War, to Humane, Must be Total

[jbg]

This sounds like a contradiction in terms but it is not.

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 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, people demanded the right to keep other people enslaved, and were willing to forsake 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.

As David Ben-Gurion once said, "(t)here is nothing more ridiculous, or more criminal, than to fight by constitutional means against force, which is entirely unconstitutional. In our fight against Betar, it is impossible to rest content with preaching: we must set up an organized force of our own against them." Quoted in Page 71 of Ben-Gurion by Michael Bar-Zohar.

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 theaters 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 hopeless. 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.

To reiterate, the problem with Versailles was not its harshness. It's the fact that Germany was permitted to live on to fight another day. I fear we have repeated this mistake in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
There are, of course, exceptions. The War of 1812 ended in a standstill truce. However, the nations on either side of the border were prepared to live with the other permanently. That is not the case with most current war zones. Russia is not reconciled to Ukrainian independence or for that matter the freedom of the Baltic States or Eastern Europe. We are seeing that every day.The Islamic countries of the Middle East did not want a Jewish state of Israel but as we see from the Abrahamic Accords they have learned to live with it, as a result of Israel's victories.

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. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. However, we cannot let the presence of civilian facilities stop a war effort. If people are inconvenienced they will find a way to get their governments to stop the madness. In inter-war Germany the people were still chafing at the bit to get back to war. 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.

 

[Audie]

This sounds like a contradiction in terms but it is not.

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 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, people demanded the right to keep other people enslaved, and were willing to forsake 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.

As David Ben-Gurion once said, "(t)here is nothing more ridiculous, or more criminal, than to fight by constitutional means against force, which is entirely unconstitutional. In our fight against Betar, it is impossible to rest content with preaching: we must set up an organized force of our own against them." Quoted in Page 71 of Ben-Gurion by Michael Bar-Zohar.

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 theaters 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 hopeless. 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.

To reiterate, the problem with Versailles was not its harshness. It's the fact that Germany was permitted to live on to fight another day. I fear we have repeated this mistake in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
There are, of course, exceptions. The War of 1812 ended in a standstill truce. However, the nations on either side of the border were prepared to live with the other permanently. That is not the case with most current war zones. Russia is not reconciled to Ukrainian independence or for that matter the freedom of the Baltic States or Eastern Europe. We are seeing that every day.The Islamic countries of the Middle East did not want a Jewish state of Israel but as we see from the Abrahamic Accords they have learned to live with it, as a result of Israel's victories.

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. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. However, we cannot let the presence of civilian facilities stop a war effort. If people are inconvenienced they will find a way to get their governments to stop the madness. In inter-war Germany the people were still chafing at the bit to get back to war. 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.

Too long

 

[Rival]

To reiterate, the problem with Versailles was not its harshness. It's the fact that Germany was permitted to live on to fight another day.

Given that the treaty limited the German military to ludicrously small proportions, lose its colonies and territories, pay reparations and formally disarm, what makes you say this?

 

[jbg]

Given that the treaty limited the German military to ludicrously small proportions, lose its colonies and territories, pay reparations and formally disarm, what makes you say this?

I have read press coverage from as early as 1923. Germany never disarmed. The post-WWII situation where the U.S. effectively wet-blanketed Europe was far preferable.

 

[jbg]

Too long

I wrote this essay some time ago, and it's to make a worthwhile point.

 

[Rival]

I have read press coverage from as early as 1923. Germany never disarmed. The post-WWII situation where the U.S. effectively wet-blanketed Europe was far preferable.

Well, as a European I'd disagree. But my original question hasn't really been answered. Are you suggesting the treaty wasn't enforced?

 

[Curious George]

I disagree.

 

[jbg]

Well, as a European I'd disagree. But my original question hasn't really been answered. Are you suggesting the treaty wasn't enforced?

Yes.

I disagree.

With what?

 

[Curious George]

Yes.With what?

