MUScoop

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 12, 2023, 02:29:01 PM
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.

Quote from: WhiteTrash on July 12, 2023, 02:43:13 PM
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.

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

Quote from: JWags85 on July 12, 2023, 02:54:57 PM
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.

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

I've heard this flick is a total bomb.

Quote from: JWags85 on July 12, 2023, 02:09:44 PM
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.

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on July 12, 2023, 03:43:13 PM
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.

Quote from: MU82 on July 12, 2023, 03:39:49 PM
I've heard this flick is a total bomb.

Bravo

Quote from: jesmu84 on July 12, 2023, 02:57:14 PM
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..."

Quote from: Pakuni on July 12, 2023, 03:08:43 PM
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.

Quote from: JWags85 on July 12, 2023, 02:09:44 PM
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.

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

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 12, 2023, 06:58:05 PM
I absolutely love Cillian Murphy and will eventually see the film because of him. 

Someone's excited about Murphy's nude scene.  ;D

Who care, it's just a dumb movie.

Quote from: 🏀 on July 13, 2023, 05:41:31 AM
Someone's excited about Murphy's nude scene.  ;D

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. 

Quote from: Boozemon Barro on July 13, 2023, 07:26:32 AM
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.

Quote from: dgies9156 on July 13, 2023, 11:53:25 AM
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.

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

(https://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/917/524/nukelaloosh_display_image.jpg?1304588475)

Quote from: Hards Alumni on July 13, 2023, 12:07:34 PM
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.

Quote from: dgies9156 on July 13, 2023, 05:04:50 PM
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.

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 13, 2023, 05:21:47 PM
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.

Quote from: dgies9156 on July 13, 2023, 05:45:59 PM
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?  ;)

Quote from: dgies9156 on July 13, 2023, 05:45:59 PM
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. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 12, 2023, 06:58:05 PM
I absolutely love Cillian Murphy and will eventually see the film because of him.

Just read that he was living in London but when he realized that his kids were developing British  accents, he packed them up and moved back to Ireland.

Quote from: Mutaman on July 14, 2023, 01:58:07 AM
Just read that he was living in London but when he realized that his kids were developing British  accents, he packed them up and moved back to Ireland.

Read the interview in Rolling Stone.  He definitely says this in that interview.
It's not a long read.

Quote from: dgies9156 on July 13, 2023, 05:04:50 PM
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 was a surprise attack.  War crimes typically are the results of unnecessary suffering for the sake of it.  Does the attack on Pearl Harbor fit the technical definition?  Sure, I guess.

But, calling Pearl Harbor a war crime is reductive, in my opinion... enslavement, rape, torture, wanton killing of non combatants, use of child soldiers, you get the picture.  Obviously, this is just my opinion, and I don't mean to minimize the events of Pearl Harbor.  But by that definition, isn't every surprise opening attack of a war, a war crime?

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 13, 2023, 07:15:08 PM
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.

That's very Americentric of you.

Quote from: Hards Alumni on July 14, 2023, 06:11:27 AM
It was a surprise attack.  War crimes typically are the results of unnecessary suffering for the sake of it.  Does the attack on Pearl Harbor fit the technical definition?  Sure, I guess.

But, calling Pearl Harbor a war crime is reductive, in my opinion... enslavement, rape, torture, wanton killing of non combatants, use of child soldiers, you get the picture.  Obviously, this is just my opinion, and I don't mean to minimize the events of Pearl Harbor.  But by that definition, isn't every surprise opening attack of a war, a war crime?

The firebombing of Tokyo using napalm which killed more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined was really more of a war crime. But the idea of only bombing military targets had long since been in the rear view mirror.

On a personal note, when the atomic bombs were dropped, my father was aboard his ancient destroyer which was in the process of being stripped down so a skeleton volunteer crew could man it to act as a diversion to draw away fire from the invading fleet. So I'm pretty happy that Truman made that choice.

Quote from: pbiflyer on July 14, 2023, 06:50:55 AM
The firebombing of Tokyo using napalm which killed more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined was really more of a war crime. But the idea of only bombing military targets had long since been in the rear view mirror.

On a personal note, when the atomic bombs were dropped, my father was aboard his ancient destroyer which was in the process of being stripped down so a skeleton volunteer crew could man it to act as a diversion to draw away fire from the invading fleet. So I'm pretty happy that Truman made that choice.

Oh, absolutely.  Bombing of London, Dresden and Tokyo... et al.  Much bigger war crimes.

Yeah very fortunate.  I'm not against the dropping of the bomb, I just think it was more complicated of a decision than to 'end the war in the pacific'.

Quote from: pbiflyer on July 14, 2023, 06:50:55 AM
On a personal note, when the atomic bombs were dropped, my father was aboard his ancient destroyer which was in the process of being stripped down so a skeleton volunteer crew could man it to act as a diversion to draw away fire from the invading fleet. So I'm pretty happy that Truman made that choice.

Great story about your dad. Glad he and his mates survived the war, and extra glad you're here to tell about it!!!

(My dad fought in the Battle of the Bulge. What heroes that generation produced.)

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 13, 2023, 07:15:08 PM
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.

Brother Muggsy:

This is a fascinating take on the immediate post-ear era. It's very Pattonesque.

What the Soviets didn't want anyone to know was that everything from the Ural Mountains to the westernmost regions of their country was destroyed. The industrial capability of the Soviet Union was in shambles and the military strength of the Soviet Army came from enormous supplies provided by the United States.

The rebuild of European Russia took decades -- one of the key reasons why the Soviets detested the U2 flights as they exposed the country's weaknesses. Without Marshall Plan assistance and with a required huge military investment, the westernmost portions of the Soviet Union took decades to rebuild.

In the Soviet mind, the atomic bomb was the one thing that kept the U.S. out of their country after 1949.

Four years of all-out war left the US war weary itself. Apart from the battles we faced in war, our country was in all-out war production mode. There was little taste for another set of battles aimed at toppling a Soviet Communist government. Indeed, politicians like Henry Wallace had fostered the notion that the Soviets were a friendly government -- a notion that even Franklin Roosevelt conveniently harbored. The bloom came off that rose at Potsdam and a year later at Fulton, Missouri, where Prime Minister Churchill gave the Iron Curtain speech.

Are you suggesting the US didn't know that the Western USSR was devastated by a years long modern war involving aerial bombardment, artillery barrages, and tank warfare until the U2 flights?

Oh boy.

Not at all big boy.

Of course we knew there were problems. But the U2 was 15 years later and the lack of progress was embarrassing.

I doubt even the US knew exactly how bad it was. No doubt we had a general idea but the extent of the destruction was probably not known.

Quote from: dgies9156 on July 14, 2023, 05:23:02 PM
Not at all big boy.

Of course we knew there were problems. But the U2 was 15 years later and the lack of progress was embarrassing.

I doubt even the US knew exactly how bad it was. No doubt we had a general idea but the extent of the destruction was probably not known.

You've heard of the CIA, right?

Quote from: Hards Alumni on July 14, 2023, 05:26:13 PM
You've heard of the CIA, right?

Whether the CIA knew or not is irrelevant. We clearly fked up strategically just as we did with the stupid  Dawes Plan in 1923.  Globalists should take note of both disastrous decisions which caused insane amounts of human suffering and slaughter. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 14, 2023, 05:39:15 PM
Whether the CIA knew or not is irrelevant. We clearly fked up strategically just as we did with the stupid  Dawes Plan in 1923.  Globalists should take note of both disastrous decisions which caused insane amounts of human suffering and slaughter.

