Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Bushido is simply a subsect of their culture. Seppuku was not just something found in Bushido. Ritual suicide was something everyone would be expected to do in certain curcumstances.

Samurai of course would not be surprised if commoners didn't do the honorable thing but that is your typical noble snobbery. Peasents and commoners would commit ritual suicide too.

Or they would run, or the would refuse and be killed, or they wouldn't do it and be dishonored and people would look at them funny. Peasants were very rarely called on to commmit self sacrifice and typically it was at a nobles specific behest, there was virtually nothing a peasant could do that would incur that kind of penalty on his own. Rulers who overused that kind of authority dealt with a lot of peasant revolts. Bushido was a moralism based set of laws roughly adhered to by noble classes and which informed social taboos and general culture. If you think they were universally followed by pastoral farmers or rice croppers, let alone merchants or fisherman (90% of the population) you have an overly romantic view of Japanese medieval society. If you think that those codes of conduct were somehow even more powerful during the imperial era you've played too much street fighter.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
I am incredibly anti war, so our opinions are going to clash. I believe that any action that harms non combatants and innocent people is unacceptable.

Period.

The moment you put winning the war over the lives of innocent ordinary people is the moment that what you fight for isn't worth fighting for.

Yes, you can say "it's war, everything is a valid target" in that case, it is war as an idea of conflict resolution that is flawed and needs to be completely abandoned.

Fair enough...

What about collateral damage? That is, the military isn't targeting civies, but the explosion (or error) ends up killing the innocents?

Does the war stop?

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Bushido is simply a subsect of their culture. Seppuku was not just something found in Bushido. Ritual suicide was something everyone would be expected to do in certain curcumstances.

Samurai of course would not be surprised if commoners didn't do the honorable thing but that is your typical noble snobbery. Peasents and commoners would commit ritual suicide too.

Or they would run, or the would refuse and be killed, or they wouldn't do it and be dishonored and people would look at them funny. Peasants were very rarely called on to commmit self sacrifice and typically it was at a nobles specific behest, there was virtually nothing a peasant could do that would incur that kind of penalty on his own. Rulers who overused that kind of authority dealt with a lot of peasant revolts. Bushido was a moralism based set of laws roughly adhered to by noble classes and which informed social taboos and general culture. If you think they were universally followed by pastoral farmers or rice croppers, let alone merchants or fisherman (90% of the population) you have an overly romantic view of Japanese society.

Which is where the Japanese government's brainwashing kicked in.

If you want to know what it was like just look at what North Koreans are taught about Americans.http://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&safe=off&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=770&q=north+korean+propaganda+posters&oq=north+korean+propag&gs_l=img.1.1.0l3j0i5j0i24l6.901.5158.0.7029.19.15.0.4.4.0.112.1065.13j2.15.0...0.0...1ac.1.Gyn0cliRBBc" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&safe=off&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=770&q=north+korean+propaganda+posters&oq=north+korean+propag&gs_l=img.1.1.0l3j0i5j0i24l6.901.5158.0.7029.19.15.0.4.4.0.112.1065.13j2.15.0...0.0...1ac.1.Gyn0cliRBBc

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
I am incredibly anti war, so our opinions are going to clash. I believe that any action that harms non combatants and innocent people is unacceptable.

Period.

The moment you put winning the war over the lives of innocent ordinary people is the moment that what you fight for isn't worth fighting for.

Yes, you can say "it's war, everything is a valid target" in that case, it is war as an idea of conflict resolution that is flawed and needs to be completely abandoned.

I agree that War is horrible.

Unfortunately people are naturally evil and as such abandoning War will never ever happen. There will always be someone on the planet that will use force to enforce their desires. And as such we can never abandon war because without that we cannot defend ourselves.

Peace requires both sides to agree to it, War only requires one.

War didn't exist for the majority of the history of the human species. To assume that people are inherently evil because of it is a bit silly. If anything it speaks more to the nature of largescale societal structures and technology and what they enable in scale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Bushido is simply a subsect of their culture. Seppuku was not just something found in Bushido. Ritual suicide was something everyone would be expected to do in certain curcumstances.

