Viewers are divided over whether the film should have shown Japanese victims of the weapon created by physicist Robert Oppenheimer. Experts say it's complicated.

Viewers are divided over whether the film should have shown Japanese victims of the weapon created by physicist Robert Oppenheimer. Experts say it’s complicated.

  • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
    1·
    1 year ago

    I’m also not about to get into a body count contest because that way lies madness and a whole bunch of “well, this justifies this” arguments.

    But if you must know what I think about your Nanking argument, it’s this. The atomic bomb was not intended as retaliation for Japan’s crimes against China. The uS did not have the right to retaliate against Japan for crimes done to China.

    None of that has anything to do with my comment. Lol

    Anyone claiming the US was retaliating on behalf of the Republic of China is a fool.

    • Ragnell@kbin.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      @Fazoo Your comment is just “The Rape of Nanking.” You were commenting in response to me not wishing to comment on Japanese War Crimes. Yes, I’ve heard of it. Yes, I had to look up the details.

      My original point was that it didn’t matter what a country’s government had done before when weighing the morality of dropping an atomic bomb on a city, and because I don’t know details about Japan I used Britain as an example because I can list off colonization sins by the British Empire. Your response implied that I should specifically address Japan and Nanking. I did. I clarified to you that the US dropping an atomic bomb on a city had fuck-all to do with Nanking, so Nanking has nothing to do with the conversation at hand–the morality of the US dropping a bomb on an atomic city. Then I told you that war crimes in retaliation are still war crimes even if it had.

      If you meant something else… What was it? That I had to be qualified to comment on Nanking? I’m actually not, because I didn’t know the details until I looked it up on Wikipedia.