Youjo Senki

What civillian user?
All civillian already evacuated, the NotFrance confirmed it. There's only Militia and NotFrance army left.

Legally not a warcrime.
Also when's the next volume translation coming out again?

I still don't understand the concept of war crimes. War itself is inherently a crime against humanity, if you've decided that killing your fellow man is the only recourse I don't think the method you choose matters all that much.

It's literally and explicitly not a war crime. Immoral maybe, depends on your definitions and beliefs

what civilians?

youtube.com/watch?v=ffn72OQJJFc

Is it bad that I'd be willing to join up with a loli to commit minor atrocities purely because she demonstrates incredible proficiency as a manager?

>I still don't understand the concept of war crimes. War itself is inherently a crime against humanity
War is depending on your definition almost as old as or older than humanity.
Rules of war exist to keep industrialized war on a level where it doesn't threaten the very basic of a possible post-war order.
For example it's a war crime to execute soldiers that surrendered. That is a reciprocatedaction of both sides because you a) don't want your own PoWs executed and b) Enemy soldiers that don't even have the option of surrendering will fight longer and inflict more causalities on your army.

you need something to diss on your enemy

When the Reich loses, this will be part of their war crime list that they'll have to pay for. If Wing 203 wasn't kept secret like we're led to believe, they probably would all be executed or jailed.

Attached: 1534900112592.gif (420x725, 199K)

War crimes? All I see is a cute girl.

Attached: 85e5416aff3907f5a40609a5c0338232.jpg (564x760, 48K)

their all enemies
theres alot about not causing unnecessary harm or possible harm to civilians. correct amount of force against the right targets. Its to try and stop generations from being wiped out again
the 24th im pretty sure

Attached: how to war.jpg (1001x590, 420K)

It's literally stated in the novels by the journalist that what the empire was found to be perfectly legal.

Amazon says 26th.
Now to see whether they delay the shipping like they did every other volume I preordered

If you've got the resources to worry about these things did you need to resort to war?

No, because that's how people who have poor managerial skills but are otherwise capable can get 『ELITE COURSE』

Attached: ELITE BATH.jpg (564x797, 53K)

They become a PMC and Tanya becomes THE BOSS

Attached: 1445098692600.jpg (512x661, 132K)

pretty sure all wars since 1900 were over ideology instead of resources, and if not all, its one of the reasons. major countries haven't gone to war with each other because its not profitable, but thats recent with the emergence of global trade

Attached: tanya Derganchuffett.jpg (1076x716, 331K)

Soon, Wordery says releases today and it was dispatched yesterday, it comes in 3-5 days, which I bet will mean I'll get it early again.
I got Goblin Slayer early last time, now I hope for the same.
Fuck amazon after the last few times, they don't pay attention to how much stock they'll get and sell what they don't have. They're fine for the stuff they do have in stock.

Apart from the obvious tracing the manga out preforms the anime by a mile

So it goes beck to my original assertion that war itself is inherently criminal. War crimes in that effect is just to wash people of their guilty conscience, you may have killed people but you did it in the approved way so it's cool.

i would say that the Gulf War was over resources and not ideology, im also sure there would be a lot of other wars over resources and without any ideology
if you would stretch it enough current Israel-Palestine conflict is mostly over resources too and ideology is the last concern of them

Crime is just what's unprofitable to support. War crimes would cause damage to the interests of the ruling powers, and naturally that means the victor is never charged. It's just regular cutthroat politics and economics, just a little more literal than usual.

youre orginal point stated it didn't matter how you killed. the whole thing about war crimes is it does matter how you kill (jus in bello). just reasons to go to war (jus ad bellum), and how to handle the aftermath (jus post bellum) are separate thing as well. i don't think people have a guilty conscience over it when its invaders coming to your land or ideology that would end your way of life

yeah, i should have known better since i did a presentation on it. fug. its 100% about ensuring Saddam didn't grab control of global oil

Sure.

Attached: Tanya_in_manga_2.jpg (285x356, 33K)

Oniichan, wanna buy some rock cds?

