I am criticizing a power that was attacked with tons of nuclear missiles by the Third Reich for wanting to wipe humanity from the map.
Germany would merely be another step along the way.
Was Yeager justified?
- Thread starter Nerdlinger
- Start date
I am criticizing a power that was attacked with tons of nuclear missiles by the Third Reich for wanting to wipe humanity from the map.
Germany would merely be another step along the way.
They are ideologically committed. They also have demonstrated that, when the opportunity presents itself, they will act in accordance with that ideological commitment. The fact that they are cautious, long-term thinkers should not distract you from the fact that they are, in fact, an existential danger.
Attacks on the colonization fleet and similar stupid shenanigans by the human powers are, of course, exceedingly counterproductive for the very reasons you state: all humanity has to do is make nice and stall for half a century, and the existential danger goes away. But this question was not whether Warren or Kaltenbrunner or whomever was justified. The question was whether Yeager was justified.
He was not.
And potentially billions more seeing as the USSR was planning on backing the USA in event of a war, why on earth did this guy keep getting paid?
There is probably a nice little argument here, if I wished to pursue it. They want to wipe out human languages, cultures, folkways, etc. and essentially turn everyone into scale-less Lizards. This is their hearts' desire. In which case I say, yes, they mean to wipe out humanity, even if humans remain.
But who cares about that - let's just change what I said:
Do you have any problems with this? They do not merely object to the Nazis' generally nasty ways. They object to the existence of a German state at all (or any other human-led state). It is perfectly right to criticize them for this stance.
Faeelin
Banned
So they're like north americans, except engaging in cultural genocide and not actual genocide.
Also, the USSR wanted to destroy capitalism and democracy; did this mean that the US would be justified in engaging in nuclear terrorism and killing civilians?
People keep thinking that "Welp, the lizards have a long term intent to conquer humanity. TIME TO DIE LIZARD BARISTA."
Wait, what?
Also, the USSR wanted to destroy capitalism and democracy; did this mean that the US would be justified in engaging in nuclear terrorism and killing civilians?
People keep thinking that "Welp, the lizards have a long term intent to conquer humanity. TIME TO DIE LIZARD BARISTA."
Wait, what?
For me... I can't answer that question, but at the end, I think the whole think is more complex as argue.
In the worldwar scenario, We've two sentient races(one Ape-mammalian based and other Reptilian based) living in a 'Cold War' scenario, the Race is the master in their turf and have 'reach' in the sovereing(not-empire) surviving states, thus that is not a good climate for both the 'Sovereing' Humans and the 'Colonials' Overlords, them a Nuke attack a Civilian shop of the Colonialist side, and the Overlords are furious about that, first they think in the germans... they act like dicks and were wrecked in battle, them a person reveal that his own nation(USA) was the responsible of the attack.
That is complex, but i think that would be like a native american telling about an ambush to some ranchers... complex for both side and please neither, but still was an action for good or worse
Ironically turtledove do a very moral demanding scenario here.
In the worldwar scenario, We've two sentient races(one Ape-mammalian based and other Reptilian based) living in a 'Cold War' scenario, the Race is the master in their turf and have 'reach' in the sovereing(not-empire) surviving states, thus that is not a good climate for both the 'Sovereing' Humans and the 'Colonials' Overlords, them a Nuke attack a Civilian shop of the Colonialist side, and the Overlords are furious about that, first they think in the germans... they act like dicks and were wrecked in battle, them a person reveal that his own nation(USA) was the responsible of the attack.
That is complex, but i think that would be like a native american telling about an ambush to some ranchers... complex for both side and please neither, but still was an action for good or worse
Ironically turtledove do a very moral demanding scenario here.
Of course! In a parallel universe, Yeager would have been just as justified to launch nuclear missiles against the Russians!
Oh, wait, Yeager didn't launch the nuclear missiles at all? That was Warren? Oh, you're arguing a different question... again.
