I
have been researching the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a few
decades, establishing connections with many American colleagues conducting
related research. Sadly, Martin Sherwin, who co-authored the book American
Prometheus: J. Robert Oppenheimer, was one such friend who passed away in
2021. The recent film Oppenheimer, directed by Christopher Nolan, is
based on this outstanding publication. While watching the film, I noticed
several issues, and I wonder what Martin’s thoughts would be if he were alive.
Due
to space constrains, I will concentrate on just a few of these problems.
1) The
movie overlooks the fact that numerous scientists strove to prevent the
utilization of atomic bombs.
The
film places significant emphasis on Oppenheimer’s psychological remorse shortly
after the bombing of Hiroshima occurred, as the detrimental impact of the bomb
on the city and its inhabitants unexpectedly became a harsh reality. This is
verifiable through historical evidence. However, the film creates the
impression that Oppenheimer was the solitary scientist on the Manhattan Project
who was shocked by the bomb’s devastating effects and deeply remorseful for its
outcome.
Leo
Szilard, a renowned Hungarian physicist and Manhattan Project member, recognized
the dire repercussions of developing and deploying nuclear weapons long before
their actual creation. Szilard was the first to envision the potential for a
nuclear chain reaction and to invent the graphite and breeder reactors. He was
concerned about the enduring impacts of nuclear weapons and anticipated that
their deployment by the United States would lead to a nuclear arms race with
the Soviet Union. In May 1945, he made an unsuccessful effort to convince
President Truman to refrain from using it, a mere two months before the first
atomic bomb was tested.[i]
On 17 July, following the first nuclear bomb test “Trinity” conducted in New
Mexico, Szilard formulated a petition to President Truman not to use the bomb
without a public declaration of surrender. This document was endorsed by 69
scientists. Subsequently, the count of Manhattan Project scientists’ signatures
increased to 155.[ii]
Edward Teller, another
Hungarian physicist and friend of Szilard’s, presented Oppenheimer with a copy
of the petition, although Teller
himself thought that it would be better to use the bomb without a warning.
Teller claimed that Oppenheimer expressed genuine anger and proceeded to
criticize Szilard and his colleagues, stating, “What do they know about
Japanese psychology? How can they judge the way to end the war?” He suggested
that men like Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, and General Marshall were better
equipped to make such judgments. Oppenheimer did not directly send the petition
to Washington, but instead sent it through regular army channels, resulting in
it arriving too late.[iii]
It is possible that Oppenheimer’s reaction stemmed partly from scientific
jealousy towards Szilard, a brilliant physicist.
In the film,
Szilard briefly appears as the individual who requested Albert Einstein to send
a letter that he had drafted to President Franklin Roosevelt in August 1939.
The letter warned of the danger that would result if Germany developed the
first A-bomb, ultimately leading to the beginning of the U.S. atomic bomb
project.
 |
| Albert Einstein and Leo
Szilard |
In the film, Szilard reappears in a short
scene to confront Oppenheimer about the petition and opposes the plans to use
the bomb. He says that Germany has already been defeated and Japan won’t last
long. Szilard said, “History will judge us, Robert.” But Oppenheimer brushes
the petition aside. In another short scene before that, at the scientists’
meeting in Los Alamos, Philipp Morrison with Donald Horning also question the
need to use the bomb.
However, to the best of my knowledge, Szilard
never directly challenged Oppenheimer face to face on the petition because he
was working at the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago, not Los Alamos. This
explains why he asked Teller to give the petition to Oppenheimer. According to
the book American Prometheus: J. Robert Oppenheimer, Morrison did
advocate for “some kind of formal warning to the Japanese, if a demonstration
seemed impractical.” However, the suggestion was quickly rejected by an Army
officer. It appears that there was not even enough time to raise the moral
issue.[iv]
Therefore, although the film briefly touches
on the moral concerns of scientists regarding the use of the atomic bomb
against Japan, it fails to clearly demonstrate that 155 scientists opposed the
use of the bomb on moral grounds. The film gives the impression that
Oppenheimer was the only scientist involved in the Manhattan Project who
suffered from deep guilt after the war. Following the war, Szilard wrote the
novella My Trial as a War Criminal, in which he examined the ethical
implications of the atomic bomb and the scientists, including himself, who
contributed to its development. He also corresponded with Soviet Premier Nikita
Khrushchev in an attempt to prevent a nuclear arms race between the USA and
USSR after the war.[v]
2) The
film confirms Oppenheimer’s justification for using the atomic bomb, reinforcing
the “A-Bomb Myth.”
