real politik
Ahhh, The Fog of War. It appeared on basic cable (which, BTW, would NEVER happen in the states) this evening. I can't believe I had forgotten this little gem! Without a doubt, the best documentary I have seen and one of the best movies overall. Deeply irritated at my flatmate's comment along the lines of - 'you would think they would have surrendered and the bomb wouldn't have been necessary' - I was slightly vindicated when he was mollified by the following scene, the one where they flash the names of Japanese cities, followed by the proportionally equivalent American cities to reflect the level of decimation BEFORE the a-bomb. That one always hurts.
Sometimes I want to scream at his naivete and ignorance, which have been played out in so many other forms - colonialism, the great British empire, his voting strategy (if it could even be called a strategy) - and by so many other people. Of course the a-bomb was unnecessary. CHRIST, OF COURSE it was unnecessary. A wonderful act that combined realist politics and racism in a symphony of genius. It's in the past right? Whatever. Anime suffices to show that the bomb has severely screwed up their collective psyche. No apologies from me. No one can ever convince me that it made sense, that it was the 'rational' thing to do. It wasn't rational at all.
Damn. I'm so angry now, I can't sleep.
6 Comments:
like it or not, there is no clean way of winning a shooting war. The best thing you can do is to hasten its end.
Most people didn't remember or know the firebombing of Tokyo, which in one day, kills more people than the Nagasaki A-Bomb.
Firebombing did kill more people than the A-Bomb. But the A-bomb was more to make a statement to the Russians than anything else. I also don't buy the argument that a mainly civilian city (x 2) had to be wiped out for the war to be won.
It's also interesting worth noting that the US dropped the equilvalent of 600 Hiroshimas on Vietnam including introducing us all to the wonderful new world of Agent Orange.
In Cambodia 10 Hiroshimas were dropped on a nation who had no quarrel with us.
Hiroshima was unnecessary for the end of WWII; Japan was out of resources and defeated. Despite excuse that due to the bushido code the samurai could not surrender, A-bomb was a political move more than anything else.
Dody, I agree that there is no 'clean' way of winning a hot war. My stance is that once war is declared, the gloves are off. The very idea of 'rules of engagement' is absolutely ridiculous once you've already arrived at the point of justifying taking lives. My problem is the double standard. The US would have never EVER dropped the bomb on a Western nation. It seemed the justification was 'you're not white so it's slightly less reprehensible to use the bomb on you' even though, like you and Digs point out, firebombing and lack of resources had already spelled out the inevitable.
Should we not get into what the Japanese military did to civilians in the rest of Asia? I don't know the specs, but I hear it wasn't very nice either.
It's all nasty.
Mmmmm, I'm not saying that the Japanese had clean hands. Yes, disgustingly nasty stuff happened in China under their watch. But nations aren't people (duh). Reminds me of when my friend's step-daughter said China was evil because it's communist. THAT was a fun conversation.
Anyway, my anger was sparked not so much by an overwhelming need to bring up the a-bomb issue but rather by ignorance that breeds nonchalant asinine remarks. Like those uttered by my flatmate on a regular basis:)
we've got conventions and agreements on how to kill each other "properly," and then later on we can argue over what qualifies as a "war crime." the rules are strategically in place so that when any one nation reaches the point of justifying war, they can maintain the delusion that it isn't barbaric in its very essence.
Post a Comment
<< Home