My father was a company commander in the 43rd infantry division, slated to go ashore on Kyosho in Operation Olympic. Was in the Pacific in combat since 1942. Silver star, bronze star, purple heart. Stars and Stripes he said had the story of the atomic bond on Hiroshima. He assembled the men, they were in the Philippines, and seeing the comic he always was, said if they go they will be issued atomic hand grenadesn, which he said incinerates everything within 1000 yards. The men he said were snickering when a corporal from Georgia with a thick southern accent asked from the back: “ what happens to the guy who throws it?”. Dad said “they haven’t figured that out yet”. Corporal said “oh”. My sister and I and our children might very not be here but for the use of the atomic bombs.
Very good presentation. My father was in the Army in Europe during the war and after the German surrender he and his unit and many others was loaded on troop ships and headed across the Atlantic towards the Panama Canal. He said he got up one morning and noticed the ship had changed course, sometime later they were told the war was over. He sure thought dropping the bombs was the correct decision. Regarding Truman my father always spoke well of him and often times quoted him, my father was a life long Republican.
My Grandfathers Cousin, who was like an Uncle to me, was in the 82nd Airborne. He told me about being trained for the invasion of Japan. He believed he would have died in Japan if the US wouldn't have dropped the bomb. I want to mention he told me way before the Government released the invasion plans...I believe was in the eighties. Side note. I'll never forget how upset both my Grandfather and My Grandfather's cousin were when I received the board game Axis and Allies.
А ничего будет, если Россия создаст Резонансную Параметрию, а потом просканирует всё американское население. Ну а потом лучи смерти отправит вас всех за сотую долю секунды в вечный покой.
I remember talking to my father-in-law about his WW2 service. After the end of the war, he did some duty at the Sasebo naval base, where he saw the suicide speedboats. He always made it clear that the atomic bombs saved a lot of US military personnel.
Before Emperor Hirohito recorded his surrender address, what was the largest Japanese unit that had ever surrendered to the Allies? A platoon? Not dropping the atomic bomb was given light consideration. What would happen to the American leadership if the atom bonds were not dropped, tens of thousands of American killed and far more wounded then the American people learned of the successful July 15, 1945 atomic detonation? The atomic bomb was largely viewed at the time as a really large fire bomb, simply more efficient than what had been used already to destroy most of Japan's cities.
tens of thousands killed ? Okinawa =12500 KIA, 50,000 wound , vs only 100k japanese troops-there were several MILLION Japanese active duty troops on main islands. we are talking well over 100,000 US troops KIA, and a million casualties if Downfall had to have been executed.
@@johnwhite2576 Seems like we have the same idea, but differing statements. I think Truman, Marshall, etc had a lot faith in the huge casualty estimates laid out for the Downfall, Coronet, and Olympic operations - both Allied and Japanese casualties. As a result, there wasn't much serious consideration given to the idea of not using every atom bomb that could be provided before the invasion of Kyushu. I'm sure most of the military leadership did not expect any mass Japanese surrenders once the home islands were invaded. They expected to "blowtorch and corkscrew" their way to the top of Mt. Fuji, if necessary. It would have made the Eastern Front look tame by comparison.
@@amerigo88 Millions would have died. Deaths' of non-combatants alone in china were 8,000 per day in summer of 45. Another 8,000 per day in all of the rest of Japanese occupied se Asia. About 3k combatants. A million would have dies every five weeks. Plus about three million dead in the invasion itself
Reading unbroken has made me understand why Truman always said he felt as good about that decision as any he ever made in his life. #NeverForgetHowGagaDied
The word he is looking for at 25:20 is gekkokujo, which translates as "the low oppress or bully the high." The phenomenon had deep roots in Japanese history, with hot headed junior warriors in samurai clans pushing their nominal superiors to take aggressive action and sometimes overthrowing the overlords if they didn't do as the young-bloods demanded.
Great presentation. Some things to consider: Why was Truman selected to be the VP candidate in '44? What did Truman learn/discover at Potsdam? How did US military and government leaders in the US try to "manage " Truman? Think about and research answers to these questions before you choose to condemn Truman for dropping the bombs. Japan was beaten militarily by the Fall of 1944. Yet they continued to fight a fanatical war. How do you force a fanatical government to negotiate the end of a war? Answer that, and Truman's decision starts to make sense.
1. FDR's declining health meant VP would not just be a ceremonial post. Wallace was too leftist to become party leader. Truman gave ticket same regional balance.
I would have loved to have been a “fly on the wall” when President Truman was being briefed on the Manhattan Project, and the other military and political situations.
What should be pointed out, but is rarely said, is that Truman wanted to change Japan's Constitution, so that a military state could not rise up again. The changing of Japan's Constitution is an entire subject - but as an occupying force, the US, in debate with moderate Japanese leaders, changed it in 1947. The result was that Japan became a Constitutional Monarchy with voter rights and women's rights. The Emperor was retained, but became "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people ." However, with the rise of Communism, it is argued that the US also wanted Japan to be a democratic ally in the east.
I agree. Same goes for Germany. Once cured of Prussian militarism and under the watchful eye and presence of the US and their allies, it never went to war again.
It might just be hindsight, but fears that the Japanese might go communist would have been delusional. Japan honestly probably outdoes the Nazis and the American right wing when it comes to psychotically hating communism and killing/suppressing communism in their own country.
He confuses Kokura with Kyoto. Kyoto wasn't targeted because it was the former imperial capital with a lot of historic shrines and heritage. Kokura was the initial target for the bombing raid of August 9th but the target was changed to Nagasaki on the day because the skies above the former area were clouded with fog.
Also, because of predicted weather over Kokura, the mission was moved up from August 11 to August 9. BTW, Secty of War Stimson honeymooned in Kyoto years before the war.
I read this book summer of '20, I came away with a new respect for Hirohito for stepping in and settling what the Big 6 could not. Between this account and the remarks of Toshikazu Kase (World at War, episode 24) says to me the war ended only because the bomb was dropped. The image of the firebombing of Tokyo is devastatingly portrayed in Barrett Tillman's Whirlwind, the American Air War 1942-45.
Thank you for your assessment of President Truman. I grew up hearing that he did a good job. Then for years he was kind of vilified. I am glad he is being resurrected.
