Guilt and the Murder of Innocents.

[senordesol]

People sure love to point out how horrible it was that America bombed Japan, nobody ever seems to remember just how brutal the Japanese were to POWs. Anyone else notice this?

How were the women, children, and babies who were incinerated in the atom bomb attacks responsible for the treatment of U.S. POWs?

What does 'responsibility' have to do with anything?

They are part of the Japanese populace, and we were at war with Japan. What part about that is so hard to get? Japan was an incredibly nasty belligerent, so it fell within our interests to end the fighting as quickly and soundly as possible.

So, in your previous post you weren't trying to say that since some folks in the Japanese gov't and military mistreated American POWS, it was OK to incinerate Japanese babies? My bad.

In your latest post, are you trying to say that since the U.S. was at war with Japan, it was OK for the U.S. to target Japanese civilians?

You seem to be saying the same thing with either choice, so let me make it clear.

In war, you fight. You hurt the enemy where it hurts the most, and you keep hurting him until he's had enough. Japan was the enemy. We had to hurt Japan.

If incinerating several hundred thousand of your enemy's people is what it takes to get him to give up the fight. That is what you do. You do not pretend there's any morality to it, you do not pretend you are doing battle on some noble 'field of honor'. BOTH sides are going to do nasty shit to win. That is the nature of war; you end the fight, end of story.

It's just that most people call the deliberate murder of civilians for political ends "terrorism."

Overly simplified. An armed struggle of dominance between nations, where victory and defeat can mean the difference between life and death; liberty and servitude is a little different than some random yahoo from Yemen up and deciding he wants to blow up a plane because he hates America that much (when America otherwise poses no threat to him).

 

[The Funslinger]

People sure love to point out how horrible it was that America bombed Japan, nobody ever seems to remember just how brutal the Japanese were to POWs. Anyone else notice this?

How were the women, children, and babies who were incinerated in the atom bomb attacks responsible for the treatment of U.S. POWs?

What does 'responsibility' have to do with anything?

They are part of the Japanese populace, and we were at war with Japan. What part about that is so hard to get? Japan was an incredibly nasty belligerent, so it fell within our interests to end the fighting as quickly and soundly as possible.

So, in your previous post you weren't trying to say that since some folks in the Japanese gov't and military mistreated American POWS, it was OK to incinerate Japanese babies? My bad.

In your latest post, are you trying to say that since the U.S. was at war with Japan, it was OK for the U.S. to target Japanese civilians?

My opinion is as thus: The Hiroshima Bombing was a last ditch effort to stem the flow of blood. It just happened to do it with even more blood. It's not difficult to see Japan overwhelming American forces and turning the tide of the war. While an American victory isn't necessarily a good thing, the silver lining I see on the bombings is that it was a hugely devastating thing that got people's attention. You might have noticed that there have been no major nuclear strikes since. That's why. If that hadn't happened then, and Nuclear weapons had never been seen as a non-option, it's plausible that their use would have caused more death and destruction in the long run.

Plus as long as we're comparing the bombings to Japanese treatment of POWs, I should point out that all the bombers were doing was flying some place and hitting a switch. There's an action that it's very easy to psychologically distance yourself from. On the other hand, we have the much more personal torture of captured Allied forces by the Japanese. For example, suspending a man over a pit with bamboo growing from it and leaving him bound there as the bamboo shoots grow inches per day. Very slowly, they push up and break the man's back. Then there's the water torture, death by a thousand cuts, exposure to horrific diseases. All in all far more sadistic than an impersonal bombing.

My point being both sides have done shit. What absolutely infuriates me is in things like the Japanese Tsunami, you had loads of Patriotism obsessed Americans throwing out tweets and status updates saying "God's revenge for Pearl Harbor, bitches!"

Really? People are harping on about that? Pearl Harbor was possibly one of the most vanilla military maneuvers in all of History. Holding a grudge over it is pathetic. I'd be far more understanding if it were something like the Russians being pissed with the Germans over the massacre at Stalingrad, but even that was hardly the worst thing ever.

 

[Agayek]

There were more options then bomb civilians or an invasion of the home islands. The allies could have negotiated peace, before the bombing Japan knew it had lost the war and was trying to keep fighting long enough that they could get a decent peace deal.