Samurai of course would not be surprised if commoners didn't do the honorable thing but that is your typical noble snobbery. Peasents and commoners would commit ritual suicide too.

Or they would run, or the would refuse and be killed, or they wouldn't do it and be dishonored and people would look at them funny. Peasants were very rarely called on to commmit self sacrifice and typically it was at a nobles specific behest, there was virtually nothing a peasant could do that would incur that kind of penalty on his own. Rulers who overused that kind of authority dealt with a lot of peasant revolts. Bushido was a moralism based set of laws roughly adhered to by noble classes and which informed social taboos and general culture. If you think they were universally followed by pastoral farmers or rice croppers, let alone merchants or fisherman (90% of the population) you have an overly romantic view of Japanese society.

Which is where the Japanese government's brainwashing kicked in.

If you want to know what it was like just look at what North Koreans are taught about Americans.http://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&safe=off&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=770&q=north+korean+propaganda+posters&oq=north+korean+propag&gs_l=img.1.1.0l3j0i5j0i24l6.901.5158.0.7029.19.15.0.4.4.0.112.1065.13j2.15.0...0.0...1ac.1.Gyn0cliRBBc" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&safe=off&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=770&q=north+korean+propaganda+posters&oq=north+korean+propag&gs_l=img.1.1.0l3j0i5j0i24l6.901.5158.0.7029.19.15.0.4.4.0.112.1065.13j2.15.0...0.0...1ac.1.Gyn0cliRBBc

And yet it's assumed by virtually every foreign policy and NK expert that if the regime falls there would be a largescale civil war and mass exodus of people into china, not people fighting tooth and nail unto death to defend the sacred Korean bloodline. Indoctrination exists everywhere, but the human brain is too elastic in it's method of learning and adapting and too hardwired for self survival for a large population to act the way you describe. Humans will capitulate to reality in order to survive the majority of the time.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
I am incredibly anti war, so our opinions are going to clash. I believe that any action that harms non combatants and innocent people is unacceptable.

Period.

The moment you put winning the war over the lives of innocent ordinary people is the moment that what you fight for isn't worth fighting for.

Yes, you can say "it's war, everything is a valid target" in that case, it is war as an idea of conflict resolution that is flawed and needs to be completely abandoned.

I agree that War is horrible.

Unfortunately people are naturally evil and as such abandoning War will never ever happen. There will always be someone on the planet that will use force to enforce their desires. And as such we can never abandon war because without that we cannot defend ourselves.

Peace requires both sides to agree to it, War only requires one.

War didn't exist for the majority of the history of the human species. To assume that people are inherently evil because of it is a bit silly. If anything it speaks more to the nature of largescale societal structures and technology and what they enable in scale.

For the majority of our history people have had to spend every waking moment looking for food.

Once settled society emerged war became inevitable. It comes with the territory of being a social creature.

Even Ants and Primates wage war on each other. Out genocide to be honest. So you can't say war isn't a natural thing.

Tell that to the guy 2 pages ago saying the Americans were getting ready to depopulate the Japanese isles entirely.

I still think that fits, as Japan certainly could have depopulated an equal amount of Chinese or South Pacific Islanders had they won. And to be honest, I think the population would have fought pretty damn close to annihilation, I'm thinking like upwards of a 50% casualty rate. If you go and look at the historical training and films of the time they had children trained to run under american tanks with anti tank mines strapped to their bodies. That's some pretty fethed up stuff right there. Also, look at the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Had the Japanese fought like this extensively on the home islands, which the Americans later found out that they did indeed intend to do this, the casualties would have been immense. Here's a fun fact, in the pacific theater the ratio of killed to surrendered for IJA forces was about 100 to 1. In Europe it was about 3 to 1. That's insane, and a lot of the time the Japanese that "surrendered" didn't actually surrender, they were incapacitated and unable to resist capture. Hell even the ones that were captured didn't necessarily give up. There was a case in an Australian POW camp were some 3000 Japanese POWs escaped the camp by charging the fence and machine guns until the pile of their own dead had litterally formed a ramp over the 8 foot tall fence.