Up to now, based on what I had gathered, there was a lot of soul searching concerning the use of a nuclear device. A few admirals and generals resigned over matters of conscience. Terms of surrender were rewritten twice and deliberate leaks were made to Stalin during the Yalta conference in hope of them making their way to Tokyo. It was the complete opposite of a Doctor Strangelove scenario. Japanese were masters in defense; the grinders of Peleliu and Okinawa were previews of what an invasion of the Home Islands would cost to both Allies and Japanese. Truman was known to have a temper and from what I gathered, once he reviewed the Imperial Japanese Army war crimes and considering all the attempts made toward an unconditional surrender, the memories of the Bataan death march, the rape of Nanking and other war crimes, his temper became decisive.
By the Spring/Summer of 1945 STALIN probably knew more about the US atomic bombs than TRUMAN. Truman was hoping that the "shock and awe" of obliterating 2 Japanese cities in 2 days would hasten the surrender of Japan w/o a bloody invasion and forestall the real possibility of the Soviets attacking the" home islands" via Manchuria. This would have extended the "Iron Curtain" into the Pacific Ocean , just as they were doing in the ETO.
@@Frank-mm2yp Probably not the case. The scientists who could have formed the core of his research team were all conscripted and sent to the front as infantry at the beginning of the war. They had to search the whole front for any among them who could have survived once Stalin learned of Hiroshima. Soviets had been ahead of the game. Their chief scientist didn't have the technicians he needed. Stalin had been briefed as early as 42 in a manner similar the joint Einstein-Szilard letter to Roosevelt.
@ mike It was not a 'nuclear device" it was an atomic device. NO admirals or general resigned over it. That is a claim made in later soviet propaganda that is 100% unfounded. And really it wa snot an issue of "temper" or emotion of Truman. The evidence from all the primary sources is that Truman and the US leadership that knew of the bomb thought of it simply as a bigger version of what they had been doing and that it was going to bring the war to an end and save millions of lives in occupied areas as well as millions of lives from an invasion.
There are quite a few academics that do not think Russia would have moved on the Japanese home islands. Russia did not really have any amphibious military experience or landing craft and equipment. They did not even have a merchant marine. They likely would have been thrown back and Stalin knew it. Stalin was interested in taking over other areas, like Korea, good chunks of china etc.
Great presentation, and one I would consider very unbiased considering the topic. With controversial and sensitive topics that most people have a legitimate causes for their beliefs, I believe this material was presented with most points of view explained and explored in an objective manner. I just bought the book on audible and I’m excited to learn even more about the bombs and the perspectives of both the Japanese and Americans.
Note to self: David Dean Barrett. author of "140 Days to Hiroshima": Soviet attack as impetus for Japanese surrender is "fiction"; decision was already made by Hirohito earlier that day: 42:29 - 45:05. ruclips.net/video/dh8qs78bUTQ/видео.html
I suspect that had not the world witnessed the full horror of the destruction of the atom bombs in Japan, including the long term radiation effects, we would probably have been plunged into nuclear USA v USSR war in the 1950s. What does anybody else think?
Definitely a possibility, and a certainty had Stalin lived. He was determined to rule the world no matter the cost. He would have, however, committed national suicide had he done so. The USA had enough nukes and delivery vehicles to destroy the USSR as a functioning nation, but the USSR had virtually no bombers capable of hitting us, even on a one-way mission. Europe would have been screwed but the USA likely would have not been hit at all.
I believe that nightmare would have been *extremely* likely. The USSR would have developed their own weapons before too long -- physics is open to all, and of course they'd been spying on the Manhattan Project for years. In the absence of the full visceral horror of the things, It's easy to imagine one side or the other deciding, "Maybe we should try to use these gadgets that we've sunk so much into". This is another important reason why Truman's decision was correct.
@@jonrabben3007 Ummmm.... The US and the UK weren't exactly lacking for fanatics either. There were always huge possibilities for miscalculation throughout the Cold War, just as there were in 1914. Just because the 1914 comparison might be cliche' doesn't make it untrue.
The bomb wasn't that devastating, if they had stayed that small, it's likely they would have been used. The difference is the bombs developed after th atwhere many times more destructive.
Absolutely correct. Forget about antibiotics, nuclear bombs have saved more lives than any other invention by far. We should've had at least two great power wars since 1945 but because of MAD we've had none.
Good video. I rankle at the argument of some folks that the bomb was unnecessary and that it was Russia declaring war that ultimately did it. It was all of the above. If it was just Russia declaring war that did it then i would note that they were our allies, weren't they? I sure wish they had declared war before Okinawa. I always find it coincidental WHEN Russia finally declared war. Exaggerated invasion casualty projections aside, there were at least tens of thousands of young US and allied serviceman that lived and came home with limbs as a result of not being forced to destroy the majority of the civilian population of Japan. Not only the invading forces but the POW in Japan.
David Dean Barrett's idea of writing a book , which focuses on the decision making process and response of the "Big Six" and Truman and his advisors , was an excellent idea. One issue that needs to be emphasized much more by historians , is that the Potsdam Declaration issued on July 26th, 1945, makes it clear that Truman wanted to change Japan's Constitution . Truman fought in WW I and was well aware of the mistakes made with the 1919 Treaty of Versailles . He knew how Germany had risen up again . This is why the "Big Six" were so insistent on the condition of the Emperor - because they ruled through his authority . Had the Emperor's status remained , they would have overruled all US efforts to change Japan's Constitution . Understanding this , is key to understanding the decisions both Truman and his advisors and the "Big Six" made . While under US occupation, Japan's Constitution was changed in 1947 . The new Constitution was similar to Britain's Westminster system . Men and women gained human rights and democratic rights . .
7:50, the Americans have shown the industrial capacity at their disposal to excuite an attack such as this from air from well over a thousand miles from Tokyo, and yet you fight on. The emperor was a war criminal of the highest order.
@@teo2975 Why would the bombs push Japan? None of the bombings before with conventional bombs did anything to change Japan's opinion on surrender. Just because the US could now save bombs, nothing meaningful actually changes for the Japanese.
