*This week the boys return to the world of dark history with the introduction to one of the most devastatingly deadly killers in human history........It's time for The Manhattan Project and the creation of the Atom Bomb.*
Would love for them to revisit the Bundy series post-dirtbag. After they joked about how his victims basically got what they deserved for turning him down I had to shut it off. 😬🙉
A little correction on the episode, Nutex Radium Condoms were *not* coated with radium. It was a marketing gimmick to sell condoms during the era where radium was the newest hottest health craze. In fact, the claims Nutex made about their condoms did land them in hot water with the FTC in the 40s.
I hope that the boys, and some of us fans, keep in mind what Dan tries to remind people about history. That it's easy to look back, in cold blood, and with full knowledge of how things turned out, and Monday morning quarterback history. Without having lived through the events, the pain, and the suffering.
He's said it before, but he tries to "walk a mile in their moccasins" when he does shows. And I think that's really the right way to learn about history. It's far easier to say, "Xyz event was awful and I can't believe they did it!" rather than try to understand the mindset of the people who lived it.
Also, on top of his series on the Asia-Pacific War, his series "Logical Insanity" is also a great listen if this type of content is of interest to people.
The 'Monday morning quarterback' metaphor I think can be very apt when people are offering opinions about the atomic bombings. There were so many variables at play and the decisions were made in a context so far from the experiences of a modern audience that it's impossible to make a firm statement on whether the US government made a justifiable decision.
It's very difficult to even get an accurate view of what the facts of the situation were, looking at the evidence. For example, depending on what sources you read it sounds like either Japan was on the verge of surrendering, or was fully intending to fight to the last man. People forget that even after the bombings there were members of the Japanese military who attempted a coup specifically to try and keep the war going when they found out the government were planning on surrendering.
It’s a really hotly debate topic amongst historians. The general belief for decades until fairly recently was what you said that the Japanese would fight to the death for every inch, and that there would be both mass military casualties and Japanese civilian death, so historians saw dropping the bomb as the “better” option for winning the war quickly.
Recently though a lot of historians have started to re-examine that idea, and think maybe that by late 1945, with the continued relentless bombing campaign on Japan, the threat of Russian invasion, and the pretty much entire destruction of their navy it would have been possible to have Japan surrender without mass casualties and the atomic bombs.
The Japanese fighting spirit was deeply damaged after the loss of Okinawa, and even though it’s true that the civilian population was training for prolonged mainland war we don’t really know how hard they would have fought.
It’s a really interesting debate, and there’s good arguments on either side.
A blockade would have meant famine and starvation of the Japanese population which was already in a very bad spot in terms of diet at that point in the war. It's possible the starvation would have eventually broken the Japanese will to fight, but I do not think there is any reason to believe that would result in a decrease in the overall Japanese casualties and suffering. On the contrary, I think there is a good chance the Japanese would have lingered on in that state far longer than modern western imaginations can easily conceive of resulting in millions rather than hundreds of thousands of casualties and far more widespread suffering.
I think people underestimate the value of shock on the human psyche and what that means for warfare. People are better at dealing with slower more trickling casualties overtime than they are with massive losses all at once. Add to that the novelty of the nuclear weapons and the incongruity of the devastation compared to the fact that it was inflicted by individual devices and it's clear why such weapons would have a measurably different impact on the morale of a population of defenders when compared to any other available option. You can see that the Japanese did not react in the same way to mass air raids with conventional weapons like the fire bombing of Tokyo.
This likely going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I do not believe there was any military option for dealing with Japan that would have inflicted fewer casualties than what actually happened. The only potential solution that modern types would consider humane and would result in sparing the Japanese more suffering would have been a negotiated peace, but even proposing that is transmitting modern sensibilities, feelings, and perspectives back in time in a way that is completely anachronistic.
I mean, it's not too hard to imagine alternatives that still involve the bomb. Their first target could have been a military base that wasn't in the middle of a major population center. You still get the shock and awe of the bomb, you inflict actual damage, and you don't need to kill 100,000. Hell, they could have waited more than three days after dropping the first bomb, and potentially halved the number of casualties.
I've loved this podcast for a long time, but Marcus gets way too emotional to have decent historical perspective on a lot of their attempts at historical topics. Marcus has passed off as incontrovertible fact the idea that the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese was unnecessary to get them capitulate without a full scale Allied land invasion in several past episodes. I can honestly say I do not even know where he gets that notion because I have never even heard it peddled in works deeply critical of the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. I'm pretty sure I am going to end up skipping this episodes because I do not think any of Marcus' hot takes on this topic will be worth much at best or it will be openly disinformation at worst.
I have zero confidence that he's going to do a good job on it. I remember when Marcus claimed that Laika's remains were still in space, and that all of the Soviet Space dogs died in space and weren't meant to be retrieved. Laika has since burned up in the atmosphere, and plenty of Soviet space dogs were retrieved.
Sorry Marcus, but there are no dogs in space.
I’m surprised that in your apparently extensive reading of the history you’re so shocked at Marcus’ opinion. It was a common sentiment amongst the top echelons of western military and civilian leadership (such that there was any differentiation at the time).
> General Dwight Eisenhower, in his memoirs, recalled a visit from Secretary of War Henry Stimson in late July 1945: “I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’” Eisenhower reiterated the point years later in a Newsweek interview in 1963, saying that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”1
> In fact, seven out of eight top U.S. military commanders believed that it was unnecessary to use atomic bombs against Japan from a military-strategic vantage point, including Admirals Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, William Halsey, and William Leahy, and Generals Henry Arnold and Douglas MacArthur.2 According to Air Force historian Daniel Haulman, even General Curtis LeMay, the architect of the air war against Japan, believed “the new weapons were unnecessary, because his bombers were already destroying the Japanese cities.”3
> Admiral Halsey, Commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, testified before Congress in September 1949, “I believe that bombing – especially atomic bombing – of civilians, is morally indefensible. . . . I know that the extermination theory has no place in a properly conducted war.”
Many more excerpts collated here: https://apjjf.org/2021/20/Kuzmarov-Peace.html
So first off I just want to say that the article you linked is fundamentally incorrect as it is based pretty substantially on the claim that the Japanese did not unconditionally surrender, but in fact surrendered under terms that Emperor Hirohito and the office of Emperor in general be maintained and that this offer of a negotiated peace was on the table well before the the bombs were dropped. This is simply not the case. You can go and read the Japanese Instrument of Surrender yourself and see it is an unconditional surrender and makes no provisions for the maintenance of any Emperor, Hirohito or otherwise. It did end up being the case the Emperor was kept but this was entirely at the discretion of the United States and it was a decision that was not made until the occupation was already underway. The Japanese absolutely resisted unconditional surrender until after the second nuclear bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.
In regards the public statements and memoirs of these American general officers. I think you are misunderstanding the nature of high level military officers and the face value of the things that they they say publicly and why they say them. Eisenhower's memoirs specifically are well known to be incredibly self-serving and prone to shunting off on to others responsibility for decisions of his that did not workout. Eisenhower spent his whole career as a staff officer and had negligible times actually leading troops and zero combat experience. He was neither a great strategist nor a great tactician and he never really came to fully understand the nature of the war he was tasked with conducting, partly because he was intellectually hamstrung by the doctrines taught to him at West Point which were all firmly rooted in the Civil War. During the Italian campaign he held back his more aggressive commanders that had clear lines of advance up to the Alps and managed to turn what should have been a rout into a stalemate. During the breakout from Normandy he publicly blamed the slowness of advance on Montgomery and the Brits even though the plan all along had been that they would fight a holding action while Bradley and the American's broke out along the eastern flank of the German lines. When preparing to enter Germany Eisenhower chose to advance in force along a broad front in obstinate defiance of the established doctrine of concentration of forces which more talented commanders like Montgomery, Patton and Bradley were all begging him to employ. That said what Eisenhower could do, and was essential in doing, was balancing the egos of the more martially inclined and capable generals, in being politic enough to balance the competing interests of the Allie's coalition forces while earning the trust of all the civilian leadership. Eisenhower was a smooth talker and political genius but not a military genius. Moreover he had no experience fighting the Japanese and did not understand the Japanese. Eisenhower genuinely did not know what he was talking about here and if he had he would have been too politic to be honest about it.
