3 ms·

And then you'd wonder if things like the bombing of Dresden count as genocide. Yup, that's exactly what it was. A "mini" one, granted, perhaps 5 percent (if w

And then you'd wonder if things like the bombing of Dresden count as genocide. Yup, that's exactly what it was. A "mini" one, granted, perhaps 5 percent (if we count all the other terror bombings conducted by the Allies - Dresden was but one of many) the size of the vastly larger genocide perpetrated by the Nazis. But there's little point in arguing that that's what the deliberate targetting of civilian populations in Germany (both during and after the war, considering the mass expulsions that followed) did not effectively amount to a "mini" genocide, nonetheless. And then if you use it like that it kind of loses its meaning if all war is genocide. No, pointing out this fairly obvious fact does not, by any stretch, imply that "all war" is genocide. Only the large-scale, deliberate targeting of civilian populations "with intent to destroy [them] as a group, in whole or in part", per the definition above. That wasn't the title of the linked article, or it's content. That's a valid point, and indeed the article should probably be flagged on that basis.

tim333 2y ago
I get what you are saying and it's about definitions of words but if you go that way you get so yeah the Nazi's committed genocide but so did their opponents so it doesn't really matter. Maybe we need a new term for excessive killing of civilians but short of trying to wipe out a whole people.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  But if you go that way you get so yeah the Nazi's committed genocide but so did their opponents so it doesn't really matter. I don't think that follows. In terms of implying the "so they're all basically the same, and the distinction doesn't really matter" part. On its own terms, the definition just doesn't do that. Granted, some (many) people might think that way, but I think that's a subset of the broader problem of people being hopelessly caught up in muddled thinking patterns generally, these days. Maybe we need a new term for excessive killing of civilians but short of trying to wipe out a whole people. "Partial genocide," "smaller-scale", "mini" etc would seem to do the trick. But unfortunately boring language of that sort doesn't trigger people's dopamine levels, and so content discussing recent events in these more measured tones doesn't get promoted and shared as often. (BTW, the genocide definition under discussion refers not just to "excessive" killings of civilians, but the specific targeting of civilians of a particular group. If the Allies had only targeted military facilities, even with the greatly more imprecise munitions in use at the time, then it would be much more difficult to say that these bombings were "genocidal". It's the fact that the Allies deliberately targeted residential areas, at a massive scale and with the specific intent of spreading terror in the civilian population, which made these bombings arguably genocidal).
- afiori 2y ago
  This is seeing the morality of the situation upside down: Committing genocide is bad, whether it's by your enemy, ally, or you own does not change that. If you allow I would like to rephrase your conclusion differently > The Nazis committed genocide but so did the USA, the USSR, the CCCP so they should not act all high and mighty as a paragon of morality.
  - p3rls 2y ago
    Incorrect -- the "genocide" in Dresden killed only 20,000 germans but helped the war effort for the allies -- preventing our causalities and mitigating further nazi atrocities (auschwitz alone was almost doubling that 20k kill count each week btw). Of course the efficacy of the raid is another matter. It was a "good genocide"
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      (auschwitz alone was almost doubling that 20k kill count each week btw) Perhaps in its record week. But "each week", no. In fact its average was 4-5k per week. Meanwhile, it is unlikely that the Dresden bombing (occuring as it did just 3 months before the end of the war, after Auschwitz and nearly all the other camps in the East had been liberated) did much of anything to hasten the end of the war, let alone to mitigate any further atrocities. That's why it gets so much attention. From just the sheer senselessness of it.
      - p3rls 2y ago
        These post-hoc determinations of senselessness are retarded. You are at war with Nazi Germany and you're doing everything in your power to bring the war to a close and in war sometimes your attacks aren't as effective as you'd like.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        There's more to it than that. Many responsible historians have looked into the question of why the Allies found it necessary to make a point of deliberately targeting civilians during the strategic campaign (while not even attempting to target the actual killing machinery of the Final Solution itself). The bombings were really quite horrific, too. Dresden was by no means an outlier, in this regard. But if you want just say that this investigation is just all retarded, then that's your right I guess.
thenaturalist 2y ago
> Only the large-scale, deliberate targeting of civilian populations "with intent to destroy [them] as a group, in whole or in part", per the definition above. So given you so much care about "mini" details, surely you would admit that the latest Hamas attack where so many anihilated villages close to the Gaza strip, killing Israeli Jews and Arabs alike as well as several foreigners, killing babies, women and the elderly indiscriminately, burning buildings and taking hostages is, by your own definition, very much to be considered to be a genocide?
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Surely you would admit ... You know, you could have asked your question in a normal, straightforward manner -- e.g. "Would you say the Oct 7th attack was also genocidal in nature, per these criteria?" -- and you would have gotten a straightforward answer. But as it is, you've chosen a weird, pretentious way of formulating your question. So I'll have to pass, and let you think whatever you want to think.
  - thenaturalist 2y ago
    We’re on a public discussion forum. Always telling to see people bring these elaborate details to the forefront instead of simply stating where they stand if it’s about Jewish life.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Your framing was disingenuous, straight up -- it was a baiting question in the classic mold -- and that's why it was necessary to shut it down. When you start a question with "Surely you will admit ...", it presupposes a certain aura of doubt or guilt on the part of the person that you're addressing (as if you think there's grounds to believe they would be reluctant to give a normal, sensible answer to that question). You also buttered up your inquest with excessive detail, as if you thought the person you were addressing it to would be ignorant of (or in denial about) the events of that day. No one needs to answer questions like this. Always telling to see ... I find the bullshit insinuation of antisemitism that you're making here (on a public discussion forum, no less) to be rather insulting, actually.

