Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,059 Year: 5,316/9,624 Month: 341/323 Week: 185/160 Day: 2/19 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified?
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4251 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 106 of 140 (624721)
07-19-2011 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Modulous
07-19-2011 2:44 PM


Re: dichotomy?
quote:
UCLA Center for East Asian Studies
East Asian Studies Documents
Exchange of Letters Regarding
the 1945 Surrender of Japan
August 10-11, 1945
Although some members of the Japanese government had been working to end the Pacific War, it was only after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that the government formally moved to surrender to the Allied Powers. Below is the formal offer of surrender as conveyed by the Swiss and the U.S. response. The Japanese sought assurances that the Emperor not be imprisoned or tried and the U.S. reiterated the terms expressed in the Potsdam Declaration while indicating that the Emperor would be expected to act as directed by the Supreme Allied Occupation Commander.
Japanese Government Offer of Surrender
August 10, 1945
Sir;
I have the honor to inform you that the Japanese Minister in Switzerland, upon instructions received from his Government, has requested the Swiss Political Department to advise the Government of the United States of America of the following:
"In obedience to the gracious command of His Majesty the Emperor who, ever anxious to enhance the cause of world peace, desires earnestly to bring about a speedy termination of hostilities with a view to saving mankind from the calamities to be imposed upon them by further continuation of the war, the Japanese Government several weeks ago asked the Soviet Government, with which neutral relations then prevailed, to render good offices in restoring peace vis a vis the enemy powers. Unfortunately, these efforts in the interest of peace having failed, the Japanese Government in conformity with the august wish of His Majesty to restore the general peace and desiring to put an end to the untold sufferings entailed by war as quickly as possible, have decided upon the following.
"The Japanese Government are ready to accept the terms enumerated in the joint declaration which was issued at Potsdam on July 26th, 1945, by the heads of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, and China, and later subscribed to by the Soviet Government, with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler.
"The Japanese Government sincerely hope that this understanding is warranted and desire keenly that an explicit indication to that effect will be speedily forthcoming."
In transmitting the above message the Japanese Minister added that his Government begs the Government of the United States to forward its answer through the intermediary of Switzerland. Similar requests are being transmitted to the Governments of Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics through the intermediary of Sweden, as well as to the Government of China through the intermediary of Switzerland. The Chinese Minister at Berne has already been informed of the foregoing through the channel of the Swiss Political Department.
Please be assured that I am at your disposal at any time to accept for and forward to my Government the reply of Government of the United States.
Accept (etc.)
Grassli,
Charge d'Affaires ad interim of Switzerland
U.S. Reply to the Offer of Surrender
The Honorable James F. Byrnes Secretary of StateAugust 11, 1945Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your note of August 10, and in reply to inform you that the President of the United States has directed me to send you for transmission to the Japanese Government the following message on behalf of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China:
"With regard to the Japanese Government's message accepting the terms of the Potsdam proclamation but containing the statement, 'with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a sovereign ruler,' our position is as follows:
"From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms.
"The Emperor will be required to authorize and ensure the signature by the Government of Japan and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters of the surrender terms necessary to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration, and shall issue his commands to all the Japanese military, naval and air authorities and to all the forces under their control wherever located to cease active operations and to surrender their arms, and to issue such other orders as the Supreme Commander may require to give effect to the surrender terms. "Immediately upon the surrender the Japanese Government shall transport prisoners of war and civilian internees to places of safety, as directed, where they can quickly be placed aboard Allied transports.
"The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.
"The armed forces of the Allied Powers will remain in Japan until the purposes set forth in the Potsdam Declaration are achieved."
Accept (etc.)
James F. Byrnes
Secretary of State
Mr. Max Grassli
Charge d'Affaires ad interim of Switzerland
Source: Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 320, Aug. 12, 1945
Didn't they make an offer in January?
I don't know of anything formal they presented, I could be wrong.
the atomic bombs didn't fix Japan's logistical problems.
No, but it stopped things from getting worse and allowed us to begin to help them rebuild.
I'm not entirely confident in the capacity for anyone to have the right level of information to justify it.
I agree, I would like to read H.S.T. book to see what he says his various advisers told him regarding using the bombs. I also belive we didnt know the full, lasting effects of the bombs either, based on what we knew at the time it probably seemed like a better option then it would today.
AbE...source
Edited by fearandloathing, : added source link

