The movie The Fog of War was powerful and informative. I think some of Errol Morris’ conclusions were interesting and gave a different perspective on “the facts.” He starts by saying that “there is no learning with a nuclear war.” I believe history is taught so that we can see the mistakes that were made and ultimately, as rational people, learn from them. His concept about empathizing with the enemy is probably better seen as “understanding” or “predicting” the enemy’s next move. I believe empathy and war are complete opposites, there is no empathy in war or else there would be no war. No one ever wins in a war, victory is a term used to declare or justify some sort of notion of achievement. I think Morris’s “empathy” can be reflected as trying to interpret the “perspective” of the opponent. His example of Thompson using empathy to predict Krushov’s move would be a correct interpretation of perspective rather than “empathy.” This depicts that perspective is different between cultures, situations, and most importantly “individuals.” Every person has their own ‘perspective’ which determines how they interpret situations and act upon them. How we see things ultimately affects what we do about them. History and life are examples of this.
“Luck prevented nuclear war,” is a very irresponsible statement. Was it lucky that so many innocent Japanese civilians died? Would they consider themselves lucky? I believe the situation, and the various perspectives, and their resulting actions prevented nuclear war.
The portrayal of Japanese cities being destroyed, in comparison to US cities, was a great example of proportionality. Morris’ definition of proportionality would differ from this visual example. He believes that war should be proportional, however, isn’t war about ego and a sense of power over an opponent? Isn’t the theme of war, in some way, to inflict pain to the enemy so they surrender completely? In this case, how can we integrate proportionality into war?
One of the most striking thoughts that Morris revealed was, “we would be war criminals had we lost.” In this statement, I feel, he is accepting his mistakes. However, just because we were “lucky” to emerge victorious does that mean that our “moral” responsibilities are forgone?
Finally, “history will vindicate them” would be a statement suggested by the weak. I feel, this equivalent to passing the buck. It explicitly seems that, since we don’t have reasons for our action we hope history or the future generations will find some.
I thought Morris’ movie was a reflection of his thoughts and important facts of the cold war. It gave a deep and interesting insight into the politics and people involved. Furthermore, it portrayed Morris’ perspectives on a personal level. I don’t think Morris feels guilty, nor is this a study of events, it’s a personal narration of aspects that were important to Morris.
A similar ‘cold war’ was also in place a few years ago. India and Pakistan have been enemies since the partition of Pakistan from India; and the differences between the two countries are marked by religious beliefs and both their claims to Kashmir. A few years ago India “showed off” their nuclear capacity. Pakistan retaliated a year later “showing off” that they had nuclear weapons as well. There was an increasing strain in the region call Kashmir, and people and the media were speaking of “nuclear war and destruction.” Many speculated who would launch the first “nuke,” and who would be destroyed, and to what extent. It is interesting to see how in small ways, history continuously repeats itself. Have we learned from our mistakes is the larger question.
