[user-the-name]

I am not necessarily saying the choice was wrong. It was one bad option out of many.

However, I am challenging the incredibly strong urge people have to absolve those who made the choice of any kind of responsibility for having made it. You will see it even in the responses to this comment. We absolutely refuse to even acknowledge that a choice was, in fact, made to kill all of these innocent civilians.

The person I responded to is struggling to understand how the Japanese reacted to this. But he is paying absolute zero mind to the actions and reactions of those on his own side, who chose to bring this tragedy about.

The very idea of thinking about the acts committed by your own side is strongly, strongly taboo.

[nradov]

I absolve those who made the choice of any kind of responsibility for protecting enemy civilians. Their only responsibility was towards Americans. If their choice saved even one American life then in context it was the right choice. How could they possibly ask Americans to contine dying if they had the means to shorten the war?

[lowbloodsugar]

While it is true that many will absolve the decision makers without thinking, or with thoughts of revenge, a deeper analysis shows that it was a reasonable decision. You write them off as "strongly, strongly taboo". Is that as far as that goes then? Wasn't everything, starting with Pearl Harbor, strongly, strongly taboo? Is it ok to murder someone just because they are in a uniform, because two humans, who we will call "kings", or "emperors", or "presidents" have a disagreements? Bottom line you're walking into a moral discussion about war with the idea "killing is bad". Think you need to up your game.

[panick21_]

I don't think anybody denies this choice was made. Of course it was.

They made it earlier in the war. Civilians were the war economy and civilians were legit targets for all nations in war.

Civilians in a total war are just not typical civilians. Everybody in society was mobilized for war.

> The very idea of thinking about the acts committed by your own side is strongly, strongly taboo.

No it isn't. Lots of historians work on that. There are lots of talks about it in places like WW2 History Museum and so on.

[gus_massa]

> Civilians were the war economy and civilians were legit targets for all nations in war.

That's not what the Geneva Conventions says.

[panick21_]

The Geneva Conventions from 1949?

Before there there was Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. Those were violated in WW1 on a large scale and no alternative had been put into place.

All these things are good and nice, but the reality is, if disagreeing with these is vital to win a war, literally no nation followed them.

Those kinds of agreements are good attempts in peace time to improve the chance of good outcomes, but in reality, in major global they are just pieces of papers that can not be enforced.

If you want to run around and simply say everybody is evil, then you can do that. But if you actually put yourself in the position of those people and try to make decisions if you want to be critical, explain what and how you would have done things differently.

And what cost would you have been willing to engage in to achieve that moral high ground.