@@teo2975 that is a feeling, not a fact. Truman and Burns thought the Japanese would be finished when the Soviets attack. That's why they rushed to bomb. When the Japanese war council met on the morning of Nagasaki, they were talking about the Soviets and Manchuria, not the US and Hiroshima.
@@CK-nh7sv Did you should watch the presentation and pay attention? The implications of the atomic bombings *to the Japanese government* are well described.
My father served on Adak in the Aleutians Islands in 1944/45/46. He was Filipino American and was in the signal corps stringing telephone wires in arctic conditions. He told me before he passed he was relieved they had dropped the Bomb on Japan because he was slated for the invasion of Japan and casualties were going to be huge My Father was not Anti Japanese, since his best friend and girlfriend were Japanese American. This issue of the Atomic Bomb is complex. There is an argument that it actually saved lives by less casualties on both sides an invasion would have caused. Also, Japan was facing starvation because our Navy's blockade. Another factor was it was a demonstration to Stalin and the USSR of US power.
240,000 Asian civilians were dying every month under Japanese occupation. The anti-bomb folks are either unaware or selectively ignorant of that statistic.
I think the crux of the matter is the United States legitimized the use of nuclear weapons in non-defense. That gives license to N. Korea, Pakistan, Iran, et al., to use them as defender or aggressor.
@@aaronaragon7838 Non defense? Nuclear (hydrogen)? Stop posting nonsense. And your claim that this gave china or Russia "license": to use the bomb is silly since that did not happen (they would have been incinerated if they did). if anything using the atom bomb made it less likely to be used in future
Would you prefer we let millions of Japanese starve to death? The only thing I agree with China, they applaud when they learn about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
My father stated to me he would have been in the third wave in the invasion. Which operation or invasion of the two I do not know. Great factual and logical counters to the revisionist historians.
excellent. way too little about the stragic bombing in asia on RUclips, compared to those covering the European theater. basically they all do is all pearl harbor, Doolittle raid, then we suddenly drop the bomb on Japan. like no one dropped any bombs in between.
Excellent talk. The description of the politics within the Japanese government is especially interesting. Hirohito was a real bastard after all, wasn't he?
My heart flew up into my throat when that alarm went off. I’m mowing lawn at our local cemetery and my wife had texted about 30 minutes prior that we are under a tornado watch.. I thought that alarm was my I phone warning me to take cover! Where? Behind a fricken tombstone!!!
One of the most sobering, dispassionate discussions on the use of the bomb I have heard to date. Fast forward to today, and you have to wonder, given the daily losses the post Soviet leadership in Moscow is experiencing in its ongoing invasion of Ukraine, will they too at some point calculate that the use of an atomic bomb or two on a couple as yet preserved Ukraine cities would “save lives”? I think the “no terms” total embargo on Japan put forward by Soviets, who basically ran the Roosevelt administration by proxy, is what pushed the Japanese leadership to see an attack on Pearl Harbor its last bad option to break out of the box they found themselves in. At the end of the day, the Soviet Empire, by hook or by crook, came out ahead, both in Europe and in Asian, largely by playing THE DEMS in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations for fools…
This is all misinformation. The war in the Pacific continued into at least mid-September '45 and the Japanese armed forces occupied Indochina well into 1946- with no intention of ever leaving.
Yes, its Japan's fault for the A-bombs. Did anybody consider to not demand unconditional surrender and end the thing in 1944? Did anybody consider that at the end, it was a conditional surrender? Unconditional was only in words, for the American propaganda to make a huge disastrous war make it look like some sort of victory.
Under the Japanese Imperial Empire , the Japanese military committed millions of horrific atrocities to Chinese , Indonesian , Malaysian , Korean and other Asian Citizens . The Potsdam Declaration was issued on July 26th, 1945 , which outlined 13 points for conditional surrender . The Japanese government did not respond to it until August 10th , 1945 . Truman wanted to change Japan's Constitution . He was well aware of how Germany rose up again after the 1919 Treaty of Versailles . Unfortunately , we are seeing the trend of an increasing number people , who voice their opinion , without spending any effort to investigate what occurred . .
@@landsea7332 Ah, so! And somehow the USA was very concerned about the atrocities to the Chinese and Koreans, right? That is why only a few years later, the Chinese and the Koreans were receiving American bombs by the thousands. Indonesia and Malaysia got plenty of US bombs too in the 50's. Another ten or fifteen years later, the Vietnamese were receiving Napalms, Biological weapons, and hundreds of tons of other bombs that still explode to this day. So, Truman was the Knight of good that wanted to save Asia, so he repeated all the crimes of the Japanese army with a multiplicity of 10 or 100 out of compassion perhaps. Very convincing. It is funny how people actually believe this. News flush for you. The A-bombs was not what forced Japan to finally accept US troops' presence. It was the threat of a Soviet invasion, that they knew they could not stop. The A-bombs was just another manifestation of the racist hatred that dominated the western world at the time, and to some extend still does so today, apparently.
The Japanese knew the Soviets couldn’t invade Japan. Meanwhile, the US fucked their Army, fucked their Navy, fucked their cities with firebombing, fucked their merchant marine, fucked their imports/exports, fucked their economy, were on the verge of invading AND were gonna drop who the hell knows how many more A-bombs. But yeah, they surrendered because of the Soviets. /s
@@ajalvarez3111 Actually, the Soviets had already invaded Japan in August 1945. The Japanese knew they could stop the US army, but they knew the red army was unstoppable. The ignorance in this world is incredible.
@@demetridar506Japan knew they could stop the US? Why didn't they ever stop them then? Japan never prevented the US from taking any land they took. Japan let the US take Iwo Jima? Okinawa? Philippines? Saipan? Guam? Ect. That's hilarious
Downfall was a plan. It was not THE plan. US had mastery of the,seas and air dominance. An American invasion could be anywhere. Germans expected the US to invade at Calais. Japan expected the US would invade Luzon. There were many, many places to invade, which would be finally decided after Japan committed its defense.