The Japanese were freaking nuts.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Tell that to the guy 2 pages ago saying the Americans were getting ready to depopulate the Japanese isles entirely.

I still think that fits, as Japan certainly could have depopulated an equal amount of Chinese or South Pacific Islanders had they won. And to be honest, I think the population would have fought pretty damn close to annihilation, I'm thinking like upwards of a 50% casualty rate. If you go and look at the historical training and films of the time they had children trained to run under american tanks with anti tank mines strapped to their bodies. That's some pretty fethed up stuff right there. Also, look at the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Had the Japanese fought like this extensively on the home islands, which the Americans later found out that they did indeed intend to do this, the casualties would have been immense. Here's a fun fact, in the pacific theater the ratio of killed to surrendered for IJA forces was about 100 to 1. In Europe it was about 3 to 1. That's insane, and a lot of the time the Japanese that "surrendered" didn't actually surrender, they were incapacitated and unable to resist capture. Hell even the ones that were captured didn't necessarily give up. There was a case in an Australian POW camp were some 3000 Japanese POWs escaped the camp by charging the fence and machine guns until the pile of their own dead had litterally formed a ramp over the 8 foot tall fence.

The Japanese were freaking nuts.

And those were also trained soldiers sent to a battlefield and for whom execution was a punishment for surrender, not sharecroppers or fisherman staring down a giant metal machine covered in canons and whose training was involuntary and likely short. This is a red herring.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

Tell that to the guy 2 pages ago saying the Americans were getting ready to depopulate the Japanese isles entirely.

I still think that fits, as Japan certainly could have depopulated an equal amount of Chinese or South Pacific Islanders had they won. And to be honest, I think the population would have fought pretty damn close to annihilation, I'm thinking like upwards of a 50% casualty rate. If you go and look at the historical training and films of the time they had children trained to run under american tanks with anti tank mines strapped to their bodies. That's some pretty fethed up stuff right there. Also, look at the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Had the Japanese fought like this extensively on the home islands, which the Americans later found out that they did indeed intend to do this, the casualties would have been immense. Here's a fun fact, in the pacific theater the ratio of killed to surrendered for IJA forces was about 100 to 1. In Europe it was about 3 to 1. That's insane, and a lot of the time the Japanese that "surrendered" didn't actually surrender, they were incapacitated and unable to resist capture. Hell even the ones that were captured didn't necessarily give up. There was a case in an Australian POW camp were some 3000 Japanese POWs escaped the camp by charging the fence and machine guns until the pile of their own dead had litterally formed a ramp over the 8 foot tall fence.

The Japanese were freaking nuts.

And those were also trained soldiers sent to a battlefield and for whom execution was a punishment for surrender, not sharecroppers or fisherman staring down a giant metal machine covered in canons and whose training was involuntary and likely short. This is a red herring.

Shuma... are you arguing that had we invaded Japan, that the initial casualty assessments were too high?

Can someone correct me, didn't the local peasants in Okinawa fight the Allies forces? The results of that battle may have been the driving force in the belief that the peasants on the mainland would fight as well.

Even then, I don't think we would've gone "total exterminatus" on them as I'm sure some would surrender.

Also Shuma... until the surrender, the Japanese still considered the Emperor a god. Food for thought there dude....

The Japanese still consider the Emperor a god. Or at least as much as they used to.

And those were also trained soldiers sent to a battlefield and for whom execution was a punishment for surrender, not sharecroppers or fisherman staring down a giant metal machine covered in canons and whose training was involuntary and likely short. This is a red herring.

I don't exactly see the large difference between a conscript soldier who used to be a sharecropper/fisherman and has only had a month or so of training to change that and a current sharecropper/fisherman who is currently receiving training the handling of firearms and explosives? Especially as in Imperial Japan military rules and ideaologies started in elementary school.

 whembly wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

Tell that to the guy 2 pages ago saying the Americans were getting ready to depopulate the Japanese isles entirely.

