I’m just going it weigh in with my thoughts as a person of Chinese heritage. Nobody in East Asia asks this question at all, only people from the west. Unsurprisingly if you ask someone from China, Korea, The Philippines ect if dropping bombs on civilian cities was an acceptable way to end Japanese occupation they pretty much all say yes. Japan was extremely determined to continue the fight, and as they did so they tormented and massacred the populations of the countries they invaded. Over an 8 year period of occupation Japan killed ~10 million Chinese people, roughly 1.25 million a year or ~100,000 people a month in China alone. If the bombings even just quickened the surrender of Japan by a single month I would say it was worth it. Thousands killed, millions spared. It was an extremely difficult choice, but in my opinion the United States did the right thing in a bad situation. Though this should all be taken with a grain of salt, because I’m pretty emotionally attached to this subject. My Grandmother was enslaved by the Imperial Japanese , and put to labor building dirt runways on Formosa and she was mistreated so horribly she basically never talks about her Childhood. It’s sad but for millions of Koreans, Chinese and Filipinos that was just the reality of their life. Some didn’t get as lucky as my Grandmother. Don’t start wars if you aren’t ready to get bombed, especially if you bomb all of your enemy’s civilian sectors non-stop the whole war. It’s just difficult for me to feel sympathetic towards their plight.
You are right. What is often forgotten is the suffering of those people still under Japanese occupation. How many Chinese were dying daily because of the Japanese occupation?
This right here any time the subject comes up. Never mind that there weren't going to be any noncombatants for the invasion of Honshu itself. Schools for children, both boys and girls, weren't being taught mathematics at that point. They were being taught how to attack American troops with sharpened bamboo sticks. The death toll of an actual invasion of the island was going to dwarf ALL casualty numbers leading up to that point. So I didn't know that one of the escort B-29s was called "Necessary Evil" but no other term comes closer to the truth to what dropping nukes was to end WW 2. It is impossible to know exactly how many lives were saved by the dropping of these two bombs but the lives lost pale in comparison to the numbers that would have been lost without them. Just as what David covers in a small portion the Japanese have absolutely no moral leg to stand on in condemning the atomic bomb use given their barbaric behavior during the war to civilians in multiple countries. One of the bits that does surprise me about how some parts get highlighted in war and some fly under the radar is the Japanese also did human experiments like you saw with Joseph Mengele yet you would be hard pressed to find people that know of this fact never mind finding someone who knows the names of those Japanese doctors. At the end of the day war and atrocities hold hands during conflicts on both sides. So one side trying to complain about the other in items like this as if one side is pure good and the other side is pure evil is literally the height of ignorance and hypocrisy.
I think this question was a moral dilemma that never could have been answered in 1945. We have the luxury of reviewing this decision in retrospect. I now think of my forefathers who knew they had to go through hell to force the Japanese empire to surrender. Their answer would have been : "F... this drop the bomb."
For those that think that the nuclear bombs were not necessary I have a question. How many lives are you willing to give up to justify your self-righteous attitude.
When I was a history student, we had this very topic discussed during a lecture. I remember someone much smarter than me asking the question: "What if the atom bombs hadn't been used at this time? Would it have been more likely to be used at a later "first time"? Would a demonstration really have been enough to intimidate the Japanese?" I remember the professor pondering that question shortly, before answering: "A simple demonstration would not have been sufficient, no. I don't believe that. The shock effect would have been lessened significantly. And... To think atom bombs might have been used later as well is... An intimidating thought. It was used here to end a war. It has never been used to escalate one - and hopefully never will." I really think of that a lot whenever nuclear bombs cross my mind. "How many lives have been saved by the deterrence?"
Something people against the bombing never even consider. Personally, if not on Japan, I think it would’ve been used conventionally between the west and east during the Cold War since no one would’ve truly known the extent of the threat at that time
I may be wrong on this so fact check away, but iirc didn’t the US warn the Japanese they would use the bomb? Didn’t they also propose to use the bomb on an uninhabited island and have Japanese come out and test the island if they wanted to as a more effective warning?
I had to do a paper on this very question and I believe that as terrible as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, they provided the world with a demonstration of the weakest bomb developed and everyone could see how brutal it would be, especially in a tit-for-tat during the Cold War. I also believe more lives were likely saved as I still think Japan would have fought on much longer, creating more casualties for Japan, the Allies and Russia. But we're debating with a much better picture than anyone had in August 1945.
One great-great-grandfather of mine was a Filipino guerilla during the war. The other was a corporal in the Philippine Scout 14th Engineer Regiment, U.S. Army who survived the Bataan Death March. I think people knowing what men like them were up against, let alone what the civilians faced against the Japanese, would make the answer simple: the bombings were super necessary.
Completely agree. My grandparents who were kids during the occupation told us stories of what they saw and it still haunts me. Years and years of horrors that most people today are lucky to have never seen.
Quite right. Japan was NOT going to surrender unless confronted by a weapon that they could not defeat. That country inflicted death and torture on millions, and without nuclear weapons it was never going to be stopped without otherwise a conventional invasion of Japan which would have killed millions.
I think they're saying their great grandfather is/was a great person & soldier. I could be wrong but that's how I took it as. although, I can see the confusion
My Filipino grandfather was in that death march. He said Japanese soldiers would stop them make them lie down and the soldiers would randomly execute them. He said it was very brutal
Considering that the battle of Stalingrad a few years earlier claimed over a million civillian and military lives, and that was *one* city fought over by regimes that were not willing to back down, I think it's safe to say the quarter million lives taken when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed is a bargain price, cruel though it might be to think
I think the point is that the second Kokura/Nagasaki bomb may have been unnecessary (after Hiroshima and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria), especially if the US had indicated its willingness to allow Hirohito to remain emperor (something they ultimately chose to do anyway). Were that the case, 80,000 lives may have been saved. We'll never know of course, but it is worth considering.
That quarter of a million is including cancer rates over the next two generations. (Which you can be confident was massively over-inflated.) In reality, the nukes probably killed less Japanese than would have died from a more traditional bombing campaign, even if you include the cancer rates.
@@troopieeeeee "What if?" Such a wonderful thought, but available only to theorists, decades removed from the actual events. War forces hard choices, based on the practical experience that comes from massive expenditure of blood. The Japanese showed who they were, the Americans believed them, America responded accordingly. The results proves that war is game they should not have played, and people still can't figure that out.
My great uncle was a US paratrooper who was training to be the airborne portion of the invasion of Japan. He was wounded at D-day and fought in the Battle of the Bulge. His unit was expected to take 80% casualties in the first 24 hours of the invasion of Japan. He rarely ever talked about it, and he never complained about the use of the atomic bombs.
The problem with Hasegawa's stance that the second atomic bomb should not be dropped because the Supreme Council barely registered, is that he ignores the full cabinet meeting held later that day. That second meeting starting at 14:30 and lasting deep into the evening was where the second bomb and a potential US stockpile was heavily discussed and the decision to defer to the Emperor and have him directly intervene was made.
it wasnt a descision to defer to the emperor, after negotiations on the nature of the surrender between the two factions in the supreme council had come to a stalemate, the moderate faction (whom the emperor supported) specifically asked the emperor to call an imperial conference, where, over protests of the militarist faction, the moderate faction directly asked the emperor what he wanted to do in regards to surrender. It was the moderates forcing their position
@@pickle2636 The peace faction actually tricked the other three members of the big six into an Imperial Conference by saying they would need one eventually due to Soviet entry into the war. All six members of the big six had to sign off on the conference. Anami, Umezu and Yonai were not happy when an Imperial Conference was called a few hours later.
It was the Soviets that convinced them to surrender. They’d already seen the mass destruction of Tokyo and Osaka by incendiaries. Bombs were not getting US troops ashore.. but the Russians were going to be there via South Sakhalin and Hokkaido before the Americans.
@@calvinnickel9995 I somehow doubt the Japanese were concerned about the Soviet Army swimming from Sakhalin to Hokkaido. The Japanese forces on Hokkaido was twice the size of that on Okinawa, and the Americans had more troops killed there than would have comprised the whole Soviet invasion force destined for Hokkaido.
Bear in mind that on the 14th of August there was an attempted coup to prevent the surrender. That was almost a week after the nukes and the invasion of Manchuria. If the Japanese military struggled to accept the surrender even after facing a two-front invasion by the world's most powerful militaries AND a nuclear Armageddon, i really don't see how they would have accepted surrender without seeing both the terror of nuclear weapons and the might of the late-war Red Army.
Igor. Not only did the Emperor and the Big Six have to accept surrender , but the JIA would have to accept it was well . The Emperor recorded a speech that was played to the Citizens of Japan on August 15th , 1945 . Turns out the Emperor made another speech to the officers and men of the Imperial forces on Augusta 17th 1945 . .
@@landsea7332 nobody had to do anything. Even after the Emperor's direct order some Japanese units refused to surrender and fought on - the last Japanese soldier did not surrender until 1974! Imagine how worse it would be if the coup was successful and the Emperor's message was never transmitted.
and as the video said they also combined some data at the fighting on okinawa and iwo jima at how the imperial japanese will fight. even that small island iwo jima, againts all odds, fight until the end now imagine it on a mainland japanese soil. thats why we must be afraid when world war 3 will broke out cause surely there will be no world war 4.
@@masterkenobi3666 " the fighting on Okinawa and Iwo Jima at how the imperial Japanese will fight. " Yes , by the end of July 1945 , US intelligence reported the continued build up of the JIA , on Kyushu , which put the invasion : defender ratio at 1:1 . The JIA forces on Kyushu were of different abilities , but regardless , after Iwo Jima and Okinawa , it was clear an invasion of Kyushu would have been a horrific blood bath . .
You can only fairly judge someone's actions by what they they knew and what they could reasonably conclude at the time. The US couldn't be sure how Japan would react to the Soviets, or to the other factors that might have also prompted a surrender. But they could be pretty sure about the casualties in an invasion. Also worth pointing out that nukes didn't yet have the aura of evil we associate with them today, which is due in no small part to modern nukes being genuinely more dangerous, but also lots of intervening time to think about fallout and MAD. Our judgment of these people in the 40s is colored by the emotional legacy of the cold war. None of that was in anyone's mind at the time.
But I'm also sure the knowledge we had about the Japanese development of weapons of biological warfare played a major part in the decision....look into unit 731 if you're curious...I would suggest looking up the declassified documents and not looking at the pictures because they have plentiful autopsy photos
@brushylake4606 especially when the people arguing that the bombings have their heads planted so far up their "modern day morally superior" derrieres that they have to part their hind cheeks in order to see.
My grandfather was a US Marine infantry lieutenant who was going to be in the first invasion wave of the main islands of Japan. As a result, he was in the first occupation wave. He was involved in the disarmament of the Japanese home Islands' defenses and was so impressed by their strength and thoroughness that he was utterly, completely convinced the Japanese never would have surrendered without the bomb. What's more, he experienced first hand the view the Japanese population had of Americans because of their propaganda. He was asked by the Japanese police officer who was assigned to be his liaison who he killed, his mother or his father. Apparently the Japanese were told American Marines had to murder someone to become a Marine and had to murder their mother or father to be an officer. They were convinced we were monsters and were prepared to die rather than surrender.
You don't need propaganda for that. The creator of grave of the fireflys saw at first hand the destruction not only of his city but his family at first hand, he Even Made a story call American Gaijin who hated with all pasion the american's. A hatred that follow him to his death. As some Say this Is what war Is and until someone Say enough. It's never going to end.
@@lordjor96 yeah I’m sure the Chinese civilians felt the same way about the Japanese after they were raped and tortured villages across the land. I’m also sure that American Marines felt the same way when one of their paramedic friends would go over to help him to Japanese, and he would blow himself up with a grenade, killing the paramedic.
Yep. And the Americans based their projected casualties from the mass civilian suicides in the Saipan and Okinawa campaigns, where over half of the civilian population killed themselves rather than surrender to the advancing Americans.
@@modest_spice6083why are people so desperate to defend war criminals. Google the Rape of Nanking. Your precious nips were little better than wild animals. Just because they act civilized 70 years later doesnt erase their actions in the past.
A good source on what an invasion of Japan might have entailed is Hell to Pay by Dennis Giangreco. What I found most striking is that while Allied estimate of Japanese civilian casulties of an invasion were 5-10 million, the Japanese government's estimate was 20 million and did not cause a desire to surrender to avoid it.
I didn't know there was a firm Japanese estimate. Interesting. There total pop was about 75 million or so at the time. I am trying to think of a nation that would consider 1/3 of its population sustainable losses.
@MM22966 Paraguay is widely believed among academics to have lost a comparable portion of it's population in the Paraguayan war before agreeing to surrender.
What's more about those numbers: those are in the opening stages. That isn't counting the deaths due to famine and disease that would follow, especially given the Allied war plans included using chemical weapons to destroy Japan's ability to grow food as a way to hopefully force a faster surrender. Had it gone to a conventional invasion, genocide would have been a very likely result.
Look at the Vietnamese, one generation later. The losses were incredible, but they were very determined. Japan and Viet Nam, built different, even in Asia. Its difficult to defeat a fanatical enemy willing to sacrifice everything.
Thank you for playing the entire Oppenheimer quote. "I am become death, destroyer of worlds" means something quite different when you realize it is Vishnu saying it to convince a mortal prince to fight. This implies that death is a divine intervention that will befall all people regardless of whether the prince fights or not. Thus, Oppenheimer is not saying that he has become the embodiment of death but, rather, played a role in inevitable, divinely mandated death. When considered in the context of the atomic bombing of Japan, "inevitable death" could take the form of firebombing or U.S. invasion of the Japanese mainland or even old age.
But is not Vishnu saying it to some prince. Is a very mortal oppenheimer saying it to the world. He became death and brought the end of this world. He just realized it at that moment
The Japanese Emperor had a pivotal influence on the internal decision to surrender... It is possible that the atomic bombings gave him a way to "save face" as he went about encouraging the surrender of his country... He lived on for many years after the war ended, did anyone bother to ask him if the A-bombs were indeed a factor in his decision?
"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."
Yeah because we have to remember that the decision to surrender was NOT popular in the eyes of Japan's public, even the men fighting on the front lines. They thought that their leaders had "sold them out" and considered them cowards.
This is the key phrase in the surrender address "Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization" *total extinction of human civilization* Remember that japanese (and chinese) considered themselves to be the pinnacle of humanity. When Hirohito says that human civilization would go extinct, he means Japan's civilization. Everybody else is not japanese, so not civilized, barbarians. *Should we continue to fight* Fight against WHO? Against the americans? There is no "fight" against B29s dropping nukes from 30000 feet What he is talking here is continued fight *against the russians* . It is useless/pointless to fight the russians because their armies cannot be bled, they do not grow tired of casualties, Stalin does not stand for election. In the end, Hirohito was more afraid of the soviets taking Kōkyo and doing another Reichstag picture than of repeated atomic bombs.
@@ricardokowalski1579the Japanese military didn't have clueless idiots running it, fanatics yes but not idiots, they would have known the Soviets had no ability to successfully pull off an opposed amphibious landings without the other allies doing literally everything for them aside from providing men.
Nagasaki wasn't of limited importance. That city was where the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service trained for the Attack on Pearl Harbor, and also had the Mistubishi Heavy Industries shipyards, which was where the IJN Musashi was built.
Weird he said that right? In his main channel video he even specifically mentions the Mitsubishi factories but in this video says “little military importance” like what changed
It was. It wasn't the number one port in Japan. Yokohama was it. The video muss out also the point, if Truman want the quick victory way not nuke Tokyo and the imperial palace itself? It truly the Soviet union that change the deal where Staline explicitly quote to remove the Japanese emperor and the invasion of South Korea and the island of hokaido was imminent. The Japanese emperor prefere the American surender on itself. He was all poker and he survived even if he was responsible of the start of WW2 in the Pacific theater.
To be fair, by late 1945 neither of those were particularly important targets. The Japanese weren't really "training" their pilots much any more, and Japan couldn't operate the ships they had, much less commission new ones. That being said, I got the sense he was more paraphrasing arguments from the historians mentioned, and that the statement about their limited importance was one of those quotes.
I'm from the West, but my wife is from Japan and her father and his immediate family were in Hiroshima. He and his immediate family survived, but lots of relatives and friends were killed. My wife always said it was a crime against humanity, but I countered.... "what is the better alternative?" Operation Downfall would have totally destroyed Japan even more, and there's always the possibility of the USSR invading from the North. So in some alternate history, there could potentially be some North Japan regime a la East Germany and North Korea.... then a South Japan regime like West Germany and South Korea. Would that be a better world? Maybe Japan would have surrendered without being nuked, but it's not like they didn't have any opportunity to surrender. It isn't some WW1 Germany situation where the homeland was more or less untouched. Japan has been constantly being defeated and continuously bombed. Even after the nukes and after the Soviets rolled over Manchuria, there were still many in the Japanese military and government that wanted to keep fighting. There was even an attempted coup to keep the war going. It was unfortunate, but anything short of letting the Japanese High Command know that not only defeat, but the total annihilation of the people/nation of Japan was a possibility if they didn't surrender unconditionally, would have swayed them. This isn't to say atomic bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was "good" or "right", but it's war. War is dirty, war is terrible, war is never ever good.... but for this.... the "necessary" choice was taken.
Even after being nuked, there were people in the government who didn’t want to surrender, they actually tried to overthrow the emperor to keep Japan from surrendering
Humankind has given itself rules of war. Pre WW2. Deliberately targeting civilians was made a war crime. Killing 100,000 of them could likely fall into the category of genocide as well, especially when you use words like "total annihilation" as if it would boost your case. Why did the surrender had to be unconditional in the first place? From what I read, many officers just tried to save the emperor and their only condition was that he remained untouched. In the end, the Allies did not execute or even prosecute the emperor, so this condition could have easily been met.
I don't dislike Japanese, but their education system (when it comes to ww2) is ludicrous. First, they portray Japan as victim, second they downplay atrocities Japan committed. I like Japanese culture and anime, but I can easily imagine getting extremely angry if Japanese were to lecture me about crimes against humanity - while being totally oblivious to Japan STARTING this war and showing cruelty often surpassing even the Nazis.
In my opinion, the fact that even after the two atomic bombings and the Soviet declaration of war there was still extensive debate on the part of the Japanese about whether to surrender and the fact that the hardliners were willing to attempt a coup to stop the surrender demonstrates that the Japanese almost certainly would not have surrendered when they did without the use of the bombs. Nobody can ever know for certain, but the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the use of the bombs ultimately saved lives and not just American lives, but also Japanese lives.
I agree that it was a close thing that Japan surrendered unconditionally (and without multiple costly invasions). I’m not convinced that the atomic bombs actually changed that much though given that Soviet intervention precluded the course of action Japan really wanted, which was a conditional, negotiated surrender. Especially given that the effects of traditional fire bombing raids were greater in some instances than the atomic bombs, I’m not sure how much the Japanese leadership feared the effects of the bombs. Further consider that they were meeting to discuss surrender when Nagasaki was bombed and that bombing wasn’t much a topic of discussion, so how can it have affected the decision much? But, I also don’t think it was a bad decision to do everything possible to avert the need for Operation Downfall. Even forcing Japan to surrender a few days earlier than they would override reduced casualties and civilian atrocities perpetrated by the imperial army.
The fact that even with the bombs several army groups still refused orders to stand down as late as October kinda discredits any assertion that Japan was going to surrender soon anyway
@@Geffde I respectfully disagree with a few of your points for several reasons. Firstly I don't think it is accurate to say that the Soviet intervention precluded Japanese plans for a conditional surrender when the Japanese themselves were still trying to surrender conditionally starting on August 10th and lasting until Hirohito himself made the decision to accept the terms of the Allies unconditionally on August 14th. A decision that I would point out was fairly controversial given the coup attempt that followed that decsion. It is true that the firebombing killed more and damaged a greater area than the two atomic bombs, but that was the result of a months-long effort involving thousands of B-29s in nighttime low-altitude raids against many cities where the individual raids ranged from the low hundreds of aircraft up to nearly 900 in the largest raid. This is in contrast to the Atomic bombings which involved two bombs, a grand total of 13 aircraft in two high-altitude raids three days apart against two cities. It seems to me that it is much tougher to justify continuing to fight against an enemy that can wipe a city off the map in a single attack with a single bomb on a single day. In regards to the meeting that occurred while Nagasaki was bombed, I would point out that that was a meeting of the Supreme Council with the news of Nagasaki being bombed arriving around halfway through the meeting. At the end of the meeting, the six members deadlocked with 3 in favor of one conditional surrender and the other three in favor of a different conditional surrender. In other words, not even a conditional surrender was agreed to in that meeting or several others that followed rather Hirohito made the decision for a conditional surrender the following day (August 10th). As I mentioned previously it would take until the 14th for an unconditional surrender to be agreed to so I don't see how it can be argued that Nagasaki couldn't have effected the decision.
@@Delta36A1 without a neutral party to mediate negotiations, any plan to negotiate conditions for surrender is much less credible. That is, the likelihood of extracting any concessions dropped, so the risk-benefit for continuing to fight to improve the conditions of surrender is “all risk no reward.” That it took a few days for Japanese leadership to come around to that view (to the extent that they did at all…) isn’t surprising. Also, that they still tried to negotiate isn’t surprising, the relevant point is that they got no concessions AND determined it was fruitless to hold out for them. Since the Japanese were willing to continue fighting in the face of successful fire bombing raids, I still don’t see how the ease of executing an atomic bombing run factors much into the equation. The end effect to Japan is a city “wiped off the map” (a bit of an exaggeration in either case) either way. Fair enough, but the meeting was called because of the Soviet declaration of war the day before not the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Also, again, that they attempted to get more favorable conditions for surrendering isn’t surprising (wouldn’t you too if you could), the fact that they capitulated at all is what’s relevant. All I’m contending is that capitulation happened because of Soviet involvement and would have happened without dropping two A bombs. I’m not saying dropping them was a bad call at the time (or even one I’d second guess 80 years later really) and I’m not saying there weren’t other, legitimate factor in making that decision. Just that, from the Japanese point of view, the impetus for surrender was predominantly if not entirely due to the Soviet declaration of war.
As a Japanese speaking many people in my country think that it was 100% Americas fault and Im very ashamed that many people only think they are the victims and doesn’t mention about the terrible war crimes we have committed. I truly hate when my people know the truth about the war crimes for example Nanking massacre but they just denies and justifies it saying stupid things like we came to liberate Asia! Something like that They don’t even feel guilty of what they did perhaps because of some stupid nationalism or something.….truly disgusting.
My understanding is that modern Japanese school books sort of skip over a lot of details about WW2 and concentrate on the narrative of Japan defending itself from outside aggressors. Is that true?
"The most unethical thing for the Allies to do would have been to lose the war." They couldn't know what strategy would finally win the war, so they did everything they could. I heard a historian make that point in a documentary about the bombing of cities during WW2.
They were not going to lose. Stalin was out for blood and was prepared to throw away lives to take Japan. Japan unconditionally surrendered the day after Manchuria fell. Military power makes victories not bombing. Just ask the Germans, as soon as they switched from military targets to civilians they got chewed up by the RAF
@@Kokoda144 While tons of civilians were killed in the bombings of Japan, it was not the main aim. Destroying city industry was still a militarily-useful factor in helping cripping Japan's war machine and practical and economic ability to keep fighting. Given enough time and damage, this will absolutely affect willingness to surrender, and in fact Japan *did* want to surrender well before they did, they just wanted more favorable terms to do so. The bombings were just making it crystal clear that no such terms would be met, pushing them towards an unconditional surrender.
This would make sense except: 1 - The US had already blockaded Japan so they had no material left to make weapons. 2 - The US had radar bombing and could fairly accurately target factories and yet, they leveled entire cities. Point two is already made void because of point one. They had stripped buildings and infrastructure of things like iron already and they literally had nothing left. Bamboo poles for civilians to try ambush the Allies, because you know; they really didn't give a rap about civilian casualties. You constantly bring that point up, so why would they care about them getting bombed
My mother was a teenager in Japan during the war. She made it very clear that the bomb saved millions of Japanese lives. There were 12 MILLION people in her home guard unit in Tokyo alone. Most of them, including my mother, would have fought to the death without question.
An invasion of Japan would have turned into a genocide. Most of the deaths wouldn't even be from fighting, but starvation. Just look at the Philippines, the US suffered about 14,000 dead, while the Japanese suffered about 330,000, 80% of which is estimated to be from starvation.
@@tylerjames3488 it was the suicide. Mass fucking suicides dude. Civilians convinces by Japanese propaganda that the US would rape and kill them if they were caught alive. Or they hid in caves and starved to death. But the suicide was way worse than the starving. Literally parents killing their children then themselves cause the Japanese has them so scarred of the US.
Another point to consider is that there's a pretty good chance that had we moved forward with Downfall, we would have dropped nukes anyways, and more of them. The use of nukes in Downfall was already in the formal planning stages by the end of the War, with estimates of 7-15 nukes being available at the time of invasion. Given the incredible carnage in the opening stages, American leaders would have been under great pressure to use them to stage a breakout. Also, you can find in the technical manuals for the P-47 N (the variant designed specifically for the Pacific) evidence that it was capable of carrying dispensing cannisters for some "unspecified" purpose. Reading between the lines, it suggests that even chemical weapons were being considered.