You are commiting several logical fallacies. You are ignoring that "THE" plan was to invade at Normandy and that is what we did. "THE" plan was to invade at Leyte and that is what we did. US fooling the Germans and the Japanese by hinting we would invade elsewhere did not mean we had a fluid plan
@@teo2975 Not saying I disagree with the ultimate point you're making, but the argument isn't a great one. Operation Sledgehammer was "THE" plan up until it wasn't. Operation Causeway was "THE" plan up until it wasn't. Plenty of operations are planned and ultimately never carried out. The role of these military planners is to thoroughly plan and document how a prospective operation is expected to be carried out so that the key decision makers (President, JCS etc.) can make a final, informed decision about it. In the case of Operation Olympic, I think Truman was pretty knew to the job and was under some pressure by the military planners to approve it. Based on the documented history it is pretty clear he was growing increasingly apprehensive about it though. I can't help wondering if it would have ever actually been carried out as planned, or if it was if Operation Coronet would have been carried out after or if major re-work would have been done to the planning.
Very interesting talk, but I wish the author could at least pretend to be unbiased, as a historian should. But he seems to clearly have an agenda. Makes it hard to take his conclusions at face value.
@@teo2975 I think he means he disagrees with the author. Everybody who doesn't agree with him is "biased". Unfortunately you hear that kind of, um, reasoning from a lot of people when they hear something they don't like. "Bias" seems to have been implanted in the brainstems of people who spend too much time in front of the idiot box. Rupert Murdoch's a clever SOB in a low animal cunning kind of way.....
America had long since broken the Japanese diplomatic code, so Washington must've known (from the Sato / Togo telegrams) that Japan was desperately seeking peace and Eisenhower advised Truman (on 20th July 1945) that the use of the A-bomb wasn't necessary. It was probably exploded more as a demonstration of American power to the Soviets (probable confrontation in Europe in mind) than an essential means to avoid Operation Downfall (Olympic / Coronet).
@@samuelglover7685 So what would carry more historical weight: a confirmation bias anti-Japanese and pro Chinese presentation (both factually and emotionally), or the actual documentary record? Aren't both the Togo-Sato telegrams and Eisenhower's record of what he said to Stimpson and Truman, even worth considering as a countervail to personal experience and just accepting one side of the story?
Japan was seeking a cease fire, they had no intention of surrendering. What they wanted was a cessation of fighting where Japan would keep all the territory they had invaded and occupied. After all the Allied losses during the war there was no way that was going to happen, nor should it have. Revisionist history now tries to tell us Japan was about to surrender, but that was never the case. Also, millions of Japanese would probably have starved and frozen to death over the winter of 1945-46 if the blockade had continued, even without an invasion. Ask yourself what the Japanese would have done if they had possessed a nuclear weapon? I think we know the answer.
@@barryervin8536 Japan had biological weapons and minimal means to deliver to US Pacific Coast: they weren't used. Reading Sato / Togo telegrams is more realism than revisionism. Negotiated peace isn't synonymous with unconditional surrender, but is it likely Allies would've made anything other than bare minimum concessions in that event? Had Japan not been utterly defeated, wouldn't it be sensible to argue against the likely-hood of no total triumph of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army (Japan would've likely preferred the Nationalists)? If so: no Cultural Revolution or Great Leap Forward, no Korean or Vietnam war, no 'killing fields' in Cambodia and a strong possibility of less repression ('ethnic cleansing') in Burma and Indonesia (East Timor). Quite a saving of human life?
Japan wasn't desperately seeking peace. They tried to get the Soviets to mediate on their behalves so that they would get to keep some of their ill gotten gains from their war of unadulterated, inhumane war of aggression since 1931. The atom bombs demonstrated that their basic MO of (allied) blood for oil was bankrupt. Now a single plane could wipe out whole cities without drawing any American blood. And Japan only surrendered when the US gave Hirohito (opportunist extraordinaire) an out when they put the fate of the Imperial House into the hands of the occupation force.
@@teo2975 Thanks for no explanation. Imperial Japan was a martial autocracy. The U.S. kept Nazi bureaucrats in power as a hedge against the USSR. Japan, like England, lost the world.
@@aaronaragon7838 Wow you deflect. yes the Soviets, the Nazis and the Japanese were statist mass murderers. your claim that the soviet invasion of germany was not needed is bizarre. And yes the Soviets, the US, the French and the British did use people who had been Nazis for certain tasks. What does that have to do with saving 5 million lives by using the bomb?
@@teo2975 I never claimed the Soviets shouldn't have invaded Germany. 5 million lives saved? Never proven. The bottom line is every nation has the right to wage nuclear war thanks to Fat Man and Little Boy. Don't complain about an atomic powered North Korea. It is their right.
@@teo2975 Nobody here the invasion of Germany was not necessary. Five million lives saved by the bomb is unproven and doubtful. Keep chasing lizardmen, kid...
My father was a company commander in the 43rd infantry division, slated to go ashore on Kyosho in Operation Olympic. Was in the Pacific in combat since 1942. Silver star, bronze star, purple heart. Stars and Stripes he said had the story of the atomic bond on Hiroshima. He assembled the men, they were in the Philippines, and seeing the comic he always was, said if they go they will be issued atomic hand grenadesn, which he said incinerates everything within 1000 yards. The men he said were snickering when a corporal from Georgia with a thick southern accent asked from the back: “ what happens to the guy who throws it?”. Dad said “they haven’t figured that out yet”. Corporal said “oh”. My sister and I and our children might very not be here but for the use of the atomic bombs.
Very good presentation. My father was in the Army in Europe during the war and after the German surrender he and his unit and many others was loaded on troop ships and headed across the Atlantic towards the Panama Canal. He said he got up one morning and noticed the ship had changed course, sometime later they were told the war was over. He sure thought dropping the bombs was the correct decision. Regarding Truman my father always spoke well of him and often times quoted him, my father was a life long Republican.
My dad was serving a 7 year sentence for attempted electronic communication with a minor. He never got to fight in the WW2.
@@deoglemnaco7025 same.
My Grandfathers Cousin, who was like an Uncle to me, was in the 82nd Airborne. He told me about being trained for the invasion of Japan. He believed he would have died in Japan if the US wouldn't have dropped the bomb. I want to mention he told me way before the Government released the invasion plans...I believe was in the eighties.
Side note. I'll never forget how upset both my Grandfather and My Grandfather's cousin were when I received the board game Axis and Allies.