I still think that fits, as Japan certainly could have depopulated an equal amount of Chinese or South Pacific Islanders had they won. And to be honest, I think the population would have fought pretty damn close to annihilation, I'm thinking like upwards of a 50% casualty rate. If you go and look at the historical training and films of the time they had children trained to run under american tanks with anti tank mines strapped to their bodies. That's some pretty fethed up stuff right there. Also, look at the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Had the Japanese fought like this extensively on the home islands, which the Americans later found out that they did indeed intend to do this, the casualties would have been immense. Here's a fun fact, in the pacific theater the ratio of killed to surrendered for IJA forces was about 100 to 1. In Europe it was about 3 to 1. That's insane, and a lot of the time the Japanese that "surrendered" didn't actually surrender, they were incapacitated and unable to resist capture. Hell even the ones that were captured didn't necessarily give up. There was a case in an Australian POW camp were some 3000 Japanese POWs escaped the camp by charging the fence and machine guns until the pile of their own dead had litterally formed a ramp over the 8 foot tall fence.

The Japanese were freaking nuts.

And those were also trained soldiers sent to a battlefield and for whom execution was a punishment for surrender, not sharecroppers or fisherman staring down a giant metal machine covered in canons and whose training was involuntary and likely short. This is a red herring.

Shuma... are you arguing that had we invaded Japan, that the initial casualty assessments were too high?

Can someone correct me, didn't the local peasants in Okinawa fight the Allies forces? The results of that battle may have been the driving force in the belief that the peasants on the mainland would fight as well.

Even then, I don't think we would've gone "total exterminatus" on them as I'm sure some would surrender.

Also Shuma... until the surrender, the Japanese still considered the Emperor a god. Food for thought there dude....

No, I'm not. I'm arguing against people saying that the casualty assessment was a fiftieth to one hundredth what the actual casualties would have been. I've been really really consistent with that. I'm also arguing against the portrayal of the Japanese civilian population as the thing we were fighting in starship troopers. If they really were like that two nuclear bombs wouldn't have caused their surrender. We had already destroyed Japanese cities before, and the ability for the Japanese to resist our air power was practically nothing by that point in the war. It's just bs. When you pretend that a country was nothing but insane fanatics you dehumanize them and reduce the humanity of everyone else in the process. Those same "fanatics" we're perfectly ok with us a decade later and are one of our staunchest allies now. What they're saying just doesn't gel with reality.

Well in Okinawa approximately 1/3rd of the civilian populace was killed during the battle.

http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/Okinawa/id20.htm

Some joined the fight against the Americans, some committed suicide, some were caught in the cross fire and some were killed by their own side rather than be allowed to be captured.

So these figures must be considered with what might have happened had the Japanese mainland been invaded. Given that Japan had 72 000 000 people in 1945, this could have meant 24 000 000 casualties had the campaign gone to the bitter end.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

Tell that to the guy 2 pages ago saying the Americans were getting ready to depopulate the Japanese isles entirely.

I still think that fits, as Japan certainly could have depopulated an equal amount of Chinese or South Pacific Islanders had they won. And to be honest, I think the population would have fought pretty damn close to annihilation, I'm thinking like upwards of a 50% casualty rate. If you go and look at the historical training and films of the time they had children trained to run under american tanks with anti tank mines strapped to their bodies. That's some pretty fethed up stuff right there. Also, look at the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Had the Japanese fought like this extensively on the home islands, which the Americans later found out that they did indeed intend to do this, the casualties would have been immense. Here's a fun fact, in the pacific theater the ratio of killed to surrendered for IJA forces was about 100 to 1. In Europe it was about 3 to 1. That's insane, and a lot of the time the Japanese that "surrendered" didn't actually surrender, they were incapacitated and unable to resist capture. Hell even the ones that were captured didn't necessarily give up. There was a case in an Australian POW camp were some 3000 Japanese POWs escaped the camp by charging the fence and machine guns until the pile of their own dead had litterally formed a ramp over the 8 foot tall fence.

