Hiroshima, the pictures they didn't want us to see

skugga.jpg


I understand the "shadow", but what's up with the white lining?
 
Teh shokc!

Anyway, I've seen some of these before and some others that are even worse. Seriously, you can see the same kind of gruesome Hiroshima/Nagasaki images on Discovery weekly, it's not like they've been censored.
 
DirtyDreamDesigner said:
Seriously, you can see the same kind of gruesome Hiroshima/Nagasaki images on Discovery weekly, it's not like they've been censored.
Click to expand...

Theres some stuff written about the censoring and the breaking off it:

Once the American authorities took over, they censored all news reports from the bombed cities, and confiscated all the pictures, including those by Matsushige. Incredibly they failed to ask for the negatives, and the photographer hid them. Seven years later they were published by Life magazine, breaking the official ban and causing considerable controversy.
Click to expand...

A team from the Japanese Education Ministry went to Hiroshima and made a film a month after the bombing. This was seized by the occupying authorities, but one of the film crew made a copy and hid it. This was only rediscovered in Tokyo in 1993, and was made available on CNN in 1996.
Click to expand...
 
In an efficient society, people only need to know what is necessary for them to be productive citizens. All else is privileges that must be earned with service and loyalty. I know to some of you, that will sound like fascist bullshit, but a society is pointless if it just frivolously exists to characterise the evils and impotence of its composing element, people. It is good to consider consequences, but when involved in a total conflict, you must realise that for your own good, the collective must prosper. Individualism thrives in peace, or at least, should, but that peace must be bought with an effort of neighbors, sweating and bleeding to the beat of the drums of war in times of conflict. An realistic individual doesn't defeat entire armies on his or her own. People must cooperatively organise to field large armies, navies, air forces, etc..., to build weapons and tools to supply those large forces, to grow food to feed those large forces (not to mention, themselves). The last thing their hard-earned efforts need is to be vandalised by the grievances of their enemy(ies). We are all creatures of nature, we must function as a whole to accomplish as a whole. Censorship, though in most cases, I'd argue against it, can be a good method of protecting your own people from the evils that their blood, sweat, toil, and tears are doing to the world community for their own benefit. I'm not saying their evil actions are justified, just that if a society is to function properly, it needs to be motivated to continue to function. The purpose of said society might be seen as an evil one to me or you, but none-the-less, that society was formed to benefit themselves. Sure, these photos were censored even after American authorities took over, but they were trying to rebuild a destroyed nation into one that can be trusted to survive (to us, maybe, but the again, I'm not arguing the morals of one society placing importance of its will over that of others). Otherwise, there'd be no point in making the effort to care. We are, after all, looking out for number one, whether that be our individual selves, or the collective. You can't fight a war efficiently if all you do is sympathise with the enemy's losses. Don't wage war(s) if you're too weak to handle the catastrophe that follows. And especially, don't wage unnecessary wars, even if you possess the constitution to carry out that war to the dire end.

Now, I'm no fan of censorship. Information is a very important tool. But I can understand how one society will limit the freedoms of its own citizens to the better of the collective. Survival is a very common instinct.

Now, let's argue that if a society is exposed to the evils of their own war efforts, then that society will be smarter and more thoughtful of its neighbors. Well, that may be a valid point, in a black-and-white world. Misinformation and ignorance thrives on both censorship and freedom of information. Information, like most things, can be corrupted. A society that has an iron will one day, can be turned into a pacifist pussocracy the next by the freedoms it deemed necessary for existence. I mean, what's more important, sticking to the code of your society's original purpose (let's say in this case, absolute freedom of everything and everyone) and watching as that society crumbles under the might and will of a better organised society, who after plundering your world, corrupts all that it once stood for by propaganda and lies, or changing to fit and survive in a chaotic environment to defend that code, revived after said conflict and the reasons for its occurrence have passed?

Of course, like all things, there is a grey area here. Corrupt individuals, hungry for power, can take advantage of said moments to rule with unquestioned authority and absolution. But, like I said, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that censorship can be properly used to ensure that a society functions efficiently as to reduce collateral damage that can hinder the war and/or rebuilding effort. Such things should take precedence so as to be ended as soon as possible with as minimal damage as possible so said society can return back to the traditions and lifestyle it once focused on.

