Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

mainichi.jp

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 125 posts

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#111

Post by wahnfrieden »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #39
wahnfrieden wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disliked the anarchism erasure of portraying the Spanish civil war as a "communist party" cause (the authoritarian vanguardist type of communism that the movie focused on)

Communism is an anarchist philosophy, at it's root. If it seems a bit weird because (IIRC) this historical dialectic goes: - bourgeois revolution - Workers revolution - Bigger state - Even bigger state - Underpants gnomes - Anarchist utopia Only half joking... this is what turn of the last century communists believed.

anarchists (well maybe except for insurrectionist anarchists) believe in communism as an outcome, but they most definitely do not agree with vanguardism as a means of achieving it. vanguardism is just a kind of elitist authoritarianism.

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#112

Post by geon »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #81
geon wrote: post #72

Can someone parse the title for me? I feel like there might be a couple of garden paths in there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence

"1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo" > The 1953 movie "Hiroshima", about the atom bomb, will be screening in Tokyo. The movie had 88,000 extras. (The word 'Phantom' is confusing. According the article, the movie is called a "phantom" movie because it was produced in Japan but was not released in Japan due to a dispute between the publisher and the filmmakers.)

Thank you!

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#113

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

cubefox wrote: post #69
nerdponx wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are often taught that the bombings resulted in less loss of life than a conventional land invasion of the home islands. So it's not quite a matter of "A-bomb good". Plenty of Americans alive today lived through the Cold War too, and spent years or decades in low-level fear of nuclear war. It's not quite as simple as "nukes good therefore no criticism of nukes in movie". Part of the interest in things like t…

Yes, but the American views about specifically Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem different from most other countries, or at least from Japan. Outside the US it is quite common to view the bombings as war crimes, while this is uncommon in the US. This probably influenced how "Oppenheimer" handled the matter. (A comparison would perhaps be the difference between a Russian and a Polish film about the Sowjet invasion of Poland…

> "Outside the US it is quite common to view the bombings as war crimes..."

Definitely not in any of the countries occupied by Japan before and during the war.

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#114

Post by adastra22 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #106
boomboomsubban wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I detest how the event is always portrayed as "either nuke two cities, or launch a complete invasion of Japan." At no point are other options considers, such as nuking another target or a start of peace talks rather than only an acceptance of a vague "unconditional surrender."

It’s a complex event. Those were the high level options, which remove the political factors. In the context of being in the middle of bombing campaigns of cities, the moral turpitude of mass killing of people was long pushed aside. Total war meant everyone was part of the war effort. So you’re left with a couple of factors. The prospect of invasion, the likelihood of getting a peaceful settlement, and the prospect of…

The US did not accept a conditional surrender.

The Japanese came to the table with a conditional surrender, the condition being that the institution of the Emperor remain in place. The US rejected it. The Japanese came back to the table and accepted an unconditional surrender. The US then kept the imperial system in place anyway.

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#115

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

evrimoztamur wrote: post #35
durkie wrote: post #2

In light of the release of Oppenheimer, people have been talking about, basically, the other side of the development of atomic weapons. John Hersey's "Hiroshima" article from the August 23, 1946 edition of the New Yorker came up as the definitive piece on the immediate impact of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima, and it is a gripping read: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1946/08/31/hiroshima

That was a hard read. I also recommend Barefoot Gen, the comic series, by Keiji Nakazawa. The depth of the visuals added a lot to my understanding and empathy.

Post-war Japan has had some really good marketing. You'll never see films or comics depicting Nazi Germany under Allied bombing and the suffering of those on the homefront loyal to the Third Reich; anybody who who tried to create a "Barfuß Jens" or "Das Grab der Glühwürmchen" would be torn to shreds for being pro-fascist and few would consume anything so tasteless.

Yet ordinary Japanese people conscripted into the Imperial Japanese Army committed the equivalent of the Holocaust across Asia, widespread atrocities terrible enough to revolt even Nazi observers. It's not like they would have treated Westerners any better either; look at what they did to Allied POWs. But whitewashing with articles and films, not even that many really, and today Westerners are expressing "understanding and empathy" to the wartime Japanese, loyal to their country and divine Emperor, receiving the consequences of a war they themselves started.

Understanding and empathy are good but let's not be uncritical about what their purpose is or unaware of the larger historical context.

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#116

Post by appletrotter »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #113
cubefox wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the American views about specifically Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem different from most other countries, or at least from Japan. Outside the US it is quite common to view the bombings as war crimes, while this is uncommon in the US. This probably influenced how "Oppenheimer" handled the matter. (A comparison would perhaps be the difference between a Russian and a Polish film about the Sowjet invasion of Poland…

> " Outside the US it is quite common to view the bombings as war crimes... " Definitely not in any of the countries occupied by Japan before and during the war.

Yeah, how is it surprising that the country on the receiving end of the attack has a different viewpoint?

Given the lack of collective atonement for atrocities committed by the japanese, it feels like a form of whataboutism to me.