Your point of consideration is that where you not allowed to murder people you would have gone even more crazy and end up murdering even more people. REally makes me wonder if any ammount of carnage will ever satisfy you
Actually, your hyperbole aside, in substance, the primary argument in favor of the bombs was that Downfall would have been much worse. And this is even assuming nukes WEREN'T used during Downfall. So, there is a kernel of truth to what you're saying. Of course, this analysis is undoubtedly harsh. But, those were the stakes at the time. Imperial Japan, Germany, and the Axis powers presented some awful choices for the world.
@@helzevec so the primary argument is some sort of paranoic assumption. Got it. I often wonder how come someone kill, but since the dead man may have been evil then that is enough of a reason for psychopaths. Got it
I think it was a combination of everything hitting Japan in rapid succession. The Japanese were ready to fight to the death, but the keyword is “fight”. They felt duty-bound to take as many enemies with them, but what if that enemy had the capability to annihilate hundreds of thousands of them with just 1 plane and 1 bomb? The firebombing sorties each required hundreds of planes dropping thousands of bombs. And they were largely powerless to stop them. They could think to outlast them, but what if all the enemy needed was 1 plane and 1 bomb? They could think to keep fighting in their colonies, even if Japan itself is obliterated. Maybe the US wouldn’t have enough bombs to send everywhere or wouldn’t want to use them in liberation areas. But what if they were surrounded on all sides due to Russia entering the war against them? The US from the Pacific, the British from Southearn Asia, and now Russia from Manchuria and China. Japan went from simply losing the war, to facing annihilation with no capability of even taking the enemy down with them, in a matter of days. That was the level of shock they needed. It wasn’t in the possibility of losing, It wasn’t in the surety of losing. It was in knowing that they WILL lose, and they can’t even make the enemy bleed for it.
@@gudhaxer41343 dropping the nukes saved territories occupied by Japan from further genocide. I have no idea why everybody talking about the "morality" of dropping those nukes forgets about what Japanese were doing in mainland Asia and many islands of Pacific for years. They butchered local populations like there was no tomorrow. Nukes were at least some swift justice that stopped millions suffering in an instant.
@@wrmusic8736 contrary to whatever nonsense you believe torturing the torturer doesnt make You any better. Where did You get that people stops suffering when You murder l their family? The suffering Truman unleashed on the world is still raging to this day and it doesnt seem likely it Will ever stop
The biggest problem, I think with the discussion around the use of nukes in 1945 is the same problem we find in a number of historical debates. That is our desire as humans to find one singular casual factor for a single event. I think the actual cause for Japanese surrender is more complex than most people think. I truly think it took both events, the use of nuclear weapons and the invasion of the USSR to bring enough Japanese leaders to accept surrender. It also brought the Emperor to decide to surrender, which is the most important part. Emperor Hirohito was fairly removed from most of the decision making during the war (that isn't absolving him from not doing more sooner). Once he made it his will to surrender his military leaders could no longer claim to be representing his will and had to relent. Many wanted to continue to fight even after both nukes and the USSR invasion, militarist factions tried to prevent the surrender order from being broadcast. Once Japan was left with no other political options and the threat of destruction was absolute Japanese leaders had no other option. Asking which of the two events ended the war is the wrong question and it is narrow minded, the real story is complex, because people are complex. We need to remember that the Japanese government was made up of individuals who probably each weighed the nukes and the USSR joining the war differently. One might have feared this new weapon more, while another feared the soviets more. It think that without both events happening there is a much greater than zero percent chance the war continues and so many more people die that didn't have to.
...and you've fallen into the trap of assuming that the USSR had any significant role in Japan's surrender. By late 1943, Imperial Japanese war council had already forsaken their Asian land territory holdings as the US submarine blockade tightened it's nigh impenetrable noose around the Island's neck. The USSR had no significant naval or amphibious doctrine, technology, manpower, or capability. By 1945, it was still doubtful if they could land a corps sized force unopposed with any degree of effectiveness. The ONLY thing worth mentioning of the Soviet's military actions against Japan in the Imperial's surrender is NOTHING. What the USSR pulled was a diplomatic coup that forced the Japanese fanatics into either an unconditional surrender, or a fight to the death; a Sovietnegotiated and limited surrender being the middle road was taken away overnight by foreign secretary Molotov. The situation progressed from neutral third party with posibility of mediation (Japanese-Soviet Non-aggression Pact) to declaration of total war. There would be no terms dictated to the United Nations from Tokyo, this point forwards. Much more significant to the Japanese surrender was the use of Plutonium implosion weapons at Nagasaki. Japanese scientists recognized this meant one thing: that the US had plutonium 239 weapons breeder reactors which could produce dozens of bombs a month... And from what US propaganda was saying; they'd use those "weapons never before seen to mankind" to wipe every Japanese city off the face of the Earth with all due haste. The soviets are never mentioned in Hirohito's surrender speech. Preserving the Japanese people and culture through unconditional acceptance of defeat IS.
@amistrophy I think that the USSR's ability to conquer Manchuria is pretty notably and not to be overlooked. Additionally, is there any source that the Japanese scientists?/ Military leaders understood sufficiently enough about nuclear bombs to make that sort of decision making besides the vague "The Allies must have a lot of these"? I could be wrong, but it just seems odd to me that knowing the specific makeup of the Nagasaki bomb would matter.
The island holdouts post war were, through their refusal to surrender, also in defiance of the will of the emperor yet they were welcomed home as heroes. This shows that yes, the emperor gave them cover to surrender but also no, they didn’t give a damn about the emperor (the shogunate had only ended 77 years previously and it had ruled Japan for over 600 years prior to that. People got used to the shogun telling the emperor to get stuffed).
@@amistrophy Japan had moved a big portion of its military industry to manchuria to protect it from bombing. Losin Manchuria was a big deal. And after Manchuria, the soviet would have threatened the japanese army in China. I don't think it would have been possible for the japenese scientists to identify plutonium, understand its consequences and relay the information to the japanese government before the decision was made. There was simply no time. Hirohito's second surrender speech, the one to the army, doesn't mention the atomic bombs and says that the reason of the surrender is the soviet entry into the war. The soviet union played a significant role in Japan's surrender.
Another fact not mentioned: As the US was preparing for Operation Downfall - the invasion of the Japanese mainlands - in 1945, American Generals estimated that it would cost them anywhere between 400,000 and 4-million casualties, so they began stockpiling Purple Hearts, up to 500,000 of them, until the plans for invasion were called off. Those stockpiled Purple Hearts had been used since then, but finally, 45 years later in 1990, the news broke that the American military was manufacturing new ones.
Was the invasion of Japan absolutely necessary to win the war? Can a unconscious combatant fight? Does Japan depend on imports? I don't reject our use of the bombs as there were clear benefits for us and the world but I do reject the notion that we saved military lives because they assume the invasion of Japan was necessary to KO Japan. Japan is an Island, incapable of mass production without imports. If their fears were truly for losing American Lives they could have just allowed USSR to invade Japan. Saving lives when viewed from this perspective is clearly an incomplete picture. It was a power/political move. They wanted Japan to surrender to us and prevent the USSR invasion. So because of that, no, the bombs weren't necessary. They were convenient and did benefit humanity over time as it's better to use them to end a war than to start one.
@@orielsy USSR to invade Japan. Welp, they were planning to invade hokkido at that time, but sadly their east asian forces were too weak, especially if it comes to navy.
@@orielsy During the Japanese Supreme War council meeting were Hirohito ordered the cessation of hostilities; I believe it was General Anami told Hirohito that they estimated Japan would lose 20 million civilians during an invasion many to starvation which was already afflicting Japan. In spite of that estimate the pro-war faction wanted to fight. The wanted the entire nation to fight to the death. They did not care about the lack of food, resources or overwhelming Allied power. When the Emperor's speech was broadcast many of the population thought Hirohito was going to order them do fight to the death. The bombs were entirely necessary. After the first bomb the Supreme war council dismissed them claiming the US only had the one. After the second bomb and the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria the pro-war faction still wanted to continue the war. Read the minutes from that meeting of the Supreme war council, Hirohito specifically mentions the special technical means that the Allies used.
I really enjoy these longer videos on Intel Report and Operations room. When I left the Army I faced a 20 hour drive with a two year old in the car, and that’s when I discovered Ops Room and some other history related channels (Potential History, Armchair Historian, Mark Felton). Now, whenever I face a long drive you accompany me the whole way. I just go to the channel, click a video and let them roll. Thank you for the knowledge and the company!
I believe that many who are opposed to the use of the atomic bombs don't fully understand the situation at the time,and react only because of the "atomic" part of it. The firebombing of Tokyo killed at least as many as the bombing of Hiroshima, but it was done conventionally, so they were just "conventionally" roasted, not immediately atomized. The battle of Okinawa cost the lives of perhaps 150,000 Japanese civilians, as many as both atomic bombs, but they were shot, stabbed, blown up, so no atomic involved. The US could have starved hundreds of thousands of Japanese to death with just their navy via blockade. The people wouldn't be less dead, it would have just taken a bit longer. Remove "atomic" from the equation, and you hear a lot less about it being inhumane and unnecessary.
We’ll put. Most of the critique is revisionist history or just a complete lack of understanding of the situation both sides were in leading up to the bomb.
Just because the firebombings were bad too does not justify other methods that are bad. And the vast majority of victims were not "immediately atomised" very few would have been killed instantly, most would suffer 3rd degree burns to most of their body and died quite slowly and painfully. And this comment kind of misses the point of the video. The US were not trying to save lives, they were trying to end the war quickly. If they wanted to save lives, they could have, but chose not. That makes whatever action they took, nuclear or otherwise, completely unjustified to me.
@@gmtom19 I don't believe @eoyguy is attempting to justify the atomic bombings, merely giving perspective on the horror of conflict. As for your comment on saving lives, the implication is that the best answer would simply be surrender to all aggression. That strikes me as astonishingly naive. But I shall defer and ask how "If they wanted to save lives, they could have" ?
@@gmtom19what the fuck do you mean america could’ve ended the war and saved lives more efficiently than they did? Brother have you ever met a Japanese person from that time frame? MANY of them would’ve fought tooth and nail till the very end before they surrendered. You want another million people to die in a conventional invasion?
Well, yeah, would you rather the US draw out the war? Why wouldn't you try to win a war in the quickest least risky way possible? Sacrifice your own men needlessly over some bs sense of honour? You can't start a world war, then complain about getting your ass handed to you.
My grandfather was wounded at Bastogne. His close friend, Jim Conway of Fisher, AR was a landing craft pilot, stationed at Majuro Atoll and began prepping for the invasion. He clearly understood that he and all the men on his boat were likely to die when Operation Downfall occurred. He and every soldier, sailor, and marine I have ever spoken to has absolutely no problem. They sleep well at night. He told me that if it had taken half a dozen bombs or more, he'd be fine with it. "They started it, don't whine when you throw a punch and then get your ass kicked."
As I am from nearby North Luxembourg, If you granddad still lives and ever comes around, I ll buy him a beer! He probably wont be alive sadly because of the time passed since the end of that war, but dont think the people around here have forgotten that we would all be speaking german if not for the US. (instead we have to be pretty fluent in french because of our stuck up government... Its rough being from Luxembourg at times,... ;) )
@@8asw8 Unfortunately, he has passed. I have visited your lovely nation. I visited Bastogne and brought soil from the Mardasson to sprinkle on his grave. Luxembourg holds the bodies of many of his comrades. One day when we're in heaven, I'm sure he'll take that beer. I can assure you that I was impressed by how I was treated in Belgium and Luxembourg. I love that idyllic, peaceful place. He knew you folks appreciate his sacrifice and he was glad to help such wonderful people. God's blessings to you and your country. PS: I agree about the French. Of course, the French folk he met were pretty excited to see him, so he remembered them fondly.
@@brushylake4606 Lovely nation with a stupid government those last 10 years, but I hope those will be gone in October when we hold elections. I work in forestry and nature conservation. I know first hand, well rather second hand, how atrocious that theater was. We still dig up bombs, grenades and rifles from that era, anytime we have a project that needs us to shift soil. We actually have minesweepers clearing the patch of land before we do anything digging related. The Battle of the Bulge is ever present here, we just call it the "Rundstedt Offensive" or "Ardennenoffensive". We have Monuments and Memorials everywhere. PS: We also have some history with french occupation and there is a rift north vs south in the country, the south being more "frenchish" the north being more "germanish" if you want to call it that way. Since all our laws are in french, going back to napoleonean times and we have a lot of immigrants that just refuse to learn luxembourgish since "you know french!" you kinda have to know your baguette language. And I hated the language all through school and still hate it today, even though I am fluent.
@@vitoribas For what? The Molotov Ribbentrop Pact? Or some million people dead because of their political ideology? Or for the cold war and the constant threat of atomic annihilation alongside statefunded left wing terror like the Rote Armee Fraktion? I dont need to be grateful to that murderous regime for anything.
I was born in Oita Japan, almost halfway between Hiroshima and Nagasaki less than 10 years after the bombs were dropped. I have to agree that dropping the bombs was necessary to save lives on both sides. I was adopted by American parents in 1955. Later on I would join the USAF and serve 4 years in Japan. I even got to visit the Atomic Museum at Hiroshima, an eye opening experience. I had a chance to visit the one at Nagasaki, but turned it down.
I was that museum when I was in the Navy 🇨🇦. What struck me was there was zero emphasis or mention of any moral judgments of the bombs use. Hiroshima is a very nice city now.
@@noormohamad1 This shocked me too. I was certain that I would have to hear or read something that condemned Americans or maybe get dirty looks or condemned myself. There was none of that, but, they did a fantastic job on the museum and it's a an experience I will never forget.
I do not een want to know what the looses would have been. Tojo was prepared to literally sacrifice the population including children and I doubt he intimated that to the Emporer. On the Allied side they were budgeting one million casualties. The Soviet declaration of war would have given Tojo a shock as well on top of seeing the effect of the bombs. I am a Kiwi and was born on the 9th anniversary of Hiroshima, I am glad you had the chance for a great life Dave.
The idea of judging the morality of the atomic bombs has always seen quite misguided to me, as most people seem to think if the American's hadn't of done it, no one else would of eventually used a atomic weapon in combat. By 1945 most the big players in the war were already planning there own bombs. The idea of America letting the genie out the bottle by dropping them ignores the fact that the genie was out the bottle as soon as the science became viable. Most scientists knew the atom could be weaponised, it would just take time before someone else did it.
I think a lot of it also has to do with the lack of knowledge about radiation. If the nukes were 'clean' I'd expect they would still be used today as the US has been making bombs with close to Little Boy's effective power.
Eh, I don't agree and I worked with nuclear ordnance at Minot AFB for a decade. More modern (modern as in 1952 onwards) bombs are primarily fusion bombs, the reason they're called hydrogen bombs, and they leave very little amounts of radiation. Even the bombing of Hiroshima shows that post nuclear attack the radiation levels quickly fell to basically background levels. The real decider for the radiation issue with bombs is if they're detonated in the air before they contact the ground or if they're blown up on impact. Impact hits are super bad for radiation but airbursts aren't really. It's just a matter of nobody being able to dictate the 'acceptable' level of power a nuke could have before justifying a retaliatory strike with one larger.@@cp1cupcake
Einstein said he never believed an atomic bomb was really possible and I believe he regretted encouraging FDR to pursue it. The Catholic church banned the crossbow because it pierced armor and people who wore armor were the churches main support and muscle. Any halfwit could use it.
As stated in the video, American commanders were reacting to the massive loses the US sustained at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. For a "defeated" enemy, the Japanese were putting up a very stiff defense. Also, it is my understanding that Unit 731 killed far more Chinese people with chemical and biological weapons than the two atom bombs killed. Also, regarding the Russians getting involved against Japan, did they have the means to launch a amphibious assault on Japan or would their assault have been limited to taking Japanese occupied territory on mainland Asia?
The Soviet Union wanted the end of the Japanese emperor because he was a heavy Anti Communist. The anti Komitan pact with Italy and Nazi Germany for exemple. The video forget also that the Soviet recapture Shakalinsk and the Kouriles island from Japan in the nord. It was only a matter of time for the invasion of Hokkaido has the decent on South Korea.
Red Army troops led some limited amphibious operations in the Sakhalin Islands area, they launched a full invasion of South Sakhalin (to retake the territory lost in the 1904-1905 war) then invaded the Kuril Islands (after rejecting their plan to invade Hokkaido). Japanese resistance was hard on Sakahlin and both sides sustained heavy casualties, in the Kuril Islands fighting was less intense because of the smaller garrison, but some fougth fiercely, even after beign ordered to surrender by the japanese government. As for the having means to launch an invasion on Hokkaido, I honesly don't know if they would have had the materiel for it : on Sakhalin, the invasion was laid from the northern part of the island with some secondary landing farther south they used troop transports and warships to land on ports; and on the Kuril Islands, troops were landed by torpedo boats, mine trawlers and transports. The Red Army lacked the specialised landing crafts used by Western Allies and relied on improvised materiel for these operations (which is logical since they hadn't conducted any landing invasion during the war, the Eastern Front being mostly a land war baring the occasional large river crossing) and I don't know of any real prepared plans from they Soviet Union to invade Japan. I mean that operation Overlord (landing in Northern France) or Dragoon (Southern France) as well as the landings in Italy or Northern Africa by the Allies were heavily prepared plans, months or years of planning went into these operations, just like Downfall was planned since 1944 for an execution in late 1945/early1946. I don't think Soviet planners prepared such an operation, they were focused on Germany and turned their focus on Japan only in May-June 1945.
@@arnocharrier3438 you comment is completely true. But there where indeed a plan to continue to South Korea until the coast to Busan. Which could linked to the American in the Kyushu island. The fun fact is that after the surender of Japan , Mac Arthur itself rush to send brigade in South Korea, wich triggered the Korean War 4 years later...
@@arnocharrier3438The Soviets would have had to rely heavily on US support and assets to conduct any serious, large naval invasion. Both Soviet and American leadership doubted that they (the Soviets) would be able to pull it off even with American support. The Russians have always been a land army first so the best they could really do was those small scale incursions.
Which video? The Indo-Pakistan War video looks particularly ripe for that, but did people have a problem with bombings from the German civilian perspective or something?? 😂
@@therealuncleowen2588 OH I hadn't thought of that. I had just read the community post this creator made about this passed month's video subjects being a bit spicy and thought it must be one of them
One aspect that I think was failed to be considered was Truman’s wish to keep the Soviets out of occupied Japan post-war. Truman knew that if he did not swiftly end the war, then the Soviet’s would have a much stronger position at the negotiating table when dividing Japan, as they had in Germany.
My grandfather was on Okinawa waiting to go to Japan. He was in the third wave. He was told to feel lucky because his wave would only have 80% casualties. The first 2 were anticipated to have 100% killed or wounded. I read where there were 700,000 Japanese soldiers waiting on that south island where we were slated to invade. On Iwo Jima, 21,000 Japanese caused 26,000 American casualties. The invasion would have been a slaughter on a much larger scale than any other battle we were involved in that war. Continuing to conventional bomb cities would have cost the lives of countless airmen. Because of the 2 bombs, my grandfather didn't meet the Lord until he was 87 years old. Tough decision but the right one. I'm one of the millions who got to spend precious time with fathers and grandfathers because of Truman's decision.
It's worse than that, on the mainland Britain, France, America and the Commonwealth wouldn't have been fighting just soldiers. They would have been fighting the entire population of Japan, every man, woman, child, pensioner would have been given some sort of weapon and run at the lines. It would have been civilians at the front with trained soldiers following, their plan wasn't to win but to cause so much death the allies wouldn't be able to bear it
Malik talking about how racism, as evidenced by language used to describe the Japanese, made the use of bombs "more palatable" to Americans... ignoring years of brutal inhumane behavior from Japan. Anyone in theatre knew full well what the Japanese were capable of. No one should have to waste another breath defending the use of every means at the American's disposal to end the war with the fewest American and Allied casualties possible.
There is also the point that the original objective of the Manhattan Project was to bomb the Germans. Kind of shoots the 'racist' argument in the foot.
Exactly. The fact that Malik can apparently just hand-wave the multiple documented instances of Japanese soldiers LITERALLY EATING PEOPLE, let alone all the terrible "experiments" carried out by Unit 731 and the horrors of Nanking, is as hilarious as it is disgusting.
If Malik did his research right he would have known the Philippines campaign were many American GIs firsthand saw the brutality of Japanese soldiers to Filipino/American civilians and POWs. Especially since at that time the Philippines was considered as a territory due to it being the only Filipino-American Commonwealth.
Yes it was. It's easy to play these games now, but far removed from living the actual fight. They chose their fate, and made clear the cost that would be required to invade. The many lives saved by the two bombs include both American AND Japanese.
The problem with this argument is that it relativizes moral choices to the times and places that actions occurred in. From a logical standpoint, this reasoning is extremely problematic because it can be/is used to justify all sorts of atrocities.
@@justin_messer The war they started was the ultimate atrocity, though I understand the need to judge decisions that no one around today has any practical experience that qualifies them to do so.
@@justin_messerso should we all debate for days on end about how future generations in their comfortable and peaceful worlds will think about harsh decisions? Of course we have to consider the moral implications of decisions in their relative time periods. You can’t know what will and won’t be considered moral in the future. A prosecutor in court can’t argue that a future law may convict a suspect of guilty behavior, that would be ridiculous.
@@kevinzheng7373 again these are not arguments. My argument is that the military knew exactly the moral implications of its actions and then deliberately chose to lie to the president of the United States about the concept of the obliteration of entire civilian populations wholesale without nary a warning by telling the president a fib that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military bases and not civilian population centers. Also, your second argument smacks of moral relativism. In that time can merely whitewash or admonish actions undertaken in the past. That morality is subject to to the ticking of the clock.
When I was in college this was one of the major topics for a class. We read The Most Controversial Decision by Miscamble and I believe this video does a comparable job at laying out the arguments on both sides. Iwo Jima and Okinawa were small examples of the bloodbath that a full scale invasion would cause. And Operation Ketsugo would be a much more successful operation than the earlier attempt with operation Ten-Go. Millions on both sides would have died. Both sides seem to agree that the invasion was not the correct answer. However, another factor that was not mentioned in the video was the liquidation/extermination of POW camps and the withdrawal of troops from the south east to support the army in Manchuria and the homeland. These troops would have been able to bolster the Japanese defense against the soviets, who, like the US, would have troops tied up in occupying Europe and would need to transition those troops to the new theater. I think 1946 would have been an optimistic estimate for the eventual surrender. Now, I had not heard the racism argument before. It is interesting but I think it can be taken a step further. Yes, it is a common thing in war to dehumanize the enemy. Just look at the propaganda from WWI. That is why the Christmas Truce was a detrimental event to the fighting effectiveness of those units. Once you have empathy for the other person it becomes much harder to fight. However, even to this day, there are many places in Japan that are closed to outsiders. Clubs, bars, baths, etc. I would argue the racism on Japan's side could be seen as a contributing factor to why they wouldn't stop fighting.
The USN seemed to be of the opinion of "starve the bastards for a couple years then pick through their bones" which was a different kind of cruel. War is Hell is the most honest reality. It is best not to start one.
Both sides were VERY racist by modern standards. The problem is the modern apologist "nukes bad" crowd uses that as a back-fill answer as to WHY nukes were used, (the only reason, really) and only applies that standard to the Americans. They carefully ignore the fact that the typical Japanese response of the period to foreigners in their midst was akin to the devil himself dropping by for tea. (Witness Banzai Cliffs, etc)
An american sociologist ones said. "The Japanese were raise to prevent errors not to solve them" A.k.a the Japanese (in general terms) have a harder time to adapt to conditions or mistakes compare to other countries (can't confirm Is this only happen over there or in all East Asia) I think they pride and the lack of quick problem solving WAS the reason they took 2 nukes, I would had probably surrender after what happen with the fire of Tokyo.
I find the "racism" argument unconvincing - mostly because everything it describes is completely normal wartime propaganda, and there's no way to draw a causal link between the USA's wartime propaganda targeting Japan and the atomic bombs being dropped that doesn't also link every other decision made during wartime to whatever propaganda was in circulation at the time. It might be true in a technical sense, but it's about as useful as pointing out that someone from the 18th century was horribly racist by modern standards.
@@lordjor96 I hadn't heard of that precisely, but I would rate their xenophobic nationalism/militarism as being a larger driving force. Hard to surrender when you think the other guy is a slavering monster out to defile your women folk and eat your babies, after all.
Between WW2 and today, there have been about 360,000 purple hearts awarded in all US conflicts combined. That's Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq, and GWOT. Every single one was produced in anticipation of operation Down Fall. 140,000 purple hearts remain from that production, all of which were just for the invasion. Dropping those bombs were the most humanitarian act of the entire war.
Exactly millions of Allies soldiers would have died and millions of Japanese soldiers along with millions of Japanese civilians dying trough the crossfire , starvation and disease the Atomic bombing killed hundred of thousands of people but it saved millions of people.
But why not atom bomb Iraq? Vietnam? when it could have led to immediate surrender of enemies, saving countless lives of US soldiers and opposing forces as well, at the cost of few hundred thousand lives
Something that keeps getting overlooked in this debate is that Hirohito specifically and exclusively refers to the use of the bombs as the sole specific reason why he issued an unthinkable reversal and accepted the Potsdam declaration. Considering that he was the only person with the power to end the war and that his speech was unquestioningly obeyed by the public at large, I think that his language should be given a lot more credence than it has right now.
