I mean, no matter how fucked up it seems, I'd say it's a lot better than losing potentially millions of troops while attempting a landing on a heavily defended mountainous mainland.
No. One thing to use them at all, another to drop 2 of them on cities with thousands of civilians. Expecting large casaulties doesnt justify targeting civilians. Atleast drop it in nowhere first.
Absolutely. By every estimate, an invasion of the mainland would have been horrific for both sides, and those lost in the atomic bombings are far outweighed by the number that were saved from not invading.
The Operations Room is an interesting channel. They cover history, but very much from a military history perspective -- especially the moment-to-moment of a particular battle or (like this) series of events. They go very deep. I think some of the videos would be interesting for you to cover, especially since you're much better at providing a wider historical context than they often provide (although the channel has gotten better at this more recently, especially their videos on engagements between India and Pakistan).
I watched you years ago and was a huge fan of your work. For a few years I kinda forgot about your channel and lost interest in history but now I see that you are still going strong and I am happy for you. Great content and great teaching there man, keep it up ! 👊
One of the core things I learned from Dan Snow’s podcast on this is that there *wasn’t a decision to use the atomic bomb*; or, put another way, once the Manhattan Project was started, it was going to end in the use of an atomic bomb. Put another way, it would likely have been politically impossible for a U.S. President to justify the loss of U.S. military lives in a “conventional” invasion while sitting on a bomb which would end the war without the need to lose any further lives on the Allied side. A further point it added is that had, for some reason, no atomic bomb been used in Japan, one would quite possibly then have been used subsequently (perhaps, for example, in Korea); this has to be added in to any discussion on its use in 1945.
So, I've been to Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Kokura, and I've even been to Yakushima (I was quite surprised to see that popup here). The Hiroshima memorial is possibly the most sombre experience you can have, especially if you've even seen any documentaries about it beforehand. As you mentioned, the information about the people involved rather than the political ramifications is what drives it home. I'm stood there looking at that trike the the toddler was on, running my hand over a half-melted roof tile and wondering if I'm the bad person for using this as a tourist destination.
I was there in 2019 and it’s a very somber place. At the exit of the memorial there was a side room that was playing an interview/documentary from an elderly woman who was in Hiroshima when the bomb fell. I don’t want to get graphic with it, but she went into detail about how she had sent her 8 year old daughter off to school ten minutes beforehand, and the condition that her and her husband found their child in hours later. I’ll remember that memorial and everything in it, but the images and the detail that woman talked about will be with me forever. I couldn’t even finish watching it, I had to leave because I was crying so much. I’m tearing up now writing this. It was a horrendous what happened, but the Memorial is as much of a place of remembrance as it is learning. Through their turmoil, they what to teach, so it will never be repeated again.
You aren't a bad person for visiting a memorial as long as you were respectful, which it sounds like you were. This is an important part of history and the memorial was established there specifically be to a reminder to what horrors war can bring and to never again use such weapons. You were doing the right thing to be there.
It was actually a list of 14 Japanese city if I remember correctly, they had attempted to get visuals on several city’s before they chose the bombing sight, they also made several passes over the city being unable to get visual confirmation and the last pass before turn around they confirmed visuals and dropped the first bomb
Operations room is in my top 3 favorite RUclips channels, their content on the first gulf war and desert storm is flippin fantastic. One of the best series of youtube videos.
Interesting to see how hesitant the Japanese cabinet is to surrender. The decision to use the atomic bomb is a controversial one for sure, but the hesitation to surrender really caused more hardship and deaths. The Bushido spirit is noble but just plain wrong in this context.
@@nrsrymj Saying bombs did "absolutely nothing" is as ridiculous as saying Soviet entry was sole reason Japan decided to surrender. Stop being purposefully delusional.
@@azorahai7837 but they didn't. That's just a fact about the reaction of the delusional militarists on the Japanese supreme council. Like I said, even after Nagasaki, they were utterly unmoved. You're free to look up the primary sources from the members of the civilian government who were deeply frustrated by the militarist intransigence. But their reaction is not really surprising, as 60 Japanese cities had already been burned to ash before the atomic bombings by the even deadlier and more destructive firebombing campaign. They didn't care about their dying civilians.
@@azorahai7837 They didn't say that. They stated it did nothing for the Militarist faction, which is true. What it did was the other factions that were on the fence to choose surrender.
@@Inucroft What militarist faction said would be of less and less importance after each new nuke dropped on Japan. Soviet entry was one of many reasons why Japan surrendered, not THE reason why Japan surrendered.
I visited the UN building and saw the statue of St. Agnes (recovered from the cathedral in Nagasaki), damaged by radiation... Sent chills down my spine
You definitely gotta react to some of Alternate History Hubs videos. Would love to hear your thoughts on these what if scenarios in comparison to real history, his most recent video "what if anyone won the battle of 1812" was quite interesting
I actually had the pleasure of knowing two men who were going to be in the invasion. One in the second wave, one in the seventh wave. Both UNDERSTOOD, not speculated, not oh I might, understood they would be killed. Both had already seen combat elsewhere, so not green. Its too easy to look back and go it shouldn't have been dropped. That's hindsight and even then is debatable at best. But I knew two men who no one here against the dropping of the bombs could have ever swayed in their stance that it was the right thing. Has that influenced me, yes, because in many of these discussions we talk about lives lost, but rarely do people actually mention them personally. And as much as the people who died in the bombing are mentioned, so too, must these people as their lives were also part of the discussion. Personally, I feel if there had been an invasion, the loss of life would have far exceeded what was done in the bombings. And the brutality of that fighting would have been some of the worst of the war.
26:22 according to the National Geographic documentaries series “Seconds from Disaster” episode named “The Forgotten Bomb” the crew onboard Bockscar were ordered that the atomic bomb should only be dropped if they get a visual on the target and the only person on board the bombing aircraft that had the authority to switch it from a visual bombing drop to a radar guided drop was commander Ashworth.
i know it’s a tough question, and people always wonder should we have used the bombs but the only other option was an invasion and i’m sure if you were one of the men that was gonna be boots on the ground in one of those amphibious landing ships i think you’d agree this was the best option.
This idea lacks context of other events going on around Japan. Soviet Union was about to invade Manchuria and Japan, which they did day before Nagasaki. The emperor was looking out for ways to surrender while saving face and United States intelligence was aware of this before the atomic bombings. The United States was specifically planning ground invasion of Japan main islands before or during the bombings, it was one of couple options. The prevention of invasion narrative kind of was a post hoc justification. Japanese supreme council was completely unfazed by the bombings. It took a lot from Sato and Emperor to change their minds.
@@TealJosh This is false. The Soviets could not have invaded the Japanese mainland without America supplying them with training and equipment, since they lacked any meaningful amphibious warfare capabilities. The issue Japan had with the Soviets wasn't military, but political: they would no longer be a neutral party to act as a bulwark against the Allies in any peace negotiations. The Emperor was not looking for any way to surrender, he wanted an armistice: "saving face" meant keeping most of Japan's conquests in the Far East, a white peace. And the fact that the bombings targeted cities explicitly associated with _Ketsu Go_ , the High Command's attempt to defeat the American landing by destroying the landing forces (in order to negotiate from a position of strength) allowed the civilian government to argue that the Americans already knew about the plan thje military High Command had.
Hey Mr. Terry, love your work as always. As for your questions at the end. First, I think the decision was made primarily to end the war quickly and without the casualties and cost of an invasion. That said, I certainly can not rule out the possibility that the United States wanted to send a strong message to the Soviet Union. As for whether it was "necessary" I think that depends on your definition of "necessary." Personally, I find it more helpful to ask "What would have happened had the atomic bombs not been used?" For me I can think of only two ways it could have played out and I think both would ultimately have been worse. One way is that a more conventional treaty would have been formed between the U.S. and Japan which would have left the latter's political and military infrastructure in tact along with potentially part of their empire. Had this happened, I have no doubt that Japan would have rebuilt their military and gone back to their campaigns of conquest in the Pacific and we would be back to square one within 20 years with the potential added complication of an atomic-armed Japan for the 2nd go around. The other way would have been for a traditional invasion a.k.a. "Operation Downfall" which likely would have resulted in millions of deaths as the Japanese government was planning to essentially turn the civilian population into one giant kamikaze force. I often recommend people check out Real Life Lore's video called "The Insane American Plan to Invade Japan" though I think that video should be called "The Insane Japanese Plan Not To Surrender". As for the Soviet Union joining in, that would be a double-edged sword in my view. On the one hand, yes, it would have added the military might of the Soviet Union to our invasion of Japan. But on the other hand, we can trust that the Soviets would effectively annex every inch of land they seized giving Stalin greater influence in the Pacific when it finally ended and the cold war began. Not to mention I think this would have resulted in Japan being carved up much like what happened in Korea. In other words this would have lead to even more death and an even more messy Cold War. In essence, the atomic bombings while horrible was the lesser of three evils and the decision to use them ultimately in the long run saved a lot of lives.
I think its worth noting that while the bombing of Nagasaki was occuring they were discussing a CONDITIONAL surrender. Not an unconditional one. The US was also banking on making the Japanese believe they had many more bombs. Its probably why they dropped them in such quick succession.
25:00 the irony that a plane called 'the big stink' got lost. It's like when you watch a horse race and the horse called 'stiletto' falls at the first jump. What did you think was gonna happen? It's in the name.
You brought up that they chose not to nuke Tokyo. But it’s worth noting that a big reason Tokyo wasn’t nuked is because the city practically didn’t exist anymore by that time. Firebombing and firestorms had obliterated it.
The safety plugs on Little Boy make sense. This bomb design is extremely easy to detonate, just make both uranium masses come close and boom, critical mass. It was powered by a simple explosive. That's one of the reason why this bomb is no longer used, given how easy it would be to detonate by mistake (just trigger the single explosive). By comparison, Fat Man needs a simultaneous detonation of all explosive charges to compress the plutonium core. A much safer design that became widespread.
Future Physics Nobel Prize winner Luis Alvarez was in The Great Artiste in charge of the measurement equipment. He volunteered for the mission. Alvarez was very adventurous, and he would do thrill-seeking stuff like this his whole life.
The Operations Room did a series on The Battle of the Bulge which was really good and I highly recommend. Their sister channel The Intel Report also has really good content that adds on to The Operations Room videos.
A quick thing on nukes. The potential weapon that Szilard earned of in1939 would have to go by ship. The Frisch-Peierls memorandum of 1940 clears up some assumptions about neutron absorption and shows that an air dropped might be possible.
I consider it my duty to go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and see the memorials. I went to Hiroshima in 2015 and made plans to visit both cities during their anniversaries in 2020 and this year (2023), but neither worked out. I'll try again in 2025. I distinctly remember entering the Hiroshima museum and nearly screaming at the display just around the first corner. I stared at the diorama of the bomb drop and blast radius. I cried, looking at the little shoe. It affected me so much that I rushed through the after effects room that included the story of Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes, sat down to fold my own paper crane, and then nearly fainted in my seat. The museum has rooms with cots, I suspect for exactly this reason. I want to go back, as well as visit Nagasaki for the first time. I want to take my time. Again, I believe it is my duty, even our duty, to do so. Yet my students don't seem to think the worst of me or other Americans. They seem to categorize it as a part of their past that is not who Japanese people are anymore.