On my lighter side, however, I believe any weapon that can cause an amount of damage so severe, it can limit, or even prohibit any life to function properly world-wide (such as nuclear weapons), should be regarded as an enemy of humanity, even to the ones who produce those weapons. Wars cost lives, time, and money. Weapons like this, though immensely catastrophic, can shorten said war by destroying on a mass scale. However, enough use of nuclear weapons can make void any functioning life all over the world. So even though this weapon can be used as an easy-button-like tool to end wars quickly and destructively, it can severly back-fire. Then again, say a war, such as the one against Japan, were continued to the point of invasion. How many more lives would've been lost? How much more time would it have taken? How much more destruction would have been seen? Though, these things can't be said for certain, reasonable logic says the atom bombs saved not only the Americans lives and time, but also the Japanese. What if the Americans did invade instead of dropping Fat-Man and Little-Boy? Would we be arguing the merits of continuing the war without having used the bomb instead?

Anyways, nowadays, you can see those pictures in many a public place. Like I said, eventually, freedom of information will return if it once thrived in the first place.
 
Paladin Solo said:
In an efficient society, people only need to know what is necessary for them to be productive citizens. All else is privileges that must be earned with service and loyalty. I know to some of you, that will sound like fascist bullshit, but a society is pointless if it just frivolously exists to characterise the evils and impotence of its composing element, people. It is good to consider consequences, but when involved in a total conflict, you must realise that for your own good, the collective must prosper. Individualism thrives in peace, or at least, should, but that peace must be bought with an effort of neighbors, sweating and bleeding to the beat of the drums of war in times of conflict. An realistic individual doesn't defeat entire armies on his or her own. People must cooperatively organise to field large armies, navies, air forces, etc..., to build weapons and tools to supply those large forces, to grow food to feed those large forces (not to mention, themselves). The last thing their hard-earned efforts need is to be vandalised by the grievances of their enemy(ies). We are all creatures of nature, we must function as a whole to accomplish as a whole. Censorship, though in most cases, I'd argue against it, can be a good method of protecting your own people from the evils that their blood, sweat, toil, and tears are doing to the world community for their own benefit. I'm not saying their evil actions are justified, just that if a society is to function properly, it needs to be motivated to continue to function. The purpose of said society might be seen as an evil one to me or you, but none-the-less, that society was formed to benefit themselves. Sure, these photos were censored even after American authorities took over, but they were trying to rebuild a destroyed nation into one that can be trusted to survive (to us, maybe, but the again, I'm not arguing the morals of one society placing importance of its will over that of others). Otherwise, there'd be no point in making the effort to care. We are, after all, looking out for number one, whether that be our individual selves, or the collective. You can't fight a war efficiently if all you do is sympathise with the enemy's losses. Don't wage war(s) if you're too weak to handle the catastrophe that follows. And especially, don't wage unnecessary wars, even if you possess the constitution to carry out that war to the dire end.

Now, I'm no fan of censorship. Information is a very important tool. But I can understand how one society will limit the freedoms of its own citizens to the better of the collective. Survival is a very common instinct.

Now, let's argue that if a society is exposed to the evils of their own war efforts, then that society will be smarter and more thoughtful of its neighbors. Well, that may be a valid point, in a black-and-white world. Misinformation and ignorance thrives on both censorship and freedom of information. Information, like most things, can be corrupted. A society that has an iron will one day, can be turned into a pacifist pussocracy the next by the freedoms it deemed necessary for existence. I mean, what's more important, sticking to the code of your society's original purpose (let's say in this case, absolute freedom of everything and everyone) and watching as that society crumbles under the might and will of a better organised society, who after plundering your world, corrupts all that it once stood for by propaganda and lies, or changing to fit and survive in a chaotic environment to defend that code, revived after said conflict and the reasons for its occurrence have passed?

Of course, like all things, there is a grey area here. Corrupt individuals, hungry for power, can take advantage of said moments to rule with unquestioned authority and absolution. But, like I said, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that censorship can be properly used to ensure that a society functions efficiently as to reduce collateral damage that can hinder the war and/or rebuilding effort. Such things should take precedence so as to be ended as soon as possible with as minimal damage as possible so said society can return back to the traditions and lifestyle it once focused on.

On my lighter side, however, I believe any weapon that can cause an amount of damage so severe, it can limit, or even prohibit any life to function properly world-wide (such as nuclear weapons), should be regarded as an enemy of humanity, even to the ones who produce those weapons. Wars cost lives, time, and money. Weapons like this, though immensely catastrophic, can shorten said war by destroying on a mass scale. However, enough use of nuclear weapons can make void any functioning life all over the world. So even though this weapon can be used as an easy-button-like tool to end wars quickly and destructively, it can severly back-fire. Then again, say a war, such as the one against Japan, were continued to the point of invasion. How many more lives would've been lost? How much more time would it have taken? How much more destruction would have been seen? Though, these things can't be said for certain, reasonable logic says the atom bombs saved not only the Americans lives and time, but also the Japanese. What if the Americans did invade instead of dropping Fat-Man and Little-Boy? Would we be arguing the merits of continuing the war without having used the bomb instead?

