disturbing Japanese anime' (hiroshima 1945)

[vikingBerserker]

Some people can rationalize anything, regardless of reality.

 

[proton45]

Very well said Gary. I actually wrote to the mayor of Nagasaki over the anti-American slant in some of his speeches made about the subject and he was un-yielding in his feelings that the Japanese were totally victimized by US brutality. When presented with facts about the behavior of the Japanese military during WW2, his response was "we tend to remember history in the manner that suits our individual needs."

politicians tend to say whatever gets them elected...

 

[trackend]

This is a quote from my fathers war time experience " when we heard of the dropping of the Atomic bombs we all cheered as it meant we would be going home and we also new it saved huge losses that would have been endured had a ground offensive taken place. Its easy to be an outraged armchair historian 60 years after the event, when you have lost friends and seen the treatment the POWs etc recieved at the hands of the Japanese you may well have had a different view of things. There is nothing glorious about war, its butchery and the quicker its over the better.the bomb did just that"

 

[timshatz]

"we tend to remember history in the manner that suits our individual needs." QUOTE]

That's not quite accurate.

A historian with an creedence doesn't use selective memory. They can not. It is part of their job description to be accurate on such matters.

But, as noted by Proton, a politician will play to his base. All politics is local, and the politician in question was going for the lowest common denominator.

PS- Good job writing him Flyboy. Shows that people are paying attention.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"we tend to remember history in the manner that suits our individual needs." QUOTE]

That's not quite accurate.

A historian with an creedence doesn't use selective memory. They can not. It is part of their job description to be accurate on such matters.

But, as noted by Proton, a politician will play to his base. All politics is local, and the politician in question was going for the lowest common denominator.

PS- Good job writing him Flyboy. Shows that people are paying attention.

Thanks Tim - BTW just for the record, several years later this mayor was murdered by a mobster.

 

[timshatz]

Thanks Tim - BTW just for the record, several years later this mayor was murdered by a mobster.

Sounds like he was from Jersey. 8)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Sounds like he was from Jersey. 8)

 

[Clay_Allison]

You know, oddly enough, if we hadn't caused the last Tokugawa Shogun to lose face publicly by forcing open Japanese ports, the Meiji Restoration might never have happened and the Japanese Empire might never have modernized. WWII might have found Japan still an isolationist backwater controlled by samurai with swords.

 

[proton45]

You know, oddly enough, if we hadn't caused the last Tokugawa Shogun to lose face publicly by forcing open Japanese ports, the Meiji Restoration might never have happened and the Japanese Empire might never have modernized. WWII might have found Japan still an isolationist backwater controlled by samurai with swords.

This is the view most frequently given by the more conservative branches of Japanese society. They claim that Japan just wanted t be left alone and that the American's + international pressures caused Japan to militarize quickly. After Admiral Perry showed up with his guns and forced japan to open her ports, Japan felt very vulnerable was afraid that they would end up like China (pulled apart by international concerns). Most conservatives feet that this was the bedrock that actually led to the "showdown" between Japan the USA...

 

[GaryMcL]

The story is the childlike recollections of a real person...how do you expect a child to see things?

FYI, the author of the Manga , Keiji Nakazawa, that this cartoon is based on was extremely critical of the militarization of Japan. Here is a quote from an interview:

"NAKAZAWA: Well, I spent a lot of time thinking about why it happened. And if you think it through, the answer clearly lies with the militarists and the imperial system. And as a young kid, of course, I'd heard my father criticizing them too."

This was his response to a question about WHY THE BOMB WAS DROPPED...

What bothers me is that people watch a little 5 minute clip of a full length movie and they think they know the whole story...I think its dangerous thinking to lump all people into "fixed" categorizes (or nationality's). Some people watch a little Japanese film clip and they immediately assume its expressing anti-American feelings...The world is a complicated place and experiences are never black and white. From the point of view of a little kid the bombing must have seemed a scary and horrible experience, but the author makes it clear who is to blame.

America may have wielded the hammer that struck the blow but the die was cast by Japan's own military complex...

