The conduct of War.

[A.Mookerjee]

Every armed conflict should ideally be conducted on equal terms. When a superior military power uses great force to subdue a relatively less equipped military force, then he is paying as a tribute, great respect to his less well endowed adversary. However, then, the greater military power has to explain as to why he did need to use superior force. An example is the use of The Atomic Bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. If the Japanese Army had not treated prisoners of war in a certain manner during the course of war, then perhaps the American Armed Forces should not have been so inclined to do so. There must have been great rumination in the Pentagon, and between the Allies after the event of the dropping of the mentioned bombs, but there was no great public debate among the citizens of The United States. This resulted in the Russians, and the other Allies justifying their nuclear ambitions. The War may have been won, but the cause of the war was neither justified by the Allies, nor by the Axis powers. It is not Cuba, but the United States who is concerned about nuclear conflict. The United States must not identify Nuclear Flash Points. Land mines are banned in the present day, but not nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons pose a bigger threat than land mines in the present day. Governments trust nuclear arsenals more, than they trust themselves, and each other.

What ever happened to paragraphing? Please don't turn us into English teacher! Correct your writing skills. This goes for everyone.

[rev1861]

Hindsight is 20/20

[Cooch]

Every armed conflict should ideally be conducted on equal terms. .

Surely the purpose of armed conflict is to achieve your aims, not to indulge in a "fair fight".
Particularly when you are the attacked party, rather than the attacker, should you limit your capacity to defeat your attacker and thereby put your people and the things that you value at greater risk?

Peter

[not_so_sis]

like taking a knife to a gun fight only on larger scales and through deceit from a nation.

[rev1861]

Surely the purpose of armed conflict is to achieve your aims, not to indulge in a "fair fight".
Particularly when you are the attacked party, rather than the attacker, should you limit your capacity to defeat your attacker and thereby put your people and the things that you value at greater risk?

Peter

Very good point. Here Here.

Mod edit: Please expand on what you think when posting. A one-line answer (violation of forum rule #2 (http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php)) does not provide enough details as to why someone will have a particular view or opinion on something. By expanding the information provided, it will help move discussions and debates forward.
-Preceptor

[Marc 1]

[QUOTE=A.Mookerjee;147014]Every armed conflict should ideally be conducted on equal terms.[QUOTE]

This is a noble if misguided idea. Warfare is by its very nature one of the more ignoble, nasty, dehumanising processes invented by man. It has been described in the past as a 'meat grinder'. Chivalry has no place on the winning side of a war unfortunately, and war crimes despite being committed by both sides are usually only attributed to and punishments dealt to the vanquished. The Geneva Convention was devised to try to set a few basic rules to prevent humans from descending lower than animals. When I was trained my job was to defeat my enemy with as few casualties on my own side as possible. This may not be 'fair', it is however the reality of war.

Question for you A.Mookerjee, if you and your friends were drafted into your nations army, and were about to engage the enemy in a firefight would you want to risk yourself or your friends to engage in a 'fair' fight? Or would you rather have the superior force and come out of the encounter with a better chance of being alive?

[Chrom]

Basically, there are 2 mainstream ideas how to get rid of wars:

1. Make war so cruel and so everyone-touching, what noone dares to start one ever again. This is basically convergences to MAD concept.

2. Gradually introduce humanitarian "rules of war". Geneva conventions, Red Cross, UN, human rights, etc, etc. So in the end, wars would degenerate to something like sport games without causalities.

So far first concept works much better than the latter, although latter one also played its positive role.

[Marc 1]

Then again Chrom, WWI was pretty horrific, gas, machine guns, aerial strafing, barbed wire and massive concentrations of artillery plus the sheer pointlessness and waste of trench warfare you'd have thought that when it was described as the 'War to end all wars' it was pretty close to mankind's perception of your first point. As we all know twenty one years later it was on again...

How bad does your point number one have to get? Also, surely with each successive generation the memories fade as the old diggers die and the next generations are born. Mankind is sadly very good at forgetting the lessons of the past.

[Cooch]

Basically, there are 2 mainstream ideas how to get rid of wars:

1. Make war so cruel and so everyone-touching, what noone dares to start one ever again. This is basically convergences to MAD concept.

2. Gradually introduce humanitarian "rules of war". Geneva conventions, Red Cross, UN, human rights, etc, etc. So in the end, wars would degenerate to something like sport games without causalities.

