Lectures in history on American History tv on cspan3 every saturday at 8 00 eastern. Lectures available as a podcast, find it where you listen to podcast podcas podcasts. On august 6thropped, an arm b29 dropped atomic bomb number two on hiroshima, japans seventh largest city. Sion] a communications, military and Industrial Center of on of considerable importance. A stunned universe now swiftly learned mann had a new weapon o shocking destructiveness, a 70,0 weapon p boarding on the absolu. In the blast thousands died instantly, 70,000 missing, 140 i enthusiastic injury. Tyhed. Of those 43,000 were badly hur. The city was unbelievably crushed. Of por and 90,000 meetings overm demolished. Remains were aptly describedge as vapor and ashes. Ned an i man had torn from nature, newfound knowledge and fashioned instrument of annihilation. Menacing implications of this r extraordinary weapon were frightening to every day people. Isnt it terrible, all those. Peoplele killed. Days later another bomb dropped on sea port of nagasaki, highly congested,he extensive naval facilities. This bomb, exploding over the district, took the lives of 42,000 persons. This bomb exploding took the lives of 42,000 persons and injured 40,000 more. It destroyed 39 of all the buildings standing in nagasaki before the calamity. Mutilated city as a graveyard with not a tombstone standing. These two terrifying blows were struck at japan only after profound consideration of human military factors involved. The atomic bombs were dropped to end the war quickly, and they did he said the war quickly. Richard frank is author of downfall here to talk to us further about the 75th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bombs by the u. S. By jap. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for having me. In that last clip we just heard, military film from 1946, it said pretty definitively atomic bombs dropped to end the war quickly, and they did end the war quickly. First of all, was this the right decision to make and were those bombs the reasons for the he said of the war . The short answer is yes and yes. They were dropped overwhelmingly the primary reason to end the war as quickly as possible, save lives, both american and japanese. One thing thats critical to get to at the start, to understand the context of this. From my side i have two basic principles we have to follow. One is to count all the dead. Second is to treat all the dead sharing common humanity. By that, i very much mean the japanese as well. Basically the Asian Pacific war million noncombatant. Of that number, the number of japanese noncombatants, 1 million or 2 million, due to atomic bombs and soviet intervention in 1945. That math tells you immediately that for every japanese noncombatant who died in the whole war, between 17 and 18 otherdied. Overwhelmingly other asians and 12 million of them are chinese. By the summer of 1945, most of those 17 or 18 million noncombatants who were not japanese were already dead and they were dying at a rate between 8 and 14,000 a day, 240 to 4,000 a morant of thats the context. Its important we dont overlook or did he mean or diminish or dehumanize japanese but equally important we understand the total context of this and where the deaths are taking place, and they are primarily not japanese. Richard frank is with us for a half hour as we look back further on the 75th anniversary of the atomic bomb drops on hiroshima and nagasaki. We will take your calls after a couple of minutes of conversation. Look at the numbers on the screen for our guest. Eastern and central time zones 2027488000 is your number. Out west 2028001. Two special lines, one for world war ii veterans and their families 2027488002 an for japanese americans 2027488003. We look forward to talking with you and you talking to our guest, richard frank. Richard frank, more perspective here. How widespread in 1945 was the support for president truman and his decision to use atomic weapons and has that changed much over time . Yeah. The support for truman in 45 and sometimes afterwards was extremely high. Looking at numbers ive seen punching up above 80 . Its changed over the years because the narratives have been employed over the years have changed very much. One of the things that really concerns me about this, i dont question we should talk about this, controversial but i find it astonishing that this conversation takes place in which various alternatives are advanced in lieu of the atomic bombs. What is conspeck wyss about that discussion, they never talk about what the cost of the alternatives are. When you actually get down and start doing the cost of the alternatives you understand why mr. Truman in his decision didnt take a good choice, he basically choices between astonishingly awful to horrendously horrific and chose what secretary of war stimson would call the least horrible choice in terms of the events. This is the 75th anniversary of the nagasaki bombing, the second bombing. August 6th being the first one, hiroshima. Richard frank, what was the difference between those three days and what the Truman Administration was looking at, the destruction in hiroshima, what made them decide to drop a second bomb three days later. There was no second. The authorization order released people to start dropping bombs and keeping dropping bombs. There was no checkback. When we talk about the two bombs, another aspect about this controversy people dont understand, the problem with the notion that one bomb would have done it or demonstration would have done it is this. Have you to look at the japanese side. Their reaction to this was based on the fact they had an Atomic Bomb Program which had not produced a bomb but it had educated the top levels of japanese leadership and the fact