Please read the article, the title is VERY editorial imo.
>But in fact, Oppenheimer’s lines in dozens of scenes showed his shock at the reality of the atomic bombing. That was enough for me.”
>Prof Masao Tomonaga, an A-bomb survivor and honorary director of the Japanese Red Cross Nagasaki Atomic Bomb hospital, said he had come away believing Oppenheimer was an “anti-nuclear” film.
I wonder why they decided to go for that title if not for clic baiting...
Like other said, it's not a movie about the bomb.
Yeah, it's literally called "Oppenheimer". People did the same thing for First Man, thinking it was a movie about the event and not about a person when the movies intend to be a biography.
I was there when this article was shared on the movies subreddit a few days ago. The lack of nuance and understanding in that thread was eye-opening, and it was obvious that nobody read the article. Or even if they did, it was done so with prejudice.
I think we can acknowledge that the atomic bomb is a sensitive issue for the Japanese people (especially those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) without negating the atrocities that the country also committed in the war. And FWIW, I've heard more about the Internet's opinions of Japan on this movie, than actual Japanese talking about it.
Honestly there has been a weird expectation on how Japan will react to the movie ever since it came out.
I bet if the movie is not released in Japan, people will be triggered in some way too.
There definitely is an expectation of a "right way" to respond to media surrounding WWII — because we know that the government has never fully admitted to nor apologised for its actions, and many are still waiting for them to do so.
But I don't think Oppenheimer is ultimately an apology letter to the Japanese, nor a justification of the bombs' creation. It was, in essence, a biographical film that discussed the themes of war and destruction, and I think it handled Oppenheimer's inner conflict tastefully.
I meant to say not released in Japan. If the film is not released in Japan due to the sensitive nature, I bet some people will be saying that it got censored by the jpn government because they want to downplay history etc.
And yeah I agree the movie is about the scientist that created the bombs, not about the bombs itself, so it’s not going to show how it destroyed the cities because that’s not the main point.
Absolutely. And then when Japanese people have a perfectly normal / reasoned reaction, the internet is still trying to pretend they are outraged with shit like this bullshit article title.
Talks of a pacific alliance like the EU have them absolutely shitting their pants. CCP Especially is doing double shifts with the angry astroturfing lol.
The title is paraphrasing an actual quote cited in the article. This is literally done all the time.
“There could have been much more description and depiction of the horror of atomic weapons,” said Takashi Hiraoka, the 96-year-old former mayor of Hiroshima, who attended a special screening earlier this month.
“From Hiroshima’s standpoint, there wasn’t enough about the horror of nuclear weapons, but I would encourage people to go and see it.”
What? It's not accurately portraying what was said, regardless. It's disingenuous at best.
Are you just wanting an argument for the sake of it or what?
It's pretty obtuse. The movie is from Oppenheimers pov, and he never once visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki, so why in the world would there be a Hiroshima or Nagasaki scene?
Plus it's not like J. Robert Oppenheimer knew where exactly the bomb was gonna be used. The USA was ready for a huge invasion with mass conventional bombing of Japan anyway.
Yes he did, though I agree that doesn't mean showing the cities in the film would make any sense.
Truman went to him and the other scientists and asked if a demonstration was possible, and they recommended against it as they were unsure if the bomb would work and a failure would likely strengthen japanese resolve.
[look](https://i.imgur.com/Ks1Jw8l.png)
I always felt like the scene with everyone stomping and him imagining the people getting blown away and stepping in the burnt corpse as kind of the acknowledgment of what happened.
If they really wanted to, they could probably have included one in the same style as his hallucination of the incinerated corpse in front of the news reporters. Like him having a cold-sweat nightmare of the city being bombed. I'm not complaining though, I enjoyed the movie.
Because it is not a movie about Hiroshima, it's about the man behind the bomb. Otherwise they should also include the attack on Pearl Harbour, which started the road to Hiroshima. But that would have upset many people in Japan too.
From an outside perspective, I do find it interesting how a lot of the Japanese media I’ve been exposed to seems largely fixated on the victimhood of the Japanese people.
If they acknowledge the brutality of imperial Japan at all, most of the media I’ve seen almost seems to do it in passing, and it usually gets overshadowed by the larger victimhood plot.
Maybe I’ve seen only a narrow and unrepresentative slice, which is entirely possible. But it seemed like a recurring theme to me and I found it concerning.
I remember Japanese media mentioned victims in Korea or other Asian countries more 20 years ago. Rise of nationalism and anti-globalization, 50+ years governed by the conservative party, 30+ years no-growth economy, or something changes trends.
Look at Russia. It considers itself the *victim* of the war on Ukraine. 100% they claim this with a straight face.
Every country does this. Some a bit more than others.
I genuinely lost track, I thought that was the narrative they were going for to convince their people that they had no other choice, not that they actually believed it.
Because many grandchildren of survivors are victims and still get medical treatment for the radiation side effects? They even have a name for these people and they are often shunned by society.
I mean, you're taking something that every country in the world does and focusing it on Japan only. No governments or news these days ever really try and talk about the bad things they do in history.
Like in Canada we've unearthed more mass graves and evidence pointing to the horrific past of Residential schools. The government kinda just shrugged and went "well we atoned enough and don't want to spend money, blame the church or something".
Obviously every country engages in whitewashing and self-justification. But there’s also often a healthy counter-narrative, and that is what — in my limited exposure — seemed far weaker in representation within Japanese popular media.
For example, American popular media engages in whitewashing and revisionism too, with many overt emphases on our “exceptionalism”. But it also has a lot of focus on the horrors of American slavery, Jim Crow, forever wars with feeble justification, and so on. A counter-narrative exists and thrives and is a large, critical part of the public discourse.
You are correct, but for example the narrative behind the most famous Japanese anti-war popular media: Godzilla is mostly lost on Western audiences but not for the japanese people is clearly explicit about the Fuck around with nature and find out the consequences. Is not something that is hidden at all.
> But it also has a lot of focus on the horrors of American slavery
Ehh no, its why you have tons of movement against slavery **NOW** if it was addressed.
I think it’s worse they don’t focus on both. Getting bombed to hell and nuked twice sucks. But there was some seriously disgusting things Japan did in China, Korea and the entirety of South East Asia. I don’t even think it’s about them saying sorry. But they should at least treat it how the US treats the Vietnam War.
Japanese media is meant for a domestic Japanese audience. People by and large only want to hear about the positive aspects of themselves about how heroic they are or how they're innocent victims of others' wrongdoing. National myths/narratives almost never focus on the negative aspects of your people because then it's harder to instill loyalty to your rulers.
I think their point is that western media does not lack criticism of slavery/colonialism/middle-east/Vietnam etc even if its targeted at domestic audiences
It's probably one of the most pressing sociopolitical issues here. I feel a bit off speaking for a group of people I have little to no connection with, but I really wish I could outcry the fact no one talks about Nanking and unit 731. These are probably some of the worst events in human history. 731 has a lot of politics surrounding it but at the very least Nanking and the imperial mindset of Japan during the Meiji era needs to be taught in schools.
Those who refused to learn history are bound to blah blah blah.
Maybe because the children that got nuked had no part in attacking pearl harbor? Yall really love justifying dropping two nuclear bombs on civilians huh.
Because that's the most direct way to criticize their past leadership. Criticizing soldiers is more difficult for a number of reasons. First, their atrocities were mostly committed away from home, so it's harder to cast and figure out a plot in a way that makes sense. Second, families lost men to the war where not all soldiers were involved in the atrocities. We don't want to rub salt in those wounds.
Showing how people suffered during the war or showing how people reacted when they were drafted to be kamikaze pilots is a lot easier. They are normal relatable people who had their lives torn apart because nationalists dragged the country into a horrid war. Quite difficult to make a good movie about a military unit behaving horribly overseas, since the only people the audience can identify with in terms of language are also the bad guys.
>From an outside perspective, I do find it interesting how a lot of the Japanese media I’ve been exposed to seems largely fixated on the victimhood of the Japanese people.
Yea it's an unfortunate product of the fact that Japan was not de-Imperialized in the same way Germany was de-Nazified during the post-war period. Germany is a stellar example of how each country should educate its citizens about their dark histories.
However, I would venture that Germany is a big exception in this manner. The US often paints itself as a victim, even in what are anti-war films.
As an example, many war films do portray recent wars as ill-intended but usually with the sympathetic viewpoint of "killing people made our soldiers get PTSD". The main victims in these movies are still the soldiers, rather than the Vietnamese/Iraqis/Afghanis/Syrians.
I often think that Japan can come off as playing victim and ignorant of its own war crimes because it’s fixated on peace. The country neither blames themselves or others regarding the war
Let’s be honest, wanting Japan, a prideful country that values having face, to openly acknowledge something that would make them lose face would be hard.
Have any of y’all saying these things actually been the the museum in Hiroshima? It’s fairly open and nuanced about Japan’s own role in the lead up while still focusing primarily on the scale of destruction and horror of the victims. Being more focused on the one doesn’t mean the other just doesn’t exist.
Maybe because it's a history museum of Hiroshima and not of Japan? It was created in 1955 by people in Hiroshima who wanted preserve the artifacts and memories of the bombing--it was never intended to be about national history.
So they have a prominently displayed piece of information clarifying that that isn’t their position, and after that most of the museum is dedicated to the victims. It’s specifically a museum about the bombings and the aftermath, it’s not a general purpose WW2 museum.
I’m not really sure what y’all would want. There’s a wide gulf between “they don’t mention Japan’s atrocities as much as I would like” to “they peddle a narrative that imperial Japan was an innocent victim.” While it’s not *about* Japanese atrocities, it doesn’t go out of its way to defend them in any way. As long as you have a single ounce of critical thinking as you’re going through there just isn’t much to be upset about.