Considering Japanese culture and mentality at the time, not really. The Japanese were literally fighting to their last breath. Surrender was not an option for their military.

There's many and varied reasons for it, the biggest being a culture very heavily focused on honor and their belief that their emperor (the man who ordered them to fight to the last) was descended from one of their gods.

They wouldn't have been willing to negotiate a peace. On top of that, the US and (to a much, much greater extent) the Chinese wanted revenge for what the Japanese had done during the war (see: the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731, among many others). There simply wasn't going to be a peaceful resolution to it.

 

[Leadfinger]

People sure love to point out how horrible it was that America bombed Japan, nobody ever seems to remember just how brutal the Japanese were to POWs. Anyone else notice this?

How were the women, children, and babies who were incinerated in the atom bomb attacks responsible for the treatment of U.S. POWs?

What does 'responsibility' have to do with anything?

They are part of the Japanese populace, and we were at war with Japan. What part about that is so hard to get? Japan was an incredibly nasty belligerent, so it fell within our interests to end the fighting as quickly and soundly as possible.

So, in your previous post you weren't trying to say that since some folks in the Japanese gov't and military mistreated American POWS, it was OK to incinerate Japanese babies? My bad.

In your latest post, are you trying to say that since the U.S. was at war with Japan, it was OK for the U.S. to target Japanese civilians?

You seem to be saying the same thing with either choice, so let me make it clear.

In war, you fight. You hurt the enemy where it hurts the most, and you keep hurting him until he's had enough. Japan was the enemy. We had to hurt Japan.

If incinerating several hundred thousand of your enemy's people is what it takes to get him to give up the fight. That is what you do. You do not pretend there's any morality to it, you do not pretend you are doing battle on some noble 'field of honor'. BOTH sides are going to do nasty shit to win. That is the nature of war; you end the fight, end of story.

It's just that most people call the deliberate murder of civilians for political ends "terrorism."

Overly simplified. A armed struggle of dominance between nations, where victory and defeat can mean the difference between life and death; liberty and servitude is a little different than some random yahoo from Yemen up and deciding he wants to blow up a plane because he hates America that much (when America otherwise poses no threat to him).

So it's the motive of the killers that's the deciding factor of whether the murder of civilians is "terrorism" or not?

 

[Savryc]

That's Total War for you, everyone's a valid target. Both sides bombed the shit out of each other relentlessly. Why should these American pilots feel so much worse about it? Because they dropped the biggest one? Jog on.

So you're cool with American civilians being killed by dudes in airplanes?

I'm not cool with any of it. Doesn't change that fact it happened, don't you think it's a tad hypocritical to bag out on the yanks when every single power involved in the war killed civilians en masse? How can I hate the Americans for Hiroshima and Nagasaki when my country levelled Dresden? How can I sympathise with the Japanese when they committed atrocities on an equal scope? It's Total War, everyone was involved in the war effort so everyone is a target, that's the harsh realities of war I'm afraid.

 

[ramboondiea]

the explanation for things like this is that those involved have distanced themselves from the actual events, there's quite a few names for this one being the bomber mentality, as in there minds all they did was press a button, what happened next was not there doing. there is quite alot of research on it actually

 

[senordesol]

So it's the motive of the killers that's the deciding factor of whether the murder of civilians is "terrorism" or not?

Sure. Though circumstances play a role. It was already acknowledged and declared that the US was at war with Japan. Both sides were fighting to achieve an end, and the US was just more effective at achieving its end. One seeking to cripple the other's economy or infrastructure came as a surprise to neither.

Because that's how wars are fought.

If that disturbs you, do not be alarmed. It just means you're sane, and are beginning to appreciate why war should always be a last resort in international conflicts.

 

[Leadfinger]

People sure love to point out how horrible it was that America bombed Japan, nobody ever seems to remember just how brutal the Japanese were to POWs. Anyone else notice this?

How were the women, children, and babies who were incinerated in the atom bomb attacks responsible for the treatment of U.S. POWs?

What does 'responsibility' have to do with anything?

They are part of the Japanese populace, and we were at war with Japan. What part about that is so hard to get? Japan was an incredibly nasty belligerent, so it fell within our interests to end the fighting as quickly and soundly as possible.

