Was the "Total War" of WW2 a terrorist war?

[Hollis]

Can you explain it to me? I'm not a historian, but I am very resistant to this viewpoint.

I would have supported WW2 (most of my grandma's relatives were massacred in the camps in Poland)- either as part of a resistance force or within the brit army- I'm not quibbling on the validity of the war itself (although I would have a different interpretation of why it was being fought, and for whom). I cannot so far accept the legitimacy of the targetting of civilians- which is why I oppose it in all other contexts.

what about this particular historical context that makes it different?

In a nutshell if you're a military commander, several years into a war, and you think you can save the lives of 100,000s of troops by bombing the enemy then I think you have a different perspective on what may or maynot be 'legitimate'.

 

[Poi E]

I'd be very surprised if it doen't happened in the insect world as well.

Saw a documentary the other night showing hornets attacking a beehive in Japan. About a dozen hornets killed thousands of bees, every last one, to get at the honey and the bee larvae. Chopped them up good and proper.

 

[Idaho]

I'd scrub the word 'terrorism/ist' from the dictionary. It's overwhelming usage is one lodged in the existing power structure - used by states to describe enemy non-state acts of political violence against military and civilian targets. Examples include:

Afghan guerillas against USSR = resistance fighters
Afghan guerillas against USA/UK = terrorists

B52s carpet bombing sq kms of Iraqi conscripts = not terror
Roadside bomb against targets in post-invasion Iraq = terror

Hmm.. Generally speaking roadside bombs in Iraq and anti US fighters in Afghanistan are referred to as 'insurgents' rather than terrorists.

However when an insurgent drives a car bomb into a crowded shopping area and kills large numbers of civilians then they are called terrorists.

There is a difference between terrorist and insurgent beyond merely a propaganda one. The difference is that a terrorist will attack non-strategic targets with the intent on spreading fear and terror. An army may well bomb a city flat and kill thousands of civillians in order to destroy a supply route/factory/enemy grouping - but that killing is incidental. The killings may well be murderously reckless or negligent - but they are not the intent.

A Palestinian suicide bomber blowing up an army check-point and killing civilians in the process is a guerilla. One getting on a commuter bus or busy market is a terrorist.

It's really not a difficult distinction.

 

[gunneradt]

In a nutshell if you're a military commander, several years into a war, and you think you can save the lives of 100,000s of troops by bombing the enemy then I think you have a different perspective on what may or maynot be 'legitimate'.

exactly.

You have to rate the lives of your own countrymen (troops and civilians) over those of the enemy - and to minimise those losses in any way possible.

 

[energy]

No, what is funny (in a nasty yet ironic way) is your statement "...although probably not so much at that late stage of the war.', given that most of us had already been exterminated by then. It's the fact that you made the statement as a "statement of fact" and yet it (unintentionally) reflects the tragedy of how far the slaughter of our people had gone by 1944-45.

There seems to be 2 different jokes understood in what I said. This is the one I got, although I find too nasty to be really funny, like you said. The other one (butterfly child's) is still a mystery to me.

 

[kyser_soze]

So you're definition is based around intent and target then?

Someone who actively seeks out civilian targets to cause maximum casualties as a prime result, rather than collateral damage, is a terr?

 

[redsquirrel]

exactly.

You have to rate the lives of your own countrymen (troops and civilians) over those of the enemy - and to minimise those losses in any way possible.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the points Kropotkin raised, It's mearly a pointless assertation.

 

[kyser_soze]

There seems to be 2 different jokes understood in what I said. This is the one I got, although I find too nasty to be really funny, like you said. The other one (butterfly child's) is still a mystery to me.

Nope, it was just the one darly ironic comment that BC was referring to as well...

