NFR... Oppenheimer (and Hiroshima etc)

[Steeeeeeeeeed]

I have seen the movie twice now, definitely is a very well made movie, but also could definitely have done with a bit of trimming in the last 45 minutes. Still a Very Good "Film" movie, and the Sound particularly really stands out.

Anyhow, I have been looking at loads of stuff about those times since (and will rewatch 13 Days soon which I remember being very good).

But here is quite an oddity I have found, an episode of "This Is Your Life" from the 1950s where a Hiroshima Survivor (who was doing Charity Work) has a surprise guest... The Co-Pilot of the Enola Gay...The whole episode is rather odd, and worth a watch for others looking at this time in history...

https://youtu.be/KPFXa2vTErc

Blimey.

[Lighthouse]

I find it still very weird how mankind can do things and step in and out of disaster. Yet have complete breakdowns when the toaster breaks.

My Dad was quite old when he was called up. He had a rather dull office job when he went to war. But was promised it would still be there when he came back.

He was a very ordinary bloke, a gentleman and a follower of rules. But he once confided in me that after the War. His feelings about going back to work in a dull business office for the rest of his life left him empty. His wife had gone off with a Polish serviceman and so life was not full of hope.

But he carried on. We do just carry on. The older I get the more I can't believe it. We just listen to the same empty, dangerous idiots and live the same terribly depressing obedient life.

[McBrideOfFrankenstein]

For those interested in Oppenheimer I highly recommend 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb' by Richard Rhodes. Incredible book.

[Cambridge Away]

I find it still very weird how mankind can do things and step in and out of disaster. Yet have complete breakdowns when the toaster breaks.

My Dad was quite old when he was called up. He had a rather dull office job when he went to war. But was promised it would still be there when he came back.

He was a very ordinary bloke, a gentleman and a follower of rules. But he once confided in me that after the War. His feelings about going back to work in a dull business office for the rest of his life left him empty. His wife had gone off with a Polish serviceman and so life was not full of hope.

But he carried on. We do just carry on. The older I get the more I can't believe it. We just listen to the same empty, dangerous idiots and live the same terribly depressing obedient life.

Or worse, we see things are bad and start exploiting others. Hell, because if i don't someone else will

[filham]

I must go to see the film but does it explain the need to drop the second atomic bomb on Japan. I have always thought that given a little time just the one bomb would have forced a surrender.

[Steeeeeeeeeed]

I must go to see the film but does it explain the need to drop the second atomic bomb on Japan. I have always thought that given a little time just the one bomb would have forced a surrender.

It plays out pretty much as a Race against time against the Nazis (and Heisenberg) to get the Bomb first (which seems to be factual) for a large part of the movie, then The Germans surrender and it does show arguments of whether it would be moral to use it on Japan, and yes why they felt they should use it a second time just 3 days later.

I would recommend watching a quick (or long) YouTube  documentary about the whole thing really as it does fire names at you a lot at the beginning, glad I did.

When Dave Hill turns up I knew it wasn't the funny fella.out of Slade, for example.

[Rupert]

From what I have read, and my memory may be a little faulty, the Japanese were shocked by the first bomb, but not enough to surrender. The second bomb, so swiftly after, left the impression that the Americans could annihilate a city every few days, so they sought terms urgently after Nagasaki.

Apparently, had they known that the second bomb was the last one available for the foreseeable future, they would have fought on.

The invasion of Japan was expected to lead to one million Allied casualties (killed or wounded, few prisoners would succeed in surrendering). Japanese losses, military and civilian, would have exceeded this a dozen times over, mostly dead.

[Tabby]

From what I have read, and my memory may be a little faulty, the Japanese were shocked by the first bomb, but not enough to surrender. The second bomb, so swiftly after, left the impression that the Americans could annihilate a city every few days, so they sought terms urgently after Nagasaki.

Apparently, had they known that the second bomb was the last one available for the foreseeable future, they would have fought on.

The invasion of Japan was expected to lead to one million Allied casualties (killed or wounded, few prisoners would succeed in surrendering). Japanese losses, military and civilian, would have exceeded this a dozen times over, mostly dead.

I mean, they were still going to use a dozen nukes in the estimations of death tolls for the invasion. The unwillingness of Japan to surrender is also greatly overestimated, even though they had a lot of loons in military command. This is exemplified by that the very same people who were drawing up the casualty estimates didn't think two nukes would be enough, they thought that would be a prelude.

And their "star general" in he Pacific theatre also suggested dropping 30-50 nukes during the Korea war but was stopped by Eisenhower.

The unwillingness and necessity to use nuclear weapons is very much played up.

[bill taylors apprentice]

From what I have read, and my memory may be a little faulty, the Japanese were shocked by the first bomb, but not enough to surrender. The second bomb, so swiftly after, left the impression that the Americans could annihilate a city every few days, so they sought terms urgently after Nagasaki.

Apparently, had they known that the second bomb was the last one available for the foreseeable future, they would have fought on.