Are you suggesting invading Russia post-WWII as a means of minimizing human suffering?

Quote from: MU82 on July 14, 2023, 08:55:59 AM
Great story about your dad. Glad he and his mates survived the war, and extra glad you're here to tell about it!!!

(My dad fought in the Battle of the Bulge. What heroes that generation produced.)

Yeah they were. I was fortunate enough to be present at a Veteran's Day celebration in 2019 honoring WWII vets. Got to spend time with some of  them. Amazing men. Amazing stories.
Strangely enough, one of the guys was a UDT who was part of the Saipan invasion. My dad's ship delivered UDT teams for that invasion. While the gentleman was not on my dad's ship, he was likely within a few hundred yards of him. Strange that they sat side by side so many decades later.

Quote from: pbiflyer on July 14, 2023, 10:03:39 PM
Yeah they were. I was fortunate enough to be present at a Veteran's Day celebration in 2019 honoring WWII vets. Got to spend time with some of  them. Amazing men. Amazing stories.
Strangely enough, one of the guys was a UDT who was part of the Saipan invasion. My dad's ship delivered UDT teams for that invasion. While the gentleman was not on my dad's ship, he was likely within a few hundred yards of him. Strange that they sat side by side so many decades later.

That's incredible, pbi.

All too soon, there won't be a single WWII veteran left, but thankfully their stories and memories will live on. I've been lucky enough to go to both the Pearl Harbor site on Oahu and the WWII museum in New Orleans, and both were fascinating experiences.

My dad didn't like to talk about the war and just about never did. Years ago, my son (then 8 I think) "interviewed" him for a school project. I was listening in and taking notes - I hadn't heard most of the stuff my dad told my son, and that report remains an important part of our family archive.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 14, 2023, 07:59:02 PM
Are you suggesting invading Russia post-WWII as a means of minimizing human suffering?

That's a tough one. Fight in a war or live under communism, which is worse? Well, I guess fighting in a war so that you can live under communism is kind of the worst of all worlds scenario.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 14, 2023, 07:59:02 PM
Are you suggesting invading Russia post-WWII as a means of minimizing human suffering?

Winston knew what the Hell was up Pakumi.  His foresight was spot-on with regards to Hitler and Stalin.  We should have listened to him. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 15, 2023, 05:32:55 PM
Winston knew what the Hell was up Pakumi.  His foresight was spot-on with regards to Hitler and Stalin.  We should have listened to him.

Then he should have taken the British to war against Russia.  America was tired of war and leaders such as Eisenhower were well aware of this.

You can revise history all you want but Americans were done with war in 1945

Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 15, 2023, 05:41:13 PM
Then he should have taken the British to war against Russia.  America was tired of war and leaders such as Eisenhower were well aware of this.

You can revise history all you want but Americans were done with war in 1945

I get that.  War or occupation isn't fun.  Not acting wound up being less fun imo. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 15, 2023, 05:32:55 PM
Winston knew what the Hell was up Pakumi.  His foresight was spot-on with regards to Hitler and Stalin.  We should have listened to him.

"Invading Russia is a great idea. What could go wrong?"
Co-signed,
Napoleon and Hitler

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 15, 2023, 05:46:09 PM
I get that.  War or occupation isn't fun.  Not acting wound up being less fun imo.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  It's not provable either way. 

Quote from: Pakuni on July 15, 2023, 05:46:45 PM
"Invading Russia is a great idea. What could go wrong?"
Co-signed,
Napoleon and Hitler

Your making a false analogy.  The Russians were completely decimated after WW2 and lost more lives than anyone by far.  The Finns essentially kicked the crap of them proportionally.  RIP Simo Hayha.  :(

We probably could have annexed the country in a few weeks.  :)

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 15, 2023, 05:32:55 PM
Winston knew what the Hell was up Pakumi.  His foresight was spot-on with regards to Hitler and Stalin.  We should have listened to him.

Gen George S Patton as well was very forward thinking then knowing Stalin and the Soviets were dangerous and not to be trusted. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 15, 2023, 06:18:44 PM
Your making a false analogy.  The Russians were completely decimated after WW2 and lost more lives than anyone by far.  The Finns essentially kicked the crap of them proportionally.  RIP Simo Hayha.  :(

We probably could have annexed the country in a few weeks.  :)

I agree we probably could have defeated Russia expeditiously, but keeping peace and the Communists from regaining power would have been a very long and difficult task.  The long term was the biggest problem.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 15, 2023, 05:41:13 PM
Then he should have taken the British to war against Russia.  America was tired of war and leaders such as Eisenhower were well aware of this.

I imagine the British were tired too - they'd been at it years more than the Americans.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 15, 2023, 08:28:30 PM
I imagine the British were tired too - they'd been at it years more than the Americans.

We also were still fighting in the Pacific.  The European theater troops were headed there next.  The invasion of the Home Islands was still on the planning table too.  1-2million more soldiers needed.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 15, 2023, 08:28:30 PM
I imagine the British were tired too - they'd been at it years more than the Americans.

That's the point.  The idea Britain or America were willing to fight towards Moscow is wishful thinking.  I agree with Muggs Post-WWI strategy and policy was a disaster.  So was WWII but we did the best we could.  Rolling the tanks would have been worse.

Churchill, FDR or Truman didn't had any positive illusions about Stalin or the USSR.  None of them were going to direct troops towards Moscow.

Stalin sat with Churchill, FDR and Truman and helped stop the fascists.    In hindsight, yes, he was a murderous bastard.   In real time and realpolitik, you simply do not immediately turn on a leader and country with whom you were allied within a matter of weeks.  Plus, the world was exhausted.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 15, 2023, 09:02:10 PM
That's the point.  The idea Britain or America were willing to fight towards Moscow is wishful thinking.  I agree with Muggs Post-WWI strategy and policy was a disaster.  So was WWII but we did the best we could.  Rolling the tanks would have been worse.


Churchill, FDR or Truman didn't had any positive illusions about Stalin or the USSR.  None of them were going to direct troops towards Moscow.

Churchill absolutely discussed very seriously with his staff the idea of invading Russia.  Apparently everyone is tired or was tired except Winston because he foresaw the entire picture.  And as far as not having a stomach for war do we have a stomach for the Gulags, Cultural Revolution,  Cambodia, etc?  We agree for the most part:  our post WW2 geopolitical strategies and decisions have been unmitigated and inexcusable disasters. 

Our pre WW2 geopolitical policies weren't so great.

Quote from: tower912 on July 16, 2023, 07:40:41 AM
Our pre WW2 geopolitical policies weren't so great.

True. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 16, 2023, 07:31:52 AM
Churchill absolutely discussed very seriously with his staff the idea of invading Russia.  Apparently everyone is tired or was tired except Winston because he foresaw the entire picture.  And as far as not having a stomach for war do we have a stomach for the Gulags, Cultural Revolution,  Cambodia, etc?  We agree for the most part:  our post WW2 geopolitical strategies and decisions have been unmitigated and inexcusable disasters.

If I'm understanding you correctly - and please let me know if I'm not - you're advocating for an invasion of Russia that had zero guarantee of success - and, in fact, history suggests otherwise - and would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, if not more, on both sides ... in hopes of avoiding what? The Gulags?
I don't mean to blithely dismiss the horrors of the Gulags, but it's a tough sell to say a couple hundred thousand Americans and Brits should die, along maybe twice as many Russians, in the hopes of avoiding the Gulags.
Honestly, I think you're far underselling the horrors of more WWII on the U.S. and greatly overselling the impact of Stalinism on the U.S.

