Shigeaki Mori, Hiroshima atomic bomb survivor and historian embraced by Obama, dies at 88

It is. We are cooked. It will get much worse as he gets closer to leaving.

The Japanese would have surrendered at some point if we did do the land invasion. Just a whole lot more would have died. Just gotta to see how brutal Okinawa was to see how it would turn out for the rest of the islands.

I saw a figure once that if we had to invade Japan to win there would be over a million casualties.

The problem I have is the tone. People talk about it as if its okay or completely acceptable or without any reverence to the decision. Nuking another country is a grave decision. It was a d*** move that worked. They did successfully end the war with nuclear weapons... But that shouldnt be revered as a good thing or some master sound strategy. It was a horrific tragedy that served its purpose. Thats the issue I have, people hand waving away that dropping the bombs "was okay because..." You couldnt use that logic today, the only reason we got away with nuking somebody is because we were the only ones that had them.

[deleted]

Uh, they're right about the likelihood of a Japanese surrender. Historians haven't believed the 'prevented a greater tragedy' reading of the bombing of Japan for at least 30 years. That's mostly something the American public believes. We have enough documentation now to show that Japan was already considering surrender and wasn't intending to make some kind of 'last stand'. We could say that Truman thought this was likely and was operating under imperfect information, but that's not the framing this decision is usually given by those who want to rationalize the dropping of the bombs. There are many, many books on this subject, though I recommend "Racing the Enemy" by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa. The 'lesser of two evils' narrative is a post-hoc rationalization with little basis in fact that was popularized by the newspapers of the day. It sounds like your friendship was ruined for nothing. I can't say I blame you, though. I had also heard this narrative for most of my life. While visiting Hiroshima, I picked up a pamphlet which claimed that most of what I had been taught in school about this event was wrong. Imagine my surprise when, upon further investigation, that was actually true.

Crazy thing to end a genuine friendship over, but good for them.

The fact that you truly believe that the Japanese were going to fight to the last man, woman, and child shows how powerful American propaganda is. They are not inhuman machines you realize? Yes, the Japanese were looking to surrender before the bombs were dropped.

“Better” president cannot just mean “more morally upstanding.” ESPECIALLY when you have to immediately acknowledge that he was far less effective. The effective president that makes people’s lives better is better than the ineffective president who can’t. Even if the former ventures into moral gray areas more often.

Being a good president isn't about consistently and reliably failing while being a charming, friendly guy.

I'd like to share someone else's criticism of that video because I think it's a more measured response than I can offer. >I do like Shaun, love a lot of his vids so please don't think of me as just some chud. But he missed a few things out in this video. Perhaps because of anti US bias, perhaps not. >He states that the decision made early on to use the bomb on Japan instead of Germany was racism on the part of the US and uses the fact that the bombing targets were chosen before German surrender as proof. While it's certainly likely that racism played a part in that decision, at the time there was belief through a lot of allied upper echelons that Germany was close to building a bomb and gifting them a dud (since no one knew if the bombs would work for sure) might have given germany the last pieces of the puzzle. Of course by the end of the war they knew Germany had stopped all nuclear work, but at the time of the decision they knew Japan wasn't working on nukes but Germany might have been. >Then by the time targets were actually being decided in 45, Germany was being rolled over by the soviets. Truman was a racist, not gonna defend the guy at all but the decision to bomb Japan instead of Germany if the bombs would be used was always going to be made. That and at the time radiation wasn't really a part of anyone's considerations for the use of nukes, it was simply another weapon and the allies were happy to drop bombs by the thousands on white Germans. It's quite possible that if the war went differently, Germany would have been nuked. >Also, he mentions how Japan were looking for a surrender from relatively early on. The issue with this of course is that he doesn't say the actual terms the Japanese were looking for, IE effectively calling the war even and getting to keep their holdings in Asia. Which I think everyone can agree was the only possible outcome worse than the bombs or an invasion. >The justification to drop the bomb at all is where things get fuzzy of course. Shaun first brings up quotes from American military officials (mostly unsourced claims unfortunately) talking about how the bombs weren't necessary. Which assuming they are real quotes is iffy, because every branch of the military was looking to claim as much glory for themselves as they could, especially going into a post war world. So of course "the navy could have brought Japan to the table without the use of an expensive nuclear program, by the way can we build more ships please?" >Next, look at the other options. There was never going to be a soviet invasion, if anyone was going to do so it would be the US basically on it's own. There were serious plans in place and whether you believe the projected death toll or not, it would have undoubtable been incredibly brutal based on the island hopping campaign. The other choice was to just post the US navy up in a blockade and wait for Japan to starve while continuing to bomb them, which would likely have caused uncountable deaths. >I think in general though the use of the bombs was a moral failing much like the use of strategic bombing. But a moral failing contributed heavily to by the situation the allies found themselves in, they had the ability to mass produce planes and bombs on a level that the axis could not match and to not use them, to let said factories that were almost entirely in civilian centres continue to produce weapons that would go on to kill allied soldiers, was just not possible politically or strategically until the axis powers were on the edge of being beaten. The allies had the nukes and were staring down either taking a Japanese surrender that would have left them to run riot across Asia, invasion costing many American lives or starving the Japanese home islands out with a blockade. >it was a no win situation. If an invasion was decided on, we'd be here with video essays about how America was bad for sending soldiers in to slaughter peasants armed with sharp sticks. If a Japanese written surrender was accepted, there'd be video essays about how America allowed Japan to run rampant across asia for years rather than do anything. If the blockade and firebombing was kept up until Japan was ready to accept a sane surrender... You get the picture. >Ultimately there's no clean way to finish a war with a country so ideologically fanatic, Russia did it by rolling through Germany leaving their own trail of destruction and it's why the USSR is called out a lot for those actions, the US dropped nukes and likewise we criticise that decision. >I don't think the bombs themselves were necessary, but any method to end the war quickly and without having to capitulate to Japanese demands to keep their military/colonies would have caused a high amount of human suffering.

