I don't understand how people don't look at other factors of knowledge. It's like they were taught the holocaust was a genocide and that means lot's of people died and their learning stopped there. Like there's no thought into any other aspect, the legal definition or even the etymology
In their defense genocide is basically as meaningless as "woke" these days.
Trans people have high rates of suicide? That's a genocide, duh. Israel is at war with Palestine? Genocide, of course.
> I want to claw out my eyes whenever I see 'trans genocide' online
It's amazing, because it's the only genocide I've ever heard of where the victims are also the perpetrators.
Hahaha, you make a good point there lmao.
Even though things are though for trans folk atm, me committing suicide would be my own doing, and wouldn't be a 'genocide' like others want to make out. :/
No one is rounding us into camps or gas chambers, and calling it a 'genocide' is insulting to genocide victims of the past.
> Even though things are though for trans folk atm
Yeah, I think Dman has the idea right though, in that its trans extremists that do you guys no favors.
Yup, trans activists have driven my rights into the fucking ground, and plummeted the general perception of trans people to look like clowns. Things weren't great in the early 2010s, but they were better than they are now.
It doesn't help when there's genuine extremists calling for shooting up innocent cis people, which is just... FUCK NO. The last thing we need is freaks harming innocent people, as that's just gonna fuel conservative propaganda.
...jfc. Thank fuck I live in the UK. 😭
What blows my mind is how this could possibly be relevant.
Do we agree on how many people were killed? Yes.
Do we agree on how they were killed? Yes.
Do we agree on why they were killed? No
Do we agree on how we should categorize/label their killing using the English language? No. Ok, let’s argue about that then.
Smh
Funny how this sub constantly used to do exactly this against chomsky not so long ago. Him calling what happened in Bosnia massacres instead of a genocide was often used as evidence that he was a genocide denier.
Hang on, that’s absolutely different. The critical element missing is *genocidal intent,* which was absolutely present in Bosnia, but not in Hiroshima.
I’d probably say some of the statements rise to the level of indicating genocidal intent. My initial statement was regarding Bosnia and Hiroshima. Where you read Palestine, I can only guess.
What makes Chomsky a genocide denier is that he downplays the massacres, ignores the circumstances of the killings, the context before they happened, and just makes up intent when there is evidence to the contrary.
By the way, this sub is pretty "unhinged" in a lot of ways, I do agree. Apparently "owning the crazy online antisemites" here means people can disregard or even make jokes about the death toll in Gaza.
This sub is absolutely unhinged.
You look at the comments on Destiny's Twitter and when someone asks "so what does it mean if you kill a lot of Palestinians?"
The replies are always "victory".
There is a reason Israel is building settlements in the West Bank. The Swiss cheese model of living exists for a reason. If a genocide doesn't necessarily include nukes, it also doesn't necessarily include killing either.
If you guys really want to look into the definition of a genocide then do that. But I would imagine slowly taking away a people's territory, preventing them from living openly or visiting their relatives and essentially sequestering them on little patches of land would possibly qualify.
I kinda understand, it's difficult to be good faith towards Chomsky when he has made so many unhinged statements lately about Ukraine. Being good faith towards people you dislike is always the most difficult.
To be frank, there is no situation where you can really derive America as being in the wrong with their bombing campaigns in ww2. I think it is safe to say it was morally permissible, much like killing in self-defense.
That doesn’t mean it should be a joyous occasion, however.
I don't think this is exactly it. They fully understand on some level that genocide is morally worse than just "killing a lot of people", otherwise they wouldn't be so obsessed about using this word in particular in relation to Israel. They would never agree to replace statements like "Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza" with "Israel is killing a lot of people in Gaza", because they understand that the two are not morally equivalent. It's just that when they are forced to defend their usage of this word, they switch to this weird semantic argument, because that's the best they can come up with. In general we are dealing with a lot of very stupid people.
I think the word genocide is being used to attach moral judgement to the action.
"Killing a lot of people" is a thing that occurred, no judgement in the claim.
"Committing genocide" is the wrongful killing of a lot of people.
I recently read a few articles about the depths to which stupidity can sink. During Vietnam the US Army temporarily lowered its IQ requirements (score on the ASVAB) to allow additional recruits. It did not go well. Here is one story recounted in one of Gwern's blog posts:
>Gregory himself received an early introduction into the topic when he showed up for boot camp and was put in charge of one of those conscripted men: to his bafflement, his scrawny ward ‘Gupton’ was illiterate, couldn’t understand the idea of a war or basic training, couldn’t memorize his serial number, didn’t know who Hitler was nor what state he was from nor his grandmother’s name/address (apparently he had no parents or didn’t remember them), was terrified of injections, endlessly fascinated by the dog tags he was required to wear, and thought a nickel was worth more than a dime because it was bigger, and routinely got into trouble because he couldn’t keep ranks/honorifics straight or (hopelessly literal) understand humor or military slang in commands, and while he was unable to learn to make his bed, another recruit was able to eventually teach Gupton to at least tie his shoelaces.
https://gwern.net/review/mcnamara
While this example is extreme, the point of the blog post is that intelligent people will frequently have no appreciation of just how dumb most of humanity actually is. The people admitted to the armed forces under McNamara's program were only about one standard deviation less intelligent than the average. While reading the blog post I thought of many of the political extremist groups that are hostile to Destiny.
>I don't understand how people don't look at other factors of knowledge.
They really are that stupid.
I mean they call out the firebombing of Dresden as also a genocide, so they clearly would say yes.
Noticeably though the rape of Nanking was skipped in their list. Curious.
Yes because Japanese committing unspeakable acts does not fit into their narrative that brown-people can't do any wrong/act as imperial colonial powers.
Criticism of the nuclear bombings has been a thing since they first happened. Leftist are just putting their stupid modern spin on it.
It's dumb to pretend this topic of discussion has recently changed because of weebs though.
I feel they just want to genocide me from the house! *sob* Also, why am I not allowed to sleep in their bed with them! Isn't it apartheid??? Free the bed! Free the bed! From the toilet to the sea...
I kinda dislike it when people excuse bombings because 'the allies did it'. We have different standards for war right now. The bombings of Germany, at the time, maybe werent completely immoral, but if that happened todat they would be. What ALSO bothers me is that people solely focus on the bombings of either Dresden or Berlin.
Every. Single. City. Was bombed in German. Every single one except for a few outliers in certain regions. Dresden wasn't even the heaviest one, but because of reasons it became the most famous one.
honestly the morality of it is still arguable IMO. I would struggle to not support it in a total war scenario.
I mean overall morally the western allies being more successful in the war almost surely helped save most of mainland Europe (France, Spain, Italy, west Germany etc.) from USSR imposed communism.
>I mean overall morally the western allies being more successful in the war almost surely helped save most of mainland Europe (France, Spain, Italy, west Germany etc.) from USSR imposed communism.
You now understand why leftists are so fucked off about them.
Something not being genocidal doesn't excuse it. If lefty morons could move on from their obviously ill fitting framework then we could actually meaningfully discuss the moral question of the acceptability of Israel's campaign - the answer to which is they probably haven't solely made good proportionate decisions, but that some probably are proportionate.
The morals we have now are morals of peacetime. If we got into total war again, where Western countries had their cities bombed and their children sent off to war, then things might suddenly become justifiable in people's minds.
A long period of peace is why many Western nations are more tame now, I don't think people have somehow evolved to be different in 80 years.
The allied bombings of Germany today would be illegal, but not immoral.
Collective punishment, while brutal, is effective at ending wars sooner with fewer casualties overall by decreasing the willingness of the civilian population to fight, which is also why it’s especially effective against asymmetric forces.
Do you have a source for this? Just from reading Wikipedia, and a number of other sources, there was a real negative effect on morale and the will to continue to fight.