So far first concept works much better than the latter, although latter one also played its positive role.

I beg to differ.
(1) Have you ever heard the phrase "The War to End All Wars"? That was spoken (mostly by politicians I suspect) about the First World War, which was held by some optimists to have been so horrible that no-one would dare to fight another one. Just 21 years later some people with short memories and large egos decided to try for Round Two. Also known as WW1.

(2) In practice, such "rules" have generally only been observed by parties who considered that such observation would not materially affect the outcome of their particular war.
If you're sure that you will win and not lose too many more of your own troops, you'll consider obeying.
If you're sure that you'll lose even of you break the rules, then you'll consider obeying
If obeying the rules will make the difference between winning and losing, most nations will forget the rules PDQ.

Besides, there's already a rule against making belligerent war...... If rules work, why do we still have wars?

Cheers.......... Peter

[Chrom]

I beg to differ.
(1) Have you ever heard the phrase "The War to End All Wars"? That was spoken (mostly by politicians I suspect) about the First World War, which was held by some optimists to have been so horrible that no-one would dare to fight another one. Just 21 years later some people with short memories and large egos decided to try for Round Two. Also known as WW1.

It wasnt cruel enough. Only when peoples who rule (elite) starts suffering dangers of war en mass (i.e. MAD) - things changed. Thanks God nuclear bomb was invented. Else we would face WW3 5 years after WW2, possible with even higher losses and cruelity.


(2) In practice, such "rules" have generally only been observed by parties who considered that such observation would not materially affect the outcome of their particular war.
Not always. Moreover, almost always NOT. The thing is, widely violating such rules usually bring very unpleasant consequences for violating country. Wars are not happening in vacuum between just 2 sides, there are loads of other "neutral" countries these stances may be affected by such violation. Moreover, even local population in fighting countries might stop supporting the war if own army violate common humanitarian rules too much.

If you're sure that you will win and not lose too many more of your own troops, you'll consider obeying.

If you're sure that you'll lose even of you break the rules, then you'll consider obeying
If obeying the rules will make the difference between winning and losing, most nations will forget the rules PDQ.
As i said, this would be somewhat true in all-out war between the only 2 remained countries on the Earth. But so far it is rather theoretical question.

[/quote]Besides, there's already a rule against making belligerent war...... If rules work, why do we still have wars?

Cheers.......... Peter[/QUOTE]

Because the consequences are depended on who violate and to what extent. If some country starts violating rules too much all the time - it will end very bad for said country.

[eletheimel]

And yet...and yet...

There was a certain acceptance of defeat in the wars of old which I'm almost persuaded came from the, by now archaic to be sure, notion of the 'fair fight.' I'm reminded of my comprehensively mis-spent youth, when, during the bombing of Serbia, a French officer sneered at the NATO pilots bombing relatively safely from God knows how high, saying: 'Who are these soldiers who kill and do not die.'

At the time I thought his comment the purest idiocy - war not a game, Patton's famous other son-of-a-bitch dying for his country, etc. And yet, as the years have passed, that comment, which has never left me, has perhaps begun to mean something.

We in the West these days have a certain systematic, analytical, managerial approach to war. Bang for your buck, kill-ratios, doctrine, overmatch, force posture. Not for a moment do I decry the doubtless utility of such mental tools. They have, beyond doubt, created the unmatched, even staggering lethality of modern Western militaries. My point is, we no longer fight; we kill.

Semantics? Indulge me a moment.When the US/UK invaded Iraq in GW2 (or whatever we're calling it) the divisions were overflown by combat stacks, different aircraft at various altitudes, as I'm sure many here are aware, that are optimised to strike a multitude of targets in a host of ways. If by chance something foe-like evades the air-cover it can be engaged by long-range artillery, gunships and what have you. War, in the open, is fought from a distance (these days) with the minimum of casualties to the Western force for obvious reasons to the extent that (outside cities) the infantryman has little chance of even seeing what our forebears would have described as a battle. Yet the casualties suffered by our enemies are horrifying.

Yet we do not defeat our enemies. I cannot remember a time in recent history, certainly in the 20th Century when a Western force has destroyed an enemy's will to fight on without colossal death-tolls. I'm increasingly persuaded that this is because we don't 'fight fair.' Our enemies, when defeated, are defeated by machines, the scale and complexity of our technology - the product of our economies - not by men. Thus, they do not feel vanquished. We fear to face them, they might plausibly reason, we hide behind our computer screens and missiles.

