They did the right thing. In fact they should have never allowed that woman to steal their rice and left then and there

They did the right thing. In fact they should have never allowed that woman to steal their rice and left then and there.

Other urls found in this thread:

dartmouth.edu/~quarterly/vol1/an-investigation-into-the-nature-of-nutrition-in-post-war-occupied-japan.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Starvation
ww2days.com/japan-targeted-for-starvation-2.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_front_during_World_War_II#Food
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Seita was a pretty stupid kid and got his sister killed because he couldn't swallow his pride and stay with his aunt

She wouldn't even let him swallow his own food. She was going to kill them.

nah they would have both survived the war if they stayed with her

A bought a tin of that exact brand of candy, they still make it. Pretty good, actually.

No, they clearly would not have. you can't survive on porridge, she was stealing from them and purposely depriving them of a decent meal and stealing their rice because she was cruel.

she was still feeding them and it is unlikely she would malnutrition them to death

Except that is clearly what was being implied and why he left. He saw that shit coming a mile away. Porridge everyday, a slow death not unlike the one he suffered anyways. She was only getting worse the longer they stayed with them, you really think she would have suddenly had a heart and feed these damn kids? Hell no. They were able to feed themselves, she got bitchy when they brought a stove into their house and started coking their own meals for absolutely no reason other than to be a bitch. She was vindictive and out to destroy them. It was clear what was going to happen and if this flew over your head I am sorry but rewatch the movie. She was abusing them verbally and purposely depriving them of a good meal. She wasn't going to get any better.

>In fact they should have never allowed that woman to steal their rice
better yet, he shoulda pulled a Nevada-tan, and taken anything and everything of value in that house.

It's based on a book, which is an autobiography written by the boy. The entire point of the story is how his pride ended up killing his sister.

I agree to be honest. Fuck that family. Is it so hard to house a couple of children, especially when they are contributing with whatever they have? Should have at least stolen their toh of rice back from the bitch.

I'd be pretty bitchy too if some brats brought a stove into my house

That doesn't mean he was wrong. Better to die on your feet than struggle on your knees and die anyways.

Why? It took up less than a square feet of space and they were able to feed themselves independently which is what she bitched about in the first place.

killing himself is his own choice, getting his sister killed is irresponsible

He certainly seems to think they both would have lived had they stayed with his aunt.

She was going to die anyways. Like I said, this woman wasn't even feeding them properly, she was stealing from them, she was killing them dude. She were complaining about hunger even when living with her, why? She wouldn't let them eat. When they bought a means to feed themselves without her needing to cook for them she got even worse. His sister at least went out with a loving brother and didn't have to put up with that bitch.

obviously wishful thinking on his behalf. If she was anything like she was depicted they were going to die of malnutrition anyways only they wouldn't be able to keep the food he was buying so it would have probably been faster because he wouldn't have the protein from the bullfrogs to keep them going.

*they were complaining

Why didn't he just get a jerb? Like his cousin?

you sound demented, get help

the whole country was starving by the end of WW2, yes the aunt took their rice and was mean to them but it is unlikely she would let two children die in her care

The aunt took the rice from children in a time were people are starving. wew. She didn't need their rice, she was fine without their food and was fine when they left. THEY(the children) needed the rice. She was killing them. They were better off stealing and catching wild game then waiting for this monster to be charitable to them with the shit that was their in the first place.

As part of the household, any fruits of labour go to the head of the household, who then distributes it as deemed necessary.

they died when they left, so you are objectively wrong

btw if people were living in my house I'd expect them to share the food they buy with me and the rest of the household, especially if they aren't paying rent and we are living on rations

Shes stealing from children, she didn't give them their fair share at all and was purposely depriving them of a fair share with their own rice. Those kids had two choices, live with her and continue to be extorted and abused and malnourished, live innawoods and keep what you earn. They made the right choice. It takes more than 30 days to get malnourished, how long were they living alone anyways? The malnourishment started before the were even on their own.

