Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by staunch 3839 days ago
Sadly, humanity hasn't improved at all really. American and British forces weren't shy about intentionally slaughtering over 1,000,000 civilians in WW2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World...

Caesar wrote proudly of the punishment he dealt out to tribes, but he didn't do it out of any particular cruelty. He could rationalize it as saving lives in the end, in a way that most people would agree with, given the same context. The same way most Americans justify dropping nukes, firebombs, and missiles on women and children. The way Trump justifies the idea of killing the families of terrorists.

People can always rationalize killing civilians by claiming it saves more lives in the end. This exactly the argument that Hitler, Caesar, Roosevelt, and Churchill (among others) used.

> Hitler with the idea of poisoning the poisoners suggested: "If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth

2 comments

> He could rationalize it as saving lives in the end, in a way that most people would agree with, given the same context.

These entire peoples were dedicated to their cause, a cause that included looting and killing everyone that got in their way. There's a reason why the women and children were there to be killed: they were traveling with the military and participating in military actions. If you read link at the top of the thread, the survivors were given permission by Caesar to depart, but they chose to remain with him because they were afraid of facing the revenge of the people who they invaded and killed.

In that context, it is difficult to see how they can really be identified as civilians in a meaningful way.

The article is somewhat misleading in that it makes it seem as though these tribes were just peacefully wandering around when they asked Caesar for asylum. They were invading, and after they invaded, they then asked for asylum from the man charged by the Romans to defend the area. Their 'request for asylum', by the way, was something along the lines of "we can be allies, as long as you give us new lands or let us keep the ones we've invaded. Otherwise, just so you know, the only people stronger than us are the Suevi, who drove us from our homes. So watch out." Of course he said no.

...I was going to reply to something in your earlier post, but you stripped it out. It ended up in this post and when I noticed it I clicked to reply, and now you've edited it again.

I guess what I was going to reply with would now come off as a non sequitur, but is there some reason you won't leave your posts alone for 10 minutes?

You could've easily edited your comment to make sense, rather than just complain about my editing.
No. The things I was responding to were gone. Other than questioning 5+ edits in 15 minutes that kept changing the majority of your post my other replies didn't make sense. Now that I'm home from my drive I'll take a look at what you've got and see if I can still make another relevant reply.