Guilt and the Murder of Innocents.

[Psychedelic Spartan]

Believe it or not, my grandpa was the navigator on either that plane or the other one. One day I asked him how he felt and he seemed to just kind of stop for a minute. That sounds like remorse to me.

 

[Epidemiix]

I am sure that most of them felt remorse (as much as you can from not actually seeing the thousands of people dieing in a blink of an eye), but also must of them also knew that what they were doing was for the greater good (yay Tau!). As to one of them saying that they would do it again, in that situation where two strikes could end a war with an enemy (a enemy that had a code of honor where they would fight until the last man fell fighting), taking that action was probably the best course for both sides.

 

[Darknacht]

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?

Or that many american soldiers scalped their victims, took their skulls, or sent a letter opener out of a japanese soldier's arm to president Roosevelt.

Scalping was proof of a kill, plus they're already dead.

All's fair in love and war.

So atrocities are fine as long as they are committed by Americans?

I'm not American. The Japanese committed atrocities to according to wikipedia

"Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese."

I'd rather have the Americans kill 90,000 - 166,000 innocent civilians than let Japan kill 30 million more people.

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.

 

[370999]

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?

Or that many american soldiers scalped their victims, took their skulls, or sent a letter opener out of a japanese soldier's arm to president Roosevelt.

Scalping was proof of a kill, plus they're already dead.

All's fair in love and war.

So atrocities are fine as long as they are committed by Americans?

I'm not American. The Japanese committed atrocities to according to wikipedia

"Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese."

I'd rather have the Americans kill 90,000 - 166,000 innocent civilians than let Japan kill 30 million more people.

I was saying that the American soldiers were committing atrocities too.

All sides commit atrocities in war. It's a shame but it happens.

However to equate American misdeeds with Japanese actions is silly to me. The Brits weren't a barrel of laughs but they weren't ever trying to wipe out entire groups of people like the Nazi's were.

But yes you are rigth Americans and Brits did nasty things and some people weren't properly punished for it.


On to this actual topic, you would be surprised OP by how vicious the war between the Yanks and the Japanese was, when comparing to say Americans in Europe. With it being a war with surrender not an option it would make sense that both sides would be even more hateful towards each other then usual. Think about soviets and Germans, I doubt either of those two would of lost sleep over dropping a atomic bomb on each other.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

I was recently doing a bit of research into the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, simply for curiosity's sake. While doing this research, I discovered that out of the 12 members of the crew flying the bomber responsible for bombing Hiroshima, none of them seemed to show any kind of remorse. I can understand saying it was needed or maybe even justified, but I cannot understand how you could live with yourself after being directly responsible for the deaths of 90,000?166,000 innocent civilians, let alone not feel guilt.

Basically the point of this thread is to ask, what about you?

If given the order, and the circumstances were exactly the same, could you have done it?
Would you have felt it was needed? Justified?
Would you feel guilty? Could you live with it?

I personally do think that it was better than letting the war drag on and needing a mainland invasion, but I just don't think I could do it, or if I did do it, I couldn't live with myself afterwards.

EDIT: Part of the criteria for target selection was "The target was larger than 3 miles (4.8 km) in diameter and was an important target in a large urban area." so they intentionally chose a target which would cause a great number of civilian casualties. I cannot understand why they didn't target exclusively military bases, the message of power would have been understood regardless.

Would I? No. I couldn't, but then again, I'm not a soldier (and never wan't to be) nor am I in a global conflict costing the lives of many people and risking many of those I know.

The Japanese were ramming their own pilots into enemy ships... what would popping a few surface bases do? They had clearly shown little to no regard for the lives of individuals and were deliberately brainwashing their troops even into Throwing themselves under enemy Tanks with explosives strapped to themselves. The reason the civilians were targeted was that it showed the extent of Americas conviction to fight and win the war, that is they were willing to obliterate japan off the map. It also showed that they could do it while remaining completely out of reach of their defences. It also showed the dysfunctional leaders that they were no longer safe behind their desk in their regular bomb proof buildings.

