The Saga of Tanya the Evil - Vol. 14 Ch. 40 - Andrew Report: The Massacre of Arene
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2018
- Messages
- 467
@Vedtraed
If you look at it as a 3rd party without the inner thoughts of both sides, it'll simply be...
1 - Francois Republic took over Arene, but refuse to evacuate civilians.
2 - Number of civilians turned into combatants willingly.
3 - Empire allowed evacuation of civilians, surrender and the release of prisoners.
4 - Civilians should've been evacuated. Arene executed prisoners, and revealed willingness to fight, thus city is technically free of non-combatant.
5 - Empire murders hostile city.
The key point is civilians should've been evacuated. While everyone knows that there are civilians in the city, it is the Francois Republic themselves that officially stated that the city is free of civilians because they wanted to use their own people as shields. If the Francois Republic people have less patriotism and more brain, they should be pissed at their own military that made them literal meatshields. As for the Empire (and the rest of the world), a massacre of civilians didn't happen because you can't murder civilians when there are no civilians (as stated by the Republic). It is only after the fact, that the Republic changed their tune to cry foul. The Empire simply played their game on their terms and caught them with their pants down.
If you look at it as a 3rd party without the inner thoughts of both sides, it'll simply be...
1 - Francois Republic took over Arene, but refuse to evacuate civilians.
2 - Number of civilians turned into combatants willingly.
3 - Empire allowed evacuation of civilians, surrender and the release of prisoners.
4 - Civilians should've been evacuated. Arene executed prisoners, and revealed willingness to fight, thus city is technically free of non-combatant.
5 - Empire murders hostile city.
The key point is civilians should've been evacuated. While everyone knows that there are civilians in the city, it is the Francois Republic themselves that officially stated that the city is free of civilians because they wanted to use their own people as shields. If the Francois Republic people have less patriotism and more brain, they should be pissed at their own military that made them literal meatshields. As for the Empire (and the rest of the world), a massacre of civilians didn't happen because you can't murder civilians when there are no civilians (as stated by the Republic). It is only after the fact, that the Republic changed their tune to cry foul. The Empire simply played their game on their terms and caught them with their pants down.
Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2018
- Messages
- 39
@1234muse well, again, we don't know, since we haven't been told. In a realistic scenario, most would try to return to their homes again, possibly even attempting to rebuild them, provided that they had been destroyed. Others would try and find family and relatives to live with in the meantime, our outright become refugees in their own country.
@IMACOP although you phrase that as "look at it as a 3rd party without the inner thoughts of both sides", it still looks very much like a subjective analysis to me, that legitimizes the Empire's (ab)use of international law. Technically speaking, yes, evacuating the civilians would probably had spared the most lives. But keep in mind that this takes place in a world where city-wide massacres are almost unheard of yet in modern warfare (it was an anomaly at first during the actual WWII too). Who would have anticipated such a response from The Empire? And strictly speaking, it wasn't unavoidable. The higher-ups were not prepared to go to such lengths to secure their war effort, until Tanya came along and incepted the idea.
@lg27 I don't really mind, to be honest. Good stories should not have to rely on the surprise element up to the very end. We all know that the nuclear power plant in Ukraine went boom in 1986, and that it had horrific consequences for a lot of people. Yet still, the Chernobyl mini-series on HBO is one of the most exciting things to air in years.
@IMACOP although you phrase that as "look at it as a 3rd party without the inner thoughts of both sides", it still looks very much like a subjective analysis to me, that legitimizes the Empire's (ab)use of international law. Technically speaking, yes, evacuating the civilians would probably had spared the most lives. But keep in mind that this takes place in a world where city-wide massacres are almost unheard of yet in modern warfare (it was an anomaly at first during the actual WWII too). Who would have anticipated such a response from The Empire? And strictly speaking, it wasn't unavoidable. The higher-ups were not prepared to go to such lengths to secure their war effort, until Tanya came along and incepted the idea.
