4 ms·

"Some nations have benefited from ethnic cleansing, so it's impossible to say if it's bad or not" You comment and line of reasoning is nothing short of patheti

• anovikov 5y ago
  I'd say, it's understandable why rich/developed countries oppose ethnic cleansing in other countries: they want to deny them the benefit of stability which the rich countries have, brought long ago by ethnic cleansing, to make their position more exclusive - which results among other things, in lower borrowing costs/higher P/E ratios and attraction of investments. Same cynicism as "nuclear non-proliferation": "we have the nukes so we are safe from you, and we want to make things stay that way by denying nukes to you losers". Both things are understandable, and both are morally untenable. Also, give me a counterexample - a country that lost something because of ethnic cleansing? Not counting those that lost because of being punished for that cleansing from the outside. Nazi Germany comes to mind - they cleansed Jews and lost a lot of science and engineering skill, keeping which could probably give them a chance to achieve somewhat better war outcome (while hardly any chances to win the war in any case). But, they made a big mistake in choice of target group, it's always a bad idea to mess with the Jews. Ofc there are also cases when ethnic cleansing did not work out because they didn't have resources to pull it off, and it turned into a civil war...