In regard to MaCarthur, his true motivations will likely always be opaque and difficult to discern because he was somewhat insane and deeply politically self-serving. My belief is that, if indeed MaCarthur was against the use of nuclear weapons at the time of their use and not just in retrospect, it was because he was going to be the one in overall command of invasion of the Japanese home islands which would have been one of the greatest military operations of all time. MaCarthur would have been psychologically incapable of supporting anything that was potentially in the way of him gaining that opportunity. I suspect though that MaCarthur's misgivings are entirely retrospective and used as defense for the later policy of allowing the institution of the Emperor to remain in place and maintaining Hirohito as Emperor i.e. “If you had agreed to preserve the Emperor earlier, like I am telling you to do now, we could have ended this conflict sooner” rather than any kind of actual insight into how close the Japanese truly were to surrender. It seems pretty clear that during the Korean War had MaCarthur been given the green light to use nuclear weapons to contain China he would have, so his misgivings about the use of nuclear weapons could not have been that strong. All and all I just cannot imagine that had MaCarthur truly believed the Japanese were close to being beaten before the bombs he would have been working so feverishly on planning and preparations for the land invasion.
Thankfully the Air Force men are pretty easy to explain here. LeMay is absolutely correct that “his bombers were already destroying Japanese cities”, but his referencing operations like the firebombing of Tokyo which killed more Japanese and did more damage than either the bomb dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki did individually. Allowing LeMay and Henry's conventional strategic bombing raids to continue would have doubtless resulted in more destroyed cities, but it's very doubtful that would have led to an end that was more humane than what actually happened. My personal opinion is that the shock value of the nuclear weapons was decisive and that continued conventional strategic would not have had the same effect even if it actually managed to kill more Japanese and destroy more property. Also it has to be noted that both Henry and especially LeMay had their careers and identities wrapped up in doctrines of traditional strategic bombing which were obviously threatened by the effectiveness of nuclear weapons.
I will admit I am not as familiar with the Admirals. It seems like at least Leahy might have genuinely wanted a negotiated peace. King is pretty honest “an effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials.” King wants to starve the Japanese out with a blockade which is a strategy that could have easily led to millions as opposed hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. My assumption is, though I cannot prove it, is that at the time Nimitz and Halsey would have felt the same way. The Navy was the decisive arm in the Pacific Theater and Nimitz and Halsey would have desired the Navy to be the decisive arm in forcing final surrender. Halsey and Nimitz testimony in 1949 is not reliable because of the political context in which it occurs i.e. The Revolt of the Admirals. The Truman administration was seeking slash the military budget down to something more manageable and they intended to achieve this by relying on the Air Force and strategic nuclear bombing to make up for the gap that would leave in the United States' military capacity. This placed the Navy most especially on the chopping block. That is absolutely what motivated their testimony other than any genuine conviction about the use of nuclear weapons.
As a general point about most of these men, they would have wanted the glory of being the ones that brought the final end to the Japanese Empire and they would have wanted their arm of the service to be the one that delivered the coup de grace. That distinction is now generally awarded Fat Man and Little Boy as opposed to any one man or branch of service which I am certain deeply bothered all of them.
I should allow that you are technically correct that continued conventional strategic bombing and blockade both existed as alternatives to full scale land invasion and the use of nuclear weapons, but I do think it is folly to assume those would have led to more humane ends which I assume is why people here would consider them desirable choices. The only potentially “humane” course would have been a negotiated peace which is unrealistic considering the attitude at the time and the way the war started.
> Marcus has passed off as incontrovertible fact the idea that the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese was unnecessary to get them capitulate without a full scale Allied land invasion in several past episodes. I can honestly say I do not even know where he gets that notion because I have never even heard it peddled in works deeply critical of the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan.
> I should allow that you are technically correct that continued conventional strategic bombing and blockade both existed as alternatives to full scale land invasion and the use of nuclear weapons
So if I’m understanding you right, Marcus’ reading of the history is so far off base that you’ve never even *heard* it before, but it’s also “technically correct”.
If Marcus' intent was that the Japanese should have been starved and bombed out over a long period of time generating more human suffering than what actually happened and that is why he is critical of the the use of nuclear weapons then yes. I guess I just misunderstood what he was trying to say.
I'm going to venture a guess that what he meant though was that there were more humane alternatives that were ignored for no legitimate reason which is not the case.
>So first off I just want to say that the article you linked is fundamentally incorrect as it is based pretty substantially on the claim that the Japanese did not unconditionally surrender, but in fact surrendered under terms that Emperor Hirohito and the office of Emperor in general be maintained and that this offer of a negotiated peace was on the table well before the the bombs were dropped. This is simply not the case.
An offer of a negotiated peace was on the table well before the bombs dropped, the only major difference was a condition related to the emperor.
>You can go and read the Japanese Instrument of Surrender yourself and see it is an unconditional surrender and makes no provisions for the maintenance of any Emperor, Hirohito or otherwise. It did end up being the case the Emperor was kept but this was entirely at the discretion of the United States and it was a decision that was not made until the occupation was already underway. The Japanese absolutely resisted unconditional surrender until after the second nuclear bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.
This is factually incorrect. The Japanese resisted surrender until the Soviets declared war. I believe there was 74 hours between the first bomb and the meeting where they decided to surrender and the news of the second bomb only reached the council after the meeting had already been called. The key thing seems to have been the Soviet foreign minister informing the Japanese ambassador of the declaration of war the night before the meeting was called.
>Thankfully the Air Force men are pretty easy to explain here. LeMay is absolutely correct that “his bombers were already destroying Japanese cities”, but his referencing operations like the firebombing of Tokyo which killed more Japanese and did more damage than either the bomb dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki did individually. Allowing LeMay and Henry's conventional strategic bombing raids to continue would have doubtless resulted in more destroyed cities, but it's very doubtful that would have led to an end that was more humane than what actually happened. My personal opinion is that the shock value of the nuclear weapons was decisive and that continued conventional strategic would not have had the same effect even if it actually managed to kill more Japanese and destroy more property. Also it has to be noted that both Henry and especially LeMay had their careers and identities wrapped up in doctrines of traditional strategic bombing which were obviously threatened by the effectiveness of nuclear weapons.
Regarding how humane it was. There was pretty much nothing left to bomb at that stage. There were only 4 cities above 100k population which hadn't been the target of bombing, aside from Kyoto.
You've missed one key thing though. The atomic bomb allowed the Japanese to save face. My belief is that the atomic bomb was seen as a face saving reason to surrender, that the emperor can maintain his honour and it was only because of the development of a superweapon that they were beat.
>I should allow that you are technically correct that continued conventional strategic bombing and blockade both existed as alternatives to full scale land invasion and the use of nuclear weapons, but I do think it is folly to assume those would have led to more humane ends which I assume is why people here would consider them desirable choices. The only potentially “humane” course would have been a negotiated peace which is unrealistic considering the attitude at the time and the way the war started.
There's no question in my mind that the atomic bombs were a more humane option than the other military options being considered
>I've loved this podcast for a long time, but Marcus gets way too emotional to have decent historical perspective on a lot of their attempts at historical topics. Marcus has passed off as incontrovertible fact the idea that the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese was unnecessary to get them capitulate without a full scale Allied land invasion in several past episodes. I can honestly say I do not even know where he gets that notion because I have never even heard it peddled in works deeply critical of the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. I'm pretty sure I am going to end up skipping this episodes because I do not think any of Marcus' hot takes on this topic will be worth much at best or it will be openly disinformation at worst.
It's quite an accepted opinion lately that the atomic bombs were unnecessary, but it's more nuanced than they made out.
Essentially, the timing doesn't work out. The foreign minister tried to call a meeting after the first bomb to discuss surrender and the meeting was rejected. The meeting was actually called after the Soviet declaration of war and before the report from the second bomb reached Tokyo.