Also, what makes you believe invading Russia would have prevented the Cultural Revolution, Cambodia, etc.? Where's the direct line there?

Quote from: Pakuni on July 16, 2023, 07:49:27 AM
If I'm understanding you correctly - and please let me know if I'm not - you're advocating for an invasion of Russia that had zero guarantee of success - and, in fact, history suggests otherwise - and would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, if not more, on both sides ... in hopes of avoiding what? The Gulags?
I don't mean to blithely dismiss the horrors of the Gulags, but it's a tough sell to say a couple hundred thousand Americans and Brits should die, along maybe twice as many Russians, in the hopes of avoiding the Gulags.
Honestly, I think you're far underselling the horrors of more WWII on the U.S. and greatly overselling the impact of Stalinism on the U.S.

Also, what makes you believe invading Russia would have prevented the Cultural Revolution, Cambodia, etc.? Where's the direct line there?

Ideologically I think Stalin's government had a major impact on future governments in these aforementioned places and obviously the future of Russia.  There are no certainties with these situations of course. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 16, 2023, 08:01:40 AM
Ideologically I think Stalin's government had a major impact on future governments in these aforementioned places and obviously the future of Russia.  There are no certainties with these situations of course.

The Chinese communist movement already was well established before the rise of Stalin or WWII.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 16, 2023, 08:10:40 AM
The Chinese communist movement already was well established before the rise of Stalin or WWII.

Yes. LI-Tai-Zhou. But Maoism took it to a terrible level. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 16, 2023, 07:31:52 AM
Churchill absolutely discussed very seriously with his staff the idea of invading Russia.  Apparently everyone is tired or was tired except Winston because he foresaw the entire picture.  And as far as not having a stomach for war do we have a stomach for the Gulags, Cultural Revolution,  Cambodia, etc?  We agree for the most part:  our post WW2 geopolitical strategies and decisions have been unmitigated and inexcusable disasters.

Churchill was not the genius you think he was, and the British were very tired of him by the end of the war.

Your personal fear of Communism is very 1950s oriented, and seems to only acknowledge the atrocities committed by the Soviets... while wholly ignoring the USA's hand in coup's and human suffering.

Invading Russia would have cost millions of Allied lives, and would have shown the world that the US was willing to turn its back on an ally at a moments notice. 

What a mammoth waste of time, lives, and money that would have been.  You can't beat ideology with bombs, you need diplomacy for that.

Quote from: Hards Alumni on July 19, 2023, 01:14:22 PM
Churchill was not the genius you think he was, and the British were very tired of him by the end of the war.

Your personal fear of Communism is very 1950s oriented, and seems to only acknowledge the atrocities committed by the Soviets... while wholly ignoring the USA's hand in coup's and human suffering.

Invading Russia would have cost millions of Allied lives, and would have shown the world that the US was willing to turn its back on an ally at a moments notice. 

What a mammoth waste of time, lives, and money that would have been.  You can't beat ideology with bombs, you need diplomacy for that.

Bingo

Revisionist history of what we should have done, shouldn't include tanks onto Moscow.

Now, if you want to blast the CIA and American foreign policy post-WWII, absolutely.

Not to mention both the American and British public had NO desire to continue the war. Anyone who thinks that invading the USSR would have been a good idea is a poor student of history. It would have been a disaster.

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 16, 2023, 08:01:40 AM
Ideologically I think Stalin's government had a major impact on future governments in these aforementioned places and obviously the future of Russia.  There are no certainties with these situations of course.

Muggs, I gotta say I love your enthusiasm for fighting ideas with bullets.

Scoop's tired legs philosphy is leaking into the superbar.

Yes, there were actually very serious talks from the allied countries (excluding USSR obviously) about continuing a war with the USSR. Including folding the Wehrmacht into the action after they defeated Hitler.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 19, 2023, 01:57:03 PM
Not to mention both the American and British public had NO desire to continue the war. Anyone who thinks that invading the USSR would have been a good idea is a poor student of history. It would have been a disaster.

Sounds exactly like Neville C in 1938.  How did that work out?  Whoops. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 19, 2023, 04:12:55 PM
Sounds exactly like Neville C in 1938.  How did that work out?  Whoops. 

Actually it sounds nothing like it, because America and the West actually won the Cold War.

I don't understand how you can't see this, but the western course of action post WWII actually worked. If you would go back a few decades and told people that the USSR would break apart, and that much of eastern Europe would be democratic, members of the EU and even NATO members, every single person would have said that was an absolute victory.

Quote from: #UnleashSean on July 19, 2023, 04:03:04 PM
Scoop's tired legs philosphy is leaking into the superbar.

Yes, there were actually very serious talks from the allied countries (excluding USSR obviously) about continuing a war with the USSR. Including folding the Wehrmacht into the action after they defeated Hitler.

I don't know what you mean by "very serious talks," but there were plans drawn up by the UK that the US was apparently never all that interested in pursuing. And at best would have kicked the USSR out of Germany and Poland. They were never talking about going on to Moscow like Muggs is suggesting.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 19, 2023, 04:15:28 PM
Actually it sounds nothing like it, because America and the West actually won the Cold War.

True, though it took nearly 40 years.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 19, 2023, 04:18:37 PM
True, though it took nearly 40 years.

I mean yeah. It was that or Muggsy's idea of invading Russia. What was less expensive in terms of dollars and human life?

I doubt it was invading a country that twice in about a 100 years time already ran roughshod over "unstoppable" invading armies.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 19, 2023, 04:23:57 PM
I mean yeah. It was that or Muggsy's idea of invading Russia. What was less expensive in terms of dollars and human life?

I doubt it was invading a country that twice in about a 100 years time already ran roughshod over "unstoppable" invading armies.

People thought Winston was crazy.  He clearly wasn't.  And comparing a potential invasion at that moment, to Russia's 100 yr past, is not applicable at all. 

Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 19, 2023, 04:18:37 PM
True, though it took nearly 40 years.

And it would have taken zero years Lenny if I was in charge.   :)

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 19, 2023, 04:32:28 PM
And it would have taken zero years Lenny if I was in charge.   :)

Just millions of lives, not counting the likely wars that would follow.

It's pretty simpleminded thinking to believe the world would have seen America as a champion in the scenario you believe should have played out.  In fact, it's stupid

Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 19, 2023, 04:47:31 PM
Just millions of lives, not counting the likely wars that would follow.

It's pretty simpleminded thinking to believe the world would have seen America as a champion in the scenario you believe should have played out.  In fact, it's stupid

Apparently you have forgotten the millions of lives lost post WW2. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 19, 2023, 04:50:37 PM
Apparently you have forgotten the millions of lives lost post WW2.

We should have saved millions of Russian lives ... by killing millions of Russians, and losing several hundred thousand Allied lives along the way?

Quote from: Pakuni on July 19, 2023, 04:56:50 PM
We should have saved millions of Russian lives ... by killing millions of Russians, and losing several hundred thousand Allied lives along the way?

I'm not saying it would be easy but I don't think we would have wound up killing millions of Russians and losing 100K Allied troops. 

From a pure number of soldiers standpoint, the Russians outnumbered the rest  of the Allies.   If the US and Britain
had engaged in that hare brained fantasy, it is equally likely Russia would have swept across Europe.

You simply do not, in a matter of weeks, turn on a country that helped defeat the Axis.

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 19, 2023, 04:50:37 PM
Apparently you have forgotten the millions of lives lost post WW2.

Add a million plus on top of those that would have died in a war with Russia, a million plus Americans and Western Europeans.  An entire generation lost in continuous war.