@lg27 I don't really mind, to be honest. Good stories should not have to rely on the surprise element up to the very end. We all know that the nuclear power plant in Ukraine went boom in 1986, and that it had horrific consequences for a lot of people. Yet still, the Chernobyl mini-series on HBO is one of the most exciting things to air in years.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2018
- Messages
- 467
@Vedtraed While it does seem like legitimizing the Empire's actions, it's really because their actions were legit. I believe that you might be focusing too much on the morality of the Empire's massacre, instead of just impartially looking at the evidence presented. You're right that the Empire's response was due to Tanya, but the Republic's actions in Arene was influenced by Tanya too - that fellow thought of it while studying Tanya's tactics. Due to Tanya's influence, both sides thought of and used a strategy that broke the law without actually breaking it. It's just that the Republic got caught in their act first because Tanya made sure of it. So strictly basing on evidence, one will see that the Republic is the one committing the mistake, which is also why those United Kingdom guys decided to hush it up after getting the orb. In the end, the Empire had the excuse of not knowing there were civilians in Arene, while the Republic's entire operation was exposed to be based on sacrificing their own civilians.
Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2018
- Messages
- 39
@IMACOP That's because morality is what I'm discussing here. In the end, the massacre of a major part of the population in Arene was at the hands of The Empire. It was their decision to make, while fully aware of what kind of legal loopholes they were exploiting. I'll restate what I wrote in my first post: legality does not equal morality. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. And my personal opinion is that massacres of that scale are never justified to reach political goals, or even worse, as petty revenge.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2018
- Messages
- 467
@Vedtraed If you're basing solely on morality (of the situation), it'll be... the same? An immoral act is an immoral act, regardless of how good or bad the outcome is. One isn't worst than the other, but if you want to measure both decisions, I'd argue that the Republic was 'more immoral'. The Empire made the immoral choice of slaughtering a city filled with enemy combatants and innocent enemy civilians, but the Republic made the immoral decision of shoving their own civilians into the line of fire. While the Republic didn't expect the Empire to bomb the city, they were already prepared for when the Empire decided to kill civilians, because painting a target on their own civilians for the Empire is the core of this maneuver. Their objective from the very beginning was to use their own people to [1] delay the Empire, for as long as possible, and [2] bring animosity towards the Empire, when civilians get gunned down. Also the Empire's decision was because the delays will kill their people (literally, on the front) if it continued, so they opted for the quickest solution.
So... I don't know. I personally feel the one who is willing to devise a strategy around sacrificing his own is an even bigger trash than the one that have no mercy towards his enemy.
So... I don't know. I personally feel the one who is willing to devise a strategy around sacrificing his own is an even bigger trash than the one that have no mercy towards his enemy.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2019
- Messages
- 16
What I don't get is that as far as I can tell, nowhere is it stated that the Empire lost the war in these "future" chapters. I therefore don't get why everyone's acting like they have. It's just as plausible that after the war, despite being the enemies of the UK and US, the Empire kinda does a Japan after WW2 and becomes more neutral and allied *with* them. I haven't read the LN, but I don't see why that can't be possible. It's also entirely possible that the identity of Tanya was hidden after the war and she immigrated to a foreign nation to hide from repercussions for war crimes, like certain G*rman leaders in WW2. Neither of those mean that A. Tanya is now dead and/or B. the Empire has lost the war, at least imo.
Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2018
- Messages
- 39
@IMACOP That conclusion assumes that that The Republic knowingly sacrificed civilians, but then again, events like the one in Arene were (as far as I can tell from the context in this manga) unprecedented. I agree that using civilians as a shield is despicable, but if everything had played out like The Republic had good reason to believe, nowhere near as many lives would have been lost. In the end, The Empire found a legal (not a moral) loophole to effectively turn civilians into hostile combatants, with disastrous results.
It is my personal belief that actual actions by far outweigh intentions, or their improbable side-effects by another party. You'll find the same kind of reasoning among actual lawmakers all over the world, who often try to base the laws they write on morals. If I slap you in the face, and you respond by pulling a gun and shooting me, I can guarantee you that in almost any developed country, you are the one who would receive the harshest punishment. In the end, The Empire are the ones who wiped out half a city, and that's why I think they are the greater evil.
While we're on the topic of bombing civilians: https://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/22/opinion/l-bombing-civilians-the-world-war-ii-lesson-182408.html
@Nimroth I don't get it either. The future re-telling of the events in this chapter seems very faithful to me, especially since we can compare it to the actual events ourselves shown in a previous chapter.
