Film Oppenheimer and the A-Bomb Myth

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.

 

[ii]  Ibid., p.302.

 

[iii]  Ibid., pp.302-303.

 

[iv] Ibid., p.298

 

[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.

 

[vii]  Ibid., pp.500-502.

 

[viii]  Ibid., pp.487-556.

 

[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.

 

[xi] Ibid., p.423.

 

[xii]  Hiroshima: The Henry Stimson Diary and Papers (part 5) ＜http://www.doug-long.com/stimson5.htm＞ 6 June 1945.

 

[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/>

[xiv]  Barbenheimer, Wikipedia, < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbenheimer >

 

[xv]  Ibid.

 

[xvi]  “Oppenheimer vs Barbie: How the Films Rewrote Box Office History in One Week” in Movieweb < https://movieweb.com/oppenheimer-barbie-box-office/>

 

[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.

 

[xx]  Ibid., pp.63-76.

 

[xxi]  Ibid., pp.84-88.

 

[xxii]  Ibid., pp.84-88.

 

[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.