So, in your previous post you weren't trying to say that since some folks in the Japanese gov't and military mistreated American POWS, it was OK to incinerate Japanese babies? My bad.

In your latest post, are you trying to say that since the U.S. was at war with Japan, it was OK for the U.S. to target Japanese civilians?

My opinion is as thus: The Hiroshima Bombing was a last ditch effort to stem the flow of blood. It just happened to do it with even more blood. It's not difficult to see Japan overwhelming American forces and turning the tide of the war. While an American victory isn't necessarily a good thing, the silver lining I see on the bombings is that it was a hugely devastating thing that got people's attention. You might have noticed that there have been no major nuclear strikes since. That's why. If that hadn't happened then, and Nuclear weapons had never been seen as a non-option, it's plausible that their use would have caused more death and destruction in the long run.

Plus as long as we're comparing the bombings to Japanese treatment of POWs, I should point out that all the bombers were doing was flying some place and hitting a switch. There's an action that it's very easy to psychologically distance yourself from. On the other hand, we have the much more personal torture of captured Allied forces by the Japanese. For example, suspending a man over a pit with bamboo growing from it and leaving him bound there as the bamboo shoots grow inches per day. Very slowly, they push up and break the man's back. Then there's the water torture, death by a thousand cuts, exposure to horrific diseases. All in all far more sadistic than an impersonal bombing.

My point being both sides have done shit. What absolutely infuriates me is in things like the Japanese Tsunami, you had loads of Patriotism obsessed Americans throwing out tweets and status updates saying "God's revenge for Pearl Harbor, bitches!"

Really? People are harping on about that? Pearl Harbor was possibly one of the most vanilla military maneuvers in all of History. Holding a grudge over it is pathetic. I'd be far more understanding if it were something like the Russians being pissed with the Germans over the massacre at Stalingrad, but even that was hardly the worst thing ever.

I do agree that the atom bomb attacks, as horrific as they were, probably prevented even greater loss of life. I also liked your point about psychological distancing, though I have a different take on it. In my view, it's easy for Americans to take a detached view of what was a horrific and so far unique attack on a city with nuclear weapons. But would Americans be able to be so detached had it been American babies that had been incinerated? Even from your example of some folks' reaction to the Touhoku tsunami, I have to doubt it.

 

[The Funslinger]

People sure love to point out how horrible it was that America bombed Japan, nobody ever seems to remember just how brutal the Japanese were to POWs. Anyone else notice this?

How were the women, children, and babies who were incinerated in the atom bomb attacks responsible for the treatment of U.S. POWs?

What does 'responsibility' have to do with anything?

They are part of the Japanese populace, and we were at war with Japan. What part about that is so hard to get? Japan was an incredibly nasty belligerent, so it fell within our interests to end the fighting as quickly and soundly as possible.

So, in your previous post you weren't trying to say that since some folks in the Japanese gov't and military mistreated American POWS, it was OK to incinerate Japanese babies? My bad.

In your latest post, are you trying to say that since the U.S. was at war with Japan, it was OK for the U.S. to target Japanese civilians?

My opinion is as thus: The Hiroshima Bombing was a last ditch effort to stem the flow of blood. It just happened to do it with even more blood. It's not difficult to see Japan overwhelming American forces and turning the tide of the war. While an American victory isn't necessarily a good thing, the silver lining I see on the bombings is that it was a hugely devastating thing that got people's attention. You might have noticed that there have been no major nuclear strikes since. That's why. If that hadn't happened then, and Nuclear weapons had never been seen as a non-option, it's plausible that their use would have caused more death and destruction in the long run.

Plus as long as we're comparing the bombings to Japanese treatment of POWs, I should point out that all the bombers were doing was flying some place and hitting a switch. There's an action that it's very easy to psychologically distance yourself from. On the other hand, we have the much more personal torture of captured Allied forces by the Japanese. For example, suspending a man over a pit with bamboo growing from it and leaving him bound there as the bamboo shoots grow inches per day. Very slowly, they push up and break the man's back. Then there's the water torture, death by a thousand cuts, exposure to horrific diseases. All in all far more sadistic than an impersonal bombing.