It is my personal belief that actual actions by far outweigh intentions, or their improbable side-effects by another party. You'll find the same kind of reasoning among actual lawmakers all over the world, who often try to base the laws they write on morals. If I slap you in the face, and you respond by pulling a gun and shooting me, I can guarantee you that in almost any developed country, you are the one who would receive the harshest punishment. In the end, The Empire are the ones who wiped out half a city, and that's why I think they are the greater evil.
While we're on the topic of bombing civilians: https://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/22/opinion/l-bombing-civilians-the-world-war-ii-lesson-182408.html
@Nimroth I don't get it either. The future re-telling of the events in this chapter seems very faithful to me, especially since we can compare it to the actual events ourselves shown in a previous chapter.
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2018
- Messages
- 395
@Vedtraed Morality is a tricky thing in this case though, wiping out half a city is indeed immoral and even the Empire itself admits to that in the story even if maybe not officially.
But the whole situation was a special case, had it not been a vital point of logistics supplying the entire or at least most of the front they wouldn't have taken these kind of actions.
Neither option available could really be considered moral from their point of view, either they kill (mostly) enemy civilians, or they endanger the lives of a much larger amount of their own people.
And even if they didn't take this drastic of an action they would still have needed to retake the city which in worst case could have turned into a drawn out siege with possibly even higher numbers of casualities.
Though there is still a lot of details we simply don't know, like how long the front could have lasted without the railway hub or if the insurgents would have kept fighting even in a situation of the city being starved in a siege.
It is even possible that the Empire would have been desperate enough in retaking the city quickly that they would have ended up commited a massacre even without a legal loophole, Tanyas actions might possibly have just made it happen sooner rather than later, and I think the republic could have ended up doing that as well if the situation was reversed.
Personally I would say the massacre was unnecessarily bloody even for the intended purpose, but I just don't think there was any morally good/neutral options available in the situation.
Though morality aside the whole situation felt contrived, the city was too weakly secured for it's importance and it would have been better if the loophole was introduced earlier in the story or after the massacre had already happened with them trying to find an excuse, not right before it is going to be used.
But the whole situation was a special case, had it not been a vital point of logistics supplying the entire or at least most of the front they wouldn't have taken these kind of actions.
Neither option available could really be considered moral from their point of view, either they kill (mostly) enemy civilians, or they endanger the lives of a much larger amount of their own people.
And even if they didn't take this drastic of an action they would still have needed to retake the city which in worst case could have turned into a drawn out siege with possibly even higher numbers of casualities.
Though there is still a lot of details we simply don't know, like how long the front could have lasted without the railway hub or if the insurgents would have kept fighting even in a situation of the city being starved in a siege.
It is even possible that the Empire would have been desperate enough in retaking the city quickly that they would have ended up commited a massacre even without a legal loophole, Tanyas actions might possibly have just made it happen sooner rather than later, and I think the republic could have ended up doing that as well if the situation was reversed.
Personally I would say the massacre was unnecessarily bloody even for the intended purpose, but I just don't think there was any morally good/neutral options available in the situation.
Though morality aside the whole situation felt contrived, the city was too weakly secured for it's importance and it would have been better if the loophole was introduced earlier in the story or after the massacre had already happened with them trying to find an excuse, not right before it is going to be used.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2018
- Messages
- 467
@Vedtraed But that conclusion doesn't assume, it was part of the Republic's plan - to delay and denounce the Empire. I agree that actual action outweighs intentions. However, in this case, it's - if you slap me in the face, while holding a knife and having the intention to kill me, and I respond by shooting you.
For real world example, I think it would be something like our current issue with Israel and Hamas. Hamas operating among their civilians and attacking Israel, and Israel counter-attacking resulting in enemy civilian casualties.
@Nimroth I believe the effects on the front will appear immediately. They were already barely able to adequately supply the front and the front continues to have a back and forth engagement with the Republic. The bigger issue would be the Empire defense line weakening, allowing the Republic to penetrate it and game over, instead of soldiers starving to death in a siege. As for the city being lightly defended, it was way behind the defensive line and this strategy used by the Republic was from imitating Tanya, and we know that only Tanya is using such tactics, so the Empire wasn't prepared for it to be used on them.
