"absolute free speech"

[rogue06]

That was a beautifully constructed sentence!

But I sure do wish she would have defined what she meant by "parochial" and "nuanced" and I'm not even sure I wanna delve into what she means by "ethical."

[siam]

Thank you for that

From posts so far received I am assuming that several correspondents would not have agreed with the Allies' verdict on Streicher [and there were concerns about his sentence even at the time]. Dr Hermann Marx [Streicher's counsel] argued it was a question of causation. Marx readily acknowledged that Streicher had preached hatred of the Jews and his propaganda made them the scapegoat for Germany's defeat in WW1 and the ensuing suffering in the country. However, he posed the question as to whether Streicher actually "educated the German people to a degree of anti-Semitism" which made the Holocaust possible.

That of course was a deeper historical and far more wide reaching question given the long history of Christian anti-Semitism in Germany and across Europe.

A further question concerning his culpability through hate speech has also been more lately posed:

Can one really argue that Streicher’s vile incitement to murder should not have been punished because it did not amount to a crime under the laws of Nazi Germany?

A former ICC Judge, Sir Christopher Greenwood, had no doubts

One of the reasons for nulla poene sine lege is nobody should be put in the position of acting in good faith, thinking that what they are doing is legal, only to have it treated as criminal afterwards. But it’s hard to see how anyone involved in the sort of activity that led to convictions for crimes against humanity could ever have thought that.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/victors-justice

That Striecher was convicted of crimes against humanity leads to the far wider reaching concept of the legal right to say or write whatever one likes without considering the ethical implication of one's words.

a) If we suppose that the purpose of free-speech is wellbeing...dignity,....education...etc Then under this assumption speech that dehumanizes others can be considered criminal because it goes against those purposes/values. The characteristic (psychology) of "dehumanizing" another human/human group is the rhetoric that one group is "fully"/more "human" than the other (superior/inferior) and therefore the other group deserves death/oppression/injustice....etc.... (its also used in war to make killing the "enemy" easier). Dehumanization would also oppose the "value"/purpose of education as speech that promotes such ideas (superiority/inferiority as opposed to equivalent value of all humanity) leads to ignorance and therefore harm to humanity/uncivilization.

b) Christianity does not seem to have been much of an example of ethico-morality either in the past or today---Perhaps this is not an intellectual concern for them?....I think they leave such matters to a thing called "Holy Spirit"?

c) Unethical laws---Pretty much all Modern lawmaking is removed from ethics/morality---that is why the U.S. can LEGALLY practice such things as kidnapping (renditions), murder (collateral damage), torture(enhanced interrogation)...and a whole lot of other things that normally would be morally/ethically reprehensible.....So...just because the U.S. says they are not technically "crimes"---does that make it so? Should such people (lawmakers, propagandists) be held accountable---and if so, on what basis?
Maybe the U.S. Declaration of Independence might be used?....that some things/truths are so "self-evident" as to require no elaboration...?.....if not---there is still the (universal) principle of the Golden rule---what the U.S. cannot accept be done to its own citizens/nation---it should not do to others.

d) My dissatisfaction is not that laws are applied after the fact---but the hypocrisy of applying laws only to select/defeated countries and not equally to all nations/countries (War crimes/crimes against humanity were/are committed by all nations)

[siam]

continued----
d) My dissatisfaction is not that laws are applied after the fact---but the hypocrisy of applying laws only to select/defeated countries and not equally to all nations/countries (War crimes/crimes against humanity were/are committed by all nations)
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/wa...r-crimes-trial (Tokyo Trials) ....Manifest Destiny, Civilizing Mission, White Man's Burden are all equally toxic ideologies.....?.....
...or laws that are misapplied and/or inconsistent....
for example:---
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs...ronic-comments
the above article shows 2 cartoons that are the same---but target different groups in France. One cartoon was defended for free-speech---the other criminalized for "defending terrorism."

When the purpose of a law/principle is unclear---one cannot arrive at consistent or just/fair application. That is why the intellectual exercise of establishing clear ethcio-moral principles is important. It is also important that ethco-moral principles begin with the conviction that all humanity is of equivalent value---such a paradigm would ensure more clarity and fairness/justice.

[rogue06]

a) If we suppose that the purpose of free-speech is wellbeing...dignity,....education...etc Then under this assumption speech that dehumanizes others can be considered criminal because it goes against those purposes/values.

