4 ms·

>is there a mascot celebrating Dresden bombing? Or fire-bombing of Tokyo? There is not much difference, beside "efficiency", between those and Nagasaki/Hiroshim

by tsotha 11y ago

>is there a mascot celebrating Dresden bombing? Or fire-bombing of Tokyo? There is not much difference, beside "efficiency", between those and Nagasaki/Hiroshima. Decades ago it seemed a meaningful strategic bombing operations. Today we understand that it was horrible war crimes... No. No, we do not see it that way.

deciplex 11y ago
For the most part, America stands alone in seeing it that way. It is widely considered a war crime, albeit in a war that was replete with them.
- tsotha 11y ago
  So you assert. Even if true it's meaningless.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    Well, it does have the meaning "it is widely considered a war crime", which is all I was asserting in the first place. I'm not really interested in a semantic argument with you, nor discussing the topic of whether Americans do or should give a fuck about their image internationally, nor even whether the term "war crime" makes any sense in the first place. The parent claimed "we understand that it was horrible war crimes" and unless you interpret "we" to mean "literally every single extant member of the human race", then the claim is accurate.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      It's meaningless because if "widely considered a war crime" is the standard than it's more of a popularity contest than a crime. The whole concept of criminality relies on objective criteria in place at the time of the event. All the legal bases for that widely considering is based on treaties and fluffy documents rendered after the war. It's also meaningless because the whole concept is flawed. Crimes do not occur above the sovereign nation state level. "War crimes" is a convenient excuse for the winner of a conflict to execute the leaders of the losing side. It's victor's justice.
      - deciplex 11y ago
        Objective criteria which are established... how exactly if not by popularity contest? And if making the criteria ex post facto also wins the popularity contest, then ex post facto it is, regardless of whether that offends your sense of justice. (It's not really ex post facto anyway - you simply apply the existing (1945) standards for what was considered a war crime, and find that the bombings fit the bill [1]. That seems to me the best way to do it - what would you prefer? That no one had used an atomic bomb before, need not exclude the possibility of the first such use of one being a war crime.) That said, I mostly agree with your take on war crimes in practice, if not in principle. But if the allies had lost the war the bombings would have been considered a war crime by the victors, without a doubt. In that sense it is appropriate to call it a war crime. Again, it was a war crime in a war replete with them, and it was not the worst of them either: it was certainly no Holocaust, and I don't think the two bombings taken together even rise to the level of one Rape of Nanjing, either - but it was a war crime and yes, that is the popular opinion of it globally. Try to keep in mind that I'm mainly defending the original statement "we understand that it was horrible war crimes". That is an accurate statement, even if you have grounds to think that people are wrong to see it that way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Bombings_as_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing...
- argumentum 11y ago
  "It is widely considered a war crime" Evidence? Whether allied strategic bombing of Germany/Japan was a "war crime" is partly a legal / technical question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#Definition In regard to the strategic bombing during World War II, it should be noticed that at the time, there was no international treaty or instrument protecting a civilian population specifically from attack by aircraft,[34] therefore the aerial attacks on civilians were not officially war crimes. Because of this, the Allies at the trials in Nuremberg and Tokyo never prosecuted the Germans, including Luftwaffe commander-in-chief Hermann Göring, for the bombing raids on Warsaw, Rotterdam, and British cities during the Blitz as well as the indiscriminate attacks on Allied cities with V-1 flying bombs and V-2 rockets nor the Japanese for the aerial attacks on crowded Chinese cities.[35]

by tsotha 11y ago

deciplex 11y ago

For the most part, America stands alone in seeing it that way. It is widely considered a war crime, albeit in a war that was replete with them.

tsotha 11y ago
So you assert. Even if true it's meaningless.
- deciplex 11y ago
  Well, it does have the meaning "it is widely considered a war crime", which is all I was asserting in the first place. I'm not really interested in a semantic argument with you, nor discussing the topic of whether Americans do or should give a fuck about their image internationally, nor even whether the term "war crime" makes any sense in the first place. The parent claimed "we understand that it was horrible war crimes" and unless you interpret "we" to mean "literally every single extant member of the human race", then the claim is accurate.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    It's meaningless because if "widely considered a war crime" is the standard than it's more of a popularity contest than a crime. The whole concept of criminality relies on objective criteria in place at the time of the event. All the legal bases for that widely considering is based on treaties and fluffy documents rendered after the war. It's also meaningless because the whole concept is flawed. Crimes do not occur above the sovereign nation state level. "War crimes" is a convenient excuse for the winner of a conflict to execute the leaders of the losing side. It's victor's justice.
    - deciplex 11y ago
      Objective criteria which are established... how exactly if not by popularity contest? And if making the criteria ex post facto also wins the popularity contest, then ex post facto it is, regardless of whether that offends your sense of justice. (It's not really ex post facto anyway - you simply apply the existing (1945) standards for what was considered a war crime, and find that the bombings fit the bill [1]. That seems to me the best way to do it - what would you prefer? That no one had used an atomic bomb before, need not exclude the possibility of the first such use of one being a war crime.) That said, I mostly agree with your take on war crimes in practice, if not in principle. But if the allies had lost the war the bombings would have been considered a war crime by the victors, without a doubt. In that sense it is appropriate to call it a war crime. Again, it was a war crime in a war replete with them, and it was not the worst of them either: it was certainly no Holocaust, and I don't think the two bombings taken together even rise to the level of one Rape of Nanjing, either - but it was a war crime and yes, that is the popular opinion of it globally. Try to keep in mind that I'm mainly defending the original statement "we understand that it was horrible war crimes". That is an accurate statement, even if you have grounds to think that people are wrong to see it that way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Bombings_as_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing...
argumentum 11y ago
"It is widely considered a war crime" Evidence? Whether allied strategic bombing of Germany/Japan was a "war crime" is partly a legal / technical question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#Definition In regard to the strategic bombing during World War II, it should be noticed that at the time, there was no international treaty or instrument protecting a civilian population specifically from attack by aircraft,[34] therefore the aerial attacks on civilians were not officially war crimes. Because of this, the Allies at the trials in Nuremberg and Tokyo never prosecuted the Germans, including Luftwaffe commander-in-chief Hermann Göring, for the bombing raids on Warsaw, Rotterdam, and British cities during the Blitz as well as the indiscriminate attacks on Allied cities with V-1 flying bombs and V-2 rockets nor the Japanese for the aerial attacks on crowded Chinese cities.[35]