Viewers are divided over whether the film should have shown Japanese victims of the weapon created by physicist Robert Oppenheimer. Experts say it’s complicated.

  • RatherBeMTB@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    55
    ·
    1 year ago

    The US is in complete denial of the genocide they did dropping two nuclear bombs in two different cities with mostly just civilians. Everybody else in the world see the pictures of the Japanese aftermath when we study the second world war.

    • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not at all actually. We learn about it. We discuss it. What’s surprising to me is, you are harping on the atom bombs when the fire bombings caused way more death and destruction. It’s not even a comparison.

      • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah the firebombings were awful, but at least they contributed to the fight against the Japanese empire. The war machine was already dead when the atomic bombs were dropped. Pretty big difference, no?

        Edit: I take it the downvotes mean disagreement. If people are really discussing the history of this, then it should be common knowledge by now that the land invasion excuse was baseless propaganda. The US knew the empire was crumbling due to internal power conflicts and was rushing to test the bombs while there was still a war. After the first one the empire couldn’t even organize itself to offer a surrender, which the US knew because it could hear the chatter.

        The still prevalent propaganda around the end of the theater doesn’t bode well for understanding the start of it and how to prevent another. People still believe Pearl Harbor happened unprovoked, out of nowhere. As if an embattled empire would travel across the ocean with no purpose other than to make one more enemy. Maybe I’m playing gatekeeper, but my bar for basic conversation quality regarding the Pacific theater in WWII is that the consensus history predates Pearl Harbor. Because if you think Pearl Harbor was attacked due to foreign insanity, rather than a desperate attempt to restore oil supply lines from their American embargoes, then you have an issue with xenophobia and a propagandized brain. How can we discuss whether America acted appropriately in provoking Japan to draw the US into the war, if our revisionist history erases that context?

        • DauntingFlamingo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          US schools teach that the atom bombs were used as an alternative to an invasion of Japan. The numbers said millions would die on both sides if the Allies staged an invasion. Instead, the largest estimated loss ended up being 226,000 Japanese.

          The second bomb was dropped because the military leadership in Japan couldn’t believe the destruction from one bomb wasn’t just another night raid that was super effective and refused to surrender. Then the second bomb dropped, and immediate unconditional surrender was issued

          • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            And this is how it is discussed among students?

            Because that is not the truth of the events, which is what my comment was drawing attention to. You aren’t learning about it if you’re learning a revisionist history instead.

            But it’s hard to make this point when the people repeating the propaganda dismiss anything but propaganda so readily:

            Not at all actually. We learn about it. We discuss it.

            This shuts down the critique of Americans not having an accurate understanding of their history, at least for the American side. There is no attempt to critically engage with or to understand the perspectives of non-Americans.

            I tried to engage politely by not calling out the disinformation directly, but by proposing a question that makes sense from the consensus view of history. That question did not match the user’s own view of history, and people sharing their viewpoint downvoted me without engaging and taking the risk of having to reconcile a non-American viewpoint.

            And so I called it out directly in my edit, trying to make the case as to how my (still unanswered) question cuts through the false assertion that Americans learn about the real events and share the international perspective of what happened, and why this is so problematic for non-Americans.

            I thank you for taking the time to respond, and to respond politely. However I’m actually well-acquainted with what US schools teach about it in multiple states - it’s just as you described. That’s why I know right where to point to show that the US is still lying to itself. But I felt doing so right from the start would have been disrespectful to the person I was replying to. I felt that I would have liked a chance to explain my own view, so I offered an opening for them to do so before I started getting very critical.

        • Frigidlollipop@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ngl, your comment drove me to read up on everything preceding the bombing, right up to Japan’s brutal occupation of China and subsequent decision to invade pearl harbor in the hope of crippling the US long enough that they could secure oil reserves to continue their conquests. Pretty wild.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The US cut off Japan’s oil supply due Japan’s aggressive foreign policy in Asia. The decision to attack the US was also controversial in the Japanese government.

          If you are going to make the argument that Japan was justified in attacking the US due to the oil embargo, then you are also justifying other actions like the British overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh and the installation of the Shah of Iran.

          • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you are going to make the argument that Japan was justified in attacking the US due to the oil embargo, then you are also justifying other actions like the British overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh and the installation of the Shah of Iran.

            That’s a fair argument.

            Personally, I do not think Japan was justified.

        • TechnoBabble@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          How does nuking multiple cities not contribute to the American war effort?

          There are 1000 decision making paths you can follow in regards to the atomic bombing of Japan, which wasn’t decided lightly, but ultimately the prevailing understanding is correct.