For real world example, I think it would be something like our current issue with Israel and Hamas. Hamas operating among their civilians and attacking Israel, and Israel counter-attacking resulting in enemy civilian casualties.
@Nimroth I believe the effects on the front will appear immediately. They were already barely able to adequately supply the front and the front continues to have a back and forth engagement with the Republic. The bigger issue would be the Empire defense line weakening, allowing the Republic to penetrate it and game over, instead of soldiers starving to death in a siege. As for the city being lightly defended, it was way behind the defensive line and this strategy used by the Republic was from imitating Tanya, and we know that only Tanya is using such tactics, so the Empire wasn't prepared for it to be used on them.
Massacre of arene I would say this base on rule of war and moral idea the empire is clean of any wrong doing. The republic should of remove all non-combat in city and keep the civ away from empire citizen and combat units. so the republic cause the fire and death of all the civ in city.
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2019
- Messages
- 581
Arene rebels were scum. Now they are dead scum and that is much better than them being just scum.
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2018
- Messages
- 754
The famous last word of a stabbing victim, "What are you going to do with those knife, stab me?"
Group Leader
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2019
- Messages
- 292
On the subject of intentions vs action, the Republics did act. They actively used their civilians as a shield against the Empire. You can't do that and then pikachu face when the enemy calls you on your bluff.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2018
- Messages
- 676
I'm just going to point out that it's somewhat appalling to see how so many people are so ignorant that they continue to blindly correlate the Empire with Nazi Germany, and the story's War with WWII, especially when even the least educated person would know that for WWII, and for Nazism to appear, one needs a crestfallen and ruined after-WWI Germany.
And since there is no ruined Empire, no territories that were annexed from her, no revanchism, and the multiculturalism on top of that, there simply is no reason for Nazism to exist as a formed ideology. Hack, there are more chances for Nazism to appear in François Republic than in Empire in this timeline. And judging from the future reports, it seems like there was only one Great War, after which the not-Europe stabilized somewhat and Empire seems to turn into a Republic.
And since there is no ruined Empire, no territories that were annexed from her, no revanchism, and the multiculturalism on top of that, there simply is no reason for Nazism to exist as a formed ideology. Hack, there are more chances for Nazism to appear in François Republic than in Empire in this timeline. And judging from the future reports, it seems like there was only one Great War, after which the not-Europe stabilized somewhat and Empire seems to turn into a Republic.
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2018
- Messages
- 1,278
Same thing happened to the US bombing that hospital years ago. Newspaper all over the place blame it as a war crime while not even trying to consider all sides of the cube.
The god damn fuckers who are commanding those units fighting the US utilize the fact that civilians facilities are not targeted to deploy his combatants for so long. If there is any war crime, it is those god damn fuckers that used civilian area for military purpose.
The damned media talk whatever they want and omitted information that is not favored to themselves even going as far as propaganda about “it should be considered war crime even if they made declarations of bombing before the strike was carried out”.
Raising from a country that is the old war enemy with the US, i has been allowed to see so much disgusting thing the media and government made. To this day, i feel more sympathy to all those young soldiers that could not return to their family after the Vietnam war more than the horror of war that they was unfortunately being part of.
The god damn fuckers who are commanding those units fighting the US utilize the fact that civilians facilities are not targeted to deploy his combatants for so long. If there is any war crime, it is those god damn fuckers that used civilian area for military purpose.
The damned media talk whatever they want and omitted information that is not favored to themselves even going as far as propaganda about “it should be considered war crime even if they made declarations of bombing before the strike was carried out”.
Raising from a country that is the old war enemy with the US, i has been allowed to see so much disgusting thing the media and government made. To this day, i feel more sympathy to all those young soldiers that could not return to their family after the Vietnam war more than the horror of war that they was unfortunately being part of.
This very much reminds me of the bombing of Dresden in 1945. The only mismatch is the official numbers (here it's oficially ~50%, there oficially it was ~10%, while unoficially about 40%). You know, the absolute abhorrent war crime in WWII. Can you guess what nation committed that crime? Yep, NOT Nazi Germany. That's why you've heard of this only in passing and perhaps because Slaughterhouse 5.
Similar threads
