its in our human nature

Soviet "Advisors" went into Vietnam to "Question" (Torture) US pilots downed over the North.

And, according to Insane, all of these actions were justified by the realities of war and the Soviets couldn't and shouldn't be held morally responsible for them.

It was simply their nature.

The KPA was never a signatory to the Laws of War, the VC were never signatories either... the Red Army was a willing signatory. So it is one of those things where they took up that mantle.

Alright, so you'll recognize the illegitimacy of oathbreaking.

So, then, the actions of the VC were not morally wrong, due to the necessities of warfare.

Of course, by Insane's reasoning, oathbreaking is also an acceptable act if it is judged to be a part of attaining victory in war.

The VC had a habit of murdering whole families of Civilians for the reasons of ideology. So I would say that is well outside of the "Acts of war."

Right, but the torture of men, the sacrifice of civilians, blending into them, the use of children, I believe?

All a legitimate part of wartime strategy.

And of course, the big one.

That war was two horrible regimes killing each other.

The south Vietnamese government was fucking awful.

It would certainly be a huge detriment to the war effort to try and feed millions of undesirables when trying to provide logistics to soldiers.

Thus, the Holocaust is a permissible wartime strategy, per Insane's reasoning.

The holocaust had nothing to do with feeding them.

Let's go with that, then, and say that the German Reich had more than enough resources to feed everyone.

In a hypothetical germany where they *didn't* have the food, the Holocaust would have been permitted by Insane.

The Holocust was "Lets just kill all of these people we hate!" regardless of citizenship, or military justifications.

No, the Russians didn't have enough food to feed their own army, but they didn't commit a genocide to feed them.

And Stalin was pretty nuts.

Though I guess you could argue he might simply have not thought of it.

What's your point?

If it's that Stalin was more moral than this hypothetical Germany, I guess I'd agree with you.

In that one regard specifically.

No my point was more that even the insane wouldn't necessarily resort to that measure.

The holocaust was an ideological solution, not a pragmatic one.

But if they did, it would be justified under the current reasoning put forward by Insane, correct?

No.

Because all actions towards attaining victory in war are permissible.

The Nazi's weren't insane.

Okay.

It's an easy copout but it's not true.

One should confuse insanity with villiany. There are plenty of sane and rational people who have no problems justifying the worst acts imaginable.

The Nazis were loyal to an evil ideology.

I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this conversation. Best of luck.

The lesson of the Nazis isn't that insane people can come to power, or that evil can win. It's that otherwise good people can be convicted it's in the "greater good" to commit truly horrible acts @Bookworm .

That's fair.

Pretty much.

Going back to Vietname do you guys know about the Meili massacre?