221
Post by: Frazzled
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/21/japan-excavates-site-human-experiments
Japan unearths site linked to human experimentsFormer Tokyo medical school site is linked to Unit 731, branch of imperial army which used prisoners in germ warfare programme
Share402 Justin McCurry in Tokyo guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 February 2011 21.01 GMT Article history
Toyo Ishii, a former military nurse, broke her 60-year silence about Unit 731 in 2006. Photograph: Itsuo Inouye/AP
Authorities in Japan have begun excavating the former site of a medical school that may contain the remains of victims of the country's wartime biological warfare programme.
The school has links to Unit 731, a branch of the imperial Japanese army that conducted lethal experiments on prisoners as part of efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.
The Japanese government has previously acknowledged the unit's existence but refused to discuss its activities, despite testimony from former members and growing documentary evidence. In 2002 a Japanese court said Tokyo was under no obligation to compensate victims.
The government agreed to launch a ¥100m (£741,000) investigation after Toyo Ishii, a former nurse, said she had helped bury body parts on the site as the US occupation forces moved into Tokyo at the end of the second world war. Officials said so far there was no evidence the site had been used for experiments.
"We are not certain if the survey will find anything," Kazuhiko Kawauchi, a health ministry official, told Associated Press. "If anything is dug up, it may not be related to Unit 731."
Experts believe that if the excavation yields physical evidence that Japan conducted experiments on live humans, the government would face pressure to discuss the country's wartime conduct. "If bones or organs with traces of live medical experiments are found, the government would have to admit a wartime medical crime," said Yasushi Torii, head of a group that has been investigating the case for decades. "This is a start, although we will probably need more evidence to prove Unit 731's involvement."
Ishii, 88, broke her 61-year silence in 2006, claiming that she and colleagues had been ordered to bury numerous corpses, bones and body parts in the grounds following Japan's surrender in August 1945.
The then conservative government met with Ishii five years ago over her claims and pledged to pursue the case.
However, authorities held off on excavation until residents had been relocated and their apartments demolished last year. The current left-of-centre administration, which took office in 2009, has shown greater willingness to examine the darker episodes in Japan's wartime history.
The site in Tokyo's Shinjuku district is close to another where the mass graves of dozens of people who may have been victims of wartime experiments was uncovered in 1989.
Investigators concluded, however, that the remains, which included skulls with holes drilled through them or sections removed, were not connected to Unit 731 and that there was no evidence of criminal activity.
The health ministry concluded that the remains were those of non-Japanese Asians that had been used in "medical education" or recovered from war zones for analysis in Japan.
Unit 731, based in Harbin in northern China, conducted experiments on tens of thousands of mostly Chinese and Korean prisoners, and a small number of Allied prisoners of war. Some historians estimate up to 250,000 people were subjected to experiments. The remains of some are thought to have been transported from China to Tokyo for analysis.
According to historical accounts, male and female prisoners, named "logs" by their torturers, were subjected to vivisection without anaesthesia after they had been deliberately infected with diseases such as typhus and cholera. Some had limbs amputated or organs removed.
Leading members of the unit were secretly granted immunity from prosecution in return for giving US occupation forces access to years of biological warfare research. Some went on to occupy prestigious positions in the pharmaceutical industry, health ministry and academia.
Human guinea pigs
Japan's push into China began in 1931, and had become an occupation of large areas of the country by 1937, the year of the notorious Nanking massacre, in which, by some historical estimates, between 250,000 and 300,000 people in the city were killed. Those figures are disputed by some Japanese historians, who say the death toll was lower.
Unit 731 began conducting germ warfare experiments from its headquarters in Harbin, north-east China, in the mid-1930s, using human guinea pigs to develop biological weapons to assist Japan's push into regions in the south-east.
In 2004, a Chinese survivor described to the Guardian how his home on Zhejiang province, south-east China, had been attacked by plague-inflected fleas dropped by Japanese occupation forces. Records show that hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians were infected with the plague and other diseases.
As Japan confronted defeat in the summer of 1945, the unit's leader, Lieutenant General Shiro Ishii, told researchers to take their secrets to the grave and ordered his troops to demolish the unit's compound in Harbin.
But some former members of Unit 731 have come forward to discuss the past. They include Akira Makino, a former doctor who in 2006 said he had been ordered to conduct experiments on condemned men while stationed on the island of Mindanao in the Philippines.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ah, let's see how many Japanophiles come along and try and act like Japan as a nation somehow weren't hideous monsters during WWII.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
The sad thing is, every country involved in WW2 was pretty hideous in one way or another. Some just werent as exposed as the rest
29408
Post by: Melissia
Some countries were definitely the worst offenders.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Hmmm.....but are the ones who hide away and cover up the foul experiments to profit from them any morally better than those who committed them?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Well, unless a Japanese person was around and able to do something and didn't then thats not their issue. But we can all remember the evil that was done in the past, and recognize it in all of us. Note the link in the article about the US cover up for it as well.
Of course I still blame Japan for so many hours wasted watching bad ninja movies... Automatically Appended Next Post: Ketara wrote:Hmmm.....but are the ones who hide away and cover up the foul experiments to profit from them any morally better than those who committed them?
Yes, but just by degree. Evil is evil.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
But they did give us the Ninja Warrior show (I CANNOT remember what the hell it was called in Japan) I could and have watched that show for hours. It just doesnt get old
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Agreed, evil is evil. Sure some did it on scales WAY OTT but that doesnt make the others any better
221
Post by: Frazzled
KingCracker wrote:But they did give us the Ninja Warrior show (I CANNOT remember what the hell it was called in Japan) I could and have watched that show for hours. It just doesnt get old
Dude, I did watch that show for hours. Fun for the entire family!
29408
Post by: Melissia
KingCracker wrote:Agreed, evil is evil. Sure some did it on scales WAY OTT but that doesnt make the others any better
Yes. Yes it does make them better than the ones that did it OTT.
Everyone did evil, but not everyone raped the poodle. Some of them just kicked it a few times.
edit: and apparently they changed their tvtropes directory around a few times.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Then doesn't that make the US almost as bad for spiriting away the scientists involved, taking their research, and protecting them from justice?
I mean, I'm pretty sure if I'm the getaway driver for some bank robbers, I'll be considered almost as guilty, despite having not committed the actual crime myself.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ketara wrote:I mean, I'm pretty sure if I'm the getaway driver for some bank robbers, I'll be considered almost as guilty, despite having not committed the actual crime myself.
That is an actual crime.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:I mean, I'm pretty sure if I'm the getaway driver for some bank robbers, I'll be considered almost as guilty, despite having not committed the actual crime myself.
That is an actual crime.
Allow me to rephrase. ' I'm pretty sure if I'm the getaway driver for some bank robbers, I'll be considered just as guilty despite having not actually robbed the bank itself.'
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ketara wrote:Allow me to rephrase. ' I'm pretty sure if I'm the getaway driver for some bank robbers, I'll be considered just as guilty despite having not actually robbed the bank itself.'
You'd be considered guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal, yes, and possibly more if it is proven you knew what you were doing.