Attached: prepare your NUTS.jpg (1675x940, 65K)

Well if you are being invaded I would call that a no choice scenario where war is just the lesser evil to annihilation/subjugation. Invading someone because you want their resources then telling them no you can't kill people in X manner reeks of hypocrisy.

Sorry faggots but the anime is much better than this furry traced garbage.

Attached: MV5BNmNjMWFlYzAtY2QxZC00Yjk5LWI5OTctYWQ5NTg2OTZmNmYxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTAyODkwOQ@@._V1_UY1200_CR85,0,6 (630x1200, 103K)

invading for resources is against just war theory. probably could make an argument that it is a last resort to stop say mass famine killing millions of your own population because your neighbor would trade crops

Where is this episode in anime? I'm curious how it's there.

So do they fly with half-skis in the novels or just with pocket watches like in the manga?

It's so good I feel mindbroken at the same time.

Just watch the anime, it's actually a really good adaptation. Some things are vastly superior in the anime and some in the manga. As for the Arene bit, both are good. I might have to lean for the anime but the impact of it would require you to watch everything up to that point for the full effect.

I forget what the Scandis have but the French have gatling horses.

Attached: x49.jpg (1080x1551, 599K)

I was asking about the austrians though. Tanya's on different levels of OP if she needs bulky equipment to fly or she just needs to have faith in god.

The Reich uses the pocketwatches, Operational Orbs, in all three versions.

Attached: 061.jpg (1080x1551, 656K)

I see it as a gentleman's agreement between two factions, agreeing that you don't do this to MY city, I don't do this to YOUR city, and both agree for whatever reason. I think it's more pronounced in a civil war where both sides prefer not to destroy their own country. And since war is a civil war along humans, well... there will be a certain gentleman's agreement no matter how small.
But if you're the winning side with no chance of your side being war-crimed, I could see that side commiting "war crime" to no end. It's possible that the tides of war still changed and they will be war-crimed in return though.

Mass genocide of innocents is a war crime you baiting shitters.
If you're going to argue some citizens help the war effort, the old, sick, and young children do nothing to directly help the enemy side in a war

>The point of the arc is explaining how Tanya circumvented notGerman being charged for warcrimes.
>people discusses whether its warcrimes or not.

Attached: 20181225023112290.jpg (1080x1551, 457K)

literally it wasn't

womp womp

>Republic bumps into Empire
>Empire surprisingly bumps back
Somebody explain to me how the empire are the bad guys in the international perception.

Attached: 1522563072388.png (1113x1600, 314K)

They have no allies, had jingoistic attitude in decade leading up to the war, actually fired the first shot after the scandis stepped on "their" lawn, and lost.

Jewish education
NOT!GERMANY BAD!

>pretty sure all wars since 1900 were over ideology instead of resources,
Then you are uninformed.
>Japan attacking the USA over a blockade
>the USA announcing that they will not be blackmailable with oil
Of course, there are other reasons as well. WW1 started because Germany was feeling increasingly surrounded by allies of France and England, while France and England were feeling increasingly threatened by Germany's economical and military power. Money is definitely a resource though, so it counts.
>major countries haven't gone to war with each other because its not profitable,
Because the USA have a monopoly on military power. Given that they have the greatest empire in the history of mankind, they have so much money to spend on defense that there is not really much wriggling room for anyone else to take a shot for the top. But the throne is shaky, and all hell will break lose when people start doubting America's power.
>but thats recent with the emergence of global trade
Global trade is nothing recent.
WW1 was considered impossible because of globalization.

yes?

Attached: amane.jpg (300x460, 21K)

If modern armies went all-out, it would be easy for them to completely eradicate the civilian populations of their enemies, and it would be almost impossible to stop.
The problem with that is that everybody loses, because even if your army survives your civilian population being eradicated (on account of it being an army and somewhat prepared against biological attacks), you still lost your entire civilian population.
So, let's agree to not wipe out each other's civilian populations. Deal?

