Chounin A wa Akuyaku Reijou wo Doushitemo Sukuitai - Vol. 8 Ch. 38.1 - Commencing Assault

[OpN]

So what's the point of Allen doing all this shit because I can't really remember and it seems completely removed from finding his love and hurting his enemies.

 

[nobody2002]

Firebombing is indeed devastating, but it seems to be pretty shit as a demoralization tool.

Case in point, Japan indeed got firebombed to hell and back and yet they wouldn't entertain an unconditional surrender until the nukes came into the picture.

Indeed. It usually has the opposite effect.

 

[finalm]

So the tl;dr feeling I'm getting is you just want to make moral grandstanding from 'muh modern civilized viewpoint' at this point.

If so, you do you I guess.

... You know what? Let's leave it at that. You clearly have reading comprehension difficulties, to come away with that after 3 increasingly detailed attempts at an explanation. Moral grandstanding it is.

 

[ScryedParadox]

"Reclaiming Cardacia has been our long cherished goal"

...Cardassia you say?

Yes I know, unrelated, but the moment I read Cardacia, it as one of the first thing that popped to mind. Not this specific clip, just Cardassia in general.

 

[WhimsiCat]

... You know what? Let's leave it at that. You clearly have reading comprehension difficulties, to come away with that after 3 increasingly detailed attempts at an explanation. Moral grandstanding it is.

'detailed attempts' that basically ignore what the story has shown and just wanna push 'it's always war crime' based on your 'real life' moral
Even though from my short googling into real war crime law/convention the warning + delay would've fulfill the duty to warn at least.

But hey when I asked you also don't/can't give what exactly would they even need to do to avoid even 'your' modern standard of war crime and shift the goalpost to 'oh but they'll do war crime in post-vicotry rape/pillage anyway'
So yeah, do tell how you don't come out looking like 'it's always war crime' type?

 

[Filype]

well... 25-30 days wait now... oof

 

[StormSen]

That is very doubtful. In all of history this only really happened with Japan and even then it's not that good an example. By the time of the bombs, Japan was already pretty much beaten, but their doctrine prohibited surrender, not to even mention an unconditional one. The Emperor himself was said to have been keen to find a strong enough reason to surrender while still keeping some face. The bombs were a good one. If not for that, they might have just held on till hardly anyone was left. After all, before that other cities were also pretty much completely destroyed and that didn't cut it.

I had heard that Japanese would have been willing to surrender, but on conditional terms. But here's a long reddit post disagreeing with that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1505pek

An aside, but an interesting one.

 

[BackRunner]

And with that knowledge of how long this shit is gonna last, I drop this series because it is putting the "bitch" into an altar she doesn't deserve because apparently the "bitch" has a "sudden" power that I will not say that causes this thing to drag longer.

 

[StormSen]

So what's the point of Allen doing all this shit because I can't really remember and it seems completely removed from finding his love and hurting his enemies.

Remember, Allen is just a commoner. He wants to rescue Alicia and marry her. But she's a noble, marrying her is out of the question... unless he becomes noble (to at least some degree). In addition, there's what Alicia would want, which would be to protect the country. AND there's what happens if the war is lost -- the country gets overrun, cities get torched and burned -- including the city where his mother and his friends live. And that's precursor to other chaotic stuff in the original story. Plus being (legally) on the front puts him in a position to divert to rescue Alicia once she's located.

Allen has ample reason to assist his country in winning the war.

 

[captain_crunch]

Im gonna be fully blind in the next months and I will miss this series so sad I will never see the ending of this.

Temporarily?

 

[auriga]

Get that Fortunate Son playing.

... You mean the song about someone being forced to fight someone else's war?

 

[Al_Azif]

What a bad timing having second thoughts. Just save your lady m8

 

[thycondrius]

Hey MC, remember your girl? 5 fucking days is a long time for a prisioner...

 

[finalm]

'detailed attempts' that basically ignore what the story has shown and just wanna push 'it's always war crime' based on your 'real life' moral
Even though from my short googling into real war crime law/convention the warning + delay would've fulfill the duty to warn at least.

