4 ms·

While the movie was to my reading relatively accurate, what struck me most was how little was devoted to the context of the pacific war and why it was desperate

by seer 3y ago

While the movie was to my reading relatively accurate, what struck me most was how little was devoted to the context of the pacific war and why it was desperate to build that bomb, despite that Germany was (or almost) defeated. The horrors of the island wars against the japanese, and more to the point their immense almost religious commitment to opposing the US was a big factor in developing and using the bombs. It wasn’t a “should I build this bomb and kill n civilians, it was a real consideration and waying of lives, both civilian and military. Dan Carlin’s podcast about the pacific war kinda opened my eyes how dire the circumstances were really. Even more so it must have looked immensely so through the lenses of propaganda at the time … while the movie did touch a bit on all of that, it didn’t seem to me it did it justice, making it harder to empathize with Oppie, which in my mind is kinda a shame. Otherwise great movie!

defrost 3y ago
> what struck me most was how little was devoted to the context of the pacific war In almost every way that matters (save at the end) the pacific war had little to do with the Manhattan Project and building of the bomb. President Roosevelt approved the atomic program on 9 October 1941 and agreed to coordinate the effort with the British and maintained correspondance on that with Prime Minister Winston Churchill. This was after a long sustained effort by commonwealth (UK, Canadian, Australia, New Zealand) and european nuclear scientists to convince the US nuclear scientist and DoD that a nuclear weapon was actually possible and feasible and likely being worked upon by the Germans. Once started the project was a behemoth, a monster rolling downwards under it's own weight, with mining, processing, seperation, fabrication, testing, security and some 150,000 (IIRC) employed across multiple sites. The only thing that prevented atomic weapons being used in the carpet bombing destruction of German cities was the surrender of Germany just a few months prior to the first protype being ready for testing. The reasons for a new US President to sanction further testing of the new weapon he had only just barely first learnt about on two pristine Japanese targets remain somewhat hotly debated to this day. Much has been written about this after the bombs fell. I'd point out that anybody that has been exposed to massive projects understands one of the prime unspoken reasons, you cannot spend a massive proportion of GDP on a military project and not expect to see it used. Further discussion on the breadth of the nuke or not debate: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-use-the-bomb-a-consensus-view/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-us...
- dmurray 3y ago
  > I'd point out that anybody that has been exposed to massive projects understands one of the prime unspoken reasons, you cannot spend a massive proportion of GDP on a military project and not expect to see it used. The Soviet Union - and 8 other countries, to a lesser extent - also poured great resources into their atomic project, and then found the restraint not to use it in anger.
  - defrost 3y ago
    The case can be made that the US did not bomb H & N out of any particular sense of additional anger, that they bombed H & N to test two orthogonal designs and that they barely squeezed those tests in ahead of the already scheduled destructtion of H&N following the complete destruction of 72 Japanese cities prior to the H&N bombings. The other countries that joined the nuclear club all made prominent demonstrations of their ability to build and detonate atomic weapons .. there were > 2,000 detonations following H&N. Many of those tests, including tests by the British, the French, and the Soviets, killed innocent civilians. The only demonstrated restraint that I can see was the pivot to full blown MAD strategy .. and that came close to unravelling on multiple occasions.
varispeed 3y ago
> despite that Germany was (or almost) defeated. You forget that Germany started the war together with Russia. In 1939 Russia has also invaded several countries and unleashed terror. There were plans to drop nuclear bomb on Moscow after Hitler was defeated, but instead the US and the UK thrown Eastern European countries under the bus and the war was frozen. I wonder if Russia had received the same treatment as Japan, that we would have this ongoing threat for decades and now the invasion of Ukraine.
- sam_lowry_ 3y ago
  Soviet Union was an ally, and it is widely accepted that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a necessity to delay a looming war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, because Soviet Union was weaker but developing faster.
  - varispeed 3y ago
    No Soviet Union wasn't an ally, comrade. You are spreading Russian propaganda.
    - fiso64 3y ago
      Equating the Soviet Union's role to that of Germany during the second world war is certainly uhhh.. one of the takes. It's not as if the US sent tons of food, aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of vehicles to the SU as part of lend-lease.
      - varispeed 3y ago
        The priority was to defeat Hitler and sending Western troops to the East wasn't feasible, so helping Soviet Union with lend-lease was seen as a lesser evil. The idea was then to defeat Soviet Union afterwards. However, the West was too tired fighting and since Stalin didn't look to move westwards, the war de facto got frozen.
        3y ago
the_gipsy 3y ago
> how little was devoted to the context of the pacific war and why it was desperate to build that bomb, despite that Germany was (or almost) defeated Because then it would have been an apologetic propaganda piece. It is, in my opinion, precisely much more interesting to look into the political and organizational factors for dropping the bombs, than to whitewash the USA into the world's benevolent savior once more. Enough such movies have been made.
pjc50 3y ago
The nuclear bombs were not as deadly as the firebombing of Tokyo. Or the siege of Leningrad. At that time, nukes were simply a difference of degree, not of kind, from the ongoing use of strategic bombing with incendiaries and explosives against population centres by all sides in the conflict. Perhaps the real crossing of the line into mass murder was at Guernica, in 1937, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica The problem with trying to pick apart the morality of individual actions in WW2 is that wherever you look for context you find more atrocities.