Stop arguing about war crimes and post some Tanya

Attached: 1485930260080.jpg (251x222, 18K)

Would the refusal to provide user with Tanya be considered a war crime?

Was the Arene part this detailed in the LN, or did it just skim over it? I don't remember reading about some things like them recording the prisoners being shot or that gantz part.

It should be

Attached: 1549524887084.jpg (736x736, 75K)

Every retelling of the story has different nuances. Other than Tanya's personality, I don't think they clash too much with each other, so I suggest you try them all.

japan attacked the us because we were halting their war efforts in china. Japan was expanding under imperialism.
blackmailing with oil? which conflict?
>military power...
that doesn't explain why we didn't have a direct conflict with the soviet union, but trade wouldn't explain it either. a better point would be nuclear missiles and MAD, but that could be spun as not profitable
>global trade
its not new, but the scale it is now is not something you could compare to pre ww1. not even mentioning how interwoven countries monetary systems are, and how fullscale war could collapse our fiat currencies if say deutsche bank went down
yes, it is a war crime. heres cute tanyas

Attached: 1522253156102.jpg (714x1000, 156K)

DO IT AGAIN BOMBER TANYA

Attached: tanya bunny.jpg (600x871, 271K)

The thing is, global politics since the 1900 are easily understandable even if you completely disregard all ideology.
The ideology is just the decoration, to make all this crap look palatable to the people, and this sort of propaganda has been used for far longer than you think.
The Romans conquered their empire through just wars, war being otherwise forbidden.

You said it yourself. War needs to be profitable. Ideology is not profitable. I find it weird then that you can at the same time hold the opinion that what wars we did have, could be about anything other than profitable things.

Attached: 1543123457858.png (700x960, 934K)

That's the point. Yes, it was horrible but it was technically acceptable from a legal standpoint.

seperate what legitimizes the war to the population from the reason the ruling class wants to go to war. i think its harder the more intermixed economies are to legitimize a war to the people with a growing merchant/trader/business class then it was with romans or the crusades where you could just take raw resources and not end up destroing a complex manufacturing process that also exports to two of your allies and isnt built anywhere else. governments always have to legitimize war and themselves to the people or they face revolution like russia and china to use recent examples

Attached: tanya!.jpg (593x817, 157K)

final tanya of the night for me

Attached: YUV.H14M03S34.png (1024x1644, 1.56M)

Warcrime is a pretty modern concept. War is bad but it only becomes a crime when it breaks certain laws.

If you are not aware yet, Tanya is trying to justify the massacre of hostile civilians (they are actually technically militia in this case) by proving that they are not unarmed innocent citizens. So Tanya and co. literally did not commit any war crime at all.

And if you want to talk about real life warcrime and the trail of the recent wars, they are practically a farce and an excuse to make a conclusion to one senseless war. 2 pretty big clue are
1. Soviet and the Nazi practically committed the same crime of invading Poland (yes, that was the exact sentence) but Soviet got off scot free.
2. Most scientists are spared and their names scratched from the records once they agreed to serve the nations of the victor.

Warcrime is just a stick to beat your fallen enemy. So don't let anything stop you from applying any strategy to help you win the war. The only thing you have to worry about is losing the war.

But you don't need to "take" the resources, if you can just put somebody in charge who will give you a favorable price for them. That way you can have your justification as well "we liberated these evil democrats from their evil democratically elected president and gave them a proper dictator that will treat them better", or however you are going to phrase it.
So I don't see how you have even the beginnings of an argument.

Thanks for the cute youjos

Attached: 1485909292196.png (564x283, 89K)

Made up bullshit to feel morally superior to your enemy and get rid of people after the war.

I'd disagree a lot of the more detailed stuff is only explainable through ideology.

>Warcrime is a pretty modern concept.
You do know that Julius Caesar would have faced war crime trials after his office in Gallia was over?
He conquered Rome precisely to avoid that.

Similarly the Greeks (I think it was the Spartans, but I am not sure) almost got into trouble when they killed Persian emissaries.
War crimes are not a new concept.