And you went flying off the tracks at the very start.

Free speech is about people being able to express unpopular thoughts. Things that virtually everyone agrees on don't need to be protected, but things that shake up the norm, upset some folks, and challenges conventional wisdom, do.

That is what freedom of speech is. Criminalizing speech that people don't like (which you appear to endorse but I might be mistaken) is the antithesis of free speech. Being "free" to repeat what others say is not freedom.

The real irony in the U.S. is that the political left were once the leading advocates of free speech. The Free Speech movement of the 1960s was born in the liberal utopia that is Berkeley California. But now the left is leading the charge on censoring everything they disagree with. Of enacting speech codes and hate speech legislation (which the courts thankfully struck down). They've become exactly what they opposed.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

a) If we suppose that the purpose of free-speech is wellbeing...dignity,....education...etc Then under this assumption speech that dehumanizes others can be considered criminal because it goes against those purposes/values. The characteristic (psychology) of "dehumanizing" another human/human group is the rhetoric that one group is "fully"/more "human" than the other (superior/inferior) and therefore the other group deserves death/oppression/injustice....etc.... (its also used in war to make killing the "enemy" easier). Dehumanization would also oppose the "value"/purpose of education as speech that promotes such ideas (superiority/inferiority as opposed to equivalent value of all humanity) leads to ignorance and therefore harm to humanity/uncivilization.

Those are valid points.

b) Christianity does not seem to have been much of an example of ethico-morality either in the past or today---Perhaps this is not an intellectual concern for them?....I think they leave such matters to a thing called "Holy Spirit"?

Many who held/hold Christian beliefs have done admirable things in the name of their religion while others who held/hold Christian beliefs have done reprehensible things also in the name of their religion.

c) Unethical laws---Pretty much all Modern lawmaking is removed from ethics/morality---that is why the U.S. can LEGALLY practice such things as kidnapping (renditions), murder (collateral damage), torture(enhanced interrogation)...and a whole lot of other things that normally would be morally/ethically reprehensible.....So...just because the U.S. says they are not technically "crimes"---does that make it so? Should such people (lawmakers, propagandists) be held accountable---and if so, on what basis?
Maybe the U.S. Declaration of Independence might be used?....that some things/truths are so "self-evident" as to require no elaboration...?.....if not---there is still the (universal) principle of the Golden rule---what the U.S. cannot accept be done to its own citizens/nation---it should not do to others.

I would not wish to make this a criticism of the USA specifically and will note that those comments hold for any ascendant group with regard to its behaviour towards others.

d) My dissatisfaction is not that laws are applied after the fact---but the hypocrisy of applying laws only to select/defeated countries and not equally to all nations/countries (War crimes/crimes against humanity were/are committed by all nations)

Well there are still deep feelings here over the bombing raids of WW2. Were the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden war crimes? Some might say "Yes". Should the Japanese have been first told of the awesome power of the atomic bomb? Some might say "Yes" to that as well.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

continued----
d) My dissatisfaction is not that laws are applied after the fact---but the hypocrisy of applying laws only to select/defeated countries and not equally to all nations/countries (War crimes/crimes against humanity were/are committed by all nations)
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/wa...r-crimes-trial (Tokyo Trials) ....Manifest Destiny, Civilizing Mission, White Man's Burden are all equally toxic ideologies.....?.....
...or laws that are misapplied and/or inconsistent....
for example:---
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs...ronic-comments
the above article shows 2 cartoons that are the same---but target different groups in France. One cartoon was defended for free-speech---the other criminalized for "defending terrorism."

When the purpose of a law/principle is unclear---one cannot arrive at consistent or just/fair application. That is why the intellectual exercise of establishing clear ethcio-moral principles is important. It is also important that ethco-moral principles begin with the conviction that all humanity is of equivalent value---such a paradigm would ensure more clarity and fairness/justice.

I do not think anyone would disagree with your last sentence.

[Stoic]

The Nazi propaganda never categorically endorsed the murder of Jews and nor did Streicher.

It appears that Streicher did endorse the murder of Jews.