What would a fair share be? How would you calculate it?

Seita's aunt wasn't the warmest person but it was still her house. It's understandable she would be a bit resentful that two kids who don't contribute anything are hoarding food away.

If Seita had been a bit more understanding of that and willing to compromise he could have had a better relationship with his aunt. Unfortunately he went full teenager muh pride and got his sister killed due to bad decision making.

More than half of the rice toh. They didn't need their rice. These kids had no one to go to and no where to go. Offer pitty so your fellow countrymen don't starve. Its basic human decency, especially since these were children. Its basic family morals. You don't let your family die in times of war and hardship especially if they have no one else.

actually a 14 year old and 5 year old shouldn't be given free access to food especially if they are being rationed, not responsible enough

the aunt was right to keep the rice from them

>More than half of the rice toh.
Why more tha half? Why not a third? Or a tenth?

>They didn't need their rice.
They did, as soon as the rations decreased.

>These kids had no one to go to and no where to go. Offer pitty so your fellow countrymen don't starve. [...] You don't let your family die in times of war [...]
But she did. She housed him, she housed her. She even housed a completely random countryman that worked locally, too - because he pulled his share.

Why can he demand common decency but refuse to uphold the same by refusing to help rebuilding and rather just playing with his sister, while everyone else, including his similarly aged cousin pulling her weight while he just plays and hoards food?

There is no better idiot detector the Grave of the Fireflies. Everyone who thinks it's good or anti-war couldn't be more of a complete idiot.

t. butthurt, prideful bellicist

It's not bad. The original book was basically a confessional.

They did pull their weight she just wanted what they couldn't give. They brought everything they could to her house to share. What was pulling his weight? Getting a job? Probably couldn't in the first place, otherwise he would have gotten one when living alone. His schooling was fucked too. They did everything they could she was just unrealistic in her expectations and refused to see what they had already offered. Much like you are.

> They brought everything they could to her house to share.
And then he stopped. Bringing a bit food with you is to be appreciated, but it's not a continued effort.

>Probably couldn't in the first place,
If his cousin, a girl, can get one, then so can he.

There was nothing wrong with the original book. If you think the movie was good, you are retarded, even moreso if you still think it's good while understanding it's purpose.

You're so stupid you probably don't even know the director's intention.

He stopped when he realised it was a black hole and they were going to starve at this rate anyways.
She was established in the community and had it before shit went down. It is unlikely he'd be as lucky in the times he was living in. You really think he wanted to starve and not work a job? How stupid it was obvious there were no jobs for him in the first place.

Her aunt was shit and unreasonable because of muh japanese pride in times of hardship.

The kids would have died anyway at her aunts. They only died quicker because they took refuge in a fucking cave and ate dirt. They should have traveled the country in search of food instead.

I bought a can of expired Cavendish & Harvey Fruit Drops for 1 buck and they're fucking tasty. I don't see many hard candy sold this way, they always sell them as cheap shit in huge bags the ants will eat away.

>They did, as soon as the rations decreased.
They didn't
She used it to treat certain people luxuriously with big lunches. Three rice balls is a lot of food for one person in needy times. She was extorting them.

>They only died quicker because they took refuge in a fucking cave and ate dirt.
I think they would have died faster at their aunts because when they were on their own they had more variety of food from stealing and frogs. All she was giving them was porridge. They would have been driven to eat dirt in the cave or at their aunts either way.

She bitched about them bringing music to cope with the hard times, she bitched about having to cook for them, and she bitched when they cook for themselves too. She only wanted to kick them out to have two mouths less to feed, and she did, for the price of two fucking kids dead.

Kids are the responsibility of both the state and every adult around, not to say their own family. The blame that they died from neglect completely falls upon that bitch aunt. Neglect is child abuse and a penalized crime.

Nah they left of their own will and were not in her care when they died

That is called neglect you dumbass.