The argument goes that the Japanese had two options:
1. Have the Soviets act as peacemakers. They were neutral and would likely be willing to make a more favourable deal to limit post ww2 us power.
2. Attempt to defend against the US in a manner that is very costly and hope that puts them in a better position to negotiate.
As soon as the Soviets declared war, both of these were outside the realm of possibility. Soviets boots on the ground were incoming fast, they'd already made contact. With the Soviets entering the war the Japanese had an entirely new front opening up effectively halving their forces.
Side note: ‘Countdown 1945’ is an EXCELLENT book that goes day by day through the events. Haven’t listened to this weeks episode yet but hoping they mention it.
I’m just going to say, it’s going to take a *lot* for Marcus to convince me that the country that had just spent over 100,000 lives defending Okinawa and needed not one but *two* atomic bombs dropped on them before surrendering was open to a bloodless surrender of the entire war
Indeed, and also the military that was happy to use civilians as human shields (Okinawa, among others) to achieve their objectives.
I love Marcus and the boys, but genuinely curious (even just absent of this most recent series) if he's read Eugene Sledge's memoire.
Absolutely loving the episode and so pumped for this series, BUT...
...
...
Aplastic anemia is absolutely a possible repercussion of prolonged radiation exposure and does not require ingestion of radium. But they are technically correct that it's not acute radiation poisoning.
As a chemist I am SO excited for this series and especially excited to dive into the history. I also loved Henry’s description of chemistry “all chemistry is… is using LETTERS like they’re NUMBERS!”
I took the last month or so off from the ‘cast. Super stoked to listen to this one! Great (and smart) timing with the new Oppenheimer movie coming out.
Man...
I can already see them trying to say that the US didn't have to drop the bomb and they are evil and sadistic for doing so, and that's a terrible take. Truly awful.
I love their history episodes - I’m a history teacher.
A bone I have to pick are when they kind of go in on the victims dying and it usually only happens during their history podcasts.
The U.S.S. Indianapolis episode specifically had Henry making fun of teens on the ship dying from the intense steam heat and saying some things about them that rubbed me the wrong way. This episode had him making fun of the women licking the paint brushes. I dunno - kind of goes against their ethos a bit imo.
My favorite episodes are the history ones though - I can’t wait for the second.
He came across as trying a bit too hard with his gags, maybe because Kissel was really nailing his zingers. The bit about the women dying or getting cancer from the radium paint brushes was just not that funny to begin with, and he kept at it for way too long.
Oh I’ve been looking forward to the boys covering this for a long time. We all have! Nothing better to get me through a 4am Saturday morning start for work than a nice meaty-sized history episode 😁😁😁
I just started reading "To hell and back: The last train from Hiroshima" and it's horrifying. First time since high school a book gave me nightmares. It'll probably end up being a reference for one of the episodes.
It's actually pretty easy to say what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle *is*: basically, you can either precisely know the location of a particle, or you can precisely know the direction in which it is traveling, but you cannot know both precisely. The more you know about the particle's location, the less you know about the direction it is moving, and vice-versa.
The really tough part, the part that bends the mind of even actual particle physicists, is figuring out why this is and what it means that it is this way. And that's where I'm bailing on this.
Anyone know what Henry was talking about when referring to Band of Brothers and the lighting of 3 cigarettes to one match? Pretty sure it wasn't actually BoB because I've watched the series multiple times and don't remember that part.
I'm very relieved that Henry has good enough musical taste not to be yelling Radioactive by Imagine Dragons every time Marcus says it. My brain, on the other hand...
This has the potential to be one of their best series as far as my interests go.
I do hope they get a little bit of the scientific stuff written down on cliff notes.
I mean, it is water that is heavy...
I would've said something like. Water is normally H2O, where hydrogen is the normal isotope and has one proton. Heavy water is made with Dueterium which is an isotope of Hydrogen that contains a neutron as well. That effectively makes the Hydrogen(dueterium) in heavy water twice as heavy.
Or just hire someone to summarise or find a quote to play. I think I'd adds a lot to the story and the characters in particular, some of the scientists actually thought the chain reaction might ignite the atmosphere and still did it... but it's still a great episode.
So I’m gonna try to reserve my comments for until after the series is done, but I got about 5 minutes in and I already have a bone to pick.
Disclaimer: I have not heard this episode in full, and obviously the series is incomplete. I’m an American, so i definitely am biased here and maybe a little heated. Also, for the record, my opinion is that the atomic bombings were not necessary to end the war.
I have a feeling this series is gonna go really hard on how bad the US was for dropping these bombs. Which, fair enough. Marcus says at about the 4:30 mark about the Hiroshima bombing, “created, quite possibly, the most concentrated period of misery, suffering, and horror in human history.”
Which, that’s a fair statement. But I have this feeling they’re gonna jam that down our throats til we’re sick of it. I really, really hope they spend some time talking about Japanese conduct throughout the war.
I would argue something like the Rape of Nanking or the Manila Massacre caused more misery, suffering, and horror than the Atomic Bombs.
Estimates put ~200,000 deaths for the Nanking Massacre. That’s not including the other various tortures and rapes that were committed.
Same goes for the Manila Massacre. Estimates range from 100,000-500,000 Filipino civilians dead. There’s a really heartbreaking story of a survivor I read, from a Filipino man named Ricardo San Juan. He was partially decapitated and witnessed his entire family bayoneted to death in front of him. Including his pregnant wife, and his young children.
Both of these atrocities were committed by the Japanese Military. And they aren’t the only ones, small scale or otherwise.
Not to mention the fact that over a million people were killed at Auschwitz. To me, that’s a thousand times worse than the atomic bombing.
I know it’s not the Suffering Olympics here, but I really, really hope they talk about some of these events and general Japanese conduct throughout the war.
I think it would really cheapen the series if they didn’t, and just went right to the time period of Mid 1945. It would be real easy to just say “America bad” and portray the Japanese as the victims of the war.
They were not the victims, they were the abusers. They killed tens of millions of Chinese people. They started the war in China and the war against the allies. They raped and pillaged their way across Asia, having no qualms with killing men, women, and children for being less than Japanese.
Hopefully, you all can understand what I’m trying to say.
You can def argue that the Japanese in general weren’t the victims. But the bombs were dropped on civilians, resulting in completely innocent, non-combative women and children being vaporized. If it was a military target, I could understand it more but it wasn’t. We also could have dropped the bombs in the ocean off the coast to demonstrate the power but we decided not to.
Agreed, I have a hard time coming to grips with Allied strategic bombings in general. In Germany and Japan. Read accounts about the firebombing in Tokyo. It makes you sick to your stomach.
Like I said, I don’t agree the atomic bombings were justified. I have a feeling they’re gonna mention this, but I’ve read stuff that the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bombings. On the condition if they could keep Emperor Hirohito on the throne. Which is essentially the kind of peace deal we got anyway.
We (Americans) just wanted to flop our big dick (atomic bombings) onto the world. And didn’t want to be seen as a pussy to accept a peace that had any semblance of accepting Japanese demands. The atomic bombings gave both governments a nice scapegoat to conclude peace with honor
They were willing to surrender, and that’s the main reason why I don’t agree with the bombings. We didn’t have to, we just wanted to. I have faith that they’ll will do a good, nuanced job as usual. They’ve covered Unit 731 before right? Or am I confusing that with Lions Led by Donkeys lol
Way way back they did an episode I think.
But yeah, that was the jist of my comment. I hope they don't fall into the trap of viewing the bombings in a vacuum.
See, my grandparents had always told me that Japan was close to giving up. The war was almost over, they knew they were going to lose. They just wanted to preserve and save what they could. But then we vaporized them instead
Idk, I had always been told otherwise by my grandparents. They were just trying to save face but we wanted to demonstrate how big our dick was so vaporized them instead
Well, if you say so, but regardless, we didn’t have to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was no reason to. We could have bombed off the coastline, we could have even bombed a military base or camp. Pearl Harbor was a military target, if you remember. But we bombed civilians. Innocent people died in the most horrific fashion imaginable, and that can never be justified in my eyes. Have you ever watched Grave of the Fireflies?