producing fissionable material, which you have to have to take a bomb, was extremely different. When it came and the announcement was it was an atomic bomb, the Imperial Army said we wont concede they had one bomb until we have an investigation. The Imperial Navy took the track, they may have one bomb but there cant be that many, cant be that powerful. Basically what japanese leadership was looking at, not the fear of one bomb but an arsenal of powerful atomic bomb weapons. As it it happened thats what nagasaki bomb did, convinced top leadership, that we had not a bomb but an arsenal of atomic bombs. The war minister, second most powerful man in japan after emperor, had been adamant, after nagasaki hes going around telling leadership americans have 100 atomic bombs and the next target is going to be tokyo. Thats an amazing argument to make to continue the war. How far along was the u. S. In dropping of bombs in planning an invasion of japan, the main islands of japan. Very good question and gifrt. A plan to start on the 1st. Mr. Truman approved that on the 18th of june, 1945. At that time he was quite reluctant but presented with scenario in which we have overwhelming supportofsuperiority going to kyus kyushu, therefore american casualties would be acceptable. What we know now, radio intelligence uncovered the fact japanese exactly anticipated the First American invasion was going to take place on southern kyushu. They built this huge buildup of ground and air force, 10,000 aircraft, half of them kamikaze, 700,000 troops. Instead of going in with this overwhelming superiority, vault echelon would face japanese. The senior naval officer had never wanted to invade japan and had been biding his time to bring on a showdown over whether an invasion should take place. By the 9th of august 1945 with the intelligence, he was prepared to bring on this huge showdown with an army over whether there should be in invasion of japan. Only japanese surrender cut that off before it reached a level of mr. Truman having a review. A call from tom from arlington, west virginia. Youre on with richard frank. Were talking about the 75th anniversary of atomic bombings of japan. Go ahead, tom. Good morning. Good morning. Im age 60 and i remember the howard zen lectures of my College Years of how history being rewritten so much right now by people with agendas. Im hearing on talk radio the only reason why we bombed progressive talk radio, that is, the only reason we bombed japan because they were not europeans. In other words, they were people of color, which is nonsense, because we bombed dresden over in germany. That was a purpose of demoralizing the german people, for them to surrender. Its unfortunate what happened with the dropping of the two bombs. It did open up pandoras box. But on the other hand, it saved millions of japanese lives who would have been caught in the crossfire as well as american lives and casualties. Am i wrong on that, professor . No. Basically you have to bear in mind right up until the he said, it was assumed the bombs would be used against germany as soon as they were available. Turned out from a technical standpoint didnt have bombs ready to use against germany. They surrendered in may. First bomb, test bomb, was detonated in july 1945. Let me come back again to a really basic point. Its not that the argument on advancing we dont care about the japanese who died. I wrote very graphically about that in my book, both the fire raid in tokyo in 1945 and also hiroshima. But what ive been going over these many years now is the fact our narratives weve been using on this simply talk about japanese deaths, the fact japanese were asians. They dont mention we were in the war, basically because we wouldnt abandon china. Our American People at the time reading New York Times, reading it day by day through the whole war, they were we will aware of how horrific the war was in asia. Weve completely blotted that out. Thats why those narratives are so powerful because people simply do not realize how horrific the asiapacific war was. How have japanese textbooks for Young Students portrayed the war, and has that approach changed over the years . Thats sort of a complex question. The larger question, the larger issue, i think, for japan was the whole period of world war ii was an an area that was not really forthrightly discussed, still not forthrightly discussed. Clearly in japan, and i can understand this, to view themselves as the greatest victims of the war. If you have been dealing with historians and people from other asian nations, you get a full flavor how infuriating it makes people in china and elsewhere. I was sitting at a conference with people from republic of china, presentation made very much along typical lines of what i call critical literature here. As hes sitting there, i see him going from bafflement to fury as he realized this narrative entirely omits, doesnt count and doesnt treat chinese, vietnamese, indonesians, koreans as sharing a common humanity with japanese civilians in two cities. Let me add further, a point i alluded to earlier, basically when the soviet union enters the war, according to embracing defeat classic book about occupation of jap they capture between 1. 6 and 1. 7 japanese nationals in manchurian. When its over they returned 1. 