I never said the allies didn't do bad things, in fact I recall saying they did, but I stand firmly by the statement that Japan was horrendous and Japanophiles need to get their heads out of their ass and stop trying to defend them as if they are the victims here.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:Allow me to rephrase. ' I'm pretty sure if I'm the getaway driver for some bank robbers, I'll be considered just as guilty despite having not actually robbed the bank itself.'
You'd be considered guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal, yes, and possibly more if it is proven you knew what you were doing.
By making me rephrase, we're no longer considering words like 'crime' and 'criminal'. I did that so that I couldn't be led off of the point I was ambling towards, that in aiding and abetting people who committed such evil, I believe the US of the time must be therefore be morally virtually as bad as those who committed the deed itself.
34151
Post by: Bakerofish
hmm lets say im an evil scientist and it is my goal to break the meter in the evilometer and i could only choose one way to do it. how would i go about it?
experiment on my own people? - they ARE readily available
experiment on my enemies? - they had it coming
experiment on my own kin? - reunions suck.
29408
Post by: Melissia
[edit:rewording]
21853
Post by: mattyrm
What's the point in your statement Melissa?
Everyone did bad things in the war, some did worse, but what point at all does your "now watch them stick up for the japs" statement actually add to this conversation?
Should we all hate on the Japanese now then? Is that your recommended coa? yeah that will make the world a better place. It's 2011 for feths sake.
Your either a stupidly patriotic American who desperately wants to occupy a high ground we have already, a bigot or your 12 years old.
And i doubt its the latter.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Melissia wrote:I couldn't care less.
Then why are you engaging in dialogue with me?
29408
Post by: Melissia
mattyrm wrote:What's the point in your statement Melissa?
I thought it was obvious, the point of me making that statement is to express my disdain for Japanophiles and their stereotypical denial of all of Japan's wrongdoing.
18410
Post by: filbert
Why does everyone have to try and boil this thread down to who is more complicit? War in general is a pretty bad thing; every nation participates in activities that would normally be considered beyond the pale. Trying to distil it all down to who is worse than everyone else is like trying to determine whose poo smells worse.
Can we not just agree that Japan did some fairly terrible things in WW2 in the name of war as did practically every other nation.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
They've discovered Umbrella? 
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ketara wrote:Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:Allow me to rephrase. ' I'm pretty sure if I'm the getaway driver for some bank robbers, I'll be considered just as guilty despite having not actually robbed the bank itself.'
You'd be considered guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal, yes, and possibly more if it is proven you knew what you were doing.
By making me rephrase, we're no longer considering words like 'crime' and 'criminal'. I did that so that I couldn't be led off of the point I was ambling towards, that in aiding and abetting people who committed such evil, I believe the US of the time must be therefore be morally virtually as bad as those who committed the deed itself.
That lacks coherency. A crime by one is not a crime by all. More importantly, covering up is a difference by substantial degrees. Even in the cimrinal reference, covering up for a crime is generally less than committing the crime.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ketara wrote:Melissia wrote:I couldn't care less.
Then why are you engaging in dialogue with me?
It's early in the morning and I'm too grouchy for my own good, which is also why I said that even though that really isn't what I meant. And why I was so slow to edit it out.
I disagree. One can arguably benefit from evil without oneself being evil. But that particular argument is something I have no intention of participating in.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Melissia wrote:mattyrm wrote:What's the point in your statement Melissa?
I thought it was obvious, the point of me making that statement is to express my disdain for Japanophiles and their stereotypical denial of all of Japan's wrongdoing.
Lets all chill it down. We can have a discussion without personal insults.
11029
Post by: Ketara
filbert wrote:Why does everyone have to try and boil this thread down to who is more complicit? War in general is a pretty bad thing; every nation participates in activities that would normally be considered beyond the pale. Trying to distil it all down to who is worse than everyone else is like trying to determine whose poo smells worse.
Can we not just agree that Japan did some fairly terrible things in WW2 in the name of war as did practically every other nation.
I am aware that every nation does bad things in war(that being the point), but the reason Nazi Germany is so villified is because of the actions it took that went beyond the pale and norm of warfare. If we just say, 'everyone is as bad as each other', you're effectively saying Nazi Germany was no worse than the Allies. And where does that leave morality?
However, I'm genuinely intrigued as to whether you could consider the US any better than the Japanese in this respect, because of the getaway driver analogy I gave earlier. So I'm throwing the concept out there for dialogue, that being the purpose of a forum (to discuss).
29408
Post by: Melissia
Wait, I insulted someone?
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Did I just agree with mattrym? 
Frazzled wrote:Ketara wrote:Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:Allow me to rephrase. ' I'm pretty sure if I'm the getaway driver for some bank robbers, I'll be considered just as guilty despite having not actually robbed the bank itself.'
You'd be considered guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal, yes, and possibly more if it is proven you knew what you were doing.
By making me rephrase, we're no longer considering words like 'crime' and 'criminal'. I did that so that I couldn't be led off of the point I was ambling towards, that in aiding and abetting people who committed such evil, I believe the US of the time must be therefore be morally virtually as bad as those who committed the deed itself.
That lacks sanity.
Pretty sure he meant those who actually assisted those who committed the crime to avoid justice. Not that the US as a people were evil. Same goes for the Japanese.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
As a casual observer, you were being a bit rude.
I don't know if I noticed a specific "insult" though.
Either way, unit 731 was pretty bad news. It just gets eclipsed by the holocaust.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Melissia wrote:
I disagree. One can arguably benefit from evil without oneself being evil. But that particular argument is something I have no intention of participating in.
Interesting, especially if you consider killing in self-defence defence an 'evil' act.
Though the US aiding war criminals for personal gain really doesn't compare, and you've already said you don't want to get drawn into this. 
29408
Post by: Melissia
Emperors Faithful wrote:Melissia wrote:
I disagree. One can arguably benefit from evil without oneself being evil. But that particular argument is something I have no intention of participating in.
Interesting, especially if you consider killing in self-defence defence an 'evil' act.
Though the US aiding war criminals for personal gain really doesn't compare, and you've already said you don't want to get drawn into this.
Right. Also, I'm Texan, so take from taht what you will about the first part.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Emperors Faithful wrote:Did I just agree with mattrym?
Frazzled wrote:Ketara wrote:Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:Allow me to rephrase. ' I'm pretty sure if I'm the getaway driver for some bank robbers, I'll be considered just as guilty despite having not actually robbed the bank itself.'
You'd be considered guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal, yes, and possibly more if it is proven you knew what you were doing.
By making me rephrase, we're no longer considering words like 'crime' and 'criminal'. I did that so that I couldn't be led off of the point I was ambling towards, that in aiding and abetting people who committed such evil, I believe the US of the time must be therefore be morally virtually as bad as those who committed the deed itself.
That lacks sanity.
Pretty sure he meant those who actually assisted those who committed the crime to avoid justice. Not that the US as a people were evil. Same goes for the Japanese.
Gotcha edited.
I thought I made that clear though in the other post. If you were involved in such then thats your crime, not the crime of the country.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:Melissia wrote:I couldn't care less.
Then why are you engaging in dialogue with me?
It's early in the morning and I'm too grouchy for my own good, which is also why I said that even though that really isn't what I meant. And why I was so slow to edit it out.