It could be argued that Hirohito wanted to deny Stalin any post-surrender bargaining power. By giving all credit to the USA and zero credit to the Soviets, Japan might just have avoided being chopped up like Germany. And by god they definitely did NOT want Stalin having any influence over the fate of the royal family and ruling class.
The reason why is because he's a fascist leader looking for an excuse to say "hey, we didn't really lose - our surrendering is necessary to save all civilization." He says something along those lines if you look at his soeech Like, he used the bombs as a scapegoat, essentially. There were a lot of factors going into why they surrendered, but the biggest one seems to be the Soviet Union declaring war/invading. Like this video explained, the biggest political factor in why Japan hadn't yet unconditionally surrendered was because they were still expecting Soviet Union to mediate for them. Japan didn't believe that the USSR was going to break their treaty and attack until the moment they did so.
My great grandfather was in the 2nd marine division from 1943 to the end of the war. He wrote a mini auto biography and described his thoughts on this matter. During his basic training/boot camp he had qualified as an expert swimmer, and because of this and his rank at the time of mid 1945 he was selected to be one of about 30 marines to be part of a special reconnaissance team. This team was going to land on a Japanese beach in the dark early morning hours before the actual land invasion (planned for sometime in November) and mark out gun emplacements/pillboxes. He stated that personally, he was happy the war ended with these bombs rather than a land invasion because he was sure he would have been killed during his recon mission. He was also part of the first group of American soldiers to land in Nagasaki just a few weeks after the bombing and witnessed the destruction there. He saw the suffering it caused but was steadfast in his belief that this was the best way to end the war.
How fortunate your grandfather's life was saved, only at the expense of the suffering of countless innocent children, even years after the bomb. But who cares about that eh
Toshikazu Kase, aide to Prime minister Togo said " The atomic bomb made it possible for Japan to surrender." This remark is from his interview in World at War Episode 24, The Bomb. Given his eyewitness account, he was also present at the surrender on the USS Missouri standing next to Shigimitsu signing the document I'm personally satisfied it was the correct course of action.
I argue that the Emperor of Japan was looking to surrender before the bombs, but needed a justification. Something that he could take to military high command and say “see! This is why we must surrender.” The atomic bomb was the perfect justification. “Why should we fight when they can destroy entire cities with just 1 bomb?”
The answer is yes based on the simple fact that if we were to go ahead with a land invasion of Japan we would not only be fighting the Japanese army, but the entire Japanese population. Also the fact that the purple hearts produced for the invasion are still being given out today kinda puts into perspective how bad it would have been if it was carried out.
This is an interesting debate. I really like the way that the guy phrased it in there that the issue wasn't about. If a nuke was the "right" or "moral" choice, it was about what was the fastest way to end the war.
The thing that bothers me the most about how WW2 ended is when people say it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that caused the end of WW2. This is insanely far from reality. If anyone views the records of the Japanese Imperial Cabinet meetings from the point of the fist atomic bomb being dropped through to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, the second atomic bomb being dropped and the Japanese surrender it is so easy to see the invasion of Manchuria played no-role in the Japanese surrender. The Japanese knew before the first atomic bomb was dropped that they were going to lose all of their Imperial holdings which included Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan. The Japanese hope in continuing the war and holding out was not to win the war at all but to force the US and allies into better terms that didn't include unconditional surrender. This way they could argue after the war that they fought against a much larger enemy force and didn't agree to unconditional surrender even though that was the allied goal. The Japanese knew the USSR was planning on invading them weeks to 1-2 months before the USSR actually did so. The Japanese could see the USSR moving their troops to the far east. There was only one reason for the USSR to do that. Months before the USSR invaded the Japanese holdings in mainland Asia the Japanese had already started moving as many of their troops and supplies from the mainland back to the Japanese home islands to further increase their defense efforts there. After the USSR invaded the Japanese Imperial Cabinet even say in the logs of their meetings that the invasion doesn't change their plans at all. They were already planning on just defending their home islands and making the cost of an invasion so high that the US and their allies would have to settle for some kind of terms other than unconditional surrender. They had already accepted that they had lost their territory on mainland Asia. It didn't matter to them if China or the USSR took it at that point in time. It was the atomic bombs that changed the opinion of some members of the Japanese Imperial Cabinet. Since the atomic bombs made it so the US and allies didn't have to invade the Japanese home islands. They could just nuke Japan until there was almost nothing left. The Japanese didn't know how many nukes the US had and weren't going to beleive their scientists about it after their scientists told them the there was no chance the US had more than 1 nuke after the first one hit them.
The situation wasnt rlly that different before the nukes were used. The Americans could achieve a similar result in destruction, and already had been, with firebombing campaigns. They could just firebomb Japan till there was nothing left, same result
Agreed, the Japanese had already accepted they were going to lose their Empire when the USSR invaded them. They didn't care who they were going to lose it to. They had already started moving their troops back from mainland Asia back to the Japanese home islands to defend there the best they could. The Japanese goal was to try make the cost of an invasion of the Japanese home islands so great that the US would settle for terms other than unconditional surrender with Japan. The US atomic bombs are what changed the Japanese opinion that they could force the US off those terms by making the defense of their home islands too great for the US to bear.
@@pickle2636 Except the Japanese didn't agree with that. According to the leadership of the Japanese themselves it was the atomic bombs which changed their opinion of their defense strategy. The atomic bombs made it so that even fortified factories where they made their weapons would be destroyed. The fire bombings just destroyed the Japanese civilian homes and other poorly built buildings made of just wood. The fire bombings played and effect of course in weakening the Japanese still. Since it dehoused a large portion of their population that then needed to be housed somewhere else, it took up Japanese medicine which they were already low on and killed workers that they needed in their factories (it of course killed some troops and officers as well stationed within those cities). But the nukes are what made members of the Japanese leadership decide that trying to hold out was worthless. They didn't know how many (how few) nukes the US actually had at that point. They thought the US could just use a nuke anywhere they wanted on Japan as much as they felt like. They thought the US could put nukes all over the landing beaches and just walk their troops in. The Japanese plan was to make the few beaches the US could actually land troops on so crowded with Japanese troops that it would have cost the US far to much to invade that they US would just settle for some other terms.
@@pickle2636 Yeah as the OP was saying this was not the opinion of the Japanese leadership. It was the creation of nukes that changed the opinion of members of the Japanese leadership to surrender which is what is important. It doesn't matter if the fire bombings were causing more deaths than the atomic bombs were. It was the use of the atomic bombs and what the Japanese leadership THOUGHT those could do to Japan that changed their opinion to surrender or not.
@@mariopineda4774 there was no question of whether to surrender or not. both factions in the Japanese supreme council wanted to surrender before the nukes, they just disagreed on the conditions
I do mostly agree with the other person who said that this moral question wasn't really on the table in 1945. However it is true that while the Soviet intervention demoralized the Japanese, it was important to the united states not to allow the Soviets to have too much 'credit' in ending the war in the pacific. Fears of the cold war to come were already brewing, and it was very undesirable to give the Soviets all their territorial demands, let alone chopping up Japan/what would become china the way we did germany. That fact doesnt make the bombs right or wrong, or mean we should or shouldnt have, but I think we can learn a lot from the diplomacy and ultimatly lack thereof surrounding the bombings to help us today
The US wasn't concerned about the Soviets getting credit. From the Japanese perspective they no longer had the ability to be on the offensive outside of the Asian mainland after Midway and shifted to the defensive. After the Marianas Japan knew they were defeated and wanted to make the Allied advance as costly as possible hoping they would negotiate. By August 1945 Japanese leaders were willing to sacrifice their entire population to avoid war crimes and demilitarization. The US was begging the Soviets to enter the war. Fortunately sanity prevailed in Japan eventually.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'." -Dwight D Eisenhower
@@jdotoz Eisenhower wasn't involved in the war in the Pacific. He didn't know the situation. He was kind of busy at the time in Europe and this is post-war back seat driving. He was familiar with Japan due to serving as MacArthur's Chief of Staff in Manila a long time ago, but that is about it.
@jaylowry That didn't stop the Secretary of War from asking him. At any rate, wait until you hear what MacArthur thought. Besides, the question was whether there was a debate at the time. There was. Multiple military and civilian leaders did not agree with this course of action.
@@jdotozPoint is, Eisenhower's opinion is unsubstantiated. It's like asking a UN commander from Palestine what he thinks of the situation in Myanmar: they know just about as much as the other guys in Palestine...
My Uncle was turning 20 when the bombs were dropped. He was in San Diego, getting ready to enter the Pacific War. His crew were to fly 20 combat bombing missions. They had already flown 21 combat missions in Europe. He was convinced that they had used up all their luck for a lifetime. Historians tell us that 1000 humans died per hour during WWII. If the bombings shortened the war by 200 hours, we broke even. How many people think the bomb didn’t do that? Since the bomb was dropped, no first tier power has gone to direct war with another first tier power. How many lives has that saved? I’m glad my Uncle survived the war. I’m named after him.
Here are some facts: The Japanese rejected the Potsdam declaration in July 1945. More people were being killed in conventional firebombing than in the atomic bombings. The destruction of Tokyo did not force the surrender. Even though the Soviets declared war, they had no way to carry out an amphibious assault on Japan itself. These are facts. And, dropping those two atomic bombs brought an immediate, total surrender, saving countless Allied AND Japanese lives which would have been wasted in Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan.
The facts you cite don’t support your conclusion. The Japanese didn’t care about the destruction of their cities by fire bombing so why would they care about atomic bombing? The fire bombing was more effective anyway. The rejection of the Potsdam Declaration before the Soviets declared war was irrelevant (in fact, it was likely rejected *because* the Soviets hadn’t yet declared war). And it doesn’t matter that the Soviets couldn’t mount an amphibious assault, what mattered was that the Soviets were no longer neutral in the Pacific theater. With the Soviets no longer neutral, there was no path forward for a conditional surrender.
@@Geffde It precisely supports my conclusion. Now, unlike some others, I readily acknowledge that the Soviet declaration of war played A PART in the Japanese decision to surrender.. likely a big part. Within 4 days Japan was hit with two atomic bombs and the Soviet declaration of war, and even then, it still took them 6 more days to surrender. The reason for that was that even with the Emperor calling for surrender, some of the Japanese military attempted a coup in order to keep the war going. Also, we must also remember that the Japanese had pulled back soldiers, aircraft for kamikaze attacks, torpedo boats, and fuel in preparation for Operation Downfall. Plus, they were training every man, woman and CHILD to charge Allied troops with bamboo spears. The slaughter would have been insane. The atomic bombs deeply affected the Emperor, and it was his word that finally overrode the Japanese military and brought about the surrender.
I like the presentation both here and in the Operation Room. I think you all did a great work exposing the various viewpoints, while presenting the actual numbers. This remains one of the biggest 'what if' ever, what if only one was dropped... what if the soviets had not attacked... what if... what if.... I don't believe a single answer about the necessity of the bombings will ever satisfy everyone. I have my own views, but its important to always remember that all options were bad, it's total war after all, but options had to be picked one way or another.
To be honest it seems difficult to think of a better time to have used at least the first atomic bomb, although one could argue both were necessary for the psychological impact it had on civilians and how they think of strategic nuclear strikes today. An entire era of fear around the weapons was created due to their (compared to today's bombs) comparatively small amount of damage, and this certainly influences all sorts of decisions at every level. I shudder to think of the amount of damage humanity would have suffered if today's Hydrogen Bombs or the Tsar Bomba were the first wartime bombs used.
11:00 To make a counter point, it is war, and it is an unfortunate reality that the soldiers would develop and foster dehumanizing ideas about their enemies. The more differences between individuals makes it easier to dehumanize them. Different language/culture/appearances all feed into this. I'd argue that should the bomb have not been dropped and invasion happened, you would have millions of soldiers who spent years dehumanizing the enemy. Those ideas would spread like fire as more soldiers see their brothers in arms die around them to said enemy. Post war would be even uglier as those same soldier would be garrisoned in their former enemy's towns and cities. That hate would inevitably lead to tragedy as soldiers take out that hate on the civilians during occupation. To give an example of what I am talking about, ironically, look at the Japanese armies as they took over Nankig, later to be known as the Rape of Nanking. Soldiers occupying the city routinely abused and killed civilians. The uglier the fighting the uglier the occupation.
To add to this, I don't see any way to draw a causal connection between "USA wartime propaganda is really racist towards Japanese people" and "USA drops two atomic bombs on Japan" that doesn't also connect every decision made during every war in history to whatever wartime propaganda was in circulation at the time. There's nothing unusually racist about USA wartime propaganda during WWII - wartime propaganda has always been like that.
It is worth considering whether it was in some way fortunate that the world learned what nuclear war meant when there were only two weapons available. If the atomic bomb had been invented during peacetime or WW2 had ended without use, the situation might have been far worse. Obviously any nuclear war is bad. But a nuclear war between one nation that has two nukes and one that has zero is not as bad as a war between a nation with 500 warheads and a nation with 200.
@4:45 Is anyone actually contending that not dropping the bomb but continuing to firebomb eventually every major city and also starve them via a blockade is a ethically superior option? That would cause infinitely more civilian casualties
The war was over for Japan when the Soviets declared war on them - learn why the Japanese thought a war of attrition would work against the US but not the USSR. So Nagasaki was unnecessary in the least.
Today we have the luxury of debating our actions. At the time that luxury simply didn’t exist. Hearing what my grandparents witnessed during the occupation of the Philippines still gives me chills. Many throughout Asia were still suffering at the hand of the Japanese army. Tell a father in China or a mother in Korea that the US would rather not end the war quickly with these two bombs. Instead we would invade the home islands causing millions more to be killed simply bc future generations would see the atomic bombings as more inhumane than what we had planned to do and had already done with firebombings. Revenge is never a good thing but if you asked them they would agree that Japan had sown the wind and they were now reaping the whirlwind. WWII was a brutal and inhumane conflict in all regards.
They had a few months to debate it back in the day. But didn't want to take the chance for soviets getting more surrender term leverage as they steamroller Manchuria like nothing
And really, the blood is on the Japanese themselves anyway. They brought all this to themselves. Can't do the time? Don't do the crime. Or however that goes.
As a half blood I learned something about this war. Not only were the bombings crucial in a hard realization of humility for Japan, but the fact that more people died from the napalm runs rather than the actual atomic weapons themselves goes to show the horrifying conditions an invasion would have. Interestingly because of the atomic bombings, I was born. Because if they invaded and managed to hit areas near Tokyo, Yokohama, and Gunma, I may as well be an imagination. Additionally the casualties on the American side would be unbelievable and may as well indicate my other half being erased given my family was not far from military service and had several veterans at various generations of our family. If both my great grandfathers or more distant relatives were deployed, they certainly had a low chance of returning home. I see two sides because of this, the bombings saved my family in Japan, and the bombings saved my family in the U.S.
I had a class in grad school that covered several conflicts in history and one was the fracturing alliance between the western democracies and the Soviet Union that was developing as WW2 was coming to an end. A theory that was discussed re: the dropping of the atomic bombs was, not only did it end the war sooner than conventional warfare would have, but it also sent a message to the USSR, "Hey, look what we have and you don't!!" It was a message to deter the USSR from advancing further into Europe and Asia than they already had as the Cold War was beginning. It was a message telling the USSR that the West would not hesitate to use the bomb against the USSR if they had to.
This theory initially came from physicist Patrick Blackett from 1 or 2 lines in a book he wrote . Gar Alperwitz became the main promoter of this theory - which has been disproven . No doubt when Truman was informed at the Potsdam Conference that the bomb worked , this gave him much more confidence negotiating with Stalin . But Gar Alperwitz saying that Truman and his advisors used such a horrific weapon to send a message to the Soviets is completely false . .
The theory you quote is complete academic BS. Japan had no intention of surrendering. The alternative to the bomb was Operation Downfall. This would have caused at least a quarter million American and Allied casualties and several milion Japanese fatalities. This was a known fact after Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. There was no meaningful alliance between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. It was obvious from July 1941 that the two barely tolerated each other. The Soviets were happy to accept western food and trucks because otherwise the Red Army was immobilized and the USSR would have starved to death. But Stalin regarded Churchill and Roosevelt as future enemies throughout. I've heard this revisionist crap from university professors too many times to count. Those lying scholars were NOT in the position of being in the potential first wave hitting and dying on a beach in Kyushu. From the people who were actually there at the time, they wanted the misery over with ASAP. Particularly Japan's Asian slave populations in Korea, Vietnam and China. Imperial Japan was a monstrosity fully as evil and murderous as the national socialist thugs running Germany.
History taught us that conventional bombings rarely caused the enemy to capitulate same goes with naval blockade (although in some cases it did work), you need something like either directly invading or put boots on the enemy soil to cause the enemy to rethink about the war, atomic bombing was a whole new ball game in terms of causing the enemy to concede a defeat.
Naval blockade, like bombing, can work as a “pressure tool” in a ‘limited’ war where both sides are essentially negotiating a shift in relative power that is not existential. As a tool of forcing a country into total submission, in an existential war of national survival? It will not work, because the pain of the blockade is lesser then the death of unconditional surrender
The Japanese gov was taken over by a fanatical military in 1931 . Japan had a "Government by assassination . " The Asian Pacific War started in 1937 , and the JIA and JIN committed millions of atrocities , in Manchuria , China , Formosa , Korea , the Philippines , Indonesia , Burma and Hong Kong . ... and used about 10 million Asians and POW's in brutal forced labour camps . The July 26th 1945 Potsdam Declaration made it clear Truman and his advisors wanted to remove Japan's military gov for all time and bring in human and democratic rights . The " Big Six " response to the Potsdam Declaration was rejecting it with silence and Operation Ketsu Go - making it so costly in US lives that the US would seek an armistice - regardless of how many 1,000's or millions of Japanese civilian lives it cost. One recent idea that has been put forward is that with the Soviet Invasion and atomic bombs , the Japanese were not given the opportunity to kill Americans .... The big six had no opportunity to implement Operation Ketsu Go . This kind of makes sense . So there was no opportunity to negotiate terms . The part that no says is that while under US occupation , Japan's Constitution was changed in 1947 . In the end , Japan is a better country today because it is a democracy . .
Actually, that study needs to updated due to recent wars and technology. Precision bombing by Israel on Gaza or even United States War in Iraq and Afghanistan needs to have better "performance measure" or categories between a small country to a large country. Another category is a fake super power and real power. Time should also be considered as well duration and length of reconstruction. The art of war or laws of armed Conflict tend to change over time.
Considering the Japanese were likely to fight to the last men, women and child, and were going to use tactics more akin to the insurgency attacks/guerrilla warfare that would be common in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq and even admitted estimates deaths of several millions on both sides before Japan would be pacified or even a protracted war, a nuclear strike to end the war could be seen as a deterrent of sort. A deterrent that ended a world war. And in many respects, it provided an example of what would happen to world if nuclear weapons were actually used on a civilian population centre. While as destructive those test in New Mexico and the subsequent tests in the South Pacific, they never provided a true taste of the horror that would be unleashed if a bomb was ever dropped again. to be frank, I don't think the Japanese short of an actual bomb dropping on them, would stopped the war even if they saw a demonstration. The Japanese back then only knew strength thru death. The Japanese had already shown they were willing to die to keep the fight going even when it clear surrender is the only option. They kept fighting on Iwo Jima even when they known they have lost. Even on Guadalcanal, they kept charging even when their comrades were being mowed down on the beach. Whereas the Americans would have retreated and regroup for a different strategy, the Japanese had a singular mind. It is either we win or we die.
Grew up with two guys whose dads had been marines and my uncle was a navy medic with the marines. All fought in the pacific and all said the A bomb saved their lives
Let us not forget, the bombs weren't a alternative to invasion, they were part of it. The US would of continued nuclear bombing along with the invasion had the japanese not surrendered, bomb -> move in. So instead of just 2, it could of been 3, 4, 5, ect.
@@dester3275 Actually they weren't. Ever heard of the demon core? That was the core intended for the 3rd bomb. We had two ready, the third was under construction.
@@dester3275 "Called the US bluff" ...by surrendering unconditionally? I hope you don't play poker. Actually, scratch that. I hope you play lots of poker.
@@dylandarnell3657 There was discussions that they could fighting because the US had probably less then 4 left. They fortunately decided not too but its not like they were guaranteed to surrender because of the bombs and it may not have worked...
Exactly. Give the bomb to the Chinese or the Koreans. What do you think they would do with it? Easy answer. The Japanese were brutalizing countless people and needed to be stopped immediately.
The Fact is it took more than just 2 Atomic Bombings. The Soviet Union for the longest time a non-aggressor leaving their backs secure all of a sudden invades, and the threat to nuke Tokyo next was what finally convinced them to Surrender. They faced more than just defeat, but total obliteration from hostile armies on mainland Asia, and nuclear holocaust on the homeland islands of Japan.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Talk to the Marines that survived Iwo and Okinawa who buried thousands of their friends is brutal fighting. Talk to the families whose sons were going to invade the mainland that many estimate would of cost 100,000’s of American lives. The country was tired from 4 years of constant fighting on two fronts, rationing, and telegrams of informing families about their sons and daughters wounded, missing, or killed in action. Ask any adult in 1945 and I bet almost every single person would have willingly dropped the bomb to end the war.
My late father-in-law had served in the US Navy in the Atlantic up to June when they were ordered to the Pacific, specifically Okinawa to take part in the invasion. He felt he owned his life to the Bomb.
Actually, I do not understand the question. If you fight a total war like WW2 in its final stages, you use every weapon at your disposal to finish the enemy off with as little loss to your side as possible. The atomic bombs were not the sole reason why japan surrendered, but sure had an impact on Japanese decision making which led to them accepting the Potsdam declaration.
it's a war where dozens of millions already died up to that point and people are discussing if it was ethical to kill 100 thousand to prevent further millions from dying. Almost as if there was this peaceful Japan that did no wrong and then an evil USA came out of nowhere and started nuking people.
killing half a million civilians to save a few soldiers lives. and people think its ok and make up crazy "what if" scenarios to rectify the bombings. it was a war crime. plain and simple. just like the allied bombings of dresden. there were no good guys in ww2.
@@grahamh.4230 in case of the Atomic bombs, the US used every weapon at their disposal apart from chemical weapons ( although there were plans to use them in case Olympic and Coronet went badly).
@Sven6345789 were these really final stages? ww2 began after poland was invaded, and in 1945 poland was still invaded. it took until 1990's to free poland and eastern europe
One thing to note about Truman: During the Korean War, MacArthur (who was immensely popular in the public eye) was pushing hard to drop nukes on the PRC and DPRK. Truman eventually fired him for this. To me, that shows that at least his intentions were good. Also, I’ve wondered if actually having a nuke dropped and everyone seeing it’s effects has helped prevent their use since. idk the answer to that but it’s something I wonder about
That is a good point. Could have, but didn't, and the same man. The other thing.... I don't know. Some things I have read say that there wasn't a wide civilian appreciation in the West for what the effects were until the 1960's or so. Things like aftermath photos, survivor interviews from Hiroshima & Nagasaki, etc were not well known the way we know now, on a visceral level.
MacArthur only asked to conventionally bomb the bridges over the Yalu, which he was denied. He did ask about the use of nuclear bombs if the Soviet involvement in the war would turn nuclear but didn't complain when told that the bombs were in the Pacific and he didn't have nuclear authority. He was fired for insubordination when he complained in the press about Truman refusing to let him bomb the bridges on the Yalu.
@@jaylowry Rightly so, I should add. MacArthur thoroughly shit the bed in Korea. The fact Ridgway was able to see things to where we are now was frankly pretty impressive.
@@jaylowry his desire to use nukes was broader, and he wanted to have authority to drop atomic homes at his discretion. In a Truman biography, this was one of the major factors for removing MacArthur. “on 25 January 1954, posthumously published in 1964, MacArthur said, Of all the campaigns of my life, 20 major ones to be exact, [Korea was] the one I felt most sure of was the one I was deprived of waging. I could have won the war in Korea in a maximum of 10 days.... I would have dropped between 30 and 50 atomic bombs on his air bases and other depots strung across the neck of Manchuria.... It was my plan as our amphibious forces moved south to spread behind us-from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea-a belt of radioactive cobalt. It could have been spread from wagons, carts, trucks and planes.... For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the north. The enemy could not have marched across that radiated belt.[114]” en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_of_Douglas_MacArthur Biography: www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/harry/author/margaret-truman/first-edition/ Editing to add: Thanks for the civil convo. It’s good to talk about this.
MacArthur should have dropped the bombs on China and North Korea. Patton should have grabbed what was left of the German army and marched on Moscow. Both visionary generals.
Keep in mind that the use of the atomic bomb and having leaders seeing firsthand the destruction of those two cities probably led to restraint in the decades that followed. Another factor is that the Soviet Union would have been needed in an invasion of Japan. That would have resulted in a partition of Japan and Tokyo. This partitioned Japan could have been a flash point for a direct confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union.
so why didn't usa bomb soviets when europe was partitioned? we are taught that ww2 began with invasion of poland, and yet poland was still invaded into 1990's
@@quiltymoslemSome Americans (such as Patton) actually advocated doing just that. The reason they didn't was simple: the Allies had just toppled two enormous regimes, and their populations were exhausted from war. Immediately turning on the Soviets was unthinkable to most, and by the time this was no longer the case, it was too late. It's also important to remember that the US didn't join the war in 1939 when Poland was invaded, and liberating Poland was never one of America's war goals.
