Message from @DefinitlyNotInsane - NL
Discord ID: 510549384182759454
can I post this here
Self evidently.
you can handle opponents with honor after you have won like respecting prisonors etc but winning? noone takes compromises for honor at the cost of winning
and you wouldnt either
Speak for yourself, please.
You may decide genociding a nation is a proper victory, but I do not.
can you quote me on genocide?
Rules of war, such as not firing on unarmed combatants is part of honor. People do comply to that even when trying to win.
Reason why there are POWs. If you wanted to win, it would be more effecient just to kill them.
"Honor is war is a luxury few can afford."
i wouldnt say o as pow's can be traded and makes people more eager to surrended etc
the reason we dont shoot surrendered is because it will lead to other soldiers refusing to surrender
there are indeed rules of war but those aren't based on honor as much as they are based on humanity
there goes alot more into not shooting a civillian than just protecting your honor
Treating prisoners humanly is something that is encouraged by rules of war, but seldom seen.
thats is an entirely different topic but i cant disagree
in ww2 for example alot of soldiers who captured germans had alot of built up anger for them, so even from the allied side there where quite a bit of war crimes
Yeah. Especially as the (Western) Allies occupied into the Reich and found the German "Camps".
yes and i can completely understand why they did it i dont agree with those people but i understand why
The Soviets have never abided by the rules about humanly treating POWs.
yeah
but point is nobody is perfect enough to fignt an honorable war
as well just resort to what helps us the most
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.