Just how crippled was Japan at the end of WWII?

[@temijinkahn511]

My father flew 29 combat missions in Europe as a B24 pilot. His squadron was preparing to transfer to the Pacific theater when the A bombs ended the war. He always said he was happy the bombs were dropped as he thought his luck may have run out over Japan. As a child, remember him regularly waking up our home in the middle of the night screaming in a nightmare. As an adult, I asked him about those nightmares. He said he would dream that his bomber was going down and he was burning alive. He had seen his best friend's plane go down over Berlin with the cockpit a ball of flames. I'm glad the bomb ended the war for my Dad.

[@c1ph3rpunk]

I grew up around a LOT of WW2 veterans, family, fiends’ family, and lots of Scoutmasters. In fact, I think just about all of the troop Scoutmasters were in WW2. One thing I remember, quite distinctly, when asked the question of if it was right to use The Bomb on Japan, almost universally they said YES. Some of them looked oddly at those asking, like “are you insane”.

[@catman4644]

That part about your dad's luck possibly running out is a point that those who argue against the A-Bombing of Japan don't seem to take into consideration. Yes in all likelihood Japan would have surrendered by the end of the year but how many lives of allied forces would have been lost during that time? Those who want argue that the bomb was inhumane and completely unnecessary need to understand that while the A-Bombs were not necessary to END the war they brought it to an end a lot sooner and saved thousands of lives on BOTH sides, allied and Japanese!

[@johnmcmickle5685]

I had three uncles that fought the Japanese, two survived the war. My father and another uncle were in Europe and may well have been sent to the pacific theater for the invasion of mainland Japan. I think based on casualty projections and the fact the Japanese were actually preparing civilians to fight, be suicide bombers and human shields the use of those two bombs was absolutely the correct thing to do.

[@catman4644]

@@johnmcmickle5685 exactly! Those who argue that Japan would have surrendered in "only" a couple of months anyway are ignoring the thousands of lives that would have been lost during that time. There is simply no question that thousands more Japanese would die in that time, that is thousands more than died in the A-Bomb attacks. Of course it was the many thousands of ALLIED lives saved that was the main factor behind the decision to use the A-Bombs so yes it was absolutely the right decision to use those bombs!

[@iansneddon2956]

By that latter stage of the war, conventional bombing raids were being flown over Japan at an altitude of around 5,000 feet (iirc) and were carried out with virtual impunity. Seems there was a greater risk of a bomber going down from a collision with another bomber vs being shot down by flak or enemy aircraft. Few bombers were being lost at this stage. That said, I am sure it was a relief to many when they didn't need to fly these missions anymore.

[@hosspullerl1119]

Militarily the A-bombs were small compared to the firebombing of the cities. Ultimately, Japan's surrender was a political act. Emperor Hirohito used the A-bombs in his surrender address to the Japanese people to salve their honor. Even then, there was an attempted coup to prevent the surrender. In short, the A-bombs were necessary to end the war quickly.

[@martinross6416]

A subtle but very important point. The A bombs gave everyone the opportunity, and Japan the excuse, to end the war.

[@johntrottier1162]

Your conclusions match my own. The Japanese leaders as well as the Japanese people would all willingly die to protect the Emperor, their living god. Hirohito could not surrender as long as the allies used conventional weapons. That would have disgraced him in the eyes of his ancestors, and required that he take his own life. He knew the Japanese people would have reacted badly, and mass suicides were a very real possibility. The Japanese as a race could disappeared. So the Atomic Bombs offered a way out. Japan had no way to fight this "cruel new weapon". The Emperor made it clear to his people that there is no shame in surrender when you have no chance of defending yourself, which let off the hook with his ancestors at the same time.

[@perniciouspete4986]

Lots of validity in your points. What bothers me about it, though, is that Hirohito would have let the Japanese people continue to starve to death or be killed in an invasion if he couldn't keep his job.

[@SVSky]

@@perniciouspete4986 Many leaders in many societies have made this exact choice. Look at what's going on in Russia.

[@rumrunner8019]

Exactly. The Japanese military could not surrender to a foreign army. They would have fought on, past an invasion, and countless would have died. Instead, Japan surrendered to a new and horrible monster.

[@GoofieNewfie69]

Hindsight is 20 20 . The US saw how the Japanese fought against overwhelming odds during the island hopping campaign. It is probable that the same type of no surrender fighting would have been experienced during an invasion of Japan. None of the documents shown, indicate how strongly the Japanese military and civilians would have fought. Speculation suggests between 100,000 to 300,000 US soldiers would die taking the islands. Two to three times as many wounded. Even the Russians were baffled by the Japanese soldiers resolve in the face of utter defeat. Yup, give the bomb more credit than your indicating.

[@jamesmason2228]

I agree. Timing of the various sources of force matters. Bad news piling on bad news seems to have been important.

[@HennyvilleX]

I've read of even higher expected casualties. It's easy to judge decisions from the past with the knowledge of hindsight. I think at the time not using the bomb would have been not justifiable.

[@mikeyoung9810]

There was no need to invade as the country was self-destructing on it's own. I'm not sure most japanese even knew what atomic bombs were or if they did were considered any worse than the constant fire bombings. I believe the bombs were used as a show of force for the Russians who had their own desires for invasion of Japan. Sure invading Japan would of been horrendous but it's clear the bombs had little to do with the decision to surrender. I believe this debate is really more about avoiding the subject of our responsibility of using such terrible weapons. In the long run I feel the bombs did more to deter further use after the war by us or russia and may be why that to this day we've avoided nuclear war.

[@dabda8510]

@@mikeyoung9810The war was incredibly expensive, both in manpower and material. Passively isolating the islands would not be as easy you might think. US population was getting restless with the war too.

[@perniciouspete4986]

​@@mikeyoung9810 So you would have let millions of Japanese starve to death. It's a horrible way to die. Here's a suggestion: you stop eating anything for just a couple of weeks and then come back with your report on how it was. We'll be waiting.

[@MrArgus11111]

I do not accept, at face value, post-facto assertions by "officials" that the Japanese leadership would have surrendered. Furthermore, it would have been absolutely foolish for Truman and the Armed Forces to take their word for it. Truman was correct that if thousands more Americans were killed and it was discovered that atomic weapons had been available for use, but were not, the American public and many in the Armed Forces would have rightfully skewered him for not making use of a new weapon that could potentially have saved lives. Both atomic ground zeroes are now the sites of flourishing, vibrant cities. Many more weeks of firebombing would have done greater damage.

[@amerigo88]

It was politically expedient in the immediate postwar environment for Japan's leaders to credit Allied air superiority as the key to victory. After all, the two largest projects by level of expense had been the B-29 and the atomic bombs- both targeting Japan. A surrender by end of 1945 due to Allied air superiority was what the Americans wanted to hear, but I don't believe it was going to happen. Trade embargoes never seem to do as much harm as advertised. Japan had stockpiled a two year supply of fuel before Pearl Harbor. That's an indicator of their determination to persist in spite of severely restricted food and fuel supplies. Without the atomic bombs and Soviet war declaration, the Japanese would have persisted much, much longer.

[@keithammleter3824]

I 100% aggree.

[@blockmasterscott]

And in addition to that, the Marshall plan was able to go into effect immediately. That would have never happened before 1947, assuming that the invasion was successful. Also, a lot fewer people died from the two atomic explosions than the actual bombings. And there was no way in Hell that the Japanese would have surrendered. Heck, they tried to sabotage the Emperors recording to end the war. Yeah, them surrendering was wishful thinking.

[@keithammleter3824]

@@blockmasterscott The War in the Pacific ended September 1945. The Marshall Plan began April 1948 and was not applied to Japan. Certainly it was not in place "immediately". Factory equipment given to Europe under the Marshall Plan was largely obsolete in the USA and would have otherwise been scrapped. It is not certain how long Japan would have resisted an invasion that would have been necessary without the nuclear bombs - it might have been weeks or months - but not 2 1/2 years. Therefore, the nuclear bombs have nothing to do with the Marshal Plan timing. There was no attempt to sobatage the Emperor's recording. It was transported to the radio station in secret so it would not be.