I disagree. One can arguably benefit from evil without oneself being evil. But that particular argument is something I have no intention of participating in.
But the US did not merely 'benefit from' the evil. They actively prevented justice and retribution being brought to bear upon the perpetrators, shielded them, gave them work, a new place to live and so on. That goes a spot beyond simply wandering by the labs after the war and picking up the research notes, wouldn't you agree?
Emperors Faithful wrote:Did I just agree with mattrym?
Frazzled wrote:Ketara wrote:Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:Allow me to rephrase. ' I'm pretty sure if I'm the getaway driver for some bank robbers, I'll be considered just as guilty despite having not actually robbed the bank itself.'
You'd be considered guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal, yes, and possibly more if it is proven you knew what you were doing.
By making me rephrase, we're no longer considering words like 'crime' and 'criminal'. I did that so that I couldn't be led off of the point I was ambling towards, that in aiding and abetting people who committed such evil, I believe the US of the time must be therefore be morally virtually as bad as those who committed the deed itself.
That lacks sanity.
Pretty sure he meant those who actually assisted those who committed the crime to avoid justice. Not that the US as a people were evil. Same goes for the Japanese.
If the US government of the time are the ones who took the decision to shield, employ, and protect the Japanese scientists as they did, I must consider them to be of moral parity as the Japanese Government who initiated the crimes.
18410
Post by: filbert
Ketara wrote:filbert wrote:Why does everyone have to try and boil this thread down to who is more complicit? War in general is a pretty bad thing; every nation participates in activities that would normally be considered beyond the pale. Trying to distil it all down to who is worse than everyone else is like trying to determine whose poo smells worse.
Can we not just agree that Japan did some fairly terrible things in WW2 in the name of war as did practically every other nation.
I am aware that every nation does bad things in war(that being the point), but the reason Nazi Germany is so villified is because of the actions it took that went beyond the pale and norm of warfare. If we just say, 'everyone is as bad as each other', you're effectively saying Nazi Germany was no worse than the Allies. And where does that leave morality?
However, I'm genuinely intrigued as to whether you could consider the US any better than the Japanese in this respect, because of the getaway driver analogy I gave earlier. So I'm throwing the concept out there for dialogue, that being the purpose of a forum (to discuss).
Personally, I think morality has no place when it comes to discussing the war - war by its very nature is inherently immoral and trying to steer a moral path is a tricky road. I'm not sure you can tar everyone by association though. Arguably, the US wouldn't have won the space race without the aid of German rocket scientist defectors, like Werner Von Braun but we wouldn't call the US Nazis because of this association? Likewise I wouldn't dare claim that the US committed atrocities on the same scale or intensity as Japan did just because they used Japanese research to further their own biological warfare program. It doesn't necessarily mean the US is whiter than white though. History is written by the victor as they say. I'm sure the US and British armies have plenty of skeletons hidden that were proffered in the name of warfare advancement.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Melissia wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:Melissia wrote:
I disagree. One can arguably benefit from evil without oneself being evil. But that particular argument is something I have no intention of participating in.
Interesting, especially if you consider killing in self-defence defence an 'evil' act.
Though the US aiding war criminals for personal gain really doesn't compare, and you've already said you don't want to get drawn into this.
Right. Also, I'm Texan, so take from taht what you will about the first part.
What I meant to say is if you consider the act of killing someone to be evil, then you can benefit from an evil act (not dying yourself) without being evil (self-defence). I wasn't saying that self-defence is evil, just wondering if the act of killing itself would be considered evil (regardless of circumstance).
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ketara wrote:That goes a spot beyond simply wandering by the labs after the war and picking up the research notes, wouldn't you agree?
This, by itself, out of context, yes . In comparison to what the Japanese did,supported, covered up, then went in denial about, no.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Is it impossible to be a Japanophile and condemn their wartime history?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Kilkrazy wrote:Is it impossible to be a Japanophile and condemn their wartime history?
It's not impossible. Why do you ask?
11029
Post by: Ketara
filbert wrote:
Personally, I think morality has no place when it comes to discussing the war - war by its very nature is inherently immoral and trying to steer a moral path is a tricky road.
Then why do we have 'laws of war', and not just firebomb every single Middle Eastern nation, send in some colonists and claim all the oil for ourselves? To argue morality has no place in warfare, as said before, means that the Nazi's were no worse than the British of the time, and that stance I find hard to comprehend.
I'm not sure you can tar everyone by association though. Arguably, the US wouldn't have won the space race without the aid of German rocket scientist defectors, like Werner Von Braun but we wouldn't call the US Nazis because of this association?
The analogy is incorrect. Rocket scientists did not inflict moral atrocities in the same way. Otherwise we'd ahve to start considering every single person who designed a Panzer/machine gun/ anything to dow ith the german war effort to be just as bad as the Japanese scientists who tied up chinese civilians in a field and sprayed them with anthrax.
A more suitable analogy would be the US deciding to remove all the concentration camp killers(be they doctors or soldiers), and take them to the US to continue studying how to keep doing exactly what they'd be doing in the concentration camps up to that point.
Likewise I wouldn't dare claim that the US committed atrocities on the same scale or intensity as Japan did just because they used Japanese research to further their own biological warfare program. It doesn't necessarily mean the US is whiter than white though. History is written by the victor as they say. I'm sure the US and British armies have plenty of skeletons hidden that were proffered in the name of warfare advancement.
It's not a question of moral purity, and who's better than who. I'm merely questioning as to whether the US could be considered to be better than the Japanese morally, considering they ultimately have complicity in the immoral acts themselves (as demonstrated by the getaway driver analogy).
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Ketara wrote:Emperors Faithful wrote:
Pretty sure he meant those who actually assisted those who committed the crime to avoid justice. Not that the US as a people were evil. Same goes for the Japanese.
If the US government of the time are the ones who took the decision to shield, employ, and protect the Japanese scientists as they did, I must consider them to be of moral parity as the Japanese Government who initiated the crimes.
I can understand that line of thinking, though I'm not sure if I agree with it entirely. The actions of the US here definitely aren't moral, but I don't think it should be on parity with those that actually committed the act.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Melissia wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Is it impossible to be a Japanophile and condemn their wartime history?
It's not impossible. Why do you ask?
Because your initial statement in the thread was very provocative.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Ketara wrote:It's not a question of moral purity, and who's better than who. I'm merely questioning as to whether the US could be considered to be better than the Japanese morally, considering they ultimately have complicity in the immoral acts themselves (as demonstrated by the getaway driver analogy).
I see what you're saying.
I still think that at least by using the knowledge gained from unit 731's barbarism at least some good can come of their research. I think to simply pretend it never happened would have made it evil and pointless which, to me, seems worse.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:That goes a spot beyond simply wandering by the labs after the war and picking up the research notes, wouldn't you agree?
This, by itself, out of context, yes . In comparison to what the Japanese did,supported, covered up, then went in denial about, no.
The only step that is missing that the US did not commit is the act itself. But as mentioned before, is a getaway driver somehow morally better than the robbers he is helping to escape from justice? Because he did not rob the bank himself?
