary to defeat an enemy like the Nazis. This does not include the allied bomber campaigns.

In the US modern wars of which Viet Nam was the 1st. The services have been hampered by limited objectives, i.e.: Khe Sanh ~6K marines held out for months in a battle that left > 50K NVA dead, then left packing after winning the battle. These newer wars of limited objectives with plenty of media attention have handicapped the ability of the US armed forces to operate at their peak efficiency as they did during WW2, where they had to win against a no holds bar enemy. I think the answer is 2 fold: one they know they can lose these wars without directly effecting the security of the US "a disservice to the servicemen serving in these conflicts" and they are under the spotlight of a not so impartial media.

 

[LeEnfield]

When the enemy fortifies a town or city then civilians are going to get hurt. I was in Arnhem last year and as an old Paratrooper I was treated very well by the civilians. I asked them why we were treated so well by them seeing we had caused such destruction and death in their town. The reply was "Unless you have conquered you never will no the price of freedom"

 

[JOC]

Freedom

When the enemy fortifies a town or city then civilians are going to get hurt. I was in Arnhem last year and as an old Paratrooper I was treated very well by the civilians. I asked them why we were treated so well by them seeing we had caused such destruction and death in their town. The reply was "Unless you have conquered you never will no the price of freedom"

With a very few exceptions all of Europe was elated to be rid of the Nazis, can you blame them. In 44 - 45 the Nazi installed a starvation program in Holland that resulted in 10's of thousands of deaths. Of course complainers weren't tolerated. Were you actually over their during the failed offensive in 44?

 

[LeEnfield]

JOC

No I was not at Arnhem in 1944 but I remember watching the planes go over, but I did serve with many men who fought there

 

[Yossarian]

The origins of this type of conduct can be traced back to the first world war. New technologies and adherence or lack there of of international agreements were blurring the line between the questions of not targeting civilians. For instance, we in hindsight today have quotes like

"Britannia rules the Waves, and also waives the rules".

Both sides especially before America's entry into the war would interpret pre war international laws to their own benefit or bluntly point out the other sides' lack of adherence to same rules. This eventually would lead to the abandonment of many of them were just simply ignored, coupled with new mentioned technologies, such as the submarine, and chemical weapons, neutral ships with civilians on board were eventually being sunk with no warning. Chemical Weapons used without regard to the presence of civilian settlements nearby.

This type of behavior continued forth and opened up the moral openness to where in some cases civilians were intentionally targeted. Such as the Bombing of London, later with V weapons. The leveling of Dresden, the Firebombing of Tokyo, and the Two atomic bombings as well.

Not long there after White Phosphorus used against the Arabs was on the table, Napalming villages was seen as a viable tactic in the Jungles of South East Asia. More recentally using deadly long polluting depleted uranium ammunition inside a sizable civilian population was seen as a acceptable method to victory in Iraq. Despite long lasting and debilitating health affects.

Targeting civilians never set's well with modern media apparatuses, nor with public opinion at home. However it does historically have it's own merits no matter how horrendous they may be.

 

[JOC]

Indeed I salute you!

JOC

No I was not at Arnhem in 1944 but I remember watching the planes go over, but I did serve with many men who fought there

I salute you Mr. Enfield! BTW that's also the name of my favorite firearm.

 

[The Highway Man]

I visited Arnhem in 1989 with a former RMP colleague. We were made to feel very welcome when we informed them we were British Royal Military Police attached to 5 Airborne Brigade.

 

[Warwick]

I think collateral damage, and specifically civilian casualties is more or less accepted by most armies in this day and age. You only have to look at the fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, West Bank, Chechnya, Balkans for examples. Sure there is international condemnation and in some cases international tribunals for justice in some cases but a lot goes unpunished. Even with the media coverage we have today you can still put a favourable spin on bad news and divert the blame.

 

[Remington 1858]

Before WWI and even for a while after, it was considered a war crime to bomb or shell civilian areas. By the end of WWII, nobody bothered about those niceties. Hamburg was firebombed extensively killing tens of thousands of civilians. U.S. General Curtis LeMay personally led incendiary raids against Tokyo and other cities that burned out miles of civilian housing and killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. Japan claims that five million civilians died as a direct result of U.S. bombing. LeMay was quoted as saying that If Japan had won the war, he (LeMay) would have been tried as a war criminal. And finally, two atomic bombs dropped in order to finally get a surrender. It all depends on the stakes. If the stakes are high enough, the gloves come off. It just depends on how bad you want to win.

 

[George]

Just after WWII they outlawed bombing Cities. 10 years later ICBMs are pointed at Cities. Yankees had no problem with shelling Charleston with the Swamp Angel, and we know what Sherman did in Georgia and the Carolinas.

 

[BritinBritain]

I salute you Mr. Enfield! BTW that's also the name of my favorite firearm.

Apologies for being off topic.

