The Daily Signal - VDH | Revisionists Get It Wrong: Why the Atomic Bombings Ended WWII

Episode Date: August 11, 2025

Hanson breaks down the facts and challenges these misconceptions on today’s episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words.” “ Did it save lives? It did. And it did in a variety of ways. Of all the belligerents in World War II, the Japanese army, military, government—whatever term we use—killed more civilians and soldiers versus the amount of soldiers and civilians that lost than any other belligerent. More than the Russians. More than the Germans. In other words, it was a deadly killing machine that averaged 10,000 deaths a day at its hands. How else could you stop it? “ Had they not dropped the bomb, the fire raids would’ve continued, but not three or four times a week, every single day, from Okinawa. And not with 1,000-2,000 heavy bombers, but with an envisioned 5,000-6,000. That led Curtis LeMay to say, "The bomb wasn’t necessary. We could have burned Japan to the ground and forced its surrender." Much more people would’ve died had that entailed. And so, what did the bomb do? It stopped this Japanese war machine from killing people.” 👉Don’t miss out on Victor’s latest videos by subscribing to The Daily Signal today. You’ll be notified every time a new piece of content drops: https://www.youtube.com/dailysignal?sub_confirmation=1    👉If you can’t get enough of Victor Davis Hanson from The Daily Signal, subscribe to his official YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@victordavishanson7273    👉He’s also the host of “The Victor Davis Hanson Show,” available wherever you prefer to watch or listen. Links to the show and exclusive content are available on his website: https://victorhanson.com  (0:00) Revisiting Hiroshima and Nagasaki (0:08) Addressing Historical Revisionism (1:58) The Critical Decision to Drop the Atomic Bombs (4:25) Impact and Justification Behind the Bombings (7:23) Reflecting on the Difficult Choices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak equipment modernization. We're fluent in data digitization and expansion into foreign markets. And we can talk all day about streamlining manufacturing processes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do. Business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us. And contact Desjardin today.

We'd love to talk. Business. This is the 80th anniversary of the August 6th and August 9th, 1945 bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This past week, we've seen more of the usual revisionism that either the dropping of the atomic bombs were barbaric, had no effect, a bad mark on the history of the United States. Churchill is a terrorist.

Hitler didn't really mean to start World War II. He could have sued for peace, had the British not been so stubborn. The war really wasn't worth the cost of lives, destruction. Nevertheless, though, there's nothing more wrong-headed than looking at Nagasaki and Hiroshima as preventable or unnecessary. Let me just go through three points. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hansen for the Daily Signal. This is the 80th anniversary of the August 6th and August 9th, 1945 bombings with nuclear weapons, an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And this past week, we've seen more of the usual revisionism that either the

dropping of the atomic bombs were barbaric, criminal, had no effect, were unnecessary, and are a bad mark on the history of the United States activity in World War II. It's part of a larger revisionist attempt in this generation. Churchill, under these revisionists as a terrorist, Hitler didn't really mean to start World War II. He could have sued for peace, had the British not been so stubborn. The war really wasn't worth the cost of lives and destruction entailed in defeating the Axis Powers. Nevertheless, though, there's nothing more wrong-headed than looking at Nagasaki and Hiroshima as preventable or unnecessary. Let me just go through three points.

number one. Why didn't they drop it as suggested in Tokyo Bay drop it the bomb as a test? There were a variety of reasons. Robert Oppenheimer was ahead of the program to develop the bomb, at least the scientific element of it, and he organized a task force, and he suggested that they not use a test, and there were reasons why. They only had the uranium Hiroshima bomb and the plutonium Nagasaki bomb available. They might have had one in a few weeks. They might have had two or three more in months, but the point is they didn't know if it was necessarily going to work. The uranium bomb had never been tested. It was very dangerous to trigger it. They weren't even sure that it could not go off accidentally. The point is they were afraid since the uranium

bomb had never been tested. The plutonium bomb had only been tested in general. July 16th a little earlier, but it was never dropped from a bomber. They didn't know what were the atmospherics or what would be the effect or if it was even feasible to drop it from a B-29. They had practiced, but they weren't sure. So in other words, they were afraid if they dropped the bomb and it didn't work or it didn't go off with the blast capacity they anticipated. The Japanese would sort of sluff it off and say, is this all you have?

