Moral Question: In a big war (like WWII) is there really a such thing as a "civilian" in cities?

Question

The only place I can think of someone being a true Civilian would be a Farmer who farms just enough to feed his family and lives far away from the city. Totally independent of the country.

Because, people who work in the cities are either potential soldiers or helping to win the war off the battle field.

Lets start with the Janitor. A Janitor working in an office building is keeping the place clean so that people who work there can make money. Those people who make money, help support the economy or do other things for the society or government in some way. During a large war, Economy = Weapons. The Janitor is also a prime candidate for a potential soldier, since he does not make alot of money and could be easily recruited if needed.

Even Farmers. Farmers are feeding either Soldiers themselves or the people who run the economy.

Everything someone does, helps the economy or helps the war. Both go hand in hand in times like WWII.

The ONLY people I can think of that could be considered "civilians" in these situations would be anyone under the age of 14.

So, what do you think? Is there a such thing as "civilians" in a war that encompasses the entire country and needs the entire country to support it?

I've never heard of Thesis 13, thanks for the info. I'll have to look it up.

I think the reason I said 14 was the cutoff age is because I don't really like to think of kids as targets of war. Although, what you said does make alot of sense, but it also says that schools should be prime targets since it will cause huge demoralization of the country. That just is sickening to think of.

Jews in Concentration camps were more like POWs than contributors to the society. POWs do not contribute willingly. Same thing with most criminal prisoners. But, I wouldn't have any qualms with someone bombing a criminal prison.

Answer 1

This argument is known as the Thesis 13 and was developed by a man named Daniel Goldhagen. It's an illogical argument because it assumes that everyone has a choice to stay or go. In Goldhagen's example (WW2) there were no innocent victims of Allied bombings of cities. It's a very dangerous path to go down if for no other reason than because it validates genocide. After all, if this argument held validity, why did the US not simply use poison gas to eradicate the whole of Japan, Italy and Germany?

Also, why use 14 as the cut-off age? Using a Thesis 13 Argument would suggest that children promote happiness at home, happiness leads to greater productivity, greater productivity leads to higher output of weapons and more efficient fighting. Why not kill everyone?

More info: Sorry guys, I thought it was Koontz who wrote Thesis 13, it wasn't. It was Daniel Goldhagen

Answer 2

What a good question. Most of these people are only participating in that country because it is where they live, they need to work, regardless of the government, and given the fact that for the janitor, it is either sweeping the floor, or languishing as a political prisoner. I do see a difference between the janitor who does his job and lays low when the invading army appears, and the janitor who arms up to fight either in a conscript militia or more independent guerrilla force. But we also have to consider that this janitor could very well help us as a sort of "fifth column" and so we need to be cautious. Just because someone is a citizen of a country, and even though they are directly contributing to the war effort, they are still citizens, unless of course they take up arms, but then that is a very different story. I remember thinking of this when Ward Churchill called the victims of the Trade Center attack to have been legitimate military targets and was not so much a terrorist attack on civilians but a military strike against your enemies military. Basically this type of outlook for a military is dangerous and really illustrates the reason why guerrillas and insurgents are not given protections under Geneva. They skirt the system and make it dangerous to be a civilian because you are under constant suspicion because your fellow "countrymen" are violating the rules of war. However, as a just and good nation, we don't immediately execute them as is in our power to do.

I see your point about them helping the war effort, like the workers in the trade center were contributing to the American economy which pays taxes, which fund the military. But are still civilians, you are not a "legitimate" military target until you take up arms against the enemy, I know these workers were allowing for that to happen but does not put them into the same camp as, say someone who joins the military.

Answer 3

Gman and Wolf are on the right track and both contradictory. Interesting, the answer is found in military theory which up until the advent of the smart bomb said that the way to win a war was to get the general populace to not support their army. This was done though bombing in the Dresden case and Sherman’s march to the sea. The idea was to remove the support of the military and force a capitulation. The two biggest examples of this were in Japan with the atomic bombs dropped on cities with very little military value and the firebombing of Tokyo. This policy says all citizens and not just those who reside in cities or on farms nor does it place an age limit on it.

