Reply
  • Updated May 10, 2021

    UPDATED I DO NOT ENDORSE NOR HOLD THESE VIEWS UPON FURTHER READING AND EDUCATION REGARDING THE GEOPOLITICAL SITUATION OF JAPAN

    This is a moral dilemma i’ve sat with for my entire investment of interest in the World Wars. The use of nuclear weapons was a first and the destruction and suffering it wrought was immense, but I think people who hold anti-american sentiments like to examine the conditions of which the events occurred in a way that is too dismissive of far worse outcomes.

    There were four courses of action that could have led to the capitulation of Japan, and there was no possibility of unconditional surrender from the Japanese outside of these four outcomes, much less a conditional one.

    A. The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki occur. Combined deaths approach 250,000. It is an absolutely disgusting act to use nuclear weapons, but the sad reality of this option is that it would’ve been the best options We avoid the continuation of military operations with Japan, and the war ends far more quickly than we would’ve had in any other case.

    B. The United States commits to a land invasion of Japan. Over 1 million American soldiers would die, and the mentality and doctrine of the Japanese public and military at the time meant that the entire nation would take up arms. Millions die in conventional warfare and the war drags onto 1946-1947. Atrocities continue in China, and the Soviet Union invades Mancuria and Korea in 1946. This was just a senseless and reckless idea that would’ve cost far more for a far worse off Japan.

    C. The Soviet Union commits to a land invasion of Japan. Monarchist Japanese sentiments towards the communist Russians are far worse than those of Americans due to the susceptibility of Hirohito’s position as emperor, and they’d fight tooth and nail for Japan. Casualties could easily be multiples of option B. Japan, Korea, and Manchuria become Communist

    D. The United States and Soviet Union blockade and continue an air campaign against Japan. Korea and Manchuria fall to the russians as the United States chokes the Japanese by preventing trade and continually bombing the country. This is easily the worst option because the Japanese literally would not have surrendered in the foreseeable future if this occured

  • Feb 4, 2021
    ·
    2 replies

    I think the use of nuclear weapons was the best choice. If youre looking it at a stance where it was so deadly, it wasn't as deadly as the US firebombing Tokyo which killed millions.

    An invasion was definitely gonna happen if the bombs weren't dropped. Soldiers that were done with the war in Europe were already getting ready and sent to Japan, it would be WORSE. If you study or know how the Japanese fought during the war, they try to fight with pride to their country and probably wouldn't stop until the last one is dead (Look at the Battle of Iwo Jima where the Japanese had about 20k soldiers on that island and only less than 300 surrendered) They wouldve used civilians to fight too.

    I think an alternate that could've happened was to offer a conditional surrender that Japan was asking before the bombs were dropped, though I might be mistaken, it would grant Japan immunity from war crimes, keep parts of their colonies, and keep the emperor in power and to be protected by his actions. So the US didn't agree to this and wanted an unconditional surrender instead. Crazy thing tho was that after Japan surrendered, the US allowed to keep the emperor in power.

  • Feb 4, 2021
    BVL

    I think the use of nuclear weapons was the best choice. If youre looking it at a stance where it was so deadly, it wasn't as deadly as the US firebombing Tokyo which killed millions.

    An invasion was definitely gonna happen if the bombs weren't dropped. Soldiers that were done with the war in Europe were already getting ready and sent to Japan, it would be WORSE. If you study or know how the Japanese fought during the war, they try to fight with pride to their country and probably wouldn't stop until the last one is dead (Look at the Battle of Iwo Jima where the Japanese had about 20k soldiers on that island and only less than 300 surrendered) They wouldve used civilians to fight too.

    I think an alternate that could've happened was to offer a conditional surrender that Japan was asking before the bombs were dropped, though I might be mistaken, it would grant Japan immunity from war crimes, keep parts of their colonies, and keep the emperor in power and to be protected by his actions. So the US didn't agree to this and wanted an unconditional surrender instead. Crazy thing tho was that after Japan surrendered, the US allowed to keep the emperor in power.

    Keeping the emperor in power was a non-starter for the Americans. It's like Germany surrendering on the condition of Hitler staying in power, it would just have lead to more violence shortly after.

  • Feb 4, 2021
    ·
    1 reply

    Imo the use of the bombs was a necessary evil

    Both land invasions of Japan would have killed many, many more peolle than the bombs did. fact.