@@quiltymoslemthat's why the brits where planning operation unthinkable, in its name alone you can see that this wasn't something the allies wanted to do but Britain felt it had to, but as someone else said people were exhausted with the war and didn't want to start another even deadlier world conflict immedietely after the worst war the world had ever seen to protect states in Eastern Europe, its a horrible tragedy what happened to eastern europe following ww2 but the tragedy that would come from another world war with the Soviets would've utterly destroyed Eastern and central Europe again at that would be the front line.
A tricky one this. On the one hand, nuclear weapons are a very serious topic which at times can be talked of too glibly in regard to yield, damage and casualties. However, I would say that I'm glad they were used in 1945 rather than later, when they would become ever more powerful. That is not to suggest I am happy about nukes actually being used. However, I think their use would have been inevitable. Had it not been Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it probably would have been in the Korean War or possible during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. If any good came out of these bombings from today's standpoint, it's that no president, prime minister, monarch, general or admiral can say they do not know what nuclear weapons do to cities and the people within.
If you complain about nukes you have to complain about firebombing which were much worse. And if you would prefer hundreds of thousands of americans, millions of japanese and every japanese city in ruins instead of trying to intimidate japan to surrender with nukes
@@ulfricstormcloak3657 I think you might be taking the wrong point from that, if I may.... The Japanese culture of honor would have sent so many men to their deaths that the eventual occupation of the island would have seen an entire generation of Japanese Americans, Imperial Japanese having been destroyed along with 90% of the men. Ergo, not enough of a genetic base to continue. It's not eugenics in the intent sense, it's eugenics in the idea that there would not have been much in the way of any births other than western mix stock.
I was on a high school debate team and we argued for dropping the bombs. The saving of hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives due to accelerating the end of the war can not be argued. If you want to know what the losses of an invasion would have been just look to the casualties in Okinawa…… 13,000 Americans, 100,000 Japanese soldiers and over 100,000 Okinawans died. Multiple this by at least 10 to estimate the casualties in an invasion of the island of Japan. By the way, we won the debate.
There was more to the Japanese surrender other than just the A-bombs. There was a serious power struggle going on in the Japanese government to truly take control of things and manage the war's end or maybe even continuation. Sure, the A-bombs forced their hand quite a bit, but the outcome could still have been very different.
@@bananian The problem with that is that they made two custom, one-off bombs and had just shot their wad(s). Plus, there was still a shortage of weapons grade Uranium and Plutonium and maybe more importantly, some of the scientests that had just helped build the first two weren't exactly happy with the prospect of helping out any longer once they saw the devastation. Now yes, eventually they would have had more A-bombs to drop so your premise is correct, but how long would it have taken is important.
And I can't believe people downplay the decision by the emperor. He's the freaking emperor. I think his decision weighs just as much if not more than what than what the military leaders think. Of course the military leaders wouldn't want to surrender. They're literally ISIS.
The psychological effects also connect with Shintoism and the Divine Emperor. Amaterasu is the great and glorious goddess of the sun in Shinto. An embodiment of the rising sun and Japan itself, she is the queen of the kami and ruler of the universe. The Japanese Imperial Family claims to have descended from her, and this is what gives them the divine right to rule Japan. This means that when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with "Sun" weapons it hit extra hard and shocked the fundamentals of sociey. Combined with the fails and Russia coming in to the war made Surrender an option for the Emperor. That is part of the story i was told when training in Japan in Iai-do with people that were alive then and witnessed the events.
I maintain this was one of the most important decisions in human history. It is impossible to calculate the amount of lives it saved in the short term. However, in the long term, it gave a reference point for atomic destruction to both Americans and Russians during the Cold War. There were no questions as to the potential of nuclear warfare.
I believe they should have never dropped the bombs. I mean, that was low man... They killed so many Innocent children...give me sadness just to think about it. The price was too high, and did not worth it.
I believe that many reasons for the ultimate necessity of both bombings can be true at the same time. 1. Ultimately, the decision to use both saved more lives than it cost. The lives that were lost in both cities had a high likelihood of being lost should Downfall have occurred, plus millions of other Japanese lives. 1a. The use of the bombs potentially avoided the insanely high estimates of American casualties should Downfall be initiated, a very critical measure for any politician and military leader. 2. Not using Fat Man after the Soviet invasion of Manchuria would have weakened the US position at the inevitable surrender, and strengthened the Soviet position, possibly creating a similar partition to that of Germany and Austria. 3. Truman was aware of the newly solidifying post-war world, and wanted to demonstrate to the Soviets (Stalin, in particular) that Hiroshima wasn't a one-off weapon, and that the US could produce multiple atomic bombs in short order (similar logic was famously later used [falsely] by Khrushchev that the USSR was "turning out missiles like sausages," which led to the Missile Gap theory)
Hard to make judgements like this, 80 years after the fact, with 20-20 vision and extensive knowledge from both sides. It's easy to judge, and it was a horrible thing, but I'm sure it was not a lightly made decision.
We have accounts and diary writings from leaders at the time which stated they knew it wasn't strictly necessary to end the war, and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was the far larger reason for Japan's surrender.
I believe that Japan would have fought to last man, woman and child. Shoichi Yokoi was found on the island of Guam 28 years AFTER the war ended. Even though he knew that the war was over since '52, he still chose to hide rather than face the shame of being captured.
I once heard the atomic bombings being called a "Logical insanity", people always tend to look at the bombings in a vacuum, and don't consider the wider war against Japan, the bombings were necessary, because Japan proved again and again that they weren't going to surrender, they would rather send millions to die rather than give up, LeMay's firebombings proved this, they killed more people than the bombs and they didn't surrender, so the US had to escalate yet again and the atomic bombs were the only escalation that could end this once and for all.
In college, I did a research project on the decision making surrounding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I was able to read documents from the Truman library and everything. It was one of the highlights of my college experience and I loved learning about it. This video, and the companion video on your other channel, were both excellently researched. There are only a few nits I could even possibly complain about. I am so impressed with this channel as usual. Been watching your other channel since the beginning. For what it's worth (which candidly is nothing), I think it was the right decision to drop the bombs. An often under discussed element of the decision making is the effect of accelerating the surrender of Japan on Soviet leverage in the peace talks. Should Operation Downfall have commenced, the Soviet Union would have had much more leverage over the fate of Manchuria, and possibly also Hokkaido if an attack was launched there as well.
I didn't know about the fire bombing. That reduces the concept at that time period of the scale of change in tactic, civilian vs military target. Moral rationalization becomes within reach mentally. Thanks again for the most dignified presentation possible, yet again. Great job Ops/Intel group!
By my quick count, this is both the first and the only time in history, when any technology was developed as quickly as was then possible, with effectively unlimited resources allocated, then actually put into use as quick as possible (the Little Boy type bomb was actually never tested before its use in combat, the Trinity test was of implosion design), and finally, when it was almost immediately, and almost collectively, realized that this is something what if we seek to possess, we must also seek to never use again. At least back then it was feasible to back off. I wonder, if we still have such ways, or if the next weapon of mass destruction, whatever the form of destruction will be, would be distributed almost immediately, into anyone's judgement over its use.
It is correct to point out that the atomic bombings were in many respects simply more efficient forms of strategic bombing, which had already destroyed dozens of Japanese cities, but this does raise the question: Why did none of those prior bombings, which had gone so far beyond the initial target list that they were destroying cities that did not even have strategic or industrial value because there were none left except for those targets being preserved for the atomic bombs, force a surrender? And if they had not forced a surrender, why would achieving the same thing with a different weapon suddenly do so? Strategic bombing had not hastened the surrender of the UK, it had not hastened the surrender of Germany, it had not hastened the surrender of Japan thus far, so why would it do so simply because the effect was achieved with one bomb rather than a whole flight of them? The ethics of strategic bombing even with conventional weapons was a very real debate within U.S. military aviation at the time, and I think we're doing a disservice to that by treating the atomic bombings as special in that regard. To us, with the experience of the Cold War, atomic bombs are special. But as this video pointed out, there wasn't the same level of specialness to it in the minds of many if not all of the people involved with the bombings of Japan. However, they had empirical evidence at the time that strategic bombing Did. Not. Work., and we have to ask why anyone had persuaded themselves that it might with atomic bombs and whether it actually did for some reason or was just convenient excuse to surrender to the Americans specifically.
Dear Intel Report/ Ops Room, the quality of both videos pertaining this subject is a testament to your respect for the subject matter and your loving dedication to History. These two videos will be my eternal references on the subject and I will not hesitate to show them to whoever needs schooling on the matter. In a sense, by helping us all better grasp this delicate but oh so important subject, you contribute to make it something that will hopefully forever remain History. I thank thee eternally. 🙏🙇
The US government made so many purple heart medals in anticipation of the casualties from invading Japan that they had enough left over due to the atomic bomb that they were issued through both the Korean and Viet Nam Wars. That's all I need to know to decide if it was the right decision or not.
The estimates The Operation Room talked about had a very very low estimate of 300,000 casualties, this was the low end. The high end of the estimate was 1,000,000 casualties. Then the Japanese were estimated to have 5,000,000 civilian casualties. The cold math of war says that
My grandma was a child during ww2 when nazi germany bombed London, she lived on rations and stayed many times in the bomb shelter outside in the backyard while the air raids were active, yes it was a German strategic failure but it cost many Brit’s their lives to protect London. My Grandpa was also a ww2 kid but he lived in the Philippines in the capital city of Manila where he survived the Japanese occupation, the Japanese starved the population and my grandpa ended up eating stray dogs and always running into the forest to find fruit for him and my great grandma and she ended up being a indentured servant during the occupation and for my great grandfather he spent 2 months fighting the Japanese in the north of the main island then captured by the Japanese and survived the Bataan death march but unfortunately he died in the camp. Many years later my great grandfathers remains were found in a mass grave of 10 other POWs. So yes the bombs were necessary and I don’t hold any grudge against the Japanese I just want to visit the camp where he died and pray that if their ever be another war in the Philippines or Great Britain that I will be prepared and ready to protect that land and the people their for they are my People’s. 🇵🇭🇬🇧🇺🇸
Addressing Parliament on August 16th, 1945, Winston Churchill insisted that the decision to attack Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945 and Nagasaki on August 9th had been a joint one between the US and the UK. Over the next decade his public position was consistent and devoid of moral qualms: in war, he maintained, weapons get used. The A-Bomb was a weapon, the Allies were at war with Japan and, consequently, the A-Bomb was a legitimate military option. ‘The historic fact remains’, he wrote in 1953, ‘that the decision whether or not to use the atomic bomb … was never even an issue.’
Stalingrad showed how two determined regimes could waste over one million lives if they did not have the will to surrender. The Sunk Cost Fallacy is applicable in war as well, but the nuclear bomb was like an instant slap to the face that couldn't be blocked or mitigated, so it instantly woke up the world to pursue peace.
This was always an interesting question to me, in my mind, while the bomb were a major tragedy, I think it was necessary evil, considering how fanatical the Japanese were and how they were willing to defend their homeland down to the last person, even arming civilians with spears, it's scary to think how many casualties there would have been, escpetially on the Japanese side. Thats not even to mention the Soviet enterance into the Pacific.
Funny how the ones that debate against the use of the new weapon never witnessed or experienced the brutality of the Japanese during the war. For the invaded civilians, it would mean the stopping of brutalities by the Japanese. They didn't deserve to be treated like that, especially the Asian comfort women. I'm Filipino, and i read about that incident and it shocked me to the core. For the military planners, it would save a lot of lives and would help rebuild families as more young men will go home to their families. For the soldiers on the frontlines, it would save them from another period of hardship, potential death or injuries, and lifetime trauma. And that's more apparent when you take account Japanese mentality of fighting until the last drop of blood.
I don't think the Japanese soldiers didn't do anything wrong at all in the war. However, today it has become clear that NOT everything the Allies has accused Japan of committing during World War II was true. The Allies circulated a lot of propaganda/fake news to raise their will to fight, like recently. After the war, the Allies have further adapted and used them to hide the dirty demeanor they did and their own war crimes. The Nanjing Massacre is one of those Propaganda which was fabricated by anti-Japanese activist US missionary John Magee. While saying, "This is what the Japanese soldiers did," Magee was showing a footage in the United States. In his footage, several Chinese people were lying on the ground. I couldn't help but remember his footage when I saw the footage called "The Bucha Massacre." And Magee spread the lie in the United States that 50,000 Japanese soldiers killed 42,000 Chinese civilians in Nanjing. However, in fact, Japanese soldiers who actually entered Nanjing was only about 3,000. The reason why he worked to spread such propaganda was to make the anti-war American people accept the war with Japan. Then, this story was further distorted by the Allies, including Chiang Kai-shek, to justify the war crimes against Japanese. The CCP currently claims that the number of civilian casualties during the Nanjing incident was 300,000. On the other hand, before Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang forces fled from Nanjing, it was announced that there were 200,000 civilians in Nanjing City. According to multiple sources, the number of civilians at the time the Japanese army left Nanjing was approximately 250,000. The reason why the number of civilians withdrawn from Nanjing by the Japanese military was higher than the number announced by the Kuomintang is because those who had evacuated from Nanjing due to fear of fighting had returned. Even when they hear the number of civilians in Nanjing at that time, do people who cry out, "Japanese troops committed a massacre in Nanjing'' have no doubts? And, there is the case of Palau. Palau was ceded to Japan after WW1, Japan treated Palau like a regional city in Japan not colony. After WW2 it was occupied by the United States. After destroying the structures Japan built for the people of Palau, the United States made Palau textbooks rewrite about "fictitious atrocities committed by Japan". Palau reverted to the fact-based textbooks they knew after the US left. From 1999 to 2007, the United States conducted extensive investigations about the following war crimes allegations: - The Japanese military systematically forcibly kidnapped 200,000 women, made them into sex slaves, and killed them when they fell ill. - Unit 731 conducted human experiments. The United States spent a huge amount of money(about 30 million dollars) and eight years trying to find evidence and materials about them from confidential documents of about 8.5 million pages. However, the objective evidence that was thought to be available in this investigation was not found. In the 142,000 pages of confidential documents held by the United States about Unit 731, there was no evidence that Unit 731 conducted human experiments or engaged in germ warfare. This means that everything said about Unit 731 after the war has been proven to be an unsubstantiated fabrication. Conversely, the study about comfort women revealed that: -The comfort women system was an extension of the legalized prostitution system in Japan at the time. -The Japanese military initiated this system to prevent general violence against women and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. -The U.S. military did not recognize the criminal nature of the comfort women system of the Japanese military. As we can see from above things, the Allies has made people believe "Japan's fictitious war crimes" as if it’s true in order to justify their actions during WW2. And, asian countries, which were judged by the Allies as "invaded by Japan", had received a large amount of compensation from Japan. Considering the above, I can't help but think that "the damage that there is no other objective evidence just by testimony or hearsay" is suspicious.
The use of the bombs ended the War. This was because it was the use of the bombs that caused Hirohito to ask his people to stand down. It was the convincing of *_THIS ONE PERSON_* that the war came to an end. Hirohito ended the war. He ended it because we dropped the bombs. He was the *_ONE_* person in the entire world that could do that - and he did it. IF Hirohito had told his people to fight on - *_THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT._* But he didn't. He asked them to endure the unendurable and they did it because their Emperor asked them to. Anyone who does not understand that - does not understand a damn thing about Japan. Dropping the bombs ended the war by causing Hirohito to end the war. Anything else is bull shit. The one thing you should remember about all the people that wrote books arguing against that - is that Revisionist Historians want to sell books. If your book just says that the conventional wisdom was right all along - who's going to buy a book that says that? .
Believe it or not, people are entitled to their own opinions. Saying that it's revisionist historians are the only ones saying this is, ironically, revisionist.
@@Jayrage Because it is. When you have US Marines, saviors of the bombs, and so so so much more people all agreeing, yeah, the bombs where justified. Just for some shit heel nearly 100 years later to say there liars, if it smells like shit, and it looks like shit, its probably shit.
So you are saying. In order the use an ultimate weapon, all we need is a stubborn enough enemy? Yes. Good mentality. I am sure this "bull shit" is not gonna happen in again.
Yeah people saying Japan would never surrender and there would be more casualties...But at the same time why did they surrender after 2 Atomic bombs😂😂😂...Make it make sense...Japan would have surrendered eventually maybe even in 45 cos USSR came along but Americans stoped is from knowing that...
@@Vojkan2000he explained it in the comment. Are you blind? They surrendered after 2 atomic bombs because one person decided to do that, if this person hadn't done it, they would have continued so the bombs convinced him
Yes. Absolutely needed if you wanted to limit overall casualties on both sides. The Japanese were not going to surrender or give up easily, even though it was readily apparent they would not win. Had to show significant destruction with one bomb, and the second to show it wasn’t a one off instance. BTW…I just watched new Oppenheimer movie and it was pretty good. Timely video uploads.
I think you are missing a rather important distinction between military and civilian casualties. Ultimately military casualties have to be acceptable due to the nature of war. Civilian casualties do not.
Yeah you don't need to look any farther than Iwo Jima or Okinawa to see how fanatical the Japanese were in defending. Instead of training children in Japanese schools at the time on mathematics or language or history they were teaching them to fight Americans with sharpened bamboo sticks. Boys AND girls. There wasn't going to be any such thing as a noncombatant if we invaded Honshu.
So does that mean Russia has the right to use the nukes on Ukraine for the same reason the us did? I mean it is to save lives right? Meaning Putin would be a good guy for using those nukes just like america did right? Nukes to saves lives yey for nukes
What kinda gaslighting comparison is that??? Putin was the aggressor 1d10t😂Like Jap Empire and Naz1s Russia.. why should their victims pay for the price that theyve started?? They should be nuked😂
@@simondahl5437 The way the Japanese would have organised with Operation Downfall actually occurring, the concept of a Japanese civilian basically wouldn't have existed.
Damn, that ending thought of the long term deterrance effect shows that doing the right thing is rarely the issue, it is knowing what is the right thing to do. It is only the differences caused by one decision versus an other that counts. And the time horizon for any decision changes that very decision. Complicated beyond belief.
As many others have said... the only reason I'm here today is because my grandfather (who was literally on a ship heading that way - and would have been first wave) didn't die... To think that somehow the death toll or devastation of Olympic / Downfall wouldn't have been much much worse is absurd... It shortened the war and SAVED lives....
10:00 "There was already a moral question" This is the key point everybody misses today. The atomic bombings are considered exceptional and uniquely destructive but in the view of the leadership they really were just a continuation of the firebombing which killed and destroyed far far more people and cities. Even today you have to consider that nuclear weapons are not used tactically because they are simply not convenient. E.g. Russia has quite effectively levelled Ukrainian cities like Bakhmut and Mariupol without resorting to a tactical nuclear weapon. Using a nuclear device would be technically awkward, politically sensitive and expensive in comparison to cheap artillery. Arguably it wouldn't even be as effective, unless you used a very large weapon. Nakasaki and Hiroshima were wooden cities so the destruction wrought by a 12-15kt device was total. In a modern city the damage would be lesser. By firing thousands of shells a day for almost a year, essence Russia has used the equivalent of dozens of hiroshima type weapons against Bakhmut.
@@ande556h Compelling rebuttal, I'm now convinced that I never actually saw hundreds of "BuT WHat aboUT the SoVIets!!!!" claims in the comments of every single video and news article about this, and not a few articles themselves which presented the claim uncritically. They must have just been a mirage.
Very helpful additions to the debate. The Russian abrogation of its neutrality position regarding Japan (which dashed Japanese hopes of potential Soviet negotiations on their behalf), coupled with neither the Japanese nor U.S. desire to see the Soviet invasion of Hokkaido, also contributed to the second bomb drop to prompt a rationale for Japanese surrender to the Americans alone, and a formidable demonstration of American power to the Soviets.
I’m just going it weigh in with my thoughts as a person of Chinese heritage. Nobody in East Asia asks this question at all, only people from the west. Unsurprisingly if you ask someone from China, Korea, The Philippines ect if dropping bombs on civilian cities was an acceptable way to end Japanese occupation they pretty much all say yes.
Japan was extremely determined to continue the fight, and as they did so they tormented and massacred the populations of the countries they invaded. Over an 8 year period of occupation Japan killed ~10 million Chinese people, roughly 1.25 million a year or ~100,000 people a month in China alone.
If the bombings even just quickened the surrender of Japan by a single month I would say it was worth it. Thousands killed, millions spared. It was an extremely difficult choice, but in my opinion the United States did the right thing in a bad situation.
Though this should all be taken with a grain of salt, because I’m pretty emotionally attached to this subject. My Grandmother was enslaved by the Imperial Japanese , and put to labor building dirt runways on Formosa and she was mistreated so horribly she basically never talks about her Childhood. It’s sad but for millions of Koreans, Chinese and Filipinos that was just the reality of their life. Some didn’t get as lucky as my Grandmother.
Don’t start wars if you aren’t ready to get bombed, especially if you bomb all of your enemy’s civilian sectors non-stop the whole war. It’s just difficult for me to feel sympathetic towards their plight.
You are right. What is often forgotten is the suffering of those people still under Japanese occupation. How many Chinese were dying daily because of the Japanese occupation?
You are wise.
Maybe you should send somebody to Berkley to say this...If they'd listen.
I am from Malaysia... The Nuke is necessary to stop the cruelty of Japanese imposed on the civilians...
This right here any time the subject comes up. Never mind that there weren't going to be any noncombatants for the invasion of Honshu itself. Schools for children, both boys and girls, weren't being taught mathematics at that point. They were being taught how to attack American troops with sharpened bamboo sticks. The death toll of an actual invasion of the island was going to dwarf ALL casualty numbers leading up to that point. So I didn't know that one of the escort B-29s was called "Necessary Evil" but no other term comes closer to the truth to what dropping nukes was to end WW 2. It is impossible to know exactly how many lives were saved by the dropping of these two bombs but the lives lost pale in comparison to the numbers that would have been lost without them.
Just as what David covers in a small portion the Japanese have absolutely no moral leg to stand on in condemning the atomic bomb use given their barbaric behavior during the war to civilians in multiple countries. One of the bits that does surprise me about how some parts get highlighted in war and some fly under the radar is the Japanese also did human experiments like you saw with Joseph Mengele yet you would be hard pressed to find people that know of this fact never mind finding someone who knows the names of those Japanese doctors.
At the end of the day war and atrocities hold hands during conflicts on both sides. So one side trying to complain about the other in items like this as if one side is pure good and the other side is pure evil is literally the height of ignorance and hypocrisy.
I think this question was a moral dilemma that never could have been answered in 1945. We have the luxury of reviewing this decision in retrospect. I now think of my forefathers who knew they had to go through hell to force the Japanese empire to surrender. Their answer would have been : "F... this drop the bomb."
finally a level head
For those that think that the nuclear bombs were not necessary I have a question. How many lives are you willing to give up to justify your self-righteous attitude.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer all the deaths of korea and ukraine
@@kalui96only diff was they also had the capability- the end of the world as we know it stop the use in those conflicts.
@@bkldaskdfsjjdsa so are nukes there to end war or fight them?
When I was a history student, we had this very topic discussed during a lecture. I remember someone much smarter than me asking the question: "What if the atom bombs hadn't been used at this time? Would it have been more likely to be used at a later "first time"? Would a demonstration really have been enough to intimidate the Japanese?"
I remember the professor pondering that question shortly, before answering: "A simple demonstration would not have been sufficient, no. I don't believe that. The shock effect would have been lessened significantly. And... To think atom bombs might have been used later as well is... An intimidating thought. It was used here to end a war. It has never been used to escalate one - and hopefully never will."
I really think of that a lot whenever nuclear bombs cross my mind. "How many lives have been saved by the deterrence?"
You can look around and see the effect of deterrence since WWII. Thanks for the share
Something people against the bombing never even consider. Personally, if not on Japan, I think it would’ve been used conventionally between the west and east during the Cold War since no one would’ve truly known the extent of the threat at that time
Thats a good point. I agree.
I may be wrong on this so fact check away, but iirc didn’t the US warn the Japanese they would use the bomb? Didn’t they also propose to use the bomb on an uninhabited island and have Japanese come out and test the island if they wanted to as a more effective warning?
I had to do a paper on this very question and I believe that as terrible as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, they provided the world with a demonstration of the weakest bomb developed and everyone could see how brutal it would be, especially in a tit-for-tat during the Cold War. I also believe more lives were likely saved as I still think Japan would have fought on much longer, creating more casualties for Japan, the Allies and Russia. But we're debating with a much better picture than anyone had in August 1945.
One great-great-grandfather of mine was a Filipino guerilla during the war. The other was a corporal in the Philippine Scout 14th Engineer Regiment, U.S. Army who survived the Bataan Death March. I think people knowing what men like them were up against, let alone what the civilians faced against the Japanese, would make the answer simple: the bombings were super necessary.
Completely agree. My grandparents who were kids during the occupation told us stories of what they saw and it still haunts me. Years and years of horrors that most people today are lucky to have never seen.
Quite right. Japan was NOT going to surrender unless confronted by a weapon that they could not defeat. That country inflicted death and torture on millions, and without nuclear weapons it was never going to be stopped without otherwise a conventional invasion of Japan which would have killed millions.