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
With the getaway driver anology. Would he be charged for the same crime? Just what would his punishment be?
18410
Post by: filbert
Ketara wrote:
It's not a question of moral purity, and who's better than who. I'm merely questioning as to whether the US could be considered to be better than the Japanese morally, considering they ultimately have complicity in the immoral acts themselves (as demonstrated by the getaway driver analogy).
That is why I started off by asking why everyone always tries to bring these sorts of threads down to absolutes. Why do we have to try and label and pigeonhole everything? Why does it have to be categorized? Why are we trying to posit some sort of moral superiority for one nation over another? Can we not just agree that war is a pretty filthy place and that all countries engage in some fairly unscrupulous behaviour (sometimes with justification, sometimes not)?
11029
Post by: Ketara
Emperors Faithful wrote:With the getaway driver anology. Would he be charged for the same crime? Just what would his punishment be?
As Melissia forced me to change my analogy earlier, its necessarily a case of 'crime' as per se. Rather, it is a case of whether he bears any more or less moral responsibility for the act, despite having not committed it himself.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ketara wrote:Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:Melissia wrote:I couldn't care less.
Then why are you engaging in dialogue with me?
It's early in the morning and I'm too grouchy for my own good, which is also why I said that even though that really isn't what I meant. And why I was so slow to edit it out.
I disagree. One can arguably benefit from evil without oneself being evil. But that particular argument is something I have no intention of participating in.
But the US did not merely 'benefit from' the evil. They actively prevented justice and retribution being brought to bear upon the perpetrators, shielded them, gave them work, a new place to live and so on. That goes a spot beyond simply wandering by the labs after the war and picking up the research notes, wouldn't you agree?
Emperors Faithful wrote:Did I just agree with mattrym?
Frazzled wrote:Ketara wrote:Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:Allow me to rephrase. ' I'm pretty sure if I'm the getaway driver for some bank robbers, I'll be considered just as guilty despite having not actually robbed the bank itself.'
You'd be considered guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal, yes, and possibly more if it is proven you knew what you were doing.
By making me rephrase, we're no longer considering words like 'crime' and 'criminal'. I did that so that I couldn't be led off of the point I was ambling towards, that in aiding and abetting people who committed such evil, I believe the US of the time must be therefore be morally virtually as bad as those who committed the deed itself.
That lacks sanity.
Pretty sure he meant those who actually assisted those who committed the crime to avoid justice. Not that the US as a people were evil. Same goes for the Japanese.
If the US government of the time are the ones who took the decision to shield, employ, and protect the Japanese scientists as they did, I must consider them to be of moral parity as the Japanese Government who initiated the crimes.
Um...no
See thats where Melissia is right. Thats being an apologist. You've taken collusion from the Cold War to imagine moral parity with a government that slaughtered across a continent, with a government that kicked their ass.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Kilkrazy wrote:Melissia wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Is it impossible to be a Japanophile and condemn their wartime history?
It's not impossible. Why do you ask?
Because your initial statement in the thread was very provocative.
Yes, it was, wasn't it? I do dislike a boring conversation!
18410
Post by: filbert
Emperors Faithful wrote:With the getaway driver anology. Would he be charged for the same crime? Just what would his punishment be?
Aiding and abetting or something similar. I don't think he could be charged with armed robbery unless he actually participates in the robbery. But that's not the point that Ketara is trying to make. It's the moral connection between the two.
11029
Post by: Ketara
filbert wrote:Ketara wrote:
It's not a question of moral purity, and who's better than who. I'm merely questioning as to whether the US could be considered to be better than the Japanese morally, considering they ultimately have complicity in the immoral acts themselves (as demonstrated by the getaway driver analogy).
That is why I started off by asking why everyone always tries to bring these sorts of threads down to absolutes. Why do we have to try and label and pigeonhole everything? Why does it have to be categorized? Why are we trying to posit some sort of moral superiority for one nation over another? Can we not just agree that war is a pretty filthy place and that all countries engage in some fairly unscrupulous behaviour (sometimes with justification, sometimes not)?
But as mentioned before, surely to abandon doing so makes the Nuremberg trials, and any atrocity ever committed in any war ever, excusable?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ketara wrote:The only step that is missing that the US did not commit is the act itself. But as mentioned before, is a getaway driver somehow morally better than the robbers he is helping to escape from justice? Because he did not rob the bank himself?
Yes. S/He isn't morally good, but still better than the actual robbers.
It's like saying that a dictator's bodyguard is as morally bad as the dictator themselves because they stop an assassin from killing said dictator. No, the dictator is still an evil bastard, and the bodyguard's decision is morally ambiguous in comparison, and could concievably be defended.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Frazzled wrote:[
See thats where Melissia is right. Thats being an apologist. You've taken collusion from the Cold War to imagine moral parity with a government that slaughtered across a continent, with a government that kicked their ass.
Imagine? What has their defeat got to do with anything?
The Allies defeated Germany in WW1, but I wouldn't consider either side to be morally superior in that example. Just because a side triumphs over another does not indicate moral superiority. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:The only step that is missing that the US did not commit is the act itself. But as mentioned before, is a getaway driver somehow morally better than the robbers he is helping to escape from justice? Because he did not rob the bank himself?
Yes. S/He isn't morally good, but still better than the actual robbers.
Fair enough. If that's your stance, that's your stance.
18410
Post by: filbert
Ketara wrote:filbert wrote:Ketara wrote:
It's not a question of moral purity, and who's better than who. I'm merely questioning as to whether the US could be considered to be better than the Japanese morally, considering they ultimately have complicity in the immoral acts themselves (as demonstrated by the getaway driver analogy).
That is why I started off by asking why everyone always tries to bring these sorts of threads down to absolutes. Why do we have to try and label and pigeonhole everything? Why does it have to be categorized? Why are we trying to posit some sort of moral superiority for one nation over another? Can we not just agree that war is a pretty filthy place and that all countries engage in some fairly unscrupulous behaviour (sometimes with justification, sometimes not)?
But as mentioned before, surely to abandon doing so makes the Nuremberg trials, and any atrocity ever committed in any war ever, excusable?
That's why things like the Geneva convention are supposed to provide a framework for warfare. Because a moral judgement is invariably a judgement from a victor to a loser - like saying 'I have beaten you and will now cast my judgement on your actions'. I'm sure if the Nazis had one, there would have been something similar to prosecute Allied commanders.
I'm not saying that German or Japanese actions can be excused or aren't inherently evil - all I'm saying is that the very nature of war means that participating nations commit actions that we would normally find immoral or 'wrong' for a want of a better word.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ketara wrote:Frazzled wrote:[
See thats where Melissia is right. Thats being an apologist. You've taken collusion from the Cold War to imagine moral parity with a government that slaughtered across a continent, with a government that kicked their ass.
Imagine? What has their defeat got to do with anything?
The Allies defeated Germany in WW1, but I wouldn't consider either side to be morally superior in that example. Just because a side triumphs over another does not indicate moral superiority.
The Japanese Empire slaughtered across a continent, killing millions. This particular unit performed hideous war crimes. To attempt to make the US morally equivalent because they took some of that knowledge is sophestry at best.
