The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: War Crime or Necessary Evil?
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 05. 2023
- Get a 1 year supply of immune-supporting Vitamin D3K2 & 5 travel packs FREE with your first purchase! - athleticgreens.com/warographics Thank you AG1 for the sponsorship!
→ Subscribe for new videos at least twice a week!
czcams.com/users/biographics...
This video is #sponsored by AG1.
Love content? Check out Simon's other CZcams Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @xplrd
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
Get a 1 year supply of immune-supporting Vitamin D3K2 & 5 travel packs FREE with your first purchase! - athleticgreens.com/warographics Thank you AG1 for the sponsorship!
Area2 Nevada. A.C.C./S.A.C.
It looks absolutely disgusting!
I think using the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an excuse to shill for this product is disgusting and I'm ashamed for Simon for doing it.
That transition was one of the worst ones I’ve seen and I’m subscribed to most of you’re channels.
I love when they're like "All the death and destruction happened. And now a word from our sponsor......" 😂
As my father once said [WWII vet] " In the land of the Rising Sun America made the Sun Rise ." .
I remember talking to my grandfather he was stationed on the hms arc royal. He was a petty officer mechanic and he talked about training for landing in Japan. He insisted that the crew celebrated the bomb drop as they were convinced that half of them would die trying to land or invade the Japanese islands. He insisted this saved japanese and allied lives.
the japanese high command had ordered that on the land invasion of the home islands all allied POWs and civilian internees which included women and children were to be murdered by their guards. the atomic bombing saved their lives.
I've seen in more than one source that the estimated casualties just on the Japanese side would have been 1 million wounded or killed to take the home islands. Can't remember the allied casualty estimates but they weren't much better
@@Dragon4Soul Estimated to be 1 million casualties
soldiers are the easiest ones to brainwash unfortunately
I know this might be a shocking news, but invasion wasn't necessary. After the spring 1945 Japan was on its knees. That's where the diplomacy should have started rather than killing continue.
Japan is looked at as the little guy who got bullied for some reason. I really wish all the Japanese war crimes were more known
Agreed….The Rape of Nanking was one of the worst.
Literally just clicked on this video from one talking about Unit 731 which ironically was also released today as well.
As someone who lived most of their life in the Philippines, Japan’s warcrimes are pretty well known. The Bataan Death March and Battle of Manila are both hallmarks of how vicious occupation was under the IJA/IJN.
@@JTelli786 same here.
I'm not disagreeing with your general sentiment, but I doubt US decision makers dropped the bombs as a sort of punishment for war crimes. It's only a sort of after-the-fact schadenfreude.
It sucks how innocent civilians have to suffer the consequences of their government's actions.
Nothing really innocent about the Japanese civilians? How many of them fully supported shit like the rape of nanking? No one was really innocent in Japan in the 40s.. 🤷♂️
@@mitchconner2021 One could argue that’s just because their government made them believe that they are right, and everyone else is wrong. It happened in Nazi Germany, it’s still happening in communist China today, hell it’s probably happening in the U.S., too.(except we have the freedom and liberty to decry and protest our government without the fear of death)
I try to separate the people from the government that reigns over them, but sometimes it’s difficult to do. Still, it’s better then outright damning a whole society.
@@mitchconner2021 I doubt that's an appropriate take. It's much more likely that your average Japanese civilian didn't know a damn thing that was going on in China, especially the atrocities.
But the fact is far fewer civilians were sacrificed than would have been had the allies been forced into an invasion.
I personally feel that as tragic as these events were, the bombings were justified. To feel sorry for Imperial Japan undermines the countless war crimes the Empire committed well before and during the Second World War. And though debatable that should the Japanese people have been the ones to reap the sowing of their government and military, they were just as much enablers as men like Tojo. Either through blind support for the Emperor, who wasn’t blameless during the War, or by their sheer willingness to die at their governments command either in mass suicides or in what was to be the last stand for Japan prior to the bombings, the Japanese people played their part in the military machine that went well beyond standard civilian wartime manufacturing jobs. There’s a reason history doesn’t look favorable on the Japanese Empire of the 20th Century, and though the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were brutal, so was the nation that received the only atomic bombings in wartime history. Just a personal opinion, feel free to disagree.
@@mitchconner2021 too right
A difficult topic to tackle from either viewpoint and even harder to present both sides. Well done, Simon.
I feel this was one of those things where there was no right answer. Don't use and have to be partly responsible for what would be one of the bloodiest invasions in history or drop a bomb that contaminated two cities and caused many innocent people to suffer horribly with radiation and burns.
A great video, right up there with how they covered it in American elementary schools in the 1980's. Might actually be the same script my teacher used back then. There's no details, no analysis, no depth - just a sanitized conclusion leaving out so much more.
"both sides" fuck off, one side committed the worst act of mass terrorism since ghenghis khan, and the other says that is bad. there is no debate here.
@@Nostripe361 we never needed to invade japan. the only thing they could produce themselves on their resource-less island is food. just put them under blockade and they would be rendered powerless without the resources of their empire. the whole reason they attacked us on pearl harbor was to prevent that very end scenario.
@@cageybee7221 Educate yourself.
People tend to forget how absolutely brutal the Empire of Japan was. I once heard that an old War Department plan for a battalion that was to spearhead one of the beach assaults in Downfall had no plans for said soldiers after D+14. Why? It was assumed that by that time the entire unit would be wiped out or otherwise rendered combat ineffective by that time due to suicide attacks. That's 1,000 men in two weeks. After Normandy we had plans for units up to six months or so out. The War Department by the way was ....notoriously over optimistic in it's planning.
More brutal than America or Germany?
@@Jalenlane93 Much...
@@Jalenlane93 Much more brutal than the US, not necessarily more brutal than Germany....at least in less organised and industrialized form.
@@Jalenlane93 They're not even comparable. Japan's War Crimes accounted for at least as many dead as Germany's and in far more horrific fashion. Comparable dead, incomparable cruelty. By comparison to what the Japanese did a bullet to the back of the head or being gassed on mass was quite merciful. There were particularly more brutal treatments than the aforementioned methods in Germany sure...but the foremost extent of exceptional German cruelty would be considered tame by Imperial Japanese standards.
