No, history does not disagree. The concept and implementation of total war did not occur until World War I (some would go back to the U.S. Civil War). Prior to that, warfare was very often confined to military clashing with military, with civilians merely expected to follow the orders of the winning side. There were exceptions where an aggressive army might have worked itself up into a genocidal rage. Still, they were just that, exceptions and not the general rule.ibm9000 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 9:17 pm...that it never happened, but History disagrees. This is just another war, it all happened before, it will happen again; I am not surprised.The best possibly outcome is...
I would say that the notion of targeting civilians in a war has something to do with this war. (Now you can argue... deliberately... only once... yes, but... or whatever else...). All the notions about this one being different are yours. The "excuse" is all yours.
...and you keep dragging it on ...and I kindly follow.
For me, this is just another war; for you, it seems, this war is completely different and nothing in Human History has anything to do with this one and cannot be related to this one.
Moreover, in World War II, precedents were established for certain types of conduct being consider as war crimes. That concept also was subsequently applied to the behavior of many leaders and warriors. Meaning that it is now fair game to consider whether or not Putin and some of his cronies have engaged in war crimes. Yes, and Ukrainian leaders as well if instances warrant such a consideration.
Every war occurs at a unique point in the space time continuum. Meaning that every war occurs at a certain point of technological development and in the context of immediately preceding international agreements that may have been in place. Every war also involves a unique set conflicting leaders and in the backdrop of a unique set of historical circumstances. False equivalencies are just the symptom of a lazy mind, and should be condemned as such. Ditto tedious what-about-isms. "Just another war" is not analysis, it is fatalism.
Sure, that is how it seems to me. Again, that brings us to the point of agreeing to disagree.