    Accepting Japanese conditional surrender was also a non starter. The japanese government was a fanatical cult that needed to go for the safety of the planet. America successfully defused Japan and turned it into a functional democracy, which lasted to this day.

    The Soviets taking japan would have been the bloodiest option by far. Not only would millions die, but if we use what became of East Germany after the war, the soviets would keep former Japanese officials and operatives in power to govern the place while turning it into a soviet satellite. (Fact, 27% of all stasi members were ex nazis, despite the soviets claiming to have de nazified).

    So all in all it is one of the toughest calls in history but it ended the war. And also deterred a future war with the USSR.

    The bombs were not 'good', they were just less bad

  • Feb 5, 2021
    ·
    1 reply

    I believe if FDR was still alive before the war ended he wouldn’t had dropped the bombs

    Shaun did awesome video talking about it which sorta changed my mind about it

  • Feb 5, 2021

    The invasion narrative is complete and utter cap never believe that bullshit it was used after the war to defend there actions

  • Feb 5, 2021
    ·
    1 reply
    TragedyBerlusconi

    Imo the use of the bombs was a necessary evil

    Both land invasions of Japan would have killed many, many more peolle than the bombs did. fact.

    Accepting Japanese conditional surrender was also a non starter. The japanese government was a fanatical cult that needed to go for the safety of the planet. America successfully defused Japan and turned it into a functional democracy, which lasted to this day.

    The Soviets taking japan would have been the bloodiest option by far. Not only would millions die, but if we use what became of East Germany after the war, the soviets would keep former Japanese officials and operatives in power to govern the place while turning it into a soviet satellite. (Fact, 27% of all stasi members were ex nazis, despite the soviets claiming to have de nazified).

    So all in all it is one of the toughest calls in history but it ended the war. And also deterred a future war with the USSR.

    The bombs were not 'good', they were just less bad

    TLDR: USA must kill hundreds of thousands innocent civilians so capitalism wins

    The USSR would never allow Manchuoko to exist, why should they if China was well on its way to communism?

    Also, you seem to seriously think West Germany used less Nazis in government than the East when the West literally used one as their chancellor (Kiesinger)

    Also, Japan is practically a one-party state and not at all a "healthy democracy".

  • Feb 5, 2021
    ·
    edited

    Japan would have given up quickly once Soviets invade, same way Germany had to. The atom bomb was just used to intimidate the USSR and take out Japan on Western terms rather than have it fall under socialism. To justify this with moralist posturing is retärded. Just admit to it being realpolitik and stand by it instead of lecturing us about nuclear genocide being necessary. And I say this as someone who visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    Also this idea of Japan being an entire nation of brainwashed kamikaze cultists is low-key orientalist racism, same thing people say about North Koreans these days. A narrative built to justify Western atrocities, starting right after the war with books like that Amethyst one. It's no different than Nazi members calling Slavs subhuman to justify their crimes

    And Japan was functionally cut off from its oil supplies, it was over at that point, coulda just played the clock

  • Feb 5, 2021

    Partly due the fact of strategy and logistics. Japan could use their civilians to defend their homeland in similar with what Germany did. Soviets did only to more focused to counter-offensive attack to Berlin and yet they only invaded Manchuria as the last part of the war. So.. Soviet amphibious invasion wouldn’t work well though. With the exception of assault on Maoka. Even they have a small navy.

  • Feb 5, 2021
    ·
    1 reply

    This is a very difficult topic that ive also been interested for the longest time, and i think that many people are influenced by american propaganda. Im no expert, but id love to find a source that goes over every theory about this topic in particular.
    What i do know tho is the US hasnt apologized for it yet
    (And on that note japan hasnt apologized for their crimes to china and korea either )

  • Feb 5, 2021

    Honestly was a great way to stop them. Let’s talk about the rape camps Japan had...

  • Feb 5, 2021
    ·
    3 replies
    Stardust

    This is a very difficult topic that ive also been interested for the longest time, and i think that many people are influenced by american propaganda. Im no expert, but id love to find a source that goes over every theory about this topic in particular.
    What i do know tho is the US hasnt apologized for it yet
    (And on that note japan hasnt apologized for their crimes to china and korea either )

    The US shouldn't apologize for it. Imperial Japan was committing HORRIFIC acts. Millions of lives were saved by killing 250k. Ethically I dont see anything wrong with that.

