well, mmmm, nope to go to war you are reduced to a animal with just instincts, you only thinks: me, then me and only me, you do not have time to think in others fate.
Though very few animals are capable of fighting wars. Since ethics is a human invention to put things in their place, I think it is very much possible to have ethics in warfare as well; we simply apply it everywhere. There is of course no "ethical war", but human beings individually can still have strong ethics and show them in a war situation. This is why there are heroes of WW2 that no one would dispute; men who have put the lives of their friends before their own, to give just one example. Not all men are reduced to a state of fanatical self-preservation during war.
You know what im talking about: -Shooting man in the back... -Killing surrendered units... -Attacking civilians -Attacking unarmed units -etc. My opinion is that there can't be any ethics at war...because when ethics makes your victory impossible you ignore it!!! In WW2 case...you can't rule the world with ethics...you rule with power! My choice is makiavelizum!
case by case overall ethics must be judged on a case by case basis because the basic rules in war are different that those in peace. for example- i've heard from several combat vets that if you surrender only after you have run out of ammo you are fair game to be killed out of hand because it is felt that fighting until you have done all the damage you can and then giving up is against the rules. you should always have a clip of ammo left if you're going to surrender. of course you should shoot an armed man in the back- thats what its all about, killing him before he kills you. ditto for snipers, they are a useful weapon and have a proper place. civilians may be killed at times but only if sparing them will have a negitive impact on your operations. they should not be harmed for no good reason. there are few if any ethics that are universal in war. each situtation is different and the ethics and the practical limitations on those ethics are different also. ethics are flexable. the ethics of a country club are different that the ethics of a lifeboat or a man in combat.
Ethics - an example. A long-term raiding force like the Chindits (just the first such force that came to mind) is not in a position to take prisoners. If they do, it slows them down, reduces effective manpower, reduces available rations, etc. If they leave them alive but not prisoners, they could make life tough for the Chindits (give away locations, numbers, etc). Or, if left alive but without resources in a hostile environment (jungle, arctic, desert) then they are left with a lingering death - so why not be kind & shoot them?
There were times in good old Europe of, say, 18. century when rules of war were very strict and respected. In those days, war was a conflict between monarch or princes. No hatred – just business. No emotions of the population in general was involved. No partisans, no harrassment of civilians allowed. That´s what I was talking about. Even in WW1 and 2. there were rules as to how to treat POWs, mostly respected (in the Western theater). But these were but remains of what had been achieved in the way of ethics of war during long centuries of warfare in Europe. Total wars with hatreds and active involvement of populations changed everything.
Izaak, you may have slightly rose-tinted specticals on. There were strict rules about not involving civilians in the late Medieval era, but civilians still got the chop. Similarly, how often do you reckon 18th Century soldiers upheld the regulations? Very infrequently, if the scandal-sheets are to be believed. Fairly often, but nowhere near always is probably a good bet.
not quite Izaak, what you say is only part of the story. the behavior of leaders and armies were not the same thing. old time armies were often paid in loot and fed off the local stocks. to a civilian there is very little difference between having your farm burnt or bombed and having everything stolen and the rest smashed during the search. civilians always get ground up by armies. its only the type of grinder used that changes.
Wasn´t it Frederick the Great who had to stop his "involvement" with Austria because he could not afford to buy fuel and food for his soldiers? Maybe ny "rosy" view of the past is too rosy, but, from what I´ve read, the military ethics became much better after the disasters of 30 yr war in 17. century. I do know that nothing or nobody is perfect, but if you compare 18.century with the 20th, you´ll see what I am trying to say.
People point to a breakdown in ethics under pressure of war as evidence that there is no place for ethics in warfare. I disagree. The fact that one will often fall short of an ideal is not sufficent reason to abandon all ideals. War is brutal and terrible it is true but a valid distiction can be drawn between an all out war of aggression for instance and all out war as survival after being attacked by an aggressor. I believe that killing humans is ethically wrong when done without sufficient justification however if a persons forces his way in to my home and threatens my family then killing him is justified.
It sounds like that has never happened to you. I think the only true code of war ethics that was actually respected by anyone but foolhardy chivalrous dreamers, was the Treaty of Geneva. This was a 19th-century development. In WW1 and beyond, actions that broke with the rules of this treaty were almost universally condemned, unless the life of the committer was truly at stake.
Particularly the treatment of POWs and captured wounded enemy soldiers is a measure of dehumanizing of a war. In this respect, WW2 was not that bad, at least in the West. On Eastern Front it was different. But, just to say, the then Soviet Union had not signed the Geneva Convention. If you want to be treated as a human when taken POW, you´ll behave properly towards your POWs. That´s elementary. Even fanatic nazis understood the logic
Just an attempt to explain, why the POWs ware comparatively well treated in the West. Why THIS one principle was followed, at least selectively. Even the Polish POWs, thanks to Poland´s signing Geneva were wel treated. That includes the insurgents, who surrendered after Warsaw fell.
The officers were butchered and uses for the rest included amongst other things a trial run of the Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, how does that qualify as being well treated?
Izaak wrote: But then all Germans weren't fanatic Nazi's were they? The POW camps (for non-Russians) were run by the Luftwaffe not by the SS or Gestapo. Unlike the Pacific where combat was truly "to the death" many millions of soldiers on both sides surrendered on the Eastern front. The treatment by the combat units that took them prisoner wasn't bad. It was after they were transferred to camps(SS and it's Russian equivalent) that the torture/maltreatment and murder took place.
Please, remark that the "Even fanatic nazis..." does not imply anything at all about German guards or soldiers in general. Far from. But, if it might have been misunderstood, only I am to blame.
AFAIK the POWs from countires which had signed the Geneva have been trated according to the rules, incliding the Polish POWs. I cannot exclude some isolated excesses, though. Soviet POWs were generally treated horribly. No doubt about that. As well as the German ones in USSR.
