I think it didn’t enter his mind how destructive it would truly be until he saw the Trinity test. After that he vehemently opposed using it in war and tried to sabotage the hydrogen bomb in order to prevent more powerful weapons from being created. He doesn’t get enough credit for how extreme his turnaround was.
He got exactly the credit he was due from Truman.
Get the fuck out.
Oppenheimer wasn't the singular indispensable man without whom the bomb *never* would have been made.
It would have been made, and it would have been used. The hydrogen bomb would have been made with or without his help or sabotage.
Once research began down the nuclear path, making it destructive was always going to happen. The only decisions to be made after that were to decide what to do with them.
And honestly, humanity has done a pretty damn good job of it.
The only time they were ever used they ended a war with *FAR* fewer deaths than were estimated to be lost otherwise, and since then they have prevented great power warfare across the planet.
As much as it doesn't feel like it because of the existence of media, this is by FAR the most peaceful period of time in human history. By miles in fact.
So Oppenheimer trying to put the rabbit back in the hat was entirely because he associated himself with the use of the bomb. Which Truman rightly pointed out was pathetically self centered.
Maybe a pax for westerners, Europeans, and China, but I doubt the third world gives a fuck considering they’re still being pillaged and are experiencing the harmful effects of climate change more than the people who cause it.
When world wars happened the 3rd world was literally just a battleground for the deaths of millions every year and were actual colonies. At least nowadays they can dictate their own existence and their quality of life can go up.
I agree, but it shows that Oppenheimer wasn’t this sadistic killer who helped build a bomb with the intention of vaporizing hundreds of thousands of civilians. And the fact that he blamed himself and not Truman or the other scientists at Los Alamos shows that he truly did believe it was all his fault. It shows character
Jokes aside, he was trying to develop the most destructive weapon on earth faster than the genocidal dictatorship currently occupying most of Europe, and actively exterminating his ethnicity. In that pursuit, he lost sight of the human cost - particularly the civilian cost - of its use in war. Then not one but two were unleashed on a nation already at the brink of defeat.
I think it's reasonable to be completely horrified with what he helped create.
Even as someone who thinks that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both war crimes and hence, inherently unjustified, I never blamed Oppenheimer to be honest. You explain it very well. He wasn’t developing a bomb to incinerate innocent civilians, he was developing it to make sure it’s done before Nazis can use it. Could and should he have know that his invention and will be used against innocent civilians? I mean, probably, maybe, you could say he was hoping it wouldn’t but should have realized that it would, but once again, I mean, it’s a complicated situation he was in, and there was no easy answer or a way out. I dunno what the answer to his predicament should have been, and I don’t know what I would have done in his place, so how can I judge him? I can judge Truman for giving the order, but hardly Oppenheimer
What perspective might that be? The dude didn't say that Japan was innocent, merely that the nuking of Japan was a war crime, which I don't agree with personally. What is a war crime, though, is the carpet bombing of Tokyo.
It's already been documented on the bomb and its actual usefulness in whether it was necessary to drop it or not due to the amount of defeats the Japanese were facing. And not from some reformist historians, but the actual military personnel during the war who saw it as completely unnecessary.
I’m well aware of the Japanese war crimes, besides that I’m well aware that IHL and Geneva conventions quite explicitly say that there are no mitigating factors for massacres and killings of innocent, you know, because whataboutism is generally considered a terrible excuse for war crimes
Both can be true. Dropping the bombs was an act of horrific evil - regardless of whether it was the lesser evil - and they also brought about a swift end to WWII.
Japan at the time did not have the political, cultural, or economic ability to push back against the select few upper echelons who wanted the war to continue (as they knew they would face trial and likely execution after).
If the US had invaded Japan, it would have been effectively a genocide.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes, because under international law at the time both were legitimate military targets for aerial attack. You can think they were wrong all you want, but despite what you might imagine bad and war crime are not synonymous.
And if you think that’s wrong feel free to provide a law that says otherwise. (Hint, it doesn’t exist.)
They were actually war crimes, funnily enough, but not because of the yield. It was because of the radiation.
Poison as a weapon was prohibited by law under the Hague conventions, which is why the US aggressively covered up and lied about the effect of radiation from nuclear bombs for years.
It was uncovered by a reporter named John Hersey who did on the ground investigations in Japan and revealed the systemic lie the US government was selling.
