Japan's Downfall: The End of the Pacific War 1945
Nebula with 40% off annual subscription with my link: go.nebula.tv/realtimehistory
Watch 16 Days in Berlin: nebula.tv/videos/16-days-in-b...
Nebula Lifetime Membership: go.nebula.tv/lifetime?ref=rea...
In 1945 US forces are advancing towards Japan, but the road to victory will be bloody.
» CHAPTERS
00:00 Battle of Iwo Jima
17:41 Battle of Okinawa
34:21 Atomic Bombs and Japanese Surrender
43:07 Why Japan Surrendered
» SUPPORT US
/ realtimehistory
nebula.tv/realtimehistory
» THANK YOU TO OUR CO-PRODUCERS
Raymond Martin, Konstantin Bredyuk, Lisa Anderson, Brad Durbin, Jeremy K Jones, Murray Godfrey, John Ozment, Stephen Parker, Mavrides, Kristina Colburn, Stefan Jackowski, Cardboard, William Kincade, William Wallace, Daniel L Garza, Chris Daley, Malcolm Swan, Christoph Wolf, Simen Røste, Jim F Barlow, Taylor Allen, Adam Smith, James Giliberto, Albert B. Knapp MD, Tobias Wildenblanck, Richard L Benkin, Marco Kuhnert, Matt Barnes, Ramon Rijkhoek, Jan, Scott Deederly, gsporie, Kekoa, Bruce G. Hearns, Hans Broberg, Fogeltje
» SOURCES
Akikusa Tsuruji, 17-sai no Iōtō (Tokyo : Bungei Shunjū, 2006)
Allen, Robert E, The First Battalion of the 28th Marines on Iwo Jima: A Day-by-Day History from Personal Accounts and Official Reports, with Complete Muster Rolls, (Jefferson, NC : McFarland & Company, Inc. Publishers, 1999)
Leckie, Robert, The Battle of Iwo Jima, (New York : Random House, 1967)
NHK Shuzaihan, Iōjima Gyokusaisen: Seikanshatachi ga kataru shinjitsu, (Tokyo: NHK
Shuppan, 2007)
Rottman, Gordon L & Wright, Derrick, Hell in the Pacific: The Battle of Iwo Jima, (Oxford : Osprey Publishing, 2008)
Sandberg, Walter, The Battle of Iwo Jima: A Resource Bibliography and Documentary Anthology, (Jefferson, NC : McFarland & Company, Inc. Publishers, 2005)
United States Fleet, Headquarters of the Commander in Chief, Navy Department, “Amphibious Operations, Capture of Iwo Jima: 16 February to 16 March 1945” COMINCH P-0012, (17 July 1945)
Alexander, Joseph H., “The Final Campaign: Marines in the Victory on Okinawa”, Marines in World War II Commemorative Series, (Washington D.C : Marine Corps Historical Center, 1996)
Nash, Douglas E., Battle of Okinawa: III MEF Staff Ride Battle Book, (Quanitco, VA : History Division, U.S. Marine Corps, 2015)
Rottman, Gordon, Okinawa 1945: The Last Battle, (Westport, CT : Praeger, 2004)
Shimpo, Ryukyu, Descent into Hell: Civilian Memories of the Battle of Okinawa, (Portland, ME : MerwinAsia, 2014)
Sledge, Eugene, With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa, (New York, NY : Ballantine Books, 2007)
Sloan, Bill, The Ultimate Battle: Okinawa 1945 - The Last Epic Struggle of World War II, (New York, NY : Simon & Schuster, 2007)
Yahara, Hiromichi, The Battle for Okinawa, (New York, NY : John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995)
Cook, Haruko Taya & Cook, Theodore F., Japan at War: An Oral History, (New York, NY : The New York Press, 1992)
Frank, Richard B, Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, (New York, NY ; Random House, 1999)
Glantz, David M., “August Storm: The Soviet 1945 Strategic Offensive in Manchuria”, Leavenworth Papers No. 7, Combat Studies Initiative, (February 1983)
Grew, Joseph C., “Report from Tokyo: An Ambassador warns of Japan’s strength”, in LIFE Magazine, (December 7, 1942)
Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi, Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan, (Cambridge, MA : Belknap Press, 2005)
Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi (ed.), The End of the Pacific War: Reappraisals, (Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press, 2007)
Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi, “The Atomic Bombs and the Soviet Invasion: Which Was More Important in Japan’s Decision to Surrender” in Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi (ed.), The End of the Pacific War: Reappraisals, (Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press, 2007)
Hatano, Sumio, “The Atomic Bomb and Soviet Entry into the War: Of Equal Importance” in Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi (ed.), The End of the Pacific War: Reappraisals, (Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press, 2007)
Kort, Michael, “Racing the Enemy: A Critical Look”, in Maddox, James, Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, MO : University of Missouri Press, 2007)
Maddox, James, Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, MO : University of Missouri Press, 2007)
Pape, Robert A., “Why Japan Surrendered”, International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Fall, 1993)
»CREDITS
Presented by: Jesse Alexander
Research & Written by: Mark Newton, Jesse Alexander
Director: Toni Steller & Florian Wittig
Editing: Toni Steller
Motion Design: Philipp Appelt, Toni Steller
Mixing, Mastering & Sound Design: above-zero.com
Fact checking: Florian Wittig
Channel Design: Simon Buckmaster
Contains licensed material by getty images and AP
Maps: MapTiler/OpenStreetMap Contributors & GEOlayers3
Music Library: Epidemic Sound
All rights reserved - Real Time History GmbH 2023
Nebula with 40% off annual subscription with my link: go.nebula.tv/realtimehistory Watch 16 Days in Berlin: nebula.tv/videos/16-days-in-berlin-01-prologue-the-beginning-of-the-end Nebula Lifetime Membership: go.nebula.tv/lifetime?ref=realtimehistory
Suggested title: "Japan's Defeat 1945: From Iwo Jima to Hiroshima." The Japanese empire didn't fall down, it was utterly defeated.