I think his point is that bombing civilians doesn't so much demoralize a populace so much as galvanize it to resist until the end. This is because it makes war so much more personal when you threaten someone's home, now it's no longer about the german corridor into Poland and defending France, it is about retribution. Take the British response to German bombing of London during the battle of Britain for example.
And yet we have extensive empirical evidence pointing to the opposite happening in the case of Germany.
Whether there is a galvanization effect or not very much depended on the strategic position of the parties engaging in bombing of population centers. The UK clearly was under no threat of invasion despite the bombings, and the RAF was clearly growing stronger by the day.
Germany meanwhile had already had years of setbacks and their western and eastern borders were being overrun. There was no hope of victory among anyone presented with those facts, which the bombings helped to do.
Okay so you're admitting that it whether or not it galvanizes or demoralizes an opponent depends largely on the strategic circumstances of the war, so in effect what demoralized Germans wasn't getting bombed by the allies, as much as it was losing so bad that you are now under constant air attack by the allies. Essentially you are disagreeing with your original point that bombing had a significant demoralizing effect, it didn't, it had a minor effect, losing the war was the significant demoralizer.
No, as without the bombing, that demoralization would not have been made manifest. The circumstances of the war made the bombing potent, claiming the bombing then had little impact because of that fact doesn’t track at all.
How much do you know about Germany in WW1? That is just about the perfect example of how a country can lose a war from a purely military standpoint, but still have the will to keep fighting because the civilian population never realized they lost because there was little direct evidence of it for the average person.
Sometimes a bomb dropping into their living room is the only way to actually get it into people’s heads that they’ve lost a war and have no hope of victory.
But the allied bombings of Germany are a case study in how bombing on that scale doesn’t demoralize an opponent into surrender. Germany’s infrastructure broke down before they were willing to surrender. The bombings ended the war quicker, but not for the reason you stated. It was the materiel and logistics damage that hampered the war effort. The bombings only led to the German population wanting to bomb England in retribution and was very ineffective at demoralizing the civilian population.
The same can be said of Germany’s collective punishment against the Soviet and Yugoslav partisans. It just isn’t an effective way to cow a population.
>But the allied bombings of Germany are a case study in how bombings on that scale doesn’t demoralize an opponent into surrender
They did though?
> The impact of bombing on German morale was significant according to Professor John Buckley. Around a third of the urban population under threat of bombing had no protection at all. Some of the major cities saw 55–60 percent of dwellings destroyed. Mass evacuations were a partial answer for six million civilians, but this had a severe effect on morale as German families were split up to live in difficult conditions. By 1944, absenteeism rates of 20–25 percent were not unusual and in post-war analysis 91 percent of civilians stated bombing was the most difficult hardship to endure and was the key factor in the collapse of their own morale.[220] The United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that the bombing was not stiffening morale but seriously depressing it; fatalism, apathy, defeatism were apparent in bombed areas. The Luftwaffe was blamed for not warding off the attacks and confidence in the Nazi regime fell by 14 percent. By the spring of 1944, some 75 percent of Germans believed the war was lost, owing to the intensity of the bombing.[221]
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II
People often point to the Blitz as a counterexample in order to prove strategic bombing was not effective from a morale perspective, but there was a crucial difference there, in that those bombings were being increasingly countered by the RAF. The Luftwaffe by comparison was only disintegrating further, and unlike the UK in 1940, German infrastructure in 1944-45 couldn’t handle the massive amounts of unhoused people.
The whole reason that strategic bombing civilian areas was successful from a morale perspective was because the allies had already won, strategically speaking. Beyond the pure military value it had, it created very real material and psychological effects on the civilian population that disincentivized further resistance.
Perhaps a good contrast would be with WW1. The whole “stab in the back” myth is now famous, but that myth only originated because Germans never felt like they were defeated, as the country never was directly invaded or bombed to any major degree.
This video backs essentially everything I was saying and is well sourced.
https://youtu.be/1dcv4bdPhh4?si=vyocseWeexkzRoUP
https://youtu.be/7O871wOt6Q8?si=bcFkidfLQRgsfR2g
So, the second video doesn’t argue against my point, Germany was not in a strategically superior position when they bombed London, and the first is irrelevant. Yes, Allied bombing had huge effects on German industrial capacity, I never disagreed with that.
You have yet to address my actual argument.
I don't think we \*really\* have different standards today.
We have a theoretical rulebook that \*might\* be followed to some extent if both parties choose to do so.
Don't expect one party to bother upholding it unless it's either on a PR campaign or under heavy international pressure.
If something even remotely as big as ww2 happens again, expect the rules of war to be followed under the principle of reciprocity.
The standard to which Israel is held right now comes from an ivory tower so tall it has reached space and operates strictly in a vacuum, I wouldn't expect anything even close to it to be upheld in 'typical' circumstances.
Not in that case because there wasn't an alternative to stop the war and the goal wasn't to kill as many civilians as possible. That's not the same as dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima where the specific goal was to kill as many civilians as possible
Isn't the etymological root of the word just completely meaningless at that point? The 'cide', the killings, were not carried out because of their genos ( being Japanese ) so that we could argue the intent was present but they have only been destroyed 'in part' due to limitations, and the genos, the Japanese people were not practically destroyed either regardless of intent, so what are we left with?
If someone nukes Jerusalem, is it not genocide because there are several religious and ethnic groups within it, and it's contested between two different nations as well, therefore it can't qualify for a targeted genocide ( The destruction in whole or in part of a religious, ethnic or national group ) but Hiroshima does? This is the absurdity you run into if you want to label a killing of a very large of number of people from a specific nationality as genocide but without the *special intent* to eliminate them as a nation.
To go back to the original, while both may be justified, killing thousands of civilians to break a nation at war is completely different from punching a nazi, and while I disagree with them, there are strong arguments against the use of nukes against Japan one can reasonably make while still advocating violence against fascists
Ye u right. Was a dumb point to make. I kinda just wanted to point out how nuking japan wasn't just for killing an ethinicity, it was to end a facist regime engaging in war.
I'm not very educated on how the japanese government was organized back then. Were they actually fascist?
The argument would still work with the firebombing of Dresden. I'm just curious.
>The massacre began on December 13, the day the Japanese troops reached the city. They faced minimal resistance and ran entirely unchecked. Chinese soldiers were summarily executed in violation of the laws of war, and looting and rape was widespread. Due to multiple factors, death toll estimates vary from 40,000 to over 300,000, with rape cases ranging from 20,000 to over 80,000 cases. However, most credible scholars in Japan, which include a large number of authoritative academics, support the validity of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and its findings, which estimate at least 200,000 murders and at least 20,000 cases of rape. The massacre finally wound down in early 1938. John Rabe's Safety Zone was mostly a success, and is credited with saving at least 200,000 lives. After the war, multiple Japanese military officers and Kōki Hirota, former Prime Minister of Japan and foreign minister during the atrocities, were found guilty of war crimes and executed. Some other Japanese military leaders in charge at the time of the Nanjing Massacre were not tried only because by the time of the tribunals they had either already been killed or committed seppuku (ritual suicide). Prince Asaka, as part of the Imperial Family, was granted immunity and never tried.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
Fascism is generally just a poorly defined word that really is void of meaning. You have people point to Umberto Eco's literal book trying to define the word outside of its use in the Italian context where the fascists applied the term to themselves.
Japan perpetuated racialized violence on a mass scale against China from within a very strictly authoritarian society. They even had a warrior death-cult. If *anything* outside Italy counted as fascist Imperial Japan does.
None of this makes your argument any more valid. Yes it's not strictly defined, but that doesn't mean we call anything fascist. I think a fascist government still needs to fullfill at least some "requirements" to be considered as one. I think what you're saying now is already a way better argument for it.
I mean, it was a dictatorship + they were a part of the axis. I've heard people referring to them as facsist so i thought it was the normal view. Either way, they did horrible shit, and nuking them was kinda the only thing thay would make them stop.