Source: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judstrei.asp

As early as 1938 he began to call for the annihilation of the Jewish race. Twenty-three different articles of " Der Sturmer " between 1938 and 1941 were produced in evidence, in which the extermination " root and "branch" was preached. Typical of his teachings was a leading article in September, 1938, which termed the Jew a germ and a pest, not a human , being, but " a parasite, an enemy, an evil-doer, a disseminator of diseases who must be destroyed in the interest of mankind." Other articles urged that only when world Jewry had been annihilated would the Jewish I problem have been solved, and predicted that fifty years hence the Jewish graves " will proclaim that this people of murderers and criminals has after all met its deserved fate." Streicher, in February, 1940, published a letter from one of " Der Sturmer's " readers which compared Jews with swarms of locusts which must be exterminated completely" Such was the poison Streicher injected into the minds of thousands of Germans which caused them to follow the National Socialists policy of Jewish persecution and extermination. A leading article of "Der Sturmer" in May, 1939, shows clearly his aim:

" A punitive expedition must come against the Jews in Russia. A punitive expedition which will provide the same fate for them that every murderer and criminal must expect. Death sentence and execution. The Jews in Russia must be killed. They must be exterminated root and branch."

As the war in the early stages proved successful acquiring more territory for the Reich, Streicher even intensified his efforts to incite the Germans against the Jews. In the record are twenty-six articles from 'Der Sturmer ", published between August, 1941 and September, 1944, twelve by Streicher's own hand, which demanded annihilation and extermination in unequivocal terms. He wrote and published on 25th December, 1941:

" If the danger of the reproduction of that curse of God in the Jewish blood is to finally come to an end, then there is only one way-the extermination of that people whose father is the devil."

And in February, 1944, his own article stated:

" Whoever does what a Jew does is a scoundrel, a criminal. And he who repeats and wishes to copy him deserves the same fate, annihilation, death."

© Copyright Original Source

[siam]

a) [dehumanization]

b) Many who held/hold Christian beliefs have done admirable things in the name of their religion while others who held/hold Christian beliefs have done reprehensible things also in the name of their religion.

c) I would not wish to make this a criticism of the USA specifically and will note that those comments hold for any ascendant group with regard to its behavior towards others.

d) Well there are still deep feelings here over the bombing raids of WW2. Were the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden war crimes? Some might say "Yes". Should the Japanese have been first told of the awesome power of the atomic bomb? Some might say "Yes" to that as well.

a) dehumanization---Speech can lead to (harmful) action---but for the purpose of this discussion, let us keep it to the aspect of "speech"/communication.
2 aspects I want to consider are 1) Ignorance 2) Authority. ...Can the claim of ignorance be a sufficient mitigating factor, 2) Can Authority, (Law, State power, oppression) be a sufficient mitigating factor? This is where things can get complicated----1) If we assume that a normal adult human being is sufficiently intelligent to make informed decisions---then "ignorance" can be considered as an abdication of the responsibility of informed choice. Thus one can assume a degree of guilt/complicity and therefore it would not constitute a sufficient mitigating factor? 2) informed free choice must necessarily take place in an environment that fosters it---compromised environments such as that of oppression would constitute a degree of mitigation---provided these are for ordinary people and not those in Authority. (Government, and its officials bear a higher degree of responsibility because they exercise Authority)...?.....

b) Christianity---Labels do not mean much---it is substance that counts. It seems to me, philosophies and/or belief systems must invest intellectual capital in building consistent and just frameworks/paradigms that contribute to the wellbeing and peace of humanity---otherwise they are useless labels....?.....
(.....after all---according to the rules of chance---humanity (of all labels) will do good things and bad things half the time!!!!...so that is not a "contribution"....)

c) Ascendant group---When an ascendant group abuses "law" to for its own advantage/benefit---it is not Justice. Justice can only be just/fair if it is applied under the assumption of equality---where war crimes/crimes against humanity by all parties are equally examined.
Without the presumption of equality---one groups unethical actions are "justified" and another's is not---this falls under the paradigm of superiority/inferiority---not equality.

d) If we assume that "Law"/Judiciary (courts, Judges, trials...etc) are a means/tool for peaceful dispute resolution---then there would be less excuse for war. But when "law" is abused for the benefit of one group of people over the other---it (injustice) becomes the cause of disputes/wars. Colonialism and the world wars are symptoms of the misuse/abuse or lack of---law/justice. Reform or restructuring of our "systems" must begin by recognizing that any "myths" that favor a narrative of inferiority/superiority cannot be the building blocks of systems that will contribute to the benefit all humanity.