While loss of life was not something the Japanese governing powers feared, complete eradication of their people and culture on the other hand was something they thought not worth forcing. It was around this point the sane people among them decided to ditch fanaticism and decided loss of honour wasn't such a bad idea given the circumstances.

As for the pilots involved? Yeah, I'm pretty sure the scale of their actions was something they had to come to terms with, but the results were something they could live with... giving the fact that Japans unwavering madness finally wavered as a result.

 

[Kordie]

There are lots of psychological reasons that they can avoid the guilty feeling.

1. Operating under orders. This effectivly takes the decision out of your hands, it has been proven time and again that a simple authority figure can get people to do things they otherwise wouldnt.

2. Acting as part of a team. It takes a team to operate the aircraft and perform the bombing. When you are in a team, it is no longer "I" did this, its "We". It also puts the feeling of dependence in your mind, as the rest of the teeam needs you to do your role.

3. Physical distance. As it was said earlier, shooting a person is not the same as stabbing someone. The further you are from your target the easier, mentally, the act of killing is.

4. Emotional distance. At this point in the war, I am sure the individuals involved cared very little for the people they were bombing. As well, I am sure this wasn't their first bombing run.

5. Training. This is exactly what the crew was trained for. Yes the bomb was a new weapon, but the mission itself was nothing new.

All this is not to say that their actions were right or wrong, they are simply reasons that the individuals could perform the act without feeling guilt or remorse afterwards. Also it is entirely possible to develop PTSD from this action without developing those feelings of guilt.

Lastly, you don't know they felt guilt. You can only know what is reported they felt. It is very very possible that they simply didn't want to show that. Even these days it is difficult to break the stigma that it is ok for soldiers to feel guilty, back then it was much worse.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

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?

So the actions of Japanese soldiers justified the deaths of thousands of civilians?

By your logic, if you're American, can I come over and shoot your family because of Guantanamo Bay?

You both really miss the point.
If the atomic bombs were not dropped, then the Allied powers would have been forced to initiate Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan.
Let's look at some facts about the planned invasion.
1. Estimates of American casualties alone ranged from 250,000 to 1,000,000, based on reports delivered to President Truman. These were thought to be conservative estimates. This figure does not include other allied forces that would have participated (namely the USSR and Britain).
2. In anticipation of this, 500,000 purple heart medals were manufactured solely for the expected casualties of this operation. To the present date, all American casualties since World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam wars, are not even close to reaching that number. In 2003, 120,000 of these Purple Hearts were still in stock. Combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are actually receiving these Purple Hearts, and many of these are kept on-hand for immediate reward to soldiers in the field.
3. An order given to the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944, ordered the disposal and execution of all Allied prisoners of war (over 100,000) if the invasion had taken place.
4. Millions of Japanese military and civilian casualties were also expected. The Air Force Association webpage notes that "Millions of women, old men, and boys and girls had been trained to resist by such means as attacking with bamboo spears and strapping explosives to their bodies and throwing themselves under advancing tanks." The AFA also observed that "The Japanese Cabinet had approved a measure extending the draft to include men from ages fifteen to sixty and women from seventeen to forty-five, an additional 28 million people." It was estimated that by the end of the invasion, at least 50% of the Japanese population would have been wiped out by the combat. And, considering the Japanese mindset at the time, many survivors would have committed ritual suicide(as was observed on Saipan and Iwo Jima). Ecological damage from the fighting would have been catastrophic.



Forgive me if I prefer a couple atomic bombs to that nightmare scenario.

 

[Reiterpallasch]

I was recently doing a bit of research into the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, simply for curiosity's sake. While doing this research, I discovered that out of the 12 members of the crew flying the bomber responsible for bombing Hiroshima, none of them seemed to show any kind of remorse. I can understand saying it was needed or maybe even justified, but I cannot understand how you could live with yourself after being directly responsible for the deaths of 90,000?166,000 innocent civilians, let alone not feel guilt.