👍👍👍👍
Why do you believe it’s necessary to change history to your narrative? There’s no proof and your theory of the Soviet Union but there is proof in the direction that the atomic weapons had a huge effect on the emperor and the civilian leaders.
The way KZhead's algorithms treat you guys is a crime. You are undoubtedly one of the highest-quality channels on the platform.
Dude for real. It is INSANE that these guys aren’t sitting at 10x subs. They should look into hiring a marketing/PR team for this..
They have Nebula don't worry.
@@More_Row Still, receiving only 17K views after 24 hours for such an incredible production is abysmal. This is due to KZhead's algorithms not promoting their content.
Indeed
Wrong wrong wrong. You're totally wrong Wrongy Mr.wrongerson
Undoubtedly one of the best, highest quality history channels on KZhead
100%
If you like fairy story stories
And revisionists still say the atomic bombs should not have been used despite the fact that Japan had been losing the war since mid 1942. It's also rather sad that people think a Soviet war against Japan would've resulted in less civilian deaths than 2 atomic bombs
27:15 Imperial Japan in a nutshell. Nonstop insane and self-destructive decisions. It cost the equivalent of $3.3 billion to build that ship, and their best idea was to beach it on an island where it would have lasted a grand total of 5 minutes before being destroyed.
You have to put their decision to make Yamato into context though. At the time making a battleship that could wreck any other battleship made sense to them as they didn't have the production capability to churn out tons of ships. As well, the idea of aircraft being the true dominating force in naval combat hadn't exactly been the school of thought that was in the minds of the people in charge so it was believed battleships still had a role to play. On top of that the japanese military was internally bickering which probably didn't help matters.
@@everythingsalright1121 they did not have the fuel to run yamato
Both the Yamato and Musashi had an insoluble issue with the sighting of their AA armament, which was probably the real reason they were kept away from battles. In the battle which sunk it, the Yamato failed to shoot down a single one (!!) of the literally hundreds of enemy aircraft attacking her. Other big Japanese battleships had the same problem. They just couldn't get the sighting on their AA machine guns right for some reason.
kantai kessen doctrine
@@4FYTfa8EjYHNXjChe8xs7xmC5pNEtz Yamato did shoot down a few planes. When it’s magazine detonated and the shockwave knocked them out of the sky
I was very fortunate to have as a friend a marine who went ashore at Iwo, a great man and a credit to the marines, He mentioned the men that raised the flag were all killed within 4 days of doing that. Cheshire UK
The book "The Flags of our Fathers" tells the story about that. Just be advised, the cynicism and amorality of the war, and the story behind the photo is on full display. It was pure propaganda. There was a reason some of those dudes didn't want to be identified.
nope
It’s an absolute blessing to have you guys post these phenomenal documentaries for free on KZhead. Thank you RTH
When it comes to whether a battle was necessary, the view I've developed over the years is that the people who fought at these battles couldn't have known if it was necessary or not. So in a way it doesn't really matter, because hindsight is 20-20. I feel it's more important to understand the battle from the perspective of those who fought it at the time.
It doesn't matter. No war is actually necessary something could always be done to avoid it so in essence we accept that it doesn't matter. What matters is who you are how you perform and your buddies. I fought so my friends would go home alive. I served hoping someone else would not have to.
@@Yakomoeunit 731.
Well said!
Some islands could have simply been bypassed, but you're right, we didn't know that at the time. The fact is that every island we took was a net loss for the enemy, regardless of our casualties. The whole point of war is to hurt the enemy more than he hurts you, and we sure did that. Iwo Jima is an example. Yes, we sustained as many casualties as the enemy, but a lot of our guys were RTD in time or the next battle. Enemy casualties were almost all KIA, eliminating them from the equation altogether. Also, bombers could link up with fighter escorts who took off from Iwo Jima. Interestingly, the fighter escorts were so effective that Lemay had all of the machine guns on the B29s removed so more bombs could be loaded. Think about it, our fighters launched from Iwo Jima were so effective that our bombers no longer needed machine guns for protection. Also, any of the fighter escorts could strafe ground targets if they had ammo. For every casualty we took on Iwo Jima, we dished out many others. Taking the island may have hurt us, but it hurt the enemy far worse.
