# Hiroshima mon amour



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Read in the NYT today that 30 percent of the population of Hiroshima cannot say the date that the bomb was dropped. That's mind blowing.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Why should it be? I'll bet more than that here don't know the date of Pearl Harbor, at least a ball park guess at when the Civil War took place or when the Declaration of Independence was signed.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

My guess is that people who live in or near Pearl Harbor know the date that it was bombed.

Let's take a quiz. What historic significance do these dates have?

June 17

July 20

Sept. 2

Dec. 8

Oct. 24

I only had to look one of these up, the others I knew...



SG_67 said:


> ^ Why should it be? I'll bet more than that here don't know the date of Pearl Harbor, at least a ball park guess at when the Civil War took place or when the Declaration of Independence was signed.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> My guess is that people who live in or near Pearl Harbor know the date that it was bombed.
> 
> *Let's take a quiz. What historic significance do these dates have?
> *
> ...


Scarlett Johansson was not in my kitchen on any of those dates.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I can never remember what date 9/11 happened on.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

December 7th, "a day that shall live in infamy." Early 1860's, 1861 I think. It was going on in 1863 when my grandmother's grandfather reached California in a covered wagon from Missouri. Traditionally it is thought to be July 4th, but I believe it was either a day before or a day after the Fourth.

I believe, however, that 32r&r's point was that those individuals could not bring themselves to mention the date. 

Gurdon


----------



## dr.butcher (May 28, 2014)

I opened this thread thinking it was going to be about the Alain Resnais film. 

Interesting clip Shaver, thanks for posting it. 

Of course the A-bomb got the Japanese out of China and is celebrated as such. We've even been given a special one-off national(public) holiday this year on September 3 to celebrate the 70th anniversary of Japanese surrender.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

dr.butcher said:


> I opened this thread thinking it was going to be about the Alain Resnais film.
> 
> Interesting clip Shaver, thanks for posting it.
> 
> Of course the A-bomb got the Japanese out of China and is celebrated as such. We've even been given a special one-off national(public) holiday this year on September 3 to celebrate the 70th anniversary of Japanese surrender.


A small tip of the hat to Resnais - I have had a dvd copy of _L'Année dernière à Marienbad _ laying atop my 'must watch' pile for over 12 months now. I really must get around to it.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Last Year at Marienbad was the first "art" film I saw at the start of my university years. Please have a look and report back. Also saw l'chien andelou (sp) that year for the first of several times.

There is always Pull My Daisy, by Al Lesslie and Robert Frank.

Gurdon


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The memory always gives me pause when I think about 9/11.

I'm sure glad we dropped those bombs, but there's undeniably hypocrisy associated with that sentiment.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Glad? If ever God turned away in shame it was resultant of the atom bombing on Japan.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> Last Year at Marienbad was the first "art" film I saw at the start of my university years. Please have a look and report back. Also saw l'chien andelou (sp) that year for the first of several times.
> 
> There is always Pull My Daisy, by Al Lesslie and Robert Frank.
> 
> Gurdon


Ahh, I recall the first time I saw Un Chien Andalou.....a rather foxy Art lecturer was projecting it against her studio wall.

The young 'uns on the forum will be barely able to imagine a time when a film (or record, or the whatnot) was difficult to access, and the joy was enhanced by the recondite mystery, the experience trembled sensuously in arcane scarcity, and the reward of satisfaction was well earned by the questing. And those 'in the know' possessed immeasurable cachet.

.

.
.
.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

Some films are game changers. _Un chien andalou_ is one. _Marienbad_ is another. Add _Breathless_ to the list. Of course, these are all art films (whatever that means) and not everyone's cup of tea.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> Last Year at Marienbad was the first "art" film I saw at the start of my university years. ...
> Gurdon


I too saw it as a student. Quite possibly I was at fault in failing to appreciate certain aspects of the director's work, but I found it monumentally tedious. Nothing happened - perhaps that was the point?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Glad? If ever God turned away in shame it was resultant of the atom bombing on Japan.


Indeed. It was militarily unnecessary, as Japan was already both defeated, and knew it. The bomb was used to demonstrate US power to the USSR, not to defeat Japan.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Indeed. It was militarily unnecessary, as Japan was already both defeated, and knew it. The bomb was used to demonstrate US power to the USSR, not to defeat Japan.


Complete ahistorical nonsense. This view had currency in some quarters in the 60s and 70s, but has long since been debunked.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Please, do go on. I have always enjoyed the gymnastical spectacle of intellectual self-deceit.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Indeed. It was militarily unnecessary, as Japan was already both defeated, and knew it.


