Does every WW2 film from any nation's perspective have to cover it's war crimes?

[josak]

while cities are valid targets i never get why the allies are rarely called out for using time-delayed bombs that were not designed to detonate on impact but hours later so they detonate in the middle of rescue operations. i wasn't even aware those thing were used until a friend of mine who works in bomb disposal told me that like 90% of all the explosives they have to deal with are those kinda bombs from WW2 that failed to detonate.

I'm unfamiliar with any such bombs. They would be an entirely ineffective use of explosives. I think you're confused with the hour break in Air Raids in which they do wait for an hour before attacking again and this is to prevent successful prevention of additional harm (such as preventing fire from spreading further). That's pretty typical in WWII raids but is functionally the same thing as if we had delayed bombs. But if you're going to bomb strategic facilities, you don't want the fires getting put out too early.

and the issue with Dresden was never if it was a justified target, it was more about the city center being bombed as opposed to the industrial areas further out.

Several large factories weren't hit but that doesn't mean valid targets weren't hit. I don't know how much we knew about the factories' locations at the time or even if we could have hit them reliably at night. Ever tried to bomb facilities at night? They probably just aimed for light and then after the first strike everyone targets that general area. In what world is a major rail and communications center with 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the enemy's war effort not a justified target? There has been a significant amount of misinformation on the subject though. But in 1942 it was listed as one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich and in 1944 the German Army High Command's Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops which supplied the army with material. (thanks wikipedia)

Have you looked at the tonnage of bombs dropped on Dresden compared to other cities of comparable size? It was the least bombed city in Germany despite being comparable in size to several of the other targets.

It is easy to look back in hindsight and say one thing or the other. But Dresden was absolutely a valid target as is and honestly should have been bombed sooner.

Dresden was precision bombed in the central areas which were population centers, the factory outskirts were actually less damaged, high population areas were intentionally targeted so as to send a message.

They specifically targeted a refugee camp for christsakes.

 

[Lightknight]

Oh yeah, attacking non-combatants for no reason is terrorism. War time or no.

Okay good, it did seem like you were suggesting that simply eliminating a whole population of civilians for no other reason than that they supported their government was an okay thing to do because the means were justified by the ends.

Oh, then I certainly apologize for that confusion. I'm not utilitarian. The means should always be reviewed even if they all equate to the desireable ends. I think the ends CAN justify otherwise questionable means but it isn't a free pass. I also think actions taken to achieve valid ends can be particularly evil if other valid means were present.

 

[Gorrath]

I would condemn any group of soldiers walking into a house full of scared women

cept the women weren't cowering in houses scared. not by a long shot.

a great many of them where working double shifts in places like this:

and they would likely have spat in your face as you faced them and/or shot you in the back if you turned away from them.

Indeed, and I take no issue at all with bombing a factory no matter who happens to be in it. I am fully on the side of those who state that attacking civilian installations with civilians working in them can be a perfectly legitimate and expected tactic of warfare. My comments were an evolution of my talk with Minion Joe and so may not make clear my thoughts on the matter if not taken in the light of his original comment, one I think we've resolved.

 

[Lightknight]

Dresden was precision bombed in the central areas which were population centers, the factory outskirts were actually less damaged, high population areas were intentionally targeted so as to send a message.

They specifically targeted a refugee camp for christsakes.

Citation?

Night raids are imprecise at the best of time. It's only recent that we have GPS to aid our efforts. But in the 1940's they wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between a church and a gas factory (which dresden had). They saw light and aimed for it. Heck, even in the daytime at that elevation it'd be pretty damn hard to precision bomb any particular building. But much more feasible.

I think you're confusing "hit" with "targeted". Imagine having a map of a place you've never seen before and flying over it at night when you can't see it and aiming for anything at all. Nowadays we have tareting systems that can hit a nickle from miles away. Don't project that on 1940's tech.

 

[Gorrath]

Dresden was precision bombed in the central areas which were population centers, the factory outskirts were actually less damaged, high population areas were intentionally targeted so as to send a message.

They specifically targeted a refugee camp for christsakes.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it is my understanding that the intelligence reports the Allies had on Dresden suggested that the refugee camp was a military encampment. While you are right that it was targeted, it wasn't because the Allies wanted to blow up a bunch of refugees to, as you say, "send a message". What's more the bombing of Dresden was no worse than, and quite a bit tamer than, the bombing of other major German cities during the war. I have a suspicion that it receives so much more attention is because of Slaughterhouse Five.

