The Atomic Bomb: Crash Course History of Science #33

[@loyisomlandu1866]

Just came back to watch this video after watching Oppenheimer and its so cool that i know all the scientist you are talking about thanks to the movie

[@mpog8984]

bet it can't beat the emus

[@anitanegi9706]

maybe 9000 of them can .just maybe

[@crashcourse]

If you've never listened to the podcast "Do Go On" I highly recommend their episode on "The Great Emu War." - Nick J.

[@AllenGrimm1145]

Your profile picture nailed it. :)

[@megaplayz6064]

Who gets the joke from oversimplified Like if u do

[@VejmR]

What did it mean?

[@jvigil2007]

He left out a critical thought of Truman's. Essentially, "What if we lost thousands of Americans during the invasion of Japan and the American people found out that we had a bomb that could have ended the war, and I decided not to use it."

[@luizguerra7807]

Oppenheimer's recording sounds perfect for some dope Techno samples...

[@mb-jg9hh]

A man with a Nuclear Energy Technology degree here. First off no radiation leaked at three-mile island and according to OHSA and IAEA Nuclear plants are the safest places to work even safer than solar plants and wind farms. Also, you receive more radiation exposure flying from NY to LA than the avg American nuclear worker. Just wanted to remind people how safe Nuclear plants are after the ending of the above video. If anyone has a question about civilian nuclear power comment below, I will try and answer some of them.

[@اسفعلىالاساءةنبهنيلأمسح]

What about the Japanese plants that blew up?

[@ciaphascyne8866]

Yes ask the man whose livelihood and career depend on you thinking Nuclear plants are safe... A world run on reactors is entirely impossible without constant meltdowns. The numbers are just not on your side.

[@mb-jg9hh]

@@اسفعلىالاساءةنبهنيلأمسح Japan had a very weak regulatory culture and the company ignored the safety recommendations of the manufacturer and the government.

[@ric84]

What would you personally see as the most viable current or near-future reactor design if you got the chance to commission the building of one? If you could elaborate a little that would be great, Reactor design has always been interesting to me but i´m obviously far from an expert on the subject.

[@nathan92238]

ciaphas cyne By that logic any scientist cannot be judged as an expert in their field.

[@greenredblue]

Yeah... history (and really, really simple game theory) very clearly show that showing off a super weapon to your enemies does *not* carry the message “you should fear us.” Almost always the received message is “you should get some of these as quickly as possible.”

[@SK_2521]

And should also help your enemy get one ASAP. Whole point of M.A.D to have both sides weapons so powerful that open conflict is out of questions and you can get back to normal peaceful lives (no point in waging war anyway)

[@anthonyschroeder521]

Though Truman didn't know this at the time. Stalin knew far more about the Atomic bomb even at Potsdam that Truman ever did. I'm not exactly sure that the two statements are mutually exclusive though. 'It's fear us while we have this superiority, try to acquire it asap to level, and then escalate, the field.' Which looking at extant declassified records from the CCCP is pretty much how it was actually taken.

[@badbeardbill9956]

Yeah but the enemy at the time simply couldn’t. Then the Russians got some...

[@riccardos2955]

@@SK_2521Those times are over. Military Analysists came to conclusion that 90% of the American Military Staff thinks they can win a Nuclear War. Also there are mutch more voices in Favour to use NBC weapons then 30 years ago.

[@nikitaamien404]

‘This was science at war.’ That hit me harder than ‘Avengers, Assemble.’

[@briancouch2754]

Same

[@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing]

Not nearly as deadly as.... *THE MONGOLS*

[@BubblewrapHighway]

The Mongols were the A-bomb of the 13th century. Just like the Huns in the 5th. In fact, the entire churning ocean of the steppe peoples has always fascinated me as a counterweight to coastal civilization. At least until the widespread use of firearms. : \

[@riccardos2955]

@@BubblewrapHighwayIt actually got interesting after the invention of firearms. Before that Empires would conquer and rule over territories much much longer.

[@williamredding8953]

@ This might actually be true. Wiki estimates the fatalities from the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombs to be 226,000 at most, and fatalities from the Mongol empire are measured in the millions.

[@brine1986]

Its kinda terrifying that one of the factors to drop the bomb was "to justify spendings"

[@riccardos2955]

Using NBC weapons because you dont want to loose soldiers (in WAR) is the dumbest excuse ever.

[@mrreyes5004]

Almost ALL war is, to an extent, all about spendings (Hell, Extra History made a great mini-series about how WW2 was greatly influenced by resources and logistics rather than simple good-vs-evil). Even so, it worked.

[@user-zb6ez4jl3u]

Riccardo S millions of civilians would’ve died in a mainland invasion of Japan

[@BIoknight000]

I kinda object to the use of that flag for Germany in this instance. Use the Imperial flag if you don't wanna have a swatstika, at least

[@FreeOfFantasy]

@@MMenyan That is also the imperial Germany war flag. You don't gain anything by using it. If you insist on not showing swatstikas, pixel it. Everybody knows what symbol has to be there.