Yes, this is why there was no time, effort, or money spent after VE Day to transfer forces from the European to the Pacific Theater, nor any diplomatic effort ever made to get the USSR to declare war on Japan.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

phyrpowr said:


> Yes, this is why there was no time, effort, or money spent after VE Day to transfer forces from the European to the Pacific Theater, nor any diplomatic effort ever made to get the USSR to declare war on Japan.


Apart from an opportunity to exercise your sarcasm, what is your point? After all, if you are trying to present an opinion, or an argument, in a civil manner, as we are encouraged to do in this forum, why use sarcasm?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Please, do go on. I have always enjoyed the gymnastical spectacle of intellectual self-deceit.


That is obvious.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> That is obvious.


3/10.

Must try harder.

:teacha:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Glad? If ever God turned away in shame it was resultant of the atom bombing on Japan.


Interesting, isn't it, that the only responses that appear to disagree with this comment are unsupported assertions that aren't followed up, or are simply exercising their wit. Sad, really.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Seeing that nobody has been able to justify the dropping of the bombs on Japan, perhaps I should establish on what grounds it was _*not*_ a military necessity.
The Japanese had no operational aircraft carriers left, and no oil to fuel them. Virtually no operational battleships or major naval units were left, and no fuel available for those units that *were* potentially operational. Virtually no merchant vessels left, so no access to oil or coal or steel or food, or any imports, and no ability to resupply or support or repatriate troops and personnel from the occupied territories. Indeed, USN and RN submarines were increasingly returning from patrol with a full complement of torpedoes, not having found any targets.
The USAF controlled the skies over Japan, with the Japanese lacking pilots and aircrew, aircraft that could even reach the B29s, and fuel. The RAF and the USAF, and the carrier-based aircraft, had pretty much destroyed every Japanese military installation, every oil facility, every military base, and most of Japan's industry. 
The army in Burma had been destroyed, the army in Malaya was collapsing through logistic failure, as was that in the Dutch and British East Indies. They were, in any case, isolated from Japan and unable to carry out any kind of operations that could have caused the Allies any trouble. The army in the Philippines had been destroyed, the Pacific garrisons were "withering on the vine". Operation Ichi-Go, the last Japanese offensive in China, had failed.( A positive result being the removal of that ar$e Stillwell!) The failure meant that Japan was beaten in China. The Red Army was on it's way to erase the Kwantung Army. The Japanese command knew that the Kwantung Army, with it's obsolete equipment and limited training wouldn't have been able to face the Red Army. The army in Japan, mostly made up by now of elderly reservists and untrained and under-aged teenage conscripts lacked weapons, equipment and transport.
US intelligence knew that Japan was seeking to get the USSR to act as mediator for peace talks, with the only pre-condition being the preservation of the Imperial family and the Emperor as head of state.
Thus, it is clear that not only was Japan beaten, but that Japan knew knew that it was beaten, the only thing necessary for the allies to do was to wait for the Japanese to accept that the only end possible was surrender. No invasion was necessary to defeat Japan. Neither was the bomb, as Japan was already seeking virtually unconditional surrender.
The only problem, for the US, was that if the US waited, the Red Army, in their rout of the Kwantung Army might have been able to occupy the rest of the Japanese mainland territories, South Korea, for example. So, the US government used the bomb, partly to hurry the Japanese up in their surrender, not to force or cause the surrender, but to accelerate it, and partly to impress the USSR with it's new weapon that Truman had hinted at at Potsdam.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

The following makes a better case for the dropping of the bombs than I can make on my own. I'm aware, of course, that persuasive arguments can be made against, and the site below also includes a page dedicated to those.

https://www.authentichistory.com/1939-1945/1-war/4-Pacific/4-abombdecision/2-support/

It's also worth noting that these bombing forays were not the only military attacks carried out by the US against primarily civilian targets. Dresden and Tokyo also suffered tremendous civilian casualties in fire bombing attacks, likely with less military justification. I hope we've learned from these experiences, but the self-righteousness of our response to 9-11 suggests we're quite offended when others employ our tactics against us.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> The following makes a better case for the dropping of the bombs than I can make on my own. I'm aware, of course, that persuasive arguments can be made against, and the site below also includes a page dedicated to those.
> 
> https://www.authentichistory.com/1939-1945/1-war/4-Pacific/4-abombdecision/2-support/


The problem with sites like the one linked to is that they are limited in their scope. However, the argument for essentially is based on the idea that an invasion was necessary, and that the casualties caused by an invasion would be immense. However, that an invasion of Japan was planned and prepared for does not mean that an invasion was necessary or was going to happen. After all, the US not only planned for an invasion of Canada in the 1930's, but also trained for it, and built the infrastructure, roads, airfields etc that such an invasion would need. However, an invasion of Canada was both very unlikely and was in any case pointless. The site indicated clearly shows that Japan was already defeated, so can be used to argue that the bomb was entirely superfluous to the final defeat of Japan.