Virtually every facet of your post.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

However, we cannot let the presence of civilian facilities stop a war effort. If people are inconvenienced they will find a way to get their governments to stop the madness.

I find these two sentences to be a highly sanitized treatment of what could result in the most hellish outcome, such as civil war to change the mind of an autocrat, with probably an increase in civilian persecution by the autocrat. I heard that in russia right now, people are trying to get their money out of banks. Just imagine the anxiety of those people. And what are they going to do. I have to believe that tormenting people with stress and anxiety can't be the only way to change a negative outcome. What happened to the power of better vibes

Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting.

Well I keep hearing that world war 2 was kind of a grinding match between the nazi's and russia. In comparison to that, one wonders if our american role was sort of peripheral in comparison

How many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima and various African sites far removed from the main Axis powers?

Nuclear warheads actually cannot be used again, you realize that right? The ones they dropped on Japan were tiny, itty-bitty warheads. The next time they would be used, would be world-ending. Maybe the alligators will make it though, and the jellyfish

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

You oppose attacking civilian targets, not because it's unethical, but because (in your opinion) it's inefficient. I find that repulsive.

 

[jbg]

You oppose attacking civilian targets, not because it's unethical, but because (in your opinion) it's inefficient. I find that repulsive.

That is not what I said. When a dictator uses his own people as cannon fodder the West is left with no choice. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessitated by the Japanese doctrine of suicide warfare, or bushido (sp). The Japanese were willing to throw an unlimited number of people into a war, with amazing casualties. The war had to end.

 

[Audie]

I wrote this essay some time ago, and it's to make a worthwhile point.

Shouldda thought longer and wrote shorter.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is not what I said.

"To the maximum extent possible" is reasonably clear,

Please feel free to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki in .its own thread, but I would strongly suggest that you take a couple of months to study the topic before preaching that the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians was obviously appropriate. In my opinion, they deserve a far less cavalier dismissal.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This sounds like a contradiction in terms but it is not.

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 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, people demanded the right to keep other people enslaved, and were willing to forsake 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.

As David Ben-Gurion once said, "(t)here is nothing more ridiculous, or more criminal, than to fight by constitutional means against force, which is entirely unconstitutional. In our fight against Betar, it is impossible to rest content with preaching: we must set up an organized force of our own against them." Quoted in Page 71 of Ben-Gurion by Michael Bar-Zohar.

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 theaters 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 hopeless. 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.

To reiterate, the problem with Versailles was not its harshness. It's the fact that Germany was permitted to live on to fight another day. I fear we have repeated this mistake in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
There are, of course, exceptions. The War of 1812 ended in a standstill truce. However, the nations on either side of the border were prepared to live with the other permanently. That is not the case with most current war zones. Russia is not reconciled to Ukrainian independence or for that matter the freedom of the Baltic States or Eastern Europe. We are seeing that every day.The Islamic countries of the Middle East did not want a Jewish state of Israel but as we see from the Abrahamic Accords they have learned to live with it, as a result of Israel's victories.

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. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. However, we cannot let the presence of civilian facilities stop a war effort. If people are inconvenienced they will find a way to get their governments to stop the madness. In inter-war Germany the people were still chafing at the bit to get back to war. 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.

Putin is using total war philosophy.

Sometimes it has the opposite effect in terms of galvanizing, which makes ones resolve that much harder to defeat.

Total war was used in ww1 and still dosent, nor will it ever prevent future conflicts.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Why would they occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their secession? In any case, the Union did occupy the region of Northern Virginia adjacent to Washington DC, but their attempts to penetrate further into Virginia was met with resistance.

During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theaters 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?

They fought where they could and when they could. Midway was a defensive battle on our part. Our forces had to fight that battle, although the other island battles were mainly to construct airbases to gain air supremacy in the Pacific Theater. It took time for the U.S. to build up substantial enough forces to take the Axis on full force. It wasn't because they were trying to limit bloodshed - except maybe our own. It's not a bad strategy, when you think about it. After all, both the Allies and the Union won their respective wars. So, I guess they did something right along the way.

