From Burma to Nagasaki: the man who walked through hell
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Remarkable wisdom in this quote.
“Until now, I regret it,” Bras says. “I often think of it.”"
This is also very profound, it's usually things we haven't done which come haunting us through the years.
And how he responded to all of this -- became a doctor, spent the rest of his life trying to minimize suffering in the world. And still believes dropping the bomb was right.
MAD has worked pretty well so far. It seems almost certain that there would have been a massive third World War by now if nuclear weapons hadn't been invented. But that doesn't mean it can't ever happen, especially since MAD is a lot harder to work with in a multi-polar world (there are currently nine countries with nuclear weapons).
https://medium.com/bull-market/violent-warfare-is-on-the-wan...
This goes against the folk-wisdom and fear-mongering present in a lot of popular culture, but it isn't true.
In the developed world fertility rates are below unity. Oil, at it's recent peak was competitive with solar. Resources aren't going to run out, the prices are just going to change – some resources will have to be more aggressively recycled, others will have to be replaced. Billionaires are thinking about asteroid mining. Nobody in the developed world is going to start wars over shortages.
There's a huge amount of arable land which is either unused or grown with only the most primitive techniques. Modern agriculture requires a fairly advanced economy, but it is orders of magnitude more productive.
"Resources are scarce" is a very believable lie, and it's easy to misuse statistics to prove it's true.
Remember "peak oil"? It wasn't true before and now nobody really cares that much.
The best car in the world is American and electric. In a few years they'll be selling one suitable for the middle class. We don't _need_ oil for energy, but we're going to use it until the economies of developing technology overtake the increasingly more costly fossil fuels.
In a generation or two people will stop fearing nuclear, and fusion will become economically viable.
we are no different than then, sure we think nowadays technology seems able to change everything, but before it was the same. Humans have always been innovating and increasing efficiency, yet they have always been fighting.
Modern resource worries would only be made worse through armed conflict over those resources, for basically all parties.
"Most people in both politics and general society think that we need to innovate our way out of the sustainability problems that we're having. What we forget in saying this is that we innovated our way into this problem in the first place."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0101mkOuGE
Transcript/discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3efobv/sander_...
... and then you wake up.
Note this is explicitly excluding people living in or watering the desert (or situations where this is an apt metaphor).
The Iraqi body count project concluded 174,000 Iraqis died due to the conflict (both the invasion and civil war), between 2003 and 2013 (with between 112,000 and 123,000 being civilians).
The Associated Press reached a similar number, based on the Iraqi Health Ministry.
The reports claiming upwards of a million died aren't even remotely credible, and were all based on extremely small household surveys.
The Iraq Body Count project only counted cases in which individuals killed were specifically recorded in the media. By their own admission this was intended as a lower bound estimation and likely to exclude a large proportion of deaths.
The only scientific peer-reviewed studies ought to be more accurate and estimate much higher numbers of deaths.
Deterrence is a good thing indeed, as long as one has nukes...
But is the world really better today?
> a WW2-scale war is essentially impossible,
I don't think so. Mankind never learns. It's just a matter of time before we go back to 'savage' mode on a global scale. it's very easy for governments dehumanize people, and propaganda has never been as powerful as today. Once the 'ennemy' is reduced to something less than human, it's easier to make others torture,enslave or kill him. 1,1000 or 10 millions it doesn't matter.
Historically death from war is the result of a very small percentage of the global population acting violently. It is not the result of a majority of people acting violently.
Simple proof: what percentage of the world population belonged to the side of the aggressors in WW1 or WW2?
You can apply the same premise to any historical scenario. What percentage of Cambodians were involved in the massacres committed by Pol Pot's regime? What percentage of North Koreans are involved in violently repressing their fellow North Koreans? The general answer is obvious: most North Koreans are peaceful, most Cambodians were peaceful, rather than savages.
Yes, the world is getting drastically better.
Living standards are much higher and continue to climb. Child / infant mortality is drastically lower. Our ability to treat, cure, or wipe out diseases is far beyond anything from 50 years ago. Large scale starvation is becoming extremely rare.
War between leading nations hasn't occurred in 70 years, a record likely unmatched in recorded history.