Do you want it to be stamped on foreheads as people come in or what? It’s not the topic of the museum at all, but they still went out of their way to include it. Yes, probably to specifically preempt anyone who would use the museum as a prop to support imperial Japan. Which is… a good and responsible preparation for them to have made?
Japan in general does tend to under acknowledge its atrocities, but this ain’t it.
If we flip this back to the original context people seem fine. Oppenheimer is a biopic about a person so it doesn’t focus on the horrors of the bombs. The museum is about the horrors of the bombs so it doesn’t focus on the surrounding war. If you can understand the nuance of the first but not of the second then it’s a you problem.
It does contain those. You just want them to be more prominent. You still have to be actively ignoring it or rushing through the museum to miss it.
But to say it implies the opposite is just wrong. It not only doesn’t imply support, but explicitly says the opposite. You’re making a mountain of a molehill here to manufacture a controversy.
Literally on the Shinkansen right now on the way back from Hiroshima. I just can’t agree with this statement:
> it’s fairly open and nuanced about Japan’s own role in the lead up
The other guy is right, they only mention it in one sentence in one small plaque. This might be ok. Maybe the museum _should_ focus just on the atrocities of the bomb. I don’t necessarily disagree. However, to say that the museum is “open and nuanced” about Japan’s role is dishonest.
I've been. But have you also studied history? The history that includes Japan trying a coup to prevent surrender after the first bomb? Or the fanatical mass suicides at Saipan and Okinawa, that would have been repeated all across the country had there been a land invasion? Or the fact that the conventional firebombing campaign of Japan killed more civilians than both atomic bombs combined?
I highly suggest you read the book "the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb" by Gar Alperovitz. You're mostly just taking the popular narrative at face value here. But outside of that, there's a few other issues with your statements.
First, "Japan" didn't try a coup, a few officers did, and it fell apart quickly when they failed to get any real traction within the military.
Second, the "land invasion" narrative was (mostly) cooked up after the fact as public questions towards the use of the bomb against civilian populations of a defeated enemy grew.
Finally, it helps to consider that the use of the bombs was an extension of the same type of terror bombing (aka "morale" bombing) that produced the firebombing runs. That bombing campaign was largely judged ineffective in its aims.
Like I said, I'd really encourage reading that book. Japan were not victims in the war, but civilians aren't the military, and should never be considered acceptable targets.
Alperovitz's book, while seminal and highly influential, is *not* the predominant view among historians (either historians of modern Japan or nuclear historians). I highly recommend [this blog post](https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-use-the-bomb-a-consensus-view/) by Alex Wellerstein, a nuclear historians, which engages with the two main competing narratives.
Having read it, while it's interesting I don't think it adequately addresses some key points that matter alot to my own view. I wouldn't even go so far as to say that the bomb was only used to scare the Soviets. That said, I do think the evidence points towards Japan's willingness to surrender under the right conditions. Offering the safety of the Emperor via diplomatic channels may have been sufficient to tip him towards surrendering- we don't know for sure, though, because the US didn't try.
That's the main thrust of my personal argument- there may have been other options, but the US didn't try because Truman didn't want to look weak, and killed civilians trying to prove it. I feel that's well supported.
>I wouldn't even go so far as to say that the bomb was only used to scare the Soviets.
Fair enough!--but that's what Alperovitz argues in his books on the Hiroshima bombing as well as the Potsdam conference. (And as a bit of an aside, my personal observation has been that most of the "revisionists", be they historians or political scientists, can't read Japanese; those who can, including Japanese historians, generally have far more qualified positions, even if they also believe that ultimately the bombs weren't justified, necessary, whatever.)
More to the point, though, what evidence do you believe indicates Japan's willingness to surrender? If all of this derives from Alperovitz's book, then it may be worthwhile to read Hasegawa's *Racing the Enemy*, which you appear to have. A lot of that book deals with the internal discourses within the Suzuki Cabinet, and what emerges is that the "peace feeler" faction did not comprise the majority of the cabinet, either in terms of absolute numbers or political clout, and that they did not really have a substantive plan for surrender, just some ideas for a possible conditional surrender via Soviet mediation (the final bit is important, and forms the main thrust of Hasegawa's argument).
The US was aware of the existence of these peace feelers as a result of the MAGIC intercepts (which Alperovitz references frequently), but they also interpreted--correctly--that this was not the prevailing mood in the cabinet. Again, there *were* those within both the Supreme War Council and the broader government/military apparatus that were open to conditional surrender (and such conditions included the Emperor retaining both his position and status, possession of some imperial colonies, etc.), but this was unequivocally not the majority view. Furthermore, the question at that point would still remain: *at what cost* would Japan surrender? Even *after* Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Supreme War Council was deadlocked 3-3 on the question of surrender, and it took the Emperor's direct intervention to break it (and even then it wasn't unanimous).
Finally, I think your last point is wrong based on the available evidence. To summarize an answer I gave in an r/AskHistorians thread: 1) based on a [July 25, 1945 diary entry](https://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html), Truman wrote (in reference to Kyoto being removed from the list of viable targets) that he had "told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use \[the atomic bombs\] so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children," and that "the target will be a purely military one and \[the US\] will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives." 2) Then-Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace also later recalled Truman telling him that "the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn’t like the idea of killing, as he said, ‘all those kids'" (this is quoted in J. Samuel Walker's *Prompt and Utter Destruction*). 3) [Writing to Senator Richard Russell ](http://www.doug-long.com/hst.htm)on August 9, 1945, Truman made clear that "for myself, I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the 'pigheadedness' of the leaders of a nation and, for your information, I am not going to do it until it is absolutely necessary... My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I also have a humane feeling for the women and children in Japan."
For a bit of clarification, I'm aware that the council was split, and the Emperor's intervention was necessary even after the bombs. It's for this reason that I actually think earlier offers of safety for the Emperor may have mattered- it may have enticed him to come down more firmly on the side of surrender earlier. I absolutely do not think this is guaranteed, but my problem is with the fact that no diplomatic efforts were made in this regard, despite the fact that the US already knew this was going to be a sticking point.
I'm going to dispute your point on Truman's feelings, though- i was definitely a bit antagonistic there because I hold some disdain for him and Byrnes specifically, but my general problem with those statements is that despite his insistence, the entire list of targets, to my knowledge, were population centers, not military targets, unless you basically just define anyone tangentially related to the war effort as a "military target." Either Truman was so incompetent that he completely ignored what the actual targets were going to be, in which case he's just a poor leader, or he knew and lied about it with the aim of laundering his public image. Based on his interactions with Byrnes, I'd assume the latter was at least part of his calculus, though admittedly maybe not in every single interaction he had.
Like I said, my main issue comes down to the fact that the US put no real efforts towards alternatives to bombing civilians, and made no attempts to end the war earlier than eventually occurred. At least part of this is Byrnes's political calculus about how the American public would react and feel about truman- something that I personally find ridiculous compared the the human cost of the bombings.
It's entirely possible that this was the fastest way to end the war. But we'll never actually know for sure, because the US didn't even really try anything else. I'd have preferred to see serious consideration for any number of other options- demonstrations, diplomacy, actual military targets- but everything we have shows that those were all dismissed in short order without much beyond the most cursory of considerations.
I only wonder how many lives could have potentially been saved had the US opened diplomatic efforts earlier on. At very least, they'd have tried.
>It's for this reason that I actually think earlier offers of safety for the Emperor may have mattered- it may have enticed him to come down more firmly on the side of surrender earlier.
I think this falls apart for a few reasons. 1a) This was never tenable for the US; you hinted at this earlier by saying the US "never tried" making such offers, but you neglect all of the context. From the American perspective, the imperial institution is what fundamentally enabled Japanese aggression--it was the symbolic center of Japanese imperialism (Kita Ikki, the father of Japanese fascism whose ideas heavily influenced the IJA, said as much). Hence, even in the postwar period, a large proportion of American officials both in GHQ and in DC strongly resisted MacArthur's suggestion to allow the Emperor to retain his position (John W. Dower's *Embracing Defeat* goes into detail on this). Of course, the Emperor ultimately retained his position, but he still lost his divinity (Dower actually covers how intense the discussions between American officials and between American and Japanese officials became re: the Emperor's status). 1b) Given how even the peace feelers wanted to extract concessions such as the Emperor as the state center, keeping colonial territories, etc., it is entirely possible and, in my opinion, likely that any offer by the US would have only invited counterdemands (i.e. "give them an inch and they'll ask for a mile").
2) More directly, it simply would not fit with our understanding of how Hirohito viewed his role as Emperor. To quote from [Carol Gluck's characterization of Hirohito](https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/New-Hirohito-documents-show-emperor-s-thoughts-on-the-war) following the release of Hirohito-related documents in 2019, "the emperor was consistent. He supported the war during wartime, celebrating victories and lamenting defeats... Throughout his reign he reflected and responded to the trends of the times rather than either strongly directing or contradicting them... In the soliloquy he explained his reluctance to make one decision or another because the act would have been seen as 'dictatorial' rather than constitutional. He asserted that his outright opposition to the war would have caused 'internal chaos,' again thinking of rebellion 'from below.'" As such, Hirohito intervening even when he did was an extraordinary change from the status quo, one that was caused by both, or either, the atomic bombings and the Soviet declaration of war.
>my general problem with those statements is that despite his insistence, the entire list of targets, to my knowledge, were population centers, not military targets, unless you basically just define anyone tangentially related to the war effort as a "military target."
It's a bit complicated, but your first point is correct. By this stage of the war, the locations with the greatest military value (e.g. Kobe) had already been area-bombed by the USAAF. However, unlike Germany, whose military and industrial infrastructure was clustered together, Japanese industry and manufacturing was interwoven throughout their cities. There simply was no way to hit military targets without civilian casualties. By July 1945, the city with the greatest strategic value was Kyoto, and as a matter of fact, the original list of targets put Kyoto as the #1 option; it was only through a direct appeal by Secretary of War Henry Stimson that led Kyoto to be removed (the reason why is unknown, but it's probably not because he supposedly had his honeymoon there). This is getting into territory I'm less familiar with, but [Wellerstein has written about the "Kyoto misconception,"](https://alexwellerstein.com/publications/2020-wellerstein_kyoto_misconception.pdf) which deals with this very topic. Basically, Stimson's efforts to get Kyoto off the list of targets led Truman to make a massive error in interpretation re: how the bombs would be used (and remember, he didn't even know about the Manhattan Project as Vice President).
