Was the Allies' Bombing of Germany a genocide?

@vivify said
I want to make one thing clear: I'm beyond discussing whether Israel is morally right for their actions or not. It's too late for that.

When this invasion ends, there will be no home for Palestinians to return to in Gaza. We are witnessing history at this moment: the beginning of end of the mid-East crisis.

Return? What does that mean? They haven't gone anywhere. The Gazans are still in Gaza. They will stay in Gaza. Israel has no interested in colonizing Gaza. It has an interest in destroying Hamas' ability to make war against Israel. That's it.

@shavixmir said
The bombing of Germany and Japan wasn’t a genocide, but some of the attacks would most certainly, nowadays, be considered crimes against humanity.

By you, perhaps.

During the Nuremberg trials, Albert Speer chided an American general for not repeating the Hamburg attack (Operation Gomorrah). He said that bombing of cities could have forced the Nazis to topple Hitler and surrender, but that the Allies didn't stick with it. He said that if the Allies had destroyed another German city every week, the war would have ended a year or more sooner, saving millions of lives. (I forget which book I read that in - I've read a lot about this subject - so I can't cite it unfortunately).

While really not nice and unpleasant, strategic bombing can end wars and save lives in the long run. The Japanese surrendered without making us invade Honshu precisely because we destroyed their cities and threatened to destroy more of them. While the atomic bombs killed hundreds of thousands, an invasion would have killed more, on both sides.

Edit: I believe it was in G.M. Gilbert's "Nuremberg Diary" I'll see if I can find it later.

@sh76 said
By you, perhaps.

During the Nuremberg trials, Albert Speer chided an American general for not repeating the Hamburg attack (Operation Gomorrah). He said that bombing of cities could have forced the Nazis to topple Hitler and surrender, but that the Allies didn't stick with it. He said that if the Allies had destroyed another German city every week, the war would have ended a ...[text shortened]... ides.

Edit: I believe it was in G.M. Gilbert's "Nuremberg Diary" I'll see if I can find it later.

I haven’t read all of these posts, but I would say that genocide is when you target civilians. The simple thing would be to drop leaflets all over the place and say that this town will not exist in five days you better get out of here.
This assumes, of course, that whatever property of the country that is being bombed, had it coming, as they say.
Hiroshima and maybe 300 other towns had it coming

@sh76 said
That's nonsense. If Israel were trying to exterminate the Gazans, they'd have killed a million, not a few thousand. Hamas is utterly incapable of stopping Israel if Israel really wanted to kill civillians. I get that you're just a victim of media slander and don't really mean to be anti-Semitic, but "extermination is the plan" is such a vile and self-evident lie, that coming fro ...[text shortened]... to the extent that those very places are used as rocket launching sites and Hamas operational bases.

When I used to criticize China, Duchess always accused me of Sinophobia when my concern was the Chinese government, not the Chinese people.

Though I was shocked at Israelis storming a military base to defend soldiers committing sexual assault, my concern is mostly the Israeli government, not Jews. This is why I use the term "Israeli" if I do criticize the citizens.

Considering "extermination", I don't believe Israel wants to wipe all Palestinians from the planet; I mean they want to extinguish all Palestinian influence.

This is evident from their actions in Gaza and their apartheid state where Palestinians aren't even allowed to have a voice in Israel's government. Israel wants to build as many settlements in the West Bank as they want as they want with no resistance, even if that includes stealing current Palestinian homes.

It is my fault for using extreme language like "exterminate", I don't believe that's the case. But it's hard to avoid such language when Israel has no qualms with murdering civilians in the name of "defeating Hamas".

Your words (paraphrasing): "That's what happens when you store bombs near civilians". This was your response to Israel blowing up hospitals and refugee camps. A callous response. That's just war, right? Women and children blowing up just comes with the territory. Meanwhile, there's no criticism of Israelis invading the West Bank.

Just once, I'd like to hear a supporter of Israel say "October 7th was heinous but that doesn't excuse the West Bank". When they're silent on (or even support) the West Bank being violently annexed, don't you see why terms like "ethnic cleansing" get tossed around? When your fellow Israelis storm military bases to defend sexual assault of Palestinians, can you really blame use of such language?

@moonbus said
The Allies carpet bombed civilian targets, not only military targets. This was the scheme: the first wave of bombers flew over major cities, such as Hamburg, and dropped air-burst bombs over residential areas. This blew the roofs off. A second wave of bombers followed which dropped incendiary (phosphorus) bombs into the now open dwellings which burned them to the ground. 'Bo ...[text shortened]... ically targeting civilians.

No, it was not genocide; but it was specifically targeting civilians.

Thank you.

@vivify said
Thank you.

My wife's mother remembered the sound of Goebbels' voice on the radio. She was a child at the time, sent to a farm in the countryside to escape the terrible bombing (in her case, Muenster). When she returned, there was nothing left of the neighborhood; every house burnt to ashes. No family records or mementos were preserved: no photographs, no marriage certificates, no heirlooms, no earrings, nothing. Literally the clothes on her back was all she had.

Below is a link to an aerial photograph showing the damage done to Muenster.

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C287949

@sh76 said
By you, perhaps.