They only left because of how horrible she was. Again, they had more variety of food on their own. Protein, potatoes, rice, frogs, those things they harvested from the water. They were literally better off on their own than being taken advantage of. If you think it would have gotten better when the movie constantly demonstrated she was getting worse you are delusional. They would have starved either way, they were better off on their own and able to keep the food they collected rather than it being taken from them.

They DID have a better chance when living alone rather than at her aunts. However, they still died because they were ignorant of infections and contaminated water. Had they known about these they would have survived, however they weren't notified of this. So who's fault was it? Their caretaker, which is the aunt, who didn't give a shit about their health.

Exactly.

The worst part is you can tell the aunt knew those children would die when they left. She didn't give a fuck. What a neglectful cunt who sacrificed children for her own ego and unreasonable demands.

What if someone else was eating their porridge?

Because it's much better to let them starve. Right? Jesus christ these are kids, what the fuck do you want from them. She was out of line and should have shown more pity. She should have actually rationed the food fairly which she didnt. If she had done that they would have never ran away in the first place in fear of being milked out of what they needed to live. She was a massive cunt at every waking moment for no reason. She gave selective treatment in hard times and purposely neglected them. It's wrong to do that to ignorant children who have nothing else.

>If his cousin, a girl, can get one, then so can he
Yeah if only all those starving children at the beginning of the movie got a jerb they wouldn't have died! How could they have been so stupid!

Idiot.

user, in any thread about this movie you have half of people throwing a fit about how this movie is anti american propaganda.
These are the people you argue with

I'm too tired to seriously answer that lame strawman.

Good night.

So sleepy already? My my arguments about war economy and a lack of jobs in a war economy must indeed tire your little pea brain out, huh? You wanted him to wave a magic job wand. Ridiculous. You actually think he'd rather starve than find a job. Did it ever occur to you him and those other children starved because the job market wasnt so hot and they had no means to live as a result?

Why not go fishing or eat bugs?

>51 replies
>11 posters

They did. Not sure on the bug eating part but they were definitely harvesting game as well as stealing. Before she died he had eggs and chicken, watermelon. They were able to get food, just not enough and living in a cave is asking for diseases they were clearly ignorant to.

Harry Truman did nothing wrong

How is that a strawman? You see a bunch of children dying in the beginning. Are you seriously thinking they died because they were too stubborn to get a job? Really?

>NO DISCUSSION IS ALLOWED ON Sup Forums
>YOU MAKE ONE POST ABOUT WHICH "WAIFU" YOU'D LIKE TO "FUGG" AND THEN MOVE ALONG
get a load of this retard

>Nosaka argued that while Seita is "when it comes to reality" not a romanticist for he also becomes hungry, "objectively speaking" Setsuko, at age four, is at the period when "a girl looks the cutest" and Seita is just becoming aware of his masculinity in his adolescent period.[3] Nosaka said that the two have an "obvious consanguineous relationship" and that Setsuko is the only person Seita can confide in.[3] Nosaka added that "while there's a strong blood tie, he's shut out from being able to love her as a girl" and that his tension increases to high levels and therefore sublimation takes place.
Apparently Seita wanted to fuck Setsuko

A bunch of retarded bootlickers in other words. Yeah that is obvious with the way they defend child abuse.

>the way they defend child abuse
>>>/tumblr/

>if you think child abuse is bad you're from tumblr

>Nosaka said that Setsuko also has to grow up quickly, and she takes the role of Seita's mother, "and at other times, the role of his lover."[3] Setsuko acts as Seita's spiritual support while Setsuko relies on Seita for nourishment.[3] Nosaka said that "[i]n the end, it turns out that the days leading up to their death are like the development of a love story."[3]
>Nosaka said that the death of his sister was "an exact match with the novel."[2]
This movie was based on a mans account of how much he wanted to bang his four-year old sister as she died of malnutrition

Hot

Serious answer. No one cares. Japs brought it on themselves and deserved every single bit they got, and events portrayed in movie are completely irrelevant compared to scale of what happened during that period as whole.