Also, rearm the Wehrmacht?  What Wehrmacht?  Old men, kids and women were defending Germany in April of 1945.  Heckuva plan.

The idea Russia would have been an easy victory is so deluded, almost as deluded as not thinking of the constant retribution of any mythical victory over Russia. 

You want to blame communism for all those deaths?  You might want to investigate the role of our intelligence community and the military-industrial complex post-WWII

Operation Unthinkable. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 19, 2023, 04:59:19 PM
I'm not saying it would be easy but I don't think we would have wound up killing millions of Russians and losing 100K Allied troops.

We justify (fairly, IMO) nuking Japan because it avoided even more casualties, on both sides, from an invasion of the main islands. What makes you believe the Russians would defend their homeland any less fiercely?

Quote from: tower912 on July 19, 2023, 05:03:45 PM
Operation Unthinkable.

Which was never put into action because planners early on recognized it was a bad idea.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 19, 2023, 05:10:12 PM
We justify (fairly, IMO) nuking Japan because it avoided even more casualties, on both sides, from an invasion of the main islands. What makes you believe the Russians would defend their homeland any less fiercely?

And we would have had zero justification using nuclear weapons against the Soviets in 1945.  Zero.

Then, after we finished with Russia in a few weeks, we coulda marched into China and then North Korea and then Iran and then Iraq. Coulda prevented a lot of misery years later if we had just taken 'em all down.

Oh, and I forgot Canada. Them and their effen wildfires.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 19, 2023, 05:11:23 PM
Which was never put into action because planners early on recognized it was a bad idea.

First, thanks to Muggsy for insipring the research.    And yes, the military leaders of the day, British and American, thought it would not succeed.

Quote from: MU82 on July 19, 2023, 05:49:24 PM
Then, after we finished with Russia in a few weeks, we coulda marched into China and then North Korea and then Iran and then Iraq. Coulda prevented a lot of misery years later if we had just taken 'em all down.

Oh, and I forgot Canada. Them and their effen wildfires.

I like that idea!  I'm a bit anachronistic I suppose.   I feel the world is way better off if we're the dominant power  :)

Quote from: tower912 on July 19, 2023, 05:51:33 PM
First, thanks to Muggsy for insipring the research.    And yes, the military leaders of the day, British and American, thought it would not succeed.

Of course the Finns essentially kicked the crap of the Russians proportionally.  We had the hammer and I believe they would have surrendered quickly at that time. :)

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 19, 2023, 06:15:56 PM
Of course the Finns essentially kicked the crap of the Russians proportionally.  We had the hammer and I believe they would have surrendered quickly at that time. :)

You're wrong

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 19, 2023, 06:15:56 PM
Of course the Finns essentially kicked the crap of the Russians proportionally.  We had the hammer and I believe they would have surrendered quickly at that time. :)

Sometimes you are just flat out crazy.

Quote from: MU82 on July 19, 2023, 05:49:24 PM
Then, after we finished with Russia in a few weeks, we coulda marched into China and then North Korea and then Iran and then Iraq. Coulda prevented a lot of misery years later if we had just taken 'em all down.

Oh, and I forgot Canada. Them and their effen wildfires.

  cue in the dean scream

Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 19, 2023, 06:27:58 PM
You're wrong

You have no idea and they were completely decimated. I'm just throwing it out there but I don't think it's a crazy thought. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 19, 2023, 06:42:23 PM
You have no idea and they were completely decimated. I'm just throwing it out there but I don't think it's a crazy thought.

You're wrong

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 19, 2023, 06:15:56 PM
Of course the Finns essentially kicked the crap of the Russians proportionally.  We had the hammer and I believe they would have surrendered quickly at that time. :)

How many lives would you be willing to gamble to find out?
The Finns were defending their homeland, not an invading force. What's that tell you?

Quote from: Pakuni on July 19, 2023, 06:48:22 PM
How many lives would you be willing to gamble to find out?
The Finns were defending their homeland, not an invading force. What's that tell you?

Something tells me Muggs was all in on the "treated as liberators" talking point.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 19, 2023, 06:52:25 PM
Something tells me Muggs was all in on the "treated as liberators" talking point.

I still believe we're the greatest country on this planet.  Despite the haters who have no concept whatsoever of what this world would look like if we weren't successful back in 1945. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 19, 2023, 06:59:12 PM
I still believe we're the greatest country on this planet.  Despite the haters who have no concept whatsoever of what this world would look like if we weren't successful back in 1945. 

Your statement has nothing to do with what I said, but cool.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 19, 2023, 07:06:22 PM

Your statement has nothing to do with what I said, but cool.

It's not cool.  There's way too much division and anti-american sentiment in our country. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 19, 2023, 07:12:29 PM
It's not cool.  There's way too much division and anti-american sentiment in our country.

Without anti-American sentiment, you don't have an America anymore

Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 19, 2023, 07:13:17 PM
Without anti-American sentiment, you don't have an America anymore

It's at an unhealthy level right now imo. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 19, 2023, 07:14:30 PM
It's at an unhealthy level right now imo.

It isn't

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 19, 2023, 07:12:29 PM
It's not cool.  There's way too much division and anti-american sentiment in our country. 

Again that has nothing to do with what I said.

What's anti-American?

If life has taught us anything, we're going to disagree. America is a place where you can say anything you want so long as you don't intentionally incite panic or disclose classified information.

It's more anti-American if people who wanted to burn our flag, criticize our government or advocate for something unpopular couldn't do so because our government would punish them!

Quote from: dgies9156 on July 19, 2023, 07:40:41 PM
What's anti-American?

If life has taught us anything, we're going to disagree. America is a place where you can say anything you want so long as you don't intentionally incite panic or disclose classified information.

It's more anti-American if people who wanted to burn our flag, criticize our government or advocate for something unpopular couldn't do so because our government would punish them!

Amen

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 19, 2023, 07:12:29 PM
It's not cool.  There's way too much division and anti-american sentiment in our country.

Weren't all the great reform movements in this country's history and the people who led them labeled anti-American at some point?

Furthermore, what is America?    What is the dream of America?   How are we doing in pursuit of the more perfect union?

Quote from: tower912 on July 19, 2023, 08:14:44 PM
Furthermore, what is America?    What is the dream of America?   How are we doing in pursuit of the more perfect union?

I have an update on union support:

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/07/17/what-do-americans-think-about-civil-war

Only 51% would have supported the north. 12% the South. 23% unsure. 14% neither.

Quote from: jesmu84 on July 20, 2023, 04:16:08 AM
I have an update on union support:

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/07/17/what-do-americans-think-about-civil-war

Only 51% would have supported the north. 12% the South. 23% unsure. 14% neither.

  do you think americans overall, are well informed about civil war?

Quote from: MU82 on July 19, 2023, 05:49:24 PM
Then, after we finished with Russia in a few weeks, we coulda marched into China and then North Korea and then Iran and then Iraq. Coulda prevented a lot of misery years later if we had just taken 'em all down.

Oh, and I forgot Canada. Them and their effen wildfires.

(https://media.tenor.com/De6uVJ9LncMAAAAC/howard-dean-cnn.gif)

Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 19, 2023, 06:37:36 PM
  cue in the dean scream

HOLY CRAP, I DIDN'T READ THIS BEFORE MY REPLY.

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 19, 2023, 06:59:12 PM
I still believe we're the greatest country on this planet.  Despite the haters who have no concept whatsoever of what this world would look like if we weren't successful back in 1945.

Maybe it'd be better, you have no way of knowing.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 12, 2023, 02:29:01 PM
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'm glad the bombs were dropped on Japan. My dad would have certainly been part of the invasion force. War is always personal and why my view will not change.