The invasion of Japan was expected to lead to one million Allied casualties (killed or wounded, few prisoners would succeed in surrendering). Japanese losses, military and civilian, would have exceeded this a dozen times over, mostly dead.

I mean, they were still going to use a dozen nukes in the estimations of death tolls for the invasion. The unwillingness of Japan to surrender is also greatly overestimated, even though they had a lot of loons in military command. This is exemplified by that the very same people who were drawing up the casualty estimates didn't think two nukes would be enough, they thought that would be a prelude.

And their "star general" in he Pacific theatre also suggested dropping 30-50 nukes during the Korea war but was stopped by Eisenhower.

The unwillingness and necessity to use nuclear weapons is very much played up.

Not so, they had already organised the wider population to fight on if invaded.
Yo only have to understand their attitude to defeat elsewhere to know how they would fight on.

[H4usuallysitting]

Didn't the Japanese enter war, because of trade.....or am i getting that bit wrong

[bill taylors apprentice]

Didn't the Japanese enter war, because of trade.....or am i getting that bit wrong

Expansionism.

Faced with severe shortages of oil and other natural resources and driven by the ambition to displace the United States as the dominant Pacific power, Japan attacked the United States and British forces in Asia to seize the resources of Southeast Asia.

[Tabby]

From what I have read, and my memory may be a little faulty, the Japanese were shocked by the first bomb, but not enough to surrender. The second bomb, so swiftly after, left the impression that the Americans could annihilate a city every few days, so they sought terms urgently after Nagasaki.

Apparently, had they known that the second bomb was the last one available for the foreseeable future, they would have fought on.

The invasion of Japan was expected to lead to one million Allied casualties (killed or wounded, few prisoners would succeed in surrendering). Japanese losses, military and civilian, would have exceeded this a dozen times over, mostly dead.

I mean, they were still going to use a dozen nukes in the estimations of death tolls for the invasion. The unwillingness of Japan to surrender is also greatly overestimated, even though they had a lot of loons in military command. This is exemplified by that the very same people who were drawing up the casualty estimates didn't think two nukes would be enough, they thought that would be a prelude.

And their "star general" in he Pacific theatre also suggested dropping 30-50 nukes during the Korea war but was stopped by Eisenhower.

The unwillingness and necessity to use nuclear weapons is very much played up.

Not so, they had already organised the wider population to fight on if invaded.
Yo only have to understand their attitude to defeat elsewhere to know how they would fight on.

So why did they surrender after a mere two nukes when the military brass in the US thought they would have to drop over a dozen?

Seems like it was overestimated to me.

[RaySmith]

Just watched the excellent BBC drama series Oppenheimer, available on iplayer, hoping to see the film next week.

Here the reason given for dropping the bombs on Japan, apart from the potential military causalities from an invasion of Japan, were because there was an agreement that the Russians would come into war in a couple of months time, invading Japan; and  the US wanted a quick surrender from Japan before this, because they didn't want Russia to have power in the region.

I don't think anyone realised the devastation that just one bomb would bring, and they also had just enough uranium for two bombs, so wanted them to have maximum impact.

The series shows Oppenheimer, watching footage of the  devastation caused, with schools and prisons, full of people, completely wiped out, shadows of what once were human-beings burned into the  floor and walls, and seriously wounded women and  children being treated at first aid stations, and him being very moved, and saying words to the effect that he felt ashamed at what they'd done after watching all this.

[Stevieboy]

I have seen the movie twice now, definitely is a very well made movie, but also could definitely have done with a bit of trimming in the last 45 minutes. Still a Very Good "Film" movie, and the Sound particularly really stands out.

Anyhow, I have been looking at loads of stuff about those times since (and will rewatch 13 Days soon which I remember being very good).

But here is quite an oddity I have found, an episode of "This Is Your Life" from the 1950s where a Hiroshima Survivor (who was doing Charity Work) has a surprise guest... The Co-Pilot of the Enola Gay...The whole episode is rather odd, and worth a watch for others looking at this time in history...

https://youtu.be/KPFXa2vTErc

Blimey.

Interesting that you mention the sound. I've seen a few reviews saying the dialogue is swamped by the music in parts. Seems this is intentional as Christopher Nolan is known for not adding the dialogue in the edit, preferring the 'as it happened' experience.
This was putting me off seeing the film, but maybe not after your comments.

[YankeeJim]

I have never quite understood peoples abhorrence over the atomic bomb within the context of the summer of 1945. When you compare it to the destruction of Dresden which had little military importance and the firebomb attack on Tokyo, there is little difference. Dead is dead. If I had been in Truman's chair at the time I would never have authorized a land invasion of Japan. It would have killed far more Japanese civilians than both A bombs did, not to mention a million or more US soldiers. Japan is an island. A naval blockade would have sufficed. One could argue that such a blockade would have worked without the A bomb. Possibly, but how many innocents would have starved or dies in aerial assaults? War is man's greatest failure.