you seem so uneducated it’s genuinely scary

It was a collaborative allied effort.  But I’m not surprised a German is a little patchy on WW2 knowledge tbf. 

You seem like the type of person who is just mad they saved a million plus lives

> That point alone is what justified the atomic bombing in my eyes You're a fine student of history, reading stories about Japanese prison camp in Asia (sic). Maybe consider a bit of philosophy to round out your budding education, because your reasoning collapses under both logical and ethical scrutiny. You’re leaning on an anecdote to justify a strategic decision at massive scale. One prisoner’s near-death, however tragic, can’t carry the moral weight of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. That’s an anecdotal fallacy, plus a counterfactual leap —you’re assuming the bombs directly saved those lives when multiple factors (as I already mentioned, blockade, firebombing, Soviet entry) were already pushing Japan toward surrender. And “proportionality” doesn’t work the way you’re using it. It’s about weighing overall military gain against civilian harm, not trading one or a few lives for mass destruction. But good on you for continuing your journey down the road of heightened empathy and enlightenment. Maybe read Gar Alperovitz's *The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb*. This books challenges the inevitability narrative and lays out alternative interpretations. You're welcome.

he wasn’t talking about you, genius…

> demanding unconditional surrender when dealing with a country that not only attacked you without a declaration of war, but also caused untold carnage during the Pacific campaign, doesn't sound that unreasonable? Only if you’re more concerned with “the win” and sending a message. If you’re more concerned with mitigating harm and suffering (which is the only defensible position) then you take all steps to ensure that you mitigate harm and suffering. And we CHOSE not to do that. That was an unjustified choice. > Especially if you take into account the optics at home. So “we have to murder 250,000 innocent people” because of “optics”? Do you hear yourself? >The Japanese government was also led by an insane death-cult of a military, which makes it hard to consider them rational actors. 1. That’s a propagandized oversimplification. They were very much rational actors, capable of negotiating. 2. Even if that weren’t the case, that wouldn’t justify going straight to murdering a quarter of a million people without even *trying* to negotiate. > I do agree the bombs were unneeded Then what is even your point? **Edit. Respond with NO attempt to address what I said, and just call me stupid. What an embarrassing way to broadcast that you’ve got nothing.**