Good information to have as it speaks to Mr. Nakazawa's consideration of historical context. But it is information that a viewer of the clip as a stand-alone does not have.

If the original writing clearly articulated his position then I'd ascribe no anti-American agenda to Mr. Nakazawa in the original writing and would actually applaud his recognition of the reality. Similarly, if the anime was faithful to the original (which does't often happen in Hollywood when a writing is adapted to film) and also clearly articulated his message I'd also have no major issue with the movie as a whole as having an agenda. The stylized depiction of U.S. airman, particularly in the context of a child's vision, would be typical of anime in general.

However, the entire movie was not presented, nor was the background or overall message of the original. Five minutes was chosen for posting and thereby taken out of the context of the entirety. The question must then be asked why was this particular five minutes chosen, which depicted the actual bombing, as opposed to five minutes from later in the movie that would still depict the horror of the aftermath, assuming that depiction was the intent of the posting? Why choose a clip that can be viewed as slamming the U.S. by its depiction of the U.S. airmen contained within it with no reference to who's eyes it is being seen? I suspect that it was chosen precisely because of the light in which it would be viewed and would thereby create a big anti-American buzz on YouTube. Many on YouTube will take any opportunity, in or out of context, to post something anti-American whether related to WWII or present times and just as many are more than happy to join in on the slamming.

I don't believe that the anti-American feel to the clip is the result of any preconceived assumption by anyone here who viewed it. It was simply a reaction to the content of the clip as presented. There can be no reasonable expectation that a clip will be considered in the context of the whole if that context is not presented with the clip. This clip as presented as a stand-alone and does nothing to "make it clear who is to blame". How else, then, could it be expected to be viewed and reacted to except on its own? Had context been presented I believe there would have been a completely different reaction here.

 

[Clay_Allison]

This is the view most frequently given by the more conservative branches of Japanese society. They claim that Japan just wanted t be left alone and that the American's + international pressures caused Japan to militarize quickly. After Admiral Perry showed up with his guns and forced japan to open her ports, Japan felt very vulnerable was afraid that they would end up like China (pulled apart by international concerns). Most conservatives feet that this was the bedrock that actually led to the "showdown" between Japan the USA...

There was a small, wealthy, maniacal element in Japanese society who had extreme nationalist and imperialist agendas and who seized the opportunity to create a fascist government and a ruthless and sadistic military. The Japanese weren't forced to become Imperial Japan any more than the French and British forced the German people to accept the Nazis. The power vacuum created by losses those countries suffered allowed people like Nazis, Fascists and Imperialists to come to power, but the people bear some responsibility for allowing it to happen and supporting it.

 

[proton45]

There was a small, wealthy, maniacal element in Japanese society who had extreme nationalist and imperialist agendas and who seized the opportunity to create a fascist government and a ruthless and sadistic military. The Japanese weren't forced to become Imperial Japan any more than the French and British forced the German people to accept the Nazis. The power vacuum created by losses those countries suffered allowed people like Nazis, Fascists and Imperialists to come to power, but the people bear some responsibility for allowing it to happen and supporting it.

Well, your right of course...no one was making the Japanese people adapt a militarized government (did they really have a choice?). But I would say that the American government supplied the excuse and the context to push the agenda. Think about it for a minute...The United States only cared about its own agenda when they delivered their ultimatum to japan..."Open your ports to us or we will return with more guns and bigger boats". Any Government that was faced with this ultimatum would ultimately choose to strengthen their own military...The message of international diplomacy that was being delivered to Japan at this time was "might makes right".

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well, your right of course...no one was making the Japanese people adapt a militarized government (did they really have a choice?). But I would say that the American government supplied the excuse and the context to push the agenda. Think about it for a minute...The United States only cared about its own agenda when they delivered their ultimatum to japan..."Open your ports to us or we will return with more guns and bigger boats". Any Government that was faced with this ultimatum would ultimately choose to strengthen their own military...The message of international diplomacy that was being delivered to Japan at this time was "might makes right".

All that happened in the 1850s. I think by the 1930s things changed just a little....