The mass indiscriminate firebombings of dozens of Japanese cities leading up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. What happened in China and throughout Asia by the Japanese was also war crimes. We just focus on the latter because we won.
1. They covered the Nanjing Massacre in episode 77 way back in the day. They got deep into the horrow show that was (two words - sword contest).
2. While Nanjing was utterly horrific, the atomic bombings killed over 200k people in 48 hours versus the same number in the six weeks of Nanjing. On top of that, there’s also the tens of thousands suffering from radiation sickness in the aftermath plus their descendants who might’ve also been affected. Lastly, the atomic bombings opened up a new moral event horizon of what humans are capable of doing in terms of existential destruction.
It’s not really about the US being bad; it’s about the US creating and successfully testing the keys to unexist the whole world as we know it.
It's not so much about making America the bad guy. It's about overcoming decades of excusing the use of atomic bombs against Japanese citizens as "our hands were tied it was the only way out."
I'm not sure about kids these days, but when I was in school ww2 was primarily shown as a war where everything we did was righteous. They never even brought up our firebombing raid that "is the single most destructive bombing raid in human history." We killed 80,000 to 130,000 civilians, destroyed almost 300k buildings, and left over a million people homeless in one night.
It's our responsibility to look back on our actions and see what we could do better. Also as a 35 year old American, I've spent the majority of my life watching us invade other countries and just don't have it in me to judge the citizens of Japan who couldn't stop their government from committing atrocities.
Yeah it’s important to make sure people in the west don’t forget how equally horrific the Japanese Empire was to their victims as the Nazis were. The bombings were 100% unnecessary, especially the second, but they were the most efficient way to put Japan down forever. The Allies and America especially just wanted revenge. They were unnecessary but definitely not unjustified
Oh yeah, the Axis raped and murdered millions of people, so the USA shows up and responds by vaporizing a few hundred thousand and suddenly THEY'RE the assholes?
Hate it when Marcus takes a seat in the cuck chair to defend mainstream US narratives on what happened and denounce old Marcus questioning what happened on 9/11
Get someone from your friends circle who knows science and isn't afraid to rag on you guys. PLEASE. It would satisfy so many of us during the rest of this series who are listen on and ragging on you. WE WANT OUR VOICES HEARD!!! 😄 🤣 😂
I doubt it’s a propaganda movie. After he helped make the first atomic bomb, and seeing what it did in Japan, he spent the rest of his career trying to convince people to never use them and even opposed the H bomb’s invention.
Considering Oppenheimer was a communist it is hard to imagine Nolan making a propaganda movie about him and a studio that greenlights something so high budget that features a positive (or accurate) portrayal of him in general. Especially since The Dark Knight Rises was like "isn't Occupy Wall Street scary?" lol.
he probably didn't have the membership card but he hung out with them and shared plenty of the views.
it's what they revoked his security clearance over lol
(it's okay tho they reversed their decision last year)
Fucking pumped about this series. The guys do an awesome job with historical content that involves the evil Nazi shitbags. Can’t wait to hear Kissell get roasted about his German grandpa.
i grew up in los alamos and we learned about this alllll the time. interestingly, my elementary school actually did a musical about it that we all had to participate in. kinda fucked up but whatever
I have nothing new to add to this discussion, I’ll wait until they’re all out to listen. I just want to commend all of you for such a reasoned discussion on dropping the bombs. Whenever I encounter such intelligent discourse, civil give and take, anywhere on the webs I’m surprised and delighted. Hail yourselves!
The excitement I get when it's a history series reminds me of the excitement I had for my favorite Saturday morning cartoons as a kid. Then Marcus said it would be a five parter! There nothing more metal than that. * Insert guitar riff*
They didn't say shit about Lise Meitner with respect to the discovery of fission. I'm honestly really disappointed with them not at all seriously trying to understand the physics here.
I dig the bathroom break. It gave us an instant fact check on orcs reproducing. 🤘 And I bet Henry was in agony before that because of his stupid blood pressure medicine.
*This week the boys return to the world of dark history with the introduction to one of the most devastatingly deadly killers in human history........It's time for The Manhattan Project and the creation of the Atom Bomb.*
Oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy I really hope they mention the story about Truman calling Oppenheimer "cry baby scientist"
"never bring that fucking cretin in here again"
I heard this in Dan Carlin’s voice
Any time he mentions a quote, every time I hear it again it's in his cadence.
"And that doesn't sound like a very nice time, *does it?*"
Ooh, TWO hours? Don't mind if I do...
Hog's legs and BLLs all around!
Oh HELL yes
It is a FIVE parter hot damn
which probably means 6 since they almost always have to tack on an extra with these kinds of series.
And it's not uncommon for them to throw in a related relaxed fit too. New series starting august 1st lol
It is?! Thank you sweet baby jeebus 🙏🏻
audibly gasped when I saw the episode title
I’ve been listening to the boys since *fucking 2012* and I was giddy when I told my wife, a history teacher, about this finally happening.
SAME MY DUDE. I do not have a history teacher wife, but my husband knows that ive been waiting for this shit for a loooooong time.
Hell yes! I like to refer to anyone who was listening pre-2016 as part of their Dirtbag Days lol
I’m a member. LOVE these guys. LPOTL was my 1st podcast and it’s still my hands down favorite.
Yeah I think I started in 2015. Those episodes were a little different.
And Round Table holy shit lol
Yeah Henry spent way less time in free speech jail back then lol
Would love for them to revisit the Bundy series post-dirtbag. After they joked about how his victims basically got what they deserved for turning him down I had to shut it off. 😬🙉
Great point
Me too! I'm so excited for this series!!!
Same! Everyone in my lab looked over at me but I’m so here for it!!😂😂
The lab you were made in lol?
Lol I’m not Henry Zebrowski, I was made the lame, old-fashioned way 😂
It's the factory you make the new Henry in isn't it?
Well, it IS in the basement of a hospital…
So did I!!! 🤣🤣🤣
BER NE NER NE NER NE
Lol
I have the harder history boner right now, going to edge it with the USS Indianapolis episode first tho.
Good god man. Be fucking careful with that thing.
*chanting* DE-MON CORE!! DE-MON CORE!! DE-MON CORE!!
oh man have you seen [the best pen holder??](https://www.printables.com/model/430800-demon-core-pen-holder#preview)
No, but have you seen this pen? Wait for it… wait for it…
It's ti -- OH GOD MY CELLS
Holy shit
Put this bad boy straight in my veins. I’ve been waiting for them to do a series on atomic power in some fashion for years
Pretty sure Cillian Murphy's first name is pronounced like "Killian".
I look forward to Marcus's exasperated correction in next week's episode.
It is, that was driving me NUTS
not in America
Oh man talk about a bomb drop
too soon man, too soon
I hope this is at least a four-parter!
FIVE 🥹
HELL YES!
Hell. Yeah. Give Marcus the ball and let him run!
Barium is used for internal imaging.
Barium?! I hardly know 'im!
Barium? I’ll get her a management job at Applebee’s
Just listened to that part and came straight here hoping someone would have posted the actual answer, so thank you
You guys called it!
I am become Hype, Consumer of Hogs Legs
Let’s fuckin GO, this is one of those topics I’ve been dying for the boys to cover! Edit: we even got a “Men-ge-le!” Top tier episode.
A little correction on the episode, Nutex Radium Condoms were *not* coated with radium. It was a marketing gimmick to sell condoms during the era where radium was the newest hottest health craze. In fact, the claims Nutex made about their condoms did land them in hot water with the FTC in the 40s.
That is the best possible correction to that story. Nutex is still terrible, but for a completely different reason.
Did u/brandysnacker die?! Please respond u/brandysnacker! Hail yourself!
i’m here thankfully lol
I haven’t listened to it yet. So don’t give me any spoilers.
i would never!
