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 te

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).