Kids starve? Boo hoo. At least they werent forced to commit "suicide" with their familie by grenades, their food was not confiscated as whole by Army etc. Which is still irrelevant suffering compared to what Japs did in lands they occupied, or allied did to Japanese.

The story tries to appeal on personal level, but its worthless when at time such stories and much worse are million. You either do whatever to survive, or you die. Or you die anyway, since your survival is out of your power.

>be america
>say you are neutral
>embargo japan when japan is relying on a neutral aamerica for most of their copper and fuel
>get bombed because you are clearly an enemy feigning as neutral
america had it coming. Pick a side bitch. or remain neutral. Actually neutral.

Fuck off. Nowhere in the movie was it hinted that Japan as a whole, or even the military, was in the right at all.

>After Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, Japan moved into southern Indochina. FDR ordered all Japanese assets frozen. But FDR did not want to cut off oil. As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war, for that would force oil-starved Japan to seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies
america had it coming. Japan was well within their right to bomb them and they(americans) knew it would lead to war but did it anyways.

Japan literally allied themselves with fucking Hitler. Why would America NOT embargo them?

Because we were fucking neutral and trying to avoid war idiot.

Supporting your enemies does not make you neutral.

The U.S. was neutral until December 8, 1941. You don't say you are neutral and then clearly be helping one side and hurting the other. You are a lying faggot and deserve what you get for being a lying faggot. Either remain neutral or pick a side.

They weren't our enemies. We were neutral. How can you have an enemy and at the same time declare neutrality? You dont.

>declaring war against your brethren in Britan
>not your enemy

>britain is our brethren despite our history with them and we are obligated to help them
We declared neutrality. We had no obligation to help them whatsoever.

why are we obligated to help the british? we aren't. especially when you declare neutrality.

First, nobody actually staved in post-war Japan without being a massive, grade-A idiot. Unlike many other countries, Japan did not suffer from hunger.
>dartmouth.edu/~quarterly/vol1/an-investigation-into-the-nature-of-nutrition-in-post-war-occupied-japan.html
>Results from simple data analysis from the Historical Statistics of Japan, published in 1987, show that there was at least an approximate average consumption of 2000 calories a day, above the level of starvation for an average person. This is set in contrast to the 1800 calories calculated by the Occupation authorities in late 1945 (Aldous 2010, 239), and significantly above the 1280 calories that was defined as the bare minimum for a Japanese adult (Aldous 2010, 239).
Second, basic jobs were indeed very widely available, because, among other things, the country was missing millions of working-age men who were drafted into military invasions abroad.

So yes, the kid's situation was entirely fixable and everything that happened was 100% his fault.

>helping Slanties instead of whites
You're the reason we lost in Vietnam.

>it's another Sup Forums leaks into other boards episode

>1945-1952
youre not even using the correct time period you clown. He DIED in 1945. also
>At this point, it should be noted that the recorded statistics are incomplete. Daily average caloric consumption was not recorded during the entire period of Occupation. This leaves us with having to extrapolate how many calories were consumed, based on the data from 1946 to 1952
what a shitty post.

No, you're the reason why we went into vietnam in the first place. You werent helping whites you were helping jews.

>bombing farmland, towns, cities ect doesn't result in starvation and job loss
>lol those stupid kids starved because they were too stupid to find a job, yeah thats it!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Starvation

BTFO

Neutrality does not mean being obliged to sell anyone anything. A neutral country has no obligation to support an aggressor country. You're insinuating that America ceasing the sale of oil is completely its fault and that Japan couldn't help but retaliate. The Japs don't have a right to throw a hissy fit just because America no longer wants to sell them oil. Stop trying to justify their chimpout.

