Viewers are divided over whether the film should have shown Japanese victims of the weapon created by physicist Robert Oppenheimer. Experts say it’s complicated.

  • Jimi_Hotsauce@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well of course it’s not, the us government wants to remind everyone that the bombings were a ‘nessicary evil’ that bs is still taught in schools. Not being a conspiracy guy but I cant imagine a high budget highly publicized movie would rock the boat like that. If you want to hear about sloughing go listen to the last podcast on the lefts 6 part magnum opus on the Manhattan project.

    • UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      So not to sound like I fully support the bombings, but they did touch in the movie about why it was a good thing. To save not only hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who would have invaded mainland Japan, but also the (potentially) greater amount of Japanese soldiers and citizens that would have died too. Millions to die because conventional war tactics weren’t enough to scare the Japanese.

      They were hard-core. They took the fire bombings (which had killed many more than the nukes) in stride. They raped Nanking with unimaginable horrors. Countless human atrocities in the name of “science”

      The Japan of today in not the Japan on WW2. There’s a good amount of people who would say the nukes were a merciful way to end the war. The US, in prep for the mainland assault, made the amount of purple hearts they thought they would need for just the wounded. Since the assault never happened, we still hand them out to this day

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Most of the current US naval command at the time later said the bombings were completely unnecessary. Your rhetoric is unsupported historical revisionism with the purpose of providing rhetorical cover for war crimes.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh, Japanese soldiers that the victims of the bombings had no control over doing war crimes surely means the victims of US war crimes had it coming.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’d rather the US just let them surrender on the condition that the emperor remained, as that is what ended up happening anyway. All those deaths between the offer being rejected and the unconditional surrender were pointless.

  • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Being so far removed from the use of his discovery and put of the loop now the army was done with him is a crucial character moment in the film, and we as the audience are following his story. Having scenes of the bombing, the aftermath of the victims would have undermined that.

    • RatherBeMTB@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US is in complete denial of the genocide they did dropping two nuclear bombs in two different cities with mostly just civilians. Everybody else in the world see the pictures of the Japanese aftermath when we study the second world war.

      • Ragnell@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I saw those pictures in school. We know that Truman signed off on dropping the bomb on two civilian cities and it was a horror that had never been seen in the world before or since.

        Dude, we talk about our atrocities all the time. The current push to whitewash Native American genocide and slavery is actually getting a huge pushback, because we talk openly about this stuff in the US and it’s only a minority that tries to silence it. We talk openly about the atrocities during the Vietnam War, and about the invasion of Iraq, and about prosecution for war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

        You can say a LOT about the US, and even the amount of denial we have about our standing in the world, but you can’t call us in denial about stuff like that. We’re in conflict within ourselves about it, but it’s a well known and well discussed thing in the US.

        And wait… are you from lemmygrad? The tankie server?

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We do not talk about our atrocities all the time. Politicians can almost never reference them. In the rare cases they allude to them, they never apologize and they never take material steps to repair the damage.

          We allow private corporations to produce student text books for profit, and when the monopoly status of these corps causes the largest states to control the curriculum, everyone suffers. When you combine that with the Daughters of Confederacy movement to rewrite history in the text books, and Texas being one of the biggest markets for text books, you end up with over a century of white washing indoctrination in schools for 12 years, minimum, of almost 100% of children in the country.

          I grew up in a liberal-ass state we still called the first settlers “pilgrims” and said their motivation was religious freedom. We celebrate Thanksgiving and Columbus and everyone who tries to speak out against it is literally risking their safety and the safety of their family because we have such a massive and deep-seated problem that random acts of terror are carried out without any coordination.

          Lynchings never stopped, but no one except radicals talk about it. The police are literally an occupying military force, but no one except radicals talk about it.

          No, we’re not in conflict with ourselves about it. There is a very small radical group within the country that attempts to raise the level of discourse and nearly every single institution, every seat of power, every media company, every billionaire, every major land owner, every politician, nearly every educator, nearly every judge - everything is aligned against raising this discourse.

          If you think we’re earnestly and honestly struggling with this stuff as a nation, you are delusional.

          • Ragnell@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ve been out of the country and we are lightyears ahead of other countries when it comes to reckoning with our past. No, we’re not perfect, but we’re a hell of a lot more open. You know how I know?

            Because I was raised in Trumpland, PA and I joined the military and served in Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma and Europe and I was able to learn about the Native American genocide, slavery, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki at school, and managed to absorb the rest through pop culture. We had a variety of differing assumptions when we talked, but we still talked. Yes, I heard that Lee was a gentleman but a trip to Gettysburg easily discarded that notion. My history teacher was quick to point out the founding fathers were opportunists.