[@blockmasterscott]

@@keithammleter3824 It is well documented that there was an attempt to sabotage the Emperor's recorded message to the Japanese public. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

[@lvlndco]

It seems odd to say the bombs didn't cause Japan to surrender since the Emperor went against those around him when he decided to surrender. There was a coup attempt to prevent him from surrendering, but it fell apart quickly. The real concern of more nuclear bombs were the tipping point.

[@timclaus8313]

Well, Germany didn't surrender until the Soviets were dancing on Hitler's bunker. Both countries suffered from severe arrogance and delusions of power. Worked for a short time, then they both got their asses handed to them in the most destructive of ways.

[@cessna1729]

The Japanese battle tactics on Iwo Jima and Okinawa sealed Japan's doom as far as the atom bombs were concerned. Two of my uncles would have been in the invasion force for Japan and one other uncle was a bomber gunner. They all thought the A bombs saved their lives.

[@dougc190]

Same here my grandfather would have been. First cav

[@JohnDoe-oq8eh]

The intent of this comment is to express the profound appreciation to this channel for its level-headed, historical fact-based approach to key questions arising from the Second World War.

[@NGC-gu6dz]

The intent of this response is to agree with the intent of this comment, in other words I wholeheartedly agree with your narrative.

[@SweetBabyRey]

Loll top notch comment

[@haraldhannelius]

This! Thank You both

[@spearfisherman308]

Nope the source he uses contradicts the conclusion and was rejected by the joint chiefs of staff

[@OlOleander]

The intent of this response is to express agreement to this good comment, and to promote both it and the above video in the algorithm via engagement.

[@bruceday6799]

I would like to point out information on the surrender or lack thereof by the Japanese in 1945. Recently published information, Richard B Frank - Tower of Skulls, points out that the Japanese military expected 1,000,000 Japanese to starve to death by the end of December 1945 with a further 10,000,000 starvation deaths by the same time in 1946. The Japanese government in August was prepared to not surrender and accepted these numbers as a cost of war and not a cause for surrender. Note that the same Japanese military was notorious for underestimating own losses. These numbers were presented by the Japanese to MacArthur's staff in Tokyo after the war, Truman didn't like it but the US fed the majority of the Japanese people for 3 years after the war ended. The first atomic bomb convinced the government only that the US had created something that the Japanese thought scientifically and economically impossible for which they had no defence. Total cost for weapons and delivery system ~$5,700,000,000. The second bomb convinced the Japanese that the US could produce the weapons on an industrial scale. Being able to present no defence while the country was systematically annihilated led directly to capitulation.

[@bruceday6799]

Downfall not Tower of Skulls.

[@thurin84]

and not to mention in citing the resistance of the "sacred 100 million" already included deceased ancestors (about 23 million). whats a few more deceased ancestors added to the tally either way?

[@garywheeler7039]

The second bomb showed that it was not just a "one time" thing.

[@davedavedave52]

and the Japanese command was ready to lose 20 mil to fight the invasion

[@patrickvolk7031]

There was a coup attempt against the Emperor after he recorded his radio message, which failed. Without the atomic bombs, they were destined for starvation, and lacked resources overall. I have to think about that... The atomic bombs made Hirohito give up, definitely, or not afraid of the Army faction running the government. Togo was dismissed before that happened, but the double patriots were still around. If Coronet happened, I think it would've had the same outcome, probably by Jan 1946. We would've seen how bad Japan's logistics were once we landed. They couldn't have moved troops, and we would have realized we could starve them out. If Russia landed in Japan, they would've instantly surrendered (and we would've rushed to secure as much as we could to keep Russia out). Also, once we landed, Hirohito would've been hung more than likely. Although that causes some interesting knock-on possibilities. What would've happened in China if that was the case, would we have been more worried about Stalin eyeing up more than Manchuria, and maybe directly supporting Mao. That would probably result in a lot of troops in China "cleaning up the Japanese".

[@dsbond8048]

Millions of Japanese civilians would have starved and froze to death in the following winter. I don't think the Japanese military would have surrendered until the following summer. (maybe not even then)

[@iansneddon2956]

I think many of the generals would have fought on to the last bamboo stick wielding child between him and the American forces. That is the problem I have with the report described in the video. It puts forward the idea that there was some tipping point where Japan would be defeated enough militarily to surrender. It misses that surrender was seen as the worst thing that could be done so they would grasp at any straw, at any false hope, rather than give in and surrender. So it didn't matter how many cities were destroyed, civilians killed or left homeless, how many starved, they would ensure there was a bomb shelter to be in, food to eat, and dreams that they will somehow miraculously win this war enough that they could negotiate a favorable peace with USA.

[@TroyBlake]

I believe the political and military priorities were ending the war as quickly as possible, for a long list of reasons. When given a tool that would make it more likely the Japanese government would surrender sooner rather than later, you use the tool (atomic weapons) and hope for the best outcome. If the question is if the atomic bombing truly helped the decision to surrender, the answer is probably yes. It helped demonstrate that the war could get worse. By demonstrating the rapid acceleration of American means to kill Japanese resistance fighters faster and easier than before, it helped nudge leadership into the decision to surrender. Instead of hundreds of bombers required to destroy a single city, atomic bombs and just a few bombers could easily complete the task. Japanese intelligence had no idea how many bombs American military could produce. It was inevitable that the Japanese were going to lose the war, but each day the war continued people were being killed in combat and from the humanitarian disaster caused by hostilities. While the war was not started by American forces, it was morally correct to use almost any means necessary to halt the war as quickly as possible while preventing as many allied forces combat deaths and civilian suffering as possible. Remember, after the war was over, Americans did not turn their backs on the Germans or Japanese people. Millions of dollars were channeled into humanitarian aid to fight hunger and illness in all major combat zones, including Germany and Japan. Many of the mistakes at the end of WWI were not repeated, and generally peace there has been maintained until today.

[@JustMe00257]

The USA did more to save Japanese lives after their victory that the local leaders had done during the whole war.

[@briancavanagh7048]

The lessons of ‘nation building’ seems to have forgotten in more recent American conflicts.

[@gregharbican7189]

⁠@@briancavanagh7048 Less a matter of being forgotten and more a matter of the fact that the nature of war changed. It’s really difficult to rebuild society and infrastructure, when you have combatants hiding within and behind non-combatants. Still hasn’t stopped the US from trying to rebuild, but you can’t simply stop partway through. The rebuilding of Japan, took more than 20 years, and two major conflicts in Eastern Asia, that ended up pumping a lot of extra cash into Japan…and they didn’t have Kamikazes showing up every few days/weeks, to cause more chaos, during the rebuilding.

[@bullnukeoldman3794]

Political priorities were, in my opinion, the biggest reason. US leadership was under a great deal of pressure to discharge as many from the military as possible after the defeat of Germany; the pool of potential recruits for the military to replace those leaving was shrinking and had restrictions placed upon it regarding the ages of recruits/amount of training required before deployment with the active forces. Because of this it became politically necessary to end the war as quickly as possible to offset the pressures of the populace to just get it over. As for the likelihood of a surrender before the end of 1945 I would submit that these post-war interviews of Japanese leadership may or may not have been entirely honest and straightforward - other interviews revealed an almost fanatical large portion of the leadership determined to fight to the last person, military or civilian. Did the Russian entry into the war have much effect? Less than most believe - the Russian efforts were on the mainland in China, miles away from the home islands (there were attempts in the northern islands of Japan but the Russians were handily held off/beaten back by the Japanese up to the end of the war). On a personal note, my father did not have enough "points" for discharge as he was stationed in the Aleutians during the war; he was being retrained from a supply sergeant to infantryman for the invasion of Kyoto in November of '45. That invasion was more of a sure thing than most folks realize and the only thing that prevented it from happening (and, likely, survival of my father to allow me to be born) was the end of the conflict; the dropping of those two nuclear weapons likely pushed the end of the war and saved multiple times more lives as a result. A bit of context: the bombing of Tokyo in March 10/11 1945 (Operation Meetinghouse) resulted in more deaths and destruction than the two nuclear bombings in August 1945. We were NOT "the bad guys" in this by any stretch of the imagination.

[@653j521]

@@bullnukeoldman3794 Did you watch the video? It had a lot of information on that.