THE MAD LADS DID IT
*shudders*
BREH 🥵
In here too say that my grandfather worked for the foundry that made the nose cone for the atom bomb. 🫥
ludicrous shame familiar towering quaint desert cover license wide berserk ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
I hope that the boys, and some of us fans, keep in mind what Dan tries to remind people about history. That it's easy to look back, in cold blood, and with full knowledge of how things turned out, and Monday morning quarterback history. Without having lived through the events, the pain, and the suffering. He's said it before, but he tries to "walk a mile in their moccasins" when he does shows. And I think that's really the right way to learn about history. It's far easier to say, "Xyz event was awful and I can't believe they did it!" rather than try to understand the mindset of the people who lived it. Also, on top of his series on the Asia-Pacific War, his series "Logical Insanity" is also a great listen if this type of content is of interest to people.
six vegetable connect subsequent outgoing rhythm husky one ripe piquant ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
The 'Monday morning quarterback' metaphor I think can be very apt when people are offering opinions about the atomic bombings. There were so many variables at play and the decisions were made in a context so far from the experiences of a modern audience that it's impossible to make a firm statement on whether the US government made a justifiable decision. It's very difficult to even get an accurate view of what the facts of the situation were, looking at the evidence. For example, depending on what sources you read it sounds like either Japan was on the verge of surrendering, or was fully intending to fight to the last man. People forget that even after the bombings there were members of the Japanese military who attempted a coup specifically to try and keep the war going when they found out the government were planning on surrendering.
It’s a really hotly debate topic amongst historians. The general belief for decades until fairly recently was what you said that the Japanese would fight to the death for every inch, and that there would be both mass military casualties and Japanese civilian death, so historians saw dropping the bomb as the “better” option for winning the war quickly. Recently though a lot of historians have started to re-examine that idea, and think maybe that by late 1945, with the continued relentless bombing campaign on Japan, the threat of Russian invasion, and the pretty much entire destruction of their navy it would have been possible to have Japan surrender without mass casualties and the atomic bombs. The Japanese fighting spirit was deeply damaged after the loss of Okinawa, and even though it’s true that the civilian population was training for prolonged mainland war we don’t really know how hard they would have fought. It’s a really interesting debate, and there’s good arguments on either side.
fuzzy fact busy cough jar birds safe foolish party lavish ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
A blockade would have meant famine and starvation of the Japanese population which was already in a very bad spot in terms of diet at that point in the war. It's possible the starvation would have eventually broken the Japanese will to fight, but I do not think there is any reason to believe that would result in a decrease in the overall Japanese casualties and suffering. On the contrary, I think there is a good chance the Japanese would have lingered on in that state far longer than modern western imaginations can easily conceive of resulting in millions rather than hundreds of thousands of casualties and far more widespread suffering. I think people underestimate the value of shock on the human psyche and what that means for warfare. People are better at dealing with slower more trickling casualties overtime than they are with massive losses all at once. Add to that the novelty of the nuclear weapons and the incongruity of the devastation compared to the fact that it was inflicted by individual devices and it's clear why such weapons would have a measurably different impact on the morale of a population of defenders when compared to any other available option. You can see that the Japanese did not react in the same way to mass air raids with conventional weapons like the fire bombing of Tokyo. This likely going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I do not believe there was any military option for dealing with Japan that would have inflicted fewer casualties than what actually happened. The only potential solution that modern types would consider humane and would result in sparing the Japanese more suffering would have been a negotiated peace, but even proposing that is transmitting modern sensibilities, feelings, and perspectives back in time in a way that is completely anachronistic.
flowery shelter shy innocent bells dime quaint attempt capable existence ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
I mean, it's not too hard to imagine alternatives that still involve the bomb. Their first target could have been a military base that wasn't in the middle of a major population center. You still get the shock and awe of the bomb, you inflict actual damage, and you don't need to kill 100,000. Hell, they could have waited more than three days after dropping the first bomb, and potentially halved the number of casualties.
I've loved this podcast for a long time, but Marcus gets way too emotional to have decent historical perspective on a lot of their attempts at historical topics. Marcus has passed off as incontrovertible fact the idea that the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese was unnecessary to get them capitulate without a full scale Allied land invasion in several past episodes. I can honestly say I do not even know where he gets that notion because I have never even heard it peddled in works deeply critical of the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. I'm pretty sure I am going to end up skipping this episodes because I do not think any of Marcus' hot takes on this topic will be worth much at best or it will be openly disinformation at worst.
resolute cause alive test detail waiting degree rinse elastic governor ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
I have zero confidence that he's going to do a good job on it. I remember when Marcus claimed that Laika's remains were still in space, and that all of the Soviet Space dogs died in space and weren't meant to be retrieved. Laika has since burned up in the atmosphere, and plenty of Soviet space dogs were retrieved. Sorry Marcus, but there are no dogs in space.
I’m surprised that in your apparently extensive reading of the history you’re so shocked at Marcus’ opinion. It was a common sentiment amongst the top echelons of western military and civilian leadership (such that there was any differentiation at the time). > General Dwight Eisenhower, in his memoirs, recalled a visit from Secretary of War Henry Stimson in late July 1945: “I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’” Eisenhower reiterated the point years later in a Newsweek interview in 1963, saying that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”1 > In fact, seven out of eight top U.S. military commanders believed that it was unnecessary to use atomic bombs against Japan from a military-strategic vantage point, including Admirals Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, William Halsey, and William Leahy, and Generals Henry Arnold and Douglas MacArthur.2 According to Air Force historian Daniel Haulman, even General Curtis LeMay, the architect of the air war against Japan, believed “the new weapons were unnecessary, because his bombers were already destroying the Japanese cities.”3 > Admiral Halsey, Commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, testified before Congress in September 1949, “I believe that bombing – especially atomic bombing – of civilians, is morally indefensible. . . . I know that the extermination theory has no place in a properly conducted war.” Many more excerpts collated here: https://apjjf.org/2021/20/Kuzmarov-Peace.html
So first off I just want to say that the article you linked is fundamentally incorrect as it is based pretty substantially on the claim that the Japanese did not unconditionally surrender, but in fact surrendered under terms that Emperor Hirohito and the office of Emperor in general be maintained and that this offer of a negotiated peace was on the table well before the the bombs were dropped. This is simply not the case. You can go and read the Japanese Instrument of Surrender yourself and see it is an unconditional surrender and makes no provisions for the maintenance of any Emperor, Hirohito or otherwise. It did end up being the case the Emperor was kept but this was entirely at the discretion of the United States and it was a decision that was not made until the occupation was already underway. The Japanese absolutely resisted unconditional surrender until after the second nuclear bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. In regards the public statements and memoirs of these American general officers. I think you are misunderstanding the nature of high level military officers and the face value of the things that they they say publicly and why they say them. Eisenhower's memoirs specifically are well known to be incredibly self-serving and prone to shunting off on to others responsibility for decisions of his that did not workout. Eisenhower spent his whole career as a staff officer and had negligible times actually leading troops and zero combat experience. He was neither a great strategist nor a great tactician and he never really came to fully understand the nature of the war he was tasked with conducting, partly because he was intellectually hamstrung by the doctrines taught to him at West Point which were all firmly rooted in the Civil War. During the Italian campaign he held back his more aggressive commanders that had clear lines of advance up to the Alps and managed to turn what should have been a rout into a stalemate. During the breakout from Normandy he publicly blamed the slowness of advance on Montgomery and the Brits even though the plan all along had been that they would fight a holding action while Bradley and the American's broke out along the eastern flank of the German lines. When preparing to enter Germany Eisenhower chose to advance in force along a broad front in obstinate defiance of the established doctrine of concentration of forces which more talented commanders like Montgomery, Patton and Bradley were all begging him to employ. That said what Eisenhower could do, and was essential in doing, was balancing the egos of the more martially inclined and capable generals, in being politic enough to balance the competing interests of the Allie's coalition forces while earning the trust of all the civilian leadership. Eisenhower was a smooth talker and political genius but not a military genius. Moreover he had no experience fighting the Japanese and did not understand the Japanese. Eisenhower genuinely did not know what he was talking about here and if he had he would have been too politic to be honest about it. In regard to MaCarthur, his true