by seer 3y ago

defrost 3y ago

> what struck me most was how little was devoted to the context of the pacific war In almost every way that matters (save at the end) the pacific war had little to do with the Manhattan Project and building of the bomb. President Roosevelt approved the atomic program on 9 October 1941 and agreed to coordinate the effort with the British and maintained correspondance on that with Prime Minister Winston Churchill. This was after a long sustained effort by commonwealth (UK, Canadian, Australia, New Zealand) and european nuclear scientists to convince the US nuclear scientist and DoD that a nuclear weapon was actually possible and feasible and likely being worked upon by the Germans. Once started the project was a behemoth, a monster rolling downwards under it's own weight, with mining, processing, seperation, fabrication, testing, security and some 150,000 (IIRC) employed across multiple sites. The only thing that prevented atomic weapons being used in the carpet bombing destruction of German cities was the surrender of Germany just a few months prior to the first protype being ready for testing. The reasons for a new US President to sanction further testing of the new weapon he had only just barely first learnt about on two pristine Japanese targets remain somewhat hotly debated to this day. Much has been written about this after the bombs fell. I'd point out that anybody that has been exposed to massive projects understands one of the prime unspoken reasons, you cannot spend a massive proportion of GDP on a military project and not expect to see it used. Further discussion on the breadth of the nuke or not debate: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-use-the-bomb-a-consensus-view/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-us...

dmurray 3y ago
> I'd point out that anybody that has been exposed to massive projects understands one of the prime unspoken reasons, you cannot spend a massive proportion of GDP on a military project and not expect to see it used. The Soviet Union - and 8 other countries, to a lesser extent - also poured great resources into their atomic project, and then found the restraint not to use it in anger.
- defrost 3y ago
  The case can be made that the US did not bomb H & N out of any particular sense of additional anger, that they bombed H & N to test two orthogonal designs and that they barely squeezed those tests in ahead of the already scheduled destructtion of H&N following the complete destruction of 72 Japanese cities prior to the H&N bombings. The other countries that joined the nuclear club all made prominent demonstrations of their ability to build and detonate atomic weapons .. there were > 2,000 detonations following H&N. Many of those tests, including tests by the British, the French, and the Soviets, killed innocent civilians. The only demonstrated restraint that I can see was the pivot to full blown MAD strategy .. and that came close to unravelling on multiple occasions.

varispeed 3y ago

> despite that Germany was (or almost) defeated. You forget that Germany started the war together with Russia. In 1939 Russia has also invaded several countries and unleashed terror. There were plans to drop nuclear bomb on Moscow after Hitler was defeated, but instead the US and the UK thrown Eastern European countries under the bus and the war was frozen. I wonder if Russia had received the same treatment as Japan, that we would have this ongoing threat for decades and now the invasion of Ukraine.

sam_lowry_ 3y ago
Soviet Union was an ally, and it is widely accepted that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a necessity to delay a looming war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, because Soviet Union was weaker but developing faster.
- varispeed 3y ago
  No Soviet Union wasn't an ally, comrade. You are spreading Russian propaganda.
  - fiso64 3y ago
    Equating the Soviet Union's role to that of Germany during the second world war is certainly uhhh.. one of the takes. It's not as if the US sent tons of food, aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of vehicles to the SU as part of lend-lease.
    - varispeed 3y ago
      The priority was to defeat Hitler and sending Western troops to the East wasn't feasible, so helping Soviet Union with lend-lease was seen as a lesser evil. The idea was then to defeat Soviet Union afterwards. However, the West was too tired fighting and since Stalin didn't look to move westwards, the war de facto got frozen.
      - 3y ago

the_gipsy 3y ago

> how little was devoted to the context of the pacific war and why it was desperate to build that bomb, despite that Germany was (or almost) defeated Because then it would have been an apologetic propaganda piece. It is, in my opinion, precisely much more interesting to look into the political and organizational factors for dropping the bombs, than to whitewash the USA into the world's benevolent savior once more. Enough such movies have been made.

pjc50 3y ago

The nuclear bombs were not as deadly as the firebombing of Tokyo. Or the siege of Leningrad. At that time, nukes were simply a difference of degree, not of kind, from the ongoing use of strategic bombing with incendiaries and explosives against population centres by all sides in the conflict. Perhaps the real crossing of the line into mass murder was at Guernica, in 1937, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica The problem with trying to pick apart the morality of individual actions in WW2 is that wherever you look for context you find more atrocities.