Why Japan Surrendered
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 09. 2022
- A look at the strategic reasons Japan Finally surrendered in 1945.
Additional viewing, if you're inclined:
Richard Frank - Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire
• Richard Frank - Downfa...
Final Victory In The Pacific (WW2HRT_34-01) (Authors D.M. Giangreco and David Dean Barrett)
• Final Victory In The P...
Clips Used:
Operation Downfall (Every Day, 1945-1955) - SoulChester
• [OUTDATED] Operation D...
Thanks Lemming for the Amongus
You think the thumbnail is good? I like the idea, but I couldn't get it how I had it in my head. Ah well, it works.
I cannot get over how positively bananas a thought it is: after 2 atomic bombings, an invasion by one superpower, and an imminent invasion by another superpower, Japanese officers staged a coup so they could _keep_ fighting.
"Your brain on honor culture"
You know that meme of "God' strongest soldier" and the guy looks completely deranged and tells Jesus "The fighting has become boring, give me something even worse" to which he replies "what the fuck is wrong with you"? Well, that was Japan
You should watch the english dub of 'The emperor in August'. You will be more confused
Well it is the cost fallacy so much had alreaddy been paid and the surrender would have made that pointless. Also there might also be some sense of justice behind it. Afther all the ppl deciding to surrender had dragged the nation trough hell but where not really going to pay for it afther the war. So maybe the felt betrayed by that.
Here is the biggest thing about the 2nd atomic bombing, something I had learned in my own research: the Big 6 were in the middle of a meeting. They were discussing whether or not to surrender, got news of the 2nd bombing during said meeting, and STILL had a split vote on surrender.
That is just...so hard to imagine. You know what nukes are, your homeland has been hit by one, you learn a second one has hit you shortly after a second world power invades your mainland gains, and you STILL can't agree to surrender?
Woah this dude sounds like Potential History but he actually uploaded something
must be a coincidence
He surrendered uploading.
Surely must have been a different person
Actually he kind of doesn't, he's a lot squeakier
Hah, next you'll tell me Internet Historian uploaded something
Pickett saying "I think the Yankees had something to do with it" is a really gracious, yet characteristically southern, smart-ass way of admitting defeat.
👏👏
Got to be frank the fact he called Pickett a war criminal is a bit unnecessary. The dude literally got pardoned for the accusation of the execution of the 22 prisoners by grant. At the same time he rationed they were deserters from North Carolina, which if were gonna be charitable killing deserters ain't exactly a war crime.
@Nick McDonald I never called him a war hero nor implied it. However fighting and operating in a war doesn't innately mean ya can call them criminal cause ya don't like them. Especially over elements with a bit more nuance to them again just seems a bit of a reach.
@@robosoldier11 well, in the aftermath of the war, a LOT of shit was forgiven for the sake of unity
@@haraldisdead So? Grant pardoning the guy doesn’t innately validate Pickett being a war criminal. In so far as you framing it was only done for political purposes.
Given that there were four Slave states (excluding West Virginia) fighting with the Union and the fact most of the soldiers desire to fight stemmed from preserving the Union and not abolishing slavery, your point is moot.
Thanks for mentioning the Tokyo firebombing. There are a shocking number of people who don't know that Curtis LeMay had been firebombing Japan for months before the nukes were delivered, and the death toll from napalm was far higher than the death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Every Japanese city of any consequence, with the lone exception of Kyoto, burned like mad. The real question is how much of a difference the nukes made when conventional incendiary munitions were working so well already.
I think the fire bombing probably lowered morale to rock bottom and then 2 atom bombings of 2 cities thought to be safe just did it in.
People have irrational hope in times like that and the average Japanese person probably thought something like "They haven't bombed those cities yet so they must not be able to. They are maybe on the ropes as well or at their limits."
Then those cities not only get bombed but get flattened by nukes. Instantly everyone who had hope knows that the US isn't on the ropes or wasn't able to bomb those cities. They are so strong and able that they left 2 cities unbombed to use as a test for a bigger bomb. Pretty much proving the US is not declining in power and is in fact still peaking.
Also the atomic bombs threatened their current Ketsu-go plan. The whole slogan and propaganda of which said "the sooner the Americans come the better as we will die proudly defending" but then the US just started bombing with bombers so high flying they couldn't be touched by flak or fighters.
The average person and especially top brass realized the Americans weren't coming soon. They would just wait it out and flatten cities.
So Ketsu-go kinda backfired on them because alot of the messaging was about a soon-coming invasion and bleeding the enemy. But the atomic bombs and other bombing made it clear that the invasion wasn't coming soon nor even needed. Then to top it off the new B29 meant they couldn't even shoot down the bombers to inflict casualties. So no bleeding the enemy.
This likely made 3 of the 6 side with surrender and Emperor to as well. The other 3 weren't even ready to fight to the last. They merely questioned the truth of the situation. Given a few more days and pieces of evidence to confirm it was atomic bombs those 3 might have also sided with surrender. Also given Japanese cultural views around surrender its likely the 3 vs 3 vote was a political move. Meant to make it ultimately the Emperor's choice so the 6 wouldn't receive dishonor and damnation from the public. Remember the vote at the time was anonymous as these were closed meetings because the big 6 feared army officers would commit assassinations of them if it was public that any of them were advocating peace.
Yeah, I read about the fire bombings in a book called "Japan's War."
The fire bombings mainly destroyed the old, wooden parts of the cities. The new, industrial centers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more intact and that's why they were chosen.
And they absolutely deserved all of it, maybe they shouldn't have attacked us first.
People almost always talk about Dresden when they mention Allied bombing, but I think Tokyo takes the cake. The March 1945 raid was the deadliest air attack in human history, yet most people don't know about it.
Another way you can put it is that there is no single ultimate reason for the Japanese Surrender because there was not a single Japanese Surrender, but two. One for the soldiers, another for the civilians and public. Neither of which could properly internalize the sufferings and struggles of the other camp.
the Home islands is what mattered. That is where the gov was, and that is where the final battle was to be fought. Nobody cares what military commanders thought in areas bypassed and ignored by the allies. The fact those in Japan say it was the bombs, means that is the best and most correct answer.
Russia had neither the means nor the intention to invade Japan.
@@SoloRenegade they had the intention but to be perfectly honest there was fuck all they could do to get there.
@@SoloRenegade well there is someone who cared what those commanders in areas outside the homelands thought, the thousands of soldiers under their command. If the mainland surrendered but the military didn’t, it would of created an increasingly messy situation where the war was officially over but the fighting never ended as the allies had to island by island, bunker by bunker, root out the remaining stragglers. The nuclear bombs and Russia taking of Manchuria was not the reason of surrender, it was more the excuse to placate both the civilian and military sides. Why did they really surrender? Maybe the allies had something to do with it.
@@SoloRenegade if the either home islands or the oversea holdings surrendered but the other one didn’t, the surrender wouldn’t happen. If Japan surrendered and army didn’t the war would continue, as none of the fighting was in Japan.