Anyways, nowadays, you can see those pictures in many a public place. Like I said, eventually, freedom of information will return if it once thrived in the first place.
Click to expand...

Your points are theoretically sound, but so is Communism. The problem in both cases is the removal of the human element. Whilst your opinion may be the most logical conclusion, it will never be accepted because this is a world occupied by humanity and as humans we have this little thing called emotional bias. It sucks, but it's reality.
 
You think the Spartans had no emotions? You think the Romans were heartless? You think the Japanese felt nothing? You think the Soviets were just mindless machines? You think the North Vietnamese were all a bunch of suicidal maniacs with no love for heart or home? These human beings undoubtedly had emotions. They were, after all, humans.

Being human, I'm no stranger to emotion. However, what separates the strong from the weak is the ability to "override" those emotions. Necessity, though one of the strongest basic instincts, can be overlooked or even avoided by everyday individuals who are either forced into taking action, or see reason into doing it uncoerced. That is one of the basic fundamentals of courage, duty, and sacrifice.

Humans throughout history have "accepted" this "theory" into action and have done many great (and terrible) things. The attempt to justify such "theories" as "sound logical ideas" that have no viable means to work in our world because of human emotions is an excuse to not take action by those who are either afraid, lazy, or just unmoved. In fact, I'd say they are more emotionless than those who do take action, since they do it even with the knowledge of the possibility or likelihood of their own death, yet see greater purpose for the community as a whole.

And don't use collapsed governments as your basis to debunk this "theory." Governments of ALL kinds come and go.
 
What you need, my son, is a holiday in Sierra Leone.

Sue said:
that's what i was thinking, but why?
Click to expand...

Much for the same reason somebody put a "Center of explosion just behind this building" sign?
 
Paladin Solo said:
You think the Spartans had no emotions? You think the Romans were heartless? You think the Japanese felt nothing? You think the Soviets were just mindless machines? You think the North Vietnamese were all a bunch of suicidal maniacs with no love for heart or home? These human beings undoubtedly had emotions. They were, after all, humans.

Being human, I'm no stranger to emotion. However, what separates the strong from the weak is the ability to "override" those emotions. Necessity, though one of the strongest basic instincts, can be overlooked or even avoided by everyday individuals who are either forced into taking action, or see reason into doing it uncoerced. That is one of the basic fundamentals of courage, duty, and sacrifice.

Humans throughout history have "accepted" this "theory" into action and have done many great (and terrible) things. The attempt to justify such "theories" as "sound logical ideas" that have no viable means to work in our world because of human emotions is an excuse to not take action by those who are either afraid, lazy, or just unmoved. In fact, I'd say they are more emotionless than those who do take action, since they do it even with the knowledge of the possibility or likelihood of their own death, yet see greater purpose for the community as a whole.

And don't use collapsed governments as your basis to debunk this "theory." Governments of ALL kinds come and go.
Click to expand...

You missed the point. The point I was making is that as humans the general populace are always going to refute your beliefs because the vast majority (not all) of us actually give a shit about other people. There are obviously persons in the past who have taken barbaric actions for what they believed to be the greater good and I am sure these people all had the qualities of empathy and compassion to some degree, but the exception is not the rule. The greater portion of the populace would rather choose to embrace our empathetic side and as such your views are moot. In addition, you really should take Wooz's advice and take a trip to Sierra Leone. I would love to see if you had the 'strength' to maintain your black and white views in such a place.
 
Someone once said "Beware he who tries to limit your access to information, for in his heart he fancies himself your master."

I also understand the necessity of sometimes immediately censoring things durring wartime or other serious event, but no rational government should engage in routine censorship. At the time there may have been rational reasons not to release this information. Now it is free. I know someone who ordered video cassettes of atomic bomb tests, on pigs and (at longer range) people. Nobody was killed or seriously hurt, but some of the pigs had very bad things happen to them, including those that were in a particualr area were both scroched on the outside and had had their lungs pulled out by the pressure wave's disspation, but still lived (briefly, of course, but long enough to be found living!) So, now at least, there is no "they" who doesn't want us to see this. If anything "they" WANT us to see it -the power of nuclear war has always been a deterrent one moreso than a destructive one.