The Japanese were freaking nuts.

And those were also trained soldiers sent to a battlefield and for whom execution was a punishment for surrender, not sharecroppers or fisherman staring down a giant metal machine covered in canons and whose training was involuntary and likely short. This is a red herring.

Shuma... are you arguing that had we invaded Japan, that the initial casualty assessments were too high?

Can someone correct me, didn't the local peasants in Okinawa fight the Allies forces? The results of that battle may have been the driving force in the belief that the peasants on the mainland would fight as well.

Even then, I don't think we would've gone "total exterminatus" on them as I'm sure some would surrender.

Also Shuma... until the surrender, the Japanese still considered the Emperor a god. Food for thought there dude....

No, I'm not. I'm arguing against people saying that the casualty assessment was a fiftieth to one hundredth what the actual casualties would have been. I've been really really consistent with that. I'm also arguing against the portrayal of the Japanese civilian population as the thing we were fighting in starship troopers. If they really were like that two nuclear bombs wouldn't have caused their surrender. We had already destroyed Japanese cities before, and the ability for the Japanese to resist our air power was practically nothing by that point in the war. It's just bs. When you pretend that a country was nothing but insane fanatics you dehumanize them and reduce the humanity of everyone else in the process. Those same "fanatics" we're perfectly ok with us a decade later and are one of our staunchest allies now. What they're saying just doesn't gel with reality.

No... I understand ya...

But, I thought I read somewhere that the Emperor basically said "no mas", which allowed Adm Yamamoto to surrender. Otherwise... it'd be a bloody confict.

Jefffar wrote:
Well in Okinawa approximately 1/3rd of the civilian populace was killed during the battle.

http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/Okinawa/id20.htm

Some joined the fight against the Americans, some committed suicide, some were caught in the cross fire and some were killed by their own side rather than be allowed to be captured.

So these figures must be considered with what might have happened had the Japanese mainland been invaded. Given that Japan had 72 000 000 people in 1945, this could have meant 24 000 000 casualties had the campaign gone to the bitter end.

That seems plausible, though external factors like disease and starvation (endemic to that kind of military conflict) could throw off the number heavily as well as influence an early surrender.

Well, the Japanese were prepared to continue the fight. They had a condition to their conditional surrender, and that was that the Emperor would not be prosecuted, nor would he be removed as head of state.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Well in Okinawa approximately 1/3rd of the civilian populace was killed during the battle.

http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/Okinawa/id20.htm

Some joined the fight against the Americans, some committed suicide, some were caught in the cross fire and some were killed by their own side rather than be allowed to be captured.

So these figures must be considered with what might have happened had the Japanese mainland been invaded. Given that Japan had 72 000 000 people in 1945, this could have meant 24 000 000 casualties had the campaign gone to the bitter end.

That seems plausible, though external factors like disease and starvation (endemic to that kind of military conflict) could throw off the number heavily as well as influence an early surrender.

Daaamn. 24 millions...

Putting that in perspective, here are US Casualties:
Wars ranked by total number of US military deaths

Rank ____________________________Deaths
1 American Civil War 1861–1865____625,000
2 World War II 1941–1945_________405,399
3 World War I 1917–1918_________116,516
4 Vietnam War 1955–1975_________58,209
5 Korean War 1950–1953_________36,516

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Yes. The civilians, for the most part, are completely innocent. They aren't the ones marching into neighboring countries and raping, killing and looting. Their army is. It's like a man is stealing items from a supermarket and arresting his sister, who had nothing to do with the shoplifting.

In total war, there is no difference between civilians and military. Its all one machine. You have to kill the machine.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Yes. The civilians, for the most part, are completely innocent. They aren't the ones marching into neighboring countries and raping, killing and looting. Their army is. It's like a man is stealing items from a supermarket and arresting his sister, who had nothing to do with the shoplifting.

