Article: the American use of the atomic bombs

[onejayhawk]

And you still talk about it.
So POWs can be shooted, chemical weapons used, civilians bombed without any specific reason etc. ?
You're talking about total war. Did you read any of my messages?

I wanted to introduce this idea of total war to this thread since some people seem to be at the same time advocating that there's some kind of justification in certain actions simply because they lead to victory.

When you are talking about total war you're talking about absolute war where not only the main goal but the only goal is to win by any means necessary.

Example if we look how Hitler in the end sacrificed people of germany in the end (in many ways) we could say that he took this theory even to the point that unless he wins there's no point to secure anything. There was no political solution to be found for him.
He drained the land from the resources and then when it couldn't simply endure anymore, killed himself.

Without total war, we can see that war is of course at the same time about winning but the cost of that win cannot be unlimited even when regarding the enemy and we can (sometimes even must) be ready to act proportionally and also set our political goals about the war to something else than total annihilation or submission of the enemy.

Actually this has also reference to current day how this kind of overwhelming strategy is favoured even though the wars that are being fought are completely different (example Iraq).

Would you play chess by restricting your queen to the powers of a bishop? In war you use what resources are available. Militarily, you use what you have, restricting damage where possible, but as a secondary consideration to defeating the enemy. As in chess, intentional sacrifice is part of the conflict.

Tota war has never been attempted, which is why I say it does not exist. The closest would probably be the Mongols, where, rather than destroying the land, killed all the people in it. This deprived their opponent the use of the resources more effectively than burning crops would have. Vlad the Impaler famously poisoned his own nations water supply, to halt the advance of the Turks. Sherman burning Georgia en route to the ocean pales in comparison. Yet neither of these was total war. Even Hitler's genocide does not.

In war, the first imperitive is to survive and the second is to kill. There is nothing pretty about that. Pretending otherwise is not honorable, it is stupid. That being said, there is a certain level of reciprocity involved. As the saying goes, turn around is fair. Also, some things should be left for desperate measures. WMD is one of those.

J

J

 

[Traitorfish]

Tota war has never been attempted, which is why I say it does not exist. The closest would probably be the Mongols, where, rather than destroying the land, killed all the people in it. This deprived their opponent the use of the resources more effectively than burning crops would have. Vlad the Impaler famously poisoned his own nations water supply, to halt the advance of the Turks. Sherman burning Georgia en route to the ocean pales in comparison. Yet neither of these was total war. Even Hitler's genocide does not.

I think you're perception of "total war" is flawed- total war is not an attempt to totally destroy your enemy, but to totally devote a nation to the waging of war, and this is something that has indeed been attempted. Look at Germany in the last days of WW2- every single productive action undertaken had the intention of, in some form or another, continuing the war. Luxuries did not exist, the war effort consumed the lives of all, military and civilian alike. That is total war.
Besides, the Holocaust has nothing to do with total war. In fact, it was one of the few major Nazi policies of the 1940s that counter-acted moves towards total war- by investing such effort into a militarily useless endeavour, Germany avoided true "total war".

 

[C~G]

Since there's some confusion about what "total war" is and I probably added to this confusion...

Here's something about Total War.

Christopher Bassford, professor of strategy at the National War College, describes the difference: "Clausewitz's concept of absolute war is quite distinct from the later concept of 'total war.' Total war was a prescription for the actual waging of war typified by the ideas of General Erich von Ludendorff, who actually assumed control of the German war effort during World War One. Total war in this sense involved the total subordination of politics to the war effort—an idea Clausewitz emphatically rejected—and the assumption that total victory or total defeat were the only options."

Thus, definitions do vary, but most hold to the spirit offered by Roger Chickering's definition in Total War: The German and American Experiences, 1871-1914: "Total war is distinguished by its unprecedented intensity and extent. Theaters of operations span the globe; the scale of battle is practically limitless. Total war is fought heedless of the restraints of morality, custom, or international law, for the combatants are inspired by hatreds born of modern ideologies. Total war requires the mobilization not only of armed forces but also of whole populations. The most crucial determinant of total war is the widespread, indiscriminate, and deliberate inclusion of civilians as legitimate military targets."

