Going off hindsight, allowing the USSR to simply enter the war & start attacking Japan may have had far worse long term consequences than the 2 bombs did. They'd expect equal weight in how to deal with Japan, whether that's dividing territory, implementing Communism, taking their "spoils of war," etc. You could end up with an East/West Germany situation, North/South Korea situation, or something else entirely. They may want to bring war criminals to trial, they may want to execute Hirohito, you never know... Also, Japan was pretty adamant they were willing to fight out an Allied invasion. Despite some interest in surrender, many in leadership wanted to keep fighting, hold out & force the US to commit to a costly invasion. As you said, the US had been bombing for months. 60+ bombing missions, a naval blockade, & losing other territories still hadn't convinced them to surrender, so why would Truman think just continuing that avenue would be better (if anything, it likely kills even more Japanese people than the 2 atomic bombs, still prolongs the war & gets the USSR involved). The fact their was a SECOND atomic bomb dropped speaks volumes to me alone. Even after repeated warnings from the US to Japan telling them what was to unfold (the 1st time), dropping leaflets over the city calling for evacuation for days in advance, then dropping the Hiroshima bomb... still no surrender 3 days later. That about tells you the mindset & resolve of the Japanese command at that point. Even after Nagasaki, it took intervention by Hirohito himself to convince leadership to surrender. So the idea they would surrender eventually isn't the issue. It's how long were they willing to drag it out, how many lives would that cost, & how would that impact Japan post-war? Definitely biased here, but I feel like the US ending it at that point was the best thing that could've happened for Japan. No Soviet division & interference, cooperation in rebuilding, reforming their society, building a strong economy, and kept their royal family.
I have been having a dilema. Do you think 3 days was enough time? Was there really a reason to quickly drop the second? I believe that Japan would be unable to defend against it.
@@babygoat58 They were unable to defend against it no matter what. They waited three days because if they decided to surrender there was plenty of time, and the shock factor. They didn’t want them to know there were only two bombs. They wanted them to think they had many.
My dad was home from 8th Air Force bombing missions over Germany in B17G. He was scheduled to train on the B 29 then go to the Pacific. He and friends were sitting in a dark movie theater in the Bronx when Jap surrender was announced. Since it was dark he cried out of a sense of relief that he'd live.
i once asked a freind and mentor who was an AA gunner on an LST (landing ship, tank) on okinawa making preparations for the invasion how he flet about it. he said "i fell down and wept like a baby, because no i knew i would survive the war and get yp go home and make love to my beautiful wife again!"
Japan was planning on sustaining 20 million casualties from the Allied invasion. They were defeated, but they hadn't surrendered, which is quite different.
@@raiitaly Germany had the brains to know when it was over. The atomic bombs were designed to be used against Germany but they knew when to quit. Japan didn’t and got a whole bunch of people killed.
When one judges historical wars, one has to take two things into account. • Chrono-Diplomatic norms (Allowing for societal war norms in that time) PLUS cultural differences. • And then the basic mathematical formula of the needs of the many versus the needs of the few. To me, it was always a lose-lose for the U.S. We'd win eventually, but how bad a hand would we be left with after we stop? The Japanese had said they intended to bleed us dry in a war of attrition. Bring us to a negotiation table because of the losses. And the only modern pro-con arguments are based on how the Japanese *may* have responded. No guarantees. So what move to make? No way to know or debate now. Every counter-argumenrt has always relied on a different U.S. response, ultimately resulting in a different Japanese response forgoing the bombs, but *assuming* the Japanese respond how you assume they will. The problem is no one can know those potential responses, even now! These all read as if 'it's a guarantee, woulda stopped it somehow.' Nonsense! But the real truth is these were just options. There was no way to know the current power struggle going on within the Japanese Military Government, and a wrong decision could have cost countless more lives on both sides. They had publicly stated that every breathing Japanese man, woman, or child, would fight to the last. They gave prime examples of this on Okinawa, Iwo jima, etc., that didn't fall far from the bar. So the U.S. War Department starts a fire bomb campaign, one of which destroyed a lot of Tokyo, plus much of the rest of Japan. Yet no indications of surrender. They put up a 'no surrender' face. The last thing the U.S. wants is to lose a million soldiers, plus there's some face-saving, because even though that wasn't all these cilivilans hit day after day, so many were, and we can't look like the Nazis just blowing through armed civilians waging guerilla campaigns... General MacArthur believed that would have taken 10 years and millions of lives even after victory. We had intel from some members of the Japanese War Cabinet that if they would *ever* surrender, it has to be to the Americans and NEVER to the Soviets. So we did know that late on. So, now we have this new bomb. The decision is made to drop it. We destroyed a lot of other these targets already in fire bomb campaigns with zero Japanese mental-war fortitude affected as far as we know. But Hiroshima is largly untouched and they have industry. So decision: bomb Hiroshima with the atom bomb - the the Soviets are already licking their chops like they did in Eastern Europe. So we do it first. No responding after the first, and then the Soviets declare war on Japan days later. Same day, Nagasaki - second bomb. The Japanese Military Government doesn't agree unanimously but sends stuff to the Emperor anyway, he survives an assassination attempt, but lives and agrees to surrender terms, and so basically stopping a Soviet incursion into Japan. Several members of the Military Council commit ritual Seppuku. Thats how it happened. My big problem with analyzing this portion of the war is compairing the adversaries. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan operated in so many different ways, from culture, to strategy, to tactics. I find that neighsayers compare their troops to Japanese troops. Night and day difference. Bottom line, I think millions of lives both sides saved. JS, IMO.
What happens under the wait and see policy when Russia enters the Pacific Theater? Due to prior incindeces to WW2 Russia has no love lost for Japan. A Soviet landing in the North of Japan could have been catastrophic with implications of a divided country.
The USSR did not have the ability to do an amphibious landing, or an airborne attack. I think the Soviet entry into the war was overrated in their surrender.
Paul Martin --- What happens under the wait and see policy when Russia enters the Pacific Theater? Due to prior incindeces to WW2 Russia has no love lost for Japan. A Soviet landing in the North of Japan could have been catastrophic with implications of a divided country.z Wayne Patterson --- The Soviet Pacific Fleet and the Soviet Red Army had zero capability to successfully invade or occupy Hokkaido, which is why Stalin's planned gambits to make such attempts were advised by Marshal Zhukov in June 1945 to be impossible and Stalin's proposed attempt to land a two division occupation force with one rifle battalion per wave per day or two days at Rumoi, Hokkaido had to be canceled in August 1945. The Americans had to do a Lend-Lease transfer of a small flotilla of U.S. Navy small Tacoma Class frigates (patrol boats), four dozen LCI landing craft, and an assortment of minecraft and other auxiliary ships and craft to the Soviet Pacific Fleet to give them a capability to capture territories in Korea, Sakhalin, and the Kurils. The Japanese sank a sizable fraction of the landing craft and the former Tacoma class frigates (patrol boats) at the Battle of Shumshu in the Kurils. Stalin's planned "occupation" force had only six LCI landing craft available, which each nominally transported about 100-120 soldiers. Any surviving LCI then had to slowly return to base 300 miles away to load the next wave of riflemen without tanks and without any artillery other than perhaps one or a few pack or mountain howitzers. In other words, no such Soviet invasions of Hokkaido or the other Japanese Home Islands were remotely possible. See: The Hokkaido Myth by D. M. Giangreco. studyofstrategyandpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/journal-issue-2.pdf
catastrophic to the soviets. and heres why the premise that the russians invading manchuria is what really ended the war is utterly absurd. the military clique ruling japan had no intention of ending the war until it had forced the usa to invade so as to inflict so many casualties that the usa would be forced to sign a negotiated peace favorable to japan. so for the premise it was the russians to be true you would have to maintain it was the fear of the russian invasion who had little amphibious experience and little amphibious infrastructure while simultaneously trying to force the worlds premier amphibious operations military (the usa) with the largest amphibious infrastructure literally in human history. utter nonsense.
On July 21, 1945, a senior US Army Air Force intelligence officer in the Pacific distributed a report declaring: “The entire population of Japan is a proper Military Target . . . THERE ARE NO CIVILIANS IN JAPAN.” Those seeing this for the first time think it represents hyperbole at best, racist sanction for mass extermination at worst. It was neither. This document does provide a portal to see exactly how the summer of 1945 looked to Americans, particularly those directing or participating in final operations against Japan. When 1945 began, Japanese leaders recognized their nation’s dark military situation, but they rejected any form of surrender. Instead, they devised a sequenced military and political strategy called Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive.) Its fundamental premise: Americans possessed enormous material power but their morale was brittle. The plan aimed to meet the initial invasion of Japan (which they correctly anticipated would be on southern Kyushu) with massive ground and air forces. These would either defeat the invasion attempt or at least inflict such horrific casualties-American and Japanese--that American will to continue the war would be broken. Then in the second phase of the plan, Japan would obtain a negotiated settlement of the war, far from the declared American aim of the unconditional surrender of Japan. That settlement would certainly preclude an occupation of Japan and guarantee that the old order would continue.
What about the peace overtures through the Swiss, the Soviets , the Vatican and so on for a negotiated surrender? I mean I guess that's totally consistent with what you wrote, but to my understanding the only real barrier to surrender was leaving the emperor unharmed as a symbol of Japan. Is this close to being accurate?
@@hansfrankfurter2903 Japan was asked to surrender without any conditions they wanted conditions that was not one of the options given to them so the second bomb was dropped there was a third bomb and if they didn’t surrender unconditionally the third one would’ve been dropped
@@hansfrankfurter2903 The people who started the war had to be removed they had to be ousted from the government they were setting the terms for surrender and that was not an option President Harry Truman believed unconditional surrender would keep the Soviet Union involved while reassuring American voters and soldiers that their sacrifices in a total war would be compensated by total victory. Disarming enemy militaries was the start; consolidating democracy abroad was the goal. Only by refusing to deal with dictators could Germany and Japan be redesigned root to branch, writes Richard Samuels in a New York Times book review of Marc Gallicchio's new book.
Rone - Yes , the "Big Six " knew they were defeated , but wanted to make it so costly for an American invasion that the Truman administration would seek an armistice . The US was not interested in an armistice because they had seen how Germany had risen up again after WW I and the Treaty of Versailles . Rather , the US wanted to change Japan's constitution and change the country into a democracy . Which they did in 1947 . The US also brought in aid to Japan after the war . On correction : the US condition's for Japan's surrender were outlined in the Potsdam Declaration of July 26th 1945 . .
US conducted air attacks as Japs did in China etc. if Japs failed to defend their cities, that is on them. US was under no obligation to only fight in ways that accommodated Japanese abilities. Do you think the Japanese would have hesitated for even a second to drop the nuclear bombs if they had them instead of us?
I bet not one of these revisionist historians actually landed on Iwo Jima or Okinawa or being trained to invade Mainland Japan those people and the mothers and fathers are the only opinion that matters
@@hcaballero1992 Neither did you, Caballero. Nor I. Dennis made an excellent point about historians revising history to suit their personal views and political imperatives. When those same historians begin to question the necessity of Operation Overlord, I'll pay attention.
The Hauge convention's definition of a war crime is "Any military action that deliberately targets civilians in a theatre of war." I leave you to decide if these bombings deliberately targeted civilians.
The JIN and JIA committed millions of brutal atrocities in Korea , Manchuria , China Vietnam , Formosa , the Philippines , Indonesia , Hong Kong , Burma - An estimate 19 million died as a result of a war Japan started in 1937 Japan walked out of the League of Nations - Japan and the Nazi's didn't give a s** t about the Hague Convention . . It was actually Truman and his advisors that got rid of Japan's military gov and brought in human and democratic right - when they changed Japan's Constitution in 1947 . .
Imagine US go starving Japan with a blockade. Imagine historians, now, asking if US had the right to do it! Unfortunately, war is war and not an exercise of good intentions!
It must be made clear that the argument Blackett made has almost no solid backing of truth, he made this claim on the basis of a theory he could not prove with solid evidence, just be aware. And by the way, there is a consensus generally speaking amongst historians, the United States and allies did the vast majority of the work to bring Japan to its knees and facilitate a surrender, the advent of the Soviets joining the fight in early August was the final push, and so the Japanese surrender was brought fourth for two reasons, not just one or the other. However the vast majority of the credit for defeating the Japanese in the pacific belongs to the United States marine corps and the US navy.
Given the atrocities committed everywhere occupied by the Japanese, and the impending butcher's bill of Operation Downfall, and the realities of the times, there wasn't really much choice if Truman wanted to avoid a blood bath. Operation Downfall would have made Vietnam look like a teddy bear's picnic.
War is a blood bath, The difference is that with proper Rules of engagement, Operation Downfall could have killed less civilians, especially children. Operation Downfall would have been ugly, I am not arguing that point at all. The real question is do you want to put the main horror of the war on Adults, or children. Again both would have effected people of all ages. However, in a ground battle, some measures could have been taken to offer a little bit of protection for those too young to fight.
@@Freesoler01 True but it's in the nature of things for a the tribe to look out for its own primarily. Truman was being asked to save the blushes of a population the armed forces of which had been the genocidal scourge of whoever they encountered at the expense of his own people. Given his options that was never going to happen. You also have to take into account that the Japanese operated on a very different system of military ethics to the western powers. A very brutal death cult.
The revised US Intelligence report of July 29th (?) , 1945 showed that more Japanese divisions were being transferred to Kyushu ( Operation Olympic ) - it would have been the Battle of Okinawa multiplied by many times . Just reading about the casualties in Okinawa is not good .
This is the only reason, why everyone should have their own nukes. Countries Situation always depends on time. But the reality of power only exists when you have the right man and right weapon.
An interesting bit of history is that Patrick Blackett was Oppenheimer's physics advisor at Cambridge . I don't know the story about the apple - but it seems the 2 did not see eye to eye . .
It's not silly. Four of the five men who were generals at the time of the bombing are on record saying or writing that it was not necessary and Japan was going to surrender anyways. It was entirely to prevent the Soviet Union from invading Northern Japan via Manchuria and, thereby, resulting in a communist part of Japan. It was used to threaten the Soviets because the U.S. viewed them as the ultimate enemy even though they temporarily had to ally with them to defeat the Axis.
@@therach7841 So those four generals were privy to communications at the Ministries of War and Navy and within the Imperial Household? Not to mention the General Staff and Naval Staff, plus field army headquarters? Not likely.
@@therach7841 and heres why the premise that the russians invading manchuria is what really ended the war is utterly absurd. the military clique ruling japan had no intention of ending the war until it had forced the usa to invade so as to inflict so many casualties that the usa would be forced to sign a negotiated peace favorable to japan. so for the premise it was the russians to be true you would have to maintain it was the fear of the russian invasion who had little amphibious experience and little amphibious infrastructure while simultaneously trying to force the worlds premier amphibious operations military (the usa) with the largest amphibious infrastructure literally in human history. utter nonsense.
Yes. Happy to help. One of these days these type questions will be asked of the Soviets for their early European war agreement with Hitler, only to flip and years later invade Japan from the North.
Let us never forget how the Soviets lead Germany do research and weapon development in the Soviet Union outside of the eyes of the Europeans when you help a former enemy to rebuild why would they suddenly not be your enemy
5:50 - Kevin Ruane is playing games here. In 1943 , FDR's policy towards Japan and Germany was unconditional surrender . However , Harry Truman's policy toward Japan was clearly outlined in the 13 points of the Potsdam Declaration , issued on July 26th, 1945 . Truman wanted to change Japan into a democracy . Point 10 ) states " The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people . Freedom of speech, of religion , and of thought , as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established . " Point 12 ) " The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in the accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined ans responsible government . " Suzuki rejected the Potsdam Declaration by famously stating " Mokaustsu " ( US interpreted as ignoring it with silence ) Under US occupation , Japan's Constitution was changed in 1947 . Both Men and Women gained democratic rights All Japanese citizens gained human rights . So why did Kevin Ruane not mention any of this ? ... and he teaches at Canterbury Chris Church University . Should Universities be in the pursuit of academic truth ? .
What does a British atomic scientist know about how the imperial Japanese cabinet worked. The fact is, and I am astonished it is not mentioned here, is that even after the 2nd bomb (!!!) the imperial Japanese cabinet was evenly divided 3 for accepting the Potsdam declaration, 3 against and as a result they appealed to the emperor to break the deadlock. Who to the shock of his armed forces, accepted the Potsdam declaration. Had it not been for that 2nd bomb, the cabinet would never have been deadlocked
Very good response by Jefferson. However, Mr Ruane is simply reiterating other possible choices backed up by various sources, leaving one to say as far as US motives go, the verdict is out. However, it's the well documented historical response that Jefferson describes where we get the most likely response; Japan unlikely to surrender as that goes against a long national and cultural mindset. Think of brutal treatment by Japan of its conquered nations, treatment of POWs, a cultural and religious philosophy around honour that causes Kamikaze pilots and others to commit Seppuku. Entrenched beliefs almost if not, impossible to defeat. It would take a nation being brought overwhelmingly to its knees which occured by BOTH nuclear bombs AND threat of USSR invasion.