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Modulous, posted 07-19-2011 2:44 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 07-19-2011 4:55 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 107 of 140 (624732)
07-19-2011 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by fearandloathing
07-19-2011 3:17 PM


Re: dichotomy?
Didn't they make an offer in January?
I don't know of anything formal they presented, I could be wrong.
Wikipedia suggests something was presented.
quote:
By the end of January 1945, the Japanese were suggesting peace terms.[23] These proposals, sent through both British and American channels, were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 2, two days before the Yalta Conference. Reportedly, the dossier was dismissed by Roosevelt out of handthe proposals all included the condition that the emperor's position would be assured, if possibly as a puppet ruler; whereas at this time the Allied policy was to accept only an unconditional surrender.[24] Additionally, these proposals were strongly opposed by the powerful military members of the Japanese government.[25]
Though I concede the Emperor may not have immediately accepted even if the US said it considered the terms acceptable.
quote:
His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland.
Foreign minister Tōgō, July. Also in July
quote:
With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. ... It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace, ... through the good offices of Russia. ... it would also be disadvantageous and impossible, from the standpoint of foreign and domestic considerations, to make an immediate declaration of specific terms
Of course, there were other voices less so inclined. If the terms at Potsdam had given details over the fate of the Emperor, the peacemakers might have succeeded in their case.
But I digress, could you provide the justification for dropping both nuclear bombs on densely populated areas within a few days. Was a month too long to wait? Two weeks? It all seems a little over the top, to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by fearandloathing, posted 07-19-2011 3:17 PM fearandloathing has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by anglagard, posted 07-19-2011 8:14 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 112 by Taz, posted 07-20-2011 3:25 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 943 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(1)
Message 108 of 140 (624755)
07-19-2011 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Modulous
07-19-2011 4:55 PM


Another Factor in the Desire to End War Quickly
Modulous writes:
But I digress, could you provide the justification for dropping both nuclear bombs on densely populated areas within a few days. Was a month too long to wait? Two weeks? It all seems a little over the top, to me.
There is another factor in the decision making process that I don't recall having been brought into this discussion.
According to the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, the estimated total number of deaths due to the atomic bombs within two to four months after they were dropped is as follows:
Hiroshima 90,000-166,000
Nagasaki 60,000-80,000
Therefore the lowest combined estimate is 150,000, the highest 246,000. The mean estimate is 196,000.
source
In August 1945, Japan still occupied large parts of China, Southeast Asia and many Pacific Islands. For people in these areas, the war was very much still going on, producing casualties.
Here is a map showing the areas still held by the Japanese Empire at the time of their surrender in black (click to enlarge).
Average number of deaths per week in 1945:
Allied Civilians 101,871
Japanese Civilians 18,154 (excluding the atomic bombs)
Allied Military 11,182
Japanese Military 36,392
Total per week 167,599
source
Therefore the amount of deaths due to the atomic bombs would have been exceeded by the average number of deaths caused by continuing the war in:
Low estimate - 6.26 days
Mean estimate - 8.19 days
High estimate - 10.27 days
Perhaps this is one reason why "Was a month too long to wait? Two weeks?" may have been answered in the affirmative for Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, and Indonesian civilians, among others.
Edited by anglagard, : Replace casualties with the more accurate term deaths used by the source.
Edited by anglagard, : Extend reason 1 to subsequent sentences.
Edited by anglagard, : caption map
Edited by anglagard, : Change median to mean (my statistics profs would have been horrified).

