She said: A Review and Reflection on the Screening of Chapter 3 of “The Untold History of the United States.”

She Said: A review and reflection on the screening of Chapter 3 of “The Untold History of the United States.”

Nick and I recently went to the event where Oliver Stone and Professor Kuznick’s new documentary series, “The Untold History of the United States” was being filmed. It premiers with Chapter 1 on Monday, so I would highly recommend watching the entire series. It detailed World War II, and more specifically, the use of bombs during it. While it talked in great detail about firebombs and other means of warfare, the main focus of the film was on the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You have (hopefully) seen Nick’s point of view detailing the importance of dropping the bombs to the early surrender of the Japanese. I; however, share a different view and that will be the topic of my post.

Through the history I’ve learned and the knowledge I gained from the movie, I do not think that our attacks on Japan were merited. We went into war with Japan primarily because they had bombed Pearl Harbor. This was an attack on America and we could not stand for this as a country. I agree that we should have retaliated; however, I do not agree with the manner in which we did so. They had attacked Pearl Harbor, a military base. With firebombs and the atomic bombs, we had knowingly retaliated by targeted civilians. We hoped to destroy Japanese morale through their innocent citizens rather than fighting their military. America’s rationale here, in my opinion, is flawed. Yes, Japan had done an act of war. But we did an act of genocide. Had we not entered World War II to stop the genocide in Germany? We had single-handedly killed nearly 250,000 Japanese with 2 bombs. Where are our morals if they do not lie with protecting the innocent?

Futhermore, Nick said that the military could have caused just as much destruction, but dropping the atomic bomb took “less effort.” I do not disagree with this statement, but I disagree with the idea behind it on the United States’ behalf. Although things may take less effort, it does not always mean that they are the correct method for acting. Where are our troops’ morals as men? Instead of fighting to the Japanese’s faces, we did not attack their troops, we attacked their families. We got our instant gratification by destroying 250,000 people, but what did this mean for the future? I think it set a bad precedent for our country’s leadership. It said to the world that we are willing to use extreme hard power to get what we want. It also showed that we believed that we were exempt from the “rules” of international relations. Simply because we were stronger, we could destroy a million people, but we condemn Germany for it. I also believe that Stone and Kuznick felt this as well. They used certain scenes and clips of Truman that made him seem heartless to the situation. Had they felt differently, they would have probably left these out.

From what I understood, Nick argued that the main cause for Japanese surrender was the dropping of the atomic bombs. He argued essentially that the Japanese came to their senses once they saw certain annihilation and they had the threat of more bombs looming. In the film, though, it said that the atomic bomb actually did not have that much of a devastating effect on the Japanese leaders. The numbers were actually rather normal for a killing in Japan at this time. They were used to having their cities wiped out by firebombs. The atomic bombs were simply much quicker than the rounds of bombs that the Japanese were used to enduring. Additionally, it was not the threat of total annihilation that made them surrender, as Nick said, it was actually the possibility of negotiation. While I will agree with Nick that they were using the rational-choice theory, his list of instigators by importance was incorrect. People will act in rational ways based on the beliefs of their own cultures; not the values of the world. If we are looking at the dropping of the atomic bombs from a different state’s perspective, then yes, the threat of annihilation would have been the main driving factor. They would have seen their population diminishing, their morale dropping, and the supplies and longevity in the war running low. The Japanese; however, are an extremely honor-based culture. They feel that dying for their country is the highest honor one can have. They would fight until every last one of them was dead if it meant that their country and way of life could be preserved. The possibility of negotiation to save their emperor was the true reason that they surrendered. The United States agreed to keep their emperor in power if they were to surrender. The emperor, literally being the vessel that brings them god, was one of the only things that would have warranted surrender from them.

The atomic bombs were so terrible that liberal-minded people put institutions in place to stop them from ever happening again. If the world/United States truly supported the use of the atomic bombs in the aftermath of the war, they would have never joined institutions working towards their nonproliferation.

Finally, I would like to disagree with Nick that Mr. Stone and Professor Kuznick thought that the atomic bomb was the only answer. As I previously touched upon, they added too many scenes and wordings throughout the movie for me to believe this. They showed children, naked and screaming in pain. They showed burn victims and piles of dead bodies. They even showed Truman’s celebration in a way that made him appear to be a monster. While one may argue that they were being unbiased by showing these as well, I believe that Stone and Kuznick really think that the atomic bombs were a dark part of our history and that we should be ashamed. Why else would it be in the “Untold History of the United States?” The atrocities went untold because the country is ashamed. They are humiliated that we were capable of seeing the mass genocide of a people as acceptable.