[@SK_2521]

Agree here. Primary because German Reich and modern Germany are two completely different states. And showing modern flag in this video's contexts undermine the fact that germans repented their sins

[@BubblewrapHighway]

"Ribbons and flags are symbols and I leave symbols to the symbol-minded." -George Carlin

[@cholten99]

I love Crash Course but I have to agree with a lot of the commentors about the one-sidedness of this particular episode. I'm not qualified to have an opinion as to whether the bombing of Japan in WW2 actually saved lives by shortening the land-war. However, just listing nuclear incidents of the 20th century without mentioning the advantages and widespread stability of nuclear power in general was a very slanted view of a complex subject.

[@snkline]

This sorta reminded me of the original SciShow GMO episode. GMOs, Nuclear Power, and Anti-Vax seem to be the three big anti-science boogeymen that are quite popular in liberal circles (that doesn't mean they aren't popular in conservative circles as well). While he hasn't fallen for the anti-vax nonsense, he did fall for the anti-GMO nonsense until his video gave him a rude awakening, and this video reveals at least a slight anti-nuclear bias as well.

[@robcain8865]

Great episode as always Hank. Do you plan on covering Alan Turing, his team's codebreaking and the first computer? He isn't appreciated nearly enough here in the UK, even after that official apology.

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

As a student of history, and especially of military history, the only reason there wasn't a third world war in the 20th century was the existence of nuclear weapons. It's a huge gamble, but so far nukes have prevented wars. How long this will be the case is another question.

[@11_CatsInATrenchcoat]

Well said. It's a bit nerve wracking, but I didn't die in a trench war before my 21st birthday. So there's that.

[@Macaroth1]

The problem with this, if it is indeed true, is that with nuclear weapons one slip is already too much. As horrible as it was we could recover from the second World War. It is doubtful whether we could recover from a nuclear war.

[@riccardos2955]

You better watch the documentation the Antrax Dealers, it will give you goosebumbs when you see that the US has vaccinated every Soldier,Doctor;Policemen,Nurse and Firemen against Antrax. Seems like preparations for me

[@Ngamotu83]

2:23 Slight correction. The atom had already been split by Rutherford in 1917.

[@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un]

My favorite bomb

[@ryanxu1065]

my glorious leader

[@ashdynasty1867]

I liked your video now

[@Al-cd7zg]

Kim Jong-un what about tsar bomba?

[@saltydiarrhea386]

You should try a Jägerbomb, you'll never go back.

[@weebslime]

I'm proud of this community

[@RomanianJ96]

Considering the Japanese military high command still did not want to surrender after the atomic bombings, and there was an attempted coup against Hirohito when he announced he was going to force Japan to surrender, and there is strong evidence to suggest Operation Downfall was not only going to fail, but make Iwo Jima and Okinawa look like child's play in terms of intensity and casualty loss, it's hard to argue US success was still certain. Japanese strategy had shifted towards keeping allied forces off the island and waiting until their resolve had diminished, as they had done in the past with groups like the Mongols. The High command was willing to sacrifice everyone in Japan to this goal.

[@badbeardbill9956]

RomanianJ96 No Japan couldn’t win. We’d just blockade them and starve them out.

[@RomanianJ96]

Bad Beard Bill We already were blockading them and they still weren’t giving up. All of Japan was starving and the high command had decided they didn’t care how many Japanese died or how long it took. As long as the Allies never successfully invaded the home islands they felt they could just wait out the Allies.

[@badbeardbill9956]

@@RomanianJ96Except they couldn't. They needed the resources of other lands, otherwise they wouldn't have even built their empire. They relied on those resources. Their people were starving. Eventually they all would've died, leaving a dead island chain.

[@RomanianJ96]

Bad Beard Bill And the Japanese high command were willing to pay that price. I’m not arguing over whether they would have won World War 2, that was impossible even after Pearl Harbor. I’m arguing about their resolve. If Hirohito hadn’t strong armed the military high command into capitulating, we would see Operation Downfall happen, which MacArthur wanted to use nukes to soften up the beaches. These landings would’ve most likely failed since it was a 1:1 ratio when the Japanese surrendered between invader and defender, and the Japanese were not even done fortifying Kyushu. The blockade would’ve taken years and Truman was worried about the American public losing interest in carrying out this expensive war. Plus, he was worried about letting the Soviets expand their influence into East Asia just as they had done in Europe. There were no good or easy decisions to be made. Starving out an entire country is a hard and bloody task to achieve. Especially when you’re starving out a people who are willing to suffer whatever it takes to force you to end the war somewhat favorable to them.