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 07-19-2011 4:55 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3398 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 109 of 140 (624785)
07-20-2011 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Modulous
07-19-2011 2:43 AM


Re: my unstudied view of the situation
Wow, even after I repeatedly pointed out that you're using creationist tactic, you went on to use another creationist tactic. You're asking me to prove beyond doubt that nothing else would have gotten the japanese to surrender. I am reminded of the age old creationist argument to prove to them beyond doubt that a dog kind can "evolve" into some other kind.
No, no one can prove to you that nothing else would have worked. But let's see.
(1) Invasion of Japanese islands resulted in 95% casualties among Japanese military and 1/3 casualties among Japanese civilians. No surrender.
(2) Blockading the Japanese homeland preventing them from carrying out the war effectively. No surrender.
(3) Anihalating the entire Japanese fleet. No surrender.
(4) Fire bombing entire Japanese cities killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. No surrender.
(5) Dropping leaflets telling the Japanese the Americans have a weapon that could destroy entire Japanese cities. No surrender.
(6) Japanese government began to train school girls and school boys how to fight American soldiers to prepare for an invasion. No surrender there.
(7) Atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima instantly killing 100,000 people. No surrender. Japanese soldiers were then equipped with white sheets to cover against the blast.
Again, someone else on your side suggested blanket bombing the entire country of Japan. This would have destroyed their entire infrastructure resulting in millions starving. At least that person has the guts to suggest something other than the atom bomb. You're just sitting there criticizing the atom bombs without telling us what you would have done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Modulous, posted 07-19-2011 2:43 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Modulous, posted 07-20-2011 2:20 AM Taz has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 110 of 140 (624789)
07-20-2011 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Taz
07-20-2011 1:24 AM


Re: my unstudied view of the situation
Wow, even after I repeatedly pointed out that you're using creationist tactic, you went on to use another creationist tactic. You're asking me to prove beyond doubt that nothing else would have gotten the japanese to surrender.
No. I'm merely suggesting that we be sure before strategic nuking takes place. I don't feel like essentially being called intellectually dishonest every other time I post, so I'm afraid you'll have to excuse me from further discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Taz, posted 07-20-2011 1:24 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Taz, posted 07-20-2011 3:11 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3398 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 111 of 140 (624793)
07-20-2011 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Modulous
07-20-2011 2:20 AM


Re: my unstudied view of the situation
It's already pointed out to you many times that most people at the time still did not know what they had in their hands. There were generals who suggested the atom bombs be used to blind the enemy defenders right before an invasion landing.
All the leaders knew was that what they got in their hands was a single bomb that could do the work of a shitload of bombs. We know better than that now, but the fact that you're using today's knowledge to judge people at the time is itself intellectually dishonest.
Again, the hope was that instead of sending a bombing raid that would level a city and kill 100,000 the same way that dresden was burned to the ground, they wanted to prove to the Japanese that they could do just as much damage with a single bomb and shock them into surrendering. Based on what they knew then, it sure beats blanket bombing the whole goddamn country of Japan with conventional bombers where hundreds of American pilots would inevitably be shot down.
You are intellectually dishonest by willfully not seeing the point of view that people had at the time.
So, let me ask you again. Forget radiation and other secondary causes of death, if you had the option between sending bombing raids consisting of thousands of planes and potentially lose hundreds of pilots due to anti-air weapons or sending a single bomber and drop a single bomb that would yield the same effect, based on what you would have known back then what would you decide?
Don't forget to factor in the fact that you are faced with cold hard facts that previous campaigns against Japanese held places resulted in 95+% Japanese military casualties and up to 1/3 civilian casualties, many of which resulted from suicides, how does an invasion of the Japanese mainlands with a population of 50+ million Japanese all ready to die for their Emperor.
You are intellectually dishonest every time you dismiss these facts when you say there's not enough evidence that an invasion would have been worse than dropping 2 atomic bombs to shock the Japanese into surrender.
Debating about history isn't just about what you know. It's also about trying to see the view point that people in history had and what information were available to them. Otherwise, I could spend all day telling you how stupid Hypocrites was for the things that he believed based on what we know of modern medicine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Modulous, posted 07-20-2011 2:20 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3398 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 112 of 140 (624797)
07-20-2011 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Modulous
07-19-2011 4:55 PM


Re: dichotomy?
But I digress, could you provide the justification for dropping both nuclear bombs on densely populated areas within a few days. Was a month too long to wait? Two weeks? It all seems a little over the top, to me.
*Blink*
You did not just say that did you? It was war. Japan still held vast areas in the south pacific, east asia, and south east asia. What did you think all those soldiers were doing all that time? Sit on their asses and count sheeps in their heads?
People were dying each day as the war went on. The Japanese were still slaughtering the Chinese by the thousands. The Koreans, Vietnamese, and other southeast asians were still fighting their conquerors.
Is this like the twilight zone where those people didn't matter?
Are you seriously not aware that the war was still going on in other parts of the world or are you just hoping the rest of us wouldn't notice to benefit your bleeding heart liberal ideology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 07-19-2011 4:55 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3398 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 113 of 140 (625223)
07-21-2011 9:15 PM