It was standard for Japanese troops to (in ascending order of cruelty):
-Routinely beat prisoners
-Intentionally starve prisoners
-To kill surrendering soldiers or civilians without pause or hesitation
-To use live captured soldiers and civilians as target practice for firearms, wounds were intentionally non-fatal at first for the purpose of prolonging the suffering before death
-To use live captured soldiers and civilians as target practice for bayonets and swords, wounds were intentionally non-fatal at first for the purpose of prolonging the suffering before death
-To torture captured soldiers and civilians to the brink of death but leave them alive so they could suffer longer
-To burn homes in occupied territories to flush out civilians to butcher for whatever purpose
-To mass execute large numbers of captured civilians via firearm, bayonet, or sword
-To execute all civilians in any territory they thought they would be pushed back from
-To rape and then summarily execute captured civilians (including children) or soldiers
-To butcher and cannibalize those they killed for food when shortages of food were present, they did this with stunning willingness as soldiers and civilians from other countries were not human to them. Merely animals to be slaughtered as they saw fit. They often did this in front of other captives.
In especially cruel cases, for example Unit 731, captured soldiers and civilians were:
-Thrown from planes several times to see how far of a fall people could survive.
-Placed a cage with a rat inside of it then heated up the cage, the rat would then burrow through the person's body to escape the heat resulting in a slow excruciating death
-Were intentionally exposed to deadly contagions so they could document the process of how a human body reacts to different diseases and viruses before and after death
-Were starved to death intentionally to document how long it'd take for people to starve to death
-Starved to death so they could study how long it took for the average soldier to die from lack of food
-Dehydrated to death so they could study how long it took for the average soldier to die from lack of water
-Drowned to death so they could study how long it took for the average soldier to die from lack of air
-Shot in several non-fatal spots to see how long various not immediately fatal injuries would take to kill a soldier
-Shot then intentionally had their wounds left to fester so they could study how the infection of wounds progressed and to see how long it'd take for them to become fatal.
@@ThatGuyOrby Chinese,Korean, Vietnamese and other SE Asian descendents hate the Japanese to this day for those atrocities and that Japan never really apologized for their actions.
There was one person who didn't die because of the Atomic Bombing of Japan: my Great Uncle Alfredo, a Bataan Death March survivor. He was interned in Japan and would most certainly been killed by his captors when the first allied soldiers landed on the home islands.
ok buddy sure
@@Isaqimus whatever
Thank you for the nuanced take we need more people explaining both sides of controversial topics with out an obvious bias. This allows for people to come to their own conclusions
Very good video Simon. Well done to you and your team.
Something that was left out of the video, was that Nagasaki wasn't originally on the target list. That spot originally belonged to Japan's ancient capital of Kyoto as the target city...
However, in June 1945, Secretary of War Henry Stimson ordered Kyoto to be removed from the target list. He argued that it was of cultural importance and that it was not a military target.
The military didn't want it removed so it kept putting Kyoto back on the list until late July, but Stimson went directly to President Truman and was able to get Kyoto removed from the list of target cities.
The official reasoning for this, is because Stimson believed that the destruction of the ancient capital would've led to an incredibly hostile population that wouldn't of been forgiving to the destruction of Kyoto.
Though, others believed that Stimson had a personal reason, too. As he frequently visited Kyoto during the 1920s and had apparently fallen in love with the city.
City of temples.
It was also not a good target for military or industrial purposes.
I've visited Kyoto and it is indeed an ancient city with many temples and structures of cultural significance steeped in history. I also visited Hiroshima and it's a beautiful modern city with wide clean streets and parks today.
@@arcturionblade1077 Well yes... the amount of buildings built before 1945 in Hiroshima is very small. What did you expect, the crater still there? The city qas rapidly rebuilt.
Both cities straddle the 33rd parallel..
Freemasonry / Jesuits pulled the trigger .
Can I please just say that I absolutely love all of your channels, Simon!
Amazing documentaries!
Very well done Simon once again you present the most level headed take on many events
I believe this statement by John Fea is absolutely spot on, "Historians do not merely quote, they interpret. Doing history requires investigating original sources in light of the "Five C's of Historical Thinking": change over time, context, causality, contingency, and complexity." As a historian, I find that critics of the atomic bombings of Japan suffer from presentism. They project current knowledge and understanding back upon Truman who made this decision during a bloody war in 1945. They take his decision out of context and imprint their modern sensibilities upon it. Simon makes a number of excellent points about why the use of atomic bombs was necessary. Truman made the only decision he could at that point and time in history.
Excellent video. Can’t wait to show it in my history classes.
I think this also stopped nuclear weapons from being used by either party in the Cold War because they saw the consequences of real humans being killed and the horrific injuries
Let's think about "war crimes" for just a moment...Nanjing got most of the publicity but the same exact things were done to virtually EVERY city & country Japan invaded. Manila was a huge one. Then there’s the mistreatment of every allied POW. And let's not forget their biological warfare test facility that used civilians & POW'S as guinea pigs. They got off lightly in my mind.
So, if retribution justifies the attack, the attacks of 9/11 pretty much are a just retribution for all that the millions killed by the american forces throughout the cold war. No, it isn't. A war crime doesn't cancel a war crime.
It never ceases to amaze me how a country that committed so many war crimes goes ahead after the war and plays the victim.
*Wah* my Tokyo firebombings, *wah* the nukes.
Meanwhile, millions are dead at the hands of Japanese occupiers. I won't give war-crime deniers the time of day.
@@PaulRudd1941 I've read this "It never ceases to amaze me how a country that committed so many war crimes goes ahead after the war and plays the victim" thinking it was about the USA.
@@saidtoshimaru1832 Japan's massacres make America look like an amateur.
@@jgw9990 Japan's warcrimes make the Nazis look like they're anti-heroes trying to help the world (whether you hate them or not, the Nazis seriously believed that they were ridding the world of pests. The Japanese committed their warcrimes out of sheer pleasure, not caring whether it was right or wrong).
Love all your channels Simon!!
This is almost certainly going to anger a good number of people out there, but I think this was the best course of action. Had operation downfall happened (which was the name proposed invasion of Japan) far more people would have lost their lives, and moreover, if we lived in timeline where nukes never existed at all, a third World War would have been soon to follow, which would have killed millions more.
We didn't have to use the nuke on a civilian center. We could have hit near one to demonstrate the power of the device and minimize casualties.
@Ewan_CallisterIt's sad you think it wouldn't.
@@RHCole Calling Hiroshima or Nagasaki a "civilian center" is laughable. Both were major military targets.
@Ewan_CallisterWe didn't give them time
@@CedarHuntWith civilians. Lots of civilians.
Excellent job on covering this topic.
I visited both cities earlier this month.
It’s amazing how physically small the cities are compared to major cities.
So seeing how massive the bombs had to be to cause total and utter destruction is amazing and terrifying when you see it in person.
Such a heavy feeling.
I've been to Hiroshima, to see the ruins of the church, the steel beams sticking out from the masonry thats left, twisted and bent, looking melted, beyond sobering.
I've been to the USS ARIZONA memorial on reserve duty long ago. That was heavy feeling as well.
