My perspective on the use of the atomic bomb has consistently leaned toward the belief that President Truman should have faced prosecution for war crimes and, if found guilty, subsequently executed. It's worth noting that this viewpoint comes from someone who generally opposes the death penalty.
The prevailing narrative ingrained in Western societies, particularly within the American education system, portrays the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as necessary actions that ended World War II and saved countless lives. This is a fictional narrative that continues to be perpetuated by the Department of Education, which doesn’t want Americans aware of the historical context.
There are four significant falsehoods that I was aware of prior to watching the film:
At the time of the bombings, Adolf Hitler had already been confirmed deceased on April 30, 1945, and Germany officially surrendered just over a week later. The Nazi pursuit of an atomic weapon had been thwarted, eliminating any justification for the Americans to continue their race against the clock to create the atomic bomb before the Germans.
Concerning Japan, they had already extended surrender proposals, with a pivotal stipulation being the preservation of their Emperor's life due to his revered status. Unfortunately, the United States rejected any negotiations.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were urban centers populated by civilians. Given that nearly all capable Japanese men were participating in the war effort, those who perished in the atomic blasts (130,000-150,000) mainly consisted of women, children, the sick, and the elderly. Ultimately, the death toll, including radiation-induced illnesses, reached between 200,000 and 250,000 Japanese.
Declassified records confirm that the Soviet Union was on the verge of defeating Japan, a fact known to the U.S. administration. This context underscores President Truman's decision to deploy the atomic bombs. During negotiations between Roosevelt and Stalin, Roosevelt had agreed that the Soviets could claim territory in Japan following their victory. Truman, strongly anti-communist, succeeded Roosevelt and ordered the bombings on the same day the Russian offensive, Operation August Storm, began. Consequently, Truman reneged on Roosevelt's commitment, contributing to Russian distrust of America and setting the stage for the Cold War against a potential ally.
After watching the film and learning that there was also a possibility that the atomic bomb might ignite the atmosphere, shrouding the Earth in darkness and potentially ending the world, I would add this as a fifth significant reason against using the atomic bomb.
Some
It was particularly telling in the scene when Oppenheimer finally meets Truman, confessing that he felt he had blood on his hands, and argued in favor of pushing for an international arms control agreement to mitigate tensions with the Soviets. Truman mockingly offers a handkerchief for Oppenheimer to wipe his hands, absolves him of any responsibility, and states his intent to continue building nuclear arms, including a hydrogen bomb, knowing full well it would result in an arms race with the Soviets. Oppenheimer leaves, disillusioned.
WAS NOLAN TOO SYMPATHETIC?
No, I don't believe so. When one of the scientists is having trepidations about joining the Manhattan Project, he says he "doesn't want to see 30 years of physics reduced to a weapon of genocide," echoing what many in the audience were likely thinking (note that I’m paraphrasing from memory). Why would any scientist with a conscience help create such a radical weapon of mass destruction? It’s a fair question.
Oppenheimer counters that if the Nazis created the bomb first, if Hitler were to be the only one in possession of such power, the consequences would be unthinkable. At no point does he argue that it would be a good idea to create such a weapon, only that it was an unfortunate necessity.
It's difficult to fault Oppenheimer for that line of reasoning. If Hitler had reached the finish line first we would be living in a very different world today. Presuming it's true that the Germans were progressing on building the bomb, at least America having the same weapon capacity would make strategic sense, even if only as a deterrent.
I'd argue that there would have been a strong argument for using an atomic bomb against a military target in Germany, but once the Nazis had already been defeated it ceased to be a justifiable pursuit.
NAIVE, NOT MALICIOUS
During a meeting involving several hundred individuals working on the Manhattan Project, there is a debate about whether there remained any moral basis for continuing the project after the threat of Nazi Germany has ended. At that point, Oppenheimer should have conceded that there was no practical purpose and stepped down.
Instead, he argued that someone would eventually finish his work and an atomic an atomic bomb would still be used. And if so, then America should be the first. He believed that the most effective way to highlight the gravity of such raw power would be to demonstrate its horrors. Mere verbal or written cautions wouldn't suffice; people needed to witness it. In his view, America using the atomic bomb as a one-time measure would serve as an ultimate deterrent against any further use.
While the following isn't mentioned in the film or historical records, it's reasonable to suspect that he also considered what might happen if he quit and was replaced by someone less responsible in running the Manhattan Project. If he remained in charge, he could at least monitor the situation and voice his concerns. In either scenario, one can condemn the actual use of the atomic bombs on Japan while simultaneously feeling empathy for the one who created the technology.
Oppenheimer was deeply troubled by the resulting consequences. His strong opposition to the H-Bomb project is significant; he tells the investigative committee that he had come to realize that once a weapon is made, regardless of how horrific, it will inevitably be used. He didn’t think the U.S. government would be sociopathic enough to pursue even more advanced firepower beyond the atomic bomb, which was his greatest point of naiveté.
MIA CULPA
During his "victory" speech toward the end of the film, Oppenheimer envisions the audience being obliterated: skin flying off faces, a child's scream, a blinding flash of light, and then... everyone disappears and he is left along at the podium.
He completes his speech and as he exits the building and the audience reappears, he witnesses a stark contrast of cheers and tears, the former believing they ended World War II, while the latter is overwhelmed by the unacceptable cost. Outside, he witnesses a man vomiting in disgust and Oppenheimer appears ready to join him.
In the closing scene, he consults with Albert Einstein and admits that while the world hadn’t been destroyed yet, a domino had nonetheless been tipped that would invariably result in the annihilation of the human race.
Those who have criticized Christopher Nolan for not taking a stronger oppositional stance towards the creation and usage of the atomic bomb seem to have overlooked the title of the movie. There's a reason it was named "Oppenheimer" and not "Truman's Folly." The film focused on one man's life, his decisions and motivations, his flaws and his strengths. And in that regard, Nolan succeeded in delivering a well-nuanced and balanced critique of Robert Oppenheimer and sufficiently, albeit secondarily, addressed the various historical points of contention.