Which one JOC? There are quite a few different marks and models as well as many different manufacturers. BTW I was born where the Lee Enfield was built, along with the STEN, BREN, GPMG, L1A1 and the SA80, as a boy I often heard BREN's being test fired. Music to my ears. The Lee Enfield was the rifle I was trained on when I joined the RAF, it was also the general issue rifle for the RAF in the Far East until around 1968 or 1969 when we got the L1A1.

 

[Yossarian]

LeMay was quoted as saying that If Japan had won the war, he (LeMay) would have been tried as a war criminal. And finally, two atomic bombs dropped in order to finally get a surrender. It all depends on the stakes. If the stakes are high enough, the gloves come off. It just depends on how bad you want to win.

Indeed it seems so. However I feel that Japan during the final stages understood that a Soviet/ U.S. occupation would have brought decades of unease and perhaps bloodshed should the two super powers both invade the Home Islands then ever have their own conflict there.

That declaration of war when considering the past relations and conflicts between Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union was a very heavy factor in the decision to surrender.

However in this case, as horrific and terrible these bombing raids on Japan were, I do concur that the decision to surrender to the Western Allies worked in Japan's favor.

With the fanaticism of the Japanese Government at the time, 10 atomic bombs could've been dropped. But a Soviet Occupation for say, destroying the Imperial Throne and executing the leadership as war criminals without even a trial such as in the U.S. inquiries post war could've been more persuasive. In this later case the civilian death tole could've have been much much higher.

Intentional civilian casualties are never a good thing, but some of histories biggest changes in the nature of conflicts can be attributed to them.

 

[JOC]

Civilian losses WW2 vs non WW2

My original point is and Remington 1858 seems to be on point with this. Although George is right there are exceptions. I believe that for the US, WW2 was the only war in which the US pulled out the stops in order to win in such a large scale basis. This is likely because of stakes were so high. It’s been claimed that nearly a million Germans were killed by allied bombing and that bomber Harris should have been on trial (ya I know he was British, but a lot of those bombs were American). After numerous allied offensives failed to take the strategic city of Caen in France it was bombed, killing as many as 60,000 civilians, the same is true in parts of Italy as well. Small family owned Japanese fishing boats were sunk in the Pacific. The US didn’t let civilians get in the way of if it meant victory in WW2, the stakes were too high and we were fighting a Criminal enemy that killed civilians out hand, which we could at least in theory lose to. These were losses the world could ill afford.
The US has not fought that type of all encompassing war since WW2 and as such has for the most part “with the exception of Nixon’s bombing of Hanoi” tried very hard not to target civilians in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

BTW the Lee Enfield 303 rifle is my old buddy.

 

[Yossarian]

My original point is and Remington 1858 seems to be on point with this. Although George is right there are exceptions. I believe that for the US, WW2 was the only war in which the US pulled out the stops in order to win in such a large scale basis. This is likely because of stakes were so high. It’s been claimed that nearly a million Germans were killed by allied bombing and that bomber Harris should have been on trial (ya I know he was British, but a lot of those bombs were American). After numerous allied offensives failed to take the strategic city of Caen in France it was bombed, killing as many as 60,000 civilians, the same is true in parts of Italy as well. Small family owned Japanese fishing boats were sunk in the Pacific. The US didn’t let civilians get in the way of if it meant victory in WW2, the stakes were too high and we were fighting a Criminal enemy that killed civilians out hand, which we could at least in theory lose to. These were losses the world could ill afford.
The US has not fought that type of all encompassing war since WW2 and as such has for the most part “with the exception of Nixon’s bombing of Hanoi” tried very hard not to target civilians in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

BTW the Lee Enfield 303 rifle is my old buddy.

The second World War was the most destructive conflict in all human history characterized by the struggling of multiple ideologies for world dominance and survival. Some faltered others survived. Many point out to the deliberate killings of the Nazi's yet we don't really speak much on the interactions of the Nazis in learning from the Soviet NKVD on how to properly seek out dissidents and conduct mass murder as well as building proper concentration camps prior to the war's initiation.

Stalin Alone killed far more people in both war and Peace as Hitler, yet the Swastika sill holds more uneasiness when displayed to people today than the Iron and Sickle. Not many speak saying it a symbol of Evil despite the casualty count. As in this Case mainly due to the fact the Soviets won, Stalin could write his history, he was the victor and you know what they say about history books and the victors.

As for modern episodes of targeting civilians, the modern apparatus of media have both mitigated this as well as forwarded it. In the U.S. portion of the Vietnam conflict it brought to light every slightest mishap. The napalming of villages via bad intelligence, to the later to be seen horrendous affects of Agent Orange.

Today that same media trend seems reversed in certain forms. The use of Uranium in Iraq in munitions has led to crippling health problems especially in infants. This is a more recent disregard for civilian populations however it can be pointed out, although not in a defense , that it wasn't the intended goal. Dispite studies by the DOD to examine the health effects of these weapons. The aforementioned media attention being almost in a blackout now compared to civilian casualty reports from the beginning of that war in 2003.

By no means am I singling out the U.S. on this behavior, the Israelis just a few years ago attacked protestors in mass with White Phosphorus to dissuade possible militants from repeated attacks into Israel proper, dispute the arguments the same could have been achieved via other less indiscriminate means.