[@badbeardbill9956]

@@RomanianJ96The high command may be willing to fight but they don't matter. The people do. If they refuse (and they likely would eventually) then it doesn't matter if the leaders are willing to pay that price. What matters is whether or not the people are. Sure, some wouldn't. But many would. And even if they don't refuse the Japanese Empire had enormous trouble just feeding their soldiers. Feeding their people would be even more difficult and their entire population would be effectively useless as combatants.

[@dawarmage]

Wait, how did Three Mile Island make the list of "terrible accidents"? Wasn't Three Mile Island basically a harmless accident? Noteworthy, but definitely not "terrible".

[@FreeOfFantasy]

It didn't leak much, but I wouldn't call a meltdown harmless.

[@dawarmage]

@@FreeOfFantasy Fair, although I'm under the impression no one was harmed. Would you call it "terrible"?

[@krellend20]

@@dawarmage Three Mile Island was an example of proper safety protocols preventing a disaster. It most definitely was not a disaster.

[@jvigil2007]

@@FreeOfFantasy it was harmless. It harmed no one. It released less radiation than someone living in Santa Fe receives in a day.

[@Onithyr]

The only people it harmed were the people who invested money in the plant. They received tremendous damage to their wallets.

[@maggsgorilla]

Nuclear physics did not displace the bikini atoll people. Politics did. People did. A hammer does not hit a nail. A person does.

[@KittJT2]

Can you tell this to the people trying to ban guns?

[@maggsgorilla]

Neither should you leave hammers near children

[@randysalber4960]

Fear of nuclear is setting us back. It's going to be our next positive step toward truly clean energy.

[@TheJesterInYellow]

The fact that you can't show a swastika as an educational program, and the fact that you probably endorse that, is enlightening on a whole 'nother level.

[@dauf69]

I sense there's a bit of fear-mongering about nuclear fission and fusion going on in this video.

[@jeremiasrobinson]

Destroyer of worlds.

[@CautionCU]

Dreeeee dodo wubwubwub dreeeee dodo wubwubwub dreeeee dodo wubwubwub.... Destroyer of worlds

[@Nameorsmth]

No i

[@TheRealNinjaJuice]

Guys, guys, we ALLL know who is the destroyer of worlds....ME

[@bryanlandwehr7422]

The units of success to the cold war also included atomic bomb delivery capabilities (rockets). Bombs aren't a useful show of force, unless you can put them where you want to... Or at least convince the world that you can. This fact directly contributed to the space race and some of the more tense moments of the cold war like the Cuban missile crisis.

[@williamredding8953]

I can't help but feel like Hank here came down too hard on the anti Truman side of the debate without providing enough of a counter argument to the estimated cost of an invasion of mainland Japan.

[@alexanderwasley5105]

Yea. The invasion would've taken far more lives than the bombs did.

[@SaraBearRawr0312]

@@alexanderwasley5105 Possibly but that is also why it is still so hotly contested today. Japan as a nation was prepared to continue fighting to the bitter end but a nation is not an individual person and the war was already taking a toll on those very persons. By spring 1945 it was well understood that if the war continued, the Japanese would eventually see American boots on the Japanese mainland which in itself was terrifying but also terrifying was a united front of America and the USSR as they understood that while America might be somewhat civil (wartime atrocities not-withstanding) the soviets might not be so clean in their fighting. This was not only on the minds of the Japanese gov't but also on the minds of the soldiers and civilians who would have to endure the invasion, bombings, and ultimately street fighting. Would the Japanese just completely surrender once allied troops landed? Obviously not; but would a prolonged multi-year conflict with hundreds of thousands of US casualties and a million Japanese casualties occur like is publicly theorized? Most likely not. The Japanese resources were drained, their weapon stocks dwindling, their navy nearly entirely annihilated, and a sort of pseudo-blockade was already in place to prevent outside aide; and probably most telling, their morale was fading quickly and the will to fight of the everyday citizen was getting lower and lower. Another potential issue involved that very coalition. We already understood that the Soviet sphere of influence was going to increase with Germanys fall and not even a decade later we would see this with Korea, looking at it from today it would almost certainly end with a divided Japan with Soviet and US partitions just like Korea. This would have been a reason to get the US in as quickly as possible without allowing the soviets to get any footholds despite being an "ally". While there are other factors that were unique to Korea which ultimately culminated in the Korean War, notably the long standing issue of Korea (under Kim) wanting to stop the centuries long issue of constant invasion, it isn't hard to see an east/west germany or north/south korea issue developing in a divided occupied Japan. While we will never know the true extent of such a conflict, If it is from purely a casualty perspective as many like to point out here is my issue: its believed that had an invasion occurred, the Japanese would have sued for peace after only a few months due to those issues listed above and so the question still stands of the risk-cost analysis of the aftermath: Was 200,000 Japanese casualties, the vast majority of which were non-combatant citizens, lower or higher than a proper conflict involving soldiers? Is a soldier worth more or less than a civilian when calculating this? War is already complicated enough both during and in the retrospect but once we opened pandoras box of the nuclear option it changed the paradigm in such a way that Oppenheimers quotation is even more pressing: We, humanity, have "become death", and we will have to contend with that and question our decision for the rest of human history if we plan to not finish his quotation and become the "destroyer of worlds".