In total war, there is no difference between civilians and military. Its all one machine. You have to kill the machine.

What is total war? Why does that suddenly allow for the killing of innocents, but insurgencies or geurilla warfare doesn't? How is it different from conventional warfare that doesn't? If it makes it all ok, why did we have all those war crimes trials? This just sounds like a defense of the indefensible so that the greatest generation can keep being great.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Compared to many other countries, including some that are supposedly quite cosmopolitan, the US has a fairly unbiased worldview of historical events.

It can be shocking what other country's historical revisionists do with history.


Of course we have our own share of them here too. They especially like to mess with early colonial facts.

And civil war history/the sciences. Don't even bother with economic history textbooks, those are about as revisionist as humanly possible (Hayak shouldn't even be in them).

What kind of godless commie pinko denies the gift to men that Selma Hayak???

Frazzled, go back to bed. You know you aren't supposed to post things not relating to sausage dogs on Dakka. Now drink your ovaltine and have a nice hot bath.

(Awaits savaging by Rodney, Rusty and Tbone).

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Yes. The civilians, for the most part, are completely innocent. They aren't the ones marching into neighboring countries and raping, killing and looting. Their army is. It's like a man is stealing items from a supermarket and arresting his sister, who had nothing to do with the shoplifting.

In total war, there is no difference between civilians and military. Its all one machine. You have to kill the machine.

What is total war? Why does that suddenly allow for the killing of innocents, but insurgencies or geurilla warfare doesn't? How is it different from conventional warfare that doesn't? If it makes it all ok, why did we have all those war crimes trials? This just sounds like a defense of the indefensible so that the greatest generation can keep being great.

Total war is a state of war in which the entire political and economic apparatus of the state has been put to the war effort. Under such circumstances the civilian populace does become an extension of the fighting force through the production of weapons, food, supplies and new fighting men.

Jefffar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Yes. The civilians, for the most part, are completely innocent. They aren't the ones marching into neighboring countries and raping, killing and looting. Their army is. It's like a man is stealing items from a supermarket and arresting his sister, who had nothing to do with the shoplifting.

In total war, there is no difference between civilians and military. Its all one machine. You have to kill the machine.

What is total war? Why does that suddenly allow for the killing of innocents, but insurgencies or geurilla warfare doesn't? How is it different from conventional warfare that doesn't? If it makes it all ok, why did we have all those war crimes trials? This just sounds like a defense of the indefensible so that the greatest generation can keep being great.

Total war is a state of war in which the entire political and economic apparatus of the state has been put to the war effort. Under such circumstances the civilian populace does become an extension of the fighting force through the production of weapons, food, supplies and new fighting men.

That sounds like all war.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Total war is a state of war in which the entire political and economic apparatus of the state has been put to the war effort. Under such circumstances the civilian populace does become an extension of the fighting force through the production of weapons, food, supplies and new fighting men.

That sounds like all war.

Not at all.


In the Global War on Terror and it's subsequent conflicts we have not seen the draft of every available man into the military. We have not seen the suspension of the production of the big three automakers so that they can produce tanks and airplanes. We don't have food rationing so that the governemnt can purchase the bulk of produced food to send overseas to the military . . .


The Western world has not seen that level of commitment to a war since 1945.

Jefffar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Total war is a state of war in which the entire political and economic apparatus of the state has been put to the war effort. Under such circumstances the civilian populace does become an extension of the fighting force through the production of weapons, food, supplies and new fighting men.

That sounds like all war.

Not at all.


In the Global War on Terror and it's subsequent conflicts we have not seen the draft of every available man into the military. We have not seen the suspension of the production of the big three automakers so that they can produce tanks and airplanes. We don't have food rationing so that the governemnt can purchase the bulk of produced food to send overseas to the military . . .


The Western world has not seen that level of commitment to a war since 1945.

Vietnam..?

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Jefffar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Total war is a state of war in which the entire political and economic apparatus of the state has been put to the war effort. Under such circumstances the civilian populace does become an extension of the fighting force through the production of weapons, food, supplies and new fighting men.