Compare this to the past. War used to be a much more immediate phenomenon, there was a certain covenant entered into. I will risk my life to kill my enemy. I will stand in ranks and attempt to kill my enemies with a wicked sharp sword, pike, bayonet while trying to avoid his. Victory, under such conditions appeared to produce a certain decisiveness, a legitimacy even, that we don't seem to see that often anymore. The defeated would submit because they felt beaten while having been given a fair chance to win.

I do not mean to imply that modern Western soldiers are cowards, for indeed they are not. Nor do I suggest that we've gone badly wrong in our conduct of battle. I do think, however, that I may be hedging closer to that Frenchman's meaning.

Alternatively, I could quite easily be talking a load of guff.

[Chrom]

And yet...and yet...
Compare this to the past. War used to be a much more immediate phenomenon, there was a certain covenant entered into. I will risk my life to kill my enemy. I will stand in ranks and attempt to kill my enemies with a wicked sharp sword, pike, bayonet while trying to avoid his. Victory, under such conditions appeared to produce a certain decisiveness, a legitimacy even, that we don't seem to see that often anymore. The defeated would submit because they felt beaten while having been given a fair chance to win.

You pictured like there wasnt wars like it 500 or 2500 years ago. Even then, most "wars" were pretty much like NATO - Serbia or GW2, where a hordes of high-trained and very well equipped knights/warriors killed and raped "lesser" countries and armies with relative impunity.

The chances to die for such knight was of course somewhat higher then the chance to die for modern pilots - but keep in mind, the average live was also much, much more dangerous back then. So comparatively (with civilians live) 12th century knight in such "lesser" war was in less danger than modern USA pilot over Iraq.

[eletheimel]

Thanks for the reply Chrom.

You pictured like there wasnt wars like it 500 or 2500 years ago. Even then, most "wars" were pretty much like NATO - Serbia or GW2, where a hordes of high-trained and very well equipped knights/warriors killed and raped "lesser" countries and armies with relative impunity.

Of course you're right. Quantitative differences between armies in training, equipment, tactics etc have always been present. What I suggest, however, is that when a Macedonian phalanx, a Marian Legion or a Spanish Tercio engaged its enemy, they fought at close quarters, face-to-face, offering their enemies a very real and immediate opportunity to kill them. And, even in such crack outfits, in the pursuit of victory there were often casualties which would be unacceptable today.

The chances to die for such knight was of course somewhat higher then the chance to die for modern pilots - but keep in mind, the average live was also much, much more dangerous back then. So comparatively (with civilians live) 12th century knight in such "lesser" war was in less danger than modern USA pilot over Iraq.

Very probably. I confine my comments only to the conduct of battle.

[Chrom]

Thanks for the reply Chrom.



Of course you're right. Quantitative differences between armies in training, equipment, tactics etc have always been present. What I suggest, however, is that when a Macedonian phalanx, a Marian Legion or a Spanish Tercio engaged its enemy, they fought at close quarters, face-to-face, offering their enemies a very real and immediate opportunity to kill them. And, even in such crack outfits, in the pursuit of victory there were often casualties which would be unacceptable today.
I wouldnt mention pilots, but at least ground troops have very some possibility to face insurgents and be killed as Macedonian warrior. Yes, fights often happens not in close quarter - even insurgents snipe enemies or blow road bombs from far away. Then again, bows and traps are not something new for the last 10000 years.


Yes, todays civilization put much greater value on human life. That doesnt make it somehow dishonor. As i said, even 3000 years ago absolutely most soldiers cared only how to kill enemy with as little risk as possible, without any "face-to-face" or similar myths.

Technical level was much lower, but 100 knights against 1000 peasants were about as risky as 100 M1A2 against 1000 Iraqi civilians / insurgents.

[Scott]

The initial premise is a circular argument.


1. The assumption that use of great force to subdue a relatively less equipped military force is paying a tribute or great respect to a less well endowed adversary is completely flawed. It typically demonstrates a desire to win while minimizing losses to one's own forces. Which would seem to be the essence of winning.


2. The suggestion that Hiroshima & Nagasaki were a response to Japanese treatment of Allied POW's is incorrect. If the Allies had invaded Japan, there would be hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of casualties on both sides; and the war could have gone on for years. Not willing to sacrifice that many Allied lives, Truman selected use of nuclear weapons as the lesser of two evils. Did it bring a rapid end to the war and minimize Allied losses - yes. Was it the right choice - depends on who you ask.


