Oppenheimer

[JWags85]

With Oppenheimer's release around the corner, the hot takes have predictably come to emerge.

Irrespective of anything, its a fascinating story rooted in a brilliant man firmly at the center of historical and scientific crossroads.

Yet you're seeing stuff that are calling it "glorification of terrorism" and WILD revisionist history like "Its consensus among most historians that Japan was going to surrender before the bombs were dropped and they were totally unnecessary".  Totally ignoring that there was a LITERAL COUP and attempt to assassinate Hirihito and the PM due to their plan to surrender.  And people that likely have no clue what Operation Downfall is or what it might have resulted in.

Playing politics with modern lenses on things that happened 80 years ago is stupid.  Creating fictional historical scenarios on topics that are EXTENSIVELY reported on from a first person perspective to do so is even crazier.

As for the movie, while Tenet was dissapointing (IMO), Nolan's track record and a cast built on Cillian Murphy, Matt Damon, RDJ, and Kenneth Branagh around a fascinating topic has me incredibly excited.  Even the supporting cast is stacked with solid to quite underrated actors/actresses.

[Pakuni]

Not specific to just this historical event, but I would say we should always be reexamining and reevaluating history.
The first draft of history isn't always accurate and, to be cliche, is written by the victors ... who rarely have an unbiased or complete grasp of the events. Suggesting first person accounts are the best and most accurate wrongly assumes those accounts are coming from people who see the whole picture and recount it objectively.
Beyond that, new evidence surfaces, even decades or centuries after an event.

So, yeah, I don't think we should reshape history to fit modern mores, but questioning accepted narratives isn't inherently bad, and it's often smart.

[WhiteTrash]

We should never expect Hollywood to produce anything that is factually accurate. They are in the entertainment business. They are privately funded and those dollars will influence the product. I cannot wrap my head around watching a movie to be informed or educated about anything. Movies are for entertainment; nothing more nothing less.

Would you read a John Grisham novel to prepare for the bar exam?

I would agree with Pakuni about re-examining and researching historical events. That is a healthy and great way to learn. Just don't use Universal Pictures as your source.

[JWags85]

Not specific to just this historical event, but I would say we should always be reexamining and reevaluating history.
The first draft of history isn't always accurate and, to be cliche, is written by the victors ... who rarely have an unbiased or complete grasp of the events. Suggesting first person accounts are the best and most accurate wrongly assumes those accounts are coming from people who see the whole picture and recount it objectively.
Beyond that, new evidence surfaces, even decades or centuries after an event.

So, yeah, I don't think we should reshape history to fit modern mores, but questioning accepted narratives isn't inherently bad, and it's often smart.

I don't have an issue with questioning history.  And I'm not suggesting an infallibility of first person accounts, but more when you're addressing a historical topic that has plenty of first person accounts, statements, etc... , from both sides, it seems silly to push spurious narratives that can be easily disproven.  When compared to something that happened much longer ago, or was much less known, where first person testimony is lacking or nonexistent and thus it is up to second or third party historians to fill in the gaps.

I think the bombings were horrific and am thankful they've not been repeated in the decades that followed.  But too often I think huge controversial historical events get reviewed in a narrow lens by armchair quarterbacks.

Its easy to take the in a vacuum and been like "what a horrible overreach" without realizing that from a strategy viewpoint you could be looking at the option of 500K dead vs 2MM dead and failing to realizing how horrifically sobering things were at that point. Then again, its just as easy for people to be like F*** YES AMERICA, F AROUND AND FIND OUT, BOOM BOOM and blissfully ride with all's well that ends well.  Both are narrow minded and lazy.

I would agree with Pakuni about re-examining and researching historical events. That is a healthy and great way to learn. Just don't use Universal Pictures as your source.

I learned all I ever needed to know about modern warfare from Starship Troopers.

[jesmu84]

Truthfully, I have yet to see any of this discussion. Where you seeing it, wags?