Alarmed
by the destructive power and impact of nuclear weapons on large numbers of
Japanese civilians, Oppenheimer's belief that they posed a grave threat to
humanity and could lead to its self-destruction led him to call for nuclear
disarmament. He subsequently became an adviser to the Atomic Energy Commission,
using his influence to prevent a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union.
Oppenheimer opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb, also known as the
super-bomb, as well as other nuclear weapons, which caused a rift with his
former colleague, Edward Teller, the “father of the hydrogen bomb.” However,
Oppenheimer did not object to the development of small, tactical nuclear
weapons.[vi]
After the war, President
Truman responded to Republican pressure by initiating loyalty-security
hearings. These hearings included charges against scientists due to the Cold
War, which had already begun shortly after the war ended in 1945. The Soviets
successfully tested their first A-Bomb on 29 August 1949, and the Korean War
began 25 June 1950, which intensified the Cold War. In early 1950, Senator
Joseph McCarthy delivered a famous speech in Wheeling, alleging communist
infiltration of the State Department. This speech quickly intensified a
campaign that spread fear of alleged communist and Soviet influence on American
institutions, as well as Soviet espionage in the U.S. As part of McCarthyism’s political agenda, Oppenheimer, a
scientist who had been himself a member of the American Communist Party for a
short period and had close ties to former Communists, was targeted in a
personal manner on suspicion of espionage. His public opposition to the
development of the hydrogen bomb also raised suspicions of espionage. Kitty,
Oppenheimer’s wife, his brother Frank, Frank’s wife Jackie, and Jean Tatlock,
Oppenheimer’s former sweetheart, all had a previous affiliation with the
Communist Party.[vii]
As a
result, Oppenheimer was subjected to weeks of security hearings by the
Personnel Security Board regarding the completely unfounded accusation that he
had transmitted classified US nuclear information to the Soviet Union and
deterred his colleagues from pursuing the development of the hydrogen bomb. He,
along with his colleagues and family members with whom he frequently
interacted, were thoroughly interrogated. Although he was eventually cleared of
espionage in April 1954, he was deemed unfit to hold state secrets and was
effectively banned from public office. The film showcases numerous scenes
depicting the grueling hearings that the Oppenheimers faced.[viii]
At one point he was questioned if he thought the bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was unnecessary to end the war. He acknowledged the inhumane nature of
the bombing, but maintained that it was essential to end the war. It is likely
true, as demonstrated in an interview from 1965 -- two years prior to his
death. During the interview, Oppenheimer hesitantly conveyed that the war could
not have been ended without the use of atomic bombs, stating that “the bomb was
an enormous relief.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdtLxlttrHg
The
security hearings portrayed in the film give the impression that the atomic
bomb put a definitive end to the protracted and brutal war, which I think will
resonate with audiences worldwide. Nonetheless, this scene verifies the
falsehood that the U.S. government propagated, which claimed that the two
atomic bombs not only terminated the war but also salvaged millions of lives
that would have otherwise perished if the conflict persisted. Opinion polls
carried out in the U.S. have shown that, during the immediate post-war period
in 1945, 85% of American citizens believed in this myth. In 2016, 71 years
after the war, this figure had decreased to 56%, implying that more than half
of the citizens still harbored this belief.[ix]
It is my opinion that the film Oppenheimer probably played a significant
role in strengthening this misconception, not just in the U.S., but globally.
3) The
film overlooks the predicament that Oppenheimer encountered during the final
three years before his death.
In
1965, American historian Gar Alperovitz argued that President Truman’s decision
to deploy the atomic bomb against Japan was not based on strategic necessity,
but rather on demonstrating the power of the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union.
Alperovitz used newly opened archival sources, such as Henry Stimson’s diaries
and State Department materials, including those by James Byrnes, the Secretary
of State. Alperovitz forwarded Oppenheimer an advance copy of his book, Atomic
Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam: The Use of the American Bomb and the
Confrontation with Soviet Power, requesting his feedback. Oppenheimer
admitted that the archival sources used by Alperovitz were “largely unknown” to
him. Nevertheless, he told Alperovitz, “I recognize your Byrnes, and I recognize
your Stimson,” implying that he would accept Alperovitz’s argument.[x]
However, he refused to be drawn into the controversy and continued to say in
public that “the bomb was an enormous relief.” It is possible that he refrained
from endorsing Alperovitz’s theory due to the fear of heavy criticism and
official accusations, similar to the Security Hearings of 1954. Additionally,
the official myth may have helped him cope with his enormous guilt.