@@josephgriffin2388 This. The nukes would never have had to be used, if Japan didn't start the war.
@@kkang2828 true. And the massive genocide in Asia they caused and executed. The rest of Asia was happy to see Japan get blasted to hell
Szymon - can you do an episode on the Mahdi war/rebellion/revolution? I think it'd be cool to learn more about the historical context behind the Dune novels and recent movie adaptations.
"if they glorious death of a hundred deaths was all that is hyped to be" is everything I love about Simon and his writers, mostly his writers.
I was just reading the excellent book “Command and Control” (Eric Schlosser) and completed the chapters on the Manhattan Project and the bombings. Uncanny timing of this video!
One of the biggest points in my mind that was not mentioned is that, despite having a nuke dropped on their city, Japan still refused to surrender. It literally took the threat of regular nuke attacks following the second bombing to finally change their mind. To me, that tells me that diplomacy, blockades and other methods at the disposal of the allies would have been insufficient to obtain a total and unconditional surrender. They could have parked every navy on the planet off their shores and shelled the crap out of their cities, conventionally bombed them with planes and still not obtained a surrender with that kind of thinking. The other thing that I think is important to remember is that nuking two cities, while horrific, resulted in less overall infrastructure damage to Japan and allowed them to recover from the war much faster than if the major cities were leveled like what happened in Europe during a prolonged battle.
Thank you for mentioning the suicides of civilians when the Allies came to retake islands. I've only seen them mentioned once in fiction and rarely in histories and documentaries.
It really doesn't matter what the United States does, it's going to get criticized for it. I personally believe that the death toll for the Japanese would easily been 10 times what those bombs did if we had to invade. We also would have lost several hundred thousand to a million of our own troops as well. There is also the fact that the conventional fire bombings that took place against Germany and Japan did just as much damage and killed just as many people. You just don't hear British people complaining about those because they did it too.
ten times? Credible estimates put it at 100 time the death toll.
I mean, The Japanese promised to kill 150,000 allied POWs once the first allied soldier set foot on the home islands.
@@MrTexasDan Interestingly we had already. A raiding party from the submarine USS Barb landed and sabotaged a train line with a pressure explosive under the tracks making it the only sub to "sink" a train.
If we considered Nimitz's option (totally blockade Japan and keep bombing them), it still would be worse than dropping the nukes as this would result in millions of innocent Japanese men, women, and children to starve to death.
I think the key phrase there is "if we had to invade". But one really good point in video was: why drop in on a city? The demonstration of power could have worked as well if they dropped it in front of tokyo above sea...
@PetrSojnek Cause cities, especially the ones the US targeted, are industrial hotspots that would greatly reduce Japan's war efforts if they disappeared.
👌 Excellent coverage on each side. That is how it should be taught in school.
I love how people who cry about the bombs never mention Tokyo. The fire bombing Tokyo killed way more people.
Or the cities Japan bombed and committed war crimes in.
Or how many Japanese civilians would have died in either a full naval blockade or an invasion of the main islands
@@garretturbaczewski2019 fr people act like a certain city didn’t have a certain thing happen too it in china
@@robertcollins6596 if we invaded japan, japan wouldn't exist and millions of Americans would be dead.
I just find the criticism of the civilian death toll laughable. As opposed to what? All the good civilian deaths that took place on the smaller islands? Or the conventional bombing?
I've been fascinated with the second world War since i was a child. I'm 26 now and have been reading about the war for 17 years now. When I was a pre-teen, I believed the bombing to be unnecessary and cruel. That was until my teens where every day after school I'd watch the military channel or what would later be known as American Heroes Channel. For hours, I'd watch WWII documentaries, and as I learned about operation downfall and the sheer number of death and destruction it would've brought, my thoughts on the atomic bombing changed. Historians mentioned the alternative, which was Downfall. A few friends who didn't know about Downfall said the bombings were unnecessary. To which I explained how many more would've died if the allies had invaded. "200-300,000 dead, or over 10 million? What would you prefer?" Is what I'd always say. After learning more on their own, they realized it was necessary. While all life is precious, the bombings were necessary, simply to save the lives of over a million allied soldiers and over 10 million Japanese, men, women, and children. Something else to mention is that while this invasion would be going on, city, towns, and villages would be utterly devastated in the fighting as the Japanese were fanatical in their protection of their emperor. The bombings not only saved over 10 million lives on both sides but also saved most of Japan from becoming a nation of devastated cities, towns, and villages after a massive depopulation from downfall. So yes, I believe firmly that the bombs were necessary. It saved millions and saved Japan and the US from having to rebuild every inch of Japanese land from the ground up. The fighting most likely would've destroyed most of Japan's most culturally cherished cities such as Kyoto, for example. Not only destroying all their country and their population, but also most likely several important pieces of their culture.
I too was fascinated by WWII as a kid, but the eastern front was my main interest.
Great idea for video. Could you please do one on the 100 years war battles. I would love to see your thoughts on Poitiers and Agincourt.
I was wondering when y'all would cover this
If the us didnt drop the atom bombs, there would be videos about how the us could have saved the japanese population and Japan could have survived ww2
Japan feared the Soviet Union more than the nukes.
Their culture would have been completely erased by Stalin.
Something the bombs failed to do.
How millions starved under siege because we didn't do something to end the war.
And how many Americans died in the fight
Rest in peace to those that passed away.
You missed a key point: the reason why the US demanded an immediate surrender was because of fears that the USSR would gain leverage in the pacific and demand to be involved in post war negotiations
The USSR already had a foothold in asia.
Nuking Japan alone didn’t guarantee unconditional surrender. The Japanese were holding out for the USSR as mediators for a conditional surrender.
When the USSR invaded Manchuria, Japan knew all was lost.
@@mat5267 the USSR invaded Manchuria on august 9th and the US dropped little boy on the 6th. The US had no idea what Japan was planning to do and feared the USSR may gear up for their own invasion into Japan or possibly Japan making deal or surrendering to the Soviets
Once the Australian Army's 7th Division had concluded its operations in Borneo, my Father was in the process of transferring to the soon-to-be-reconstituted 10th Div. and commence training for the Coronet landings.
He had already lost two brothers tortured to death on the Burma Railway, so once the enormity of what had occurred sank in...he had little sympathy.
As for myself, from a purely selfish existential standpoint - the bombings possibly allowed my birth to take place almost 19 years later.
My heart truly goes out to all the victims of the bombs. But I’m so glad I don’t have to mourn the catastrophic loss of life that would have been Operation Downfall. To know that our soldiers would have been pitted against not just soldiers but elders, women, children, and witness mass self destruction upon their invasion; an absolutely horrible thought. Thank God it didn’t come to that.