3. "The cause of the war was neither justified by the Allies, nor by the Axis powers." For the Allies let's try defending your country, liberating conquered nations & eliminating a meglomaniac. Advocates of "war never solved anything" should consider what it took to stop Hitler & the other Axis leaders.


4. Just who would decide what constitutes "equal terms" and would that have to be the case in every battle or could 1 side concentrate forces in an engagement? The same number of troops, aircraft, ships, MBT's, etc. etc. wouldn't result in equality. Quantity & quality of forces will always differ. Outsmarting your enemy by use of strategm doesn't seem to be "equal terms" either. "Equal terms" is never going to happen and the likelihood of being equally matched is ludicrous.



In the truest sense "equal terms" would result identical losses to both sides. The final sentences may be germaine, but the rest lacks credibility. Not sure why the mods haven't shut this down.

[A.Mookerjee]

Living, was never more, nor less dangerous, at any time in history. All parties, who had been victorious in battle, whether Chengiz Khan, or the victorious powers after the first great war, vehemently justified their military operations. If after the war had been lost by Germany(the first great war), such drastic punitive measures had not been undertaken, by the victorious powers, then, perhaps, there would not have been world war two. If one cannot justify an aggressor, one cannot justify defending oneself. The economic plight, of the previous German Kingdom of the last Kaiser, was extremely grim. The Jewish people suffered terribly, during the second world war, but the German people suffered terribly, too, after the first world war. The German people, could not call any "civilized nation", a friend, after the first world war. Starvation must have been commonplace, during the times of hyperinflation, in Germany. However civilized any nation may be, does that nation justify the "Barbarism" of another nation? Is there something higher to be seen in that other nation, other than "Barbarism"? To perhaps ponder another point, if one is a stronger power, how far should one go to quell the aggression of a less strong power, and where is that point? There are innocent civilians who are loosing their lives in many regions of the world, not due to the unilateral actions of one nation, or party.

[Scott]

War is hell and even the victors are losers - I think few would dispute either point.

I concur that the Treaty of Versailles was the root of WWII - that was a very costly lesson for the world.

I would also like to believe that at some point in WWII, the great majority of the German people would have liked to deter from the course that the political leadership had committed to, if it were possible.

The world would be a much better place if wars and conflicts ceased, but that is little than philosophical musing.

[A.Mookerjee]

When we see others as a barrier to what we perceive as our aspiration, then there is conflict. If Chengiz Khan, had been allowed to capture territory, without any opposition, he would not be identified as a man with little regard for humanity. Indeed, he was benevolent, with those who did not oppose him. Why was he not stopped in his endeavor? Because he was practicing the ways of the world, in a more efficient manner, than the others. How does one deal with the perception of conflict? Chengiz Khan took the lives, of civilians, as did the military operations of all warring factions of World War 2. Is peace the aspiration of a few, as identified by the few, or of the many in this world? Do only the peaceful, dream of peace, or do also those who are not peaceful? Do I identify with only my perceptions, and disregard the perceptions of others, because I cannot comprehend, nor perceive them? If this is so, we are practicing the self defeatist morality of the Roman Empire, of the ancient era.

[Scott]

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." Woody Allen

[Cooch]

It wasnt cruel enough. Only when peoples who rule (elite) starts suffering dangers of war en mass (i.e. MAD) - things changed. .

I suggest that by making this argument, you contradict that which places emphasis on "face to face" conflict.

If a change in attitude to war requires that the hierarchy who do not participate in (and thereby suffer from) battle are affected, then the distinction of whether the warriors can see their opponents' faces as they fight seems quite irrelevant.

Returning to WW1.
- Anyone with any familiarity of with the Western Front can find it hard to argue that war at the soldier's level can get much uglier or more confronting, yet Germany's leader in WW2 (himself a veteran of WW1) managed to argue (to a population containing many other such veterans) that Germany had not - in fact - lost that war on the battlefield, and could afford to try again.
- As for affecting the ruling classes... If you check, you will probably find that the English, at any rate, suffered disproportionately high casualty rates amongst their officers. Those chaps who lead bayonet charges armed with a revolver and swagger stick. Particularly in the early part of the war, the British army drew a very high proportion of its officers fron the nobility and gentry classes. I doubt that either of us can class losing your sons in battle as being insulated from the effects of war.
- Willingness to expend blood and flesh was - at one stage - considered to be essential to demonstrating national resolve to win at all costs. Yet it was demonstrated comprehensively that such willingness did not win the war. It was when we (speaking parochially) started fighting more intelligently and making better use of the technology that progress was made towards victory. Victory itself was not achieved by simply killing the enemy. It was achieved by taking his territory.