@@bonnieboulter9486- A good indication of the motives of the US were outlined in Henry Stimson's recommendations submitted on July 2nd , 1945 . This is now declassified and on line in the US National Archives . Concerning the atomic bomb , I think there were 3 recommendation committees in the US the science , target and Truman's military advisors . The science committee submitted their recommendations on June 16th - basically saying there were many varied opinions , but we see no other alternative but to direct military use . In other words , they did not recommend a demonstration . . Also , the US wanted to end the war with minimum loss of US life - and Japanese lives . Truman did not want an Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other . Truman was an artillery captain in WW I and had experienced war . The US was aware of how Germany had risen up again after WW I and the Treaty of Versailles . The Potsdam Declaration states the US wanted to get rid of Japan's military government once and for all . Japan's " Big Six " knew they were defeated and as you have pointed out culturally they would not accept defeat . So they wanted to make the casualty rate so high that the US would agree to an armistice . It has been suggested to me that the US wanted an ally in the Pacific against rising communism . But I have no evidence to support this claim . . Ultimately the US wanted to end the war with the minimum loss of life and to install a democratic government in Japan . .
The truth is what we learned in 1990's from Russian records and that is Japan had two nuclear programs run by the Army and the Navy of Japan. We destroyed the Army program, but the Navy actually had a test run using a device the size of a ship and it did go off. Lucky for us the Russians captured it in Koria and took it all away, people and every nail found. We did not have a clue till the 1990's with the fall of the Soviets. So, there is no moral high ground here for anyone, war sucks.
they produced so many purple hearts in anticipation of the invasion of japan that theyre still being awarded 80 years later for the global war on terror. and heres another thing to think about the numbers of deaths by war had been going up exponentially (especially during the 20th century) up until 1946. after the bombs were dropped the number stabilized (more or less) at a fraction of what it had been prior to the bombs being dropped.
My grandpa was at Okinawa. Invading Japanese was not an option and as horrible as the bomb was it ultimately caused less suffering to the Japanese (and also Americans) than dropping the bomb.
Let's be frank - this yet another attempt to downplay the genuine shortening of the war by Allied technological co-operation and US military might. Perish the thought that the Allies could be anything but the baddies. Hirohito should have been executed by public hanging.
The nuclear bomb is a genie that should never have been let out of the bottle. The Cold War would have gone a lot different if America didn't use the Bomb in wartime first
@@danielscalera6057 I’m happy to US use the bomb on Japan but God I hope it’s never ever use again but I hope my government is willing if pushed into it to use that weapon
Even after getting hit with two Atom bombs, the Japanese didn't want to surrender unless the word " unconditional " was taken out of the demand. They were lucky only two bombs were available at the time. Dropping them was the right decision. Not executing the emporer was a mistake.
@@cookechris28 if he was at the head of a organization that was doing the horrid shit the Japanese military did and was doing and still did nothing even knowing it for YEARS, then yes.
Loul - The Emperor was considered a divinity and Japan's military government got all their power through him . This is why Japan's military government did not want to change the status of the Emperor . The Potsdam Declaration made it clear that the US wanted to remove Japan's military government for all time and bring in human rights . The US changed Japan's Constitution in 1947 . Their new Constitution is actually based on Britain's Westminster system - a Constitutional Monarchy . The status of the Emperor was changed from a divinity to the " Symbol of the State and Unity of the People ." To keep political continuity in Japan , the US did not put Hirohito on trial for war crimes . .
I think for the people at the time, the atomic bombs were just another weapon to be used in the war. Like, either this, or military invasion. What makes the atomic bomb so horrifying is the absolute total damage it caused almost instantly.
Hardly, within moments of the first one detonating in a test in the New Mexico desert, the US knew they had forever changed what war could become. No other weapon ever created can latterly change the weather around you. You should read the survivor accounts of the fierce "Firey Winds" and the infamous "Black Rain" of poison that falls on survivors. Keiji Nawazawa, the creator of "Barefoot Gen" and "I Saw It" describes nuclear fall out this way "At first, I though it was raining heavy oil, it was thick black and sticky." This was the memory of someone who was six when the bomb fell. For any adult to believe that is " just another weapon to be used in the war" they would have to have a serious problem.
My dad was scheduled to invade the mainland. In his words "the bomb saved his life" and made my life possible. I don't take kindly to your twisted logic.
My Dad too, he was trained & ready to go. He was transferred from England for the beginning of the invasion, when the bomb was dropped. I probably wouldn't be here either
So according to you , your life is worth more than that of the innocent civilians and families who died at that day? I cant believe how much americans feel entitled to everything.
@@its4481 we're just saying that's the way it turned out. Every life is precious be it Japanese or American, corporate head or Janitor. God puts it this way, " One life is worth more than the world and everything in it. "
@@michaelpawlowicz890 You didnt phrase it the same way OP did. I ve got no problem with your view on this case , but his is extremely selfish and entitled.
@@tywinlannister6881 Do you have any clue Who Started the War? and the crimes committed by Japan and How many lives were saved on Both Sides by dropping the A Bombs? Clearly Not? Look up Rape of Nanking to see what Japan did to China to get facts!
@@tywinlannister6881 Japanese were killing average 7000 Chinese every day for 8 years non stop. Who's lives are more important? Leaving Japanese keep killing others or end the war? They killed 300K in nearly the first week when the conquer Nanking. How can you guarantee this is not happening again? One day delaying of Japan surrender, another hundred of thousands were killed and tortured to death by them . Read the book Rape of Nanking, read about 731 unit. Read about how they raped , tortured Mums, Dads, sisters , daughters , read about how they waving a knife with a baby hanging on it. Read about how they vivisactiom just to see the reaction when people dying. Read about their mother's love experiment by putting mum and baby in hot burning metal just to see when it was too hot, the mother would step on the baby?
@@tywinlannister6881 We did it all across Germany. WW2 was total war, women and children died everywhere the bombers and infantry went. If you want to condemn the atom bombs for that reason, you need to condemn the entire Allied war effort as well.
4:24 oh the irony. this image of b-29s dropping their payload was taken from a leaflet dropped on japan prior to the dropping of the bombs warning civilians to flee the 10 cities listed (ie on the short list of possible targets) as well as other cities. how often in the history of human conflict has prior warning of the use of a war ending weapon been afforded an enemy? btw the japanese high command forbade civilians fleeing their cities as it would disrupt war production which included small private workshops in individual private homes turning out small bits into the pipeline of japanese war production.
Another myopic evaluation. Since when is fire bombing Japanese cities any more humane than Nuking them. It’s a distinction without a practical difference. The fire bombing of Tokyo took more lives than Nagasaki or Hiroshima and they still refused to quit. Use your head. Was bombing Pearl Harbor necessary? Nope. The atrocities in China? Nope. How about the cruel and inhumane treatment of POWs? Not hardly. Kamikaze attacks? No. One thing was clear. American soldiers were becoming war weary. There was some discontent from soldiers who were to transferred to the Pacific theater from Europe. Japan could’ve quit the war back in 1944 when they didn’t have a pray but they didn’t. So how long should the U.S. have waited for Japan to realize they couldn’t win? Using the arguments of someone who had zero impact on war policy is pointless. Working on the Manhattan project makes them no more informed on the war than the other 130,000 individuals who worked on the Manhattan Project.
What the fuck? If anyone is myopic here, it's certainly you. Because you're too myopic to imagine children with their skin being melted off, and their eyeballs being gellified. Because you're too myopic to imagine the generational damage that radiation has on an individual. Too myopic to bat an eye at families being tortured by hunger, fire, radiation, thirst, disease, decay, blunt force trauma, and everything of the sort. Too myopic to imagine the cancer, and the sickness, and the unimaginable pain, decades after the war ended. Too myopic to consider that there were very few strategic military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Firebombing isnt good, it's painful as well. But that doesn't mean you cant evacuate. With firebombing, a town could be evacuated. Lives could be saved. The horrors, the absolute nightmares that those two cities went through, are nothing a fucking "firebomb" can achieve. Miss me that fucking bullshit.
Exactly, you COULD say this about anything. In fact, that's a historically popular way war crimes get handwaved, and ethnic cleansing excused. We aren't saying it about "anything". We're saying it about THOSE bombs.
There are other considerations not addressed here. Prisoners of war were suffering and every day the war persisted, more would die. The Soviets hadn't just entered the war, they were rampaging into Manchuria with elite armored divisions, they even had eyes on teh Korean Peninsula. The Japanese were beaten in August 45, but they simply would NOT surrender. It was imperative that the war end ASAP. The A bomb was more than justified and it saved lives and educated future leaders abou tthe horrors of nuclear war.
I can totally buy that! I do think it was a kill 2 birds with one stone type of thing. Whether we were winning or not with Japan it was very hard fought and this put a stop once and for all and it was a way to tell Stalin (and the world) Do u want some of this? But I don't think the war in itself with Japan would have been enough without the impending threat from Russia. Is it right or wrong? IDK. I know we were in a brutal war
I thought this was quite disingenuous. The Japanese had 0 intention of surrendering - their strategy was to have the US invade, for there to be a total bloodbath and to extract concessions in this way. The only way they would have come terms was that if the Imperial polity, the Emperor as a living god continued, occupation was either nil or limited to a few sites, they supervised their own war criminal trials and oversaw their own disarmament. For obvious reasons none of this was remotely acceptable to the US. In the end after the bombs were dropped they had to accept the Potsdam Declaration because their Ketsu-Go strategy was a dead letter. Prime Minister Suzuki subsequently wrote that this was because the US could have dropped 1 atom bomb after another and continued to blockade and the Japanese would have been powerless. It would have taken many months for the Japanese to have surrendered otherwise, during which time there would have been mass starvation in Japan, the deaths of pretty all Allied POW's in their hands; and the deaths of countless Asians killed by the Japanese Army in China and all the territories they continued to offer. There would have been substantial casualties amongst British Commonwealth forces tasked to recapture Malaya. The Soviet argument is very unconvincing - the Generals had written off the Kwantung Army, it was obvious that the Soviets weren't going to intercede with the Anglo-Americans on Japan's behalf and the Soviets could not possibly have invaded Hokkaido - they didn't have the means. The Japanese military leadership contemplated the loss of millions of their own people rather than surrender. It was only after the bombs were dropped that more rational voices - notably civil and eventually the Emperor - were able to bring the war to an end. The Emperor laid great stress on the role of the bombs in his Imperial Rescripts and in a letter to his son. It was the bombs that did it
Gotta love these "Monday morning quarterbacks" who now claim Japan was defeated and America didn't need to use nukes. Tell that to the sailors who were still fighting off Kamakazi attacks on American warships and burying their shipmates at sea. If Japan was defeated, why did it take TWO nukes to finally get them to surrender? Japan was planning to fight on and bleed the US if it invaded, which would have been the only alternative. The War Department even had a slogan for the continuing war..."The Golden Gate in 48." Hard liner Japanese commanders had told the people that to die for the emperor, instead of surrendering, was an honor. The nukes SAVED LIVES...US AND JAPANESE.
Fun fact about nukes: If you know where to place them, you can outdo the Chicxulub extinction event easily, just place detonate them over every super volcano on Earth and we will turn into Mars in no time. No one cares about your American exceptionalist point of view, the Japanese posed no harm to American citizens, they were in no position to turn the tide of the war. Honestly it was "worth it" until the Ukraine-Russia conflict, have fun worrying about Putin going crazy and nuking NYC the next time you leave an idiotic comment.
I agree with you in general. They were defeated meaning they had zero percent chance of winning, but they were still dangerous. They would not surrender which would have negated the need to use nuclear weapons. It is entirely,100% Japan’s fault.
Complete bullshit. The nukes were some sort of test for the upcoming conflict with the Soviets. The nukes killed houndred thousands of innocent civilians, many of them died in agony due to the radioactive radiaton. There is no justification for this crime.
Michael Pawlowicz --- Did you know that Dwight D. Eisenhower was against dropping the bomb. Wayne Patterson --- You are repeating a widely circulated myth that has been used as disinformation. Didn't happen. Few of the senior commanders were privileged to even see the MAGIC intercepts of the Japanese communications that revealed the War Faction's refusal to accept any form of surrender under any circumstances. See for one example a quotation from the historian, Robert James Maddox: Robert James Maddox, The Biggest Decision: Why We Had To Drop The Atomic Bomb, American Heritage, May/June 1995, Volume 46, Issue 3.... Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman’s top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral’s memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had “said up to the last that it wouldn’t go off.” Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. “This sounds fine,” he told the courier, “but this is only February. Can’t we get one sooner?” Nimitz later would join Air Force generals Carl D. Spaatz, Nathan Twining, and Curtis LeMay in recommending that a third bomb be dropped on Tokyo. Only Dwight D. Eisenhower later claimed to have remonstrated against the use of the bomb. In his Crusade in Europe , published in 1948, he wrote that when Secretary Stimson informed him during the Potsdam Conference of plans to use the bomb, he replied that he hoped “we would never have to use such a thing against any enemy,” because he did not want the United States to be the first to use such a weapon. He added, “My views were merely personal and immediate reactions; they were not based on any analysis of the subject.” Eisenhower’s recollections grew more colorful as the years went on. A later account of his meeting with Stimson had it taking place at Ike’s headquarters in Frankfurt on the very day news arrived of the successful atomic test in New Mexico. “We’d had a nice evening at headquarters in Germany,” he remembered. Then, after dinner, “Stimson got this cable saying that the bomb had been perfected and was ready to be dropped. The cable was in code . . . ‘the lamb is born’ or some damn thing like that.” In this version Eisenhower claimed to have protested vehemently that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” “Well,” Eisenhower concluded, “the old gentleman got furious.” Myth holds that several of Truman’s top military advisers begged him not to use the bomb. In fact, there is no persuasive evidence that any of them did. The best that can be said about Eisenhower’s memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time. Stimson was in Potsdam and Eisenhower in Frankfurt on July 16, when word came of the successful test. Aside from a brief conversation at a flag-raising ceremony in Berlin on July 20, the only other time they met was at Ike’s headquarters on July 27. By then orders already had been sent to the Pacific to use the bombs if Japan had not yet surrendered. Notes made by one of Stimson’s aides indicate that there was a discussion of atomic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower’s part. Even if there had been, two factors must be kept in mind. Eisenhower had commanded Allied forces in Europe, and his opinion on how close Japan was to surrender would have carried no special weight. More important, Stimson left for home immediately after the meeting and could not have personally conveyed Ike’s sentiments to the President, who did not return to Washington until after Hiroshima.
5:06 the military clique ruling japan had no intention of ending the war until it had forced the usa to invade so as to cause so many casualties as to force the usa to negotiate a peace favorable to japan. to this end they had thousands of suicide airplanes, boats and submarines cached to attack the invasion force and were training civilians to resist all the way down to training schoolgirls with bamboo spears and children to dive under vehicles with explosives strapped to them.
Maybe refer to what Hirohito himself said, in an unprecedented radio address to the Japanese people, for why they (HE) was ordering the unconditional surrender. Here's a snippet .. "because of the new cruel bomb that could completely destroy our nation".
Nagasaki bombing was a steel factory location which they surrounded it with civilians. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. By the way, Hiroshima was a major port and a military headquarters. So your point is mute.