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 hopeless.

They might have still been hoping for a political resolution. They knew from the start that they were outnumbered and outgunned, though they may have underestimated Union resolve. The Union strategy in the West was successful early on, and that should have demonstrated that they were serious, along with a total blockade of all Confederate ports. Once they lost Vicksburg, they lost the Mississippi, and they should have just called it quits right then and there. But they had to go on and on and on, fighting a war of attrition they knew they were going to lose.

The Union won, but it was still no picnic for their side either. Grant had a reputation for being a drinker, but I guess one can sort of understand why, considering how many men he had to send to their deaths.

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.

I doubt it would have been the first time they were convinced that they had lost. But even then, there were many who likely wanted to fight on to the bitter end.

To reiterate, the problem with Versailles was not its harshness. It's the fact that Germany was permitted to live on to fight another day.

I think the terms of Versailles were clarified and updated at Locarno, and that also may have been a large part of the problem. But another factor was the U.S. refusal to join the League of Nations, which would have given that organization more teeth to carry out its will. Also, France and Britain were hampered by their own internal problems and facing greater resistance in their soon-to-be-crumbling empires.

It's one thing to talk about "total war," but it's another thing to have the resources, manpower, equipment, industry, and the brute force to be able to actually carry it out - along with a national will and a supportive populace willing to make sacrifices for whatever cause you believe necessitates total war. Not every country can do this, and in fact, most countries probably can't. And many of those which can, don't.

I fear we have repeated this mistake in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.

We've been making mistake upon mistake for quite a long time now.

There are, of course, exceptions. The War of 1812 ended in a standstill truce. However, the nations on either side of the border were prepared to live with the other permanently. That is not the case with most current war zones. Russia is not reconciled to Ukrainian independence or for that matter the freedom of the Baltic States or Eastern Europe. We are seeing that every day.The Islamic countries of the Middle East did not want a Jewish state of Israel but as we see from the Abrahamic Accords they have learned to live with it, as a result of Israel's victories.

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. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. However, we cannot let the presence of civilian facilities stop a war effort. If people are inconvenienced they will find a way to get their governments to stop the madness. In inter-war Germany the people were still chafing at the bit to get back to war. 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.

I've encountered quite a few Americans who have expressed similar beliefs. I've talked to many who believe that Patton was right in his belief that we should have attacked the USSR. MacArthur wanted to attack China during the Korean War and was fired for that.

Instead of all-out warfare against the Communist Bloc, our leadership opted for a policy of Containment, which meant limited "hot wars" such as Korea and Vietnam, in the context of the overall Cold War which took place. There was also a lot of cloak-and-dagger stuff, foreign intrigue, interference in the internal affairs of other countries (which led to some of aforementioned mistakes, such as Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq), and other such geopolitical tomfoolery.

Since the end of the Cold War, our foreign and military policies seem to fall along the same habits and patterns - along with the same alliance system - as during the Cold War. We're still dealing with the consequences of the Cold War.

As to your general point about "total war," I think much of it depends on what, exactly, you're fighting for and what the actual objective or goal might be.

 

[jbg]

"To the maximum extent possible" is reasonably clear,

Please feel free to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki in .its own thread, but I would strongly suggest that you take a couple of months to study the topic before preaching that the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians was obviously appropriate. In my opinion, they deserve a far less cavalier dismissal.

The Japanese people, or most of them, think it shortened the war. Certainly there were fewer casualties than would have resulted from a land, conventional invasion. Iwo or Okinawa times 50.

Putin is using total war philosophy.

Sometimes it has the opposite effect in terms of galvanizing, which makes ones resolve that much harder to defeat.

Total war was used in ww1 and still dosent, nor will it ever prevent future conflicts.

It really was not used until the waning days of WW I and then the Germans sued for peace. The end of WW II has created about the longest period in memory from from major wars.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Japanese people, or most of them, think it shortened the war. Certainly there were fewer casualties than would have resulted from a land, conventional invasion. Iwo or Okinawa times 50.