The
film Oppenheimer fails to depict the intense psychological distress that
Oppenheimer endured. It is highly regrettable that Christopher Nolan’s film
excluded the predicament that Oppenheimer encountered in the final three years
before his passing, wherein he was compelled to confront the harsh truth that
the bomb had been deployed for political reasons rather than out of necessity.
If the film had depicted such scenes, it could have substantially contributed
to dispelling the myth surrounding the atomic bomb. In my opinion, Martin would
concur if he were still alive.
4) The film fails
to convey the message that the indiscriminate genocide caused by the atomic
bomb is not only a moral concern, but also constitutes a serious war crime.
As stated
previously, the film exclusively centers on Oppenheimer’s psychological
anguish, which primarily revolves around his guilt and realization of the
catastrophic and lethal impact of the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima resulting
from its use. Due to his guilt, he refrained from contributing to the
development of the hydrogen bomb after the war. Additionally, as he stated, he did not want to divert
resources from building more atomic bombs, which he believed would be
sufficient to defeat the Soviet forces.[xi] Although he
attempted to prevent a U.S.-Soviet arms race, he faced a biased and unfair
trial due to the stringent anti-communist policies of the U.S. during the Cold
War. Consequently, the film centers around a “conscientious scientist” who led
a challenging life. Throughout the film, the audience is presented with a moral
and psychological dilemma experienced by the scientists who developed the new
weapon of mass destruction. Furthermore, the film perpetuates the myth that
this weapon played a decisive role in ending the war.
However, it is
not accurate to suggest that none of the scientists involved in the atomic bomb’s
development were aware that its use would constitute a war crime. As previously
mentioned, after the war, Leo Szilard openly acknowledged, albeit in an
indirect form through a novella, his part in the atomic bomb’s development as a
criminal act of war. In his short story titled My Trial as a War Criminal,
written in an indirect form, he acknowledged publicly that his contribution to
the development of the atomic bomb during wartime constituted a war crime.
Stimson, who
participated in the decision to deploy the atomic bomb, alerted Truman on 6
June 1945 that the use of the atomic bomb, a weapon of mass destruction, could
result in the U.S. gaining a notoriety for committing atrocities surpassing
even those of Hitler (Stimson Diary, 6 June 1945).[xii]
This concern provides clear evidence that Stimson recognized the criminal
essence of the atomic bombings.
There is a
surprising absence of any indication of the criminality of the indiscriminate
genocide caused by the atomic bomb in the film. This issue cannot be attributed
solely to Director Christopher Nolan. The book that Nolan referenced as a
source material, co-authored by Martin Sherwin and Kai Bird, similarly neglects
to mention the criminality of the indiscriminate atrocities of the atomic
bombing.
In fact, only
a handful of American historians who research the atomic bomb extensively,
including progressive scholars who are vehemently against the use of the
A-bomb, discuss the criminal aspect of the weapon. The paucity of discourse on
this topic among scholars puzzles me. One might say that this is because they
are not experts in international law. How many U.S. international law scholars
have discussed the criminal nature of the atomic bombs? To my knowledge, only
Francis Boyle and Richard Falk have done so.[xiii]
In the U.S.,
however, the discussion of using the atomic bomb has typically centered solely
on “historical circumstances,” such as the necessity of ending the war. It is
important to note that this type of discussion actually masks the issue of
criminality, which ought to be the heart of the debate surrounding the
indiscriminate mass killing by atomic bombing. The main method used to cover up
the crime is the “A-Bomb Myth,” in other words the U.S. justification for the
bombings, which states that if the two bombs had not been used, a million more
people would have been killed and the war would not have ended. By conveying this myth through
Oppenheimer’s words, the film Oppenheimer could be considered to have
inadvertently facilitated the concealment of the bombings’ criminality.
In this way
the film Oppenheimer, which is advertised as being based on the book American
Prometheus, omits crucial discussions present in the book. Additionally,
the film fails to address the most significant issue -- the criminality of
using the atomic bomb. Ultimately, it justifies the use of the atomic bomb in
line with the U.S. government’s policy of embracing nuclear weapons.