My heart goes out everyone who was invaded by The Empire of Japan. The children who were used as target practice, the hundreds of thousands in Nanking. The millions of people dead in China. As well as the millions in other East Asian countries who suffered the massacres and violation of Nanking.
If Japan would have had the bomb, does anyone think they would not have used it ? War is terrible that is why you should think twice and then think again before going to War .
@@dystopianfuture1165 I couldn’t agree more. It was horrible. I can’t begin to imagine the suffering of those who lived and died through it.
@@dangreene3895 Of course they would have used it. They used everything they had, including the people. Unit 731 shows the lengths they were willing to go to, not to mention all of the anecdotal reports of atrocities and crimes against humanity. If they’d had the bomb, who knows; December 7th, 1941 could have been a hell of a lot worse.
@@Casual_Goof Exactly
Dropping the bombs also left such a huge psychological impact that future generations would abhor their use forever. A small price when you consider that modern bombs are far more destructive
Crazy part is that Japan were still willing to fight even after the two bombs.
Some of them did, others like the emperor wanted to surrender.
@@nobblkpraetorian5623 That fact that some military politicians went as far as to try to coup the emperor (who they perceived as a god) just to continue the war showed how incredibly delusional they were at the end.
@@imgvillasrc1608 do you think Americans would have been willing to surrender after being nuked? or would we fight until the last man?
I've been to Hiroshima and I have a trip to Nagasaki planned in the near future.
The city of Hiroshima today is a vibrant city, with a lot of beautiful parks, welcoming locals and amazing food. However, you can still see scars of the atomic bombing around the city.
And regardless of where you stand on whether the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki should've happened or not. A visit to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park & Museum left me aghast at the suffering that the residents of Hiroshima experienced on the day, weeks, months, years and decades after the bombing.
After my visit to Hiroshima, it left me hoping that we would never get to the point where we have to see another city and it's residents experience an atomic bombing.
It’s so awesome you’re sticking mainly to LONG clips again! I was getting depressed about having to potentially unsubscribe to the thousands of channels you have!
The shorts are something they need to do to appease the CZcams algorithm. As far as I can tell, they are just excerpts from their longer videos.
@@OrdinaryDude that’s stupid but I see, society looks more and more like Fahrenheit 451 every day lmao
He never stopped making the standard long videos, he just also started putting out shorts to help the algorithm out.
You were gonna unsubscribe because they make short videos? Just don't watch them.
They still make long videos.
Glad to hear the shout out to Bockscar, the aircraft that carried the second A-bomb. Rarely mentioned and overlooked by history far too often, it is good to see it recognized. But then again, it isn't often we remember who came in second, eh? Cheers....
I'd say Bockscar was the more heroic of the two. It was running on a seriously shortened range because of a fuel pump failure, it's first target was Kokura but that was obscured by smoke from firebombing, so then they had to fly to nagasaki on limited fuel, drop their bomb and get the hell out of there.
Given how POWs were being treated, if the bombs hastened their release by 1 week they were certainly worth dropping. If you think otherwise, you could always try to track down one of the comfort women and ask if she would have been happy to be raped another 100 times because Truman wanted to give Imperial Japan another week/month/year chill out.
Fun fact: purple heart medals haven't been manufactured since before ww2 ended. When the US was planning its invasion of Japan, they knew it was gonna be a bloodbath so they made thousands upon thousands of medals ahead of time. Every purple heart that's been awarded to soldiers post ww2 was intended for some poor soul who was supposed to be a part of the invasion force.
Edit: I should probably watch the whole video before I post a comment 😅
I think the statistics for support and against have shifted simply because of how long it has been. Many people here in the USA have basically forgotten about the war let alone know how ferocious and dedicated the Japanese were.
What a lot of people tend to overlook now is the sheer number casualties it would have taken to successfully invade Japan. They would have had to wipe out every man woman and child fighting them as well as watch most of the rest kill themselves. There is a reason that several divisions were expected to be wiped out to a man in the opening 3 weeks of the invasion alone.
Simon, I love the drama on that line. "... Spread for one mile… or 1.6 kilometers."
another great video! shoutout to all the writers that simon has locked in a dungeon pumping these scripts out, hopefully one day he lets them out.
edit: my great grandfather was on the USS Missouri when Japan surrendered. he can be seen in the photo 6:04
i heard he gives them 20 minutes of outside time per day, so that's progress! They even get a snack
Another aspect of this is also told through the minutes with the emperor and the military staff. The army had convinced themselves that if they bloodied the lips of the Americans and made the cost too high, then they would give some terms for peace, which was based around disarming terms and keeping the royal family and power alive. But that was also based on the Soviet union staying out. The Japanese had respected the non aggression pact even when the Germans were in full Soviet invasion. And they believed Stalin would renew the pact. After the first bomb dropped, the soviets were invading and winning and each section lead to another communist take over and death of all local leaders.
All of Japan's defenses were poised for an attack by Americans from the east. The west was unguarded and they were not ready. And while the Americans cared about the deaths of millions of their own troops. For Stalin, it was just a drop in the bucket.
Imagine Japan carved up like Germany was. And then the Korean war which nearly gave us WW3.
We love to talk about how the Japanese were beaten and it was a matter of time. But don't forget that the army tried to stop the surrender recording even after the two bombs.
And a land invasion with even 10 percent killed would still be millions dead. And the emperor, despite all his flaws. Did the hardest thing, he ordered the surrender. Knowing he would likely be killed for war crimes, to save his people.
I hate the civilian deaths. The suffering and pain we see. 200,000 dead is terrifying. But at the end of the day, even as far as civilians deaths. For WW2, it was a mere drop in the bucket.
The bombing killed many, too many. But it also saved millions.
I like that pointing out of Japan's Emperor knowing his likely fate yet wanted to do what he felt best for his people to continue existing. As well, and in contrast, certain military leaders were obviously not on the same page as their Emperor. As I've had to point out so many times before, generally speaking, the Allies were not responsible for the deaths of the innocent, that was all the doings of Axis' leadership, propaganda and actions.
Honestly, this is the best way to put it. It's a massive tragedy, but the alternative is 100 times worse
This is accurate. There was no good way to end the war with Japan. It wad either drop the bombs or invade, and invading would've been WAY more costly.
@@skyden24195 the allies were guilty of the deaths of innocents. But not through planning and targeting. The fire bombing were meant to break them and even that did little. The toll on the civilians in Japan was enormous. As it was for all civilians in WW2. For some visual on thatz I suggest watching; grave of the fireflies. It is not a movie condemning Japan or America. But shows what life was like living as a civilian in this era. And trust me, you will only willingly watch it once.