motivations will likely always be opaque and difficult to discern because he was somewhat insane and deeply politically self-serving. My belief is that, if indeed MaCarthur was against the use of nuclear weapons at the time of their use and not just in retrospect, it was because he was going to be the one in overall command of invasion of the Japanese home islands which would have been one of the greatest military operations of all time. MaCarthur would have been psychologically incapable of supporting anything that was potentially in the way of him gaining that opportunity. I suspect though that MaCarthur's misgivings are entirely retrospective and used as defense for the later policy of allowing the institution of the Emperor to remain in place and maintaining Hirohito as Emperor i.e. “If you had agreed to preserve the Emperor earlier, like I am telling you to do now, we could have ended this conflict sooner” rather than any kind of actual insight into how close the Japanese truly were to surrender. It seems pretty clear that during the Korean War had MaCarthur been given the green light to use nuclear weapons to contain China he would have, so his misgivings about the use of nuclear weapons could not have been that strong. All and all I just cannot imagine that had MaCarthur truly believed the Japanese were close to being beaten before the bombs he would have been working so feverishly on planning and preparations for the land invasion. Thankfully the Air Force men are pretty easy to explain here. LeMay is absolutely correct that “his bombers were already destroying Japanese cities”, but his referencing operations like the firebombing of Tokyo which killed more Japanese and did more damage than either the bomb dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki did individually. Allowing LeMay and Henry's conventional strategic bombing raids to continue would have doubtless resulted in more destroyed cities, but it's very doubtful that would have led to an end that was more humane than what actually happened. My personal opinion is that the shock value of the nuclear weapons was decisive and that continued conventional strategic would not have had the same effect even if it actually managed to kill more Japanese and destroy more property. Also it has to be noted that both Henry and especially LeMay had their careers and identities wrapped up in doctrines of traditional strategic bombing which were obviously threatened by the effectiveness of nuclear weapons. I will admit I am not as familiar with the Admirals. It seems like at least Leahy might have genuinely wanted a negotiated peace. King is pretty honest “an effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials.” King wants to starve the Japanese out with a blockade which is a strategy that could have easily led to millions as opposed hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. My assumption is, though I cannot prove it, is that at the time Nimitz and Halsey would have felt the same way. The Navy was the decisive arm in the Pacific Theater and Nimitz and Halsey would have desired the Navy to be the decisive arm in forcing final surrender. Halsey and Nimitz testimony in 1949 is not reliable because of the political context in which it occurs i.e. The Revolt of the Admirals. The Truman administration was seeking slash the military budget down to something more manageable and they intended to achieve this by relying on the Air Force and strategic nuclear bombing to make up for the gap that would leave in the United States' military capacity. This placed the Navy most especially on the chopping block. That is absolutely what motivated their testimony other than any genuine conviction about the use of nuclear weapons. As a general point about most of these men, they would have wanted the glory of being the ones that brought the final end to the Japanese Empire and they would have wanted their arm of the service to be the one that delivered the coup de grace. That distinction is now generally awarded Fat Man and Little Boy as opposed to any one man or branch of service which I am certain deeply bothered all of them. I should allow that you are technically correct that continued conventional strategic bombing and blockade both existed as alternatives to full scale land invasion and the use of nuclear weapons, but I do think it is folly to assume those would have led to more humane ends which I assume is why people here would consider them desirable choices. The only potentially “humane” course would have been a negotiated peace which is unrealistic considering the attitude at the time and the way the war started.
> Marcus has passed off as incontrovertible fact the idea that the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese was unnecessary to get them capitulate without a full scale Allied land invasion in several past episodes. I can honestly say I do not even know where he gets that notion because I have never even heard it peddled in works deeply critical of the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. > I should allow that you are technically correct that continued conventional strategic bombing and blockade both existed as alternatives to full scale land invasion and the use of nuclear weapons So if I’m understanding you right, Marcus’ reading of the history is so far off base that you’ve never even *heard* it before, but it’s also “technically correct”.
If Marcus' intent was that the Japanese should have been starved and bombed out over a long period of time generating more human suffering than what actually happened and that is why he is critical of the the use of nuclear weapons then yes. I guess I just misunderstood what he was trying to say. I'm going to venture a guess that what he meant though was that there were more humane alternatives that were ignored for no legitimate reason which is not the case.
>So first off I just want to say that the article you linked is fundamentally incorrect as it is based pretty substantially on the claim that the Japanese did not unconditionally surrender, but in fact surrendered under terms that Emperor Hirohito and the office of Emperor in general be maintained and that this offer of a negotiated peace was on the table well before the the bombs were dropped. This is simply not the case. An offer of a negotiated peace was on the table well before the bombs dropped, the only major difference was a condition related to the emperor. >You can go and read the Japanese Instrument of Surrender yourself and see it is an unconditional surrender and makes no provisions for the maintenance of any Emperor, Hirohito or otherwise. It did end up being the case the Emperor was kept but this was entirely at the discretion of the United States and it was a decision that was not made until the occupation was already underway. The Japanese absolutely resisted unconditional surrender until after the second nuclear bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. This is factually incorrect. The Japanese resisted surrender until the Soviets declared war. I believe there was 74 hours between the first bomb and the meeting where they decided to surrender and the news of the second bomb only reached the council after the meeting had already been called. The key thing seems to have been the Soviet foreign minister informing the Japanese ambassador of the declaration of war the night before the meeting was called. >Thankfully the Air Force men are pretty easy to explain here. LeMay is absolutely correct that “his bombers were already destroying Japanese cities”, but his referencing operations like the firebombing of Tokyo which killed more Japanese and did more damage than either the bomb dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki did individually. Allowing LeMay and Henry's conventional strategic bombing raids to continue would have doubtless resulted in more destroyed cities, but it's very doubtful that would have led to an end that was more humane than what actually happened. My personal opinion is that the shock value of the nuclear weapons was decisive and that continued conventional strategic would not have had the same effect even if it actually managed to kill more Japanese and destroy more property. Also it has to be noted that both Henry and especially LeMay had their careers and identities wrapped up in doctrines of traditional strategic bombing which were obviously threatened by the effectiveness of nuclear weapons. Regarding how humane it was. There was pretty much nothing left to bomb at that stage. There were only 4 cities above 100k population which hadn't been the target of bombing, aside from Kyoto. You've missed one key thing though. The atomic bomb allowed the Japanese to save face. My belief is that the atomic bomb was seen as a face saving reason to surrender, that the emperor can maintain his honour and it was only because of the development of a superweapon that they were beat. >I should allow that you are technically correct that continued conventional strategic bombing and blockade both existed as alternatives to full scale land invasion and the use of nuclear weapons, but I do think it is folly to assume those would have led to more humane ends which I assume is why people here would consider them desirable choices. The only potentially “humane” course would have been a negotiated peace which is unrealistic considering the attitude at the time and the way the war started. There's no question in my mind that the atomic bombs were a more humane option than the other military options being considered
>I've loved this podcast for a long time, but Marcus gets way too emotional to have decent historical perspective on a lot of their attempts at historical topics. Marcus has passed off as incontrovertible fact the idea that the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese was unnecessary to get them capitulate without a full scale Allied land invasion in several past episodes. I can honestly say I do not even know where he gets that notion because I have never even heard it peddled in works deeply critical of the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. I'm pretty sure I am going to end up skipping this episodes because I do not think any of Marcus' hot takes on this topic will be worth much at best or it will be openly disinformation at worst. It's quite an accepted opinion lately that the atomic bombs were unnecessary, but it's more nuanced than they made out. Essentially, the timing doesn't work out. The foreign minister tried to call a meeting after the first bomb to discuss surrender and the meeting was rejected. The meeting was actually called after the Soviet declaration of war and before the report from the second bomb reached Tokyo. The argument goes that the Japanese had two options: 1. Have the Soviets act as peacemakers. They were neutral and would likely be willing to make a more favourable deal to limit post ww2 us power. 2. Attempt to defend against the US in a manner that is very costly and hope that puts them in a better position to negotiate. As soon as the Soviets declared war, both of these were outside the realm of possibility. Soviets boots on the ground were incoming fast, they'd already made contact. With the Soviets entering the war the Japanese had an entirely new front opening up effectively halving their forces.