The idea that the Red Army could've invaded a country they didn't have a rail connection with is pretty silly in general. Unlike the game Risk, there's no red dotted line that you can magically transport armies over bodies of water.
Soviets are not stupid they would find a way to invade mainland Japan
@@JDDC-tq7qm It does not matter if they are stupid or not. They could have never invaded Japan, they had no navy.
@@JDDC-tq7qm Well, they were stupid enough.
They invaded Manchuria only after the USA bombed Hiroshima. Stalin thought his position in Europe was secure and that the USA overhyped their new weapon. He was motivated into action to keep his part of the Potsdam deal.
@@JDDC-tq7qm By doing what? Spending 15 years to build a fleet and attacking in 1960?
7 July 1944. About 5000 lightly armed Japanese soldiers and civilians (men, women, _and_ children) armed with bamboo spears, knives, and shovels overran the US Army and Marine Corps on Saipan. A unit they overran was an artillery battery that was firing 105mm shells fused to explode at four-tenths of a second - this is point blank artillery fire and the Japanese still kept coming. They overran 50-calibre machine guns - the kind that rip people apart. They were so successful that when the reached the ocean they didn't know what to do next. In response the US military had to organise firing lines of the kind used in the Civil War (shoulder to shoulder). After the Japanese were wiped out the US went in to recover their wounded and dead. One of killed was an Army dentist (Ben Salomon) whose body was found surrounded by 98 dead Japanese; Salomon had been shot 76 times - 24 whilst still alive - and stabbed many more times. The battle had been utter mayhem. The same would have happened on Kyushu if Operation Olympic had been executed.
tHese facts or opinion?
Here are a few facts: the Japanese imperial forces killed 35,000 civilians and slave labor, killed 330,000 prisoners of war, kidnap 200,000 Asian women and forced them in to prostitution in the imperial bravos and murdered between 13,million and 19 million civilians in China, Vietnam, Korea and the Philippines. Between 1938 and 1945 Japanese imperial forces murdered between 100,000 and 250,000 civilians a month. That stopped when the bombs dropped.
@@user-uq6bt8wc6jhis last statement was opinion but everything else he said was accurate
That is very courageous
Through field tests of USA in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we were able to confirm that the atomic bomb was powerful enough to cause mass murder and to investigate the effects of radioactivity. Therefore, I pray that we will not use atomic bombs or nuclear weapons in the future, because we currently have enough nuclear bombs to destroy the earth.
at 42:57 that's my wife's great-uncle (the younger of the 2 men) signing the surrender documents on board the Missouri
I agree more with the orthodox view on why the bombs were dropped on Japan. Revisionists do have compelling arguments and I don’t believe they are completely incorrect, but I believe that the primary goals of the bombs were the goals that the orthodox believe, while the revisionists goals seem more secondary, or even the goals that were obtained as a side effect of the main goals
でも2回目は必要なかったと思います
@@user-pn5pq8yw2w そうではないかもしれないが、帝国戦争評議会は、別の爆弾を扱えると信じていたが、アメリカの期限に間に合わなかったことを思い出してほしい。残念なことですが、日本人の熱意はアメリカ人にもよく理解されており、これ以上待ちの試合をするつもりはありませんでした。 陸地の侵略よりはましだった。アメリカ人にとっても日本人にとっても
Word salad?
``Russian President Vladimir Putin said on the 27th at the ``Wodai Conference,'' an international discussion forum held in Moscow, that the dropping of atomic bombs by the United States on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II was ``militarily unnecessary.'' Stated. "The United States is the only country that uses nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states." Mentions the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan. He said there was no threat to U.S. territorial integrity or national sovereignty, noting that Japan "effectively conducted a nuclear attack against civilians" even though Japan lacked the ability to counterattack at the time. did. ” Of course, this is a politically motivated statement. facts are facts. Whether that fact is collect or not collect changes depending on the times. War is legal murder, and both Japan and the Allies killed people in war. The winner only says that I was right to kill someone.
@@user-pn5pq8yw2wwhy not?? Japan didnt surrender after the first.. so why would the second bomb be unnecessary? Without those bombs the invasion of Japan would have killed millions of people
Outstanding! The way in which you simplify (dumb down) and illustrate very difficult battles and explain complex strategies so all can understand it, is awesome! Well done folks!
Oh, final summation of arguments, so well done. Most listeners should put that on repeat a few times. Best I've ever heard, ty.