Returning to the present....
It shoukld be noted that it is only the "leadership" classes that can afford to build survival facilities that are capable of surviving a direct nuclear attack and - likewise - it is those classes who have access to the technology that give them some idea that it will happen. Presidents and Generals have subterranean bunkers or aircraft on standby. The common folk get told to "duck and cover".
Yes, it has been argued that an unwillingness to shed the blood of your own troops indicates that you will not pay the price required. I agree to a point, but assert that it is possible to miss this mark on both sides.
If you will not pay a price that needs to be paid, then you permit your enemy to use this as an advabntage against you..... which may include increasing his morale.

BUT, if you waste the lives of your own men, you weaken the resolve of your own people and their confidence in your ability to manage the conflict to achieve your nation's ends. Not to mention depleting a valuable resource.

Arguably, victory requires two achievements. (1) Preventing your enemy from achieving his objective and (2) convincing him that he cannot do so. Permitting him to kill your soldiers when you can achieve those objectives by other means does not help your cause. Demonstrating that he is paying a far higher price than you are while still failing to achieve objective (1) makes you far more likely to achieve objective (2).

Perhaps it is the "territory" issue that sums it up. If the enemy's objective includes physical territory, then you must take it from him and hold it. You cannot do so from aircraft.... it requires boots on the ground.

Thoughtfully.......... Peter

[Chrom]

I suggest that by making this argument, you contradict that which places emphasis on "face to face" conflict.

If a change in attitude to war requires that the hierarchy who do not participate in (and thereby suffer from) battle are affected, then the distinction of whether the warriors can see their opponents' faces as they fight seems quite irrelevant.

Returning to WW1.
- Anyone with any familiarity of with the Western Front can find it hard to argue that war at the soldier's level can get much uglier or more confronting, yet Germany's leader in WW2 (himself a veteran of WW1) managed to argue (to a population containing many other such veterans) that Germany had not - in fact - lost that war on the battlefield, and could afford to try again.
- As for affecting the ruling classes... If you check, you will probably find that the English, at any rate, suffered disproportionately high casualty rates amongst their officers. Those chaps who lead bayonet charges armed with a revolver and swagger stick. Particularly in the early part of the war, the British army drew a very high proportion of its officers fron the nobility and gentry classes. I doubt that either of us can class losing your sons in battle as being insulated from the effects of war.

It was like it in any country back then. Remnants of feudal age. Same picture in Germany, Russia, etc. Young(er) generation - sons of elite - indeed directly participated in wars. But keep in mind, they were NOT the elite themselves. They DID NOT affected decisions in any way. And what is more important, they didnt really risked they families and they place in society. Many of them, contrary, wished the war as it was good chance for them to make career.

All this, as i said, was result of insufficient war cruelty - mainly towards civilians of course. Soldiers die anyway, this is not the question.


- Willingness to expend blood and flesh was - at one stage - considered to be essential to demonstrating national resolve to win at all costs. Yet it was demonstrated comprehensively that such willingness did not win the war. It was when we (speaking parochially) started fighting more intelligently and making better use of the technology that progress was made towards victory. Victory itself was not achieved by simply killing the enemy. It was achieved by taking his territory.
For soldiers. Always remember that. Killing soldiers with whatever method do not add much cruelty - be it simple bullet, long-banned explosive bullet or nuclear bomb. There is no real difference here.

However, behavior toward civilians and consequences for losing country - HERE is real difference. Gradually, since about 18 century, civilian losses from military actions was in steady decline on average. Rules of "fair" behavior towards civilians became more and more strict in Europe and later in world.
Somehow, given current semi-democratic government in most countries, i think this gave a bad effect. Now civilians dont suffer nearly as much, while soldiers are only minor part of society and dont have any choice anyway. So, civilians support wars without much consequences for them.

That is why i see nothing really wrong in any civilian killing as part of direct war . For me, there is zero difference between soldiers life and civilian life. Both have very some value. Both are humans life.