I wish I believed this but I'm convinced that most people are peaceful or at least non-violent because they have no other option. They do not ever find themselves in a position where they have the power to inflict violence and death on others for personal gain without risk of punishment.
I'm convinced that most people, given the right set of circumstances are capable of the most heinous acts of violence and the only thing stopping them is the power and resources to do so.
I feel like truly 'good' people are the exception, not the general rule.
Another factor is that the age of commercial airliners and the global transport systems has made efficient global migration & trade a reality for decades now. What citizens would accept attacking their brothers and sisters in another country, attacking their trading partners with whom they make their livings? Perhaps this is now the quintessential limiting factor in making war.
Um, combined with societies becoming more sex-positive, we are edging closer to realizing the mantra Make Love, Not War!
The bitter truth that Russians have to deal with is that most of the population is so susceptible to being brainwashed, they will gladly turn on their brothers and sisters after a few years of watching state-controlled media.
You might want to take a look at the data of import / exports for countries in Europe before WWII. Being someone biggest trading partner didn't stop anyone's attacks.
However, to keep things in perspective I have highlight 3 recent wars/genocides:
1. The Great African War/the African World War (1998-2003): 5.4M deaths (some estimates as high as 20M); 2. Bosnian Genocide (1992-1995): 100,000 deaths; 3. Darfur Genocide (2003-ongoing?): 500,000 deaths and counting, 3 million displaced.
While my examples are no where near the scale of WW2, perhaps hidden in there is a much larger human tragedy. Namely how few people are familiar with the existence of these 3 modern events that took the lives of 6M people in the last 20 years.
Basically there is a place in the world that is consistently behind the rest - sub saharan Africa - where all your examples, other than the one in Bosnia, came from.
And Bosnia is arguably a very important exception, at least I don't recall any other genocides in the developed world since 1950.
If like you say "essentially everybody" has heard of these wars/genocides, then I stand corrected the great human tragedy is not that we are ignorant of what is happening in the world but apparently that we should only concern ourselves with deaths/wars/genocides in the "developed world".
Edit: > I don't recall any other genocides in the developed world since 1950.
How about the ingeniousness populations in Brazil, 2 of which I am aware are on the brink of extinction in the last 30 years. Yet, despite being a world top 10 economy, you/some may say Brazil is not part of the developed world, or highlight these genocides are not driven by war so much as "progress"; therefore, you may not consider these genocides.
I noted that he still (understandably) doesn't forgive the Japanese, but that could be entirely separate from the decision to use atomic weapons against civilians.
Could you shed some light on what you're referring to?
I agree with this.
> The forced reinterpretation of the Constitution.
I agree that this bothers me slightly, but concede that the Japanese government can and should be able to openly modify the constitution. Article 9 isn't and shouldn't be an absolute commandment (assuming that's what you're talking about).
> Unreasonable hatred towards neighboring countries (China and Korea in particular).
Outside of extremist groups, I haven't really seen this at all. It might be more accurate to say that the government, rather than the citizens, are drumming up an opposition to push things through politically.
If anything, it seems like more people from neighboring countries carry a grudge against Japan than vice versa -- without getting into a talk about whether it's justified or should be forgotten by now etc.
> worst of all, we aren't taught anything about these Japanese atrocities at school.
This may vary depending on your curriculum and your age, especially if you're in the ゆとり教育世代. [Edit to add: Just like American adults don't really go around talking about American atrocities in daily life, Japanese people don't do that either, in my experience. But when we have had occasions to talk about that kind of thing (say, discussions about recent history, politics, Korea, or China), people have seemed to be generally knowledgeable.] I was teaching and watching classes up til a few years ago and did hear some things about the atrocities in junior high and know that most people heard more in high school, which makes sense as part of age-appropriate curriculum creation to me.
I don't think Japan is anywhere near taking a step toward the Imperial Japan in the article. Vocal and consistent opposition to attempts to get around Article 9 and that people are trying to encourage Chinese tourism in fact make me believe the opposite; Japan is (very) slowly trying to move toward a more open and global state.