If the army surrendered but the government did not the Allie’s might have been able to take over their oversea holdings, but would need to invade Japan to occupy it.
@@SoloRenegade So you’re saying those commanders with about a million troops at their command don’t matter at all? Just admit you want a narrative and not real history
We are very worried about you man. I'm glad you came back for us.
Exactly!
I thought Covid got Johnny , glad he's back as well.
NO I'M BATMAN
@@imbatman8040 wow, 2 Batmans...!!!
I only found this channel during the long hiatus and really liked it so I was kinda sad that I wouldn’t see any new vids. Felt quite happy to suddenly see a new vid in my recommendation feed
The real reason why they surrendered is because one of their general said to the emperor: "This is our chance to create anime and cat girls." The emperor didn't really have to think twice on this.
He's a real one
The real reason behind the surrender : ANIME!
Redditors: *"I KNEW IT!"*
Finally somebody with the facts
Hello, based department?
The look on his face when he had yo talk about dropping the bomb is just sad, when he looks away you can tell he is deeply affected by the knowledge of what he and his fellow airmen did
Must be like a living nightmare
He did *not* look happy about it.
I can't imagine what is going through their minds. I'm sure what was happening on the ground was on all their minds. A city being nuked is obviously a pretty godawful thing. I could never imagine actually being the one to deploy it. Idk if I could really live with myself if I was in their position.
@@Jiji-the-cat5425 I mean, yeah, several hundred thousand innocent lives were lost. But if it didn’t happen, millions could’ve been lost from direct fighting
@@Brent-jj6qi Yeah, I know all that, I've heard it and been told it gillions of times over again, to the point where (no disrespect towards you) I'm kinda sick of hearing it. But I can't imagine the feeling these airmen must've felt. Like yes, sure they saw it as the lesser evil but like, but the feeling knowing what you did has to be really heavy.
It's also worth noting the importance of the issue of the emperors position, an issue that often gets overlooked in the "bombs vs Soviet invasion" argument
The Emperor's decision to surrender was very likely motivated by the bombs.
@@GeraltofRivia22 Not remotely the point of the above comment.
Japan was terrified of the idea that a US occupation of Japan would be the death of the Emperor and the end of his office.
Single bombing of tokio had taken more lives than those bombing together. Most of the japanese xities were ruins by that monent of war so one more or one less wasnt much of an issue. But complete blitzkrieg destruction of the last capable army is a differebt thing, dont you think so?
The idea that the Soviets had anything to do with the Japanese surrender is revisionist post-war communist propaganda. The Soviets did invade one island, they took devastating losses. When Stalin insisted that they plan an invasion of the Japanese mainland zhukov informed him that they lacked the necessary naval power, the amphibious landings would get smashed, and best case scenario they would be required to beg the United States Navy to come save them. Due to that the invasion was canceled, there was never any chance of a Soviet invasion of japan. Nobody at the time had any illusions to the contrary, with the one possible exception of Stalin.
Did you all even watch the video?`Seriously, didn't the video explicitly say that it was a mixture of reasons, with each reason being more important for different parts of the population?
The idea of the Japanese being unable to comprehend just how terrible the atomic bombings were, reminded me of that episode of the Twilight Zone where the guy traveled back in time to warn the Japanese of the atomic bomb. They did not get it whatsoever. "A single B-29 isn't going to destroy an entire city with 1 bomb" "It's a really big bomb, you don't understand!" Something to that effect. I always thought that was fascinating to think about.
It reminds me of my mother's reaction when she heard that the WTC in America had been hit by a plane. Must have been someone in a Cessna who got lost in low clouds or something. It wasn't until seeing the televised footage when she finished her walk that it became clear that this was no small plane (or a freak accident, as by that time second tower had just been hit minutes ago).
Of course "a BIG plane crashed into it" is much easier to conceptualise than the effect of a nuclear bomb.
Japanese scientists (and not only physicists and stuff) totally knew what an atomic bomb (if it existed) was. Multiple countries worked on it. They were both terrified and in awe of the scientific achievement when it actually got dropped.
@@bobzeepl Though trying to communicate that terrifying fact to the people, who were ignorant of the science of an atomic bomb and also its effects is, makes it a rather ineffectual argument until they have actually seen the magnitude of the effects itself or have people who have gone through it re-account the incident, which even then can still be rather hard to convince them.
@@kalina7387 That is the basis of why, in a cruel way, the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary for the world at large not because it knocked Japan out of the war, but because it gave everyone an idea of what the atomic bomb could do. Imagine the Cold War but the general public didn’t have a good grasp on what the atomic bomb was capable of. The most they’ve seen is bomb test footage and first hand accounts of people who have witnessed bomb tests, but no one knows what the atomic bomb would do on a civilian target. The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was both an introduction and a wake up call, telling everyone that there’s a new greatest weapon and if it’s used again in war, the repercussions would be severe. If that didn’t happen, the Cold War would likely have gone hot, for the public and war hawks without a general concept of the devastation of the bomb would push to use it, only realizing their mistake when it’s too late. Those who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Martyrs, they died cruel deaths, but ensured that millions wouldn’t.
@@klobiforpresident2254 Yeah, I think most people (my father included) all thought it was a small plane hitting the WTC
For a moment i thought you touched grass, welcome back!
He did it? the madlad he is
One of the things that historians are beginning to realize is that the firebombing raids where so utterly destructive they literally had no idea that anything new had happened. And when you compare the images of firebombing and nukes side by side they look shockingly similar.
I remember some nut on here who was talking about how all the cities were fire bombed and there was no nuke.
What the point of saying that was, lord knows.
The Japanese military really did not understand the concept of giving up back then. As late as the 1970s there was still a Japanese hold out in the Philippines who had lived in the jungle for 30 years, periodically raided nearby villages and *refused* to believe the war was over. The Japanese government eventually had to track down his old, retired commander to travel in person to order his surrender.
It's not as if there weren't Japanese PoWs.
The only reason they surrender was because the Emperor didnt want to die and he wasnt forced that Education
Based, the Japanese have truly achieved total triumph of spirit
I remember first hearing about the sole survivor of that squad from my Lola. There was rumor going around that one of the shootings started because they caught one of the soldiers Violating a Pig.
And he killed around 30 people and got pardoned for it
It is scary how close Japan came to basically rehashing the same situation as Germany did. Hitler held ultimate authority to end the war but refused, always expecting a turn of fortune to come. And when it never did he was resigned to see the country burn for failing *him* not the other way around.
He truly is the Typical HOI IV player
Issue is the soviets would have needed a proper navy to land a proper assault into Japan against a government and people who's entire ideology was to fight to the end. The mountainous environment would have made Afghanistan look like a cake walk
That's not to mention the soviets were also already heavily war exhausted and suffering from thousands of guerilla outbreaks
@@compatriot852 you forgot about the existence of a funny little thing called the United States Navy
Unlike Hitler, Hirohito didnt expected a turn of fortune. Japanese never expected they could win over the Americans, from the very beginning all they hope was Americans know how costly the victory would be so they might peace out white peace which certainly not in American mind at that time.