War is always the worse on the civilians. Not just the soldiers
@@TheWarshire thanks for the watch tip. I have one for you: there's a CZcams channel called "World War Two" and the channel is currently conducting a series called "World War Two in Real Time." Along with that series is supplement series called, "War Against Humanity" which details the atrocities committed against humanity by both sides of the conflict. The series is very candid, so much so that most of the episodes include a "warning" disclaimer, if not a request for viewer to "read, understand and actively have to reply that they understand the content is graphic."
It's a very good but tragic series.
your final message is very poignant and rings true, Simon. We must remember the past, lest we forget and repeat it.
I feel that this is what the Soviets are doing now. Moving nukes into other countries and all.
If that's the case and considering the majority of people in the world. We are so screwed.
@@als3022 it could always be worse. At least we cured polio, right?
I get so much heat and ridicule for being a big history buff. Everybody asked me why do you care about the past. My response is if we don't learn from it we're going to repeat it over and over again. Look how many times we've repeated the same mistakes throughout the millennias!
I remember reading somewhere that we did indeed try to demonstrate the capability of the bomb beforehand, and we were promptly ignored.
Many times over we demonstrated our nuclear capability. It was in inspiration for countries around the world to covet a nuke for themselves.
The Japanese were quite literally asking for it.
I'm betting there just wasn't a good cut off point given the subject matter, but man that was a hard left into the AG1 ad read.
For what it's worth, even after both the atomic bombings and the Russians basically destroying Japanese forces in Manchuria, there was still a segment of the Japanese military that attempted a palace coup to continue the fighting.
Emperor Hirohito also had to "sell" the idea of surrender differently to different parts of his own country. In messages to the general populace, he cited the atomic bombings as a reason to surrender because it was what they were facing. In messages to his troops overseas, he cited the Russian entry into the war because it was what they were facing. In either case, the goal was to convince the people under him that there could be no grand last stand.
Given all that, it's... painfully naïve to believe the fighting could have just stopped without a bloody invasion or the atomic bombings.
Love it when the whole comment section is on the same page, there's no real argument against Japan getting nuked considering the alternatives.
A lie.
@@RHCole Hey look its Shoko Asaharas favorite Used Bath Water drinking Simpt@rd.
Rhcole
No you are lying. Or at least repeating lies.
@@chuckysmaria6466no they’re just very naive
@@chuckysmaria6466How am I lying when I am against their use on civilians, obvious gaslighter?
Plz do a video on the Korean War and what would happen if war resumed!
That’s poetic to say that about Japan 🇯🇵 good one Harry
My grandfather, WWII paratrooper and veteran of the battle of the bulge, and also a lifelong FDR democrat, told me exactly what he thought about the atomic bombs when I asked him. Word for word he told me, “It was the best thing Truman ever did.” He fought through to victory over the Nazis in Europe, managed to survive, only to face redeployment to the Pacific. Instead, he came home and got my grandmother pregnant with my dad. Anyone reading this who had an ancestor in WWII, there’s a high likelihood that you owe your existence to those bombs cutting the war short. Grandpa can’t get grandma pregnant if he’s dead, or gets his junk blown off in combat.
Avid watcher of all things Simon. I started with Bio and Geo but I find myself really enjoying and learning on the War side too. Wondering though when we might see Myanmar or maybe the Battle of Scheldt.
Wow this fine man could read a cook book and make it interesting 😊i love this man 😊😊.
Wondering why you took down the "El Salvador" video. I am Salvadorean and really liked your down to earth approach to our problem.
It might have been demonetised or age-restricted. If that happens, it can impact all of a channel's other videos in the algorithm
CZcams didn’t like it for whatever reason most likely
I was looking for this video.
I was wondering the same! Glad to know I'm not alone. I'm not Salvadoreño but I'm a low-key 'Salvadorophile'. The video about La Matanza on Into The Shadows was super-interesting too.
Everyone always wants to say the bomb wasn’t necessary. Yet, no one talks about the alternatives because it blows up their argument.
1. Blockade - Millions starve to death, Japan relies on imports and cant feed its population.
2. Invade - Millions die in fighting, chemical weapons are used by the Japanese (which people seem to forget they had) and every POW is executed as per the standing order of the Japanese command.
People love to say it was the soviet union except the soviet union couldn’t attack mainland Japan. They had no navy to do it with lol.
The emperor himself said in a speech they were surrendering because of the bomb. The guy who made the deciding vote to surrender wrote it down and said why lol.
Japan was considering surrender.
@@RHCole that’s technically true, but, Japan also condemned the invasion of Manchuria by the Japanese military. Similarly, it was only after the bombs were dropped that the military finally considered surrender, and even then, some of the military even tried to rebel to stop the surrender after the bombs dropped.
@@EpicgamerwinXD6669...which brings us to "we didn't need to target a civilian center". A simple demonstration would have sufficed.
@@RHCole that’s a good point, or at least it would be if one bomb caused a surrender, which it didn’t. Even after targeting a civilian center Japan didn’t surrender until the Americans dropped a second bomb.
@@RHCole Stop being a Meiji simp
I think a couple of things that often get overlooked in this discussion are as follows, 1 - the atomic bombs were experimental weapons for their time. Nobody *really* knew just how devastating they would be until after their use in a manner as they were, and the human devastation was on display after Japan's surrender (remember, this was 1945. The photos and images we see today wouldn't have been seen by American or allied press until after the war was over) and the most the Americans had seen of the bomb's effects up until they were used in a real world scenario by bombing Japan was the test blast in the Nevada desert.
2 - It's important to remember that this was a time of total war the likes of which we today can't fathom without having gone through it ourselves. There was no love lost between the Japanese Empire and the allies, for all the crimes the Japanese had committed against millions of civilians and their savage and cruel nature toward enemy soldiers and P.O.W.'s on the battlefield. So it's no wonder why there was no hesitation on the part of the Truman administration to deploy these terrible weapons.
Now having said that please don't paint me as being purely in favor of "yes the bombing was justified." I am, but at the same time I fully recognize the absolute human horror and tragedy it was that they had to be used. It is only because of the fact that these bombs were dropped that anybody alive today has the luxury to afford to be able to discuss this topic in the first place, and to look back and see the poor Japanese civilians who had this terror unleashed upon them as fellow human beings, and not "the enemy" as they were painted at the time.
All that said though I will say this as a final argument in favor of the fact that the bombs were dropped in the manner that they were: it did ultimately save lives. And I'm not just talking about for American soldiers, Japanese soldiers, and Japanese civilians who would have otherwise either been forced to fight as nothing more than cannon fodder, or who would have killed themselves for their honor or fear of what the Americans would do to them, either.