In your analogy the getaway driver always gets a lesser sentence than the bank robber that goes in and wastes everyone in the bank.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Frazzled wrote:Ketara wrote:Frazzled wrote:[
See thats where Melissia is right. Thats being an apologist. You've taken collusion from the Cold War to imagine moral parity with a government that slaughtered across a continent, with a government that kicked their ass.
Imagine? What has their defeat got to do with anything?
The Allies defeated Germany in WW1, but I wouldn't consider either side to be morally superior in that example. Just because a side triumphs over another does not indicate moral superiority.
The Japanese Empire slaughtered across a continent, killing millions. This particular unit performed hideous war crimes. To attempt to make the US morally equivalent because they took some of that knowledge is sophestry at best.
In your analogy the getaway driver always gets a lesser sentence than the bank robber that goes in and wastes everyone in the bank.
The US did not engage in war against the Japanese for atrocities against the Chinese though, rather because they were attacked themselves.
The particular unit you are referring to was shielded, employed, paid, and protected by the US. As said before, its not quite wandering by the labs and finding the research notes afterwards.
Judging by their actions, and their shielding of perpetrators of atrocities from justice for their crimes, the US goverment implicitly endorses their actions.
If you believe as does Melissia, that's fine. That's your stance. But to pretend that the US had no complicity in these actions, and no moral responsibility would be incorrect.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
Frazzled wrote:The Japanese Empire slaughtered across a continent, killing millions. This particular unit performed hideous war crimes. To attempt to make the US morally equivalent because they took some of that knowledge is sophestry at best.
In your analogy the getaway driver always gets a lesser sentence than the bank robber that goes in and wastes everyone in the bank.
What if the driver pulls the shooter out of the bank, takes the money the shooter stole and sets him up with a new identity/job/home and ensures he will never face trial for the murders? That's what I'm wrestling with here, whether that somehow makes the driver a 'less evil' person.
5212
Post by: Gitzbitah
Ketara wrote:
I am aware that every nation does bad things in war(that being the point), but the reason Nazi Germany is so villified is because of the actions it took that went beyond the pale and norm of warfare. If we just say, 'everyone is as bad as each other', you're effectively saying Nazi Germany was no worse than the Allies. And where does that leave morality?
However, I'm genuinely intrigued as to whether you could consider the US any better than the Japanese in this respect, because of the getaway driver analogy I gave earlier. So I'm throwing the concept out there for dialogue, that being the purpose of a forum (to discuss).
There's a flaw in comparing the Nazi regime to the Japanese germ warfare unit. The Japanese program existed specifically to further Japan's ability to make war- not to kill civilians for being civilians. The worst we can say about Japan is that they engaged in unethical human testing on unwilling subjects. The Nazis engaged in genocide for the purpose of purifying the human race.
If something grew to be considered unethical or dangerous, you would still use the knowledge gained from it- if for no other reason than you would never have to repeat those experiments.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ketara wrote:The US did not engage in war against the Japanese for atrocities against the Chinese though, rather because they were attacked themselves.
And a person who shoots a serial murderer out of self defense didn't do it for the good of all the murderer's future victims or to prevent any murder but their own. Doesn't mean that the person didn't do some good. Analogies work against you too Ketara
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Whilst the Soviets were incredibly vicious when they started their march into Germany, they had lost around 20 million people.
The argument that the war was nasty on both side is correct, but the Axis committed acts of sadistic cruelty and brutality on a scale not seen before or since. Germany openly flagellates herself about this and has thrown the doors of guilt and admittance wide open, Japan has instead created a cult of denial and whitewashing over the blood on her hands.
The actions of Japan in WW2 were monstrous. Where were the equal actions to Nanking by the Allies? The Japanese army turned an entire Chinese city into a drug addicted rape camp and impaled thousands of their female victims on bamboo whilst still alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
The Axis were the aggressors, they bathed themselves in blood. The suggestion that both sides were equal in savagery and the horror of war is not an accurate one, the Axis powers turned medieval torture into an industrial scale evil.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Of course, it was because of Japan's actions in China that led to the oil embargo, that in turn, led to Pearl Harbor that led to the destruction of the Japanese Empire.
So yea, inadvertantly the US did engage in war because of Japan's actions in China.
39004
Post by: biccat
filbert wrote:Aiding and abetting or something similar. I don't think he could be charged with armed robbery unless he actually participates in the robbery. But that's not the point that Ketara is trying to make. It's the moral connection between the two.
The law of conspiracy says that if you are a part of a conspiracy (to rob a bank), then you can be charged with any crime committed by a fellow conspirator (even if they shoot up the bank irrationally) in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Aiding and abetting is different, because it requires that you were not a conspirator/party to the underlying crime, but helped the guilty party escape justice while knowing that they were being pursued.
Finally, there is obstruction of justice. This is after the crime has occurred and the criminals have reached a place of safety (no more hot pursuit). Anyone helping them after this point to avoid capture is guilty of obstructing justoce by hampering police investigation.
IMO, and in the view of the law, these are varying degrees of moral wrongs.
At worst, the US is guilty of aiding and abetting, which probably isn't as bad as the actions of Japanese POW camps (which were tame compared to Unit 731).
15594
Post by: Albatross
Still though...
FWIW, I agree with Melissia RE: Japanophiles.
Ugh.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Melissia wrote:Ah, let's see how many Japanophiles come along and try and act like Japan as a nation somehow weren't hideous monsters during WWII.
Do people actually do that?
If so they really don't know much about Japan during the war.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
I'm curious as to why Japan felt no need for reparation payments to the victims/families of victims.
I don't think the getaway driver analogy really works in this case. A getaway driver is complicit from the start. The US did not encourage these experiments to reap the findings.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Albatross wrote:Still though...
FWIW, I agree with Melissia RE: Japanophiles.
Ugh.
OK...THIS is a warcrime! 
26523
Post by: Ribon Fox
Really? Lets see, Mcdonalds any one?
My vote goes for the hot cos-players thank you.
OT, I'm of the opinion of "so what". Time we moved on and looked forward not back.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ribon Fox wrote:Really? Lets see, Mcdonalds any one?
My vote goes for the hot cos-players thank you.
OT, I'm of the opinion of "so what". Time we moved on and looked forward not back.
What? Thats just the future US sumo wrestling team. e've had enough of Japanese uber dominance in sumo wrestling. Say hello to the future world champion.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I'm guessing we'd never find any chubby kids in the UK, right? I love a good cherry picked picture fight, please continue.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Melissia wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Melissia wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Is it impossible to be a Japanophile and condemn their wartime history?
It's not impossible. Why do you ask?
Because your initial statement in the thread was very provocative.
Yes, it was, wasn't it? I do dislike a boring conversation!
There are other conversational gambits than prejudging the audience. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ahtman wrote:I'm guessing we'd never find any chubby kids in the UK, right? I love a good cherry picked picture fight, please continue.
We had to send them all to Eire as emergency rations, during the financial crisis last year.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Ribon Fox wrote:Really? Lets see, Mcdonalds any one?
My vote goes for the hot cos-players thank you.
OT, I'm of the opinion of "so what". Time we moved on and looked forward not back.