and then they wouldn't have had other bombs to remind them that they should surrender under duress. More importantly, it was very dangerous to fly from Tynion, the Mariana's base of the B-29 bombers, that were alone capable of handling this 10,000-pound monstrosity among American aircraft to fly 1,600 miles into the Japanese mainland to drop the bomb and then fly back. the B-29s had lost 400 planes because of the weather, fighters, flak, the sheer distances, navigation. And more importantly, they felt that if they announced the test in advance and it didn't work, of course, the Japanese would even be more in bold. And they weren't even sure that a test, if it did work, would affect them.

And that was proven correct. After the Nagasaki's second bomb, there was a coup, tempted coup, to try to force the Japanese government not to settle. There were other reasons as well that we should look at this decision in a favorable light. The other was, did it save lives? It did, and it did in a variety of ways. Of all the belligerents in World War II, the Japanese army, military, government, whatever term we use, killed more civilians and soldiers versus the amount of soldiers and civilians that lost than any other belligerent, more than the Russians, more than the Germans. In other words, it was a deadly killing machine that averaged 10,000 deaths a day at its hands.

How else could you stop it? Number two, they had just fought six weeks earlier at Okinawa. That was the bloodiest battle of the entire Pacific War. 50,000 American casualties, 12,000 dead. The period, the last 12 months from 1944 in August to all, August of 1945 were the deadliest period in the American Pacific War. In other words, the people at the time thought things were getting worse as far as American casualties, not better. After they looked at Okinawa and the horrific conditions and taking the Philippines,

they estimated a million or more Americans would be killed in taking Japan by land invasion. There's another macabre fact of this. Okinawa was just 700 miles to 800 miles from the Japanese mainland targets, not 1600 like the Marianas. Once it was captured, Curtis Lamei wanted to bring in 2,000 new B-29s on order to augment the 2,000 that they might have had soon and on the Marianas. And remember, the European theater was over. There were plans to bring in B-17s and B-24, four-engine bombers that were idle. The British wanted to chip in and bring hundreds of Lancaster heavy bombers. What I'm getting at, had they not dropped the bomb, the fire raids would have continued,

but not three or four times a week every single day from Okinawa, and not with 1,000 to 2,000 heavy bombers, but with an envision 5 to 6,000. That led Curtis LeMay to say the bomb wasn't necessary. We could have burned Japan to the ground and forced its surrender. Much more people would have died had that entailed. And so what did the bomb do? It stopped this Japanese war machine from killing people. It stopped a horrendous battle on the mainland of Japan, where the Japanese were waiting for an American invasion with 3.5 million soldiers and 6,000 kamikaze planes.

These were the equivalent or much more lethal than the V1 buzz bomb rockets that the Germans use. The human mind is a very sophisticated computer. put in a zero with a 500 or a thousand-pound bomb, it was an unstoppable cruise missile of sorts. And they had over 3,000 them ready to hit the American fleet. Add it all up, and there was only bad and worst choices. We chose the bad choice that entailed 150 to 200,000 deaths from the actual shock and blast to the after effects. But the other alternative of letting this Japanese killing machine continue to murder Chinese, Asians, Pacific Islanders, British, Commonwealthers, and Americans, or invading the mainland,

or continuing the fire raids paled in comparison. Thank you very much. This is Victor Davis-Hansson for The Daily Signal. Thank you for tuning in to The Daily Signal. Please like, share, and subscribe to be able to be. notified for more content like this. You can also check out my own website at victorhansson.com and subscribe for exclusive features in addition.