Feel like wrestling with some uncomfortable questions?

[Crackpot]

[BoSoxGal]

Only if I get a brief description of what I’m about to be subject to if I click past the age restriction warning on that video.

(I’ve had to see videos of grown men raping toddler children as evidentiary review in my cases as a prosecutor, so it’s not like I’m weak kneed - but I do try to limit my exposure to additional traumas these days.)

[Crackpot]

It’s about the atrocities committed in the pacific theater during WWII and the fact that they were largely ignored/covered up etc.. not overly graphic (though the acts themselves are horrific without embellishment. No pictures of the worst stuff.

[Big RR]

CP--I will watch thos when I get a chance, but the atrocities in the Pacific are fairly well- known (I'm sure some more than others), even though it is usually treated as good etiquette not to bring htem up--not ot mention that, just like with the Germans, it was somehow viewed in our to somehow excuse or ignore them. My roommate in college was from Korea, and I heard a lot of stories about Japanese atrocities before and during the war (WW2); absolutely no love lost there.

But,in advance of my viewing the two hour video, what is/are the question(s); that seems like the way it was with most, if not all, modern wars (and out embracing of the perpetrators of great horrors with open arms, has made us reviled in a good portion of the world.

[Crackpot]

The simple fact that those events were downplayed by the US and most of those responsible were not punished

[MajGenl.Meade]

I watched the video. Was I missing something? Hardly anything at all about atrocities by Allied troops, except for a tendency to shoot first and ask for a surrender afterwards - oh and a thing about making souvenirs out of bones. 90% of it concentrated on the well-known, don't-kid-me-that-Americans-don't-know, awful, raping, murdering, cannibalism of the Imperial Japanese forces. As the nephew of a British soldier captured at Singapore, surviving Changi and the railroad, I couldn't give a hoot how many [perhaps genuinely surrendering and perhaps not] Japanese got shot.

Were civilian bombings a violation of the "rules" - yes. Were the a-bombs necessary - don't know. It's history, not current events.

Was it complicity in crime to keep Hirohito in place to help the peace party in Japan? Yes, probably but . . . history not current.

Was it the same thing as keeping Hitler or Mussolini at the head of Germany/Italy after they were overrun? What a stupid dumbass question. Neither one was captured - Hitler was never even close to being in Allied hands (except for Russia and they are more to blame for making peace with the bastard Adolf so that Poland could be divided between two dictators - there's an atrocity. And the Allies never had control of Mussolini - his own people got him (and the Mrs).

So, maybe we should be asking what the Allies would have done if they'd captured Genghis Khan and then sent him home with a nice pension and a pat on the head. Maybe lib should take a stab at this one

Some people of all nations (AFAIK) have always been given to cruelty - whether actual or as perceived by another group. Was it an atrocity that Custer's privates (and I don't mean his troopers) were mutilated and gratuitously displayed in an act of pure evil (as viewed by white America) or was it a good thing to ensure that his future in the other world would be about as comfortable as he deserved (as viewed by his killers)?

[BoSoxGal]

There was a story in the Guardian this weekend that discussed an investigation into British SAS who are alleged to have killed dozens and dozens of Afghan men and teens simply because they were fighting age, not for having found them engaged in any hostile acts.

War is evil. Maybe we should quit doing it.

[Crackpot]

Meade how do you feel about the fact that your life has been improved or possibly even saved due to the “research” of Unit 731?

Just how comfortable are you with letting the hurt go free in the name of research? Peace? Where is the line what is the criteria? Do we even want it defined?

[Burning Petard]

"War is evil. Maybe we should quit doing it."

Amen sister. There has always been a few with that conviction. Every now and then, based on the embarrassment by what war has accomplished, the majority of the ruling classs looks around and agrees. Nice things happen as a result. It is only temporary as the pain is forgotten with time and war becomes glamorous again. Comic book heroes are lauded and the genre of literature that includes "Johnny Got His Gun' is ignored.

snailgate

[BoSoxGal]

A good reminder to me that it’s time to watch the recent adaption of All Quiet on the Western Front.