@@kylinslittlecorner8888 The united states navy would never have made it onto the shores of Japan. The japanese military size the weeks leading up to their surrender was 6 million infantry and almost 9,000 kamikaze planes. The Americans didn't even want to invade Taiwan due to the fact that it would have needed 2x the size of d-day to successfully land and take over the island.
Although it wasn’t close to their capital like Berlin, the Japanese army+civilians did manage to hold off a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido by fighting in Sakhalin and Kuril islands AFTER their surrender.
May I get a source for this?
same with the dude above me, you have a source for it seems cool to read
@@joshuajoaquin5099 Battle of Shumshu, Battle of Sakhalin
@@curumipon7089 it’s all the proof needed to show that a Soviet invasion of the mainland of Japan would have ended in a disaster
They lost Sakhalin and the Soviet Union never had the ships for an invasion of Hokkaido. A Soviet invasion of the Japanese main islands would never have worked unless the US provided the transportation.
ngl, "I think the [enemy] had something to do with it" is probably the funniest response anyone could give when asked why you lost a battle
From what I’ve read, the tactical/strategic consequences of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria were less impactful in and of themselves, than the fact that said invasion signaled the death of Japanese hopes the USSR would mediate peace talks with the US. The Japanese had been holding out hope (completely unreasonably) for months that the Soviet Union could talk down the US, but the invasion was a clear unofficial middle finger.
Sort of but not really: since Japan was always betting on making America too exhausted to “win,” it was not the remote possibility of Soviet mediation, but the fact that the Soviets couldn’t be exhausted like a democracy presumably would be.
Half true
@@warlordofbritannia also half true. With a big spoon of ideology
@@warlordofbritannia Considering they just steamrolled Germany I can imagine the Japanese were hoping out that the Soviets were too exhausted to invade them in the near future.
And then the Soviets said "I'll fucking do it again."
@@GlamStacheessnostalgialounge I don't think the Soviets soldiers had that much rage towards japan like they had with Germany. Maybe the Soviets only politically had unfinished business but the soviet population just want to celebrate and can't be bothered with Japan.
I went to the Navy museum in Kure, Hiroshima. The telegraph sent by Naval specialists based in Kure to high command in Tokyo is preserved there. Ironically it's here and not in the Hiroshima peace museum. The telegraph says simply in katakana in Japanese that "the new bomb is an atomic bomb." This is in line with Potential History, the navy was aware of the atomic bomb. To add to Potential History, another reason the army denies the atomic bomb is that Hiroshima was navy town not army town.
Wow, that's so far beyond even nationalism. It's still a Japanese city!
@@abelq8008 yea but the army and navy had massive beef with each other
Yeah the Japanese army and Navy had a relationship like two estranged siblings who still won't talk to each other.
@@abelq8008 The IJNs opponent was the USN, its enemy was the IJA.
Man even after glassing two cities the worst enemy of the IJA was the IJN, and the worst enemy of the IJN was the IJA, not the U.S.
01:56 If you look closely, the capt of the Enola Gay didn't liked to talk about the drop of the atomic bomb... It makes me remember a documentary that show a talk show in the 1950's that reunited some of the crew of the Enola Gay with survivors of the atomic bomb and where one of the crew of the B-29 talked about his reaction about the explosion on Hiroshima and he just quoted this phrase: "My god, what have we done?"
They saved the rest of Asia that's what they did. They are heroes to my country.
@@Slade951 only thing I want is that you don't get to experiance atom bomb in your life. Even when you say thing like this.
@@Slade951 i'm sure that sounds brave in your head, but the men who themselves did it were uncertain & tormented for the rest of their lives by it. you're essentially venerating them unwillingly.
its shame. he was interviewed to say it was a success and to brag about it and market it to the public as a victory but his face and eyes betray him. I hope he and others like him found peace in the later years of their lives.
@@GodsDumbLamb I will make a correction of the comment that I wrote, I got it wrong, it wasn't the captain of the Enola Gay that said the quote that I wrote in the first comment, the "my god, what have we done?", the quote was said by the co-pilot of the Enola Gay, Tibbets (the captain of the Enola Gay), he wanted the glory and criticize those who regretted dropping the Atomic bomb and even tried to disgrace them
I always thought it was certifiably *_fucking insane_* that the Japanese somehow thought America was "weak-willed" and would eventually surrender, especially given Japan's own history with the United States; the entire reason Japan was even opened up to the West for trade was because we basically busted their fucking door down in the form of a Warship rolling up to one of their ports and threatening to bombard it unless they opened up negotiations.
Let me say that slower:
Japan, one of the countries *_most directly affected_* by America's Manifest Destiny, somehow thought we'd give up the will to fight. Really goes to show how much the Big 6 and the Nationalists in Japan were in denial of reality.
Personally i think its more defiance of reality than denial cause denial implies how bad you know the situation is defiance i think means being on a whole different reality where you simply live not in denial but peace and harmony in your fanatical ideology i think it shows more how fanatical the people were at the time
Japan: Hey, let's go to war with the nation that supplies most of our steel and petroleum.
When the world needed him most
He uploaded.
He un-surrendered
Wondered what happened to his Patreons...
I was doing a historiographical term paper on this exact topic a few semesters ago, and god is it such a fucking rabbit hole. One of the more interesting theories I think I read about was one that said that the Japanese essentially used the dropping of the bombs as a way to save face, as a way to say they had to give up in the face of overwhelming odds. Even though many elements of the wartime government may not have been impressed with the usage of atomic weapons as you mentioned in the video, it still allowed them to paint the bombs as a sort of scapegoat. Post-war, they embraced and to an extent propagated the idea that they surrendered after the bombs to almost make it seem like their nation was nobly ‘martyred’ as a way to show the world the dangers of potential nuclear warfare. It makes a lot of sense when you consider the completely different reaction to atomic weapons that the government and higher ups had from wartime to post-war, and how staunchly anti-nuke they’ve (outwardly) been since then. As morbid as it is, the dropping of the bombs is pretty much one of modern Japan’s founding myths, and it’s one that’s allowed them a lot of political and cultural clout in matters regarding nuclear weapons.
I read this too, some retired general said it gave an excuse for the usually shameful act of surrender, if not presented with such an excuse then they would've had to fight on.
And when the myth is built around the bomb, it becomes a taboo weapon to showcase. Kinda makes sense.
As someone who enjoys the idea of nations creating " Myths" to alter how a people think about certain things I like this theory. Especially when we have evidence of other nations doing similar things post war as well. From the Germans essentially shutting the book on WWII by declaring that everyone in WWII was bad and that we must now all as a nation rally in righting the wrongs, to De Gaul delcaring all french were resistance fighters and a major in order to prevent questions being raised ( They weren't all resistance fighter) to the soviets creating their myth that they fought the german bear all alone in order to justify casualty numbers. I really don't see why japan couldnt/ wouldnt have done the same.