"They seem to categorize it as part of their past that is not who Japanese people are anymore." When President Obama was on his World Apology Tour and offered to apologize for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan politely explained why that apology would disgrace and demean and insult the Japanese people. Most Americans don't get why an American apology would result in the Japanese People losing face--especially when that apology focused solely on two atomic bombs.
Having seen the movie, I don't think its a stretch to say its assumed the audiences know what happened with the 2 bombs in the war. Knowing this stuff will not spoil anything in the film, even if you don't know anything about Oppenheimer himself.
I think that whichever option President Truman had picked, we would look back and say that was probably the wrong decision. While yes many Japanese citizens died during and after the atomic bombings, if Truman had decided to go ahead with an invasion of Japan, not only would hundreds of thousands or more of American soldiers lose their lives, Japan would also have many losses, both soldiers and civilians. I think Truman chose the lesser of 2 evils where at least more people overall would live, but its definitely a hard decision for 1 person to make. And this is most definitely one instance where the US will have to apologize to Japan indefinitely for the pain and suffering caused.
By your lights, should America have apologized to Germany for bombing/capturing Berlin? Additionally, would America NOT have to apologize for the extensive firebombing of Japan if atomic weapons had not been deployed? Curious......
A gent I once worked with had been a US Marine in WW2, he survived Iwo Jima and Okinawa. He remembers a Company assembly where the CO told the men they had a "tough fight ahead" and that they should look to their right and look to their left -- odds are, that man isn't coming back. What? I'M someone else's right or left man! So he and his friends fully expected to die during the invasion of Japan. When he heard that some super bomb forced the Japanese to surrender, he said "God Bless Harry Truman and the Atom Bomb."
That is the thing that is important, it is not a choice of nukes or not nukes. It was a choice between nuking 2 cities or a land invasion that would have decimated both the Japanese population and an entire generation of young soldiers headed in there.
The History Channel, back when it actually did history, did a comprehensive episode about the decision. There were a lot of things that went in to the decision. The military aspect was that it prevented a costly invasion of Japan. There were political ramifications, including justifying the HUGE amount of money spent on the Manhattan Project. There was opposition to using the bomb from the scientific community about the ethics of using the bomb. Note that the military actually was in a hurry to drop the second bomb because they were afraid Japan would surrender before they had a chance to use it. The second bomb was the plutonium implosion bomb and there was some uncertainty about whether it would actually work, hence the anxiety to drop it to be sure. There was so much that went in to that decision. I would say this, "For anyone who is apologetic about dropping it, anyone who fought in WWII would support the decision to drop the bomb and end the war with no more American lives lost." It is easy to look back from a distance and judge the people who made that decision. I do not.
Nobody ever really mentions the other reason those locations were chosen, we literally firebombed almost every other city so at the point of choosing where to strike there wasn’t many options
Interestingly the firebombings of japan were way more deadly to civilians as alot of homes in japan were still made of wood so they'd light up like Christmas trees.
32:28 Terry I don't think you have the right impression about the Japanese Air Force during this time. I heard this on a documentary called the Last Mission that's about the a group of B-29s who had to bomb (fire bomb) Japan's last surviving oil refinery in Akita. In that documentary, it was said Japan still had 10,000 planes and 2,000,000 soldiers. It also said the B-29s didn't have to worry about flak and enemy fighters because they flew too high. Feel free to check if you want.
imagine being nukes, twice, and still wanting to fight on. how? the problem is that without those nukes, just as many Japanese lives would have been lost in the invasions and the continuing war. the Japanese would have fought to the last man, they really would have. it would have cost so many more allied lives, both US, Russian, British and commonwealth troops. Australia and new Zealand aren't that far away, and they would have been called in to support the invasion. do i like this? HELL NO. was there another option that would have reduced lives lost? no, i don't think so
28:33 You mentioned the Mongol's failed invasion due to the weather conditions and there's a bit of an irony there in the context of WW2. The Japanese who noticed the mongol fleet being destroyed by the storms, believed that the winds were the work of divine spiritual figures or gods. So much so it has been immortalized as 神風、Kamikaze or "divine wind." When the Japanese turned to kamikaze suicide bombing tactics, they named the 特別攻撃隊 (Special attack units), many adorned themselves with bandanas and reliefs with the phrase, and Kamikaze became synonymous with the suicidal bombing attacks. The belief was that, they themselves would become the wind that'll push back the American forces, much like the storm that repelled Mongolian invasion. A common misconception though is that Kamikaze is the main name used for the 特別攻撃隊、but in reality, 特攻 "Tokkoh" is used more often for this (a shortening of Tokubetsu Kogeki Tai). Also,at the 35:38 mark, you talked about the group of Ultranationalists that committed a coup to prevent the broadcast from going off. There's a movie called "Japan's longest day" made back in 1967. It is without a doubt and arguably one of the most important war films ever made showing the Japanese perspective and it comes with a star studded cast. It doesn't hold back on the dark realities of the fanaticism within the Japanese military structure, and it holds up to this day really well, especially compared to the watered down modern version.
Would you ever consider a short video covering the British involvement in getting the Manhatten project into gear? As the project was eating rocks until the British program was rolled into it in 1942
"Where was Japan's air force?" The Japanese couldn't intercept the B-29s. The supercharged engines allowed them to fly higher than any Japanese fighters could reach. There really wasn't much they could do against them.
The Japanese had a very very limited number of High-Altitude interceptors that could reach the bombers, but lack of numbers and especially lack of fuel limited their use.
Also as I recall part of why they did not send interceptors right away was that in most cases small flights like this one were for recon. Best not to spend what limited fuel you have and save it for the bombing runs.
Also hardly any of it was operational due to American raids focusing on the Japanese aircraft industry, and all their remotely skilled fighter pilots were either sleeping off encounters with Hellcats at the bottom of the Pacific or circling the earth in a fine mist after kamikaze attacks.
Ideally I would like to say the bombs weren’t necessary but the land invasion loss estimates on the Japanese and American sides alongside civilians deaths would’ve been astronomical and honestly the estimates given were more conservative than the actual stats would be and the invasion would last a long time. What I would’ve tried is to drop one of the bombs in the sea north of Kyoto or south of Tokyo a few miles out as a warning so to speak. Many people could possibly still go blind in the less populated seaside towns and cities but I would hope that the Imperial Japanese military would concede after that. But given what happened in reality with Hiroshima and Nagasaki even after so much destruction and deaths they still didn’t want to concede I don’t think even in my hypothetical that you could get Japan to surrender unless the same actions the US took in reality took place in the hypothetical. Perhaps in different cities but the results would be the same regrettably.
I’m curious about a hypothetical alternate historical question. What would the Cold War have looked like if the decision to drop the bombs didn’t happen? Assume that the choice to use the weapons wasn’t made, and assume Japan still chose to surrender in a similar timeline, let’s say within a month or so. Because Russia would already have their information from the Trinity project, but there wouldn’t be the world known existence of the destruction caused by an atomic bomb yet, and the US wouldn’t know about the Soviet bomb for another couple years. Would it have changed much?
That's super interesting! I wonder if it would have been a race to Tokyo like there was in Berlin..... AND would Japan even have survived this onslaught...?
@@rylian21 Impossible. The Soviets had no amphibious warfare capabilities to speak of, and the Americans were hardly going to be lending them landing craft and training them when they were busy invading Japan themselves. The threat from the Soviets, outside the mind of delusional Vatniks, was diplomatic: Russia is now Japan's enemy rather than a neutral party that might counterbalance allied interests. This was seized on by the military command as an argument for why they _had_ to defeat the American landings.
a good perspective movie to watch is the japanese animation movie : Barefoot Gen 1983, depecits a normal japanse family living in hiroshima, during and after the bomb drop
Tokyo had already been burned flat on the night of March 9 with as many dead. I suppose the question is if it is better to be vaporized almost instantly, or die in the fires.
Regarding the Emperor of Japan, the US actually did want him to stay in power and took great pains to do so, covering up his involvement in the war crimes executed under his government. The US portrayed Emperor Hirohito as a figurehead being mislead by his cabinet so that he could stay in power and be a bulwark against a general uprising of the Japanese people against the post-war occupation. And they were right to do so. Even after Nagasaki, one of the cabinet members proposed that Japan should fight "to extinction", a sentiment that was still held by many during the surrender process. There are a lot of interesting aspects to the end of the war in Japan, from the "surrender flight" where the transport planes for the Japanese delegation were disguised as medical aircraft to avoid being attacked by those wanting to prevent surrender (and how both planes had problems and were forced to make emergency landings on the return trip), to the way many of those involved had their crimes covered up to save face.
Well, that's not so much what "the US" wanted as what _Douglas MacArthur_ wanted, over strong objections from others. Truman didn't really consider that the Instrument of Surrender had made an egomaniac General the dictator of Japan until then.
With "Operation Downfall" being carried out, a lot of people's grandfathers would not have returned home and a lot of todays American people would not be around today to voice their opinions.
The reason why the Japanese couldn't intercept the b29s was because they didn't have aircraft that could reach the altitude of a b29. The b29 was the first pressurized aircraft. At the altitude of a b29 you cant breath the air because its so thin you'd pass out. Its like how the soviet airforce couldn't shoot down SR-71 blackbirds they didn't have the technology to intercept a plane that flew at the edge of space and they even made an entire line of migs to try to shoot that plane down. As far as using AA guns on b29s it's like trying to use a machine gun as a sniper rifle at that distance.
The biggest problem the IJAAF faced was the lack of fuel. They had planes that could reach B-29s, but they were small in numbers. Because of this lack of fuel, they would only send up their interceptors when a major air raid was coming. Seeing only the weather planes followed by two to three planes afterwards did not send any alarms nor any attempts at interception since these were considered too small to waste any of the extremely precious fuel they had left. Even before Okinawa and Iwo Jima the navy had sent half of their battleships to places in the Dutch East Indies so they could get fuel, whilst the remainder sat in port doing nothing due to fuel starvation, hence why Operation Ten-Go would be a suicide mission, why waste the fuel getting them back when they had no fuel left to spare?
Hirohito did not declare that Japan had surrendered but that it had accepted the terms of the Potsdam delcaration. It is in japanese culture to try to preserve the face and honor of all parties. By wording like that he softened the blow to the army and nation.
i really would not say the USSR deciding to fight Japan is a criticism of the bombing; the ridiculous high casualties of an invasion would still have happened, so im not sure how the soviets joining in would have helped except for potentially splitting the Allied body count among them. fact is, with the 'no surrender' mentality of the japanese, there was never gonna be a better option. compared to the up to FIVE MILLION potential japanese deaths an invasion would have caused, the bombings seem a lot more justified to me
Imo, any discussion of the use of atomic bombs must include the Japanese War counsel and especially the failed coup. I feel any less lacks the nuance to properly tackle if was justified.