[@1977Yakko]

Yes, Japan was defeated. However, for a defeated nation, they were still putting up one helluva fight as we found out at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. It was the extreme losses that were endured taking those two small islands that spurred the use of the bombs.

[@davidgabrielsen2139]

A helluva fight? They fought to the death, ending in suicide charges.

[@jollyjohnthepirate3168]

Truman said it best when asked how he would be judged by historians about his decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. He said, "I don't know what historians will say about my use of the bombs. But I do know what the American people will say if I had a weapon that would avoid the huge loss of life that would come from an invasion of Japan.....and failed to use it."

[@BoleDaPole]

Great quote. His decision to nuke civilians without any warning was a political one and not a military necessity.

[@capt.stubing5604]

You’re dead wrong about them surrendering without the nuclear bombs. Their repeated methods of not surrendering and fighting to the last man prove that. The nuclear bombs were needed to make it perfectly clear there was absolutely no hope in continuing to fight.

[@laurioho2041]

not true the intention of the bombs as a means of forcing surrender was made up after the fact to justify the crime.

[@kevinkoepke8311]

My father, now 98, was a crew cheif on a C-46, which was one of the first planes to land in Japan. They flew to Korea to bring back General Abe, who was Governor General of Korea. On the flight back, General Abe gave out boxed pint bottles of Grand Ol' Parr scotch whiskey to the crew. He said he loved American whiskey. He was the prime minister of Japan before the war. Removed from office because he was against the Sino-Japanese war. He was pardoned by the war crime trials because of this. My father will celebrate his 99th birthday, September 23rd. Thanks for this!

[@steves8236]

The survey you reference makes no mention of Emperor Hirohito's absolute commanding influence on Japan's decision to surrender. Without it, they don't. The reception party they had planned for the pending invasion of Kyushu is a sample of what was to come (and might make for an interesting one of your videos).

[@gregb6469]

One very significant difference between the fire-bombing attacks compared to the atom bomb attacks not mentioned is that the fire-bombing attacks required hundreds of bombers, and multiple raids, to destroy a city, whereas the a-bomb attacks required one bomber, and one raid, to accomplish comparable damage. Smart Japanese, such as Hirohito, realized that the atom bomb raised the ante to a whole new level, and that Japan faced not merely defeat, but total annihilation.

[@Idahoguy10157]

The conclusion that Japan would have surrendered in two months is speculative. Japan had no history of surrendering. The military was in charge.

[@diconustra]

Evan Thomas's "Road to Surrender" provides insight into the events and mindset of Japanese leadership during the summer of 1945. The Japanese military leadership had no intention of surrendering, and the civilian leadership was in no position to challenge them. The combination of the bombs and Russian invasion precipitated the emperor's decision to go on the radio, which likely prevented a military coup and a continuation of the war.

[@thurin84]

there was a palace coup of influential colonels (no doubt at the behest of equally influential generals) with the intent of intercepting the emperors surrender speech record and continuing the war even after both bombs had been dropped. the hardcore military leadership had no intention of surrendering until it had forced an invasion.

[@jefclark]

It didnt even prevent the former. there was a junior officers coup to seize the emperor and stop the broadcast. luckily it failed.

[@davedavedave52]

There was a coup, that failed

[@cvr527]

Two points: it was the USSR, not Russia and the USSR had no strategic bombing capability nor a blue water navy. Thus the USSR had no real capacity to invade Japan and was war weary. The USA would have born, by far, the costs of invading Japan.

[@diconustra]

@@cvr527 Up until the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, the Japanese civilian leadership was attempting to leverage the USSR to negotiate an end to the war under conditions that would have maintained the Emperor, military leadership, without an Allied occupation. The invasion (with 1.5 million highly capable, mobile, experienced, well-equipt men) put an end to that. The Soviet's lack of strategic bombing didn't seem to impact their ability to overrun Manchuria. As to whether the Soviets would have been able to launch a large scale invasion of a major Japanese island, we know they could land thousand of troops at a time, but perhaps not against a well-defended coast. Thomas's book references the diaries of Tojo and others in the Japanese leadership, hence gives insight into their thinking at that time.

[@ddopson]

It's worth keeping in mind that had the war gone on until the end of 1945, or even until just November, more Japanese lives would have been lost to fire bombing and starvation than were lost in the atomic bombings. As it was, even with the end of the blockade and emergency food imports from the US, Japanese civilians were reduced to rations of less than 1500 calories per adult during the winter of 1945. Now imagine how those same civilians would have faired without US food aid, with continued harbor mining, and with further weekly firebombing raids destroying the centralized infrastructure needed to distribute what little food they had.

[@joeyartk]

Oh. So the US dropped the A bomb on Japan to help the Japanese civilians? How nice of them. I suppose you think Russia should drop an H bomb on Kiev now to help Ukrainian civilians?

[@jpotter2086]

There had already been more deaths from fire bombing and starvation than from the atomic bombings. Had the war gone one, starvation would have claimed millions. Olympic and Downfall would have stacked up hundreds of thousands more, hundreds of thousands molre on the newly opened northern front vs. Russia, and one must not forget the ongoing deaths in occupied areas.

[@ddopson]

​@@jpotter2086 I'm skeptical that we would have moved forward with the Operation Downfall invasion plans. The projected casualties were too high, and we had Japan in a checkmate situation. As it was, this video makes clear that many areas of Japanese industry were already 90% collapsed. A few more months of firebombing and we would have run out of urban areas to destroy. What industrial machinery that may have survived that apocalypse would have been starved of the complex web of inputs needed to continue production. Already, steel was in desperate shortage; coal was even scarcer and even if Japan had a source of iron ore, they lacked the coal to boost steel production. And their coal mines lacked the steel to maintain their mining equipment. As the destruction set in, it became increasingly difficult to even move their ore and coal to the surviving foundries. Japan is a multi-island nation, and the harbor mining campaign was rapidly severing lines of communication between the three major Japanese islands, effectively turning them into separate countries. Destroying the cities destroys the rail junctions, crippling the other major form of transportation. Lack of transport means they wouldn't be able to get the food from where it was being grown to where their people and their armies would've been starving to death. During those months, as the Japanese strategic position deteriorated ever faster and faster, it would have been obvious to US leadership that each month of additional delay on the invasion's start date would have resulted in further attrition of Japanese's capacity for coordinated defense, saving US lives. Already, Japan had waited long past the point of hopelessness, but I think that within 6 months, they would have reached a tipping point where the choice was between capitulation and the total collapse of social order and centralized control, meaning that any subsequent invasion would turn into something closer to a policing action of a failed state, with warlords, bandits, and guerrilla fighters, but little in the way of a coordinated military defense.

[@tomhenry897]

Everything you said are lies

[@frankm2588]

@@ddopson Agree. I have always thought that when it came to decision time, Truman and Marshall would have decided against the invasion as too costly in lives. Curtis LeMay was burning Japan down with firebombing from 9,000 feet but as you say, soon would have run out of urban areas. I think either Japan would have accepted the Potsdam terms or we would have thrown them another bone, such as guaranteeing the existence and immunity of the Emperor.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Fuel hamstrung Japan's military. Food and raw materials crippled Japan's economy. Essentially all the Axis members experienced similar collapse. The major difference being the number of Japan's Army. The number troops under ams 2 million + trained soldiers. People frequently talked about the casualties being suffered by the Japanese. No one talks about the tens of thousands of prisoners of war suffering in Japanese camps. The hundreds of thousands of Islanders, Malaysians, Burmese, Chinese and other people's under control of the Japanese empire all starving and dying. It doesn't matter how the war ended ultimately ending the war when we did saved millions of lives, Japanese and allied.

[@leeoldershaw956]

After experiencing the heavy losses invading Pacific islands and knowing of the widespread atrocities of Japan, when the US realized it had a weapon to end the war with very few additional lives lost, it unhesitatingly used the A Bomb. More B29s were lost due to mechanical failures than enemy action. Even if Japan surrendered by Dec. 1945, there would have been many hundreds or thousands more Allied casualties. The A Bomb provided the necessary shock to force the Emperor to proclaim a surrender with the least loss of lives, particularly Japanese.

[@keithammleter3824]

Quite right.

