How do you feel about WW2 cementing the precedent of civilians being valid military targets?

How do you feel about WW2 cementing the precedent of civilians being valid military targets?

But WW1 did that.

It's something we should continue to do today until the enemy gives up.

And if anyone complains, we bomb them too.

Joke topic. Civilians were valid military targets since the beginning of human history.

WW1 was essentially entirely a war between armies. Civilian casualties were miniscule compared to military casualties, whereas in WW2 civilian deaths were actually greater than military deaths. What few attacks were directed specifically at civilians in WW1 like bombs dropped from zepplins or the Paris gun were tertiary and inconsequential to the outcome of the war.

WW2, largely because of the new ability to target civilians with improved airplanes and bombs, put into action for the first time the theory that a war could be won entirely by sufficient saturation of bombing civilian areas.
Not exactly true. For almost all of human history wars were carried out and decided in clashes between armies and civilians were merely spoils of war at the mercy of a victorious army, as opposed the shift in WW1 & 2 where actively targeting the civilians was seen as a way to get the army in the field to capitulate.

>what is 30 years war
>what is 2nd Boer war

>what happens in all wars ever

Civilians are only valid military targets nowadays because our governments actually care about the people, nowadays. More so than they used to, at least.

>what is 2nd Boer war
The internment policy only started once the Boer formal resistance had collapse and Boer armies had been reduced to irregular outfits waging a guerilla campaign. Relocating civilians to keep them from aiding an enemy is also different than indiscriminately bombing population centers in an effort to 'break the moral' of a nation

Civilians dying in a war is not the same as a strategic imperative to PURPOSELY TARGET civilians instead of armies.

t. Nigel Cockbottom al-Britani

I'm drawing a distinction not apologizing. My point is that since WW2 the battlefield, at least between great powers, has moved from the battlefield to the cities held hostage by weapons of mass destruction.

There has been an undeniable shift in the conception of war from the 'gentlemanly' era of nobles leading professional armies against each other and exchanging swords to indiscriminate & purposeful targeting of women and children.

>Civilians dying in a war is not the same as a strategic imperative to PURPOSELY TARGET civilians instead of armies


thats specificaly what happened in almost every other major war in known history, at some point for some reason the civilian population is targeted directly or simply becomes collateral, or is purposefuly slaughtered after, or before or enslaved or exiled, or otherwise systematicaly submited to terrible shit and decimation, its realy a tipical thing in wars, especial larger or longer ones

This simply isn't true. For almost all of human history wars were waged between armies and non-combatants were simply at the mercy of the victors. A city being sacked and its inhabitants slain or enslaved after its army has been defeated is not the same as the modern strategic conception of using the threat of being able to annihilate a city and its inhabitants at any moment to avoid having to engage the army in the first place. Civilians were spoils of war not strategic targets.

I'm just a passing layman, but isn't that just natural result from higher tech? Like, what even is the point being made here? Modern people are less noble than in the past?

Of course people are going to threaten annihillating entire cities now that it's so easy and cheap.

But Franco-Prussian War did that.

Wars throughout essentially ALL of human history were resolved between armies in the field. The modern conception of war treats civilians as equal, or even preferable targets to the actual combatants. That's the point of the thread. Not that non-combatants didn't die in previous conflicts or a statement on 'nobility' or anything of the sort.

If WW3 were to break out today it wouldn't be like any conflict from before WW1 or almost every conflict from the 17th-19th centuries where military casualties were typically MUCH greater than civilian casualities

>Not exactly true. For almost all of human history wars were carried out and decided in clashes between armies and civilians were merely spoils of war at the mercy of a victorious army, as opposed the shift in WW1 & 2 where actively targeting the civilians was seen as a way to get the army in the field to capitulate.

This is just wrong. Not to be rude or anything, but just read a few historical accounts. Civilians were always fair game, at the mercy of the warriors of a given time period.

>Not exactly true. For almost all of human history wars were carried out and decided in clashes between armies and civilians were merely spoils of war at the mercy of a victorious army,
This is not only wrong, but the complete opposite of what is the case. For almost all of human history, wars were conducted mostly by raids against civilians, with clashes between armed forces being rare events.

>What are sieges

>Civilians were always fair game, at the mercy of the warriors of a given time period.
read
>civilians were merely spoils of war at the mercy of a victorious army

>For almost all of human history, wars were conducted mostly by raids against civilians
I mean just thinking about Greek & Roman history wars were essentially always fought and decided entirely between armies on the battlefield. Compared to the modern conception of not having to defeat an army in a conventional fight if you have the capability to wipe cities off the face of the earth.

>My point is that since WW2 the battlefield, at least between great powers, has moved from the battlefield to the cities held hostage by weapons of mass destruction
That's wrong though. Nuclear countries have shifted away from MAD and toward NUTS style tactics.

>I mean just thinking about Greek & Roman history wars were essentially always fought and decided entirely between armies on the battlefield
You don't know much about Greek & Roman history if you think this.