  • Feb 5, 2021
    yeezy

    The US shouldn't apologize for it. Imperial Japan was committing HORRIFIC acts. Millions of lives were saved by killing 250k. Ethically I dont see anything wrong with that.

    Its a more complicated issue than that, boiling it down to "US did the right thing cause who knows what would've happened!" is what i was talking about when mentioning american propaganda, its ignorant because there a lot more factors into play. Like ive said in my previous post, im not educated enough to take a stance politically, but ethically im against what the US did and im also ethically against what imperial Japan did. Ultimately i think there was and there is no right choice in war, so even debating whether it was good or bad is stupid

  • Feb 5, 2021

    if we had invaded the home islands, or russia had continued it would've been even more horrific.

    a lot of the japanese military wasn't around, they were stranded in china or on the surrounding islands.

    the japanese government didn't have much left in guns or ammunition to hand out to civilians, so they literally gave citizens bamboo to defend themselves with.

  • Feb 5, 2021
    ·
    1 reply

    Months before the bombings that Japan tried to surrender under the same terms that the US basically gave them after the nukes were dropped.

    "The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945."

    mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth

    The Japanese never really expected to fight to the finish when they started the war. Some popular culture notwithstanding, the Japanese never saw the war as ending with an invasion of the US. They expected that they'd wipe out the US' Pacific fleet, take the Philippines, Hong Kong, and the Dutch East Indies, and then the US would sue for peace

  • Feb 5, 2021
    daisycutterflowz
    · edited

    UPDATED I DO NOT ENDORSE NOR HOLD THESE VIEWS UPON FURTHER READING AND EDUCATION REGARDING THE GEOPOLITICAL SITUATION OF JAPAN

    This is a moral dilemma i’ve sat with for my entire investment of interest in the World Wars. The use of nuclear weapons was a first and the destruction and suffering it wrought was immense, but I think people who hold anti-american sentiments like to examine the conditions of which the events occurred in a way that is too dismissive of far worse outcomes.

    There were four courses of action that could have led to the capitulation of Japan, and there was no possibility of unconditional surrender from the Japanese outside of these four outcomes, much less a conditional one.

    A. The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki occur. Combined deaths approach 250,000. It is an absolutely disgusting act to use nuclear weapons, but the sad reality of this option is that it would’ve been the best options We avoid the continuation of military operations with Japan, and the war ends far more quickly than we would’ve had in any other case.

    B. The United States commits to a land invasion of Japan. Over 1 million American soldiers would die, and the mentality and doctrine of the Japanese public and military at the time meant that the entire nation would take up arms. Millions die in conventional warfare and the war drags onto 1946-1947. Atrocities continue in China, and the Soviet Union invades Mancuria and Korea in 1946. This was just a senseless and reckless idea that would’ve cost far more for a far worse off Japan.

    C. The Soviet Union commits to a land invasion of Japan. Monarchist Japanese sentiments towards the communist Russians are far worse than those of Americans due to the susceptibility of Hirohito’s position as emperor, and they’d fight tooth and nail for Japan. Casualties could easily be multiples of option B. Japan, Korea, and Manchuria become Communist

    D. The United States and Soviet Union blockade and continue an air campaign against Japan. Korea and Manchuria fall to the russians as the United States chokes the Japanese by preventing trade and continually bombing the country. This is easily the worst option because the Japanese literally would not have surrendered in the foreseeable future if this occured

    after spending all day reading a s***ton and watching that 2 hr long video and then reading all the critiques of the video to answer your question there are a few hypotheticals that could have ended the war without having to drop the atomic bombs on two innocent civilian-filled cities.

    One would have been to have simply shown leaders and ambassadors of the sheer power of the nuclear bomb in a demonstration as was recommended by the scientists who created the atomic bomb, although they did concede that they were engineers and physicists not foreign policy experts. This would serve two purposes for ending the war that would end up leading to the dropping of the bomb and the end of the war anyways:
    1.Demonstrating the destructive power of the atomic bomb not just to the leaders of Japan but to the leaders of every nation on Earth. This is cited as the intention behind dropping the bomb in the first place.
    2. Giving the Japanese Government an out to save face to the people of Japan as a reasoning for a surrender without fighting.

    Two would have been to drop the bomb instead on a strategic military target. This hypothetical is complicated because there were certain actors within the US government who believed that dropping the bomb on a regular military target would not serve to create a big enough impact as terror bombing would. The counterpoint to this is that the militaristic faction of the Japanese government wouldn't (and didn't) give a s*** whether it landed on a military or civilian location anyways.

