Was it Wrong to Drop the Atom Bomb on Japan? | 5 Minute Video

In recent years, many academics and others have condemned President Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as unnecessary and immoral. Yet this interpretation relies on a poor understanding of history that both lacks perspective and ignores context. Dropping the bomb shortened the war and saved countless lives -- both American and Japanese. In five minutes, Professor of History at Notre Dame, Father Wilson Miscamble, explains.

📲 Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app!

Script:

President Harry S. Truman's decision to use atomic weapons against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved to be one of the most controversial decisions in American history.

As the years have passed, the controversy has only intensified. More and more people -- both in America and abroad -- have condemned both President Truman and America for that decision.

But this criticism is based on limited historical knowledge of both the situation Truman confronted and the basis for his decision. Such flawed analysis has been aided by the unfortunate influence of some very bad history, such as that written by members of the so-called "atomic diplomacy" school. These historians disgracefully alleged that Truman proceeded to drop two atomic bombs on a Japan, which he knew was on the verge of surrender, so as to intimidate the Soviet Union in the already developing Cold War. That specious interpretation must be refuted fully.

Truman sought to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two major military/industrial targets, to avoid an invasion of Japan, which Truman knew would mean, in his words, quote, "an Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other," end quote. His assumptions were entirely legitimate.

By July of 1945 the Japanese had been subjected to months of devastating attacks by American B-29s, their capital and other major cities had suffered extensive damage, and the home islands were subjected to a naval blockade that made food and fuel increasingly scarce. Japanese military and civilian losses had reached approximately three million and there seemed no end in sight. Despite all this, however, Japan's leaders and especially its military clung fiercely to notions of Ketsu-Go ("decisive battle"). In fact, the Japanese government had mobilized a large part of the population into a national militia which would be deployed to defend the home islands.

Confirming the Japanese determination to fight on is the fact that even after the use of atomic bombs against both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese military still wanted to pursue that desperate option. The atomic bombs forced Emperor Hirohito to understand clearly, and in a way his military leaders refused to comprehend, that the defense of the homeland was hopeless. It took the unprecedented intervention of a Japanese emperor to break the impasse in the Japanese government and finally order surrender. It was only the dropping of the atom bombs that allowed the emperor and the so-called peace faction in the Japanese government to negotiate an end to the war.

All the viable alternate scenarios to secure American victory -- all would have meant significantly greater American and allied casualties and much higher Japanese civilian and military casualties. According to American military estimates at the time, those numbers would have been well above one million.

Hard as it may be to accept, Japanese losses would have been far greater without the bombs. And the overall casualties would also have included thousands of Allied prisoners of war whom the Japanese planned to execute in case of invasion.

[hansheisenberg]

I live in Japan.
I’m half Japanese, half American.

My American grand father was a naval fighter pilot that found Yamato on the way to Okinawa.

My Japanese grand father was in imperial naval academy and he taught me about the day when the A-bomb fell.

-After regular day of training and studying, our CO/Teacher came in to barracks saying

“you’ve all heard about the new bomb. We assume it is some sort of wide-spreading explosive that detonates at once, however “if” this was an Atomic bomb. That will mean our country is lagging 50 years behind US in science”

My Japanese grandpa said that was the first time he ever thought Japan will lose the war.

From being half Japanese, I still think A-bomb was better choice than land invasion in comparison considering the bloodbath in Iwo-Jima and Okinawa.

Plus, half of us would be speaking Russian if war didn’t finish early enough and land invasion started with soviet forces supporting the assault.

If you read this through, thank you for your time. I had to get this episode out of me chest somewhere.

(Added on June 6th, 2020.)
There is a troll in the comment section called “August Hayek”

Do not respond to him, save yourself time and sanity.

[SuperSaltyFries]

A lot of people in this comments seem to have not watched the entire video, or completely underestimate the brutality of the Imperial Japanese Military. It's very easy to judge from the outside, but if you had been at war for over 4 years and saw no end in sight, and understood the evils by the Japanese, to name a few, such as the: 1. Rape of Nanking 2. Bombing of Pearl Harbor 3. Mass murdering of Allied POWs then you would slightly understand the context of the situation. Again, it's easy to judge form the outside roughly 70 years later.

[Beastinvader]

National Geographic had an incredibly interesting (and surprisingly a non-neutral) answer to this.

They concluded that the first bomb was in a sense necessary to force the Japanese hands.
The second bomb was not. America made a deal with Russia to invade Japan simultaneously. The NEXT DAY America had a change of mind; they dropped another bomb to force a surrender. The goal was to limit post-war Soviet influence.

Yes, perhaps both bombs together killed less lives than an invasion would have. My point is that America had a strong political reason to drop the second one.