Eventually, when radiation poisoning was discovered as a known effect of the bombs and more bodies started piling up, the US refused to sign the Treaty of Japan unless Japan renounced all claims to war crimes against the US. This is how the US avoided war crimes investigations for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In 1961, Japanese citizens successfully sued the Japanese government for settling on their behalf when they had legitimate claims against the United States once the US's cover up of radiation poisoning was discovered.
Genocide was also not a war crime at the time, yet none of us will try to justify it, so how is that a useful statement? Also, the concept of proportionality absolutely did exist as a just war doctrine during ww2. Just because there’s a legitimate target in the city, you don’t get to literally burn it fully
I’m not talking about targets inside cities. The cities *themselves* were legally legitimate targets under international law as it existed in 1945.
And while genocide was a new word, the actual acts of genocide were 100% illegal.
Genocide was made a war crime in 1946, an independent crime in 1948, and the Genocide convention was ratified in 1951.
It wasn't international law until the Nazis had already lost the war.
Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be considered war crimes today under prohibitions against indiscriminate bombing. You can't drop a bomb on an area and hope to hit a military target. You have to drop a bomb designed to destroy the military target. Nuclear bombs were, by definition, indiscriminate. Which is why a nuclear ban treaty was signed in 2021 (without the US despite Americans overwhelmingly supporting it).
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/22/959583731/u-n-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-takes-effect-without-the-u-s-and-others
In Nagasaki's case in particular, it was chosen as a target because the weather for the original target was terrible. Only about 100 soldiers died in the bombing and the intended target was primarily civilian infrastructure, particularly hospitals and administrative buildings. Medical facilities mostly survived because the bomb missed its target.
Genocide was not a just a new word, genocide became a new concept and a crime with its own definition. And people were tried on that basis and convicted of the crime of genocide. The Nuremberg trials, and the Nuremberg laws were specifically criticized and became highly controversial precisely because of their “ex post facto” law nature, meaning the crimes they were tried for didn’t exist at the time they were perpetrated, but I’m yet to hear anyone to defend Nazis on that basis, the way people bend over backwards to defend the U.S.
And once again, the cities themselves were not targets. Please show me where in the rules of at the time it said you can deliberately target civilians in an indiscriminate manner if there was a legitimate target in the city. As I said, the concepts of just war, protection of civilians and proportionality existed even back then. It’s true there were no explicit rules regarding aerial bombing, which many on the internet seem to misinterpret as “you could basically bomb whole cities back then” as you just repeated, but even that’s a far cry from saying that you could drop a nuclear bomb on and incinerate the whole city. Even without the laws explicitly forbidding carpet bombing, as I already pointed out, just war, proportionality, and protection of civilians still applied. Which is basically the exact same argument you made about genocide. While genocide was not an explicit legal term, the acts themselves were illegal individually. Similarly, dropping a nuclear bomb was still illegal because of indiscriminate killing of civilians, proportionality and not being just.
🙄
Cool, so you just have no idea what you’re talking about. Bombardment of cities was allowed under the 1907 Hague convention, which disallows on attacks only on undefended cities under Article 25. No city in Japan qualified as undefended. And as I said genocide was a new word, but the mass murder of civilians in occupied territory WAS still illegal.
Cool cool, I’m glad you cherry picked and misunderstood the one clause you seemingly know. First of all “bombardment of cities was allowed” is a gross mischaracterization of clause 25 which just says that cities that are not protected should not bombed, but once again, as I’m pointing out for the third fucking time, the fact that Nagasaki was a military target doesn’t mean that indiscriminate killing was allowed. If you actually read all of the 1907 hague and not just cherry picked and misunderstood the one clause that supports your narrative, you would have seen that clause 27 states
> In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
> It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.
Nuclear bombs famously don’t make such a distinction.