Quote from: Hards Alumni on July 20, 2023, 06:15:57 AM
Maybe it'd be better, you have no way of knowing.

Tell that to the 11 million who died in the concentration camps if Hitler prevailed; or the millions of Chinese, Koreans and Philippines enslave under Japanese controlled areas in southeast Asia.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 20, 2023, 04:41:05 AM
  do you think americans overall, are well informed about civil war?

They get the basics. I'm sure a lot of people get off track about the "states rights" nonsense. 

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 20, 2023, 07:36:28 AM

They get the basics. I'm sure a lot of people get off track about the "states rights" nonsense.

People forget slaveowners taught Christianity to slaves

Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 20, 2023, 04:41:05 AM
  do you think americans overall, are well informed about civil war?

The ones who still love the confederate flag do, that's for sure. Those are the real 'Muricans!

Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 20, 2023, 07:50:08 AM
People forget slaveowners taught Christianity to slaves

  yeah i know and the dems are still butt-hurt over their losses...robert byrd et.al. took it pretty hard at first but when the people started to find out their schtick they figured they's better change their positions in order to keep "them" under their thumbs.  next up, school choice, eyn'a? 

Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 20, 2023, 08:24:50 AM
  yeah i know and the dems are still butt-hurt over their losses...robert byrd et.al. took it pretty hard at first but when the people started to find out their schtick they figured they's better change their positions in order to keep "them" under their thumbs.  next up, school choice, eyn'a?

9.5 out of 10

"Butt-hurt"

Better change their positions like supporting the Civil Rights bill of 1964 and losing the south.  That Marquette education is being called into question again.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 20, 2023, 07:50:08 AM
People forget slaveowners taught Christianity to slaves

This is not satire. This is Florida's new curriculum for African American history.

The middle school curriculum includes a benchmark clarification that states "Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit;"

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/19/florida-state-approves-african-american-history-standards-rejects-concerns-about-omitting-history/70428361007/

Quote from: Pakuni on July 20, 2023, 11:14:49 AM
This is not satire. This is Florida's new curriculum for African American history.

The middle school curriculum includes a benchmark clarification that states "Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit;"

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/19/florida-state-approves-african-american-history-standards-rejects-concerns-about-omitting-history/70428361007/

Hard to believe ol' pudding fingers has flopped so far on the national stage. 

Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 20, 2023, 08:24:50 AM
  yeah i know and the dems are still butt-hurt over their losses...robert byrd et.al. took it pretty hard at first but when the people started to find out their schtick they figured they's better change their positions in order to keep "them" under their thumbs.  next up, school choice, eyn'a? 

Didn't think I would see a Robert Byrd reference on Scoop today, yet here we are...

Quote from: Pakuni on July 20, 2023, 11:14:49 AM
This is not satire. This is Florida's new curriculum for African American history.

The middle school curriculum includes a benchmark clarification that states "Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit;"

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/19/florida-state-approves-african-american-history-standards-rejects-concerns-about-omitting-history/70428361007/

DeSantis: Slavery was both fun and good for them!

Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 20, 2023, 04:41:05 AM
  do you think americans overall, are well informed about civil war?

Informed enough to understand which side wanted slavery legal and which wanted it illegal

Other things kids can learn in DeSantis' school system:

While in Auschwitz, Jews got to experience dietary control - a skill that could be applied for their personal benefit.

While being raped by Catholic priests, little boys received instructions on sex that could be applied for their personal benefit.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 20, 2023, 08:57:17 AM
9.5 out of 10

"Butt-hurt"

Better change their positions like supporting the Civil Rights bill of 1964 and losing the south.  That Marquette education is being called into question again.

   republicans consistently voted for the civil rights bills by larger percentages than the dems.  seems like it was tough for the dems to do the right thing...same old same old 

Quote from: Hards Alumni on July 20, 2023, 06:15:13 AM
HOLY CRAP, I DIDN'T READ THIS BEFORE MY REPLY.

Great minds think alike, a'ina?

Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 20, 2023, 09:36:02 PM
Great minds think alike, a'ina?

More like that squirrel finally found a nut.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 20, 2023, 09:22:45 PM
   republicans consistently voted for the civil rights bills by larger percentages than the dems.  seems like it was tough for the dems to do the right thing...same old same old

Just say you don't understand basic US history and move on.

Quote from: Hards Alumni on July 21, 2023, 06:19:27 AM
Just say you don't understand basic US history and move on.

Or what's happening in the modern world

Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 20, 2023, 09:22:45 PM
   republicans consistently voted for the civil rights bills by larger percentages than the dems.  seems like it was tough for the dems to do the right thing...same old same old

Which states did those Republicans represent? Which states did those Democrats represent? Which party is dominant in those states today?

Quote from: Pakuni on July 21, 2023, 07:39:03 AM
Which states did those Republicans represent? Which states did those Democrats represent? Which party is dominant in those states today?

He's willfully ignorant.

Of course Dems controlled southern states during the Civil War and fought against civil rights.  Those are facts.

It's also fact republicans saw an electoral opportunity to realign southern states because of the passage of the civil rights bill pushed by a democratic president who knew the ramifications

Robert Byrd is their poster boy and Byrd deserves the criticism he gets.  They, of course, ignore Strom Thurmond who switched parties because so he could fight civil rights as a Republican.  What that has to do with political alignment in 2023 is beyond me but simple minded fools somehow think it's a gotcha.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 20, 2023, 11:14:49 AM
This is not satire. This is Florida's new curriculum for African American history.

The middle school curriculum includes a benchmark clarification that states "Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit;"

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/19/florida-state-approves-african-american-history-standards-rejects-concerns-about-omitting-history/70428361007/

There are much bigger problems in Florida's educational system than the pabulum that some idiot bureaucrat in Tallahassee distributes across the state. In our particular case, the problems in our county are severe.

A few years back, a fringe, conservative group called "Moms for Liberty" was formed in Vero Beach. Ostensibly, they were promoting more involvement by parents in public schools, which is a great thing. Unfortunately, the only "Liberty" the "Moms" support is their liberty to force their way of life on everyone in the county -- and state.

The Moms started in on school libraries. They identified nearly 200 books that should be removed from Indian River County school libraries. The list included the usual -- "Frog and Toad", "Catcher in the Rye" and "To Kill a Mockingbird," as well as a host of stuff that few people other than the Moms would take issue with. They even went so far as to ask the Indian River County Sheriff to arrest the School Superintendent because he wasn't removing a book they found objectionable. The sheriff investigated and saw no case but it wasted valuable time and resources.

Most of us are for controlling what's in school libraries -- I'm not sure I would have wanted my 11 year old in the day coming home with a full scale, color anatomy book, or Playboy! But the Moms are going nuts and believe it's their way or the highway.

The Moms have targeted one of our school board members, the 79-year-old former president of Amhurst College in Massachusetts, who also is a Republican and past supporter and contributor to Governor Ron DeSantis. And, yes, the Moms are huge behind the Governor. The Moms' target was ready to retire but since they targeted him, he wants another term and, God love him, has gone after the Mom's full frontal!

The message of Oppenheimer's life and the post World War II character assassination is the need for tolerance as a core virtue in our way of life. We may not agree with our peers and we may work to defeat candidates we don't agree with, but we always respect their right to voice their views. That's not happening in our county and too much of our country.

As a final thought, I grew up in a community where, at the time, the fundamentalist Christians, who were heavy into the control of the mechanisms of government, were trying to enforce their way of life on the entire community. It was rather liberating to reach Milwaukee, where the hard core social conservatives weren't the force behind the throne. One of the joys of Chicago has been that, again, there was some openness in how you led your life (my wife might disagree, but that's another story). Now I'm back in Florida and I feel like I've gone back almost 50 years!

