MovieChat Forums > tricksoftrade > Replies
tricksoftrade's Replies
To think that the Japanese was ready to surrender unconditionally is a bizarre revisionist history. Again, we are removed from of the passions of the time. To be a Japanese official and to be for unconditional surrender would to be putting ones life at risk. The Potsdam declaration in late July was not responded to by any Japanese official. (Sorry I got confused with the Yalta conference earlier)
We both live in a free society, free to critic our governments, their policies, and people in power. It is something that we take for granted. I would like to think that the Russians still have this, but I could be wrong.
Going against people in power without the protections of the rule of law is a very risky thing. Togo and his click would 'take note' of any Japanese official who advocated for unconditional surrender. Just as Stalin 'took note' of any Soviet official who disagreed with him
Japan ignored the Potsdam declaration. They did not respond until AFTER dropping of the bombs in mid August. (The threat of Soviet invasion also played a factor, Japan did not want to be under the Yoke of the Soviets)
Your comment of 'ready to surrender' is interesting and somewhat vague. This tantalizing comment is to push the fault on the US side...if they waited just a little while longer!... The facts are they DID NOT surrender prior to the bombing. The Potsdam declaration was issued in Feb of that year, that is 6 months of no response!
I read the link you posted. A good read! But the author did not argue AGAINST the bombs, just that the bombs won the war. To fully complete the argument AGAINST the bombs, the US would to have known that Japan was 'ready to surrender' (unconditionally). There is no historical evidence that the US knew of this.
The one thing that the bombs did do, was to keep the Soviet Union out of Japan. Which the Japanese should be thankful for.
Anyone interested should see Wikipedia Japan WWII surrender if you are confused with the facts.
Of course some countries without freedom of the press do not allow this most reputable site to be viewed.
You can justify dropping the first one easily...what President wants to tell 100,000 mothers that they had this powerful weapon that could have saved their sons lives but did not use it.
The second bomb is harder.
We are also looking for the luxury of out of the moment of a time of war. Truman kept a returned purple heart and a letter from the recipients father in his desk drawer. The father blames him for his sons death. The letter so rattled Truman that he kept it to remind him of the seriousness of his job.
What do the Russian people do if Putin suddenly dies? The power vacuum and chaos that would follow in a country that has 1000 thermonuclear warheads....a part of me wishes he lives a long, long time.
Elections...in Venezuela? That is a good one.
This movie is more about the business of the paper, the choice whether or not to run with a top secret analysis of the Vietnam war (compiled in 1965) when America was still at war with the country.
It is not really a detective story like 'All the President's Men', so not as good in my opinion...but still worth seeing.
Great acting by Streep/Hanks.
Hollywood knows that people do not want to see overweight people on screen, especially in a lead actor. The effect of pre-release screening interviews. Remember, their job it to sell tickets.
Just look at your average commercial. Maybe 5 percent (if that) are overweight.
The affair now seems like folly. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we know now that communism is a bankrupt ideology. But in the 1970's and 80's it was a serious challenger to the capitalist/democratic system.
You must remember,the people who made these decisions did not know that the Soviet Union would collapse in 1989. Nobody had a crystal ball. Should the CIA be used to shape governments in our own Capitalist/democratic system and be used to subvert governments that were leaning or headed toward a more Communist ideology? If you answer no to this question, you must remind yourself that the Russia's KGB had absolutely no problems doing so.
It is not that it is intelligible, but the brain has to register that there is a accent...thus spending more energy on comprehension, kind of like a ship on ruff waters...where as the Luke, Han and Leia speak... it is smooth sailing.
I think accents are more accepted now than the past. It might be un-p.c. to tell an actor to work on getting rid of it. In the new Star Trek the lead female actor ( an Asian captain) has a accent so thick that it is really hard to understand her.
If I had a role as a Spanish actor, I would want to speak the language so well that there would be no hint that I learned it in my adult years.
I disagree..for a side character accent is fine, but for someone with so many lines it is not. The original Star Wars had everyone in a major role speaking perfect Californian English (Except Sir Obi Won who just spoke perfect English), the side characters had the accents.
An accent is something actors (used to be?) aware of and tried to get correct (unless it was in the character). Arnold Swartz and Mel Gibson's accent were so bad they were was dubbed in their early movies. But they worked on it.
A actor with so many lines MUST be understood. Maybe they will come out with a dubbed version.