What makes My Lai wrong and Hiroshima right?

[caervek]

Reading through old blog posts, I found one by economist Bryan Caplan which poses the question of why the general public considers the My Lai massacre a terrible war crime while Hiroshima is considered either an unfortunate but necessary action or a even a heroic one.

Probably because Hiroshima was an unfortunate but necessary action that saved millions of lives and ended the pacific war early.

[Deletedaccount1]

That's not equivalent. The equivalent would be nuking Israel to improve the quality of life of Jews. That's the thing about the nuke on the Japanese - it broke the stubborn pride of their leaders and therefore literally caused the rise of democratic Japan.

I honestly don't have an answer as to whether it was moral or not to bomb the Japanese, but I also don't really care. The US said "sorry", the Japanese said "sorry" - everyone forgave each other, pride was broken and friendship began in the wake of it. There's no reason to go back and dig in it to find whatever residual guilt and anger may be left. How's that going to help anybody?

It's true that the ends don't always justify the means, but sometimes you can see in hindsight that it can actually can be the case that the ends DO justify the means. It's just extremely rare and you have to be very, very certain there is no other alternative before you do something something like this.

PS: I have American AND Japanese friends, and I am neither. There is no animosity here over what happened from any of them.

That is an interesting answer. Again, there is still no guarantee that democratic Japan would not have risen without the bombing. In fact, I think it fair to propose that any outcome with a US victory and occupation would have produced that result.

I'm not really arguing over if it was moral or not. Hiroshima is only half the topic. I am asking why Hiroshima is moral while My Lai is immoral.

I don't see how saying "sorry" makes a difference. To be honest, America actually never said sorry and even if they did it doesn't bring back 150k people from the dead. It doesn't do anything about the cancer and blindness that the bombing gave children.

I would argue the ends never justify the means. A lot of awful things could be done in the world to make it a more efficient place but that doesn't make it okay.

I am both American and Japanese and I have no animosity over something that happened 40 years before I was born. I am just interested in exploring why the public views things the way they do and how much thought they put into it.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably because Hiroshima was an unfortunate but necessary action that saved millions of lives and ended the pacific war early.

Assume that is true. No one has been able to give me a straight answer about this yet: If the bomb did not save millions of lives and if it did not end the pacific war, would it be fair to call it a warcrime?

[Deleted]

Actually, the japanese government was ready to surrender.

Yep, but ONLY if they got to keep Manchuria, Taiwan, no punishment for things like the treatment of PoW's, etc etc etc. basically "We'll 'surrender' if you accept the status quo." which the Allies were like LOL FUCKING HELL NO!!!! The Japanese Government point blank refused to accept that it was totally defeated and there was no way to reverse the situation.

There was still strong contingients in the Officers corps (who really ran the government) who wanted to resist to the last bullet, the last person, still thinking, dreaming, that they could win somehow. Totally disconnected from reality.

The initial offers of 'surrender' were not acceptable to anyone apart from the pie in the sky thinking of the Japanese Government (IE the Military). And lets not forget that the Japanese military HATED its various branches, the army, navy and airforce actively loathed one another and fought for resources etc. They were in no way unified.

If the bomb did not save millions of lives and if it did not end the pacific war, would it be fair to call it a warcrime?

No. Because the real crime would have been the fault of the Japanese government to accept the reality of the situation. War crimes are slaughtering prisoners of war, performing acts of genocide/medical experiments etc. All of which the IJA was guilty of (seriously, look up Unit 731 and prepare to feel ill), the treatment of PoW's, 'pleasure' women, etc. That's war crimes. I'd say that nuking a city was as bad as firebombing it. Just one killed quicker than the other in the regards and context of this war, which was TOTAL war.

[caervek]

Assume that is true. No one has been able to give me a straight answer about this yet: If the bomb did not save millions of lives and if it did not end the pacific war, would it be fair to call it a warcrime?