My point being both sides have done shit. What absolutely infuriates me is in things like the Japanese Tsunami, you had loads of Patriotism obsessed Americans throwing out tweets and status updates saying "God's revenge for Pearl Harbor, bitches!"

Really? People are harping on about that? Pearl Harbor was possibly one of the most vanilla military maneuvers in all of History. Holding a grudge over it is pathetic. I'd be far more understanding if it were something like the Russians being pissed with the Germans over the massacre at Stalingrad, but even that was hardly the worst thing ever.

I do agree that the atom bomb attacks, as horrific as they were, probably prevented even greater loss of life. I also liked your point about psychological distancing, though I have a different take on it. In my view, it's easy for Americans to take a detached view of what was a horrific and so far unique attack on a city with nuclear weapons. But would Americans be able to be so detached had it been American babies that had been incinerated? Even from your example of some folks' reaction to the Touhoku tsunami, I have to doubt it.

If it had happened the other way around, they could whine as much as they like, it wouldn't necessarily change anything. That said, Japanese culture in general doesn't appear to whine about it. If the USA had been bombed, it would probably have influenced their culture quite a bit.

 

[Agayek]

At least the Japanese took in prisoners of war, and took care of them. Let's see how the Japs treated their POWs.
1.They give them jobs (working on indo-china railways)
2. For those captured in Indonesia, they were permitted to give their capturers regular beatings. And by beatings, I mean that the ANZACs beat the stuffing out of the japs during the POW camp games of cricket.

Meanwhile the average Japanese POW was executed immediately after surrendering to an American. There was a reason most of them fought to the death, and it had nothing to do with bushido or "HONOUR!"

You're forgetting about the experimentation performed on the POWs, the death marches, and all that fun stuff being a POW in Japan had in store for you. They had it as bad as (and in some cases worse than) the prisoners in German concentration camps.

American POW treatment wasn't sunshine and roses obviously, but at least it didn't include you being cut open while conscious and without anaesthetic so they could see how you work.

 

[Kinokohatake]

Different time, different mind set, different circumstances. Should they feel bad? No. Would I do it? Depends on the situation. If it's a war like WWII was then perhaps. Obviously we are in no conflict like that now so it's hard to understand the mind set of it. I mean right after 9/11 when I was 16 I fully supported turning Afghanistan into a glass bowl. Obviously that was a mistake but if the war had been not as one sided for 4 years, yeah I wouldn't have had an issue derezzing that entire backwards cesspool.

 

[spartan231490]

I would have had no guilt over doing it. Once the order was given, it would have been done, I wouldn't trouble myself over it.

 

[Leadfinger]

That's Total War for you, everyone's a valid target. Both sides bombed the shit out of each other relentlessly. Why should these American pilots feel so much worse about it? Because they dropped the biggest one? Jog on.

So you're cool with American civilians being killed by dudes in airplanes?

I'm not cool with any of it. Doesn't change that fact it happened, don't you think it's a tad hypocritical to bag out on the yanks when every single power involved in the war killed civilians en masse? How can I hate the Americans for Hiroshima and Nagasaki when my country levelled Dresden? How can I sympathise with the Japanese when they committed atrocities on an equal scope? It's Total War, everyone was involved in the war effort so everyone is a target, that's the harsh realities of war I'm afraid.

It's just that almost none of the civilians who were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had ever committed atrocities against anyone. Indeed, may of the victims were young children. It bothers me that you can't sympathize.

 

[senordesol]

I do agree that the atom bomb attacks, as horrific as they were, probably prevented even greater loss of life. I also liked your point about psychological distancing, though I have a different take on it. In my view, it's easy for Americans to take a detached view of what was a horrific and so far unique attack on a city with nuclear weapons. But would Americans be able to be so detached had it been American babies that had been incinerated? Even from your example of some folks' reaction to the Touhoku tsunami, I have to doubt it.

Of course we would not be so detached. Mainly because the people dying are on our side. That belies no particular hypocrisy, but instead highlights that there are indeed 'sides'. Of course we would prefer the enemy dies more than we do. They are the enemy. We are trying to kill them, just as they are trying to kill us.