Shabbat shalom ...

 

[jbg]

Shabbat shalom ...

Same to you and Shana Tova (secular).

 

[jbg]

Why would they occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their secession? In any case, the Union did occupy the region of Northern Virginia adjacent to Washington DC, but their attempts to penetrate further into Virginia was met with resistance.

For one thing, we lost a lot of our naval advantage by not occupying Hampton Roads. Also, Virginia was the only area of the Confederacy that had economic viability. If Virginia had not seceded or was held in the way Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri were, it would have been a very short war. No other world powers were about to do business on any credit basis, and only Virginia had any significant exports with which to raise hard cash.

They fought where they could and when they could. Midway was a defensive battle on our part. Our forces had to fight that battle, although the other island battles were mainly to construct airbases to gain air supremacy in the Pacific Theater. It took time for the U.S. to build up substantial enough forces to take the Axis on full force. It wasn't because they were trying to limit bloodshed - except maybe our own. It's not a bad strategy, when you think about it. After all, both the Allies and the Union won their respective wars. So, I guess they did something right along the way.

That's true, but there was a lot of waste caused by MacArthur's obsession with the Philippines. Max Hastings detailed this in Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45. He details how wasteful and costly the naval Battle of Leyte Gulf was deadly and useless. He makes great cases for both propositions, as well as the idea that MacArthur was a vain showboater.

They might have still been hoping for a political resolution. They knew from the start that they were outnumbered and outgunned, though they may have underestimated Union resolve. The Union strategy in the West was successful early on, and that should have demonstrated that they were serious, along with a total blockade of all Confederate ports. Once they lost Vicksburg, they lost the Mississippi, and they should have just called it quits right then and there. But they had to go on and on and on, fighting a war of attrition they knew they were going to lose.

The Union won, but it was still no picnic for their side either. Grant had a reputation for being a drinker, but I guess one can sort of understand why, considering how many men he had to send to their deaths.

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 hopeless. 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.

I may have transposed the posts. The vain hope for a "political solution" prolongs many wars. See below about WW I.

I think the terms of Versailles were clarified and updated at Locarno, and that also may have been a large part of the problem. But another factor was the U.S. refusal to join the League of Nations, which would have given that organization more teeth to carry out its will. Also, France and Britain were hampered by their own internal problems and facing greater resistance in their soon-to-be-crumbling empires.

The United States was smart to have stayed out, and would have been smarter to stay out of the U.N. There is no reason that hard workers in the U.S. should put their ability to pay taxes at the disposal of postage-stamp size satrapies.

It's one thing to talk about "total war," but it's another thing to have the resources, manpower, equipment, industry, and the brute force to be able to actually carry it out - along with a national will and a supportive populace willing to make sacrifices for whatever cause you believe necessitates total war. Not every country can do this, and in fact, most countries probably can't. And many of those which can, don't.

Then why do countries with even less resources start them?

I've encountered quite a few Americans who have expressed similar beliefs. I've talked to many who believe that Patton was right in his belief that we should have attacked the USSR. MacArthur wanted to attack China during the Korean War and was fired for that.

Instead of all-out warfare against the Communist Bloc, our leadership opted for a policy of Containment, which meant limited "hot wars" such as Korea and Vietnam, in the context of the overall Cold War which took place. There was also a lot of cloak-and-dagger stuff, foreign intrigue, interference in the internal affairs of other countries (which led to some of aforementioned mistakes, such as Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq), and other such geopolitical tomfoolery.

Since the end of the Cold War, our foreign and military policies seem to fall along the same habits and patterns - along with the same alliance system - as during the Cold War. We're still dealing with the consequences of the Cold War.

As to your general point about "total war," I think much of it depends on what, exactly, you're fighting for and what the actual objective or goal might be.

A lot was lost and wasted in the Cold War, including the enslavement of Eastern Europe to feed the Soviet Union's maw.