3 ms·
> To be fair I don't think anybody saw systemic violence upon civilians during a war between states (as opposed to a civil one) as a realistic possibility durin
by blattimwind 8y ago
> To be fair I don't think anybody saw systemic violence upon civilians during a war between states (as opposed to a civil one) as a realistic possibility during the inter-war period. It was well outside the customs of war in our corner of the world at that point.
Really? Atrocities against civilians in war were common even then. No need to look further than e.g. the colonies.
- ekianjo 8y ago> Really? Atrocities against civilians in war were common even then. No need to look further than e.g. the colonies. I think the point was that scale of it was quite different in WW2. In WW2 the majority of casualties were civilians, which was new compared to previous conflicts.
- markbnj 8y ago> In WW2 the majority of casualties were civilians, which was new compared to previous conflicts I'd have to see data on that, not that I definitely disbelieve it. But it does seem to me that this was more often the case than not.
- blattimwind 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio is of relevance here. WW1 already had an almost 1:1 ratio, though this ratio isn't really indicative of atrocities per se. E.g. previously you might have rather seen pillaging. Going a bit back, the people's crusade of 1096 mostly pillaged European cities and landscape.