At the end of the day, both the allies and axis powers were constantly committing war crimes by targeting civilian pops. Hopefully this never happens again, but it’s not like it was unusual for any side at this time.

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#117

Post by Shawnj2 »

judge2020 wrote: post #66
nerdponx wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are often taught that the bombings resulted in less loss of life than a conventional land invasion of the home islands. So it's not quite a matter of "A-bomb good". Plenty of Americans alive today lived through the Cold War too, and spent years or decades in low-level fear of nuclear war. It's not quite as simple as "nukes good therefore no criticism of nukes in movie". Part of the interest in things like t…

> Americans are often taught that the bombings resulted in less loss of life than a conventional land invasion of the home islands. Or, at least, less loss of American life. If The United Kingdom had not consented to the bombs and they were shelved, what are the chances the U.S. would've lost e.g. 50,000 and Japan 150,000 before surrender?

Imperial Japan was pretty much fanatically supportive of war. I’m not saying the bombings were justified but the war would have been a lot longer without it and would have almost certainly been a lot deadlier on both sides.

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#118

Post by Steve44 »

cubefox wrote: post #69
nerdponx wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are often taught that the bombings resulted in less loss of life than a conventional land invasion of the home islands. So it's not quite a matter of "A-bomb good". Plenty of Americans alive today lived through the Cold War too, and spent years or decades in low-level fear of nuclear war. It's not quite as simple as "nukes good therefore no criticism of nukes in movie". Part of the interest in things like t…

Yes, but the American views about specifically Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem different from most other countries, or at least from Japan. Outside the US it is quite common to view the bombings as war crimes, while this is uncommon in the US. This probably influenced how "Oppenheimer" handled the matter. (A comparison would perhaps be the difference between a Russian and a Polish film about the Sowjet invasion of Poland…

> Outside the US it is quite common to view the bombings as war crimes,

I'm from the UK and born in the 1960s and have not heard that as a mainstream view. I've seen a bit of chatter on the Web about it, but nothing substantial.

There is very little dispute that the nuclear bombings were horrible, but it was all out war. We'd had the destruction of much of Europe including the carpet bombings and resulting firestorms causing widespread deaths. Also many of our relatives are buried in what is modern day Thailand and Myanmar after fighting on the Pacific front. WW2 was brutal on many fronts and the bombing of military, industrial, and civilian areas was a part of that, but I don't recall it being called a war crime as a child nor in most modern discussion. It was a raw fight for survival which is hard to comprehend today.

Hitler was developing atomic weaponry, despite the other many technological advances they made luckily for the world he was further behind than the allies thought as I understand.

If the war hadn't finished there, the world would be a different place. The Russians would have advanced further and it's unlike there would be a South Korea for instance. There is also the issue of did those bombings show the world what a nuclear war would be like and thus drive the stalemate of the cold war. Had they not been used in anger, would America or Russia be more casual about attacking each other in the subsequent years once they were both full armed.

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#119

Post by Steve44 »

thoi2u4pl4k234 wrote: post #92
cubefox wrote: post #49

According to a 2015 survey[1], 56% of US Americans say the bombings were justified, while 34% say they were not. This relatively positive (or non-negative) assessment of the A-bombs might have influenced their portrayal in "Oppenheimer", an American production. The Japanese re-screening of "Hiroshima" might be aimed at countering their depiction in "Oppenheimer". [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/08/04…

... and the British (and everyone in the 'enlightened West') are taught that savage destruction of Asia (incl. India/China) by European powers was for their own benefit and that they ought to be grateful for having had their ancestors murdered, subject to famine, and sometimes outright genocide (not to mention having their cultures completely destroyed to the point of total alienation). They even do this with the so-…

I'm British and don't recognise most of your points.

Re: 1953 'Phantom' A-bomb film 'Hiroshima,' with 88,000 extras, screening in Tokyo

#120

Post by sangnoir »

adastra22 wrote: post #85
cubefox wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the American views about specifically Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem different from most other countries, or at least from Japan. Outside the US it is quite common to view the bombings as war crimes, while this is uncommon in the US. This probably influenced how "Oppenheimer" handled the matter. (A comparison would perhaps be the difference between a Russian and a Polish film about the Sowjet invasion of Poland…

Maybe because a lot of our grandfathers lived through the war because they didn’t have to invade the home islands of Japan. So the “lives saved” argument is a little more visceral when I wouldn’t even exist today if it weren’t for the atom bomb.

> Maybe because a lot of our grandfathers lived through the war because they didn’t have to invade the home islands of Japan

I'm sure the American leadership wasn't enthused at the thought of the USSR conquering Japan and establishing a socialist state. Towards the end, the fighting stopped being about WWII and more about what came afterwards.

Without looking at the internal rail network of the USSR in 1944 - I assume the soviets had a leg up (logistically) for an invasion of Japan vs the US; having to hop from island to island in the Pacific.

Post reply on HN