[@thurin84]

and think of the public outcry had they decided to drop it on an uninhabited island for demonstration purpose, or not even used it and invaded instead?

[@leeoldershaw956]

@thurin84 I think a member of Truman's cabinet remarked that if he hadn't approved the A Bomb attack, he would surely have been impeached.

[@rumrunner8019]

Not to mention the countless civilian suicides on Saipan. If that happened on the home islands, imagine how many civilians would have died?

[@kurtpena5462]

Nimitz was responsible for island hopping. MacArthur wanted to systematically confront the Japanese island by island. The Pacific victory was the US Navy's victory.

[@AbbyNormL]

MacArthur was never one to let facts get in the way of a good story. He also claimed he was responsible for the victory at the Battle of Midway.

[@timclaus8313]

The Navy alone could not sustain the island hopping campaign. The Army came in to relieve the Marines at Guadalcanal, and during many other amphibious landings. Far more Army troops and divisions fought in the Pacific, then Marines. Not a knock on the Marines at all, just a matter of numbers. But the Marine Corps has always had the best PR folks in the entire US military, lol... Followed by the USAF.

[@kwd3109]

Some can argue the atomic bomb didn't end the war but no one can say the bomb prolonged the war which is what every other alternative would have resulted in. The A bomb brought the war to a quicker end which therefore justified it's use.

[@primmakinsofis614]

Re: 17:18 -- "The firebomb attacks were 29.5 times more damaging than the atomic bombs combined. They're not even in the same ballpark." In terms of total destruction, yes. But in terms of destructive efficiency, the atomic bombs are superior. 84 conventional raids resulted in the destruction of 163.46 square miles, an average of 1.95 square miles per mission. 2 atomic bomb raids resulted in the destruction of 5.55 square miles, an average of 2.78 square miles per mission. 13,717 bombing aircraft were needed to destroy 163.46 square miles in conventional incendiary attacks, an average of 0.012 square miles per aircraft. 2 bombing aircraft were needed to destroy 5.55 square miles in the atomic bomb attacks, an average of 2.78 square miles per aircraft. On a per mission basis, the atomic bombs were 1.42 times more destructive than conventional incendiary attacks. On a per bombing aircraft basis, the atomic bombs were over 231 times more destructive than conventional incendiary attacks.

[@iansneddon2956]

Massive industrial sites consuming the output of massive power plants to process raw uranium into enriched fissile material for bomb construction, along with the technical expertise to carefully assemble the atomic bombs. There was an awful lot of resources, manpower and expense that went into each atomic bomb. You could factor the costs of bomber construction, training of crews, etc for a significant saving from a 4 bomber raid with an A bomb vs hundreds carrying out a conventional attack. But the relative cost of building an atomic bomb vs the cost of several hundred tons of conventional munitions would have to be considered as well. Conventional bombing was not going away. There was no plan to stop acquiring conventional munitions and to retire the fleet of B-29s. On the contrary, they were still launching conventional bomb raids (and planned to do many more) after Hiroshima. Destructive efficiency also depends on weapon systems you can realistically deploy. For fear of escalation, nuclear weapons have not been used again in war. Meanwhile the conventional bombing of North Korea in the 1950s dwarfed the bombing campaign against Japan.

[@allangibson8494]

The other point is the US could stage multiple raids, with 231 bombers each, simultaneously out of Tinian at the end of WW2.

[@TomFynn]

Exactly: That was the point of the atomic bomb. With a low-to-mid level 1000 bomber raids there were always bound to be losses, even without enemy action. With a nuke a lone B-29 could obliterate a whole city (and presumably the Emperors Palace in Tokyo) without enemy action even possible. The Japanese MO was always to cause the enemy losses (and never mind their own) until the enemy would have had enough. With the bomb that MO was broken.

[@timclaus8313]

@@allangibson8494 If the Allies had needed to invade Japan, the B29s would have been flying off Okinawa, so able to carry more bombs and less fuel. and able to reach farther north and to the west coast of Japan. Would have been ugly at a minimum. Then there is the B36, which first flew in 1946 and could carry over 100,000 lbs of bombs easily, and with zero concerns about range.

[@Dr.Pepper001]

The U.S. military had billions of rounds of ammo for the M-1 Garrand Rifle manufactured and stored all over the Pacific theater in anticipation of an invasion of the Japanese mainland. I joined the Marine Corps in 1964 and we used up lots of that ammo in our post-bootcamp training; but we were told that there was still enough ammo stored away to last 100 years.

[@OlOleander]

Semper fi. Ex-corpsman here, post-9/11. If there was one thing I could say of the Marines I met, if I could boil everything down to one statement, it would be that they were all, to an individual, opposed to unnecessary sacrifice when peace was plausibly achievable, but absolutely willing to walk face-first into fire and lead to make it happen.

[@eddieslittlestack7919]

Staggering numbers. Thank you for your work put into this.

[@epa316]

One thing that is not mentioned was the silent death toll from non-combat causes. Both in Japan and Japanese-controlled territories, people were starving to death by the thousands every month the war went on. Allowing the blockade to continue would have meant further civilian starvation deaths in Japan, and further deaths in mainland Asia from disease, starvation, and deliberate mistreatment from Japanese troops. In all, 400,000 were dying each month the war continued in 1945. That's more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

[@alexisesguerra2544]

Love your material. ❤️ That said, there is one thing I’d like to point out. All reference material pointing out Japan’s likelihood to surrender even without invasion or A-bombs were written AFTER THE FACT. Same to be said about modern challenges against the use of the A-bombs and/or invasion. In July of 1945, US leadership had no clear picture like we do today. What they did have was a pretty good understanding that, through the many battles ranging from Wake Island to Manila, the Japanese were incredibly prone to fighting to the last man. Add in that the Pacific War was very personal to the average American (as they attacked Pearl Harbor with no declaration of war) and it suddenly becomes a little more understandable that we used the A-bomb and were planning an invasion. Sitting back and hoping a very wrecked Japan would wise up probably didn’t even register in the mind of our leadership at the time. My two cents.

[@crapphone7744]

I think the US would have had to invade the home Islands to force a surrender absent the atomic bombs. Certainly at the time the US was preparing to invade Japan and the casualties would have dwarfed what came out of the atomic attacks. The atomic bombing of Japan probably saved a lot of lives on both sides.

[@DaliborPerkovic-sw8mh]

I like your analyzing Japan military power just before the capitulation. And I got one preposition for you: do the same for Germany too. It will be very interesting historical theme. Thanks!

[@seanbryan4833]

A statistic I learned only a few years ago which shocked me was that of Japan's estimated 2.5 million military deaths in WWII at least 60% died not in combat, but of starvation, as their supply lines were cut off. As much as the Japanese may have wanted to put up a fanatical last man, woman, and child defense against an invasion of the homeland, they were probably going to be starved into submission. As seen by the condition of the Japanese troops in the later days of the Guadalcanal campaign, no matter how strong the fighting spirit, starving people simply can't fight.

[@timengineman2nd714]

By the time that the battle of Okinawa was over, my father had risen in rank (and seniority) to command an LST (Landing Ship Tank). And was being briefed on Operation Olympic (since he had so many landings "under his belt") . There were only two good beaches on the island, a few more were rated fair to poor. The Japanese were fortifying the two best beaches and the flanking beaches that were near them. The Opposition was expected to be so Severe that they were going to have LSTs Going In On The First Wave!!! (Normally they go in no earlier than the 3rd wave). He. said that without a doubt that "the Bombs" saved his life.....

[@dougc190]

I agree with you My grandpa was in the first Calvary and he was going to be in that first wave going ashore. There be a lot of people not here right now if that had happened including me.

[@PositionLight]

The book Downfall mentioned that the USAF had not yet made a full effort to destroy Japan's national rail network and that doing so would have quickly stopped all intra-island transport of materials including food and rapidly brought about famine. Apparently rail network was not that robust due to the preference for marine cargo and a concentrated campaign would have easily destroyed it. Without fuel for road transport, all mechanised transport would then come to a standstill. Any comment about the vulnerability of the rail system? It doesn't tend to get much play outside of that one source.