For those not familiar with Japanese educational policy:
This bit is probably the hardest part. I have spoken to many people here in Japan who downplay, or justify, or say it is so long ago, or say that Japan has forgiven America, so naturally Korea and China must forgive Japan. "We've apologised, what more do they want? They are all crazy." ad infinitum. Or simply people that deny anything happened or think that I must hate Japan to even mention things like this.
Then you have politicians stirring things up and denying it etc.
What I think anyone really wants is simple plain humble acceptance of what happened. It seems the apology carries so much weight in Japan that that should just be the end of it, and everything should be forgotten.
Except that seems to be a purely uniquely Japanese way of looking at the world, and doesn't really translate to other cultures. Germany and the US don't sweep under the carpet the Atom bomb or the concentration camps, and likewise Japanese people should be taught about Nanking, the POWs, Unit 731 etc.
Just so that the average Japanese citizen doesn't come across on the world stage as wilfully ignorant or incredibly crass and insensitive. Ideally it could lead to more than this and improved relations in the area, but at the very least it would be wonderful for Japanese people to not unintentionally be saying really hurtful things to still living victims of these events.
I really wish they would teach that stuff in incredible detail. _Then_ maybe not talk about it, or sweep it under the carpet or whatever.
This national pride combined with ignorance is such a toxic combination.
Edit:
Just to add to this. What I think is particularly tragic, is how specifically considerate and compassionate the average Japanese person is. It is terrible that on average, such compassionate, considerate people can end up seeming so wilfully ignorant or even hateful. When I don't believe this to be the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements...
Also, the vast majority of Japanese school books do cover the war in unflinching detail; however, unlike China and South Korea, Japan approves a whole range of school books, which have widely varying views. There are Communist textbooks, pro-North Korean textbooks and, yes, far-right textbooks. One particular series, which led to riots and violence in 2005, ended up being used by 0.039% of Japan's schools:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_cont...
The reason the issue lives on is in very large part because, for political reasons, China and South Korea refuse to let it die. This doesn't excuse the occasional Japanese right-wing nutjob denying anything happened etc, but then again, we don't blame Germany when some random neo-Nazi targets a synagogue.
I've yet to meet anyone that has studied in depth at school or remembers it. Most people if they remember or know about it at all, say they studied the "Nanking controversy" as a brief paragraph on one page.
In general people's responses are more of the downplaying or sweeping under the carpet type. I think this plays into worsening the relationship. No quiet contemplation, acceptance of what happened or pause for thought in general.
I've met the son of the rape of a Korean comfort woman forcibly brought to Japan, he grew up as Zainichi in Japan. He's lived a life as an outsider and has to hear people suggest that these things didn't happen. As if he shouldn't exist. So then instead he hears mention of financial reparations and lists of apologies. Which don't really count for much when it sounds like "I said sorry, why do you still care about this issue?"
I just wish people here were more compassionate.
Some things are just inappropriate to say, it's about sensitivity.
In general there's not really a time limit on at what point it is appropriate to start expecting Jewish people to forget about concentration camps. And in the same way I think that there should some reasonable level of education about the events here. Just so that people know about it and know when not to say hurtful things.
It's something that should be taught and remembered and learned from. And whilst it's also not appropriate to continually labour the point, I also don't think it's at all appropriate that the average Japanese person really knows little to nothing about what happened, to the extent of denying it in some cases. You don't really hear many justifications or downplaying of nazism from average German citizens, but you really do hear downplaying of it all here.
There are so many people in Japan absolutely incredulous that anyone in China or Korea should possibly still have any kind of problem with the war, whilst not being aware of the things that happened.
I cannot imagine hearing anyone from Germany say without ill intent that they still don't understand why the events of the war are such a big issue for people that actually experienced it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Cons...
Article 9 in Japan's Constitution, added after WWII, essentially forbids Japan to maintain armed forces for the purpose of waging war.
In practice Japan does some armed forces, called Self-Defence Forces, but they're for self-defence only. For example, they cannot join US forces for combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, as other US allies do.
Recently, the Japanese government has been pushing for a change in the laws (or in the interpretation thereof) so that Japan can help its allies under the guise of "collective self-defense".