Basically the point of this thread is to ask, what about you?

If given the order, and the circumstances were exactly the same, could you have done it?
Would you have felt it was needed? Justified?
Would you feel guilty? Could you live with it?

I personally do think that it was better than letting the war drag on and needing a mainland invasion, but I just don't think I could do it, or if I did do it, I couldn't live with myself afterwards.

EDIT: Part of the criteria for target selection was "The target was larger than 3 miles (4.8 km) in diameter and was an important target in a large urban area." so they intentionally chose a target which would cause a great number of civilian casualties. I cannot understand why they didn't target exclusively military bases, the message of power would have been understood regardless.

Would I? No. I couldn't, but then again, I'm not a soldier (and never wan't to be) nor am I in a global conflict costing the lives of many people and risking many of those I know.

The Japanese were ramming their own pilots into enemy ships... what would popping a few surface bases do? They had clearly shown little to no regard for the lives of individuals and were deliberately brainwashing their troops even into Throwing themselves under enemy Tanks with explosives strapped to themselves. The reason the civilians were targeted was that it showed the extent of Americas conviction to fight and win the war, that is they were willing to obliterate japan off the map. It also showed that they could do it while remaining completely out of reach of their defences. It also showed the dysfunctional leaders that they were no longer safe behind their desk in their regular bomb proof buildings.

While loss of life was not something the Japanese governing powers feared, complete eradication of their people and culture on the other hand was something they thought not worth forcing. It was around this point the sane people among them decided to ditch fanaticism and decided loss of honour wasn't such a bad idea given the circumstances.

As for the pilots involved? Yeah, I'm pretty sure the scale of their actions was something they had to come to terms with, but the results were something they could live with... giving the fact that Japans unwavering madness finally wavered as a result.

They almost didn't surrender. A nationalist group attempted a coup to prevent the emperor from surrendering, and it almost succeeded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident

 

[Ragsnstitches]

They almost didn't surrender. A nationalist group attempted a coup to prevent the emperor from surrendering, and it almost succeeded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident

Yeah, but they did in the end. Just because some people decided to drop the fanatical madness doesn't mean the rest would, however the physical evidence (2 scorched ruins were cities were) was clearly enough for those with doubts to act and shutdown the fanatics. Enough people saw sense in surrender... thank goodness.

 

[Stu35]

but I cannot understand how you could live with yourself after being directly responsible for the deaths of 90,000?166,000 innocent civilians, let alone not feel guilt.

Up to that point there had been nearly 10 years of continuous bloodshed across the world - admittedly only 3(ish) years for the U.S, but still...

To put an end to the most brutal, bloody conflict ever known on the face of the earth, I'd happily destroy any medium sized town on earth.

Well, not happily, but you get what I mean.

 

[Supertegwyn]

I would have done it.

I would have felt guilt, but I would still have done it.

 

[Darknacht]

You both really miss the point.
If the atomic bombs were not dropped, then the Allied powers would have been forced to initiate Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan.

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.

 

[Dr Jones]

No I would not have felt guilt, and I am slightly offended at OP saying I should if I did. It was a necessary evil, I'm quite sure that none of the crewmembers wanted to do it, but they had to, and they did it. They ended a war that way with far less casualties than there would've been had it gone the other way, and in the end it was for the better.

 

[TwoSidesOneCoin]

It's easier to kill from a distance. You don't see the victims of a bombing run. If you were to fight and kill someone in hand to hand with a knife for example, you'll be as they say: "Up close and personal."

Imagine this if you will, you bump into one enemy personnel in a building completely on your own. You go to pull your side arm only to hear the dreaded dead man's click. Your only option is to go with your knife. After a enduring, panicky struggle, you finally have the guy on his back and you're sitting on his chest with your knife only inches away from penetrating his neck. As you struggle to push the knife those several crucial inches to end the struggle and continue on with your life, you look into the other mans eyes and you can see the panic and the fear and desperation as he realizes hes done. As the knife enters the throat and the resistance from the mans hands fades away, you're still looking into his eyes. All of those emotions are still there, only magnified one thousand fold. Finally after cleaning off your knife and possibly rummaging through the dead mans belongings, you drive on and try to rejoin any friendlies in the area.

