No, which is why i said "over the age of majority". Do you understand what that means? (I certainly don't think the bombing of Hiroshima was acceptable. Dresden, i'm a lot more ambivalent about.)
-
-
Replying to @iridienne @AndrewJensen2 and
The big difference between Dresden and Hiroshima is that Imperial Japan's worst atrocities were carried out on foreign soil whereas Dachau was right in the heart of Germany, a suburb of Munich
7 replies 5 retweets 59 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @iridienne and
Oh yeah the postwar claims of German adult civilians that they had no idea the Holocaust was going on just up the road from them did ring pretty hollow, certainly. Does that justify burning them and their children alive?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AndrewJensen2 @iridienne and
Dresden wasn't a judicial punishment, it was an act of war intended to disrupt the German war machine and break the morale of the populace in order to hasten surrender On those utilitarian grounds, it was justified
3 replies 3 retweets 56 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @AndrewJensen2 and
Slaughtering Jews, in Hitler's view, was necessary to winning the war. I think that view was wrong for the same reason I think slaughtering German civilians was wrong. Civilians are not legitimate military targets in themselves.
37 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @jlippincott_ @arthur_affect and
Buddy, you can debate about the humanity or effectiveness of firebombing industrial centers, you can argue if it's feasible to spare civilians when a nation is in state of total war but, they aimed at neutralizing German ability to continue the war, Hitler wanted extermination.
2 replies 2 retweets 63 likes -
Replying to @Dominic11B4 @jlippincott_ and
Yeah unless someone argues that it would be a positive good to render a region Deutschenfrei for its own sake this is an absurd false equivalence, and a deeply odious one Dresden is not the fucking "German Holocaust" and saying it is verges on Holocaust denial
4 replies 5 retweets 90 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @AndrewJensen2 and
That's a non sequitor. Acknowledging that one mass killing of civilians is bad does not mean I deny that a different mass killing of civilians occurred. That makes zero sense.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jlippincott_ @AndrewJensen2 and
The Holocaust was deliberate, systematic genocide, and the firebombing of Dresden was not How is this even in question
6 replies 4 retweets 65 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @AndrewJensen2 and
It doesn't matter if killing civilians is "systematic" or "genocidal" you're still killing civilians! That's my whole argument. Would you have approved of systematically murdering German workers if it would have brought the war to an end?
8 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I mean, a targeted bombing of a munitions plant kills civilian workers as much as a firebombing of the city does, so what exactly are *you* arguing here
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @jlippincott_ and
Hell, in the case of Nazi Germany and other regimes happy to rely on forced labor, blowing up a munitions plant would likely mostly kill Jewish workers imported from the camps This is a moral dilemma brought up in Schindler's List etc It's the ugly moral calculus of warfare
1 reply 3 retweets 47 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @jlippincott_ and
Your moral standards would make it basically impossible to wage strategic warfare against a country like Nazi Germany at all It'd limit the warfare of your country to limited wars of "self-defense" on their own territory, which is what the Geneva Conventions were invented for
1 reply 2 retweets 40 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.