[@scottkozel1519]

He made the point that destroying about 10 bridges on Honshu would have stopped nearly all rail transport there, and that is true. The highway system was primitive and would not have supported the needed truck transport. They would have also sunk the rail ferries to Hokkaido and destroyed the rail tunnel approaches to the tunnel to Kyushu. That would have eliminated rail transport to those islands.

[@hm5142]

The legacy of the Manhattan Project is a world with tens of thousands of H-bombs, each a thousand times the power of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Given the general competence of humans, it is very likely that these weapons, either by mistake or by an ill-considered adventure, will end our civilization. But once the physics was known, they were inevitable. This is a popular answer to Fermi's question of why aliens are not here. Perhaps no civilization can make it through this bottleneck, where it has more capability to destroy the world that wisdom to avoid it.

[@HennyvilleX]

The scale of these numbers never seizes to amaze me. Mind-boggling

[@johnjeanb]

Yes, you can demonstrate the use of nuclear weapons was not an absolute necessity for the USA BUT several facts forced the US government (H.Truman) to use them: 1- it would have been unsustainable for the US Gov to wage a bloody invasion of Japan when very mighty bombs could force Japan to surrender. Mothers of all US killed soldiers would have been a strong political force. It could be demonstrated it saved many lives INCLUDING Japanese ones. 2- Invading Japan, and having asked the Soviet Union to join forces against Japan (when the nuclear bomb was not yet a sure fact) would in all certainty have led to a dual occupation / partition of Japan by USA and Soviets. The cold war was started for quite some time. 3- The USA wanted to send a strong signal to "Oncle Joe" (J.Stalin) that the US can now stop any attempt by the "reds" to invade any other country especially in Asia. 4- The Manhattan project cost was huge (to develop the nuclear bombs), well in excess of 26 billion USD in today's value. Was it OK to let opposing US party (Republicans) to say it was in vain?

[@bjs301]

If you want to answer the question whether the atomic bombs were justified, I think you need to look at the information we had in August 1945, not at things learned later. My own father was severely injured when a Japanese bomber hit his LST. He survived and continued to fight, but died from shrapnel moving around in him when I was too young to remember him. How many more lives, both Allied and Japanese, would have been lost if we had not used the bomb?

[@jeromehill7026]

great info. thanks for pulling all that together

[@blacksquirrel4008]

A professor of mine entered Japan with the treaty negotiators and had dozens of photos. The devastation was incredible and living conditions tenuous. I remember a photo of the Ginza, the only vehicle a small charcoal burning car.

[@2ddw]

But that was still better than surrender.

[@rickestabrook4987]

Excellent as always. I would love to see a summary chart of all the major factors. Thanks

[@f1b0nacc1sequence7]

(Full Disclosure: my father was a VERY junior participant in the Manhattan Project, and thus I freely concede my own bias. Interestingly enough, he always refused to discuss the matter, even to the day of his death in 1973) While I admire and respect your work (yours has become one of my go-to channels), I believe that you have dropped the ball here. By reviewing almost exclusively US military documents as the basis for your reasoning (to be fair, this methodology has served you well in the past) you miss some of the organizational nuances associated with the decision making and post-war review of results. The navy, for instance, had absolutely no reason to argue that the bombs had any value at all, as those were Army (later Air Force) weapons, while the Army (knowing that the soon to be Air Forces would be the primary user of the bomb) had similar concerns. We saw this with people like Adm Leahy and his ilk after the war. The hard numbers showing deaths might be a more useful basis for analysis, but the Japanese had already demonstrated that they were somewhat insensitive to casualties even in the extreme numbers that they were facing here. Based upon my experiences with the Japanese, and my own related readings on the subject, I would argue that the bombs gave the Japanese a symbol to surrender to, something that starvation, fire bombings, even invasion (which they WANTED TO HAPPEN) could not. Without a discussion of Japanese culture and the internal politics of the Japanese leadership, a simple recitation of post-war documents from interested parties (which again, you do masterfully) fails to provide any useful insight. I wish to reiterate my respect for your work, and hope that I have given no offense with my comments here.

[@JustMe00257]

I agree.

[@indisputablefacts8507]

+1 to what you're saying. To add to that - very similar assessments were being given to LBJ and Nixon, and yet we *lost* that war. Likewise, although conditions in mainland Japan were bad, they were worse at Okinawa and Iwo and yet we all know how that went. The bombs were a godsend both for the US and for Japan because of that symbol that you mention.

[@randyhavard6084]

Great job bringing all this information together for this video

[@MunchkinKF]

By the numbers Japan's defeat was inevitable but, what numbers cannot show is the fanaticism. Thousands of military and civilian alike committed suicide rather than be taken by the Americans at Saipan where women threw their own children off of cliffs before jumping to their deaths. As if that wasn't enough they did it again at Okinawa. How can a commanding General claim the war would be over in 3 or 4 months after seeing that? General Westmorland didn't study history because he made the exact same mistake in Vietnam less than 20 years later.

[@MunchkinKF]

BTW love your research...

[@lesliemacmillan9932]

Easy to say in hindsight and with the testimony of Japanese officials available after the surrender. But in real time, Truman is informed of this fantastic new weapon without knowing what Japan is actually planning to do. Every day that he doesn't use it, another night raid against some Japanese city from which some B-29s won't return, going down in the Pacific between Japan and the Marianas. (I believe there was a night raid somewhere on 5-6 Aug.) Use it, see what happens. I suppose the worst outcome would have been to stiffen resolve as many of early bombings of England and Germany did.

[@NickMurray]

What an interesting video. Thank you

[@meatpuppet2136]

Excellent presentation and use/analysis of data.

[@wpatrickw2012]

Given the horrific treatment of allied POWs if the Atomic Bombs ended the war even a day earlier, their use was justified.

[@brucermarino]

Another superb presentation. Thank you. One important question that is crucial to this discussion is whether the US leadership knew or could have known of Japan's impending desire to surrender. It is also interesting to speculate whether the Japanese readership reports after the war were unaffected by the defeat. Were they attempting to please the victors, etc? Thanks again, my friend!

[@keithammleter3824]

On your first question, the answer is no. The Japanese Army top brass were committed to fighting on, and were actively and vigorously preparing for fighting against a US invasion of the Japanese home islands. The US forces were more or less aware of this because they were intercepting Japanese military radio channels and by other means. The US had however no means of knowing what the Jap emperor was doing, who he was seeing, or what he was thinking. The decision to stop the fight was the emperor's decision, and his alone, no doubt supported by his palace entourage. The US was well aware that although the Emperor was nominally the head of government and supreme military commander, in practice Japanese Army hot heads were running the show. So the US leveraged the emperor's standing with the Japanese people of being a living god who must be obeyed, by insisting that the emperor announce surrender in his own voice over the Japanese radio broadcast system. This shut the hot heads down. The effect of the defeat on the Japanese people was profound, and given they are just a racist as anybody else (we are all racist but mostly don't admit it), has caused a dichotomy in thinking (we are better but the round eyes won) that persists in Japan to this day. Many Japanese turned on their military. Families would not accept their sons returning from the War. Macarthur forced a number of measures to ensure all Japanese knew they lost the war, how, and why, through films and literature.

[@thurin84]

while so elements of civilian leadership wished to surrender and end the war, the rulling military clique that controlled japan had no intention of surrendering until it had forced the invasion so the "sacred 100 million" (they included about 23 million deceased ancestors demonstrating the spiritual belief in their invincibility) could inflict so many casualties as to force a peace agreement favorable (at least in part) to japan. the problem with this videos assessment is that it only looks act facts an figures and draws a conclusion based on a logical assessment. there was nothing logical in the ruling military cliques visceral belief in japanese invincibility as well as belief in being able to inflict enough casualties to force a negotiated peace. logic played no part in the decisions.

[@brucermarino]

@@thurin84 I agree with illogicality of the Imperial Government. But this is a few minutes worth of video can only look at some aspects. My fault was that we need to analyze historical actions based on the data the actors had at the time. Thanks!

[@thurin84]

@@brucermarino and while he did a great job detailing those elements, they were known to the ruling military clique and played almost no factor in their decision making process. they were simply more tribulations to be endured before japan triumphed. (not that i think japan couldve in any way triumphed. but my beliefs are irrelevant to what the ruling military clique believed.