Quote from: Hards Alumni on July 21, 2023, 06:19:27 AM
Just say you don't understand basic US history and move on.

  was it wrong??  go do another bowl

Quote from: Pakuni on July 21, 2023, 07:39:03 AM
Which states did those Republicans represent? Which states did those Democrats represent? Which party is dominant in those states today?

  right off hand i don't know, but answer me the simple question-was my statement wrong?

Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 21, 2023, 08:06:53 PM
  right off hand i don't know, but answer me the simple question-was my statement wrong?

I'd say absolutely. The republican party of the 60's, is not the republican party of the 2020's.

Quote from: #UnleashSean on July 22, 2023, 08:35:27 AM
I'd say absolutely. The republican party of the 60's, is not the republican party of the 2020's.

Rocket be like:
"I don't trust those White Sox - they threw the World Series for gamblers."

Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 21, 2023, 08:06:53 PM
  right off hand i don't know, but answer me the simple question-was my statement wrong?

The fact you dodged the question means you know the answer.

To nobody's surprise, DeSantis doubles down: Slavery wasn't all bad for Black people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/22/desantis-slavery-curriculum/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is intensifying his efforts to de-emphasize racism in his state's public school curriculum by arguing that some Black people benefited from being enslaved and defending his state's new African American history standards that civil rights leaders and scholars say misrepresents centuries of U.S. reality.

"They're probably going to show that some of the folks that eventually parlayed, you know, being a blacksmith into doing things later in life," DeSantis said on Friday in response to reporters' questions while standing in front of a nearly all-White crowd of supporters.

DeSantis, a GOP presidential candidate who is lagging in polls against the front-runner, former president Donald Trump, and is trying to reset his campaign, quickly drew criticism from educators and even some in his party. He has built his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination on attacking what he calls the radical liberal policies of President Biden and the Democratic Party, but the latest remarks could alienate Black voters just as the GOP tries to court them.

Former U.S. Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, who announced last month that he was joining the race for the GOP nomination, blasted the idea that enslaved people were able to use slavery as some kind of training program.

"Slavery wasn't a jobs program that taught beneficial skills," Hurd, the son of a Black father and a White mother, tweeted. "It was literally dehumanizing and subjugated people as property because they lacked any rights or freedoms."

DeSantis, however, is continuing to defend Florida's new curriculum, which covers a broad range of topics and includes the assertion for middle school instruction that "slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."

DeSantis said he "wasn't involved" in writing the new teaching materials, which took effect this week. But he credited "a lot of scholars" with creating "the most robust standards in African American history probably anywhere in the country."

Civil rights leaders, educators and others have expressed revulsion at the idea that enslaved people benefited from the experience.

I expect nothing else.    Slavery as vo-tech.

In the meantime, a school board in suburban St. Louis has revoked a policy that essentially says "Discrimination is bad."

The resolution passed in August 2020 "pledges to our learning community that we will speak firmly against any racism, discrimination, and senseless violence against people regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, immigration status, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or ability.

https://apnews.com/article/missouri-school-board-drops-antiracism-resolution-9d857b0e316950b600684e0050b85229

Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 20, 2023, 09:22:45 PM
   republicans consistently voted for the civil rights bills by larger percentages than the dems.  seems like it was tough for the dems to do the right thing...same old same old

Cool, I'm sure you do the same

Movie review, eh?

In before the lock.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kwu2CwFOa9w

Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 21, 2023, 08:06:53 PM
  right off hand i don't know, but answer me the simple question-was my statement wrong?

https://www.mediamatters.org/diversity-discrimination/rep-paul-gosar-promotes-another-antisemitic-site-praises-hitler-and-denies

https://twitter.com/decodingfoxnews/status/1683605276472008705?s=46&t=QSiaGcOIKZrrpw0ciZkI5Q

https://twitter.com/acewatz/status/1683294827016757248?s=46&t=el-XnIMOEDcxAw3lmg3L5A

Quote from: MU82 on July 23, 2023, 11:16:50 AM
To nobody's surprise, DeSantis doubles down: Slavery wasn't all bad for Black people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/22/desantis-slavery-curriculum/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is intensifying his efforts to de-emphasize racism in his state's public school curriculum by arguing that some Black people benefited from being enslaved and defending his state's new African American history standards that civil rights leaders and scholars say misrepresents centuries of U.S. reality.

"They're probably going to show that some of the folks that eventually parlayed, you know, being a blacksmith into doing things later in life," DeSantis said on Friday in response to reporters' questions while standing in front of a nearly all-White crowd of supporters.

DeSantis, a GOP presidential candidate who is lagging in polls against the front-runner, former president Donald Trump, and is trying to reset his campaign, quickly drew criticism from educators and even some in his party. He has built his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination on attacking what he calls the radical liberal policies of President Biden and the Democratic Party, but the latest remarks could alienate Black voters just as the GOP tries to court them.

Former U.S. Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, who announced last month that he was joining the race for the GOP nomination, blasted the idea that enslaved people were able to use slavery as some kind of training program.

"Slavery wasn't a jobs program that taught beneficial skills," Hurd, the son of a Black father and a White mother, tweeted. "It was literally dehumanizing and subjugated people as property because they lacked any rights or freedoms."

DeSantis, however, is continuing to defend Florida's new curriculum, which covers a broad range of topics and includes the assertion for middle school instruction that "slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."

DeSantis said he "wasn't involved" in writing the new teaching materials, which took effect this week. But he credited "a lot of scholars" with creating "the most robust standards in African American history probably anywhere in the country."

Civil rights leaders, educators and others have expressed revulsion at the idea that enslaved people benefited from the experience.

Yet, Dr. William Allen, co-author of the Florida curriculum, said the idea that the curriculum states that slavery was beneficial to Africans, is categorically false.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/black-member-of-florida-history-curriculum-working-group-calls-kamala-harriss-accusation-that-state-is-replacing-history-with-lies-categorically-false/

Quote from: Lighthouse 84 on July 24, 2023, 07:27:13 PM
Yet, Dr. William Allen, co-author of the Florida curriculum, said the idea that the curriculum states that slavery was beneficial to Africans, is categorically false.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/black-member-of-florida-history-curriculum-working-group-calls-kamala-harriss-accusation-that-state-is-replacing-history-with-lies-categorically-false/

Exactly.  Slavery had a lot of benefits for African-Americans.

"Florida students deserve to learn how slaves took advantage of whatever circumstances they were in to benefit themselves and the community of African descendants," they argued.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 24, 2023, 07:36:11 PM
Exactly.  Slavery had a lot of benefits for African-Americans.

"Florida students deserve to learn how slaves took advantage of whatever circumstances they were in to benefit themselves and the community of African descendants," they argued.

"They" being critics, not members who wrote the curriculum.  "In a statement with Dr. Frances Presley Rice, another member of the working group, Allen characterized critics' attempts to "reduce months of work to create Florida's first ever stand-alone strand of African American History Standards to a few isolated expressions without context" as  "disappointing.""

Quote from: Lighthouse 84 on July 24, 2023, 07:43:40 PM
"They" being critics, not members who wrote the curriculum.  "In a statement with Dr. Frances Presley Rice, another member of the working group, Allen characterized critics' attempts to "reduce months of work to create Florida's first ever stand-alone strand of African American History Standards to a few isolated expressions without context" as  "disappointing.""

Ha ha ha.
"These reports stating our exact words are categorically false."