That being said if this was really the case then the Atomic bombs did infact end the war.
@@reaperking2121 Eh, like PH indicated in the video, it was more or less a combination of several things at once. At home they emphasized the power of the bombs in forcing a surrender, and to their armies abroad, they cited the invasion of Manchuria by the Russians. I believe it was only after the war ended that they placed greater emphasis on the former. The question the Japanese were grappling with was which option allowed for the best chance for Japan to survive and thrive. Ultimately those in power believed that surrendering would be more beneficial than potentially ruling over an empire of ashes.
In a screwed up way, the same worked for East Germany and the Clean Wehrmacht Myth
I think it largely boils down to Hirohito. Without him breaking the deadlock and getting the ball rolling the government would have just sat there dysfunctional without being able to decide what to do. That need for Unanimity for a decision meant all it would take is one holdout to stall any attempt to surrender. So the question becomes, what convinced Hirohito? My impression is that he finally looses trust in his generals. "No way they have another bomb"-"BOOM". but even then, that's just the final straw. I would suspect all the lying and infighting previously in the war had something to do with it too.
The Russian invasion convinced the US to basically let them keep the emperor, so that Japan didn’t become more aligned to the soviets
So glad every year when I get the notification this channel has uploaded. Always fantastic historical analysis on topics that are often mired in confusion and speculation
I literally checked out this channel yesterday, wondering whether the man himself would upload soon.
And like magic, the notification that thousands have been waited for with baited breath finally arrived.
Welcome back Johnny.
My dude same to me!!!!
Hehe me too watched the Surigao strait vid yesterday
same, watched the Yamato
facking same, watched the reasons Germany couldn't have won and I wondered if this awesome channel would return
The most stupid thing i read on the internet was a comment in article about ww2. It was maybe 12 years ago. It goes something like that: Japan never surrender to US. Japan had secret fleet of military zeppelins loaded with anthrax, ready to wipe US population. so US and Japan struck a deal that looked like a surrender, but Japan keep the emperor. Ye...
In a story I heard from the Japanese, the reason why Japan hated surrender and received kamikaze was neither forced by the military nor by the people. It was a shared obsession over the society that "we must not speak of surrender."
The excuse for them was that the emperor himself ordered surrender. They wanted to create a format that they didn't want to surrender but had to obey HIM's order. The video shows how he came to his decision.
Of course also like in the video, others would have followed their logics.
I personally think the invasion and atomic bomb were excuses that Hirohito seized upon to capitulate without losing too much face, as in 'okay, but this situation is completely new and changes everything, there is no shame in surrendering with the Soviets invading and new bombs that can flatten a city in one go falling on us'. I'm fairly sure if the Emperor had wanted war this would have been just another bit of bad new, but the way it was presented this was something new and therefore something that could be claimed to invalidate the suicide pact.
Which is why I think the bombs were perhaps not necessary, but definitely ended up doing good by allowing a way out of the conflict for Hirohito, and the same goes for the invasion of Manchuria.
One of the key aspects, and most advantageous aspects for the losing japanese side even, was exactly the perfect excuse that the nuclear bomb provided in fact.
It was the perfect block for both parties.
There was also the cultish worship of the Emperor and the fact that Japanese military officers admitting to any shortcomings would often be murdered by their subordinates.
Never forget that when asked, many surviving kamikazes don’t recall *anybody* volunteering
Please don’t stop making videos man, I feel like you are on the verge of it, and I really love your videos
you were into something there, mate
Great to see you back and answering a question we all had
One thing people often forget is there was a third bomb basically completed and ready to be assembled and shipped to japan if they chose not to surrender. It’s express target was going to be Tokyo and decapitating the government, including the emperor, who at this point would have no longer been seen as a sane negotiating partner. As far as I know there was no fourth bomb in advanced stages of development and one would likely take several months at least.
After it was deemed surplus to requirements it was converted into a research subject, where it famously killed a few scientists in lab accidents and became known as “the demon core”. Something for which it’s more famous today than it’s origin as a potential Tokyo-leveling bomb.
There was a bunker in Tokyo and the government wouldn't have been decapitated. It would've been a massive statement though.
@@pax6833 The atomic bombing missions were only flown with 3-5 aircraft, not the swarms they were used to seeing. It’s unlikely that it would have triggered an air raid response and evacuating into a bunker, as otherwise they’d be living in a bunker, hitler style 24/7 every time a weather or recon b-29 flew by.
Nope, Tokyo was already gone at that point. The target was Kokura(the original target of the second bombing) with Nishinomiya on backup.
@@kalkuttadrop6371 Yeah at that point Tokyo had been hit so many times by firebomb raids i doubt they would have noticed a difference.
I know there was a third bomb, but idk if Tokyo was a target. Tokyo was already decimated for one, and they also needed the government leaders still alive so they could actually have people to negotiate peace with.
In addition to the combination of atomic bombing, Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the Emperor's decision to surrender, there was also the aspect of the Chinese counter attack.
The Chinese nationalist army which had been decimated in Ichi-Go, had gone on the offensive with the Alpha force with the operation Carbonado in which the Japanese army in China planned to hold out at the Yangtze, while the Chinese Alpha force had reached the outskirts of Fort Bayard (the French port city in China north of Hainan).
When even the Chinese are defeating the Japanese after Ichi-Go, you know its bad for Japan.
The discussion of why Japan surrendered feels like asking which of the punches made the referee call a TKO. Given the fire (and nuclear) bombing campaign, Soviet invasion, and Chinese resurgence there were a lot of hits to Japan's nutsack at the time.
IIRC the only other country that the Chinese beat was China.
Didn't China had a victory against Japan in Wuhan?
@@jessicalulila5709 They were gonna march that through after halting the failed Japanese follow up of I Chi Go by defending the last territories of all the western parts of Hubei, Guizhou, and Henan. That the Japanese armies trying to snipe the airbases there implies that their momentum from their Hail Mary was gone and exhausted
@@jessicalulila5709 A strategic victory in hindsight cause the IJA failed to destroy the Chinese army in Wuhan but Japan won the battle of Wuhan.
Calls itself "Land of the Rising Sun"
Gets upset when we provide extra sunrise.
It was getting kinda dark out that day and we thought we’d bring the sun up early for em to show our good will
Honestly great video, fantastic opening and closer that you tied together
He has returned!!!
I wonder what would’ve happened if the middle officers actually were able to take Control of the emperor
Some sort of civil war.
They would’ve handed the power to the higher ranked officers and the war would’ve continued as usual. This is actually very common practice in Japan at the time. Higher level officers would convince the lower level officers to act in “the nation’s best interest” in moment, but wouldn’t give any official orders. These officers would often get little to no prison time thanks to sympathy in both judges and the common people. It was seen as a coup against the government, not the will of the emperor. That’s why it was so important for him to get on the radio the second time and tell the army that he also explicitly wished for the war to end and was not just acting in his official duties to the government.