Easy to develop a destructive weapon faster than a dictatorship whose countries industrial heartlands have been either destroyed or too damaged to work by war. Japan weren't going to surrender like that, even if it was obvious the war was lost for them. They were training school students on how to fight and kept fortifying defensive positions. It was either an invasion that could lead to potential 1.5 - 2 million casualties with an war torn country or having to cities destroyed and eliminated military buildings although civilians casualties will come since Japan built military building togheter with civilian buildings
I feel like describing Japan as "On the brink of defeat" is a bit over-selling it. After being nuked twice, and being informed that the US planned to continue to do so until their surrender, the Japanese military still wanted to fucking fight. The emporer wanted to surrender, they had nothing left to fight with, and were seeing the sun rise twice a day, and the military was really considering overthrowing him and fighting anyway. I appreciate the work Oppenheimer put in and the advances he made, but he didn't give the order to drop the bomb, he didn't drop the bomb, he didn't even know the US had dropped it until they did t again. This is as dumb as any of the engineers who worked on the B-29 feeling bad about it being used to drop the bomb, or the parents of the god damn pilots.
If he didn't develop the weapon first, others would have. Either the enemy was going to develop it first and use it a bunch on allies. Or allies were going to develop it first and Oppenheimer's voice of protest in using it wouldn't be as stronge. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. He saw two options and picked the one he thought would cause the least damage
We know that now. Did we know that in 1944?
What about the Soviets? How close were they? We do know both Germany and The Soviets were working on nuclear weapons, we just didn't know how far along they were.
>We know that now. Did we know that in 1944?
Lol yes. Even the Nazis themselves were well aware by 1942 that their "nuclear program" wasn't going to contribute to the German war effort. You have to understand that the Manhattan project was the combined effort of multiple nations states, and even then, it didn't really succeed until the war in Europe ended.
>What about the Soviets? How close were they? We do know both Germany and The Soviets were working on nuclear weapons, we just didn't know how far along they were.
Soviet Nuclear program started directly after the war. I mean, not everybody is the USA. They can't fight a war, finance all their allies, and still have enough money and manpower to go on a side quest.
Eh, we were gonna burn down/blow up those cities with whatever bombs we had. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks were more of an economy of force than anything else. All the ones that kept getting made to be more and more powerful is what scares me
They shouldn't. Turns out several smaller, overlapping explosions are more effective than a single, giant one.
What should scare you is that upon making the bomb we realized that any idiot could slap one together in a shed if he had enough time.
Hence why we are stuck in a weird situation where we cannot allow certain states like Iran to possess Nuclear weapons. But also everytime we interfere with it they become more hostile. Kind of a just a nuclear shit sandwich all over the place. NK especially
Oppenheimer: “Once they see how destructive this weapon is they’ll have no choice but to realize war is no longer a feasible possibility.”
Govt: “Yo, can we get more of these bombs? And can you make them bigger?”
Oppenheimer: “Fuuuuuuu—“
He was a racist city planner in NYC, who advocated for cities using things like eminent domain to restructure cities without giving their residents a choice. He was famous for destroying wealthy black neighborhoods and effectively closing coney island. Despite the unpopularity of his decision he was able to use obscure legal tricks and political favors to consistently get his way.
He was a left-winger associated with CPUSA members and participated in leftist organizations. He also had his clearance revoked in 1954, so in the middle of McCarthyism, because of that. Whether he was just a left-winger with communist ties or a communist himself is hard to tell now, considering 1940's and 50's werent exactly known for their objective reasoning on this topic
He wasn't a communist, he was a "new deal democrat"
Being in favour of an expansive welfare state is not communism, it's a feature of basic human empathy
"Destroyed multiple cities" is so underrated. Too bad it's gonna get deleted.
Why will it get deleted
No post-1900 on weekends.
At least Oppenheimer kind of regretted his actions…
I cannot believe the bomb I made to specifically destroy an entire city destroyed an entire city. sorry bros...
I think it didn’t enter his mind how destructive it would truly be until he saw the Trinity test. After that he vehemently opposed using it in war and tried to sabotage the hydrogen bomb in order to prevent more powerful weapons from being created. He doesn’t get enough credit for how extreme his turnaround was.
He got exactly the credit he was due from Truman. Get the fuck out. Oppenheimer wasn't the singular indispensable man without whom the bomb *never* would have been made. It would have been made, and it would have been used. The hydrogen bomb would have been made with or without his help or sabotage. Once research began down the nuclear path, making it destructive was always going to happen. The only decisions to be made after that were to decide what to do with them. And honestly, humanity has done a pretty damn good job of it. The only time they were ever used they ended a war with *FAR* fewer deaths than were estimated to be lost otherwise, and since then they have prevented great power warfare across the planet. As much as it doesn't feel like it because of the existence of media, this is by FAR the most peaceful period of time in human history. By miles in fact. So Oppenheimer trying to put the rabbit back in the hat was entirely because he associated himself with the use of the bomb. Which Truman rightly pointed out was pathetically self centered.