          This “holier than thou” alternate history thing you have going on is, sorry to say, it’s delusional.

          • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            How does nuking multiple cities not contribute to the American war effort?

            Because the war effort was already over, sorry if that wasn’t clear.

            This “holier than thou” alternate history thing you have going on is, sorry to say, it’s delusional.

            This was unnecessary. You can challenge the history and you can challenge me, but an ad hominem is neither and I don’t believe it was appropriate. Especially because you’re the one who has it backwards: The story taught in US schools is the alternate history.

        • yogo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree with this comment but I don’t think it qualifies as a genocide, “just” a horrifying unwarranted act of war.

          • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, I agree. However I was commenting on the contents of post I directly replied to moreso than the one before it.

    • Drusas@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not remotely true. American students learn extensively about the dropping of the bombs and their aftermath.

      • TheMage@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was gonna say… where is this US denial narrative from? Just stop it.

        • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I remember being shown a documentary with survivors of Hiroshima in high school. It was very graphic. Not only were there interviews, it showed drawings from people who were firsthand witnesses, with the rivers filled with burnt people. This was in a pretty conservative part of the US, too.

          So yea, I’d have to agree that the US doesn’t try to hide what those bombings did.

    • Ragnell@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I saw those pictures in school. We know that Truman signed off on dropping the bomb on two civilian cities and it was a horror that had never been seen in the world before or since.

      Dude, we talk about our atrocities all the time. The current push to whitewash Native American genocide and slavery is actually getting a huge pushback, because we talk openly about this stuff in the US and it’s only a minority that tries to silence it. We talk openly about the atrocities during the Vietnam War, and about the invasion of Iraq, and about prosecution for war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      You can say a LOT about the US, and even the amount of denial we have about our standing in the world, but you can’t call us in denial about stuff like that. We’re in conflict within ourselves about it, but it’s a well known and well discussed thing in the US.

      And wait… are you from lemmygrad? The tankie server?

      • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think terminally online people and their kids probably know mostly the truth (or closer to it) than the average American. The fact that one major political party in America is having pretty major success pushing whitewashed history or at least preventing they’re history from being taught strongly undercuts your contention that “we talk about our atrocities all the time.”

        If it was some fringe group like the John Birch Society or some Ayn Rand cult, sure. But it’s almost every Republican primary candidate.

        • Ragnell@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I suppose I am being too optimistic.

          I also have a major problem whenever I get the sense a European is trashing the US for problems and a history that are absolutely being ignored in Europe. There’s been a glut of that making me over-sensitive perhaps. My Brit-sense was tingling for the original comment, but it may be off.

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        We do not talk about our atrocities all the time. Politicians can almost never reference them. In the rare cases they allude to them, they never apologize and they never take material steps to repair the damage.

        We allow private corporations to produce student text books for profit, and when the monopoly status of these corps causes the largest states to control the curriculum, everyone suffers. When you combine that with the Daughters of Confederacy movement to rewrite history in the text books, and Texas being one of the biggest markets for text books, you end up with over a century of white washing indoctrination in schools for 12 years, minimum, of almost 100% of children in the country.

        I grew up in a liberal-ass state we still called the first settlers “pilgrims” and said their motivation was religious freedom. We celebrate Thanksgiving and Columbus and everyone who tries to speak out against it is literally risking their safety and the safety of their family because we have such a massive and deep-seated problem that random acts of terror are carried out without any coordination.

        Lynchings never stopped, but no one except radicals talk about it. The police are literally an occupying military force, but no one except radicals talk about it.

        No, we’re not in conflict with ourselves about it. There is a very small radical group within the country that attempts to raise the level of discourse and nearly every single institution, every seat of power, every media company, every billionaire, every major land owner, every politician, nearly every educator, nearly every judge - everything is aligned against raising this discourse.

        If you think we’re earnestly and honestly struggling with this stuff as a nation, you are delusional.

        • Ragnell@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve been out of the country and we are lightyears ahead of other countries when it comes to reckoning with our past. No, we’re not perfect, but we’re a hell of a lot more open. You know how I know?

          Because I was raised in Trumpland, PA and I joined the military and served in Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma and Europe and I was able to learn about the Native American genocide, slavery, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki at school, and managed to absorb the rest through pop culture. We had a variety of differing assumptions when we talked, but we still talked. Yes, I heard that Lee was a gentleman but a trip to Gettysburg easily discarded that notion. My history teacher was quick to point out the founding fathers were opportunists.

          There is stuff, like the bullshit we’ve been pulling in South America, that hasn’t gotten discussed. That’s true. But it’s not just the radical minority that’s aware the country is basically built on rivers of blood. The awareness is all over our pop culture.