By that, i think any terrorist should be terminated as quick as possible. Just as enemy soldier. Just never forget - said terrorist is very possible not a bad guy. At least, not any worse than your own "Green Berets" or special force guys.


Returning to the present....
It shoukld be noted that it is only the "leadership" classes that can afford to build survival facilities that are capable of surviving a direct nuclear attack and - likewise - it is those classes who have access to the technology that give them some idea that it will happen. Presidents and Generals have subterranean bunkers or aircraft on standby. The common folk get told to "duck and cover".
Note, this could be true if only very limited nuclear strike is possible. In more wide attack, there is no guarantee what survival facilities will do they job. Thats 1st. There is no guarantee what ruling class will not lose its power as result of said attack - after all, most revolutions were succeed after heavy war. And last, i dont think ruling classes could enjoy they life nearly as much in surviving facilities and post-nuclear world.

However, in 50-60-70x Western elite were quite ready to risk that as last resort against communist ideology. Because winning communist party - even peacefully on elections - was eternal death for them. Not physical - but as rulers and as elite.


Yes, it has been argued that an unwillingness to shed the blood of your own troops indicates that you will not pay the price required. I agree to a point, but assert that it is possible to miss this mark on both sides.
If you will not pay a price that needs to be paid, then you permit your enemy to use this as an advabntage against you..... which may include increasing his morale.

BUT, if you waste the lives of your own men, you weaken the resolve of your own people and their confidence in your ability to manage the conflict to achieve your nation's ends. Not to mention depleting a valuable resource.

All this true, but i dont see what you want to prove with these points.

Arguably, victory requires two achievements. (1) Preventing your enemy from achieving his objective and (2) convincing him that he cannot do so. Permitting him to kill your soldiers when you can achieve those objectives by other means does not help your cause. Demonstrating that he is paying a far higher price than you are while still failing to achieve objective (1) makes you far more likely to achieve objective (2).

Perhaps it is the "territory" issue that sums it up. If the enemy's objective includes physical territory, then you must take it from him and hold it. You cannot do so from aircraft.... it requires boots on the ground.

Thoughtfully.......... Peter

Ah.. famous "boots on the ground"... Heh, all world history proves what taking land do not strictly require "boots on the ground" - except in very narrow military sense. Take for example Munich Agreement 1938, Czechoslovakia. The Sudetenland was taken without any soldier foot - just by diplomacy. Same is true with aviation - you can perfectly drive off enemy army and force it to give up territory with aviation alone. Again, Kosovo comes to mind.

[Cooch]

It's difficult to answer you without repeating myself.

You argue that the ruling classes suffer disproprtionately less even though their sons die at a possibly rates. If you call that being less affected, then I do not. Likewise, when territory is taken, it is the ruling classes who lose their land, their influence and their wealth. The peasants have always have less to lose - or be looted of - and tend to be left as able to work as well for one master as another.

How you can look at the civilian death toll over the 20th century and declare that it has declined since the 1700s is a bit beyond me. Reflect also that the majority of soldiers who died during the 20th century were not professionals, but either hostilities-only volunteers, or conscripts. Before the war, they were civilians, and afterwards they were - if they survived - civilians. This makes it even less credible to argue that such conflicts as WW2 had less effect upon civilians.

WRT nuclear attack, I claim no gaurentees. Only that having the sort of facilities that the ruling classes can afford, and which the common peopole cannot, make survival far more likely, and therefore render your argument less pursuasive.

There's little wrong with the "boots on ground" argument, and the Sudetenland occupation is merely one more example. Hitler's demand - made on 22/09/1938 to Neville Chamberlain, was that Germany be permitted to militarily occupy the Sudetenland. On the 1st of October, the German army carried out that occupation. Military force was the primary threat that caused Czekoslovakia's allies to accede to Hitler's demands, and it was German boots on Czech soil that made it a fact. It was an occupation in the real sense and more than meets your own definition of "occupation" as posted in the thread on that topic.

Cheers........... Peter

[Chrom]

It's difficult to answer you without repeating myself.

You argue that the ruling classes suffer disproprtionately less even though their sons die at a possibly rates. If you call that being less affected, then I do not. Likewise, when territory is taken, it is the ruling classes who lose their land, their influence and their wealth. The peasants have always have less to lose - or be looted of - and tend to be left as able to work as well for one master as another.
Peasant who lost its home - lost it all, in pre-20 century very likely with own life or was forced to become a slave with whole family for debt. A Baron who lost his home - just lost his home. If the war was won, he will get it back. If lost - he will not, but he is one of 100 other Barons anyway. War as whole present excellent career possibility for elite, without much losses as whole. Contrary to ordinary peasants...