I predict that a year from now the same people who opposed using the atomic bombs and would rather have an invasion of mainland Japan will come back and argue the same thing as if none of what's said in this thread has been said. Nevermind that people were still dying by the tens of thousands everyday the war was dragged on. Nevermind all the examples of other Japanese islands that the American forces invaded (95% military casualties and 1/3 civilian casualties).
Sound familiar?
This will be the last time I'm bringing this up.

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 114 of 140 (912387)
08-28-2023 3:34 PM


Oppenheimer, the movie
Hello,
Just saw the movie "Oppenheimer" last week. I found it interesting except for one thing [SPOILER ALERT follows]. . .
In the beginning of the war, Robert Oppenheimer was supposedly somewhat pro-atom bomb because his Jewish kin were being murdered by Hitler in the ongoing war, and reasoned he and his scientists would be greatly more ethical than Hitler if Oppenheimer should invent the bomb first.
But as the German war concluded, and then the Japan war was nearly concluded, he supposedly felt anti-atom bomb. The ending showed Oppenheimer with great shame because he thought the bomb was needlessly used.
My irritation of the movie . . .
Written and directed by Christopher Nolan, Nolan didn't show ANY Japanese footage of the destruction because he wanted the audience to ONLY see Oppenheimer's POV. I thought this was a cop-out. Oppenheimer was a smart guy (duh) he surely could listen to the radio, see the news-film's destruction, read about the casualties. Surely his POV would be of full realization. So why did Nolan go out of the way to FULLY hide it. A movie about the atom bomb, and not show one mili-second of its intended destruction? What?
I think it was because showing Japanese destruction would have hurt the movie sales to have the audience "feel bad" about the USA killing innocent Japanese civilians. US citizens get angry when being "woke," as shown in this thread.
Comments?

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 08-28-2023 5:36 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22670
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


(3)
Message 115 of 140 (912388)
08-28-2023 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by dronestar
08-28-2023 3:34 PM


Re: Oppenheimer, the movie
There were two alternatives available to the U.S. as the war neared its end:
  1. Invade the Japanese mainland with estimated US casualties in the neighborhood of a million, and Japanese casualties of 5 to 10 million. Estimates at the time ranged widely, and the hypothetical numbers are still debated.
    But the first invasion of the Japanese homeland was Okinawa, southernmost island of the Japanese chain and representing less than 1% of the total area of Japan. Japanese resistance was fanatical. A third of the civilian population was killed. There were 50,000 Allied casualties and 100,000 Japanese. Projecting this level of resistance to the rest of Japan would have meant 5 million Allied casualties, 10 million Japanese casualties, and an unbelievably horrific number of civilian casualties. By this measure the casualty estimates I mentioned earlier were highly conservative.
    The Japanese antipathy toward surrender was cultural, tactical and strategic. Culturally they were conditioned to believe in Japanese superiority, so surrender was unacceptable. And by applying a tactic of imposing unacceptable costs in terms of men and materiel on an invading force they hoped that strategically the Allies would tire of the costly effort and agree to an armistice that would allow Japan to remain independent and the Japanese government and emperor to continue in power.
  2. Use the atomic bomb and hope Japan surrendered. As we all know, that approached worked. Total casualties were 200,000.
Independent of how Oppenheimer felt about his role in creating the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan, that approach undoubtedly saved uncountable lives, possibly well over a million.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by dronestar, posted 08-28-2023 3:34 PM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Diomedes, posted 08-30-2023 12:47 PM Percy has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(4)
Message 116 of 140 (912411)
08-30-2023 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Percy
08-28-2023 5:36 PM


