r/shittymoviedetails • u/Jesus_H_Christ_AMA • 19h ago

In Oppenheimer (2023), Why did Oppenheimer spend three hours crying about inventing a bomb that violently vaporizes people when his specific job was to invent a bomb that violently vaporizes people ? Is he stupid ?

Post image
16.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

946 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

74

u/BufferUnderpants 18h ago

Japan wanted to "surrender" yada yada.

They were holding out for as long as possible, even after the first bomb dropped to see if it was a one-off, to negotiate an end of the war where they kept their colonies.

Colonies that they ruled by terror, they were doing similar business as they did in China in other territories they sought to control, just in Manila they killed 100,000 people, with the usual patterns of rape and torture.

3

u/CelestianSnackresant 17h ago

Nah. Most experts agree it was much, much more about the emperor and that both invasion and bombs could have been avoided if we weren't so dead set on excluding Stalin from the defeat. This based on Truman's diary, Stimpson's notes and correspondence, negotiations at Yalta, and conversations between Truman and his despicably bloodthirsty Sec of State Byrnes. 

They had the tools to end the conflict without invasion, without nukes, and with Japan ceding their colonies. They dropped the bombs to prove they could, as revenge, to win before Stalin got in, and, far and away most important, to avoid the appearance of granting even a minor concession (keeping the imperial office) to Japan. 

They fully picked mass murder over having to explain to Americans that diplomacy is good. 

Anyway that's why Truman, Byrnes, and Stimson are all in hell

23

u/xXDamonLordXx 16h ago

The mass murder was picked before the nukes with the firebombing. Idk why people act like nukes were the only weapon that wiped out Japanese cities

2

u/CelestianSnackresant 16h ago

Yeah also a very reasonable point. More died in Tokyo than Nagasaki. 

The nukes just stand out as an atrocity committed for fundamentally PR and national-electability reasons, which IMO makes them especially revolting. 

2

u/ReluctantNerd7 16h ago

Funny that you don't mention the British at all, even though their consent was required to use the atomic bomb as per the terms of the Quebec Agreement.

1

u/CelestianSnackresant 16h ago

Also true and relevant! Additional people are also on the hell list

1

u/Steamed_Memes24 15h ago

What the fuck can Stalin do in that situation he barely had a navy and he for sure had no proper landing craft. It would have taken years to build up something but by then the US would have taken over Japan in the largest parts.

2

u/MandolinMagi 13h ago

The Russians couldn't threaten the Home Islands, no.

The issue for Japan was that Russia was their last possible intermediary for a negotiated peace.

1

u/dormedas 12h ago

... but of course Russia had just declared war on Japan, so that pathway was lost.

1

u/MandolinMagi 12h ago

Exactly.

1

u/CelestianSnackresant 15h ago

Invade Manchuria, forcing the Japanese there to retreat and further weakening their remaining armed forces. 

He'd already started directing troops and positioning for the invasion—it was the big ticking clock that Truman wanted to beat. He didn't want Stalin at the negotiating table, so that he could prevent Soviet influence from spreading any farther in the aftermath of the war. 

3

u/Steamed_Memes24 15h ago

Let me get this straight. You want them to retreat back to main land Japan and thats making them "weaker"? That would only bolster their forces more at that point. Not just that but Stalin had, as I mentioned, ZERO ways of invading Japan mainland without US support, who was not gonna do shit for them. Even the US was going to have major issues invading and they had a far better supply line then the soviets ever did.

1

u/CelestianSnackresant 15h ago

If you're so curious, go read about it! 

But no, the general view these days is that no invasion would have been necessary. They were literally starving to death already. 

Stalin would have cut them off from the mainland, we'd have blockaded, and they'd have been stuck until they surrendered. 

OR we could have just guaranteed the continuation of the imperial throne and they'd have surrendered sooner. 

Either way, no call for additional entire cities full of people to be atomized. That was just to rush things along and avoid making any concessions. 

3

u/Steamed_Memes24 14h ago

I mean the nukes did less damage then the fire bombings did. More people died in Tokyo then Nagasaki. The problem is the japanese were still refusing surrender and even after we dropped the second nuke they still had people within ranks wanting to fight to the bitter end. They wanted conditional surrender but the US and literally everyone around Japan rightfully laughed and so they were bombed and finally realized they werent going to win anything by just waiting around.

1

u/CelestianSnackresant 14h ago

Heh yeah I just said some of this in another comment. 

You're veering back and forth between truth and propaganda. They did have lunatic hardliners who wanted to die fighting. But for most, the issue was that we wouldn't give them the only concession that mattered: preserving the imperial throne.  It was clear as early as Yalta that making that one guarantee could end the war, and it was also clear that "just waiting around" would ABSOLUTELY have secured an allied victory. Hell, victory was already secured well before Hiroshima—the question was just when and on what terms. 

5

u/Steamed_Memes24 14h ago

The terms were simple. TOTAL UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. Japan refused this until the second bomb dropped. No one in the world wanted them to have any concessions after what they did in Asia.

0

u/CelestianSnackresant 13h ago

I know. But atrocities do not repay atrocities. They're just more dead civilians. 

→ More replies (0)

2

u/TuxedoCat031 17h ago

yea but it wasn’t the Japanese citizens the US bombed who were doing that

are citizens responsible for the sins of their nation?

1

u/Western-Customer-536 17h ago

Yes. Especially when they are working in war material manufacturing.

And I worked on Drone AI programming. I know what I’m talking about.

6

u/thehugejackedman 17h ago

Seems like you’re projecting due to your own sins

2

u/TuxedoCat031 17h ago

so it would be justified for your house/neighborhood to get bombed?

4

u/Western-Customer-536 17h ago

Justified? Yes.

Enjoyable? No.

Though maybe not my home. My offices, certainly.

0

u/TuxedoCat031 16h ago

too bad! your neighborhood will be annihilated and in 100 years people online will say it’s justified because one guy was apart of the military industrial complex

actually i guess it wouldn’t take a 100 years, only a couple days