    Three would have been to have accepted the conditional surrender of the Japanese government which would have only one condition which would be to keep the constitutional monarchy intact. Initially the Japanese government wanted to get away with a bunch of bs like conducting their own trials, not giving up Manchuria, etc. but by the time the bombs were to be dropped and as their confidence in their treaty with Russia waned the emperor had settled for this condition. Ironically the US also needed to have the monarchy still in place as distant and isolated factions of the Japanese military forces would have continued to fight unless the emperor in particular had given them the order to surrender. The issue as I see it is that Truman and his advisors did not want to give the Japanese a conditional surrender from a PR standpoint. After everything the US people had gone through they did not want to seem soft towards the Japanese government. There was a version of the Postdam Declaration that had written essentially that the constitutional monarchy could exist given that all the conditions that had led to the creation of an imperial Japan be removed, but Truman and his advisors had edited out this portion of the Postdam Declaration for my above speculated reason.

    All in all if Truman and the US government wanted to end the war without using nuclear weapons on civilians there were potential solutions. As a sidenote, the decision to drop the bombs was made before the Postdam Declaration was even presented to Japan so I ultimately don't think any of these were even real considerations for the US government.

  • Feb 5, 2021
    ·
    edited
    ARCADE GOON

    TLDR: USA must kill hundreds of thousands innocent civilians so capitalism wins

    The USSR would never allow Manchuoko to exist, why should they if China was well on its way to communism?

    Also, you seem to seriously think West Germany used less Nazis in government than the East when the West literally used one as their chancellor (Kiesinger)

    Also, Japan is practically a one-party state and not at all a "healthy democracy".

    The west did use one as their chancellor, the difference is the west didnt do this on the pretext of denazification, they abandoned the policy, therefore there was no hypocrisy in their standards.

    Also, hundreds of thousands of civilians were going to die either way. America doing it killed hundreds of thousands LESS

    And no sorry I disagree, the Japanese absolutely would have been willing to fight a hard war should the soviets have invaded, no they werent all fundamentalist cultists- but the government of japan certainly was. If britain was land invaded by germany, resistance would have been heavy. There is no reason to assume there wouldnt be heavy guerilla fighting.

    I quite clearly said the japanese government were f***ed up, i didnt say the people

    Japan is still a democracy, the liberal democratic party are simply extremely popular and able to win.

    If the us allowed Japan to fall to communism, it would have been worse for the people of japan than what happened in our timeline. Modern Japan, while by no means the perfect democracy, is like 5 times more liveable and prosperous than literally any Warsaw pact state

    Lastly, bombing 2 cities is not genocide.

  • Nessy 🦎
    Feb 5, 2021

    1 bomb would have probably been enough

  • Nessy 🦎
    Feb 5, 2021

    if they were not used on japan they probably would have been used during the cold war by either the us or ussr on a much larger scale tho

  • EuroNymous

    I believe if FDR was still alive before the war ended he wouldn’t had dropped the bombs

    Shaun did awesome video talking about it which sorta changed my mind about it

    !https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go

    listening to this while i work... honestly he makes a persuasive case, maybe i was wrong

    either way it's done now, they havent been used since

  • i think i have decided to change my mind

    it's still f*** the soviets tho

  • Feb 5, 2021

    When the US decided to build and research a nuclear bomb, the plan was always to use it. It wasn’t a question once it was ready “do we use it now or not”. Once the plan to build them was set, they were going to be used.

  • Feb 5, 2021
    ·
    4 replies

    wasn’t Japan already on the way to surrender but the US were like ?

  • Feb 5, 2021
    Cudderwalks

    Months before the bombings that Japan tried to surrender under the same terms that the US basically gave them after the nukes were dropped.

    "The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945."

    mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth

    The Japanese never really expected to fight to the finish when they started the war. Some popular culture notwithstanding, the Japanese never saw the war as ending with an invasion of the US. They expected that they'd wipe out the US' Pacific fleet, take the Philippines, Hong Kong, and the Dutch East Indies, and then the US would sue for peace

    I knew I was following in history class

  • Feb 5, 2021
    shoto

    wasn’t Japan already on the way to surrender but the US were like ?

    You’re correct my friend

1
2
...
7