@MrTerry I recommend this video “Modern Marvels: Oppenheimer & the Birth of the Atomic Bomb (S8, E25) | Full Episode” from the RUclips channel: HISTORY.
I can't help but wonder if the choice of target's that had not sustained much damage yet was intended to make damage assessment more accurate after the bombing.
That's precisely the point. It makes no sense to bomb cities that are already smoldering ruins. No matter how cruel it sounds, US wanted to test how powerful the bomb was. Sure, theoretically US would have been fine blowing up a deserted city, hence the leaflets warning about the bombs, but as tragic as it is, you'd hardly believe an enemy who says they conveniently have a super-weapon strong enough to erase a city in one go.
Bombing a city that was already destroyed wouldn't make any strategic sense, anyway. There wouldn't be anything worth bombing, and you'd just waste resources.
@@nrsrymj No they didn't, both cities had been bombed before. Bombing up to that point had just been focused on targets related to the aircraft industry, which neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki were associated with. They were, however, both very closely related to the plan to defeat the American landings, being the headquarters for the defence of the whole of southern Japan and a port churning out kamikaze minisubs to target landing ships.
The intelligence on the defenses of Japan were wrong. The Japanese had been moving massive amounts of soldiers and equipment to the initial invasion site.
Hey, I think the next content you should make is reviewing “Animal Farm” the Movie if you haven’t already because I think you would like analysing the politics hidden within the animated movie. Thank you 👍👍👎
It may be a controversial opinion, but I am glad the bombs were dropped at the END of World War 2 and not during or the beginning of the next war. As shown in previous bombings that were just as devastating, like all the firebombings of Japan. The atomic bomb isn't necessarily the I win button that many people believe it to be. However due to the bomb being dropped at the end of the war allowed for the devastation and ramifications to have time to be absorbed into the public's consciousness. Had they not been used in WW2, then the following Korean war may have seen McArthur's plan to nuke the Korean/China border actually be followed through. There would be less qualms about using the bomb on a tactical level then and once that Genie is out to the bottle it will be impossible to put back. As for the justification at the time, you have to consider what was known at the time by the allied forces. The allies had invaded numerous islands held by relatively small number of Japanese forces by comparison to the attackers. The battle of Iwo Jima was a prime example where the Allies assaulted with over 110,000 men vs 21,000 Japanese defenders. With over a 5 to 1 ratio and direct fire support from battleships and carrier planes, it took 25% casualties and 5 weeks for a tiny island. Because of this allied planners had estimates of casualty figures for the proposed invasion of the Japanese home island. General Lauris Norstad told General Curtis LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead. So even taking into account the highest estimates of the atomic bombing, there would have been easily 10x just in american casualties. This does not even consider the devastation to the Japanese people, millions of whom were starving and on the verge of death. Further delay and devastation, even if only for a week would have lead to more lives lost.
I think the reason they bombed them was to show the USSR we have them. The blockade and air bombing was really bad for the whole country and they would have been waving the white flag
to the question if it was justified. in hindsight: absolutely not because we know what comes after the war, a nuclear arms race. at the point of use: absolutely yes: estimated time for the invasion of mainland japan was put as high as 2-3 more years of war. Estimated casualties were put as follow: up to 1 MILLION fatalities for the attacking Allied forces and up to 20 Million casualties estimated for Japan depending of wether the civilian population would join in the defence of the Mainland. In preperation for this invasion 500 THOUSAND Purples Hearts were made. in 2003 there were 120 THOUSAND left in stock, so many that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan had them on hand for immediate award in the field to wounded soldiers. So Trumans decision to use them saved american and allied lives, that was what Truman was concerned about at this time.
Was it justified? Yes. In hindsight it sure was. The first, even though dropped on a mostly untouched city in order to fully demonstrate its effects, Japan didnt surrender and thats with the Soviets also declaring war on them as well. If we had used 1 bomb to "demonstrate" it, on a low key island or something.. I dont think it would of been taken seriously enough, and now.. you only have 1 more nuke.. it would of takens weeks if not a month or 2 to develop another.. in wartime.. giving your enemy another 2 months to fortify positions is unthinkable.
One out in nowhere would have been enough. Cant tell me seeing that in the distance wouldnt break even japanese moral... Atleast like a warning. Instead they dropped 2 on cities the first thing they do, like wtf.
A RUclips channel called Shaun made a video constructing the timeline of political decisions and events that culminated in the use of the bombs. The video is a movie-length objection to the trolley problem narrative in which the story of the bombings are told. I do recommend watching it as it lays out the critical and grave choices made by every relevant character in the war citing their firsthand accounts. The video does a great job presenting a part of history I was never taught in a play-by-play style not unlike Operations Room's presentation. The timeline created from the firsthand accounts paints the decision to use the bombs as a product of nuanced cynicism rather than simple pragmatism/utilitarianism. However, the length of the video with its lack of the appealing graphics of Lemmino or Operations Room prevents me from unreservedly recommending that you should make a react video to it. Still, for myself, I found the video rewarding and refreshingly novel to watch.
Well, constructing a narrative of disregarding all of the actual evidence and misreading sources to come to a preferred conclusion. The problem with the "firsthand accounts" cited is none are contemporary and all have much more to do with the politics of the American military postwar, the scramble for a drastically cut budget which led to the conventional services decrying nuclear weapons out of pure self-interest. For example, the quotes from Halsey and Nimitz are from the inquiry into the funding of the B-36, a nuclear bomber which had just caused the cancellation of the Navy's first supercarrier.
OK a few things that needs to be addressed first the B 29‘s you have to understand the B 29 flu with pressurize cockpits with oxygen the kamikaze zeros of the Japanese military at that time had neither one. There was no oxygen they couldn’t fly to that altitude to fight them that’s why they had it so easy for them to fly back and forth now on top of that For me, my grandfather fought in the Pacific, and according to him the way he was told about it after what they saw in Okinawa and on Iwojima when you have family women and children jumping to their deaths not wanting to surrender that’s what would have happened in Japan on a much grander scale. They were talking up to 5 million civilians, dying during the invasion and possibly my grandfather would’ve been killed going in because he was like I said in the Pacific, now as a veteran who is trained in chemical warfare and specialized as a medic I personally have stood in New Mexico at Ground Zero and Hiroshima and I’ll tell you both scared the crap out of me specially Hiroshima, because when you stand outside of that building, you can hear everything but when you go inside that building, you don’t hear anything, do I think it was necessary at the time and what was going on and you have to understand something about the Soviet Union they had no heavy aircraft. They had no bombers. They had nothing to get over to Japan by air the only thing they had was fighters. Also is they had no navy so Russia trying to get into Japan would’ve been extremely hard for them. We would have had to put them in there with our stuff. Now I love the Japanese people I spent 7 years over there but 1940s Japan was nothing like it is today. But to add there was a miracle that did happen Tsutomu Yamaguchi is a man who was in Hiroshima during the bombing. He survived and was sent to Nagasaki for medical treatment and was hit by the second bomb. He would survive and live till 2010 passing away at the age of 93.
It is hard to ever say that anything that destructive was justified, but the fanatical way that the Japanese military and the Japanese people had conducted themselves during the war makes it easy to believe that a land invasion of the Japanese home islands would have resulted in a bloody genoicide where every man, woman, and child would have fought and died against the allies rather than surrender. That might not have been the case in reality, but that was certainly the impression that was given by battles like Iwo Jima and Okinawa among others. One can only imagine that the Japanese would have fought even harder on their home islands than they did on far flung specks of land. In that context, deploying nuclear weapons, as well as the fire bombing campaigns, to bring mass devastation to Japan in an attempt to break the will of a fanatical enemy I believe was justified. If your enemy has shown that they are willing to fight to the last man for victory, you must in turn be willing to demonstrate your own willingness to eliminate every last one of them if necessary to achieve victory. If you are able to demonstrate the ability to annihilate thousands of the enemy either military or civilian without engaging them on the battlefield where they can inflict equally disheartening casualties upon you, you just might break the fanatical spell that possesses your enemy and save untold thousands if not millions of lives on both sides of the conflict. Would Japan have surrendered by the end of August 1945 without the use of the atomic bombs? It is possible and perhaps even likely. With the Soviet Union moving against Japanese forces, Japan found itself in the same impossible position that Germany had found itself in after the D-Day landings in June of 1944. They were facing two massive well-equipped fighting forces that out-numbered and out-gunned them that were also able to get new soldiers and more equipment while Japan's supply of both men and war equipment was running out. If Japan had refused to surrender and the land invasion had been necessary, the war would likely have continued for at least another year, if not longer. Untold numbers of soldiers and civilians would have died, the cultural centers of Japan would have been obliterated, the islands of Japan would have been bombed, shelled, and burned into oblivion, and the end result would still have been Japanese defeat. The surviving Japanese would have likely been held under the boot of a much more vengeful regime however. Look at the divided Germany after the war with East Germany falling to Soviet control. Post War Japan was allowed to rebuild and thrive under the US occupation, what would have happened if Japan had been divided up the way Germany was? What would the world look like today if Japan had refused to surrender until the Soviets had gained a larger foothold?
I agree with dropping the 1st atomic bomb because It was the only way Japan would surrender and tbh they attacked pearl harbor so I can see where the anger and frustration comes from. However I will stand here and Say I did not support the 2nd atomic bomb because the US didn't even give them that much to surrender and honestly they should waited at least a week and let them make there decision
I don’t necessarily disagree. However the Japanese cabinet was deadlocked 3-3 over whether to surrender. And actually one of the main arguments the anti surrender block used was they didn’t believe that the us could possibly have another bomb. It wasn’t until post Nagasaki that the pro surrender faction had a strong enough position to be able to get the emperor involved and the emperor broke the tie. And even after emperor made his decision, there was a coup to try and overthrow the current government and prevent the surrender announcement. So to summarize, u might be right that Nagasaki was unnecessary but there is evidence to support it’s use as well
Why when talking about the bombs is there no mention of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, thousands of civilian suicides at Okinawa or ant of the countless atrocities of the Japanese Empire?
Nukes were hardly motivated by hate alone, as you're implying; although Truman did say in his speech that PH was avenged with this. Don't be a sad spiteful creature. Innocent civilians, be it German or Japanese, didn't deserve death because of decisions of their tyrannical regimes. That's why people should look at nukes as a tragic but necessary event that helped end war quickly, rather than something to celebrate or feel proud of.
@@azorahai7837 Are there innocent civilians in a total war? These were cities where people worked in military industry. Can you really say there's no blood on the hands that sharpened the bayonets used against the women and little girls of Nanking?