There is a certain fascination man has with atomic weaponry. It is just a bigger bomb wiht a bigger blast, really. The economy of its destructive force makes it such a great deterrent and equilzier. Some of the ways it kills and wounds are unique, but you're still just a dead or wounded as if by conventional ordnance. I'm certainly not saying this is uninteresting, but if you're looking for the penultimate in human cruelty, I'd look to the camps of Auschwitz first.
 
Silvercup said:
You missed the point.
Click to expand...

It's not hard to miss a point that has been reinstated in place of the one the person was originally talking about.

What I was saying is that censorship is useful, perhaps even necessary to keep your society motivated, organised, and to keep them doing what is necessary until the job is done. What you're arguing about is war and violence is not good, and people will not like it.

Well, no shit.

I'm not going to repeat myself, since the reason I wrote that long-ass post was so to be thourough on the topic at hand on my feelings on them. The dread that someone would come a long and avoid every goddamn word in it was the reason why I was so apprehensive about making a short and simple post stating "censorship is a viable means of keeping a population in check until the war is finished, and the reasons of that war are ensured to not happen again, at least, for a long time."

While your first reply was appropriate, your second is dancing around the original statements I made with a weak argument of "go to Sierra Leone." Such is why most ideas are wasted on people who when they cannot understand them, they try to get the other side to change their viewpoint with stupid statements like "you missed the point" when in reality, they don't even know what the point is.

Again, read what I posted one more time, and this time, don't try to comprehend it as a post supporting violence and bloodshed.

And on a final note,

The greater portion of the populace would rather choose to embrace our empathetic side and as such your views are moot.
Click to expand...

I gave you examples of how this above statement is "moot" and all you do is reply with "no you are."

My statements are FOR THOSE ALREADY AT WAR. Can you not read? I'm not arguing the merits of brainwashing a population into hate when there is no war being waged. I'm arguing that sometimes to effectively wage a war (already being fought) efforts must be taken to ensure your population remains on key and ever vigilant until the job is done, so unnecessary delays and damage are avoided. Now, if you can read, you'll also have read that I stated that this should be done so the course of the war is not circumnavigated by emotions of pity and grief for you own damn enemy. Hence, I basically said, "if you're too weak to continue a war until it is done, then don't go to fucking war."

Now, obviously, even organised societies fail. But at least they stand a better chance organised then do otherwise when facing overwhelming conflict like that of a world war.

This is why posting is wasted on most people. They're either too damn stupid to read and comprehend, or they just like to troll with repeated, invalid, off fucking topic arguments like "war bad, peace good." when I never said "war good, peace bad." but instead many times said "war bad, peace good."

I mean, if you need me to pick out ever single goddamn line in my posts and describe them so you can attempt to understand what is being said, I will. But you'll have to wait until I get off work.
 
Paladin Solo said:
Silvercup said:
You missed the point.
Click to expand...

It's not hard to miss a point that has been reinstated in place of the one the person was originally talking about.

What I was saying is that censorship is useful, perhaps even necessary to keep your society motivated, organised, and to keep them doing what is necessary until the job is done. What you're arguing about is war and violence is not good, and people will not like it.

Well, no shit.

I'm not going to repeat myself, since the reason I wrote that long-ass post was so to be thourough on the topic at hand on my feelings on them. The dread that someone would come a long and avoid every goddamn word in it was the reason why I was so apprehensive about making a short and simple post stating "censorship is a viable means of keeping a population in check until the war is finished, and the reasons of that war are ensured to not happen again, at least, for a long time."

While your first reply was appropriate, your second is dancing around the original statements I made with a weak argument of "go to Sierra Leone." Such is why most ideas are wasted on people who when they cannot understand them, they try to get the other side to change their viewpoint with stupid statements like "you missed the point" when in reality, they don't even know what the point is.

Again, read what I posted one more time, and this time, don't try to comprehend it as a post supporting violence and bloodshed.

And on a final note,

The greater portion of the populace would rather choose to embrace our empathetic side and as such your views are moot.
Click to expand...

I gave you examples of how this above statement is "moot" and all you do is reply with "no you are."

My statements are FOR THOSE ALREADY AT WAR. Can you not read? I'm not arguing the merits of brainwashing a population into hate when there is no war being waged. I'm arguing that sometimes to effectively wage a war (already being fought) efforts must be taken to ensure your population remains on key and ever vigilant until the job is done, so unnecessary delays and damage are avoided. Now, if you can read, you'll also have read that I stated that this should be done so the course of the war is not circumnavigated by emotions of pity and grief for you own damn enemy. Hence, I basically said, "if you're too weak to continue a war until it is done, then don't go to fucking war."

Now, obviously, even organised societies fail. But at least they stand a better chance organised then do otherwise when facing overwhelming conflict like that of a world war.

