War, to be Humane, Must be Total

Status
Not open for further replies.

JBGUSA

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
56
Location
NYC Area
The current Gaza struggle will inevitably be met by calls for Israeli restraint. Those bleatings must be rejected.

War is hell. There is no doubt about that. Children who just yesterday seemed to be playing in the tire swing on the front yard are off to fight, often in some distant land or venue. Everyone of any degree of sanity wishes that this were never needed, and that our beloved flesh and blood could go peacefully from playful childhood to productive, fruitful adulthood to wise old age.

Unfortunately, the way of the world is that nations and religious groups frequently do not like each other. There is always some group that doesn't want to engage in diplomacy or good-faith negotiation. It is the people that enjoy the cherished freedom relished by Americans and Canadians that do not wish to fight. Sometimes other people or groups make unreasonable demands that must be resisted. For example, in the U.S. south, peole demanded the right to keep other people enslaved, and were willing to foresake Congressional and electoral debate to that end. In more modern times, various groups, at different times calling themselves fascists, communists, or Islamists, believed that they had the right to limit the freedom of others, in behalf of some deranged or impractical dream of world paradise, on their terms, with them as rulers.

The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union. During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theatres on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. How many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima and various African sites far removed from the main Axis powers?

Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopelss. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.

For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.
 
Italian Air Force general during World War I. He wrote a book in the early Twenties that basically created strategic bombing. His basic point was that by attacking civilian populations en masse with bombs and poison gas, they would tire of war so quickly, because it would become so terrible, that wars would be short, but also that more effort would be taken to avoid them.
 
Considering that we have had wars all through recorded history, and with the greatest likelyhood all through prehistory, and yet it's only quite recently that they have become "total", in fact we even had the capacity of making them total, the premise of the OP seems faulty.

War is comes as "naturally" to humankind as anything. "Total war" we've had to work our way up to. The entire suggestion the OP is based upon seems a neat example of ahistorical reasoning. Should probably fare better in OT.
 
Total war? You do know that Israel has nukes? After a total war against fanatic leaders, none of the loosers will be alive anymore to learn from the dread.
 
Total war was humane? Saywhatnow?
 
His basic premise is that in the long run, total war will cut down on casualties and bring the conflict to a quicker end.

While history has provided some examples of this, however war is always chancy and it might ensure the opposition fight even harder, due to the brutality of the war.

Also, no one can ensure that after victory, the victorious side will not go on a rampage and begin a holocaust or ethnic cleansing thus increasing even more casualties, after the military conflict has officially 'ended'.
 
He might be right in his declaration that a quick total war will lead to less net suffering than a prolonged limited war, but it also may not. I do agree that Israel should just get it over with though.
 
There has been total war as long as there has been war. The ancients would sometimes kill whole populations of conquered cities, or kill all the men and enslave all the women and children.
 
There has been total war as long as there has been war. The ancients would sometimes kill whole populations of conquered cities, or kill all the men and enslave all the women and children.
A practice I think we should bring back. Solve overpopulation, and bag me a hot adolescent wife.
 
Seems ridiculous. WWII didn't end because the inhabitants of Dresden got sick of it. Hitler tried the same thing by ordering the Blitz, and that didn't work.

Moreover, think of examples such as the IRA, who considered themselves to be fighting a war against the British. Imagine if the British government had agreed with this assessment of the situation and taken the OP's advice by bombing Belfast to bits. Something tells me that things would not be better in either Northern Ireland or England today. It seems to me that if you treat terrorists like they're soldiers, the terrorists have already won, because they are dictating how the situation is perceived and dealt with.

More fundamentally, though, war isn't generally caused by a bunch of bad guys invading or otherwise threatening the good guys, as the OP seems to think. I suppose if you view the world in such a simplistic way, then simplistic solutions such as bombing all the bad guys off the face of the planet might seem to be the best way forward, but unfortunately, something tells me that the world doesn't work that way.
 
He might be right in his declaration that a quick total war will lead to less net suffering than a prolonged limited war, but it also may not. I do agree that Israel should just get it over with though.

Agreed. I don't think "total wars" are actually less violent, and the premisses of the OP are quite questionable; but on this particular case Israel should use massive force to get things done once and for all. To only accomplish a "half-victory" and need to bomb Gaza again in 2 years will generate more suffering and resentment in the long run. No, Israel should hit Hamas so hard that they remain neutralized for a prolonged period of time, even if this means the hell of large scale urban warfare.
 