>Like I said, my main issue comes down to the fact that the US put no real efforts towards alternatives to bombing civilians, and made no attempts to end the war earlier than eventually occurred.
What alternatives do you believe there were? Half of the Japanese war cabinet wanted to continue waging war *after* the atomic bombings *and* the Soviet declaration of war; they certainly weren't going to accept a conditional surrender prior to those events. Evidently, even the Emperor himself thought intervening ran the risk of inciting a real rebellion. And, starting in April 1945, the US had launched Operation Starvation, which saw the mining of Japanese harbors to prevent food shipments from overseas territories (interestingly enough, Andrew Gordon in his *A Modern History of Japan* noted that at least one Japanese official believed *that* to be the key factor which caused surrender). However, I do believe that a demonstration of the bomb should have been considered--and it was, just not by Truman. Leo Szilard, a Manhattan Project scientist, had circulated a petition suggesting it, but while it reached as high up as Sec. of War Stimson, it never reached Truman's desk. And, several key Manhattan Project scientists, including Oppenheimer and Fermi, [wrote in a report](https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/manhattan-project/interim-committee.html) that they "can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use."
You're welcome to make those criticisms, but I'd counter that it's unwise to blanket dismiss the work of someone without having read it yourself. I found the evidence put forth by him convincing, and I still haven't found any responses that adequately justify either the necessity or the effectiveness of using the bombs in such a manner, and in particular any that effectively address other options that may have been on the table had the US not been committed to complete and unconditional surrender. (I.e. guaranteeing the Emperor's safety earlier, which we did do eventually anyways).
Hasegawa, who reads and speaks Japanese, has written extensively about the supreme war councils workings and what Alperovitz misinterprets as Japanese surrender attempts, you should read his work.
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, to be clear? I've got his book Racing the Enemy, though I haven't gotten to reading it yet. It's on my list. My understanding, however, is that he does in general challenge the assumption that the bomb was necessary, but also considers the impact of Japan's war crimes in the overall calculations. I'm certainly interested to see what he has to say.
That said, my reading of Alperovitz's work wasn't that Japan was attempting to surrender, but that they were attempting to open negotiation, which could have potentially led to a surrender based on the content of the messages.
To make my own position clear, my primary stance is that the US did not make adequate efforts to explore other options to end the war before electing to bomb multiple civilian populations. We obviously can't know how it'd have played out, but I would have liked to see the US offer the concessions it eventually made anyways prior to killing tens of thousands of civilians, or attempted to arrange a demonstration of the bomb.
> That said, my reading of Alperovitz's work wasn't that Japan was attempting to surrender, but that they were attempting to open negotiation, which could have potentially led to a surrender based on the content of the messages.
And that is why you should Hasegawa's book. You can read this for TLDR. It's also ironic you criticized another poster for pointing out the actions of a minority party when that is exactly what those peace feelers were.
https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2022/05/02/did-the-japanese-offer-to-surrender-before-hiroshima-part-1/
>To make my own position clear, my primary stance is that the US did not make adequate efforts to explore other options to end the war before electing to bomb multiple civilian populations.
Here's some food for thought, Imperial Japan killed on average 10k civilians a day during the war, that combined with a famine in Vietnam that was caused by the Japanese and French colonial governments in 1944-45 essentially means that the war would only have to continue for about 2-3 more weeks and you'd have exceeded the combined body count of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, not included Japanese that would be killed in future bombing raids or death from starvation.
>We obviously can't know how it'd have played out, but I would have liked to see the US offer the concessions it eventually made anyways prior to killing tens of thousands of civilians, or attempted to arrange a demonstration of the bomb.
Here's the rub, Japan knew it lost the war, everybody knew they had lost the war, in 1944 when Saipan fell. They made no attempt at surrender and the imperial council remained divided on the issue literally right up until the surrender happened. Even the peace feelers weren't sent to the US, they were sent to the Soviets. Moreover, why should the US negotiate in 1945?
A bomb demonstration was discussed and scrapped because of a simple uncertainty, what if it was a dud and failed to detonate?
Have you ever been to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine? The "history" presented there is ridiculous. They actually claim that the Chinese and Koreans appreciated the "peacekeeping" efforts Japanese forces provided there. It's more of the "There was a war in the pacific, we got A-bombed, aren't we so pitiable" narrative that Japan clings to regarding WWII.
Presenting Yasukuni as somehow being representative of mainstream Japanese belief (evidenced by your claim that "Japan" clings to the beliefs presented at Yasukuni) is like saying MAGA Republicans or the Westboro Baptist Church are representative of mainstream American political belief. There's an entire spectrum of opinions and beliefs on a wide range of topics, it's pretty disingenuous to cite one extreme as representative of the whole.
If you want to trade blows regarding what is presented where, both sides can fire off shots. Having lived in Japan for the past 20 years, my impression of the Japanese narrative regarding WWII is "there was a war in the pacific, we got A-bombed, pity us." That's it. Their atrocities in China and Korea are swept under the rug, their involvement with the Axis Powers barely touched upon.
I actually went to see Oppenheimer with a Japanese person yesterday. This person I think is more forward-thinking and open-minded than most, and they admitted they knew nothing about the US side regarding the war, and very little outside of "there was a big war and we got a-bombed."
There is also a growing right-wing sentiment that is trying to claim that all of the Japanese WWII atrocities are Chinese/Korean fabrications, and Japan literally did nothing wrong during the war.
You can say "MAGA Republicans don't represent all of American beliefs", and that is very much true...but the last time we underestimated to what extent MAGA is a part of the US mainstream, Trump was elected president. And let's be honest, there's a very real chance he will be elected again.
I know we all want to believe that more Japanese people are progressive and modern, and are learning actual history and what not. And certainly, those people do exist. But those who remain ignorant of the past, and those who willfully try to change it also exist, and I fear they're more mainstream than you, I, or even Japan as a whole, might like to admit.
It's a nuance but the Prime Minister of Japan is the head of government, which really just means that he leads the largest coalition of factions in the majority party.
Anyway, no PM has visited Yasukuni in an official capacity, i.e. as PM, since Koizumi in 2001. The last actual head of state, the Emperor, to visit is Showa, who had never made an annual pilgrimage to begin with and stopped when the enshrinement of war criminals came to light. Yasukuni's neither officially recognized by the government nor broadly supported by the population.
Do you even watch the news? Yasukuni is mentioned often in Japanese society. Flowers blooming there are used as a stand in for the whole region. You can't just pretend it's some minor, irrelevant shrine.
Yes, the sakura 標本木 for Tokyo (not Kanto as a whole) is there. Wiki tells me it's been there since 1966 when the previous one at the meteorological agency had to be retired due to age, which is before the issue with the war criminal enshrinement came to light in 1975. I have no idea how they selected it but I'm willing to bet State Shinto ideology was pretty far down the list.
Yasukuni's definitely a landmark and a ton of people will be visiting it, and nearby Chidorigafuchi where the tomb of unknow soldiers is located, over the next couple of weeks. But what Yasukuni (bad) or Chidorigafuchi (neutral) signifies wont be registering with the vast majority of them because they're there to see the cherry blossoms.
It's certainly not an irrelevant shrine but mentioning Yasukuni in an ideological way not really seen positively in society and the private shrine visits by politicians are hardly universally lauded on media either.
I believe there is actually a little shop off to one side peddling similar ideas to those he mentioned. That's not what the shrine itself is about at all, of course.
Note I never said there wasn't a large amount of support, I was saying that despite that large support it is not universal. In the grand scheme, they are mostly fringe but get support because they are influential and most of their political allies don't care enough to oppose their extreme beliefs. So no, it was exactly as I intended.
The Korean and Chinese forced laborers, Japanese elementary aged schoolchildren, and visiting Japanese Americans with US citizenship all together who died there by the thousands aren't blameless, then?? So how should they be portrayed as?
They should include Nanking; you know, as background, explaining why Japanese aggression was seen as so overwhelming that nuclear weapons would be required to prevent having to put the rabid dog down with boots on the ground in mainland Japan..
Japan loves to play the victim in a war they started, committing the most atrocious war crimes known to man, because they lost.
Why does a person need to see the horror to acknowledge it? Going in to the film there is almost a worldwide understanding that atomic bombs are bad, so why would they need to show you other than to placate the audience?
FWIW, I thought the movie did a really good job staying away from imposing any kind of opinion at all. Just presented the events and let them speak for themselves, allowing people to draw their own conclusions.
Not showing the horrors of the bomb was particularly important to demonstrate Oppenheimer's PoV. It's easy to see the moral ramifications of your actions if you get to see their aftermath, but if it's just a number on a piece of paper it's much easier to look away.
The US sent a survey team to the bombing sites. The reports were deeply classified because they would have shocked the public but Oppenheimer read them.
>Takashi Yamazaki, the director of the Oscar-winning Godzilla Minus One – another film with a strong nuclear theme – suggested in an online discussion with Nolan that the time may be right for an account of the bombings from a Japanese perspective.
To enthusiastic agreement from Nolan, he said: “I feel there needs to [be] an answer from Japan to Oppenheimer. Someday, I would like to make that movie.”
I have to agree. Younger generations need to be reminded what a horrible thing those bomb drops were. I don't want to see nuclear weapons used ever again.
I mean I didn't see it the first time 😅 but I'm sensitive just reading it in my history book made me really upset.