Nate Niezgoda --- Fine with the use of nukes in war.. But I don't like that they were directed at primarily civilian targets Wayne Patterson --- False, because the atomic bombs were used to attack military targets and Japanese combatants. The Japanese casualties were conscripted to serve as combatants in the Japanese armies, the Laws of War required them to evacuate the military targets after having been warned of the imminent air bombardments, and , and their active participation in continuing the hostilities which Japan was waging against the Allies by deliberately killing tens of millions of people. The MARK I Little Boy atomic bomb was used to attack the military target described as the Second General Army and Headquarters located within the Hiroshima Castle in the City of Hiroshima and all of its subordinate military troops, facilities, and military manufacturing interspersed throughout Hiroshima. The Second General Army was responsible for the command and control, the logistics, and the military operations for about 1.1 million regular troops and tens of millions of Volunteer Fighting Corps and ordinary conscript militia in Southern Japan. The Second General Army was responsible for OPERATION KETSU-GO and its military operation on Kyushu in opposition to the OPERATION OLYMPIC invasion of Kyushu. The MARK I Little Boy atomic bomb killed an estimated 20,000 of the estimated 40,000 regular troops located within Hiroshima, killed about another 65,000 conscripted combatants who were former civilians, and killed no Japanese people who were "innocent civilians." It is due to the fact that the Japanese Government conscripted, armed, and/or trained former civilians to serve as combatants in the Japanese armies with weapons ranging from bamboo daggers and spears to hand grenades, improvised Human suicide bombs, machineguns, and anti-aircraft artillery that there were no longer any civilians or "innocent civilians" remaining in Japan by August 1945. All of the Japanese people ranging from newborn babies being used as explosive boobytraps to disabled adults serving s Human suicide bombs were conscripted to serve as suicidal combatants and commanded to kill ten of the enemy before being killed or committing suicide to escape surrender and being taken captive. The MARK III Fat Man atomic bomb was used to attack and destroy the Mitsubishi Arsenals and other arsenals and military targets located within Nagasaki. Those arsenals were desperately needed by the Japanese armies to arm there troops for combat against the imminent Allied invasion of Kyushu scheduled for November-December 1945 in OPERATION OLYMPIC. The destruction of those arsenals severely crippled the Japanese ability to arm the hundreds of thousands of regular troops, Volunteer Fighting Corps, and ordinary militia assigned to conduct military operations against the Allied invasions on Kyushu. One of the arsenals is where torpedoes, Human piloted suicide torpedoes, and the aerial torpedoes used to sink the U.S. Navy battleships at the Pearl Harbor Naval base on 7 December 1941 were manufactured. About one-third of the population of Hiroshima and about one-fourth f the population of Nagasaki heeded the American warnings to evacuate the military targets in compliance with the Laws of War requiring them to do so, and they were unharmed by the atomic bombs and unharmed by the conventional air bombardments. So, there could be no "innocent civilians" under any circumstances given the fact that the Japanese casualties were combatants who knowingly and deliberately risked becoming suicidal combatants serving the war effort at the military targets.
@@Rich-yj4ub the target factory was such a small spot though. The military was not blind to the fact that industrial portion of the city was surrounded by civilian homes. We did the same thing in Dresden. In hindsight it looks like we. targeted military targets without regard for nearby civilians populations.
and heres why the premise that the russians invading manchuria is what really ended the war is utterly absurd. the military clique ruling japan had no intention of ending the war until it had forced the usa to invade so as to inflict so many casualties that the usa would be forced to sign a negotiated peace favorable to japan. so for the premise it was the russians to be true you would have to maintain it was the fear of the russian invasion who had little amphibious experience and little amphibious infrastructure while simultaneously trying to force the worlds premier amphibious operations military (the usa) with the largest amphibious infrastructure literally in human history. utter nonsense.
Since 1927, the United States began ordering Chinese warlords to conduct anti-Japanese campaigns in exchange for financial and arms support. That was in order to disturb Japan from expanding its interests in China through friendship and business. The Chinese warlords sabotaged Japanese commercial facilities, looted/raped/massacred ordinary Japanese residents, and attacked/kidnapped&slaughtered Japanese soldiers. (example: Tongzhou incident) The atrocities of anti-Japanese terrorism against those Japanese residents and Japanese soldiers were the cause of the Manchurian Incident and the China Incident. However, the Allies twisted those things, such as "Japan is an evil expansionist country and invaded China." Because of the China-Japanese War provoked by the United States behind the scenes, the United States notified the cancellation of the Japan-U.S. Treaty of Commerce and Navigation in 1940 and revoked it. This restricted U.S. exports of iron and oil to Japan. After that, Japan entered French Indochina with the permission of the French government to Shut off the Chiang Kai-shek support route from the United States. Because Chiang Kai-shek had ignored the repeated requests for ceasefire talks from Japan and prolonged the war. Because of this entering, the United States imposed economic sanctions such as a total ban on oil exports to Japan and at the same time as freezing assets against Japan. At that time, Japan was cornered in a very troubled situation because it depended on the United States for resources such as iron and oil. On August 12, 1941, Roosevelt held a secret meeting on the Navy heavy cruiser Augusta with Churchill, who visited on the cruiser Prince of Wales, off Newfound Round Island in Canada. Already at that time, Roosevelt and Churchill had decided that they forced Japan into a war with the United States, and decided that after defeating Japan, they would never again allow it to have the ability to self-defense. This was 4 months BEFORE the attack on Pearl Harbor attack. In short, even before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States and Britain had decided to make Japan a colony of the United States after fighting and destroying with Japan. Incidentally, the United States was preparing to start a war against Japan from the United States in China in case Japan did not make a preemptive attack. This attack plan was called “JB. No. 355.”
Concerning many US citizens still believe that atomic bomb made WW2 came to the end, I am the part of human race, says it is quite possible. Why ? Japan as the last country ( after all others Germany, Italy had surrendered ) didn't show any sign to surrender and retuned to the negotiation table. The use of negotiation and other solutions ( eg. The ban of international trade, etc ) will need long time to reaolve. But however, as any violence towards civilians is the crime to the humanity, atomic bomb was also the crime towards Japan's civilians, if we say all of Japsn did in many Asia's countries and civilians was the war criminals, atomic bomb was also the same, itvwas the crime to millions innocent Japan's civilians. There is no justification for using atomic bomb to the civilians, but if it could be restricted only to the military target, ( providing it will not be off-target ) it might be allowed. If we declare the6re should be no atomic, nuclear bomb use for war, then all countries especially the WW2 participants ( Germany, Japan, Italy ) should confirm they will not use any war or military forces to settle any problem with any countries. Some people are afraid if the nuclear is banned some xountries will revive and do what they have done in WW2 aggain. But if we uphold the international treaty that WW2 participants ( Germany, Japan ) could not use their military forces OUTSIDE their country, such worries are unnecessary. Let us make the whole world come to the eternal peace and the WW2 tragedy will not happen in the future.
IMO Le May's fire bombing of Tokyo was a war crime . However , the atomic bombs were used to end the Asian Pacific war , with the minimum loss of life . The US wanted to remove Japan's military government for all time and replace it with Democratic Constitutional Monarchy with human rights . Which they did in 1947 . This is the reason why Japan is one of the top democracies in the world today . .
As the Potsdam Declaration makes clear , Truman and his advisors wanted to remove Japan's military government for all time and bring in human and democratic rights . Japan's military government ignored the Potsdam Decoration . The part no one ever seems to say is that while under US occupation , Japan's Constitution was changed in 1947 . .
Was Japan justified in making war on peacetime American servicemen and peaceful civillian populations. Are the war crimes they committed acceptable or forgivable?
Sure its "war" no countries is innocent, but the only true monster here is "The butcher of Asia" President Truman and he IS TRULY A MONSTER FOR WHAT HE DID.
Actually , the Japanese military committed millions of horrific atrocities in Manchuria , China , Korea , the Philippines , Indonesia , Burma , and other Asian countries . They used 10 million Asians and POW's in forced labour camps . It was disgusting what they did . . After the Doolittle raid , the Japanese military murdered 250,000 Chinese civilians in retaliation . .
@@jimmyalexzander1941 The only true monster for a situation he didn't want, making choices that would've killed tons of people no matter what he did, and making the one that would've reduced the amount of casualties compared to an invasion(even if the targets could've been better picked). Compare that to a military that raped, tortured, and/or killed millions for the hell of it
The use of the Little Boy and the Fat Man was necessitated by 2 factors: the appearance of the Kamikazes, and s prediction by Gen Douglas MacArthur that the US would suffer 1,000,000 casualties in an invasion of Japan. Among that figure could have been my father and my uncles!!! - Marc Smith, born August 16, 1943.
Of course. A determinative fact is that if Japan was "so ready to surrender" BEFORE the first atomic bomb, then why did it not IMMEDIATELY surrender after that bombing? Japan did not surrender until after the SECOND atomic bomb. That proves it was necessary. The use of the atomic bombs saved millions of lives.
Japan did not surrender until Truman said the emperor could stay. In the Potsdam declaration he said that would never happen. August 12 Truman finally agreed to the most important condition Japan wanted for surrender
@@danielscalera6057 --- Japan did not surrender until Truman said the emperor could stay. In the Potsdam declaration he said that would never happen. August 12 Truman finally agreed to the most important condition Japan wanted for surrender Wayne Patterson --- That is incorrect. Japanese pacifists in the Japanese government and the Japanese Diplomatic Corps, who never wanted Japan to go to war against the British and/or Americans in the first place, were encouraged to communicate in secrecy through Neutral diplomats with representatives of the U.S. Government who would negotiate either an armistice or acceptable terms of surrender for Japan. The Japanese diplomats at the Swiss and Swedish embassies were among those principally involved in those efforts upon their own initiatives. Allen Dulles in Switzerland communicated to the Japanese diplomats how the United States was prepared to negotiate and favor the Emperor's continuation of the Japanese Imperial Dynasty during the American-Allied occupation of Japan. However, the Japanese Cabinet intervened in July 1945 when these secret contacts became known to them and ordered the Japanese Foreign Minister to order the Japanese Diplomatic Corps to break off and cease all such future unauthorized negotiations and contacts with the representatives of the U.S. Government. So, the frequently reported narratives claiming the Truman Administration refused to consider letting the Japanese know that they could keep their emperor is utterly false. The Japanese Cabinet and the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War were aware that the unconditional surrender pertained to the Japanese military Government, the Japanese military, and not to the Emperor and Royal Family. The Truman Administration was reading the decrypted Japanese diplomatic cables and could see how the hardliners were refusing to surrender under any circumstances and were willing only to consider a negotiated armistice in which the Allies would fulfill many of the original Japanese conditions for retaining some of their conquests, avoid an Allied occupation of Japan, and continue its existing military government. The Truman Administration's public statements were a consequence of that confidential Japanese intransigence. For one of many examples, see: TOP SECRET, ULTRA, Total pages---4, 22 July 1945. “MAGIC” DIPLOMATIC SUMMARY, PART II, 1. Latest report from Japanese naval official in Berne concerning peace negotiations: Captain Nishihara, the Japanese Naval Counselor in Berne, has been advising Tokyo of developments following the alleged proposal made by OSS representative Allen Dulles in the latter part of May for a “discussion” between Japan and the United States […] According to Nishihara, von Gaevernitz stated that (a) “the United States leaders are of the opinion that the Japanese national structure is not to be upset” in the event of surrender, and (b) “if Japan has any request to make [Dulles] can return to Switzerland [from Germany] at once.”[….] nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/40.pdf TOP SECRET, ULTRA, Ref. DS Item MIL-1. Ambassador Sato’s 20 July Message to Foreign Minister Togo. nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/40.pdf ULTRA TOP SECRET. “MAGIC” -- Diplomatic Summary No. 1214 - 22 July 1945 WAR DEPARTMENT, Office of A.C of S., G-2. Copy No. MI-3. Foreign Minister Togo to Ambassador Sato, 21 July 1945. [….] In a message of 21 July, Foreign Minister Togo has now replied as follows: “Special Envoy Konoye’s mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government. In this regard he will set forth positive intentions, and he will also negotiate details concerning the establishment of a cooperative relationship between Japan and Russia which will form the basis of Imperial diplomacy both during and after the war. [….] “With regard to unconditional surrender (I have been informed of your 18 July message*) we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. Even if the war drags on and it becomes clear that it will take much more bloodshed, the whole country as one man will pit itself against the enemy in accordance with the Imperial Will so long as the enemy demands unconditional surrender. It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace which is not so-called unconditional surrender through the good offices of Russia. It is necessary that we exert ourselves so that this idea will be finally driven home to the Americans and British. *In that message Sato advocated unconditional surrender provided the Imperial House was preserved (DS 20 Jul 45). nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/40.pdf
Most real historians agree that it took both atomic bombs and the Soviet attack in Manchuria , for Japan's military government to accept 12 of the 13 terms of the Potsdam Declaration . The US resumed bombing again , before Japan's military government accepted all 13 terms . .
The average estimated casualties of the mainland Japan invasion and subjugation were 1 million American troops, 20 million Japanese troops AND civilians. Now just think about that for a second… 20 million Japanese dead. Would they have ever recovered from such destruction?
I read an anecdote by someone who spent a lot of time in China and Korea. His hosts would - half-jokingly - rank US presidents from best to worst like this: Best: Truman, since he nuked Japan twice. Worst: Truman, since he nuked Japan *only* twice. Given things like Unit 731, the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, I have no doubt about the veracity of this anecdote. In short, the answer is: Yes.
Of course there were other options to using the bomb, but all other options would most likely result in more causalities, on both sides. Simply continuing the blockcade would have resulted in millions of Japanese starving to death, as well as our military forces, our POWs, and civilians in countries occupied by Japan continuing to die. The third option, of dropping the 'unconditional surrender' demand would most likely be seem by the Japanese as a sign of weakness and encourage them to insist on their other conditions: that there be no occuapation of Japan, that the Japanese would oversee their own disarmament and any war crimes trials, and possibly that they retain some of their conquests.
There may have been many more options but Japan was given an option and they chose not to take the most peaceful option since the United States expended thousands of lives And probably a couple of billion dollars they get to decide what the final act will be
@@hansfrankfurter2903 When you decide to attack without warning without declaring war while your politicians are in the United States pretending to negotiate for peace you don’t get to decide anything after that war you don’t get to decide when you surrender you are told went to surrender and if you don’t the bombs continue coming there was a third bomb I don’t know why they didn’t drop it
@@jeromemalenfant6622 That was never ever going to happen the military had to be removed the infrastructure of the military link to the government had to be removed there was never going to be a conditional surrender it was unconditional or the bombs we continue the winners get to write the final act of the screenplay
They should’ve known better than to attack the U.S in the first place. Now yeah, I hate that civilians were killed during the drops, but that’s how it had to be to defeat The Empire Of Japan.
It looks like you have been being lied to. First, the Allies started the war. Starting in 1927, the United States ordered Chinese warlords to carry out anti-Japanese terrorist activities in exchange for weapons and funds. This was to prevent Japan from expanding its interests in China through business or friendship, not aggression. The Chinese warlords sabotaged the operation of Japanese facilities, looted/raped/slaughtered Japanese residents, and kidnapped/tortured/slaughtered members of the Japanese security forces. There are dozens of those acts that stand out, and among them are multiple massacres of extreme brutality.(Ex.Tongzhou incident) Theoe were the causes of the Manchurian Incident and the Chinese Incident, but the reason the Chinese did such anti-Japan terrorism was because the United States, the Soviet Union, and Britain paid for it. Japanese soldiers were fighting back against the Chinese warlords who were committing atrocities on the Japanese residents, but repeatedly had called for peace. However, the United States criticized Japan for invading China on the basis of expansionism, and tightened its grip on Japan with economic sanctions and embargoes. The Roosevelt administration thought that if it participated in WW2, it would be able to get out of the Great Depression, make more money, and hopefully gain world hegemony with the dollar. But the American people were against the war, so FDR severely cornered it to make Japan make a preemptive attack. The United States used a similar hand this time. The forces writing the scenario are probably the same.
Meh...the Japanese were not stupid when it came to Russia. Russia told them in April of 45 that they were no going to extend the non-aggression agreement. The Japanese saw the massive build up of Soviet forces...they knew it was coming. This presentation is just a dying echo of what the presenter talked about in the revisionists of the 1960's and 1970's. The academic left can not let go of it. They are old and bitter.
No, nothing justifies the use of the atomic bomb. It was a power trip and bragging by Truman. How can you kill 120,000 innocent men, women, children, and elderly in an instant in the cause of saving soldiers who volunteer to go to battle? This is not proper reasoning but “rationalization”.
We could have at least tried to offer them surrendering terms that they would have be much more open to, and that we would eventually give anyways like the Emperor being able to live. This is a testament to the fact that we could have at least tried to do this beforehand.
The first bomb was dropped on them and they refused to surrender what do you think other than the bomb would’ve persuaded them to surrender the answer is nothing it took two bombs to get them to surrender to bombs that’s amazing
You cannot be that stupid. They were offered prior to the first bomb, they refused and it was dropped. Then they were offered again, and they refused. Who dresses you in the morning?
@@ronemtae3468 He said right there in his comment, conditions protecting the emperor. Even when Japan surrendered on August 10 they still included conditions about the emperor and Truman only accepted at that point because he felt guilty for all the children he killed with the atomic bombs
Yes Truman had other options but the bombs impressed the Japanese, British and french as well . Why else would the European powers take a backseat to the US on the global stage, after the Suez crisis?
Zackery Daley --- Yes Truman had other options but the bombs impressed the Japanese, British and french as well . Why else would the European powers take a backseat to the US on the global stage, after the Suez crisis? Wayne Patterson --- Because among other important reasons they were financially broke, unable to afford substantial military forces and their operations, and were still recovering from the consequences of World War Two. The British did not end the rationing of sugar until 1960. Britain and France both faced mutinies due to the postwar efforts to keep their troops in service with poor conditions of service. The Soviets lost a million people to a famine in 1946-1947 after the American suspension of the Lend-Lease food and material supplies to the belligerent Soviet government. Britain and especially the Soviets survived in WWII on a diet of American canned Spam meats and other American Lend-Lease foodstuffs.
@@danielscalera6057 --- "Eisenhower threatened serious damage to the British financial system by selling the US government's pound sterling bonds." Wayne Patterson --- You're taking the event out of context and misrepresenting the cause and effect by omitting the rest of the story.