It's wrong to say that nukes were justified, as there can be no justification for murdering innocent civilians. However, nukes were necessary to end the war FAST. You can argue about how necessary 2nd bomb was, but as evident by coup meant to stop the emperor from surrendering (even after 2nd bomb was dropped!), it's not that hard to believe Japan may have chosen to continue fighting. Maybe by hoping US used their trump card and had no other such bombs. 2nd nuke, so quickly after the 1st, made it obvious US had more bombs and was willing to use more. Of course we know US had none yet, but Japanese didn't. I think a lot of them may have been fearing news of another blast every next day. Nukes were a necessary evil indeed. They succeeded in ending the war fast and thus sparing millions of lives that would otherwise be lost during US invasion.
The act of killing civilians in order to achieve political goals due massive general fear, is called terrorism. I find it extremely hard to look at crimes like the massacre of Nanking, and to appreciate the Japanese try to shorten the war by acts of terror.
@@d.h.1999 That's because that's not what they were trying to do there, that was just a group of thugs rampaging around a defeated city like wild animals. Both of the targeted cities were directly linked to Japanese plans to resist the invasion of the Home Islands. But hey, I'm sure those false equivalences help you feel like you're better than everyone who lived back then.
@@d.h.1999 The problem is the targets were not civilians, they were military: namely, Hiroshima Castle, headquarters of the Second General Army responsible for the defence of the whole of Southern Japan, and Kokura Arsenal, Japan's main smallarms plant. Both of these have huge implications for supporting a potential land invasion. The switch to the industrial quarter of Nagasaki, a city where 90% of adults worked producing military-related supplies, was also a military target. The objective was not to produce fear, it was to cripple the supply and coordination capabilities of Japan's land forces prior to invasion, because the US still fully believed that both bombs might not result in surrender.
Robert Julius Oppenheimer didn't tell us everything. Some details were missed. As for instance two academic scientists from two small countries near Denmark smuggled blueprints of the Soviet atom bomb to the White House in 1942. They offered to lead a nuclear program within the U.S, based on the Soviet blueprints of their Soviet atom bomb. The duo came to Washington Dc and to the White House in about 1942, with detailed blueprints of the Soviet atom bomb along with materials lists and air blast calculations. Robert Oppenheimer was invited to the White House in about 1942, give or take 6 months during his two months notice period. He was informed that President Roosevelt will be handing over to Oppenheimer detailed Soviet blueprints and materials lists and airblast calculations of the Soviet atom bomb which were smuggled out of the Soviet Union as gifts to the White House by dissident nuclear scientists of the Soviet Union. All Europeans are brothers, as Americans like to say when they leave the western hemisphere. The Soviet nuclear weapons program started in 1936 and lasted till 1945, and building of the atom bomb were delayed by a few dissident scientists there. The nuclear blueprints of the Soviet atom bomb and these Soviet blueprints were already in final stages for production purposes by 1942. Nuclear weapons design teams of nuclear scientists worked in the Soviet Union and these blueprints were made between 1937 and 1942. The Soviet design team delayed production as much as possible, by focusing on air blast calculations per unit increase in nuclear radiation. Nuclear weapons air blast calculations of the Soviet Atom bomb and materials lists were given also given as gifts to the White House in 1942. the smugglers hired by dissident nuclear scientists were two scientists from either Holland Or Denmark or some other country in that area. Once in Washington the duo smugglers of nuclear secrets offered to lead the future nuclear program of the United States, which President Roosevelt had taken a lot of interest in after meeting the smuggler duo and their secret Soviet blueprints and air blast calculations. The drawings of the Soviet atom bomb were smuggled to the White House itself by 1941 or 1942. The drawings of the Soviet atom bomb, along with air blast calculations and materials lists were ready by 1941 at the Soviet nuclear weapons research center. Soviet Union had the best nuclear scientists, with a human tough and humane mentality. At the time the focus of the United States was in radio waves. So, right after the Soviet drawings of the atom bomb and air blast calculations were smuggled to the office of President Roosevelt, President Roosevelt initially put together a rag tag team with G. Marconi, the inventor of the radio, in charge of the American nuclear program in 1942 - 1943. Soon someone mentioned to him that the United States too had a bright scientist trained in nuclear physics who was in a scientific company somewhere else in the USA. In 1942 or so, Oppenheimer called back the White House: he needed two months notice, at the very least. He told officials in 1942 to let Marconi continue, and that he had to give two months notice to his current employers in 1941 or 1942. Robert Oppenheimer and President Roosevelt were both very impressed with the Soviet papers of the Soviet atom bomb, as these were accompanied by extensive airblast calculations . president Roosevelt commented that even he could understand the air blast calculations ND the Soviet design papers, despite being a history major. Their brilliant nuclear scientists decided to have a go slow approach till a Slav (East European) is selected as the Secretary general of the Soviet Union in place of Joseph Stalin. These were smuggled out of the Soviet Union by a few dissident nuclear scientists of the Soviet Union on to the White House in 1941 or 1942. the dissident nuclear scientists of the Soviet Union didn't like the idea of a communist country like their county building the first atom bomb. original atom bomb drawings and materials lists and air blast calculations were prepared in a nuclear bomb research center in the Soviet Union by a team of nuclear physicists, led by Egor Kurchatov. In his younger days, Mr. Kurchatov looked like a handsome man. Soviet chief scientist and project manager of the Soviet atom bomb program looked more like a white beach boy on a surfboard and more like a slim fraternity member an any college in the USA. Later, he started looking more like a mad scientist with age. During the initial successes of the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union, Kurchatov and his team of dissident nuclear scientists decided to smuggle out the papers of the Soviet nuclear weapon to the United States. and atom bomb including the original drawings and materials lists and formulas and air blast calculations. These were were smuggled out of the Soviet nuclear weapons research center by two real Europeans:: The two smugglers were two academic scientists from central Europe, actually western Europe. The duo who reached the United States also reached the White House in 1942, give or take 6 month, along with the Soviet designs of the atom bomb were from one or two central / west European countries, either Holland or Denmark or a similar country. came from Igor Kurchatov lead scientist of the atom bomb research center. The rest is history. He almost didn't respond to the President's invitation. He was working in a company working or wired signals and other radio signals. Oppenheimer was the only knowledgeable authority in nuclear scientist in the western hemisphere, unlike the Soviet Union and Germany. Initially he told the White Science he had forgotten nuclear science even he had studied nuclear science. President had an answer to Oppenheimer's excuse at not being in a hurry to join the nuclear program of the United States in 1942. He said his last name is German, and that he may be mistakenly associated with Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany had already been committing a number of atrocities across the Soviet Union. President Roosevelt promised to refer to him as an American Jew. American Jews have German last names. So Oppenheim became a Jewish American overnight after a meeting with President Roosevelt in 1942. before that he was a non practicing Jew. Some say he may have been a Lutheran Christian with a German last name before ww2. President Roosevelt made it very clear that the President wanted someone with a German last name to get credit for the atom bomb, even as the President handed over the Soviet papers and materials list and air blast calculations and blueprints of the Soviet atom bomb to Oppenheimer.
Nope, completely legal. Military target with a clear strategic goal, targeted military industry (the bomb exploded between an arms plant and a steelworks and most of those who died were at that very moment making weapons to kill Americans) and there were no laws governing bombardment of cities from the air anyway.
I have not yet been able to complete the mental gymnastics necessary to convince myself that the United States had no other choice but to kill 200,000 people with atomic bombs, or that the only other option was to do a lengthy ground invasion. That would be like breaking someone's arms and legs in a fight, and then killing them because they refuse to say that they give up. I've seen Monty Python and the holy Grail. There were other options.
Unfortunately "the Black Knight" was how a lot of Japanese, especially those in power, thought. You can't really judge such a regime in the light of how a modern society works. Rational people would have seen the war was unwinnable long before it came to this.
So, first, I consider that a false analogy (the one-sided broken-limbs fight). I can see the point you're trying to make but this issue is not only MUCH larger than a two-person fight, but it would (absolutely did!) have far-reaching and long-standing implications for the world and the future of warfare. And second, I also don't think your "... no other choice..." claim is at all fair. Of course, the US had other choices.... would you at least agree that the decision Truman made saved more lives (Japanese & American) than the two atomic bombs took away?
@@spelaeologus "would you at least agree that the decision Truman made saved more lives (Japanese & American) than the two atomic bombs took away?" Yes, absolutely. That made it the least worst option than all the others, horrible though it was. In terms of the Monty Python thing - I believe that was the analogy you introduced. If your argument was that it would be ludicrous and irrational for the Japanese to continue resisting to fight an unwinnable war, I'd agree. But there was plenty of evidence that the Japanese government was still attempting to do that, and to convince their population of the same. The truth would have been obvious to policymakers long before August 1945, but there were still people in government willing to fight on until everyone was dead.
the use of those nuclears bombs was never justified it is well known that the japanese had already surrendered because of the ussr war declaration. US officials bombed to ensure that the soviet union would never invade japan and establish communism there. US officials then created the myth that using the nuclear bombs was justified because the japanese would never surrender otherwise (backed up by singular anecdotes from a dozen of islands were japanese soldieds would not surrender because they couldnt believe that they lost.
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HiCxoDeo0hc/mqdefault.jpg)
Do you believe the way the atomic bombs were used as justified?
Yes. Not using the atomic bombs would have likely resulted in far more casualties.
I mean, no matter how fucked up it seems, I'd say it's a lot better than losing potentially millions of troops while attempting a landing on a heavily defended mountainous mainland.
No. One thing to use them at all, another to drop 2 of them on cities with thousands of civilians.
Expecting large casaulties doesnt justify targeting civilians. Atleast drop it in nowhere first.
Absolutely. By every estimate, an invasion of the mainland would have been horrific for both sides, and those lost in the atomic bombings are far outweighed by the number that were saved from not invading.
Sadly Yes I think personaly 1 was justified after the attack pearl harbor but the 2nd one wasnt necessary at all just my personal thoughts
Man you have got to check out more of The Operations Room. There is so much good informative content in it.
The Operations Room is an interesting channel. They cover history, but very much from a military history perspective -- especially the moment-to-moment of a particular battle or (like this) series of events. They go very deep. I think some of the videos would be interesting for you to cover, especially since you're much better at providing a wider historical context than they often provide (although the channel has gotten better at this more recently, especially their videos on engagements between India and Pakistan).
The Intel report goes over the wider history connected to events and is also a really good sister channel to the Operations Room.
I watched you years ago and was a huge fan of your work. For a few years I kinda forgot about your channel
and lost interest in history but now I see that you are still going strong and I am happy for you.
Great content and great teaching there man, keep it up ! 👊
One of the core things I learned from Dan Snow’s podcast on this is that there *wasn’t a decision to use the atomic bomb*; or, put another way, once the Manhattan Project was started, it was going to end in the use of an atomic bomb. Put another way, it would likely have been politically impossible for a U.S. President to justify the loss of U.S. military lives in a “conventional” invasion while sitting on a bomb which would end the war without the need to lose any further lives on the Allied side. A further point it added is that had, for some reason, no atomic bomb been used in Japan, one would quite possibly then have been used subsequently (perhaps, for example, in Korea); this has to be added in to any discussion on its use in 1945.