Daaam, you must be like 10 years old or something. This wasn't that long ago for great great grandparents
I think they're saying their great grandfather is/was a great person & soldier. I could be wrong but that's how I took it as. although, I can see the confusion
My Filipino grandfather was in that death march. He said Japanese soldiers would stop them make them lie down and the soldiers would randomly execute them. He said it was very brutal
Considering that the battle of Stalingrad a few years earlier claimed over a million civillian and military lives, and that was *one* city fought over by regimes that were not willing to back down, I think it's safe to say the quarter million lives taken when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed is a bargain price, cruel though it might be to think
It not cruel at all to look at it like that. This was the perfect example of picking the least worst option.
Some times all we have is utilitarianism
I think the point is that the second Kokura/Nagasaki bomb may have been unnecessary (after Hiroshima and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria), especially if the US had indicated its willingness to allow Hirohito to remain emperor (something they ultimately chose to do anyway). Were that the case, 80,000 lives may have been saved. We'll never know of course, but it is worth considering.
That quarter of a million is including cancer rates over the next two generations.
(Which you can be confident was massively over-inflated.)
In reality, the nukes probably killed less Japanese than would have died from a more traditional bombing campaign, even if you include the cancer rates.
@@troopieeeeee "What if?" Such a wonderful thought, but available only to theorists, decades removed from the actual events. War forces hard choices, based on the practical experience that comes from massive expenditure of blood. The Japanese showed who they were, the Americans believed them, America responded accordingly. The results proves that war is game they should not have played, and people still can't figure that out.
My great uncle was a US paratrooper who was training to be the airborne portion of the invasion of Japan. He was wounded at D-day and fought in the Battle of the Bulge. His unit was expected to take 80% casualties in the first 24 hours of the invasion of Japan. He rarely ever talked about it, and he never complained about the use of the atomic bombs.
My great uncle was a swinger at Old El Runcho Men's Club.
@@DJ_POOP_IT_OUT_FEAT_LIL_WiiWiithank him for his service 😅
All of the purple hearts from 1945 until now were made in 1945 in preparation for the invasion of japan. We still have over 100k in stockpile.
@@major_kukri2430 sure will do
@@DJ_POOP_IT_OUT_FEAT_LIL_WiiWiiyou realize the sign of a lack of intelligence is the inability to present a cohesive argument
The problem with Hasegawa's stance that the second atomic bomb should not be dropped because the Supreme Council barely registered, is that he ignores the full cabinet meeting held later that day. That second meeting starting at 14:30 and lasting deep into the evening was where the second bomb and a potential US stockpile was heavily discussed and the decision to defer to the Emperor and have him directly intervene was made.
it wasnt a descision to defer to the emperor, after negotiations on the nature of the surrender between the two factions in the supreme council had come to a stalemate, the moderate faction (whom the emperor supported) specifically asked the emperor to call an imperial conference, where, over protests of the militarist faction, the moderate faction directly asked the emperor what he wanted to do in regards to surrender. It was the moderates forcing their position
@@pickle2636 The peace faction actually tricked the other three members of the big six into an Imperial Conference by saying they would need one eventually due to Soviet entry into the war. All six members of the big six had to sign off on the conference. Anami, Umezu and Yonai were not happy when an Imperial Conference was called a few hours later.
It was the Soviets that convinced them to surrender. They’d already seen the mass destruction of Tokyo and Osaka by incendiaries. Bombs were not getting US troops ashore.. but the Russians were going to be there via South Sakhalin and Hokkaido before the Americans.
@@calvinnickel9995 With what landing ships? The soviet union was very ill-equiped to conduct amphibious landings.
@@calvinnickel9995 I somehow doubt the Japanese were concerned about the Soviet Army swimming from Sakhalin to Hokkaido. The Japanese forces on Hokkaido was twice the size of that on Okinawa, and the Americans had more troops killed there than would have comprised the whole Soviet invasion force destined for Hokkaido.
Bear in mind that on the 14th of August there was an attempted coup to prevent the surrender. That was almost a week after the nukes and the invasion of Manchuria.
If the Japanese military struggled to accept the surrender even after facing a two-front invasion by the world's most powerful militaries AND a nuclear Armageddon, i really don't see how they would have accepted surrender without seeing both the terror of nuclear weapons and the might of the late-war Red Army.
Igor. Not only did the Emperor and the Big Six have to accept surrender , but the JIA would have to accept it was well . The Emperor recorded a speech that was played to the Citizens of Japan on August 15th , 1945 .
Turns out the Emperor made another speech to the officers and men of the Imperial forces on Augusta 17th 1945 .
.
@@landsea7332 nobody had to do anything. Even after the Emperor's direct order some Japanese units refused to surrender and fought on - the last Japanese soldier did not surrender until 1974! Imagine how worse it would be if the coup was successful and the Emperor's message was never transmitted.
and as the video said they also combined some data at the fighting on okinawa and iwo jima at how the imperial japanese will fight. even that small island iwo jima, againts all odds, fight until the end now imagine it on a mainland japanese soil. thats why we must be afraid when world war 3 will broke out cause surely there will be no world war 4.
@@masterkenobi3666 " the fighting on Okinawa and Iwo Jima at how the imperial Japanese will fight. "
Yes , by the end of July 1945 , US intelligence reported the continued build up of the JIA , on Kyushu , which put the invasion : defender ratio at 1:1 .
The JIA forces on Kyushu were of different abilities , but regardless , after Iwo Jima and Okinawa , it was clear an invasion of Kyushu would have been a horrific blood bath .
.
@@masterkenobi3666 There _might_ be a WW IV. Fought with spears, bows and arrows, clubs , and rocks.
You can only fairly judge someone's actions by what they they knew and what they could reasonably conclude at the time. The US couldn't be sure how Japan would react to the Soviets, or to the other factors that might have also prompted a surrender. But they could be pretty sure about the casualties in an invasion.
Also worth pointing out that nukes didn't yet have the aura of evil we associate with them today, which is due in no small part to modern nukes being genuinely more dangerous, but also lots of intervening time to think about fallout and MAD. Our judgment of these people in the 40s is colored by the emotional legacy of the cold war. None of that was in anyone's mind at the time.
Hindsight is 20/20.
But I'm also sure the knowledge we had about the Japanese development of weapons of biological warfare played a major part in the decision....look into unit 731 if you're curious...I would suggest looking up the declassified documents and not looking at the pictures because they have plentiful autopsy photos
@brushylake4606 especially when the people arguing that the bombings have their heads planted so far up their "modern day morally superior" derrieres that they have to part their hind cheeks in order to see.
No, you can judge someone with hindsight. That’s how we learn.
@@brandonwilliams6221 You cannot morally judge someone's actions with hindsight, unless you are not serious and just a silly hypocrite.
My grandfather was a US Marine infantry lieutenant who was going to be in the first invasion wave of the main islands of Japan. As a result, he was in the first occupation wave. He was involved in the disarmament of the Japanese home Islands' defenses and was so impressed by their strength and thoroughness that he was utterly, completely convinced the Japanese never would have surrendered without the bomb. What's more, he experienced first hand the view the Japanese population had of Americans because of their propaganda. He was asked by the Japanese police officer who was assigned to be his liaison who he killed, his mother or his father. Apparently the Japanese were told American Marines had to murder someone to become a Marine and had to murder their mother or father to be an officer. They were convinced we were monsters and were prepared to die rather than surrender.
You don't need propaganda for that.
The creator of grave of the fireflys saw at first hand the destruction not only of his city but his family at first hand, he Even Made a story call American Gaijin who hated with all pasion the american's.
A hatred that follow him to his death.
As some Say this Is what war Is and until someone Say enough. It's never going to end.
@@lordjor96 yeah I’m sure the Chinese civilians felt the same way about the Japanese after they were raped and tortured villages across the land. I’m also sure that American Marines felt the same way when one of their paramedic friends would go over to help him to Japanese, and he would blow himself up with a grenade, killing the paramedic.
Yep. And the Americans based their projected casualties from the mass civilian suicides in the Saipan and Okinawa campaigns, where over half of the civilian population killed themselves rather than surrender to the advancing Americans.
@@modest_spice6083why are people so desperate to defend war criminals. Google the Rape of Nanking. Your precious nips were little better than wild animals. Just because they act civilized 70 years later doesnt erase their actions in the past.
It wasn’t necessary, even Douglas MacArthur stated if Americans agreed not to dismantle the institution of the emperor, Japan would have surrendered.
A good source on what an invasion of Japan might have entailed is Hell to Pay by Dennis Giangreco. What I found most striking is that while Allied estimate of Japanese civilian casulties of an invasion were 5-10 million, the Japanese government's estimate was 20 million and did not cause a desire to surrender to avoid it.
I didn't know there was a firm Japanese estimate. Interesting. There total pop was about 75 million or so at the time. I am trying to think of a nation that would consider 1/3 of its population sustainable losses.
@@MM22966a nation who inbred the willingness to fight and promoted a view that anyome not from japan or china are subhuman are to be subservient?
@MM22966 Paraguay is widely believed among academics to have lost a comparable portion of it's population in the Paraguayan war before agreeing to surrender.
What's more about those numbers: those are in the opening stages. That isn't counting the deaths due to famine and disease that would follow, especially given the Allied war plans included using chemical weapons to destroy Japan's ability to grow food as a way to hopefully force a faster surrender. Had it gone to a conventional invasion, genocide would have been a very likely result.
Look at the Vietnamese, one generation later. The losses were incredible, but they were very determined. Japan and Viet Nam, built different, even in Asia. Its difficult to defeat a fanatical enemy willing to sacrifice everything.
Thank you for playing the entire Oppenheimer quote. "I am become death, destroyer of worlds" means something quite different when you realize it is Vishnu saying it to convince a mortal prince to fight. This implies that death is a divine intervention that will befall all people regardless of whether the prince fights or not. Thus, Oppenheimer is not saying that he has become the embodiment of death but, rather, played a role in inevitable, divinely mandated death. When considered in the context of the atomic bombing of Japan, "inevitable death" could take the form of firebombing or U.S. invasion of the Japanese mainland or even old age.
But is not Vishnu saying it to some prince. Is a very mortal oppenheimer saying it to the world. He became death and brought the end of this world. He just realized it at that moment
@@rastrisfrustreslosgomez544No.
@@rastrisfrustreslosgomez544it’s a quote from the Bhagavad Gita, in the context of that Gita Vishnu is saying it to a price
@@rastrisfrustreslosgomez544no, he saw himself as the prince, having to fulfil his duty against his morality
It’s not what he said anyway. He thought of that quote long afterward
The Japanese Emperor had a pivotal influence on the internal decision to surrender... It is possible that the atomic bombings gave him a way to "save face" as he went about encouraging the surrender of his country... He lived on for many years after the war ended, did anyone bother to ask him if the A-bombs were indeed a factor in his decision?
Hirohito does specifically mention the bombs in his address to the nation. The wikipedia article has the full text
“Hirohito Surrender Broadcast”
"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."
Yeah because we have to remember that the decision to surrender was NOT popular in the eyes of Japan's public, even the men fighting on the front lines. They thought that their leaders had "sold them out" and considered them cowards.
This is the key phrase in the surrender address
"Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization"
*total extinction of human civilization*
Remember that japanese (and chinese) considered themselves to be the pinnacle of humanity. When Hirohito says that human civilization would go extinct, he means Japan's civilization. Everybody else is not japanese, so not civilized, barbarians.
*Should we continue to fight*
Fight against WHO?
Against the americans? There is no "fight" against B29s dropping nukes from 30000 feet
What he is talking here is continued fight *against the russians* . It is useless/pointless to fight the russians because their armies cannot be bled, they do not grow tired of casualties, Stalin does not stand for election.
In the end, Hirohito was more afraid of the soviets taking Kōkyo and doing another Reichstag picture than of repeated atomic bombs.
@@ricardokowalski1579the Japanese military didn't have clueless idiots running it, fanatics yes but not idiots, they would have known the Soviets had no ability to successfully pull off an opposed amphibious landings without the other allies doing literally everything for them aside from providing men.
Nagasaki wasn't of limited importance. That city was where the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service trained for the Attack on Pearl Harbor, and also had the Mistubishi Heavy Industries shipyards, which was where the IJN Musashi was built.
Correct.
they did try to say it both ways during the videos, didn't they?
Weird he said that right? In his main channel video he even specifically mentions the Mitsubishi factories but in this video says “little military importance” like what changed
It was. It wasn't the number one port in Japan. Yokohama was it. The video muss out also the point, if Truman want the quick victory way not nuke Tokyo and the imperial palace itself? It truly the Soviet union that change the deal where Staline explicitly quote to remove the Japanese emperor and the invasion of South Korea and the island of hokaido was imminent. The Japanese emperor prefere the American surender on itself. He was all poker and he survived even if he was responsible of the start of WW2 in the Pacific theater.
To be fair, by late 1945 neither of those were particularly important targets. The Japanese weren't really "training" their pilots much any more, and Japan couldn't operate the ships they had, much less commission new ones. That being said, I got the sense he was more paraphrasing arguments from the historians mentioned, and that the statement about their limited importance was one of those quotes.
I'm from the West, but my wife is from Japan and her father and his immediate family were in Hiroshima. He and his immediate family survived, but lots of relatives and friends were killed.
My wife always said it was a crime against humanity, but I countered.... "what is the better alternative?"
Operation Downfall would have totally destroyed Japan even more, and there's always the possibility of the USSR invading from the North. So in some alternate history, there could potentially be some North Japan regime a la East Germany and North Korea.... then a South Japan regime like West Germany and South Korea. Would that be a better world?
Maybe Japan would have surrendered without being nuked, but it's not like they didn't have any opportunity to surrender. It isn't some WW1 Germany situation where the homeland was more or less untouched. Japan has been constantly being defeated and continuously bombed.
Even after the nukes and after the Soviets rolled over Manchuria, there were still many in the Japanese military and government that wanted to keep fighting. There was even an attempted coup to keep the war going.
It was unfortunate, but anything short of letting the Japanese High Command know that not only defeat, but the total annihilation of the people/nation of Japan was a possibility if they didn't surrender unconditionally, would have swayed them.
This isn't to say atomic bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was "good" or "right", but it's war. War is dirty, war is terrible, war is never ever good.... but for this.... the "necessary" choice was taken.
Even after being nuked, there were people in the government who didn’t want to surrender, they actually tried to overthrow the emperor to keep Japan from surrendering
Humankind has given itself rules of war. Pre WW2. Deliberately targeting civilians was made a war crime. Killing 100,000 of them could likely fall into the category of genocide as well, especially when you use words like "total annihilation" as if it would boost your case.
Why did the surrender had to be unconditional in the first place? From what I read, many officers just tried to save the emperor and their only condition was that he remained untouched. In the end, the Allies did not execute or even prosecute the emperor, so this condition could have easily been met.
so, then. how could america fumble korea so bad? shouldn't they have dropped nukes there?
@@FriedrichHerschelit's only a war crime if you lose
I don't dislike Japanese, but their education system (when it comes to ww2) is ludicrous. First, they portray Japan as victim, second they downplay atrocities Japan committed. I like Japanese culture and anime, but I can easily imagine getting extremely angry if Japanese were to lecture me about crimes against humanity - while being totally oblivious to Japan STARTING this war and showing cruelty often surpassing even the Nazis.
In my opinion, the fact that even after the two atomic bombings and the Soviet declaration of war there was still extensive debate on the part of the Japanese about whether to surrender and the fact that the hardliners were willing to attempt a coup to stop the surrender demonstrates that the Japanese almost certainly would not have surrendered when they did without the use of the bombs. Nobody can ever know for certain, but the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the use of the bombs ultimately saved lives and not just American lives, but also Japanese lives.
I agree that it was a close thing that Japan surrendered unconditionally (and without multiple costly invasions). I’m not convinced that the atomic bombs actually changed that much though given that Soviet intervention precluded the course of action Japan really wanted, which was a conditional, negotiated surrender. Especially given that the effects of traditional fire bombing raids were greater in some instances than the atomic bombs, I’m not sure how much the Japanese leadership feared the effects of the bombs. Further consider that they were meeting to discuss surrender when Nagasaki was bombed and that bombing wasn’t much a topic of discussion, so how can it have affected the decision much?
But, I also don’t think it was a bad decision to do everything possible to avert the need for Operation Downfall. Even forcing Japan to surrender a few days earlier than they would override reduced casualties and civilian atrocities perpetrated by the imperial army.
The fact that even with the bombs several army groups still refused orders to stand down as late as October kinda discredits any assertion that Japan was going to surrender soon anyway
@@Geffde I respectfully disagree with a few of your points for several reasons. Firstly I don't think it is accurate to say that the Soviet intervention precluded Japanese plans for a conditional surrender when the Japanese themselves were still trying to surrender conditionally starting on August 10th and lasting until Hirohito himself made the decision to accept the terms of the Allies unconditionally on August 14th. A decision that I would point out was fairly controversial given the coup attempt that followed that decsion.
It is true that the firebombing killed more and damaged a greater area than the two atomic bombs, but that was the result of a months-long effort involving thousands of B-29s in nighttime low-altitude raids against many cities where the individual raids ranged from the low hundreds of aircraft up to nearly 900 in the largest raid. This is in contrast to the Atomic bombings which involved two bombs, a grand total of 13 aircraft in two high-altitude raids three days apart against two cities. It seems to me that it is much tougher to justify continuing to fight against an enemy that can wipe a city off the map in a single attack with a single bomb on a single day.
In regards to the meeting that occurred while Nagasaki was bombed, I would point out that that was a meeting of the Supreme Council with the news of Nagasaki being bombed arriving around halfway through the meeting. At the end of the meeting, the six members deadlocked with 3 in favor of one conditional surrender and the other three in favor of a different conditional surrender. In other words, not even a conditional surrender was agreed to in that meeting or several others that followed rather Hirohito made the decision for a conditional surrender the following day (August 10th). As I mentioned previously it would take until the 14th for an unconditional surrender to be agreed to so I don't see how it can be argued that Nagasaki couldn't have effected the decision.
Yes, Japanese would have starved in the winter had the war gone on any longer.
@@Delta36A1 without a neutral party to mediate negotiations, any plan to negotiate conditions for surrender is much less credible. That is, the likelihood of extracting any concessions dropped, so the risk-benefit for continuing to fight to improve the conditions of surrender is “all risk no reward.” That it took a few days for Japanese leadership to come around to that view (to the extent that they did at all…) isn’t surprising. Also, that they still tried to negotiate isn’t surprising, the relevant point is that they got no concessions AND determined it was fruitless to hold out for them.
Since the Japanese were willing to continue fighting in the face of successful fire bombing raids, I still don’t see how the ease of executing an atomic bombing run factors much into the equation. The end effect to Japan is a city “wiped off the map” (a bit of an exaggeration in either case) either way.
Fair enough, but the meeting was called because of the Soviet declaration of war the day before not the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Also, again, that they attempted to get more favorable conditions for surrendering isn’t surprising (wouldn’t you too if you could), the fact that they capitulated at all is what’s relevant.
All I’m contending is that capitulation happened because of Soviet involvement and would have happened without dropping two A bombs. I’m not saying dropping them was a bad call at the time (or even one I’d second guess 80 years later really) and I’m not saying there weren’t other, legitimate factor in making that decision. Just that, from the Japanese point of view, the impetus for surrender was predominantly if not entirely due to the Soviet declaration of war.
As a Japanese speaking many people in my country think that it was 100% Americas fault
and Im very ashamed that many people only think they are the victims and doesn’t mention about the terrible war crimes we have committed. I truly hate when my people know the truth about the war crimes for example Nanking massacre but they just denies and justifies it saying stupid things like we came to liberate Asia! Something like that
They don’t even feel guilty of what they did perhaps because of some stupid nationalism or something.….truly disgusting.
My understanding is that modern Japanese school books sort of skip over a lot of details about WW2 and concentrate on the narrative of Japan defending itself from outside aggressors. Is that true?
Most school books portraits the Japanese as aggressors but doesn’t mention anything about the war crimes
@@collateral6906 Out of curiosity, do said books talk about war crimes in general? Such as ones committed by Germany, Russia etc.
It’s officially called the rape of Nanking btw
They mention about the auschwitz
"The most unethical thing for the Allies to do would have been to lose the war." They couldn't know what strategy would finally win the war, so they did everything they could. I heard a historian make that point in a documentary about the bombing of cities during WW2.
The videos acknowledges that most people knew Japan was sure to lose, his comment is irrelevant.
They were not going to lose. Stalin was out for blood and was prepared to throw away lives to take Japan. Japan unconditionally surrendered the day after Manchuria fell. Military power makes victories not bombing. Just ask the Germans, as soon as they switched from military targets to civilians they got chewed up by the RAF
@@Kokoda144 While tons of civilians were killed in the bombings of Japan, it was not the main aim. Destroying city industry was still a militarily-useful factor in helping cripping Japan's war machine and practical and economic ability to keep fighting. Given enough time and damage, this will absolutely affect willingness to surrender, and in fact Japan *did* want to surrender well before they did, they just wanted more favorable terms to do so. The bombings were just making it crystal clear that no such terms would be met, pushing them towards an unconditional surrender.
This would make sense except:
1 - The US had already blockaded Japan so they had no material left to make weapons.
2 - The US had radar bombing and could fairly accurately target factories and yet, they leveled entire cities.
Point two is already made void because of point one. They had stripped buildings and infrastructure of things like iron already and they literally had nothing left. Bamboo poles for civilians to try ambush the Allies, because you know; they really didn't give a rap about civilian casualties. You constantly bring that point up, so why would they care about them getting bombed
@@Kokoda144 I’m very curious to know what you think radar bombing is
My mother was a teenager in Japan during the war. She made it very clear that the bomb saved millions of Japanese lives. There were 12 MILLION people in her home guard unit in Tokyo alone. Most of them, including my mother, would have fought to the death without question.
Thanks for giving a Japanese perspective. Domo.
An invasion of Japan would have turned into a genocide. Most of the deaths wouldn't even be from fighting, but starvation. Just look at the Philippines, the US suffered about 14,000 dead, while the Japanese suffered about 330,000, 80% of which is estimated to be from starvation.
@@tomkeegan3782 1 Japanese perspective, doesn’t speak for everyone
@@matthewsmigielski7652who asked
@@tylerjames3488 it was the suicide. Mass fucking suicides dude. Civilians convinces by Japanese propaganda that the US would rape and kill them if they were caught alive. Or they hid in caves and starved to death. But the suicide was way worse than the starving. Literally parents killing their children then themselves cause the Japanese has them so scarred of the US.
Another point to consider is that there's a pretty good chance that had we moved forward with Downfall, we would have dropped nukes anyways, and more of them. The use of nukes in Downfall was already in the formal planning stages by the end of the War, with estimates of 7-15 nukes being available at the time of invasion. Given the incredible carnage in the opening stages, American leaders would have been under great pressure to use them to stage a breakout. Also, you can find in the technical manuals for the P-47 N (the variant designed specifically for the Pacific) evidence that it was capable of carrying dispensing cannisters for some "unspecified" purpose. Reading between the lines, it suggests that even chemical weapons were being considered.
Your point of consideration is that where you not allowed to murder people you would have gone even more crazy and end up murdering even more people. REally makes me wonder if any ammount of carnage will ever satisfy you
Actually, your hyperbole aside, in substance, the primary argument in favor of the bombs was that Downfall would have been much worse. And this is even assuming nukes WEREN'T used during Downfall. So, there is a kernel of truth to what you're saying. Of course, this analysis is undoubtedly harsh. But, those were the stakes at the time. Imperial Japan, Germany, and the Axis powers presented some awful choices for the world.
@@helzevec so the primary argument is some sort of paranoic assumption. Got it. I often wonder how come someone kill, but since the dead man may have been evil then that is enough of a reason for psychopaths. Got it
@@rastrisfrustreslosgomez544if ignorance was a crime, you were serving three life sentences.
@@rastrisfrustreslosgomez544youre talking to him as if he controled it lmfao go direct your rage at something useful
I think it was a combination of everything hitting Japan in rapid succession.
The Japanese were ready to fight to the death, but the keyword is “fight”. They felt duty-bound to take as many enemies with them, but what if that enemy had the capability to annihilate hundreds of thousands of them with just 1 plane and 1 bomb?
The firebombing sorties each required hundreds of planes dropping thousands of bombs. And they were largely powerless to stop them. They could think to outlast them, but what if all the enemy needed was 1 plane and 1 bomb?
They could think to keep fighting in their colonies, even if Japan itself is obliterated. Maybe the US wouldn’t have enough bombs to send everywhere or wouldn’t want to use them in liberation areas. But what if they were surrounded on all sides due to Russia entering the war against them?
The US from the Pacific, the British from Southearn Asia, and now Russia from Manchuria and China. Japan went from simply losing the war, to facing annihilation with no capability of even taking the enemy down with them, in a matter of days.
That was the level of shock they needed.
It wasn’t in the possibility of losing,
It wasn’t in the surety of losing.
It was in knowing that they WILL lose, and they can’t even make the enemy bleed for it.
Without dropping the bombs, It's not hard to imagine the whole of Japan would turned into the meat grinder like the last stand in Berlin.
Dropping the nukes saved Japan from genocide.