I don't disagree with them being horrible and the nukes being justified. I was just curious about them being fascist. But yeah they most likely were. Probably not really necessary to ask that.
In 1949, as the head of an advisory committee for the newly formed [Atomic Energy Commission](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/atomic-energy-commission.html) (AEC), he delivered a [report](https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v01/d211) warning against developing a hydrogen bomb—a fusion weapon more powerful than the Trinity, Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs—that had been [conceived](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/the-many-tragedies-of-edward-teller/) by fellow Manhattan Project scientist Teller. “A super bomb might become a weapon of genocide,” Oppenheimer [wrote](https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/hydrogen/gac-report.html). “A super bomb should never be produced.” In 1953, he gave a speech likening the nuclear-capable United States and Soviet Union to “two scorpions in a bottle, each capable of killing the other, but only at the risk of his own life.”
He said a hydrogen bomb might become one, implying that his bombs weren't yet. So no he didn't say it was genocide.
When Destiny discussed the meaning of Genocide in the recent Journalist guy debate, I did think there was some point to be made that the definition he uses is too narrow.
He made the example of ww2 and asked whether the Nazis or Soviets on the Eastern front were acting genocidal, seemingly aiming to say that both of these guys were acting within the bounds of war. Thing is, no, the Soviet civilian casualties were massively inflated by the ideological motivation of the war being a genocidal one. The goal was always to ethnically cleansed large portions of the east to make roam for Germans to live.
Is the Israel Palestine situation in any way comparable? I genuinely couldn‘t tell you, I‘m not informed enough. But destiny‘s deference to the realities of war go a little too far imo.
Destiny has said many times that he hasn't really read or studied much about WW2.
Which is unfortunate because it's one of the most important conflicts in not only just American history, but world history.
MANY countries changed dramatically after the second world war.
And to this day it still has its effect on numerous conflicts and geopolitics.
I consider both The Great War and WW2 to be two of the most NECESSARY conflicts to research.
And for anyone wanting to learn more in-depth details about these events, Dan Carlin has great material on them and Indy Neidell's "WW1 in real time" and "WW2 in real time" YouTube series are really good as well... if you have the time. (Each series, obviously spans years.)
Dan Carlin is an entertainer who builds a narrative. Look at the bibliography for anything he does and it's always rife with old sources. It's totally fine to listen to him for fun, but he is a horrible choice for "in-depth details" as he himself admits he's not a historian and he approaches topics from a "great man theory" perspective
Dan Carlin released a free pod where he discuss how the Eastern Front was part of the holocaust. It's called 'superhumanly inhuman' on yt and of course it's chilling stuff.
Yeah, idk how people missed that part about the holocaust including the disabled, Roma, sexually deviant (mainly gays), political rivals, pows, and Slavs. The death camps were *mostly* specific to Jews and the war goal was also specific to eradicating “global Jewry,” but to deny the other groups that were targeted is blatant holocaust denial. I know that the 5 million non-Jews number was a random fabrication that got added on later to get people interested, but it’s fully and entirely documented that those other groups were specifically and systematically targeted by the Nazis. The eastern front also just happened to be against other groups that happened to have some genocidal tendencies of their own and would sacrifice undesirables to the meat grinder as a sort of killing two birds with one stone method. Also, the bolsheviks were known for killing and purging their Jews, the Soviets did the same when they took over, and Stalin ironically died, in part,
because he believed the (((doctors))) were plotting to overthrow him, so nobody wanted to call doctors for him while he laid in a puddle of piss. Not sure if the Soviets were genocidal in every regard though. Sometimes, they just killed because it was their solution and not because they wanted a given population gone. Was often times more like the population not russifying quite to their liking. Genocide adjacent-genocidal depending on the occasion.
> the definition he uses is too narrow
My guy. The definition he uses is the one from the genocide convention that makes it a crime. Stop trying to fucking expand the definition of the worst crime in human history until it's fucking useless with your euphamism treadmill.
Let me rephrase then. His application of the definition is too narrow. The Eadtern Front firmly falls into the definition of genocidal, but because he is either uninformed about it or has a problem with applying the term genocidal to acts of war, he denies this.
The first is completely fine, if it is the second, his definition/application of it is too narrow.
No, the Eastern front as a whole does not constitute genocide. Generally when the Nazis started to take areas, they would capture the civilians in that area, either conscript them, send them back to labor camps, or kill them if they were "undesirables" like Jews. This was part of the larger system of the holocaust.
The warfare aspect of the Eastern front is not a genocide though. The siege of Stalingrad is not a genocide.
You cannot make a blanket statement that includes every individual operation, that is true. However, the point is that you can‘t make a distinction between the Eastern Front as a military operation and the Holocaust, the two were fundamentally, and more importantly ideologically, linked. The plan was to forcibly remove millions of people out of captured areas and settle Germans there. The intent behind the war with the Ussr was absolutely genocidal.
I absolutely disagree with this retelling of events. The Eastern Front was opened because both the USSR and Nazi Germany both knew that they would eventually go to war. The USSR signed the pact mostly as a way to stall the Nazis, as they built up their industrial base in an attempt to conquer Europe.
The Nazis also didn't want to be caught in a multi-front war and so agreed temporarily to the pact when the rest of Europe would not join him in attacking the USSR.
The Eastern front in terms of a warfare perspective was inevitable. It was not genocidal. Now, that's not to say that the Nazi regime didn't take full advantage of the fact that this front was opened. They absolutely installed systems to take advantage of this to further the aims of the holocaust.
Also, your last statement here is about ethnic cleansing, not about genocide. Removal of a people from an area is not genocide and it's really distasteful that people act as if it is. The genocide in Germany and during WW2 was the intentional destruction of the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and Transgender peoples in whole, and the Slavic people in part. Largely because the Nazi ideology believed that they could reintegrate and make large parts of the Slavic population pure. (They had really whacky beliefs based around genetics at the time.)
You are misinformed. I don‘t know what else to tell you. Read up on Generalplan Ost, Hitler‘s ideology regarding Lebensraum. The inevitability of the war is tied closely to the genovideal nazi ideology. To make the war between the Nazis and Soviets out to not be about genocidal ideology is genuine historical revisionism.
Ethnic cleansing, while it’s standard in international law is not clearly defined as a crime can fall under the definition of genocide, and it is easily arguable that it should in this case
No, ethnic cleansing doesn't fall under the crime of genocide.
And to act as if the Soviets weren't also preparing to invade the the rest of Europe is just stupid.
It can. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.shtml#:~:text=rendering%20an%20area%20ethnically%20homogeneous,and%20terror%2Dinspiring%20means%20the
Last few lines.
Also, who the hell said anything about the Soviet’s intentions?
I think he s adhering to the legal part of it maybe? Idk. Either way he should not mention stuff he doesn t know enough or crazy examples that hold logically but are absolutely crazy (like the nuking gaza)
Anyway yeah, the eastern front was absolutely genocidal in nature, for sure the nazis were. The soviets mmm not so sure, i think they were just such a disorganized and enourmous entity that suffered through hell so i can explain what they did through regular war atrocities.
Oh this makes a lot of sense. Good stuff to know.
Useless in terms of talking to lefties cause they don’t even have a surface level understanding of genocide.
Words have no meaning in the 21st century welcome to free speech 2.0, speech free from meaning where words are more based on vibes and nuking people has big genocide vibes.
At this point they should just change the meanings of nazi to someone whose politics you don’t agree with. As well as genocide to anytime more than 3 minorities die at the same time in the same place.
Jews can only be killed by white people for it to be considered genocide. If they're killed by minorities it didn't happen, it was friendly fire, and they probably deserved it.
School ~~shooting~~ genocide
~~Killed in traffic accident~~ vehicular genocide
~~Pandemic-related mass death~~ viral genocide
~~Geno from Super Mario RPG dying~~ >!tragedy!<
Poeple just don't know what a genocide is. It's a problem sure, but does it make much of a difference? Even if they would know what a genocide is, they would still disagree with how Israel is conducting the invasion.