[Crackpot]

Again is peace worth such a price? if so what cost Justice? Surely Even Donald Trump hasn't approached near the levels of horror discussed in the video, but, he should be held accountable when these others weren't? If so would you accept war as a consequence? If not does the human cost not matter?

At what point do you bend on principal?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meade how do you feel about the fact that your life has been improved or possibly even saved due to the “research” of Unit 731?

I feel nothing whatsoever. I'm not going to agonize over the last several thousand years of trial and error in developing medical practices and that includes up to 1948. Now if that were happening today and tomorrow, that's a vastly different thing. And if we find our own chaps and chapettes did those things in the 50s, 60s etc. then we should chastise them to the utmost (LSD experiments on unwitting black soldiers for example?).

Just how comfortable are you with letting the hurt go free in the name of research? Peace? Where is the line what is the criteria? Do we even want it defined?

Not sure what you mean by "letting the hurt go free". Did you mean "those who cause hurt""? I suppose it's similar to using Nazi rocket scientists to further a space program. Again, history. Can't be changed.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Again is peace worth such a price? if so what cost Justice? Surely Even Donald Trump hasn't approached near the levels of horror discussed in the video, but, he should be held accountable when these others weren't? If so would you accept war as a consequence? If not does the human cost not matter?

At what point do you bend on principal?

Again, you seem conflicted over the difference between historical past, acts which are over and done, and the present day criminal and/or moral actions which are ongoing and actionable. I'm certainly not going to rush out and vote for Trump because Hirohito didn't get topped. That's just silly. War on Trump sounds like a good idea though.

If OTOH you are thinking of (say) oppression of minorities in China (just to name one) and wondering if the USA should shoulder arms and teach them Manchus to be nice - then, no. I'm not for war as a consequence.

[Bicycle Bill]

Some people of all nations (AFAIK) have always been given to cruelty - whether actual or as perceived by another group. Was it an atrocity that Custer's privates (and I don't mean his troopers) were mutilated and gratuitously displayed in an act of pure evil (as viewed by white America) or was it a good thing to ensure that his future in the other world would be about as comfortable as he deserved (as viewed by his killers)?

My understanding is that Custer was one of the few victims at the Battle of Greasy Grass whose body was NOT scalped or otherwise mutilated.  At least that's what the Park Service personnel were telling us at the time our family visited the site in the late 1960s.

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

My understanding is that Custer was one of the few victims at the Battle of Greasy Grass whose body was NOT scalped or otherwise mutilated.  At least that's what the Park Service personnel were telling us at the time our family visited the site in the late 1960s.

You are not mistaken about the official story. That he was not scalped is generally agreed, some putting it down to his raggedy-ass haircut and baldness - no flowing locks on that campaign. But there is another version:

https://www.changesinlongitude.com/cust ... utilation/

"The Park Ranger recounted how the bodies of Custer and his men were mutilated, Custer having an arrow shoved into his private parts. From my readings I knew that this was a delicate way of saying that he had an arrow thrust into his penis. He also had two knitting needles pushed into his ears. Legend has it that this was done by Indian women because Custer had refused to listen"

"Sewing awls" would be more accurate than "knitting needles" but ya know . . . vernacular

Nathaniel Philbrick (The Last Stand, pub. 2011) suggests that the "no mutilation" story was generated to shield Libbie Custer's sensibilities and belief in the perfection of GAC. He gives both versions [Custer maven Jim Donovan follows the same line] but leaves no doubt that he credits the alternate reports, supported by General Edward S Godfrey who arrived with a burial party 3 days after the battle.

Many years later, Godfrey confided to a friend that [Custer} also had an arrow forced into his penis, a detail that was kept quiet to spare his widow

About the only certainty is that the bones recovered more than a year after the battle and now buried at West Point are extremely unlikely to have been Custer's - a mixed bag perhaps.

