The conduct of War.

[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.