What's so wrong with Horus' action at Istvaan?

[El_Dicko]

Apologies if this is already a topic I couldn't search it out in an hour. Anyway,my question is what's so wrong with virus bombing a heretical planet? Is that the whole point that in 30k it was a world splitting atrocity while in 40k it's just a normal act of the Inquisition? Please link me if this has been discussed at length I really enjoy reading things like this for some reason... Maybe theology and philosophy are just interesting from any standpoint

[Lucerne]

Firstly, it was unnecessary, secondly it was with thousands of loyal troops from his own Legions on the ground, thirdly, it was the open rebellion that really set the Imperium off.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

What you have to remember is that the Legions had already crushed the rebellion before the virus bombing began. It wasn't that Horus used the Life Eater, it was the fact that he used against his own troops.

[Kinstryfe]

I don't think the virus bomb part was necessarily the atrocity. Keep in mind Monarchia was completely destroyed just to make a point to Lorgar. I think it's the fact that it was against his own (their own) troops that was the unthinkable. Most legions at that point still thought Astartes vs Astartes war was unthinkable, let alone a civil war or culling within one Legion. That was the real atrocity, that several Primarchs would kill tens of thousands of their children just to solidify their rule over the legions.

[Leif Bearclaw]

Plus exterminatus isn't really a 'normal' act of the Inquisition. It's the last resort, and often represents a massive failure for the Inquisitor involved, as they certainly don't resort to it as often as some online fan portrayals would have you believe. Habitable planets are one of the most valuable resources the Imperium has, so destroying one unnecessarily was always a pretty big deal, even in 30k. That's partly why Horus was one of very few commanders able to authorise the use of the Life Eater. So it was an atrocity on multiple levels, for the Legion cull, destroying a world for no good reason, and the general statement of rebellion that was the act itself.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

Exterminatus isn't "normal". Inquisitors are hesitant to even do it, because they know that even when it's justified or necessary, they may be branded a heretic. There is an Inquisitor that is labeled as radical and is actively hunted down by other Inquisitors. His only crime? Conducting Exterminatus one too many times/too easily.

 

Also, do you really have to ask why using chemical weapons on your own men is evil?

[Claws and Effect]

It was the fact that it was used to eliminate the members of the Legions who WEREN'T going to turn traitor, combined with the fact that the conflict had already been won.

 

Imagine if the US had waited until after Japan had surrendered to drop atomic bombs on their own soldiers.

 

Kinda like that.

[bluntblade]

And we're not talking about the 40k iteration of the Imperium. Virus-bombing at that time was done only on the Emperor's or Warmaster's authority.

[the jeske]

Also, do you really have to ask why using chemical weapons on your own men is evil?

 

 

Well the terms like evil and good, only exist post war, and as in w40k war never ends, those terms are moot. Durning war something like killing your own dudes to achive a goal, or just getting rid of them, or it being a part of two or multiple coteries within goverment/military/specials fighting for power, is a daily thing and should be expected, rather then not.

[sockwithaticket]

Claws and Effect's analogy pretty much nails it.

When the gunfire has died away and the smoke has cleared, there's just really no way to deploy something that would be used in extremis and with reservation in the heat of an extremely difficult conflict without being justifiably villified.
 

 

Also, do you really have to ask why using chemical weapons on your own men is evil?

 

 

Well the terms like evil and good, only exist post war, and as in w40k war never ends, those terms are moot. Durning war something like killing your own dudes to achive a goal, or just getting rid of them, or it being a part of two or multiple coteries within goverment/military/specials fighting for power, is a daily thing and should be expected, rather then not.

 

Without wishing to derail the thread into a moral philosophy debate, that has to rank as one of the strangest things I've read in quite some time. 

[the jeske]

has nothing to do with philosophy or morals. That is how wars looked like through history. Winners write it, and decide what is good. Same action done by one side ends up being an attrocity [when done by those that lost] and a needed sacrifice for the greater good/end goal/"that is how war is" etc.

 

 

When the gunfire has died away and the smoke has cleared, there's just really no way to deploy something that would be used in extremis and with reservation in the heat of an extremely difficult conflict without being justifiably villified.

 

Not true. History is full of examples of moments  when "smoke clears" [aka real fight is done], but the losers have a substential number of people that may be a problem to the winning side, so the post war clean up continues. And this is just military on military stuff like we had in the Istvan example. If you add stuff like "and we want to settle our dudes here" the war "ends" when the last of the losing side are no more. Can happen through marrige[mostly losers women+winners man like in the case of saxon/brits+normans] or by pushing the losing population in to places where no on sane wants to live [marsh/mountains/etc]. No one from the german side felt it was a bad thing to do such stuff to sero-luzyca slavs [in fact chronicals say it was a good and just thing to do].

[Azekai]

I think we are getting a bit off track here in discussing wartime ethics in a historical sense. I think Ugolino, Ferrum, and Kinstryfe have the right of it: the method Horus used wasn't the problem; Horus rebelling and killing his own battle brothers was clearly the problem. The fact that the loyalists' deaths were horrific is just the cherry on top, not the cause for moral outrage.
 

[El_Dicko]

Yeah you guys did a very satisfactory job of explaining it ;)

[the jeske]

I think we are getting a bit off track here in discussing wartime ethics in a historical sense. I think Ugolino, Ferrum, and Kinstryfe have the right of it: the method Horus used wasn't the problem; Horus rebelling and killing his own battle brothers was clearly the problem. The fact that the loyalists' deaths were horrific is just the cherry on top, not the cause for moral outrage.