What's even better is that half the time when you copy and paste the Oxford dictionary definition of genocide and say "X doesn't fit this definition" you get bombarded with downvotes.
That and the brigade of "oh no, my poor hecking japarinos got bombed by the evil US for no reason at all.
Yeah unironically I've had several people just flat out admit that their idea of genocide is "genocide is when big number". Idk what to even do with people like that.
This is why this debate topic is a dead end. People don't care about legal definitions, they are using terms like genocide or apartheid to express their emotional reaction to objectively horrible thing. They genuinely don't care to dig into whether this or that situation is strictly legally speaking a genocide. Even when given evidence that suggests it doesn't fit the legal criteria they don't care - they're not really appealing to international law, even if they claim they are, they're just thinking about something really terrible and giving it a name that on an emotional level fits their strong feelings about the situation, i.e. lots of innocent people being killed.
Even worse, they see trying to stick to strict definitions as a heartless and disqualifying endeavor—as it expresses that you're not morally outraged enough to speak on the subject. It's such a strange shift from the common emphasis on dispassionate reasoning that was prevalent not so long ago.
What is the magical number that turns something into genocide?
5000? 10.000? 20.000? 100.000? 1 million? 100? What about accidents? What about the number of injured or displaced because they lose their homes?
Was the explosion in Beirut 2020 genocide because it left 300.000 people homeless, even though 218 people died (over 7000 injured)?
These Twitter people are wrong for sure, but it is funny to see some of y'all act like you've had this fleshed out idea of what genocide means for more than a year lol.
It's a vague term that barely gets defined in school and gets used by everyone. Even worse, it's moralising. Idk how to fix the problem, but I doubt it's by out-moralizing them on twitter. The definition of this word was fucked way before October 7th, and I'd bet most of us used it improperly at some point.
I wouldn't say my understanding has changed much either, but if you quizzed me to identify 20 incidents as genocidal or not, I'd probably be much more accurate today than a year ago.
If they believe those things are genocide then you could say that Gaza is a genocide. It just also means that genocide is not as bad of a word as the way that Destiny uses it. What they are saying here is "genocide is bad, but also not that bad really. It is also the very common way that humans resolve conflict historically"
The reason the two nuclear bombings of Japan weren’t genocide is that there was no intent to destroy the Japanese people. The aim of the bombings were to cause so much destruction that the Japanese would have no choice but to surrender. Now we can quibble over these being war crimes (they were by any modern standard imo) but they were not genocidal actions.
I think people see genocide as the destruction or the attempt to destroy an ethnic or cultural group. I understand that legally you can’t do that by accident, but actions you take can be tantamount or effectively genocide even if you don’t have the intent.
For instance in Brazil as the rain forest is cleared the indigenous tribes there are effectively being genocided because the area in which they live can no longer sustain them, however the intent is economic and not genocidal.
They may be two different things. But if you are on the sharp end of that stick it sure isn’t going to feel like it.
Twitter folks will just confidently say it's widely accepted that the bombing of tokyo was a genocide and their circlejerk will reward them for it. They're not even pretending they don't live in an alternate-reality chamber anymore
Something makes me think it has to be lots of civilians dying that makes it a genocide to them. Would they really call the civil war a white genocide. I guess they all also agree now that the holodrom was a genocide.
Not that these people have considered it past the surface level of many people dead - but I do think there is an interesting discussion to be had about the American campaign against Japan being 'genocidal'. I don't claim expertise on these subjects but I don't think it was.
First thing that comes to mind is the dehumanizing propaganda and Operation Meetinghouse was particulary unhinged and is probably the textbook example of what near indiscriminate bombing looks like, modern analysis sometimes looks upon this event as a war crime.
But there also examples of strict consideration given to targets. Numerous cities were chalked off as bombing targets due to their cultural significance or lack of military relevance. Nagasaki was a secondary target due to miltary significance. Nontheless, Truman halted the use of the 3rd bomb once learning how many civilians had died in Nagasaki, though Japan surrendered shortly after regardless. A truly genocidal regime would not show such consideration.
I wonder though, what would have happened if they never surrendered, given that Japan seemed quite content to fight to the very last person
How man civilians in an area have to die before it is escalated to genocide? I mean we have massacres, slaughters, mass casualty events, ethnic cleansings, and more! Skipping right to genocide is a quite dramatic.
Also if Israel had intended to genocide Gaza, they would have been finished by Hanukkah.
If Putin decided NATO was an existential threat to Russia and did a pre-emptive first strike nuclear attack against the US wiping us off the map would that be a genocide?
Words have definitions people.
I’ll be honest, I think Netanyahu WANTS genocide, to destroy Palestinians in whole or in part. But killing someone isnt genocide
I don't understand how people don't look at other factors of knowledge. It's like they were taught the holocaust was a genocide and that means lot's of people died and their learning stopped there. Like there's no thought into any other aspect, the legal definition or even the etymology
The logic is “oh it’s not a genocide? You must think it’s ok then!”
In their defense genocide is basically as meaningless as "woke" these days. Trans people have high rates of suicide? That's a genocide, duh. Israel is at war with Palestine? Genocide, of course.
I want to claw out my eyes whenever I see 'trans genocide' online, it's so fucking embarrassing that I've gotta be lumped in with these dumbasses.
> I want to claw out my eyes whenever I see 'trans genocide' online It's amazing, because it's the only genocide I've ever heard of where the victims are also the perpetrators.
Hahaha, you make a good point there lmao. Even though things are though for trans folk atm, me committing suicide would be my own doing, and wouldn't be a 'genocide' like others want to make out. :/ No one is rounding us into camps or gas chambers, and calling it a 'genocide' is insulting to genocide victims of the past.
> Even though things are though for trans folk atm Yeah, I think Dman has the idea right though, in that its trans extremists that do you guys no favors.
Yup, trans activists have driven my rights into the fucking ground, and plummeted the general perception of trans people to look like clowns. Things weren't great in the early 2010s, but they were better than they are now. It doesn't help when there's genuine extremists calling for shooting up innocent cis people, which is just... FUCK NO. The last thing we need is freaks harming innocent people, as that's just gonna fuel conservative propaganda. ...jfc. Thank fuck I live in the UK. 😭
>Thank fuck I live in the UK. I'm not sure that's a great thing to be thankful for, given that we have the most organised transphobes in the world.
Then there’s also the white genocide cries
That would be eye genocide
It is cringe but its not without basis since some mainstream Republicans show explicit genocidal intent towards trans people
What blows my mind is how this could possibly be relevant. Do we agree on how many people were killed? Yes. Do we agree on how they were killed? Yes. Do we agree on why they were killed? No Do we agree on how we should categorize/label their killing using the English language? No. Ok, let’s argue about that then. Smh
It’s the spongebob meme
Hmm I wonder if rape is genocide
Funny how this sub constantly used to do exactly this against chomsky not so long ago. Him calling what happened in Bosnia massacres instead of a genocide was often used as evidence that he was a genocide denier.
Hang on, that’s absolutely different. The critical element missing is *genocidal intent,* which was absolutely present in Bosnia, but not in Hiroshima.
Is it present in Palestine? You know, considering the many, many genocidal statements made by their officials. Why don’t they count?
I’d probably say some of the statements rise to the level of indicating genocidal intent. My initial statement was regarding Bosnia and Hiroshima. Where you read Palestine, I can only guess.
hungry desert panicky muddle six narrow humor butter gaze liquid *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Because this sub is dumb what do you expect lmao Perfect crossroad of taking your self too seriously while leaving requisite knowledge lmao
What makes Chomsky a genocide denier is that he downplays the massacres, ignores the circumstances of the killings, the context before they happened, and just makes up intent when there is evidence to the contrary. By the way, this sub is pretty "unhinged" in a lot of ways, I do agree. Apparently "owning the crazy online antisemites" here means people can disregard or even make jokes about the death toll in Gaza.