[@bencollord2957]

True story. Imagine trying to explain to the families of all the Americans lost in the invasion that you had a war-ending superweapon and didn't use it.

[@jasonr1309]

He did, because he doesn't understand the perception people had at that time.

[@Jaydoggy531]

7:52 "And now there's an opera about him" - it's called Doctor Atomic by John Adams. The whole script is compiled from journals, letters, and de-classified documents from the actual people involved. It's a bit fragmented and jagged, but then again... so is war.

[@cwam1979]

Who are "most historians"? I would really like to see the sources used here.

[@user-zb6ez4jl3u]

Yeah, I was like “what?” I think it’s generally agreed that dropping the bomb, saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese.

[@fleebertreatise1063]

Do Historians agree? I found the Gar Alperovitz articles, but he's one guy and while his points may be sound, he doesn't represent "historians" as a whole. I found a good article here though (search Washington Post "How the Hiroshima Bombing is Taught"). It has links to public opinion (in the US and around the world), and how history textbooks are taking more evidence into consideration. Evidence like dissenting voices at the time of decision, and the effect it had on the victims. Personally I think that restricting how we talk about the bomb as a "necessary evil" is incredibly stupid. We need to take into consideration whether there were alternatives, and all the facts at the time. Not just the facts that preserve the belief that all our decisions were correct. If you have evidence that this is an open and shut case, I'd love to hear it.

[@Nostripe361]

Joseph Ramirez I think it’s a little of both. A bit cause it was better than invasion and a bit as a way to show it off to the Soviets. Basically there was no one reason but a multitude reasons they dropped the bomb

[@cwam1979]

@@Nostripe361 Yes, I agree. There are many factors which affected the creation and use of the atomic bomb. This is not so black and white as some like to portray it. Alperovitz is one of the foremost revisionists on this topic and it is good to have historians examining this event from all different points of view. But one voice does not a majority make. I generally like John Green and I find his Crash Course series informative and generally reliable. However, we have to be careful, as historians, not to speak in absolutes too easily. "Always" "most" "never".....these are hard to prove. And if you make these statements, you need to back them up with solid sources.

[@Nostripe361]

@@cwam1979 History is almost always a murky gray. Even the most evil men of history have done a few good things even if outweighed by the evil they have wrought. And likewise even greatest hero of the past has dark sins in their closest. Not to mention alot of it will always be inference based on what we have as evidence. However people and historians don't like that. They want easy answers that can be viewed as 100 percent true. Which is why you should look at all historical viewpoints

[@suspendedsky]

i got excited when you said 'B-movie' because I thought you were making a 'Bee Movie' joke.

[@tdward23]

"Most historians agree." Come on, Hank.....

[@tejasdhami8734]

Tracy Ward That struck out to me too

[@poppypollen4362]

That probably depends on what country are you from.

[@nicholasjohnson6919]

I'm sure no one else will get this recommended around this time. . .

[@metroidragon]

Some good stuff here but you had some omissions that made the video sound preachy and prejudiced. needed: The death toll of an invasion of japan The death toll of 3 mile island Safety advances in nuclear technology - Breeder / thorium reactors Richard Feynman

[@ldbird]

Watching this before Oppenheimer bc

[@zforz1004]

Came here after watching Oppenheimer

[@REALPapaLags]

Just got recommended this video after seeing Oppenheimer

[@joaovitormatos8147]

In 2:24, the flag of Russia is the right one, but the German... Not so much

[@jvigil2007]

They're afraid of offending the snowflakes.

[@jordanreeseyre]

@@jvigil2007 more like youtubes algorithms. Why not just pixilate it?

[@brianhelmick1105]

If they show the Swasthik the video will be banned in Germany and other nations.

[@atheroot]

it's not the Russian flag, it's the USSR flag!

[@danielhann37]

@@jvigil2007 or maybe they wouldn't want to risk having this video banned in germany? not everything is about snowflakes lmao

[@jamiesprinkbob]

hmmmmmmmmmm trying to figure out why this suddenly came up in my recommended hmmmmmm

[@SpiralSine6]

Such strange coincidences

[@kathic6402]

No mention of the casualty figures for invading Japan? No mention of the limited control Truman had over the use of the bomb?