 

[dylanredefined]

The idea of re writing the geneva convention is intresting but as far
as I am aware unless insurgent groups carry arms openly and wear something distinctive to allow them to be recognised as combatants as part from civilians they are not covered by the geneva convention .
Which is where you end up with gitmo bay .Those men who are taliban / al queda fighters (lets not invole the innocent who got rounded up just to simplify things) what do you do with them? Giving them pow status which would be my choice .Gives you problems as when do they get released
and where too.A chechychan is going to be too keen to fly home to a russian firing squad as are those who come from other countries .
The geneva convention iworks best f both sides play by the rules .Which is hard for a unconventional force to do and be effective .Which then gives you an excuse for the conventinol force to tear up the rule book .
hard to tell your troops to respect prisoners when they know if they get captured .they are going to get their heads cut off on the internet .

 

[energy]

Nope, it was just the one darly ironic comment that BC was referring to as well...

Oh well, for the record, I got it, but didn't think it funny. Then again, I once punched someone for telling an Ethiopian joke (quite a long time ago).

 

[Hollis]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the points Kropotkin raised, It's mearly a pointless assertation.

Saying you 'have to' is. But not understanding the actual situation people are placed in.

 

[kropotkin]

So massacring civilians is acceptable if you genuinely believe that it will lead to a lower death toll on your side?

 

[Hollis]

So massacring civilians is acceptable if you genuinely believe that it will lead to a lower death toll on your side?

I have no idea. It seems that people made that call in the past. - I imagine it was also related to wanting to win the war.

 

[slaar]

It could save deaths on both sides. That was the argument for Hiroshima (although not Nagasaki, that seems more dubious); how many Japanese as well as Allied soldiers would have died in a full on conventional assault on the Japanese islands? Hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

 

[kyser_soze]

Well it also comes down to how a state like say the UK fights a war against 'terrorist' elements - do you respond by arresting them or retaliating against targets that are significant to them?

Another thing I was thinking about last night was this whole issue that's been raised about OB having to take their shoes off when going into mosques - my argument there is would the OB be happy to go into a Xtian church and 'desecrate' it? If the answer is 'Yes' ( and I get the feeling it would be) this sensitivity is yet another example of the mess that multiculturalism can cause...

 

[kropotkin]

It was also the call that a group of men made on 9/11 in the US. They assumed that by massacring civilians in the US, they could shock the country into withdrawing troops from Muslim lands (and thus reduce the casualties resulting from the low-intensity wars of national liberation/islamism taking place there).

Are you prepared to apply your logic equally?

 

[butterfly child]

Oh well, for the record, I got it, but didn't think it funny. Then again, I once punched someone for telling an Ethiopian joke (quite a long time ago).

Casual violence is okay then, as long as it's in response to casual racism (or possibly just a dark joke) ?

 

[energy]

So massacring civilians is acceptable if you genuinely believe that it will lead to a lower death toll on your side?

... and lower the death toll on the civilian side as well.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs killed around 220,000 civilians.

An invasion of Japan might have killed 20 million civilians.

 

[redsquirrel]

Saying you 'have to' is. But not understanding the actual situation people are placed in.

Yes I no doubt that peoples emotional response will cause them to see things which a outsider would consider illegitimate as legitimate. I still don't really see what this has to do with Kropotkins points.

Because the emotional response of somebody makes them use actions they would consider illegimate when used against their own side but legitimate when used against the other side doesn't mean those actions are legitimate. Otherwise you simply end up with any actions the enemy take being terrorist.

 

[energy]

Casual violence is okay then, as long as it's in response to casual racism (or possibly just a dark joke) ?

When was the last time you heard an Ethiopian joke? 20 years ago? We were kids, and violence means something different when you're a kid.

 

[kropotkin]

And allowing the overtures of surrender with keeping the Emporer in place to reach their conclusion could have avoided both.

 

[Hollis]

It was also the call that a group of men made on 9/11 in the US. They assumed that by massacring civilians in the US, they could shock the country into withdrawing troops from Muslim lands (and thus reduce the casualties resulting from the low-intensity wars of national liberation/islamism taking place there).

Are you prepared to apply your logic equally?

I dunno if I'm really engaging in a 'logical' argument. I'm just saying why I think people did certain things at certain time.

Dunno.. maybe if I had a certain history and background I'd feel justified in bombing the tube or whatever..