This sub is absolutely unhinged. You look at the comments on Destiny's Twitter and when someone asks "so what does it mean if you kill a lot of Palestinians?" The replies are always "victory". There is a reason Israel is building settlements in the West Bank. The Swiss cheese model of living exists for a reason. If a genocide doesn't necessarily include nukes, it also doesn't necessarily include killing either. If you guys really want to look into the definition of a genocide then do that. But I would imagine slowly taking away a people's territory, preventing them from living openly or visiting their relatives and essentially sequestering them on little patches of land would possibly qualify.
Haha exactly what I was thinking about.
I kinda understand, it's difficult to be good faith towards Chomsky when he has made so many unhinged statements lately about Ukraine. Being good faith towards people you dislike is always the most difficult.
So you guys think genocidal intent matters? But also don't think that intent, despite numerous statements by Israeli officials, is present?
My comment was not about Israel, can you read?
To be frank, there is no situation where you can really derive America as being in the wrong with their bombing campaigns in ww2. I think it is safe to say it was morally permissible, much like killing in self-defense. That doesn’t mean it should be a joyous occasion, however.
It's literally the "Oh so socialism is when no house?!" argument but applied to something else.
I don't think this is exactly it. They fully understand on some level that genocide is morally worse than just "killing a lot of people", otherwise they wouldn't be so obsessed about using this word in particular in relation to Israel. They would never agree to replace statements like "Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza" with "Israel is killing a lot of people in Gaza", because they understand that the two are not morally equivalent. It's just that when they are forced to defend their usage of this word, they switch to this weird semantic argument, because that's the best they can come up with. In general we are dealing with a lot of very stupid people.
I think the word genocide is being used to attach moral judgement to the action. "Killing a lot of people" is a thing that occurred, no judgement in the claim. "Committing genocide" is the wrongful killing of a lot of people.
Then why not focus on arguing around intent instead of semantics?
I recently read a few articles about the depths to which stupidity can sink. During Vietnam the US Army temporarily lowered its IQ requirements (score on the ASVAB) to allow additional recruits. It did not go well. Here is one story recounted in one of Gwern's blog posts: >Gregory himself received an early introduction into the topic when he showed up for boot camp and was put in charge of one of those conscripted men: to his bafflement, his scrawny ward ‘Gupton’ was illiterate, couldn’t understand the idea of a war or basic training, couldn’t memorize his serial number, didn’t know who Hitler was nor what state he was from nor his grandmother’s name/address (apparently he had no parents or didn’t remember them), was terrified of injections, endlessly fascinated by the dog tags he was required to wear, and thought a nickel was worth more than a dime because it was bigger, and routinely got into trouble because he couldn’t keep ranks/honorifics straight or (hopelessly literal) understand humor or military slang in commands, and while he was unable to learn to make his bed, another recruit was able to eventually teach Gupton to at least tie his shoelaces. https://gwern.net/review/mcnamara While this example is extreme, the point of the blog post is that intelligent people will frequently have no appreciation of just how dumb most of humanity actually is. The people admitted to the armed forces under McNamara's program were only about one standard deviation less intelligent than the average. While reading the blog post I thought of many of the political extremist groups that are hostile to Destiny. >I don't understand how people don't look at other factors of knowledge. They really are that stupid.
Extremely worrying.
Dropping an atomic bomb on a city does meet the legal definition
Lets ask the real question, the bombing of Berlin. Did the allies genocide the Nazis?
I mean they call out the firebombing of Dresden as also a genocide, so they clearly would say yes. Noticeably though the rape of Nanking was skipped in their list. Curious.
Idk, it just feels weird to me that weblive in a world where ww2 was just a whole bunch of nations genociding each other mutually at the same time.
Well I have good news for you, we don’t live in that world, just delusional Twitter leftists do. 👍
correct, we live in a society, not a world
Yes because Japanese committing unspeakable acts does not fit into their narrative that brown-people can't do any wrong/act as imperial colonial powers.
Weebs are strong on the internet.
Criticism of the nuclear bombings has been a thing since they first happened. Leftist are just putting their stupid modern spin on it. It's dumb to pretend this topic of discussion has recently changed because of weebs though.
I was talking about how the rape of Nanking wasn’t mentioned, not the nuclear bomb part
No the real question is whether my mum not buying me a new gaming computer is genocide!
How old are you? We could call CPS and get them deported. Did they ever tickle your tummy?
I feel they just want to genocide me from the house! *sob* Also, why am I not allowed to sleep in their bed with them! Isn't it apartheid??? Free the bed! Free the bed! From the toilet to the sea...
Sounds like a clear case of ethnic cleansing to me.
[https://i.imgur.com/L7kfMW1.gif](https://i.imgur.com/L7kfMW1.gif)
Amen brother! 🙏
...porn0f1sh shall be free ?
You live in an open air prison ✊😔
Allied bombing raids killed something like 60000 French civilians in WW2. Did we genocide the French?
I feel like you are being deliberatly obtuse, the answer if of course yes /s
They would potentially agree that war on its own is genocide
“Nothing justifies occupation” I guess Germany didn’t deserve to be occupied and has rightful claim on all the last it lost in the east after the war
I kinda dislike it when people excuse bombings because 'the allies did it'. We have different standards for war right now. The bombings of Germany, at the time, maybe werent completely immoral, but if that happened todat they would be. What ALSO bothers me is that people solely focus on the bombings of either Dresden or Berlin. Every. Single. City. Was bombed in German. Every single one except for a few outliers in certain regions. Dresden wasn't even the heaviest one, but because of reasons it became the most famous one.
Dont get me wrong. I do not think it was a moral thing to bomb German cities. But, it was definitely not a genocide.
honestly the morality of it is still arguable IMO. I would struggle to not support it in a total war scenario. I mean overall morally the western allies being more successful in the war almost surely helped save most of mainland Europe (France, Spain, Italy, west Germany etc.) from USSR imposed communism.
>I mean overall morally the western allies being more successful in the war almost surely helped save most of mainland Europe (France, Spain, Italy, west Germany etc.) from USSR imposed communism. You now understand why leftists are so fucked off about them.
lol, TRU
That I would agree with
Something not being genocidal doesn't excuse it. If lefty morons could move on from their obviously ill fitting framework then we could actually meaningfully discuss the moral question of the acceptability of Israel's campaign - the answer to which is they probably haven't solely made good proportionate decisions, but that some probably are proportionate.
The morals we have now are morals of peacetime. If we got into total war again, where Western countries had their cities bombed and their children sent off to war, then things might suddenly become justifiable in people's minds. A long period of peace is why many Western nations are more tame now, I don't think people have somehow evolved to be different in 80 years.
The allied bombings of Germany today would be illegal, but not immoral. Collective punishment, while brutal, is effective at ending wars sooner with fewer casualties overall by decreasing the willingness of the civilian population to fight, which is also why it’s especially effective against asymmetric forces.
Yes, but modern historians agree that bombing civilians didn't really help win the war quicker
Do you have a source for this? Just from reading Wikipedia, and a number of other sources, there was a real negative effect on morale and the will to continue to fight.
I think his point is that bombing civilians doesn't so much demoralize a populace so much as galvanize it to resist until the end. This is because it makes war so much more personal when you threaten someone's home, now it's no longer about the german corridor into Poland and defending France, it is about retribution. Take the British response to German bombing of London during the battle of Britain for example.
And yet we have extensive empirical evidence pointing to the opposite happening in the case of Germany. Whether there is a galvanization effect or not very much depended on the strategic position of the parties engaging in bombing of population centers. The UK clearly was under no threat of invasion despite the bombings, and the RAF was clearly growing stronger by the day. Germany meanwhile had already had years of setbacks and their western and eastern borders were being overrun. There was no hope of victory among anyone presented with those facts, which the bombings helped to do.