A slight difference Ribon, the cosplayers are japanophiles by choice, the fat kids don't have the capability to get fat on their own.
Also I would hope that you wouldn't go after either group, one is probably 15 years old and the other is a group of fat maybe 6 year olds.
But yes, weeaboos praise the japanese culture and call our own barbaric. I just hope they don't unleash any zombies from that site.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Ahtman wrote:I'm guessing we'd never find any chubby kids in the UK, right?
We either burn them as sacrifices or use them to advertise tyres.
221
Post by: Frazzled
reds8n wrote:Ahtman wrote:I'm guessing we'd never find any chubby kids in the UK, right?
We either burn them as sacrifices or use them to advertise tyres.
I think someone in the UK already noted a simple solution for errant children...
29408
Post by: Melissia
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Melissia wrote:Ah, let's see how many Japanophiles come along and try and act like Japan as a nation somehow weren't hideous monsters during WWII.
Do people actually do that?
Yes. A lot of Japanophiles I've met-- and Japanese politicians-- are in denial over history.
7926
Post by: youbedead
Frazzled wrote:reds8n wrote:Ahtman wrote:I'm guessing we'd never find any chubby kids in the UK, right?
We either burn them as sacrifices or use them to advertise tyres.
I think someone in the UK already noted a simple solution for errant children...
I do believe it was quite a modest proposal really,it would even solve the widening wealth gap
25139
Post by: micahaphone
Denying history is the act of a fool. We must acknowledge that the evil events of history happened, so that they will not be repeated in the future.
Japan should pay the families of the victims/experiments, then move on. There is no point in trying to cover this up.
5534
Post by: dogma
micahaphone wrote:Denying history is the act of a fool. We must acknowledge that the evil events of history happened, so that they will not be repeated in the future.
Of course it never quite works that way, because no one can ever quite agree on what is actually evil.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Actually I think most people have a pretty good handle on it.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ketara wrote:The only step that is missing that the US did not commit is the act itself. But as mentioned before, is a getaway driver somehow morally better than the robbers he is helping to escape from justice? Because he did not rob the bank himself?
Okay, but the getaway driver was in on the crime from the start. Consider instead one guy running away after robbing a bank, where the whole got out of hand and after killing a bunch of hostages and then seeing all his mates shot by police (some even had an atom bomb dropped on them) he's legged it and is standing by a cliff face. He's going to jump off and take the money with him... when you stumble by in your car. He offers you the money if you'll drive him away from there.
Thing is, the US weren't a getaway driver like in your example, they weren't complicit in the initial crime, their participation didn't encourage the crime from being committed. They just stumbled upon it at the end and looked to their own benefit instead of the need to punish the bad guys. Which is still pretty skeezy, but it's not the same thing as being there from the beginning. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Of course, it was because of Japan's actions in China that led to the oil embargo, that in turn, led to Pearl Harbor that led to the destruction of the Japanese Empire.
So yea, inadvertantly the US did engage in war because of Japan's actions in China.
And in putting that embargo in place the US was taking a moral stance that should be commended. They were saying they would not allow resources to flow to an Empire that was looking to violently expand its own borders. For this they were attacked.
After the war, when they were in a position to punish Japan even further, they instead put in place the Marshall Plan, and spent a fortune helping it recover.
So yeah, war is hell and when you go to war it's inevitable that ugly things will be done by every side. But at some point you have to take overall stock of the number and nature of the crimes of each side, and it fairly straightforward to conclude one side maintained a pretty impressive level of restraint overall, while the two major powers on the other side committed some of the worst war crimes in the history of mankind.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Melissia wrote:Some countries were definitely the worst offenders.
Certainly, but it's not really a race. We dropped nukes on cities and engaged in firebombing campaigns, the english too. The Russians were every bit as bad as this and the germans, well, the germans. It was a pretty harsh time, no need to go pointing fingers now, it was a long time ago.
5534
Post by: dogma
Monster Rain wrote:Actually I think most people have a pretty good handle on it.
I'm guessing that the various people involved in the experiments in question didn't believe they were doing evil. Of course, many people might disagree with them, but that was the point I was trying to make.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
micahaphone wrote:Japan should pay the families of the victims/experiments, then move on. There is no point in trying to cover this up.
I don't really get reparations for events that happened this long (or longer) ago. If there are living survivors (or the spouses/children of "victims") then if monetary compensation is deemed required by the government, go ahead. Things such as paying people because their great, great, great (x however many times removed) granddad was a slave or experimented on, or wrongly imprisoned seems a bit ridiculous to me. No one living (or even recently deceased) was directly affected by it or commited it, so why not appologise, move on with our lives and make sure it never happens again?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
A lot of the Chinese victims' families may have died in the Chinese civil war, the Great Leap Forward, or the Cultural Revolution.
241
Post by: Ahtman
SilverMK2 wrote:No one living (or even recently deceased) was directly affected by it or commited it
That is a false. We are effected by these things everyday. We are the people we are today becuase of these things, Poverty, lack of education, less old boy clubs. This isn't just slavery in the US, but many different things. Doing something terrible and than getting better doesn't mean it never happened or that it doesn't influence us and play a part in who we are, culturally or individually. If slavery or Unit 713 never hapopened, you wouldn't making comments about how it doesn't have an effect on you, other than making you bitter about the past.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Ahtman wrote:SilverMK2 wrote:No one living (or even recently deceased) was directly affected by it or commited it
That is a false. We are effected by these things everyday. We are the people we are today becuase of these things, Poverty, lack of education, less old boy clubs. This isn't just slavery in the US, but many different things. Doing something terrible and than getting better doesn't mean it never happened or that it doesn't influence us and play a part in who we are, culturally or individually. If slavery or Unit 713 never hapopened, you wouldn't making comments about how it doesn't have an effect on you, other than making you bitter about the past.
I meant in terms of getting money because someone you are distantly descended from/related to had something bad happen to them, rather than how events shape our culture, or whether something was bad or not, etc.
I'm not quite sure how you thought I meant that given the whole of the rest of my post, but I appologise for any confusion.
21945
Post by: tarvos
A little off topic, but the Japanese name for Ninja Warrior is Sauske (SP?).
Topic: Eventually we are going to have to let all the evils of the past go. There are few people left who are even alive enough to take offense at the actions done there other than some arbitrary national pride we are suppose to feel. Yes Japan did some terrible things during the war, so did Germany, Italy, France, England, the US... everyone involved did ghastly things in the name of survival. The only thing we as rational (mostly) and Since-able (see prior "mostly") creatures is forgive, record and not forget; but learn from the past.
221
Post by: Frazzled
sebster wrote:Ketara wrote:The only step that is missing that the US did not commit is the act itself. But as mentioned before, is a getaway driver somehow morally better than the robbers he is helping to escape from justice? Because he did not rob the bank himself?
Okay, but the getaway driver was in on the crime from the start. Consider instead one guy running away after robbing a bank, where the whole got out of hand and after killing a bunch of hostages and then seeing all his mates shot by police (some even had an atom bomb dropped on them) he's legged it and is standing by a cliff face. He's going to jump off and take the money with him... when you stumble by in your car. He offers you the money if you'll drive him away from there.