Japanese as an ethnicity wouldn't exist anymore on the home islands, and I'm not joking. Its estimated that most of Japans population would have died if the US and the Soviets had to invade the home islands.
@@iterationfackshet1990 I'm skeptical that the Soviet Navy had the capability to land a sizable force & support a land invasion of the Japanese Home Islands, & I doubt the islands that connect Hokkaido & Russia would have enough infrastructure to support a large enough land force to make headway inland.
I'd put more stock in Russia moving south and destroying the Japanese Army in China, finishing the job the Chinese did.
3rd bomb dropped on Tokyo, Japan would get blockaded and flattened is my guess
I think that keeping the monarchy and current institutions was crucial for Japan, and it could be done only by signing a peace deal with the US, cause USSR would have completely change the entire structure of power.
Nice to see a Western youtuber talking about Manchurian invasion tho, bc my great grandfather participated in it. They crushed elite Japanese forces in just 2 weeks.
They were not elite in 1945. Japanese command took most of elite regiments to fight Americans in Pacific Theater.
Based soviet russian grandpa. He probably murdered so many chinese children.
Great video! Missed your content
Glad to have you back Johnny! Great content as always
I'm sure it's been mentioned already, but I think the politics of the Cold War also played a role in how we understand and study the Japanese surrender.
Relating to Cold War politics, I've become curious on something. I've been thinking that say somehow the USSR developed the atomic bomb before we did and used it against Japan in the same way we did, and Japan surrenders just like in our timeline.
Would Americans still be supportive of it? In the same way people online seem to be? Or would the horrors of atomic warfare be documented in full and used as anti-Soviet propaganda of some sort?
I find it kinda obnoxious when whenever the horrors that happened at Hiroshima are brought up, people immediately jump online and say, "well actually, the land invasion would've killed way more!" This topic more so than others, and I feel if someone else did it to Japan, this responses from people would be much different.
@@Jiji-the-cat5425 Probably. I bet alot of the same people who talk about how bad the US doing it is would also be more open to defending it if the Soviets did it.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 The Russians to this day use the atomic bombings as one example as evidence for "why the West is bad." I guarantee if they did it, they would still be defending it and also demand the world to be grateful for it too.
@@Jiji-the-cat5425 I think it would be used as more fuel for anti-Soviet propaganda at the very least. But it's definitely a big counterfactual. Honestly though, I think the Soviets would've used nukes against Germany long before they used them on Japan.
@@RomanianJ96 Even if the Soviets nuked Berlin or Hamburg or something, the argument would be the same. Especially if it's a city that falls into West German hands. A lot of the stuff we did in history, if someone else did it, with the same reasoning, and same results, we probably wouldn't support it.
Best video on this topic I have seen yet!
I see you also browse Non Credible Defense…missed you bro, glad to see you upload again
The fact the US had multiple bombs available is pretty horrifying though. Even if the total damage caused by the 2 bombs wasn't significant compared to what prior bombings were capable of, showing that multiple of these bombs could be produced in a short time gives horrifying implications if the US could just keep making more.
for the japanese, the damage brought to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was really no worse than to all the cities previously bombed by conventional means
in most cases the cities were effectively rased to the ground and a good chunk of their population dead or injured
the only notable thing to them was that only one plane came, but like explained in the video it changed nothing for the japanese
"they destroyed 2 cities, and?"
"they destroyed 5 just last month, whats your point?"
Japan had a plan, let the Americans come, and bleed them until they don't want to fight any more, then they'll sue for peace
they didn't know the US were expecting a bloody fight anyway (for Operation Downfall, the US minted nearly a million purple heart medals, only started running out of those recently) and the US leadership had calculated the losses expected, and were making preparation to the invasion, if only to put an end to this whole nonsense
@@quentintin1 This narrative has been addressed in the video, you are just repeating the same old narrative. It may have meant little to the army, but the government seriously considered surrender, and then Hirohito decided to surrender. Given that just a few days earlier they thought that they can follow through with the plan, it was significant, if your narrative was true, there wouldn't have been a tie when government considered surrender. Clearly they must have seen that the plan is not working out, USA could produce more bombs.
@@quentintin1 Big difference between conventionally levelling a city using tens of thousands of bombs carried out by hundreds of bombers and being able to level a city with a single bomb dropped by a single plane in an instant…
The USA could wipe out every major city on the island in a few hours using less than a dozen planes…
Doing the same damage conventionally would take weeks of bombing at least, using way more equipment and planning, and it can realistically be fought against by the Japanese.
@@quentintin1 I would argue that's why it was so successful to their morale. Soviets in the north and Chinese to the south were both advancing but had no way for an invasion. With bombs you then have a tangible affect on the population and administration, not just the army and navy.
Firebombs were still more effective and efficient.
You miss a few other elements that were going on internally. To begin the Big 6 we’re Army weighted. The Navy having been pretty much destroyed by this point. One Navy Admiral and the Foreign Minister did push for peace. This peace faction were the ones reaching out to the Soviets. The War faction. Principally the Army were hardcore fight on. There was a third rarely talked about faction, that had powerful influence, but little direct power in the government. The Imperial Household and the Emperor. Remember the Emperor was not simply the head of State. He was the center of the Japanese Shinto faith. Bound up part and parcel with the core of Japanese Identity. What it means to be Japanese. The goal of the Imperial Household was to preserve the institution of the Emperor, if not the person of Hirohito as Emperor. Ideally they looked at something like the British model. And they were very very worried, not as much about external threats as internal ones. On a recent rare trip outside the Palace grounds the crowds witnessing the Emperors car had been very very worrying to his security. They were not well behaved and respectful. The Imperial Household had dispatched a few of the Princes to investigate the true state of the nation following Hiroshima. And to investigate Hiroshima itself. The Emperor and his advisors no longer believing what the Big 6 was telling them. The reports they got back terrified them. Rising Communist Activities on the Northern Island of Hokkaido. And it told the Emperor of the looming famine. The nation would exhaust what bare food reserves they had by October. After which the government and the Emperor would fall to their own people. This wiped any of the Army’s Ketsuo-Go conceit from Imperial consideration. Communism and the Soviets were what the Imperial Household feared most. They saw what had happened to the Romanoff’s. The second atomic bombing at Nagasaki gave the Imperial House and the Emperor the leverage they needed to act. It gave the Emperor a pretense to instruct the Japanese people to ‘surrender with honor, in the face of an unstoppable weapon that cannot be fought”. There was no dishonor in surrendering to the Atomic Bomb. What their goal really was, was to choose who they surrendered to, in order to insure some hope of preserving the Imperial Institution as the cultural and Societal Heart of Japan. If not Hirohito himself. They saw the American’s as the best option for this. Mostly with the British pressing their Ally to preserve the Imperial Throne. (The British Crown having its own interests in seeing such institutions preserved at wars end. Rather than what happened at the end of WW1. Ie Romanoff’s.)