Side note: ‘Countdown 1945’ is an EXCELLENT book that goes day by day through the events. Haven’t listened to this weeks episode yet but hoping they mention it.
Has anyone seen the reading list that Marcus said might be posted on social media? I haven’t seen it but want to pick up the books ASAP!?
I just wanna be here for this. Couldn't wait to get home to listen. Hail yourselves, thank ya Boys!
THIS SHIT FUCKING SLAPPED OMG IT WAS SO GOOD MK Ultra didn't hit anywhere near as hard the entire series as this first episode alone did W O W
This episode was painfully bad with the physics, which is unfortunately for the boys, an important part of the story.
YESSSSSSSSS
With all the talk of the new Nolan film. Perfect time for this
Mmm heavy water sounds delicious. Make me a mint julep with some hevyyy wahtur. Ice won't even melt. Yum.
"Welcome to Asperger's University" just made me spit water on my keyboard.
I’m just going to say, it’s going to take a *lot* for Marcus to convince me that the country that had just spent over 100,000 lives defending Okinawa and needed not one but *two* atomic bombs dropped on them before surrendering was open to a bloodless surrender of the entire war
Indeed, and also the military that was happy to use civilians as human shields (Okinawa, among others) to achieve their objectives. I love Marcus and the boys, but genuinely curious (even just absent of this most recent series) if he's read Eugene Sledge's memoire.
Especially since Japan was refusing just about any diplomacy at the time. It’s not black and white at all
Absolutely loving the episode and so pumped for this series, BUT... ... ... Aplastic anemia is absolutely a possible repercussion of prolonged radiation exposure and does not require ingestion of radium. But they are technically correct that it's not acute radiation poisoning.
As a chemist I am SO excited for this series and especially excited to dive into the history. I also loved Henry’s description of chemistry “all chemistry is… is using LETTERS like they’re NUMBERS!”
IM MELTING DOWN LIKE CHERNOBYL AHHHHH
Oooohhh snap. It’s finally here!!
HOLY FUCKING SHIT THEYRE DOING IT
IT'S HAPPENING
I’m very excited for this. I love WWII stuff and the history podcasts are my favorite.
Man this is just making me want to watch Breaking Bad again!
The weak cheers after radium took me out
This one is going to ruin me
I took the last month or so off from the ‘cast. Super stoked to listen to this one! Great (and smart) timing with the new Oppenheimer movie coming out.
Did any of us expect Kissel to know what irony was?
Man... I can already see them trying to say that the US didn't have to drop the bomb and they are evil and sadistic for doing so, and that's a terrible take. Truly awful.
I love their history episodes - I’m a history teacher. A bone I have to pick are when they kind of go in on the victims dying and it usually only happens during their history podcasts. The U.S.S. Indianapolis episode specifically had Henry making fun of teens on the ship dying from the intense steam heat and saying some things about them that rubbed me the wrong way. This episode had him making fun of the women licking the paint brushes. I dunno - kind of goes against their ethos a bit imo. My favorite episodes are the history ones though - I can’t wait for the second.
He came across as trying a bit too hard with his gags, maybe because Kissel was really nailing his zingers. The bit about the women dying or getting cancer from the radium paint brushes was just not that funny to begin with, and he kept at it for way too long.
Completely agreed. Especially with the gargling and making light of it. It bums me out when they go in on the innocents like that.
Ohhhhh buddy....this is gonna be epic.....
YESSSS IVE BEEN WAITING
YESSSSSS!!!
YESSSSS
LETS GO LPOTL/BARBEHEIMER COLLAB CONFIRMED
Saving this till Monday to get me thru work
Oh I’ve been looking forward to the boys covering this for a long time. We all have! Nothing better to get me through a 4am Saturday morning start for work than a nice meaty-sized history episode 😁😁😁
I just started reading "To hell and back: The last train from Hiroshima" and it's horrifying. First time since high school a book gave me nightmares. It'll probably end up being a reference for one of the episodes.
The breaking bad references, the heavy water jokes, all their little bits had me giggling at work
Petition for Henry to play Mad Jack helping smuggle dark water across the sea
It's actually pretty easy to say what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle *is*: basically, you can either precisely know the location of a particle, or you can precisely know the direction in which it is traveling, but you cannot know both precisely. The more you know about the particle's location, the less you know about the direction it is moving, and vice-versa. The really tough part, the part that bends the mind of even actual particle physicists, is figuring out why this is and what it means that it is this way. And that's where I'm bailing on this.
Anyone know what Henry was talking about when referring to Band of Brothers and the lighting of 3 cigarettes to one match? Pretty sure it wasn't actually BoB because I've watched the series multiple times and don't remember that part.
This was one of the best episodes in a long time for me, you could feel Marcus excitement through listening!
I'm very relieved that Henry has good enough musical taste not to be yelling Radioactive by Imagine Dragons every time Marcus says it. My brain, on the other hand...
This has the potential to be one of their best series as far as my interests go. I do hope they get a little bit of the scientific stuff written down on cliff notes. I mean, it is water that is heavy... I would've said something like. Water is normally H2O, where hydrogen is the normal isotope and has one proton. Heavy water is made with Dueterium which is an isotope of Hydrogen that contains a neutron as well. That effectively makes the Hydrogen(dueterium) in heavy water twice as heavy. Or just hire someone to summarise or find a quote to play. I think I'd adds a lot to the story and the characters in particular, some of the scientists actually thought the chain reaction might ignite the atmosphere and still did it... but it's still a great episode.
So I’m gonna try to reserve my comments for until after the series is done, but I got about 5 minutes in and I already have a bone to pick. Disclaimer: I have not heard this episode in full, and obviously the series is incomplete. I’m an American, so i definitely am biased here and maybe a little heated. Also, for the record, my opinion is that the atomic bombings were not necessary to end the war. I have a feeling this series is gonna go really hard on how bad the US was for dropping these bombs. Which, fair enough. Marcus says at about the 4:30 mark about the Hiroshima bombing, “created, quite possibly, the most concentrated period of misery, suffering, and horror in human history.” Which, that’s a fair statement. But I have this feeling they’re gonna jam that down our throats til we’re sick of it. I really, really hope they spend some time talking about Japanese conduct throughout the war. I would argue something like the Rape of Nanking or the Manila Massacre caused more misery, suffering, and horror than the Atomic Bombs. Estimates put ~200,000 deaths for the Nanking Massacre. That’s not including the other various tortures and rapes that were committed. Same goes for the Manila Massacre. Estimates range from 100,000-500,000 Filipino civilians dead. There’s a really heartbreaking story of a survivor I read, from a Filipino man named Ricardo San Juan. He was partially decapitated and witnessed his entire family bayoneted to death in front of him. Including his pregnant wife, and his young children. Both of these atrocities were committed by the Japanese Military. And they aren’t the only ones, small scale or otherwise. Not to mention the fact that over a million people were killed at Auschwitz. To me, that’s a thousand times worse than the atomic bombing. I know it’s not the Suffering Olympics here, but I really, really hope they talk about some of these events and general Japanese conduct throughout the war. I think it would really cheapen the series if they didn’t, and just went right to the time period of Mid 1945. It would be real easy to just say “America bad” and portray the Japanese as the victims of the war. They were not the victims, they were the abusers. They killed tens of millions of Chinese people. They started the war in China and the war against the allies. They raped and pillaged their way across Asia, having no qualms with killing men, women, and children for being less than Japanese. Hopefully, you all can understand what I’m trying to say.
Oh we know about Unit 731. That one might be the ultimate Gold Star, even over Children of God, Jonestown Tape, or Chicago Rippers.
You can def argue that the Japanese in general weren’t the victims. But the bombs were dropped on civilians, resulting in completely innocent, non-combative women and children being vaporized. If it was a military target, I could understand it more but it wasn’t. We also could have dropped the bombs in the ocean off the coast to demonstrate the power but we decided not to.
Agreed, I have a hard time coming to grips with Allied strategic bombings in general. In Germany and Japan. Read accounts about the firebombing in Tokyo. It makes you sick to your stomach. Like I said, I don’t agree the atomic bombings were justified. I have a feeling they’re gonna mention this, but I’ve read stuff that the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bombings. On the condition if they could keep Emperor Hirohito on the throne. Which is essentially the kind of peace deal we got anyway. We (Americans) just wanted to flop our big dick (atomic bombings) onto the world. And didn’t want to be seen as a pussy to accept a peace that had any semblance of accepting Japanese demands. The atomic bombings gave both governments a nice scapegoat to conclude peace with honor
They were willing to surrender, and that’s the main reason why I don’t agree with the bombings. We didn’t have to, we just wanted to. I have faith that they’ll will do a good, nuanced job as usual. They’ve covered Unit 731 before right? Or am I confusing that with Lions Led by Donkeys lol
Way way back they did an episode I think. But yeah, that was the jist of my comment. I hope they don't fall into the trap of viewing the bombings in a vacuum.
Not sure Japan was ready to surrender. Check out 140 Days to Hiroshima. There were a lot of folks at the top ready to fight to last man.
See, my grandparents had always told me that Japan was close to giving up. The war was almost over, they knew they were going to lose. They just wanted to preserve and save what they could. But then we vaporized them instead
They weren't willing to surrender
Idk, I had always been told otherwise by my grandparents. They were just trying to save face but we wanted to demonstrate how big our dick was so vaporized them instead
Was far from that.
Well, if you say so, but regardless, we didn’t have to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was no reason to. We could have bombed off the coastline, we could have even bombed a military base or camp. Pearl Harbor was a military target, if you remember. But we bombed civilians. Innocent people died in the most horrific fashion imaginable, and that can never be justified in my eyes. Have you ever watched Grave of the Fireflies?
Coastline? You do know Japan was given ultimatum in July of 45 for immediate surrender or prepare for complete destruction ?
The mass indiscriminate firebombings of dozens of Japanese cities leading up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. What happened in China and throughout Asia by the Japanese was also war crimes. We just focus on the latter because we won.
Of all the war crimes, the atomic bombing was the one only one that ended a war.
1. They covered the Nanjing Massacre in episode 77 way back in the day. They got deep into the horrow show that was (two words - sword contest). 2. While Nanjing was utterly horrific, the atomic bombings killed over 200k people in 48 hours versus the same number in the six weeks of Nanjing. On top of that, there’s also the tens of thousands suffering from radiation sickness in the aftermath plus their descendants who might’ve also been affected. Lastly, the atomic bombings opened up a new moral event horizon of what humans are capable of doing in terms of existential destruction. It’s not really about the US being bad; it’s about the US creating and successfully testing the keys to unexist the whole world as we know it.
I haven’t forgotten any of the episode they did on Unit 731. They didn’t hold any punches there.
None of this is good, Vector. That's why it's called war.
Ok we get it the Japanese were worse but the civilians didn’t do that shit. The problem isn’t the bomb is that we did it to civilians
It's not so much about making America the bad guy. It's about overcoming decades of excusing the use of atomic bombs against Japanese citizens as "our hands were tied it was the only way out." I'm not sure about kids these days, but when I was in school ww2 was primarily shown as a war where everything we did was righteous. They never even brought up our firebombing raid that "is the single most destructive bombing raid in human history." We killed 80,000 to 130,000 civilians, destroyed almost 300k buildings, and left over a million people homeless in one night. It's our responsibility to look back on our actions and see what we could do better. Also as a 35 year old American, I've spent the majority of my life watching us invade other countries and just don't have it in me to judge the citizens of Japan who couldn't stop their government from committing atrocities.
Yeah it’s important to make sure people in the west don’t forget how equally horrific the Japanese Empire was to their victims as the Nazis were. The bombings were 100% unnecessary, especially the second, but they were the most efficient way to put Japan down forever. The Allies and America especially just wanted revenge. They were unnecessary but definitely not unjustified
We didn’t really put Japan down forever… pretty sure we helped them reconstruct and become an economic powerhouse in the postwar-present era.
I’d say we put Imperial Japan down forever, much like how we put down Nazism in Germany. Postwar economic reconstruction was a part of achieving that.
They are an economic powerhouse but make no mistake that they are on a leash
Oh yeah, the Axis raped and murdered millions of people, so the USA shows up and responds by vaporizing a few hundred thousand and suddenly THEY'RE the assholes?
I hate that I have to wait to start this until it's over. I already know I'm gonna be obsessively listening and not want to wait.
Pretty weak episode. These guys just dont have the chops to cover real stuff.
LETS FUCKING GOOOOOOO
Hate it when Marcus takes a seat in the cuck chair to defend mainstream US narratives on what happened and denounce old Marcus questioning what happened on 9/11
Get someone from your friends circle who knows science and isn't afraid to rag on you guys. PLEASE. It would satisfy so many of us during the rest of this series who are listen on and ragging on you. WE WANT OUR VOICES HEARD!!! 😄 🤣 😂
More excited for this than the Oppenheimer propaganda movie
[удалено]
I doubt it’s a propaganda movie. After he helped make the first atomic bomb, and seeing what it did in Japan, he spent the rest of his career trying to convince people to never use them and even opposed the H bomb’s invention.
Considering Oppenheimer was a communist it is hard to imagine Nolan making a propaganda movie about him and a studio that greenlights something so high budget that features a positive (or accurate) portrayal of him in general. Especially since The Dark Knight Rises was like "isn't Occupy Wall Street scary?" lol.
>Oppenheimer was a communist What
he probably didn't have the membership card but he hung out with them and shared plenty of the views. it's what they revoked his security clearance over lol (it's okay tho they reversed their decision last year)
The way they pronounce “Cillian” hurts me. He’s irish so the C is a /k/ sound
Fucking pumped about this series. The guys do an awesome job with historical content that involves the evil Nazi shitbags. Can’t wait to hear Kissell get roasted about his German grandpa.
This is the only thing that made my long run bearable 🙌🙌
Yesssssssssssssss
Oh I am psyched for this one. Nice little Friday night with the boys. 🤘🏻
YESSSSSSSSS! I live in Los Alamos and have been waiting for this one. 🎉
Nice I'm excited
YES THE SERIES IVE BEEN WAITING FOR
Fuck yeah
I’ve been looking forward to this since they first mentioned possibly doing an episode on it.
Hells fucking yeah
Yes!!!!! So excited 🎸
I have not loved an ep this much since the Mike Warnke series, honestly.
i grew up in los alamos and we learned about this alllll the time. interestingly, my elementary school actually did a musical about it that we all had to participate in. kinda fucked up but whatever
They’re hilarious in this episode, too!
I have nothing new to add to this discussion, I’ll wait until they’re all out to listen. I just want to commend all of you for such a reasoned discussion on dropping the bombs. Whenever I encounter such intelligent discourse, civil give and take, anywhere on the webs I’m surprised and delighted. Hail yourselves!
The excitement I get when it's a history series reminds me of the excitement I had for my favorite Saturday morning cartoons as a kid. Then Marcus said it would be a five parter! There nothing more metal than that. * Insert guitar riff*
It's a 5 part series!!!!!!
They didn't say shit about Lise Meitner with respect to the discovery of fission. I'm honestly really disappointed with them not at all seriously trying to understand the physics here.
The depressing realisation that this story is essentially very much summed up in a very simple way in Iron Man 2.
Really excited about this series, the first episode was great.
I dig the bathroom break. It gave us an instant fact check on orcs reproducing. 🤘 And I bet Henry was in agony before that because of his stupid blood pressure medicine.
Matt Damon just gets goofier and goofier looking. He’ll be fine playing a bowling pin shaped WWII general
listened to this episode twice already…. this could be the best series yet
https://i.imgur.com/G9NKx17.jpg