And I stand by these two definitions. The first one is rather simple but the second offers the more clear explanation.

However I do disagree about "hatred born out of modern ideologies" since the total war has been also present in many pre-modern societies were there hasn't been ritualized warfare present, instead the enemy, other group of people has been totally overwhelmed by force (example when exposed to superior element of warfare) and submitted, humiliated or even destroyed completely.

In western societies this hasn't been however considered to be present lately before 19th century because of the way how the wars were fought.

Would you play chess by restricting your queen to the powers of a bishop? In war you use what resources are available. Militarily, you use what you have, restricting damage where possible, but as a secondary consideration to defeating the enemy. As in chess, intentional sacrifice is part of the conflict.

So you compare war to chess?
You could consider that is total war since you think chess pieces aren't living and your only goal is clear victory. But there aren't any opponent pieces that cannot eat your pieces unless you consider pawns being such.

Like you said if you have queen would you restrict it to the powers of bishop?
It's exactly the total war talk that I try to explain doesn't offer anything towards the justification of the acts.

If your opponent has only king and paws left...question is do you eat opponent's all pawns before proceeding to do the check-mate that might be available even without touching these pawns?

The problem rises as you overestimate the power of the opponent to threat you, overlook possible other routes leading to partial (political) victory and underestimate your own powers to reach desired end (peace) by other means by than suffocating the enemy.

Tota war has never been attempted, which is why I say it does not exist.

And still all the time you say how war is fought without rules and still insist it doesn't exist. I'm sorry to say but that is simply flawed vision of this issue.

Like I said, total war in some form or another has been present in many societies and conflicts, it can born out of desperation or out of feeling overwhelming power in one's disposal against the enemy or possibly from the acknowledgement inside the one group that putting restrictions would undermine the wareffort and the whole campaign.

I have no idea how you have come to conclusion it has never been attempted. It has been attempted in case of Germany going to crusade against Soviets in 1941 and other occasions as well. Of course there probably is always some limitations how far can you push the idea of total war for various reasons involved depending of the nature of conflict but I think saying it hasn't been present in many of the human conflicts is just absurd.

The closest would probably be the Mongols, where, rather than destroying the land, killed all the people in it. This deprived their opponent the use of the resources more effectively than burning crops would have. Vlad the Impaler famously poisoned his own nations water supply, to halt the advance of the Turks. Sherman burning Georgia en route to the ocean pales in comparison. Yet neither of these was total war. Even Hitler's genocide does not.

Well, we are then discussing about different concepts since for me those pretty much defition of limited version of total war.

Putting jews to Ghetto and then gassing them only fits in way that the end result is the same: Total submission or annihilation of group of people that is seen to oppose you.

In war, the first imperitive is to survive and the second is to kill.

That is your definition.
Other people would say it's "victory or death" even in the case it isn't defensive war.

There is nothing pretty about that. Pretending otherwise is not honorable, it is stupid. That being said, there is a certain level of reciprocity involved. As the saying goes, turn around is fair. Also, some things should be left for desperate measures. WMD is one of those.

And that's what we are looking at here.

If Japan was really already surrendering and it was only matter of time or other means were possible to defeat Germany than bomb cities full of civilians why these were picked out? Because of desperation?

They were done because it was estimated that they would give allies full victory (and even more) and nothing less.
Now, that is the only the reason part but it doesn't offer any justification for the acts.
Otherwise you could offer justification for killing half the mankind so the other half could live happily ever after.

Therefore "total war" doesn't offer any possible scenario towards proportional measures or "restricting damage" as you say. Apparently you think allies "restricted damage" when possible. I think that is an illusion and the case for it is still on the table for debate especially in the cases of firebombings and use of nuclear weapons.