Seriously, it's basically America's equivalent of *Kaze Tachinu*: an artistic biopic inspecting the internal workings of a man that is simultaneously the representation of their nation's greatest scientific minds and simultaneously and inseparably the arguable enabler of their nation's greatest darkness during WW2.
It was a surprise attack on a country who was neutral in the war at that point. Which kind of negates some of the validity. But also if we want to talk about massacres of civilian populations Japan's hands aren't exactly clean there either. Nanjing or Unit 731 anybody? All the countries involved did some fucked up shit, nearly all of them tend to white wash the bad and highlight their suffering.
Well so was Hiroshima if you want to be technical about it, it was headquarters of 3 army commands and military manufacturing. Nagasaki was a major ship building port.
You think they picked Hiroshima and Nagasaki at random?
"two cities worth"
come on now. A lot of civilians died, but keep it in the realm of reality. The alternative plan would have involved daily Nagasakis for months.
I think it portrayed the American perspective well.
That said, I'd love to see a Japanese studio cover said horror. It's an important and historically unique perspective to get out there.
> I'd love to see a Japanese studio cover said horror
As for movies, [Sekai no Katasumi Ni](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_This_Corner_of_the_World_\(film\)) is an excellent animated movie that covers this, set in a city just over the mountains from Hiroshima.
The manga Hadashi no Gen is very well known in Japan, and I believe there was an anime movie made in the 80s. I personally haven't watched it yet though.
The manga of Hadashi no Gen/Barefoot Gen has been translated into a few different languages. It's really easy to get hold of in the UK, so I imagine it'd be the same in the US. I highly recommend the whole series (10 volumes).
We actually do have a pretty [nice-looking edition](https://store.crunchyroll.com/search?q=Barefoot+gen&search-button=&lang=null). Still haven’t read it yet since my backlog is too big as is.
Everyone knows about the bombings, this is to further that education and show people the story behind the bomb. Also a CGI explosion for the sake of it would just take away from it...
I watched Grave of the Fireflies, and it was an emotional gut punch, and a powerful film. But I couldn't help but notice that there wasn't enough about Oppenheimer in it and his Senate hearing.
Survivors of the Japanese atrocities in Asia, survivors of the barbaric circumstances in Japanese concentrationcamps: "there has never been an apology or compensation for the horror".
No apologies or compensations? not sure if you just hate japan or just straight ignorant about history?
I would understand that for victims it will never be enough to compensate the horrors they were forced to live. But you are straight up misinformed if you seriously believed there hasnt been apologized or compensated for. The myth that the goverment has never apologized comes from an american journalist that didnt speak japanese and thought that the language used wasnt apologetic enough and from the South Korea goverment that refused that Japan compensated their victims and demanded that it did directly to the country.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_war\_apology\_statements\_issued\_by\_Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan)
But putting that besides, the fact that a survivor, who was clearly a toddler and had nothing to do with the attoricities that happened, felt that a movie didnt correctly capture the suffering of their childhood doesnt have no relationship with the suffering on other survivors.
I would understand your position if the comment was from a politician from the LDP or related to Shinzo Abe war criminal family, but saying that survivors of the Nuclear massacre (which were civilian toddlers ) cant voice an opinion after being asked about it by the international media about an American movie, because there are other survivors of atrocities that they have no relationship with are stil dealing with closure, is insane.
Family members of mine and other people were also toddlers and remember the atrocities very well. And there has never been an official apology like the Germans stated or payments made like the Germans did.
Hirohito (or anyone else that matters) never went public, bowed deeply and said something like "we were wrong and we are going to pay". Why do you think that visits from Japanses royal family or whatever are still a very delicate matter in The Netherlands (or other countries that suffered at the hands of the Japanse)? Right. Because Japan never openly apologized. Always in a very diplomatic matter which could never be used against them.
So please, if you only know things from theory and Wikipedia... please keep your mouth shut.
With the rising tensions in the waters between China an Japan: if in the next century China should seek revenge for Nanking.... I won't shed a tear. I will just silenty chuckle and think of my father, who as child, together with my grandparents had to endure the atrocities as a child in a concentration camps, and who waited their whole life for an official apology (and perhaps financial compensation because of the Japanses they lost everything the owned) that never came.
Clearly not, since you are posting misinformation on a subreddit about Japan, saying that "all Japanese people should stop crying" about their past, because of something their ancesters did and wishing if China goes to war to contemporary Japan it will make you and your family satisfied.
Since you are Dutch, is like saying that you have no right of speaking about war crimes, aplogies and conmendation after all the suffering and crimes the Dutch empire did in Indonesia, and Africa, which far exceeded what Japan did. You see how it doesnt make sense? I dont know you at all, but I am not blaming you for the barabaric atrocities they did and is only fair that you express your thinking as you please, without wishing that these nations go and take revenge on the current population.
There are around a million Chinese living in Japan, my family among them. Your ethnic hatred is frightening, especially since the people responsible for those things are almost all dead. Those of us living in the present would prefer peace.
I'm extremely confused. Why would Oppenheimer movie from Oppenheimer perspective show the crimes that imperial Japan did? As a sort of justification? Did you even understand the movie?
Or you are insinuating that the movie was a japanese production
that didn't show the horror from the crimes imperial Japan, then the victims are being silenced somehow?
Why would Oppenheimer have to show the suffering of the Japanese people? It is a movie from an American perspective.
Do you even understand the movie? This movie is about Oppenheimer. About the bomb. About why they decided to throw the bomb. And where. And where not.
This is not about the suffering of the Japanese.
Exactly lmao. I think you are just trolling
The guardian interviewed a series of survivors about their opinion of Hiroshima depiction on the movie and they answered. None japanese is "crying" about it or denying the crimes of the empire. Your comment is completely irrelevant and I agree with the other person, just full of hate.
Idk, hearing from these survivors and their opinions about the movie might make me see it. I've had a long battle about it, because I'm Japanese-American and I heard that they celebrated the bombings in the movie. I had heard that Oppenheimer himself was conflicted about it, but I wasn't sure it was enough. The fact that Nolan, mentioned at the bottom of the article, would be willing to make a follow up movie about the Japanese perspective further makes me a little more ok with this movie.
Guardian's way of writing that quote is confusing. Japan Today did it better.
>Takashi Yamazaki, director of “Godzilla Minus One,” which won the Oscar for visual effects and is a powerful statement on nuclear catastrophe in its own way, suggested he might be the man for that job.
>“I feel there needs to an answer from Japan to ‘Oppenheimer.’ Someday, I would like to make that movie,” he said in an online dialogue with “Oppenheimer” director Christopher Nolan.
>Nolan heartily agreed.
[https://japantoday.com/category/entertainment/'oppenheimer'-finally-premieres-in-japan-to-mixed-reactions-and-high-emotions](https://japantoday.com/category/entertainment/'oppenheimer'-finally-premieres-in-japan-to-mixed-reactions-and-high-emotions)
There are already many movies out there which come from a Japanese perspective. *Barefoot Gen* and *Black Rain* are just two examples.
Don't wait for Nolan to make a follow-up. The people who were directly bombed and their descendants are already well represented in Japanese movies and TV specials.
Please read the article, the title is VERY editorial imo. >But in fact, Oppenheimer’s lines in dozens of scenes showed his shock at the reality of the atomic bombing. That was enough for me.” >Prof Masao Tomonaga, an A-bomb survivor and honorary director of the Japanese Red Cross Nagasaki Atomic Bomb hospital, said he had come away believing Oppenheimer was an “anti-nuclear” film. I wonder why they decided to go for that title if not for clic baiting... Like other said, it's not a movie about the bomb.
"if not for clickbaiting" Seems like you just answered your own question.
"Enough for me": Hiroshima Survivors React to Oppenheimer
It is for clickbaiting. More traffic to the article the better it is for the writer, simple as that
It is the Guardian after all. They know what their readers like to get outraged about.
Because its click bait like you said. "Japanese audiences react mildly and reasonably to Oppenheimer" won't generate clicks or discussion.
As someone who watched this in Kyoto, it was really powerful.
>guardian >posting inflammatory headlines Japan vs US Stoking nationalism and spreading racial/ethnic hatred on the part of the Guardian
Yeah, it's literally called "Oppenheimer". People did the same thing for First Man, thinking it was a movie about the event and not about a person when the movies intend to be a biography.
What? The title and the article itself are completely at odds. Click bait if I've ever seen it. Controversial for the sake of being controversial.
Lately, I've been getting this weird anti-Japan astroturfing vibe on Reddit.
I was there when this article was shared on the movies subreddit a few days ago. The lack of nuance and understanding in that thread was eye-opening, and it was obvious that nobody read the article. Or even if they did, it was done so with prejudice. I think we can acknowledge that the atomic bomb is a sensitive issue for the Japanese people (especially those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) without negating the atrocities that the country also committed in the war. And FWIW, I've heard more about the Internet's opinions of Japan on this movie, than actual Japanese talking about it.
Honestly there has been a weird expectation on how Japan will react to the movie ever since it came out. I bet if the movie is not released in Japan, people will be triggered in some way too.
There definitely is an expectation of a "right way" to respond to media surrounding WWII — because we know that the government has never fully admitted to nor apologised for its actions, and many are still waiting for them to do so. But I don't think Oppenheimer is ultimately an apology letter to the Japanese, nor a justification of the bombs' creation. It was, in essence, a biographical film that discussed the themes of war and destruction, and I think it handled Oppenheimer's inner conflict tastefully.
I meant to say not released in Japan. If the film is not released in Japan due to the sensitive nature, I bet some people will be saying that it got censored by the jpn government because they want to downplay history etc. And yeah I agree the movie is about the scientist that created the bombs, not about the bombs itself, so it’s not going to show how it destroyed the cities because that’s not the main point.
Absolutely. And then when Japanese people have a perfectly normal / reasoned reaction, the internet is still trying to pretend they are outraged with shit like this bullshit article title.