The best example for war crimes being a farce of course is that America still refuses to admit any American soldiers to the international court of law. even though it is pro-America anyway.

People can act on ideology, no question about it.
But countries generally don't.

>>You do know that Julius Caesar would have faced war crime trials after his office in Gallia was over?
No, it was other crimes he was guilty of before his conquest even began. Mostly political crimes.

>Warcrime is just a stick to beat your fallen enemy.
Yup. Germany committed many war crimes. America committed many war crimes. However only the war crimes which were committed exclusively by Germany were prosecuted.
Some extra ones were even invented anew for the holocaust, but most war crime trials were for violations of interwar treaties.

Attached: download (14).png (1024x1364, 1.68M)

That too. But war crimes too.
Some Romans even talked about handing him over to some Germanic tribes I believe.

It is very hard to to understand some of the more retarded actions that Germany took before WW2 while disregarding ideology.
As an example the Anschluss. Which by the way should have happened after WW1 already but no Entente had to go complete retard

>Some Romans even talked about handing him over to some Germanic tribes I believe

Handing over one of your senator to the barbarians? Judging from the track record of Romans and how they viewed other people, I don't think that anyone who utter any close to what you wrote there in the senate.

Cato does not ring a bell?

I'll grant you the point about the Third Reich.

People who can offer and maintain that kind of deal don't need to resort to wars. You make it sound like war is some kind of sporting event and not people killing other people en masse. If you're warring on the drop of a hat no international convention makes your nation less scum.

Cato was opposed to Caesar in all circumstances but he never suggest to hand over Caesar to the Germans.

Plutarch disagrees with you.

I forgot, what was the reason for the Entente being against a Großdeutschland again?

Why would he be handed over to the Germans, anyways? It was the Gauls he slaughtered.

Attached: 1485922676491.jpg (500x600, 81K)

The only time that the Romans handed over one of their own, was to violate a treaty signed in Romes name. To do this, they banished those who signed it, and sent them to the signatories. There was precedent for it.

Cato did suggest that one solution to Caesar was to do the same with him, and eject him into the very tribes that he has slaughtered.
This was less so about the specifics of war crimes(though Cato fumed a lot about Caesar betraying what amounted to ambassadors from German tribes, and killing them), and more to do with the fact Cato believed Caesar to have trounced the Rule of Law, and therefore needed to be dealt with for the sake of the Republic.

Either prosecute him for malpractice in office, or find him guilty of betraying ambassadors and hand him over to the tribes that he had killed.

Attached: IMG_20190206_183737.jpg (1754x1240, 545K)

She is a lesbian, like /u/ tries to force?

Nah, he killed plenty of Germans on the way. He even made one hell of an architectural achievement by building a bridge over the Rhine in just a week, just to show that he could. (then he destroyed the bridge, rebuilt it, and destroyed it again, just to fuck with the Germans)

For the warcrime in question, I think it is the episode where two Germanic tribes crossed the Rhine. Casar marches his armies against them and speaks of them only as enemies. They send diplomats, begging for peace and talks and that they will settle wherever he wants them to. He keeps marching towards them. Their diplomats keep begging.
At some point, when he is already really close to the Germans, a few scared Germans attack Caesar's Gallic allies, killing 74 of them. In response Caesar illegally imprisons the diplomats and drives 2 entire Germanic peoples into the Rhine. By his own account, 430,000 Germans died that day. not a single Roman lost their life.

i imagine it's similar to the lead up to WWI. Historically Germany is a large, disunified mass of states that all of the sudden unifies and industrializes. France knows it would get destroyed in a war, Russia wouldn't stand a chance in protecting it's interests, Britain is used to having the world's largest navy suddenly has a competitor out of nowhere. None of these countries necessarily like each other, but none of them like the new powerful Germany either and Germany knows this. If they want anything done they know the cards are stacked against them and have to be pretty militaristic to compete. They're just as evil as any other country, but have to be more ruthless to stand a chance. The other countries can then point at that and go "see, we're not so bad, even the other countries (whose imperialistic goals would benefit from the Empire being weakened) think they're evil and we normally hate those other countries. Imagine how bad the Empire really is!"