Total war is very neat little way of explaining the motive, the means and the outcome without ever need to offer justification for any of the acts involved in the process. As the victorious side most often writes the history, it will find it's reasoning (excuses) why it reverted to such acts as use of WMD to finish off enemy and to end the war.

And the vicious circle continuos until you step out of it.

 

[Adler17]

With the theory of total war you could even justify the Holocaust: As the Jews were the "opponents" of the "Germanic race" you were allowed to anhiliate them, as they would stop the "Final Victory" in the war. Thus it would be okay to gas them.
It is an awful theory.

Adler

 

[warpus]

With the theory of total war you could even justify the Holocaust: As the Jews were the "opponents" of the "Germanic race" you were allowed to anhiliate them, as they would stop the "Final Victory" in the war. Thus it would be okay to gas them.
It is an awful theory.

Adler

That the Jews were opponents of the "Germanic race" was rhetoric. You can't justify genocide under the guise of 'total war'.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Look at Germany in the last days of WW2- every single productive action undertaken had the intention of, in some form or another, continuing the war. Luxuries did not exist, the war effort consumed the lives of all, military and civilian alike. That is total war.

How can you say I think your perception of total war is wrong and then cite Nazis Germany as your example of total war? A country that devoted precious factory time/ resources / slave labour on SS factories to manufacture such things as white tulle to fine porcelain which was still being made in Upper Silesia when the Soviets under Konev took that region over in early 1945. Yes complete and utter total war I agree

 

[Traitorfish]

With the theory of total war you could even justify the Holocaust: As the Jews were the "opponents" of the "Germanic race" you were allowed to anhiliate them, as they would stop the "Final Victory" in the war. Thus it would be okay to gas them.
It is an awful theory.

Adler

Only is you accept total war as a moral justification of anything to begin with, which it isn't. Total war isn't a philosophy or an ideology, it's a strategy. It's brought about by a need- or a percieved need- to win a war at any costs and circumstances which result in this extending to the total dominance of the war effort over every aspect of the running of a country. Ideologies like Nazism are used to justify total war, but total war cannot be used to justify anything.
Total war no more justifies a war than a gun or a tank does; it's a means to an end, nothing more.

How can you say I think your perception of total war is wrong and then cite Nazis Germany as your example of total war? A country that devoted precious factory time/ resources / slave labour on SS factories to manufacture such things as white tulle to fine porcelain which was still being made in Upper Silesia when the Soviets under Konev took that region over in early 1945. Yes complete and utter total war I agree

I'm talking about the very final days of the war in March/April 1945, with the Soviet advance on Berlin- by then, all luxuries where done with, and even the Holocaust had been abandoned. What was left of Germany was entirely focused on resisting the Allied invasion.
Besides, you're missing the point- the example I gave was just that, an example. I was giving an example of a scenario in which a country adopted total war, or at least came damn close.
The reason I brought it up was because onejayhawk was denying that total war exists, and doing so on the basis of, in my view, a flawed understanding of what "total war" was. The point I was making that "total war" refers to the circumstances when a nation is utterly devoted to a war effort. This does not always mean that everyone is directly involved in military production, let alone actually fighting, but that all production is aimed at furthering the war. It's even possible that total war could include the production of luxuries as a morale-building tool (although I'll admit that fine porcelain is stretching it).
What's more, I was attempting to explain- and may well have failed on this point- that total war is a concept, and does not need to actually occur to exist, anymore than, say, magic must exist for the concept to exist.
Maybe my example wasn't the best one, but that wasn't the point. I was simply trying to elaborate on my understanding of the meaning of "total war".