And the Emperor’s plan worked quite frankly, because the regular Japanese people were exhausted of war. Not the Army. The citizenry almost universally wanted what came next. Whatever came next. They had been at War since 1933. With every year growing worse. This more than anything was why the first American soldiers to land in Japan found an astonishingly curious, polite and cooperative people. Instead of the crazed ideological killers they were expecting.
That and it really helped that MacArthur told the emperor to go out and do public speeches to the people and taking a photo with him (MacArthur) foiled OSS (WW2 CIA) plans to have a "commie" assassinate the emperor/use the peace deal to completely de-power and humiliate him (Hirohito) and his position.
Emperor (2012) with Tommy Lee Jones playing MacArthur made him an icon to the Japanese all for the reason that MacArthur basically swaggered in and saved the emperor.
Eh still seems to be giving too muchncredit to the reds.
Any interesting sources on this? I’ve heard a lot about the absolute terror the Japanese senior command had of a Soviet occupation rather than an American one, which would obviously radically alter the monarchist tradition of the country, but would love to read something more in-depth.
The japanese diplomat to Germany at the time made lots of detailed reports about the atrocities committed by rampaging soviet soldiers. There was definitely a fear of the communists. Well written post.
This was better than the video haha
Thumbnail looks good. Only other option (imo) would be an altered version of the split screen of the meme beard guy with the bomb, and the soviet advancement map. But I'm not sure on how to alter it.
I'm glad you're back man, your videos are great.
He’s back!!! PLEASE MAKE MORE VIDEOS
Imagine believing that a country who was printing aircraft carriers and Uber-wonderweapon-strategic bombers out of angry spite wouldn’t just start mass-producing nukes.
Fair point. Even though the US didn’t get to that production point until the early 50s, I can absolutely guarantee you that the US would have rapidly increased production if the war continued. I mean, you are dealing with a country that has an entire population royally pissed at you for attacking first, and they want nothing less than to end the war with victory so their boys can come the hell home.
Right? It’s like come on, pay attention.
Believe it or not early on the Us couldn’t just build bombs willy nilly.
@@acceleration4443 while they certainly couldn’t at the time, it’s not like they couldn’t in the very near future. After the war the US decreased its production until they realized Russia and China were our new threats, and after that we started pumping them out like Model-Ts.
They had REALLY good reason to assume that. Before the Manhattan Project, all understanding of nuclear weapons involved enriching uranium, which was REALLY hard. From the start of the war, the US only produced enough enriched uranium for a single bomb, Little Boy. They didn't even get to test it. And in fact, they didn't even manage to get to what we'd call "weapons-grade" enrichment today. Plus, the weapon was extremely inefficient so it required huge quantities of the enriched uranium. Everyone who had dabbled with uranium knew about this limitation. Mass producing Little Boy weapons would have taken all the uranium ore production on Earth in order to crank out like 1 or 2 bombs a year.
What they didn't know is that the Americans had invented the atomic bomb TWICE. The Trinity Gadget and Fat Man were plutonium implosion type weapons, which were theorized entirely within the Manhattan Project. The method for breeding plutonium at scale was also entirely within the project and no one else had gone near that route. The Soviets were probably the only ones who knew about the plutonium route, thanks to their good buddy Claus Fuchs.
I think a lot of the single cause and effect thinking that is so prevalent is the results of how a lot of us, at least those in the US, where taught history. We were always taught in discreet parts, you only learn about events as if they happened in a vacuum with clear beginnings and ends, and rarely is the messily interconnected nature of multiple events occurring simultaneously, and feeding into each other, brought up. Probably because its not needed for the standardized test, as long as you fill in the right bubble you don't really need to understand.
I don't know where you were taught, but that wasn't the case in my school at all. We'd spend almost too much time going over why, say, the Revolutionary War started, all the reasons and events that led to it, and that was repeated at least 5 or 6 times. No, humans in general have a tendency for binary thinking and trying to simplify things down to one cause.
It's similar to the narrative that the USA committed no war crimes in WW2 and the war only turned once the USA got involved. Just boiling things down to generalizations and happenstance.
Standardized testing ruined education... Students are taught to the test with no additional depth added. We are taught little to nothing on what else historical figures did or why they did it.
I don’t know if it is just the US but the public education history curriculum is definitely geared towards simplifying concepts to make it more consumable to the average student, but to detriment of actual historicity. I remember how we learned about classical civilizations and trying to compare the fall of Rome and the fall of Han China, even though they were very different civilizations with their own unique systems and challenges. Instead we made broad generalizations that would make it easy to remember (barbarian invasions, internal corruption etc).
Same thing with the atom bombs. Simplifying the surrender by placing all of it on the bombs plays into our own stereotypes and cliches about the Japanese, viewing them as some monolithic, unfeeling and unyielding entity rather than the disjointed chaotic mess it really was and gives a nice, clean, definitive answer. By doing it this way, we give a lot of credence to historical determinism and ruin how people view history.
@@westrim My history lessons (by Christian nutjobs) about the Revolutionary War can be summed up as follows: War started because unfair taxes, Boston Teat Party happens, Green Mountain Boys capture a fort, Bunker Hill happens, and then nothing important happens for the rest of the war until Cornwallis's surrender. So nothing about: the Invasion of Quebec, George Washington's campaigns, the West, the Battle of Saratoga, the Southern States, privateers, Native involvement, the international character of the war, or anything else that was going on. Yours sounds a lot more interesting.
you finally posted something
Yay you uploaded again! Hope you get back to it, in the meanwhile I subscribed back!
Despite the fact that the Japanese army obviously didn't care about it's people, I do kinda understand them not caring so much about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you have ever seen the aftermath pictures of the fire bombings vs the nukes, there isn't much difference. Both killed huge chunks of the local population, and both left basically nothing but ashes behind. One was slightly slower, but not by that much. People need to understand that, after a certain point, it doesn't matter if it was one bomb or a hundred bombs; they had almost the same effect. One was just a bit faster and more efficient. Does it matter if 90% of the city was vaporized in a fire tornado with 1000+ degree temperature, or a nuclear blast with a 1000+ degree temperature? I'm not saying that it wasn't unethical, I'm just saying that the nukes really weren't that much different than the fire bombings.
Firebombing and burning a city still took days or even weeks. Hiroshima and Nagasaki got most of their damage in the literal milliseconds after the blast. THATS what was terrifying about it. There’s no semblance of a fight or battle, just an instant destruction of a city
@@damonedrington3453 My good friend, I would hardly call a few airplanes piloted by amateur, malnourished teenagers vs a many full squadrons of fighters and bombers piloted by veterans and with superior equipment (the B-29s had radar assisted guns, and the Corsairs were vastly superior to the Zero), a fight; let alone a fair fight. Besides, the important question is which is the more ethical way to kill defenceless people; vaporized in an instance, or slowly burned to death? Now, I know that many people in the margins of the nuclear blast were burned to death, but having only some of them burn to death is a bit better than all of them I think. I also know that the question is a bit absurd, but I digress.