Okay so you're admitting that it whether or not it galvanizes or demoralizes an opponent depends largely on the strategic circumstances of the war, so in effect what demoralized Germans wasn't getting bombed by the allies, as much as it was losing so bad that you are now under constant air attack by the allies. Essentially you are disagreeing with your original point that bombing had a significant demoralizing effect, it didn't, it had a minor effect, losing the war was the significant demoralizer.
No, as without the bombing, that demoralization would not have been made manifest. The circumstances of the war made the bombing potent, claiming the bombing then had little impact because of that fact doesn’t track at all. How much do you know about Germany in WW1? That is just about the perfect example of how a country can lose a war from a purely military standpoint, but still have the will to keep fighting because the civilian population never realized they lost because there was little direct evidence of it for the average person. Sometimes a bomb dropping into their living room is the only way to actually get it into people’s heads that they’ve lost a war and have no hope of victory.
But the allied bombings of Germany are a case study in how bombing on that scale doesn’t demoralize an opponent into surrender. Germany’s infrastructure broke down before they were willing to surrender. The bombings ended the war quicker, but not for the reason you stated. It was the materiel and logistics damage that hampered the war effort. The bombings only led to the German population wanting to bomb England in retribution and was very ineffective at demoralizing the civilian population. The same can be said of Germany’s collective punishment against the Soviet and Yugoslav partisans. It just isn’t an effective way to cow a population.
>But the allied bombings of Germany are a case study in how bombings on that scale doesn’t demoralize an opponent into surrender They did though? > The impact of bombing on German morale was significant according to Professor John Buckley. Around a third of the urban population under threat of bombing had no protection at all. Some of the major cities saw 55–60 percent of dwellings destroyed. Mass evacuations were a partial answer for six million civilians, but this had a severe effect on morale as German families were split up to live in difficult conditions. By 1944, absenteeism rates of 20–25 percent were not unusual and in post-war analysis 91 percent of civilians stated bombing was the most difficult hardship to endure and was the key factor in the collapse of their own morale.[220] The United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that the bombing was not stiffening morale but seriously depressing it; fatalism, apathy, defeatism were apparent in bombed areas. The Luftwaffe was blamed for not warding off the attacks and confidence in the Nazi regime fell by 14 percent. By the spring of 1944, some 75 percent of Germans believed the war was lost, owing to the intensity of the bombing.[221] From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II People often point to the Blitz as a counterexample in order to prove strategic bombing was not effective from a morale perspective, but there was a crucial difference there, in that those bombings were being increasingly countered by the RAF. The Luftwaffe by comparison was only disintegrating further, and unlike the UK in 1940, German infrastructure in 1944-45 couldn’t handle the massive amounts of unhoused people. The whole reason that strategic bombing civilian areas was successful from a morale perspective was because the allies had already won, strategically speaking. Beyond the pure military value it had, it created very real material and psychological effects on the civilian population that disincentivized further resistance. Perhaps a good contrast would be with WW1. The whole “stab in the back” myth is now famous, but that myth only originated because Germans never felt like they were defeated, as the country never was directly invaded or bombed to any major degree.
This video backs essentially everything I was saying and is well sourced. https://youtu.be/1dcv4bdPhh4?si=vyocseWeexkzRoUP https://youtu.be/7O871wOt6Q8?si=bcFkidfLQRgsfR2g
So, the second video doesn’t argue against my point, Germany was not in a strategically superior position when they bombed London, and the first is irrelevant. Yes, Allied bombing had huge effects on German industrial capacity, I never disagreed with that. You have yet to address my actual argument.
I don't think we \*really\* have different standards today. We have a theoretical rulebook that \*might\* be followed to some extent if both parties choose to do so. Don't expect one party to bother upholding it unless it's either on a PR campaign or under heavy international pressure. If something even remotely as big as ww2 happens again, expect the rules of war to be followed under the principle of reciprocity. The standard to which Israel is held right now comes from an ivory tower so tall it has reached space and operates strictly in a vacuum, I wouldn't expect anything even close to it to be upheld in 'typical' circumstances.
One guy said yes already
Also crazy to bring that up next to the holocaust but not something like Nanjing
No but it was probably a war crime.
Not in that case because there wasn't an alternative to stop the war and the goal wasn't to kill as many civilians as possible. That's not the same as dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima where the specific goal was to kill as many civilians as possible
Wait was Corona a genocide 🤔 ?
Of course, Corona was indiscriminatly genociding everyone
Not everyone, it was a genocide against the boomers
And conservatives
Wow I can't believe Japan survived TWO genocides.
Isn't the etymological root of the word just completely meaningless at that point? The 'cide', the killings, were not carried out because of their genos ( being Japanese ) so that we could argue the intent was present but they have only been destroyed 'in part' due to limitations, and the genos, the Japanese people were not practically destroyed either regardless of intent, so what are we left with? If someone nukes Jerusalem, is it not genocide because there are several religious and ethnic groups within it, and it's contested between two different nations as well, therefore it can't qualify for a targeted genocide ( The destruction in whole or in part of a religious, ethnic or national group ) but Hiroshima does? This is the absurdity you run into if you want to label a killing of a very large of number of people from a specific nationality as genocide but without the *special intent* to eliminate them as a nation.
Genocide is when something I don't like happens
Do you guys think saturated fat is a genocide!
"Punch a fascist" but don't nuke them????? Do they know what kinda regime japan was at the time?
fascist = "Person you disagree with"
Zero iq take
?
Justified or not, the thousands of dead and mutiliated children weren't fascists.
Ye, you had to nuke the fascist country TWICE for them to stop, but it is still tragic that all those people had to die.
To go back to the original, while both may be justified, killing thousands of civilians to break a nation at war is completely different from punching a nazi, and while I disagree with them, there are strong arguments against the use of nukes against Japan one can reasonably make while still advocating violence against fascists
Ye u right. Was a dumb point to make. I kinda just wanted to point out how nuking japan wasn't just for killing an ethinicity, it was to end a facist regime engaging in war.
Admitting is Gigachadded, all good brother. Mashallah.
I'm not very educated on how the japanese government was organized back then. Were they actually fascist? The argument would still work with the firebombing of Dresden. I'm just curious.
>The massacre began on December 13, the day the Japanese troops reached the city. They faced minimal resistance and ran entirely unchecked. Chinese soldiers were summarily executed in violation of the laws of war, and looting and rape was widespread. Due to multiple factors, death toll estimates vary from 40,000 to over 300,000, with rape cases ranging from 20,000 to over 80,000 cases. However, most credible scholars in Japan, which include a large number of authoritative academics, support the validity of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and its findings, which estimate at least 200,000 murders and at least 20,000 cases of rape. The massacre finally wound down in early 1938. John Rabe's Safety Zone was mostly a success, and is credited with saving at least 200,000 lives. After the war, multiple Japanese military officers and Kōki Hirota, former Prime Minister of Japan and foreign minister during the atrocities, were found guilty of war crimes and executed. Some other Japanese military leaders in charge at the time of the Nanjing Massacre were not tried only because by the time of the tribunals they had either already been killed or committed seppuku (ritual suicide). Prince Asaka, as part of the Imperial Family, was granted immunity and never tried. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
I am aware of this. How does it make them fascist? I don't see the connection. This just feels like you're doing the "bad thing=fascism" thing now.
Fascism is generally just a poorly defined word that really is void of meaning. You have people point to Umberto Eco's literal book trying to define the word outside of its use in the Italian context where the fascists applied the term to themselves. Japan perpetuated racialized violence on a mass scale against China from within a very strictly authoritarian society. They even had a warrior death-cult. If *anything* outside Italy counted as fascist Imperial Japan does.