А ничего будет, если Россия создаст Резонансную Параметрию, а потом просканирует всё американское население. Ну а потом лучи смерти отправит вас всех за сотую долю секунды в вечный покой.
Much needed light thrown on a complicated subject.
Thank you very much for this clear, factual and sensible presentation.
I remember talking to my father-in-law about his WW2 service. After the end of the war, he did some duty at the Sasebo naval base, where he saw the suicide speedboats. He always made it clear that the atomic bombs saved a lot of US military personnel.
Before Emperor Hirohito recorded his surrender address, what was the largest Japanese unit that had ever surrendered to the Allies? A platoon? Not dropping the atomic bomb was given light consideration. What would happen to the American leadership if the atom bonds were not dropped, tens of thousands of American killed and far more wounded then the American people learned of the successful July 15, 1945 atomic detonation? The atomic bomb was largely viewed at the time as a really large fire bomb, simply more efficient than what had been used already to destroy most of Japan's cities.
tens of thousands killed ? Okinawa =12500 KIA, 50,000 wound , vs only 100k japanese troops-there were several MILLION Japanese active duty troops on main islands. we are talking well over 100,000 US troops KIA, and a million casualties if Downfall had to have been executed.
@@johnwhite2576 Seems like we have the same idea, but differing statements. I think Truman, Marshall, etc had a lot faith in the huge casualty estimates laid out for the Downfall, Coronet, and Olympic operations - both Allied and Japanese casualties. As a result, there wasn't much serious consideration given to the idea of not using every atom bomb that could be provided before the invasion of Kyushu. I'm sure most of the military leadership did not expect any mass Japanese surrenders once the home islands were invaded. They expected to "blowtorch and corkscrew" their way to the top of Mt. Fuji, if necessary. It would have made the Eastern Front look tame by comparison.
> successful July 15, 1945 atomic detonation
A minor point: the Trinity test was July 16, not 15.
@@amerigo88 Millions would have died. Deaths' of non-combatants alone in china were 8,000 per day in summer of 45. Another 8,000 per day in all of the rest of Japanese occupied se Asia. About 3k combatants. A million would have dies every five weeks. Plus about three million dead in the invasion itself
Reading unbroken has made me understand why Truman always said he felt as good about that decision as any he ever made in his life. #NeverForgetHowGagaDied
Thanks for this excellent discussion, a public service.
The word he is looking for at 25:20 is gekkokujo, which translates as "the low oppress or bully the high." The phenomenon had deep roots in Japanese history, with hot headed junior warriors in samurai clans pushing their nominal superiors to take aggressive action and sometimes overthrowing the overlords if they didn't do as the young-bloods demanded.
Excellent presentation. Just ordered the book. Thank you.
Great presentation.
Some things to consider:
Why was Truman selected to be the VP candidate in '44?
What did Truman learn/discover at Potsdam?
How did US military and government leaders in the US try to "manage " Truman?
Think about and research answers to these questions before you choose to condemn Truman for dropping the bombs.
Japan was beaten militarily by the Fall of 1944. Yet they continued to fight a fanatical war. How do you force a fanatical government to negotiate the end of a war?
Answer that, and Truman's decision starts to make sense.
1. FDR's declining health meant VP would not just be a ceremonial post. Wallace was too leftist to become party leader. Truman gave ticket same regional balance.
Is there a transcript available of this discussion?
I would have loved to have been a “fly on the wall” when President Truman was being briefed on the Manhattan Project, and the other military and political situations.
What should be pointed out, but is rarely said, is that Truman wanted to change Japan's Constitution, so that a military state could not rise up again. The changing of Japan's Constitution is an entire subject - but as an occupying force, the US, in debate with moderate Japanese leaders, changed it in 1947. The result was that Japan became a Constitutional Monarchy with voter rights and women's rights. The Emperor was retained, but became "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people ."
However, with the rise of Communism, it is argued that the US also wanted Japan to be a democratic ally in the east.
I agree. Same goes for Germany. Once cured of Prussian militarism and under the watchful eye and presence of the US and their allies, it never went to war again.
It might just be hindsight, but fears that the Japanese might go communist would have been delusional. Japan honestly probably outdoes the Nazis and the American right wing when it comes to psychotically hating communism and killing/suppressing communism in their own country.
Very enlightening presentation thanks for sharing
Excellent.
Can only imagine Stalin laughing to be facing the 2 "newbies".
Utterly Fascinating Information!
He confuses Kokura with Kyoto. Kyoto wasn't targeted because it was the former imperial capital with a lot of historic shrines and heritage. Kokura was the initial target for the bombing raid of August 9th but the target was changed to Nagasaki on the day because the skies above the former area were clouded with fog.
Also, because of predicted weather over Kokura, the mission was moved up from August 11 to August 9.
BTW, Secty of War Stimson honeymooned in Kyoto years before the war.
@@buzaldrin8086 yes, while governor of the Philippines.
@@cybertronian2005 Must have been a really long delayed honeymoon. They were married in 1893.
@@buzaldrin8086 Long memory=must have been a really GREAT HONEYMOON (luckily for KYOTO).
@@buzaldrin8086 LOL🎃
I read this book summer of '20, I came away with a new respect for Hirohito for stepping in and settling what the Big 6 could not. Between this account and the remarks of Toshikazu Kase (World at War, episode 24) says to me the war ended only because the bomb was dropped. The image of the firebombing of Tokyo is devastatingly portrayed in Barrett Tillman's Whirlwind, the American Air War 1942-45.
Thank you for your assessment of President Truman. I grew up hearing that he did a good job. Then for years he was kind of vilified. I am glad he is being resurrected.
I always thought Truman was a very good president. He fired MacCarther, and he faced down Stalin. I thought he was smart and tough.
Well presented. Truman’s advisors picture, missing Adm King., head of the Navy.
Thank you.
Up to now, based on what I had gathered, there was a lot of soul searching concerning the use of a nuclear device. A few admirals and generals resigned over matters of conscience. Terms of surrender were rewritten twice and deliberate leaks were made to Stalin during the Yalta conference in hope of them making their way to Tokyo. It was the complete opposite of a Doctor Strangelove scenario. Japanese were masters in defense; the grinders of Peleliu and Okinawa were previews of what an invasion of the Home Islands would cost to both Allies and Japanese. Truman was known to have a temper and from what I gathered, once he reviewed the Imperial Japanese Army war crimes and considering all the attempts made toward an unconditional surrender, the memories of the Bataan death march, the rape of Nanking and other war crimes, his temper became decisive.