@@waynepatterson5843 England and France collaborated with Israel to try maintaining European control over the most important choke point for European trade. Soviets allied with Egypt so of course opposed the action while America opposed it to...end European power abroad?
2 million+ casualties for the Allies alone, how is that less deaths? The Japanese have been fire bombs for months and they wouldn't give in. This is the best option
@@ct-xw9dj 2 million? do you see alternative time lines or something? not even 1 more person needed to die, all they had to do was accept the Japanese surrender with the condition that the emperor is unharmed and kept emperor.
@@hansfrankfurter2903 Japan didn't just want to keep the Emperor, they also wanted to keep their military junta government, control their own demilitarization (which means don't really demilitarize at all), and have no Allied troops occupy Japan proper. They wanted basically a white peace.
But to be honest Japan attacked America for no reason Pearl harbour the us wasn’t planning to inter the war but Japan did a fatal mistake by attacking the US but still they didn’t deserve a huge punishment like nuclear bombing
The US did embargo Japan in regard to oil which lead to Pearl Habor. The Japanese heavily underestimated the American spirit which cost them dearly. Wonder what would've happen if the Japanese discovered oil in Indonesia
It wasn't a punishment. The war was still ongoing and the only options to finish it were to invade like we did Germany or go the route we did. Considering we suffered 25,000 casualties on Iwo Jima alone, imagine the cost of a mainland invation of Japan both on our forces, the Japanese forces and the civilian population.
Robert Julius Oppenheimer didn't tell us everything. Some details were missed. 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 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. 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 scientist 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.
It’s a very complex double edged sword the bombs posses. On one hand, the bomb dropping was wrong because the suffering of the victims. If they didn’t die from the bomb, they died a slow and painful death from the radiation effects. On the other hand, Truman really had barely any choice since if they kept policies, the war would be going on for much longer. The invasion would be terrible since it would cause the death of millions of both Americans and Japanese soldiers and he didn’t want that.
From beginning of 1945, Japan had been requesting peace talks to the United States through Mr. Dulles of the 0SS (the predecessor agency of the CIA) in Switzerland. The record of repeated contacts calling for peace talks from the Japanese government can be found on the CIA website as a PDF file with the following name: “Memoranda for the President: Japanese Feelers” This PDF file shows that the Government of Japan was asking the United States to talk the end of the war repeatedly. And it was recorded that they admitted defeat and argued that retention of the Emperor was the only condition for surrender, which was necessary to prevent Japan from becoming a communist nation. Communist thought denies and destroys tradition and culture. Just as the Russian Empire was lost by the Russian Revolution, becoming a communist country means the destruction of the state. Even if the war can be ended before the total annihilation of Japan by the Allies, if Japan becomes a communist country due to the loss of the existence of the emperor, it means the destruction of Japan. So the retention of the Emperor was the condition that Japan couldn’t compromise. And that's why Stalin continued to persistently demand the execution of the emperor, and some people in the Roosevelt administration who it turned out that they were communists in the Venona document, had tried to have Truman to execute the emperor many times. The draft of the Potsdam Declaration was supervised by Joseph Grew, the former ambassador to Japan. The draft contained one sentence authorizing the guarantee of the emperor's status along with some conditions of surrender, such as disarming the Japanese army and not colonizing Japan. Because Grew had heard of the above report, knew well why Japan wanted the retention of the Emperor, and knew that Japan would surrender as soon as the Potsdam Declaration allowed the retention of the Emperor. This Grew’s action is proven by the Truman memoir. It says: "Grew arrived at the end of May and suggested to make a declaration urging Japan to surrender. The declaration provided Japan with a guarantee that the United States would allow the Emperor to remain head of state." "I told him that I had already considered this issue and that (Grew's suggestion) seemed like a sound opinion." However, when the Potsdam Declaration was read out, the sentence guaranteeing the emperor's retention was deleted. Because the United States wanted to conduct examinations on the dropping of the completed nuclear bomb against “the Japanese people.” Since Washington had not responded, Japan had asked also the Soviet Union to mediate negotiations to end the war based on the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact. In other words, Japan raised a white flag to the United States and the Soviet Union, but they did not reply at all until the Potsdam Declaration. Without replying, the U.S. military carried out air raids on 430 cities in Japan. LeMay's airstrike method was very ruthless and merciless. That method burned down the area after burning all the edges of the planned airstrike area first so that no one could escape from the area. In the Tokyo air raid on March 10, 1945, more than 100,000 Japanese civilians were burned to death in 2 hours. As LeMay said later, the U.S. Air Force had tried to kill as many Japanese as possible. It’s mean the United States was convinced of victory, and it was also convinced that it would not be charged with war crimes later. So these indiscriminate genocides were carried out without hesitation. And it is clear that the purpose of the United States was to make governance easier after the end of the war. Westerners often interpret that Japan did not have the will to surrender to the Allies because it was preparing for the decisive battle on the mainland. However, when the enemy ignores your request for End-War Talks and continues to attack, it is quite natural to prepare for the next possible attack such as "landing operation on the mainland", isn't it? In short, it was the United States that made Japanese say, "Fight to the last person." Kantaro Suzuki was the Prime Minister, who was clearly appointed by the Emperor with the intention of ending the war. For the Japanese government, the Potsdam Declaration was a response from the United States that had finally arrived after several months of negotiations to end the war. So Prime Minister Suzuki tried to proceed with the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. But what hindered it was that there was no wording to guarantee the Emperor's position. Suzuki inquired about this, but the United States did not give a clear answer. Even after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, there were pro-USSR military leaders who insisted that they should wait for the mediation of the Soviet Union. Also, the fact that the number of victims reported from Hiroshima immediately after the atomic bombing was about 80,000, which was less than the 115,000 victims of the Tokyo air raid on March 10 also affected the meeting. So, the Japanese government could not accept the Potsdam Declaration immediately because some of leaders refused to accept the Potsdam Declaration. However, on August 9, the Soviet started invasion. This invasion cut off the hopes of some leaders who were pro-Soviets, so Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration. In short, In order to end the war, there was no need for atomic bombs or landing operations. The United States also knew that the atomic bombing was unnecessary. But The United States did experiment of atomic bombings because it wanted to do an experiment against Japanese people and cities alive. What led to the acceptance of Japan's Potsdam Declaration to end the war was not the 2 atomic bombings, but the Soviet invasion.
Your speeches are so easy....because You have never know how people suffered front japanese soldiers atrocités....!!!! It's so easy for Philosoph ...to bark Their théories.....but the soldiers at thé front battles can't stop thé billets with your banking bla bla bla...!!!
I do not believe that Japanese soldiers committed no war crimes. However, NOT everything that the Allies have accused Japan of being committed by Japanese soldiers during World War II is true. The Allies circulated a lot of propaganda(fake news) to raise their fighting spirit, like recently. After the war, the Allies have further adapted and used them to hide the dirty demeanor they did and their own war crimes. The Nanjing Massacre is one of those Propagandas which was fabricated by anti-Japanese activist US missionary John Magee. Saying "This is what the Japanese soldiers did," he was showing footage of several Chinese on the ground in the United States. (BTW I couldn't help but remember his footage when I saw the footage called "The Bucha Massacre.") And Magee spread the lie in the United States that 50,000 Japanese soldiers killed 42,000 Chinese civilians. However, Japanese soldiers who actually entered Nanjing was only about 3,000. The reason why he worked to spread such propaganda was to make the anti-war American people accept the war with Japan. Then, this story was further distorted by the Allies, including Chiang Kai-shek, to justify the war with Japan. Today CCP insists that the number of victims is 300,000. On the other hand, the number of unarmed people in Nanjing that the National Revolutionary Army announced before fled from Nanjing was 200,000. And when the Japanese troops left Nanjing, there were about 220,000-250,000 citizens in Nanjing. This can be confirmed from multiple records. The reason why the number of people after leaving of Japanese troops is larger than the number announced by the National Revolutionary Army is that Nanjing citizens who had been evacuated for fear of fighting returned Nanjing. Anyone who can do elementary calculations will realize that this story is fabricated.
Jack Reacher --- You guys wiped out an entire generation.Imagine what people might have suffered during that moment.This is the biggest crime against humanity. Wayne Patterson --- Your comment is a lie. The American use of the atomic bombs were lawful acts of war which served to save the lives of tens of millions of Allied and Japanese lives that would have otherwise have been killed by the Japanese continuation of the war month by month. The militarists in the Japanese military government stated it was their intention to compel the Allies to accept the Japanese terms for an armistice that left them in control of Japan, conquered territories, and continued Japanese possession and use of chemical weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons of mass destruction, and future production of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. In the event the Allies continued to refuse the Japanese terms for an armistice and continued to insist upon any form of Japanese surrender, with or without the Emperor, the Japanese militarists controlling the government insisted upon continuing a hopeless war to the bitter end and the extinction of the Japanese population in a national suicide. The Japanese imperial General Headquarters - Tokyo had already ordered the mass murder of all remaining 123,000 Allied prisoners of war, Allied civilian internees, and Neutral civilian internees beginning on 20 August 1945. The American use of the atomic bombs to compel an immediate end of Japan's war upon the Allies saved the lives of those 123,000 people and tens of millions of other people while killing an official estimate of about 110,000 plus Japanese people, who had already been conscripted, armed, and trained to serve as combatants under the command of the Japanese armies. Furthermore, those mass murders of all remaining captives scheduled to begin on 20 August 1945 were ordered to murder the women and children by burning them alive in their shelters or by poisoning them and burning them in their shelters. A variety of other horrific methods of murdering the other captives ranged from burning the captives alive with gasoline in the air raid trenches to decapitations, bayonet practice targets, shootings, drownings, driven into the surf to be eaten by sharks, and cannibalism by the Japanese troops and civilians in the occupied territories. The modes of death used and planned to be used by the Japanese were far more horrific than anything suffered in the atomic bomb attacks and 200 times more numerous. It must also be noted that the Japanese militarists were a far greater threat to the lives of the Japanese people than were the Americans and Allies, which is why Emperor Hirohito risked being removed from the throne by the Japanese militarists rather than allow those militarists to continue their plan to commit the suicide of the entire population of Japan. Emperor Hirohito in the final case trusted the Americans and Allies with the safety of the Japanese people and his own position on the Throne of the Japanese Empire than he did his own suicidal military government. "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" campaign said that it was "glorious to die for the holy emperor of Japan, and every Japanese man, woman, and child should die for the Emperor when the Allies arrived." So, the actual number of combatants included "every Japanese man, woman, and child" in Japan's Home Islands. General Yoshitsugu Saitō ordered, "There is no longer any distinction between civilians and troops." Observe the actual Japanese use of child soldiers. See: Tekketsu Kinnōtai child soldiers on Okinawa commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Childsoldier_In_Okinawa.jpg Minister of War General Korechika Anami noted on 10 August 1945 in the meeting of the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War how he would rather see Japan and its people be annihilated rather than surrender, and he said, "Would it not be wondrous for this whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?" Captian Mitsuo Fuchida, 1st Air Fleet, Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service, Imperial Japanese Navy and one of the planners for the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on 7 December 1941 said to General Paul Tibbets, the unit commander and the pilot of the B-29 Superfortress bomber Enola Gay that dropped the Little Boy atomic bomb on Hiroshima: "You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude at that time, how fanatic they were, they'd die for the Emperor ... Every man, woman, and child would have resisted that invasion with sticks and stones if necessary ... Can you imagine what a slaughter it would be to invade Japan? It would have been terrible. The Japanese people know more about that than the American public will ever know."
U think japan forgot absolutly nooo , revenge will come one day , japan will end USA era its a matter of time , we are humans and humans never forget , forgive .
The issue everyone ignores in these debates is that US intelligence Proved that most of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually children. I know this was not the intent, but it is the cold, brutal fact! Thousands of helpless children, many too young to know why there was a war died cruel, horrific deaths that shocked and broke a nation. I do not excuse what Japan did, and honestly, I believe they should have been punished much harsher for their horrific war crimes. Hirohito personally should have stood trial for the barbaric things his government did. The Atomic Bombs punished the WRONG people. The once who suffered the worst, had no voice at all in the violence that ended with their deaths. This is what the bomb that fell in Nagasaki did to a boy who was just riding his bike. (Photograph of Sumiteru Taniguchi's back injuries taken January 31, 1946 by team of Lt. Daniel A. McGovern and Lt. Herbert Sussan, US Army): upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Sumiteru_Taniguchi_back.jpg Sumiteru just happened out delivering mail on his bike the morning of the bombing. There is also this photo a a little girl from Hiroshima who just happened to be outside when the bomb detonated. The flash burned her eyes, leaving her blind: www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-eyes-that-saw-a-nuke/ To blast Japan for its cruelty in war, after using weapons like this where they hit children, is not only sick, but shameless hypocarcy at it's worst. Yes, Yes, I've heard all the "They were warned" lines. Yet ultimatly, the US must own it's own sickening cruelty. Two wrongs don't make a right! The A bombs were barbaric overkill. Yes, war is brutal and cold, but even in war, it is possible to go too far!!
Going off hindsight, allowing the USSR to simply enter the war & start attacking Japan may have had far worse long term consequences than the 2 bombs did.
They'd expect equal weight in how to deal with Japan, whether that's dividing territory, implementing Communism, taking their "spoils of war," etc. You could end up with an East/West Germany situation, North/South Korea situation, or something else entirely. They may want to bring war criminals to trial, they may want to execute Hirohito, you never know...
Also, Japan was pretty adamant they were willing to fight out an Allied invasion. Despite some interest in surrender, many in leadership wanted to keep fighting, hold out & force the US to commit to a costly invasion. As you said, the US had been bombing for months. 60+ bombing missions, a naval blockade, & losing other territories still hadn't convinced them to surrender, so why would Truman think just continuing that avenue would be better (if anything, it likely kills even more Japanese people than the 2 atomic bombs, still prolongs the war & gets the USSR involved).
The fact their was a SECOND atomic bomb dropped speaks volumes to me alone. Even after repeated warnings from the US to Japan telling them what was to unfold (the 1st time), dropping leaflets over the city calling for evacuation for days in advance, then dropping the Hiroshima bomb... still no surrender 3 days later.
That about tells you the mindset & resolve of the Japanese command at that point. Even after Nagasaki, it took intervention by Hirohito himself to convince leadership to surrender. So the idea they would surrender eventually isn't the issue. It's how long were they willing to drag it out, how many lives would that cost, & how would that impact Japan post-war?
Definitely biased here, but I feel like the US ending it at that point was the best thing that could've happened for Japan. No Soviet division & interference, cooperation in rebuilding, reforming their society, building a strong economy, and kept their royal family.
I have been having a dilema. Do you think 3 days was enough time? Was there really a reason to quickly drop the second? I believe that Japan would be unable to defend against it.
@@babygoat58
They were unable to defend against it no matter what. They waited three days because if they decided to surrender there was plenty of time, and the shock factor. They didn’t want them to know there were only two bombs. They wanted them to think they had many.
Ah the American defending his fked up country, sleep kid. The crimes your country has committed are very harsh.
@@StarGaming3271
Japan, Germany, or the Soviet Union?
@@kurtvonfricken6829 America
My dad was home from 8th Air Force bombing missions over Germany in B17G. He was scheduled to train on the B 29 then go to the Pacific. He and friends were sitting in a dark movie theater in the Bronx when Jap surrender was announced. Since it was dark he cried out of a sense of relief that he'd live.
Your father is a respectable man.
i once asked a freind and mentor who was an AA gunner on an LST (landing ship, tank) on okinawa making preparations for the invasion how he flet about it. he said "i fell down and wept like a baby, because no i knew i would survive the war and get yp go home and make love to my beautiful wife again!"
Japan was planning on sustaining 20 million casualties from the Allied invasion. They were defeated, but they hadn't surrendered, which is quite different.
Blackett was a twat.
The surrender of Germany didn't mean the war was over people was still fighting.
@@raiitaly the bar and grill but I am at the bar and grill but I am
@@raiitaly
Germany had the brains to know when it was over. The atomic bombs were designed to be used against Germany but they knew when to quit. Japan didn’t and got a whole bunch of people killed.
Same energy as "Russia should nuke Kiev because Ukraine would bleed them dry if they invade"
When one judges historical wars, one has to take two things into account.
• Chrono-Diplomatic norms (Allowing for societal war norms in that time) PLUS cultural differences.
• And then the basic mathematical formula of the needs of the many versus the needs of the few.
To me, it was always a lose-lose for the U.S. We'd win eventually, but how bad a hand would we be left with after we stop? The Japanese had said they intended to bleed us dry in a war of attrition. Bring us to a negotiation table because of the losses.
And the only modern pro-con arguments are based on how the Japanese *may* have responded. No guarantees. So what move to make? No way to know or debate now.