[@PhillyPhanVinny]

A few issues I have with this video are there was no major issue at 3 mile island, nuclear energy and power plants are actually one of the safest forms of energy and cause very minimal amounts of pollution compared to many other methods. Most importantly though is the US's justification for dropping the bombs. This video claims it was not to end the war. Yet even after the first and second bombs were dropped Japans government was refusing to surrender. It took the Emperor stepping in to end the war and even then the military tried to prevent Japan from surrendering thinking that someone was forcing the Emperor to surrender. Had the bombs not had been dropped Japan would have forced us and our allies to land hundreds of divisions on Japan causing way more casualties then the bombs caused to both sides. And in the mean time while the invasion of Japan was planned the US and allies would have continued to bomb Japan causing way more casualties there then the nukes did. And then there also would have been all the fighting happening on the land on the islands of the Pacific and the mainland of Asia. So not believing the US was justified in dropping the bombs to end the war is really ridiculous. If you disagree please let me know why you think that.

[@ebitoro4590]

I would like to give a typical Japanese person's point of view on the dropping of the atomic bomb: it was a horrifying event that defined Japan's loss and should never be experienced again, by anyone. We don't care (anymore) whether it was an experiment or America's show of power or if it was necessary to end the war. The continued development and threat to use these weapons by modern nations vying for power is an affront to the suffering the men, women, and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki of the time, and the lessons they teach to the younger generation. Japan is the only country to have experienced the atomic bombs and should speak out more and louder when it comes to these debates (unlike whatever path our right-wing PM seems to want to take). Sure, there are others who may have direct relatives influenced by the bombs and who may rightfully be angry at the pain they and their loved ones had to go through. Some descendants of the original victims still suffer from the radioactive effects and need governmental and financial help for medical treatment. But we wouldn't wish the same on anyone else, and it's absolutely infuriating that there are still nations which continue to develop such technology, under the delusion that it may be a viable solution to future conflicts, when it shouldn't even be considered.

[@bradleyrmueller6072]

At 8:11, you use some very questionable logic to conclude that the atomic bomb was the cause of the Cold War. This ignores the LARGE amount of history that between the West and the USSR that made them distrust each other from the Prague coup to the allied intervention against the reds in 1918.

[@quangho8120]

Uh dude, this's supposed to be a quick and roughly accurate video, not a totally percise one. Even if they include that in, there would be another guy who said that another piece of information should be in there, and this will never stop. It's much better to make videos like this that are roughly correct and interested audiences can look up deeper facts later on.

[@TheMattTrakker]

@@quangho8120 What an absolutely horrible opinion.

[@quangho8120]

@@TheMattTrakker again, I said I think it's good to make roughly correct videos. If it's not roughly correct then yeah it's bad

[@melshiaty]

The algorithm suggesting this the week Oppenheimer was released 😅

[@samburdge9948]

Your presentation inflections/voice have improved much...this is good

[@eseguerito2629]

We can thank Openheimer for Spongebob Squarepants

[@exoterminator]

Can't help but feel you came on very harsh on nuclear. Putting the debate of dropping the bombs on Japan (which I think you should have explained arguments on both sides), for nuclear energy production, simply compare the number of people who have died from fossil fuel pollution, and many more will die from global warming, compared to a handful of nuclear accidents (mainly caused by incompetence more than the technology itself).

[@tangles01]

The death count from the bombs were tiny when compared to the fire bombing campaigns.

[@tangles01]

@jaydee040 It was aimed at the govt, by wiping out it's people and their resolve.

[@richardiv385]

I heard a couple of years ago of two other types of nuclear reactor, one which uses standard nuclear waste as fuel and another that uses the waste from the second reactor as fuel, the end result being much safer than nuclear waste for additional energy production

[@saumyamathur4862]

7:53 and now there’s a movie about him!

[@spencerjones841]

Well considering the likely plan of defeating Japan without using nukes was either an invasion with an estimated death toll in the millions or the not creatively named operation starvation ... Oh and they planned on using nukes as tactical support weapons to soften the beaches defences. Also fun fact the b-29 actually cost more money to develop then the Mahantan project cost. Ideally none of these weapons or operationz should have been used or planned but we exist in an imperfect world

[@TheSmileMile]

There was also negotiation. Japan had been making overtures since the loss of Iwo Jima, but that is a long story.

[@jvigil2007]

@@TheSmileMile not really, it basically comes down to the Allies demanding unconditional surrender and the Japanese refusing that.

[@TheSmileMile]

@@jvigil2007 Except, they didn't actually surrender unconditionally. One of the provisions they wanted was that the Emperor would not be tried for war crimes, and that he would be allowed to remain as Emperor, though with drastically reduced authority. We didn't offer that provision in the Potsdam declaration, even though some of our military advisers said it was the only thing the Emperor would go for, but we did offer it unofficially after the usage of the Atomic bombs. The Emperor's will was absolute, if he told you to fight, you fought, but if he told you to surrender, you surrendered. Convincing the Emperor to give up was all that mattered.

[@jvigil2007]

@@TheSmileMile that's true, but there were other conditions that the Allies refused and the Japanese pushed for until they finally gave up after the bombs were dropped

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

I'm pretty sure it wasn't the potential Japanese casualties that had any impact on American decision-making. They were already readily firebombing Japanese cities by then, for the express purpose of killing as many people as they could ('demoralizing the enemy', as they probably justified it to themselves), after having just finished doing the same to the Germans. If there were any lives that concerned them, it was only their own.