Would definitely like to see you do more videos from the operations room, historigraph is another great channel who posts similar videos
So, I've been to Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Kokura, and I've even been to Yakushima (I was quite surprised to see that popup here). The Hiroshima memorial is possibly the most sombre experience you can have, especially if you've even seen any documentaries about it beforehand. As you mentioned, the information about the people involved rather than the political ramifications is what drives it home. I'm stood there looking at that trike the the toddler was on, running my hand over a half-melted roof tile and wondering if I'm the bad person for using this as a tourist destination.
I was there in 2019 and it’s a very somber place. At the exit of the memorial there was a side room that was playing an interview/documentary from an elderly woman who was in Hiroshima when the bomb fell. I don’t want to get graphic with it, but she went into detail about how she had sent her 8 year old daughter off to school ten minutes beforehand, and the condition that her and her husband found their child in hours later. I’ll remember that memorial and everything in it, but the images and the detail that woman talked about will be with me forever. I couldn’t even finish watching it, I had to leave because I was crying so much. I’m tearing up now writing this.
It was a horrendous what happened, but the Memorial is as much of a place of remembrance as it is learning. Through their turmoil, they what to teach, so it will never be repeated again.
You aren't a bad person for visiting a memorial as long as you were respectful, which it sounds like you were. This is an important part of history and the memorial was established there specifically be to a reminder to what horrors war can bring and to never again use such weapons. You were doing the right thing to be there.
It was actually a list of 14 Japanese city if I remember correctly, they had attempted to get visuals on several city’s before they chose the bombing sight, they also made several passes over the city being unable to get visual confirmation and the last pass before turn around they confirmed visuals and dropped the first bomb
Fascinating stuff. Loved this video, going to head over and sub to this channel. Thanks for sharing, Terry!
Operations room is in my top 3 favorite RUclips channels, their content on the first gulf war and desert storm is flippin fantastic. One of the best series of youtube videos.
I have been subscribed to The Operations Room for a while and they have a lot of really good breakdowns. Well worth scrolling through their uploads.
Interesting to see how hesitant the Japanese cabinet is to surrender. The decision to use the atomic bomb is a controversial one for sure, but the hesitation to surrender really caused more hardship and deaths. The Bushido spirit is noble but just plain wrong in this context.
Well, the bombs did absolutely nothing to move the militarist faction on the Supreme Council. Even after hearing about Nagasaki, they shrugged.
@@nrsrymj Saying bombs did "absolutely nothing" is as ridiculous as saying Soviet entry was sole reason Japan decided to surrender. Stop being purposefully delusional.
@@azorahai7837 but they didn't. That's just a fact about the reaction of the delusional militarists on the Japanese supreme council. Like I said, even after Nagasaki, they were utterly unmoved. You're free to look up the primary sources from the members of the civilian government who were deeply frustrated by the militarist intransigence. But their reaction is not really surprising, as 60 Japanese cities had already been burned to ash before the atomic bombings by the even deadlier and more destructive firebombing campaign. They didn't care about their dying civilians.
@@azorahai7837 They didn't say that.
They stated it did nothing for the Militarist faction, which is true. What it did was the other factions that were on the fence to choose surrender.
@@Inucroft What militarist faction said would be of less and less importance after each new nuke dropped on Japan. Soviet entry was one of many reasons why Japan surrendered, not THE reason why Japan surrendered.
You should watch their coverage of the air war in Desert Storm 10/10 video
Yess!!
I visited the UN building and saw the statue of St. Agnes (recovered from the cathedral in Nagasaki), damaged by radiation... Sent chills down my spine
You definitely gotta react to some of Alternate History Hubs videos. Would love to hear your thoughts on these what if scenarios in comparison to real history, his most recent video "what if anyone won the battle of 1812" was quite interesting
Glad to see Mr T still dropping good videos
I love Operations Room and the sister channel Intel Report!! You would love some of the Intel Report videos.
I actually had the pleasure of knowing two men who were going to be in the invasion. One in the second wave, one in the seventh wave. Both UNDERSTOOD, not speculated, not oh I might, understood they would be killed. Both had already seen combat elsewhere, so not green.
Its too easy to look back and go it shouldn't have been dropped. That's hindsight and even then is debatable at best. But I knew two men who no one here against the dropping of the bombs could have ever swayed in their stance that it was the right thing.
Has that influenced me, yes, because in many of these discussions we talk about lives lost, but rarely do people actually mention them personally. And as much as the people who died in the bombing are mentioned, so too, must these people as their lives were also part of the discussion.
Personally, I feel if there had been an invasion, the loss of life would have far exceeded what was done in the bombings. And the brutality of that fighting would have been some of the worst of the war.
26:22 according to the National Geographic documentaries series “Seconds from Disaster” episode named “The Forgotten Bomb” the crew onboard Bockscar were ordered that the atomic bomb should only be dropped if they get a visual on the target and the only person on board the bombing aircraft that had the authority to switch it from a visual bombing drop to a radar guided drop was commander Ashworth.
i know it’s a tough question, and people always wonder should we have used the bombs but the only other option was an invasion and i’m sure if you were one of the men that was gonna be boots on the ground in one of those amphibious landing ships i think you’d agree this was the best option.
This idea lacks context of other events going on around Japan. Soviet Union was about to invade Manchuria and Japan, which they did day before Nagasaki. The emperor was looking out for ways to surrender while saving face and United States intelligence was aware of this before the atomic bombings. The United States was specifically planning ground invasion of Japan main islands before or during the bombings, it was one of couple options. The prevention of invasion narrative kind of was a post hoc justification. Japanese supreme council was completely unfazed by the bombings. It took a lot from Sato and Emperor to change their minds.
@@TealJosh
This is false. The Soviets could not have invaded the Japanese mainland without America supplying them with training and equipment, since they lacked any meaningful amphibious warfare capabilities. The issue Japan had with the Soviets wasn't military, but political: they would no longer be a neutral party to act as a bulwark against the Allies in any peace negotiations. The Emperor was not looking for any way to surrender, he wanted an armistice: "saving face" meant keeping most of Japan's conquests in the Far East, a white peace. And the fact that the bombings targeted cities explicitly associated with _Ketsu Go_ , the High Command's attempt to defeat the American landing by destroying the landing forces (in order to negotiate from a position of strength) allowed the civilian government to argue that the Americans already knew about the plan thje military High Command had.
Hey Mr. Terry, love your work as always.
As for your questions at the end. First, I think the decision was made primarily to end the war quickly and without the casualties and cost of an invasion. That said, I certainly can not rule out the possibility that the United States wanted to send a strong message to the Soviet Union.
As for whether it was "necessary" I think that depends on your definition of "necessary." Personally, I find it more helpful to ask "What would have happened had the atomic bombs not been used?" For me I can think of only two ways it could have played out and I think both would ultimately have been worse.
One way is that a more conventional treaty would have been formed between the U.S. and Japan which would have left the latter's political and military infrastructure in tact along with potentially part of their empire. Had this happened, I have no doubt that Japan would have rebuilt their military and gone back to their campaigns of conquest in the Pacific and we would be back to square one within 20 years with the potential added complication of an atomic-armed Japan for the 2nd go around.
The other way would have been for a traditional invasion a.k.a. "Operation Downfall" which likely would have resulted in millions of deaths as the Japanese government was planning to essentially turn the civilian population into one giant kamikaze force. I often recommend people check out Real Life Lore's video called "The Insane American Plan to Invade Japan" though I think that video should be called "The Insane Japanese Plan Not To Surrender". As for the Soviet Union joining in, that would be a double-edged sword in my view. On the one hand, yes, it would have added the military might of the Soviet Union to our invasion of Japan. But on the other hand, we can trust that the Soviets would effectively annex every inch of land they seized giving Stalin greater influence in the Pacific when it finally ended and the cold war began. Not to mention I think this would have resulted in Japan being carved up much like what happened in Korea. In other words this would have lead to even more death and an even more messy Cold War.
In essence, the atomic bombings while horrible was the lesser of three evils and the decision to use them ultimately in the long run saved a lot of lives.
I think its worth noting that while the bombing of Nagasaki was occuring they were discussing a CONDITIONAL surrender. Not an unconditional one. The US was also banking on making the Japanese believe they had many more bombs. Its probably why they dropped them in such quick succession.
It's crazy that I've only seen one or two videos about the Nagasaki bombing. The vast majority are about Hiroshima.
25:00 the irony that a plane called 'the big stink' got lost. It's like when you watch a horse race and the horse called 'stiletto' falls at the first jump. What did you think was gonna happen? It's in the name.
You brought up that they chose not to nuke Tokyo. But it’s worth noting that a big reason Tokyo wasn’t nuked is because the city practically didn’t exist anymore by that time. Firebombing and firestorms had obliterated it.
The safety plugs on Little Boy make sense. This bomb design is extremely easy to detonate, just make both uranium masses come close and boom, critical mass. It was powered by a simple explosive. That's one of the reason why this bomb is no longer used, given how easy it would be to detonate by mistake (just trigger the single explosive). By comparison, Fat Man needs a simultaneous detonation of all explosive charges to compress the plutonium core. A much safer design that became widespread.
Thanks for adding that!
Future Physics Nobel Prize winner Luis Alvarez was in The Great Artiste in charge of the measurement equipment. He volunteered for the mission. Alvarez was very adventurous, and he would do thrill-seeking stuff like this his whole life.
The Operations Room did a series on The Battle of the Bulge which was really good and I highly recommend. Their sister channel The Intel Report also has really good content that adds on to The Operations Room videos.
Weather plays a very important role in wars that is often overlooked.
A quick thing on nukes. The potential weapon that Szilard earned of in1939 would have to go by ship. The Frisch-Peierls memorandum of 1940 clears up some assumptions about neutron absorption and shows that an air dropped might be possible.
I consider it my duty to go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and see the memorials. I went to Hiroshima in 2015 and made plans to visit both cities during their anniversaries in 2020 and this year (2023), but neither worked out. I'll try again in 2025. I distinctly remember entering the Hiroshima museum and nearly screaming at the display just around the first corner. I stared at the diorama of the bomb drop and blast radius. I cried, looking at the little shoe. It affected me so much that I rushed through the after effects room that included the story of Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes, sat down to fold my own paper crane, and then nearly fainted in my seat. The museum has rooms with cots, I suspect for exactly this reason.
I want to go back, as well as visit Nagasaki for the first time. I want to take my time. Again, I believe it is my duty, even our duty, to do so. Yet my students don't seem to think the worst of me or other Americans. They seem to categorize it as a part of their past that is not who Japanese people are anymore.