You just shared an intense moment with another man, one that you will remember for the rest of your days.

This type of kill was personal. You saw all the fear in his eyes point-blank, and you know that you were solely responsible for ending his life.


Now, with a bomber run, even a nuclear strike such as the event in question, you don't experience any of that, you don't hear any screams of anguish, pain, panic, fear. You're locked away in your aircraft, nice and comfortable. You know exactly what you've done. You've killed hundreds of thousands with the payload that you just dropped, but because you were not there to witness the death you caused, it doesn't affect you as much as that previous scenario does.

Distance plays a great deal in how you view your kills. (that sounds fucked up, but its the only way I could think to word it.)

 

[Chairman Miaow]

snip

snip

That is just speculation. There has been a great deal of debate regarding whether or not the war would have continued. And there is a difference between accidental civilian death and intentionally targeting two major cities. Had the US lost, every member involved would have been tried and executed for war crimes. Yes, you damn well should feel guilty for killing a couple of hundred thousands people who had no real involvement in the war.

 

[ElPatron]

So atrocities are fine as long as they are committed by Americans?

We are talking about dead and rotting bodies. I think that all sides on WWII put skulls in their tanks.

The Japanese did that to Chinese civilians.

Profanation of a dead body is not exactly the worst war crime ever.

Had the US lost, every member involved would have been tried and executed for war crimes. Yes, you damn well should feel guilty for killing a couple of hundred thousands people who had no real involvement in the war.

No other country was responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

WWI and WWII proved that civilians have EVERYTHING to do with war. They feed their soldiers, they build the war machine. That forces them to get in the way.

Perhaps we should hate the Japanese (or any other side, actually) for using civilians as human shields? Because they are the ones working in factories, and factories/powerplants/train stations are a legitimate target.

 

[Saltarius]

You can live with yourself after killing that many people because you never saw any of their faces. You didn't walk up with 200k rounds of ammo and start introducing bullets to brainpans, you dropped a big bomb on a city from a plane in the sky. Physical distance is a hell of a factor for reducing guilt.

This post. Back in my 6th grade history class, my teacher mentioned at some point (I think it was either when guns or nukes were invented) that the whole "guilt" and "remorse" thing happened a lot less when you couldn't see the people whose lives you ended. It's a fact of life, though it's not to say that one can't feel guilty for things such as this.

 

[senordesol]

Oh please. It's fucking war. You keep fighting the enemy 'til the enemy's out of fight. And if the enemy gets hurt in the process, that's the nature of the beast.

Don't like it? Don't start one.

 

[ElPatron]

Oh please. It's fucking war. You keep fighting the enemy 'til the enemy's out of fight. And if the enemy gets hurt in the process, that's the nature of the beast.

Don't like it? Don't start one.

It goes beyond that.

The OP called it "murder" of innocents. Murder implies malice aforethought. The crews didn't even know what kind of bomb they were delivering.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

Oh please. It's fucking war. You keep fighting the enemy 'til the enemy's out of fight. And if the enemy gets hurt in the process, that's the nature of the beast.

Don't like it? Don't start one.

They didn't start it. It's not like the civilians living in those cities got a vote on it.

We are talking about dead and rotting bodies. I think that all sides on WWII put skulls in their tanks.

The Japanese did that to Chinese civilians.

Profanation of a dead body is not exactly the worst war crime ever.

And it's certainly not the only war crime the Allies were responsible for. The difference? Allied war criminals weren't prosecuted.

Perhaps we should hate the Japanese (or any other side, actually) for using civilians as human shields? Because they are the ones working in factories, and factories/powerplants/train stations are a legitimate target.

They have no choice but to work in those factories. The people who chose the bombs targets? The people who dropped it? They had a choice.