I suppose you'll try to tie it into what I was saying about the Race's intentions and capabilities. In which case, yes, Lizard Barista is in the wrong place at the wrong time, just like American Barista and Russian Barista were in the Cold War. If push came to shove, loads of people were going to die, because it was an existential struggle. But there was no need for push to come to shove, either in the OTL Cold War or in the Worldwar standoff. That's why Warren's actions were criminal stupidity, and so were Yeager's. They ran huge risks, with desperately slim upside, in a powderkeg. They were unjustified actions.
They weren't sure, and they also weren't sure they should be with each other. Then Barbara got pregnant with Yeager's kid, and that was the main point in her decision to move on with Yeager instead of taking Larssen back.
scholar
Banned
"Let justice be done, though the world perish"
Its easy to disagree with a move like his actions and his motivations, but if a man believes in justice and he believes that those four million deaths was a tragic abomination in terms of abuse of power, then one cannot say he was not justified in telling someone.
Further, the actions of others does not necessarily remove their fault from the equation. Even if the military fleet was sent to conquer an entire world in an unprovoked assault of nothing less than pure colonial intent, they did not attack soldiers like the Race did. They did not attack strategically located targets to try to cause the war to end quicker and force the oppositions submission like the Race did. They perpetrated the wholesale slaughter of civilians as they slept.
Its possible to justify Warren's actions, as I'm sure he did to himself in the fictitious work, but this does not mean that it is righteous by any measurable standard. Yeager's actions are more justifiable than Warren's, but you can still disagree with them because they are, by all accounts, treasonous just as much as you can agree with his objection to obvious genocide and the succeeding coverup.
Its easy to disagree with a move like his actions and his motivations, but if a man believes in justice and he believes that those four million deaths was a tragic abomination in terms of abuse of power, then one cannot say he was not justified in telling someone.
Further, the actions of others does not necessarily remove their fault from the equation. Even if the military fleet was sent to conquer an entire world in an unprovoked assault of nothing less than pure colonial intent, they did not attack soldiers like the Race did. They did not attack strategically located targets to try to cause the war to end quicker and force the oppositions submission like the Race did. They perpetrated the wholesale slaughter of civilians as they slept.
Its possible to justify Warren's actions, as I'm sure he did to himself in the fictitious work, but this does not mean that it is righteous by any measurable standard. Yeager's actions are more justifiable than Warren's, but you can still disagree with them because they are, by all accounts, treasonous just as much as you can agree with his objection to obvious genocide and the succeeding coverup.
Especially if until the reveal it had been assumed that the mass-murder had been committed by Nazis or Stalinists.
To be fair tho, America did have him abducted and imprisoned.
You reap what you sow. If your nation has betrayed you then treason against it is justified imo.
To be fair tho, America did have him abducted and imprisoned.
You reap what you sow. If your nation has betrayed you then treason against it is justified imo.
And tried to kill him on multiple occasions. Personally, I'd find it hard to be loyal to such a government.
But on the other hand, said government afforded him the opportunity to be a dad again by giving two cute little baby lizards to raise.
The ball is in the other court now.
scholar
Banned
Um, no. It was a scientific and sociological experiment in regards to bringing up members of the Race inside of a human setting.
===
If you believe what Yeager believed, you wouldn't think so. Which is what I was trying to say. Change your frame of mind, walk in another's shoes. Its easy to sit and judge comfortably in one's own perspective. When asking whether ones actions were justified, you need to see things from that perspective. It is possible to justify any action. The question of whether or not someone was right in doing so is another thing.
Australia was because of Australian resistance against them. Berlin and Washington were "retaliatory strikes" if I remember correctly. They, by and large, are hardly justifiable targets by any reasonable standard of morals, ethics, and humanity. But there is a difference between this and attacking a fully civilian population numbering in the millions who have done nothing wrong. The difference is striking. Even if one were to call the Race's acts as Genocide and terrorism, does one Genocide deserve another? Not in my book.
If you found out tomorrow that some grand conspiracy resulted in the US/UK/German/Russian/Chinese/Japanese/Mexican/whathaveyou whole-sale slaughtering a purely civilian target of a nation that said country was at war with a few decades prior, would you expose the truth of this action even though war between the two factions could result in it? Maybe you would. Maybe you wouldn't. Either action, however, is justified. One is justified on a small scale, the other is justified in terms of seeing the big picture.