[@keithammleter3824]

@@thurin84 : "Simply more tribulations to be endured" .... more tribulations to be endured until the US gave up. You are entirely correct. The Jap leadership's thinking was dumb, but it was their thinking never the less.

[@fedecano7362]

Your channel is a gem!

[@eldarrissman4172]

Stalin did not have a Pacific Navy in 1945. America Did not have enough ships and landing craft for its own invasion, so Soviet Union troops could not "Hitch Hike" on U.S, Ships. Japan knew all this because they had normal relations with Russia from 1941 - 1945. Therefore to Japan, The Soviet Union was no threat to the Japanese Homeland for a very long time, until the Soviets built up its Navy and landing crafts. Knowing that all Soviet Troops could do was overrun China, and would be stopped from invading Japan by the South China sea? Why would Japan consider Russia a threat in its decision to keep the war going, at least until the Russians Build up a Navy first?

[@paulmaxwell8851]

A very interesting video. It seems these days that Japan has been somewhat successful in playing the victim card, and I'm saddened by the armchair experts who have fallen for this. Japan was in no hurry to surrender, even after the first atomic bombing, its victims continued to die and the Americans had had enough. Strangely, no-one seems to have a problem with the firebombing of Japanese cities, which killed far, far more people in a more conventional manner. Bottom line: if you don't want to experience total war and see your nation destroyed, don't start a war.

[@stevendorris5713]

Excellent (as always).

[@WagesOfDestruction]

What the atomic bomb did was give Japanese leaders the chance to surrender immediately with honor. This saved millions of lives.

[@reubensandwich9249]

Are there any before and after reports that show how accurate the intelligence numbers during the war. It'd be interesting to see whether they either over or underestimated.

[@kjarnberg]

About fifty years of my life I've been reading about, looking at and listening to WW2 information of all sorts. But these WWII US Bombers-video's are probably the best, most detailed and to the point, info-sources EVER. Thank you for this exceptional work, it is fantasic.

[@curtwuollet2912]

The fact that defeat was not effecting surrender, and japans demonstrated fanaticism and apparent willingness to fight to the last man I think required the ultimate weapon in the hope to end the carnage. At this point, it was hard to paint japans leadership as rational. One must think in the moment.

[@perniciouspete4986]

Lots and lots and lots of statistics mentioned in this video to support the commission's conclusion that the atomic bombs weren't necessary for Japan's surrender. Facts upon facts upon facts to prove to any reasonable person that Japan couldn't continue to fight and MUST have surrendered at the end of 1945. . The report didn't include an additional fact, though, that the commission completely ignored: Japanese fanaticism wasn't reasonable. Had the Japanese looked at the situation through Western sensibilities, they would have surrendered a year or more earlier when it became obvious even to them that they couldn't win the war. Instead, they were determined to sacrifice as many of their own soldiers and civilians as necessary to bring the war to a negotiated stalemate. Japanese fanaticism made Okinawans throw their children off a cliff and jump to their own deaths rather than surrender to the so-called American barbarians. It's ludicrous to think the Japanese would have acted more reasonably and sensibly if the Allies had invaded their home islands. Their lack of battleships, airplanes, artillery wouldn't have mattered; they would have used knives, spears, clubs, and anything else they could think of, and every Japanese soldier and man, woman, and child would gladly have lost his life rather than submit. When the commission looked at the Japanese situation at the end of the war, they filtered it through their own Western sensibilities and prejudices instead of regarding it from the Japanese fanatical point of view, and therefore the commission came to the conclusion that 1 + 1 = 3.

[@brucejohnston4908]

Another superb thought provoking presentation. I appreciate the reliance on primary sources which is unusual in KZbinland and I find the "pause" button absolutely necessary. My apologies but I wish you would replace the portrait of you next to what looks like a Norden bombsight and the name of your channel is a little "narrow" but there's probably not much you can do about that now. Keep it up and looking forward to your next release.

[@geoffnicholls8539]

Thanks

[@WWIIUSBombers]

Thanks for the kind channel donation. It is appreciated.

[@emilybulanski2896]

Excellent and very professional presentation. It's refreshing to see an actual analysis being done with actual data instead of the emotion-driven propaganda that we usually see mixed in with what they call "History". Thank you!

[@jklmn101]

Japan was in a dire state months before the A-bombs or even the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa were waged, and yet the Japanese simply adopted different tactics to continue the war past those points. Hope springs eternal for the desperate, until the absolute point where it no longer can exist. I know there is a strong desire to believe there was no reason to drop the A-bombs. I get it. However, I have empathy for not only the citizens and military they ultimately eliminated, but also those who would have suffered under the continuing bombing across Japan, as well as those who were tasked with continuing the exceptionally costly and destructive methods of war that had produced Japan's situation at that time. People today are struck by the number of lives lost to those bombs, but I am stuck by the lives that remained. Lives from Japan, from the US, Australia, Great Britain, even Russia and China. Obviously, that comes at another price we all still deal with today, but today we also have our choices.

[@bartonstano9327]

Bomber LeMay was ready in August 1945 to change the bombers targets to go after railway targets, the pitiful 1945 rice harvest would likely have not gotten to the cities in any meaningful way. Japan would have starved in late 1945 to 1946. We are talking MILLIONS perhaps TENS OF MILLIONS dead.

[@ericwolf9482]

Is it true that 2 weeks after the surrender of Japan that an island north of the island of Hokkaido lit up like the Sun ? The Japanese detonated it's atomic bomb.. documentary was made to that effect..is it true.

[@cameronmolt5649]

Great content.

[@michaelgill7248]

Look at the Iwo Jima campaign. The Japanese had no air or sea support yet they fought on to the death. 20,000 Japanese and 6000 Marines died. Okinawa was worse. They fought to the death and America had grown sick of the war. We had to use all at our disposal to end the war and quickly as possible and without a ground war in Japan.

[@ruperterskin2117]

Right on. Thanks for sharing.

[@markseubert9779]

Japan was training school girls to stab American servicemen with bamboo There would have been no surrender just like every other island to the last I referring to the number of prisoners in battles before Which you have not covered

[@GermanShepherd1983]

Japan had many chances to quit and never did. We should have kept nuking them until they agreed to hand the emperor over. And yes, we had more bombs available by Aug 20, 1945

[@Evan_Bell]

Fairly new to your channel. Love everything I've seen so far. Very concrete, to the point, objective, well sourced and informative.

[@davidmorin7939]

Great content, thanks! Tons of data!

[@Idahoguy10157]

At the end of the war the US Navy had more ships than the rest of the world’s navies. Combined

[@davedavedave52]

I knew the fire bombing did more damage , that te atomic , attacks . But I had no idea of the ratio, astounding

[@lukestrawwalker]

Makes sense... Had Japan not surrendered, the plans for Japan were truly horrific. Only two atomic bombs were used because there were only two available in August, but another would have been ready by the end of September or October, and three more would have been ready by the end of the year. These had already been designated for TACTICAL use in softening up operations, detonated over troop assembly areas, materiel depots, and/or other obstacles to the invasion troops. Of course the US had two invasions planned, one on the southern end of the southern island of Kyushu, and the second larger one on the main island of Honshu. Preparatory to that, the fire bombing campaign of Lemay was to continue, but Lemay stated he would basically be out of targets by the middle to end of September. The US Chemical Warfare Service had stockpiled an enormous amount of chemical weapons, to be used on Japan behind the planned invasion areas to eliminate as much resistance as possible, primarily through elimination of much of the civilian population, which at that point was being trained for "total war", with housewives being trained how to attack US troops with sharpened bamboo sticks, and kids being trained to jump into groups of GI's and throw themselves under US tanks with satchel charges strapped to themselves, and then detonating them to take out and injure as many troops and equipment as possible. Hence the reason for eliminating as many civilians the troops would be having to fight as possible beforehand. US P-51 Mustangs and Navy fighters were already ranging over Japan at will, destroying any transportation from railroads, sampans, all the way down to horses and carts. The US blockade by sea had effectively sealed off Japan to the point that starvation was imminent, and also fuel was SO scarce that school kids were being sent out into the hills instead of attending school, so they could dig pine roots from which to distill synthetic fuel (naphtha I suppose). The invasion was expected to result in between 500,000 and 1 million US casualties with about 200,000 killed, and last until mid 1946. Japanese casualties were projected between 5-20 million, with 10-14 million being considered most realistic. At that point every major city in Japan was expected to have been laid waste, tactical use of nuclear weapons would have rendered large areas of Japan radioactive due to fallout from low-altitude "surface" detonations, with health consequences which would have lasted for centuries if not millennia, and Japan's industry and agriculture would have almost totally collapsed, and with it Japanese society. Japan would have been reduced to a few skeletal starving survivors in a vast incinerated cemetery.