[slonesmart]

“If they don’t play nice, hit em twice” - Luigi

[MrMetalHead]

Anyone who understands how sadistic and imperialistic the Japanese Emperor and military was at the time would understand why the bombs were necessary. Japan wouldnt have stopped invading Asia if Allied forces left. And if they succeeded in Asia, then they wouldve most definitely tried the US again. Probably wouldve made the Cold war end alot worse.

If your angry at anyone, be angry at the Japanese government who threatened to kill any civilians who attempted to flee the cities that were planned to be hit by the nukes.

It took the blinding light of an atom bomb for the Japanese military and Emperor to see what they had to do.

[fantasticmryeet]

You couldn't just destroy a nation like Imperial Japan with hand grenades and SMGs, their honor system was so strong, they chose death over surrender.

[ldb]

more people died in the fire bombings of Tokyo than both atomic bombs combined. however we dont hear anything about that.

[thanhthaonguyen]

It was a very sad times for Vietnam too. When Japan military occupied Vietnam they did not let our great grandfather and grandmother to grow rice, caused one million Vietnamese died to starvation. The Japanese soilder also tested their samurai swords by chopped the villagers heads. That times in history was very depressing to study. It only after the nuclear bombs that the military withdrawal from Vietnam.

[Redactedredacted]

Shit. I'm part Japanese and I think this was justified.

[MistaChris]

Ok, let's see which is best.

1. Atomic Bombs:
USA drops 2 atomic bombs on Japan, killing at most 226, 000 people, also causing lots of radiation (though the US didn't know about this, so it is justified). This made Japan know they would have to surrender.

2. Invasion:
USA and Soviet Union invade Japan. Estimated over 1 million allied troops die, and several million Japanese die. Well over the death count of the nukes. Would've given a chance for communism to spread to Japan, because of Soviet invasion. Also, much of Japan would've been destroyed. Definitely worse than the bombs. This option is slower, more deadly, and has more long term effects (communism and lots of the country destroyed).

3. Waiting for Japan to surrender, no atom bombs or invasion:
This seems like a good option, but it really isn't. Starving to death does not feel good, if you didn't know. This would result in many deaths, I don't know how many, but they would be pretty much all Japanese. Starving people to death did not seem more humane than dropping a bomb that would kill people pretty much instantly.

Now which one seems best?

[ultron-]

Japan’s leaders followed their code of “death before dishonor” they preferred to die than bring shame on themselves and their ancestors

[blessedwithchallenges]

I've worked with Japanese for 26 years, teaching English and taking them on tours in the greater Seattle area. I've had conversations with Japanese people about the bomb... They know it had to happen in order to stop the world war. They are also embarrassed how dillusional they were at the time to believe their leader was a god, and therefore infallible. He said they would conquer -they believed it. Anyway, in somber tones I've told them I agree, I believe it had to happen...but I'm sorry for all the loss they went through afterwards. They've told me that's what they wish the U.S. would officially say. Not they are sorry they did it, but they are sorry for their loss.

[gentlebabarian]

My grandpa was imprisoned in a workcamp. Close to Tokyo.

If an invasion happend he would have been executed

The atomic bomb saved my grandpa's life

[palaksingh]

Gods...imagine living in an era when nuking two places was the safest, most plausibls option.

[ainsleyharriott]

The controversial problem created by America to japan is
*L O G A N P A U L*

[demsyciu]

I like Japanese culture, but let me say this, without that 2 atom bomb, the Japanese wouldn't ended their occupation in Indonesia, my nation.
All Indonesian know that 3, 5 years of Japanese occupation was way worst than 350 years of Dutch occupation here.
So, yes. That 2 atom was the right decisions, especially for Asian nations that were occupied by Japan.

[EdVanMeyer]

Japan was run by a military elite and Hirohito was a token head of state. Wilson is right, Okinawa was the blueprint for the future military action, the Japanese would choose to fight to the last bullet and even then choose to die in suicidal 'rushes' at Allied troops rather than surrender. The Hiroshima bomb did not detonate all the material, but these weapons symbolized that future war with these weapons would ensure our total destruction and has kept the peace, other than local wars in Iraq etc excepting.Korea was under Japanese occupation for many years and only their defeat freed Korea.The UK and other allied powers were planning to send personnel to the Far East post Victory in Europe, had that had to happen, the war might have gone on for one more year at least and killed millions more.Truman was right to do it to save more lives than those incidents cost. The results were horrific. The lesson endures.

[Romanov]

Sacrifice 1 life to save 10

Sacrifice 10 lives to save hundreds

Sacrifice hundreds to save thousands

And sacrifice thousands to save millions

This is the grim truth to save lives in order to end wars.

[johnny]

Sadly the Japanese brought this on themselves

[travishall]

It was a war. This is what happens in war.