"They seem to categorize it as part of their past that is not who Japanese people are anymore." When President Obama was on his World Apology Tour and offered to apologize for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan politely explained why that apology would disgrace and demean and insult the Japanese people.
Most Americans don't get why an American apology would result in the Japanese People losing face--especially when that apology focused solely on two atomic bombs.
So many videos about this topic all the sudden :D I get why i just don't want to watch these yet before watching the movie everyone is these for.
Actually I suggest reading up on Oppenheimer and the Manhattan project before you go. You’ll notice more of the references in the movie.
Having seen the movie, I don't think its a stretch to say its assumed the audiences know what happened with the 2 bombs in the war. Knowing this stuff will not spoil anything in the film, even if you don't know anything about Oppenheimer himself.
I think that whichever option President Truman had picked, we would look back and say that was probably the wrong decision. While yes many Japanese citizens died during and after the atomic bombings, if Truman had decided to go ahead with an invasion of Japan, not only would hundreds of thousands or more of American soldiers lose their lives, Japan would also have many losses, both soldiers and civilians. I think Truman chose the lesser of 2 evils where at least more people overall would live, but its definitely a hard decision for 1 person to make. And this is most definitely one instance where the US will have to apologize to Japan indefinitely for the pain and suffering caused.
By your lights, should America have apologized to Germany for bombing/capturing Berlin? Additionally, would America NOT have to apologize for the extensive firebombing of Japan if atomic weapons had not been deployed? Curious......
My favorite history teacher reacting to my favorite military event historian
A gent I once worked with had been a US Marine in WW2, he survived Iwo Jima and Okinawa. He remembers a Company assembly where the CO told the men they had a "tough fight ahead" and that they should look to their right and look to their left -- odds are, that man isn't coming back. What? I'M someone else's right or left man! So he and his friends fully expected to die during the invasion of Japan. When he heard that some super bomb forced the Japanese to surrender, he said "God Bless Harry Truman and the Atom Bomb."
That is the thing that is important, it is not a choice of nukes or not nukes. It was a choice between nuking 2 cities or a land invasion that would have decimated both the Japanese population and an entire generation of young soldiers headed in there.
@@tenofprime
_And would have used nukes_ . Seven of them, to be precise.
I am just imagining how scary the bombs would be to people from antiquity.
The wrath of the gods for sure
The History Channel, back when it actually did history, did a comprehensive episode about the decision. There were a lot of things that went in to the decision. The military aspect was that it prevented a costly invasion of Japan. There were political ramifications, including justifying the HUGE amount of money spent on the Manhattan Project. There was opposition to using the bomb from the scientific community about the ethics of using the bomb. Note that the military actually was in a hurry to drop the second bomb because they were afraid Japan would surrender before they had a chance to use it. The second bomb was the plutonium implosion bomb and there was some uncertainty about whether it would actually work, hence the anxiety to drop it to be sure. There was so much that went in to that decision. I would say this, "For anyone who is apologetic about dropping it, anyone who fought in WWII would support the decision to drop the bomb and end the war with no more American lives lost." It is easy to look back from a distance and judge the people who made that decision. I do not.
the backstory of how the bomb was delivered to the island is a dark one uss indianapolis
Nobody ever really mentions the other reason those locations were chosen, we literally firebombed almost every other city so at the point of choosing where to strike there wasn’t many options
Could ypu do a video on unit 731?
Interestingly the firebombings of japan were way more deadly to civilians as alot of homes in japan were still made of wood so they'd light up like Christmas trees.
Mr. Terry, I still can't join your Discord server for some reason it is not letting me.
32:28 Terry I don't think you have the right impression about the Japanese Air Force during this time. I heard this on a documentary called the Last Mission that's about the a group of B-29s who had to bomb (fire bomb) Japan's last surviving oil refinery in Akita. In that documentary, it was said Japan still had 10,000 planes and 2,000,000 soldiers. It also said the B-29s didn't have to worry about flak and enemy fighters because they flew too high. Feel free to check if you want.
Favorite T.O.R. content is "2 Israeli Phantoms vs. 28 Egyptian MiGs, 1973."
If the title alone doesn't intrigue you, nothing will.
imagine being nukes, twice, and still wanting to fight on. how?
the problem is that without those nukes, just as many Japanese lives would have been lost in the invasions and the continuing war. the Japanese would have fought to the last man, they really would have. it would have cost so many more allied lives, both US, Russian, British and commonwealth troops. Australia and new Zealand aren't that far away, and they would have been called in to support the invasion. do i like this? HELL NO. was there another option that would have reduced lives lost? no, i don't think so
The casualties would have been far, far greater had the war continued. That's little consolation for the lives that *were* lost though.
Tokyo was spared from the nuclear attack because it was allready fire bombed into oblivion in previous boming raids.
Banger!
28:33 You mentioned the Mongol's failed invasion due to the weather conditions and there's a bit of an irony there in the context of WW2. The Japanese who noticed the mongol fleet being destroyed by the storms, believed that the winds were the work of divine spiritual figures or gods. So much so it has been immortalized as 神風、Kamikaze or "divine wind." When the Japanese turned to kamikaze suicide bombing tactics, they named the 特別攻撃隊 (Special attack units), many adorned themselves with bandanas and reliefs with the phrase, and Kamikaze became synonymous with the suicidal bombing attacks. The belief was that, they themselves would become the wind that'll push back the American forces, much like the storm that repelled Mongolian invasion. A common misconception though is that Kamikaze is the main name used for the 特別攻撃隊、but in reality, 特攻 "Tokkoh" is used more often for this (a shortening of Tokubetsu Kogeki Tai).
Also,at the 35:38 mark, you talked about the group of Ultranationalists that committed a coup to prevent the broadcast from going off. There's a movie called "Japan's longest day" made back in 1967. It is without a doubt and arguably one of the most important war films ever made showing the Japanese perspective and it comes with a star studded cast. It doesn't hold back on the dark realities of the fanaticism within the Japanese military structure, and it holds up to this day really well, especially compared to the watered down modern version.
Would you ever consider a short video covering the British involvement in getting the Manhatten project into gear? As the project was eating rocks until the British program was rolled into it in 1942
"Where was Japan's air force?"
The Japanese couldn't intercept the B-29s. The supercharged engines allowed them to fly higher than any Japanese fighters could reach. There really wasn't much they could do against them.
The Japanese had a very very limited number of High-Altitude interceptors that could reach the bombers, but lack of numbers and especially lack of fuel limited their use.
Also as I recall part of why they did not send interceptors right away was that in most cases small flights like this one were for recon. Best not to spend what limited fuel you have and save it for the bombing runs.
Also hardly any of it was operational due to American raids focusing on the Japanese aircraft industry, and all their remotely skilled fighter pilots were either sleeping off encounters with Hellcats at the bottom of the Pacific or circling the earth in a fine mist after kamikaze attacks.
Ideally I would like to say the bombs weren’t necessary but the land invasion loss estimates on the Japanese and American sides alongside civilians deaths would’ve been astronomical and honestly the estimates given were more conservative than the actual stats would be and the invasion would last a long time.
What I would’ve tried is to drop one of the bombs in the sea north of Kyoto or south of Tokyo a few miles out as a warning so to speak. Many people could possibly still go blind in the less populated seaside towns and cities but I would hope that the Imperial Japanese military would concede after that.
But given what happened in reality with Hiroshima and Nagasaki even after so much destruction and deaths they still didn’t want to concede I don’t think even in my hypothetical that you could get Japan to surrender unless the same actions the US took in reality took place in the hypothetical. Perhaps in different cities but the results would be the same regrettably.
Yeah, there's no point having the bomb and then showing the enemy you're afraid to use it.
I’m curious about a hypothetical alternate historical question. What would the Cold War have looked like if the decision to drop the bombs didn’t happen? Assume that the choice to use the weapons wasn’t made, and assume Japan still chose to surrender in a similar timeline, let’s say within a month or so. Because Russia would already have their information from the Trinity project, but there wouldn’t be the world known existence of the destruction caused by an atomic bomb yet, and the US wouldn’t know about the Soviet bomb for another couple years. Would it have changed much?
Japan may have been split in half like Germany was, and the Soviets would have been absolutely BARBARIC to the conquered Japanese.
That's super interesting! I wonder if it would have been a race to Tokyo like there was in Berlin..... AND would Japan even have survived this onslaught...?
@@rylian21
Impossible. The Soviets had no amphibious warfare capabilities to speak of, and the Americans were hardly going to be lending them landing craft and training them when they were busy invading Japan themselves. The threat from the Soviets, outside the mind of delusional Vatniks, was diplomatic: Russia is now Japan's enemy rather than a neutral party that might counterbalance allied interests. This was seized on by the military command as an argument for why they _had_ to defeat the American landings.
a good perspective movie to watch is the japanese animation movie : Barefoot Gen 1983, depecits a normal japanse family living in hiroshima, during and after the bomb drop
Tokyo had already been burned flat on the night of March 9 with as many dead. I suppose the question is if it is better to be vaporized almost instantly, or die in the fires.
The only difference between the Fire bombings and the Atomic bombings were the number of aircraft required.
Regarding the Emperor of Japan, the US actually did want him to stay in power and took great pains to do so, covering up his involvement in the war crimes executed under his government. The US portrayed Emperor Hirohito as a figurehead being mislead by his cabinet so that he could stay in power and be a bulwark against a general uprising of the Japanese people against the post-war occupation. And they were right to do so. Even after Nagasaki, one of the cabinet members proposed that Japan should fight "to extinction", a sentiment that was still held by many during the surrender process.
There are a lot of interesting aspects to the end of the war in Japan, from the "surrender flight" where the transport planes for the Japanese delegation were disguised as medical aircraft to avoid being attacked by those wanting to prevent surrender (and how both planes had problems and were forced to make emergency landings on the return trip), to the way many of those involved had their crimes covered up to save face.
Well, that's not so much what "the US" wanted as what _Douglas MacArthur_ wanted, over strong objections from others. Truman didn't really consider that the Instrument of Surrender had made an egomaniac General the dictator of Japan until then.
Check out his Battle of 73 Eastings!
With "Operation Downfall" being carried out, a lot of people's grandfathers would not have returned home and a lot of todays American people would not be around today to voice their opinions.
I find the rebuilding plan for Japan and occupation after the atomic bombing the most interesting era post ww2
The reason why the Japanese couldn't intercept the b29s was because they didn't have aircraft that could reach the altitude of a b29. The b29 was the first pressurized aircraft. At the altitude of a b29 you cant breath the air because its so thin you'd pass out. Its like how the soviet airforce couldn't shoot down SR-71 blackbirds they didn't have the technology to intercept a plane that flew at the edge of space and they even made an entire line of migs to try to shoot that plane down. As far as using AA guns on b29s it's like trying to use a machine gun as a sniper rifle at that distance.