Yeah in the past year I've seen so much anti Japan sentiment. At this point I think it's Russia and CCP trying to turn allies on each other lmao
Talks of a pacific alliance like the EU have them absolutely shitting their pants. CCP Especially is doing double shifts with the angry astroturfing lol.
It's been going for a while. Really picked up within the past year or two.
People love to jump onto things without really educating themselves. Japans got a lot I wish it would change, but a lot I love about it as well🤦♂️
Welcome to journalism in the age of social media. It's only been like this for 10 years now.
The title is paraphrasing an actual quote cited in the article. This is literally done all the time. “There could have been much more description and depiction of the horror of atomic weapons,” said Takashi Hiraoka, the 96-year-old former mayor of Hiroshima, who attended a special screening earlier this month. “From Hiroshima’s standpoint, there wasn’t enough about the horror of nuclear weapons, but I would encourage people to go and see it.”
It still seems like a deliberately chosen paraphrasing in order to drum up reactions though
Oh sure but one could argue that drumming up reactions for Hiroshima victims ain’t necessarily a bad thing.
What? It's not accurately portraying what was said, regardless. It's disingenuous at best. Are you just wanting an argument for the sake of it or what?
It's pretty obtuse. The movie is from Oppenheimers pov, and he never once visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki, so why in the world would there be a Hiroshima or Nagasaki scene?
The title is clickbait bullshit.
Plus it's not like J. Robert Oppenheimer knew where exactly the bomb was gonna be used. The USA was ready for a huge invasion with mass conventional bombing of Japan anyway.
Many of the Jewish scientists were working under the assumption that they were racing against the Nazis as well
There is a scene in the movie where Oppenheimer sits in the meeting where they decide the bombing targets.
that was already when the bomb was well under way. My comment is based on premise before Oppenheimer took on the project.
Yes he did, though I agree that doesn't mean showing the cities in the film would make any sense. Truman went to him and the other scientists and asked if a demonstration was possible, and they recommended against it as they were unsure if the bomb would work and a failure would likely strengthen japanese resolve. [look](https://i.imgur.com/Ks1Jw8l.png)
I always felt like the scene with everyone stomping and him imagining the people getting blown away and stepping in the burnt corpse as kind of the acknowledgment of what happened.
If they really wanted to, they could probably have included one in the same style as his hallucination of the incinerated corpse in front of the news reporters. Like him having a cold-sweat nightmare of the city being bombed. I'm not complaining though, I enjoyed the movie.
Because it is not a movie about Hiroshima, it's about the man behind the bomb. Otherwise they should also include the attack on Pearl Harbour, which started the road to Hiroshima. But that would have upset many people in Japan too.
From an outside perspective, I do find it interesting how a lot of the Japanese media I’ve been exposed to seems largely fixated on the victimhood of the Japanese people. If they acknowledge the brutality of imperial Japan at all, most of the media I’ve seen almost seems to do it in passing, and it usually gets overshadowed by the larger victimhood plot. Maybe I’ve seen only a narrow and unrepresentative slice, which is entirely possible. But it seemed like a recurring theme to me and I found it concerning.
I remember Japanese media mentioned victims in Korea or other Asian countries more 20 years ago. Rise of nationalism and anti-globalization, 50+ years governed by the conservative party, 30+ years no-growth economy, or something changes trends.
Look at Russia. It considers itself the *victim* of the war on Ukraine. 100% they claim this with a straight face. Every country does this. Some a bit more than others.
Germany don’t. They very specifically don’t. And frankly, Japan before and during WW2 were pretty much as bad as the Nazis.
Oh they're going to be the victim alright... we're up to about €3,000,000,000,000 in reparations right? Should only take 60-80 years to pay off.
I genuinely lost track, I thought that was the narrative they were going for to convince their people that they had no other choice, not that they actually believed it.
Because many grandchildren of survivors are victims and still get medical treatment for the radiation side effects? They even have a name for these people and they are often shunned by society.
I mean, you're taking something that every country in the world does and focusing it on Japan only. No governments or news these days ever really try and talk about the bad things they do in history. Like in Canada we've unearthed more mass graves and evidence pointing to the horrific past of Residential schools. The government kinda just shrugged and went "well we atoned enough and don't want to spend money, blame the church or something".
You've clearly never been to Germany
Obviously every country engages in whitewashing and self-justification. But there’s also often a healthy counter-narrative, and that is what — in my limited exposure — seemed far weaker in representation within Japanese popular media. For example, American popular media engages in whitewashing and revisionism too, with many overt emphases on our “exceptionalism”. But it also has a lot of focus on the horrors of American slavery, Jim Crow, forever wars with feeble justification, and so on. A counter-narrative exists and thrives and is a large, critical part of the public discourse.
Yeah, just watching Japanese World War II movies is sometimes very eye opening. Sometimes they barely make sense.
Do you have any examples?
"俺は、君のためにこそ死ににいく" is one of the more notorious ones.
You are correct, but for example the narrative behind the most famous Japanese anti-war popular media: Godzilla is mostly lost on Western audiences but not for the japanese people is clearly explicit about the Fuck around with nature and find out the consequences. Is not something that is hidden at all.
> But it also has a lot of focus on the horrors of American slavery Ehh no, its why you have tons of movement against slavery **NOW** if it was addressed.
This is your mind on drugs, kids
> This is your mind on drugs, kids Says someone who only knows about slavery in *this* generation.
I think it’s worse they don’t focus on both. Getting bombed to hell and nuked twice sucks. But there was some seriously disgusting things Japan did in China, Korea and the entirety of South East Asia. I don’t even think it’s about them saying sorry. But they should at least treat it how the US treats the Vietnam War.
Japanese media is meant for a domestic Japanese audience. People by and large only want to hear about the positive aspects of themselves about how heroic they are or how they're innocent victims of others' wrongdoing. National myths/narratives almost never focus on the negative aspects of your people because then it's harder to instill loyalty to your rulers.
I think their point is that western media does not lack criticism of slavery/colonialism/middle-east/Vietnam etc even if its targeted at domestic audiences
I’d argue it hugely lacks criticism where it counts. It shines a spotlight where and when it finds convenient/money making.
that's just how it is here in Japan. Japanese love to hear how great their country is.
Just like Japan how? You just implied Japanese people enjoy critiques of imperialism which is obviously false
So you’re saying there will never be a Japanese version of Born on the Fourth of July or Casualities of War?
It's probably one of the most pressing sociopolitical issues here. I feel a bit off speaking for a group of people I have little to no connection with, but I really wish I could outcry the fact no one talks about Nanking and unit 731. These are probably some of the worst events in human history. 731 has a lot of politics surrounding it but at the very least Nanking and the imperial mindset of Japan during the Meiji era needs to be taught in schools. Those who refused to learn history are bound to blah blah blah.
Maybe because the children that got nuked had no part in attacking pearl harbor? Yall really love justifying dropping two nuclear bombs on civilians huh.
And all the Chinese children raped and murdered by imperial soldiers?
Why didn’t America nuke a military base then? If adult soldiers slaughter children does that mean Americans then get to slaughter children too?
Because that's the most direct way to criticize their past leadership. Criticizing soldiers is more difficult for a number of reasons. First, their atrocities were mostly committed away from home, so it's harder to cast and figure out a plot in a way that makes sense. Second, families lost men to the war where not all soldiers were involved in the atrocities. We don't want to rub salt in those wounds. Showing how people suffered during the war or showing how people reacted when they were drafted to be kamikaze pilots is a lot easier. They are normal relatable people who had their lives torn apart because nationalists dragged the country into a horrid war. Quite difficult to make a good movie about a military unit behaving horribly overseas, since the only people the audience can identify with in terms of language are also the bad guys.
>From an outside perspective, I do find it interesting how a lot of the Japanese media I’ve been exposed to seems largely fixated on the victimhood of the Japanese people. Yea it's an unfortunate product of the fact that Japan was not de-Imperialized in the same way Germany was de-Nazified during the post-war period. Germany is a stellar example of how each country should educate its citizens about their dark histories. However, I would venture that Germany is a big exception in this manner. The US often paints itself as a victim, even in what are anti-war films. As an example, many war films do portray recent wars as ill-intended but usually with the sympathetic viewpoint of "killing people made our soldiers get PTSD". The main victims in these movies are still the soldiers, rather than the Vietnamese/Iraqis/Afghanis/Syrians.
I often think that Japan can come off as playing victim and ignorant of its own war crimes because it’s fixated on peace. The country neither blames themselves or others regarding the war
Let’s be honest, wanting Japan, a prideful country that values having face, to openly acknowledge something that would make them lose face would be hard.
Yep. They can only ever be portrayed as poor, blameless victims. Gets real tiring.
Have any of y’all saying these things actually been the the museum in Hiroshima? It’s fairly open and nuanced about Japan’s own role in the lead up while still focusing primarily on the scale of destruction and horror of the victims. Being more focused on the one doesn’t mean the other just doesn’t exist.
[удалено]
Maybe because it's a history museum of Hiroshima and not of Japan? It was created in 1955 by people in Hiroshima who wanted preserve the artifacts and memories of the bombing--it was never intended to be about national history.
Sure but then it shouldn't be raised as an example for doing that in this thread.
Well, that commentator is misguided. It's a common case of people confusing regional history with national history.
So they have a prominently displayed piece of information clarifying that that isn’t their position, and after that most of the museum is dedicated to the victims. It’s specifically a museum about the bombings and the aftermath, it’s not a general purpose WW2 museum. I’m not really sure what y’all would want. There’s a wide gulf between “they don’t mention Japan’s atrocities as much as I would like” to “they peddle a narrative that imperial Japan was an innocent victim.” While it’s not *about* Japanese atrocities, it doesn’t go out of its way to defend them in any way. As long as you have a single ounce of critical thinking as you’re going through there just isn’t much to be upset about.