[Pakuni]

Its easy to take the in a vacuum and been like "what a horrible overreach" without realizing that from a strategy viewpoint you could be looking at the option of 500K dead vs 2MM dead and failing to realizing how horrifically sobering things were at that point.

I just see that as normal debate. And while I agree with your side of that debate, it's all based on a hypothetical - what would have happened without nukes? I don't see anything wrong with the debate.

As for armchair quarterbacking ... that's kind of what historians do.

[tower912]

It is good to hash out momentous historic decisions.    Those who do not know history are destined to repeat it.   

[MU82]

I've heard this flick is a total bomb.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

With Oppenheimer's release around the corner, the hot takes have predictably come to emerge.

Irrespective of anything, its a fascinating story rooted in a brilliant man firmly at the center of historical and scientific crossroads.

Yet you're seeing stuff that are calling it "glorification of terrorism" and WILD revisionist history like "Its consensus among most historians that Japan was going to surrender before the bombs were dropped and they were totally unnecessary".  Totally ignoring that there was a LITERAL COUP and attempt to assassinate Hirihito and the PM due to their plan to surrender.  And people that likely have no clue what Operation Downfall is or what it might have resulted in.

Playing politics with modern lenses on things that happened 80 years ago is stupid.  Creating fictional historical scenarios on topics that are EXTENSIVELY reported on from a first person perspective to do so is even crazier.

As for the movie, while Tenet was dissapointing (IMO), Nolan's track record and a cast built on Cillian Murphy, Matt Damon, RDJ, and Kenneth Branagh around a fascinating topic has me incredibly excited.  Even the supporting cast is stacked with solid to quite underrated actors/actresses.

I was discussing this movie with my Gen Z kids this past weekend and my older daughter "that Japan was going to surrender before the bombs were dropped and they were totally unnecessary" came up.  I had to school them why it was not.  The entire planet was extremely tired of war and all wanted it over.  The US did not want to take millions of casualties and if Japan didn't get the message after the first one they were going to get a second.

I don't know why you're making me think of this.  My corporation's parent owner is Japanese.  (Mitsubishi Materials Corp)  We had a manufacturing conference back in 2019 in New Haven, CT.  I did the fun welcome to New Haven PowerPoint and among the descriptions & photos of local landmarks was "The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge".   I did not use the locally known name of it, the Q Bridge (short for Quinnipiac River).  History is history and is embedded in names everywhere.

[Uncle Rico]

I was discussing this movie with my Gen Z kids this past weekend and my older daughter "that Japan was going to surrender before the bombs were dropped and they were totally unnecessary" came up.  I had to school them why it was not.  The entire planet was extremely tired of war and all wanted it over.  The US did not want to take millions of casualties and if Japan didn't get the message after the first one they were going to get a second.

I don't know why you're making me think of this.  My corporation's parent owner is Japanese.  (Mitsubishi Materials Corp)  We had a manufacturing conference back in 2019 in New Haven, CT.  I did the fun welcome to New Haven PowerPoint and among the descriptions & photos of local landmarks was "The Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge".   I did not use the locally known name of it, the Q Bridge (short for Quinnipiac River).  History is history and is embedded in names everywhere.

And this is why the notion of “rolling the tanks to Moscow” isn’t rooted in reality.

[tower912]

I've heard this flick is a total bomb.

Bravo

[JWags85]

Truthfully, I have yet to see any of this discussion. Where you seeing it, wags?

Couple normally decent Twitter accounts, though one I thought I had unfollowed a few weeks ago for assorted stupidity so thats on me. 

But then also on a multi-continental professional WhatsApp group chat that I'm in.  Mostly spearheaded by a couple of Europeans and a couple guys who are aggressively pro-BRICS and like to sh** on the "West" any chance they get (ironic considering I'd estimate 80-90% of their business is non-BRICS countries. Amusingly, a Japanese colleague I know based in HK was one pushing back on it and being like "I don't think you guys actually understand Imperial Japan..."

I just see that as normal debate. And while I agree with your side of that debate, it's all based on a hypothetical - what would have happened without nukes? I don't see anything wrong with the debate.