My grandfather was in an Army mobile medical unit on Okinawa. He had previously been on Leyte. He was 27 with three kids. I'm grateful he served and made it home. Many Years later I met my best friend. His obachan was Okinawan. She was not living on Okinawa during the war, but what a circle of life. She was a courageous woman, and I'm blessed to have known her.
Germany is a perfect example of what can happen when a people does not consider itself defeated. Peace can’t be restored by simply throwing some concessions, and until the enemy has accepted defeat it’s just a facade to wait for a rematch. If you’re fighting for complete victory and no negotiations, well you have to put yourself in the right position to dictate terms.
Both Japan and Germany were ground to ashes after the war and were back on their feet in 20 years. Africa and India 70 years after colonialism ended still blame the outside world for their current state of affairs .
You do realize that both Germany and Japan were rebuilt by the Allies?
@@Crashed131963 war lasted 5-6 years. It damaged the economy and took a heavy toll on civilian lives. But the nation will have roughly the same % of literacy, education, infrustructure chain, innovators, etc. Also, your wealth is not siphoned by other countries. War took a heavy toll from all parties involved. Colonisation, on the other hand, lasted 200+ years. It created civil wars, castism,/racism among the people, huge drop in literacy and infrustucture, etc. Alomost all your wealth and produce are siphoned to other countries. With that, Europe Industrialised with the blood of Africa and Indian subcontinent. When its time for them (3rd world) to finally undergo industrialization in the 21st century... BAMM... CLIMATE CHANGE. Pollution control. Carbon emission. Sustainable development... Which they themselves all ignored in the 19th-20th centuring.
@@chrisr4023 Well said . Thank you .
My grandfather was in the 4th Marine division on the right into the rock quarry. He said they called that area The meat grinder. He was lucky and survived with shrapnel in his leg and was sent home with a purple heart.😮
Mine was 5th div. I have his japanese samurai sord that he brought back from the island
Great video as always. Ur the channel on YT I've been watching longer than any other. Love it, keep up your excellent work
Great channel. I appreciate that different (and sometimes conflicting) points of view are presented.
A very enjoyable, and entertaining video. Thank you for the experience.
Great documentary! I really appreciate that you put an effort in finding a real historical quotes and present the topic from both perspectives.
Gonna fully watch it tonight thanks!!!
I'm truly impressed with this channel and have subscribed and look forward to hearing a lot interesting content.
I have seen one video that puts a greater emphasis on the blockade and the resulting food shortages in and on the Japanese home Islands. Based on that idea, I think it's more that there were multiple events that influenced the Japanese surrender. All the arguments that focus on one cause or another ignore the multiple issues Japan was facing.
+nilo9456 Well said.
I try to watch everything covering the pacific theater. By far your video is the best and maintains quite a bit of detail. Great job!
thanks, we will see that we cover more in the future.
Excellent video and perspectives of this war and the ending of it.
Excellent content. Really enjoyed it. Very informative.
Just leaving this here to say you guys are absolutely fantastic and are my go to channel when it comes to World War history!
much appreciated. you will like what we have in store in 2024
This is a great channel! Great narration and presentation. All within an half an hour programme. A Happy and.....Peaceful New Year Everyone....Probably not too Peaceful. 🥳🍻👍 Best Regards from England.
Excellent video thank you
Well done documentary.akot of historical information. Enjoyed the video. Your u tube channel did an outstanding job. U do a spectacular job. Thanks for sharing. Respectfully herr Dave blackburn
I visited Shuri Castle back in October. While the castle burned down a couple of years ago, the view from the hill was absolutely beautiful. I’m very grateful to have visited as a tourist and not a marine in 1945.
Amazing stuff. Seriously amazing.
When I heard the quote "one company of 240 marines, is reduced to just 18 men fit for duty" I'm not going to lie, my blood ran cold.
A terrific channel. Excellent analysis, from both perspectives.
Great video, this was extremely interesting
Excellent video. Well researched and presented. Not exactly "island hopping" but in Europe, when D-Day happened, the allied forces ignored Guernsey and Jersey. They weren't worth taking and despite D-Day being 6th June 1944, the channel islands were not liberated until Germany surrendered on 8th May 1945.
This was my thought. If you can control the island with the navy, would it make more sense to seige the island with the occasional air strike. Unless the island was needed as an airstrip.
Absolutely fabulous documentary, one of the best I've ever seen!
Top quality stuff as always.
Vielen Dank! Ausgezeichnet gemacht, bitte weiter so!
I havent watched this piece yet and I certainly will, but I just wanted to confess my astonishment on how you were able to put together a 60 (!) minute video, undoubtly well researched and produced just 2 weeks after your latest production. I want to congratulate you on your continious excelent work and thank you for bringing history into my daily life for years now!
thanks! the little secret for this one is, that this is an assembly of three previous videos. Though we did go back and fixed a few things and added a scene after the Battle of Okinawa. If you haven't seen these older ones yet by chance, enjoy them all in one video.