How dare you say we said what we said!

Soooo...

Did anyone actually see the movie??

I did. It was great as expected. The tension during the bomb was phenomenal. The final court room scenes in both "court rooms" was incredible.

I think about 10 supporting actors brought career best work.

Quote from: PGsHeroes32 on July 24, 2023, 11:50:37 PM
Soooo...

Did anyone actually see the movie??

I did. It was great as expected. The tension during the bomb was phenomenal. The final court room scenes in both "court rooms" was incredible.

I think about 10 supporting actors brought career best work.

It's an incredible movie and Nolan's finest work. 

Instead of talking about what's doomed and what's not, one could argue that the success of Oppenheimer and Barbie (and, to an extent, Sound of Freedom) is telling studios: Make something original.

Stop just trotting out sequels and comic-book movies and Star Wars films. Give the audience something unique but also something that could interest large audiences. It might not be "easy," but that's OK. The deep thinkers in that industry are paid huge bucks to get things done.

Quote from: MU82 on July 25, 2023, 07:20:10 PM
Instead of talking about what's doomed and what's not, one could argue that the success of Oppenheimer and Barbie (and, to an extent, Sound of Freedom) is telling studios: Make something original.

Stop just trotting out sequels and comic-book movies and Star Wars films. Give the audience something unique but also something that could interest large audiences. It might not be "easy," but that's OK. The deep thinkers in that industry are paid huge bucks to get things done.

Despite being woke, Barbie keeps chugging along

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/box-office-haunted-mansion-9-151646788.html

I saw Oppenheimer last night and was a bit dissappointed.  There were excellent parts, especially the Trinity Test and most of the scenes at Los Alamos, but the post war committee and congressional scenes dragged like crazy.  We don't need as a viewer to literally feel like we're at every minute of the hearing or the closed door sessions.  And while Robert Downey is a very good actor, it seemed to me his performance was a caricature of Stauss.  That's not to say they were historically inaccurate, and that he became somewhat of a villan, but it seemed a little over the top to me.  Portraying the psyche of Oppenheimer was essential to the film and frankly I don't think it was particularly well done both before and after the bombs were dropped. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 30, 2023, 01:47:26 PM
I saw Oppenheimer last night and was a bit dissappointed.  There were excellent parts, especially the Trinity Test and most of the scenes at Los Alamos, but the post war committee and congressional scenes dragged like crazy.  We don't need as a viewer to literally feel like we're at every minute of the hearing or the closed door sessions.  And while Robert Downey is a very good actor, it seemed to me his performance was a caricature of Stauss.  That's not to say they were historically inaccurate, and that he became somewhat of a villan, but it seemed a little over the top to me.  Portraying the psyche of Oppenheimer was essential to the film and frankly I don't think it was particularly well done both before and after the bombs were dropped.

The two court cases were some of the best stuff. Very intense. And some phenomenal acting performances.

RDJ was fantastic. Emily Bllunt had her shining moment during the case(in a otherwise pretty empty role). Clarke was insanely good. The guy who played Han Solo as RDJs assistant was incredible. Malek in his brief spot killed it.

Excellent stuff.

Quote from: PGsHeroes32 on July 30, 2023, 01:54:14 PM
The two court cases were some of the best stuff. Very intense. And some phenomenal acting performances.

RDJ was fantastic. Emily Bllunt had her shining moment during the case(in a otherwise pretty empty role). Clarke was insanely good. The guy who played Han Solo as RDJs assistant was incredible. Malek in his brief spot killed it.

Excellent stuff.

I guess we just disagree.  I thought most of the acting was fine but was far less interested in that aspect of his story. 

Quote from: Uncle Rico on July 30, 2023, 12:38:43 PM
Despite being woke, Barbie keeps chugging along

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/box-office-haunted-mansion-9-151646788.html

We should all shudder at what these woke little girls will turn into as adults.

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 30, 2023, 01:47:26 PM
I saw Oppenheimer last night and was a bit dissappointed.  There were excellent parts, especially the Trinity Test and most of the scenes at Los Alamos, but the post war committee and congressional scenes dragged like crazy.  We don't need as a viewer to literally feel like we're at every minute of the hearing or the closed door sessions.  And while Robert Downey is a very good actor, it seemed to me his performance was a caricature of Stauss.  That's not to say they were historically inaccurate, and that he became somewhat of a villan, but it seemed a little over the top to me.  Portraying the psyche of Oppenheimer was essential to the film and frankly I don't think it was particularly well done both before and after the bombs were dropped.

Quote from: PGsHeroes32 on July 30, 2023, 01:54:14 PM
The two court cases were some of the best stuff. Very intense. And some phenomenal acting performances.

RDJ was fantastic. Emily Bllunt had her shining moment during the case(in a otherwise pretty empty role). Clarke was insanely good. The guy who played Han Solo as RDJs assistant was incredible. Malek in his brief spot killed it.

Excellent stuff.

I also just saw Oppenheimer, and I'm more in agreement with PGs than Muggs.

Downey was one of the film's strengths; I thought he was outstanding, as was Murphy of course. The hearings scenes were fascinating.

I really thought the storytelling was excellent throughout: the way Nolan shifted time periods, went to black-and-white for long stretches (mostly the hearings scenes), the tension in the buildup to the construction of the bomb, and the ridiculous obsession with Communism back then in the McCarthy era. I liked the brief interludes with Einstein, too, especially the late scene.

The way Nolan used sound to depict the horrors - both those that went along with the creation of a weapon that, for the first time, gave humans power to destroy the entire world; along with the personal demons Oppenheimer felt - was masterful. At times, the theater shook ... reminded me of the old "Sensurround" that was popular decades ago.

I thought this line from the Roger Ebert website's review was interesting and accurate: Strauss is Salieri to Oppenheimer's Mozart, regularly and often pathetically reminding others that he studied physics, too, back in the day, and that he's a good person, unlike Oppenheimer the adulterer and communist sympathizer.

My one quibble was in Rami Malek's very minor character all of a sudden delivering a major speech. Seemed way too out-of-nowhere and convenient for the story. But it's a minor quibble. This film will be nominated for a lot of awards, and deservedly so.

Saw the move and thought it was intriguing. Thought they were unusually ugly to President Truman.

Quote from: dgies9156 on July 30, 2023, 08:32:12 PM
Saw the move and thought it was intriguing. Thought they were unusually ugly to President Truman.

That film depicted the scene verbatim, per Truman.

Maybe, but the connotative message in the scene was bizarre and candidly, derogatory.

Quote from: dgies9156 on July 30, 2023, 08:41:01 PM
Maybe, but the connotative message in the scene was bizarre and candidly, derogatory.

That's literally how Truman told the story of their meeting. He was braggadocious about it.

I'm more with Muggs, though my expectations were sky high and probably unfair.  I thought a lot of the writing was a little Sorkin-esque, and I don't mean that in a good way.  I also thought too many ancillary characters popped up to play big roles without sufficient context or would then disappear again.  David Hill (Rami Malek), Frank Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and Ruth Tolman all weave in and out in a way that maybe moves the plot, but doesn't add to the exposition of the character. Combined with the nonlinear storytelling, it was disorienting.  Last, as big a role as Oppenheimer's relationship to women played in his life and in in the film, I didn't feel like I left the theater with a decent grasp of how he actually felt toward any of them.  Still a very good movie, but if you have me for three hours, those are pretty big holes.  It was a 7.25-7.5 for me.