That's because your question is paradoxical. If there was no need to use the bombs then they wouldn't have been used.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, the japanese government was ready to surrender.

No they weren't, hence why it took TWO nuclear attacks AND a personal plea for surrender by the emperor of Japan to convince them to vote by split decision to surrender.

[Deletedaccount1]

No. Because the real crime would have been the fault of the Japanese government to accept the reality of the situation.

Logic usually dictates that the burden lies on the person who commits an action, not the person who fails to react to the action. Dicto simpliciter.

- - - Updated - - -

That's because your question is paradoxical. If there was no need to use the bombs then they wouldn't have been used.

There is no paradox. I am saying if the government did not surrender after the bombings yet the bombings still happened. Had that been the case, would they still not be warcrimes if they failed to end the war?

[Deleted]

So by that logic the Japanese should have surrendered with the fall of the Philipines. They couldn't win beforehand but that's when a rational and clear thinking government, not one run by a military that was at war with itself would have gone "Hey guys..I think we're fucked...maybe we should think of doing the smart thing."

But the Japanese were not smart, they were basically insane.

[Deleted]

Probably because Hiroshima was an unfortunate but necessary action that saved millions of lives and ended the pacific war early.

Says... who?

[Deleted]

Says... who?

Most historians, the Japanese were not going to surrender to terms the allies accepted, and if they didn't nuke them htey would have HAD to have invaded. And that would have killed millions.

[Deletedaccount1]

So by that logic the Japanese should have surrendered with the fall of the Philipines. They couldn't win beforehand but that's when a rational and clear thinking government, not one run by a military that was at war with itself would have gone "Hey guys..I think we're fucked...maybe we should think of doing the smart thing."

But the Japanese were not smart, they were basically insane.

Are you responding to me? I don't follow. I am saying the bombing was an action committed by the U.S. military. It is does not remove blame away from the U.S. military for committing the action just because someone else didn't respond to it the way they wanted them to.

- - - Updated - - -

I am saying this under the hypothetical situation that the bombing didn't end the war.

[Deleted]

That is an interesting answer. Again, there is still no guarantee that democratic Japan would not have risen without the bombing. In fact, I think it fair to propose that any outcome with a US victory and occupation would have produced that result.

I'm not really arguing over if it was moral or not. Hiroshima is only half the topic. I am asking why Hiroshima is moral while My Lai is immoral.

I don't see how saying "sorry" makes a difference. To be honest, America actually never said sorry and even if they did it doesn't bring back 150k people from the dead. It doesn't do anything about the cancer and blindness that the bombing gave children.

I would argue the ends never justify the means. A lot of awful things could be done in the world to make it a more efficient place but that doesn't make it okay.

I am both American and Japanese and I have no animosity over something that happened 40 years before I was born. I am just interested in exploring why the public views things the way they do and how much thought they put into it.

- - - Updated - - -



Assume that is true. No one has been able to give me a straight answer about this yet: If the bomb did not save millions of lives and if it did not end the pacific war, would it be fair to call it a warcrime?

Some people consider the atomic bombs the "moral choice", or "the right thing to do". You shouldn't be focusing on them.
I'm sure some people consider Mai Lai "the right choice" too.

- - - Updated - - -

Most historians, the Japanese were not going to surrender to terms the allies accepted, and if they didn't nuke them htey would have HAD to have invaded. And that would have killed millions.

This is... absolute rubbish.

Japan approached the Soviet Union in mid July 1945 with a view to using the Soviet Union as an intermediary to a negotiated peace with the US and Britain.

Japan proposed sending Prince Konoye as an emissary to the Soviet Union to open discussions with the Soviets about acting as intermediaries. Japan set out no surrender terms that they would find acceptable or even a cogent rationale why they were considering peace.

[Deleted]

Are you responding to me? I don't follow. I am saying the bombing was an action committed by the U.S. military. It is does not remove blame away from the U.S. military for committing the action just because someone else didn't respond to it the way they wanted them to.