[siam]

And you went flying off the tracks at the very start.

Free speech is about people being able to express unpopular thoughts. Things that virtually everyone agrees on don't need to be protected, but things that shake up the norm, upset some folks, and challenges conventional wisdom, do.

That is what freedom of speech is. Criminalizing speech that people don't like (which you appear to endorse but I might be mistaken) is the antithesis of free speech. Being "free" to repeat what others say is not freedom.

The real irony in the U.S. is that the political left were once the leading advocates of free speech. The Free Speech movement of the 1960s was born in the liberal utopia that is Berkeley California. But now the left is leading the charge on censoring everything they disagree with. Of enacting speech codes and hate speech legislation (which the courts thankfully struck down). They've become exactly what they opposed.

I think it is possible to have disagreements/differences without dehumanizing the "other". It is also possible to have consistent and just rules/laws of speech under the assumption/paradigm that all humanity are of equivalent value...deserving of equal respect and dignity.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It appears that Streicher did endorse the murder of Jews.

Source: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judstrei.asp

As early as 1938 he began to call for the annihilation of the Jewish race. Twenty-three different articles of " Der Sturmer " between 1938 and 1941 were produced in evidence, in which the extermination " root and "branch" was preached. Typical of his teachings was a leading article in September, 1938, which termed the Jew a germ and a pest, not a human , being, but " a parasite, an enemy, an evil-doer, a disseminator of diseases who must be destroyed in the interest of mankind." Other articles urged that only when world Jewry had been annihilated would the Jewish I problem have been solved, and predicted that fifty years hence the Jewish graves " will proclaim that this people of murderers and criminals has after all met its deserved fate." Streicher, in February, 1940, published a letter from one of " Der Sturmer's " readers which compared Jews with swarms of locusts which must be exterminated completely" Such was the poison Streicher injected into the minds of thousands of Germans which caused them to follow the National Socialists policy of Jewish persecution and extermination. A leading article of "Der Sturmer" in May, 1939, shows clearly his aim:

" A punitive expedition must come against the Jews in Russia. A punitive expedition which will provide the same fate for them that every murderer and criminal must expect. Death sentence and execution. The Jews in Russia must be killed. They must be exterminated root and branch."

As the war in the early stages proved successful acquiring more territory for the Reich, Streicher even intensified his efforts to incite the Germans against the Jews. In the record are twenty-six articles from 'Der Sturmer ", published between August, 1941 and September, 1944, twelve by Streicher's own hand, which demanded annihilation and extermination in unequivocal terms. He wrote and published on 25th December, 1941:

" If the danger of the reproduction of that curse of God in the Jewish blood is to finally come to an end, then there is only one way-the extermination of that people whose father is the devil."

And in February, 1944, his own article stated:

" Whoever does what a Jew does is a scoundrel, a criminal. And he who repeats and wishes to copy him deserves the same fate, annihilation, death."

© Copyright Original Source

I think you are technically right and I have no doubt he wanted mass extermination. Furthermore the articles you cite are those written in the lead up to and following the outbreak of war when the published rhetoric became ever more blunt and brutal. However, in the earlier years the printed language in the magazine [while obscene and vile] was not so overtly forthright.

As I wrote in post #19

At a closed meeting of the Nazi student organisation in 1935 Streicher was more blunt but of course his words there were not for general circulation and the source for that speech is a summary in a report of captured German documents.

"All our struggles are in vain if the battle against the Jews is not fought to the finish. It is not enough to get the Jews out of Germany. No, they must be killed in the entire world, so that humanity will be free of them."

However, as war rapidly approached in 1939 there were more direct comments being made in Der Stürmer. Ernst Hiemer wrote that "The Jewish question is not yet solved. It will not be solved even when the last Jew has left Germany. It will be solved only when world Jewry is annihilated ". In 1940, when the war was underway, Streicher wrote a lead editorial that concluded that there was only one way in which to bring about world peace and that would be achieved "when the enemy of peace and freedom is annihilated: the world criminal Pan-Jewry".

Were such comments simply the expressing of opinions in a newspaper? Or were they incitement to murder?