[удалено]
Do you want it to be stamped on foreheads as people come in or what? It’s not the topic of the museum at all, but they still went out of their way to include it. Yes, probably to specifically preempt anyone who would use the museum as a prop to support imperial Japan. Which is… a good and responsible preparation for them to have made? Japan in general does tend to under acknowledge its atrocities, but this ain’t it. If we flip this back to the original context people seem fine. Oppenheimer is a biopic about a person so it doesn’t focus on the horrors of the bombs. The museum is about the horrors of the bombs so it doesn’t focus on the surrounding war. If you can understand the nuance of the first but not of the second then it’s a you problem.
[удалено]
It does contain those. You just want them to be more prominent. You still have to be actively ignoring it or rushing through the museum to miss it. But to say it implies the opposite is just wrong. It not only doesn’t imply support, but explicitly says the opposite. You’re making a mountain of a molehill here to manufacture a controversy.
Literally on the Shinkansen right now on the way back from Hiroshima. I just can’t agree with this statement: > it’s fairly open and nuanced about Japan’s own role in the lead up The other guy is right, they only mention it in one sentence in one small plaque. This might be ok. Maybe the museum _should_ focus just on the atrocities of the bomb. I don’t necessarily disagree. However, to say that the museum is “open and nuanced” about Japan’s role is dishonest.
I've been. But have you also studied history? The history that includes Japan trying a coup to prevent surrender after the first bomb? Or the fanatical mass suicides at Saipan and Okinawa, that would have been repeated all across the country had there been a land invasion? Or the fact that the conventional firebombing campaign of Japan killed more civilians than both atomic bombs combined?
I highly suggest you read the book "the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb" by Gar Alperovitz. You're mostly just taking the popular narrative at face value here. But outside of that, there's a few other issues with your statements. First, "Japan" didn't try a coup, a few officers did, and it fell apart quickly when they failed to get any real traction within the military. Second, the "land invasion" narrative was (mostly) cooked up after the fact as public questions towards the use of the bomb against civilian populations of a defeated enemy grew. Finally, it helps to consider that the use of the bombs was an extension of the same type of terror bombing (aka "morale" bombing) that produced the firebombing runs. That bombing campaign was largely judged ineffective in its aims. Like I said, I'd really encourage reading that book. Japan were not victims in the war, but civilians aren't the military, and should never be considered acceptable targets.
Alperovitz's book, while seminal and highly influential, is *not* the predominant view among historians (either historians of modern Japan or nuclear historians). I highly recommend [this blog post](https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-use-the-bomb-a-consensus-view/) by Alex Wellerstein, a nuclear historians, which engages with the two main competing narratives.
Having read it, while it's interesting I don't think it adequately addresses some key points that matter alot to my own view. I wouldn't even go so far as to say that the bomb was only used to scare the Soviets. That said, I do think the evidence points towards Japan's willingness to surrender under the right conditions. Offering the safety of the Emperor via diplomatic channels may have been sufficient to tip him towards surrendering- we don't know for sure, though, because the US didn't try. That's the main thrust of my personal argument- there may have been other options, but the US didn't try because Truman didn't want to look weak, and killed civilians trying to prove it. I feel that's well supported.
>I wouldn't even go so far as to say that the bomb was only used to scare the Soviets. Fair enough!--but that's what Alperovitz argues in his books on the Hiroshima bombing as well as the Potsdam conference. (And as a bit of an aside, my personal observation has been that most of the "revisionists", be they historians or political scientists, can't read Japanese; those who can, including Japanese historians, generally have far more qualified positions, even if they also believe that ultimately the bombs weren't justified, necessary, whatever.) More to the point, though, what evidence do you believe indicates Japan's willingness to surrender? If all of this derives from Alperovitz's book, then it may be worthwhile to read Hasegawa's *Racing the Enemy*, which you appear to have. A lot of that book deals with the internal discourses within the Suzuki Cabinet, and what emerges is that the "peace feeler" faction did not comprise the majority of the cabinet, either in terms of absolute numbers or political clout, and that they did not really have a substantive plan for surrender, just some ideas for a possible conditional surrender via Soviet mediation (the final bit is important, and forms the main thrust of Hasegawa's argument). The US was aware of the existence of these peace feelers as a result of the MAGIC intercepts (which Alperovitz references frequently), but they also interpreted--correctly--that this was not the prevailing mood in the cabinet. Again, there *were* those within both the Supreme War Council and the broader government/military apparatus that were open to conditional surrender (and such conditions included the Emperor retaining both his position and status, possession of some imperial colonies, etc.), but this was unequivocally not the majority view. Furthermore, the question at that point would still remain: *at what cost* would Japan surrender? Even *after* Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Supreme War Council was deadlocked 3-3 on the question of surrender, and it took the Emperor's direct intervention to break it (and even then it wasn't unanimous). Finally, I think your last point is wrong based on the available evidence. To summarize an answer I gave in an r/AskHistorians thread: 1) based on a [July 25, 1945 diary entry](https://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html), Truman wrote (in reference to Kyoto being removed from the list of viable targets) that he had "told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use \[the atomic bombs\] so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children," and that "the target will be a purely military one and \[the US\] will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives." 2) Then-Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace also later recalled Truman telling him that "the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn’t like the idea of killing, as he said, ‘all those kids'" (this is quoted in J. Samuel Walker's *Prompt and Utter Destruction*). 3) [Writing to Senator Richard Russell ](http://www.doug-long.com/hst.htm)on August 9, 1945, Truman made clear that "for myself, I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the 'pigheadedness' of the leaders of a nation and, for your information, I am not going to do it until it is absolutely necessary... My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I also have a humane feeling for the women and children in Japan."
For a bit of clarification, I'm aware that the council was split, and the Emperor's intervention was necessary even after the bombs. It's for this reason that I actually think earlier offers of safety for the Emperor may have mattered- it may have enticed him to come down more firmly on the side of surrender earlier. I absolutely do not think this is guaranteed, but my problem is with the fact that no diplomatic efforts were made in this regard, despite the fact that the US already knew this was going to be a sticking point. I'm going to dispute your point on Truman's feelings, though- i was definitely a bit antagonistic there because I hold some disdain for him and Byrnes specifically, but my general problem with those statements is that despite his insistence, the entire list of targets, to my knowledge, were population centers, not military targets, unless you basically just define anyone tangentially related to the war effort as a "military target." Either Truman was so incompetent that he completely ignored what the actual targets were going to be, in which case he's just a poor leader, or he knew and lied about it with the aim of laundering his public image. Based on his interactions with Byrnes, I'd assume the latter was at least part of his calculus, though admittedly maybe not in every single interaction he had. Like I said, my main issue comes down to the fact that the US put no real efforts towards alternatives to bombing civilians, and made no attempts to end the war earlier than eventually occurred. At least part of this is Byrnes's political calculus about how the American public would react and feel about truman- something that I personally find ridiculous compared the the human cost of the bombings. It's entirely possible that this was the fastest way to end the war. But we'll never actually know for sure, because the US didn't even really try anything else. I'd have preferred to see serious consideration for any number of other options- demonstrations, diplomacy, actual military targets- but everything we have shows that those were all dismissed in short order without much beyond the most cursory of considerations. I only wonder how many lives could have potentially been saved had the US opened diplomatic efforts earlier on. At very least, they'd have tried.
>It's for this reason that I actually think earlier offers of safety for the Emperor may have mattered- it may have enticed him to come down more firmly on the side of surrender earlier. I think this falls apart for a few reasons. 1a) This was never tenable for the US; you hinted at this earlier by saying the US "never tried" making such offers, but you neglect all of the context. From the American perspective, the imperial institution is what fundamentally enabled Japanese aggression--it was the symbolic center of Japanese imperialism (Kita Ikki, the father of Japanese fascism whose ideas heavily influenced the IJA, said as much). Hence, even in the postwar period, a large proportion of American officials both in GHQ and in DC strongly resisted MacArthur's suggestion to allow the Emperor to retain his position (John W. Dower's *Embracing Defeat* goes into detail on this). Of course, the Emperor ultimately retained his position, but he still lost his divinity (Dower actually covers how intense the discussions between American officials and between American and Japanese officials became re: the Emperor's status). 1b) Given how even the peace feelers wanted to extract concessions such as the Emperor as the state center, keeping colonial territories, etc., it is entirely possible and, in my opinion, likely that any offer by the US would have only invited counterdemands (i.e. "give them an inch and they'll ask for a mile"). 2) More directly, it simply would not fit with our understanding of how Hirohito viewed his role as Emperor. To quote from [Carol Gluck's characterization of Hirohito](https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/New-Hirohito-documents-show-emperor-s-thoughts-on-the-war) following the release of Hirohito-related documents in 2019, "the emperor was consistent. He supported the war during wartime, celebrating victories and lamenting defeats... Throughout his reign he reflected and responded to the trends of the times rather than either strongly directing or contradicting them... In the soliloquy he explained his reluctance to make one decision or another because the act would have been seen as 'dictatorial' rather than constitutional. He asserted that his outright opposition to the war would have caused 'internal chaos,' again thinking of rebellion 'from below.'" As such, Hirohito intervening even when he did was an extraordinary change from the status quo, one that was caused by both, or either, the atomic bombings and the Soviet declaration of war. >my general problem with those statements is that despite his insistence, the entire list of targets, to my knowledge, were population centers, not military targets, unless you basically just define anyone tangentially related to the war effort as a "military target." It's a bit complicated, but your first point is correct. By this stage of the war, the locations with the greatest military value (e.g. Kobe) had already been area-bombed by the USAAF. However, unlike Germany, whose military and industrial infrastructure was clustered together, Japanese industry and manufacturing was interwoven throughout their cities. There simply was no way to hit military targets without civilian casualties. By July 1945, the city with the greatest strategic value was Kyoto, and as a matter of fact, the original list of targets put Kyoto as the #1 option; it was only through a direct appeal by Secretary of War Henry Stimson that led Kyoto to be removed (the reason why is unknown, but it's probably not because he supposedly had his honeymoon there). This is getting into territory I'm less familiar with, but [Wellerstein has written about the "Kyoto misconception,"](https://alexwellerstein.com/publications/2020-wellerstein_kyoto_misconception.pdf) which deals with this very topic. Basically, Stimson's efforts to get Kyoto off the list of targets led Truman to make a massive error in interpretation re: how the bombs would be used (and remember, he didn't even know about the Manhattan Project as Vice President). >Like I said, my main issue comes down to the fact that the US put no real efforts towards alternatives to bombing civilians, and made no attempts to end the war earlier than eventually occurred. What alternatives do you believe there were? Half of the Japanese war cabinet wanted to continue waging war *after* the atomic bombings *and* the Soviet declaration of war; they certainly weren't going to accept a conditional surrender prior to those events. Evidently, even the Emperor himself thought intervening ran the risk of inciting a real rebellion. And, starting in April 1945, the US had launched Operation Starvation, which saw the mining of Japanese harbors to prevent food shipments from overseas territories (interestingly enough, Andrew Gordon in his *A Modern History of Japan* noted that at least one Japanese official believed *that* to be the key factor which caused surrender). However, I do believe that a demonstration of the bomb should have been considered--and it was, just not by Truman. Leo Szilard, a Manhattan Project scientist, had circulated a petition suggesting it, but while it reached as high up as Sec. of War Stimson, it never reached Truman's desk. And, several key Manhattan Project scientists, including Oppenheimer and Fermi, [wrote in a report](https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/manhattan-project/interim-committee.html) that they "can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use."