You mean the operation that actually didn't starve anyone at all?
>Similar conclusions were reached by American analysts who reported in July 1946 in the United States Strategic Bombing Survey that it would have been more efficient to combine the United States' effective anti-shipping submarine effort with land- and carrier-based air power to strike harder against merchant shipping and begin a more extensive aerial mining campaign earlier in the war. This would have starved Japan, forcing an earlier end to the war.

>Second, basic jobs were indeed very widely available,
Wrong. This only happened after america helped to rebuild the infrastructure they destroyed. Can't have jobs without industry. The story takes place before americans came to rebuild.

Do you enjoy being wrong?
>The five-month-long aerial campaign saw the near destruction of Japanese coastal shipping and shipping lanes, halting Japan’s importation of critical raw materials and food and forcing the abandonment of 35 of 47 vital convoy routes. Adding LeMay’s incendiary raids on urban and military-industrial areas to the destructive mix reduced Japan’s overall production in 1945 by two-thirds compared with the year before. Already in 1940 rice—the chief item in the Japanese diet—had been subject to rationing due to bad harvests in the Japanese colony of Korea and the demands of the Japanese military in China (since 1937) and Southeast Asia (since 1941). Fish, the other dietary staple, had all but ceased to be distributed in some areas in 1944.
ww2days.com/japan-targeted-for-starvation-2.html

Its pretty obvious what americans were doing. They were trying to harm the japanese and even outright stated the wanted to harm their effort, signed a peace treaty and then betrayed it with embargos. Neutral my ass.

Good job swallowing that Japanese propaganda, goys. Protip: food scarcity is not the same thing as starvation.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_front_during_World_War_II#Food
>The result was a growing food shortage, especially in the cities. There was some malnutrition but no reported starvation.

Do you enjoy being a retard? Rationing is very different from famine. The USSR had rationing for years in the late 80s-early 90s, but it wasn't a famine.

And youre TOTALLY not swallowing american propaganda, right? Yeah people didn't starve its a giant japanese conspiracy theory. Good god.

>with fucking Hitler
What sort of argument is that even? Tell me, why were Hitlers actions wrong? Because they didnt align with the interests of the Anglos? Its been over 70 years, time to stop with the memes. No one in that war can claim the high ground. The US was neutral and then went back on its word, the British and French tried to exploit the living hell out of Germany and threw a hissy fit as soon as those same Germans more or less decided to abandon the global currency market, the Germans tried to conquer the entirety of Europe instead of just sticking to German speaking nations (although it could be argued that that war was basically forced onto them by the Brits), the Swedish were a bunch of backstabbing cocksuckers who sold out everybody, even their own people, while claiming neutrality. Everybody in that war was scum and only did what was necessary to defend their own economical interests. This wasnt about human rights or ethics, it was about money and influence.

You're getting very caught up in political terms thrown around for convenience. Yes, America wasn't neutral, or any sort of saint for that matter. Neither was Japan a liberator of the poor, oppressed Asian countries. This doesn't change the fact that being refused to be sold oil is no excuse to attack another country. Nevermind that they needed the oil for offensive operations and that they were allied with another war-like nation which was actively invading America's trade partners.

>This doesn't change the fact that being refused to be sold oil is no excuse to attack another country
It absolutely is. Oil is life. Why do you think american dick around in the ME? We are in a war for control of oil right now. Because of oil.

You're pretty naive if you don't think people starved to death in japan or died from malnutrition. Not as much as other countries, but they certainly suffered through it.

Money is life.
Food is life.
If you think attacking others to obtain what is necessary for you to live is acceptable, good for you. Just don't bitch when you face retaliation.
Besides, one of the reasons they needed the oil so badly was because of their operations in China.

When you jeopardize someones means to live you are asking for a fight. Doesn't matter if they win or lose they have every right to fight.

>When you jeopardize someones means to live you are asking for a fight
Like what the Japanese were doing to the Chinese?