[@DeltaAssaultGaming]

It would’ve taken a long ass time. They didn’t even surrender after the first bomb.

[@keithammleter3824]

There is some evidence that it took the Japanese top brass a couple of days to understand that Hiroshima was destroyed, due to communications breaking down. They actually dispatched a pilot to fly down and find out why the Hiroshima base commander had stopped reporting in. They may not have communicated the fact to the emperor even when they did know.

[@edp2260]

Well, the Soviets did enter the war, with the intention of taking as much of Japan as they could get away with. If the atomic bombs were not used, and surrender obtained quickly, half of Japan would have been become like Poland or East Germany, controlled by the USSR. Would that have been better,or worse? Truman had only one choice.

[@EvidenceReasonsAcademy]

Thank you so much for this informative video! God bless you.

[@herbert92x]

My two cents? The Atomic Bombings made the Emperor realize that he had lost. It was one of the reasons given to 'bear the unbearable'. Without the use of the atomic bombs, I could see the IJN continue to fight into 1946 - if not later.

[@aldenconsolver3428]

No surprises. The A bomb did not do that much. However 1) You did not include an estimate of what would have been required to make a amphibious landing in Japan , I do not see it at all likely that the Japanese would have surrendered. They had shown no hesitation in deploying basically untrained pilots in kamikaze attacks. There actions on Okinawa seemed to indicate that they saw the Japanese civilian population as one more tool in there war 2) justification for the Japanese leaders to surrender. As it is with almost all wars the leadership sufferers very little compared to the people and the soldiers. Certainly a large number of the leadership cadre were perfectly willing to force the Japanese people to fight to the death. I doubt if the general population of Japan as thoroughly indoctrinated as they were would have risen up against the leader ship.

[@johnc2438]

Armchair hindsight is twenty twenty, of course. At the start of 1945 -- and well into the summer of that year -- nobody in the U.S. had any firm idea that Japan would surrender by the end of 1945. With millions of Japanese soldiers still occupying vast areas of Asia, one could have argued that Japan could "hold out" well into 1946 or beyond, costing tends or hundreds of thousands of American lives and possibly millions of lives of Japanese and those under the Japanese military occupation. Nobody knew the Japanese mindset at the time. While, yes, there were those in the Japan governing and military elite who recognized that the war had been lost, there were just as many others who were for fighting to the end, whatever that meant. The triple shock of the two atom bombs and the Russian blitzkrieg in Manchuria focused the Japanese on what "the end" truly could mean: the actual end of Japan as a nation and culture. Better surrender to the aw-shucks Americans rather than have to contend with the tender mercies of Stalin's hordes and the occupation of all or a portion of Japan by Soviet forces.

[@darkgalaxy5548]

Wonderful channel, but please get a better microphone.

[@jeg5gom]

VERY informative!

[@robertpatrick3350]

Very interesting analysis of the end state of Japan, although it’s appeared light on the ground war against the IJA. Whilst the US forces undertook the bulk of the island hopping campaign against the IJN there were other significant aspects of the conflict elsewhere.

[@scienceandmathHandle]

I appreciate your comprehensive videos on the subject. After recently reading Captain Fuchida's book, In my opinion there was a somewhat psychological effect, that led to the Emperor's ultimate decision. The leadership, having read the reports of the destruction, and not knowing what future attacks were planned must have had a strong psychological impact. The idea of being powerless to wage a bloody defensive war, with aims to bring the Allies to negotiations(as was the current plan), and instead, being wiped out by unseen/unknown atomics, in my opinion, played a larger factor. Thanks for your videos.

[@wbwarren57]

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with nuclear weapons, they not have contributed significantly to the decision of Japan surrender, but I think that the impact that those bombings had in the ability to see the horrible affects of them, played a key role and continues to play a key role in preventing our military leaders from thinking that way giga nuclear war would be a good idea.

[@randyfant2588]

Japan didn't have 13 battleship the whole time, even if you count the Kongo class Battlecruisers as "battleships" that's still only 12 = 4xKongo, 2xFuso, 2xIse, 2xNagato and 2xYamato. Also Kaisuragi was had minor damage and was repaired. She was used post-war for repatriation of Japanese garrisons from Pacific islands they were forced to give up back to Japan (Japans counterpart to Magic Carpet) Mexico was an Ally and sent a force to the Philippines to assist in it's liberation, which included their best rated fighter squadron. This assessment concentrates purely on material supply. The Japanese were training units of suicide troops armed with pointed sticks. Of those thousands of operational aircraft, a huge number were pre-positioned in the hills overlooking the southern beaches of Kyushu, Exactly where the US Army was insisting on making their landing (having apparently learned NOTHING from Eisenhower and D-Day which hit NOT at the most obvious spot) If the invasion had gone forward as planned - Typhoon or no Typhoon it would have been an unmitigated bloody disaster that would have made Iwo Jima look like a cake walk. This would have had a major emboldening effect on the Japanese people as a whole and may well have resulted in a negotiated peace (which is what Tojo needed to avoid the noose and he knew it) Yes, there is no doubt that the firebombing had horrific effects on wood and rice-paper housing, but it had much less effect on major structures of government and military use. they were also the result of mass bombing raids. The atomic attacks had a shock effect of a single bomber dropping a single bomb destroying - not massive areas of common rice-paper houses - but the main infrastructure at the heart of a city. It was that shock that brought the Emperor out. He had been a basically powerless figurehead throughout the war. things were done in his name but not his bidding, they were done at Prime Minister Tojo's bidding and the shock and horror of the Atomic bomb was what made the Emperor stand up against his prime minister and demand a surrender. Even this caused a brief attempt at a civil war which the Imperial guard quickly pt down. No the firebombing did damage over a greater area but it was the shock of the Atomic bombs that forced the Japanese government to finally relent.

[@allangibson8494]

WW2 showed battleships were largely a waste of resources except for shore bombardment. They were simply targets for torpedoes and bombs with the torpedoes being launched from beyond the range of their guns.

[@jhumpich0311]

Solid video as usual

[@timl4179]

No doubt that the A-bombs hastened the surrender of an already defeated Japan. What would have been the cost in the lives of B-29 bomber crews and their fighter escorts, submarine crews, naval aviators, naval personnel, and prisoners of war if they hadn’t surrendered when they did? What mass killing device would Unit 731 have developed and deployed? The US lost more personnel during the last year of the war than in the previous years combined. If this was to question the deployment of the A-bombs, the answer is a definitive yes.

[@Subpac_ww2]

And to think there are still many that believe the Soviet entry was the sole reason, and that Japan was still an effective fighting force. It's simply delusional to deny the facts. One can refuse defeat. One can refuse to surrender. But one cannot deny the fact they are starving to death. I have always felt the atomic bombs mostly acted as fast-forward buttons. The submarine and bombing campaigns did most of the harm in the home islands. The type of harm felt in Japanese homes and food pantries. The fact is had Japan not surrendered and fighting continued into 1946, their people, their culture, and their nation may cease to even exist today. Tens of millions would've been killed in another year of fighting and we would've ran out of virgin cities to bomb. They'd all be gone.

[@kimwit1307]

In early august 1945 the military leadership of Japan stubbornly wanted to fight on, even if they knew they could not really win. their strategy was basically make the conquest of Japan so costly that it would become too much to bear for the allies and thus preserve the rule of the emperor. It was the fact that the demand for uncondotional surrended made the status of the then deified emperor uncertain that madethe japanese willing to fight on for as long as they did. The US knew the cost of an invasion of Japan would be very, very high for both sides and likely result in the total destruction of Japan. So, having the A-bombs at their disposal, it is understandable they decided to use them in the hope that it would cause the japanese leadership to surrender. There is much discussion if this was the case. I think it may have contributed, but in honesty I think that the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviets (which the western allies had asked for btw) weas that sealed the deal. It cut off the last of the resources Japan needed to continue fighting for one, but the prospect of having the communists take part in an invasion was too much to bear as where the western allies position of the emperor was ambiguous, the position of the communists was quite clear: there would be no emperor anymore. That is what caused the emperor and the peace-party in the japanese government to prevail (but only after an abortive coup-attempt by some hardliners).