No, it saved lives in the lessons that were taught by these horrors. Because of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because of the hundreds of thousands who had to die in these terrible events, hundreds of millions if not billions more were saved in subsequent years during the Cold War. The damage of these very primitive versions of atomic weapons would have paled in comparison to the technological terrors that were developed afterward by both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. but because the knowledge of what exactly would happen if either side chose to hit the big red button saved lives in the decades since.
Think to how differently events such as the confrontation at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin or the Cuban Missile Crisis may have played out, if Kennedy and Kruschiev didn't have the knowledge bought at the blood of every poor soul whose lives were lost from the end of WWII. It is now and always a human tragedy, but like so many others the lessons learned from this tragedy have seen to it that nobody else has been made to suffer what the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went through, and let us hope and pray that the lessons they taught are not forgotten, as there are so very precious few who lived through those times remaining to tell us their firsthand accounts, and to remind us of the nightmares man has unleashed upon itself so that they might not happen again.
While there's plenty of room for discussion regarding the effectiveness of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and other forms of nuclear deterrence, I do think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave them much more weight than they might have had otherwise. The entire world knew exactly what nuclear weapons could do to populated areas, years before global nuclear war was even possible.
Poor argument.
In summary you're saying doing something incredibly cruel can be justified after the fact by saying as a result people won't do the same again 🤣
So usa stopped japans crimes against their civilians by killing hundreds of thousands civilians in an instant
Love the content but you NEED to place the baked ad in a better position.
That twist of fate that 'spared' Kokkura is insane.
When I was in middle school(6th grade) I was pro-nuke. Not because I’m American, not out of some misguided sense of patriotism, and certainly not because I was exposed to violent media.(movies, tv, games)
I was pro-nuke because even back then, at such a young age, I understood what the alternative meant.. It boggles my mind that people today cannot comprehend, or foolishly ignore, the reality of war.
Like the invasion of Japan by the Soviet Union on the 15th. The same 15th of August, that Japan surrendered. 6 days after Nagasaki, 10 days after Hiroshima. Every city was destroyed by firebombing now there were just two more by a different type of weapon.
The bombs had no impact on the surrender on the 15th. It was the strategic situation and the Soviets. Japan knew fighting the US and the USSR was completely impossible. Japan was finished since 1944. The war would have ended even without the bombs OR the Soviet invasion.
@user-lv7ph7hs7l no the Japanese by that time would have loved for the Soviets to try an invasion as their doctrine had changed to one of taking as many people down with then as they could the bomb had the impact as there would be no inflicting mass causalities there would only be total destruction
With the atomic bombs being dropped AND the Soviet Union invading there were still attempts by military officers to stage coups to keep them in the war. That's with BOTH of them and you still see Japanese wanting to resist with both of those events. Then how is the Soviet Union supposed to get to Japan?
The Soviet Fleet was tiny and not up to keeping an army supplied or landed. The US helping with their navy? Unlikely considering by the time the Germans fell the US and Soviet Union were already preparing to be rivals. The peace between the two was already shaky by the time they worked together. And they were playing the last rounds of the pre-game before the major Cold War. The likelihood is that Japan would have been blockaded. And by then their agriculture was in shambles. Imagine millions of Japanese starving to death in a massive famine. The 1945-1947 crops were disastrous. Japan JUST kept from having a famine with US help and supplies. If the US was still bombing them, then you would have millions of dead from disease and starvation. With an infrastructure ravaged by bombing, it would have been biblical in its destruction.
Anyone who thinks it would have ended in 1944 or they were on the back foot doesn't understand the mindset. Even with both, they almost didn't surrender.
@@als3022 I couldn’t have said it any better. 👏🏻
People need to learn about operation downfall and how a Soviet occupation of Japan would have impacted japans future to become democratic
1:05 - Chapter 1 - Destroyer of worlds
2:30 - Mid roll ads
3:40 - Back to the video
6:40 - Chapter 2 - A heinous war crime
10:40 - Chapter 3 - The end justifies the means
At this point i am thinking the brutal sponsor cut are intentional
Hindsight is always 20/20. It’s easy to second guess decisions made nearly 80 years later with the wisdom of historical accounts to reflect upon
Lol there’s just no easy way to transition from shockwaves of nuclear fire to today’s sponsor.
It was pretty jarring
Fuckin' A!!
I, along with others, probably owe my very existence to those bombs. My grandfather was a corpsman in WW2 and was in the front lines of some of the bloodiest battles in the pacific (like Guadalcanal). If we had invaded the mainland of Japan who knows how long my grandfather’s luck of dodging death would’ve lasted.
Same here. My father was born in 6-28, he would have been old enough to join the fight in 1946. I likely owe my existence to those bombs.
Millions of Japanese also owe their lives to the bombs as well. It was beyond necessary imjs USA genocide my ppl too but I also see that as necessary.
And many people were never born, because their parents were obliterated by the bombs
I got a firsthand account of the bombing of Nagasaki from my grandfather. He was one of the first on Angaur Island, before the airfield was finished, and talked of how they had to use a bulldozer to clear the runway of bodies frequently until the island was cleared. He would eventually move to Okinawa before the end of the war. He mentioned Nagasaki wasn't the primary target but it was chosen for the reasons you mentioned in the video. His squadron was on the way back from bombing an ammo dump and upon seeing the cloud from the bomb, the navigator commented "Whoa, that'll blow this whore out of the sky!" and they had to reroute around it.
He was of the opinion that it was an absolutely horrific, but necessary, evil. All of the comments I see about the empire's brutality are backed up by the very few stories he'd tell of being in the Pacific. I wouldn't be surprised if this did in fact save millions, or tens of millions of lives. At the end of the day it's a complicated question/discussion at best and a nightmare for millions of people at worst.
I still don’t understand why people complain about the 2 nukes when there were multiple conventional and fire bombings on single citys in WW2 that killed more
It’s been a while since I studied WWII but I seem to recall that the emperor was looking for a path to surrender before the bombs but negotiations weren’t going well because they wanted conditions on it
I mean that's their problem. You can't do the whole "aww man I was literally about to surrender" bullshit.
The Japanese wanted to surrender and keep their entire empire. It was basically saying, let's stop fighting but we'll keep everything we stole.
Dropping the bombs was an unfortunate necessity. Operation Downfall, had it been implemented, would have been a bloodbath. Japan would have fought to the last soldier man, woman and child. It might have extended the war by two or three years. Imagine the allied casualties. When the japanese were going on about how they were going to resist to the last man, they really, really meant it. Okinawa proved that.
And dropping a nuke over the ocean but in viewing range from Tokyo (or any other major city in Japan) or maybe somewhere on a less populated area, wouldn't have done "the trick"? It had to be demonstrated on big cities with actual people (mostly civilians) living in them? And no...Japan would NOT have fought to the last man, obviously....I mean...they still could have after the bombs, but they didn't...so that argument is rather weak, don't you think?
