Markusen And Kopf Argumentative Analysis

Markusen and Kopf argument that strategic bombing is best understood as an example of a genocidal massacre is rooted in the controversy surrounding the nature and extent of the relationship between total war and genocide. We should note from the outset, that in their study ‘Holocaust and strategic bombing’, Markusen and Kopf take the position that total war and genocide are not mutually exclusive and that they share important commonalities as two forms of governmental mass killings. We should note also that for Markusen and Kopf, the Holocaust serves as the prime case of genocide while strategic bombing acts a signal of total war.
This essay will take the position that the argument that strategic bombing is best understood as an example of a genocidal massacre, serves the purpose of teaching us about the past so we can prevent future cases of genocidal killing. Put another, this essay will argue that by labelling strategic bombing as genocidal, Markusen and Kopf essentially warn us of the potential of modern warfare for the destruction of civilians and of the increasing ability of states to commit mass murder. Indeed, the importance for this discussion is
The first paragraph briefly explores the conceptual differences between total war, genocide and genocidal massacre. The second paragraph summarises Markusen and kopf’s rationale for labelling strategic bombing as genocidal. The following paragraphs then discuss the consequences of this argument. In the third paragraph, we look at the risk of stigmatising the allied strategic bombing in Germany and the US bombing of Japan. In the fourth paragraph, we argue how strategic bombing has the capacity to act as a catalyst for genocide. In the fifth paragraph, we analyse psychological, organisational and techno-scientific factors that facilitate both war and genocide. Finally, in the last paragraph, we discuss the need to expand the current public and scholarly thinking about