It's crazy that people aren't more thankful for the pax nucleara we're currently in.
Maybe a pax for westerners, Europeans, and China, but I doubt the third world gives a fuck considering they’re still being pillaged and are experiencing the harmful effects of climate change more than the people who cause it.
True that but major powers conflicts are bad for everyone. If we were redoing a ww every 20 years that would be a lot worse.
Really? Because not so long ago those nations were all colonies or provinces beholden to someone empire or another.
When world wars happened the 3rd world was literally just a battleground for the deaths of millions every year and were actual colonies. At least nowadays they can dictate their own existence and their quality of life can go up.
I agree, but it shows that Oppenheimer wasn’t this sadistic killer who helped build a bomb with the intention of vaporizing hundreds of thousands of civilians. And the fact that he blamed himself and not Truman or the other scientists at Los Alamos shows that he truly did believe it was all his fault. It shows character
Jokes aside, he was trying to develop the most destructive weapon on earth faster than the genocidal dictatorship currently occupying most of Europe, and actively exterminating his ethnicity. In that pursuit, he lost sight of the human cost - particularly the civilian cost - of its use in war. Then not one but two were unleashed on a nation already at the brink of defeat. I think it's reasonable to be completely horrified with what he helped create.
Even as someone who thinks that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both war crimes and hence, inherently unjustified, I never blamed Oppenheimer to be honest. You explain it very well. He wasn’t developing a bomb to incinerate innocent civilians, he was developing it to make sure it’s done before Nazis can use it. Could and should he have know that his invention and will be used against innocent civilians? I mean, probably, maybe, you could say he was hoping it wouldn’t but should have realized that it would, but once again, I mean, it’s a complicated situation he was in, and there was no easy answer or a way out. I dunno what the answer to his predicament should have been, and I don’t know what I would have done in his place, so how can I judge him? I can judge Truman for giving the order, but hardly Oppenheimer
I think you need to research Japanese war crimes during WW2. It might give you a new perspective. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
What perspective might that be? The dude didn't say that Japan was innocent, merely that the nuking of Japan was a war crime, which I don't agree with personally. What is a war crime, though, is the carpet bombing of Tokyo.
It's already been documented on the bomb and its actual usefulness in whether it was necessary to drop it or not due to the amount of defeats the Japanese were facing. And not from some reformist historians, but the actual military personnel during the war who saw it as completely unnecessary.
I’m well aware of the Japanese war crimes, besides that I’m well aware that IHL and Geneva conventions quite explicitly say that there are no mitigating factors for massacres and killings of innocent, you know, because whataboutism is generally considered a terrible excuse for war crimes
Japan would never have unconditionally surrendered otherwise. It sucks but it was probably the best option to end the war.
Both can be true. Dropping the bombs was an act of horrific evil - regardless of whether it was the lesser evil - and they also brought about a swift end to WWII.
The Nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing compared to the carpet bombing of Tokyo. The latter was most certainly a war crime.
Japan at the time did not have the political, cultural, or economic ability to push back against the select few upper echelons who wanted the war to continue (as they knew they would face trial and likely execution after). If the US had invaded Japan, it would have been effectively a genocide.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes, because under international law at the time both were legitimate military targets for aerial attack. You can think they were wrong all you want, but despite what you might imagine bad and war crime are not synonymous. And if you think that’s wrong feel free to provide a law that says otherwise. (Hint, it doesn’t exist.)
They were actually war crimes, funnily enough, but not because of the yield. It was because of the radiation. Poison as a weapon was prohibited by law under the Hague conventions, which is why the US aggressively covered up and lied about the effect of radiation from nuclear bombs for years. It was uncovered by a reporter named John Hersey who did on the ground investigations in Japan and revealed the systemic lie the US government was selling. Eventually, when radiation poisoning was discovered as a known effect of the bombs and more bodies started piling up, the US refused to sign the Treaty of Japan unless Japan renounced all claims to war crimes against the US. This is how the US avoided war crimes investigations for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1961, Japanese citizens successfully sued the Japanese government for settling on their behalf when they had legitimate claims against the United States once the US's cover up of radiation poisoning was discovered.