[@Taylo791]

Watching this in 2023 after Oppenheimer lol

[@SINCERELYXHER]

I have to write a essay.. but nothing can keep my attention hopefully this can I love crash corse wish me luck💀

[@reythejediladyviajakku6078]

May we never find a use for this stuff. I’d love to know how to get rid of it because of how lethal it is

[@tylerw6438]

He leaves out that the US just got done with the gruelling battle of Okinawa where there were 50k american casualties (12k dead) and 150k japanese killed. - Okinawa being a small island. The US saw just how ferocious and tenacious the Japanese could be and the US hadnt even reached the home Islands yet. Operation downfall (invasion of mainland Japan) had estimates ranging in the hundreds of thousands for the Americans and into the Millions for the Japanese. You can still argue the ethics of dropping the bomb, but come on you have to at least mention war fatigue and the ethical argument of the real possibility more would die (both civilians and military) from an actual invasion. Not to mention public opinion of sending more young americans to die in a war they didnt start who didnt need to. Also the Soviets were about to invade as well and the cold war was already brewing. A "quick resolution" and keeping it out of soviet hands played a major role outside of just the casualties. Dont mention just "justify cost" as the reason why. Again I respect both sides of the argument but at least try to be factual.

[@WiseWik]

Nice, no mention of Tsar Bomba. Well done CC.

[@DRsideburns]

Why should there be

[@WiseWik]

@@DRsideburns because most powerful nuclear bomb

[@BubblewrapHighway]

Good point, I was waiting for that and then forgot all about it.

[@Caterfree10]

I’ve been to the Atomic Bomb museum and Peace Park in Nagasaki. It’s something I sincerely wish everyone could do, most especially politicians. I can dream, but I’d like to believe we could actually move toward disarmament if this could happen. But being a realist, I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime.

[@kylejohnson3233]

This series is gold

[@timjohnson2186]

We live in a fallen world

[@chademery9169]

11:03. “Bigger…bomb.” Lol

[@NimsChannel]

Diné, name for the Navajo Nation in the Navajo language.

[@joracer1]

The bomb save millions of lives, Japan said they would fight until the last man, woman or child was dead, so it gave us no choice but to show enormous devastation, we had to drop the 2nd one to get them to quit. Not until the 2nd one hit they announced they would surrendered, smart move.....

[@twistedyogert]

I went to Church with a man that would've been part of the American invasion had the bombs not been used. Sadly he passed away from old age recently but I now know things would've been a lot worse for both sides. In a way the bombs were a pretty merciful way to kill Imperial Japan. A blockade would starve them to death and a full scale invasion would've been even worse than both bombings in terms of the bloodshed.

[@brokenroot7337]

I'd like to see Hank and Kyle Hill discuss Nulcear Energy.

[@vladimirpoutine7522]

Doesn't matter, I have no problem with why they dropped the bomb. I can't apply my modern context to yesterday.

[@purple-headedyogurtslinger2683]

6:50 when you talked about causes for dropping the atomic bomb I think you fail to understand the war crimes and the resolve of the Japanese citizens at this time. You failed to mention the monumental loss of life that was being inflicted on China at this time. They forcibly raped women in the tens of thousands. Allies may have forcibly raped women but this happened in the hundreds not tens of thousands or possibly more because they inflicted bigger kill counts on single cities in China than whole countries in WW2

[@lesleyghostdragon3149]

Is it called "Operaheimer"?

[@KarpucMotoring]

Great video, big fan of the channel. thank you for always providing great content. PS nice job walking on shells on this one

[@christophermiller3685]

Preventing a long, drawn-out war was undeniably a factor in the decision. It may not have been the primary factor, but it still was a factor. You should have listed three factors in your graphic.

[@aboubacaramine8689]

Right because long drawn-out wars are so uncharacteristic of US foreign policy.

[@jonathaneitmann3876]

@@aboubacaramine8689 Check out the prager u vid. Lots more people would have died had a real invasion taken place. Doesnt adress your point directly.... but i thought that tidbit might help

[@Chatter_Blocks]

Yeah man I’m annoyed that he didn’t establish how is rhe USA didn’t use the bomb and chose instead to invade we would have another D-Day but 10x worst! Storming Japan’s beaches would’ve been horrible and killed tones not to mention that we would’ve had to take the entire island which would killed civilians, and Soldiers. That bomb while horrific and horrible was in my opinion the better option out of the 2

[@Chatter_Blocks]

I also think it’s funny he has no mention of the paper slips that the USA dropped warning Japan but whatever I guess :(

[@MrJonLott]

Thanks for making this, Crash Course team. It really elevated my history lesson.