@@realtimehistoryYou guys should make atleast one video on the Austro Sardinian War & the subsequent Italian wars of independence. There's so little available about it on KZhead
I really like this presentation of the contemporary debate about the end of the war against Japan - very few documentaries canvass alternative views - well done
Hearing your correct pronunciation of "Okinawa" was refreshing. (In case you're all wondering, it has been misspronounced forever, so no, it isn't "Oki-nar-wah") Edit: Damnit, and then you lapsed and reverted back to the American pronunciation.
Outstanding work
Great Report.....
My father worked in the Manhatten Project. To his dying day he never mentioned what his project he was working on for DuPont at Hanford Washington during the war.
I enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Excellent video as usually RTH. One thing I noted was an erroneous arrow at 34:51 pointing at Shikoku. According to the books I read, while Shikoku was initially considered as a target for invasion (either in place of or in support of the attack on Kyushu) it was eventually discarded due to inadequate port facilities available to capture. It may be a bit outside your wheelhouse, but I think it would be really cool if you guys did a video on Operation Downfall as it was shaping up and its likely outcome. I have read two different books on it and found the plan incredibly interesting. I just can't believe anyone saying only 20k casualties would be taken by the Americans. Post-war demobilization and disarmament revealed that US intelligence had badly underestimated the scale of the defensive preparations, both in terms of defensive works and in the amount of men and material successfully transferred to Kyushu from Manchuria and Honshu. Of particular note was the false assumption that the IJAAS had been neutralized, when there were the 20,000 kamikaze aircraft secretly assembled to throw at the invasion fleet. It's also hard to know how the use of tactical nuclear weapons would've impacted the outcome of the battle, as more were being prepared.
we had just used the official westpoint map as a source for the animation, didn't know the plan evolved so much. Definitely would be an interesting topic to cover and we talked about these 1946 operations a lot. But the question always is: How do you vizualise something that didn't happen for a youtube documentary?
@@realtimehistory Hello It's called Battle Planning. Peace
@@realtimehistorywhile it might end up being quite long and drawn out, you could potentially represent what a battle for Japan would look like by considering the past tactics developed by both nations, and potentially new ones they might engineer to overcome new obstacles they would encounter while fighting each other. Perhaps we would see the introduction of massive earthquake bombs developed to reduce the multitude of Japanese mountains and hills to rubble to prevent the Japanese from playing the cave game that they refined so well throughout the campaign. Just a thought!
Thank you.
Wow this is so educational and fascinating. Thanks for sharing it. Btw I’m so grateful you pronounce and enunciate Japanese names and places properly!! 🤙🏽 Aloha nō
Thanks!
Extremely informative, precise, and concise. Great content, thank you
Wonderful work! What effect did it have one the climate?
Love this channel
Hey Jesse. Love this video. I keep forgetting you narrate this channel so I almost skipped this one because I’ve consumed so much Pacific War content at this point. Given you know so much about China during this time, would you consider making a video about what was exclusively on the Second Sino-Japanese War? It always fades once the United States enters the war.
Oliver Stone's "The Bomb" makes a case for the Revisionist position. After some consideration I don't buy it. Certainly the Soviet invasion was a factor but the bombs were a factor as well. It's easy to second guess from an ivory tower 80 years later but I have to say that Truman made the right decision. One bit of information I think needs to be remembered and shows the casualty concerns in 1945. Approximately 500,000 Purple Hearts were manufactured in preparation for the invasion of Japan. They were expected to last until 1947. There are still 120,000 of those medals available. Young soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan were awarded medals originally made for their grandfathers.
The Japanese defense strategy was called The Glorious Death of 100 Million at a time when there were fewer than 77 million Japanese on the home islands. If the IJA had gotten the ground invasion they wanted, millions of Japanese would have died along with much of their culture.
perfect visulation and narrative
The reasons for the surrender are perfectly set out in the transcript of the meeting Supreme War Council. It began on August 9, a few hours before the bombing of Nagasaki, but after the declaration of war by the Soviet Union. The text explicitly states that each of these reasons would not be a problem, but they arose simultaneously - the emergence of a new type of weapon from the United States and the entry of the USSR into the war made Japan's position hopeless. Ward Wilson. Five Myths About Nuclear Weapons, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013.
Japan's position was already hopeless months before they actually surrendered. The Soviets weren't that major a threat.
@@scottkrater2131, Take for example the phrase of War Minister Anami "Of course, if we take into account such factors as the presence of an atomic bomb in the enemy and the entry of the USSR into the war, it is difficult for us to hope for victory". You can see, this is a tandem of facts.
@@procyonant6805 Difficult? That's an understatement since the war was lost long before the Soviets entered the war, especially after the Battles of the Philippine Sea, Saipan, and Letye gulf. It was only a question of time and cost in men and material.