The biggest problem the IJAAF faced was the lack of fuel. They had planes that could reach B-29s, but they were small in numbers. Because of this lack of fuel, they would only send up their interceptors when a major air raid was coming. Seeing only the weather planes followed by two to three planes afterwards did not send any alarms nor any attempts at interception since these were considered too small to waste any of the extremely precious fuel they had left. Even before Okinawa and Iwo Jima the navy had sent half of their battleships to places in the Dutch East Indies so they could get fuel, whilst the remainder sat in port doing nothing due to fuel starvation, hence why Operation Ten-Go would be a suicide mission, why waste the fuel getting them back when they had no fuel left to spare?
The ops room is more of minute by minute battle analysis so be aware of that if you do more
Hirohito did not declare that Japan had surrendered but that it had accepted the terms of the Potsdam delcaration.
It is in japanese culture to try to preserve the face and honor of all parties. By wording like that he softened the blow to the army and nation.
That is a very god channel!
i really would not say the USSR deciding to fight Japan is a criticism of the bombing; the ridiculous high casualties of an invasion would still have happened, so im not sure how the soviets joining in would have helped except for potentially splitting the Allied body count among them. fact is, with the 'no surrender' mentality of the japanese, there was never gonna be a better option. compared to the up to FIVE MILLION potential japanese deaths an invasion would have caused, the bombings seem a lot more justified to me
Imo, any discussion of the use of atomic bombs must include the Japanese War counsel and especially the failed coup. I feel any less lacks the nuance to properly tackle if was justified.
@MrTerry I recommend this video “Modern Marvels: Oppenheimer & the Birth of the Atomic Bomb (S8, E25) | Full Episode” from the RUclips channel: HISTORY.
I can't help but wonder if the choice of target's that had not sustained much damage yet was intended to make damage assessment more accurate after the bombing.
This was an open admission by the targeting committee, which ordered their list of cities to be spared from conventional bombing.
That's precisely the point. It makes no sense to bomb cities that are already smoldering ruins. No matter how cruel it sounds, US wanted to test how powerful the bomb was. Sure, theoretically US would have been fine blowing up a deserted city, hence the leaflets warning about the bombs, but as tragic as it is, you'd hardly believe an enemy who says they conveniently have a super-weapon strong enough to erase a city in one go.
Bombing a city that was already destroyed wouldn't make any strategic sense, anyway. There wouldn't be anything worth bombing, and you'd just waste resources.
@@nrsrymj
No they didn't, both cities had been bombed before. Bombing up to that point had just been focused on targets related to the aircraft industry, which neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki were associated with. They were, however, both very closely related to the plan to defeat the American landings, being the headquarters for the defence of the whole of southern Japan and a port churning out kamikaze minisubs to target landing ships.
The intelligence on the defenses of Japan were wrong. The Japanese had been moving massive amounts of soldiers and equipment to the initial invasion site.
Hey, I think the next content you should make is reviewing “Animal Farm” the Movie if you haven’t already because I think you would like analysing the politics hidden within the animated movie. Thank you 👍👍👎
It may be a controversial opinion, but I am glad the bombs were dropped at the END of World War 2 and not during or the beginning of the next war.
As shown in previous bombings that were just as devastating, like all the firebombings of Japan. The atomic bomb isn't necessarily the I win button that many people believe it to be. However due to the bomb being dropped at the end of the war allowed for the devastation and ramifications to have time to be absorbed into the public's consciousness. Had they not been used in WW2, then the following Korean war may have seen McArthur's plan to nuke the Korean/China border actually be followed through. There would be less qualms about using the bomb on a tactical level then and once that Genie is out to the bottle it will be impossible to put back.
As for the justification at the time, you have to consider what was known at the time by the allied forces. The allies had invaded numerous islands held by relatively small number of Japanese forces by comparison to the attackers. The battle of Iwo Jima was a prime example where the Allies assaulted with over 110,000 men vs 21,000 Japanese defenders. With over a 5 to 1 ratio and direct fire support from battleships and carrier planes, it took 25% casualties and 5 weeks for a tiny island. Because of this allied planners had estimates of casualty figures for the proposed invasion of the Japanese home island. General Lauris Norstad told General Curtis LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead. So even taking into account the highest estimates of the atomic bombing, there would have been easily 10x just in american casualties. This does not even consider the devastation to the Japanese people, millions of whom were starving and on the verge of death. Further delay and devastation, even if only for a week would have lead to more lives lost.
I think the reason they bombed them was to show the USSR we have them. The blockade and air bombing was really bad for the whole country and they would have been waving the white flag
to the question if it was justified. in hindsight: absolutely not because we know what comes after the war, a nuclear arms race. at the point of use: absolutely yes: estimated time for the invasion of mainland japan was put as high as 2-3 more years of war. Estimated casualties were put as follow: up to 1 MILLION fatalities for the attacking Allied forces and up to 20 Million casualties estimated for Japan depending of wether the civilian population would join in the defence of the Mainland. In preperation for this invasion 500 THOUSAND Purples Hearts were made. in 2003 there were 120 THOUSAND left in stock, so many that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan had them on hand for immediate award in the field to wounded soldiers. So Trumans decision to use them saved american and allied lives, that was what Truman was concerned about at this time.
Was it justified? Yes. In hindsight it sure was. The first, even though dropped on a mostly untouched city in order to fully demonstrate its effects, Japan didnt surrender and thats with the Soviets also declaring war on them as well. If we had used 1 bomb to "demonstrate" it, on a low key island or something.. I dont think it would of been taken seriously enough, and now.. you only have 1 more nuke.. it would of takens weeks if not a month or 2 to develop another.. in wartime.. giving your enemy another 2 months to fortify positions is unthinkable.
One out in nowhere would have been enough. Cant tell me seeing that in the distance wouldnt break even japanese moral... Atleast like a warning. Instead they dropped 2 on cities the first thing they do, like wtf.
A RUclips channel called Shaun made a video constructing the timeline of political decisions and events that culminated in the use of the bombs. The video is a movie-length objection to the trolley problem narrative in which the story of the bombings are told. I do recommend watching it as it lays out the critical and grave choices made by every relevant character in the war citing their firsthand accounts. The video does a great job presenting a part of history I was never taught in a play-by-play style not unlike Operations Room's presentation. The timeline created from the firsthand accounts paints the decision to use the bombs as a product of nuanced cynicism rather than simple pragmatism/utilitarianism. However, the length of the video with its lack of the appealing graphics of Lemmino or Operations Room prevents me from unreservedly recommending that you should make a react video to it. Still, for myself, I found the video rewarding and refreshingly novel to watch.
Well, constructing a narrative of disregarding all of the actual evidence and misreading sources to come to a preferred conclusion. The problem with the "firsthand accounts" cited is none are contemporary and all have much more to do with the politics of the American military postwar, the scramble for a drastically cut budget which led to the conventional services decrying nuclear weapons out of pure self-interest. For example, the quotes from Halsey and Nimitz are from the inquiry into the funding of the B-36, a nuclear bomber which had just caused the cancellation of the Navy's first supercarrier.
OK a few things that needs to be addressed first the B 29‘s you have to understand the B 29 flu with pressurize cockpits with oxygen the kamikaze zeros of the Japanese military at that time had neither one. There was no oxygen they couldn’t fly to that altitude to fight them that’s why they had it so easy for them to fly back and forth now on top of that For me, my grandfather fought in the Pacific, and according to him the way he was told about it after what they saw in Okinawa and on Iwojima when you have family women and children jumping to their deaths not wanting to surrender that’s what would have happened in Japan on a much grander scale. They were talking up to 5 million civilians, dying during the invasion and possibly my grandfather would’ve been killed going in because he was like I said in the Pacific, now as a veteran who is trained in chemical warfare and specialized as a medic I personally have stood in New Mexico at Ground Zero and Hiroshima and I’ll tell you both scared the crap out of me specially Hiroshima, because when you stand outside of that building, you can hear everything but when you go inside that building, you don’t hear anything, do I think it was necessary at the time and what was going on and you have to understand something about the Soviet Union they had no heavy aircraft. They had no bombers. They had nothing to get over to Japan by air the only thing they had was fighters. Also is they had no navy so Russia trying to get into Japan would’ve been extremely hard for them. We would have had to put them in there with our stuff. Now I love the Japanese people I spent 7 years over there but 1940s Japan was nothing like it is today. But to add there was a miracle that did happen Tsutomu Yamaguchi is a man who was in Hiroshima during the bombing. He survived and was sent to Nagasaki for medical treatment and was hit by the second bomb. He would survive and live till 2010 passing away at the age of 93.
I love you
It is hard to ever say that anything that destructive was justified, but the fanatical way that the Japanese military and the Japanese people had conducted themselves during the war makes it easy to believe that a land invasion of the Japanese home islands would have resulted in a bloody genoicide where every man, woman, and child would have fought and died against the allies rather than surrender.
That might not have been the case in reality, but that was certainly the impression that was given by battles like Iwo Jima and Okinawa among others. One can only imagine that the Japanese would have fought even harder on their home islands than they did on far flung specks of land.
In that context, deploying nuclear weapons, as well as the fire bombing campaigns, to bring mass devastation to Japan in an attempt to break the will of a fanatical enemy I believe was justified.
If your enemy has shown that they are willing to fight to the last man for victory, you must in turn be willing to demonstrate your own willingness to eliminate every last one of them if necessary to achieve victory. If you are able to demonstrate the ability to annihilate thousands of the enemy either military or civilian without engaging them on the battlefield where they can inflict equally disheartening casualties upon you, you just might break the fanatical spell that possesses your enemy and save untold thousands if not millions of lives on both sides of the conflict.
Would Japan have surrendered by the end of August 1945 without the use of the atomic bombs?
It is possible and perhaps even likely. With the Soviet Union moving against Japanese forces, Japan found itself in the same impossible position that Germany had found itself in after the D-Day landings in June of 1944. They were facing two massive well-equipped fighting forces that out-numbered and out-gunned them that were also able to get new soldiers and more equipment while Japan's supply of both men and war equipment was running out.
If Japan had refused to surrender and the land invasion had been necessary, the war would likely have continued for at least another year, if not longer. Untold numbers of soldiers and civilians would have died, the cultural centers of Japan would have been obliterated, the islands of Japan would have been bombed, shelled, and burned into oblivion, and the end result would still have been Japanese defeat.
The surviving Japanese would have likely been held under the boot of a much more vengeful regime however. Look at the divided Germany after the war with East Germany falling to Soviet control. Post War Japan was allowed to rebuild and thrive under the US occupation, what would have happened if Japan had been divided up the way Germany was? What would the world look like today if Japan had refused to surrender until the Soviets had gained a larger foothold?