@@damonedrington3453 Also, if you are familiar with you WWII planes, you will know that none of the Japanese anti aircraft guns or fighters could even reach a B-29 at it's maximum altitude (if you Google it, the maximum altitude of a Zero was about 16,000 feet, and the maximum altitude of a B-29 is about 31,000 feet. They did often fly lower than their maximum altitude for increased accuracy, but that was not the case in the Bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, as accuracy isn't exactly your top priority with a nuke. They were defenseless wither it was a firebombing raid or nuclear raid. Also, don't underestimate how deviating fire bombing raids were. Tokyo was burned to the ground in two days, not two weeks. I would do your research on the firebombing before I go out and say with confidence that the nukes were worse. I would watch the documentary "fog of war" by Errol Morris to get filled in on the details and nuances of this unfortunate situation.
@@donz6211 As terrible as the nuclear bombs were, in a sick way they were kind of better than the firebombings (minus the radiation, though keep in mind, we didn't really know about the horrors of radiation poisoning until afterward). With a nuke, it was all done with in a flash, people died before they even knew what happened (well, people close to the blast, people away from the blast suffered brutally). Whereas I can't imagine how horrifying being in a firebombing must be, and I feel sorry for all the people who were in the firebombings. Though one thing to keep in mind, while some deaths in a firebombing were due to burning (which is one of the worst ways to go), most deaths were actually caused by the lack of oxygen, because the burning buildings ate up all the oxygen, so there was practically no air.
@@donz6211 Also yeah, a firebombing didn't take weeks. The actual raids only lasted like...an hour or two, and the fires usually burned themselves out several hours after.
I had to stop everything to see this. I thought we had seen the end of Potential History but he has miraculously returned.
Excellent analysis.
Welcome back my dude!
The rising sun by John toland is a very interesting book as it's the pacific war from a mostly Japanese perspective. It goes into great detail about the politics from the Japanese side and especially the final days of the war. It does a good job of weaving individual Japanese soldier and civilian stories into the story between the narrative of political and military machinations. Very good book.
You’ve managed to communicate a lot in just 11 minutes here. Tight script, good job
Glad ya showed Shauns video, it was great
Woah, crazy, multiple things can compound on each other to cause something? (a surrender in this case)
Anyway, great video! Honestly makes me wonder why we tend to often obsess so much over this idea of "what was the one thing that changed everything?" When there's often multiple factors and not just one main one
Hearing Fantasy by Meiko Nakahara as it cuts to footage of the the imperial army really knocked the wind out of me
Good or bad?
@@albertoandrade9807 funny, like a comedic flash-bang
It hit me like a bag of peeled grapes...
That shit had me rolling.
You're back! Thank you for your hard work! Hope to see more but if you needed the break I respect that as well if not more. Keep it up either way dude!
The narration is really hilarious and entertaining. You earned a subscriber.
welcome back!!
Great video as usual. Love your perspectives on these long contested historical events.
I remember also hearing that just before surrendering, Hirohito had confirmed with the US that his life would be spared. So maybe another thing worth throwing on the "allies had something to do with it" pile.
How in the ever-loving algorithm has your channel been hiding from me!?!?!??!?!
Better late than never.
The U.S. by August 1945 was like a peak maxed out RPG protagonist that's fighting the final boss who only has like, less than 10 HP left. Only for his frienemy who is also maxed out to suddenly join in.
I dont know if I missed your videos or what, but I feel a huge upgrade in the production quality on top of your narration, which was always great. I love it!
Hi, thank you for all your hard work. Your videos are fun and informative. 👍
Holy hell , he's back!
Please p hizzy I just discovered your channel and already watched all of your videos I can't wait another 9 months for a new video
Ah, Johnny's yearly upload.
FINALLY A POTENTIAL HISTORY UPLOAD!
You are literally my favorite youtuber man, it's good to have you back!
Ketsu-go and the never surrender mindset in the army was so strong that one dude legit fought the war by himself until 1972 when his then retired commander finally relieved him of duty. Sure he didn't know that the home islands actually surrendered but at that point I don't think he (like much of the army) would have cared. (also there was one person who held out until 1974, but I couldn't find out as much on him)
There's a movie titled "Japan's longest hour" that goes about how the Japanese army refused to surrender, going to the extent of committing terrorism.
Wow, it’s been a year since you uploaded last.
Glad to see you again!
Hope you're faring well, and thanks for coming back to us. Great "no bullshit" content, as always!
Hear me out, it was both the Atomic Bombs and Soviet Invasion of Manchuria that caused the Japanese surrender
Decent historical work here , hints of brilliance
we all miss you so much man great to see you back. I believe in your unlisted star wars battlefront 2 Q&A you mentioned trying to do a "why the confederacy couldn't win" vid like with Germany, hopefully, that becomes a reality someday but honestly anything you release would be perfectly lovely. Never lose passion for this man, we're all with you when we say we appreciate your content to the highest ability.
A video about why the confederacy couldn’t win would sound interesting.
But for me if the confederates get a big ally like the British or French on their side they actually would have a decent chance.
It would be a lot easier to say when the confederacy couldn’t win. Gettysburg and Vicksburg happening basically back to back really crushed their chances
We need this!!
The confederates could win tho, they almost took Washington.
The Confederacy could have won, but the odds were increasingly stacked against them in any war lasting longer than a year and a half
Nice upload💯
PS: I honestly *wish* we had more of an insight from the Japanese Soldier’s prospective.
@@Cordman1221 just soldiers involved in Nanking. I’ve never seen any book on it from a Japanese perspective
It’d be fascinating to see what went through their mind.
@@Cordman1221 "Nationalist hands (worse)" Nationalist China wasn't worse. Chiang Kai-shek, even though he didn't exactly like Japanese knew he was losing against Mao at this point, because Mao had backing of Soviet Union. What Chiang Kai-Shek ordered was for the surrendered Japanese soldiers to keep their weapons and hold their positions and fight against Mao's rebellion until Allied forces could arrive to relive them.
Nationalist China retuned almost all prisoners by 1946, except those who wanted to continue fighting with nationalists.
In contrast those who surrendered to soviets in Manchuria it was hard. They were sent to Siberia and last prisoners were returned ten years later. Those hundreds of thousands that didn't die that is.
@@festerbester7801 I remember reading a comment on CZcams of this taiwanese guy saying that maos forces dressed up as Japanese soldiers and did the massacre. Sounds hard to believe, but if you think about it, it kinda makes sense.
I then asked him about where he got this information. He said he got it from some taiwanese books in a library.
It makes me think that we have been deceived by the communists, thinking that the Japanese committed such a horrible act. It all fits in with the Japanese “supposed“ mindset and stuff. However I wish i can view these books and the information that the Taiwanese have.
@@festerbester7801 It’s always been insane to me that the people that laughed as they slaughtered families in Nanking were let off and hold out until the Allies came. I read a book where a Japanese soldier were so shocked that the Chinese treated them good because they thought they were going to bayonet and brutally torture them as they did to China.
