Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Still though...


FWIW, I agree with Melissia RE: Japanophiles.

Ugh.

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.

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.

Albatross wrote:Still though...


FWIW, I agree with Melissia RE: Japanophiles.

Ugh.

OK...THIS is a warcrime!

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.

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.

I'm guessing we'd never find any chubby kids in the UK, right? I love a good cherry picked picture fight, please continue.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

Actually I think most people have a pretty good handle on it.

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.

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.

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.

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?

A lot of the Chinese victims' families may have died in the Chinese civil war, the Great Leap Forward, or the Cultural Revolution.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.