[@tristinjudd2595]

Just throwing it out there. What if we disposed of our nuclear waste by putting it on a one way ticket rocket and launching it into the sun?

[@joechip1232]

You guys are doing a great job presenting complex histories in short videos. I love that you're doing a series on the history of science :D Oh, and don't let the armchair historians whinging about "revisionism" (without knowing what the term even means!) get to you - you're doing a good job!

[@jacksonthesyndicalist2771]

Without the bombs the Japanese would never have surrendered until their emperor was dead and their entire military was defeated. The invasion of Japan by US (and possibly countries’) forces would have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands or up to 2 million dead. The atomic bomb was horrific but there were no other alternatives.

[@jacksonthesyndicalist2771]

jaydee040 they offered conditional surrender the allies wanted unconditional surrender.

[@jackdoyle7453]

It was more than a little help from Canada, the Manhattan project was a joint British, Canadian and American programme, and built considerably off existing British nuclear weapons research (the Alloy tubes programme).

[@tremordrake1749]

great video

[@sceptre1067]

yeah... this is where the the format goes to quick imo ... the dropping of the bomb on Japan is a rather complex issue...

[@mrreyes5004]

@J M Ended the war, so... yeah, that's that.

[@superskullmaster]

It’s sort of misleading to describe thermonuclear weapons the way you did. Most thermonuclear weapons are very dirty because of a tertiary reaction of the usually uranium tamper which causes extra fission after the fission primary.

[@badbeardbill9956]

Just Leave The Nuts Hangin Out Yeah. But they can be made cleaner... by hurting their yields.

[@riccardos2955]

I dont know if you are speakin about Russian nukes, but im 100% sure US nukes use Tritium and Plutonium to get the biggest yelds. Wich happens to be a very clean Nuclear bomb.

[@acidtalons]

UN study indicated that 400,000 Japanese casualties were occurring per month due to the war and starvation. Another year of the war would have cost Japan 4 million civilians. This point is not without some merit.

[@WonderfulAkari]

Japan's sense of honor was twisted, loosing or surrendering was dishonorable they tortured POWS and committed massed forced prostitution. Old japan would be shocked to find that "Pitiful" was now a complement (Kawaii, actually means pitiful)

[@kevinvolk968]

never mind the estimated 100,000 American casualties an invasion was projected to cost. Think about how many people wouldn't be here right now if their grandfathers lives were expended trying to conquer an island nation full of entrenched nationalist fanatics.

[@Onithyr]

@@lukaj4833 My takeaway from this is that you believe a non-conscripted person's life is worth an order of magnitude more than a conscripted person's life.

[@hedgehog3180]

@@lukaj4833 On Iwo Jima about 3000 Japanese civilians jumped to their death rather than surrender, but I guess it's an honorary death so that's okay? And don't for a second pretend that the Japanese military had any concern for Japanese civilians, they didn't have for any other and they certainly weren't scared to throw away lives, like how they made it illegal to read the messages the US dropped informing civilians of which cities were to be bombed.

[@narnigrin]

Came to look for Hungarians correcting Hank's pronunciation of Szilárd. Was not disappointed

[@jadynross2557]

Whos here after watching Oppenheimer?😂

[@JorgeSilva-ui8bj]

Thank you for the subtitltes!!!

[@swen900]

It's not clear for me, why everyone use cold war as negative rezult of creation of nuclear bomb. Would you prefer it to be full blown WW3? There are less wars because of nuclear weapon, it's may be sad, but it's basically a fact.

[@JordanLeigh]

Awesome episode, guys and gals

[@Felixkeeg]

I wish you had also talked about Farm Hall and the reactions of the scientists of the German Nuclear Program to the usage of nuclear bombs in Japan

[@werothegreat]

A whole episode on nuclear fission, and no mention of Lise Meitner? Crash Course, I am disappoint.

[@bobfearnley5724]

This is about the weapon of the nuclear bomb, not the energy production.

[@hosed10]

Hank love your content. However, I feel that stating the use of the bomb not being historically debated is just flat wrong. It's highly debatable and I don't think you provided sufficient evidence to support that position.

[@user-zb6ez4jl3u]

I know, that part of the video really stunned me. You can see pure bias. It’s generally agreed that the bombs, saved millions of lives

[@armandodiaz234]

@@user-zb6ez4jl3u If it makes you feel better, but its still a lie. Saved millions of lives?? In August of 45? :D What are you talking about? Generally agreed in selfish american minds? America had 400 thousands casualties at the end of the war, while Russia had 10 milllions of military deaths and above all of that another 25 million dead civilians?? Truman threw the bomb just to justify the cost of production and making terror in the world! Its obvious! And after the War America started her Journey of Hell throughout the world. From South and Central America, to Asia and Middle East! Rambo in an idiot! You live in a collective lie...

[@joy4229]

Probably, the most moving episode in the series.