Now those reactions to the tsunami are just fucking stupid and I expect they are in the minority. We paid Japan back with daily compounding interest for Pearl. And it is truly sad that some people just can't let go (made even more sad by the fact that they probably hadn't even been born before the bombs got dropped). But when at war - when the bullets were flying and our sons were dying- we should make no apologies for what we had to do to get it to stop.

 

[Leadfinger]

So it's the motive of the killers that's the deciding factor of whether the murder of civilians is "terrorism" or not?

Sure. Though circumstances play a role. It was already acknowledged and declared that the US was at war with Japan. Both sides were fighting to achieve an end, and the US was just more effective at achieving its end. One seeking to cripple the other's economy or infrastructure came as a surprise to neither.

Because that's how wars are fought.

If that disturbs you, do not be alarmed. It just means you're sane, and are beginning to appreciate why war should always be a last resort in international conflicts.

This argument has a suspicious resemblance to the old "might makes right" argument. Anyway, I agree with your last paragraph.

 

[Scarim Coral]

While I fully understand using that bomb was justify (since if the war had drag on further into inland where they may have more death higher than the Hiroshima Nagasaki population combine since the civilain were getting to trained to use spear bamboo weapon and willing to give up their life to killed their enemy like the solider) but I too wouldn't be guilty free about it.

However in saying so if my mindset was during that period then I may have been guilty free about it. Let me explain in WW2 some of the allies soliders didn't exactly show empathy toward the emenies hences they kept using words like Jap and Nazis as if they're not human. Well it was racism but still some did not show mercy or empathy toward them.

Ok sure it's still civilian but I guess they were somewhat conscious free since they didn't not see first hand of the horr they had unleash onto Hiroshima.

 

[Agayek]

It's just that almost none of the civilians who were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had ever committed atrocities against anyone. Indeed, may of the victims were young children. It bothers me that you can't sympathize.

There's one thing you're just not getting:

All of that is irrelevant.

War comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Kill the other son of a ***** before he can kill you.

You do anything and everything that is necessary to ensure your survival and the survival of your people. There's no morality, sense, or justification in it. Simply survival. Those civilians were part of Japan, and by extension part of the support network for the Japanese military. It doesn't matter who they are or what they had done. They were part of the enemy and therefore a target.

That's how you fight a war. It's horrific, distasteful, and all around one of the worst things that can be done, but that doesn't change anything about it.

 

[Agayek]

This argument has a suspicious resemblance to the old "might makes right" argument. Anyway, I agree with your last paragraph.

In the grand scheme of things, Might really does make Right. Morality is worthless unless you can enforce it. If you are unwilling or unable to fight to impose your own morality upon the world, someone else will impose theirs on you.

That's all it really comes down to. There are no moral considerations in war.

It's highly unfortunate and not something I enjoy contemplating, but it is a reality of fighting a war.

 

[Leadfinger]

It's just that almost none of the civilians who were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had ever committed atrocities against anyone. Indeed, may of the victims were young children. It bothers me that you can't sympathize.

There's one thing you're just not getting:

All of that is irrelevant.

War comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Kill the other son of a ***** before he can kill you.

You do anything and everything that is necessary to ensure your survival and the survival of your people. There's no morality, sense, or justification in it. Simply survival. Those civilians were part of Japan, and by extension part of the support network for the Japanese military. It doesn't matter who they are or what they had done. They were part of the enemy and therefore a target.

That's how you fight a war. It's horrific, distasteful, and all around one of the worst things that can be done, but that doesn't change anything about it.

I can see no difference between what you are describing here and terrorism.

 

[templar1138a]

I will not pretend to know the circumstances and minds of those pilots. Atrocious as those bombings were, bear in mind that these were military men who'd been up against the Japanese military, which used rape and suicide bombings as tactics. No one needs to tell me that the civilians who died didn't necessarily condone those methods, or know about them at all, but that may not have occurred to the pilots. The pilots also may or may not have known that Japan was already willing to surrender.

It's very easy to judge events with most of a century of hindsight. But remember: We weren't there. That doesn't mean what they did was right, and I still feel what happened was wrong. But I will never pretend to understand their situation, nor will I presume to say what I would have done in it.