tim333 2y ago

I get what you are saying and it's about definitions of words but if you go that way you get so yeah the Nazi's committed genocide but so did their opponents so it doesn't really matter. Maybe we need a new term for excessive killing of civilians but short of trying to wipe out a whole people.

aguaviva 2y ago
But if you go that way you get so yeah the Nazi's committed genocide but so did their opponents so it doesn't really matter. I don't think that follows. In terms of implying the "so they're all basically the same, and the distinction doesn't really matter" part. On its own terms, the definition just doesn't do that. Granted, some (many) people might think that way, but I think that's a subset of the broader problem of people being hopelessly caught up in muddled thinking patterns generally, these days. Maybe we need a new term for excessive killing of civilians but short of trying to wipe out a whole people. "Partial genocide," "smaller-scale", "mini" etc would seem to do the trick. But unfortunately boring language of that sort doesn't trigger people's dopamine levels, and so content discussing recent events in these more measured tones doesn't get promoted and shared as often. (BTW, the genocide definition under discussion refers not just to "excessive" killings of civilians, but the specific targeting of civilians of a particular group. If the Allies had only targeted military facilities, even with the greatly more imprecise munitions in use at the time, then it would be much more difficult to say that these bombings were "genocidal". It's the fact that the Allies deliberately targeted residential areas, at a massive scale and with the specific intent of spreading terror in the civilian population, which made these bombings arguably genocidal).
afiori 2y ago
This is seeing the morality of the situation upside down: Committing genocide is bad, whether it's by your enemy, ally, or you own does not change that. If you allow I would like to rephrase your conclusion differently > The Nazis committed genocide but so did the USA, the USSR, the CCCP so they should not act all high and mighty as a paragon of morality.
- p3rls 2y ago
  Incorrect -- the "genocide" in Dresden killed only 20,000 germans but helped the war effort for the allies -- preventing our causalities and mitigating further nazi atrocities (auschwitz alone was almost doubling that 20k kill count each week btw). Of course the efficacy of the raid is another matter. It was a "good genocide"
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    (auschwitz alone was almost doubling that 20k kill count each week btw) Perhaps in its record week. But "each week", no. In fact its average was 4-5k per week. Meanwhile, it is unlikely that the Dresden bombing (occuring as it did just 3 months before the end of the war, after Auschwitz and nearly all the other camps in the East had been liberated) did much of anything to hasten the end of the war, let alone to mitigate any further atrocities. That's why it gets so much attention. From just the sheer senselessness of it.
    - p3rls 2y ago
      These post-hoc determinations of senselessness are retarded. You are at war with Nazi Germany and you're doing everything in your power to bring the war to a close and in war sometimes your attacks aren't as effective as you'd like.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        There's more to it than that. Many responsible historians have looked into the question of why the Allies found it necessary to make a point of deliberately targeting civilians during the strategic campaign (while not even attempting to target the actual killing machinery of the Final Solution itself). The bombings were really quite horrific, too. Dresden was by no means an outlier, in this regard. But if you want just say that this investigation is just all retarded, then that's your right I guess.

thenaturalist 2y ago

> Only the large-scale, deliberate targeting of civilian populations "with intent to destroy [them] as a group, in whole or in part", per the definition above. So given you so much care about "mini" details, surely you would admit that the latest Hamas attack where so many anihilated villages close to the Gaza strip, killing Israeli Jews and Arabs alike as well as several foreigners, killing babies, women and the elderly indiscriminately, burning buildings and taking hostages is, by your own definition, very much to be considered to be a genocide?

aguaviva 2y ago
Surely you would admit ... You know, you could have asked your question in a normal, straightforward manner -- e.g. "Would you say the Oct 7th attack was also genocidal in nature, per these criteria?" -- and you would have gotten a straightforward answer. But as it is, you've chosen a weird, pretentious way of formulating your question. So I'll have to pass, and let you think whatever you want to think.
- thenaturalist 2y ago
  We’re on a public discussion forum. Always telling to see people bring these elaborate details to the forefront instead of simply stating where they stand if it’s about Jewish life.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Your framing was disingenuous, straight up -- it was a baiting question in the classic mold -- and that's why it was necessary to shut it down. When you start a question with "Surely you will admit ...", it presupposes a certain aura of doubt or guilt on the part of the person that you're addressing (as if you think there's grounds to believe they would be reluctant to give a normal, sensible answer to that question). You also buttered up your inquest with excessive detail, as if you thought the person you were addressing it to would be ignorant of (or in denial about) the events of that day. No one needs to answer questions like this. Always telling to see ... I find the bullshit insinuation of antisemitism that you're making here (on a public discussion forum, no less) to be rather insulting, actually.