5) The Atomic
Bomb in Popular Culture: Questions Arising from the “Barbenheimer” Phenomenon
A ticket was inexplicably sold for a showing that combined Oppenheimer
with the comedy-fantasy movie Barbie, which both premiered in the United
States and Canada on Friday, 21 July 2023. Over the weekend of 21-23 July in
the U.S. and Canada, a total of 18.5 million people went to watch a double
feature at the cinema, accounting for 79% of both the audiences for Barbie
(52%) and Oppenheimer (27%).[xiv]
Greta Gerwig’s
film Barbie features a young, beautiful dress-up doll named Barbie, who,
along with her friend Ken, journeys from her idealized “Barbie World” into the
human world, which presents a harsh reality in stark contrast to the fantasy
world. The movie depicts Barbie adjusting to this new reality. Nevertheless,
the world is male-dominated, with women experiencing different forms of
discrimination. Barbie is dismayed to realize that she is expected to fit into
traditional gender roles. Conversely, Ken has internalized male-centric values
and takes them back to Barbie World, resulting in a society where men hold the
most power and authority. Barbie endeavors to shape her own future in the harsh
real world and understands that her true beauty is as she is. Having achieved
this, she restores Barbie World to its original female leadership, overthrowing
the previously dominant male-regime.
This film is a
mixture of comedy, feminism and fantasy. The protagonist wears a bright pink
dress and her friends sing and dance. However, it is not comparable in theme to
Oppenheimer, the film which explores the intricate psychological
conflicts faced by a physicist who played a key role in the development of the
atomic bomb. Neither of these films is a blockbuster that would typically dominate
the box office. It is believed that Warner Brothers and Universal Pictures,
which typically compete as film distributors, collaborated to release the
ticket as a double feature due to a compromise and discussion between the
companies regarding potential low sales.
Shortly before
the release of both films, an unusual cultural phenomenon, known as “Barbenheimer,"
emerged. This refers to both films being presented simultaneously by a word
created by combining the titles of both films. Young people, mostly in the U.S.,
took great interest in this trend. The term “Barbenheimer” rapidly became
popular on social media platforms Facebook and Twitter. Several posters were
created showcasing scenes from both films, including an image of Barbie perched
on Oppenheimer’s shoulders, grinning widely, against the backdrop of a
detonating nuclear bomb fire, and another of her waving as a pink mushroom
cloud billows over Barbie World. People began sharing their preferences
regarding the order in which to watch the two films, appropriate attire for the
cinema (a pink dress for women resembling Barbie, and a black suit with a dark
hat reflecting Oppenheimer for men), preferred cocktails, snacks to have while
watching the film (pink cotton candy for Barbie, and pitch black Ricores
candy for Oppenheimer), and other relevant information through social
media platforms.[xv]
Following the
unexpected popularity of “Barbenheimer,” Warner Brothers responded favorably on
21 July 2023 through the official Barbie X account (previously Twitter) with
the message, “It will be a memorable summer” accompanied by a kissing emoji.
Numerous YouTube videos were also produced, edited to include clips from both
films, and portraying an artificial connection between them, amassing nearly
one million views. In reality, the film descriptions in the provided videos
lack clarity and coherence. The language used is often nonsensical, as
demonstrated by the following examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2dZdSORkco
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA6l2d_Z2v8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrpPMsD6sCE
However, due
to the recent pop culture craze of “Barbenheimer,” Barbie has surpassed Oppenheimer
to become the highest-grossing film globally, with earnings of $1.4 billion as
of November 2023, while Oppenheimer trails behind in third place with a
staggering $950 million.[xvi]
Several critiques have been published in both the U.S. and U.K. regarding the
social and political factors which gave rise to the pop culture sensation of
the “Barbenheimer.” However, I find them to be forced, and none of them have
convinced me that they present a valid analysis. To be sincere, I am currently
unaware of the origin of this phenomenon apart from the commercial success of
promoting two films together.
Yet, it is
noteworthy that the impact of this pop culture trend on the public perception
of the atomic bomb, particularly in the US, may be considerable. In popular
culture, “Barbenheimer” depicts the atomic bomb as a simple “big bomb” in a
pink digital image. Moreover, in multiple YouTube videos from “Barbenheimer”
that have garnered over a million views, the atomic bomb is imaginatively
fantasized about, portraying it as an unrealistic possibility in our world.