 

[NoOne852]

If its a movie trying to spread facts about a time period (documentary or otherwise) then, yes it should include things like war crimes committed by the topic country. Otherwise, if is just a movie, which setting takes place during a time period of war (reguardless of what war) then i dont believe that it is necessary to cover all aspects of what happened.
movies tell a story for us to enjoy, they aren't responsible for educating us on world events. by not including war crimes "The Wind Rises" is not trying to ignore what happened, it is telling a story for us. It is not a political stance, it isnt trying to convince anyone that what the Japanese did during WW2 was just and ethical. (That is my opinion anyway)

TL,DR:
In this case, I think people have read too deeply into something that wasnt an issue.

EDIT:
It seems like the thread is starting to de-rail

 

[Lightknight]

"precision bombing" in WW2...was basically hitting the right town...

Exactly, in a world where a person at a desk 100 miles away can target specific people from a drone it is easy to forget that WWII strikes were dropping a water balloon at a usually unseen target while flying over it.

 

[Lightknight]

Dresden was precision bombed in the central areas which were population centers, the factory outskirts were actually less damaged, high population areas were intentionally targeted so as to send a message.

They specifically targeted a refugee camp for christsakes.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it is my understanding that the intelligence reports the Allies had on Dresden suggested that the refugee camp was a military encampment. While you are right that it was targeted, it wasn't because the Allies wanted to blow up a bunch of refugees to, as you say, "send a message". What's more the bombing of Dresden was no worse than, and quite a bit tamer than, the bombing of other major German cities during the war. I have a suspicion that it receives so much more attention is because of Slaughterhouse Five.

There has also been some notable works of misinformation created with the intention to make Dresden out to something it isn't. I'm surprised there isn't a myth about them trying to knock the frocks off of nuns who were only trying to help orphans across the steets whose parents had been killed while trying to save lives in the great Dresden flood of 1939...

 

[maxben]

I raise this obviously over the issue of "The Wind Rises" which has been accused of being Japanese WW2 apologism because a film focused on a military plane designer does not make note of Japan's atrocities in WW2. I am not claiming Japan did not commit such atrocities, indeed there is little I have ever read as horrifying as accounts of the rape of Nanking BUT

Every major nation in WW2 has war crimes under it's belt, the US has not only the intentional targeting of civilians with nuclear weapons but also Operation teardrop, the Biscari massacre, The massacre of Audouville-la-Hubert etc. etc.

Britain (and the US) intentionally targeted civilians during the bombing of Dresden etc. etc.

The Soviets have the rape of Berlin etc. etc.

Yet "Saving Private Ryan" was not condemned for not skipping over to Italy or Hiroshima to show us these atrocities. They simply aren't relevant to the film and the fact that a Japanese film (by a pacifist no less) is being criticized for not doing so demonstrates rampant hypocrisy and a serious lack of self analysis.

Yeah, I'm not convinced by your argument. If a state goes on a war of aggression to conquer territory and build an empire, well then that state is responsible even for the war crimes DONE AGAINST IT. In many wars, neither side has the moral upper hand for various reasons. For example, the treatment of Germany in WWI is unfair because all sides were fighting to protect its allies. In this case, all sides are responsible for their actions as they are morally equivalent. Similarly, civil wars are often complex affairs and I find it hard to easily assign blame. This is way way different then a nation waking up one day and saying "Jeez, wouldn't it be awesome if I owned half this continent?" And that's why US atrocities in Latin America are often discussed in North America, but Marxist atrocities are often downplayed or ignored.

 

[Lightknight]

it seems like the thread is starting to de-rail

You mean a thread whose main post that talks about a movie in one breath but then goes on to discuss things they call war crimes that are debatebly so isn't focusing on the movie portion of the main post but rather the war crime bit? I'm shocked, simply shocked. Where are our priorities people?! *tongue in cheek*

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I have a question for you, Josak. If this had been any country other than Japan, would you have felt compelled to make this thread? If every country has war crimes we don't admit to, would you have made a similar thread to condemn them as well? Or was it just convenient for you because of the film's current controversy?

 

[CloudAtlas]

Yes, Japan has a problem with dealing with certain events of the past. And it would be healthy for them, and for Japan's relationships with its neighbors, if they changed they recognized their past crimes.

But most western nations have plenty of (literally) skeletons in their own closets, and there is not exactly always drawn a lot of attention to our own respective faults in school, media, government and so on. We shouldn't forget that when we're pointing fingers at others.

And I'm sure that, for example, if I, as a foreigner, a German even, went to the US and started generalizing and blaming Americans for their past atrocities, of which there are many, that would not go down much better over there in some regions than it does in Japan.

