Oppenheimer movie

[themechanic]

Why? He saved a lot of American lives.

As portrayed in the movie Oppenheimer was your typical intellectual elitist snob, Communist sympathizer, womanizer, chain-smoking, a moral man.

The myth that more lives were saved by atomizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that Japan would not have surrendered otherwise is still highly debatable.

Edited today 11:10 AM

 

[Don Frelier]

The myth that more lives were saved has been proven wrong.

Please explain.
1. How could you possibly prove something that never happened?
2. The belief that Japan would not surrender even a land invasion was pretty well proved when they didn't surrender after the 1st Atomic bomb was dropped.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was likely one of the worst things to happen in world history.
Yet the end result was a quick end to horrible military losses in the Pacific to both Japaneese and Americans.

 

[themechanic]

Oppenheimer: The Real Story documentary

It was better than watching the other movie in many ways. Especially, if you wanted to learn about the man and how he ended up creating the atom bomb.

It was chronological. It was a real portrayal of Robert Oppenheimer from cradle to grave. I didn't know he died at 63 or that one of Oppenheimer's daughter killed herself.

I saw it on Amazon prime.

 

[themechanic]

Censorship and Myth-Making Enshrined Ignorance of Hiroshima and the Bomb

That most people in the United States still believe the saved lives rationale to be true is because of decades of this censorship and myth-making, begun by President Harry Truman

m.duluthreader.com

 

[themechanic]

Please explain.
1. How could you possibly prove something that never happened?
2. The belief that Japan would not surrender even a land invasion was pretty well proved when they didn't surrender after the 1st Atomic bomb was dropped.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was likely one of the worst things to happen in world history.
Yet the end result was a quick end to horrible military losses in the Pacific to both Japaneese and Americans.

They only gave Japan 3 days to surrender before dropping the second bomb. Why?

 

[Don Frelier]

The myth that more lives were saved has been proven wrong.

They only gave Japan 3 days to surrender before dropping the second bomb. Why?

You didn't answer my question.
You asked another question.

1. How could you possibly prove something that never happened?

 

[themechanic]

You didn't answer my question.
You asked another question.

1. How could you possibly prove something that never happened?

You can't prove something that did not happen.

Read the article for why I hold the opinion that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary for Japan's surrender. Some well known authorities who lived at the time also said so.

 

[Photon440]

A traditional western view is that the atomic bombs were the main reason for the Japanese surrender. Another view, held by many historians is that the sudden and overwhelming northern invasion by the Soviet Union was the main cause.

The USSR had not been at war with Japan until then, but as far back as 1943 at the Tehran Conference, Stalin had agreed that he would wage war on Japan after Germany was defeated, and again agreed at the Yalta Conference in 1945, stating that war would be declared three months after Germany had surrendered.

Exactly three months after that surrender, on August 9th, the Soviets poured in on three different fronts in the north, overwhelming all opposition with 1.5 million troops at their disposal. The Japanese generals knew at this time that the outcome would be hopeless.

 

[themechanic]

@Don Frelier

I just clarified my original statement. See post 21.

 

[themechanic]

There's no doubt this is a hot topic. One that the movie Oppenheimer barely scratches the surface.

 

[j-c-c-62]

A traditional western view is that the atomic bombs were the main reason for the Japanese surrender. Another view, held by many historians is that the sudden and overwhelming northern invasion by the Soviet Union was the main cause.

The USSR had not been at war with Japan until then, but as far back as 1943 at the Tehran Conference, Stalin had agreed that he would wage war on Japan after Germany was defeated, and again agreed at the Yalta Conference in 1945, stating that war would be declared three months after Germany had surrendered.

Exactly three months after that surrender, on August 9th, the Soviets poured in on three different fronts in the north, overwhelming all opposition with 1.5 million troops at their disposal. The Japanese generals knew at this time that the outcome would be hopeless.

The Russians conveniently waited to take any real action that they previously agreed to, just days after we dropped the world's first atomic bomb. It was not really a sudden invasion but planned for by the Allies at the Tehran? Conference. That delayed military action did insure however Russia a seat at the table in dividing up the spoils of the war.
I believe it was a contrived and calculated strategy on the Russians part to delay. Repeated history of Russia IMO pretty much confirms that MO.

Russia did the same exact thing when Germany started WW2 by invading Poland. Russia waited 2? weeks to make sure the German invasion would stick, then Russia invaded a very weakened Poland to claim their share.

 

[cr8crshr]

I did see it and I was not impressed with it.

#1. It jumped around in time so many times making it confusing.
#2. Too drawn out. They could have easily cut 45 minutes out of it.
#3. I would have thought that there would be some actual footage of the bombs devastation in Japan.