@@gudhaxer41343 dropping the nukes saved territories occupied by Japan from further genocide. I have no idea why everybody talking about the "morality" of dropping those nukes forgets about what Japanese were doing in mainland Asia and many islands of Pacific for years. They butchered local populations like there was no tomorrow. Nukes were at least some swift justice that stopped millions suffering in an instant.
@@gudhaxer41343 don't be naive what america did was genocide. If You really want I can bring out the dictionary for you
@@wrmusic8736 contrary to whatever nonsense you believe torturing the torturer doesnt make You any better. Where did You get that people stops suffering when You murder l their family? The suffering Truman unleashed on the world is still raging to this day and it doesnt seem likely it Will ever stop
The biggest problem, I think with the discussion around the use of nukes in 1945 is the same problem we find in a number of historical debates. That is our desire as humans to find one singular casual factor for a single event. I think the actual cause for Japanese surrender is more complex than most people think. I truly think it took both events, the use of nuclear weapons and the invasion of the USSR to bring enough Japanese leaders to accept surrender. It also brought the Emperor to decide to surrender, which is the most important part. Emperor Hirohito was fairly removed from most of the decision making during the war (that isn't absolving him from not doing more sooner). Once he made it his will to surrender his military leaders could no longer claim to be representing his will and had to relent. Many wanted to continue to fight even after both nukes and the USSR invasion, militarist factions tried to prevent the surrender order from being broadcast. Once Japan was left with no other political options and the threat of destruction was absolute Japanese leaders had no other option. Asking which of the two events ended the war is the wrong question and it is narrow minded, the real story is complex, because people are complex. We need to remember that the Japanese government was made up of individuals who probably each weighed the nukes and the USSR joining the war differently. One might have feared this new weapon more, while another feared the soviets more. It think that without both events happening there is a much greater than zero percent chance the war continues and so many more people die that didn't have to.
...and you've fallen into the trap of assuming that the USSR had any significant role in Japan's surrender.
By late 1943, Imperial Japanese war council had already forsaken their Asian land territory holdings as the US submarine blockade tightened it's nigh impenetrable noose around the Island's neck.
The USSR had no significant naval or amphibious doctrine, technology, manpower, or capability. By 1945, it was still doubtful if they could land a corps sized force unopposed with any degree of effectiveness.
The ONLY thing worth mentioning of the Soviet's military actions against Japan in the Imperial's surrender is NOTHING.
What the USSR pulled was a diplomatic coup that forced the Japanese fanatics into either an unconditional surrender, or a fight to the death; a Sovietnegotiated and limited surrender being the middle road was taken away overnight by foreign secretary Molotov. The situation progressed from neutral third party with posibility of mediation (Japanese-Soviet Non-aggression Pact) to declaration of total war. There would be no terms dictated to the United Nations from Tokyo, this point forwards.
Much more significant to the Japanese surrender was the use of Plutonium implosion weapons at Nagasaki.
Japanese scientists recognized this meant one thing: that the US had plutonium 239 weapons breeder reactors which could produce dozens of bombs a month... And from what US propaganda was saying; they'd use those "weapons never before seen to mankind" to wipe every Japanese city off the face of the Earth with all due haste.
The soviets are never mentioned in Hirohito's surrender speech. Preserving the Japanese people and culture through unconditional acceptance of defeat IS.
@amistrophy I think that the USSR's ability to conquer Manchuria is pretty notably and not to be overlooked.
Additionally, is there any source that the Japanese scientists?/ Military leaders understood sufficiently enough about nuclear bombs to make that sort of decision making besides the vague "The Allies must have a lot of these"?
I could be wrong, but it just seems odd to me that knowing the specific makeup of the Nagasaki bomb would matter.
The island holdouts post war were, through their refusal to surrender, also in defiance of the will of the emperor yet they were welcomed home as heroes. This shows that yes, the emperor gave them cover to surrender but also no, they didn’t give a damn about the emperor (the shogunate had only ended 77 years previously and it had ruled Japan for over 600 years prior to that. People got used to the shogun telling the emperor to get stuffed).
@@amistrophy Japan had moved a big portion of its military industry to manchuria to protect it from bombing. Losin Manchuria was a big deal. And after Manchuria, the soviet would have threatened the japanese army in China.
I don't think it would have been possible for the japenese scientists to identify plutonium, understand its consequences and relay the information to the japanese government before the decision was made. There was simply no time.
Hirohito's second surrender speech, the one to the army, doesn't mention the atomic bombs and says that the reason of the surrender is the soviet entry into the war.
The soviet union played a significant role in Japan's surrender.
@@jcorey333 I don't think there was enough time for the scientists to realize that or to send the information to the government.
Another fact not mentioned: As the US was preparing for Operation Downfall - the invasion of the Japanese mainlands - in 1945, American Generals estimated that it would cost them anywhere between 400,000 and 4-million casualties, so they began stockpiling Purple Hearts, up to 500,000 of them, until the plans for invasion were called off. Those stockpiled Purple Hearts had been used since then, but finally, 45 years later in 1990, the news broke that the American military was manufacturing new ones.
Was the invasion of Japan absolutely necessary to win the war? Can a unconscious combatant fight? Does Japan depend on imports?
I don't reject our use of the bombs as there were clear benefits for us and the world but I do reject the notion that we saved military lives because they assume the invasion of Japan was necessary to KO Japan. Japan is an Island, incapable of mass production without imports.
If their fears were truly for losing American Lives they could have just allowed USSR to invade Japan. Saving lives when viewed from this perspective is clearly an incomplete picture. It was a power/political move. They wanted Japan to surrender to us and prevent the USSR invasion.
So because of that, no, the bombs weren't necessary. They were convenient and did benefit humanity over time as it's better to use them to end a war than to start one.
So starving millions of Japanese and letting Stalin's army do the murdering is moral to you? What's the difference who does the invading?
@@orielsy USSR to invade Japan.
Welp, they were planning to invade hokkido at that time, but sadly their east asian forces were too weak, especially if it comes to navy.
@@orielsy During the Japanese Supreme War council meeting were Hirohito ordered the cessation of hostilities; I believe it was General Anami told Hirohito that they estimated Japan would lose 20 million civilians during an invasion many to starvation which was already afflicting Japan. In spite of that estimate the pro-war faction wanted to fight. The wanted the entire nation to fight to the death. They did not care about the lack of food, resources or overwhelming Allied power. When the Emperor's speech was broadcast many of the population thought Hirohito was going to order them do fight to the death. The bombs were entirely necessary. After the first bomb the Supreme war council dismissed them claiming the US only had the one. After the second bomb and the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria the pro-war faction still wanted to continue the war. Read the minutes from that meeting of the Supreme war council, Hirohito specifically mentions the special technical means that the Allies used.
I really enjoy these longer videos on Intel Report and Operations room. When I left the Army I faced a 20 hour drive with a two year old in the car, and that’s when I discovered Ops Room and some other history related channels (Potential History, Armchair Historian, Mark Felton). Now, whenever I face a long drive you accompany me the whole way. I just go to the channel, click a video and let them roll. Thank you for the knowledge and the company!
I believe that many who are opposed to the use of the atomic bombs don't fully understand the situation at the time,and react only because of the "atomic" part of it. The firebombing of Tokyo killed at least as many as the bombing of Hiroshima, but it was done conventionally, so they were just "conventionally" roasted, not immediately atomized. The battle of Okinawa cost the lives of perhaps 150,000 Japanese civilians, as many as both atomic bombs, but they were shot, stabbed, blown up, so no atomic involved. The US could have starved hundreds of thousands of Japanese to death with just their navy via blockade. The people wouldn't be less dead, it would have just taken a bit longer. Remove "atomic" from the equation, and you hear a lot less about it being inhumane and unnecessary.
We’ll put. Most of the critique is revisionist history or just a complete lack of understanding of the situation both sides were in leading up to the bomb.
Just because the firebombings were bad too does not justify other methods that are bad.
And the vast majority of victims were not "immediately atomised" very few would have been killed instantly, most would suffer 3rd degree burns to most of their body and died quite slowly and painfully.
And this comment kind of misses the point of the video. The US were not trying to save lives, they were trying to end the war quickly. If they wanted to save lives, they could have, but chose not. That makes whatever action they took, nuclear or otherwise, completely unjustified to me.
@@gmtom19 I don't believe @eoyguy is attempting to justify the atomic bombings, merely giving perspective on the horror of conflict. As for your comment on saving lives, the implication is that the best answer would simply be surrender to all aggression. That strikes me as astonishingly naive. But I shall defer and ask how "If they wanted to save lives, they could have" ?
@@gmtom19what the fuck do you mean america could’ve ended the war and saved lives more efficiently than they did? Brother have you ever met a Japanese person from that time frame? MANY of them would’ve fought tooth and nail till the very end before they surrendered. You want another million people to die in a conventional invasion?
Well, yeah, would you rather the US draw out the war? Why wouldn't you try to win a war in the quickest least risky way possible? Sacrifice your own men needlessly over some bs sense of honour? You can't start a world war, then complain about getting your ass handed to you.
My grandfather was wounded at Bastogne. His close friend, Jim Conway of Fisher, AR was a landing craft pilot, stationed at Majuro Atoll and began prepping for the invasion. He clearly understood that he and all the men on his boat were likely to die when Operation Downfall occurred. He and every soldier, sailor, and marine I have ever spoken to has absolutely no problem. They sleep well at night. He told me that if it had taken half a dozen bombs or more, he'd be fine with it. "They started it, don't whine when you throw a punch and then get your ass kicked."
As I am from nearby North Luxembourg, If you granddad still lives and ever comes around, I ll buy him a beer! He probably wont be alive sadly because of the time passed since the end of that war, but dont think the people around here have forgotten that we would all be speaking german if not for the US. (instead we have to be pretty fluent in french because of our stuck up government... Its rough being from Luxembourg at times,... ;) )
@@8asw8Thanks to the Soviet Union*
@@8asw8 Unfortunately, he has passed. I have visited your lovely nation. I visited Bastogne and brought soil from the Mardasson to sprinkle on his grave. Luxembourg holds the bodies of many of his comrades. One day when we're in heaven, I'm sure he'll take that beer.
I can assure you that I was impressed by how I was treated in Belgium and Luxembourg. I love that idyllic, peaceful place. He knew you folks appreciate his sacrifice and he was glad to help such wonderful people. God's blessings to you and your country.
PS: I agree about the French. Of course, the French folk he met were pretty excited to see him, so he remembered them fondly.
@@brushylake4606 Lovely nation with a stupid government those last 10 years, but I hope those will be gone in October when we hold elections.
I work in forestry and nature conservation. I know first hand, well rather second hand, how atrocious that theater was. We still dig up bombs, grenades and rifles from that era, anytime we have a project that needs us to shift soil. We actually have minesweepers clearing the patch of land before we do anything digging related. The Battle of the Bulge is ever present here, we just call it the "Rundstedt Offensive" or "Ardennenoffensive". We have Monuments and Memorials everywhere.
PS: We also have some history with french occupation and there is a rift north vs south in the country, the south being more "frenchish" the north being more "germanish" if you want to call it that way. Since all our laws are in french, going back to napoleonean times and we have a lot of immigrants that just refuse to learn luxembourgish since "you know french!" you kinda have to know your baguette language. And I hated the language all through school and still hate it today, even though I am fluent.
@@vitoribas For what? The Molotov Ribbentrop Pact? Or some million people dead because of their political ideology? Or for the cold war and the constant threat of atomic annihilation alongside statefunded left wing terror like the Rote Armee Fraktion?
I dont need to be grateful to that murderous regime for anything.
I was born in Oita Japan, almost halfway between Hiroshima and Nagasaki less than 10 years after the bombs were dropped. I have to agree that dropping the bombs was necessary to save lives on both sides. I was adopted by American parents in 1955. Later on I would join the USAF and serve 4 years in Japan. I even got to visit the Atomic Museum at Hiroshima, an eye opening experience. I had a chance to visit the one at Nagasaki, but turned it down.
I was that museum when I was in the Navy 🇨🇦. What struck me was there was zero emphasis or mention of any moral judgments of the bombs use. Hiroshima is a very nice city now.
@@noormohamad1 The morality is for you to deside. It is a very important question. That is why it is for you to decide
and ur opinion is valid because? u werent even alive buddy
@@noormohamad1 This shocked me too. I was certain that I would have to hear or read something that condemned Americans or maybe get dirty looks or condemned myself. There was none of that, but, they did a fantastic job on the museum and it's a an experience I will never forget.
I do not een want to know what the looses would have been. Tojo was prepared to literally sacrifice the population including children and I doubt he intimated that to the Emporer. On the Allied side they were budgeting one million casualties. The Soviet declaration of war would have given Tojo a shock as well on top of seeing the effect of the bombs. I am a Kiwi and was born on the 9th anniversary of Hiroshima, I am glad you had the chance for a great life Dave.
The idea of judging the morality of the atomic bombs has always seen quite misguided to me, as most people seem to think if the American's hadn't of done it, no one else would of eventually used a atomic weapon in combat. By 1945 most the big players in the war were already planning there own bombs. The idea of America letting the genie out the bottle by dropping them ignores the fact that the genie was out the bottle as soon as the science became viable. Most scientists knew the atom could be weaponised, it would just take time before someone else did it.
I think a lot of it also has to do with the lack of knowledge about radiation. If the nukes were 'clean' I'd expect they would still be used today as the US has been making bombs with close to Little Boy's effective power.
The nukes didn't kill any more civilians than firebombing Tokyo a few days earlier.
Eh, I don't agree and I worked with nuclear ordnance at Minot AFB for a decade. More modern (modern as in 1952 onwards) bombs are primarily fusion bombs, the reason they're called hydrogen bombs, and they leave very little amounts of radiation. Even the bombing of Hiroshima shows that post nuclear attack the radiation levels quickly fell to basically background levels. The real decider for the radiation issue with bombs is if they're detonated in the air before they contact the ground or if they're blown up on impact. Impact hits are super bad for radiation but airbursts aren't really. It's just a matter of nobody being able to dictate the 'acceptable' level of power a nuke could have before justifying a retaliatory strike with one larger.@@cp1cupcake
Einstein said he never believed an atomic bomb was really possible and I believe he regretted encouraging FDR to pursue it. The Catholic church banned the crossbow because it pierced armor and people who wore armor were the churches main support and muscle. Any halfwit could use it.
True. The Germans were on the way to building their own and they would have used it.
As stated in the video, American commanders were reacting to the massive loses the US sustained at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. For a "defeated" enemy, the Japanese were putting up a very stiff defense. Also, it is my understanding that Unit 731 killed far more Chinese people with chemical and biological weapons than the two atom bombs killed.
Also, regarding the Russians getting involved against Japan, did they have the means to launch a amphibious assault on Japan or would their assault have been limited to taking Japanese occupied territory on mainland Asia?
The Soviet Union wanted the end of the Japanese emperor because he was a heavy Anti Communist. The anti Komitan pact with Italy and Nazi Germany for exemple. The video forget also that the Soviet recapture Shakalinsk and the Kouriles island from Japan in the nord. It was only a matter of time for the invasion of Hokkaido has the decent on South Korea.
Red Army troops led some limited amphibious operations in the Sakhalin Islands area, they launched a full invasion of South Sakhalin (to retake the territory lost in the 1904-1905 war) then invaded the Kuril Islands (after rejecting their plan to invade Hokkaido). Japanese resistance was hard on Sakahlin and both sides sustained heavy casualties, in the Kuril Islands fighting was less intense because of the smaller garrison, but some fougth fiercely, even after beign ordered to surrender by the japanese government.
As for the having means to launch an invasion on Hokkaido, I honesly don't know if they would have had the materiel for it : on Sakhalin, the invasion was laid from the northern part of the island with some secondary landing farther south they used troop transports and warships to land on ports; and on the Kuril Islands, troops were landed by torpedo boats, mine trawlers and transports.
The Red Army lacked the specialised landing crafts used by Western Allies and relied on improvised materiel for these operations (which is logical since they hadn't conducted any landing invasion during the war, the Eastern Front being mostly a land war baring the occasional large river crossing) and I don't know of any real prepared plans from they Soviet Union to invade Japan. I mean that operation Overlord (landing in Northern France) or Dragoon (Southern France) as well as the landings in Italy or Northern Africa by the Allies were heavily prepared plans, months or years of planning went into these operations, just like Downfall was planned since 1944 for an execution in late 1945/early1946. I don't think Soviet planners prepared such an operation, they were focused on Germany and turned their focus on Japan only in May-June 1945.
@@leonardho1297they were also still a bit butt hurt about the RUSO-Japanese war from 35-40 years earlier, I’m sure.
@@arnocharrier3438 you comment is completely true. But there where indeed a plan to continue to South Korea until the coast to Busan. Which could linked to the American in the Kyushu island. The fun fact is that after the surender of Japan , Mac Arthur itself rush to send brigade in South Korea, wich triggered the Korean War 4 years later...
@@arnocharrier3438The Soviets would have had to rely heavily on US support and assets to conduct any serious, large naval invasion. Both Soviet and American leadership doubted that they (the Soviets) would be able to pull it off even with American support. The Russians have always been a land army first so the best they could really do was those small scale incursions.
Good lord, this comment section's gonna be even worse than the other video
EDIT: I was talking about the video for the bombings themselves
Which video? The Indo-Pakistan War video looks particularly ripe for that, but did people have a problem with bombings from the German civilian perspective or something?? 😂
Yeah I’m confused which video we talking about?
He means the video detailing the events of the two atomic bombing missions.
@@therealuncleowen2588 OH I hadn't thought of that. I had just read the community post this creator made about this passed month's video subjects being a bit spicy and thought it must be one of them
@@CJDunehew1Definitely the USS Liberty video
One aspect that I think was failed to be considered was Truman’s wish to keep the Soviets out of occupied Japan post-war. Truman knew that if he did not swiftly end the war, then the Soviet’s would have a much stronger position at the negotiating table when dividing Japan, as they had in Germany.
The USSR played a greater role in Truman’s decision than what is told in HS history.
That's true. The Japanese were terrified of what would happen if the Soviets reached Japan. Look at what they did in the Rape of Berlin.
My grandfather was on Okinawa waiting to go to Japan. He was in the third wave. He was told to feel lucky because his wave would only have 80% casualties. The first 2 were anticipated to have 100% killed or wounded. I read where there were 700,000 Japanese soldiers waiting on that south island where we were slated to invade. On Iwo Jima, 21,000 Japanese caused 26,000 American casualties. The invasion would have been a slaughter on a much larger scale than any other battle we were involved in that war. Continuing to conventional bomb cities would have cost the lives of countless airmen. Because of the 2 bombs, my grandfather didn't meet the Lord until he was 87 years old. Tough decision but the right one. I'm one of the millions who got to spend precious time with fathers and grandfathers because of Truman's decision.
It's worse than that, on the mainland Britain, France, America and the Commonwealth wouldn't have been fighting just soldiers. They would have been fighting the entire population of Japan, every man, woman, child, pensioner would have been given some sort of weapon and run at the lines. It would have been civilians at the front with trained soldiers following, their plan wasn't to win but to cause so much death the allies wouldn't be able to bear it
I knew a guy who was also set to be part of Operation Downfall. He said he'd probably be dead if it weren't for those bombings.
Well stated and reasoned. A very convincing argument for a crappy set of choices decided by all to human beings.
Malik talking about how racism, as evidenced by language used to describe the Japanese, made the use of bombs "more palatable" to Americans... ignoring years of brutal inhumane behavior from Japan. Anyone in theatre knew full well what the Japanese were capable of. No one should have to waste another breath defending the use of every means at the American's disposal to end the war with the fewest American and Allied casualties possible.
Leftists always simp for genocidal regimes as long as it's anti-American.
There is also the point that the original objective of the Manhattan Project was to bomb the Germans. Kind of shoots the 'racist' argument in the foot.
Exactly. The fact that Malik can apparently just hand-wave the multiple documented instances of Japanese soldiers LITERALLY EATING PEOPLE, let alone all the terrible "experiments" carried out by Unit 731 and the horrors of Nanking, is as hilarious as it is disgusting.
The guy writes for the guardian, that's an immediate "don't bother" sign.
If Malik did his research right he would have known the Philippines campaign were many American GIs firsthand saw the brutality of Japanese soldiers to Filipino/American civilians and POWs. Especially since at that time the Philippines was considered as a territory due to it being the only Filipino-American Commonwealth.
Yes it was. It's easy to play these games now, but far removed from living the actual fight. They chose their fate, and made clear the cost that would be required to invade. The many lives saved by the two bombs include both American AND Japanese.
The problem with this argument is that it relativizes moral choices to the times and places that actions occurred in. From a logical standpoint, this reasoning is extremely problematic because it can be/is used to justify all sorts of atrocities.
@@justin_messer The war they started was the ultimate atrocity, though I understand the need to judge decisions that no one around today has any practical experience that qualifies them to do so.
@@rogerw3818 but that’s inherently not an argument, though. That’s just hashing out a Tu Quoque fallacy.
@@justin_messerso should we all debate for days on end about how future generations in their comfortable and peaceful worlds will think about harsh decisions?
Of course we have to consider the moral implications of decisions in their relative time periods. You can’t know what will and won’t be considered moral in the future. A prosecutor in court can’t argue that a future law may convict a suspect of guilty behavior, that would be ridiculous.
@@kevinzheng7373 again these are not arguments. My argument is that the military knew exactly the moral implications of its actions and then deliberately chose to lie to the president of the United States about the concept of the obliteration of entire civilian populations wholesale without nary a warning by telling the president a fib that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military bases and not civilian population centers.
Also, your second argument smacks of moral relativism. In that time can merely whitewash or admonish actions undertaken in the past. That morality is subject to to the ticking of the clock.
When I was in college this was one of the major topics for a class. We read The Most Controversial Decision by Miscamble and I believe this video does a comparable job at laying out the arguments on both sides. Iwo Jima and Okinawa were small examples of the bloodbath that a full scale invasion would cause. And Operation Ketsugo would be a much more successful operation than the earlier attempt with operation Ten-Go. Millions on both sides would have died. Both sides seem to agree that the invasion was not the correct answer.
However, another factor that was not mentioned in the video was the liquidation/extermination of POW camps and the withdrawal of troops from the south east to support the army in Manchuria and the homeland. These troops would have been able to bolster the Japanese defense against the soviets, who, like the US, would have troops tied up in occupying Europe and would need to transition those troops to the new theater. I think 1946 would have been an optimistic estimate for the eventual surrender.
Now, I had not heard the racism argument before. It is interesting but I think it can be taken a step further. Yes, it is a common thing in war to dehumanize the enemy. Just look at the propaganda from WWI. That is why the Christmas Truce was a detrimental event to the fighting effectiveness of those units. Once you have empathy for the other person it becomes much harder to fight. However, even to this day, there are many places in Japan that are closed to outsiders. Clubs, bars, baths, etc. I would argue the racism on Japan's side could be seen as a contributing factor to why they wouldn't stop fighting.
The USN seemed to be of the opinion of "starve the bastards for a couple years then pick through their bones" which was a different kind of cruel. War is Hell is the most honest reality. It is best not to start one.
Both sides were VERY racist by modern standards. The problem is the modern apologist "nukes bad" crowd uses that as a back-fill answer as to WHY nukes were used, (the only reason, really) and only applies that standard to the Americans. They carefully ignore the fact that the typical Japanese response of the period to foreigners in their midst was akin to the devil himself dropping by for tea. (Witness Banzai Cliffs, etc)
An american sociologist ones said.
"The Japanese were raise to prevent errors not to solve them"
A.k.a the Japanese (in general terms) have a harder time to adapt to conditions or mistakes compare to other countries (can't confirm Is this only happen over there or in all East Asia)
I think they pride and the lack of quick problem solving WAS the reason they took 2 nukes, I would had probably surrender after what happen with the fire of Tokyo.
I find the "racism" argument unconvincing - mostly because everything it describes is completely normal wartime propaganda, and there's no way to draw a causal link between the USA's wartime propaganda targeting Japan and the atomic bombs being dropped that doesn't also link every other decision made during wartime to whatever propaganda was in circulation at the time. It might be true in a technical sense, but it's about as useful as pointing out that someone from the 18th century was horribly racist by modern standards.
@@lordjor96 I hadn't heard of that precisely, but I would rate their xenophobic nationalism/militarism as being a larger driving force.
Hard to surrender when you think the other guy is a slavering monster out to defile your women folk and eat your babies, after all.
Between WW2 and today, there have been about 360,000 purple hearts awarded in all US conflicts combined. That's Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq, and GWOT. Every single one was produced in anticipation of operation Down Fall. 140,000 purple hearts remain from that production, all of which were just for the invasion. Dropping those bombs were the most humanitarian act of the entire war.
Consider the number of American troop blowing their head off every years, they should consider give them some medal too 💪😎🇺🇲
Exactly millions of Allies soldiers would have died and millions of Japanese soldiers along with millions of Japanese civilians dying trough the crossfire , starvation and disease the Atomic bombing killed hundred of thousands of people but it saved millions of people.
But why not atom bomb Iraq? Vietnam? when it could have led to immediate surrender of enemies, saving countless lives of US soldiers and opposing forces as well, at the cost of few hundred thousand lives
I like calling VJ Day "Nuclear Weapon Appreciation Day".
Something that keeps getting overlooked in this debate is that Hirohito specifically and exclusively refers to the use of the bombs as the sole specific reason why he issued an unthinkable reversal and accepted the Potsdam declaration.