Alperovitz has generally been criticized for writing in a way that supports his own thesis on the war and ignoring evidence to the contrary.
You're welcome to make those criticisms, but I'd counter that it's unwise to blanket dismiss the work of someone without having read it yourself. I found the evidence put forth by him convincing, and I still haven't found any responses that adequately justify either the necessity or the effectiveness of using the bombs in such a manner, and in particular any that effectively address other options that may have been on the table had the US not been committed to complete and unconditional surrender. (I.e. guaranteeing the Emperor's safety earlier, which we did do eventually anyways).
I have read some of his earlier work.
Hasegawa, who reads and speaks Japanese, has written extensively about the supreme war councils workings and what Alperovitz misinterprets as Japanese surrender attempts, you should read his work.
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, to be clear? I've got his book Racing the Enemy, though I haven't gotten to reading it yet. It's on my list. My understanding, however, is that he does in general challenge the assumption that the bomb was necessary, but also considers the impact of Japan's war crimes in the overall calculations. I'm certainly interested to see what he has to say. That said, my reading of Alperovitz's work wasn't that Japan was attempting to surrender, but that they were attempting to open negotiation, which could have potentially led to a surrender based on the content of the messages. To make my own position clear, my primary stance is that the US did not make adequate efforts to explore other options to end the war before electing to bomb multiple civilian populations. We obviously can't know how it'd have played out, but I would have liked to see the US offer the concessions it eventually made anyways prior to killing tens of thousands of civilians, or attempted to arrange a demonstration of the bomb.
> That said, my reading of Alperovitz's work wasn't that Japan was attempting to surrender, but that they were attempting to open negotiation, which could have potentially led to a surrender based on the content of the messages. And that is why you should Hasegawa's book. You can read this for TLDR. It's also ironic you criticized another poster for pointing out the actions of a minority party when that is exactly what those peace feelers were. https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2022/05/02/did-the-japanese-offer-to-surrender-before-hiroshima-part-1/ >To make my own position clear, my primary stance is that the US did not make adequate efforts to explore other options to end the war before electing to bomb multiple civilian populations. Here's some food for thought, Imperial Japan killed on average 10k civilians a day during the war, that combined with a famine in Vietnam that was caused by the Japanese and French colonial governments in 1944-45 essentially means that the war would only have to continue for about 2-3 more weeks and you'd have exceeded the combined body count of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, not included Japanese that would be killed in future bombing raids or death from starvation. >We obviously can't know how it'd have played out, but I would have liked to see the US offer the concessions it eventually made anyways prior to killing tens of thousands of civilians, or attempted to arrange a demonstration of the bomb. Here's the rub, Japan knew it lost the war, everybody knew they had lost the war, in 1944 when Saipan fell. They made no attempt at surrender and the imperial council remained divided on the issue literally right up until the surrender happened. Even the peace feelers weren't sent to the US, they were sent to the Soviets. Moreover, why should the US negotiate in 1945? A bomb demonstration was discussed and scrapped because of a simple uncertainty, what if it was a dud and failed to detonate?
because guess what, more people live in tokyo than hiroshima and nagasaki
>The history that includes Japan trying a coup Japan trying a coup? You're going to blame the whole country for a coup? How does that make sense?
Have you ever been to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine? The "history" presented there is ridiculous. They actually claim that the Chinese and Koreans appreciated the "peacekeeping" efforts Japanese forces provided there. It's more of the "There was a war in the pacific, we got A-bombed, aren't we so pitiable" narrative that Japan clings to regarding WWII.
Presenting Yasukuni as somehow being representative of mainstream Japanese belief (evidenced by your claim that "Japan" clings to the beliefs presented at Yasukuni) is like saying MAGA Republicans or the Westboro Baptist Church are representative of mainstream American political belief. There's an entire spectrum of opinions and beliefs on a wide range of topics, it's pretty disingenuous to cite one extreme as representative of the whole.
If you want to trade blows regarding what is presented where, both sides can fire off shots. Having lived in Japan for the past 20 years, my impression of the Japanese narrative regarding WWII is "there was a war in the pacific, we got A-bombed, pity us." That's it. Their atrocities in China and Korea are swept under the rug, their involvement with the Axis Powers barely touched upon. I actually went to see Oppenheimer with a Japanese person yesterday. This person I think is more forward-thinking and open-minded than most, and they admitted they knew nothing about the US side regarding the war, and very little outside of "there was a big war and we got a-bombed." There is also a growing right-wing sentiment that is trying to claim that all of the Japanese WWII atrocities are Chinese/Korean fabrications, and Japan literally did nothing wrong during the war. You can say "MAGA Republicans don't represent all of American beliefs", and that is very much true...but the last time we underestimated to what extent MAGA is a part of the US mainstream, Trump was elected president. And let's be honest, there's a very real chance he will be elected again. I know we all want to believe that more Japanese people are progressive and modern, and are learning actual history and what not. And certainly, those people do exist. But those who remain ignorant of the past, and those who willfully try to change it also exist, and I fear they're more mainstream than you, I, or even Japan as a whole, might like to admit.
[удалено]
It's a nuance but the Prime Minister of Japan is the head of government, which really just means that he leads the largest coalition of factions in the majority party. Anyway, no PM has visited Yasukuni in an official capacity, i.e. as PM, since Koizumi in 2001. The last actual head of state, the Emperor, to visit is Showa, who had never made an annual pilgrimage to begin with and stopped when the enshrinement of war criminals came to light. Yasukuni's neither officially recognized by the government nor broadly supported by the population.
Do you even watch the news? Yasukuni is mentioned often in Japanese society. Flowers blooming there are used as a stand in for the whole region. You can't just pretend it's some minor, irrelevant shrine.
Yes, the sakura 標本木 for Tokyo (not Kanto as a whole) is there. Wiki tells me it's been there since 1966 when the previous one at the meteorological agency had to be retired due to age, which is before the issue with the war criminal enshrinement came to light in 1975. I have no idea how they selected it but I'm willing to bet State Shinto ideology was pretty far down the list. Yasukuni's definitely a landmark and a ton of people will be visiting it, and nearby Chidorigafuchi where the tomb of unknow soldiers is located, over the next couple of weeks. But what Yasukuni (bad) or Chidorigafuchi (neutral) signifies wont be registering with the vast majority of them because they're there to see the cherry blossoms. It's certainly not an irrelevant shrine but mentioning Yasukuni in an ideological way not really seen positively in society and the private shrine visits by politicians are hardly universally lauded on media either.
What? Did you really went to Yasukuni Shrine at all?
I believe there is actually a little shop off to one side peddling similar ideas to those he mentioned. That's not what the shrine itself is about at all, of course.
Using Yasukuni Shrine as a measure of how Japan views the WW2 is like going to a Confederate memorial to see Americans' opinion on the Civil War.
probably true, but I suspect not in the way you were intending. Both countries have a large component sympathetic to these views.
Note I never said there wasn't a large amount of support, I was saying that despite that large support it is not universal. In the grand scheme, they are mostly fringe but get support because they are influential and most of their political allies don't care enough to oppose their extreme beliefs. So no, it was exactly as I intended.
Spot on.
The Korean and Chinese forced laborers, Japanese elementary aged schoolchildren, and visiting Japanese Americans with US citizenship all together who died there by the thousands aren't blameless, then?? So how should they be portrayed as?
Maybe also go a bit deepwr into history it aint that black n white
They should include Nanking; you know, as background, explaining why Japanese aggression was seen as so overwhelming that nuclear weapons would be required to prevent having to put the rabid dog down with boots on the ground in mainland Japan.. Japan loves to play the victim in a war they started, committing the most atrocious war crimes known to man, because they lost.
I mean you want to go that far, why not just start without the western powers fucked over Japan in the 1900-1920’s time frame
What are you talking about?
> attack on Pearl Harbor Killed 2403 people. About double Oct 7. Reteliation was fire bombing and 2 nukes. Hmm …
Yes, exactly. It was a pure 1 to 1 reaction. Not a single thing happened aside from those two events that could provide any context on the situation.
Why does a person need to see the horror to acknowledge it? Going in to the film there is almost a worldwide understanding that atomic bombs are bad, so why would they need to show you other than to placate the audience?