I did also RC...I thought it was way too long-winded and jumped around a lot as you have suggested. As a student of History, I am always fascinated by studying past events and this could go either way as a stoppage of WWII or the beginning of Amagedon which we are now seeing suggested and thrown about today. As one and many others, I grew up under the Cold War, Duck and Cover exercise, fallout shelters, and all the propaganda that was thrown about. As the only nation to ever unleash this dragon from Pandora's Box and the dropping of 2 of them upon Japan, and they being the only recipients of that horrific result, we must remind ourselves that the end is just a mere push of a button away!!! cr8crshr/Bill

 

[j-c-c-62]

They only gave Japan 3 days to surrender before dropping the second bomb. Why?

Because they were highly likely to surrender after the second bomb, which indeed they did, and the fact the Japanese had no clue how many atomic bombs we had operational at the time.

What is seldom discussed in these conversations and weighed is, what alternatives did the US have besides the bomb?
A big factor however remains, The US spent an enormous sum and labor in the tens of thousands to build a bomb to use against Germany. Well. we know how that turned out.
The War machine was motivated they were going to use it somewhere for some reason, for reasons that likely fall across the full spectrum.

The one alternative seldom mentioned, a simple naval blockade., giving the Japanese three options, and at very low cost to the Allies, a. surrender, b. starve to death, or c. commit hari kari. The chances are more Japanese would have died by their own choice, then the two bombs caused.

The biggest problem with a naval blockade, it might take months and the American population after 3+ years was tired and wanted to move on, so drop the bomb.

 

[Photon440]

The Russians conveniently waited to take any real action that they previously agreed to, just days after we dropped the world's first atomic bomb. It was not really a sudden invasion but planned for by the Allies at the Tehran? Conference. That delayed military action did insure however Russia a seat at the table in dividing up the spoils of the war.
I believe it was a contrived and calculated strategy on the Russians part to delay. Repeated history of Russia IMO pretty much confirms that MO.

To the Japanese, it was a sudden invasion. They knew it was inevitable but thought it would come later in the autumn, or even spring of 1946. Of course it was planned, but that doesn't mean that Japan knew the scope or timetable of it. Stalin even covered up a lot of troop movements by having them driven in so there wasn't a large increase in rail traffic, often an indicator of future events.

Just like there's no record that Stalin was given advance notice about the dropping of the atom bomb, or that it altered his schedule of switching from the German front to Japan in a three month time period as he said he would.

 

[Don Frelier]

The one alternative seldom mentioned, a simple naval blockade.

The Japaneese were already starving.

Admittedly the Japaneese Navy was pretty much destroyed.
But in April and May that year Kamikazee's were a menace.
They had suicide boats and suicide foot soldiers who would strap themselves with explosives and lay under an oncoming tank.

*** Approximately 2,800 Kamikaze attackers sank 34 Navy ships, damaged 368 others, killed 4,900 sailors, and wounded over 4,800.

So to think it would be "low cost" is pretty optimistic.

 

[POMONAMISSEL]

yes , i own it . get flick .

 

[j-c-c-62]

The Japaneese were already starving.

Admittedly the Japaneese Navy was pretty much destroyed.
But in April and May that year Kamikazee's were a menace.
They had suicide boats and suicide foot soldiers who would strap themselves with explosives and lay under an oncoming tank.

*** Approximately 2,800 Kamikaze attackers sank 34 Navy ships, damaged 368 others, killed 4,900 sailors, and wounded over 4,800.

So to think it would be "low cost" is pretty optimistic.

Much like suffocating, it takes time to starve, and as you mentioned that I agree with, the starving process had already begun for some time.

Why were the Kamikaze not a menace then in June and July? Because their aircraft had already been largely eradicated/depleted in this final chapter of the war, same for their pilots, and mostly because Japan had no more petroleum stocks to power anything.

Haven't heard any reports of foot soldiers strapped with explosives laying under ships at sea.

I doubt in that era a foreign surface craft in a time of war in a war zone could sneak up on a Naval ship patrolling at sea with many nearby warships and with near total air superiority.

Sorry, I see more reality than optimism in this scenario.

 

[Don Frelier]

So are your promoting starving as more humane than bombing?

 

[j-c-c-62]

So are your promoting starving as more humane than bombing?

Not really, I just wonder why that option has gotten so little air time. Starving though would have been a free will choice.
I already stated the possibility more might have starved to death with a blockade than both the bombs vaporized.
It would also have kept the proverbial Atomic Genie in the bottle, then I am not sure the world would be as frightened/horrified of nuclear war today without dropping those two bombs.

 

[themechanic]

Here's a video presenting the two views of history: orthodox vs revisionists and the great debate over whether use of the atomic bombs were necessary.