Re: Oppenheimer, the movie
Independent of how Oppenheimer felt about his role in creating the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan, that approach undoubtedly saved uncountable lives, possibly well over a million.
Many years ago, I had a very interesting conversation with some of my former work colleagues who were from the Philippines and China. We happened to be discussing World War II and how it impacted our families. My family were impacted in the European theatre by the Nazis while their families were of course impacted by the Japanese.
What was interesting is when we got on the topic of the usage of the atom bombs that were used to end the war and force the Japanese surrender, my Asian colleagues both independently said the same thing: the whole 'debate' of whether the usage of the bombs was justified is something only discussed by Western nations. That is never a debate topic for the people in China or the Philippines as they don't even consider it a debate whatsoever. They wholeheartedly agree with the usage of the bombs. And their rational made me realize how I had a myopic view of things when it comes to viewing World War II in the sense that I look at it from a Western perspective.
We see images of the horrors of the what the bombs produced when they detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But we gloss over the horrible atrocities that the Japanese army inflicted upon the other people of Asia. And they were horrible beyond belief. And that is the facet that is often overlooked when it comes to the discussions around the usage of the bombs. We look at the human toll that it would have taken to invade the Japanese islands. But we don't often consider that it the war progressed longer, the people in areas of China that were still under Japanese occupation, even towards the end of the war would have died in the thousands as well. So ending the war as quickly as possible didn't just save American lives, but the lives of other individuals who were on the front lines in the Asian theatre.
As Percy alluded to, the cultural aspect of the Japanese desire to never surrender can best be summarized by the Japanese soldier Hiroo Onoda. For those not aware of his story, after the war ended in 1945, he lived in the jungles of the Philippines and continued to fight for a whopping 29 years! It was only when he received a decree from the Japanese Emperor Hirohito delivered by a former commander that he finally gave up the fight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 08-28-2023 5:36 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by dronestar, posted 08-30-2023 2:15 PM Diomedes has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 117 of 140 (912413)
08-30-2023 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Diomedes
08-30-2023 12:47 PM


Re: Oppenheimer, the movie
Hi Diomedes,
Thanks for the reply.
I'm not gonna rehash my lengthy argument Message 47. You will note throughout the thread that Mod thought my evidence I presented was worthy. Mod has always been my gold standard in the forum, so I'm good.
However, IF you want to discuss/debate my last post . . .
I recently wrote:
A movie about the atom bomb, and not show one mili-second of its intended destruction?

I think it was because showing Japanese destruction would have hurt the movie sales to have the audience "feel bad" about the USA killing innocent Japanese civilians.
So, regarding your reply . . .
1. IF, the use of the bomb was FULLY justified, THEN why not show the horrific suffering of innocent Japanese civilians, including woman and children, in the movie. Afterall, as you wrote, since Japan made horrible attrocities first, then why isn't america JUSTIFIED to make horrible atrocities too. Whoever said two wrongs don't make a right was apparently, . . . wrong. Errr, am I right?
2. And IF, if even just ONE soldier somewhere in the world wanted to continue fighting, doesn't that especially JUSTIFY that america should kill ALL innocent Japanese civilians, including woman and children. And no one anywhere would say this JUSTIFIED action was based on racism. That would be just crazy, as there's no racism in america.
Sooo, why not be proud of america's JUSTIFIED actions, show it on the big screen.
USA! USA! USA!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Diomedes, posted 08-30-2023 12:47 PM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Diomedes, posted 08-30-2023 2:48 PM dronestar has replied
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 08-31-2023 9:23 AM dronestar has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 118 of 140 (912414)
08-30-2023 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by dronestar
08-30-2023 2:15 PM