- - - Updated - - -

I am saying this under the hypothetical situation that the bombing didn't end the war.

Of course it does not remove blame from them for killing people. People do actually die in war, not a case of go 'oh bother' and fall over, but they bombed an enemy that was still fighting, and was still resisting. If you want to go down that route then you can go and blame every single soldier who ever pulled a trigger, thrust a sword or spear as a criminal for committing murder.

The atomic bombings were nasty, as bad as the big firebombing raid on Tokyo but they were still against a full legitimate target. Against an enemy that was lead by basically an insane leadership who had committed atrocities as bad as the nazis, just in a far less organised way.

Japan proposed sending Prince Konoye as an emissary to the Soviet Union to open discussions with the Soviets about acting as intermediaries. Japan set out no surrender terms that they would find acceptable or even a cogent rationale why they were considering peace.

The Allies said "Surrender unconditionally." Japan went FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOU! to that. The Japanese would not accept the Allied terms. They wanted to negotiate an end. There would be no negotiation, they were defeated. Simple as. And by trying to think they could negotiate, they thought they could get something out of it. They still wanted to keep Manchuria, Korea, Taiwan etc. Which is basically them saying "we've won." because they don't loose anything.

[Deleted]

That's because your question is paradoxical. If there was no need to use the bombs then they wouldn't have been used.

- - - Updated - - -



No they weren't, hence why it took TWO nuclear attacks AND a personal plea for surrender by the emperor of Japan to convince them to vote by split decision to surrender.

Yes they were.

Japan approached the Soviet Union in mid July 1945 with a view to using the Soviet Union as an intermediary to a negotiated peace with the US and Britain.

Japan proposed sending Prince Konoye as an emissary to the Soviet Union to open discussions with the Soviets about acting as intermediaries. Japan set out no surrender terms that they would find acceptable or even a cogent rationale why they were considering peace.

So?

[Deletedaccount1]

Of course it does not remove blame from them for killing people. People do actually die in war, not a case of go 'oh bother' and fall over, but they bombed an enemy that was still fighting, and was still resisting. If you want to go down that route then you can go and blame every single soldier who ever pulled a trigger, thrust a sword or spear as a criminal for committing murder.

The atomic bombings were nasty, as bad as the big firebombing raid on Tokyo but they were still against a full legitimate target. Against an enemy that was lead by basically an insane leadership who had committed atrocities as bad as the nazis, just in a far less organised way.

I'm a pacifist so I would blame every soldier. You seem to be missing the fact that the bombing killed a vasty majority of civilians compared to military targets.

The fire bombings were even worse. A few hundred evil generals on top doesn't make it okay to burn women and children alive.

[caervek]

Yes they were.

No they weren't, proposing to send somebody to the USSR to talk to the USSR about maybe acting as an intermediary to try and conduct peace negotiations is not wanting to surrender, it's wanting to avoid surrendering.

- - - Updated - - -

Says... who?

Historians, academics, military experts, open minded Japanese at the time, etc.

[Deleted]

Of course it does not remove blame from them for killing people. People do actually die in war, not a case of go 'oh bother' and fall over, but they bombed an enemy that was still fighting, and was still resisting. If you want to go down that route then you can go and blame every single soldier who ever pulled a trigger, thrust a sword or spear as a criminal for committing murder.

The atomic bombings were nasty, as bad as the big firebombing raid on Tokyo but they were still against a full legitimate target. Against an enemy that was lead by basically an insane leadership who had committed atrocities as bad as the nazis, just in a far less organised way.



The Allies said "Surrender unconditionally." Japan went FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOU! to that. The Japanese would not accept the Allied terms. They wanted to negotiate an end. There would be no negotiation, they were defeated. Simple as. And by trying to think they could negotiate, they thought they could get something out of it. They still wanted to keep Manchuria, Korea, Taiwan etc. Which is basically them saying "we've won." because they don't loose anything.