Every counter-argumenrt has always relied on a different U.S. response, ultimately resulting in a different Japanese response forgoing the bombs, but *assuming* the Japanese respond how you assume they will. The problem is no one can know those potential responses, even now!
These all read as if 'it's a guarantee, woulda stopped it somehow.' Nonsense!
But the real truth is these were just options. There was no way to know the current power struggle going on within the Japanese Military Government, and a wrong decision could have cost countless more lives on both sides.
They had publicly stated that every breathing Japanese man, woman, or child, would fight to the last.
They gave prime examples of this on Okinawa, Iwo jima, etc., that didn't fall far from the bar.
So the U.S. War Department starts a fire bomb campaign, one of which destroyed a lot of Tokyo, plus much of the rest of Japan. Yet no indications of surrender. They put up a 'no surrender' face.
The last thing the U.S. wants is to lose a million soldiers, plus there's some face-saving, because even though that wasn't all these cilivilans hit day after day, so many were, and we can't look like the Nazis just blowing through armed civilians waging guerilla campaigns... General MacArthur believed that would have taken 10 years and millions of lives even after victory.
We had intel from some members of the Japanese War Cabinet that if they would *ever* surrender, it has to be to the Americans and NEVER to the Soviets. So we did know that late on.
So, now we have this new bomb. The decision is made to drop it. We destroyed a lot of other these targets already in fire bomb campaigns with zero Japanese mental-war fortitude affected as far as we know. But Hiroshima is largly untouched and they have industry.
So decision: bomb Hiroshima with the atom bomb - the the Soviets are already licking their chops like they did in Eastern Europe. So we do it first.
No responding after the first, and then the Soviets declare war on Japan days later. Same day, Nagasaki - second bomb.
The Japanese Military Government doesn't agree unanimously but sends stuff to the Emperor anyway, he survives an assassination attempt, but lives and agrees to surrender terms, and so basically stopping a Soviet incursion into Japan.
Several members of the Military Council commit ritual Seppuku.
Thats how it happened. My big problem with analyzing this portion of the war is compairing the adversaries. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan operated in so many different ways, from culture, to strategy, to tactics. I find that neighsayers compare their troops to Japanese troops. Night and day difference.
Bottom line, I think millions of lives both sides saved.
JS, IMO.
What happens under the wait and see policy when Russia enters the Pacific Theater? Due to prior incindeces to WW2 Russia has no love lost for Japan. A Soviet landing in the North of Japan could have been catastrophic with implications of a divided country.
The USSR did not have the ability to do an amphibious landing, or an airborne attack. I think the Soviet entry into the war was overrated in their surrender.
Paul Martin --- What happens under the wait and see policy when Russia enters the Pacific Theater? Due to prior incindeces to WW2 Russia has no love lost for Japan. A Soviet landing in the North of Japan could have been catastrophic with implications of a divided country.z
Wayne Patterson --- The Soviet Pacific Fleet and the Soviet Red Army had zero capability to successfully invade or occupy Hokkaido, which is why Stalin's planned gambits to make such attempts were advised by Marshal Zhukov in June 1945 to be impossible and Stalin's proposed attempt to land a two division occupation force with one rifle battalion per wave per day or two days at Rumoi, Hokkaido had to be canceled in August 1945. The Americans had to do a Lend-Lease transfer of a small flotilla of U.S. Navy small Tacoma Class frigates (patrol boats), four dozen LCI landing craft, and an assortment of minecraft and other auxiliary ships and craft to the Soviet Pacific Fleet to give them a capability to capture territories in Korea, Sakhalin, and the Kurils. The Japanese sank a sizable fraction of the landing craft and the former Tacoma class frigates (patrol boats) at the Battle of Shumshu in the Kurils. Stalin's planned "occupation" force had only six LCI landing craft available, which each nominally transported about 100-120 soldiers. Any surviving LCI then had to slowly return to base 300 miles away to load the next wave of riflemen without tanks and without any artillery other than perhaps one or a few pack or mountain howitzers. In other words, no such Soviet invasions of Hokkaido or the other Japanese Home Islands were remotely possible. See:
The Hokkaido Myth by D. M. Giangreco.
studyofstrategyandpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/journal-issue-2.pdf
It was estimated their would have been 1 million dead US ,drop the bomb? Yes.
catastrophic to the soviets. and heres why the premise that the russians invading manchuria is what really ended the war is utterly absurd. the military clique ruling japan had no intention of ending the war until it had forced the usa to invade so as to inflict so many casualties that the usa would be forced to sign a negotiated peace favorable to japan. so for the premise it was the russians to be true you would have to maintain it was the fear of the russian invasion who had little amphibious experience and little amphibious infrastructure while simultaneously trying to force the worlds premier amphibious operations military (the usa) with the largest amphibious infrastructure literally in human history. utter nonsense.
On July 21, 1945, a senior US Army Air Force intelligence officer in the Pacific distributed a report declaring: “The entire population of Japan is a proper Military Target . . . THERE ARE NO CIVILIANS IN JAPAN.” Those seeing this for the first time think it represents hyperbole at best, racist sanction for mass extermination at worst. It was neither. This document does provide a portal to see exactly how the summer of 1945 looked to Americans, particularly those directing or participating in final operations against Japan.
When 1945 began, Japanese leaders recognized their nation’s dark military situation, but they rejected any form of surrender. Instead, they devised a sequenced military and political strategy called Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive.) Its fundamental premise: Americans possessed enormous material power but their morale was brittle. The plan aimed to meet the initial invasion of Japan (which they correctly anticipated would be on southern Kyushu) with massive ground and air forces. These would either defeat the invasion attempt or at least inflict such horrific casualties-American and Japanese--that American will to continue the war would be broken. Then in the second phase of the plan, Japan would obtain a negotiated settlement of the war, far from the declared American aim of the unconditional surrender of Japan. That settlement would certainly preclude an occupation of Japan and guarantee that the old order would continue.
What about the peace overtures through the Swiss, the Soviets , the Vatican and so on for a negotiated surrender? I mean I guess that's totally consistent with what you wrote, but to my understanding the only real barrier to surrender was leaving the emperor unharmed as a symbol of Japan. Is this close to being accurate?
@@hansfrankfurter2903 Japan was asked to surrender without any conditions they wanted conditions that was not one of the options given to them so the second bomb was dropped there was a third bomb and if they didn’t surrender unconditionally the third one would’ve been dropped
@@hansfrankfurter2903 The people who started the war had to be removed they had to be ousted from the government they were setting the terms for surrender and that was not an option
President Harry Truman believed unconditional surrender would keep the Soviet Union involved while reassuring American voters and soldiers that their sacrifices in a total war would be compensated by total victory. Disarming enemy militaries was the start; consolidating democracy abroad was the goal. Only by refusing to deal with dictators could Germany and Japan be redesigned root to branch, writes Richard Samuels in a New York Times book review of Marc Gallicchio's new book.
Rone - Yes , the "Big Six " knew they were defeated , but wanted to make it so costly for an American invasion that the Truman administration would seek an armistice . The US was not interested in an armistice because they had seen how Germany had risen up again after WW I and the Treaty of Versailles . Rather , the US wanted to change Japan's constitution and change the country into a democracy . Which they did in 1947 . The US also brought in aid to Japan after the war .
On correction : the US condition's for Japan's surrender were outlined in the Potsdam Declaration of July 26th 1945 .
.
US conducted air attacks as Japs did in China etc. if Japs failed to defend their cities, that is on them. US was under no obligation to only fight in ways that accommodated Japanese abilities.
Do you think the Japanese would have hesitated for even a second to drop the nuclear bombs if they had them instead of us?
I bet not one of these revisionist historians actually landed on Iwo Jima or Okinawa or being trained to invade Mainland Japan those people and the mothers and fathers are the only opinion that matters
Exactly.
You didn’t either. And no they aren’t the only opinions that matter, that is emotional and irrational.
@@hcaballero1992 Neither did you, Caballero. Nor I. Dennis made an excellent point about historians revising history to suit their personal views and political imperatives. When those same historians begin to question the necessity of Operation Overlord, I'll pay attention.
@@glennhubbard5008 exactly my point as to why I think claiming “you weren’t there” is somehow a logical argument.
kind of stupid mindset, i get your first part of your comment but saying only a certain group of peoples opinion is valid is beyond dumb.
The Hauge convention's definition of a war crime is "Any military action that deliberately targets civilians in a theatre of war." I leave you to decide if these bombings deliberately targeted civilians.
The JIN and JIA committed millions of brutal atrocities in Korea , Manchuria , China Vietnam , Formosa , the Philippines , Indonesia , Hong Kong , Burma - An estimate 19 million died as a result of a war Japan started in 1937 Japan walked out of the League of Nations - Japan and the Nazi's didn't give a s** t about the Hague Convention .
.
It was actually Truman and his advisors that got rid of Japan's military gov and brought in human and democratic right - when they changed Japan's Constitution in 1947 .
.
Imagine US go starving Japan with a blockade. Imagine historians, now, asking if US had the right to do it! Unfortunately, war is war and not an exercise of good intentions!
Just unfortunate we don't have window into alternate timelines where the atomic bombs are not used and then what would have happened instead.
Tbh if my options are get atomized or starve and conventionally bombed, think I'll take the nuclear option
Yes - Truman and advisory teams debated every possibly
Invading Japanese shorelines would’ve been worse than Normandy
It must be made clear that the argument Blackett made has almost no solid backing of truth, he made this claim on the basis of a theory he could not prove with solid evidence, just be aware.
And by the way, there is a consensus generally speaking amongst historians, the United States and allies did the vast majority of the work to bring Japan to its knees and facilitate a surrender, the advent of the Soviets joining the fight in early August was the final push, and so the Japanese surrender was brought fourth for two reasons, not just one or the other.
However the vast majority of the credit for defeating the Japanese in the pacific belongs to the United States marine corps and the US navy.
"might be", "may be", "could be", "was possible", "who knows?", "why not?"
Given the atrocities committed everywhere occupied by the Japanese, and the impending butcher's bill of Operation Downfall, and the realities of the times, there wasn't really much choice if Truman wanted to avoid a blood bath.
Operation Downfall would have made Vietnam look like a teddy bear's picnic.
War is a blood bath, The difference is that with proper Rules of engagement, Operation Downfall could have killed less civilians, especially children. Operation Downfall would have been ugly, I am not arguing that point at all. The real question is do you want to put the main horror of the war on Adults, or children. Again both would have effected people of all ages. However, in a ground battle, some measures could have been taken to offer a little bit of protection for those too young to fight.
@@Freesoler01 True but it's in the nature of things for a the tribe to look out for its own primarily. Truman was being asked to save the blushes of a population the armed forces of which had been the genocidal scourge of whoever they encountered at the expense of his own people. Given his options that was never going to happen.
You also have to take into account that the Japanese operated on a very different system of military ethics to the western powers. A very brutal death cult.
The revised US Intelligence report of July 29th (?) , 1945 showed that more Japanese divisions were being transferred to Kyushu ( Operation Olympic ) - it would have been the Battle of Okinawa multiplied by many times .
Just reading about the casualties in Okinawa is not good .
This is the only reason, why everyone should have their own nukes.
Countries Situation always depends on time. But the reality of power only exists when you have the right man and right weapon.
No one should have nukes, wtf
.
Powerstar - suggest studying how WW I started - all it took was a spark to ignite all the tension .
.
It was the best choice Truman had at his disposal.
An interesting bit of history is that Patrick Blackett was Oppenheimer's physics advisor at Cambridge .
I don't know the story about the apple - but it seems the 2 did not see eye to eye .
.
It is a silly question. Like asking if the invasion of France was necessary.
It's not silly. Four of the five men who were generals at the time of the bombing are on record saying or writing that it was not necessary and Japan was going to surrender anyways. It was entirely to prevent the Soviet Union from invading Northern Japan via Manchuria and, thereby, resulting in a communist part of Japan. It was used to threaten the Soviets because the U.S. viewed them as the ultimate enemy even though they temporarily had to ally with them to defeat the Axis.
@@therach7841 So those four generals were privy to communications at the Ministries of War and Navy and within the Imperial Household? Not to mention the General Staff and Naval Staff, plus field army headquarters? Not likely.
@@therach7841 and heres why the premise that the russians invading manchuria is what really ended the war is utterly absurd. the military clique ruling japan had no intention of ending the war until it had forced the usa to invade so as to inflict so many casualties that the usa would be forced to sign a negotiated peace favorable to japan. so for the premise it was the russians to be true you would have to maintain it was the fear of the russian invasion who had little amphibious experience and little amphibious infrastructure while simultaneously trying to force the worlds premier amphibious operations military (the usa) with the largest amphibious infrastructure literally in human history. utter nonsense.
We all know that if Japan had a atomic bomb and were in our situation they would have used it.
Yes.
Happy to help. One of these days these type questions will be asked of the Soviets for their early European war agreement with Hitler, only to flip and years later invade Japan from the North.
Let us never forget how the Soviets lead Germany do research and weapon development in the Soviet Union outside of the eyes of the Europeans when you help a former enemy to rebuild why would they suddenly not be your enemy
5:50 - Kevin Ruane is playing games here.
In 1943 , FDR's policy towards Japan and Germany was unconditional surrender .
However , Harry Truman's policy toward Japan was clearly outlined in the 13 points of the Potsdam Declaration , issued on July 26th, 1945 . Truman wanted to change Japan into a democracy .
Point 10 ) states " The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people . Freedom of speech, of religion , and of thought , as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established . "
Point 12 ) " The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in the accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined ans responsible government . "
Suzuki rejected the Potsdam Declaration by famously stating " Mokaustsu " ( US interpreted as ignoring it with silence )
Under US occupation , Japan's Constitution was changed in 1947 . Both Men and Women gained democratic rights
All Japanese citizens gained human rights .
So why did Kevin Ruane not mention any of this ? ... and he teaches at Canterbury Chris Church University .
Should Universities be in the pursuit of academic truth ?
.
What does a British atomic scientist know about how the imperial Japanese cabinet worked. The fact is, and I am astonished it is not mentioned here, is that even after the 2nd bomb (!!!) the imperial Japanese cabinet was evenly divided 3 for accepting the Potsdam declaration, 3 against and as a result they appealed to the emperor to break the deadlock. Who to the shock of his armed forces, accepted the Potsdam declaration. Had it not been for that 2nd bomb, the cabinet would never have been deadlocked
Very good response by Jefferson. However, Mr Ruane is simply reiterating other possible choices backed up by various sources, leaving one to say as far as US motives go, the verdict is out.
However, it's the well documented historical response that Jefferson describes where we get the most likely response; Japan unlikely to surrender as that goes against a long national and cultural mindset. Think of brutal treatment by Japan of its conquered nations, treatment of POWs, a cultural and religious philosophy around honour that causes Kamikaze pilots and others to commit Seppuku. Entrenched beliefs almost if not, impossible to defeat. It would take a nation being brought overwhelmingly to its knees which occured by BOTH nuclear bombs AND threat of USSR invasion.
@@bonnieboulter9486- A good indication of the motives of the US were outlined in Henry Stimson's recommendations submitted on July 2nd , 1945 . This is now declassified and on line in the US National Archives .
Concerning the atomic bomb , I think there were 3 recommendation committees in the US the science , target and Truman's military advisors . The science committee submitted their recommendations on June 16th - basically saying there were many varied opinions , but we see no other alternative but to direct military use . In other words , they did not recommend a demonstration .
.
Also , the US wanted to end the war with minimum loss of US life - and Japanese lives . Truman did not want an Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other . Truman was an artillery captain in WW I and had experienced war . The US was aware of how Germany had risen up again after WW I and the Treaty of Versailles . The Potsdam Declaration states the US wanted to get rid of Japan's military government once and for all .
Japan's " Big Six " knew they were defeated and as you have pointed out culturally they would not accept defeat . So they wanted to make the casualty rate so high that the US would agree to an armistice .
It has been suggested to me that the US wanted an ally in the Pacific against rising communism . But I have no evidence to support this claim .
.
Ultimately the US wanted to end the war with the minimum loss of life and to install a democratic government in Japan .
.
The Japanese should be thankful for the amount of mercy they were shown.
If Truman had told Chiang Kai-Shek: There are boats, now go over there and have your revenge, there would not be any Japanese left.
The truth is what we learned in 1990's from Russian records and that is Japan had two nuclear programs run by the Army and the Navy of Japan.
We destroyed the Army program, but the Navy actually had a test run using a device the size of a ship and it did go off. Lucky for us the Russians captured it in Koria and took it all away, people and every nail found. We did not have a clue till the 1990's with the fall of the Soviets. So, there is no moral high ground here for anyone, war sucks.
they produced so many purple hearts in anticipation of the invasion of japan that theyre still being awarded 80 years later for the global war on terror. and heres another thing to think about the numbers of deaths by war had been going up exponentially (especially during the 20th century) up until 1946. after the bombs were dropped the number stabilized (more or less) at a fraction of what it had been prior to the bombs being dropped.
