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.

  • infamousbelgian@waste-of.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Agreed, but that is not what the movie is about.

    He did say (no one knows what he believed) that just having the bomb would mean world peace…

    • OurToothbrushM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Then he was a fool who’s actions contributed to the murder of hundreds of thousands.

      • kayjay@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        His reasoning was if the US didn’t make it, the Nazis would, and that would be even worse. He never wanted to make the bomb, it was just the lesser of two evils.

          • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The US was never trying to exterminate the Japanese race and culture, so no it wasn’t genocide. It was a fucked up act of war, maybe you could even call it an atrocity, but calling it a genocide is wrong by definition.

        • OurToothbrushM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can’t use a weapon on a nation, you can only use a weapon on a nation’s population.

        • OurToothbrushM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Look up most of the contemporary US pacific command saying the bombings were unnecessary. I know Asian people are just ants to people like you but Jesus, the pathetic rationalizations.

          • TheBurlapBandit@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Ants is a pretty apt comparison to Japanese culture at the time. All expected to become soldiers and die for the hive. Seriously, shit was crazy. They were not going to surrender otherwise.

            Firebombings were daily killing more than the bombs did as well.

            • OurToothbrushM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ants is a pretty apt comparison to Japanese culture at the time.

              Okay, thank you for proving my point and admitting you’re a virulent racist so publicly.

              • TheBurlapBandit@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I mean… That’s what the culture was at the time. No need to name call over it. It is well documented and any attempt to obfuscate it is revisionism.

                Our discussion is prompting me to look more into the history here, though. Your comment on modern generals’ statements is intriguing. That lead me to learn about Soviet entry into the war, defeating Japan in Manchuria, which may have promoted talk of surrender among Japanese leadership.

                I’ll certainly keep researching and I’m open to changing my view. Feel free to present me with some material to consider rather than calling me racist.