@@scottkrater2131Soviets made Japanese surrender quicker 😂😂
@@JDDC-tq7qm No they didn't, the Japanese were quite prepared to fight on, only the threat to Hirohito from the Bomb made him surrender.
It was an informative and wonderful historical coverage episode...it was a great work....thank you respectful ( real time history) channel for sharing this magnificent epic
I must say, this was a truly excellent production. The last 15 minute discussion about the end of pacific war and the use of atomic weapons was a 1st class summary. 👍
as a revisionist's revisionist, I think the last 15 minutes was long winded guesswork (at best) The revisionists have had 80 years to armchair admiral about what Truman had 48 hrs to decide. Get over it.
😂
Mn090
Incredible documentaries!
Thanks!
I can't possibly imagine the brutality these young men went through. Their lives were not in vain, and may their souls be at peace for an eternity!
Great video!
Thanks!
@real time history wish youd guys do some vids on lanor history like blair mountain or the chicago hay market.
I believe that the US general referenced at the 12:39 point was Erskine Graves, not Graves Erskine.
After watching this video, I definitely get the sense that the "Porque no los dos" principle applies. The different schools of thought definitely make a convincing argument that neither Soviet invasion nor the nuclear bombings could have knocked Japan out of the war in August 1945. It took the combination of both events to convince the military leadership that surrender was necessary and to give them a face-saving excuse for doing so.
The revisionists fail to recognise that the USSR had few naval forces at Vladivostok and Kamchatka. They had no experience in amphibious landings and warfare. The Soviets had to obtain warships and landing craft from the USA, and the 20 LCI(L) they received could carry 200 men each. (Japan and the USSR only shared a land border in Manchuria and Sakhalin Island.) When the Soviets invaded the Kuril Islands, the Japanese, who thought the war was over three days earlier and weren't manning their defence fortifications in any significant way, rose in response. In the Battle of Shumshu the first wave that landed uncontested failed to establish a beachhead. Inexperience. The Soviets lost communications. The second wave of landings were shot up badly by Japanese artillery. The Soviets lost their artillery, mortars, and most of their radios. Eventually comms were re-established and the Soviets called in effective artillery fire from southernmost Kamchatka and air support. About 1/3rd of the Soviets who partook were casualties (KIA, wounded, missing). Remember, this was a surprise assault on forces who thought the war had ended three days earlier. It was a debacle for the Soviets. Amphibious warfare is the most difficult offensive operation to pull off.
So at Yalta. Stalin and the West already established that 90 days from the day the Germans surrendered that The Soviet Union would join the war against the Japanese. There is a fundamental reason why the same day the Soviet Union declared war on the Japanese, was the same day the United States dropped the second bomb. Manchuria was gutted with most of their units being used in Japanese operation Ich-go
Amphibious operations are as you say highly complicated. It took the Allies three years to become experts at it.
The revisionists fail to recognize that Japan had few naval forces to counter an invasion in 1945 -- because the US Navy had sunk them! So whatever capabilities that the USSR had to invade Japan was a gift from the US Navy.
@@user-hz8hm8sk5eWe found and destroyed thousands of combat ready aircraft at the end of the war. All were recycled and scrapped for post war reparations/rebuilding Japan. They could have easily launched 80 of them and taken out all of the Soviets entire fleet. At that point, comrade Stalin would have gave the order to start swimming across to the mainland. It’s a pipe dream through and through. The Soviets could only ever dominate a country they could walk across, just like the mongols.
Well done. Richard Frank is correct " . . . it is fantasy, not history . . . ". History is a milieu of factors influencing outcomes. Information that is common knowledge now was not available or widely known at the time. How in the world were the Soviets going to invade Japan without the resources and logistics to support amphibious operations? The Japanese knew this. Truman's prime objective was to prevent US deaths, period. All other objectives were lower in the hierarchy. As it later played out in Eastern Europe, distrust of Soviet aspirations in Asia was warranted and deserved its high, but still secondary priority.
Did the Japanese knew this about the Soviet capabilities? Do you have a source for that? Would love to read more
@@realtimehistory It was no secret the Soviets did not have a navy worth mentioning. Ships going to or from the east coast would have to pass through areas easily monitored by Japan.
@@realtimehistory --- Yes, the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters was acutely aware of the Soviet incapacity to invade Japan's Home Islands. The Imperial Japanese Navy maintained a cruiser on patrol in the area despite the inability to refuel most of its other warships on such a constant basis. The Soviets had zero capability to successfully invade Hokkaido or the other Japanese Home Islands, the Japanese knew it, and the Soviets knew it despite Stalin's last minute proposals to occupy Hokkaido after the Japanese ceasefire and surrender to the United States and other Allies. The Soviet Pacific Fleet's flagship in a proposed hostile occupation was nothing more than a destroyer leader which lacked a serious anti-aircraft armament. The Imperial Japanese Navy's remaining strength in Japan's Home Islands after being reduced to a small fraction of its former strength was still far more numerous and powerful than the small number of destroyers and small craft in the Soviet Pacific Fleet. The thousands of Japanese combat aircraft alone would have sunk any units of the Soviet Pacific Fleet which attempted to breach the American sea mine blockade surrounding Hokkaido and other Japanese Home Islands. See: Giangreco, D.M. (2016). "The Hokkaido Myth" (PDF). Journal of Strategy and Politics (2): 148-164.