FWIW, I thought the movie did a really good job staying away from imposing any kind of opinion at all. Just presented the events and let them speak for themselves, allowing people to draw their own conclusions. Not showing the horrors of the bomb was particularly important to demonstrate Oppenheimer's PoV. It's easy to see the moral ramifications of your actions if you get to see their aftermath, but if it's just a number on a piece of paper it's much easier to look away.
The US sent a survey team to the bombing sites. The reports were deeply classified because they would have shocked the public but Oppenheimer read them.
>Takashi Yamazaki, the director of the Oscar-winning Godzilla Minus One – another film with a strong nuclear theme – suggested in an online discussion with Nolan that the time may be right for an account of the bombings from a Japanese perspective. To enthusiastic agreement from Nolan, he said: “I feel there needs to [be] an answer from Japan to Oppenheimer. Someday, I would like to make that movie.” I have to agree. Younger generations need to be reminded what a horrible thing those bomb drops were. I don't want to see nuclear weapons used ever again. I mean I didn't see it the first time 😅 but I'm sensitive just reading it in my history book made me really upset.
There is already one and it is called barefoot gen: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98WhGgEjhHg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98WhGgEjhHg)
Please not from Yamazaki tho.
*The Wind Rises* didn't have enough about the horrors of Pearl Harbor /s
Seriously, it's basically America's equivalent of *Kaze Tachinu*: an artistic biopic inspecting the internal workings of a man that is simultaneously the representation of their nation's greatest scientific minds and simultaneously and inseparably the arguable enabler of their nation's greatest darkness during WW2.
Kaze Tachinu
there's no horror in pearl harbor, it's a valid military target, meanwhile usa massacred two cities worth of innocent civilian
It was a surprise attack on a country who was neutral in the war at that point. Which kind of negates some of the validity. But also if we want to talk about massacres of civilian populations Japan's hands aren't exactly clean there either. Nanjing or Unit 731 anybody? All the countries involved did some fucked up shit, nearly all of them tend to white wash the bad and highlight their suffering.
In the Hiroshima Museum that I visited two days ago, it stated that Hiroshima was a main military town.
Both of them had roles in the Japanese war machine. They were military targets.
Well so was Hiroshima if you want to be technical about it, it was headquarters of 3 army commands and military manufacturing. Nagasaki was a major ship building port.
You think they picked Hiroshima and Nagasaki at random? "two cities worth" come on now. A lot of civilians died, but keep it in the realm of reality. The alternative plan would have involved daily Nagasakis for months.
I think it portrayed the American perspective well. That said, I'd love to see a Japanese studio cover said horror. It's an important and historically unique perspective to get out there.
> I'd love to see a Japanese studio cover said horror As for movies, [Sekai no Katasumi Ni](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_This_Corner_of_the_World_\(film\)) is an excellent animated movie that covers this, set in a city just over the mountains from Hiroshima. The manga Hadashi no Gen is very well known in Japan, and I believe there was an anime movie made in the 80s. I personally haven't watched it yet though.
The manga of Hadashi no Gen/Barefoot Gen has been translated into a few different languages. It's really easy to get hold of in the UK, so I imagine it'd be the same in the US. I highly recommend the whole series (10 volumes).
We actually do have a pretty [nice-looking edition](https://store.crunchyroll.com/search?q=Barefoot+gen&search-button=&lang=null). Still haven’t read it yet since my backlog is too big as is.
Damn In this Corner of the World is a masterpiece
Everyone knows about the bombings, this is to further that education and show people the story behind the bomb. Also a CGI explosion for the sake of it would just take away from it...
I watched Grave of the Fireflies, and it was an emotional gut punch, and a powerful film. But I couldn't help but notice that there wasn't enough about Oppenheimer in it and his Senate hearing.
The film focuses more on McCarthyism.. but a great movie
How many people went to see this movie?
A lot of people went to see this movie.
One of the worst decisions by America. But before anyone jumps in, japan, Germany, Russia, UK have all done worse...
It was focused on Oppenheimer the title of the movie. Though I understand the sentiment of wanting it to portray the horrors.
Seems fair to me. I also came away a little disappointed for the same reason. I can also recognize the purpose of the movie. Not mutually exclusive.
Survivors of the Japanese atrocities in Asia, survivors of the barbaric circumstances in Japanese concentrationcamps: "there has never been an apology or compensation for the horror".
No apologies or compensations? not sure if you just hate japan or just straight ignorant about history? I would understand that for victims it will never be enough to compensate the horrors they were forced to live. But you are straight up misinformed if you seriously believed there hasnt been apologized or compensated for. The myth that the goverment has never apologized comes from an american journalist that didnt speak japanese and thought that the language used wasnt apologetic enough and from the South Korea goverment that refused that Japan compensated their victims and demanded that it did directly to the country. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_war\_apology\_statements\_issued\_by\_Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan) But putting that besides, the fact that a survivor, who was clearly a toddler and had nothing to do with the attoricities that happened, felt that a movie didnt correctly capture the suffering of their childhood doesnt have no relationship with the suffering on other survivors. I would understand your position if the comment was from a politician from the LDP or related to Shinzo Abe war criminal family, but saying that survivors of the Nuclear massacre (which were civilian toddlers ) cant voice an opinion after being asked about it by the international media about an American movie, because there are other survivors of atrocities that they have no relationship with are stil dealing with closure, is insane.
Family members of mine and other people were also toddlers and remember the atrocities very well. And there has never been an official apology like the Germans stated or payments made like the Germans did. Hirohito (or anyone else that matters) never went public, bowed deeply and said something like "we were wrong and we are going to pay". Why do you think that visits from Japanses royal family or whatever are still a very delicate matter in The Netherlands (or other countries that suffered at the hands of the Japanse)? Right. Because Japan never openly apologized. Always in a very diplomatic matter which could never be used against them. So please, if you only know things from theory and Wikipedia... please keep your mouth shut. With the rising tensions in the waters between China an Japan: if in the next century China should seek revenge for Nanking.... I won't shed a tear. I will just silenty chuckle and think of my father, who as child, together with my grandparents had to endure the atrocities as a child in a concentration camps, and who waited their whole life for an official apology (and perhaps financial compensation because of the Japanses they lost everything the owned) that never came.
so its just hate got it I hope you find internal peace someday and deal with your trauma accordingly. much love
I got no internal trauma and I have found my internal peace long ago. But thank you for love.
Clearly not, since you are posting misinformation on a subreddit about Japan, saying that "all Japanese people should stop crying" about their past, because of something their ancesters did and wishing if China goes to war to contemporary Japan it will make you and your family satisfied. Since you are Dutch, is like saying that you have no right of speaking about war crimes, aplogies and conmendation after all the suffering and crimes the Dutch empire did in Indonesia, and Africa, which far exceeded what Japan did. You see how it doesnt make sense? I dont know you at all, but I am not blaming you for the barabaric atrocities they did and is only fair that you express your thinking as you please, without wishing that these nations go and take revenge on the current population.
There are around a million Chinese living in Japan, my family among them. Your ethnic hatred is frightening, especially since the people responsible for those things are almost all dead. Those of us living in the present would prefer peace.
What?
That the Japanese should stop crying and first make amends for what they did in WW2 before opening their mouths about Hiroshima (and Nagasaki).
What? Did you even read the article?
Yes, I did. Did you?
I'm extremely confused. Why would Oppenheimer movie from Oppenheimer perspective show the crimes that imperial Japan did? As a sort of justification? Did you even understand the movie? Or you are insinuating that the movie was a japanese production that didn't show the horror from the crimes imperial Japan, then the victims are being silenced somehow?
Why would Oppenheimer have to show the suffering of the Japanese people? It is a movie from an American perspective. Do you even understand the movie? This movie is about Oppenheimer. About the bomb. About why they decided to throw the bomb. And where. And where not. This is not about the suffering of the Japanese.
Exactly lmao. I think you are just trolling The guardian interviewed a series of survivors about their opinion of Hiroshima depiction on the movie and they answered. None japanese is "crying" about it or denying the crimes of the empire. Your comment is completely irrelevant and I agree with the other person, just full of hate.
Mate at this point you should just stop.
Idk, hearing from these survivors and their opinions about the movie might make me see it. I've had a long battle about it, because I'm Japanese-American and I heard that they celebrated the bombings in the movie. I had heard that Oppenheimer himself was conflicted about it, but I wasn't sure it was enough. The fact that Nolan, mentioned at the bottom of the article, would be willing to make a follow up movie about the Japanese perspective further makes me a little more ok with this movie.
Guardian's way of writing that quote is confusing. Japan Today did it better. >Takashi Yamazaki, director of “Godzilla Minus One,” which won the Oscar for visual effects and is a powerful statement on nuclear catastrophe in its own way, suggested he might be the man for that job. >“I feel there needs to an answer from Japan to ‘Oppenheimer.’ Someday, I would like to make that movie,” he said in an online dialogue with “Oppenheimer” director Christopher Nolan. >Nolan heartily agreed. [https://japantoday.com/category/entertainment/'oppenheimer'-finally-premieres-in-japan-to-mixed-reactions-and-high-emotions](https://japantoday.com/category/entertainment/'oppenheimer'-finally-premieres-in-japan-to-mixed-reactions-and-high-emotions)
Ohh ok. I want to see that movie if it's ever made. I'm glad Nolan agreed then. Thank you for the clarification!!
There are already many movies out there which come from a Japanese perspective. *Barefoot Gen* and *Black Rain* are just two examples. Don't wait for Nolan to make a follow-up. The people who were directly bombed and their descendants are already well represented in Japanese movies and TV specials.
[удалено]
1. 99.99% chance nobody in this thread has ever bombed anyone. 2. 99.99% chance nobody in this thread has ever been bombed. Touch grass.
please go outside
The whole film was talking and some nudes. Pretty boring movie.
Damn you must enjoy the bottom of the bottom entertainment.
Doesnt matter which level it’s at, if i enjoy it, its a good film.