[@mrseanpaul81]

Anecdote 1: Slizard supposedly had the idea of a chain reaction by watching traffic light. Anecdote 2: A spy was sent to a lecture by Heisenberg to determine if he was close to creating the bomb, and if so put a bullet in his head. The spy did not speak fluent german and thus spent the whole time with his hand on the gun in his pocket watching the lecture and debating whether or not to pull the trigger. He didn't

[@formerctgovernordannelmall1452]

I would recommend EVERYBODY in this comment section go watch a fascinating video on this topic on a channel called “Knowing Better” about the atomic bombs and how we perceive their use on Japan today. The video is called “Playing the Victim | Historical Revisionism and Japan.” It gives great context on the time period and explains quite effectively why the United States’ bombing of Japan was, although horrific, justified in ways that even defenders of the act today are unaware of. Please watch that before taking to the comment sections to argue about why the act was unjustified

[@Karma-hy6ki]

Such a sad part of history

[@dopaminergicevolution6153]

At 8:45 Stanislav's face looks evil af, while Teller's resembles the penguin from batman ahah

[@pashtanazazai7401]

Anyone here after Oppenheimer?

[@andrewrichens5733]

Damn the new Oppenheimer movie looks great!

[@woodchuck003]

To anyone who thins use of the nuclear bombs was unjustified, you need to consider that conventional bombs start fires and the Japanese mostly used wood and paper to construct buildings at the time. The end result is that conventional bobs killed more the atomic bombs did. Also, important to note that the Japanese were training all civilians to fight against a land invasion, to include women and children. One of the worst tactics I read from the imperial army was how they were training 8 year-olds to kamikaze tanks. Another fun bit of information is that well the Emperor was in the process of surrendering the Army was trying to assassinate him.

[@detective___mcnulty]

Great video, thank you.

[@AverySuzuki]

I see a lot of people in the comments arguing that dropping the bomb was a morally correct choice since it saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives who wouldve been killed if the war raged on. Be that as it may, saving Japanese lives had nothing to do with the decision to drop it. The US had killed 100 000 and injured over double that in the Tokyo firebombings, the vast majority being civilians. American fighter pilots used to gun down school children in the streets and target passenger cars. The Americans couldn't care less about saving Japanese lives. The decision to drop the bomb was to 1) save American lives 2) justify the cost of the bomb 3) intimidate the rest of the world Which is fine, this is war and protecting your soldiers from drawn out fighting is respectable. But don't come here acting like vaporizing 2 cities killing 200000 people (again mostly civilians) was some kind of grand act of mercy.

[@discodonkey9007]

The japanese didn't deserve mercy

[@LiamE69]

Remind us all how many people the Japanese killed in the war.

[@SK_2521]

There were no civilians in Japan as of 1945. You can't have civilian population in totalitarian country. So bombings were indeed quickest and harmless way to finish Japan. (And yeah, also show USSR that soviet tanks should stay where they are)

[@AverySuzuki]

@@LiamE69 the Japanese killed about 6 million civilians throughout the war, but that doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm arguing

[@AverySuzuki]

@@discodonkey9007 doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm arguing

[@HelloWorld-xf2ks]

"We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' I suppose we all thought that, one way or another." - J. Robert Oppenheimer Edit: Oh, the quote is already in the video. Whatever, it's still a very good quote nonetheless.

[@Eva-oj5tm]

There is also a book called Sadoko and the 10,00 paper cranes it’s about a girl who had lukukimia (sorry if I spelt that wrong) I really recommend it! :D btw great information XD

[@xXxKimballxXx]

Queenie Keung omg I remember reading that in primary school as part of the curriculum

[@xXxKimballxXx]

Queenie Keung oh and btw it’s spelt leukaemia

[@Eva-oj5tm]

Oh thank you so much for the correction:D also Omg wow

[@kurtilein3]

The Teller-Ulam design is basically public knowledge now. Its on wikipedia.

[@ProfessorSprouts]

For being a "science" show, there are a lot more opinions than facts in this one.

[@deniseglines1705]

Well done presentation, thanks.

[@shrappnel21]

Imagine if we put our efforts into perfecting fusion technology to exploring our Solar system (and later, Interstellar space), instead of pointing it at our fellow humans... One can dream.

[@jordanreeseyre]

The view of the atomic bombings as not primarily being militarily motivated was popular in the 70s/80s but modern analysis of Japanese, Russian & American military plans show operation downfall would have resulted at minimum several hundred thousand casualties between both sides and at worst well over a million. Dennis Giangreco in his comprehensive study of these documents "Hell to pay" states that Japanese plans hinged on the idea that a conditional surrender could be salvaged by demonstrating a willingness to accept massive civilian casualties that the US army couldn't match.

[@tituszban]

In Hungarian, sz is the sound s, as in snake. So you don't pronounce the z in Szilard, for all intents and purposes it's Silard.

[@rbmaserang]

Hank for president!! I nominate the nerd for president!