My grandpa was at Okinawa. Invading Japanese was not an option and as horrible as the bomb was it ultimately caused less suffering to the Japanese (and also Americans) than dropping the bomb.
Same energy as "Russia should nuke Kiev because Ukraine would bleed them dry if they invade"
Hindsight- a great way to make easy money!
Just ask Kevin, he knows very well.
I think if you look at the results that we are currently living with is really difficult to argue against dropping that horrific weapon
Let's be frank - this yet another attempt to downplay the genuine shortening of the war by Allied technological co-operation and US military might. Perish the thought that the Allies could be anything but the baddies. Hirohito should have been executed by public hanging.
The nuclear bomb is a genie that should never have been let out of the bottle. The Cold War would have gone a lot different if America didn't use the Bomb in wartime first
@@danielscalera6057 I’m happy to US use the bomb on Japan but God I hope it’s never ever use again but I hope my government is willing if pushed into it to use that weapon
@@danielscalera6057 however,the bombing cannot be unjustified as well.
Even after getting hit with two Atom bombs, the Japanese didn't want to surrender unless the word " unconditional " was taken out of the demand. They were lucky only two bombs were available at the time. Dropping them was the right decision. Not executing the emporer was a mistake.
Would you surrender if it meant Christ being executed by a foreign power?
@@cookechris28 if he was at the head of a organization that was doing the horrid shit the Japanese military did and was doing and still did nothing even knowing it for YEARS, then yes.
Loul - The Emperor was considered a divinity and Japan's military government got all their power through him .
This is why Japan's military government did not want to change the status of the Emperor .
The Potsdam Declaration made it clear that the US wanted to remove Japan's military government for all time and bring in human rights .
The US changed Japan's Constitution in 1947 . Their new Constitution is actually based on Britain's Westminster system - a Constitutional Monarchy . The status of the Emperor was changed from a divinity to the " Symbol of the State and Unity of the People ."
To keep political continuity in Japan , the US did not put Hirohito on trial for war crimes .
.
I think for the people at the time, the atomic bombs were just another weapon to be used in the war. Like, either this, or military invasion.
What makes the atomic bomb so horrifying is the absolute total damage it caused almost instantly.
Hardly, within moments of the first one detonating in a test in the New Mexico desert, the US knew they had forever changed what war could become. No other weapon ever created can latterly change the weather around you. You should read the survivor accounts of the fierce "Firey Winds" and the infamous "Black Rain" of poison that falls on survivors. Keiji Nawazawa, the creator of "Barefoot Gen" and "I Saw It" describes nuclear fall out this way "At first, I though it was raining heavy oil, it was thick black and sticky." This was the memory of someone who was six when the bomb fell. For any adult to believe that is " just another weapon to be used in the war" they would have to have a serious problem.
My dad was scheduled to invade the mainland. In his words "the bomb saved his life" and made my life possible. I don't take kindly to your twisted logic.
My Dad too, he was trained & ready to go. He was transferred from England for the beginning of the invasion, when the bomb was dropped. I probably wouldn't be here either
So according to you , your life is worth more than that of the innocent civilians and families who died at that day? I cant believe how much americans feel entitled to everything.
@@its4481 we're just saying that's the way it turned out. Every life is precious be it Japanese or American, corporate head or Janitor. God puts it this way, " One life is worth more than the world and everything in it. "
Y por qué tenían que invadir Japón? Aunque ellos no se rindieran, nunca podrían hacerle frente a Estados Unidos
@@michaelpawlowicz890 You didnt phrase it the same way OP did. I ve got no problem with your view on this case , but his is extremely selfish and entitled.
No doubt about it. PERIOD
people who say yes are hypocrites, I wonder what they will say if that happens to them or a close relative
True
The bombs are justified.
Put yourself in the shoes of an American in 1945... No Internet, No TV, No Satellites, just War News every day!!!
The Americans were absolutely correct for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan effectively ending the Japanese aggression in Asia and South Pacific.
did you even watch the video?
So USA took revenge by killing millions of innocent people just because their pretty naval base was destroyed?
@@tywinlannister6881 Do you have any clue Who Started the War? and the crimes committed by Japan and How many lives were saved on Both Sides by dropping the A Bombs? Clearly Not? Look up Rape of Nanking to see what Japan did to China to get facts!
@@tywinlannister6881 Japanese were killing average 7000 Chinese every day for 8 years non stop. Who's lives are more important? Leaving Japanese keep killing others or end the war? They killed 300K in nearly the first week when the conquer Nanking. How can you guarantee this is not happening again? One day delaying of Japan surrender, another hundred of thousands were killed and tortured to death by them . Read the book Rape of Nanking, read about 731 unit. Read about how they raped , tortured Mums, Dads, sisters , daughters , read about how they waving a knife with a baby hanging on it. Read about how they vivisactiom just to see the reaction when people dying. Read about their mother's love experiment by putting mum and baby in hot burning metal just to see when it was too hot, the mother would step on the baby?
@@tywinlannister6881 We did it all across Germany. WW2 was total war, women and children died everywhere the bombers and infantry went. If you want to condemn the atom bombs for that reason, you need to condemn the entire Allied war effort as well.
4:24 oh the irony. this image of b-29s dropping their payload was taken from a leaflet dropped on japan prior to the dropping of the bombs warning civilians to flee the 10 cities listed (ie on the short list of possible targets) as well as other cities. how often in the history of human conflict has prior warning of the use of a war ending weapon been afforded an enemy?
btw the japanese high command forbade civilians fleeing their cities as it would disrupt war production which included small private workshops in individual private homes turning out small bits into the pipeline of japanese war production.
Another myopic evaluation. Since when is fire bombing Japanese cities any more humane than Nuking them. It’s a distinction without a practical difference. The fire bombing of Tokyo took more lives than Nagasaki or Hiroshima and they still refused to quit. Use your head.
Was bombing Pearl Harbor necessary? Nope. The atrocities in China? Nope. How about the cruel and inhumane treatment of POWs? Not hardly. Kamikaze attacks? No.
One thing was clear. American soldiers were becoming war weary. There was some discontent from soldiers who were to transferred to the Pacific theater from Europe.
Japan could’ve quit the war back in 1944 when they didn’t have a pray but they didn’t. So how long should the U.S. have waited for Japan to realize they couldn’t win?
Using the arguments of someone who had zero impact on war policy is pointless. Working on the Manhattan project makes them no more informed on the war than the other 130,000 individuals who worked on the Manhattan Project.
What the fuck? If anyone is myopic here, it's certainly you.
Because you're too myopic to imagine children with their skin being melted off, and their eyeballs being gellified. Because you're too myopic to imagine the generational damage that radiation has on an individual. Too myopic to bat an eye at families being tortured by hunger, fire, radiation, thirst, disease, decay, blunt force trauma, and everything of the sort. Too myopic to imagine the cancer, and the sickness, and the unimaginable pain, decades after the war ended. Too myopic to consider that there were very few strategic military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Firebombing isnt good, it's painful as well. But that doesn't mean you cant evacuate. With firebombing, a town could be evacuated. Lives could be saved.
The horrors, the absolute nightmares that those two cities went through, are nothing a fucking "firebomb" can achieve. Miss me that fucking bullshit.
Exactly, you COULD say this about anything. In fact, that's a historically popular way war crimes get handwaved, and ethnic cleansing excused.
We aren't saying it about "anything".
We're saying it about THOSE bombs.
There are other considerations not addressed here. Prisoners of war were suffering and every day the war persisted, more would die. The Soviets hadn't just entered the war, they were rampaging into Manchuria with elite armored divisions, they even had eyes on teh Korean Peninsula. The Japanese were beaten in August 45, but they simply would NOT surrender. It was imperative that the war end ASAP. The A bomb was more than justified and it saved lives and educated future leaders abou tthe horrors of nuclear war.
I can totally buy that! I do think it was a kill 2 birds with one stone type of thing. Whether we were winning or not with Japan it was very hard fought and this put a stop once and for all and it was a way to tell Stalin (and the world) Do u want some of this? But I don't think the war in itself with Japan would have been enough without the impending threat from Russia. Is it right or wrong? IDK. I know we were in a brutal war
I thought this was quite disingenuous. The Japanese had 0 intention of surrendering - their strategy was to have the US invade, for there to be a total bloodbath and to extract concessions in this way. The only way they would have come terms was that if the Imperial polity, the Emperor as a living god continued, occupation was either nil or limited to a few sites, they supervised their own war criminal trials and oversaw their own disarmament. For obvious reasons none of this was remotely acceptable to the US. In the end after the bombs were dropped they had to accept the Potsdam Declaration because their Ketsu-Go strategy was a dead letter. Prime Minister Suzuki subsequently wrote that this was because the US could have dropped 1 atom bomb after another and continued to blockade and the Japanese would have been powerless.
It would have taken many months for the Japanese to have surrendered otherwise, during which time there would have been mass starvation in Japan, the deaths of pretty all Allied POW's in their hands; and the deaths of countless Asians killed by the Japanese Army in China and all the territories they continued to offer. There would have been substantial casualties amongst British Commonwealth forces tasked to recapture Malaya.
The Soviet argument is very unconvincing - the Generals had written off the Kwantung Army, it was obvious that the Soviets weren't going to intercede with the Anglo-Americans on Japan's behalf and the Soviets could not possibly have invaded Hokkaido - they didn't have the means.
The Japanese military leadership contemplated the loss of millions of their own people rather than surrender. It was only after the bombs were dropped that more rational voices - notably civil and eventually the Emperor - were able to bring the war to an end.
The Emperor laid great stress on the role of the bombs in his Imperial Rescripts and in a letter to his son.
It was the bombs that did it
Gotta love these "Monday morning quarterbacks" who now claim Japan was defeated and America didn't need to use nukes. Tell that to the sailors who were still fighting off Kamakazi attacks on American warships and burying their shipmates at sea. If Japan was defeated, why did it take TWO nukes to finally get them to surrender? Japan was planning to fight on and bleed the US if it invaded, which would have been the only alternative. The War Department even had a slogan for the continuing war..."The Golden Gate in 48." Hard liner Japanese commanders had told the people that to die for the emperor, instead of surrendering, was an honor. The nukes SAVED LIVES...US AND JAPANESE.
Fun fact about nukes: If you know where to place them, you can outdo the Chicxulub extinction event easily, just place detonate them over every super volcano on Earth and we will turn into Mars in no time. No one cares about your American exceptionalist point of view, the Japanese posed no harm to American citizens, they were in no position to turn the tide of the war. Honestly it was "worth it" until the Ukraine-Russia conflict, have fun worrying about Putin going crazy and nuking NYC the next time you leave an idiotic comment.
I agree with you in general. They were defeated meaning they had zero percent chance of winning, but they were still dangerous. They would not surrender which would have negated the need to use nuclear weapons. It is entirely,100% Japan’s fault.
@@kurtvonfricken6829, thanks. So tired of hearing about the "poor Japanese" and the "merciless Americans."
Complete bullshit. The nukes were some sort of test for the upcoming conflict with the Soviets. The nukes killed houndred thousands of innocent civilians, many of them died in agony due to the radioactive radiaton. There is no justification for this crime.
Amen to that brother!
Did you know that Dwight D. Eisenhower was against dropping the bomb.
Michael Pawlowicz --- Did you know that Dwight D. Eisenhower was against dropping the bomb.
Wayne Patterson --- You are repeating a widely circulated myth that has been used as disinformation. Didn't happen. Few of the senior commanders were privileged to even see the MAGIC intercepts of the Japanese communications that revealed the War Faction's refusal to accept any form of surrender under any circumstances. See for one example a quotation from the historian, Robert James Maddox:
Robert James Maddox, The Biggest Decision: Why We Had To Drop The Atomic Bomb, American Heritage, May/June 1995, Volume 46, Issue 3....
Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman’s top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral’s memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had “said up to the last that it wouldn’t go off.”
Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. “This sounds fine,” he told the courier, “but this is only February. Can’t we get one sooner?” Nimitz later would join Air Force generals Carl D. Spaatz, Nathan Twining, and Curtis LeMay in recommending that a third bomb be dropped on Tokyo.
Only Dwight D. Eisenhower later claimed to have remonstrated against the use of the bomb. In his Crusade in Europe , published in 1948, he wrote that when Secretary Stimson informed him during the Potsdam Conference of plans to use the bomb, he replied that he hoped “we would never have to use such a thing against any enemy,” because he did not want the United States to be the first to use such a weapon. He added, “My views were merely personal and immediate reactions; they were not based on any analysis of the subject.”
Eisenhower’s recollections grew more colorful as the years went on. A later account of his meeting with Stimson had it taking place at Ike’s headquarters in Frankfurt on the very day news arrived of the successful atomic test in New Mexico. “We’d had a nice evening at headquarters in Germany,” he remembered. Then, after dinner, “Stimson got this cable saying that the bomb had been perfected and was ready to be dropped. The cable was in code . . . ‘the lamb is born’ or some damn thing like that.” In this version Eisenhower claimed to have protested vehemently that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” “Well,” Eisenhower concluded, “the old gentleman got furious.”
Myth holds that several of Truman’s top military advisers begged him not to use the bomb. In fact, there is no persuasive evidence that any of them did.
The best that can be said about Eisenhower’s memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time. Stimson was in Potsdam and Eisenhower in Frankfurt on July 16, when word came of the successful test. Aside from a brief conversation at a flag-raising ceremony in Berlin on July 20, the only other time they met was at Ike’s headquarters on July 27. By then orders already had been sent to the Pacific to use the bombs if Japan had not yet surrendered. Notes made by one of Stimson’s aides indicate that there was a discussion of atomic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower’s part. Even if there had been, two factors must be kept in mind. Eisenhower had commanded Allied forces in Europe, and his opinion on how close Japan was to surrender would have carried no special weight. More important, Stimson left for home immediately after the meeting and could not have personally conveyed Ike’s sentiments to the President, who did not return to Washington until after Hiroshima.
Eisenhower was in Europe at the time and didn't know they existed and had no say in the issue .
this guy is the goat
5:06 the military clique ruling japan had no intention of ending the war until it had forced the usa to invade so as to cause so many casualties as to force the usa to negotiate a peace favorable to japan. to this end they had thousands of suicide airplanes, boats and submarines cached to attack the invasion force and were training civilians to resist all the way down to training schoolgirls with bamboo spears and children to dive under vehicles with explosives strapped to them.
Thank you.
Maybe refer to what Hirohito himself said, in an unprecedented radio address to the Japanese people, for why they (HE) was ordering the unconditional surrender.
Here's a snippet .. "because of the new cruel bomb that could completely destroy our nation".
Fine with the use of nukes in war.. But I don't like that they were directed at primarily civilian targets
Nagasaki bombing was a steel factory location which they surrounded it with civilians. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. By the way, Hiroshima was a major port and a military headquarters. So your point is mute.
So killing people in the military is OK?
Nate Niezgoda --- Fine with the use of nukes in war.. But I don't like that they were directed at primarily civilian targets
Wayne Patterson --- False, because the atomic bombs were used to attack military targets and Japanese combatants. The Japanese casualties were conscripted to serve as combatants in the Japanese armies, the Laws of War required them to evacuate the military targets after having been warned of the imminent air bombardments, and , and their active participation in continuing the hostilities which Japan was waging against the Allies by deliberately killing tens of millions of people. The MARK I Little Boy atomic bomb was used to attack the military target described as the Second General Army and Headquarters located within the Hiroshima Castle in the City of Hiroshima and all of its subordinate military troops, facilities, and military manufacturing interspersed throughout Hiroshima. The Second General Army was responsible for the command and control, the logistics, and the military operations for about 1.1 million regular troops and tens of millions of Volunteer Fighting Corps and ordinary conscript militia in Southern Japan. The Second General Army was responsible for OPERATION KETSU-GO and its military operation on Kyushu in opposition to the OPERATION OLYMPIC invasion of Kyushu. The MARK I Little Boy atomic bomb killed an estimated 20,000 of the estimated 40,000 regular troops located within Hiroshima, killed about another 65,000 conscripted combatants who were former civilians, and killed no Japanese people who were "innocent civilians." It is due to the fact that the Japanese Government conscripted, armed, and/or trained former civilians to serve as combatants in the Japanese armies with weapons ranging from bamboo daggers and spears to hand grenades, improvised Human suicide bombs, machineguns, and anti-aircraft artillery that there were no longer any civilians or "innocent civilians" remaining in Japan by August 1945. All of the Japanese people ranging from newborn babies being used as explosive boobytraps to disabled adults serving s Human suicide bombs were conscripted to serve as suicidal combatants and commanded to kill ten of the enemy before being killed or committing suicide to escape surrender and being taken captive.