Quote from: MUBurrow on July 30, 2023, 10:41:03 PM
I'm more with Muggs, though my expectations were sky high and probably unfair.  I thought a lot of the writing was a little Sorkin-esque, and I don't mean that in a good way.  I also thought too many ancillary characters popped up to play big roles without sufficient context or would then disappear again.  David Hill (Rami Malek), Frank Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and Ruth Tolman all weave in and out in a way that maybe moves the plot, but doesn't add to the exposition of the character. Combined with the nonlinear storytelling, it was disorienting.  Last, as big a role as Oppenheimer's relationship to women played in his life and in in the film, I didn't feel like I left the theater with a decent grasp of how he actually felt toward any of them.  Still a very good movie, but if you have me for three hours, those are pretty big holes.  It was a 7.25-7.5 for me.

Excellent point on the portrayal of his intmate relationships They weren't explored in depth and didn't add anything to the film imo.  I thought the sex scenes were a little bizarre.   The film was definitely worth seeing but I don't think it's one I'll have any interest in watching start to finish again.  Great movies or books (especially those described as "masterpieces") are those that you want to revisit.  I'm sticking with my B-.

Thanks to Muggs and Burrow for your viewpoints. I agree with some of them and disagree with others ... and that's all good.

I actually liked the nonlinear storytelling. That's not always the case for me because sometimes storytelling like that can be confusing. But I thought Nolan did it well here. Totally agree with Burrow about the way some minor characters were used, and I had already mentioned Malek.

I wouldn't call this a "masterpiece" or a 10. For me, Schindler's List is the gold standard, so if a critic gives a movie a 10 or an A+, it had better be in that class ... and this clearly isn't. But I'd give Oppenheimer a solid 8+. It was 3 hours long yet I was never bored and never looked at my watch - that alone is worth a few points!

Quote from: MU82 on July 31, 2023, 08:08:00 AM
Thanks to Muggs and Burrow for your viewpoints. I agree with some of them and disagree with others ... and that's all good.

I actually liked the nonlinear storytelling. That's not always the case for me because sometimes storytelling like that can be confusing. But I thought Nolan did it well here. Totally agree with Burrow about the way some minor characters were used, and I had already mentioned Malek.

I wouldn't call this a "masterpiece" or a 10. For me, Schindler's List is the gold standard, so if a critic gives a movie a 10 or an A+, it had better be in that class ... and this clearly isn't. But I'd give Oppenheimer a solid 8+. It was 3 hours long yet I was never bored and never looked at my watch - that alone is worth a few points!

I would just say it's not among the best historical films or close to Schindler's List and others.  And back to the point Burrow made.....he's absolutely spot-on with his take Not only does the viewer have no idea why Oppenheimer is attracted to these women or has any connection to them whatsoever (or why he had a mistress for that matter), we have no idea why these women want a partnership with him as well.   We have literally no clue how their influence shaped any part of his life.  I thought essentially those roles could have been completely thrown out.  I also would have liked to learn more about Fermi and his group of physicists that came to Los Alamos. 

We agree that it wasn't close to a "perfect movie," Muggs.

I don't need a movie to be A+ to like it a lot.

Quote from: MU82 on July 31, 2023, 08:08:00 AM
I actually liked the nonlinear storytelling. That's not always the case for me because sometimes storytelling like that can be confusing. But I thought Nolan did it well here.

It's pretty clear by now that Nolan considers non-linear storytelling something of a calling card. I didn't read too much about Oppenheimer before I went to see it, but I went in assuming that there would be non-linear elements.

I really like a lot of Nolan's work. Memento is a favorite of mine.

Edited to add: I want to make it clear that this wasn't stated as some sort of brilliant insight that I thought the huddled masses hadn't figured out. Obviously, I know that anyone even remotely familiar with Nolan's work is aware that he likes to play with the temporal/linear elements in his films.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 31, 2023, 10:08:02 AM
It's pretty clear by now that Nolan considers non-linear storytelling something of a calling card. I didn't read too much about Oppenheimer before I went to see it, but I went in assuming that there would be non-linear elements.

I really like a lot of Nolan's work. Memento is a favorite of mine.

Edited to add: I want to make it clear that this wasn't stated as some sort of brilliant insight that I thought the huddled masses hadn't figured out. Obviously, I know that anyone even remotely familiar with Nolan's work is aware that he likes to play with the temporal/linear elements in his films.

Call me crazy but I still think Memento is his best film. 

Quote from: MU82 on July 31, 2023, 10:01:27 AM
We agree that it wasn't close to a "perfect movie," Muggs.

I don't need a movie to be A+ to like it a lot.

That's fair. Although Fermi should have gotten a little more run and recognition.  :)

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 31, 2023, 10:18:36 AM
Call me crazy but I still think Memento is his best film.

Muggsy, we don't seem to agree on much...but this...we agree.

I need to see Memento again. I only saw it once, back when it came out 20+ years ago.

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 31, 2023, 10:18:36 AM
Call me crazy but I still think Memento is his best film.

Dark Knight is far and away my favorite Nolan movie. Momento probably second for me though Prestige and Batman Begins are both close.

Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 31, 2023, 03:45:27 PM
Dark Knight is far and away my favorite Nolan movie. Momento probably second for me though Prestige and Batman Begins are both close.

I need to see The Prestige. I wasn't even aware of that one. My daughter recommended it to me not long ago and I haven't seen it yet.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on July 31, 2023, 04:50:26 PM
I need to see The Prestige. I wasn't even aware of that one. My daughter recommended it to me not long ago and I haven't seen it yet.

Creepiest ending ever.

Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball on July 31, 2023, 03:45:27 PM
Dark Knight is far and away my favorite Nolan movie. Momento probably second for me though Prestige and Batman Begins are both close.

Haven't seen Prestige, Memento #1 for me but also really liked Dark Knight and Batman Begins. Thought Oppenheimer was very good, a notch below the Batman movies.

Quote from: tower912 on July 31, 2023, 04:52:17 PM
Creepiest ending ever.

The movie where every character sucks except Rebecca Hall

Yes.  No heroes in that one.

From the Washington Post:

"Barbenheimer" — the twin release of blockbusters "Barbie" and "Oppenheimer" — may have broken box office records and brought people out to the theaters in droves, but it also highlighted a very real problem: Some people seem to have forgotten how to go to the movies, with widespread reports of drunken outbursts, rampant cellphone use and exhibitionism.

Quote from: MU82 on August 05, 2023, 10:56:55 PM
From the Washington Post:

"Barbenheimer" — the twin release of blockbusters "Barbie" and "Oppenheimer" — may have broken box office records and brought people out to the theaters in droves, but it also highlighted a very real problem: Some people seem to have forgotten how to go to the movies, with widespread reports of drunken outbursts, rampant cellphone use and exhibitionism.

There's another way to go to a movie?  ;D

Quote from: MU82 on August 05, 2023, 10:56:55 PM
From the Washington Post:

"Barbenheimer" — the twin release of blockbusters "Barbie" and "Oppenheimer" — may have broken box office records and brought people out to the theaters in droves, but it also highlighted a very real problem: Some people seem to have forgotten how to go to the movies, with widespread reports of drunken outbursts, rampant cellphone use and exhibitionism.

Dicks out for Barbie or Oppenheimer?

Quote from: MU82 on August 05, 2023, 10:56:55 PM
From the Washington Post:

"Barbenheimer" — the twin release of blockbusters "Barbie" and "Oppenheimer" — may have broken box office records and brought people out to the theaters in droves, but it also highlighted a very real problem: Some people seem to have forgotten how to go to the movies behave in civilized society, with widespread reports of drunken outbursts, rampant cellphone use and exhibitionism at these two movies being the latest example.

Fixed for the Post.