 

[Adler17]

Traitorfish, I am in no way using Total War theory as justification for the Holocaust. Indeed I am strongly against that theory. I only want to show that with this theory you could even justify the Holocaust.
Also your theory of Total War is more a relation on the Absolute War of Clausewitz or Ludendorff (although he made some more steps, Clausewitz refused). Total war is the leading of war only to subpress the enemy. To win at any costs. This includes the economy as well. But also a warfare free of any morale and honour. Everything is allowed. And this point I attack.

Adler

 

[Traitorfish]

But I didn't say that you were trying to justify the Holocaust. What I said was that total war is a strategy, a means to an end, and so cannot be used to justify anything, whatever your perspective. Total war requires justification, it does not provide it.
And, again, I'd dispute your definition of "total war". Total war means the totality of war, i.e. a nation becomes totally devoted to the waging of war. Destruction of enemy resources is only one aspect of that; the more significant aspect is the mobilisation of an entire country for war, i.e. the devotion of all available productive action towards the war effort.
As for the assertion that it is warfare free of morality, I direct you back to my early point, that it is merely a tool. If a nation abandons morality, it is not because of total war. In fact, if an abandonment of morality is a necessary aspect of total war, then said abandonment would be a pre-requisite for the adoption of total war, not the result of it. Put simply, you do not become an immoral being because you commit a crime. You commit a crime because you were an immoral being to start with.

 

[Naskra]

Put simply, you do not become an immoral being because you commit a crime. You commit a crime because you were an immoral being to start with

Total Calvinism to total war in one easy step!

 

[Traitorfish]

Total Calvinism to total war in one easy step!

No, no, you misunderstood- I didn't mean "to start with" as in "from the moment you were born", but rather "prior to this crime taking place". I'm not trying to push pre-determinism, I'm just saying that an immoral act stems from a persons pre-existing immorality, not the other way around. The real world isn't like Knights of the Old Republic; you don't get "Dark Side points" after you commit the crime.

 

[Naskra]

Yes. I do misunderstand. I am, if you like, "legalistic", have no truck with thought crimes, and will not say that anyone is immoral before he has done something immoral. I can not see into a man's heart.

The knights of the old republic and I are not acquainted.

 

[Adler17]

Be careful with that! Morality is hard to define. Even when we agree with the basics morale might even lead to bad actions. I just read about a man of Turkish origin in Bavaria. His second daughter went away to live with her German boy friend. So he, his wife and son cought the boy friend and kidnapped him to get his daughter. She should be sent to Turkey. In the end her boy friend managed to escape. The family was arrested and sent to jail. Her brother apologized and as he was forced by the father he now hates him for destroying his life. He was sent to prison for 39 month. The father for 45 and the mother for 18. The father still does not see the immorality. The penalties were so high because of cases of "honour murders".
Morale is a very dangerous thing. And what is "good" and "wrong" are differently to see from other point of views.
However if we agree to a base, not to hurt anyone beacuse of hurting only morale, if we get the basic of human rights as morale, even then we have many cases of people wanting the best and leading to the worst. Sometime I heard that: The road to hell is full of good intentions. The one was right.
In all of us there is a monster like Hitler or Stalin or a Jack the Ripper. But also a Mahatma Ghandi and Mother Theresa. We only have to keep our demons in the cage and buried deep in our soul. But we have to be aware that they are there.
Knights of the Old Republic is a Star Wars RPG by Lucas Arts btw.

Adler

 

[warpus]

Adler17, that is a poor example, as kidnappings & honour killings are obviously immoral.

 

[onejayhawk]

With the theory of total war you could even justify the Holocaust: As the Jews were the "opponents" of the "Germanic race" you were allowed to anhiliate them, as they would stop the "Final Victory" in the war. Thus it would be okay to gas them.
It is an awful theory.

Adler

No you could not. Total war involves attacking the enemy's ability to sustain his army. The Jews in Germany were not aiding the enemy; they were aiding Germany.

What you seem to be aiming at is that, in a total war approach, you might be justified in attacking the, say, bankers or lawyers of the enemy. The point of total war is that you attack with purpose, to weaken the enemy's ability to make war. Isolation of any group, solely because of ancestry is amoral under any reasonable standard.