But hey when I asked you also don't/can't give what exactly would they even need to do to avoid even 'your' modern standard of war crime and shift the goalpost to 'oh but they'll do war crime in post-vicotry rape/pillage anyway'
So yeah, do tell how you don't come out looking like 'it's always war crime' type?

Let me make this as simple for you as I can, chronological order.
1. You ask "why is it a war crime if they're killing combatants?"
2. I reply "you don't get to brand civilians as combatants, just because they happen to be on the battlefield". Specifically using "IRL" at the very beggining.
3. Somehow, you don't seem to get the IRL part, which is important, because the "war crime" angle only makes sense when considered from a modern world perspective. At the same time, you argue that setting a time limit for everyone to GTFO should be good enough to give a mandate to kill everyone remaining after that time.
4. I tell you that said time limit is not acceptable and if you did this IRL you'd still be a war criminal in any jurisdiction. Again stressing the "IRL" part just to be sure we're on the same page.
5. Turns out we're not on the same page, now you ask what more the MC side (not really, as time will show, but whatever) can do to not commit war crimes.
6. I try to explain that you can't expect to keep a medieval army from acting like one without some deus ex machina or otherwise shitty writing. They will act in a way that would brand them war cirminals in a modern context.
7. Now were here.

It's hard to tell what exactly you even want to argue against at this point. Are you saying I'm wrong to expect the kingdom's forces to behave in the way I described? Or is this still about those 5 days to evacuate? If so, then I honestly don't know what to tell you - this kind of thing would generally not happen in a real medieval invasion (since it would risk the important people getting away and the army would be pissed at their commander, plus the issues I mentioned on the other side), so it's lenient from that perspective, but from a modern one the plan to kill everyone remaining would still undeniably be a war crime, for reasons already explained. Why is this such a controversial position to you?

 

[finalm]

I had heard that Japanese would have been willing to surrender, but on conditional terms. But here's a long reddit post disagreeing with that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1505pek

An aside, but an interesting one.

I can't really see anything here to disagree with. My post was a very broadstrokes assertion of the general situation, obviously there wasn't a consensus for surrendering at the time, if that were the case, it would have happened and the bombs wouldn't have fallen. I think the reply pretty much states what I wrote in more detail (if you disagree, point out what's wrong exactly). It was a chaotic mess, as you'd expect from a country on the brink of total defeat.

 

[WhimsiCat]

At the same time, you argue that setting a time limit for everyone to GTFO should be good enough to give a mandate to kill everyone remaining after that time.

No, I'm arguing that they've given enough warning for the people in the fortress to pick if they're staying to fight (combatant) or leaving (not fighting)

I tell you that said time limit is not acceptable and if you did this IRL you'd still be a war criminal in any jurisdiction. Again stressing the "IRL" part just to be sure we're on the same page.

Then why is such duty to warn is in fucking Geneva Convention (as well as other similar treaties) if it's so worthless, from googling a bit:
Article 57(2)(c) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that, with respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken: “Effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.”
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 57(2)(c). Article 57 was adopted by 90 votes in favour, none against and 4 abstentions. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, p. 211.

I provided something to back my point, so if you wanna insist that the warning is not enough, provide your case sample.

from a modern one the plan to kill everyone remaining would still undeniably be a war crime, for reasons already explained. Why is this such a controversial position to you?

Because none of the characters that matter want such outcome yet you're acting like that's what they want just so you can scream war crime?

I don't even know where you get the whole 'kill everyone' argument you keep making.
Even the commander said this:
https://mangadex.org/chapter/dc47f4dd-56a2-46c1-970f-54afcd8db288/11
'fire will scare them enough to surrender' - i.e. there's expected to be enough people alive to SURRENDER, something that'd be hard to do if they're all dead.
also 'don't go overboard' i.e. don't burn down the whole city

 

[jjaeger]

Thanks for the translation as always, Sebas!

 

[JustNatsuki]

He has become death, the destroyer of castles

 

[finalm]

No, I'm arguing that they've given enough warning for the people in the fortress to pick if they're staying to fight (combatant) or leaving (not fighting)

Are you seriously claiming that's not the same thing? I already told you it's not realistic to expect all non-combatants to disappear from whatever target you pick and why.