This is why posting is wasted on most people. They're either too damn stupid to read and comprehend, or they just like to troll with repeated, invalid, off fucking topic arguments like "war bad, peace good." when I never said "war good, peace bad." but instead many times said "war bad, peace good."

I mean, if you need me to pick out ever single goddamn line in my posts and describe them so you can attempt to understand what is being said, I will. But you'll have to wait until I get off work.
Click to expand...

Once again you have missed the point. Perhaps practicing some of the values you have just cited would be a good idea when posting again. I am not going along the lines of just 'war is bad' I am saying that the values you believe are relevant are not shared by the greater portion of human society and the 'examples' you presented are exceptions to a far greater majority. You have said that you believe that censorship, extreme acts of combat and other such acts may be neccesary in times such as these and I have said you may very well be right, but your logic continuously removes the fact that people are involved. Unfortunately you cannot seem to grasp this very basic ideal. Your original post was full of contradictions so if I have missed the point you made, it should be of no surprise as there really was no point. This most recent post fails to address any points itself leavng only your second post as a codec to understand your first post. Ironic that your shortest post is the one that made the most sense, probably due to the considerably less amount of bullshit contained within it.
 
Wait. You're saying the vast majority of recorded history is made up of people who care about each other and sympathize greatly with their fellow humans, and that conflict and general shit distribution via fans is the exception?

People are not naturally good my colonial friend. Some are, yes, but THEY are the exceptions not the other way around. I'm sure in your beautiful world of humanitarian empathy where the human factor is the key to peace on Earth and good will and all that jazz, it all just comes together beautifully.

But in the world the rest of us live in, we'll be busy trying to overcome the human factor (The natural ability to fuck things up) and maybe find a few years conflict free to enjoy ourselves. But I won't count on it.
 
The Commissar said:
Wait. You're saying the vast majority of recorded history is made up of people who care about each other and sympathize greatly with their fellow humans, and that conflict and general shit distribution via fans is the exception?

People are not naturally good my colonial friend. Some are, yes, but THEY are the exceptions not the other way around. I'm sure in your beautiful world of humanitarian empathy where the human factor is the key to peace on Earth and good will and all that jazz, it all just comes together beautifully.

But in the world the rest of us live in, we'll be busy trying to overcome the human factor (The natural ability to fuck things up) and maybe find a few years conflict free to enjoy ourselves. But I won't count on it.
Click to expand...

Recorded history is made up of the people who have had the greatest affect on the world and thus it is more prone to remembering the barbarians of humanity.
 
Recorded history is full of violence, warfare, collapse of great empires, the rise of destructive human capacity, but also full of things like medicine, art, music, etc... We're not a world of munchkin love 'tards, but we're not a world of warmongering trolls, either.

And you preach of bullshit and misguided viewpoints? Love is fine, but we're not a race of cheeky gentlemen who excercise the most kindest regards for their fellow man. So I'm wondering, are you now arguing that we are by nature violent (which in your previous statements, would make my "theory" viable) or are you just trying to flip-flop around?

Also, these "barbarians" you speak of solve plenty of issues that the "non-barbarians" create for them.

Anyways, individualism can thrive when a cooperative effort isn't needed. Organisation and the protection of that organisation is key in moments that threaten the mass individual collective, like that of a world war, or any war, really.

Once again you have missed the point.
Click to expand...

Once again, you don't know what the point is, and instead just make up a new one to try to give your argument a basis, however flimsy it is.

Perhaps practicing some of the values you have just cited would be a good idea when posting again.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you just shouldn't post misconstrued nonsense.

I am not going along the lines of just 'war is bad' I am saying that the values you believe are relevant are not shared by the greater portion of human society and the 'examples' you presented are exceptions to a far greater majority.
Click to expand...

Funny, "your idea of human society is wrong, mine is right! Eat it!" Good argument *not*.

You have said that you believe that censorship, extreme acts of combat and other such acts may be neccesary in times such as these and I have said you may very well be right, but your logic continuously removes the fact that people are involved.
Click to expand...

And your lack of logic continuously disregards human history.

Unfortunately you cannot seem to grasp this very basic ideal. Your original post was full of contradictions so if I have missed the point you made, it should be of no surprise as there really was no point.
Click to expand...

Or maybe you just failed at reading comprehension 101.

This most recent post fails to address any points itself leavng only your second post as a codec to understand your first post.
Click to expand...

See above.

Or, you could just continue to do what you have been doing and tell me more about what you *think* of human nature while you try to argue my point that organisation is the defining element that protects individuals like you and me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top