          You’re not hearing what’s good enough in your liberal state, but I have been knee deep in conservatism since birth and I’ve still managed to pick up on the horrors of our national history.

          Now, just for comparison, go ask a Brit or a Frenchman about the Native American genocide and their country’s role in it.

          • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            The only places we should be comparing ourselves against in this regard are other colonies and former colonies: Canada, Australia, South Africa, Jamaica, Haiti, etc.

            For example, compared with Haiti, we’re way behind.

            Despite you learning about the Native American genocide, we still commit atrocities against them, en masse. We still leave open uranium waste in their areas. We nuked their desert environments hundreds of times. We are currently actively in the process of stealing more water from them. There may be some people who are aware, like you said, and for whatever reason the military appears to be a place where some units get conscious quickly while others devolve into xenophobia just as quickly, but the national conversation is about anti-science and anti-progress indians that deserve to be put in their place and stay quiet and maybe they should work on their alcoholism. The same is true for the national conversation about black people. We elected Joe fucking Biden. There’s only a conversation about his role in maintaining structural racism in radical spaces, and even fewer and smaller radical spaces are discussing Harris’s maintenance of structural racism.

            Yes, Gettysburg discarded the notion that Lee was a gentlemen for you, and yet millions maintain that the Civil War pitted brother against brother and therefore the losers should be able to lose with dignity. And US LIBERALS are saying this!

            My history teacher was quick to point out the founding fathers were opportunists.

            But not that they’re entire project was to privilege white land owning men and that white men laborers should not be allowed to vote because they weren’t rich enough, and then of course everyone else. That the entire American project was to extract as much wealth as possible and had nothing to do liberty and justice for all but rather privilege for super profits and legal protections for white male land owners. Yes, there are some cracks beginning to open in less than half of the social studies classes, but they still celebrate Columbus Day and make pilgrim hats.

            But it’s not just the radical minority that’s aware the country is basically built on rivers of blood. The awareness is all over our pop culture.

            That awareness is not what I’m talking about. Most of that awareness is part of the rationalization/justification process. It’s considered ancient history, and it’s coupled with projection about other historical events. It’s not an awareness of injustice that we continue to perpetrate and participate in. It’s not understood that cultural genocide in America is happening right now. It’s not understood that eugenics was guiding domestic policy up through the 70s while we were sterilizing a third of Puerto Rico.

            Everyone knows we nuked civilians. Most people will tell you it was better than the alternative. This is a performative level of awareness. It is not an awareness of the context and the implications. It is a minimal awareness required to operate in the world.

        • Ragnell@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ugh, look. I don’t want to fight because clearly you are in a different environment and social circle and you’re right that stuff like the practice of overthrowing governments in South America to benefit businesses and a large number of horrors are not discussed.

          Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not among them. And when it comes to racism, we are actually talking about it unlike Europe. The most powerful people in the country want to kill this discourse, but they CAN’T except in pockets of the most brainwashed home-schooled isolated people in the country.

          But I resent being called delusional. Because we are earnestly and honestly struggling with this stuff as a nation. It’s just that we’re struggling against all the powers you name, and the dark history of the United States is not hidden like it is in other countries. It’s present and on most people’s minds.

      • kakarico@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Talk is cheap in a country that has a history of blood on its hands. Pushback on rhetoric isn’t the only thing worth being proud about nor is it very productive. Just as another user pointed out, there’s no material solutions being offered to the remainders of a group that was victim of colonialism, that is still prevalent today.

        • TheMage@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Every great nation has blood on its hands. The Japanese aren’t exactly Mother Theresa’s themselves. Oh and they shouldn’t have attacked us if they didn’t want to deal with the consequences. They had no problem killing or injuring thousands of our service men and women. Oh……THAT. Give it a rest.

          • Ragnell@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I didn’t intend for this to devolve into Whataboutism.

            I don’t want to get into it with the guy from lemmygrad, but the idea that the US behavior can be compared only to colonized countries is ridiculous. We’re in the tier of countries like Australia, New Zealand and such where the colonizers split off from the greater colonial power, and we’re also in the tier of colonizers like Britain, Spain, Japan and France for our activities in the Pacific and South America.

            I can’t comment on Japanese crimes, that’s for another continent, or if they were better or worse than the US’s or say, Britain’s. Still, if atomic bombs were dropped on two cities in Britain it would be a travesty and a crime no matter what Britain’s done. Same as if we exploded a bunch of atomic bombs and poisoned the earth near where Native Americans live. Which we did.