By the Spring/Summer of 1945 STALIN probably knew more about the US atomic bombs than TRUMAN. Truman was hoping that the "shock and awe" of obliterating 2 Japanese cities in 2 days would hasten the surrender of Japan w/o a bloody invasion and forestall the real possibility of the Soviets attacking the" home islands" via Manchuria. This would have extended the "Iron Curtain" into the Pacific Ocean , just as they were doing in the ETO.
@@Frank-mm2yp Probably not the case. The scientists who could have formed the core of his research team were all conscripted and sent to the front as infantry at the beginning of the war. They had to search the whole front for any among them who could have survived once Stalin learned of Hiroshima.
Soviets had been ahead of the game. Their chief scientist didn't have the technicians he needed. Stalin had been briefed as early as 42 in a manner similar the joint Einstein-Szilard letter to Roosevelt.
@ mike It was not a 'nuclear device" it was an atomic device. NO admirals or general resigned over it. That is a claim made in later soviet propaganda that is 100% unfounded. And really it wa snot an issue of "temper" or emotion of Truman. The evidence from all the primary sources is that Truman and the US leadership that knew of the bomb thought of it simply as a bigger version of what they had been doing and that it was going to bring the war to an end and save millions of lives in occupied areas as well as millions of lives from an invasion.
There are quite a few academics that do not think Russia would have moved on the Japanese home islands. Russia did not really have any amphibious military experience or landing craft and equipment. They did not even have a merchant marine. They likely would have been thrown back and Stalin knew it. Stalin was interested in taking over other areas, like Korea, good chunks of china etc.
@@teo2975 So for you fission is atomic and fusion is nuclear? Lol.
Great presentation, and one I would consider very unbiased considering the topic. With controversial and sensitive topics that most people have a legitimate causes for their beliefs, I believe this material was presented with most points of view explained and explored in an objective manner. I just bought the book on audible and I’m excited to learn even more about the bombs and the perspectives of both the Japanese and Americans.
Note to self:
David Dean Barrett. author of "140 Days to Hiroshima":
Soviet attack as impetus for Japanese surrender is "fiction";
decision was already made by Hirohito earlier that day: 42:29 - 45:05.
ruclips.net/video/dh8qs78bUTQ/видео.html
Ty
I suspect that had not the world witnessed the full horror of the destruction of the atom bombs in Japan, including the long term radiation effects, we would probably have been plunged into nuclear USA v USSR war in the 1950s. What does anybody else think?
Definitely a possibility, and a certainty had Stalin lived. He was determined to rule the world no matter the cost. He would have, however, committed national suicide had he done so. The USA had enough nukes and delivery vehicles to destroy the USSR as a functioning nation, but the USSR had virtually no bombers capable of hitting us, even on a one-way mission. Europe would have been screwed but the USA likely would have not been hit at all.
I believe that nightmare would have been *extremely* likely. The USSR would have developed their own weapons before too long -- physics is open to all, and of course they'd been spying on the Manhattan Project for years. In the absence of the full visceral horror of the things, It's easy to imagine one side or the other deciding, "Maybe we should try to use these gadgets that we've sunk so much into". This is another important reason why Truman's decision was correct.
@@jonrabben3007 Ummmm.... The US and the UK weren't exactly lacking for fanatics either. There were always huge possibilities for miscalculation throughout the Cold War, just as there were in 1914. Just because the 1914 comparison might be cliche' doesn't make it untrue.
The bomb wasn't that devastating, if they had stayed that small, it's likely they would have been used. The difference is the bombs developed after th atwhere many times more destructive.
Absolutely correct. Forget about antibiotics, nuclear bombs have saved more lives than any other invention by far. We should've had at least two great power wars since 1945 but because of MAD we've had none.
Good video. I rankle at the argument of some folks that the bomb was unnecessary and that it was Russia declaring war that ultimately did it. It was all of the above.
If it was just Russia declaring war that did it then i would note that they were our allies, weren't they? I sure wish they had declared war before Okinawa. I always find it coincidental WHEN Russia finally declared war.
Exaggerated invasion casualty projections aside, there were at least tens of thousands of young US and allied serviceman that lived and came home with limbs as a result of not being forced to destroy the majority of the civilian population of Japan. Not only the invading forces but the POW in Japan.
David Dean Barrett's idea of writing a book , which focuses on the decision making process and response of the "Big Six" and Truman and his advisors , was an excellent idea.
One issue that needs to be emphasized much more by historians , is that the Potsdam Declaration issued on July 26th, 1945, makes it clear that Truman wanted to change Japan's Constitution .
Truman fought in WW I and was well aware of the mistakes made with the 1919 Treaty of Versailles .
He knew how Germany had risen up again .
This is why the "Big Six" were so insistent on the condition of the Emperor - because they ruled through his authority .
Had the Emperor's status remained , they would have overruled all US efforts to change Japan's Constitution .
Understanding this , is key to understanding the decisions both Truman and his advisors and the "Big Six" made .
While under US occupation, Japan's Constitution was changed in 1947 .
The new Constitution was similar to Britain's Westminster system .
Men and women gained human rights and democratic rights .
.
7:50, the Americans have shown the industrial capacity at their disposal to excuite an attack such as this from air from well over a thousand miles from Tokyo, and yet you fight on. The emperor was a war criminal of the highest order.
To what extent was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria days after Hiroshima a decisive event that pushed Japan to sue for peace with the Allies?
nothing at all compared to the bombs.
@@teo2975 Why would the bombs push Japan? None of the bombings before with conventional bombs did anything to change Japan's opinion on surrender. Just because the US could now save bombs, nothing meaningful actually changes for the Japanese.
@@teo2975 that is a feeling, not a fact. Truman and Burns thought the Japanese would be finished when the Soviets attack. That's why they rushed to bomb. When the Japanese war council met on the morning of Nagasaki, they were talking about the Soviets and Manchuria, not the US and Hiroshima.