As for armchair quarterbacking ... that's kind of what historians do.

I don't disagree.  An actual debate is productive and usually informative, even if ultimately not swaying opinion.  But definitive "this is what it actually was" statements with little to back it up is more of what I refer to.  None of the people I mention are even amateur historians or shown any meaningful interest in military history to that point.   Honestly not all that different than people who don't really follow the NBA but were SUPER excited to label Wemby a bust after a single Summer League game to be appropriately contrarian to the popular buzz about him.

[Hards Alumni]

With Oppenheimer's release around the corner, the hot takes have predictably come to emerge.

Irrespective of anything, its a fascinating story rooted in a brilliant man firmly at the center of historical and scientific crossroads.

Yet you're seeing stuff that are calling it "glorification of terrorism" and WILD revisionist history like "Its consensus among most historians that Japan was going to surrender before the bombs were dropped and they were totally unnecessary".  Totally ignoring that there was a LITERAL COUP and attempt to assassinate Hirihito and the PM due to their plan to surrender.  And people that likely have no clue what Operation Downfall is or what it might have resulted in.

Playing politics with modern lenses on things that happened 80 years ago is stupid.  Creating fictional historical scenarios on topics that are EXTENSIVELY reported on from a first person perspective to do so is even crazier.

As for the movie, while Tenet was dissapointing (IMO), Nolan's track record and a cast built on Cillian Murphy, Matt Damon, RDJ, and Kenneth Branagh around a fascinating topic has me incredibly excited.  Even the supporting cast is stacked with solid to quite underrated actors/actresses.

I'm going to see the movie.

But you also need to realize that history is typically written by the victors.  We dropped those bombs for multiple reasons.  One was certainly to intimidate the USSR.

[MuggsyB]

I absolutely love Cillian Murphy and will eventually see the film because of him. 

[🏀]

I absolutely love Cillian Murphy and will eventually see the film because of him. 

Someone’s excited about Murphy’s nude scene. 

[Boozemon Barro]

Who care, it's just a dumb movie.

[MuggsyB]

Someone’s excited about Murphy’s nude scene. 

LOL.  I saw Cillian Murphy in essentially a one man stage performance about 10 years ago in NY.  He was superb.  The guy is a phenomenal actor. 

[dgies9156]

Who cares, it's just a dumb movie.

The problem with this theory is that movies mold generational minds. Incorrect facts or interpretations of history have tendency to live far after the movie fades into oblivion.

Case in point: Oliver Stone's JFK. The aftereffects continue to feed a conspiracy theory on the Kennedy Assassination that won't go away.

As a practical matter, no one would argue that militarily, the Japanese were done in mid-1945. But, as the fights at Iwo Jima and Okinawa showed, the Japanese were not about to give up. As others have pointed out, even after the Emperor agreed to go on the air and "bear the unbearable", there was an attempted coup.

Domestically, suppose President Truman decided not to use the atomic bomb and committed 2.5 million to 3.0 million troops and sustained 500,000 to 750,000 casualties to conquer Japan. When it became known that those troops died largely because the President refused to use atomic weapons, President Truman would have been impeached and the Republic would have been imperiled. Oh, and don't kid yourself, nothing would have changed. The Russians still would have had the bomb in 1949. Moreover, half of Japan and a good part of China would be speaking Russian.

The "war crime" occurred on December 7, 1941. At that point, the United States had an obligation to use every weapon in its disposal to repel and neuter the attacker. We did. And, for all those who think of us as war criminals, what war criminal would treat the vanquished as well as we did Japan and Germany?

History says, NO One.

[Hards Alumni]

The problem with this theory is that movies mold generational minds. Incorrect facts or interpretations of history have tendency to live far after the movie fades into oblivion.

Case in point: Oliver Stone's JFK. The aftereffects continue to feed a conspiracy theory on the Kennedy Assassination that won't go away.

