this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
192 points (83.1% liked)

World News

32352 readers
412 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

(page 3) 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jimi_Hotsauce@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Well of course it's not, the us government wants to remind everyone that the bombings were a 'nessicary evil' that bs is still taught in schools. Not being a conspiracy guy but I cant imagine a high budget highly publicized movie would rock the boat like that. If you want to hear about sloughing go listen to the last podcast on the lefts 6 part magnum opus on the Manhattan project.

[–] UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)

So not to sound like I fully support the bombings, but they did touch in the movie about why it was a good thing. To save not only hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who would have invaded mainland Japan, but also the (potentially) greater amount of Japanese soldiers and citizens that would have died too. Millions to die because conventional war tactics weren't enough to scare the Japanese.

They were hard-core. They took the fire bombings (which had killed many more than the nukes) in stride. They raped Nanking with unimaginable horrors. Countless human atrocities in the name of "science"

The Japan of today in not the Japan on WW2. There's a good amount of people who would say the nukes were a merciful way to end the war. The US, in prep for the mainland assault, made the amount of purple hearts they thought they would need for just the wounded. Since the assault never happened, we still hand them out to this day

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Most of the current US naval command at the time later said the bombings were completely unnecessary. Your rhetoric is unsupported historical revisionism with the purpose of providing rhetorical cover for war crimes.

[–] UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ok but what about nanking?

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, Japanese soldiers that the victims of the bombings had no control over doing war crimes surely means the victims of US war crimes had it coming.

[–] UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, you'd rather send in an all out invasion like they were planning on doing?

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] limpid_luster@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

will Japanese directors show the camps of sex slaves they have in China or Korea? of course not
so there is your answer

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] kingthrillgore@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

They were victims. The nukes were war crimes. Show the victims.

Ultimately though a lot of Nolan's films are coded for a Conservative viewpoint going back to the Batman trilogy. There's still quite a bit of it here, even if this movie is intended to depict the honesty of nuclear weapons.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›