Which actions would not happen and what would be the consequences if...

[Orry]

.... from 1st January 1943 the Western Allies (so NOT Russia or China) start to fight under a 21st Century understanding of the rules of war?? They will not plan or conduct any operations that they now consider to be war crimes. They gain no future knowledge either of History or technology so their equipment is not changed in any way and they still have their existing Aircraft and will have to develop new combat doctrine.

They will possibly start by clearing all the (now) illegal minefields they have laid....

Obviously the Germans would not comply with this and would indeed try and take advantage of the constrains that the Allies would be operating under.

The Allies would also have to stop supporting operations that others are conducting that go against their new understanding of the rules.

For the avoidance of doubt the rules are those official used by the UK in 2017.

Yes the actuality of this would be ASB - but the experts are here and maybe we could consider it a thought experiment.

A few thoughts.

Are the Allies allowed to continue their blockade of food and fuel?

Are they allowed to continue to bomb targets near were civilians are housed?

 

[mattep74]

.... from 1st January 1943 the Western Allies (so NOT Russia or China) start to fight under a 21st Century understanding of the rules of war?? They will not plan or conduct any operations that they now consider to be war crimes. They gain no future knowledge either of History or technology so their equipment is not changed in any way and they still have their existing Aircraft and will have to develop new combat doctrine.


A few thoughts.

Are the Allies allowed to continue their blockade of food and fuel?

Are they allowed to continue to bomb targets near were civilians are housed?

Did that stop US from bombing the center of Bagdhad in 2003?

 

[Orry]

Did that stop US from bombing the center of Bagdhad in 2003?

As I said UK 2017 rules

So for example no use of intelligence gained through 'enhanced' interrogation methods for example

 

[ShortsBelfast]

A 21st century understanding of the rules of war requires 21st century levels of military and electronic surveillance technologies. Bomber Harris didn't have television or laser-guided glider bombs for precision targeting and Eisenhower and Montgomery hadn't got bulletproof battle-armour or bomb disposal robots for their troops.
It's a bit like the C 16th-18th idea that horse thieves should be hanged. In 1580 or 1750 if you stole a horse from a farmer or carter (obviously the Duke of Devonshire isn't hanging on quite so precariously) you are effectively creating so much economic hardship that you are sentencing either him or one of his children to death. So it is regarded as tantamount to murder. By the early 1830s the economy has developed enough that, while quite a serious crime, it isn't that serious and Robert Peel is able to abolish the death penalty for same.
The modern rules of war have evolved in an era of electronic news media, sophisticated communications and weapons that could devastate continents. None of those things yet exist so the rules of even "civilized" warfare will not be as developed.

 

[EWHM]

There's also the brute fact that most of the combatant powers considered WWII to be an existential conflict and good fractions of their populations agreed with that perception. Most recent conflicts have been largely preferential not existential or heaven forbid, transcendental in nature. I suspect that the UK and the US and most other powers would drop many if not most of the modern ROE in the face of an actually existential struggle.

 

[Orry]

That's all well and good but......

For the purpose of the thought experiment what would be the effect of using 2017 ROE and understanding of what is a war crime from 1st Jan 1943.

The Axis, Russia and China are not effected by the change so what sort of things are going to change in the short, medium and long term.

 

[jsb]

There's also the brute fact that most of the combatant powers considered WWII to be an existential conflict and good fractions of their populations agreed with that perception. Most recent conflicts have been largely preferential not existential or heaven forbid, transcendental in nature. I suspect that the UK and the US and most other powers would drop many if not most of the modern ROE in the face of an actually existential struggle.

For the purpose of the thought experiment what would be the effect of using 2017 ROE and understanding of what is a war crime from 1st Jan 1943.

2017 UK operates trident missiles, they really only work if you accept ROEs that at some stage and under some circumstances you will be willing to burn city's, fighting a world war against a peer involved in offensive war and industrial murder would probably count? So anything below that should therefore be allowed at least in regard to BC actions?

 

[Orry]

So far all the answers are - they would not do that.

The question is what would change if they did.

Can they change the 1943 bombing campaign to conform? They can be a lot more accurate than they were in 1940-41. Can they come up with an alternative to dehousing??

How would it impact the Pacific campaign?

I chose the start of 1943 to avoid the height of Axis success. To avoid the we are all going to die effect of making them do this in 1939

 

[EWHM]

Orry,
They'd have to pretty much discard the strategic bombing campaign to conform. This would mean they'd have to focus mostly on close air support, which would mean they'd have to seriously accelerate their invasion plans as you can't really do CAS for a non-existent beachhead. The Allies could probably squeeze supply interdiction missions under that sort of an ROE also.
What does this mean from a war-winning standpoint?
A lot more AA and Luftwaffe is available for the Eastern front, since bombing raids and fighting escorting fighters is less necessary. This may have serious impacts on the war in Russia. Also, German industry wouldn't have to be as decentralized which could improve its efficiency substantially (Soviet industry and US industry both got massive economies of scale from the fact that they didn't have to do the spread out thing to minimize strategic bombing). The Western allies may well have to roll the dice on an invasion of France that's not really totally ready with not quite air supremacy in 43 unlike in 44.

 

[Magnum]

A lot less 4-engined bombers, a lot for Mosquito's