We nuked 2 cities and the army still wanted to fight
@@NKA23 No, Hiroshima wasn't enough. A demonstration on nothing wouldn't have been enough. Only allowing the Emperor to remain, and his fear Tokyo might be next made him end the war. He never said Japan surrendered. If the coup had succeeded the second bomb and the Soviets wouldn't have been enough. Japan never had a problem fighting to the last man.
@@NKA23 Two cities were destroyed and there was still a coup against their GOD EMPEROR to continue the war. No I don't think an ocean demonstration would have scared them.
What pushed them over the edge and made the a bomb "the thing" was the effortlessness of the destruction. Fighting to the last man was only glorious if they could make us bleed, but if we had the ability to turn every city into a glowing crater there's no honor left in the fight. At that point resistance would have been a meaningless symbol that would have died in the ashes of the rest of their civilization and still some were in favor of it.
Only someone who has no context for the scale of destruction and toll of human lives could criticize the use of these weapons, or ignore the fact that they ultimately save lives and a whole civilization.
The fact is, destruction at the scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened in EVERY theater of WWII. It just usually took longer to get to that point.
People seem to forget that the world powers of the time, including Japan, had witnessed for themselves the litany of tests we preformed creating these weapons. They knew the power, and wanted it for themselves. Nobody was surrendering just because we lit a few off, nobody WOULD surrender just because we nuked some water by their city. If anything it would have just pissed them off. It was also a race against time as _everyone_ was working on nukes, and you bet your ass Japan would have _nuked_ pearl harbor if they had the tech.
Modern Japan is a modern place with modern reasonable people as much as anywhere. WW2 Japan was a psycho "kill you all or die trying" manifest destiny kind of place. Nobody in their right mind should be boo-hoo-ing for WW2 Japan.
One thing to consider is bombing of Berlin or London , tens of thousands of innocent people died , yet the difference is those cities were bombed for months. Families that survived for weeks and weeks hiding in bunkers could have been killed later. The war was horrific in different kinds of ways , there were no good or better kinds of bombs. The thing about nuclear bombs that makes them so terrifying is that there’s no basement or bunker to hide in.
Tell your editor to be less abrupt with the sponsor spot transition lol
Truman had a group of experts run through it for months, and agonized over the choice. It wasn't made lightly. I think restraint was shown. If they'd have put little boy in Tokyo, on the other side of the city from the imperial palace in plane view of the emperor, it would have killed so many more and left hirohito and his staff with zero doubts. If it'd been dropped on MT Fuji, leaving a visible scar on the nation visible for miles, the fallout would have been awful, but the statement would have been unambiguous and undeniable. In the end, the reality is that the idea of non-combatants was a dream, and the danger of a society based around its government that had absolute control that had started the war and perpetrated the worst atrocities on the most heinous scale in human history had zero justification for condemning the seeds it had sown. If the life of just one American was spared, it was a just use. Anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant, deluded, or just really hates the US and finds any justification they can to reinforce that hate.
That last part is so true, it’s laughable. Hell, there are ppl in this comments section that actually think the bombing/locations were uncalled for.
Alright, here we go again! Whenever the subject about those two cities pops up anywhere on the internet. A certain percentage of westerners will flock to it and weep for the japanese. Like moths to a candle flame. 👌👏
How many channels does this dude have?
Fr 😭
My great grandfather worked on the Manhattan project, I never got to meet him but it would interesting if I did
I would disagree with him on some things
You mentioned the US forces in the Pacific but not the British and Commonwealth forces in Burma and elsewhere.
Also the Japanese troops guarding POWs had been ordered to kill them if it looked like they were about to be liberated.
From the US, I'm of the opinion that the atom bombs did save lives. Once Japan made the decision to surrender, there was a coup attempt which had the aim of preventing a surrender and thus the end to the war. This demonstrates most concretely that in Japan, the desire to fight to the bitter end was alive and well. We can't know the exact reasoning used, but the knowledge that atomic bombs were now part of the calculus of the war surely played a part, as did the knowledge that more atomic bombs were on the way.
Excellent job at showing both sides. Start your own news network. We need more equal reporting in news. If one station reported like you it would be 100% increase in unbiased news networks lol
6:12 he finishes explaining about the drops and end of war and starts talking about if it were a war crime.
You can't judge the action based on an "objective look at the necessity of the attacks in the long run'. You can't judge based on hindsight. You can only judge based on what they understood to be the truth at the time. If the bombs hadn't dropped many many more would have died and even more would likely have fallen under the rule of the USSR.
You also can't judge based on assumption.
The future is forever uncertain --
and the unexpected happens equally as often as the expected.
I remember when I was over in Japan when I was in the military. They will talk to you all day about this some of them. But when it comes down to the atrocities that the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy committed during the second world war they get a little quiet. But I know when I bring this up weebs get so angry.
And Americans dislike talking about slavery and native genocide and jim crow's inspiration in Hitler and I could go on and on and on
It's the same thing with seppos.
They get very quiet if you ask them about Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and the atrocities they did in those countries.
Hillbillies get very angry about this topic.
@@RHColeGo ahead then, since breaking treaties and forcing Native American tribes onto reservations isn't genocide. And Hitler's antisemitism wasn't inspired by Jim Crowe, but by centuries of European history of antisemitism and Pogroms.
@@frankenschande Hey so as a patriotic American I don’t get quiet about that when its actually being the focus of a conversation.
But we are not talking about What the US did to the countless civilizations in NA.
We are talking about what Japan did (which they did more than enough) to earn them Two Nuclear Firecrackers in their collective rectal cavity.
@@RHCole go talk to the right-wingers like Ron DeSantis. They are the ones who are erasing history in particular black history from the history books.
As the great poet and UFC fighter Jorge Masvidal once said "Super Necessary"
Sometimes you just need Simon whistler to tell you a bedtime story
Japans terms for ending the war, *not surrender,* were unacceptable and they knew it. They were the following:
- Emperor Hirohito got retain his title and authority as a living Shinto god
- The Empire of Japan got to keep whatever territory they still held by the time a formal declaration for ending hostilities was signed
- There would be no occupation of the Japanese mainland
- There would be no demilitarization of either the Imperial Japanese Army nor Navy
- There would be no trials against Japanese war criminals OR if there were they'd be done by Japanese Courts _["we've investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong."]_
..and yet they surrendered. Obviously they were open to the idea.
@@RHCole They were open to the idea of getting a minor slap on the wrist despite the sheer barbarity that both IJA & IJN wreaked upon the masses of Asia & the Pacific while also retaining the fascist power structure that enabled them to kick off the war in the first place. Had we agreed to such brain dead terms, we'd be practically be begging for another future, brutal war.
