190

'Oppenheimer' draws debate over the absence of Japanese bombing victims in the film (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

157 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works 0 points 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

[-] Addfwyn@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

This is a really common line that is patently false, the nukes had very little to do with triggering the Japanese surrender. The meeting to discuss surrender occured days after the first bombing, and started prior to the second bomb. I wasn't privy to the Council discussions, obviously, but it is exceedingly unlikely they would sit around for days after the first bombing before meeting to discuss surrender. What did happen immediately prior to the surrender meeting was the Soviet invasion.

The nuking, of primarily non-military targets by the way, was largely a show of force demonstration to the soviets. It was not a "necessary evil" to save lives, and it was sure as hell not a mercy.

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 4 points 1 year ago

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

From the Emperor Hirohito's Surrender Broadcast.

If you have a primary source that says that the surrender was caused by the declaration of war by the Soviet Union, I'd love to see it.

[-] Addfwyn@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

It makes the perfect excuse for the emperor to surrender on, no doubt about that. Put yourself into the emperor's shoes. You've been lying to your people about their efficacy in the war, your country is devastated. Do you admit you led the country into war or that one singular scientific breakthrough that nobody could have seen coming was responsible? You shift all blame off your shoulders and that of your leadership, and all onto this one perfect excuse. It also placates the Americans. It enhanced the perception of US military power; whereas if the soviet entry into the war was a deciding factor, the same would be true for the USSR. Attributing the surrender to the bombs is basically better for every party involved, except the soviets.

There are a few reasons why, looking back at it, that it doesn't make sense that the nuclear bomb was the deciding factor.

Well in advance of the surrender, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army Torashiro Kawabe said that “The absolute maintenance of peace in our relations with the Soviet Union is imperative for the continuation of the war.” Japan always knew that they would not be able to fight that front of the war as well and that the USSR entering into the conflict would end their ability to continue.

There are the timing issues I already mentioned. The second bombing could not have possibly be involved, and a three day turnaround from the first bomb to even starting talks to discuss surrender (in fact, directly rejecting that discussion at one point) seems extraordinarily slow. Did it probably come up in those discussions? I would be surprised if it wasn't mentioned, but the details of those talks were never made public. Was it the impetus for calling the meetings? Decidely not.

At this point in the war, Japanese leadership had little illusions that they were going to defeat the United States. They may have convinced large swathes of the population of that, but their outlook wasn't good. So what were their avenues for the best surrender terms that they could get. As outlined by Ward Wilson, a position I quite agree with, they had two viable paths. There was the diplomatic route, with the soviet union acting as a mediator for Japanese surrender to America. Sokichi Takagi wrote about this option in his diaries if you are looking for a primary source (I can provide the Japanese if you can read it, but I am not sure where to find an English translation) . Which would undoubtedly present better terms than an unconditional surrender to the US would have. Obviously an option that was not on the table when the soviets entered the war.

The second was the military holdout, which is what people often cite as the best justification for the bombing. However, in anticipation of the US invasion, Japan had moved the vast majority of their troops to Kyushu, leaving little to nothing to defend Manchuria and Hokkaido. A last stand against one super power from one direction is one thing, the same feat from two directions was impossible for what was left of the Japanese military. The Soviets would have had met little to no resistance moving into Hokkaido from Manchuria. Any hope of bleeding the US forces out in a month long war of attrition evaporated; large swaths of northern Japanese territories would be occupied by the Soviet Union in weeks.

I don't mean to write a full on essay here, but I am happy to go into detail on any particular subject if you would like.

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 4 points 1 year ago

What you wrote is just speculation without a primary source. I'm quoting historical documents. What proof do you have which backs up your theory?

[-] kayjay@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

The Soviet invasion…

of the Kuril islands, Manchuria, and South Sakhalin. None of which were part of the Japanese mainland.

Yes, this did contribute to the surrender of Japan as they realized the USSR would not act like a neutral third party, but it did not cause the surrender.
The nuclear bombings of the mainland contributed quite a lot to the surrender effort as well, arguably moreso (or at least equally to) than the Japanese occupated territories.

[-] reliv3@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

It's hard to claim the nuclear bombs were a major contributor to their surrender when Japan was trying to surrender before the first bomb dropped. What made the surrender difficult was the ally's demand that the Japanese emperor be stripped of his power. This was a big ask at the time, since the emperor was directly tied into Japanese religion.

In addition to this, the American military were committing war crimes before the drop of the nuclear bombs. The American military was killing more japanese citizens in there multiple night time carpet bombing runs than they did with the nuclear bombs.

The nuclear bomb was not "to end the war" because the war was already over when Truman decided go ahead and use then. The nuclear bomb was to show the USSR our military capabilities to scare them once the war ended.

[-] abraxas@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s hard to claim the nuclear bombs were a major contributor to their surrender when Japan was trying to surrender before the first bomb dropped

They had a minority interest in surrendering before the first bomb dropped. The Fire Bombing of Tokyo civilan centers (arguably a worse atrocity than the bombs) had their morale and their communications broken, but every source I've ever read concludes that they genuinely were not ready to surrender, and it would have taken an actual mini-coup to do so, one that seemed to not be happening.

That doesn't mean the bombs were necessary. They were, however, contributors to the surrender. The Japan preparing to rally from having their capital razed, civilian targeting worse than they had seen either side commit in the war, was suddenly struck with Hiroshima being vaporized.

I DO believe they were in the process of surrendering when the bomb hit Nagisaki.

Taking a step back, the bigger question is whether there are wrong ways to win a war. The US took Japan to surrender using 4(or more?) of the biggest civilian-targetting mass-death events in human history. We destroyed their civilian economy with lethal force in preference to destroying their military infrastructure. I think that was unacceptable.

But it DID contribute to the surrender.

[-] UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago

Nanking?

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.