Re: Oppenheimer, the movie
1. IF, the use of the bomb was FULLY justified, THEN why not show the horrific suffering of innocent Japanese civilians, including woman and children, in the movie. Afterall, as you wrote, since Japan made horrible attrocities first, then why isn't america JUSTIFIED to make horrible atrocities too. Whoever said two wrongs don't make a right was apparently, . . . wrong. Errr, am I right?
I can't speak to Christopher Nolan's decisions as to why or why not he didn't show the aftermath of the bombs. You will have to ask him. But my suspicion is it had more to do with the fact that the movie was a character study into Oppenheimer himself and the technical work of the Manhattan project.
Also, if you are going to stipulate that the usage of the atomic bomb was an 'atrocity', then that would imply that the bombing raids using conventional weapons against both the Japanese and German civilians were also atrocities. In that civilians were also killed in those attacks.
My personal opinion is that the difference between the actions of the Allies versus those of the Axis powers were that civilian deaths and the actions therein performed by the Axis powers were deliberate. The German Nazis and the Japanese considered themselves superior so the civilians of other nations were irrelevant to them. They were just vermin in their eyes. Look at the Holocaust or the massacres in the Philippines to get some insight into that.
2. And IF, if even just ONE soldier somewhere in the world wanted to continue fighting, doesn't that especially JUSTIFY that america should kill ALL innocent Japanese civilians, including woman and children. And no one anywhere would say this JUSTIFIED action was based on racism. That would be just crazy, as there's no racism in america.
Uh, no. The operative word that you yourself used was 'soldier'. The civilians did not exhibit the same tenacity that the core soldiers exhibited. The soldiers of the Japanese military were the ones that were excessively dogmatic. That is evidenced further when after the second bomb was dropped and Emperor Hirohito opted to surrender, several members of the Japanese military orchestrated a coup and tried to overthrow him as a means to continue the war.
Ultimately, the senior Japanese military leadership and many of the soldiers were not dissimilar from the Nazi SS or Gestapo. These are zealots who believed in their superiority over all others.
As a sidebar, if you want to discuss 'racism', that is going down a different rabbit hole. But you may want to look into how present day Japan considers outsiders in their nation. They have a declining population and are on the precipice of a massive economic downturn, yet they still adhere to their 'only Japanese' philosophy. Look up the word 'Gaijin' for further details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by dronestar, posted 08-30-2023 2:15 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by dronestar, posted 08-30-2023 3:33 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 119 of 140 (912415)
08-30-2023 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Diomedes
08-30-2023 2:48 PM


Re: Oppenheimer, the movie
Dio writes:
I can't speak to Christopher Nolan's decisions as to why or why not he didn't show the aftermath of the bombs. You will have to ask him.
As I previously wrote,
Drone writes:
“Nolan didn't show ANY Japanese footage of the destruction because he wanted the audience to ONLY see Oppenheimer's POV. I thought this was a cop-out.”
Dio writes:
The German Nazis and the Japanese considered themselves superior so the civilians of other nations were irrelevant to them. They were just vermin in their eyes.
Hmm. You are sure that no american viewed or propagandized or forced internment of Japanese citizens as vermin stereotypes. You are equally confident that no one who asserts the bombs were justified are actually racists then or now?
Dio writes:
Uh, no. The operative word that you yourself used was 'soldier'. The civilians did not exhibit the same tenacity that the core soldiers exhibited.
Hmm, it seems I misunderstood your previous reply, you are actually saying that IF only soldiers wanted to continue fighting, then Americans should NOT punish the civilians by dropping an atomic bomb which indiscriminately and disproportionately killed civilians. That would NOT be justified. Okay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Diomedes, posted 08-30-2023 2:48 PM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 08-31-2023 9:55 AM dronestar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22670
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


(5)
Message 120 of 140 (912417)
08-31-2023 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by dronestar
08-30-2023 2:15 PM


Re: Oppenheimer, the movie
dronestar writes:
1. IF, the use of the bomb was FULLY justified, THEN why not show the horrific suffering of innocent Japanese civilians, including woman and children, in the movie. Afterall, as you wrote, since Japan made horrible attrocities first, then why isn't america JUSTIFIED to make horrible atrocities too. Whoever said two wrongs don't make a right was apparently, . . . wrong. Errr, am I right?
I don't think a movie is very relevant to the topic unless it introduces new facts or arguments.
2. And IF, if even just ONE soldier somewhere in the world wanted to continue fighting, doesn't that especially JUSTIFY that america should kill ALL innocent Japanese civilians, including woman and children.
I see no logic in this, and it just sounds horrific.
And no one anywhere would say this JUSTIFIED action was based on racism. That would be just crazy, as there's no racism in america.
I've never seen any evidence that war decisions were *based* on racism. The degree of autonomy allowed Japan after the war and the generousness of the terms would seem to argue against racism playing any significant role.
Sooo, why not be proud of america's JUSTIFIED actions, show it on the big screen.
Any pride would be that fewer lives were lost and the war shortened. There's no pride in killing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by dronestar, posted 08-30-2023 2:15 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024