 

[Keiichi Morisato]

i don't think that Miyazaki was trying to gloss over or cover up the Japanese war crimes, as the film takes place years before WW2. In Japan, he was called a traitor to the Japanese people, and the media coverage of his films was minimal at best (usually there is a whole press blitz before during and after the theatrical release of his films). i think Miyazaki wanted to focus on the guy who built the planes, who did not want to build war planes, but had to build them. the end of the movie even talks about the fact that not one of his planes and their pilots never made it back home, and how he regrets that, and wishes things could have been different. but the main focus of the film was on the creator of those planes and everything leading up to their creation. Miyazaki has a very personal relationship with those planes believe it or not, as his father was in the Navy i believe and that the ship that he was on carried planes. also Miyazaki isn't the type to hold back on his opinion or to simply gloss over things, he knows what Japan did was wrong, it's even acknowledged in the film, but he couldn't put a lot of detail into everything considering the culture.

 

[KnowYourOnion]

... If a civilian population supports a politician that creates war, then reducing or eliminating that population will correspondingly reduce the support that politician has to make war.

In modern military strategy, the ends almost always justify the means.

Do you realize that you just advocated for genocide?

Jesus Christ, he actually did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

In the mid-19th century, "total war" was identified by scholars as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, there is less differentiation between combatants and non-combatants than in other conflicts, and sometimes no such differentiation at all, as nearly every human resource, combatants and non-combatants alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent war effort.

The Second World War can be considered the quintessential total war of modernity. The level of national mobilization of resources on all sides of the conflict, the battlespace being contested, the scale of the armies, navies, and air forces raised through conscription, the active targeting of civilians (and civilian property), the general disregard for collateral damage, and the unrestricted aims of the belligerents marked total war on an unprecedented and unsurpassed, multicontinental scale.

did you suffer from some romantic notion WW2 was anything else ?

that we stopped when the axis likely would not have, that we were so...magnanimous...in our victory...and set up mechanisms in an attempt to make sure such a war NEVER EVER occurred again (that have thankfully held to this day)...are our only saving graces.

that people like you cannot even comprehend such a thing...is the gift of your forebears.

Of course part of the reason we were so generous with our peace terms is because of what happened when the victorious powers were perceived to have been too harsh twenty years earlier.

Also the 'mechanism' you talk about wasn't put in place, it was invented in the form of the atom bomb. Total war can't exist in world where both sides have the ability to completely annihilate the other.

 

[Keiichi Morisato]

Yes, Japan has a problem with dealing with certain events of the past. And it would be healthy for them, and for Japan's relationships with its neighbors, if they changed they recognized their past crimes.

But most western nations have plenty of (literally) skeletons in their own closets, and there is not exactly always drawn a lot of attention to our own respective faults in school, media, government and so on. We shouldn't forget that when we're pointing fingers at others.

And I'm sure that, for example, if I, as a foreigner, a German even, went to the US and started generalizing and blaming Americans for their past atrocities, of which there are many, that would not go down much better over there in some regions than it does in Japan.

yeah? one of the things never acknowledge about the south is that most white people who lived in the south never owned slaves, they were too poor themselves, usually farmers who could barely feed their animals and their children much less someone who wasn't their own family. much of the racism started after the war when the poor farmers farms were taken by the government and given to the ex-slaves. we also gloss over the fact that we enslaved the Chinese and much of Europe as "indentured servants", with indentured servants being the slaves long before black people were and the chinese, and the Chinese and the Indentured Servants being slaves well into the 1900's.

 

[A_Parked_Car]

To address the actual question, many films made by a given country highlight their war crimes if it makes sense within the nature of the story line. I can think of a couple scenes in Saving Private Ryan, several scenes in The Pacific, a whole bunch of stuff in Downfall, I believe a few parts in Stalingrad (haven't seen that last one in a while though so I could be remembering wrong).

Out of those examples, the most balanced account is what is portrayed in The Pacific. I don't believe you ever see an American marine give quarter to a Japanese soldier, or vice versa.

I'm a historian of the Pacific War and I do find it quite sad that many, though certainly not all, Japanese can't seem to come to terms with what they did.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25901572

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26029614

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21226068

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25411700

In my above statement I made sure not to generalize that the whole country is in denial, because it isn't. For example, there are plenty of Japanese scholars who fully understand what their country did and have done lots of important research on the subject. One of the most important works on the Comfort Women is written by a native Japanese academic.

I don't know much about this new movie but from the brief synopsis I have read it wouldn't make sense within the plot to show Japanese war crimes. It isn't about the Japanese war in China or the Pacific. It is about the designer of the A6M. It is that simple. There aren't graphic scenes of American war crimes in We Were Soldiers because the movie was about a specific engagement, not the Vietnam War as a whole.

That isn't to say that Japanese-made films on the war would include war crimes if they should, because they probably would not, but for this movie in particular there is no need to.