 

[Clay_Allison]

Well, your right of course...no one was making the Japanese people adapt a militarized government (did they really have a choice?). But I would say that the American government supplied the excuse and the context to push the agenda. Think about it for a minute...The United States only cared about its own agenda when they delivered their ultimatum to japan..."Open your ports to us or we will return with more guns and bigger boats". Any Government that was faced with this ultimatum would ultimately choose to strengthen their own military...The message of international diplomacy that was being delivered to Japan at this time was "might makes right".

There is a difference between strengthening ones military (the way we did when extorted by Barbary Coast Pirates under Thomas Jefferson) and putting rape and genocide on the agenda as standard operating procedure. I'd fully support them consolidating their power and building a Navy etc. It's when they decide to start conquering all of Asia and committing unspeakable atrocities that I draw the line.

 

[Ferdinand Foch]

All that happened in the 1850s. I think by the 1930s things changed just a little....

True Flyboy. By the 1930's, I think that people's rights became more of an issue for the western world than they did during the 19th century. I mean, Japan was kinda like a 19th Century power in the 20th Century world, trying to catch up with the rest of the world (least politically).
Anybody who wants to read about this kind of thinking should check out Winston Groom's 1942. It was a great book, couldn't put it down.

 

[ppopsie]

..... the behavior of the Japanese military during WW2,

No. Its people, from top through bottom, between 1935 and August 1945. I am horrified to learn that. Am now to find out why that happened.

 

[proton45]

True Flyboy. By the 1930's, I think that people's rights became more of an issue for the western world than they did during the 19th century. I mean, Japan was kinda like a 19th Century power in the 20th Century world, trying to catch up with the rest of the world (least politically).
Anybody who wants to read about this kind of thinking should check out Winston Groom's 1942. It was a great book, couldn't put it down.

America pretty much lost its appetite for war and such after WW1... it wasn't so much a concern for human rights (or equal rights) as it was a distaste for warfare and the things that happen during "all out war". Just look at the things that where happening and accepted in the USA (lynchings and burnings) in the 1930's.

Japan never participated in WW1, and they never experienced the horror (and logistics) of "all out trench warfare)...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

America pretty much lost its appetite for war and such after WW1... it wasn't so much a concern for human rights (or equal rights) as it was a distaste for warfare and the things that happen during "all out war". Just look at the things that where happening and accepted in the USA (lynchings and burnings) in the 1930's.

Japan never participated in WW1, and they never experienced the horror (and logistics) of "all out trench warfare)...

Although Japan did not participate in Europe and see the horrors of trench warfare, they did participate in the First World War.

Japan during World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[GrauGeist]

...Just look at the things that where happening and accepted in the USA (lynchings and burnings) in the 1930's.

That was far from being accepted. It was an issue that permeated throughout the south for the most part, and while it was a despicable part of America's past, it wasn't even close to the scale of the slaughter on the European battlefields.

Japan never participated in WW1, and they never experienced the horror (and logistics) of "all out trench warfare)...

Joe already commented on the WWI part, and I might add that warfare between the nations of the Orient have been historically brutal, and in many cases, moreso than European wars.

 

[proton45]

That was far from being accepted. It was an issue that permeated throughout the south for the most part, and while it was a despicable part of America's past, it wasn't even close to the scale of the slaughter on the European battlefields.

Joe already commented on the WWI part, and I might add that warfare between the nations of the Orient have been historically brutal, and in many cases, moreso than European wars.

So your saying the violence against African Americans in the USA was not as bad as what happened in China(?)... your not African American are you? Violence and brutality of that nature is unacceptable on any scale. Their are some estimates that claim that between 5000 and 8000 American Blacks where lynched in America between the years of 1880 and the 1930's (the years that some claim a rise in "Human Rights"), most of these where in the "south" but not all. I'm not sure why its so important to separate the notion of the "south" from the rest of the USA, but I guess it helps Americans feel better about the truth.

FYI; their are people in Japan who claim the violence in China was unacceptable at the time (people who where alive in the 1930's)...


Rape and pillage happened in WW1 and in European WW2...and easy example would be the Russians against Germany. But Americans where known for looting Europe of "souvenirs"...