Viewers are divided over whether the film should have shown Japanese victims of the weapon created by physicist Robert Oppenheimer. Experts say it’s complicated.
Viewers are divided over whether the film should have shown Japanese victims of the weapon created by physicist Robert Oppenheimer. Experts say it’s complicated.
Not at all actually. We learn about it. We discuss it. What’s surprising to me is, you are harping on the atom bombs when the fire bombings caused way more death and destruction. It’s not even a comparison.
Yeah the firebombings were awful, but at least they contributed to the fight against the Japanese empire. The war machine was already dead when the atomic bombs were dropped. Pretty big difference, no?
Edit: I take it the downvotes mean disagreement. If people are really discussing the history of this, then it should be common knowledge by now that the land invasion excuse was baseless propaganda. The US knew the empire was crumbling due to internal power conflicts and was rushing to test the bombs while there was still a war. After the first one the empire couldn’t even organize itself to offer a surrender, which the US knew because it could hear the chatter.
The still prevalent propaganda around the end of the theater doesn’t bode well for understanding the start of it and how to prevent another. People still believe Pearl Harbor happened unprovoked, out of nowhere. As if an embattled empire would travel across the ocean with no purpose other than to make one more enemy. Maybe I’m playing gatekeeper, but my bar for basic conversation quality regarding the Pacific theater in WWII is that the consensus history predates Pearl Harbor. Because if you think Pearl Harbor was attacked due to foreign insanity, rather than a desperate attempt to restore oil supply lines from their American embargoes, then you have an issue with xenophobia and a propagandized brain. How can we discuss whether America acted appropriately in provoking Japan to draw the US into the war, if our revisionist history erases that context?
US schools teach that the atom bombs were used as an alternative to an invasion of Japan. The numbers said millions would die on both sides if the Allies staged an invasion. Instead, the largest estimated loss ended up being 226,000 Japanese.
The second bomb was dropped because the military leadership in Japan couldn’t believe the destruction from one bomb wasn’t just another night raid that was super effective and refused to surrender. Then the second bomb dropped, and immediate unconditional surrender was issued
And this is how it is discussed among students?
Because that is not the truth of the events, which is what my comment was drawing attention to. You aren’t learning about it if you’re learning a revisionist history instead.
But it’s hard to make this point when the people repeating the propaganda dismiss anything but propaganda so readily:
This shuts down the critique of Americans not having an accurate understanding of their history, at least for the American side. There is no attempt to critically engage with or to understand the perspectives of non-Americans.
I tried to engage politely by not calling out the disinformation directly, but by proposing a question that makes sense from the consensus view of history. That question did not match the user’s own view of history, and people sharing their viewpoint downvoted me without engaging and taking the risk of having to reconcile a non-American viewpoint.
And so I called it out directly in my edit, trying to make the case as to how my (still unanswered) question cuts through the false assertion that Americans learn about the real events and share the international perspective of what happened, and why this is so problematic for non-Americans.
I thank you for taking the time to respond, and to respond politely. However I’m actually well-acquainted with what US schools teach about it in multiple states - it’s just as you described. That’s why I know right where to point to show that the US is still lying to itself. But I felt doing so right from the start would have been disrespectful to the person I was replying to. I felt that I would have liked a chance to explain my own view, so I offered an opening for them to do so before I started getting very critical.
Ngl, your comment drove me to read up on everything preceding the bombing, right up to Japan’s brutal occupation of China and subsequent decision to invade pearl harbor in the hope of crippling the US long enough that they could secure oil reserves to continue their conquests. Pretty wild.
One of those cases where truth is stranger (or at least way more complex and interesting) than fiction!
The US cut off Japan’s oil supply due Japan’s aggressive foreign policy in Asia. The decision to attack the US was also controversial in the Japanese government.
If you are going to make the argument that Japan was justified in attacking the US due to the oil embargo, then you are also justifying other actions like the British overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh and the installation of the Shah of Iran.
That’s a fair argument.
Personally, I do not think Japan was justified.
I agree with this comment but I don’t think it qualifies as a genocide, “just” a horrifying unwarranted act of war.
Sure, I agree. However I was commenting on the contents of post I directly replied to moreso than the one before it.
How does nuking multiple cities not contribute to the American war effort?
There are 1000 decision making paths you can follow in regards to the atomic bombing of Japan, which wasn’t decided lightly, but ultimately the prevailing understanding is correct.
This “holier than thou” alternate history thing you have going on is, sorry to say, it’s delusional.
Because the war effort was already over, sorry if that wasn’t clear.
This was unnecessary. You can challenge the history and you can challenge me, but an ad hominem is neither and I don’t believe it was appropriate. Especially because you’re the one who has it backwards: The story taught in US schools is the alternate history.