@@CK-nh7sv Did you should watch the presentation and pay attention? The implications of the atomic bombings *to the Japanese government* are well described.
fascinating 🤔
My father served on Adak in the Aleutians Islands in 1944/45/46. He was Filipino American and was in the signal corps stringing telephone wires in arctic conditions. He told me before he passed he was relieved they had dropped the Bomb on Japan because he was slated for the invasion of Japan and casualties were going to be huge My Father was not Anti Japanese, since his best friend and girlfriend were Japanese American. This issue of the Atomic Bomb is complex. There is an argument that it actually saved lives by less casualties on both sides an invasion would have caused. Also, Japan was facing starvation because our Navy's blockade. Another factor was it was a demonstration to Stalin and the USSR of US power.
240,000 Asian civilians were dying every month under Japanese occupation. The anti-bomb folks are either unaware or selectively ignorant of that statistic.
Is it better to be burned to death in a fire bombing or to be vaporized by a nuclear bomb?
I think the crux of the matter is the United States legitimized the use of nuclear weapons in non-defense. That gives license to N. Korea, Pakistan, Iran, et al., to use them as defender or aggressor.
@@aaronaragon7838 Non defense? Nuclear (hydrogen)? Stop posting nonsense. And your claim that this gave china or Russia "license": to use the bomb is silly since that did not happen (they would have been incinerated if they did). if anything using the atom bomb made it less likely to be used in future
@@teo2975 You are nonsensical. So we nuke a defeated opponent? The USA opened the door to MAD. Enjoy your Comet Pizza, Trumposaurus.
Would you prefer we let millions of Japanese starve to death? The only thing I agree with China, they applaud when they learn about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
@@scottkrater2131 -- The question is: How do you defeat an evil, totalitarian, militarily aggressive regime that doesn't care about its people?
What a terrible time to open the presentation to QA! What happened to the emperor’s demand to keep political power?
My father stated to me he would have been in the third wave in the invasion. Which operation or invasion of the two I do not know. Great factual and logical counters to the revisionist historians.
two days before there is a meeting with the Japanese Emporer and the high ranking generals nothing about surrender was talk about
excellent.
way too little about the stragic bombing in asia on RUclips, compared to those covering the European theater. basically they all do is all pearl harbor, Doolittle raid, then we suddenly drop the bomb on Japan. like no one dropped any bombs in between.
Mike Tyson once said, "It's tough to beat a guy that won't quit."
Always good for the host to mention what is basically a competitors book in the discussion.
🤦♂️
The Japanese had determined at Okinawa that their old wood-and-fabric kamikazes were almost undetectable on American radar.
Excellent talk. The description of the politics within the Japanese government is especially interesting. Hirohito was a real bastard after all, wasn't he?
Most kings and emperors throughout history were. L'État, c'est moi.
Conflaguration???
29:18
My heart flew up into my throat when that alarm went off. I’m mowing lawn at our local cemetery and my wife had texted about 30 minutes prior that we are under a tornado watch.. I thought that alarm was my I phone warning me to take cover! Where? Behind a fricken tombstone!!!
One of the most sobering, dispassionate discussions on the use of the bomb I have heard to date.
Fast forward to today, and you have to wonder, given the daily losses the post Soviet leadership in Moscow is experiencing in its ongoing invasion of Ukraine, will they too at some point calculate that the use of an atomic bomb or two on a couple as yet preserved Ukraine cities would “save lives”?
I think the “no terms” total embargo on Japan put forward by Soviets, who basically ran the Roosevelt administration by proxy, is what pushed the Japanese leadership to see an attack on Pearl Harbor its last bad option to break out of the box they found themselves in.
At the end of the day, the Soviet Empire, by hook or by crook, came out ahead, both in Europe and in Asian, largely by playing THE DEMS in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations for fools…
Japanese Imperialism/Nazism
......
DONE.....
.....
USA. Thank you.
This is all misinformation. The war in the Pacific continued into at least mid-September '45 and the Japanese armed forces occupied Indochina well into 1946- with no intention of ever leaving.
They were still holding out on Iwo Jima until 1948.
Yes, its Japan's fault for the A-bombs. Did anybody consider to not demand unconditional surrender and end the thing in 1944? Did anybody consider that at the end, it was a conditional surrender? Unconditional was only in words, for the American propaganda to make a huge disastrous war make it look like some sort of victory.
Under the Japanese Imperial Empire , the Japanese military committed millions of horrific atrocities to Chinese , Indonesian , Malaysian , Korean and other Asian Citizens .
The Potsdam Declaration was issued on July 26th, 1945 , which outlined 13 points for conditional surrender .
The Japanese government did not respond to it until August 10th , 1945 .
Truman wanted to change Japan's Constitution . He was well aware of how Germany rose up again after the 1919 Treaty of Versailles .
Unfortunately , we are seeing the trend of an increasing number people , who voice their opinion , without spending any effort to investigate what occurred .
.
@@landsea7332 Ah, so! And somehow the USA was very concerned about the atrocities to the Chinese and Koreans, right? That is why only a few years later, the Chinese and the Koreans were receiving American bombs by the thousands. Indonesia and Malaysia got plenty of US bombs too in the 50's. Another ten or fifteen years later, the Vietnamese were receiving Napalms, Biological weapons, and hundreds of tons of other bombs that still explode to this day. So, Truman was the Knight of good that wanted to save Asia, so he repeated all the crimes of the Japanese army with a multiplicity of 10 or 100 out of compassion perhaps. Very convincing. It is funny how people actually believe this.
News flush for you. The A-bombs was not what forced Japan to finally accept US troops' presence. It was the threat of a Soviet invasion, that they knew they could not stop. The A-bombs was just another manifestation of the racist hatred that dominated the western world at the time, and to some extend still does so today, apparently.
The Japanese knew the Soviets couldn’t invade Japan. Meanwhile, the US fucked their Army, fucked their Navy, fucked their cities with firebombing, fucked their merchant marine, fucked their imports/exports, fucked their economy, were on the verge of invading AND were gonna drop who the hell knows how many more A-bombs.