Just a few years prior in the Russian Georgian War footage of Su 25 bombing attacks on apartment flats shows disregard for the local civilian population there.

Modern Warfare is destructive, ulterior motives both political or economical are swift and efficient at pushing all moral ones aside. And thus from now until the end of civilization we shall always see innocents in the list of causalities.

 

[JOC]

Then and now

~ 6 million Jewish people were murdered. Incredible amounts of Slavs were killed. In the USSR the real figure may never be known. It certainly was at least 15 million, likely considerable higher. Nearly 2000 towns and villages were but to the torch usually with all the people locked inside of large barns or other large building. The SS waited outside with machine guns in case someone got out. They filled pits and it wasn’t always Jews who were marched into the pits and shot. Millions had all their food appropriated for the Reich, leaving them to stave in the Russian winter. It’s estimated as many as 11 - 12 million Soviet citizens were murdered outsight. In Poland at least 3 million non-Jewish people were killed used as slaves murdered, starved, etc. In many countries such as Greece hundreds of thousands died simple because the Nazis appropriated their food leaving them to starve. Nearly every occupied country in Europe was forced to supply slaves to work in the Greater Reich. The survival rate for the forced labor force was very low. Even the western occupied nations i.e. Italy and France suffered atrocities, mass executions, etc. In total of those killed “directly or indirectly” may never be known, but it may easily approach or exceed 25 million. This does not include those killed in deliberately by shelling and bombing. Since >> 99% of the Nazi killing took place in between the fall of 39 to the spring of 45 ~ 5.5 years. They killed people at a rate far quicker than Stalin or anybody else has ever done for that matter. Had they won the conflict one can only imagine the final tally?

Stalins terror machine lead by the NKVD and the KGB operated for almost 30 years and is said to have killed ~ 30 million.

As stated concerning the allies in all conflicts including Vietnam the amount of civilians killed is a drop in the bucket compared to number the allies killed in WW2 plain and simple. They did what had to be done to defeat a treat such as the world has not known since. The media was blocked - censored so the people at that time in order to maintain the highest possible moral. I’m afraid you have that wrong it isn’t the same now as then concerning the allies, regardless of the media portrayals. I remain convinced that the US attempts to minimize civilians losses in wars such as the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts where the enemy cleverly hides amongst the people.

 

[Yossarian]

I’m afraid you have that wrong it isn’t the same now as then concerning the allies, regardless of the media portrayals. I remain convinced that the US attempts to minimize civilians losses in wars such as the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts where the enemy cleverly hides amongst the people.

I didn't imply that the U.S. did, none of the situations I listed were indeed intentional for the U.S. post WW2. A drop in the bucket, in morbid terms yes. But what is the value of a human life exactly then? These things regardless happen. The U.S. has used very nasty substances that led and is currently leading still in the destruction of life or severe damaging of such even today.

HOWEVER by no means is this isolated to the U.S. operating in wars only. Other nations have done this and are doing it as well. This is not a American military practice, but moreover a phenomenon of armed conflict, in particular modern armed conflict.

As for your mentioned statements on the nature of the Second World War, it was the last total war for America, defined by the complete arranging of entire countries' social structures for the forwarding of a war effort until the destruction of her enemy. This scale led to the increased levels of human loss of life from all sides during such a conflict, being the stakes as they were.

Depending on your sense of the value of a human life (something that can spur hundreds of debates about in itself.) You can either justify or damn the actions of any case, whether it be the bombing of Dresden, or the Reprisal of the Soviets in the taking of Berlin against the local population.

Or even go as far as saying the mass murders of the Nazis against Eastern Europeans as an aide in the war to encourage the Soviets to fight harder to end the war more quickly.

One's disgusting outlooks may seem sound to another.

This type of thinking can be although not the only factor, attributed to cases of civilians being killed in armed conflict.

Yes, and I agree, the U.S. does not sport this intentionally as a method of either warfare or statesmen ship. But other countries have and do.

However I don't see how in our case any moral high ground can be achieved in this type of situation as even today JDAMs fall through the roofs of hospitals in error, and Hellfires blow up not only the car with the target by the bus of civilians behind it.

This will always be a factor in warfare. Different cultures and social outlooks on it can determine how much of a occurrence it will be.

 

[lljadw]

1)collateral damage (=euphemism for civilian casualties) always existed and always will exist :a war without civilian casualties does not exist


2)in certain cases the intentional killing of civilians is lawful.


3)the only who during the war were intentionally killing civilians without lawful reasons were the Germans .Even the Soviets abstained from doing this .

4)it has been claimed that WWII was the most destructive war in history (destructive meaning the number of casualties),but,this is an irrelevant generalization :if one is looking,not to the absolute figures,but to the % of the population,several wars were more destructive : in WWII,some 7 % of the European population perished,but,during the 30 years war (a German civil war with foreign interventions)a THIRD of the German population perished,and, I would not be surprised if the English conquest of Ireland in the 17th century was more destructive (relatively) than WWII .