@@mikloridden8276 hence why I *wish* there was some memoir on it.
Yeah the Rape of Nanking is good *BUT* the author made a point not to chat to any Japanese soldiers.
*Why?*
The psychology of those soldiers would be so fascinating.
He’s back
First time finding your channel and I had a blast listening to this for 4 hours straight whale playing warthunder.
It's a great day in history when Potential History uploads a video.
Damn, I'm mad at CZcams for not showing this in my notification lists when it dropped. Glad to see a new post from ya!
Thanks for making a very concise video on the topic that I can point folks towards for discussion on Japan's surrendering. While Shaun's video is great and goes to great lengths, it focuses more on the morals behind dropping the bombs which is a bit more of an advanced discussion rather than a primer on the topic.
Yeah. The morals aren't a bad topic, I think they should be talked about, but it's a separate conversation from what caused Japan's surrender. Trying to merge both topics into one just causes a lot of arguments and debates.
CZcams doesn't want you to know history
I don't get how people try to credit the Soviets with this; almost ALL of their forces were on the other side of the Eurasian continent, and it wasn't going to be a simple walk toward the East end.
You know the video is gonna be good when Meiko Nakahara is in the intro to talk about Japan:)
Awesome video. Glad to see you making one again. I'd love to see you take a deep dive into the nuclear bombing of Japan. You've talked about it in multiple videos to some extent. But a deeper historians perspective into what the american thinking was, what it meant and the moral debate surounding it still to this day. Seems a topic that very much deserves its own video.
Missed you Jonny, glad to see you making content again.
Respect using that Medal of Honor Rising Sun soundtrack, I see you bro!
One thing to also take into consideration when talking about Japan's insistence on the Emperor's position is that the Japanese likely viewed the Emperor's position as a proxy for the endurance of the Japanese nation and people, thinking that if their enemies would not let even the Emperor remain then they ran the risk of Japan losing its language, pride, and culture if they surrendered. Whereas if the Emperor remained then in their view the Japanese nation would not run the risk of extinction.
The Japanese Emperor had been the center of political, cultural, and religious life for centuries. Hirohito could trace his lineage back to Amaterasu the goddess of the sun and head of the Shinto pantheon. By at least the 1300s the Japanese Emperor was the physical representation of the Japanese state and nation. With all Japanese governments from this period until the end of WW2 claiming to rule on the Emperor's behalf. The Emperor was a direct descendant of the most honorable God and had a mythological status in Japanese society. The position of the Emperor was roughly equivalent to Jesus Christ if he had established a physical Kingdom on Earth. To remove the Emperor from power and try him for war crimes would have been unthinkable. And in the end leaving the Emperor in his position and exempting him from war crimes trials were the only conditions Japan surrendered with.
@@tycoughlin735 Not entirely true, he'd only been elevated beyond a figurehead in the last 80 years before WW2
The Emperor had taken a backseat for centuries before that.
@@tycoughlin735 My problem with the narrative of the Emperor being the focal point of Japanese society is that if that is the case why did the militarists, if Tojo's account is to be believed, then fragrantly ignore and sideline the Emperor in the decision to go to war, absolving him and the Imperial Household of responsibility. This is of course ignoring the previous centuries of Japanese politics before the Meiji Restoration where the Shogun held real power, ostensibly in the Emperor's name but none questioned who really held authority.
The Emperor in Japanese society is closer to how Christians view the Pope, an imperfect analogy to be sure but closer than the living god argument.
Also the reason the Japanese felt the dissolution of their race should they lose the war is that history up to that point told them how Anglo-Saxons treated the foes they conquered. With the fate of the vanquished ranging from the Colonialism of British Rule in India to the near annihilation suffered by the Comanche and Cherokee in their opposition to American Manifest Destiny. Looking at history the Japanese had no assurance they would get a Versailles Treatment rather than a Far Eastern Trail of Tears if they surrendered unconditionally, so the Emperor's position was a canary in the coal mine so to speak for Japanese political leadership.
Michael - The Emperor was considered a Divinity and the "Big Six" ruled through his authority .
The July 26th , 1945 Potsdam Declaration makes it clear Truman and his advisors intended to remove Japan's military gov for all time and bring in human and democratic rights .
The "Big Six " rejected the Potsdam Declaration with silence .
When the Emperor broke the stalemate of the " Big Six " on August 10th , 1945 , they agreed to the terms of the Potsdam declaration , providing the “declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as Sovereign Ruler.”
This trick meant the Emperor would have remained the supreme authority during the US occupation , and could have over ruled any attempts to amend Japan's Constitution .
While under US occupation , Japan's Constitution was changed in 1947 - it was modeled after Britain's Westminster system . The mistake made was that the Emperor became symbolic only - When in fact he should have been given the same small amount of executive authority Britain's monarch has .
.
@@michaelthayer5351 - Yes people debate the amount of authority or influence the Emperor actually had .
However , this is for certain
- The Emperor had the authority or influence to break the stalemate of the " Big Six " and influenced / instructed / directed them to agree to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration .
- The US wanted to maintain Hirohito as the Emperor to make sure there was Political , Cultural and Social cohesion in Japan with the new Constitution .
.
Oh thank God you're back. I was no joke, looking at my subscriptions and seeing you hadn't posted anything for a year. I'm glad you're back and I hope all is well at casa de Johnny.
10 min video to explain what we all know already good stuff Jonny
Taking into consideration how germans was more willing to surrender to the west, rather than the soviets. I think the same was happening in Japan. As you said that that Soviet invasion of Manchuria was also a big factor for them surrendering. I think Japans surrender was a strategic one to align themself with the americans, before it was to late. Basically denying the soviets any spoils of war from mainland Japan.
And to think of it, I do have a question. Was there no communication between the japanese goverment and the US goverment at all before the peace deal? Is there a potential that this is something these two goverments can hide for so long?
What Im thinking of is that the US goverment was telling the japanese goverment the horrors of the soviets, in order to make it more appeling to surrender to them, rather than letting this conflict go on.
Like, what “horrors of the Soviets”? Japan had fought against Russia twice in the previous decades. And they fought WITH them too. They knew pretty damn well what they were gonna get, and it was nothing to be scared of.
Thank you for the new video! It's good to have you back! The factionalism in the leadership of Japan is a complicated subject, but this condensed a lot of it very nicely, I think.
God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
It's an interesting take in this topic, to be honest, here in Mexico we learn at school that it was the bomb and the Soviet invasion is not even mentioned in our history books
It's like yeah Japan was one of the bad guys and the Soviets where there with the allies but they don't interacted between themselves
So basically you’re saying it was both the bombs and the Soviets
1:48 the look on that man's face.
Aka wow I’ve killed hundreds of thousands
Thank you for making an eleven minute video on the topic and still having more substance than some two hour long videos on the subject.
Good to see you back again!
I'd recommend Mark Felton's take on these events. Very good video
Why don't you upload more I am laughing so much watching old videos
ayyyy welcome back bruh