What makes My Lai wrong and Hiroshima right?

[Deletedaccount1]

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.

Here's the blog post.

These are his analyses of common moral comparisons between the events. TLDR warning.

1. You could say that Hiroshima contained enemy soldiers, and My Lai didn't. But as far as I can tell, no one disputes that My Lai harbored the VC. And even if some villagers did harbor the VC, we would still regard mass killing of unarmed civilians a war crime.

2. You could say that Hiroshima's civilians shared collective guilt for Japan's crimes, but the My Lai civilians didn't share collective guilt for the VC's crimes. But if villagers did indeed harbor the VC, why would their collective guilt be any less than that of the Japanese?

3. You could say that the ratio of soldiers to civilians killed was much higher in Hiroshima than My Lai. Maybe; it's hard to say. But the Hiroshima ratio was only 7-13%. Would the presence of 347*7% = 24 VCs among My Lai's dead meant that American actions were not a war crime?

4. You could say that the Americans couldn't separately target soldiers in Hiroshima, but they could separately target soldiers in My Lai. But that's false. Americans had a wide variety of weapons and tactics to use against the Japanese; many would have targeted soldiers but spared civilians. Furthermore, as American soldiers in Vietnam often complained, when you're fighting guerrillas it's extremely difficult to tell soldiers and civilians apart. Even a kid can fire a gun or plant a mine. The perpetrators of the My Lai Massacre could truthfully insist that killing a lot of civilians was the only way to make sure they killed their enemy soldiers.

5. You could say that the Japanese started the war, and the VC didn't. But in what sense did the VC not start the Vietnam War? It's not like the South Vietnamese government suddenly sneak attacked a peaceful guerrilla army wandering the countryside.

6. You could say that the American soldiers in Hiroshima were just following orders, while the American soldiers in My Lai weren't. But the evidence strongly suggests that the soldiers in My Lai were following orders. More importantly, if the soldiers in My Lai were following orders, we would consider their commander a war criminal. By that logic, the commander of the Enola Gay would be a war criminal, too.

7. You could say that Hiroshima successfully ended the war and saved lives, and My Lai plainly failed to do so. But My Lai was much smaller than Hiroshima. If My Lai tactics were applied on a vast scale - say 300 villages to make the body count comparable to Hiroshima's - maybe they too could have ended the war and saved lives.* In any case, by this logic, Hiroshima would have been a massive war crime if it failed to make the Japanese surrender.

I propose that the real reason for the distinction is simply this:

8. The soldiers in My Lai murdered people they could see face-to-face. The crew of the Enola Gay dropped a bomb from a high distance and flew away.

Needless to say, if the true explanation is (8), either Hiroshima was a war crime, or My Lai wasn't. Well, I suppose you could say that long-distance murder isn't really murder.

What are your thoughts Has he missed something that makes Hiroshima a moral killing of civilians while My Lai an immoral one?

[Deleted]

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.

Here's the blog post.

These are his analyses of common moral comparisons between the events. TLDR warning.



What are your thoughts Has he missed something that makes Hiroshima a moral killing of civilians while My Lai an immoral one?

Mass murder of non-combatants is always immoral.

The Americans are brainwashed about Hiroshima and Nagasaki the same way people get brainwashed about atrocities in dictatorships. Nothing more to say.

[Foosha]

WW2 was total war. Vietnam was not

End of story

[Deleted]

I am somewhat an Axis supporter, but honestly cant blame the Americans for using the bomb. It was the best way for both Japan (to end the war before the Russians came, to acquire US help) and the USA (to have a strong partner in the cold war, not fall into a war of attrition). Its better to survive 2 nukes and rebuild a country, instead of living 50 years in communism.

Gonna get back on my lai during my lunch time.

[Foosha]

Mass murder of non-combatants is always immoral.

The Americans are brainwashed about Hiroshima and Nagasaki the same way people get brainwashed about atrocities in dictatorships. Nothing more to say.

Oh right, I'm sure the Japanese civilians werent brainwashed to kill themselves at the sight of an American or soldiers suiciding themselves for their nation.

[Deletedaccount1]

I am somewhat an Axis supporter.

What does that mean? You somewhat support genocide?

If you mean you didn't support attacking the Axis powers during the war that would make you neutral.

- - - Updated - - -

WW2 was total war. Vietnam was not

End of story

Perhaps but that is somewhat overstating how "dire" the situation was for the allies, specifically the US which had plenty of resources and troops left when the bomb was dropped over Hiroshima.

[Igi]

What does that mean? You somewhat support genocide?

Check his location. Hardly surprising.

[Deletedaccount1]

Check his location. Hardly surprising.

What does that even mean?

Me being Japanese doesn't mean I'm okay with slaughtering Chinese people and denying it for the next 70 years.

[Foosha]

What does that mean? You somewhat support genocide?