J

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes. I do misunderstand. I am, if you like, "legalistic", have no truck with thought crimes, and will not say that anyone is immoral before he has done something immoral. I can not see into a man's heart.

There's a difference between the concept of "thoughtcrime" and the acknowledgment that bad people do bad things. I'm not saying that people should be judged by anything other than their actions- in fact, I would strongly disagree with that- but that does not mean that we can deny that a persons actions are rooted in their concept of morality. People who commit crimes do so, in almost all cases, because they did not percieve the act as immoral, or at least considered it justifiable. This stems from their pre-existent conceptions of morality. For example, the Nazis committed the Holocaust because they were evil, they were not evil because they committed the Holocaust.
I agree, it's wrong to say someone is immoral if they haven't done anything immoral. But if they do something immoral, it's valid to say "They were immoral before they did this immoral deed, otherwise they would not have done it."
Besides, you're using "thoughtcrime" in an incorrect manner- it actually refers to thought as criminal activity, rather than thoughts of criminal activity. Don't bother throwing Orwellian language around if you're not going to use it right.

The knights of the old republic and I are not acquainted.

It's a Star Wars RPG- you gain Dark Side or Light Side points based on your in-game actions, which effect your good/evil alignment. Point being, in video games like that your morality, you might say, is defined by actions, while in real life your actions stem from your concepts of morality.

 

[Adler17]

@ warpus: Tell that a man from an Anatolian village. He would answer it would be morally okay! (okay, not all of these people...)

@onejayhawk: In the eyes of the Nazis the Jews helped to lose WW1 for Germany and so were a danger for the war again and thus had to be eliminated. As this is BS, it is in the light of total war a justification. Total war allows everything. If you want to limit that it is no total war.

Adler

 

[Traitorfish]

@onejayhawk: In the eyes of the Nazis the Jews helped to lose WW1 for Germany and so were a danger for the war again and thus had to be eliminated. As this is BS, it is in the light of total war a justification. Total war allows everything. If you want to limit that it is no total war.

As I said, total was is not a morale justification, it's a strategy. Total war requires justification, it does not provide it. Going back to the example of the Holocaust, the Nazis did not attempt to justify it with the idea of total war, they used Nazism to justify both the Holocaust and total war.
Stop treating total war as an ideology. It's not.

 

[Adler17]

But Total War can not be treated only as strategy. It can't be justified. Never. The Code of War, whether this is international law, traditions or warrior codes, forbids it. But it is used as justification. Thus it is more than only a strategy.

Adler

 

[onejayhawk]

But Total War can not be treated only as strategy. It can't be justified. Never. The Code of War, whether this is international law, traditions or warrior codes, forbids it. But it is used as justification. Thus it is more than only a strategy.

Adler

As you state it here, this appears a religious position.

There is no "Code of War." There is only tradition and the principle of measured response, which can forbid nothing. At most they compell a combatant to wait for the enemy to use a method before they will attempt it.

Take a concrete example. During the second phase of the European war, the Nazis developed some exceptional counterfeit British money. After the end of the war, the few that were in circulation were allowed to stay in circulation. This was a total war weapon, since it attacked the economy, rather than the troops directly. Yet, it was never fully utilized, because the Germans feared a response in kind. Remember that before Dresden, there was Coventry.

Churchill said, "They also serve, who only stand and wait." Civilian populations are also part of a war effort. To say they are not is self deceptive. Yet it has proven dangerous to freely expand the conflict into the general populous. Coventry, among other things, served to stiffen the will of the British people, rather than break their spirit as intended. In the end, precision bombing proved more effective than pattern bombing as well.

There are often good, rational reasons why nations refrain from using total war methods. However, to say they are never justified is improper. Say rather that the costs and benefits can be more difficult to assess than is first apparent.

J