Thing is, the US weren't a getaway driver like in your example, they weren't complicit in the initial crime, their participation didn't encourage the crime from being committed. They just stumbled upon it at the end and looked to their own benefit instead of the need to punish the bad guys. Which is still pretty skeezy, but it's not the same thing as being there from the beginning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Of course, it was because of Japan's actions in China that led to the oil embargo, that in turn, led to Pearl Harbor that led to the destruction of the Japanese Empire.
So yea, inadvertantly the US did engage in war because of Japan's actions in China.
And in putting that embargo in place the US was taking a moral stance that should be commended. They were saying they would not allow resources to flow to an Empire that was looking to violently expand its own borders. For this they were attacked.
After the war, when they were in a position to punish Japan even further, they instead put in place the Marshall Plan, and spent a fortune helping it recover.
So yeah, war is hell and when you go to war it's inevitable that ugly things will be done by every side. But at some point you have to take overall stock of the number and nature of the crimes of each side, and it fairly straightforward to conclude one side maintained a pretty impressive level of restraint overall, while the two major powers on the other side committed some of the worst war crimes in the history of mankind.
Oh my, I am in complete agreement with Sebster. Its the Seventh Sign of Apocalypse! Quick everyone...party!
11029
Post by: Ketara
sebster wrote:Ketara wrote:The only step that is missing that the US did not commit is the act itself. But as mentioned before, is a getaway driver somehow morally better than the robbers he is helping to escape from justice? Because he did not rob the bank himself?
Okay, but the getaway driver was in on the crime from the start. Consider instead one guy running away after robbing a bank, where the whole got out of hand and after killing a bunch of hostages and then seeing all his mates shot by police (some even had an atom bomb dropped on them) he's legged it and is standing by a cliff face. He's going to jump off and take the money with him... when you stumble by in your car. He offers you the money if you'll drive him away from there.
Thing is, the US weren't a getaway driver like in your example, they weren't complicit in the initial crime, their participation didn't encourage the crime from being committed. They just stumbled upon it at the end and looked to their own benefit instead of the need to punish the bad guys. Which is still pretty skeezy, but it's not the same thing as being there from the beginning.
Well done there for spotting that one sebster.
I realised the discrepancy in the analogy a short while after writing it, and was waiting for someone to come up with what you did there. Fortunately, it gave me time to come up with a suitable counter.
In your analogy, it's a random guy who gets offered the money. That's not strictly accurate either.
Rather its a case of the bank robbers who go in, kill a load of bank personnel, steal the cash, get their mates shot by the police, and the last two say to the police, 'Psst. How about we split the dough with you in exchange for immunity and a getaway?' The police then accept. The amusing thing is that the police then continue to insist that it never happened, and its their job to punish the evil of people like the bank robbers, despite having been complicit in shielding the robbers from justice and benefiting from their crimes.
Now I personally do not care much whether the US government of the time is judged morally bad one way or another, it was merely a little thought exercise for myself. I was just astonished at how quickly people seem to rush to defend this seemingly (to me) indefensible action. Since morals are highly subjective anyway, its perfectly plausible to do what Melissia has done, and say that in your personal scale of ethics, doing what the US government did is not as bad as what the Japanese government did. But say, to the family of one of the Chinese people who stood in a field and got sprayed with anthrax? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't agree.
29408
Post by: Melissia
dogma wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Actually I think most people have a pretty good handle on it.
I'm guessing that the various people involved in the experiments in question didn't believe they were doing evil. Of course, many people might disagree with them, but that was the point I was trying to make.
I don't think they particularly cared about the subject of good or evil.
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
One thing we do have to consider is the amount of 'good' that the US was able to extract out of the evil acts commited by Unit 731. I am in no way saying that what Unit 731 did was not some of the most evil, horrendous acts mankind has ever performed against itself, but I would like to point out that there was some useful medical information that came out of the US decision to take the members of Unit 731 in to its protection.
Continuing the bank robber analogy, I'd say that Unit 731 were the robbers who shot up a bank, while the US was a witness who came upon them with all the evidence. The robbers offer the witness money in exchange for protection, and since the witness needs money to buy medicine/food/some other necessity, he accepts.
I find it hard to call the US actions 'evil'...they did not abett in the research, they did not encourage the research, however in the end, they did decide to make the most of a horrible situation, by using whatever medical information was uncovered for good purposes. It definitely would not be a Lawful Good thing to do, but it's arguably a Neutral Good thing to do.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Melissia wrote:dogma wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Actually I think most people have a pretty good handle on it.
I'm guessing that the various people involved in the experiments in question didn't believe they were doing evil. Of course, many people might disagree with them, but that was the point I was trying to make.
I don't think they particularly cared about the subject of good or evil.
I don't know. I think that they thought they were the good guys, what with their God-Emperor and all. Also, we people who (in the majority) are generally opposed to testing chemical and biological weapons on human beings shouldn't concern ourselves with whether the bad people that did it thought they were bad.
Either way, this is starting to smell like a "what is good/evil" thread and I am going to have to pass.  Automatically Appended Next Post: ChrisWWII wrote:One thing we do have to consider is the amount of 'good' that the US was able to extract out of the evil acts commited by Unit 731. I am in no way saying that what Unit 731 did was not some of the most evil, horrendous acts mankind has ever performed against itself, but I would like to point out that there was some useful medical information that came out of the US decision to take the members of Unit 731 in to its protection.
Yeah, I kind of tried to say that either.
It's bad enough that it happened. I think not using the results of the research would make those peoples' suffering pointless which, to me, makes it even worse.
11029
Post by: Ketara
ChrisWWII wrote:One thing we do have to consider is the amount of 'good' that the US was able to extract out of the evil acts commited by Unit 731. I am in no way saying that what Unit 731 did was not some of the most evil, horrendous acts mankind has ever performed against itself, but I would like to point out that there was some useful medical information that came out of the US decision to take the members of Unit 731 in to its protection.
'Fraid not Chris old boy. Doesn't quite work like that. It's one thing to say good came of them seizing the research already done. Sure.
But to then shield the perpetrators, and employ the scientists in a biological weapons research capacity themselves? Your analogy does not account for this, what I believe to be the important point in all this. No-one would fault the US for just swinging by and picking up the research post-war, so to speak. It's the act of not only shielding the people who committed the atrocities, but allowing them to continue in their line of work under US employ that makes it morally dubious.
You say that the witness needs the money to buy necessities.
The US saw a potentially unexplored field of weapons development the Japanese were ahead of them in, and seized on it, brushing aside all moral and ethical obligations in doing so. They had no intention of developing medical tools out of it, those are a byproduct. They did not shield these scientists with such noble goals in mind.
No, they took them in order to gain aid in developing their own weapons of the same type. I've actually read a rather interesting book that details some of the stuff the US came up with as a result of seizing that research and those scientists, and the weapons the US has created from it genuinely sickened me to the core. The US did not take the research to buy necessities, they did not shield the scientists in aid of medical research and expanding into a new era of human enlightenment. They had no altruistic goals to speak of.
I believe that my adjusted analogy to take into account sebsters view is the most accurate of the lot.