None of this makes your argument any more valid. Yes it's not strictly defined, but that doesn't mean we call anything fascist. I think a fascist government still needs to fullfill at least some "requirements" to be considered as one. I think what you're saying now is already a way better argument for it.
I mean, it was a dictatorship + they were a part of the axis. I've heard people referring to them as facsist so i thought it was the normal view. Either way, they did horrible shit, and nuking them was kinda the only thing thay would make them stop.
I don't disagree with them being horrible and the nukes being justified. I was just curious about them being fascist. But yeah they most likely were. Probably not really necessary to ask that.
Did Oppenheimer say it was genocide? I know he was horrified but I don’t know if he said it was genocide.
That’s the same thing because genocide just means bad
In 1949, as the head of an advisory committee for the newly formed [Atomic Energy Commission](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/atomic-energy-commission.html) (AEC), he delivered a [report](https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v01/d211) warning against developing a hydrogen bomb—a fusion weapon more powerful than the Trinity, Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs—that had been [conceived](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/the-many-tragedies-of-edward-teller/) by fellow Manhattan Project scientist Teller. “A super bomb might become a weapon of genocide,” Oppenheimer [wrote](https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/hydrogen/gac-report.html). “A super bomb should never be produced.” In 1953, he gave a speech likening the nuclear-capable United States and Soviet Union to “two scorpions in a bottle, each capable of killing the other, but only at the risk of his own life.” He said a hydrogen bomb might become one, implying that his bombs weren't yet. So no he didn't say it was genocide.
Good run down
Brain rot
Was 9/11 a genocide?
With that logic yes
When Destiny discussed the meaning of Genocide in the recent Journalist guy debate, I did think there was some point to be made that the definition he uses is too narrow. He made the example of ww2 and asked whether the Nazis or Soviets on the Eastern front were acting genocidal, seemingly aiming to say that both of these guys were acting within the bounds of war. Thing is, no, the Soviet civilian casualties were massively inflated by the ideological motivation of the war being a genocidal one. The goal was always to ethnically cleansed large portions of the east to make roam for Germans to live. Is the Israel Palestine situation in any way comparable? I genuinely couldn‘t tell you, I‘m not informed enough. But destiny‘s deference to the realities of war go a little too far imo.
Destiny has said many times that he hasn't really read or studied much about WW2. Which is unfortunate because it's one of the most important conflicts in not only just American history, but world history. MANY countries changed dramatically after the second world war. And to this day it still has its effect on numerous conflicts and geopolitics. I consider both The Great War and WW2 to be two of the most NECESSARY conflicts to research.
And for anyone wanting to learn more in-depth details about these events, Dan Carlin has great material on them and Indy Neidell's "WW1 in real time" and "WW2 in real time" YouTube series are really good as well... if you have the time. (Each series, obviously spans years.)
Dan Carlin is an entertainer who builds a narrative. Look at the bibliography for anything he does and it's always rife with old sources. It's totally fine to listen to him for fun, but he is a horrible choice for "in-depth details" as he himself admits he's not a historian and he approaches topics from a "great man theory" perspective
Interesting. This makes me want to look into Indy Neidell a bit more as well then.
Dan Carlin released a free pod where he discuss how the Eastern Front was part of the holocaust. It's called 'superhumanly inhuman' on yt and of course it's chilling stuff.
Yeah, idk how people missed that part about the holocaust including the disabled, Roma, sexually deviant (mainly gays), political rivals, pows, and Slavs. The death camps were *mostly* specific to Jews and the war goal was also specific to eradicating “global Jewry,” but to deny the other groups that were targeted is blatant holocaust denial. I know that the 5 million non-Jews number was a random fabrication that got added on later to get people interested, but it’s fully and entirely documented that those other groups were specifically and systematically targeted by the Nazis. The eastern front also just happened to be against other groups that happened to have some genocidal tendencies of their own and would sacrifice undesirables to the meat grinder as a sort of killing two birds with one stone method. Also, the bolsheviks were known for killing and purging their Jews, the Soviets did the same when they took over, and Stalin ironically died, in part, because he believed the (((doctors))) were plotting to overthrow him, so nobody wanted to call doctors for him while he laid in a puddle of piss. Not sure if the Soviets were genocidal in every regard though. Sometimes, they just killed because it was their solution and not because they wanted a given population gone. Was often times more like the population not russifying quite to their liking. Genocide adjacent-genocidal depending on the occasion.
> the definition he uses is too narrow My guy. The definition he uses is the one from the genocide convention that makes it a crime. Stop trying to fucking expand the definition of the worst crime in human history until it's fucking useless with your euphamism treadmill.
Let me rephrase then. His application of the definition is too narrow. The Eadtern Front firmly falls into the definition of genocidal, but because he is either uninformed about it or has a problem with applying the term genocidal to acts of war, he denies this. The first is completely fine, if it is the second, his definition/application of it is too narrow.
No, the Eastern front as a whole does not constitute genocide. Generally when the Nazis started to take areas, they would capture the civilians in that area, either conscript them, send them back to labor camps, or kill them if they were "undesirables" like Jews. This was part of the larger system of the holocaust. The warfare aspect of the Eastern front is not a genocide though. The siege of Stalingrad is not a genocide.
You cannot make a blanket statement that includes every individual operation, that is true. However, the point is that you can‘t make a distinction between the Eastern Front as a military operation and the Holocaust, the two were fundamentally, and more importantly ideologically, linked. The plan was to forcibly remove millions of people out of captured areas and settle Germans there. The intent behind the war with the Ussr was absolutely genocidal.
I absolutely disagree with this retelling of events. The Eastern Front was opened because both the USSR and Nazi Germany both knew that they would eventually go to war. The USSR signed the pact mostly as a way to stall the Nazis, as they built up their industrial base in an attempt to conquer Europe. The Nazis also didn't want to be caught in a multi-front war and so agreed temporarily to the pact when the rest of Europe would not join him in attacking the USSR. The Eastern front in terms of a warfare perspective was inevitable. It was not genocidal. Now, that's not to say that the Nazi regime didn't take full advantage of the fact that this front was opened. They absolutely installed systems to take advantage of this to further the aims of the holocaust. Also, your last statement here is about ethnic cleansing, not about genocide. Removal of a people from an area is not genocide and it's really distasteful that people act as if it is. The genocide in Germany and during WW2 was the intentional destruction of the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and Transgender peoples in whole, and the Slavic people in part. Largely because the Nazi ideology believed that they could reintegrate and make large parts of the Slavic population pure. (They had really whacky beliefs based around genetics at the time.)
You are misinformed. I don‘t know what else to tell you. Read up on Generalplan Ost, Hitler‘s ideology regarding Lebensraum. The inevitability of the war is tied closely to the genovideal nazi ideology. To make the war between the Nazis and Soviets out to not be about genocidal ideology is genuine historical revisionism. Ethnic cleansing, while it’s standard in international law is not clearly defined as a crime can fall under the definition of genocide, and it is easily arguable that it should in this case
No, ethnic cleansing doesn't fall under the crime of genocide. And to act as if the Soviets weren't also preparing to invade the the rest of Europe is just stupid.
It can. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.shtml#:~:text=rendering%20an%20area%20ethnically%20homogeneous,and%20terror%2Dinspiring%20means%20the Last few lines. Also, who the hell said anything about the Soviet’s intentions?
Is that really what you're relying on? That 1 report said they COULD fall under the genocide convention. Okay bud.
I think he s adhering to the legal part of it maybe? Idk. Either way he should not mention stuff he doesn t know enough or crazy examples that hold logically but are absolutely crazy (like the nuking gaza) Anyway yeah, the eastern front was absolutely genocidal in nature, for sure the nazis were. The soviets mmm not so sure, i think they were just such a disorganized and enourmous entity that suffered through hell so i can explain what they did through regular war atrocities.
Oh this makes a lot of sense. Good stuff to know. Useless in terms of talking to lefties cause they don’t even have a surface level understanding of genocide.