Following his arrest by the allies and while being held at Mondorf, Streicher was shown some small kindness by a soldier who made it plain he was Jewish and Streicher dissolved into tears. For a brief moment he regretted his vile accusations against the Jews but that moment did not last and in his final political testament in August 1945 he reaffirmed all he had ever written and said about them as a people.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

a) dehumanization---Speech can lead to (harmful) action---but for the purpose of this discussion, let us keep it to the aspect of "speech"/communication.
2 aspects I want to consider are 1) Ignorance 2) Authority. ...Can the claim of ignorance be a sufficient mitigating factor, 2) Can Authority, (Law, State power, oppression) be a sufficient mitigating factor? This is where things can get complicated----1) If we assume that a normal adult human being is sufficiently intelligent to make informed decisions---then "ignorance" can be considered as an abdication of the responsibility of informed choice. Thus one can assume a degree of guilt/complicity and therefore it would not constitute a sufficient mitigating factor? 2) informed free choice must necessarily take place in an environment that fosters it---compromised environments such as that of oppression would constitute a degree of mitigation---provided these are for ordinary people and not those in Authority. (Government, and its officials bear a higher degree of responsibility because they exercise Authority)...?.....

In totalitarian regimes some of the above can prove difficult.

In democracies where information is freely available there is less excuse.

b) Christianity---Labels do not mean much---it is substance that counts. It seems to me, philosophies and/or belief systems must invest intellectual capital in building consistent and just frameworks/paradigms that contribute to the wellbeing and peace of humanity---otherwise they are useless labels....?.....
(.....after all---according to the rules of chance---humanity (of all labels) will do good things and bad things half the time!!!!...so that is not a "contribution"....)

My point was that I do not wish this to become a critique solely of one religion. As with all human endeavour there is good and bad.

c) Ascendant group---When an ascendant group abuses "law" to for its own advantage/benefit---it is not Justice. Justice can only be just/fair if it is applied under the assumption of equality---where war crimes/crimes against humanity by all parties are equally examined.
Without the presumption of equality---one groups unethical actions are "justified" and another's is not---this falls under the paradigm of superiority/inferiority---not equality.

This comes down to power and corruption. Your earlier comments on rendition are a case in point. The US did [?does?] such things because it it has/had that power.

d) If we assume that "Law"/Judiciary (courts, Judges, trials...etc) are a means/tool for peaceful dispute resolution---then there would be less excuse for war. But when "law" is abused for the benefit of one group of people over the other---it (injustice) becomes the cause of disputes/wars. Colonialism and the world wars are symptoms of the misuse/abuse or lack of---law/justice. Reform or restructuring of our "systems" must begin by recognizing that any "myths" that favor a narrative of inferiority/superiority cannot be the building blocks of systems that will contribute to the benefit all humanity.

With that I would generally agree but within nation states that is sometimes hard achieve because underlying prejudices, bigotry, and ignorance exist.

The law is above such things but its implementation and interpretation often is not.

[rogue06]

Those are valid points.



Well there are still deep feelings here over the bombing raids of WW2. Were the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden war crimes? Some might say "Yes". Should the Japanese have been first told of the awesome power of the atomic bomb? Some might say "Yes" to that as well.

There were even some among the allies who expressed concern over Dresden in particular. IIRC, one general said that if we had lost we could have been charged with a war crime.

As for the nukes and warning the Japanese


A-Bomb Warnings.jpg


Second, I'm not sure anyone could comprehend the power of such a weapon without first seeing it. After all, cities were wiped out in conventional bombing runs and that didn't stop anyone. Look at Operation Meetinghouse, which was the firebombing of Tokyo which obliterated 16 square miles (41km²) of the city killing 100,000 and leaving over a million homeless. Even something like that didn't give the Imperial Japanese government pause. And even after the dropping of the first atomic bomb there wasn't apparently much of a reaction.

[rogue06]

I think it is possible to have disagreements/differences without dehumanizing the "other". It is also possible to have consistent and just rules/laws of speech under the assumption/paradigm that all humanity are of equivalent value...deserving of equal respect and dignity.

Of course it is, but that doesn't mean that the government should be stepping in and regulating it.