The MARK III Fat Man atomic bomb was used to attack and destroy the Mitsubishi Arsenals and other arsenals and military targets located within Nagasaki. Those arsenals were desperately needed by the Japanese armies to arm there troops for combat against the imminent Allied invasion of Kyushu scheduled for November-December 1945 in OPERATION OLYMPIC. The destruction of those arsenals severely crippled the Japanese ability to arm the hundreds of thousands of regular troops, Volunteer Fighting Corps, and ordinary militia assigned to conduct military operations against the Allied invasions on Kyushu. One of the arsenals is where torpedoes, Human piloted suicide torpedoes, and the aerial torpedoes used to sink the U.S. Navy battleships at the Pearl Harbor Naval base on 7 December 1941 were manufactured.
About one-third of the population of Hiroshima and about one-fourth f the population of Nagasaki heeded the American warnings to evacuate the military targets in compliance with the Laws of War requiring them to do so, and they were unharmed by the atomic bombs and unharmed by the conventional air bombardments. So, there could be no "innocent civilians" under any circumstances given the fact that the Japanese casualties were combatants who knowingly and deliberately risked becoming suicidal combatants serving the war effort at the military targets.
Fine with the use of nukes in war?
@@Rich-yj4ub the target factory was such a small spot though. The military was not blind to the fact that industrial portion of the city was surrounded by civilian homes. We did the same thing in Dresden. In hindsight it looks like we. targeted military targets without regard for nearby civilians populations.
and heres why the premise that the russians invading manchuria is what really ended the war is utterly absurd. the military clique ruling japan had no intention of ending the war until it had forced the usa to invade so as to inflict so many casualties that the usa would be forced to sign a negotiated peace favorable to japan. so for the premise it was the russians to be true you would have to maintain it was the fear of the russian invasion who had little amphibious experience and little amphibious infrastructure while simultaneously trying to force the worlds premier amphibious operations military (the usa) with the largest amphibious infrastructure literally in human history. utter nonsense.
Maybe if Japan didn't attack us I would give a shit what they thought.
Since 1927, the United States began ordering Chinese warlords to conduct anti-Japanese campaigns in exchange for financial and arms support.
That was in order to disturb Japan from expanding its interests in China through friendship and business.
The Chinese warlords sabotaged Japanese commercial facilities, looted/raped/massacred ordinary Japanese residents, and attacked/kidnapped&slaughtered Japanese soldiers.
(example: Tongzhou incident)
The atrocities of anti-Japanese terrorism against those Japanese residents and Japanese soldiers were the cause of the Manchurian Incident and the China Incident.
However, the Allies twisted those things, such as "Japan is an evil expansionist country and invaded China."
Because of the China-Japanese War provoked by the United States behind the scenes, the United States notified the cancellation of the Japan-U.S. Treaty of Commerce and Navigation in 1940 and revoked it.
This restricted U.S. exports of iron and oil to Japan.
After that, Japan entered French Indochina with the permission of the French government to Shut off the Chiang Kai-shek support route from the United States.
Because Chiang Kai-shek had ignored the repeated requests for ceasefire talks from Japan and prolonged the war.
Because of this entering, the United States imposed economic sanctions such as a total ban on oil exports to Japan and at the same time as freezing assets against Japan.
At that time, Japan was cornered in a very troubled situation because it depended on the United States for resources such as iron and oil.
On August 12, 1941, Roosevelt held a secret meeting on the Navy heavy cruiser Augusta with Churchill, who visited on the cruiser Prince of Wales, off Newfound Round Island in Canada.
Already at that time, Roosevelt and Churchill had decided that they forced Japan into a war with the United States, and decided that after defeating Japan, they would never again allow it to have the ability to self-defense.
This was 4 months BEFORE the attack on Pearl Harbor attack.
In short, even before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States and Britain had decided to make Japan a colony of the United States after fighting and destroying with Japan.
Incidentally, the United States was preparing to start a war against Japan from the United States in China in case Japan did not make a preemptive attack.
This attack plan was called “JB. No. 355.”
Concerning many US citizens still believe that atomic bomb made WW2 came to the end, I am the part of human race, says it is quite possible. Why ?
Japan as the last country ( after all others Germany, Italy had surrendered ) didn't show any sign to surrender and retuned to the negotiation table.
The use of negotiation and other solutions ( eg. The ban of international trade, etc ) will need long time to reaolve.
But however, as any violence towards civilians is the crime to the humanity, atomic bomb was also the crime towards Japan's civilians, if we say all of Japsn did in many Asia's countries and civilians was the war criminals, atomic bomb was also the same, itvwas the crime to millions innocent Japan's civilians. There is no justification for using atomic bomb to the civilians, but if it could be restricted only to the military target, ( providing it will not be off-target ) it might be allowed.
If we declare the6re should be no atomic, nuclear bomb use for war, then all countries especially the WW2 participants ( Germany, Japan, Italy ) should confirm they will not use any war or military forces to settle any problem with any countries.
Some people are afraid if the nuclear is banned some xountries will revive and do what they have done in WW2 aggain. But if we uphold the international treaty that WW2 participants ( Germany, Japan ) could not use their military forces OUTSIDE their country, such worries are unnecessary.
Let us make the whole world come to the eternal peace and the WW2 tragedy will not happen in the future.
Actually he meant "To save lives of WEST"
America has a disturbing policy of not distinguishing between civilians and combatants while valuing American lives more than others
@@danielscalera6057and do you know why they had that policy ?
A war crime.
IMO Le May's fire bombing of Tokyo was a war crime .
However , the atomic bombs were used to end the Asian Pacific war , with the minimum loss of life .
The US wanted to remove Japan's military government for all time and replace it with Democratic Constitutional Monarchy with human rights . Which they did in 1947 .
This is the reason why Japan is one of the top democracies in the world today .
.
One thousand percent correct
Yes, the US was absolutely right to drop the two A bombs. At the time, Japan deserved a whole lot more.
Yes, there was justification. It saved more lives than it took
Hypothetical American nutsack narrative
As the Potsdam Declaration makes clear , Truman and his advisors wanted to remove Japan's military government for all time and bring in human and democratic rights .
Japan's military government ignored the Potsdam Decoration .
The part no one ever seems to say is that while under US occupation , Japan's Constitution was changed in 1947 .
.
THe answer to the title of your video is "Absofrigginglutely Yes!!!
Yes.
Apparently
Since when SATAN ask for permission.
I think they used them because they put a lot of effort and money into creating them.
Was Japan justified in making war on peacetime American servicemen and peaceful civillian populations. Are the war crimes they committed acceptable or forgivable?
Sure its "war" no countries is innocent, but the only true monster here is "The butcher of Asia" President Truman and he IS TRULY A MONSTER FOR WHAT HE DID.
Actually , the Japanese military committed millions of horrific atrocities in Manchuria , China , Korea , the Philippines , Indonesia , Burma , and other Asian countries .
They used 10 million Asians and POW's in forced labour camps . It was disgusting what they did .
.
After the Doolittle raid , the Japanese military murdered 250,000 Chinese civilians in retaliation .
.
@@jimmyalexzander1941 The only true monster for a situation he didn't want, making choices that would've killed tons of people no matter what he did, and making the one that would've reduced the amount of casualties compared to an invasion(even if the targets could've been better picked).
Compare that to a military that raped, tortured, and/or killed millions for the hell of it
ABSOLUTELY without ANY equivocation whatsoever
The use of the Little Boy and the Fat Man was necessitated by 2 factors: the appearance of the Kamikazes, and s prediction by Gen Douglas MacArthur that the US would suffer 1,000,000 casualties in an invasion of Japan. Among that figure could have been my father and my uncles!!! - Marc Smith, born August 16, 1943.
Prediction of a scumbag!😊
Of course. A determinative fact is that if Japan was "so ready to surrender" BEFORE the first atomic bomb, then why did it not IMMEDIATELY surrender after that bombing? Japan did not surrender until after the SECOND atomic bomb. That proves it was necessary. The use of the atomic bombs saved millions of lives.
Japan did not surrender until Truman said the emperor could stay. In the Potsdam declaration he said that would never happen. August 12 Truman finally agreed to the most important condition Japan wanted for surrender
@@danielscalera6057 --- Japan did not surrender until Truman said the emperor could stay. In the Potsdam declaration he said that would never happen. August 12 Truman finally agreed to the most important condition Japan wanted for surrender
Wayne Patterson --- That is incorrect. Japanese pacifists in the Japanese government and the Japanese Diplomatic Corps, who never wanted Japan to go to war against the British and/or Americans in the first place, were encouraged to communicate in secrecy through Neutral diplomats with representatives of the U.S. Government who would negotiate either an armistice or acceptable terms of surrender for Japan. The Japanese diplomats at the Swiss and Swedish embassies were among those principally involved in those efforts upon their own initiatives. Allen Dulles in Switzerland communicated to the Japanese diplomats how the United States was prepared to negotiate and favor the Emperor's continuation of the Japanese Imperial Dynasty during the American-Allied occupation of Japan. However, the Japanese Cabinet intervened in July 1945 when these secret contacts became known to them and ordered the Japanese Foreign Minister to order the Japanese Diplomatic Corps to break off and cease all such future unauthorized negotiations and contacts with the representatives of the U.S. Government. So, the frequently reported narratives claiming the Truman Administration refused to consider letting the Japanese know that they could keep their emperor is utterly false. The Japanese Cabinet and the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War were aware that the unconditional surrender pertained to the Japanese military Government, the Japanese military, and not to the Emperor and Royal Family. The Truman Administration was reading the decrypted Japanese diplomatic cables and could see how the hardliners were refusing to surrender under any circumstances and were willing only to consider a negotiated armistice in which the Allies would fulfill many of the original Japanese conditions for retaining some of their conquests, avoid an Allied occupation of Japan, and continue its existing military government. The Truman Administration's public statements were a consequence of that confidential Japanese intransigence. For one of many examples, see:
TOP SECRET, ULTRA, Total pages---4, 22 July 1945. “MAGIC” DIPLOMATIC SUMMARY, PART II, 1. Latest report from Japanese naval official in Berne concerning peace negotiations: Captain Nishihara, the Japanese Naval Counselor in Berne, has been advising Tokyo of developments following the alleged proposal made by OSS representative Allen Dulles in the latter part of May for a “discussion” between Japan and the United States […] According to Nishihara, von Gaevernitz stated that (a) “the United States leaders are of the opinion that the Japanese national structure is not to be upset” in the event of surrender, and (b) “if Japan has any request to make [Dulles] can return to Switzerland [from Germany] at once.”[….]
nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/40.pdf
TOP SECRET, ULTRA, Ref. DS Item MIL-1. Ambassador Sato’s 20 July Message to Foreign Minister Togo.
nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/40.pdf
ULTRA TOP SECRET. “MAGIC” -- Diplomatic Summary No. 1214 - 22 July 1945 WAR DEPARTMENT, Office of A.C of S., G-2. Copy No. MI-3. Foreign Minister Togo to Ambassador Sato, 21 July 1945.
[….]
In a message of 21 July, Foreign Minister Togo has now replied as follows:
“Special Envoy Konoye’s mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government. In this regard he will set forth positive intentions, and he will also negotiate details concerning the establishment of a cooperative relationship between Japan and Russia which will form the basis of Imperial diplomacy both during and after the war.
[….]
“With regard to unconditional surrender (I have been informed of your 18 July message*) we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. Even if the war drags on and it becomes clear that it will take much more bloodshed, the whole country as one man will pit itself against the enemy in accordance with the Imperial Will so long as the enemy demands unconditional surrender. It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace which is not so-called unconditional surrender through the good offices of Russia. It is necessary that we exert ourselves so that this idea will be finally driven home to the Americans and British.
*In that message Sato advocated unconditional surrender provided the Imperial House was preserved (DS 20 Jul 45).
nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/40.pdf
Most real historians agree that it took both atomic bombs and the Soviet attack in Manchuria , for Japan's military government to accept 12 of the 13 terms of the Potsdam Declaration . The US resumed bombing again , before Japan's military government accepted all 13 terms .
.
The average estimated casualties of the mainland Japan invasion and subjugation were 1 million American troops, 20 million Japanese troops AND civilians. Now just think about that for a second… 20 million Japanese dead. Would they have ever recovered from such destruction?
The feeling at the time was " Who cares ? "
I read an anecdote by someone who spent a lot of time in China and Korea. His hosts would - half-jokingly - rank US presidents from best to worst like this:
Best: Truman, since he nuked Japan twice.
Worst: Truman, since he nuked Japan *only* twice.
Given things like Unit 731, the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, I have no doubt about the veracity of this anecdote. In short, the answer is: Yes.
Russia just entered the battle and if they had not surrendered soon, they would have been crushed like Germany.
Of course there were other options to using the bomb, but all other options would most likely result in more causalities, on both sides. Simply continuing the blockcade would have resulted in millions of Japanese starving to death, as well as our military forces, our POWs, and civilians in countries occupied by Japan continuing to die.
The third option, of dropping the 'unconditional surrender' demand would most likely be seem by the Japanese as a sign of weakness and encourage them to insist on their other conditions: that there be no occuapation of Japan, that the Japanese would oversee their own disarmament and any war crimes trials, and possibly that they retain some of their conquests.
There may have been many more options but Japan was given an option and they chose not to take the most peaceful option since the United States expended thousands of lives And probably a couple of billion dollars they get to decide what the final act will be
You failed to mention the option of accepting Japanese surrender with the emperor being kept intact.
@@hansfrankfurter2903 When you decide to attack without warning without declaring war while your politicians are in the United States pretending to negotiate for peace you don’t get to decide anything after that war you don’t get to decide when you surrender you are told went to surrender and if you don’t the bombs continue coming there was a third bomb I don’t know why they didn’t drop it
@@hansfrankfurter2903 Yes I did; the 'third option, of dropping the unconditional surrentder demand.'
@@jeromemalenfant6622 That was never ever going to happen the military had to be removed the infrastructure of the military link to the government had to be removed there was never going to be a conditional surrender it was unconditional or the bombs we continue the winners get to write the final act of the screenplay
Doesn’t this guy look like Truman?
little late to worry about that now
No and it should be a war crime for attacking civilians
They should’ve known better than to attack the U.S in the first place. Now yeah, I hate that civilians were killed during the drops, but that’s how it had to be to defeat The Empire Of Japan.
It looks like you have been being lied to.
First, the Allies started the war.
Starting in 1927, the United States ordered Chinese warlords to carry out anti-Japanese terrorist activities in exchange for weapons and funds.
This was to prevent Japan from expanding its interests in China through business or friendship, not aggression.
The Chinese warlords sabotaged the operation of Japanese facilities, looted/raped/slaughtered Japanese residents, and kidnapped/tortured/slaughtered members of the Japanese security forces.
There are dozens of those acts that stand out, and among them are multiple massacres of extreme brutality.(Ex.Tongzhou incident)
Theoe were the causes of the Manchurian Incident and the Chinese Incident, but the reason the Chinese did such anti-Japan terrorism was because the United States, the Soviet Union, and Britain paid for it.
Japanese soldiers were fighting back against the Chinese warlords who were committing atrocities on the Japanese residents, but repeatedly had called for peace.
However, the United States criticized Japan for invading China on the basis of expansionism, and tightened its grip on Japan with economic sanctions and embargoes.
The Roosevelt administration thought that if it participated in WW2, it would be able to get out of the Great Depression, make more money, and hopefully gain world hegemony with the dollar.
But the American people were against the war, so FDR severely cornered it to make Japan make a preemptive attack.
The United States used a similar hand this time. The forces writing the scenario are probably the same.
Yes, read, “Tennozan” and stop second guessing.
Was Russia right dropping Nuclear bombs on Kiyv and main NATO cities? We will see. ❤️❤️❤️
Hell No. US Propaganda is BS
Meh...the Japanese were not stupid when it came to Russia. Russia told them in April of 45 that they were no going to extend the non-aggression agreement. The Japanese saw the massive build up of Soviet forces...they knew it was coming. This presentation is just a dying echo of what the presenter talked about in the revisionists of the 1960's and 1970's. The academic left can not let go of it. They are old and bitter.
That’s call one stone two birds.
We gave em enough chances but they just shitted it all out
Yes
No, nothing justifies the use of the atomic bomb.
It was a power trip and bragging by Truman.
How can you kill 120,000 innocent men, women, children, and elderly in an instant in the cause of saving soldiers who volunteer to go to battle? This is not proper reasoning but “rationalization”.
Ask the people of Nanking, of Shanghai, of Sook Ching, the inmates of Unit 731 and the Comfort Women.
Yes,....it was correct.
We could have at least tried to offer them surrendering terms that they would have be much more open to, and that we would eventually give anyways like the Emperor being able to live. This is a testament to the fact that we could have at least tried to do this beforehand.
NO! They were DEFIANT! War is hell. We didn't start it but sure knew how to end it. Look how Defiant Putin is!