@@officernealyThen why did they surrender unconditionally? They obviously were.l not as steadfast against it as you believe they were and I personally believe that the deaths of so many were not necessary
Rhcole
" yet they surrendered"
Yes UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.
AFTER the nukes were used.
They were not open to the idea otherwise they would have surrendered when they lost the philippines (since it control access to the resources from their southern conquest).
They were still not open to the idea when their transport ships were being sunked by US pacific sub fleet.
They were only open to the idea After the bombes were dropped. Even then it was split thus allowing the emperor to arbitrate and surrender. Even then there was still an attempt for coup to continue fighting (kyujo incident).
@@RHCole They didn’t surrender unconditionally they coerced the American Military to keep the Disgusting Emperor and his wretched dynasty.
I read the essay Hiroshima by John Hersey it was about the bombing of Hiroshima and it was the saddest thing I've ever read. I bawled my eyes out. However if I had to make the choice I absolutely would go ahead with the bombing of Hiroshima back then. I believe that those two bombs saved far more lives than they destroyed by forcing the Japanese to surrender.
Edit; please view the comment by @MrEjidorie and my response to his comment to see my changing view on this topic. Thank you for your time.
Murdering some to save more. You must be white lol.
Yeah bc war is a business sure murdering civilians is always justified by govts so there's that too.
@@dianedavidson7977 Your sarcastic reply doesn't help anything. I want to understand your opinion better, but you will need to explain it better (ie without sarcasm.) Please explain your reasoning, or at least why you feel the way you do.
It`s hard to believe that A-bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki contributed Japan`s unconditional surrender. Japanese leaders knew that Japan`s defeat was almost unavoidable when Imperial Navy was annihilated at the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October, 1944. In addition, Japanese confidence was completely shattered by the Great Tokyo Air Raid of March 10th ,1945 and more than 100 thousands Tokyoites were scorched to death. So Japanese leaders attempted to capitulate to the United States in a favorable condition as possible. Their top priority was that Emperor Hirohito might be immune to war crimes which Imperial Japan had committed. Japanese leaders expected the Soviet Union to work as a mediator between the United States and Imperial Japan. However, the Soviet Union annulled the Russo-Japanese Nonaggression Pact on August 9th, 1945 and declare a war against Japan out of the blue. That was Japan`s last straw, and Emperor Hirohito decided to accept Potsdam Declaration.
The United States knew Imperial Japan was on the rope, and its ostensible purpose of A-bombings was to induce Japan to accept the Potsdam Declaration. But her real objective was to contain the Soviet Union by demonstrating A-bombs` destructive power.
@@MrEjidorie I want to thank you for your response; it is the first time I have ever had a response that was respectful regarding this controversial and emotionally charged topic. Although I don't agree with you necessarily, the polite and logical argument you present is very convincing, and has given me pause to consider the possibility that I am wrong. I have concluded that strategic bombing can work, but isn't as effective as its advocates thought it would be. Again, thank you for being respectful. It is much appreciated, and something that is very rare nowadays.
A Falklands war episode would be a great edition to the channel, even more so now more information is declassified
The comparison I rarely see in these discussions is the devastating "fire bombing" campaigns that preceded the atomic bombings. Tokyo was almost totally levelled at a slower rate but in total a similar manner at Hiroshima or Nagaski. Being burned to death or terrorized either quickly or over weeks, which is worse? The obvious radiation effects is horrific, Humans can be awful.
Japan has yet to apologize, let alone acknowledge their human experiments and other atrocities during WW2 to this day. But you can find imagery of the bombs in almost all Japanese media. The alternatives would have been far worse for one side, the other, or both. Either cut off their production and cause a famine, or invade and have more die than the bombs killed. The Japanese used chemical weapons and executed POWs by Imperial order, it would have been a slaughter down to the last citizen. The bombs were a show of force that Hirohito acknowledged made him surrender after they were dropped.
Every country has atrocities.
@@RHCole While that is true, for generations Japan actively made sure they were never discussed. Generations of children were not even taunt in school about what happened. You can even argue Japan tried to claim "we were minding our own business and then in 1945 America dropped nukes on us"
@@MrSniperfox29US slavery and Florida. Every country does this.
@@RHCole Whataboutism isn't an argument.
@@CedarHuntNeither is holding a nation accountable for crimes committed 80 years ago.
“We sunk 4 of their battleships! They dropped the sun on us TWICE!!” -HeavenlyFather of The Russian Badger
Arrrr the old new way of thinking about war "we should try to talk it out" "we know better now" 😂😂😂
necessary for sure
US thinks nothing of killing Asians:
The Philippine-American War, 1899-1902 / As many as 200,000 Filipino civilians died from violence, famine, and disease. (US Dept. of Sate)
I've said it once I'll say it again if not for the bombs i wouldn't know my grandfather. Also my buddy was visiting one of the cities (forget which one) and a little old lady riddled with cancer said she was glad we did it because the military wasn't going to stop and a lot more would've been killed if we hadn't
Pretty sure Japan were willing to offer a ceasefire before the bombs were dropped.
I have seen this sentiment expressed by Japanese people in interviews for documentaries
Very old man in Hiroshima at the museum told a group of us during his tour that the US probably saved the Japanese people by doing it. They were all going to die during an invasion because they would fight to the last man.
the japanese were already preparing to surrender with conditions (which we ended up giving them anyways).
The same diplomats who screwed the pooch and led Japan into war in the first place. Because the military had political control and those diplomats were terrified of assassinations. Which in the 30's happened a ton. Not to mention with the atomic bombs and the Soviets there were still military figures who wanted to keep fighting. And some who kept fighting all the way into the 1970s. The idea they were just about to surrender and big bad America drops some bombs is ludicrous. They almost didn't surrender with them.
The Atomic Bombings saved the lives of my father & all of my uncles!!!!! - Marc Smith, born August 16, 1943
that’s what the propaganda says, anyways.
They would have been begging to surrender to us the moment that Stalin invaded mainland Japan. The bombs just sped up the inevitable, but let’s not pretend it was necessary. The outcome would have been the same 1 month later.
@@tonym6193 Ok Russian zombie
Fun fact for fact boy, they had to stop the air force from doing a firing bombing run on these targets since the bombers were reducing so many cities to ash so quickly
"The Japanese government accepted an unconditional surrender"
'Unconditional' is an odd way to put it when the Japanese were allowed two conditions: that the Emperor retain his position and that none of the Imperial family be charged with war crimes. Which, IIRC, were the two conditions the Japanese government had asked for in February/March 1945, were refused, but then were accepted by the Allies in August.