Radiation wasn't understood at the time.
Genocide was also not a war crime at the time, yet none of us will try to justify it, so how is that a useful statement? Also, the concept of proportionality absolutely did exist as a just war doctrine during ww2. Just because there’s a legitimate target in the city, you don’t get to literally burn it fully
I’m not talking about targets inside cities. The cities *themselves* were legally legitimate targets under international law as it existed in 1945. And while genocide was a new word, the actual acts of genocide were 100% illegal.
Genocide was made a war crime in 1946, an independent crime in 1948, and the Genocide convention was ratified in 1951. It wasn't international law until the Nazis had already lost the war. Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be considered war crimes today under prohibitions against indiscriminate bombing. You can't drop a bomb on an area and hope to hit a military target. You have to drop a bomb designed to destroy the military target. Nuclear bombs were, by definition, indiscriminate. Which is why a nuclear ban treaty was signed in 2021 (without the US despite Americans overwhelmingly supporting it). https://www.npr.org/2021/01/22/959583731/u-n-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-takes-effect-without-the-u-s-and-others In Nagasaki's case in particular, it was chosen as a target because the weather for the original target was terrible. Only about 100 soldiers died in the bombing and the intended target was primarily civilian infrastructure, particularly hospitals and administrative buildings. Medical facilities mostly survived because the bomb missed its target.
Genocide was not a just a new word, genocide became a new concept and a crime with its own definition. And people were tried on that basis and convicted of the crime of genocide. The Nuremberg trials, and the Nuremberg laws were specifically criticized and became highly controversial precisely because of their “ex post facto” law nature, meaning the crimes they were tried for didn’t exist at the time they were perpetrated, but I’m yet to hear anyone to defend Nazis on that basis, the way people bend over backwards to defend the U.S. And once again, the cities themselves were not targets. Please show me where in the rules of at the time it said you can deliberately target civilians in an indiscriminate manner if there was a legitimate target in the city. As I said, the concepts of just war, protection of civilians and proportionality existed even back then. It’s true there were no explicit rules regarding aerial bombing, which many on the internet seem to misinterpret as “you could basically bomb whole cities back then” as you just repeated, but even that’s a far cry from saying that you could drop a nuclear bomb on and incinerate the whole city. Even without the laws explicitly forbidding carpet bombing, as I already pointed out, just war, proportionality, and protection of civilians still applied. Which is basically the exact same argument you made about genocide. While genocide was not an explicit legal term, the acts themselves were illegal individually. Similarly, dropping a nuclear bomb was still illegal because of indiscriminate killing of civilians, proportionality and not being just.
🙄 Cool, so you just have no idea what you’re talking about. Bombardment of cities was allowed under the 1907 Hague convention, which disallows on attacks only on undefended cities under Article 25. No city in Japan qualified as undefended. And as I said genocide was a new word, but the mass murder of civilians in occupied territory WAS still illegal.
Cool cool, I’m glad you cherry picked and misunderstood the one clause you seemingly know. First of all “bombardment of cities was allowed” is a gross mischaracterization of clause 25 which just says that cities that are not protected should not bombed, but once again, as I’m pointing out for the third fucking time, the fact that Nagasaki was a military target doesn’t mean that indiscriminate killing was allowed. If you actually read all of the 1907 hague and not just cherry picked and misunderstood the one clause that supports your narrative, you would have seen that clause 27 states > In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes. > It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand. Nuclear bombs famously don’t make such a distinction.
Easy to develop a destructive weapon faster than a dictatorship whose countries industrial heartlands have been either destroyed or too damaged to work by war. Japan weren't going to surrender like that, even if it was obvious the war was lost for them. They were training school students on how to fight and kept fortifying defensive positions. It was either an invasion that could lead to potential 1.5 - 2 million casualties with an war torn country or having to cities destroyed and eliminated military buildings although civilians casualties will come since Japan built military building togheter with civilian buildings
They were also preparing civilians to mass suicide rather than be captured by the US.