Considering that he was the only person with the power to end the war and that his speech was unquestioningly obeyed by the public at large, I think that his language should be given a lot more credence than it has right now.
It could be argued that Hirohito wanted to deny Stalin any post-surrender bargaining power. By giving all credit to the USA and zero credit to the Soviets, Japan might just have avoided being chopped up like Germany. And by god they definitely did NOT want Stalin having any influence over the fate of the royal family and ruling class.
The reason why is because he's a fascist leader looking for an excuse to say "hey, we didn't really lose - our surrendering is necessary to save all civilization." He says something along those lines if you look at his soeech
Like, he used the bombs as a scapegoat, essentially. There were a lot of factors going into why they surrendered, but the biggest one seems to be the Soviet Union declaring war/invading. Like this video explained, the biggest political factor in why Japan hadn't yet unconditionally surrendered was because they were still expecting Soviet Union to mediate for them. Japan didn't believe that the USSR was going to break their treaty and attack until the moment they did so.
My great grandfather was in the 2nd marine division from 1943 to the end of the war. He wrote a mini auto biography and described his thoughts on this matter. During his basic training/boot camp he had qualified as an expert swimmer, and because of this and his rank at the time of mid 1945 he was selected to be one of about 30 marines to be part of a special reconnaissance team. This team was going to land on a Japanese beach in the dark early morning hours before the actual land invasion (planned for sometime in November) and mark out gun emplacements/pillboxes. He stated that personally, he was happy the war ended with these bombs rather than a land invasion because he was sure he would have been killed during his recon mission. He was also part of the first group of American soldiers to land in Nagasaki just a few weeks after the bombing and witnessed the destruction there. He saw the suffering it caused but was steadfast in his belief that this was the best way to end the war.
How fortunate your grandfather's life was saved, only at the expense of the suffering of countless innocent children, even years after the bomb. But who cares about that eh
Toshikazu Kase, aide to Prime minister Togo said " The atomic bomb made it possible for Japan to surrender." This remark is from his interview in World at War Episode 24, The Bomb. Given his eyewitness account, he was also present at the surrender on the USS Missouri standing next to Shigimitsu signing the document I'm personally satisfied it was the correct course of action.
I argue that the Emperor of Japan was looking to surrender before the bombs, but needed a justification. Something that he could take to military high command and say “see! This is why we must surrender.”
The atomic bomb was the perfect justification. “Why should we fight when they can destroy entire cities with just 1 bomb?”
@@Kaiserboo1871no, the emperor didn't want to surrender. If he wanted to, he would have surrender the day after pearl harbour
@@elmascapo6588 After 4 years of getting his shit kicked in, I’d be looking to surrender.
@@Kaiserboo1871 the emperor was to busy fucki g around the palace doing nothing tho
It gave them the perfect excuse to surrender, the Soviet invasion and the political debate afterwards played the largest impact.
The answer is yes based on the simple fact that if we were to go ahead with a land invasion of Japan we would not only be fighting the Japanese army, but the entire Japanese population.
Also the fact that the purple hearts produced for the invasion are still being given out today kinda puts into perspective how bad it would have been if it was carried out.
This is an interesting debate. I really like the way that the guy phrased it in there that the issue wasn't about. If a nuke was the "right" or "moral" choice, it was about what was the fastest way to end the war.
The thing that bothers me the most about how WW2 ended is when people say it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that caused the end of WW2. This is insanely far from reality. If anyone views the records of the Japanese Imperial Cabinet meetings from the point of the fist atomic bomb being dropped through to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, the second atomic bomb being dropped and the Japanese surrender it is so easy to see the invasion of Manchuria played no-role in the Japanese surrender.
The Japanese knew before the first atomic bomb was dropped that they were going to lose all of their Imperial holdings which included Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan. The Japanese hope in continuing the war and holding out was not to win the war at all but to force the US and allies into better terms that didn't include unconditional surrender. This way they could argue after the war that they fought against a much larger enemy force and didn't agree to unconditional surrender even though that was the allied goal. The Japanese knew the USSR was planning on invading them weeks to 1-2 months before the USSR actually did so. The Japanese could see the USSR moving their troops to the far east. There was only one reason for the USSR to do that. Months before the USSR invaded the Japanese holdings in mainland Asia the Japanese had already started moving as many of their troops and supplies from the mainland back to the Japanese home islands to further increase their defense efforts there.
After the USSR invaded the Japanese Imperial Cabinet even say in the logs of their meetings that the invasion doesn't change their plans at all. They were already planning on just defending their home islands and making the cost of an invasion so high that the US and their allies would have to settle for some kind of terms other than unconditional surrender. They had already accepted that they had lost their territory on mainland Asia. It didn't matter to them if China or the USSR took it at that point in time. It was the atomic bombs that changed the opinion of some members of the Japanese Imperial Cabinet. Since the atomic bombs made it so the US and allies didn't have to invade the Japanese home islands. They could just nuke Japan until there was almost nothing left. The Japanese didn't know how many nukes the US had and weren't going to beleive their scientists about it after their scientists told them the there was no chance the US had more than 1 nuke after the first one hit them.
The situation wasnt rlly that different before the nukes were used. The Americans could achieve a similar result in destruction, and already had been, with firebombing campaigns. They could just firebomb Japan till there was nothing left, same result
Agreed, the Japanese had already accepted they were going to lose their Empire when the USSR invaded them. They didn't care who they were going to lose it to. They had already started moving their troops back from mainland Asia back to the Japanese home islands to defend there the best they could. The Japanese goal was to try make the cost of an invasion of the Japanese home islands so great that the US would settle for terms other than unconditional surrender with Japan. The US atomic bombs are what changed the Japanese opinion that they could force the US off those terms by making the defense of their home islands too great for the US to bear.
@@pickle2636 Except the Japanese didn't agree with that. According to the leadership of the Japanese themselves it was the atomic bombs which changed their opinion of their defense strategy. The atomic bombs made it so that even fortified factories where they made their weapons would be destroyed. The fire bombings just destroyed the Japanese civilian homes and other poorly built buildings made of just wood.
The fire bombings played and effect of course in weakening the Japanese still. Since it dehoused a large portion of their population that then needed to be housed somewhere else, it took up Japanese medicine which they were already low on and killed workers that they needed in their factories (it of course killed some troops and officers as well stationed within those cities).
But the nukes are what made members of the Japanese leadership decide that trying to hold out was worthless. They didn't know how many (how few) nukes the US actually had at that point. They thought the US could just use a nuke anywhere they wanted on Japan as much as they felt like. They thought the US could put nukes all over the landing beaches and just walk their troops in. The Japanese plan was to make the few beaches the US could actually land troops on so crowded with Japanese troops that it would have cost the US far to much to invade that they US would just settle for some other terms.
@@pickle2636 Yeah as the OP was saying this was not the opinion of the Japanese leadership. It was the creation of nukes that changed the opinion of members of the Japanese leadership to surrender which is what is important. It doesn't matter if the fire bombings were causing more deaths than the atomic bombs were. It was the use of the atomic bombs and what the Japanese leadership THOUGHT those could do to Japan that changed their opinion to surrender or not.
@@mariopineda4774 there was no question of whether to surrender or not. both factions in the Japanese supreme council wanted to surrender before the nukes, they just disagreed on the conditions
I do mostly agree with the other person who said that this moral question wasn't really on the table in 1945. However it is true that while the Soviet intervention demoralized the Japanese, it was important to the united states not to allow the Soviets to have too much 'credit' in ending the war in the pacific. Fears of the cold war to come were already brewing, and it was very undesirable to give the Soviets all their territorial demands, let alone chopping up Japan/what would become china the way we did germany. That fact doesnt make the bombs right or wrong, or mean we should or shouldnt have, but I think we can learn a lot from the diplomacy and ultimatly lack thereof surrounding the bombings to help us today
The US wasn't concerned about the Soviets getting credit. From the Japanese perspective they no longer had the ability to be on the offensive outside of the Asian mainland after Midway and shifted to the defensive. After the Marianas Japan knew they were defeated and wanted to make the Allied advance as costly as possible hoping they would negotiate. By August 1945 Japanese leaders were willing to sacrifice their entire population to avoid war crimes and demilitarization. The US was begging the Soviets to enter the war. Fortunately sanity prevailed in Japan eventually.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'."
-Dwight D Eisenhower
@@jdotoz Eisenhower wasn't involved in the war in the Pacific. He didn't know the situation. He was kind of busy at the time in Europe and this is post-war back seat driving. He was familiar with Japan due to serving as MacArthur's Chief of Staff in Manila a long time ago, but that is about it.
@jaylowry That didn't stop the Secretary of War from asking him. At any rate, wait until you hear what MacArthur thought.
Besides, the question was whether there was a debate at the time. There was. Multiple military and civilian leaders did not agree with this course of action.
@@jdotozPoint is, Eisenhower's opinion is unsubstantiated. It's like asking a UN commander from Palestine what he thinks of the situation in Myanmar: they know just about as much as the other guys in Palestine...
My Uncle was turning 20 when the bombs were dropped. He was in San Diego, getting ready to enter the Pacific War. His crew were to fly 20 combat bombing missions. They had already flown 21 combat missions in Europe. He was convinced that they had used up all their luck for a lifetime. Historians tell us that 1000 humans died per hour during WWII. If the bombings shortened the war by 200 hours, we broke even. How many people think the bomb didn’t do that?
Since the bomb was dropped, no first tier power has gone to direct war with another first tier power. How many lives has that saved?
I’m glad my Uncle survived the war. I’m named after him.
Short answer: yes.
Millions would have died otherwise
Here are some facts: The Japanese rejected the Potsdam declaration in July 1945. More people were being killed in conventional firebombing than in the atomic bombings. The destruction of Tokyo did not force the surrender. Even though the Soviets declared war, they had no way to carry out an amphibious assault on Japan itself. These are facts. And, dropping those two atomic bombs brought an immediate, total surrender, saving countless Allied AND Japanese lives which would have been wasted in Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan.
Absolutely correct
did you even watch the video?
@@gmtom19 Maybe, how about you?
The facts you cite don’t support your conclusion.
The Japanese didn’t care about the destruction of their cities by fire bombing so why would they care about atomic bombing? The fire bombing was more effective anyway.
The rejection of the Potsdam Declaration before the Soviets declared war was irrelevant (in fact, it was likely rejected *because* the Soviets hadn’t yet declared war). And it doesn’t matter that the Soviets couldn’t mount an amphibious assault, what mattered was that the Soviets were no longer neutral in the Pacific theater. With the Soviets no longer neutral, there was no path forward for a conditional surrender.
@@Geffde It precisely supports my conclusion. Now, unlike some others, I readily acknowledge that the Soviet declaration of war played A PART in the Japanese decision to surrender.. likely a big part. Within 4 days Japan was hit with two atomic bombs and the Soviet declaration of war, and even then, it still took them 6 more days to surrender. The reason for that was that even with the Emperor calling for surrender, some of the Japanese military attempted a coup in order to keep the war going.
Also, we must also remember that the Japanese had pulled back soldiers, aircraft for kamikaze attacks, torpedo boats, and fuel in preparation for Operation Downfall. Plus, they were training every man, woman and CHILD to charge Allied troops with bamboo spears. The slaughter would have been insane. The atomic bombs deeply affected the Emperor, and it was his word that finally overrode the Japanese military and brought about the surrender.
I like the presentation both here and in the Operation Room. I think you all did a great work exposing the various viewpoints, while presenting the actual numbers.
This remains one of the biggest 'what if' ever, what if only one was dropped... what if the soviets had not attacked... what if... what if.... I don't believe a single answer about the necessity of the bombings will ever satisfy everyone. I have my own views, but its important to always remember that all options were bad, it's total war after all, but options had to be picked one way or another.
To be honest it seems difficult to think of a better time to have used at least the first atomic bomb, although one could argue both were necessary for the psychological impact it had on civilians and how they think of strategic nuclear strikes today. An entire era of fear around the weapons was created due to their (compared to today's bombs) comparatively small amount of damage, and this certainly influences all sorts of decisions at every level. I shudder to think of the amount of damage humanity would have suffered if today's Hydrogen Bombs or the Tsar Bomba were the first wartime bombs used.
The Japanese heads of the military thought we only had 1. Now imagine there horror when they learnt we had more.
Maybe bomb Berlin...Oh yeah that would send radiation all over Europe...As the video says there was a Racist motive for atomic bombing of Japan...
DIVINE JUDGEMENT will be the Eternal Answer!!
11:00 To make a counter point, it is war, and it is an unfortunate reality that the soldiers would develop and foster dehumanizing ideas about their enemies. The more differences between individuals makes it easier to dehumanize them. Different language/culture/appearances all feed into this.
I'd argue that should the bomb have not been dropped and invasion happened, you would have millions of soldiers who spent years dehumanizing the enemy. Those ideas would spread like fire as more soldiers see their brothers in arms die around them to said enemy. Post war would be even uglier as those same soldier would be garrisoned in their former enemy's towns and cities. That hate would inevitably lead to tragedy as soldiers take out that hate on the civilians during occupation. To give an example of what I am talking about, ironically, look at the Japanese armies as they took over Nankig, later to be known as the Rape of Nanking. Soldiers occupying the city routinely abused and killed civilians. The uglier the fighting the uglier the occupation.
To add to this, I don't see any way to draw a causal connection between "USA wartime propaganda is really racist towards Japanese people" and "USA drops two atomic bombs on Japan" that doesn't also connect every decision made during every war in history to whatever wartime propaganda was in circulation at the time. There's nothing unusually racist about USA wartime propaganda during WWII - wartime propaganda has always been like that.
It is worth considering whether it was in some way fortunate that the world learned what nuclear war meant when there were only two weapons available. If the atomic bomb had been invented during peacetime or WW2 had ended without use, the situation might have been far worse. Obviously any nuclear war is bad. But a nuclear war between one nation that has two nukes and one that has zero is not as bad as a war between a nation with 500 warheads and a nation with 200.
@4:45 Is anyone actually contending that not dropping the bomb but continuing to firebomb eventually every major city and also starve them via a blockade is a ethically superior option? That would cause infinitely more civilian casualties
The war was over for Japan when the Soviets declared war on them - learn why the Japanese thought a war of attrition would work against the US but not the USSR.
So Nagasaki was unnecessary in the least.
@@KoalaG888t was over the moment they bombed pearl harbor. And the Nagasaki bombing was necessary, as they showed no sign of wanting to surrender.
@@KoalaG888 The soviets had no meaningful ability to reach the home islands
Today we have the luxury of debating our actions. At the time that luxury simply didn’t exist. Hearing what my grandparents witnessed during the occupation of the Philippines still gives me chills. Many throughout Asia were still suffering at the hand of the Japanese army. Tell a father in China or a mother in Korea that the US would rather not end the war quickly with these two bombs. Instead we would invade the home islands causing millions more to be killed simply bc future generations would see the atomic bombings as more inhumane than what we had planned to do and had already done with firebombings. Revenge is never a good thing but if you asked them they would agree that Japan had sown the wind and they were now reaping the whirlwind. WWII was a brutal and inhumane conflict in all regards.
They had a few months to debate it back in the day. But didn't want to take the chance for soviets getting more surrender term leverage as they steamroller Manchuria like nothing
And really, the blood is on the Japanese themselves anyway. They brought all this to themselves. Can't do the time? Don't do the crime. Or however that goes.
As a half blood I learned something about this war. Not only were the bombings crucial in a hard realization of humility for Japan, but the fact that more people died from the napalm runs rather than the actual atomic weapons themselves goes to show the horrifying conditions an invasion would have. Interestingly because of the atomic bombings, I was born. Because if they invaded and managed to hit areas near Tokyo, Yokohama, and Gunma, I may as well be an imagination. Additionally the casualties on the American side would be unbelievable and may as well indicate my other half being erased given my family was not far from military service and had several veterans at various generations of our family. If both my great grandfathers or more distant relatives were deployed, they certainly had a low chance of returning home. I see two sides because of this, the bombings saved my family in Japan, and the bombings saved my family in the U.S.
@christopherl4249 you look like a man of reason, in a world full of america propaganda. The USA commited a mounstruosity there.
I had a class in grad school that covered several conflicts in history and one was the fracturing alliance between the western democracies and the Soviet Union that was developing as WW2 was coming to an end. A theory that was discussed re: the dropping of the atomic bombs was, not only did it end the war sooner than conventional warfare would have, but it also sent a message to the USSR, "Hey, look what we have and you don't!!" It was a message to deter the USSR from advancing further into Europe and Asia than they already had as the Cold War was beginning. It was a message telling the USSR that the West would not hesitate to use the bomb against the USSR if they had to.
little did they know that the Soviet Union would acquire their own bomb a few years later
@@instinctrocks6802 Thanks to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
This theory initially came from physicist Patrick Blackett from 1 or 2 lines in a book he wrote .
Gar Alperwitz became the main promoter of this theory - which has been disproven .
No doubt when Truman was informed at the Potsdam Conference that the bomb worked , this gave him much more confidence negotiating with Stalin . But Gar Alperwitz saying that Truman and his advisors used such a horrific weapon to send a message to the Soviets is completely false .
.
@@jeffe9842 jooos
The theory you quote is complete academic BS. Japan had no intention of surrendering. The alternative to the bomb was Operation Downfall. This would have caused at least a quarter million American and Allied casualties and several milion Japanese fatalities. This was a known fact after Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. There was no meaningful alliance between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. It was obvious from July 1941 that the two barely tolerated each other. The Soviets were happy to accept western food and trucks because otherwise the Red Army was immobilized and the USSR would have starved to death. But Stalin regarded Churchill and Roosevelt as future enemies throughout.
I've heard this revisionist crap from university professors too many times to count. Those lying scholars were NOT in the position of being in the potential first wave hitting and dying on a beach in Kyushu. From the people who were actually there at the time, they wanted the misery over with ASAP. Particularly Japan's Asian slave populations in Korea, Vietnam and China. Imperial Japan was a monstrosity fully as evil and murderous as the national socialist thugs running Germany.
History taught us that conventional bombings rarely caused the enemy to capitulate same goes with naval blockade (although in some cases it did work), you need something like either directly invading or put boots on the enemy soil to cause the enemy to rethink about the war, atomic bombing was a whole new ball game in terms of causing the enemy to concede a defeat.
Naval blockade, like bombing, can work as a “pressure tool” in a ‘limited’ war where both sides are essentially negotiating a shift in relative power that is not existential.
As a tool of forcing a country into total submission, in an existential war of national survival? It will not work, because the pain of the blockade is lesser then the death of unconditional surrender
The Japanese gov was taken over by a fanatical military in 1931 .
Japan had a "Government by assassination . "
The Asian Pacific War started in 1937 , and the JIA and JIN committed millions of atrocities , in Manchuria , China , Formosa , Korea , the Philippines , Indonesia , Burma and Hong Kong . ... and used about 10 million Asians and POW's in brutal forced labour camps .
The July 26th 1945 Potsdam Declaration made it clear Truman and his advisors wanted to remove Japan's military gov for all time and bring in human and democratic rights .
The " Big Six " response to the Potsdam Declaration was rejecting it with silence and Operation Ketsu Go - making it so costly in US lives that the US would seek an armistice - regardless of how many 1,000's or millions of Japanese civilian lives it cost.
One recent idea that has been put forward is that with the Soviet Invasion and atomic bombs , the Japanese were not given the opportunity to kill Americans .... The big six had no opportunity to implement Operation Ketsu Go .
This kind of makes sense . So there was no opportunity to negotiate terms .
The part that no says is that while under US occupation , Japan's Constitution was changed in 1947 .
In the end , Japan is a better country today because it is a democracy .
.
Actually, that study needs to updated due to recent wars and technology. Precision bombing by Israel on Gaza or even United States War in Iraq and Afghanistan needs to have better "performance measure" or categories between a small country to a large country. Another category is a fake super power and real power. Time should also be considered as well duration and length of reconstruction. The art of war or laws of armed Conflict tend to change over time.
And yet "sanctions" are still a thing.
Slow learners.
Considering the Japanese were likely to fight to the last men, women and child, and were going to use tactics more akin to the insurgency attacks/guerrilla warfare that would be common in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq and even admitted estimates deaths of several millions on both sides before Japan would be pacified or even a protracted war, a nuclear strike to end the war could be seen as a deterrent of sort. A deterrent that ended a world war. And in many respects, it provided an example of what would happen to world if nuclear weapons were actually used on a civilian population centre. While as destructive those test in New Mexico and the subsequent tests in the South Pacific, they never provided a true taste of the horror that would be unleashed if a bomb was ever dropped again.
to be frank, I don't think the Japanese short of an actual bomb dropping on them, would stopped the war even if they saw a demonstration. The Japanese back then only knew strength thru death. The Japanese had already shown they were willing to die to keep the fight going even when it clear surrender is the only option. They kept fighting on Iwo Jima even when they known they have lost. Even on Guadalcanal, they kept charging even when their comrades were being mowed down on the beach. Whereas the Americans would have retreated and regroup for a different strategy, the Japanese had a singular mind. It is either we win or we die.
Grew up with two guys whose dads had been marines and my uncle was a navy medic with the marines. All fought in the pacific and all said the A bomb saved their lives
Devil Doc, eh?
Let us not forget, the bombs weren't a alternative to invasion, they were part of it. The US would of continued nuclear bombing along with the invasion had the japanese not surrendered, bomb -> move in. So instead of just 2, it could of been 3, 4, 5, ect.
and the Japanese expected this and called the US bluff on having more then 2 other nuclear bombs. They were in fact correct.
@@dester3275 Only for august. September they had 4, december 10, janurary 25, feburary 100.
@@dester3275 Actually they weren't. Ever heard of the demon core? That was the core intended for the 3rd bomb. We had two ready, the third was under construction.
@@dester3275 "Called the US bluff" ...by surrendering unconditionally? I hope you don't play poker. Actually, scratch that. I hope you play lots of poker.
@@dylandarnell3657 There was discussions that they could fighting because the US had probably less then 4 left. They fortunately decided not too but its not like they were guaranteed to surrender because of the bombs and it may not have worked...
My relatives who died in Nanjing and Shanghai, and those who died in Chongqing would have loved for the bomb to have been dropped earlier.
Exactly. Give the bomb to the Chinese or the Koreans. What do you think they would do with it? Easy answer. The Japanese were brutalizing countless people and needed to be stopped immediately.
Sum ting Wong with them ?
Ho Lee fuk r u okay
@@bendoc2122 Wow racist much
So youre saying 911 is justified
I don’t know, was the Bataan Death March necessary?
The Fact is it took more than just 2 Atomic Bombings. The Soviet Union for the longest time a non-aggressor leaving their backs secure all of a sudden invades, and the threat to nuke Tokyo next was what finally convinced them to Surrender. They faced more than just defeat, but total obliteration from hostile armies on mainland Asia, and nuclear holocaust on the homeland islands of Japan.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Talk to the Marines that survived Iwo and Okinawa who buried thousands of their friends is brutal fighting. Talk to the families whose sons were going to invade the mainland that many estimate would of cost 100,000’s of American lives. The country was tired from 4 years of constant fighting on two fronts, rationing, and telegrams of informing families about their sons and daughters wounded, missing, or killed in action. Ask any adult in 1945 and I bet almost every single person would have willingly dropped the bomb to end the war.
My late father-in-law had served in the US Navy in the Atlantic up to June when they were ordered to the Pacific, specifically Okinawa to take part in the invasion. He felt he owned his life to the Bomb.
My grandfather was a soldier in the Pacific for the United States. If he had died in Operation Downfall, my father nor I would have ever been.
4 years. Try Japan being at war for decades and the europeans for 6 years.
you say "American lives" as if it has superior value than non-American lives
Actually, I do not understand the question. If you fight a total war like WW2 in its final stages, you use every weapon at your disposal to finish the enemy off with as little loss to your side as possible. The atomic bombs were not the sole reason why japan surrendered, but sure had an impact on Japanese decision making which led to them accepting the Potsdam declaration.
it's a war where dozens of millions already died up to that point and people are discussing if it was ethical to kill 100 thousand to prevent further millions from dying.
Almost as if there was this peaceful Japan that did no wrong and then an evil USA came out of nowhere and started nuking people.
killing half a million civilians to save a few soldiers lives. and people think its ok and make up crazy "what if" scenarios to rectify the bombings.
it was a war crime. plain and simple.
just like the allied bombings of dresden.
there were no good guys in ww2.
“You use every weapon at your disposal” and “you SHOULD use every weapon at your disposal” are radically different ideas.
@@grahamh.4230 in case of the Atomic bombs, the US used every weapon at their disposal apart from chemical weapons ( although there were plans to use them in case Olympic and Coronet went badly).
@Sven6345789 were these really final stages? ww2 began after poland was invaded, and in 1945 poland was still invaded. it took until 1990's to free poland and eastern europe
One thing to note about Truman: During the Korean War, MacArthur (who was immensely popular in the public eye) was pushing hard to drop nukes on the PRC and DPRK. Truman eventually fired him for this. To me, that shows that at least his intentions were good.
Also, I’ve wondered if actually having a nuke dropped and everyone seeing it’s effects has helped prevent their use since. idk the answer to that but it’s something I wonder about
That is a good point. Could have, but didn't, and the same man.