Then why is such duty to warn is in fucking Geneva Convention (as well as other similar treaties) if it's so worthless, from googling a bit:
Article 57(2)(c) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that, with respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken: “Effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.”
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 57(2)(c). Article 57 was adopted by 90 votes in favour, none against and 4 abstentions. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, p. 211.

I provided something to back my point, so if you wanna insist that the warning is not enough, provide your case sample.

The problem with "googling a bit" rather than actually being familiar with the subject is that you get information you don't know how to apply. I advise you read up on the concepts of necessary vs sufficient conditions. What you quoted is a necessary but not sufficient one, when it comes to dealing with the civillian population. I'd rather not waste energy explaining what that means, as I said, read up. Long story short, the sufficient condition to fulfil in order not to commit a war crime in this context, is that you do not intentionally harm non-combatants. As we've established before, merely issuing a warning does not fulfil this condition.

Because none of the characters that matter want such outcome yet you're acting like that's what they want just so you can scream war crime?

First of all, shove that antagonistic attitude and strawmanning. I'm not "screaming" anything. I'm going out of my way to try and be polite and focused on the issue, even though you've already started to resort to these kind of trumpist moves in your previous posts. I apologize for implying you can't read before, it was born out of frustration and uncalled for, but if you want to continue this exchange then stop it at once.

Second, it really doesn't matter what the characters "want". One doesn't get a free pass for wrongdoing just because they'd rather not do it. There were plenty of people at the Nuremberg trials that claimed they didn't want to do what they did. I'm sure at least some of them meant it. It didn;t change anything, because at the end of the day, it was still done.

I don't even know where you get the whole 'kill everyone' argument you keep making.
Even the commander said this:
https://mangadex.org/chapter/dc47f4dd-56a2-46c1-970f-54afcd8db288/11
'fire will scare them enough to surrender' - i.e. there's expected to be enough people alive to SURRENDER, something that'd be hard to do if they're all dead.
also 'don't go overboard' i.e. don't burn down the whole city

They were talking about how the bombing itself would potentially make the defenders surrender. Whether that's a realistic expectation of not (I certainly don't think so, as I've replied to someone else, only happened once and under special circumstances), it does not change anything. That's because the plan is still to kill indiscriminately until everyone surrenders or there's no one left - I've been telling you from the start that the issue is not distinguishing military from civillian targets, as long as that stays true, it'll always be a war crime under contemporary law.

 

[WhimsiCat]

Are you seriously claiming that's not the same thing? I already told you it's not realistic to expect all non-combatants to disappear from whatever target you pick and why.

Then by that logic pretty much all aggressive actions in war will be war crime and the word kinda lose its meaning like 'incel' or 'nazi' these days.

There were plenty of people at the Nuremberg trials that claimed they didn't want to do what they did. I'm sure at least some of them meant it. It didn;t change anything, because at the end of the day, it was still done.

That's not the same here though, since the crimes there include things done outside of battlefields (y'know, concentration camp, Holocaust and all that)

That's because the plan is still to kill indiscriminately until everyone surrenders or there's no one left - I've been telling you from the start that the issue is not distinguishing military from civillian targets, as long as that stays true, it'll always be a war crime under contemporary law.

:

Long story short, the sufficient condition to fulfil in order not to commit a war crime in this context, is that you do not intentionally harm non-combatants.

But that's literally not what's been shown in the story, where did anyone even mention this 'plan' you speak of?

In fact the story has shown the opposite and that he's been doing those things you demand to make it not war crime:
https://mangadex.org/chapter/9c613be7-2370-48dd-a99a-07a7d8b74b5f/9
Here he confirmed it's a military convoy before attacking.

https://mangadex.org/chapter/807180bb-e3b5-4f6a-ac3c-331ae0950b51/7
Here he bombed the tower to break the defense, letting his allies rush in to occupy the place.

There's been no evidence of him intentionally targeting any civilian target, at all.

So by the story's evidence so far, he IS doing exactly what you wanted him to do.