War was like a game for elite - you win some, you lose some. It was/is almost always big lose for common peoples.


How you can look at the civilian death toll over the 20th century and declare that it has declined since the 1700s is a bit beyond me. Reflect also that the majority of soldiers who died during the 20th century were not professionals, but either hostilities-only volunteers, or conscripts. Before the war, they were civilians, and afterwards they were - if they survived - civilians. This makes it even less credible to argue that such conflicts as WW2 had less effect upon civilians.

Before 20th century, winning side very often completely killed civilians in occupied region. Every women raped and everything valuables looted was just normal and pretty much non-question. Big long wars in Middle Centuries often deprived population of given country up to 2-3 times - and that even with exceptionally high birth rates.

In WW1 civilians were more or less safe. WW2 was much, much worse - but this is also part of reason why were there no major war in next 70 years, and why most damaged countries - Germany, Japan, USSR - pretty much didnt engaged even in fairly minor wars. Only USSR took part in Afghanistan war - but even there 40 years after WW2 and with fairly minor losses - about as much as current US Iraq losses. Keep in mind, even these minor Afghanistan losses affected USSR in very bad way - worse than much higher Vietnam losses affected America.

Now, however, there is reverse trend. With so-called "professional" army, which is not much related to ordinary citizens, said citizens again ready to allow own army to participate in whatever war.


WRT nuclear attack, I claim no gaurentees. Only that having the sort of facilities that the ruling classes can afford, and which the common peopole cannot, make survival far more likely, and therefore render your argument less pursuasive.

No. Ruling classes by definition have much more to lose. Not only own lives, but also ruling power, elite status, and luxury. Besides, without enough common peoples survived, ruling classes obviously cannot survive too.


There's little wrong with the "boots on ground" argument, and the Sudetenland occupation is merely one more example. Hitler's demand - made on 22/09/1938 to Neville Chamberlain, was that Germany be permitted to militarily occupy the Sudetenland. On the 1st of October, the German army carried out that occupation. Military force was the primary threat that caused Czekoslovakia's allies to accede to Hitler's demands, and it was German boots on Czech soil that made it a fact. It was an occupation in the real sense and more than meets your own definition of "occupation" as posted in the thread on that topic.

Cheers........... Peter

Of course it was occupation. But was it caused by "boots on the ground"? Nope. By diplomacy and overall military superiority. For all we know, final part could be conducted without single German soldier stepping in Sudet area.

[Cooch]

A peasant who loses his house can build it again himself. If he still has his land and the ability to produce food, he has not lost everything . Not even nearly. If you had mentioned stored food, now that would have been an argument A noble who loses his castle cannot do so. Once he loses his power/income base he is essentially no better off than the peasant,,,, unless he has relatives or friends upon whose charity he can live. But that also holds for peasants. Serfs were property, and tended to be taken over as an asset by the invader. Why would the victor destroy assets? Go back to tribal warefare if you like, but you have to go a long way further back than the 1700s in Europe to show that kind of conflict. .... or come forward to ethnic cleansing within the last 100 years.
If you disagree, kindly present examples, and tell us why we should ignore the ongoing ethnic conflict which has been such a feature of the latter part of the 20th century. Contrary to the logic of your argument, it is freequently the very prospect of being wiped out that forces a population to continue to fight. They have no other option.

In WW1, both sides sought to prevent their opponents from feeding their population via naval blockade. You'll find that the Allies were sufficiently succesful as to cause a certain degree of food deprivation in Germany. Hunger and lack of similar necessities does not engender a feeling of safety amongst the civilian population.

Further, if I remember my Clausewitz, he argued that a high price paid in resisting an agressor provided subsequent generations with an increased incentive to carry on the fight.

If Hitler had not put German boots on Czech soil, the Sudetenland would not have become a part of Germany. The diplomacy to which you refer - which included the threat of German boots on French soil - merely ensured that there was no resistance. End of story.

