Paul Tibbets, the man responsible for the 80,000 deaths in Hiroshima, died November 1.
He never expressed any regret for his actions.
He decided in life not to be buried due to fears of protesters defiling his grave.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,,2203557,00.html#article_continue
This man was a bigot, if not a murderer.
The public opinion and perception on racial differences was dramatically different during his time period.
He ended the war much earlier than it would have ended otherwise(as you hopefully know, the Japanese didn't surrender until after the second bomb) .
This man was following orders.
This man has expressed no regret for the countless lives he took.
This man couldn't have a grave for fear of the destruction protesters might cause it.
It was his decision.
His views and actions might be partially explained by these excerpts from an article about military psychology:
"a lifetime of learning about the rules of society and morality must be suppressed in the interests of survival. Military psychologists must help soldiers act effectively in combat-and suffer a minimum of emotional fallout afterward."
"Modern treatment for ["combat stress reaction (CSR)-a progressive psychological breakdown in response to combat-was a matter of psychological 'weakness.'"]stresses short-term desensitizing therapy and a quick return to combat. While this may seem harsh and self-serving on the part of the military, wartime studies indicate that soldiers with CSR who are treated in this fashion are less likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder than those pulled to rear-echelon units for treatment."
"Adherents believe that increasingly realistic weapons training conditions soldiers to kill reflexively-a desired outcome for the military"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0005/ai_2699000551
Were his views simply the views ingrained in the American public by the government's propaganda?
Should he be commemorated as a hero for ending the war, or as a murderer for piloting the plane that dropped the bombs?
Do popular views fluctuate too easily? (i.e. Hero to killer) Should he be remembered for his actions as they were originally interpreted?
Does the government have the right to manipulate Americans' racial views with propaganda?
Are military methods ethical? Are they necessary?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think he is neither a hero nor a ruthless killer. True, he never specifically expressed regret for his actions, but at the same time he wasn't pleased that he killed so many people: "'I'm not proud that I killed 80,000 people, but I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it and have it work as perfectly as it did," he said in a 1975 interview." (from the first link). During war, I think that soldiers develop a mentality where killing is a job, a means of survival. If any of you have watched Ken Burns' "The War", you'll notice that the former soldiers who were interviewed stress that while their initial reaction to killing was one of repulsion, the constant training and fighting distorted their view of the Japanese. In essence, war/propaganda/training dehumanizes your opponent, and thus, killing is no longer percieved as a monstrous act.
He is a hero for ending the war. I'm sure the japanese would have done the same to us in order to win. In a war like WWII, you do what you have to to win, and he saved countless lives (on both sides) by preventing an invasion of Japan.
Obviously killing thousands of people is not a good thing, but that's what happens in war. It's a shame that so many civilians died but it was what we had to do to win and protect our people.
Post a Comment