During the Nuremberg trials, Albert Speer chided an American general for not repeating the Hamburg attack (Operation Gomorrah). He said that bombing of cities could have forced the Nazis to topple Hitler and surrender, but that the Allies didn't stick with it. He said that if the Allies had destroyed another German city every week, the war would have ended a ...[text shortened]... ides.

Edit: I believe it was in G.M. Gilbert's "Nuremberg Diary" I'll see if I can find it later.

I don’t think you quite grasp what the moral highground is.

If your defence is that Speer said this or bloody thatz

@moonbus said
My wife's mother remembered the sound of Goebbels' voice on the radio. She was a child at the time, sent to a farm in the countryside to escape the terrible bombing (in her case, Muenster). When she returned, there was nothing left of the neighborhood; every house burnt to ashes. No family records or mementos were preserved: no photographs, no marriage certificates, no heirlo ...[text shortened]... aerial photograph showing the damage done to Muenster.

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C287949

Wow. It's not even recognizable anything humans lived in.

@vivify said
When I used to criticize China, Duchess always accused me of Sinophobia when my concern was the Chinese government, not the Chinese people.

Though I was shocked at Israelis storming a military base to defend soldiers committing sexual assault, my concern is mostly the Israeli government, not Jews. This is why I use the term "Israeli" if I do criticize the citizens.

...[text shortened]... military bases to defend sexual assault of Palestinians, can you really blame use of such language?

How about October 7th was heinous but that has nothing to do with the West Bank?

Will you settle for that?

Incidentally, the West Bank hasn't been annexed.

Where do you get your information? It seems like you're reading very biased sources.

@sh76 said
Incidentally, the West Bank hasn't been annexed.

Where do you get your information? It seems like you're reading very biased sources.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-790958

Israeli settlements in the West Bank have expanded by a record amount and risk eliminating any practical possibly of a Palestinian state, the UN human rights chief said on Friday.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said that the growth of Israeli settlements amounted to the transfer by Israel of its own population, which he reiterated was a war crime.

@vivify said
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-790958

Israeli settlements in the West Bank have expanded by a record amount and risk eliminating any practical possibly of a Palestinian state, the UN human rights chief said on Friday.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said that the growth of Israeli settlements amounted to the transfer by Israel of its own population, which he reiterated was a war crime.

Expanding settlement is not the same as annexation or ethnic cleansing.

Settlements are built on what was previously empty sand or brush.

They might not be a good idea and sure, they violate some UN resolutions, but you really don't need to use hysterical language what it is not warranted.

@shavixmir said
I don’t think you quite grasp what the moral highground is.

If your defence is that Speer said this or bloody thatz

Speer's point was the strategic bombing would have worked. He doesn't have to be a moral guy to have an opinion on that issue that's worth noting.

Where Speer is on the moral contunuum is a more interesting question.

@sh76 said
Expanding settlement is not the same as annexation

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-790958

Israel, which captured the West Bank in the 1967 Six-Day war, claims a biblical birthright to the land where settlements are expanding.

The West Bank has already been annexed. Expanding settlements on land captured during war makes that expansion a war crime.

But if your gripe is with the technical definition of "annex", Israel also annexed Golan Heights.

@vivify said
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-790958

Israel, which captured the West Bank in the 1967 Six-Day war, claims a biblical birthright to the land where settlements are expanding.

The West Bank has already been annexed. Expanding settlements on land captured during war makes that expansion a war crime.

But if your gripe is with the technical definition of "annex", Israel also annexed Golan Heights.

The West Bank has most decidedly not been annexed. If it were, then it would be impossible to "take" any more of it. It would already have been taken. The WB is occupied, though much of it is either under Palestinian administration or joint Israeli/Palestinian administration (look up Areas A,B and C). If Israeli has annexed it, I hardly think you'd see signs on the roads leading to Area A saying Israelis not allowed. I don't mean not suggested, I mean big red signs saying that it's illegal and highly dangerous for Israelis to go down this road (I've seen the signs personally). Doesn't sound like annexation to me.

The Golan was annexed, yes, though as far as I know, few or no non-Israelis were ever displaced from the Golan.

@sh76 said
The West Bank has most decidedly not been annexed. If it were, then it would be impossible to "take" any more of it. It would already have been taken. The WB is occupied, though much of it is either under Palestinian administration or joint Israeli/Palestinian administration (look up Areas A,B and C). If Israeli has annexed it, I hardly think you'd see signs on the roads leading ...[text shortened]... as annexed, yes, though as far as I know, few or no non-Israelis were ever displaced from the Golan.

You're going down a useless semantic rabbit hole.

Did Israel take Golan Heights and the West Bank by military force? Yes. Are Israelis settling into that land that was taken by force? Yes. Whether you call it annexation or not, that is still stealing land and a war crime.

Are Israeli settlers taking land by force? Yes. Are they also killing Palestinians? Yes. Is the Israeli government helping those settlers do so? Yes. That also makes it a war crime.

Arguing technicalities about terminology is deliberately missing the point. Israel is committing war crimes but the pro-Israeli crowd doesn't care. These war crimes have been going on for decades but the pro-Israeli crowd doesn't care.

When Palestinians react to war crimes using violence, suddenly the pro-Israel crowd is outraged. How many times did your side ask "do you condemn Hamas" while never asking "do you condemn decades of settler violence"?