Man, fuck Cato. The land reforms weren't even that bad of an idea, and sure Caesar did every underhanded trick he could to pass it, but maybe if the conservatives didn't spit on the idea of any changes to the country none of this shit would've happened.

Attached: 26232870_1990901271130316_8480800152443727947_o.jpg (2048x1819, 182K)

She is theosexual.

>that facebook filename
I almost saved your image. Now I feel dirty.

It'd be hilarious if this ends with Tanya as an old nun in charge of a church. It'd be one long mindbreak, gore store that way.

That's the only place the artist uploads, I don't think he understands that twitter exists.

Attached: 15358860221743.jpg (720x960, 68K)

They were Germans in the instance Cato was mad about. They were crossing over into Belgae territory. Caesar asked for the migrating Germans leaders under the pretext of asking for ambassadors, and then proceeded to kill them, immediately following up with an all out assault on the crossing "troops".
They also weren't all troops.

Caesars Gallic conquests were more justifiable than this 1 particular incident on the German border. Its fair to say that Caesar did it for the sake of expediency so he could then mount an expedition to Britain.

Cicero attempted a minor land reform, but it wasn't that much. I have sympathy for Cato(at times) but he was completely unpragmatic about the whole thing.

The problem with land reform was less a problem with Cato and far more deep and endemic with the lack of a mechanism to address the Latifundia(slave farm estates). The massive profits led to cheap food, but that food was then needed to feed the sprawling cities, filled with people excised from the countryside. These people, having no property, therefore no stake in society, and ended up demanding populist reforms, from ambitious men, some of whom were more out for themselves.

THIS SOUNDS FUCKING FAMILIAR SOMEHOW.

Attached: original_and_real_life_drawn_by_bitchcraft123__d4f86bda21856f40f303c4968189537a.jpg (1000x1064, 749K)

>THIS SOUNDS FUCKING FAMILIAR SOMEHOW.

History is a cycle. We are currently witnessing the collapse of a republic and the rise of an empire.

When you read about Julius Caesar, you get the impression of an egomaniac with severe issues. But when you read up on the history of Rome, you get the impression they desperately needed that egomaniac with severe issues.
The whole situation was fucked, and one thing is for certain. Cato was not helping.

Who could have seen this coming?

Attached: 220px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R06610%2C_Oswald_Spengler.jpg (220x298, 15K)

History cannot not repeat itself for the virtue of it already having happened, but it does rhyme.
What happens this cycle won't be determined by what happened in the Roman Empire. There are also many other trajectories upon which Republic can collapse into.

Attached: H15M47S03.jpg (512x640, 302K)

>History cannot not repeat itself for the virtue of it already having happened,
It could not very well "repeat" itself if it hadn't already happened, smartass.

Cato was an old fool.

Attached: 10 years in ms paint.png (500x534, 451K)

no it's not, geneva convention is generally accepted for a reason

Kierkegaard. Nothing can repeat itself exactly if it is known of. The knowing will lead to the slightest of changes which in turn alter the outcome.

But the patters still exist as we do not fully comprehend these events as they happen.

Not quite. Cato was a tragic figure precisely because he was one of the few living embodiment's of what it was to be an old Roman, but those virtues ultimately ended dooming the Republic.
Cato both helped stave off the fall... but also contributed towards it. It is why he's remembered.

Attached: 1488579994167.jpg (345x495, 102K)

>Kierkegaard. Nothing can repeat itself exactly if it is known of.
Logic: Nothing can repeat itself before the first time.

Okay, but the point you are not addressing is that it's not always about moral justification, which you seem hung up on, it's about both sides agreeing to not fuck each other's shit up too much. For example the Nazis and Soviets not deploying gas weapons against each other (apart from one disputed incident in the Crimea).