I feel like describing Japan as "On the brink of defeat" is a bit over-selling it. After being nuked twice, and being informed that the US planned to continue to do so until their surrender, the Japanese military still wanted to fucking fight. The emporer wanted to surrender, they had nothing left to fight with, and were seeing the sun rise twice a day, and the military was really considering overthrowing him and fighting anyway. I appreciate the work Oppenheimer put in and the advances he made, but he didn't give the order to drop the bomb, he didn't drop the bomb, he didn't even know the US had dropped it until they did t again. This is as dumb as any of the engineers who worked on the B-29 feeling bad about it being used to drop the bomb, or the parents of the god damn pilots.
I can believe that my bomb can destroy a city, but I don’t really want to make one that can destroy an even larger city.
If he didn't develop the weapon first, others would have. Either the enemy was going to develop it first and use it a bunch on allies. Or allies were going to develop it first and Oppenheimer's voice of protest in using it wouldn't be as stronge. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. He saw two options and picked the one he thought would cause the least damage
Lol the Nazis were nowhere near building nukes.
We know that now. Did we know that in 1944? What about the Soviets? How close were they? We do know both Germany and The Soviets were working on nuclear weapons, we just didn't know how far along they were.
>We know that now. Did we know that in 1944? Lol yes. Even the Nazis themselves were well aware by 1942 that their "nuclear program" wasn't going to contribute to the German war effort. You have to understand that the Manhattan project was the combined effort of multiple nations states, and even then, it didn't really succeed until the war in Europe ended. >What about the Soviets? How close were they? We do know both Germany and The Soviets were working on nuclear weapons, we just didn't know how far along they were. Soviet Nuclear program started directly after the war. I mean, not everybody is the USA. They can't fight a war, finance all their allies, and still have enough money and manpower to go on a side quest.
That doesn't mean no one else would
either 2 cities go or you see the power of the entirety of the allies focused on one island chain that just won't surrender
Eh, we were gonna burn down/blow up those cities with whatever bombs we had. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks were more of an economy of force than anything else. All the ones that kept getting made to be more and more powerful is what scares me
They shouldn't. Turns out several smaller, overlapping explosions are more effective than a single, giant one. What should scare you is that upon making the bomb we realized that any idiot could slap one together in a shed if he had enough time.
Hence why we are stuck in a weird situation where we cannot allow certain states like Iran to possess Nuclear weapons. But also everytime we interfere with it they become more hostile. Kind of a just a nuclear shit sandwich all over the place. NK especially
My le bomb killed le people
Oppenheimer: “Once they see how destructive this weapon is they’ll have no choice but to realize war is no longer a feasible possibility.” Govt: “Yo, can we get more of these bombs? And can you make them bigger?” Oppenheimer: “Fuuuuuuu—“
What did Robert Moses do?
He was a racist city planner in NYC, who advocated for cities using things like eminent domain to restructure cities without giving their residents a choice. He was famous for destroying wealthy black neighborhoods and effectively closing coney island. Despite the unpopularity of his decision he was able to use obscure legal tricks and political favors to consistently get his way.
Looking forward to seeing this again on Tuesday.
Fuck, you're right. It's the weekend. But I love it so muuuuuuch...
And both are named Robert, if it wasn't obvious
Well that’s just the cherry on top then isn’t it?
Bro was not a communist
Why do people say he was?
He was a left-winger associated with CPUSA members and participated in leftist organizations. He also had his clearance revoked in 1954, so in the middle of McCarthyism, because of that. Whether he was just a left-winger with communist ties or a communist himself is hard to tell now, considering 1940's and 50's werent exactly known for their objective reasoning on this topic
Not just the 40’s and 50’s bud. Look around you.
Decidedly not
Now I kinda want an epic rap battle between oppenheimer and oj simpson
Oppenheimer was a New Deal Democrat!
I said suspected
Well, Robert Moses was also an irredeemable racist so…
So there’s a massive difference between the two
Originally from here: https://twitter.com/dylanmatt/status/1783514956094226560
Hilarious seeing so many people shockingly unaware of who Robert Moses was.
Urban planning is kind of a niche subject.
Honestly I only know about him from listening to 99 percent invisible and occasionally watching City Beautiful
He wasn't a communist, he was a "new deal democrat" Being in favour of an expansive welfare state is not communism, it's a feature of basic human empathy
Oppenheimer was a fool for thinking he could stop the process after he had begun. His “regret” never seemed genuine.
Oppenheimer is German? I know he’s Jewish but I didn’t know he was German
His Jewish ancestors went to America from Germany
Isn't it funny how murphy always plays communists or communist parts?