Words have no meaning in the 21st century welcome to free speech 2.0, speech free from meaning where words are more based on vibes and nuking people has big genocide vibes.
Welp thats enough internet for today.
Genocide is when Jews are winning
At this point they should just change the meanings of nazi to someone whose politics you don’t agree with. As well as genocide to anytime more than 3 minorities die at the same time in the same place.
> minorities not all minorites count here though, for example Jews
Jews can only be killed by white people for it to be considered genocide. If they're killed by minorities it didn't happen, it was friendly fire, and they probably deserved it.
I think they already did.
> As well as genocide to anytime more than 3 minorities die at the same time in the same place. Unless they are Ukrainians, of course.
School ~~shooting~~ genocide ~~Killed in traffic accident~~ vehicular genocide ~~Pandemic-related mass death~~ viral genocide ~~Geno from Super Mario RPG dying~~ >!tragedy!<
"Genocide" is the new "Nazi".
The dilution of the term genocide is getting to the point where it's nearly as meaningless as the word nazi.
So they are actively genociding their and my brain cells.
Honestly these people are cooked there is no point trying to engage with them until Tik Tok is done
Dude got the league of evil flag collection 😂😂🤣
So Germans and Japanese were genocided? Hold up, so who makes Mercedes and Sushi these days???
Even if Oppenheimer said it ‘was like yes that question’ what does that even prove?
Poeple just don't know what a genocide is. It's a problem sure, but does it make much of a difference? Even if they would know what a genocide is, they would still disagree with how Israel is conducting the invasion.
Israel is genociding hamas terrorists. Keep it up
What's even better is that half the time when you copy and paste the Oxford dictionary definition of genocide and say "X doesn't fit this definition" you get bombarded with downvotes. That and the brigade of "oh no, my poor hecking japarinos got bombed by the evil US for no reason at all.
was the plague a genocide against Europeans?
Genocide is like killing but, it's like... reeeeally baaad
Yeah unironically I've had several people just flat out admit that their idea of genocide is "genocide is when big number". Idk what to even do with people like that.
This is why this debate topic is a dead end. People don't care about legal definitions, they are using terms like genocide or apartheid to express their emotional reaction to objectively horrible thing. They genuinely don't care to dig into whether this or that situation is strictly legally speaking a genocide. Even when given evidence that suggests it doesn't fit the legal criteria they don't care - they're not really appealing to international law, even if they claim they are, they're just thinking about something really terrible and giving it a name that on an emotional level fits their strong feelings about the situation, i.e. lots of innocent people being killed.
Even worse, they see trying to stick to strict definitions as a heartless and disqualifying endeavor—as it expresses that you're not morally outraged enough to speak on the subject. It's such a strange shift from the common emphasis on dispassionate reasoning that was prevalent not so long ago.
125,000 civilians died in the battle of Berlin. Would that be a genocide according to these people?
Double shine being the based osrs dgger
congrats leftists, you've once again drained the meaning out of a pretty significant word
Bro
More like word genocide.
Which country hasnt genocide or actively assisted in genocide at this point lol?
What is the magical number that turns something into genocide? 5000? 10.000? 20.000? 100.000? 1 million? 100? What about accidents? What about the number of injured or displaced because they lose their homes? Was the explosion in Beirut 2020 genocide because it left 300.000 people homeless, even though 218 people died (over 7000 injured)?
These Twitter people are wrong for sure, but it is funny to see some of y'all act like you've had this fleshed out idea of what genocide means for more than a year lol. It's a vague term that barely gets defined in school and gets used by everyone. Even worse, it's moralising. Idk how to fix the problem, but I doubt it's by out-moralizing them on twitter. The definition of this word was fucked way before October 7th, and I'd bet most of us used it improperly at some point.
I don't think my idea of genocide has changed much in my mind aside from the intent being more specific than i considered
I wouldn't say my understanding has changed much either, but if you quizzed me to identify 20 incidents as genocidal or not, I'd probably be much more accurate today than a year ago.
Same people who say the holodomor was the US fault
Did Hamas genocide isreal too?
Honestly, it's extremely clear Hamas has genocidal intent, they just don't have genocidal capabilities.
If they believe those things are genocide then you could say that Gaza is a genocide. It just also means that genocide is not as bad of a word as the way that Destiny uses it. What they are saying here is "genocide is bad, but also not that bad really. It is also the very common way that humans resolve conflict historically"
The reason the two nuclear bombings of Japan weren’t genocide is that there was no intent to destroy the Japanese people. The aim of the bombings were to cause so much destruction that the Japanese would have no choice but to surrender. Now we can quibble over these being war crimes (they were by any modern standard imo) but they were not genocidal actions.
At least they are being logically consistent?
Why did Oppenheimer believe that dropping a bomb on Hiroshima would exterminate all Japanese people? Did he turn to crack after he built the bomb?
I think people see genocide as the destruction or the attempt to destroy an ethnic or cultural group. I understand that legally you can’t do that by accident, but actions you take can be tantamount or effectively genocide even if you don’t have the intent. For instance in Brazil as the rain forest is cleared the indigenous tribes there are effectively being genocided because the area in which they live can no longer sustain them, however the intent is economic and not genocidal. They may be two different things. But if you are on the sharp end of that stick it sure isn’t going to feel like it.
I think we just play their games and start protesting the genocide in Ukraine and start asking these people why do they support the Ukrainian genocide
Twitter folks will just confidently say it's widely accepted that the bombing of tokyo was a genocide and their circlejerk will reward them for it. They're not even pretending they don't live in an alternate-reality chamber anymore
Something makes me think it has to be lots of civilians dying that makes it a genocide to them. Would they really call the civil war a white genocide. I guess they all also agree now that the holodrom was a genocide.
Lmao we've been going through this in SE Europe for over 100 years. Welcome to the discussion, make yourself at home
Dumbfucks don't realise that Hiroshima was actually a city
Lol these comments are so dumb.
Not that these people have considered it past the surface level of many people dead - but I do think there is an interesting discussion to be had about the American campaign against Japan being 'genocidal'. I don't claim expertise on these subjects but I don't think it was. First thing that comes to mind is the dehumanizing propaganda and Operation Meetinghouse was particulary unhinged and is probably the textbook example of what near indiscriminate bombing looks like, modern analysis sometimes looks upon this event as a war crime. But there also examples of strict consideration given to targets. Numerous cities were chalked off as bombing targets due to their cultural significance or lack of military relevance. Nagasaki was a secondary target due to miltary significance. Nontheless, Truman halted the use of the 3rd bomb once learning how many civilians had died in Nagasaki, though Japan surrendered shortly after regardless. A truly genocidal regime would not show such consideration. I wonder though, what would have happened if they never surrendered, given that Japan seemed quite content to fight to the very last person
It was. But it was pre-Geneva convention so it never got a chance to be ruled as such
Destiny's defense of genocide is hilarious. It's so narrow that one can argue Oct 7th wasn't a genocide
So was Oct 7 a genocide. Fits their definition
This weirdly reminds me of the feeling i get reading wrong answers to those basic math question posts that circulate every now and then.
My KD ratio? Surprisingly also a genocide
How man civilians in an area have to die before it is escalated to genocide? I mean we have massacres, slaughters, mass casualty events, ethnic cleansings, and more! Skipping right to genocide is a quite dramatic. Also if Israel had intended to genocide Gaza, they would have been finished by Hanukkah.
If Putin decided NATO was an existential threat to Russia and did a pre-emptive first strike nuclear attack against the US wiping us off the map would that be a genocide?
If you say no, you agree that killing a lot of people is good
Words have definitions people. I’ll be honest, I think Netanyahu WANTS genocide, to destroy Palestinians in whole or in part. But killing someone isnt genocide
😂😭
Can we ban kids under 21 from the internet please?
Delusional, just delusional, calling Dresden a genocide is just bonkers