Moreover dehumanizing has become an umbrella term for virtually anything one disagrees with but can't refute. Simply declare that it is dehumanizing in some way. We have people declaring that wearing masks because of the pandemic is "dehumanizing." Does that therefore make it wrong and needs to stop? And obviously not all "dehumanizing" is done with malicious intent

business-commerce-take_a_number-lines-queue-queing-customer_services-cwln5873_low.jpg

But more importantly, while there are limitations on free speech (shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire is the classic example), there are no exceptions for hurt feelings. Of course slander and libel are not covered but that's because the statements are false, but for anything else, folks need to put their big boy and girl pants on and stop being a snowflake.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There were even some among the allies who expressed concern over Dresden in particular. IIRC, one general said that if we had lost we could have been charged with a war crime.

Given that Dresden was a sanctuary for refugees mainly from the east [having not been bombed previously] and that it had few strategic targets the bombing can indeed be seen as nothing more than Terroranschläge. Most of the casualties being civilians including women and children. Even Churchill in a standard communication later noted that "The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of the Allied bombing." [See: Charles Webster and Noble Frankland, The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany, 1939–1945, HMSO 1961, Vol III. p.112]

Of course once the war was over it would become clear what Allied strategic bombing had done.

As for the nukes and warning the Japanese

Second, I'm not sure anyone could comprehend the power of such a weapon without first seeing it.

Firstly the Japanese propaganda against the Allies has to be considered. Secondly, there is this: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/...o-demonstrate/

After all, cities were wiped out in conventional bombing runs and that didn't stop anyone.

I think that is a rather glib comment. Certainly Harris was prepared to flatten Germany [and with American help he almost did it]. However, there were also aspects of "revenge". Did Vienna really need to be bombed? Did Dresden? British bomber crews were starting to ask questions in the last year or so of the war concerning the validity of some targets.

Look at Operation Meetinghouse, which was the firebombing of Tokyo which obliterated 16 square miles (41km²) of the city killing 100,000 and leaving over a million homeless. Even something like that didn't give the Imperial Japanese government pause.

II think that the decision to target Shitamachi could be viewed in a similar context as Guernica. Unprotected civilians stood no chance against aerial bombardment including incendiaries targeting largely wooden frame buildings.

And even after the dropping of the first atomic bomb there wasn't apparently much of a reaction

Again, that is a very glib comment. At first the Japanese government was in disbelief wondering if America did actually have such a weapon. The bombing of Nagasaki four days confirmed that America did.

[rogue06]

Given that Dresden was a sanctuary for refugees mainly from the east [having not been bombed previously] and that it had few strategic targets the bombing can indeed be seen as nothing more than Terroranschläge. Most of the casualties being civilians including women and children. Even Churchill in a standard communication later noted that "The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of the Allied bombing." [See: Charles Webster and Noble Frankland, The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany, 1939–1945, HMSO 1961, Vol III. p.112]

Of course once the war was over it would become clear what Allied strategic bombing had done.

Firstly the Japanese propaganda against the Allies has to be considered. Secondly, there is this: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/...o-demonstrate/

I think that is a rather glib comment. Certainly Harris was prepared to flatten Germany [and with American help he almost did it]. However, there were also aspects of "revenge". Did Vienna really need to be bombed? Did Dresden? British bomber crews were starting to ask questions in the last year or so of the war concerning the validity of some targets.


II think that the decision to target Shitamachi could be viewed in a similar context as Guernica. Unprotected civilians stood no chance against aerial bombardment including incendiaries targeting largely wooden frame buildings.

Again, that is a very glib comment. At first the Japanese government was in disbelief wondering if America did actually have such a weapon. The bombing of Nagasaki four days confirmed that America did.

The last bit demonstrates the futility of any demonstration. They had their doubts when it happened to a large city on their mainland, do you think a demonstration elsewhere would have left them convinced? They knew a second strike was soon following, and even where (see image of warning leaflets in post #57), and they waited for it to happen again.

And none of my comments were meant to be glib in the slightest, but rather matter of fact. Cities had been leveled in the course of the war and it didn't slow it down a whit.

Finally, I think that a German playing the victim card for what happened during World War II is a bit surreal and in poor taste.

Not to be glib, but as the U.S. Civil War general most famous for his scorched earth policy during his March to the Sea through Georgia (which btw, obliterated Atlanta) accurately stated: "War is hell." Always has been. Always will be. At least for one side if not both.