Please address that logic to the comment I was originally replying to. We are in agreement.
Just because a Republic fell and an Empire rose, does not mean that the same will happen this time around, only that those similar forces will be in play again.

Attached: 1494638563001.png (800x800, 331K)

The point flew completely over your head. I was not disagreeing with your overall opinion. I was pointing out that your phrasing is rubbish because it implies nonsense.

geneva is a joke, 'it's okay when we winners do it'
'it's a warcrime when the losing side did a legal thing'

>geneva convention
adopted in 1949, after the wars the manga is modeled after.
if bombing civilians was a crime nuking two cities in Japan would have definitely put the US on the shit list. not to mention the constant back and forth civilian bombing of the Eastern Front.

But if 2 sides can agree on that why can't they agree to fix their issues without any shit being fucked?

#tanyadidnothingwrong

Attached: dab_city.gif (400x208, 277K)

This. World War 2 is a perfect example of this.
Both Allies and Axis committed unimaginable numbers of atrocities both against their opponents and against civilians.
Once the war ended, the winners were the ones who literally defined war crimes as "Whatever they did that we have not."

No. The comment was originally replying to nonsense denoted as common sense by many. The idea the history repeats itself. Still a commonly held trope to this day.

Both the incorrect belief, and the better explanation are contained within the same saying.
Apologies if understanding basic sentence structure eludes you.

Attached: Cossak.jpg (351x664, 128K)

are kids these days not taught about World War 2?

in America we're taught that only the evil Axis ignored the geneva convention, maybe sometimes the Soviets

Yes.
The very definition of the word "repeat" disagrees with you.
The English language does not seem to be your forte.

>why can't they agree to fix their issues without any shit being fucked?
Why should they?

So they just like fucking each other's shit up but not too much fucking up?

fun fact: air raids of civilian targets killed significantly more people than the two nukes combined, with an upper estimate of 900,000. firebombing campaigns were extremely effective since most structures at the time were built out of wood.

Attached: Grave-of-the-Fireflies-1.jpg (600x339, 39K)

>So they just like fucking each other's shit up
It's profitable after all.

>but not too much fucking up
Beyond a certain point there is only a marginal advantage to further fuckupery, but very real consequences to having the enemy perform these acts.
So there is a vague line that countries try to agree on with each other. "Let us not all die".

I'm still not sure what retard in the anglosphere came to the glorious idea that "moral bombing" would divide the subjects from the rulers and stop the support for war.
>Let's target civilian housing
>instead of the war industry
>that way we will convince enemy civilians to stop supporting their government

How?

Attached: 8566890l.jpg (424x600, 62K)

Repeat.
Something happens again, after having happened already.

Jesus Christ, you are stupid.

Is this bait? He said that history does not repeat but exhibits similar patterns.

Attached: 1485925560604.jpg (512x512, 57K)

And I agreed with "him" on that.
The problem, once again, was his phrasing. He did not just say that history does not repeat.
He said that the reason that history does not repeat is because it has already happened.
Which implies that it would repeat if it had not yet happened.

>If Wing 203 wasn't kept secret like we're led to believe
in the manga they are literally erased from all official documents and fairy of Rhine or whatever she was called is considered a myth

he meant obviously literal time loop, literal repeat

Way too tame for my taste

Attached: 1200.jpg (1200x1996, 256K)

And you cannot repeat what never happens in the first place.

>I'm still not sure what retard in the anglosphere
Winston Churchill.
seriously, is this stuff not taught in schools anymore?

Not just Winston Churchill though. I mean, yeah, he is one of the people responsible (for example by baiting Hitler into making the first bombing attacks on England so he could retaliate in kind).
But the whole thing had been considered even before WW1. There was even an attempt at outlawing it.

Lmao, no one follows the geneva convention. And why should they? The whole point of war is to win

It's not though. They can justify it to themselves for the reasons stated, yes. But they can't override the legality by saying "they started it".

of course it's more complicated, but if you want to place the blame on some then Churchill had the rubber stamp, so to say.