@@waynepatterson5843 Excellent source
Him: Got a source for that? You: BAM Nice one!@@waynepatterson5843
I really love your stuff, and now I've got decent internet, I'm going to take up that nebula offer
The discussion regarding deaths in the case of invasion of Japan ignores the ongoing deaths in territories occupied by Japan. In addition the deaths due to atomic weapons were not significantly greater than events such as the firebombing of Tokyo.
My father Edward Sanchez fought on Iwo with the 3rd Marine division.
Very nice video compilation, Real Time History!! Probably the best part is how you put side-to-side the revisionist and orthodox views about the use of the atomic bombs; a very enlightening topic! 👍🏼, mr. Alexander and your collaborators!! PS: I should think that the question of the WHY for Japan's 1945 surrender will never be fully answered. After all, there are countless factors bearing into it: the 2 atomic bombs used and the ones being built; the successful Soviet advance in Asia; the starvation and exhaustion of the Japanese populace; Hirohito's powers and wishes; Operation Downfall; the fate of the POWs and occupied peoples in Nipon hands; the Western public opinion's war weariness vs their desire to punish Japan; the Soviet invasion of Hokkaido; the threat of the approaching Cold War; etc.
I was fascinated from beginning to end.
All those opinions seem to ignore the fog of war and its effects. Truman was no Moriarty computing every effects to the smallest details. And forcing Japan to surrender sooner had the obvious secondary benefit of stopping Soviet advances on Japanese held territories. One goal is not necessarily contrary to the other.
I think you did an amazing job of highlighting both sides of the argument regarding the use of the atomic bombs. Having read extensively on this matter I think the one one thing that is not discussed is the mind of Hirohito. In truth he was really more a figurehead than the actual ruler of Japan. In fact from the 1920s on Japan was ruled almost entirely by the military with civilian rule being nearly completely subjugated to the will of the Army leadership with the Navy playing a secondary role. All my readings on this matter show that the atomic bombs had a unique effect on Hirohito and drove him to force the military's hand
From what I have read and seen in the histories, Hirohito's role is complex and nuanced. It is known that he was aware of many of the horrors the Imperial Forces committed and either acquiesced or approved of them. I am not sure how much he could have done to prevent or mitigate them but it seems that he did not even try. Given that some of the August 14-15 mutineers were willing to take the emperor hostage or kill him to prevent the surrender rescript from being broadcast, it is clear that Hirohito was in a delicate position and he probably knew it. I believe that Hirohito supported Japan's expansionist wars and had little regard for the death and suffering they caused. Again, I believe that, in the end, the surrender rescript was issued because the Soviet Union's entry into the war dashed any hope of a negotiated end of the war and the nuclear weapons showed that the Allied Powers could destroy Japan without expending large numbers of allied lives.
Outstanding show with the visuals to give the horrors of the war. 80 years later we can argue why they surrendered and if the bombs should have been dropped. The big factor to remember is that Japan was an honor society. They planned to have anyone capable of fighting to shed their blood. They fought to the last man on the islands. This was the homeland. No surrender! The bombs as you said, were a way to save face/honor and still end the war.
Probably the best examination of the events leading up to the Surrender of Japan I have ever read is Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard B. Frank. He did his best to view events from the perspectives of the combatants including their misperceptions of each other's actions and intents. He examines the deaths from forced labor camps, POW mistreatment, battle, engineered famines and plagues in the occupied territories, and the destruction of the food distribution infrastructure in Japan. The author carefully traces both the Japanese resistance to surrender and the origins of the American doctrine of unconditional surrender. He definitely takes the side of the orthodox version of history, but his research was so thorough and comprehensive, that it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than the bombs were the lesser of two evils.
Sounds like an interesting read. Thanks for mentioning it.
The Soviet declaration of war could not have been that much of a shock, as the Soviets notified Japan in early April that they would not be renewing the Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact when it would expire three months later.
This was a very well balanced argument for both sides of the bombing of japan. You presented both arguments well.
Great video, it's impossible to cover all the different factors in one video. It's likely we will never know all the facts, it's not likely the dialogue over these events will ever reach a consensus.
I do not know much about the great game world leaders play. But i do know that both of my grandfather's were both deployed to participate in Downfall. They have survived up to this point being involved in many actions in the pacific theater and Atlantic theater. The odds are one of their numbers if not both were up. Then what would the future be for their many descendants? We would all be the never born...