[BoSoxGal]

It would be exceedingly unlikely that he was not mutilated after falling in battle to plains Indians. The plains Indians are well known for engaging in torture of prisoners of war (and rape of women prisoners) and in ritualistically mutilating the bodies of the enemies they vanquished. It was not done to humiliate the victims so much as to alter their magic and prevent them from being a warrior in the next life.

It’s a complex cultural and spiritual thing and from the viewpoint of the Amerindians, did not constitute disrespect for the vanquished. It is important to understand this. Amerindians who engaged in these practices believed that enduring torture when captured in battle brought great esteem to a man, not humiliation. They fully expected to endure the same themselves if ever taken captive, and knew that their own bodies would be ritualized after falling in battle.

Obviously the European sensibilities were very different and of course the fantasy that Custer, a foe whose strong magic would demand ritualistic action to prevent his reemergence as an enemy in the afterlife, was not mutilated was entirely constructed by the United States government for the benefit of Mrs. Custer.

[Crackpot]

Hurt=guilty I don’t know it that was another casualty in my battle with autocorrect or if I had a mini stroke. Could go either way.

What I am getting at is we like to think we will always stand on our principles but history doesn’t quite bear that out. Also, looking at history you can say that not doing so worked out for us. (Even on a global scale).

Is the standard really “if it works out in the long run it’s ok?”

Does Mengele get hounded and persecuted while Ishi quietly retires simply due to the fact that his data was more controlled and useful to humanity at large even though Unit 731 was arguably more inhumane in their methods?

What good are principles if they can be discarded out of expedience?

At what point does expedience override principle? Who gets to make that call based on what criteria?

This cuts to the heart of relative vs. objective morality? If its objective principle can never be overridden if it’s subjective it must have a line somewhere. And when you run across situations like this where the ends seem to have justified the means do we even want to try to parse and define the blurred and crooked line in these justification?

Do we really even want to know what we are willing to justify out of expedience of achieving our goals?

[BoSoxGal]

Crackpot have you ever read Gore Vidal? I encourage you to check out his book “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to Be So Hated.” I think you would find it compelling.

[MajGenl.Meade]

What I am getting at is we like to think we will always stand on our principles but history doesn’t quite bear that out. Also, looking at history you can say that not doing so worked out for us. (Even on a global scale).

Is the standard really “if it works out in the long run it’s ok?”

I think the use of "we" here gives me a little difficulty. I like to think that I will always etc. But everyone else?

And the tense . . . history cannot bear out anything connected to my present principles and (hopeful) expectation. What's been done has been done. No amount of angst makes a hill-of-beans difference. The standard is not "if it works out". The fact is that it worked out - as far as we know. We have no idea of what may have transpired had different decisions been made.

Does Mengele get hounded and persecuted while Ishi quietly retires simply due to the fact that his data was more controlled and useful to humanity at large even though Unit 731 was arguably more inhumane in their methods?

Well one big difference is that Ishi wasn't being chased, hated and hounded by very vengeful Jews. Sadly (and wrongly) I expect that yellow people brutalizing other yellow people was not seen as anything far out of the ordinary for "those kinds".

What good are principles if they can be discarded out of expedience? At what point does expedience override principle? Who gets to make that call based on what criteria?

Well, that would be er . . . me, would it not?

This cuts to the heart of relative vs. objective morality? If its objective principle can never be overridden if it’s subjective it must have a line somewhere. And when you run across situations like this where the ends seem to have justified the means do we even want to try to parse and define the blurred and crooked line in these justification?

Do we really even want to know what we are willing to justify out of expedience of achieving our goals?

The moral thing is always moral, no matter how good one is at adhering to it. I discard relativism as junk. While sparing Ishi may have been one kind of moral decision, the use of his material (even if he'd been hung on day one) is another kind.

The latter is more interesting to me. It wasn't the tree that damned humanity but the fruit, after all.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Blast it! Not the fruit itself but the human choice to eat of the fruit . . . the human choice to use the results of the experiments. (Though what else could one do in the latter case? And therein is the dilemma for me)