Well the Russians managed to deal with the Chechan's pretty well by shelling Grozny into rubble.
 
Well the Russians managed to deal with the Chechan's pretty well by shelling Grozny into rubble.
Yeah, they and their dogs all moved to America.
 
I don't think that your statement is correct in that way.

First of all: you know who influenced the phrase "total war" mostly? From what I know it was Goebbels by asking "Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?" (Do you want the total war?) Well, don't let us waste time with the discussion whether the word is politically correct or not. I know what you mean. The point is that Hitler also faught a total war as you can see by Goebbels' question and also if you take a look at Hitlers politics. He used every Penny he could get to pay more military, he sent all available men to war, even children. He massmurdered. He used rockets. What else could he have done to make his war more totally? And did he won the war? No, luckily not. So, total war doesn't necessarily mean victory.

On the other side neither the bombardment of Dresden nor the two nuclear bombs has quickened the war much. In my opinion all three were war crimes (I am pretty sure Americans won't like that). Well, I live near Dresden and I go there almost every day, so I am emotionally influenced in this thing. The city was full with refugees from the east, but there was nothing that could have influenced the war deciding. Germany was almost on the way to the capitulation. Without that bombardement the war may have been maximally a week longer. The British said sorry for that, by giving money for the new cross on top of the Frauenkirche (AFAIK), so it's okay. I can't remember that Americans ever did anything similar. About Japan you could say similar things. AFAIK the Japanese were ready to capitulate, the only question was how. The most important point was, that they didn't want that any enemy force enters Japanese homeland. That's all. Again, I never heard that Americans ever did anything to clean this up.

Usually all you reach by tactics like this is, that people get more and more angry, their will to fight gets even strengthened. You would have seen similar things in Dresden or other parts of Germany. The reason for why this didn't happen was, that the Germans were already fed up by insufficient food and by loosing relatives. I mean everybody lost a father, grandfather, son or brother. If Hitler would have been successful at least, the situation would have been different, but he wasn't and thus all those losses were senseless. That caused the german population to give up.

You will also see the same effect with Palestinians, or better said you already see it now. Everytime Israel invades them they cause the death of lots of people. Now, let me ask you a simple question: wouldn't you be angry if somebody would kill a relative of you? Not all Palestinians are launching rockets against Israel, I'd even say that those are a minority. So most dead people were innocent. For their relatives that was simply murder. And anger will go deeper and deeper. Moreover, by bombing the Palestinians back into stone age again and again will also cause anger. Everything you build up gets destroyed again and again. Not to mention that after a bombardment there is nothing that could teach the Palestinians moderation. Israel will never win anything by these attacks. In fact, the opposite is true. Almost every Arab is angry about the Israeli. With each war they get more and more enemies. Israel should also consider that Iran may have nuclear weapons or will have them in future. And then Israel gets in serious sh**. Not to say that they may cause a third world war by a strategy like that. I mean I can understand that Israel can't accept it when the get attacked by Kassam rockets, but they still should think about what they do. Don't they have the Mossad? Maybe that would work better... So, in conclusion I would call that another example for a failed (semi) total war.

I'd say a war won't be shortened if it is total. It is totally unimportant if you use all of your weapons if the enemy still has more and / or better (maybe even without exhausting all his resources). In contrast a quick intervention could work much better. I mean most problems can be solved by negotiations, but if a war can't be avoided and it is unlikely that the counterpart will stop it, you shouldn't waste much time. For example Hitler never wanted anything else then war. All those treaties originally were started to cause a war (after the allies would have refused it). At the same time Hitler already started his anti-jew-program. Even when the war started, America didn't enter it, only years later. I'd say that really costed lives. I guess another thing why Americans won't like me...
 
STUPID SOB FORUM!!! Double Post.
 
index%20-%200065-1.jpg

partisan.jpg

Hanging.jpg


Humane my arse
 
Sherman's march to the sea didn't convince many Confederates that the war was pointless just because his men had a casual approach to private property. It convinced them because it proved that Sherman could basically march wherever the hell he chose through the South and there wasn't a damn thing Hood, Davis or anyone else in the South could do to stop him. Coming on the back of the loss of most of the far western rebel states when Vicksburg fell and the loss of Atlanta it shook what little faith remained in the Confederacy's ability to win the war. Damage to railroads and denial of access to the crops he destroyed undoubtedly hurt the South but so just as much damage was done by proving that the North could effectively take an entire army out of play for weeks without seriously hindering its war effort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom