The Untold History of the Unites States: must see/must read for all americans.
@raymondherr3341
11 жыл бұрын
Actually he is right. Many diplomats felt it would be a good idea to have a provision for retaining the emperor at Potsdam but James F. Byrnes one of Trumans top advisers had it stricken.
@Oldreprobate
11 жыл бұрын
Good to see that someone finally admits America was a barbarian for using the 1st WMD against civilians, not for the purpose of ending a war, but for more mercenary reasons.
@Oldreprobate
11 жыл бұрын
thank you sir for your wise words. you have put it better than I obviously have. sometimes I am too blunt. much love.
@markhughes7927
6 жыл бұрын
Nagasaki - if my information is correct - was a cold experiment of a different type of atomic bomb detonated at a different altitude.
@scotty
11 жыл бұрын
So much for the higher ground, morals and ethics.
@2leet2cheet
11 жыл бұрын
He says worse than Hitler, because Hilter was a one time event. However, Truman opened the door for a arms race until the end of time.
@spearfisherman308
3 жыл бұрын
the arms race would have happened because stalin had spies inside the Los alamos
@Norbury040780
11 жыл бұрын
Very good item you have done here gentlemen
@2leet2cheet
11 жыл бұрын
Even if that is true, they did not need the second one.
@LeAndreWatts
23 күн бұрын
HG WELLS : “Things To Come”
@leeweisbecker2213
9 жыл бұрын
emperor cited the bomb in one of his capitulation statements, the russian entry in another, six of one, half dozen of the other. why this fever to simplify what was obviously complex?
@Oldreprobate
11 жыл бұрын
Actually, the sticking point was that the Japanese wanted to keep the Emperor. The Allies considered him to be a war criminal, who had more than a little influence over Japan starting the War on America in the first place. The tragedy is even though they surrendered after the Bombs, the allies allowed them to keep the Emperor, so America needn't have used the damned things in the first place. They just "had to" use the damned things because they had them. Shame America, shame!!
@spearfisherman308
3 жыл бұрын
yes which they changed before the first bomb was dropped, also herohito was the one who had final say over most decisions.
@markhughes7927
6 жыл бұрын
If my information is correct - a patent was filed for the invention of the atomic bomb in 1933. There was no nuclear programme in the United States until 1942. This programme was started up on the basis of knowledge supplied by the British and covered by the Maud Committee. This knowledge was developed in Birmingham University by two émigré scientists. The British were pulled into the development of the ‘Manhattan Project’ and pushed out of it once their usefulness was over. They were then pulled in again to contribute knowledge concerning the use of Plutonium and again pushed out as soon as that knowledge was imparted and the door firmly closed against them.
@gkoknok6076
11 жыл бұрын
i love how this link does not load... looks amazing if only i could watch it.
@TheTaskmaster
11 жыл бұрын
the thumbnail would make an excellent Greatest Hits cover for a band like Megadeth
@EmotionalContagion
11 жыл бұрын
tank you. sometime it,s nice to no that theirs likeminded people out there. piece bro!
@neilslade
6 жыл бұрын
Hmm- two wrongs don't make a right, my mom told me many decades ago. I know of few saints or geniuses on the planet, and my last recollection was that none of them occupy seats of power.
@Oldreprobate
11 жыл бұрын
Yes it was the first use of an atomic device. There was use of Mustard gas in the first world war,and I believe it was the Germans, but to compare the use of mustard gas to a nuclear device astounds me, to be frank. The mortality rate from gas compared to a nuke is f/// all.
@Tjecktjeck
10 жыл бұрын
does this movie touch ''operation unthinkable 1942-1948'' ?
@Jeevanm71
5 жыл бұрын
Truman is one of the worst war criminals on the planet.
@wiggledytoes
11 жыл бұрын
How the world would be a different place if humanity didnt sell its soul to Truman and elected Wallace.
@rvdrvd1000
11 жыл бұрын
That would be "strategic" reasons, not "diplomatic" reasons.
@raymondherr3341
11 жыл бұрын
That citation is for the Byrnes info.
@breaks0
11 жыл бұрын
There was plenty of biological and chemical weapons used during both world wars, which are wmds. Of course you're right about nukes, I don't know why what I'm saying would be surprising, since I think we may've simply had a miscommunication. I think I've also covered it by saying "nukes take it to another level(s). Stalingrad, Nanjing and plenty of other incidents involved chem and bio wmd use.
@Oldreprobate
11 жыл бұрын
Wasn't criticising you, just pointing out that I just don't compare the primitive chemical weapon used in WW1 with nukes, which was what you said. Actually what you said was nukes just take it to another level, but my original statement was just about the needlessness of using the rotten, damn thing in the first place.
@Oldreprobate
11 жыл бұрын
Just goes to prove the reason so many "brilliant students" are working at 7/11, or stacking shelves at K-mart. You may be a great student, however had you checked my background, you may have found I am an older person who has relatives who served in the big one, and are clearly not influenced by the status quo propaganda, and "dud" history they cram into tiny minds these days. Start by talking to veterans who served in the big one, and who knows, you may produce a decent paper. Shalom.
@raymondherr3341
11 жыл бұрын
And I'm in no way saying the emperor was innocent in all this. Even if he wanted peace, which is "remote" according to most scholars. There was a faction within the Japanese government that was seeking peace but they were the minority. Sadao Asada describes the emperor as "Ambivalent" on the idea of making peace at the time just prior to the bombing.
@breaks0
11 жыл бұрын
Was it the 1st use? I wouldn't agree w/that chemical and biological weapons were used in such a manner going back at least to WWI. Nukes just take it to another level.
@Northern5tar
11 жыл бұрын
15:33 Hitler introduced bombing cities? No he didn't. When talking indiscriminate bombing between England and Germany in WWII it was Churchill who started. But Churchill wasn't the first either. Long before Hitler did bomb Rotterdam, which Britain seized upon to change their policy, cities were indiscriminately bombed. Why does Hitler even have to be brought up several times in this expose? Is he is the measure of everything? It diminishes the conversation.
@BrennanYoung
5 жыл бұрын
the Luftwaffe were the first to bombard civilians from the air, during the Spanish Civil War (1937), so the aerial bombing of cities was indeed Hitler's "innovation"
@Oldreprobate
11 жыл бұрын
I have never claimed to be an apologist , nor an minimalist for they. If you had bothered to read all of my comment, you would find that I am "merely" commenting that the Americans are not the "lilywhites" that the prior commenter claims them to be. But having said all of that, I still state that the only reason America used the damn rotten atomic bomb in the first place had nought to do with your or anyone elses' feelings of right or wrong. They used it because they had it, no other reason.
@raymondherr3341
11 жыл бұрын
Gar Alperovitz, Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, 302-17 1995. (Alperovitz, by the by is on your side) As for "rubbish my daddy told me" (nice ad hominem by the way) I'm a masters student in history. I wrote a research paper on the decision to use the bomb last semester that won a scholarship from the history department. The people in this video are presenting a clearly biased revisionist viewpoint.
@spearfisherman308
3 жыл бұрын
Exactly I think they have been accused of fraud in their research.
@theghostofhumankindness4312
11 жыл бұрын
Funny how we're told the good guys won the Cold War
@raymondherr3341
11 жыл бұрын
Also, more civilians died from the conventional bombing campaign than from the nuclear bombs. 210,000 vs. 120,000 (I can cite that too) The conventional bombing campaign also left almost 10 million homeless as well. It was the military that was running the show in Japan and not the emperor. The military was willing to go forward with the war even if it meant 20 million more casualties.(Richard Frank: Downfall pg.311)
@spearfisherman308
3 жыл бұрын
Correct what's interesting about the nuclear bombs effect is that it was that we used two of them in close proximity that shocked the emperor into finally accepting the surrender ultimately it was the emperor but the military wanted to keep fighting.
@raymondherr3341
11 жыл бұрын
Oh please, this argument has been raging in academia for years. This guy is a crappy historian who is ignoring a ton of legitimate non-rightwing nutjob scholarship on Truman's decision. Alperovitz and a slew of other revisionist historians made these claims over 50 years ago and they've largely been refuted by historians like Robert Maddox and Herbert Bix. If you want a more full assessment read "Understanding Indignation: Gar Alperovitz, Robert Maddox, and the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb."
@colossalko
11 жыл бұрын
While I do agree for the most part, I can't form a strong opinion. When I think about how nuclear weapons would've eventually been made and how deterrence may have prevented world war 3, it's not easy to take a definitive stance. Japan was essentially defeated yet they refused to the terms of surrender. They would've rather lost millions more people then surrender.
@SimonAshworthWood
2 жыл бұрын
Commander Robert Green served for 20 years in the British Royal Navy. Here he explains why 'nuclear deterrence' doesn't work. He gives examples like the Argentine attack on nuclear-armed UK (Falklands War) and the Iraqi attack on nuclear armed Israel (during the first Gulf War) - kzitem.info/news/bejne/z35s3p-ghoCVoaA
@raymondherr3341
11 жыл бұрын
.Looks like you got wet there, Cheers mate.
@hopsala1
11 жыл бұрын
What goes around comes around.
@raymondherr3341
11 жыл бұрын
after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the leadership in Japan was still divided at a meeting of the Supreme War Leadership Council on August 9th,1945 with the hard liners seeking three additional terms which included no American occupation of the Japanese home islands, Japanese control over trials of their own war criminals, and Japanese control over their own disarmament, all of which would have been unacceptable to the Truman administration - Herbert Bix "Japan's Delayed Surrender"
@Trevor-oi2fb
8 жыл бұрын
i like how a russian is commenting on this lol
@fredaumell8254
6 жыл бұрын
Me too, the Russians are the only human beings on the globe telling the truth today.
@rockyracoon3233
5 жыл бұрын
@@fredaumell8254 Yes, and there is great skiing in Florida too!
@colossalko
11 жыл бұрын
Taking everything into account, America was still responsible for one of the lower civilian casualty numbers even after the nukes.
@SimonAshworthWood
2 жыл бұрын
Huh? The USSR killed more civilians because it defeated 80% of the nazi war machine, taking most of the nazi-held lands, and then defeated 1.2 million Axis troops guarding Japanese-held Manchuria, Korea, Sakhalin island and the Kuril islands in Asia. I.e. the USSR took more land and lands with a higher population.
@spearfisherman308
3 жыл бұрын
this is factually inaccurate and robert maddox debunks this.
@Wintermute1119
11 жыл бұрын
Both sides in this argument completely gloss over very obvious reasoning on the opposing viewpoints. The United States would have either dropped the bombs or invaded. Both would have been catastrophic for the Japanese, one would have been catastrophic for the United States. Easy decision to make if you're Truman.
@SimonAshworthWood
2 жыл бұрын
You clearly didn't listen to the video. You ignore the fact that Japan's dictatorship was already willing to surrender on the condition that they got to keep their emperor system. You also ignore the fact that Japan's dictatorship surrendered unconditionally because the USSR joined the war against Japan, not because of the atomic bombs, and the US govt let Japan's rulers keep their emperor system.
@joebolt1776
4 жыл бұрын
100,000 Japanese casualties on Okinawa. 12,000 American soldiers killed. You,re lying when you say only 36,000 Japanese would have died in the invasion of Japan.
Пікірлер: 86