It has since been 110 years since WW1 . We have History documentaries but some leaders from certain countries have not learn anything about the horrors that wars bring .
They don't have much in the way of heavy weapons, but they do have plenty of artillery ???
An Excellent Historically Correct and well explained Presentationon the Final Defeat of the Imperial Army of Japan.
So does nebula have an app for our phones? And is there a “free tier” where we pay with ads & such. Or is it paid subscription only?
The Pacific Theatre is an Inferno. Brutal. Horrendous.
If the dropping of the atomic bombs were no different that convetional bombings, why all the debate? Why is the US supposed to keep justifyng their use?
This balanced account which allows the viewer to draw his/her own conclusions is rare and important.
thanks a lot!
You neglected the most important factor in the surrender of Japan: the “domestic situation”. The rice harvest had failed, Japan was faced with acute starvation and conflict between the Japanese military and Japanese civilians. The atomic bomb was indeed a “golden gift from the gods” because it allowed the Japanese government to hide the real reason for surrender: Japanese Civil War. The nation of Japan was about to destroy itself from within. That was a loss of face for the Japanese government more terrible than all the fire bombings and the atomic bombs.
It also allowed Truman to hide his betrayal of his promise to treat all of the Japanese leaders in exactly the same way as the allies had treated the leaders of Germany.
Why did Japan surrender? The nuclear bombs? Yes. The combined submarine and aerial mining blockade? Yes. The conventional bombing? Yes. The Soviets joining in? Yes. A lot argue an either / or viewpoint. One of the other channels I watch likes to caution against mono-causality when it comes to history. I think Jessie and the team at RTH hit it right when they pointed out there isn't one person or one small committee making decisions in isolation, there's networks and multiple influences. Great vid - glad I could finally watch it 3 days after release.
I agree. Why does have it to be one reason? It could be all of the above. Makes more sense.
Excellent host.
Thanks!
Alternative history: What would post-war Japan be like without Stalin worrying about the American A-Bomb and wanting more?
Patton's tanks were east of the Elbe River when the war ended. They were forced to withdraw because of the Tehran Accords in 1943. This set up the Iron Curtain.
Suggested title: "Japan's Defeat 1945: From Iwo Jima to Hiroshima." The Japanese empire didn't fall down, it was utterly defeated.
Can you do one vode😮on khe shan in Vietnam. The battle and siege deserve a video on itself as well as the entire tiet offensive.
yeah we will do more Vietnam coverage very soon
0:10 Douglas McArthurs island hopping strategy*
Havent watched all of this yet but kuribayashi didnt ‘study’ peleliu to create his strategy on iwo jima. It was the other way around - kuribayashi presented his plans to fight inland from tunnels to the japanese high command and that plan was accepted. Except kuribayashi’s plan also proposed peace to be negotiated while the battle at iwo jima was being fought. The idea was to inflict massive casualties on the attackers, create a stalemate, and create conditions for a negotiated peace. That part of the plan was rejected bybthe japanese high command. Kribayashi’s defence of iwo jima held out far longer than excepted by the USA but it was deficient in that the defence tunnels between the central airfield and mt suribachi was not completed in time, meaning that the pisitions could not be mutually reinforced and supplied underground (when to be above ground meant certain death), not all the supplies and forces kuribayashi wanted were delivered, and the promised air and naval support was not forthcoming (although the us navy did take heavy ship casualties). But the point is, the defences of peleliu were the result of the adoption of the kuribayashi plan - not the other way around. Except that on peleliu the defenders had even less time to build the inland tunnel defences - which were far from complete when the us marines landed - and the japanese commanders and men on peleliu did not fully grasp the new strategy, meaning they wasted a lot of men on the waterline and in banzai attacks (banned on iwo jima). Peleliu was a dry run of kuribayashi’s iwo jima strategy but not even close to fully implemented. On okinawa, kuribayashi’s strategy was perfected. But without the peace negotiations it had the opposite effect. Kuribayashi’s main concern had been the bombing of japanese cities (his family was in tokyo and he understood the significance of iwo jima to us bombers). The adoption of half his plan by the japanese high command (which he had appealed - through channels - to the emperor) doomed japan to the atomic bomb and makes kuribayashi a tragic general - even though he was easily the best thinker of the entire japanese army.
neat!
As to be expected. Phenomenal attention to detail, production and quality.
Anytime Jesse pronounces something in a funny way, I figure I've been doing it wrong. Funny thing, I'm so used to the way Americans pronounce Okinawa that Jesse's pronunciation sounds inflected to me, but when I say it his way myself, I realize it's not, that it's flat, the way Japanese words typically are spoken.
Use the vernacular in use at the time, i.e., American pronunciations. It sounds phony otherwise.
@@fredrickmarsiello4395 He uses the vernacular from the time. From the people who lived there. I suspect you also leave similarly asinine comments on videos by Dr Mark Felton, etc, correctly pronouncing German cities in the local pronunciation.