2 million. Between 400,000 and 500,000 japanese either died or disappeared in soviet captivity. We know from soviet archival documents about 61,000 of them are japanese soldiers. So that tells you basically between 340 and 400,000 noncombatants died in soviet cap tifts after hostilities, those are higher numbers than atomic bomb attacks including latent deaths. We go to rick in phoenix. Good morning. Good morning. I just want to add my voice. Not sure what has been discussed earlier but my father, who barely survived the war in europe was being prepared to transfer to jaap japan. That would have eliminated my brothers life after that state and many other mens lives. It would have been criminal when you add everything up here, it would have been criminal for truman not to drop that bomb. Hundreds of thousands of chinese massacred in a horrible way, they were, as you just mentioned, the russian threat that would have taken japanese territory and greatly complicated the postwar era. Theres so many reasons why truman had to do that. What was the alternative . I heard generals saying they were going to block aid japan until they gave up. What . Could you address those points that you havent yet . Thank you, rick. Richard frank. Thats a really excellent point. On the american side, there was basically an unstable compromise between the army and the navy over a strategy to end the war in unconditional surrender. The army thought the critical issue was time. Therefore they allocated an invasion because they believed the invasion would be the swiftest way to end the war. The navy studied war with japan literally for decades. One of the fundamental premises of that study was invading japanese home islands would produce politically unacceptable casualties. The navys alternative was block aid. What doesnt get mentioned in these discussions as it should, and this was basically the policy, all the Navy Officers lined up behind it, talked about it as the alternative to the bomb, this gets back to the very basic point i made about counting all the dead. Blockade was bluntly aimed to end the war by starving to death millions of japanese, mostly noncombatants. Thats what blockade was about. In view of the limited power of atomic weapons and other conventional weapons at that time, compared to what we have today, a blockade was actually the most ruthless strategy the u. S. Was prepared to employ against japan. That was the direction we were going in august of 1945, if the invasion of kyushu was off and he gets his way then we do block aid, kill millions of japanese noncombatants. By the way, those asians not japanese, who are dying every single day, had their deaths on top of the japanese dying. The death tolls for alternatives when you sit down and contemplate them was sickening, mind boggling. We have len on the line from west virginia. Hello, len. Good morning cspan and mr. Frank. Im the son of an okinawa veteran training to go to the invasion in japan. Of course they never had to go because president truman had the common sense to do what he did. For those who criticizes um truman and the army ill tell you what my dad said, let every one of those critics go to the family of people, american gis who were saved from invading japan and certain death and tell them that truman did the wrong thing. I know you dont have the guts to do that. Thank you, mr. Frank, for your books. Very informative. Len, thank you for calling. Richard frank, has history been fair to president truman regarding his decisions . My view, no. Let me add another dimension to this. Mr. Truman postwar famously said he didnt lose any sleep over the decision and various comments like that. If you really go through everything he actually said, in his mind he had sort of an area two compartments. One compartment, did i make the best decision of what was presented to me. He always believed if you really understood all the alternatives, he made what secretary stimson called least abhorrent choice. As bad as the bombs were and those choices, the alternatives were worse. On a personal level, truman was never indifferent to the deaths of japanese that his order had caused. In fact, very shortly after hiroshima, we intercept this message from the Japanese Navy reporting 100,000 japanese had died at hiroshima. Mr. Truman clearly was reading that. He talks in a Cabinet Meeting or just before a Cabinet Meeting to other government officials. He said hiroshima bomb killed 100,000 people. He didnt pull that out of the air. He said all those kids. He has various other comments hes making about the fact that this was horrendous, the consequences of the decision. The decision may have been right but the consequences were horrendous and he recognized it and felt it very deeply. You know, once again, when you deal with people from other asian nations trapped in japans empire or americans saying were two bombs necessary, a common comment from them is why only two. From their perspective, the death rate is so incom parable between the japanese and other peoples, they find the american struggle to be baffling. A little more of the history, end of the war in the pacific 1945, so hiroshima happens on august 6th. August 9th we talked about drop the atomic bomb same day soviets declare war on japan, invade manchuria. Six days go by, emperor announces unconditional surrender. What happened . Walk us through the six days to get the emperor to the point of surrender. A little context here. Basically what you have to understand is to get japan to surrender was really two steps. Someone with legitimate authority had to decide japan as a nation state would surrender. Then japans armed forces had to comply with that surrender. Neither one of those steps was a certainty through most of 1945. The emperor makes the critical decision. He makes it in the afternoon of august 8th, 1945 when he talks to the foreign minister and says the war must end now. This is after hiroshima, before soviet intervention. There were other factors on his mind including loss of faith and meet the invasion, concern about the japanese people reaching revolutionary state sometime probably in the fall. These all played into his mind. He announces that the decision before the inner circle of leadership