[AdeptusAquinas]

It should be down voted because it seems obvious the poster didn't read the whole article. There are later sections, for example those covering Jiro Horikoshi, that address how Japan brought much of their pain on themselves.

Also, the comment missed the entire point of the article, as you established. Just because Japan attacked Pearl harbour doesn't mean an unnamed mother deserved to burn to death, nor that her child deserved to starve to death.

Neither victim, nor many of the other civilians in WW2 or Iraq, had a say in the politicking that led to their destruction, which is the true horror of war.

[timr]

I read the whole article, and I thought the same thing as the parent. I appreciate a pacifist sentiment, but outside of the critical analysis of the films, this essay was fairly insipid.

There's such a thing as "pacifism", where you believe that violence should always be the final alternative. Then there's the sophomoric thinking of defining "pacifism" as "we should never go to war, ever". Sometimes, you have to fight.

[happyscrappy]

The Japanese were in many ways more brutal and ruthless than the Nazis but have done a great job whitewashing their despicable past. Wiped away with mushroom clouds that they invited.

[aeturnum]

The Japanese civilians who are depicted in Fireflies bear no more responsibility for the actions of unit 731 or the rape of nanking than you do for LeMay's fire bombing of Japanese cities. If you can do nothing else, reject the lumping-together of a people into a collective 'they.' No matter what punishment Japanese war criminals deserve, we must also strive to protect civilians on all sides.

[tsotha]

I disagree. In post 19th century war is there are no civilians. All excess labor capacity goes to the war effort.

And wars are started by civilians, for the most part. Why should young men be the ones to feel all the pain?

[aeturnum]

I very much disagree that there are no civilians after the 19th century. Not all wars are total wars (the term used to describe WW1 and WW2). The American / Iraq war of 2003 had civilians on both sides.

I agree that all members of American and Japanese society share some level of responsibility for participating in total war, but I also think your "no civilians" statement goes too far. It is obvious that some members of a country have more direct effect on the war than others and that once you get far enough away (children are civilians, adults who do not work are civilians, workers who deliver mail are civilians, workers who make vehicle parts are probably civilians, workers who make tanks might be civilians, etc). To argue otherwise is to view war as some kind of 'original sin,' where the level of your contribution is immaterial and any association is sufficient to make one a combatant. If that's the case, then you and I and everyone alive today is certainly indicted in the many wars we are not working to stop. Even people working to stop one war are helping others to continue by not working to stop them. It's absurd.

Civilians do start wars and, in the modern era, they are often held to account for the wars they start. War crimes tribunals indict military and civilian personnel alike. I also agree that young men bear an unequal and unjust burden in war - but the suggestion you make is silly. The solution is not to extend that unequal burden by allowing more people to be killed, but instead to give young men more options to avoid being killed and killing others.

[bionsuba]

Your comment was going so well until that last sentence. Yes, the Japanese government committed atrocities. But I have a hard time seeing how that somehow justifies the US killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that had nothing to do with it when Japan was basically begging to surrender. Yes begging to surrender, but the US only wanted unconditional surrender, which they knew to a society based on pride and honor was a huge slap in the face and they knew it would be turned down.

[Nadya]

The only hint of surrender was the Japanese approaching the Soviets to broke a negotiation of surrender, to which the Soviets essentially ignored. That's hardly "begging".

They wanted to keep all the land they had gained imperially (Taiwan and some other land, I forget offhand). Which was essentially an "OK, we lose. But we get to keep everything we took before we lost." which was denied by the Soviets and would have been denied by the US.

The issue being glossed over is that anyone speaking against the war or saying Japan would lose would be murdered by fanatical military leaders. If you were against the war, you were against the Emperor and Japan. A traitor.

Civilian deaths are not justified by political military conquest. Especially when any civilians who speak out against the political military conquest are killed. That's a lose:lose scenario for the civilians and I don't see how anyone could morally justify such a choice.

"Die going against your country or die because of it." is hardly a choice...

[happyscrappy]

"Those little sweethearts will face German bullets or they'll face French ones!"

[AnimalMuppet]

> Yes begging to surrender, but the US only wanted unconditional surrender, which they knew to a society based on pride and honor was a huge slap in the face and they knew it would be turned down.

Arguably, the US was right. If I understand correctly, the US was determined to break Japan's militaristic social organization, to prevent another war. They needed unconditional surrender to do so. And, in fact, Japan has not been aggressive after World War II. They didn't re-arm and start another war, with hundreds of thousands of more (at least) casualties.

So the moral calculus is really not as simple as what you say.