[Chrom]

A peasant who loses his house can build it again himself. If he still has his land and the ability to produce food, he has not lost everything . Not even nearly.
In many cases, peasant couldnt replace his working tools - they were too expensive. In many cases, peasant couldnt survive losing stored food. In many cases, peasant couldnt pay his taxes after enemy burned his house - again, becoming either slave or die from hunger. Read something on that matter, you'll see how many (or better to say, how little) peasants survived destruction of they houses.


If you had mentioned stored food, now that would have been an argument A noble who loses his castle cannot do so. Once he loses his power/income base he is essentially no better off than the peasant,,,, unless he has relatives or friends upon whose charity he can live. But that also holds for peasants.

1. Noble can lose his house ONLY if his land is taken by other country. This was rather rare occasion. On the other hand, participating in war also presented quite good career occasion for him. Moreover, of we speak about Middle Centuries, then actually kings had all power - and kings didnt risked much, compared to they vassals.

For peasants, war was always lose-lose.


Serfs were property, and tended to be taken over as an asset by the invader.
EXATLY! PROPERTY! Whats why they were often completely killed and villages razed if invader didnt intended to hold that property for long time, or if this property didnt benefited him PERSONALLY, not just his side/allies. Plus, of course, real difficulties to control own soldiers from raping and marauding everything in sight.

Why would the victor destroy assets? Go back to tribal warefare if you like, but you have to go a long way further back than the 1700s in Europe to show that kind of conflict. .... or come forward to ethnic cleansing within the last 100 years.

already answered why. And there are a lot of examples to it.

If you disagree, kindly present examples, and tell us why we should ignore the ongoing ethnic conflict which has been such a feature of the latter part of the 20th century. Contrary to the logic of your argument, it is freequently the very prospect of being wiped out that forces a population to continue to fight. They have no other option.


Which my argument contradict it?

In 20th century, we know only 1 example of ethnic cleansing of such scale between developed countries - Hitler. Keep in mind - his deeds were pretty normal for 17-18 century - but for 20th century they was a bit too much.


In WW1, both sides sought to prevent their opponents from feeding their population via naval blockade. You'll find that the Allies were sufficiently succesful as to cause a certain degree of food deprivation in Germany. Hunger and lack of similar necessities does not engender a feeling of safety amongst the civilian population.

Yes. Leading to revolution in Germany and lost war. Perfect example of "wild" democracy and war wearing affecting population and will to fight. The very same effect trying to achieve "terrorists" today.

Further, if I remember my Clausewitz, he argued that a high price paid in resisting an agressor provided subsequent generations with an increased incentive to carry on the fight.
Do not idealize and absolutize Clausewitz. In some examples he was right, in many others - wrong. World changed since then. Besides, you wrongly applied his words. Clausewitz talked about AGGRESSOR. Take attention. Resisting an agressor is something completely different being an aggressor itself! Here is the difference - USSR and Germany were ready to resist any aggressor. However, they were strongly opposed to carry any aggressive war themselfes.

I dont speak about very small skirmishes here.


If Hitler had not put German boots on Czech soil, the Sudetenland would not have become a part of Germany. The diplomacy to which you refer - which included the threat of German boots on French soil - merely ensured that there was no resistance. End of story.
Haha. Nope. As i said, for all we know - tanks, aviation and artillery would be enough for same effect. You lead us to believe what without infantry no land taking is possible. I already gave you examples it is not so. Military (diplomatic) threat is also ok. Of course, infantry, being integrated part of military, also participate to this threat - but only as integrated part of military threat. Infantry itself could well not participate in direct engagement - as example Kosovo, or even Sudet.

[Cooch]

Well it looks as though we'll have to continue to disagree .

Of one thing I am sure, it is that war will continue to be a possibility as long as people such as yourself (?) think that conflict - and people's reaction to it - can be reduced to a formula.

And you're still wrong about Sudetenland. As current wars continue to prove, you cannot occupy territory and make it your own without providing physical security for your people on the ground in the face of a hostile population (or part thereof). This cannot be done from the air , from within a tank, or from the confines of a fortress.

Cheers.......... Peter

[Chrom]

And you're still wrong about Sudetenland. As current wars continue to prove, you cannot occupy territory and make it your own without providing physical security for your people on the ground in the face of a hostile population (or part thereof). This cannot be done from the air , from within a tank, or from the confines of a fortress.

Cheers.......... Peter

This can be perfectly done with police forces. Police is not equal army. It is very different in equipment, training, tasks.

Do not mistake infantry "boot on the ground" for police forces.