As a practical matter, no one would argue that militarily, the Japanese were done in mid-1945. But, as the fights at Iwo Jima and Okinawa showed, the Japanese were not about to give up. As others have pointed out, even after the Emperor agreed to go on the air and "bear the unbearable", there was an attempted coup.

Domestically, suppose President Truman decided not to use the atomic bomb and committed 2.5 million to 3.0 million troops and sustained 500,000 to 750,000 casualties to conquer Japan. When it became known that those troops died largely because the President refused to use atomic weapons, President Truman would have been impeached and the Republic would have been imperiled. Oh, and don't kid yourself, nothing would have changed. The Russians still would have had the bomb in 1949. Moreover, half of Japan and a good part of China would be speaking Russian.

The "war crime" occurred on December 7, 1941. At that point, the United States had an obligation to use every weapon in its disposal to repel and neuter the attacker. We did. And, for all those who think of us as war criminals, what war criminal would treat the vanquished as well as we did Japan and Germany?

History says, NO One.

Well we needed them as allies to counter the USSR.  So I wouldn't pretend as though our motives we altogether altruistic.

[MU82]

Bull Durham did more to inspire conspiracy series about Nukes than anything.

[dgies9156]

Well we needed them as allies to counter the USSR.  So I wouldn't pretend as though our motives we altogether altruistic.

Never said our motives were pure. The political nature of the decision alone was opportunistic. Even if the choice was 500,000 American lives saved if our weapon killed 2 million Japanese, a President would have been derelict in his duty not to use it. President Truman had no choice.

President Truman's decision was heroic but one I'd never want to make. Ever.

Leo Szilard and the crowd that tried to persuade the President against atomic weaponry in the Japanese theater were interesting characters. They acted as if the bomb was their's and they had a right to decide how it was used. Most of them had a grudge with Germany and would have been happy to use it on the Nazis but less so on the Japanese. To the President's credit -- and that of Secretary of State Byrnes -- the Szilard and University of Chicago crowd had their day but were ultimately not followed.

The real war crime -- the one conveniently forgotten by people who think the United States was irresponsible and criminal at Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

[MuggsyB]

Never said our motives were pure. The political nature of the decision alone was opportunistic. Even if the choice was 500,000 American lives saved if our weapon killed 2 million Japanese, a President would have been derelict in his duty not to use it. President Truman had no choice.

President Truman's decision was heroic but one I'd never want to make. Ever.

Leo Szilard and the crowd that tried to persuade the President against atomic weaponry in the Japanese theater were interesting characters. They acted as if the bomb was their's and they had a right to decide how it was used. Most of them had a grudge with Germany and would have been happy to use it on the Nazis but less so on the Japanese. To the President's credit -- and that of Secretary of State Byrnes -- the Szilard and University of Chicago crowd had their day but were ultimately not followed.

The real war crime -- the one conveniently forgotten by people who think the United States was irresponsible and criminal at Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

It's interesting if you go to the Edo-Tokyo HIstory Museum brother dgies if you have not been there.  They conveniently skip over some facts (or at least did 5 years ago) when they do their little Modern Japan timeline.  Including their invasion of Manchuria and Peatl Harbor.  The truth is Truman absolutely made the right decision.

[dgies9156]

The truth is Truman absolutely made the right decision.

President Truman is one of my personal heroes. I admire his political and personal strength even though he never had a formal college education.

One of the truly best ever.

[Jockey]

President Truman is one of my personal heroes. I admire his political and personal strength even though he never had a formal college education.

One of the truly best ever.

Truman and Yadi? 

[MuggsyB]

President Truman is one of my personal heroes. I admire his political and personal strength even though he never had a formal college education.

One of the truly best ever.

Brother dgies,

Our mistake was not exerting our power more strongly after the war.  It would have prevented the horrific acts of Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, etc.  When people complain about American hegemony my response is another country could not maintain any semblance of a Balance of Power ideology then or now.  I have some hawkish tendencies but imagine this world had we not dropped the hammer?   We have a plethora of problems, no doubt about that.  Multiply those problems by 1000 if we aren't the dominant superpower.