Today, there
is a risk that the general public, who lack an understanding of the true nature
of atomic bombing, are losing sight of the devastating impact it can have. This
dangerous trend is further compounded by the pervasive influence of “Barbenheimer”
pop culture, which threatens to paralyze minds. After being fully immersed in
the fictional universe of Barbie, the individuals are currently
observing footage of the atomic bomb test in Oppenheimer whilst
consuming pink cotton candy and black Ricores candy. It is interesting to
consider how precisely the depictions of atomic bomb testing and conversations
regarding the devastating capability of atomic weapons, as portrayed in the
film Oppenheimer, are apprehended by those viewers.
It is
uncertain how accurate this information is, but according to online sources in
the United States, a new “Barbenheimer” film is due to be released (on the internet?)
this year and is currently in production. The plot follows Dr Bambi J.
Barbenheimer, a scientist doll from Dolltopia, who has a boyfriend called Twink
Dollman. Dr Barbenheimer ventures out into the real world and decides to take
nuclear revenge on the children because the human children treat the dolls so
badly.[xvii]
Once again, nuclear weapons are solely portrayed as a punishment for
misbehaving children. This indulges in unrealistic notions of the consequences
of indiscriminate mass killing by nuclear weapons, which is a real possibility.
The pop culture phenomenon of “Barbenheimer” has further fueled this fantasy.
In contrast,
the harsh truth of the Israeli military’s persistent and random bombing of the
Palestinian people has been documented by the media through video reports. Such
live footage undoubtedly contributes to the widespread demonstrations
condemning Israeli atrocities, which have moved citizens across the globe,
including the United States. It is evident that this is one of the factors
driving the condemnation of Israeli genocide.
Nevertheless,
it appears that the connection between these macabre depictions of aerial bombing
and the potential for immense urban devastation and the instantaneous
obliteration of hundreds of thousands or millions of people from nuclear arms
is not commonly made. On one hand, it has become a regular feature to witness
on television the killings that occur every day in Gaza due to aerial
bombardment, including the deaths of innocent children. On the other hand, it
is easy to glibly enjoy the nuclear weapons that are fancifully depicted in the
pink mushroom cloud of “Barbenheimer.” In other words, our awareness of the
reality of nuclear weapons has been partially fantasized and obscured, making
it challenging to effect change in our daily lives.
6)
The Japanese
also created their own version of “A-Bomb Myth.”
Although
Oppenheimer has yet to be released in Japan, Japanese media have already
presented opinions of Japanese individuals who have viewed the film in American
cinemas. Critiques seem to have primarily focused on the film’s nearly complete
lack of scenes depicting the reality of damage resulting from the atomic
bombing of Hiroshima. There is a brief scene in the final stages of the film,
lasting just a few minutes, which uses symbolic imagery to depict the peeling
of victims’ skin following exposure to the atomic bomb blast. True or false, it
is said that US distributors have been hesitant to release the film in Japan,
partly due to criticism from Japanese viewers. However, it was recently
announced that the film will be released in Japan sometime this year. It will
be interesting to see what kind of reception the film will have in Japan.
The
Washington Post of 9 October carried a comment on Oppenheimer
by Spike Lee, an American film director known for films such as Malcolm X
and Black Klansman. He also said ‘Great film. ...... (But)If it's three
hours, I would like to add some more minutes about what happened to the
Japanese. People got vaporized. Many years later, people were radioactive. It's
not that he (Nolan) didn't have power. He tells studios what to do.’ However,
Nolan clarified that the film aimed to illuminate Oppenheimer’s life rather
than emphasizing the victims of the atomic bomb.[xviii]
For an
entirely different reason, I am opposed to the inclusion in this film of scenes
showing the graphic sights of the A-bomb damage, even if it is in the form of “some
more minutes.” Instead, I suggest making a separate film that highlights the
destructive impact of the A-bomb from the Japanese viewpoint. A suitable
example for such a dual production would be Clint Eastwood’s movies about the
Battle of Iwo Jima from both American and Japanese perspectives -- Flags of
Our Fathers through the American perspective and Letters from Iwo Jima
through the Japanese perspective, both released in 2006. These two cinematic
works portray the reality of the Battle of Iwo Jima from multiple angles,
making them true masterpieces.