> The Japanese were killing thousands of Asians per week in China, Vietnam, and the other nations they controlled. That is completely unfounded. You are referring to atrocities that were committed **before 1940.** Japan had no ability to continue those kinds of atrocities in their occupied territories by August 1945. And there was no evidence that it was still going on. The Japanese atrocities did not go at some strong and consistent pace for 8 straight years. It was **overwhelmingly** in the beginning. By August 1945 their entire imperial apparatus was nonexistent. Completely gone. Literally all they could do was hunker down on mainland Japan, and wait. So that isn’t even remotely an excuse to justify murdering 250,000 people. > Their offers of surrender were conditional on them keeping their conquests, which was a non-starter for the Allies. There was no actual negotiation. Those are not “real offers”. Those are back channels putting out feelers to see where each party is at. That’s a literal first offer you’re referring to. And you’re acting like you magically know that they were going to be rigid and not budge on one bit of that. Well gee, **that’s the point of trying to negotiations**, isn’t it? You never start negotiation with a bare minimum that you’re unwilling to concede. > The "We will all fight the last breath during a land invasion" is part of the general war plan they had since the start, I’ve never understood this argument. It’s completely nonsensical. They cannot both be willing to fight and die the last breath AND be capable of being forced into surrender *from too much dying.* Those are two totally contradictory ideas. Which is it? Do they not fear death or can they be coerced into surrendering from too much death? > Allies that they cannot politically continue the war when the civilians back home keep getting visits from military chaplains. This take is naïve to how the pacific war actually operated. It wasn’t like Europe, where there was 1000 mile long front line where skirmishes would pop off continually until there was official surrender. In the pacific once an island was taken, nothing else happened until they went to the next island. After Okinawa, there was literally nothing else left. There was nowhere else to fight. There was no fighting going on. Everybody was sitting around waiting for what the next move was gonna be. > The bombings (conventional and otherwise) showed them the Allies could just... not invade and still inflict the same horrors on the Japanese. Then why didn’t that actually happen? March 9th: 100,000 dead in Tokyo. No surrender August 6th: 70,000 dead in Hiroshima. No surrender. August 9th: *40,000* dead in Nagasaki. No surrender… but surrender 6 days later… 170,000 is bearable, but 210,000 is *not*? > The Jewel Voice broadcast specifically calls out the "new and cruel weapon" You cannot try to represent their public facing PR excuse to the Japanese people as indicative of their actual decision-making. Of course the super mega powerful god weapon sounds like a better reason to surrender than “we overextended ourselves and picked a fight we should not have.” A public address is in no way illuminating here. > The Russian invasion put an end for the Big Six to use them as a mediator in negotiations. You just torpedo your entire argument right here. They surrendered because Russia declared war on them, which removed any shred of hope they had to stall the Americans until they decided to end the war in a frustrated stalemate. The bombs were nothing more than unnecessary carnage that weren’t needed to get Japan over the line. Saying the atomic bombs were necessary to end the war is like saying a company that had already declared bankruptcy only went under because a hurricane destroyed the building. They were toast even without the hurricane.

I’m saying that the innocent civilians of Japan had nothing to do with what their oppressive government and the military did. You can use those atrocities to justify killing **the actual people that did the atrocities**. Not a quarter of a million civilians who had nothing to do with it. I swear you guys don’t think about this shit for more than five seconds before you respond…

Actually, put your name on it. Stand behind “it’s OK to kill women and children, because those children could grow up to think the same things that their parents did.” Don’t just imply it. Actually say it. Again, you’re using the same asinine logic as someone who would try to blame 330 million Americans for Maga. Imagine blowing up an American city and justifying killing all those children because “they would’ve just grown up to be Maga.” You see how moronic that is. You understand that that’s not fair to murder children over a vapid hypothetical. You understand how moronic is to assume that every child in the country of 330 million is growing up in a Maga-friendly household.

Low iq take

uhhhh no dude I'm pretty sure the nazis were worse lol

> you have completely brushed off or excused Asians dying unless its Japanese Asians. Quote me where I “brushed it off.” What I did was **refuted that that was happening at all by August 1945.** I was not letting people get away with pointing to massacres that happened in 1942 and earlier to say that **there was some sort of time-sensitive rush by August 1945** that required us to not be able to take the time to negotiate. Your characterization of me is bad faith bullshit

I don’t follow your logic. I can’t criticize past decisions unless I can *literally undo them?* In what world does that make any sense?

so you’re saying that collateral is just a part of war? you can’t justify 1000 vs 6000 they are both still shitty. douchebag vs turd