Sooooo instead of negotiation they got 2 atomic bombs and you're saying they were justified?

[caervek]

This is... absolute rubbish.

No it's not he's completely correct. If it hadn't been for the nukes then the US/allies would have had to invade Japan costing an estimated 500,000 US/Allied deaths and 10,000,000 Japanese.

The nukes ended the war early and saved millions of lives.

[Deleted]

I'm a pacifist so I would blame every soldier. You seem to be missing the fact that the bombing killed a vasty majority of civilians compared to military targets.

The fire bombings were even worse. A few hundred evil generals on top doesn't make it okay to burn women and children alive.

It does not make it okay, but unfortunately war is nasty nasty stuff and people die in them. And they did attack military targets, both cities were still production centres for war material as well as transport hubs. Also who do you think makes things for soldiers? Its not the men themselves, its the people working in the factories who do it. The Japanese had a dispersed production method, instead of large factories they had lots of small facilities and even made them out the back of shops and homes. No clear big single target to hit. Its why the US turned to fire bombing. It destroyed the industry and the people working for it. And in war, especially TOTAL War like this (one which hopefully we'll never ever see repeated) is needed. You need to destroy the enemies infrastructure and the people working to make weapons to use against your men, your country. That's sadly what total war is.

Sooooo instead of negotiation they got 2 atomic bombs and you're saying they were justified?

What, negotiate with a government that started the war for the US, who had committed atrocities and used gas/bio weapons against China, who had tortured, raped, executed POWs and civilians who disagreed with them? Negotiate with them who wanted to basically go "We're not saying sorry, accept the status quo or GTFO. We're not changing our position on this." That's not negotiations.

[caervek]

Sooooo instead of negotiation they got 2 atomic bombs and you're saying they were justified?

Out of interest, if the red army had reached Berlin and Hitler had said "Okay, we've had enough, let's just call it quits and everyone goes home k?". What do you think Stalin's response would have been?

[Deleted]

Out of interest, if the red army had reached Berlin and Hitler had said "Okay, we've had enough, let's just call it quits and everyone goes home k?". What do you think Stalin's response would have been?

Indeed and lets throw in a "Oh and yeah..that whole untermensch thing..we was only kidding, it was a joke worth 26 million of your people being killed... still friends right...?"

[Deleted]

No they weren't, proposing to send somebody to the USSR to talk to the USSR about maybe acting as an intermediary to try and conduct peace negotiations is not wanting to surrender, it's wanting to avoid surrendering.

- - - Updated - - -



Historians, academics, military experts, open minded Japanese at the time, etc.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html

- - - Updated - - -

No it's not he's completely correct. If it hadn't been for the nukes then the US/allies would have had to invade Japan costing an estimated 500,000 US/Allied deaths and 10,000,000 Japanese.

The nukes ended the war early and saved millions of lives.

Or simply follow peace negotiations.

- - - Updated - - -

It does not make it okay, but unfortunately war is nasty nasty stuff and people die in them. And they did attack military targets, both cities were still production centres for war material as well as transport hubs. Also who do you think makes things for soldiers? Its not the men themselves, its the people working in the factories who do it. The Japanese had a dispersed production method, instead of large factories they had lots of small facilities and even made them out the back of shops and homes. No clear big single target to hit. Its why the US turned to fire bombing. It destroyed the industry and the people working for it. And in war, especially TOTAL War like this (one which hopefully we'll never ever see repeated) is needed. You need to destroy the enemies infrastructure and the people working to make weapons to use against your men, your country. That's sadly what total war is.



What, negotiate with a government that started the war for the US, who had committed atrocities and used gas/bio weapons against China, who had tortured, raped, executed POWs and civilians who disagreed with them? Negotiate with them who wanted to basically go "We're not saying sorry, accept the status quo or GTFO. We're not changing our position on this." That's not negotiations.

Yes.
Negotiating with your enemy is what diplomacy is all about.