 

[past caring]

As for Dresden, well, that was Churchill's idea, far too late to effect the war, and in keeping with his place as the first genuine user in history of city-wide bombing campaigns. That was a crime in my eyes, because it was an empty gesture, and the benefits even at the time were far from clear.

Just think these kind of distinctions are meaningless, really, once you're into the terrain of total war.

The German U-boat campaign was an attempt to starve Britain and its civilian population into submission. It relied on targetting non military targets (merchant ships) and in 1941 it very nearly succeeded. I'm not making this particular point in order to suggest Dresden was "legitimate" because they did it to us first - simply that in "total war" the civilian population is mobilised for victory and therefore becomes a target.

 

[Hollis]

Yes I no doubt that peoples emotional response will cause them to see things which a outsider would consider illegitimate as legitimate. I still don't really see what this has to do with Kropotkins points.

Because the emotional response of somebody makes them use actions they would consider illegimate when used against their own side but legitimate when used against the other side doesn't mean those actions are legitimate. Otherwise you simply end up with any actions the enemy take being terrorist.

So we're now distinguishing between emotional and logical responses. I see. I think the situation people were placed in they were concerned with winning a war, not with whether their chosen stragegy was logically watertight of if they'd have like it used against them..

 

[kyser_soze]

It was also the call that a group of men made on 9/11 in the US. They assumed that by massacring civilians in the US, they could shock the country into withdrawing troops from Muslim lands (and thus reduce the casualties resulting from the low-intensity wars of national liberation/islamism taking place there).

Are you prepared to apply your logic equally?

Was that the stated and only aim of 9/11 tho? That they genuinely believed that by enacting 9/11 it would lead to that result? Or was it done to inflame and exacerbate the situation in the ME leading to a situation of chaos where they could enact their own plans of building Islamist/Taliban ruled states across the ME?

Or was it just that Osama was pissed at the Saudis for not letting the US in and not the Muj, all freshly battle trained from Afghanistan?

simply that in "total war" the civilian population is mobilised for victory and therefore becomes a target.

Glad someone said that.

 

[kropotkin]

I dunno if I'm really engaging in a 'logical' argument. I'm just saying why I think people did certain things at certain time.

Dunno.. maybe if I had a certain history and background I'd feel justified in bombing the tube or whatever..

I thought this conversation was about whether the 'terrorist' (targetting civilian) actions during WW2 by the Allies were legitimate, or whether they could be called terrorist?

 

[slaar]

It was also the call that a group of men made on 9/11 in the US. They assumed that by massacring civilians in the US, they could shock the country into withdrawing troops from Muslim lands (and thus reduce the casualties resulting from the low-intensity wars of national liberation/islamism taking place there).

Are you prepared to apply your logic equally?

It's by no means clear that that was their logic. Do we have their testimonies?

It's not mine anyway, I've no idea what I'd do in a comparable situation

 

[butterfly child]

When was the last time you heard an Ethiopian joke? 20 years ago? We were kids, and violence means something different when you're a kid.

Why does it?

Kids can and often will do evil things to each other.

 

[Hollis]

I thought this conversation was about whether the 'terrorist' (targetting civilian) actions during WW2 by the Allies were legitimate, or whether they could be called terrorist?

But that's two seperate questions.

I think they could be described as terrorist, and also as legitimate.. But I suspect both are highly subjective interpretations based on the situation.

 

[redsquirrel]

Just think these kind of distinctions are meaningless, really, once you're into the terrain of total war.

The German U-boat campaign was an attempt to starve Britain and its civilian population into submission. It relied on targetting non military targets (merchant ships) and in 1941 it very nearly succeeded. I'm not making this particular point in order to suggest Dresden was "legitimate" because they did it to us first - simply that in "total war" the civilian population is mobilised for victory and therefore becomes a target.

That raises the question at what point a war becomes 'total' then. OBL would state that as the west is attacking Islam/the Arab World totally (militarally, economically, religously, culturally) then the 9/11 attacks were justified.