>The whole point of war is to win
That is a very naive summary, but so simple that it is not entirely incorrect.
What does "win" mean?
Are you looking for resources or strategic positions or to weaken a potential enemy or to get cheap labor?
There are many different goals you might pursue.
But if along the way you lose so much that the gains from your victory cannot make up for them, then even if you achieve your objective, you have lost.

I'm sure the Germans practicing their bombing tactics against civilians during the Spanish civil war is completely unrelated to the topic?

>no it's not, geneva convention is generally accepted for a reason
>let's not use nuclear weapons, enriched uranium in weapons and other shit
>US doesn't give a shit and leaves traces all over middle east but good luck suing them
>let's not use gas or chemical weapons especially against civilians
>but the definition is so vague that plenty of middle eastern countries still do
>let's not use white phosphorous against civilian targets
>I S R A E L
who even follows it at this point? it's been circumvented in every shape and form

Don't forget about terror bombing in Poland.

guy I replied to specifically said anglosphere

Law does not become worthless by being broken. It is something you can use to pressure your leader with, if you are so inclined.
It is something to fall back on.

I always forget that country exists.

"legal" and morally acceptable are not the same thing. especially when you're talking about history.
what exact law do you think is being broken in this fantasy version of WW2?

>>let's not use white phosphorous against civilian targets
But it's to pretty
youtube.com/watch?v=A4UQxlUS8F0

>the old, sick, and young children do nothing to directly help the enemy side in a war
Evacuate them out of the war zone then.

And in Tanya's case, she had warned the city before the bombardment.

Attached: onxsAWp.jpg (600x839, 134K)

Reminder that Russia is so far the only country in Syria that acts with permission from the officially elected government.
Everybody else is automatically a war criminal.

Lads, we forget the most crucial part. It's not a war crime if the perpetrator is a cute girl.

am i supposed to feel there's something wrong with killing literally terrorists, just because word 'russia' is invoked?

We need more war crimes committed by cute girls

Attached: 1433722656871.jpg (1280x720, 375K)

You are REALLY bad at English, aren't you?

Well done. My entire point. Idiot. Well done. Mission accomplished.

The phrase 'history repeats itself', the ethos behind the comment I was first replying to... cannot be a true one, as the material conditions differ, though due to the physical laws of the universe remain constant, history rhymes.

How on earth was this previously not conveyed is both beyond me, and something I shan't bother responding to.

I'd call bait. Either bait or retardation. Either way, not something to feed.

Attached: file.jpg (1600x900, 317K)

I am not sure how to tell you this, but things that never happen are not the same as things that happen once.
There is a difference.

>Law does not become worthless by being broken
But it does become worthless if you cannot enforce it in ANY capacity.

What if the American people started caring about the conventions and actually demanded that their presidential candidates make some statements on that regard?
Probably the same thing as with Obama and closing Guantanamo.

>some statements
i mean they did and they do
make statements all day, now try get something actually done

international law is nothing like civil law. it's not rare for a country to be in a perpetual state of "we're not going to acknowledge wrongdoing, but if you don't look into it, we'll do so and so in exchange". even if the law isn't enforced, it being there acts as an additional bargaining chip in the overall politics.

The UN and US regularly use international law to try and force their bullshit down other's throats.
The UN usually failing since they're unwilling or unable to follow up with force when the other side tells them to fuck off.
The US, being willing to follow up with force tends to get things its way a lot more.
So no, even international law is worthless if you're not willing or able to enforce it.
It's the realistic threat of force that's the bargaining chip, the law is just an excuse to bring said chip to the table.

What a wonderful tree.

Attached: 27.jpg (1194x832, 254K)

It's just giving credit to the artists responsible for that beautiful christmas tree.

>>but the definition is so vague that plenty of middle eastern countries still do
The definition is so vague that tear gassing unruly civilians falls under the definition.

War isn't a crime against humanity it's as natural as humanity, the scale is all that's increased.
War crimes are just to kick the loser while they're down.