            I still don’t think we’re in denial. Umm, the previous poster might be. But as a whole I think we know these decisions were immoral. I just think that, as a nation, we don’t have the political will built yet to make reparations. I think the left group is larger. The right is a minority, it’s just a minority where the money and power is concentrated. Concentrated in many cases by generational wealth, which means the same people stopping us from enacting any meaningful reparations are the descendants of the people who made the decisions. Which makes sense, those decisions got them the power they have now. It’s a hell of a thing to fight against.

            But the difference between us simply may be optimism on my part.

            • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              How are you going to participate in this discussion and just whip out a “I can’t comment on Japanese crimes”?

              The rape of Nanking.

                • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Public schools cover this. Even if they didn’t, it would take little effort to discover such an atrocity via the internet.

                  • Ragnell@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    It was a joke to lighten the tension but mine really didn’t cover much of anything in Asia. All right. Let’s get serious.

                    I can’t comment on Japanese crimes, though, because while yes I am not as well-versed in the history as I am in Western history, I’m still not going to comment because I’m actually not in the group that suffered from Japanese war crimes.

                    I’m also not about to get into a body count contest because that way lies madness and a whole bunch of “well, this justifies this” arguments.

                    But if you must know what I think about your Nanking argument, it’s this. The atomic bomb was not intended as retaliation for Japan’s crimes against China. The uS did not have the right to retaliate against Japan for crimes done to China. Pretty sure the Chinese, if asked, would not have voted to have a nuclear detonation so close to their country given the risk of enviromental destruction.

                    It wasn’t retaliation for anything, it was entirely about prevention. So, it can’t be justified by well… ANYTHING Japan did because it wasn’t a response to anything Japan did. It was, pure and simple, a show of force on the part of the United States to establish that “Hey, we will END this war.”

                    Furthermore, if it was justified well… it wouldn’t be by virtue of the fact that those are civilian cities. We all agreed on the Geneva Conventions and the other treaties making up the Law of Armed Conflict that war crimes don’t justify other war crimes, and the principles of military necessity, humanity and proportionality tell us it’s a war crime to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian-occupied city. All of these treaties came after World War II, of course, but they were informed by the events on the Pacific Front.

                    Basically, the actions of Japan and the actions of the United States in World War II were so terrible that International Law was agreed upon to make sure that people who performed any such action in the future even during wartime would be tried and imprisoned, and that any attempt to use actions like that to retaliate for actions like that would also be prosecutable.

                    Which is to say, the world as a WHOLE agreed that Japan’s military behavior, while horrible, did not justify retaliation against civilians and did not justify the atomic bomb and so on. The entire world agreed that war crimes retaliating for other war crimes were not justified.

                    This did not stop the nuclear arms race, of course, because everyone involved knew from Mutually Assured Destruction no one would be around to try the guys who started a nuclear war in the end. But suffice it to say, any use of a nuclear weapon is wrong.

      • monobot@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wow… comment section is full of genocide deniers.

        They probably believe that killing off all native Americans and still destroying them is also not genocide.

        Unbelievable.

        • TooMuchDog@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The killings of Native Americans in the US can absolutely be called a genocide. The use of nuclear weapons in Japan was a horrible act of war that killed so many people, but it is by definition not a genocide. Calling it one dilutes the meaning of the word genocide. Using the right words and definitions when talking about tragedies of war is not denial of said atrocities.

          • DauntingFlamingo@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Genocide is the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

            What the Nazis did to the Jews was genocide. What the Chinese are currently doing to the Uyghurs is genocide. The Circassian genocide in Russia was happening around the same time as the US genocide of the Native Americans.

            The troll doesn’t understand the meaning of genocide, and doesn’t understand strategic bombing. The US didn’t want to extinguish the Japanese, and neither the Japanese of that era or the current era believe(d) it was genocide. They had great respect for US General Douglas MacArthur, so much so that Japanese Emperor Hirohito stood side by side with him and publicly declared his respect for his one-time opponent.

            Trolls seem to think US schools don’t teach this stuff. My children learned it and taught it to my immigrant ass.

            • kakarico@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              What the Chinese are currently doing to the Uyghurs is genocide.

              Wrong

          • Redward@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            The Japanese on the other hand could perhaps learn about genocides of their own actions.

        • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What the US did to the Natives is more in line with what the Japanese did to China. Equating the use of atomic bombs as genocide is quite off the mark.

    • StenSaksTapir@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, the Japanese don’t love to acknowledge their war crimes either, which btw also ranked pretty high on the Evil Fucked Up Shit scale.

      If we’re to see Hiroshima aftermath, then we should also mention stuff like The Rape of Nanjing for context, which alone had an approximate number casualties similar to the two bombs.