"War is the continuation of policy(politics) by other means." - Karl von Clausewitz

Answer 4

The Laws of Land Warfare are explicit on this. There are noncombatants in war, and they are to be treated accordingly.

Every single age group and profession contributes to the functioning of a given society in some way, and therefore its ability to prosecute a war or prepare for it. On those grounds, everyone is a legitimate military target. That sort of reasoning is wrong and absolutely ruinous. There is no war worth waging if the cost of a victory through such indiscriminate destruction lays entire societies to waste. Arbitary divisions of who contribute to a war effort and who doesn't are meaningless. One is either a combatant, or is not. It is that simple.

Others have explored Just War Theory in depth, from as far back as Aquinas to Zhuge Liang. I'd read on those sources before touching Clausewitz.

EDIT: And I have never heard of "Thesis 13", and a cursory search reveals nothing. I would like to see attribution.

Answer 5

basically like all different super city Athens has its particular spots which could circulate you right into a distinctive worldwide. It additionally has its gruesome spots and we will not pretend they do no longer exist, yet once you have the elect you will locate the places which will fulfill your senses. Lycabettous via night and the city unfold on your ft below the hill. Mountain Egaleo and the city of your ft at any time of the day, ideally at night. Plaka and Aerides. i can bypass on and on for many pages, yet having prevalent Athens of the 60's and 70's I do omit those situations that such particularly some neighborhoods have been places you could stay with out concern at any time of the day. i'm conversing of Kypseli and Fokionos Negri of those years. Paradise.

Answer 6

i think you put too much thought into the question because I think with regards to war everyone is a target and every civilian who dies sends a message of fear and terror to their people which I think is used as a weapon by the other side. I do not think it matters if the person who dies is a newborn baby or wheelchair little girl or nun or priest or defenseless old man or woman because when they are killed during a war their death sends the same message and the other side grows stronger as a result

Answer 7

When I was fourteen I could take my seven MM rifle and drop a Elk dead from 1,150 yards. When I was six I learned to shoot. When I was 13 I snuck into a herd of Elk on flat prairie in northern Colorado. I was 20 feet from them all I can assure you they have much beter sences than humans. I'm 23 now and I can still do all of that. I can fit 5 rounds into my seven MM rifle. Be assured I could drop any invaders dead and they wouldn't even hear the shot. So the cut off age is fourteen? Bah most fourteen year olds that live in the country or the west can shoot beter than the army guys!

Here is a story, when I was 12 I went to sight in my rifle with my father A bunch of army guys showed up with m-16s to the range to practice. They where shooting Semi-automatic at cans from 30 yards and i was shooting a 30-30 at the time I got my seven MM later. I shot cans from 250 yards. they didn't hit a thing. I never missed how can you not miss with a gun that shoots flat for half a mile and is deadly accurate?

Answer 8

There are civilians in war. Anyone who is not actively participating in the war is a civilian. The flaw in your theory is that by your definition the people in the concentration camps would be considered to be participants in the war on the side of the Nazi armies. They were forced to do things that aided the Nazi effort as did many German citizens who opposed the Nazi regime. There must be active participation and intent to aid for a person to be a combatant and not just a citizen.

Answer 9

Churchill & FDR bombed Dresden just "for the fun of it".
They knew there were no soldiers, factories, or anything else there, except civilians.
They murdered over a hundred thousand women & children.
(No one complained.)
**Gman, above. Great answer.
Sherman also enjoyed killing helpless civilians that couldn't fight back.
The Union troops also murdered family farmers in MO, during the civil war.

Answer 10

Thats "total war", look up( though you probably have) General William Sherman and his march to the sea. He burned farms, slaughterd livestock, killed slaves, ruined railroad tracks, and killed civilians. And wold, dont even compare dresden to what Nazi Germany did.