I agree with dropping the 1st atomic bomb because It was the only way Japan would surrender and tbh they attacked pearl harbor so I can see where the anger and frustration comes from. However I will stand here and Say I did not support the 2nd atomic bomb because the US didn't even give them that much to surrender and honestly they should waited at least a week and let them make there decision
I don’t necessarily disagree. However the Japanese cabinet was deadlocked 3-3 over whether to surrender. And actually one of the main arguments the anti surrender block used was they didn’t believe that the us could possibly have another bomb. It wasn’t until post Nagasaki that the pro surrender faction had a strong enough position to be able to get the emperor involved and the emperor broke the tie. And even after emperor made his decision, there was a coup to try and overthrow the current government and prevent the surrender announcement. So to summarize, u might be right that Nagasaki was unnecessary but there is evidence to support it’s use as well
Why when talking about the bombs is there no mention of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, thousands of civilian suicides at Okinawa or ant of the countless atrocities of the Japanese Empire?
Cuz this is specifically about the bombs ya ingrown toenail. there are plenty of videos and people discussing those topics elsewhere.
Nukes were hardly motivated by hate alone, as you're implying; although Truman did say in his speech that PH was avenged with this.
Don't be a sad spiteful creature. Innocent civilians, be it German or Japanese, didn't deserve death because of decisions of their tyrannical regimes. That's why people should look at nukes as a tragic but necessary event that helped end war quickly, rather than something to celebrate or feel proud of.
@@azorahai7837
Are there innocent civilians in a total war? These were cities where people worked in military industry. Can you really say there's no blood on the hands that sharpened the bayonets used against the women and little girls of Nanking?
I commented >:)
It's wrong to say that nukes were justified, as there can be no justification for murdering innocent civilians.
However, nukes were necessary to end the war FAST.
You can argue about how necessary 2nd bomb was, but as evident by coup meant to stop the emperor from surrendering (even after 2nd bomb was dropped!), it's not that hard to believe Japan may have chosen to continue fighting. Maybe by hoping US used their trump card and had no other such bombs.
2nd nuke, so quickly after the 1st, made it obvious US had more bombs and was willing to use more. Of course we know US had none yet, but Japanese didn't. I think a lot of them may have been fearing news of another blast every next day.
Nukes were a necessary evil indeed. They succeeded in ending the war fast and thus sparing millions of lives that would otherwise be lost during US invasion.
The act of killing civilians in order to achieve political goals due massive general fear, is called terrorism. I find it extremely hard to look at crimes like the massacre of Nanking, and to appreciate the Japanese try to shorten the war by acts of terror.
@@d.h.1999
That's because that's not what they were trying to do there, that was just a group of thugs rampaging around a defeated city like wild animals. Both of the targeted cities were directly linked to Japanese plans to resist the invasion of the Home Islands. But hey, I'm sure those false equivalences help you feel like you're better than everyone who lived back then.
@@d.h.1999
The problem is the targets were not civilians, they were military: namely, Hiroshima Castle, headquarters of the Second General Army responsible for the defence of the whole of Southern Japan, and Kokura Arsenal, Japan's main smallarms plant. Both of these have huge implications for supporting a potential land invasion. The switch to the industrial quarter of Nagasaki, a city where 90% of adults worked producing military-related supplies, was also a military target. The objective was not to produce fear, it was to cripple the supply and coordination capabilities of Japan's land forces prior to invasion, because the US still fully believed that both bombs might not result in surrender.
Robert Julius Oppenheimer didn't tell us everything. Some details were missed. As for instance two academic scientists from two small countries near Denmark smuggled blueprints of the Soviet atom bomb to the White House in 1942. They offered to lead a nuclear program within the U.S, based on the Soviet blueprints of their Soviet atom bomb. The duo came to Washington Dc and to the White House in about 1942, with detailed blueprints of the Soviet atom bomb along with materials lists and air blast calculations. Robert Oppenheimer was invited to the White House in about 1942, give or take 6 months during his two months notice period. He was informed that President Roosevelt will be handing over to Oppenheimer detailed Soviet blueprints and materials lists and airblast calculations of the Soviet atom bomb which were smuggled out of the Soviet Union as gifts to the White House by dissident nuclear scientists of the Soviet Union. All Europeans are brothers, as Americans like to say when they leave the western hemisphere. The Soviet nuclear weapons program started in 1936 and lasted till 1945, and building of the atom bomb were delayed by a few dissident scientists there. The nuclear blueprints of the Soviet atom bomb and these Soviet blueprints were already in final stages for production purposes by 1942. Nuclear weapons design teams of nuclear scientists worked in the Soviet Union and these blueprints were made between 1937 and 1942. The Soviet design team delayed production as much as possible, by focusing on air blast calculations per unit increase in nuclear radiation. Nuclear weapons air blast calculations of the Soviet Atom bomb and materials lists were given also given as gifts to the White House in 1942. the smugglers hired by dissident nuclear scientists were two scientists from either Holland Or Denmark or some other country in that area. Once in Washington the duo smugglers of nuclear secrets offered to lead the future nuclear program of the United States, which President Roosevelt had taken a lot of interest in after meeting the smuggler duo and their secret Soviet blueprints and air blast calculations. The drawings of the Soviet atom bomb were smuggled to the White House itself by 1941 or 1942. The drawings of the Soviet atom bomb, along with air blast calculations and materials lists were ready by 1941 at the Soviet nuclear weapons research center. Soviet Union had the best nuclear scientists, with a human tough and humane mentality. At the time the focus of the United States was in radio waves. So, right after the Soviet drawings of the atom bomb and air blast calculations were smuggled to the office of President Roosevelt, President Roosevelt initially put together a rag tag team with G. Marconi, the inventor of the radio, in charge of the American nuclear program in 1942 - 1943. Soon someone mentioned to him that the United States too had a bright scientist trained in nuclear physics who was in a scientific company somewhere else in the USA. In 1942 or so, Oppenheimer called back the White House: he needed two months notice, at the very least. He told officials in 1942 to let Marconi continue, and that he had to give two months notice to his current employers in 1941 or 1942. Robert Oppenheimer and President Roosevelt were both very impressed with the Soviet papers of the Soviet atom bomb, as these were accompanied by extensive airblast calculations . president Roosevelt commented that even he could understand the air blast calculations ND the Soviet design papers, despite being a history major. Their brilliant nuclear scientists decided to have a go slow approach till a Slav (East European) is selected as the Secretary general of the Soviet Union in place of Joseph Stalin. These were smuggled out of the Soviet Union by a few dissident nuclear scientists of the Soviet Union on to the White House in 1941 or 1942. the dissident nuclear scientists of the Soviet Union didn't like the idea of a communist country like their county building the first atom bomb. original atom bomb drawings and materials lists and air blast calculations were prepared in a nuclear bomb research center in the Soviet Union by a team of nuclear physicists, led by Egor Kurchatov. In his younger days, Mr. Kurchatov looked like a handsome man. Soviet chief scientist and project manager of the Soviet atom bomb program looked more like a white beach boy on a surfboard and more like a slim fraternity member an any college in the USA. Later, he started looking more like a mad scientist with age. During the initial successes of the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union, Kurchatov and his team of dissident nuclear scientists decided to smuggle out the papers of the Soviet nuclear weapon to the United States. and atom bomb including the original drawings and materials lists and formulas and air blast calculations. These were were smuggled out of the Soviet nuclear weapons research center by two real Europeans:: The two smugglers were two academic scientists from central Europe, actually western Europe. The duo who reached the United States also reached the White House in 1942, give or take 6 month, along with the Soviet designs of the atom bomb were from one or two central / west European countries, either Holland or Denmark or a similar country. came from Igor Kurchatov lead scientist of the atom bomb research center. The rest is history. He almost didn't respond to the President's invitation. He was working in a company working or wired signals and other radio signals. Oppenheimer was the only knowledgeable authority in nuclear scientist in the western hemisphere, unlike the Soviet Union and Germany. Initially he told the White Science he had forgotten nuclear science even he had studied nuclear science. President had an answer to Oppenheimer's excuse at not being in a hurry to join the nuclear program of the United States in 1942. He said his last name is German, and that he may be mistakenly associated with Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany had already been committing a number of atrocities across the Soviet Union. President Roosevelt promised to refer to him as an American Jew. American Jews have German last names. So Oppenheim became a Jewish American overnight after a meeting with President Roosevelt in 1942. before that he was a non practicing Jew. Some say he may have been a Lutheran Christian with a German last name before ww2. President Roosevelt made it very clear that the President wanted someone with a German last name to get credit for the atom bomb, even as the President handed over the Soviet papers and materials list and air blast calculations and blueprints of the Soviet atom bomb to Oppenheimer.
That's a lovely bit of alt-history fiction.
Nagasaki was a war crime.
So was the rape of Nanking and japan continues to deny it. Germany at least acknowledges what the yahtzees did to the jews.
Nope, completely legal. Military target with a clear strategic goal, targeted military industry (the bomb exploded between an arms plant and a steelworks and most of those who died were at that very moment making weapons to kill Americans) and there were no laws governing bombardment of cities from the air anyway.
Until we can get proper education about why the bomb was dropped to the American public people will always try to justify it.
I have not yet been able to complete the mental gymnastics necessary to convince myself that the United States had no other choice but to kill 200,000 people with atomic bombs, or that the only other option was to do a lengthy ground invasion.
That would be like breaking someone's arms and legs in a fight, and then killing them because they refuse to say that they give up. I've seen Monty Python and the holy Grail. There were other options.
Unfortunately "the Black Knight" was how a lot of Japanese, especially those in power, thought. You can't really judge such a regime in the light of how a modern society works. Rational people would have seen the war was unwinnable long before it came to this.
So, first, I consider that a false analogy (the one-sided broken-limbs fight). I can see the point you're trying to make but this issue is not only MUCH larger than a two-person fight, but it would (absolutely did!) have far-reaching and long-standing implications for the world and the future of warfare. And second, I also don't think your "... no other choice..." claim is at all fair. Of course, the US had other choices.... would you at least agree that the decision Truman made saved more lives (Japanese & American) than the two atomic bombs took away?
@@spelaeologus "would you at least agree that the decision Truman made saved more lives (Japanese & American) than the two atomic bombs took away?"
Yes, absolutely. That made it the least worst option than all the others, horrible though it was.
In terms of the Monty Python thing - I believe that was the analogy you introduced. If your argument was that it would be ludicrous and irrational for the Japanese to continue resisting to fight an unwinnable war, I'd agree. But there was plenty of evidence that the Japanese government was still attempting to do that, and to convince their population of the same. The truth would have been obvious to policymakers long before August 1945, but there were still people in government willing to fight on until everyone was dead.
You can't do mental gymnastics if you don't have any equipment to do it on, I guess.
the use of those nuclears bombs was never justified it is well known that the japanese had already surrendered because of the ussr war declaration. US officials bombed to ensure that the soviet union would never invade japan and establish communism there. US officials then created the myth that using the nuclear bombs was justified because the japanese would never surrender otherwise (backed up by singular anecdotes from a dozen of islands were japanese soldieds would not surrender because they couldnt believe that they lost.
None of that is correct.
Sorry for Hiroshima to suffer from bombing by the US
Just got back from Oppenheimer.
Perfect timing 😂😂