Live data from Hacker News

Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

medium.com

101–105 of 105 posts

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the knowing, willful firebombing of solely civilian targets ever justifiable, regardless of who brings the fire against whom? From TFA: “Is it the enemy’s or one of ours?” “What difference does it make? Stupid murderers.”

I'm extremely pro-peace, but in total war elimination of civilians is necessary to reduce production capacity.

Check out the conquests of Caesar and Alexander the Great.

They preferred settling among the local populace, including forced marriages/rape. It's harder to rebel when the invaders are your neighbours or even your fathers.

Cynically speaking, that's better than just evaporating innocents.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#102
post #93
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, if what other people believe is outlined in Mein Kampf, the attitude that you should work together with those people in spite of your differing ideals is quite wrong. We know this because of what happened in the Holocaust. Today, we have the luxury to judge this tree by its fruits. Even if someone else believes that the Holocaust was justice, there has to be some line of appeasement we won't cross,…

This is only true if you are the only one to follow that rule. Someone whose belief is outlined in Mein Kampf, but nonetheless follows the same rule, will seek other means than the historical of resolving his differences.

No, it's more a matter of the problem not being their ideals, but what they're willing to do in pursuit of those ideals. I mean, you can find plenty of commonality between Nazi ideals and plenty of other beliefs, but most of them aren't trying to carry out mass murder. And of the few groups that are trying to commit mass murder, like Isis, I think we all agree that they're terrible.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm extremely pro-peace, but in total war elimination of civilians is necessary to reduce production capacity.

Check out the conquests of Caesar and Alexander the Great. They preferred settling among the local populace, including forced marriages/rape. It's harder to rebel when the invaders are your neighbours or even your fathers. Cynically speaking, that's better than just evaporating innocents.

This is completely inane view.

1. The Japanese would not have capitulated until much more suffering would have taken place.

2. Negotiations with Russia were going on over the division of Germany and the atomic weapon blasts tempered Stalin's resolve that he had the more effective fighting force.

3. Innocents die in war. Whether from gas chambers or fire bombings or atomic bombs. If we want to stop this from happening then we need to reduce the frequency of war. Especially total war. Or do you really expect the US to send in it's bachelors to rape defenceless Japanese prisoners for decades? In the time of Alexander the great less than 3% of the population was used in fighting forces because manpower was required to keep up the food supply. It was a completely different era with a completely different set of circumstances that we don't even fully understand because we don't have the same level of records about it.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out the conquests of Caesar and Alexander the Great. They preferred settling among the local populace, including forced marriages/rape. It's harder to rebel when the invaders are your neighbours or even your fathers. Cynically speaking, that's better than just evaporating innocents.

This is completely inane view. 1. The Japanese would not have capitulated until much more suffering would have taken place. 2. Negotiations with Russia were going on over the division of Germany and the atomic weapon blasts tempered Stalin's resolve that he had the more effective fighting force. 3. Innocents die in war. Whether from gas chambers or fire bombings or atomic bombs. If we want to stop this from happening…

It was an answer to a ludicrous question... I certainly don't endorse the approach of Alexander the Great :)

Mainly, I feel the phrase "total war" is a hyperbolic, "binary" phrase that doesn't allow for meaningful, nuanced debate. That's all I was trying to counteract.

Your points are all correct, of course.

Re: Miyazaki's Beautiful Anti-War Dreams

#105
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Japanese civilians who are depicted in Fireflies bear no more responsibility for the actions of unit 731 or the rape of nanking than you do for LeMay's fire bombing of Japanese cities. If you can do nothing else, reject the lumping-together of a people into a collective 'they.' No matter what punishment Japanese war criminals deserve, we must also strive to protect civilians on all sides.

I disagree. In post 19th century war is there are no civilians. All excess labor capacity goes to the war effort. And wars are started by civilians, for the most part. Why should young men be the ones to feel all the pain?

I very much disagree that there are no civilians after the 19th century. Not all wars are total wars (the term used to describe WW1 and WW2). The American / Iraq war of 2003 had civilians on both sides.

I agree that all members of American and Japanese society share some level of responsibility for participating in total war, but I also think your "no civilians" statement goes too far. It is obvious that some members of a country have more direct effect on the war than others and that once you get far enough away (children are civilians, adults who do not work are civilians, workers who deliver mail are civilians, workers who make vehicle parts are probably civilians, workers who make tanks might be civilians, etc). To argue otherwise is to view war as some kind of 'original sin,' where the level of your contribution is immaterial and any association is sufficient to make one a combatant. If that's the case, then you and I and everyone alive today is certainly indicted in the many wars we are not working to stop. Even people working to stop one war are helping others to continue by not working to stop them. It's absurd.

Civilians do start wars and, in the modern era, they are often held to account for the wars they start. War crimes tribunals indict military and civilian personnel alike. I also agree that young men bear an unequal and unjust burden in war - but the suggestion you make is silly. The solution is not to extend that unequal burden by allowing more people to be killed, but instead to give young men more options to avoid being killed and killing others.

Post reply on HN