            There is stuff, like the bullshit we’ve been pulling in South America, that hasn’t gotten discussed. That’s true. But it’s not just the radical minority that’s aware the country is basically built on rivers of blood. The awareness is all over our pop culture.

            You’re not hearing what’s good enough in your liberal state, but I have been knee deep in conservatism since birth and I’ve still managed to pick up on the horrors of our national history.

            Now, just for comparison, go ask a Brit or a Frenchman about the Native American genocide and their country’s role in it.

            • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The only places we should be comparing ourselves against in this regard are other colonies and former colonies: Canada, Australia, South Africa, Jamaica, Haiti, etc.

              For example, compared with Haiti, we’re way behind.

              Despite you learning about the Native American genocide, we still commit atrocities against them, en masse. We still leave open uranium waste in their areas. We nuked their desert environments hundreds of times. We are currently actively in the process of stealing more water from them. There may be some people who are aware, like you said, and for whatever reason the military appears to be a place where some units get conscious quickly while others devolve into xenophobia just as quickly, but the national conversation is about anti-science and anti-progress indians that deserve to be put in their place and stay quiet and maybe they should work on their alcoholism. The same is true for the national conversation about black people. We elected Joe fucking Biden. There’s only a conversation about his role in maintaining structural racism in radical spaces, and even fewer and smaller radical spaces are discussing Harris’s maintenance of structural racism.

              Yes, Gettysburg discarded the notion that Lee was a gentlemen for you, and yet millions maintain that the Civil War pitted brother against brother and therefore the losers should be able to lose with dignity. And US LIBERALS are saying this!

              My history teacher was quick to point out the founding fathers were opportunists.

              But not that they’re entire project was to privilege white land owning men and that white men laborers should not be allowed to vote because they weren’t rich enough, and then of course everyone else. That the entire American project was to extract as much wealth as possible and had nothing to do liberty and justice for all but rather privilege for super profits and legal protections for white male land owners. Yes, there are some cracks beginning to open in less than half of the social studies classes, but they still celebrate Columbus Day and make pilgrim hats.

              But it’s not just the radical minority that’s aware the country is basically built on rivers of blood. The awareness is all over our pop culture.

              That awareness is not what I’m talking about. Most of that awareness is part of the rationalization/justification process. It’s considered ancient history, and it’s coupled with projection about other historical events. It’s not an awareness of injustice that we continue to perpetrate and participate in. It’s not understood that cultural genocide in America is happening right now. It’s not understood that eugenics was guiding domestic policy up through the 70s while we were sterilizing a third of Puerto Rico.

              Everyone knows we nuked civilians. Most people will tell you it was better than the alternative. This is a performative level of awareness. It is not an awareness of the context and the implications. It is a minimal awareness required to operate in the world.

  • infamousbelgian@waste-of.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The story is not about bombing Japan.

    Yes, that was a war crime. Yes, that was terrible.

    But if you know the story of Oppenheimer, or seen the movie, he did not decide anything. The military took over at that moment in time.

    So if it was a movie about the military, this had to be shown. But it is about him. So a suggestion (as is clearly in the movie for about the last hour or so) is more than enough of you ask me.

      • infamousbelgian@waste-of.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed, but that is not what the movie is about.

        He did say (no one knows what he believed) that just having the bomb would mean world peace…

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Look up most of the contemporary US pacific command saying the bombings were unnecessary. I know Asian people are just ants to people like you but Jesus, the pathetic rationalizations.

              • TheBurlapBandit@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Ants is a pretty apt comparison to Japanese culture at the time. All expected to become soldiers and die for the hive. Seriously, shit was crazy. They were not going to surrender otherwise.

                Firebombings were daily killing more than the bombs did as well.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ants is a pretty apt comparison to Japanese culture at the time.

                  Okay, thank you for proving my point and admitting you’re a virulent racist so publicly.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can’t use a weapon on a nation, you can only use a weapon on a nation’s population.

  • Cypher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sure show the Japanese victims, but then you need to show why they were victims in the first place. So you need to show Japanese Imperialism that committed atrocities in Nanking and the attack on Pearl Harbour.

    Maybe we could go further and show that Japanese Imperialism was driven by the existential threat of Western Imperialism, which does not in any way lessen the horrors committed by Imperial Japan.

    Sometimes the whole story can’t be told in a single film. Not all of it is important to the message or topic the author, director and producers wish to send or examine.