I'm quite weak on my history but there's that meme floating around that says the British ordered their soldiers to slowly march forward to confuse the enemy and make them miss. Quite possible the same guy that came up with that.

Naruhodo.

>War crimes are just to kick the loser while they're down.
Yeah, this is basically the essence of it.

That's because it wasn't. Moral Bombing was how it got sold it to the general populous. The real reason it was done was revenge pure and simple. You can just read up on what bomber Harris thought about it. The purpose was to level Germany to the ground so that we'd need to either rebuild them from the ground up, or outright replace the Germans with 'less warlike stock'. Either way, they'd be de facto run by other nations after the peace, who'd stop Germany round 3 from happening again...

But then the EU happened...

Attached: 5af41b1ce54b4c17946ed7fbf4d28a58.png (1080x1699, 1.41M)

You literally cannot have a war without one party violating international law.

>But then the EU happened...
No, America happened. America wanted a strong Germany, because it bordered Soviet territory.

Also, because the Americans needed more markets to sell their stuff.

>It's the realistic threat of force that's the bargaining chip, the law is just an excuse to bring said chip to the table.
have you not read any news for the past 20 years? economics sanctions are the primary bargaining chip for international conflict.

unless the two parties don't have any laws established between them

Tad more complicated than that. The Americans sure fucked it up, but chiefly through different factions wanting different things. The Pentagon hate the idea of the EU and at the time were against strengthening Germany, but ultimately lost to other influences.

Attached: 1488798633798.jpg (1400x787, 166K)

Tanya reacting in horror at her plan put into action a few chapters back really makes me want a continuation where there's another war and she has to watch not-Germany and everyone else improve upon her brutality.

What did the mangaka feel when she drawn these scenes?

>draw
looks like filtered photos with stock images of explosions photo shopped on top.

Because the things that lead to war being declared and the things that lead to mutual destruction of an entire population were mostly separate until the development of nuclear weapons.

Sometimes you have to fight because there are no other channels for self-determination. Sometimes you have to fight to prevent another belligerent from rolling over you like the Nazis or the Assyrians.

Wars are not good, but your assertion that they are always criminal is juvenile.

Economic sanctions have been a thing for far longer than 20 years.
And they barely work, see Russia today chugging along despite all the sanctions the west has thrown at them.
Or the entire middle east and africa just doing their usual middle east or africa bullshit, since they're so fucking poor/desperate sanctions do nothing.

Nice anime you guys are talking about. That's board crimes for you guys.

shows like this always attract hitler fanboys

that was fucking brutal, great chapter

Attached: __original_drawn_by_erica_naze1940__6e5c37d1b718363367d87b10f294c0d3.png (1414x1999, 1.62M)

I will never get tired of the nations that "forced" Germany into the euro because they feared the DMark of a united germany would utterly dominate europe are now the same ones complaining that germany is the dominating force inside of the euro.
The Euro was a fucking mistake and Draghi is ruining everything

But it is, just that as you said it's certainly possible to be driven to war with no alternatives but death or subjugation, and if you've reached such a point where you fight or die what are the sporting notions of a do not do list supposed to be for someone so desperate?

>what are the sporting notions of a do not do list supposed to be for someone so desperate?
Because even if nazi Germany conquers you, there are worse fates possible. Like nazi Germany completely eradicating your cities in retaliation.
If you break all rules, the enemy will too.

Are you implying the winner don't just break the rules anyway? They don't need an excuse since they have the narrative.

>arguing about subjective shit
>brainwashed idiots thinking law, morals matters outside the bible

Almost as if a manga in which a city with all its people still inside gets burned to the ground, would spark a discussion about warcrimes.

Attached: Ex_spell.png (866x1085, 1.13M)

Weak and effeminate European white civilization is doomed to get duped the post

Attached: 1540511376385.png (468x431, 185K)

where the fuck is the 5th LN?

Attached: tanya and erwin.png (2450x1550, 1M)

It's only a warcrime when you lose

The ebook version isn't released for almost a week, only physical till then if you can find it.