If you mean you didn't support attacking the Axis powers during the war that would make you neutral.

- - - Updated - - -



Perhaps but that is somewhat overstating how "dire" the situation was for the allies, specifically the US which had plenty of resources and troops left when the bomb was dropped over Hiroshima.

2 bombs and ~150k people in a week, or another 2 years, and millions, with the possibility of Japan going into communist rule and being invaded by russia

Hmmm I wonder

[Igi]

What does that even mean?

A lot of people from Croatia supported Germany in WW2.

[Deleted]

I am somewhat an Axis supporter, but honestly cant blame the Americans for using the bomb. It was the best way for both Japan (to end the war before the Russians came, to acquire US help) and the USA (to have a strong partner in the cold war, not fall into a war of attrition). Its better to survive 2 nukes and rebuild a country, instead of living 50 years in communism.

Gonna get back on my lai during my lunch time.

LOL.
Yes I'm sure Japan surrendering without nukes would have been just as bad.
I mean.... what the fuck is wrong with you. The consequences were felt for decades.

[Deleted]

What does that mean? You somewhat support genocide?

If you mean you didn't support attacking the Axis powers during the war that would make you neutral.

I am a Croat of german heritage- I wish the war never started, but since it did, I would rather side with Germany and Japan. The victory of allied states brought more trouble to my family than the Axis victory would have. Its realy a rational approach.

[Deleted]

Oh right, I'm sure the Japanese civilians werent brainwashed to kill themselves at the sight of an American or soldiers suiciding themselves for their nation.

Learn to construct proper sentences.

infracted - minor spam

[Independent voter]

We were trying, we as in the US, Britain and Soviets, were trying to beat Japan into submission and we finally did.

In Vietnam we were trying to win hearts and minds so the Vietnamese would willingly turn away from communism. This is much harder to do than to beat them into submission. You can see how a massacre hurts the mission and plays right into the communists hands.

But it's all working out, Japan and Vietnam are our allies and our ties to Vietnam grow stronger by the day.

[Deleted]

The soldiers in My Lai murdered people they could see face-to-face. The crew of the Enola Gay dropped a bomb from a high distance and flew away.

It is pretty much this. For all the buzz and controversy around humanity's attempts to codify and abstractify our morality, the truth of the matter is empathy is, and forever will be, its only true mechanism. We can cover it with laws and virtues, we can rationalize, but in the end impersonal killing is clean and doesn't really trigger the same emotions.

There's also the political climate to consider, i.e. how racist the society at large was at these points in time. During WW2 japs were considered barely human. In the 70s the view has shifted and I guess most people did realize the VC are, well, people like them (if not "equal to" them). Luckily we managed to swing back, eh? I mean, Gitmo and black sites across Europe sure seem to be an accepted thing.

[Deletedaccount1]

2 bombs and ~150k people in a week, or another 2 years, and millions, with the possibility of Japan going into communist rule and being invaded by russia

Hmmm I wonder

That is part speculation and part poor morality.

Firstly, you don't know that millions would have died in an invasion (if one was even necessary) and you don't know that Russia would have invaded and demanded to control a large portion of the country to exert communist influence over the Japanese.

Secondly, you fall for one of the logical inconsistencies that Caplan points out. If you are argue that it was a moral action because it ended the war, you are also implying that if it had failed to end the war it would become an immoral action. Therefore, My Lai would have been moral if it somehow had ended the Vietnam war.

[Deleted]

LOL.
Yes I'm sure Japan surrendering without nukes would have been just as bad.
I mean.... what the fuck is wrong with you. The consequences were felt for decades.

History much? Without the nukes the war would ended by 1947, it would be a disaster to the USA millitary- and thats not counting the Russians coming from up north.
The consequences were severe, yes, but Japan is millions time doing better than any other country under the Soviet rule.

[Templar 331]

War is never moral, so why should one action be immoral and the other not?

As for the situations at hand, how moral is it for soldiers to hide among civilians just to attack their opponent from behind? The VC weren't exactly honorable and nice.....

[Deletedaccount1]

I am a Croat of german heritage- I wish the war never started, but since it did, I would rather side with Germany and Japan. The victory of allied states brought more trouble to my family than the Axis victory would have. Its realy a rational approach.

There is nothing rational about siding with a genocidal regime that existed decades before you were born.

To be rational, you could say that it would have been preferable for Germany to control Croatia in the long run rather than being influenced by the Soviet Union.

[Deleted]

That is part speculation and part poor morality.

Firstly, you don't know that millions would have died in an invasion (if one was even necessary) and you don't know that Russia would have invaded and demanded to control a large portion of the country to exert communist influence over the Japanese.

Except that you do- the Russians were already fighting the Japanese in Manchuria and the treaty of Jalta was already signed- so that gave the Allies an idea what the Soviets could have asked once the Emperor and the counsils accepted the capitulation.