the vast majority innocent civilians.
The words "innocent" and "civilians" seem to be joined at the hip in any discussion of warfare. Surely the truth is far more complex?
Certainly I will concede that children are blameless, and can always be considered victims of war. But could munitions workers, shipbuilders, dockers, farm workers, railwaymen, financiers and politicians, all of whom would be civilians, be considered "innocent" in this context? In a total war like WW2, a large proportion of the civilian population, male and female, on both sides would have been actively involved in the war effort, and their contribution would have been as valuable in many cases as that of a member of the armed forces. Allowing for the fact that conscription was fairly universal among the combatant nations, and most men had no choice whether or not to fight, there is no moral case to separate the military from the civilian population when it comes to apportioning guilt or innocence.