That sounds like all war.

Not at all.


In the Global War on Terror and it's subsequent conflicts we have not seen the draft of every available man into the military. We have not seen the suspension of the production of the big three automakers so that they can produce tanks and airplanes. We don't have food rationing so that the governemnt can purchase the bulk of produced food to send overseas to the military . . .


The Western world has not seen that level of commitment to a war since 1945.

Vietnam..?

Nope.

While the draft did exist, only a small portion of men were actually put into the service. Ford was allowed to produce cars instead of tanks. Boeing didn't' have to stop making 707s because they were too busy making B-52s. There was no food rationing either.

Vietnam was a Limited war by definition.

Jefffar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Jefffar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Total war is a state of war in which the entire political and economic apparatus of the state has been put to the war effort. Under such circumstances the civilian populace does become an extension of the fighting force through the production of weapons, food, supplies and new fighting men.

That sounds like all war.

Not at all.


In the Global War on Terror and it's subsequent conflicts we have not seen the draft of every available man into the military. We have not seen the suspension of the production of the big three automakers so that they can produce tanks and airplanes. We don't have food rationing so that the governemnt can purchase the bulk of produced food to send overseas to the military . . .


The Western world has not seen that level of commitment to a war since 1945.

Vietnam..?

Nope.

While the draft did exist, only a small portion of men were actually put into the service. Ford was allowed to produce cars instead of tanks. Boeing didn't' have to stop making 707s because they were too busy making B-52s. There was no food rationing either.

Vietnam was a Limited war by definition.

So the term total war is a one off exception characterized by a lack of morals by the nations experiencing it? Seems convenient as a justification for atrocities to simply handwave them as the excesses of the time.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
So the term total war is a one off exception characterized by a lack of morals by the nations experiencing it? Seems convenient as a justification for atrocities to simply handwave them as the excesses of the time.

Oh no, there's still the choice to be as moral as you want.

It's just that in total war the entire apparatus of the state is a part of their war effort, so some people feel more comfortable with reduced targeting restrictions as certain soft targets become viable ways to reduce the enemy's combat capabilities. Doesn't make it more or less moral to target those things, just makes targeting them a legitimate means to prosecute the war.

The city bombings of WWII wre horrible things and morally repugnant, even if they can be justified in the circumstances.

Which is one of the true tragedies of war. In war, good men learn to do bad things and be okay with it.

Jefffar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
So the term total war is a one off exception characterized by a lack of morals by the nations experiencing it? Seems convenient as a justification for atrocities to simply handwave them as the excesses of the time.

Oh no, there's still the choice to be as moral as you want.

It's just that in total war the entire apparatus of the state is a part of their war effort, so some people feel more comfortable with reduced targeting restrictions as certain soft targets become viable ways to reduce the enemy's combat capabilities. Doesn't make it more or less moral to target those things, just makes targeting them a legitimate means to prosecute the war.

The city bombings of WWII wre horrible things and morally repugnant, even if they can be justified in the circumstances.

Which is one of the true tragedies of war. In war, good men learn to do bad things and be okay with it.

In war, good men learn to do bad things... period. That's why its "war".

The series Ender's Game explores this concept.

WW2 was a series of gakky things done by gakky people for gakky reasons. No one was innocent, some events were worse then others, but no one was innocent

So the term total war is a one off exception characterized by a lack of morals by the nations experiencing it? Seems convenient as a justification for atrocities to simply handwave them as the excesses of the time.

World War 1 and the Napoleonic Wars also fit into the Total definition, as does the 7 years war to some extent and the War of Religion in the early 1600's as well. As does the Second Punic War.

Total War has happened several times over human history, and is usually characterised by several nations fighting to the near death.

The answer:

Everyone is a war criminal because war is criminal.

Now get over this petty argument, it's not a constructive topic by any means to blame a country over another one - especially when the lessons learned by even those brainwashed into fighting are probably most prevalent in the countries that lost the most in the war.