[@hattrick8684]

The Mexican AF was the “Aztec Eagles” mainly, I believe they also had individual planes in random units. But the Aztec eagles 201st fighter wing was the bulk of Mexican forces in the pacific.

[@hattrick8684]

Mexicos main contribution was industrial as they didn’t really have the capability to field expeditionary forces. They mobilized at home to support the US war effort and sent workers to the US to help keep US industry going. Very little known fact.

[@MattKearneyFan1]

Anybody who saw that the population was getting militarized to fight allied forces coming in would say no. The bombs ended the war

[@AcmeRacing]

It's easy to say what you think _would have happened_ when you have the benefit of full information about the enemy. However, it didn't happen that way. The hypothetical case for how it would have gone without the nuclear attacks is just a thought exercise, with more information than Truman had at the time. In wartime, with an enemy who demonstrated that they'd rather die a pointless death than surrender when defeated, I'd probably have made the same call.

[@craigw.scribner6490]

Thanks!

[@garygenerous8982]

The thing that gets me chuckling the most reading through the comments is that everyone has their own adamant opinions on what caused the Japanese surrender. The fact is that the only people who could tell us what caused the surrender are those Japanese High Command staff/Emperor Hirohito who made the decision from the time the decision was made. Even if we could ask them now, their answers probably wouldn’t be the full truth since time and hindsight would alter those thoughts. But we all love to speculate none the less and I’m no different. So here is what I believe happened: The Japanese high command knew they were beat but hoped that the fear of the cost of invasion on the part of the Allies and presumed support of the USSR would allow them to negotiate a surrender which would let them keep their empire and much of their SEA and Chinese gains. Yes their external war fighting capability was toast and their manufacturing base / civilian infrastructure were crumbing due to the fire bombing but it takes much less time, resources or machinery to arm the populace with crude weapons to defend the homeland in case of invasion and as previously shown on Saipan, and Okinawa (let alone the whole war from the military side) the Japanese high command was supremely indifferent to their own casualty numbers. The US firebombing campaign started in March 1945 or there about so by the time the A bombs were dropped 6 months had passed with increasing numbers of burnt out cities and civilian casualties with no signs of surrender. Yes this by itself probably would have ended the war in the end, but it would still have taken many months (and the potential Allies casualties that would entail) and probably wiped out the Japanese as a race due to starvation. The USSR declaring war on Japan did influence the surrender but in my opinion only by removing the possibility of their assistance with negotiating a conditional surrender. Had the war continued they would have run roughshod over the Japanese units in China, Manchuria, and Korea but had absolutely no way of influencing the fight on the main land. As for Operation Downfall, again this would have ended the war, though with enemy boots on the ground I think it would have taken longer in the end than just a pure air campaign as previously discussed due to the fanaticism of the civilian population and realistically had nothing else worked I don’t believe the Allies would have gone through with the actual invasion due to that. Truman would have bombed them into the Stone Age and let them starve rather than go through with that (though MacArthur might have tried if he thought he could get away with it under a different president). Then we get to the crux of the matter. On their own, in a vacuum would the A bombs force a surrender - for instance if Jimmy Doolittles B-25’s been armed with little boys in 1942? Probably not. But in August 1945, with all those other factors thrown in. Yes I truly believe they are what tipped the scale and caused the Japanese to surrender when they did. Yes they did need to use at least two of them since the first didn’t do it. And because of that they likely saved hundreds of thousands to millions of lives. I believe it took a combination of a concerted firebombing campaign, the USSR declaring war and two atomic bombs to finally get it through the heads of enough people high enough up in the Japanese government that the there was no longer any possibility of holding out for a negotiated surrender. No one thing on its own would have done it at that time but together, topped off by the A bombs did it.

[@davidwhitney1171]

It is very true that had the Atomic bombing of the Japanese cities had not taken place, the war would have most likely continued at least well into 1946, with horrendous casualties among Japanese- many more than died in the bombed cities, as well as enormous American casualties. But let's not forget the hundreds of thousands- or even millions- of Asians whi were suffering under Japanese occupation- Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese.and others, who would have perished had the war continued- either deliberately starved or murdered by execution merely for spite....

[@Iamkcs2c]

Good video. Arguably, Japan's defeat was inevitable as early as July 29, 1940 when the US passed the "Two-ocean Navy Act". It provided for 8 Essex Class carriers (we ended up with 17 by the end of the war). That being said, while military defeat was inevitable, surrender is a political act ... And was definitely not. Japan's operating strategy was to try to make an American "victory" too costly and negotiate a 4 point "surrender" - no disarmament, no occupation, no war crime trials, no change in government. It's unfathomable to imagine that would have been acceptable to the Allies. Just to illustrate the depth of Japanese commitment to this goal, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the Russian entry into the war, AND the atomic bombing of Nagasaki in a 3 day period, the Big 6 cabinet split 3-3 on surrender. When the Emperor cast a deciding vote ... There was an attempted coup by mid level officers to thwart things. Anyway, to me i think the a-bomb ended up as a face-saving gesture to permit the inevitable. While the emperor could think it reasonable to shame the IJN into sending Yamato on a one-way trip towards Okinawa without air cover, he apparently felt it was honorable to yield to the power of the atom. Finally, they get scant mention in this discussion, but the Japanese killed around 9 million Chinese, displaced 60 million plus, starved a million Vietnamese, and even killed 100k filipino civilians in Manila a week before the big fire-bombing of Tokyo (using their own strategic weapon of a trapped, drunken army on a captive civilian population). Ending the war earlier saves many more lives than just Japanese or American ones.

[@braytha42]

I love these maps. Where could I find them?

[@TheScandoman]

Thank you! I heartily agree! In higg school, I was presented with the 'A-bomb equals victory' meme, all tied up in a pretty little bow, and I had calculus to study, so...I moved on. Later, as an adult, occasionally had more time to read a few articles, see some documentaries, and dramatic movies, and think about things... I still feel that it would have been hard to resist the prospect of dropping the A-bombs; but, an objective analysis shows that Allies were already bombing with impunity: what difference was it supposed to make to the Emporer, if '1 plane could do the job of 10'? ...or even 20? However, it would have been fairly easy for Allies to just regroup, and keep up the blockade, and the bombing, to eliminate Japanese planes...it was just a simple matter of time. The kamekaze tactic was not really going to be major obstacle to invasion. I have felt this way for over 30 years, but, well, obviously, have not felt tje need to have an authoritative justification for my opinion. But it's nice to know there is one out there! However, I think that, after the botched occupation problems in Europe, many in leadership/decisionmaking roles for the USA were keenly interested in keeping the Soviets, and the Chinese, as well as the Brits and Aussies, and any other injured parties in southern Asia OUT of the negotiations, and OUT of the occupation, or, at least, in extremely limited, minor roles (there was some value in having some of them endorse an agreement...), and, to them, that meant getting it done fast. I also think that Hirohito, et al. came to agree with that perspective: as bad as it had become, it was only going to get worse; WAY worse! And frankly, if it weren't for the fact that obviously the civil war in China would be almost impossible to avert, especially with the Soviets showing up on the doorstep loaded up with guns, ammo', and just waiting to find out who to shoot at...well, getting things changed over in Japan couldn't happen happen fast enough, and they didn't! Frankly, the People's Republic of Chin owes its existence to the short-sightedness of American isolationism at the turn of the 20th Century, and leaving 'diplomacy' to businessmen

[@BishopStars]

I loved your voice work as Neil Goldman in Family Guy. Good ww2 content, too!

[@b1laxson]

Those 2 guys trying to get to Truk show the mindset. Emancipated, starving, desperate and going to ANOTHER military base not surrendering. Logistically Japan was crippled but motivationally they needed a "shock" to make them rethink what had been a slow progression into the state.