If
Nolan had spent “some more minutes” showing scenes of the damage in Hiroshima,
could he have clarified, for example, that of the estimated 230,000 victims of
the atomic bomb who died by the end of 1945, approximately 30,000 were Koreans
and a few thousand were so-called Burakumins (untouchables)? Could he have
included the scenes to indicate that among those victims were a few thousand
Japanese Americans who were American citizens? Could the reason for the high
number of Koreans and Japanese Americans in Hiroshima at the time of the atomic
bombing be explained? Could scenes have been included to show that these
Koreans and Burakumins were discriminated against in the emergency medical
care, food, and water supply provided in the immediate aftermath of the
bombing? The answer would be clearly ‘no’.
More
importantly, it is almost impossible to show in detail in just a few minutes of
film that it was not only the U.S. that created the “A-Bomb Myth.” In fact, Emperor
Hirohito and the Japanese government fabricated their own version of the “A-Bomb
Myth” to take political advantage of the aftermath of the atomic bombing. This
task cannot be accomplished in a few minutes of film. However, the movie’s
inability to address the “A-Bomb Myth” propagated by the Japanese would be just
as crucial a shortcoming as Oppenheimer’s failure to confront the
“A-Bomb Myth” propagated by the Americans.
In my
own recent book, Entwined Atrocities: New Insights into the U.S.-Japan
Alliance, I also extensively used Henry Stimson’s diaries to argue that, in
order for the U.S. to use the atomic bomb, Truman ensured that Japan would not
surrender before August 5 (in other words, until the bomb was ready); he did
this by intentionally omitting any reference to the atomic bomb or the emperor
issue from the draft of the Potsdam Declaration, which was an ultimatum to
Japan. This was a deliberate plan by Truman and other members of his
administration to encourage Hirohito to postpone surrender. [xix]
In my
book, I argue, too, that the “Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War”
issued by Hirohito on 15 August was designed to give the impression that Japan
had surrendered due to the atomic bombing. However, Hirohito and Japan’s
military leaders were attempting to conceal the truth that their primary
concern was not the atomic bombing, but the possibility of a Soviet invasion of
Japanese soil in violation of the neutrality pact.
From
the 6th to the 10th of August 1945, the Wartime Leaders’ Conferences and the
Imperial Conferences, which were held repeatedly, dealt exclusively with the
question of how to persuade the United States and the other Allied powers to
accept Japan’s surrender on the condition that the Emperor System be
maintained. On the morning of August 9, the day the U.S. forces dropped the
atomic bomb on Nagasaki, the Japanese government, panicked by the sudden early
morning (Japan time) invasion of Manchuria by the Soviet army, spent all its
time discussing the possibility of a conditional surrender. Their aim was to
prevent the advance of Soviet forces into Japan in order to protect the emperor’s
position. The devastating consequences of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were scarcely addressed during the concluding stage of the war.[xx]
It is therefore
unsurprising that the original version of the “Imperial Rescript on the End of
the War” made no reference to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at
all. Two prominent scholars provided recommendations for modifications,
resulting in the inclusion of the following statement: “The enemy has begun to
employ a new and cruel bomb with incalculable power to damage and destroy many
innocent lives. If we continue to fight, it would not only result in the
ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but it would also lead
to the total extinction of human civilization.” In this manner, Japan has
formulated its own interpretation of the atomic bomb legend.[xxi]
It is
evident that Hirohito bore some responsibility for the U.S. atomic bombing, as
he delayed his decision to surrender. He sought a conditional surrender that
would maintain his own position and the Emperor System. However, this objective
would have been impossible if the Soviets had invaded. Upon surrendering,
Hirohito dishonestly utilized the atomic bombing to conceal his accountability
for instigating the U.S. to use the bomb against Japan. In addition, he took
advantage of the atomic bombing to hide his culpability for Japan’s aggressive
war, military atrocities, and exploitation of Koreans and Formosans in their
colonies.[xxii]
The U.S.
accepted his conditional surrender, retaining the Emperor System. In fact, the U.S. had intended from the start
to keep the Emperor Hirohito alive and use him for a smooth post-war occupation
of Japan without Soviet interference. Shortly after the war ended Japan asserted
that the Emperor System had reverted to being a symbol of peace. Both
the U.S. and Japan tacitly acknowledged each other’s duplicity, resulting in
the beginning of a postwar era for these two nations based on mutual acceptance
of the denial of their respective war responsibilities.[xxiii]
If a movie is to be created vividly portraying the tremendous damage and
political consequences caused by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima from the
Japanese perspective, as a response to Oppenheimer, it must be grounded
on the aforementioned historical facts.