The other thing.... I don't know. Some things I have read say that there wasn't a wide civilian appreciation in the West for what the effects were until the 1960's or so. Things like aftermath photos, survivor interviews from Hiroshima & Nagasaki, etc were not well known the way we know now, on a visceral level.
MacArthur only asked to conventionally bomb the bridges over the Yalu, which he was denied. He did ask about the use of nuclear bombs if the Soviet involvement in the war would turn nuclear but didn't complain when told that the bombs were in the Pacific and he didn't have nuclear authority. He was fired for insubordination when he complained in the press about Truman refusing to let him bomb the bridges on the Yalu.
@@jaylowry Rightly so, I should add. MacArthur thoroughly shit the bed in Korea. The fact Ridgway was able to see things to where we are now was frankly pretty impressive.
@@jaylowry his desire to use nukes was broader, and he wanted to have authority to drop atomic homes at his discretion. In a Truman biography, this was one of the major factors for removing MacArthur.
“on 25 January 1954, posthumously published in 1964, MacArthur said,
Of all the campaigns of my life, 20 major ones to be exact, [Korea was] the one I felt most sure of was the one I was deprived of waging. I could have won the war in Korea in a maximum of 10 days.... I would have dropped between 30 and 50 atomic bombs on his air bases and other depots strung across the neck of Manchuria.... It was my plan as our amphibious forces moved south to spread behind us-from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea-a belt of radioactive cobalt. It could have been spread from wagons, carts, trucks and planes.... For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the north. The enemy could not have marched across that radiated belt.[114]”
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_of_Douglas_MacArthur
Biography:
www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/harry/author/margaret-truman/first-edition/
Editing to add: Thanks for the civil convo. It’s good to talk about this.
MacArthur should have dropped the bombs on China and North Korea. Patton should have grabbed what was left of the German army and marched on Moscow. Both visionary generals.
What was the morality of Nanking and the way the Japanese treated allied POW's?
Keep in mind that the use of the atomic bomb and having leaders seeing firsthand the destruction of those two cities probably led to restraint in the decades that followed. Another factor is that the Soviet Union would have been needed in an invasion of Japan. That would have resulted in a partition of Japan and Tokyo. This partitioned Japan could have been a flash point for a direct confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union.
We are all Tokyoites.
@@sfryderz81 worse .. San Franciscoites...
so why didn't usa bomb soviets when europe was partitioned? we are taught that ww2 began with invasion of poland, and yet poland was still invaded into 1990's
@@quiltymoslemSome Americans (such as Patton) actually advocated doing just that. The reason they didn't was simple: the Allies had just toppled two enormous regimes, and their populations were exhausted from war. Immediately turning on the Soviets was unthinkable to most, and by the time this was no longer the case, it was too late.
It's also important to remember that the US didn't join the war in 1939 when Poland was invaded, and liberating Poland was never one of America's war goals.
@@quiltymoslemthat's why the brits where planning operation unthinkable, in its name alone you can see that this wasn't something the allies wanted to do but Britain felt it had to, but as someone else said people were exhausted with the war and didn't want to start another even deadlier world conflict immedietely after the worst war the world had ever seen to protect states in Eastern Europe, its a horrible tragedy what happened to eastern europe following ww2 but the tragedy that would come from another world war with the Soviets would've utterly destroyed Eastern and central Europe again at that would be the front line.
A tricky one this. On the one hand, nuclear weapons are a very serious topic which at times can be talked of too glibly in regard to yield, damage and casualties. However, I would say that I'm glad they were used in 1945 rather than later, when they would become ever more powerful. That is not to suggest I am happy about nukes actually being used.
However, I think their use would have been inevitable. Had it not been Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it probably would have been in the Korean War or possible during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
If any good came out of these bombings from today's standpoint, it's that no president, prime minister, monarch, general or admiral can say they do not know what nuclear weapons do to cities and the people within.
If you complain about nukes you have to complain about firebombing which were much worse.
And if you would prefer hundreds of thousands of americans, millions of japanese and every japanese city in ruins instead of trying to intimidate japan to surrender with nukes
An invasion would have ended Japan as a civilization. There wouldn't have been enough left to provide a genetic base.
yea but the nukes are pretty instant compared to burning an entire city
@@sid2112
1. No that is not how invasions work anywhere
2. Tryna make a point out of eugenics? Really?
@@ulfricstormcloak3657 He said genetics not eugenics. His comment is overly hyperbolic but just read carefully ffs.
@@ulfricstormcloak3657 I think you might be taking the wrong point from that, if I may.... The Japanese culture of honor would have sent so many men to their deaths that the eventual occupation of the island would have seen an entire generation of Japanese Americans, Imperial Japanese having been destroyed along with 90% of the men. Ergo, not enough of a genetic base to continue. It's not eugenics in the intent sense, it's eugenics in the idea that there would not have been much in the way of any births other than western mix stock.
I was on a high school debate team and we argued for dropping the bombs. The saving of hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives due to accelerating the end of the war can not be argued. If you want to know what the losses of an invasion would have been just look to the casualties in Okinawa…… 13,000 Americans, 100,000 Japanese soldiers and over 100,000 Okinawans died. Multiple this by at least 10 to estimate the casualties in an invasion of the island of Japan. By the way, we won the debate.
There was more to the Japanese surrender other than just the A-bombs. There was a serious power struggle going on in the Japanese government to truly take control of things and manage the war's end or maybe even continuation. Sure, the A-bombs forced their hand quite a bit, but the outcome could still have been very different.
Then America would just drop a 3rd one. And a 4th and a 5th if they have to. It literally costs them nothing.
@@bananian The problem with that is that they made two custom, one-off bombs and had just shot their wad(s). Plus, there was still a shortage of weapons grade Uranium and Plutonium and maybe more importantly, some of the scientests that had just helped build the first two weren't exactly happy with the prospect of helping out any longer once they saw the devastation. Now yes, eventually they would have had more A-bombs to drop so your premise is correct, but how long would it have taken is important.
I read somewhere that there's a document that mentioned a third one was already made or being made.
And I can't believe people downplay the decision by the emperor. He's the freaking emperor. I think his decision weighs just as much if not more than what than what the military leaders think. Of course the military leaders wouldn't want to surrender. They're literally ISIS.
@@johndefenderfer5946nope they had materials for a third.
My Grandfather who would have had to fly dozens more missions over Japan had we not and all his decedents say yes.
The psychological effects also connect with Shintoism and the Divine Emperor. Amaterasu is the great and glorious goddess of the sun in Shinto. An embodiment of the rising sun and Japan itself, she is the queen of the kami and ruler of the universe. The Japanese Imperial Family claims to have descended from her, and this is what gives them the divine right to rule Japan.
This means that when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with "Sun" weapons it hit extra hard and shocked the fundamentals of sociey. Combined with the fails and Russia coming in to the war made Surrender an option for the Emperor. That is part of the story i was told when training in Japan in Iai-do with people that were alive then and witnessed the events.
I maintain this was one of the most important decisions in human history. It is impossible to calculate the amount of lives it saved in the short term. However, in the long term, it gave a reference point for atomic destruction to both Americans and Russians during the Cold War. There were no questions as to the potential of nuclear warfare.
I believe they should have never dropped the bombs.
I mean, that was low man... They killed so many Innocent children...give me sadness just to think about it. The price was too high, and did not worth it.
@@vercing1324pray it doesn't happen again !
I believe that many reasons for the ultimate necessity of both bombings can be true at the same time.
1. Ultimately, the decision to use both saved more lives than it cost. The lives that were lost in both cities had a high likelihood of being lost should Downfall have occurred, plus millions of other Japanese lives.
1a. The use of the bombs potentially avoided the insanely high estimates of American casualties should Downfall be initiated, a very critical measure for any politician and military leader.
2. Not using Fat Man after the Soviet invasion of Manchuria would have weakened the US position at the inevitable surrender, and strengthened the Soviet position, possibly creating a similar partition to that of Germany and Austria.
3. Truman was aware of the newly solidifying post-war world, and wanted to demonstrate to the Soviets (Stalin, in particular) that Hiroshima wasn't a one-off weapon, and that the US could produce multiple atomic bombs in short order (similar logic was famously later used [falsely] by Khrushchev that the USSR was "turning out missiles like sausages," which led to the Missile Gap theory)
Hard to make judgements like this, 80 years after the fact, with 20-20 vision and extensive knowledge from both sides. It's easy to judge, and it was a horrible thing, but I'm sure it was not a lightly made decision.
We have accounts and diary writings from leaders at the time which stated they knew it wasn't strictly necessary to end the war, and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was the far larger reason for Japan's surrender.
This option was better than more americans dying.
I believe that Japan would have fought to last man, woman and child. Shoichi Yokoi was found on the island of Guam 28 years AFTER the war ended. Even though he knew that the war was over since '52, he still chose to hide rather than face the shame of being captured.
I once heard the atomic bombings being called a "Logical insanity", people always tend to look at the bombings in a vacuum, and don't consider the wider war against Japan, the bombings were necessary, because Japan proved again and again that they weren't going to surrender, they would rather send millions to die rather than give up, LeMay's firebombings proved this, they killed more people than the bombs and they didn't surrender, so the US had to escalate yet again and the atomic bombs were the only escalation that could end this once and for all.
In college, I did a research project on the decision making surrounding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I was able to read documents from the Truman library and everything. It was one of the highlights of my college experience and I loved learning about it.
This video, and the companion video on your other channel, were both excellently researched. There are only a few nits I could even possibly complain about. I am so impressed with this channel as usual. Been watching your other channel since the beginning.
For what it's worth (which candidly is nothing), I think it was the right decision to drop the bombs. An often under discussed element of the decision making is the effect of accelerating the surrender of Japan on Soviet leverage in the peace talks. Should Operation Downfall have commenced, the Soviet Union would have had much more leverage over the fate of Manchuria, and possibly also Hokkaido if an attack was launched there as well.
Agree.
I also feel the bombs were a statement for the world, actually for Stalin, Japan happened to be the laboratory in said statement.
What did you learn about MacArthur, Nimitz, Leahy and Ike’s opposition to using the atomic bomb?
I didn't know about the fire bombing. That reduces the concept at that time period of the scale of change in tactic, civilian vs military target. Moral rationalization becomes within reach mentally. Thanks again for the most dignified presentation possible, yet again. Great job Ops/Intel group!
By my quick count, this is both the first and the only time in history, when any technology was developed as quickly as was then possible, with effectively unlimited resources allocated, then actually put into use as quick as possible (the Little Boy type bomb was actually never tested before its use in combat, the Trinity test was of implosion design), and finally, when it was almost immediately, and almost collectively, realized that this is something what if we seek to possess, we must also seek to never use again.
At least back then it was feasible to back off. I wonder, if we still have such ways, or if the next weapon of mass destruction, whatever the form of destruction will be, would be distributed almost immediately, into anyone's judgement over its use.
It is correct to point out that the atomic bombings were in many respects simply more efficient forms of strategic bombing, which had already destroyed dozens of Japanese cities, but this does raise the question: Why did none of those prior bombings, which had gone so far beyond the initial target list that they were destroying cities that did not even have strategic or industrial value because there were none left except for those targets being preserved for the atomic bombs, force a surrender?
And if they had not forced a surrender, why would achieving the same thing with a different weapon suddenly do so? Strategic bombing had not hastened the surrender of the UK, it had not hastened the surrender of Germany, it had not hastened the surrender of Japan thus far, so why would it do so simply because the effect was achieved with one bomb rather than a whole flight of them?
The ethics of strategic bombing even with conventional weapons was a very real debate within U.S. military aviation at the time, and I think we're doing a disservice to that by treating the atomic bombings as special in that regard.
To us, with the experience of the Cold War, atomic bombs are special. But as this video pointed out, there wasn't the same level of specialness to it in the minds of many if not all of the people involved with the bombings of Japan. However, they had empirical evidence at the time that strategic bombing Did. Not. Work., and we have to ask why anyone had persuaded themselves that it might with atomic bombs and whether it actually did for some reason or was just convenient excuse to surrender to the Americans specifically.
Dear Intel Report/ Ops Room,
the quality of both videos pertaining this subject is a testament to your respect for the subject matter and your loving dedication to History. These two videos will be my eternal references on the subject and I will not hesitate to show them to whoever needs schooling on the matter.
In a sense, by helping us all better grasp this delicate but oh so important subject, you contribute to make it something that will hopefully forever remain History.
I thank thee eternally. 🙏🙇
The US government made so many purple heart medals in anticipation of the casualties from invading Japan that they had enough left over due to the atomic bomb that they were issued through both the Korean and Viet Nam Wars. That's all I need to know to decide if it was the right decision or not.
The estimates The Operation Room talked about had a very very low estimate of 300,000 casualties, this was the low end. The high end of the estimate was 1,000,000 casualties. Then the Japanese were estimated to have 5,000,000 civilian casualties. The cold math of war says that
Ridiculous comment.
My grandma was a child during ww2 when nazi germany bombed London, she lived on rations and stayed many times in the bomb shelter outside in the backyard while the air raids were active, yes it was a German strategic failure but it cost many Brit’s their lives to protect London.
My Grandpa was also a ww2 kid but he lived in the Philippines in the capital city of Manila where he survived the Japanese occupation, the Japanese starved the population and my grandpa ended up eating stray dogs and always running into the forest to find fruit for him and my great grandma and she ended up being a indentured servant during the occupation and for my great grandfather he spent 2 months fighting the Japanese in the north of the main island then captured by the Japanese and survived the Bataan death march but unfortunately he died in the camp.
Many years later my great grandfathers remains were found in a mass grave of 10 other POWs. So yes the bombs were necessary and I don’t hold any grudge against the Japanese I just want to visit the camp where he died and pray that if their ever be another war in the Philippines or Great Britain that I will be prepared and ready to protect that land and the people their for they are my People’s.
🇵🇭🇬🇧🇺🇸
Addressing Parliament on August 16th, 1945, Winston Churchill insisted that the decision to attack Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945 and Nagasaki on August 9th had been a joint one between the US and the UK. Over the next decade his public position was consistent and devoid of moral qualms: in war, he maintained, weapons get used. The A-Bomb was a weapon, the Allies were at war with Japan and, consequently, the A-Bomb was a legitimate military option. ‘The historic fact remains’, he wrote in 1953, ‘that the decision whether or not to use the atomic bomb … was never even an issue.’
Recommend reading the book Unbroken. It goes into detail about being a POW in Japan and how the bombs effectively prevented their mass execution.
Stalingrad showed how two determined regimes could waste over one million lives if they did not have the will to surrender. The Sunk Cost Fallacy is applicable in war as well, but the nuclear bomb was like an instant slap to the face that couldn't be blocked or mitigated, so it instantly woke up the world to pursue peace.
The difference is that Germany wanted to conquere Moskow...Japan never tried to conquere USA...
This was always an interesting question to me, in my mind, while the bomb were a major tragedy, I think it was necessary evil, considering how fanatical the Japanese were and how they were willing to defend their homeland down to the last person, even arming civilians with spears, it's scary to think how many casualties there would have been, escpetially on the Japanese side.
Thats not even to mention the Soviet enterance into the Pacific.
Funny how the ones that debate against the use of the new weapon never witnessed or experienced the brutality of the Japanese during the war.
For the invaded civilians, it would mean the stopping of brutalities by the Japanese. They didn't deserve to be treated like that, especially the Asian comfort women. I'm Filipino, and i read about that incident and it shocked me to the core.
For the military planners, it would save a lot of lives and would help rebuild families as more young men will go home to their families.
For the soldiers on the frontlines, it would save them from another period of hardship, potential death or injuries, and lifetime trauma.
And that's more apparent when you take account Japanese mentality of fighting until the last drop of blood.
I don't think the Japanese soldiers didn't do anything wrong at all in the war.
However, today it has become clear that NOT everything the Allies has accused Japan of committing during World War II was true.
The Allies circulated a lot of propaganda/fake news to raise their will to fight, like recently.
After the war, the Allies have further adapted and used them to hide the dirty demeanor they did and their own war crimes.
The Nanjing Massacre is one of those Propaganda which was fabricated by anti-Japanese activist US missionary John Magee.
While saying, "This is what the Japanese soldiers did," Magee was showing a footage in the United States. In his footage, several Chinese people were lying on the ground.
I couldn't help but remember his footage when I saw the footage called "The Bucha Massacre."
And Magee spread the lie in the United States that 50,000 Japanese soldiers killed 42,000 Chinese civilians in Nanjing.
However, in fact, Japanese soldiers who actually entered Nanjing was only about 3,000.
The reason why he worked to spread such propaganda was to make the anti-war American people accept the war with Japan.
Then, this story was further distorted by the Allies, including Chiang Kai-shek, to justify the war crimes against Japanese.
The CCP currently claims that the number of civilian casualties during the Nanjing incident was 300,000.
On the other hand, before Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang forces fled from Nanjing, it was announced that there were 200,000 civilians in Nanjing City.
According to multiple sources, the number of civilians at the time the Japanese army left Nanjing was approximately 250,000.
The reason why the number of civilians withdrawn from Nanjing by the Japanese military was higher than the number announced by the Kuomintang is because those who had evacuated from Nanjing due to fear of fighting had returned.
Even when they hear the number of civilians in Nanjing at that time, do people who cry out, "Japanese troops committed a massacre in Nanjing'' have no doubts?
And, there is the case of Palau.
Palau was ceded to Japan after WW1, Japan treated Palau like a regional city in Japan not colony.
After WW2 it was occupied by the United States. After destroying the structures Japan built for the people of Palau, the United States made Palau textbooks rewrite about "fictitious atrocities committed by Japan".
Palau reverted to the fact-based textbooks they knew after the US left.
From 1999 to 2007, the United States conducted extensive investigations about the following war crimes allegations:
- The Japanese military systematically forcibly kidnapped 200,000 women, made them into sex slaves, and killed them when they fell ill.
- Unit 731 conducted human experiments.
The United States spent a huge amount of money(about 30 million dollars) and eight years trying to find evidence and materials about them from confidential documents of about 8.5 million pages.
However, the objective evidence that was thought to be available in this investigation was not found.
In the 142,000 pages of confidential documents held by the United States about Unit 731, there was no evidence that Unit 731 conducted human experiments or engaged in germ warfare.
This means that everything said about Unit 731 after the war has been proven to be an unsubstantiated fabrication.
Conversely, the study about comfort women revealed that:
-The comfort women system was an extension of the legalized prostitution system in Japan at the time.
-The Japanese military initiated this system to prevent general violence against women and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
-The U.S. military did not recognize the criminal nature of the comfort women system of the Japanese military.
As we can see from above things, the Allies has made people believe "Japan's fictitious war crimes" as if it’s true in order to justify their actions during WW2.
And, asian countries, which were judged by the Allies as "invaded by Japan", had received a large amount of compensation from Japan.
Considering the above, I can't help but think that "the damage that there is no other objective evidence just by testimony or hearsay" is suspicious.
The use of the bombs ended the War.
This was because it was the use of the bombs that caused Hirohito to ask his people to stand down.
It was the convincing of *_THIS ONE PERSON_* that the war came to an end.
Hirohito ended the war. He ended it because we dropped the bombs. He was the *_ONE_* person in the entire world that could do that - and he did it.
IF Hirohito had told his people to fight on - *_THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT._*
But he didn't. He asked them to endure the unendurable and they did it because their Emperor asked them to. Anyone who does not understand that - does not understand a damn thing about Japan.
Dropping the bombs ended the war by causing Hirohito to end the war.
Anything else is bull shit.
The one thing you should remember about all the people that wrote books arguing against that - is that Revisionist Historians want to sell books. If your book just says that the conventional wisdom was right all along - who's going to buy a book that says that?
.
Believe it or not, people are entitled to their own opinions. Saying that it's revisionist historians are the only ones saying this is, ironically, revisionist.
@@Jayrage Because it is. When you have US Marines, saviors of the bombs, and so so so much more people all agreeing, yeah, the bombs where justified. Just for some shit heel nearly 100 years later to say there liars, if it smells like shit, and it looks like shit, its probably shit.
So you are saying. In order the use an ultimate weapon, all we need is a stubborn enough enemy? Yes. Good mentality. I am sure this "bull shit" is not gonna happen in again.
Yeah people saying Japan would never surrender and there would be more casualties...But at the same time why did they surrender after 2 Atomic bombs😂😂😂...Make it make sense...Japan would have surrendered eventually maybe even in 45 cos USSR came along but Americans stoped is from knowing that...
@@Vojkan2000he explained it in the comment. Are you blind? They surrendered after 2 atomic bombs because one person decided to do that, if this person hadn't done it, they would have continued so the bombs convinced him
Yes. Absolutely needed if you wanted to limit overall casualties on both sides. The Japanese were not going to surrender or give up easily, even though it was readily apparent they would not win.
Had to show significant destruction with one bomb, and the second to show it wasn’t a one off instance.
BTW…I just watched new Oppenheimer movie and it was pretty good. Timely video uploads.
I think you are missing a rather important distinction between military and civilian casualties. Ultimately military casualties have to be acceptable due to the nature of war. Civilian casualties do not.
Yeah you don't need to look any farther than Iwo Jima or Okinawa to see how fanatical the Japanese were in defending. Instead of training children in Japanese schools at the time on mathematics or language or history they were teaching them to fight Americans with sharpened bamboo sticks. Boys AND girls. There wasn't going to be any such thing as a noncombatant if we invaded Honshu.
So does that mean Russia has the right to use the nukes on Ukraine for the same reason the us did? I mean it is to save lives right? Meaning Putin would be a good guy for using those nukes just like america did right? Nukes to saves lives yey for nukes
What kinda gaslighting comparison is that??? Putin was the aggressor 1d10t😂Like Jap Empire and Naz1s Russia.. why should their victims pay for the price that theyve started?? They should be nuked😂
@@simondahl5437 The way the Japanese would have organised with Operation Downfall actually occurring, the concept of a Japanese civilian basically wouldn't have existed.
My uncle's life was probably saved by Truman's decision. He was training for the invasion when the war ended.
Damn, that ending thought of the long term deterrance effect shows that doing the right thing is rarely the issue, it is knowing what is the right thing to do. It is only the differences caused by one decision versus an other that counts. And the time horizon for any decision changes that very decision. Complicated beyond belief.
In my opinion, the Nukes were completely justified, I mean 140,00-170,000+ casualties, or 5 million+ casualties. It’s a no brainer.
absolutely! as well as the continuing suffering of the chinese, and further Soviet seizures of Japanese territory
Not to mention the horrible war crimes Japan did and what Japanese mothers were doing to their babies because of the fear of invasion.
Should Russia nuke Ukraine to minimize the causalties, because if they do not surrender the war will not end and millions will die from it?
As many others have said... the only reason I'm here today is because my grandfather (who was literally on a ship heading that way - and would have been first wave) didn't die...
To think that somehow the death toll or devastation of Olympic / Downfall wouldn't have been much much worse is absurd...
It shortened the war and SAVED lives....
If there hadn't been a Pearl Harbor, there would never have been a Hiroshima nor Hiroshima.
I think the nukes would have been researched and developed, as well as dropped somewhere on somebody even without Pearl
@@kalui96 But without Pearl, there would have been no cause to use them on Japan. That was my point.
@@serpent645 that makes sense, I thought maybe you meant it the other way
If there hadn't been provocation by Congress, then Pearl Harbour wouldn't have happened.
10:00 "There was already a moral question" This is the key point everybody misses today. The atomic bombings are considered exceptional and uniquely destructive but in the view of the leadership they really were just a continuation of the firebombing which killed and destroyed far far more people and cities. Even today you have to consider that nuclear weapons are not used tactically because they are simply not convenient. E.g. Russia has quite effectively levelled Ukrainian cities like Bakhmut and Mariupol without resorting to a tactical nuclear weapon. Using a nuclear device would be technically awkward, politically sensitive and expensive in comparison to cheap artillery. Arguably it wouldn't even be as effective, unless you used a very large weapon. Nakasaki and Hiroshima were wooden cities so the destruction wrought by a 12-15kt device was total. In a modern city the damage would be lesser. By firing thousands of shells a day for almost a year, essence Russia has used the equivalent of dozens of hiroshima type weapons against Bakhmut.
Im so relieved that you covered the soviet invasion of machuria, it is one of the most important, but unkown details of world history
It's brought up every single time the bombings come up. It's the go to backing for the claim they weren't necessary.
@@westrim absolutly not
@@ande556h Compelling rebuttal, I'm now convinced that I never actually saw hundreds of "BuT WHat aboUT the SoVIets!!!!" claims in the comments of every single video and news article about this, and not a few articles themselves which presented the claim uncritically. They must have just been a mirage.
I think the Ruskies set a literal world record for speed of advance of an army.
@@MM22966 When you're fighting a skeleton army and attack immedietly after breaking a non-aggression pact, you're not gonna get much of a fight.
Yes. War is hell. The longer the war is prolonged, the longer the suffering will be.
The answer to “was it necessary” is yes, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrible thing to do. I think it is important the recognize that fact.
Well said.
Very helpful additions to the debate. The Russian abrogation of its neutrality position regarding Japan (which dashed Japanese hopes of potential Soviet negotiations on their behalf), coupled with neither the Japanese nor U.S. desire to see the Soviet invasion of Hokkaido, also contributed to the second bomb drop to prompt a rationale for Japanese surrender to the Americans alone, and a formidable demonstration of American power to the Soviets.