MaxBuck said:


> It's also worth noting that these bombing forays were not the only military attacks carried out by the US against primarily civilian targets. Dresden and Tokyo also suffered tremendous civilian casualties in fire bombing attacks, likely with less military justification. I hope we've learned from these experiences, but the self-righteousness of our response to 9-11 suggests we're quite offended when others employ our tactics against us.


Indeed.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Chouan said:


> The site indicated *clearly shows* that Japan was already defeated ...


No, it only shows an argument can be made to that effect.

Post facto argumentation based upon conjecture of "what ifs" is never conclusive. We all ought to try to remember that.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> No, it only shows an argument can be made to that effect.
> 
> Post facto argumentation based upon conjecture of "what ifs" is never conclusive. We all ought to try to remember that.


We? What are the "what ifs" in the arguments that Japan was defeated? The "what ifs" appear to be solely on the side of the pro-bomb arguments. That the bomb was necessary to prevent the potential casualties on the proposed invasion is nothing _*but*_ "what ifs"!
However, that Japan was clearly beaten has no "what ifs" at all. The Red Army was already reinforcing it's 40 divisions facing the Kwantung Army, no "what if" there. Japanese maritime capability had been wiped out, no "what if" there. Japanese industry was destroyed, they'd run out of pilots and had no ability to train them, the USAF controlled the sky over Japan. No "what ifs" there. The Japanese government *were* seeking virtually unconditional peace. No "what if" there.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> We? What are the "what ifs" in the arguments that Japan was defeated? The "what ifs" appear to be solely on the side of the pro-bomb arguments. That the bomb was necessary to prevent the potential casualties on the proposed invasion is nothing _*but*_ "what ifs"!
> However, that Japan was clearly beaten has no "what ifs" at all. The Red Army was already reinforcing it's 40 divisions facing the Kwantung Army, no "what if" there. Japanese maritime capability had been wiped out, no "what if" there. Japanese industry was destroyed, they'd run out of pilots and had no ability to train them, the USAF controlled the sky over Japan. No "what ifs" there. The Japanese government *were* seeking virtually unconditional peace. No "what if" there.


Chouan,

I'm late to this party. Please tell me more about Japanese peace overtures. I don't know anything about them.

It has always been my understanding that even though Japan was beat by all objective measures, it was still prepared to fight to the death like in Iwo Jima, etc....and indeed in pretty much every battle after Guadalcanal, which was the last battle in which the Japanese had any chance of emerging victorious. The interest in going nuke had everything to do with avoiding mass casualties. Why invade and knowingly incur tens of thousands of casualties when you can lob a nuke from a safe distance?

The Nagasaki bomb is more debatable.

In any case, I'm all for doing whatever it took to make that war end as quickly as possible.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

tocqueville said:


> Chouan,
> Please tell me more about Japanese peace overtures.


Some unofficial spokesmen from Japan had put feelers out about peace (through Sweden and Russia, IIRC), but were definitely seeking an armistice and not a surrender. The experience of watching Germany respond by way of the rise of Naziism to their harsh treatment at Versailles after not having even been invaded-- leading to the whole "stab in the back" mythology-- meant that anything other than unconditional surrender wasn't going to fly with the Allies. And there was no evidence at the time that the Japanese were going to give in quickly to conventional warfare. After the fact, we now know that even after the bombs dropped, there was a good chunk of the military government that wanted to keep at it. It was the Emperor who had to call it a day. And Truman couldn't know even that for sure at the time-- he had a lot more uncertainty to sort out than armchair generals like to believe possible today.

So it was a nasty business, but considering the potential difficulty/cost of getting a conventional surrender, there were a lot of reasons to use what was in the weapons cabinet to maximum effect.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Chouan,
> 
> I'm late to this party. Please tell me more about Japanese peace overtures. I don't know anything about them.
> 
> ...


Try this *"Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan."* The situation is usually approached as an "either or" problem. Either we invade and horrendous casualties ensue, or we use the bomb. This approach ignores the other alternatives. As I wrote earlier, Japan was already beaten and the government, not "unofficial spokesmen", but officially appointed government representatives, was seeking surrender terms. The only condition that they needed was protection of the Imperial family. The existence of the bomb, and the fact that the Russians had been told about a new secret weapon, and that they were storming through the Japanese army on the mainland, were all reasons why Truman decided to use it. The US saw a necessity to end the war quickly, and, most importantly, to show the USSR what their new weapon could do.


----------