 

But absolutly no one that goes renegade thinks or calls himself a rebel. They always call themselfs freedome fighters, enemies of an oppresive regime etc. And this makes the other side automaticly non human, and double not worth leting live. unlike in normal wars where you just kill the other dudes that because they are just on the other side. In situations like istvan the war is always going to be more brutal and more "till the end", because while you can accept the fact that somewhere some of your enemies yet live [well for now], but you can't do it in the case of "your people" because for them there is no turning back[which by the way was present in the old fluff, the chaos side never tried to convince their own brothers to maybe join chaos, while they did try it from time to time with members of loyalist factions]. I mean look at the lion, dude blew up his own planet and slaughters half his force, and his sons are doing everything to catch the survivours ever since. The actions at Istvan were normal and to be expected. If you have a civil war situation you purge the other side, at best at a physical level at worse at a cultural/social one.

 

Plus this works in both sides, it is not like Magnus could come back or forget what happened on Prospero.

[Claws and Effect]

Jeske, you have missed a fairly substantial point in this discussion. You've said "the losers will often have survivors that will be problematic for the winners" as justification for the virus bombing.

 

That logic completely falls apart when you consider the fact that when Horus decided to use the virus bomb, his target was HIS OWN TROOPS.

 

The "post war cleanup" you're talking about never happened. It was a case of a general deciding to slaughter his own men after they had just won a battle for him.

 

There's no moral gray area here. It was a straight up betrayal.

[Kinstryfe]

Just gonna add, while it does happen, I don't know if you can say that wiping out the other side to a man is at all common in the real world. I'm American so have that distinct perspective, but the War if Independence? Didn't invade England and slaughter every man, woman, and child. Same with the war of 1812. Vietnam. Korea. Iraq. Even our civil war, we didn't slaughter the losing side into extinction. WW2, we didn't ensure that Germany and Japan were wiped off the map.

 

Yes, around the world there have been genocides committed on the losing sides of wars, but I'd argue that they've been the exception, not the rule in warfare. Even in 40k, against non-xenos the goal is compliance, not destruction of encountered human forces. A dead rock can pay up troops and tithes in a few generations of colonization, one with an existing population can start paying tithes immediately. The purges of the loyalists in the traitor legions is supposed to be, in a literary sense, their point of no return. The Heresy isn't a story of two equivalent sides, it's very much a morality tale between shades of good and shades of bad. The legions which joined with the ruinous powers are written as /objectively/ bad. They slaughter entire worlds unnecessarily. They destroy their own brothers. They render entire planetary populations into drugs. It's not meant to be a case of war is bad, therefore both sides are bad, so vote for Horus! Killing tens of thousands of your own troops, who have not rebelled or displayed disloyalty, because you are paranoid that they may in the future is almost objectively bad. They weren't at war, they hadn't rebelled, it wasn't a civil war scenario yet. They were loyal troops who were culled out of paranoia in a preemptive strike and, while Horus may have seen it as essential to his plans, the essential nature does not rob it of it's inherent distastefulness to most outside observers.

[Honda]

MOD VOICE: So this is where the mod comes in and strongly suggests that we stay on topic.

[Corsovitt]

It also has to be said that Horus always planned to deploy the life eater to destroy the elements of the four legions that he felt wouldn't follow him into outright rebellion against the Imperium. 

 

As Warmaster and defacto leader of the Great Crusade he could have used the life eater instead of using elements of the four legions to put down the Istvaan Rebels and aside from a rebuke from the terran bureaucracy, it would've been an objective lesson akin to Monarchia to any other potential rebels.

[the jeske]

 

Didn't invade England and slaughter every man, woman, and child. Same with the war of 1812. Vietnam. Korea. Iraq. Even our civil war, we didn't slaughter the losing side into extinction. WW2, we didn't ensure that Germany and Japan were wiped off the map.

well yes, you do also have to have the means to do it. But as mods are against talking about it I am not going to go in to details.

 

Am just saying that the actions on Istvan were nothing specia. There is special in w40k though [as in the crazy warp aspect], but it does not happen here. In case of civil wars this is how you act, expecting someone to act differently  or label it as brutal would be strange.

Strange is when a war party does a supply run, but blows up more stuff then they take [which means with the cost of getting to the target point, they used up more then they gained]. Or when a scouting missions tries a full blown assault, when the main goal was to not make opponents know your there. Those are strange, unexpected things. They can be brutal too .why beat or torture a navigator , when it lowers his abilities ??? besides of course the my chaos mark tells me do to so, or am NL addicted to torture by design. Slave runs that are inefficient, where you kill more slaves they you could have gotten[and with the life expectancy in the eye you always need more slaves]. Slaughtering a whole planets population, but not getting any gifts from the gods for it [because your not the main commander/ritual master, effectivly making your opponent stronger] . things can be more brutal then in w40k, then they should be, but being suprised about Istvan seems strange too me.

[Excessus]

Sure it was special. I can see where bombarding one of your human regiments would be standard procedure in 30k where billions of lives are thrown away constantly. But wiping out a good portion of four legions along with senior officers in cold blood with a virus bombardment? That's not standard in any situation.

[Brother Tyler]

Yeah you guys did a very satisfactory job of explaining it

 

Asked and answered.

 

And while the theoretical discussion has been relevant, we've definitely gone off topic with real world/historical discussion that hasn't been necessary to the actual discussion.