But yeah, they surrendered because of the Soviets. /s
@@ajalvarez3111 Actually, the Soviets had already invaded Japan in August 1945. The Japanese knew they could stop the US army, but they knew the red army was unstoppable. The ignorance in this world is incredible.
@@demetridar506Japan knew they could stop the US? Why didn't they ever stop them then? Japan never prevented the US from taking any land they took. Japan let the US take Iwo Jima? Okinawa? Philippines? Saipan? Guam? Ect. That's hilarious
Downfall was a plan. It was not THE plan. US had mastery of the,seas and air dominance. An American invasion could be anywhere. Germans expected the US to invade at Calais. Japan expected the US would invade Luzon. There were many, many places to invade, which would be finally decided after Japan committed its defense.
You are commiting several logical fallacies. You are ignoring that "THE" plan was to invade at Normandy and that is what we did. "THE" plan was to invade at Leyte and that is what we did. US fooling the Germans and the Japanese by hinting we would invade elsewhere did not mean we had a fluid plan
@@teo2975 Not saying I disagree with the ultimate point you're making, but the argument isn't a great one. Operation Sledgehammer was "THE" plan up until it wasn't. Operation Causeway was "THE" plan up until it wasn't. Plenty of operations are planned and ultimately never carried out.
The role of these military planners is to thoroughly plan and document how a prospective operation is expected to be carried out so that the key decision makers (President, JCS etc.) can make a final, informed decision about it.
In the case of Operation Olympic, I think Truman was pretty knew to the job and was under some pressure by the military planners to approve it. Based on the documented history it is pretty clear he was growing increasingly apprehensive about it though. I can't help wondering if it would have ever actually been carried out as planned, or if it was if Operation Coronet would have been carried out after or if major re-work would have been done to the planning.
Downfall was the plan. And given the distances involved, the invasaion via Kyushu was the only viable route.
Very interesting talk, but I wish the author could at least pretend to be unbiased, as a historian should. But he seems to clearly have an agenda. Makes it hard to take his conclusions at face value.
what a wierd drive by. What facts do you have an issue with? It seems to me you assume an agenda.
@@teo2975 I think he means he disagrees with the author. Everybody who doesn't agree with him is "biased". Unfortunately you hear that kind of, um, reasoning from a lot of people when they hear something they don't like. "Bias" seems to have been implanted in the brainstems of people who spend too much time in front of the idiot box. Rupert Murdoch's a clever SOB in a low animal cunning kind of way.....
America had long since broken the Japanese diplomatic code, so Washington must've known (from the Sato / Togo telegrams) that Japan was desperately seeking peace and Eisenhower advised Truman (on 20th July 1945) that the use of the A-bomb wasn't necessary. It was probably exploded more as a demonstration of American power to the Soviets (probable confrontation in Europe in mind) than an essential means to avoid Operation Downfall (Olympic / Coronet).
Did you watch the presentation? Did you miss the bits about the internal discussions of the Japanese cabinet during August 6-9?
@@samuelglover7685 So what would carry more historical weight: a confirmation bias anti-Japanese and pro Chinese presentation (both factually and emotionally), or the actual documentary record? Aren't both the Togo-Sato telegrams and Eisenhower's record of what he said to Stimpson and Truman, even worth considering as a countervail to personal experience and just accepting one side of the story?
Japan was seeking a cease fire, they had no intention of surrendering. What they wanted was a cessation of fighting where Japan would keep all the territory they had invaded and occupied. After all the Allied losses during the war there was no way that was going to happen, nor should it have. Revisionist history now tries to tell us Japan was about to surrender, but that was never the case. Also, millions of Japanese would probably have starved and frozen to death over the winter of 1945-46 if the blockade had continued, even without an invasion. Ask yourself what the Japanese would have done if they had possessed a nuclear weapon? I think we know the answer.
@@barryervin8536 Japan had biological weapons and minimal means to deliver to US Pacific Coast: they weren't used. Reading Sato / Togo telegrams is more realism than revisionism. Negotiated peace isn't synonymous with unconditional surrender, but is it likely Allies would've made anything other than bare minimum concessions in that event? Had Japan not been utterly defeated, wouldn't it be sensible to argue against the likely-hood of no total triumph of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army (Japan would've likely preferred the Nationalists)? If so: no Cultural Revolution or Great Leap Forward, no Korean or Vietnam war, no 'killing fields' in Cambodia and a strong possibility of less repression ('ethnic cleansing') in Burma and Indonesia (East Timor). Quite a saving of human life?
Japan wasn't desperately seeking peace. They tried to get the Soviets to mediate on their behalves so that they would get to keep some of their ill gotten gains from their war of unadulterated, inhumane war of aggression since 1931. The atom bombs demonstrated that their basic MO of (allied) blood for oil was bankrupt. Now a single plane could wipe out whole cities without drawing any American blood. And Japan only surrendered when the US gave Hirohito (opportunist extraordinaire) an out when they put the fate of the Imperial House into the hands of the occupation force.
Somebody explain why an invasion of Japan was necessary?
you favor leaving the fascists in power? was an invasion of Nazi Germany necessary?
@@teo2975 Thanks for no explanation. Imperial Japan was a martial autocracy. The U.S. kept Nazi bureaucrats in power as a hedge against the USSR. Japan, like England, lost the world.
@@aaronaragon7838 Wow you deflect. yes the Soviets, the Nazis and the Japanese were statist mass murderers.
your claim that the soviet invasion of germany was not needed is bizarre.
And yes the Soviets, the US, the French and the British did use people who had been Nazis for certain tasks. What does that have to do with saving 5 million lives by using the bomb?
@@teo2975 I never claimed the Soviets shouldn't have invaded Germany. 5 million lives saved? Never proven. The bottom line is every nation has the right to wage nuclear war thanks to Fat Man and Little Boy. Don't complain about an atomic powered North Korea. It is their right.
@@teo2975 Nobody here the invasion of Germany was not necessary. Five million lives saved by the bomb is unproven and doubtful. Keep chasing lizardmen, kid...
Historian or propagandist? Lol
thanks for the view from Moscow or Beijing comrade
What facts do you disagree with?
@@ppumpkin3282. I don’t think joeyartk reads history. Maybe comic books or MAGA stuff.