[datsci_est_2015]

To expand on my usage of the word “imply”: the implication of destroying buildings to the point where independent satellite imagery analysis deems 90%+ off buildings uninhabitable would be that there is a policy of making that area entirely uninhabitable, whether explicit or implicit.

To use the very example the grandparent comment gave as contrast, the advancing Russian army did not have a policy of making Berlin entirely uninhabitable - and if it did it was stopped through diplomatic means at the end of the war.

[xyzelement]

The idea that the allies restrained themselves to win the war is best underwood by considering Hiroshima or Dresden than whatever we can divine from the remaining pre war architecture in berlin. My point was that looking at what was happening. In berlin (or Hiroshima or Dresden) in 1945 without considering that those countries had done immediately prior is dumb.

[datsci_est_2015]

Well that wasn’t the point of this thread. The comment was literally asking if the Battle of Berlin would’ve reminded the OP of Gaza.

> The idea that the allies restrained themselves to win the war is best underwood by considering Hiroshima or Dresden than whatever we can divine from the remaining pre war architecture in berlin.

Yes, interestingly you bring up the worst of the worst bombing campaigns of the allies, Hiroshima and Dresden, which were specifically not carried out as extermination campaigns against an entire peoples, rather the destruction of a city thanks to a misguided doctrine that declared aerial bombing would demoralize populations, still unsuccessfully in use today (spoiler: it does not demoralize, it radicalizes).

Maybe it’s best to compare Japan’s actions in China to Israel’s current actions in Gaza?

> My point was that looking at what was happening. In berlin (or Hiroshima or Dresden) in 1945 without considering that those countries had done immediately prior is dumb.

What did China do to deserve its rape and pillage at the hand of Japan?

[xyzelement]

>> still unsuccessfully in use today (spoiler: it does not demoralize, it radicalizes).

I think your idea if I follow correctly that Israel's campaign in Gaza is to demoralize the Gazans (vs kick back, Hammas, get the hostages back, etc.) but at the same time that it's irrational for them to do it because of what you said re radicalization?

[datsci_est_2015]

Actually no, because the IDF isn’t carrying out an aerial bombing campaign. Aerial bombing campaigns are the ones that have been used in attempts to demoralize an enemy, but often instead radicalize them, e.g. Battle of Britain.

The IDF is occupying the strip, much more akin to the occupation of nations on the Eastern front, or Japan among the islands of SEA and Oceania, if we’re continuing comparisons to WW2. Those occupations were about resources, Lebensraum, and affirming racial superiority.