The first bomb was dropped on them and they refused to surrender what do you think other than the bomb would’ve persuaded them to surrender the answer is nothing it took two bombs to get them to surrender to bombs that’s amazing
You cannot be that stupid. They were offered prior to the first bomb, they refused and it was dropped. Then they were offered again, and they refused. Who dresses you in the morning?
@@ronemtae3468 He said right there in his comment, conditions protecting the emperor. Even when Japan surrendered on August 10 they still included conditions about the emperor and Truman only accepted at that point because he felt guilty for all the children he killed with the atomic bombs
They started the war so they don’t get to decide any surrender terms that’s how this kind of stuff goes
Yes Truman had other options but the bombs impressed the Japanese, British and french as well . Why else would the European powers take a backseat to the US on the global stage, after the Suez crisis?
Zackery Daley --- Yes Truman had other options but the bombs impressed the Japanese, British and french as well . Why else would the European powers take a backseat to the US on the global stage, after the Suez crisis?
Wayne Patterson --- Because among other important reasons they were financially broke, unable to afford substantial military forces and their operations, and were still recovering from the consequences of World War Two. The British did not end the rationing of sugar until 1960. Britain and France both faced mutinies due to the postwar efforts to keep their troops in service with poor conditions of service. The Soviets lost a million people to a famine in 1946-1947 after the American suspension of the Lend-Lease food and material supplies to the belligerent Soviet government. Britain and especially the Soviets survived in WWII on a diet of American canned Spam meats and other American Lend-Lease foodstuffs.
What were these other options
@@waynepatterson5843 "Eisenhower threatened serious damage to the British financial system by selling the US government's pound sterling bonds."
@@danielscalera6057 --- "Eisenhower threatened serious damage to the British financial system by selling the US government's pound sterling bonds."
Wayne Patterson --- You're taking the event out of context and misrepresenting the cause and effect by omitting the rest of the story.
@@waynepatterson5843 England and France collaborated with Israel to try maintaining European control over the most important choke point for European trade. Soviets allied with Egypt so of course opposed the action while America opposed it to...end European power abroad?
I believe that the atomic bombing was a mistake war could have ended with less victims Japan was about to surrender anyway
No they weren't
2 million+ casualties for the Allies alone, how is that less deaths? The Japanese have been fire bombs for months and they wouldn't give in. This is the best option
If that was true why didn't the surrender after the first bombing?
@@ct-xw9dj 2 million? do you see alternative time lines or something?
not even 1 more person needed to die, all they had to do was accept the Japanese surrender with the condition that the emperor is unharmed and kept emperor.
@@hansfrankfurter2903 Japan didn't just want to keep the Emperor, they also wanted to keep their military junta government, control their own demilitarization (which means don't really demilitarize at all), and have no Allied troops occupy Japan proper. They wanted basically a white peace.
But to be honest Japan attacked America for no reason Pearl harbour the us wasn’t planning to inter the war but Japan did a fatal mistake by attacking the US but still they didn’t deserve a huge punishment like nuclear bombing
You don't know what you are talking about
The US did embargo Japan in regard to oil which lead to Pearl Habor. The Japanese heavily underestimated the American spirit which cost them dearly. Wonder what would've happen if the Japanese discovered oil in Indonesia
Sure they did
It wasn't a punishment. The war was still ongoing and the only options to finish it were to invade like we did Germany or go the route we did. Considering we suffered 25,000 casualties on Iwo Jima alone, imagine the cost of a mainland invation of Japan both on our forces, the Japanese forces and the civilian population.
Roosevelt provoked Pearl Harbor then welcomed it as an excuse to enter the war in Europe which he so far failed to get support for
Robert Julius Oppenheimer didn't tell us everything. Some details were missed. 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 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. 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 scientist 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.
[citation needed]
It’s a very complex double edged sword the bombs posses. On one hand, the bomb dropping was wrong because the suffering of the victims. If they didn’t die from the bomb, they died a slow and painful death from the radiation effects. On the other hand, Truman really had barely any choice since if they kept policies, the war would be going on for much longer. The invasion would be terrible since it would cause the death of millions of both Americans and Japanese soldiers and he didn’t want that.
You bet!
yes
Yup!!
SRY…But usa already won!!! Why occopied Japan and Asia ??!
China was never occupied by the US. As for Japan, the word we are looking for is De-Nazification.
Thx for u answer😊But did i write China? But they where inside China! no discusion? So u mean China is ASIA???thx🫣🫡
@@buiphan3882Inside China? As an ally of Chiang Kai-shek? Yes. As an occupying force? No. Nor were they in any other part of mainland Asia.
😂as i write…if u read my answer😊oki u won…jippi
YES!!!!!
From beginning of 1945, Japan had been requesting peace talks to the United States through Mr. Dulles of the 0SS (the predecessor agency of the CIA) in Switzerland.
The record of repeated contacts calling for peace talks from the Japanese government can be found on the CIA website as a PDF file with the following name:
“Memoranda for the President: Japanese Feelers”
This PDF file shows that the Government of Japan was asking the United States to talk the end of the war repeatedly.
And it was recorded that they admitted defeat and argued that retention of the Emperor was the only condition for surrender, which was necessary to prevent Japan from becoming a communist nation.
Communist thought denies and destroys tradition and culture. Just as the Russian Empire was lost by the Russian Revolution, becoming a communist country means the destruction of the state.
Even if the war can be ended before the total annihilation of Japan by the Allies, if Japan becomes a communist country due to the loss of the existence of the emperor, it means the destruction of Japan.
So the retention of the Emperor was the condition that Japan couldn’t compromise.
And that's why Stalin continued to persistently demand the execution of the emperor, and some people in the Roosevelt administration who it turned out that they were communists in the Venona document, had tried to have Truman to execute the emperor many times.
The draft of the Potsdam Declaration was supervised by Joseph Grew, the former ambassador to Japan.
The draft contained one sentence authorizing the guarantee of the emperor's status along with some conditions of surrender, such as disarming the Japanese army and not colonizing Japan.
Because Grew had heard of the above report, knew well why Japan wanted the retention of the Emperor, and knew that Japan would surrender as soon as the Potsdam Declaration allowed the retention of the Emperor.
This Grew’s action is proven by the Truman memoir.
It says:
"Grew arrived at the end of May and suggested to make a declaration urging Japan to surrender. The declaration provided Japan with a guarantee that the United States would allow the Emperor to remain head of state."
"I told him that I had already considered this issue and that (Grew's suggestion) seemed like a sound opinion."
However, when the Potsdam Declaration was read out, the sentence guaranteeing the emperor's retention was deleted.
Because the United States wanted to conduct examinations on the dropping of the completed nuclear bomb against “the Japanese people.”
Since Washington had not responded, Japan had asked also the Soviet Union to mediate negotiations to end the war based on the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact.
In other words, Japan raised a white flag to the United States and the Soviet Union, but they did not reply at all until the Potsdam Declaration.
Without replying, the U.S. military carried out air raids on 430 cities in Japan. LeMay's airstrike method was very ruthless and merciless. That method burned down the area after burning all the edges of the planned airstrike area first so that no one could escape from the area. In the Tokyo air raid on March 10, 1945, more than 100,000 Japanese civilians were burned to death in 2 hours.
As LeMay said later, the U.S. Air Force had tried to kill as many Japanese as possible.
It’s mean the United States was convinced of victory, and it was also convinced that it would not be charged with war crimes later. So these indiscriminate genocides were carried out without hesitation.
And it is clear that the purpose of the United States was to make governance easier after the end of the war.
Westerners often interpret that Japan did not have the will to surrender to the Allies because it was preparing for the decisive battle on the mainland.
However, when the enemy ignores your request for End-War Talks and continues to attack, it is quite natural to prepare for the next possible attack such as "landing operation on the mainland", isn't it?
In short, it was the United States that made Japanese say, "Fight to the last person."
Kantaro Suzuki was the Prime Minister, who was clearly appointed by the Emperor with the intention of ending the war.
For the Japanese government, the Potsdam Declaration was a response from the United States that had finally arrived after several months of negotiations to end the war.
So Prime Minister Suzuki tried to proceed with the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration.
But what hindered it was that there was no wording to guarantee the Emperor's position. Suzuki inquired about this, but the United States did not give a clear answer.
Even after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, there were pro-USSR military leaders who insisted that they should wait for the mediation of the Soviet Union.
Also, the fact that the number of victims reported from Hiroshima immediately after the atomic bombing was about 80,000, which was less than the 115,000 victims of the Tokyo air raid on March 10 also affected the meeting.
So, the Japanese government could not accept the Potsdam Declaration immediately because some of leaders refused to accept the Potsdam Declaration.
However, on August 9, the Soviet started invasion.
This invasion cut off the hopes of some leaders who were pro-Soviets, so Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration.
In short,
In order to end the war, there was no need for atomic bombs or landing operations.
The United States also knew that the atomic bombing was unnecessary. But The United States did experiment of atomic bombings because it wanted to do an experiment against Japanese people and cities alive.
What led to the acceptance of Japan's Potsdam Declaration to end the war was not the 2 atomic bombings, but the Soviet invasion.
I dunno man is it right to vaporize two entirely civilian cities killing all inhabitants?
The best of many bad options. Japan could have avoided having their country destroyed. It was all their decision.
its propaganda from america. Only for delusional people.
*entirely civilian cities*
Oh, honey.
Clearly don't know anything about the war, do u
they picked those because they had military bases and were at least somewhat less populated
Your speeches are so easy....because You have never know how people suffered front japanese soldiers atrocités....!!!!
It's so easy for Philosoph ...to bark Their théories.....but the soldiers at thé front battles can't stop thé billets with your banking bla bla bla...!!!
I do not believe that Japanese soldiers committed no war crimes.
However, NOT everything that the Allies have accused Japan of being committed by Japanese soldiers during World War II is true.
The Allies circulated a lot of propaganda(fake news) to raise their fighting spirit, like recently.
After the war, the Allies have further adapted and used them to hide the dirty demeanor they did and their own war crimes.
The Nanjing Massacre is one of those Propagandas which was fabricated by anti-Japanese activist US missionary John Magee.
Saying "This is what the Japanese soldiers did," he was showing footage of several Chinese on the ground in the United States.
(BTW I couldn't help but remember his footage when I saw the footage called "The Bucha Massacre.")
And Magee spread the lie in the United States that 50,000 Japanese soldiers killed 42,000 Chinese civilians.
However, Japanese soldiers who actually entered Nanjing was only about 3,000.
The reason why he worked to spread such propaganda was to make the anti-war American people accept the war with Japan.
Then, this story was further distorted by the Allies, including Chiang Kai-shek, to justify the war with Japan.
Today CCP insists that the number of victims is 300,000.
On the other hand, the number of unarmed people in Nanjing that the National Revolutionary Army announced before fled from Nanjing was 200,000.
And when the Japanese troops left Nanjing, there were about 220,000-250,000 citizens in Nanjing.
This can be confirmed from multiple records.
The reason why the number of people after leaving of Japanese troops is larger than the number announced by the National Revolutionary Army is that Nanjing citizens who had been evacuated for fear of fighting returned Nanjing.
Anyone who can do elementary calculations will realize that this story is fabricated.
You guys wiped out an entire generation.Imagine what people might have suffered during that moment.This is the biggest crime against humanity.
Jack Reacher --- You guys wiped out an entire generation.Imagine what people might have suffered during that moment.This is the biggest crime against humanity.
Wayne Patterson --- Your comment is a lie. The American use of the atomic bombs were lawful acts of war which served to save the lives of tens of millions of Allied and Japanese lives that would have otherwise have been killed by the Japanese continuation of the war month by month. The militarists in the Japanese military government stated it was their intention to compel the Allies to accept the Japanese terms for an armistice that left them in control of Japan, conquered territories, and continued Japanese possession and use of chemical weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons of mass destruction, and future production of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. In the event the Allies continued to refuse the Japanese terms for an armistice and continued to insist upon any form of Japanese surrender, with or without the Emperor, the Japanese militarists controlling the government insisted upon continuing a hopeless war to the bitter end and the extinction of the Japanese population in a national suicide. The Japanese imperial General Headquarters - Tokyo had already ordered the mass murder of all remaining 123,000 Allied prisoners of war, Allied civilian internees, and Neutral civilian internees beginning on 20 August 1945. The American use of the atomic bombs to compel an immediate end of Japan's war upon the Allies saved the lives of those 123,000 people and tens of millions of other people while killing an official estimate of about 110,000 plus Japanese people, who had already been conscripted, armed, and trained to serve as combatants under the command of the Japanese armies. Furthermore, those mass murders of all remaining captives scheduled to begin on 20 August 1945 were ordered to murder the women and children by burning them alive in their shelters or by poisoning them and burning them in their shelters. A variety of other horrific methods of murdering the other captives ranged from burning the captives alive with gasoline in the air raid trenches to decapitations, bayonet practice targets, shootings, drownings, driven into the surf to be eaten by sharks, and cannibalism by the Japanese troops and civilians in the occupied territories. The modes of death used and planned to be used by the Japanese were far more horrific than anything suffered in the atomic bomb attacks and 200 times more numerous. It must also be noted that the Japanese militarists were a far greater threat to the lives of the Japanese people than were the Americans and Allies, which is why Emperor Hirohito risked being removed from the throne by the Japanese militarists rather than allow those militarists to continue their plan to commit the suicide of the entire population of Japan. Emperor Hirohito in the final case trusted the Americans and Allies with the safety of the Japanese people and his own position on the Throne of the Japanese Empire than he did his own suicidal military government.
"The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" campaign said that it was "glorious to die for the holy emperor of Japan, and every Japanese man, woman, and child should die for the Emperor when the Allies arrived." So, the actual number of combatants included "every Japanese man, woman, and child" in Japan's Home Islands.
General Yoshitsugu Saitō ordered, "There is no longer any distinction between civilians and troops."
Observe the actual Japanese use of child soldiers. See:
Tekketsu Kinnōtai child soldiers on Okinawa
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Childsoldier_In_Okinawa.jpg
Minister of War General Korechika Anami noted on 10 August 1945 in the meeting of the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War how he would rather see Japan and its people be annihilated rather than surrender, and he said, "Would it not be wondrous for this whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?"
Captian Mitsuo Fuchida, 1st Air Fleet, Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service, Imperial Japanese Navy and one of the planners for the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on 7 December 1941 said to General Paul Tibbets, the unit commander and the pilot of the B-29 Superfortress bomber Enola Gay that dropped the Little Boy atomic bomb on Hiroshima:
"You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude at that time, how fanatic they were, they'd die for the Emperor ... Every man, woman, and child would have resisted that invasion with sticks and stones if necessary ... Can you imagine what a slaughter it would be to invade Japan? It would have been terrible. The Japanese people know more about that than the American public will ever know."
And how more generation would be ruin if Japan keep fighting? You're having a heart but got no brain it seem.
The people that died from the bombs suffered less than the 12 million people murdered by the Japanese, with shovels and bayonets. Get a real profile.
U think japan forgot absolutly nooo , revenge will come one day , japan will end USA era its a matter of time , we are humans and humans never forget , forgive .
So will China, China will never forget Nanking
@@jsansamatic6933 atomic bombings are different level.
i just hate humanity.
@@letisriva8581 me 2
No they aren’t Nanking killed 200,000, the atomic bomb killed about the same
Of course not, usa did that to show their power to Soviet union
Congrats, you have swallowed revisionist propaganda.
@@d.g.6147 but it was true, it wasn't necessary
@@yurimarcal6392 Congrats, you understand nothing about World War 2-era Japan.
There was a WWII
How can you say stupid things like that publicly
The issue everyone ignores in these debates is that US intelligence Proved that most of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually children. I know this was not the intent, but it is the cold, brutal fact! Thousands of helpless children, many too young to know why there was a war died cruel, horrific deaths that shocked and broke a nation. I do not excuse what Japan did, and honestly, I believe they should have been punished much harsher for their horrific war crimes. Hirohito personally should have stood trial for the barbaric things his government did. The Atomic Bombs punished the WRONG people. The once who suffered the worst, had no voice at all in the violence that ended with their deaths. This is what the bomb that fell in Nagasaki did to a boy who was just riding his bike. (Photograph of Sumiteru Taniguchi's back injuries taken January 31, 1946 by team of Lt. Daniel A. McGovern and Lt. Herbert Sussan, US Army): upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Sumiteru_Taniguchi_back.jpg
Sumiteru just happened out delivering mail on his bike the morning of the bombing. There is also this photo a a little girl from Hiroshima who just happened to be outside when the bomb detonated. The flash burned her eyes, leaving her blind: www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-eyes-that-saw-a-nuke/
To blast Japan for its cruelty in war, after using weapons like this where they hit children, is not only sick, but shameless hypocarcy at it's worst. Yes, Yes, I've heard all the "They were warned" lines. Yet ultimatly, the US must own it's own sickening cruelty. Two wrongs don't make a right! The A bombs were barbaric overkill. Yes, war is brutal and cold, but even in war, it is possible to go too far!!
Yes
Yes