Rather its a case of the bank robbers who go in, kill a load of bank personnel, steal the cash, get their mates shot by the police, and the last two say to the police, 'Psst. How about we split the dough with you in exchange for immunity and a getaway?' The police then accept. The amusing thing is that the police then continue to insist that it never happened, and its their job to punish the evil of people like the bank robbers, despite having been complicit in shielding the robbers from justice and benefiting from their crimes.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ketara wrote:ChrisWWII wrote:One thing we do have to consider is the amount of 'good' that the US was able to extract out of the evil acts commited by Unit 731. I am in no way saying that what Unit 731 did was not some of the most evil, horrendous acts mankind has ever performed against itself, but I would like to point out that there was some useful medical information that came out of the US decision to take the members of Unit 731 in to its protection.
'Fraid not Chris old boy. Doesn't quite work like that. It's one thing to say good came of them seizing the research already done. Sure.
But to then shield the perpetrators, and employ the scientists in a biological weapons research capacity themselves? Your analogy does not account for this, what I believe to be the important point in all this. No-one would fault the US for just swinging by and picking up the research post-war, so to speak. It's the act of not only shielding the people who committed the atrocities, but allowing them to continue in their line of work under US employ that makes it morally dubious.
You say that the witness needs the money to buy necessities.
The US saw a potentially unexplored field of weapons development the Japanese were ahead of them in, and seized on it, brushing aside all moral and ethical obligations in doing so. They had no intention of developing medical tools out of it, those are a byproduct. They did not shield these scientists with such noble goals in mind.
No, they took them in order to gain aid in developing their own weapons of the same type. I've actually read a rather interesting book that details some of the stuff the US came up with as a result of seizing that research and those scientists, and the weapons the US has created from it genuinely sickened me to the core. The US did not take the research to buy necessities, they did not shield the scientists in aid of medical research and expanding into a new era of human enlightenment. They had no altruistic goals to speak of.
I believe that my adjusted analogy to take into account sebsters view is the most accurate of the lot.
You're right. They should have seized them and the information, debriefed them, and then left them in the middle of the Nevada desert.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Frazzled wrote:You're right. They should have seized them and the information, debriefed them, and then left them in the middle of the Nevada desert.
Sure.
Use the research, but nobody is saying that those guys aren't dicks.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Frazzled wrote:Ketara wrote:ChrisWWII wrote:One thing we do have to consider is the amount of 'good' that the US was able to extract out of the evil acts commited by Unit 731. I am in no way saying that what Unit 731 did was not some of the most evil, horrendous acts mankind has ever performed against itself, but I would like to point out that there was some useful medical information that came out of the US decision to take the members of Unit 731 in to its protection.
'Fraid not Chris old boy. Doesn't quite work like that. It's one thing to say good came of them seizing the research already done. Sure.
But to then shield the perpetrators, and employ the scientists in a biological weapons research capacity themselves? Your analogy does not account for this, what I believe to be the important point in all this. No-one would fault the US for just swinging by and picking up the research post-war, so to speak. It's the act of not only shielding the people who committed the atrocities, but allowing them to continue in their line of work under US employ that makes it morally dubious.
You say that the witness needs the money to buy necessities.
The US saw a potentially unexplored field of weapons development the Japanese were ahead of them in, and seized on it, brushing aside all moral and ethical obligations in doing so. They had no intention of developing medical tools out of it, those are a byproduct. They did not shield these scientists with such noble goals in mind.
No, they took them in order to gain aid in developing their own weapons of the same type. I've actually read a rather interesting book that details some of the stuff the US came up with as a result of seizing that research and those scientists, and the weapons the US has created from it genuinely sickened me to the core. The US did not take the research to buy necessities, they did not shield the scientists in aid of medical research and expanding into a new era of human enlightenment. They had no altruistic goals to speak of.
I believe that my adjusted analogy to take into account sebsters view is the most accurate of the lot.
You're right. They should have seized them and the information, debriefed them, and then left them in the middle of the Nevada desert.
See, that's the kind of thinking I can get behind! 
Shame Frazzled didn't take MacArthurs place....
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ketara wrote:Frazzled wrote:Ketara wrote:ChrisWWII wrote:One thing we do have to consider is the amount of 'good' that the US was able to extract out of the evil acts commited by Unit 731. I am in no way saying that what Unit 731 did was not some of the most evil, horrendous acts mankind has ever performed against itself, but I would like to point out that there was some useful medical information that came out of the US decision to take the members of Unit 731 in to its protection.
'Fraid not Chris old boy. Doesn't quite work like that. It's one thing to say good came of them seizing the research already done. Sure.
But to then shield the perpetrators, and employ the scientists in a biological weapons research capacity themselves? Your analogy does not account for this, what I believe to be the important point in all this. No-one would fault the US for just swinging by and picking up the research post-war, so to speak. It's the act of not only shielding the people who committed the atrocities, but allowing them to continue in their line of work under US employ that makes it morally dubious.
You say that the witness needs the money to buy necessities.
The US saw a potentially unexplored field of weapons development the Japanese were ahead of them in, and seized on it, brushing aside all moral and ethical obligations in doing so. They had no intention of developing medical tools out of it, those are a byproduct. They did not shield these scientists with such noble goals in mind.
No, they took them in order to gain aid in developing their own weapons of the same type. I've actually read a rather interesting book that details some of the stuff the US came up with as a result of seizing that research and those scientists, and the weapons the US has created from it genuinely sickened me to the core. The US did not take the research to buy necessities, they did not shield the scientists in aid of medical research and expanding into a new era of human enlightenment. They had no altruistic goals to speak of.
I believe that my adjusted analogy to take into account sebsters view is the most accurate of the lot.
You're right. They should have seized them and the information, debriefed them, and then left them in the middle of the Nevada desert.
See, that's the kind of thinking I can get behind!
Shame Frazzled didn't take MacArthurs place....
Its for the best. I hate sushi, and with the springboard into mainland Asia, Dachshundkrieg might have started decades earlier than 2012...
27848
Post by: ChrisWWII
Frazzled wrote:
You're right. They should have seized them and the information, debriefed them, and then left them in the middle of the Nevada desert.
One more vote in favor of this being the best option. 
Ketara, I'll have to defer to you. I have not read up on Unit 731 extensively, so I'll have to just defer to you...I just recall reading somewhere that the Western Allies gained valuable medical research that they could not have otherwise gathered thanks to Axis medical experiments. Then again...the medical experiments in question...could have been German in origin, ah well. No matter.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Monster Rain wrote:Frazzled wrote:You're right. They should have seized them and the information, debriefed them, and then left them in the middle of the Nevada desert.
Sure.
Use the research, but nobody is saying that those guys aren't dicks.
They certainly couldn't have been put on trial for war crimes. That would have alerted the Soviets to the US acquisition of the biowarfare information.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Frazzled wrote:You're right. They should have seized them and the information, debriefed them, and then left them in the middle of the Nevada desert.
Sure.
Use the research, but nobody is saying that those guys aren't dicks.
They certainly couldn't have been put on trial for war crimes. That would have alerted the Soviets to the US acquisition of the biowarfare information.
hence sending them to Nevada and kikcing them out. hey its a fine LAPD tradition, whats the problem?
|
|