In
my book, Entwined
Atrocities: New Insights into the U.S.-Japan Alliance, I contend that Japan and the U.S. both failed to exercise
moral imagination in taking responsibility for past wrongdoings due to
political deception. Additionally, they neglected to explore creative
approaches to envisioning a more compassionate future through a review of their
own histories. However, developing moral imagination within a society requires
more than mere familiarity with national history or basic law. The traditional
culture, which has allowed different forms of injustice and cruel behavior for
decades, such as that of Japan, must change to a new culture with humane and
dignified values. Japan requires radical cultural reform -- and the United
States similarly needs to address entrenched injustices. To this end, this book
delves into various political, social, and cultural issues in Japan. I trust
readers will find this volume thought-provoking.[xxiv]
Yuki
Tanaka
January
9, 2024
[i] Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, American
Prometheus: J. Robert Oppenheimer (Vintage Books, New York, 2006)
pp.292-293.
[v] Leo Szilard, My Trial as a War Criminal
in The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.17, Issue 1, pp.79-86 (1949); Ashutosh
Jogalekar, “Why the world needs more Leo Szilards” in Scientific American
(February 18, 2014)
<https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/why-the-world-needs-more-leo-szilards/>
[vi] Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, op.cit.,
pp.417-430.
[ix] According to a Gallup Poll conducted in 1945
shortly after the war, 85% of Americans regarded the atomic bombing as
legitimate. In the following Roper poll, 22.7% of respondents expressed regret
that the Japanese had surrendered so quickly, as they believed that the US
could have dropped more bombs on them. However, a 2016 survey conducted by the
Pew Research Center found that the percentage had dropped to 56%.
[x] Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, op.cit.,
p.578.
[xiii] Francis Boyle
discusses the criminality of the atomic bombing in Chapter 2 of his book, The
Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence: Could the US War on Terrorism Go Nuclear? (Clarity
Press, 2011); Richard Falk, “The Shimoda Case: A Legal Appraisal of the Atomic
Attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki” in American Journal of International
Law Vol. 59, Issue 4, pp.759–793 (1965). Falk’s article was also reproduced
in his book, Legal Order in a Violent World (Princeton University Press,
1968) pp.374–413. Although it
was a rather simple statement and not as comprehensive a legal analysis as
those of Francis Boyle or Richard Falk, Marjorie Cohn pointed out the
criminality of the atomic bombings in her article ‘From Japan to Vietnam,
Radiation and Agent Orange Survivors Deserve Justice From the US’ in Truthout
(18 August 2015). < https://truthout.org/articles/from-japan-to-vietnam-radiation-and-agent-orange-survivors-deserve-justice-from-the-us/>
[xvii] “AFM Hidden Gem: Charles Band’s
‘Barbenheimer’ Mixes Bombs and Dolls for the Ultimate Low-Budget Comedy
Cash-In” in Hollywood Reporter
<https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/barbenheimer-low-budget-comedy-film-charles-band-1235636257/>
[xviii] In response to Spike Lee’s criticism,
Christopher Nolan stated “The film presents Oppenheimer’s experience
subjectively. It was always my intention to rigidly stick to that. Oppenheimer
heard about the bombing at the same time that the rest of the world did. I
wanted to show somebody who is starting to gain a clearer picture of the
unintended consequences of his actions. It was as much about what I don’t show
as what I show.”
See “That was
the bid I focused on”: Christopher Nolan Responds to Spike Lee’s Criticism of
Oppenheimer for Missing Out a Key Detail in Fandomwire:
<https://fandomwire.com/that-was-the-bit-i-focused-on-christopher-nolan-responds-to-spike-lees-criticism-of-oppenheimer-for-missing-out-a-key-detail/>
[xix] Yuki Tanaka, Entwined Atrocities: New
Insights into the U.S.-Japan Alliance (Peter Lang, New York, 2023)
pp.59-61. Truman also refused to
allow Stalin to sign the Potsdam Declaration. Stalin's signature would have
indicated that the Soviets were about to enter the war against Japan, which
would have further encouraged a quick surrender.
[xxiii] See Chapter 4 of Entwined Atrocities: New
Insights into the U.S.-Japan Alliance.
[xxiv] See, particularly, Part III ‘Memories and
Symbolism of War’ of Entwined Atrocities: New Insights into the U.S.-Japan
Alliance.