in the Early Morning hours of august 10th. We have the diary entry, learns of the decision, one of the officers in imperial headquarters says i dont think commanders will comply with an order of the emperor. Two from the Imperial Army send messages say were not going to comply with surrender orders even from the emperor. Theres more back and forth in tokyo. They send their first message, really their first serious message about winning the war. It has language saying the precondition they want is the prerogatives of the emperor somp ruler will not be compromised in the surrender. American state Department Officials immediately realize this is a demand that the u. S. To get the japanese to surrender make the emperor supreme, not only japanese government but occupation authorities. Has he a veto over occupation and occupation reforms. Of course we send a message back saying clearly the emperor is going to be subordinate to the occupation commander. That causes more turmoil in japan. The emperor insist japan surrender and get the government to agree. Whether they would ever have agreed without the emperor, i dont know. Then we saw a fraught period where its a question whether they are going to get japanese forces, 5, 6 headline strong to surrender. One of the inner cabinet members later tells american interrogators the roughest, most fraught days he spent, these four or five days worrying whether armed forces would comply with the emperors order. I described this in another context as sort of a miraculous deliverance that we actually got government and armed forces of japan to surrender in august 1945. Hear from steve now in fredericksburg, virginia. Good morning, steve. Good morning. My father served in world war ii. Id like to ask professor frank, first of all, if he reads japane japanese. Second of all, id like to ask if hes read numerous, overwhelming number of comments just after the war by japanese generals that it was not the two Nuclear Attacks on hiroshima and nagasaki but the entrance of the soviet union into the war. They had invade manchuria, and they were occupying the islands, which they still occupy to this day, and they were threatening hokkaido. The decision to surrender was based on that much more than it was based on the two Nuclear Attacks. Thank you. Thank you, steve. Okay. Let me unpack that at several levels. First of all, in terms of the impact of soviet intervention. In the Early Morning hours of 1945, chief of staff of the Imperial Army tells the emperor in a classic understatement soviet intervention is unfortunate but doesnt negate their plan to counter the american invasion. If you go through other statements ive been through, this notion all these officers are talking about only soviet intervention being the key reason, thats certainly not true. Certainly not true in terms of the officers in the inner cabinet who make the decision for the government to surrender. Soviet intervention does play an important part, as pointed out in my book. It is very important in terms of getting compliance of all the Japanese Armed forces, particularly those on the asian continent for whom soviet intervention is a direct menmen, unlike atomic bombs, which they didnt understand or have a viable topic. They representative grog to drop the atomic bomb on singapore or some japanese city to convince surrender. Its important in getting compliance of all the Japanese Armed forces when that issue is very much in doubt but it does not move the key decisionmakers to japan to surrender. Barbara in san diego. Barbara, good morning to you. Good morning. Yes, im very interested in this subject because im an australi australian, and i was a small child in australia at the time of the world war. My father was a coast watcher. We lived in north queensland. The japanese had been coming down through the islands, and we were terrified. We sat up in the mountains ready to evacuate, but i always say i want to thank america saving australia because we could not have done it alone. We had such a small population all about fighting in other areas. Anyway, thats about all i want to say accept its easy to be an armchair quarterback all these years later. They dont remember how it was, how intense the fighting was. Barbara, thank you very much for calling. Richard frank, your reaction to that. Australians, in our history we tend to overlook the australians. They were invaluable allies carrying the main burden on fighting in new guinea in 1942 and 1943. The other thing about the australians, Australian Military deaths, and the part of the war where they are fighting against japan numbered about 17,000. Of those 17,000, about 8,000 of those australians died as prisoners of war of the japanese. They were mostly captured on singapore and couple of other locations early in the war. Thats just one part of the whole thing with japan. Pointed out at the end of the war Japanese Fighting in china eight years, killed at least 3 million Chinese Military personnel. They were supposed to turn over all prisoners of war they held. According to the doctor, they turned over 56 individuals after eight years of fighting the chinese and killing millions, 56 p. O. W. S. The savagery of the war was driven by the terms the japanese insisted the war be fought on. Author of downfall, end of Imperial Japanese empire. Thank you for your time and look back at the 75th anniversary of the history of the bombings of japan. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Next on washington journal, peter suznick, talks about the 75th anniversary of the u. S. Dropping of atomic bomb on nagasaki three days after hiroshima but first exert of a film shot and created in 1945 and 46 by film crews documenting aftermath of the bombings for scientific purposes. Lets take a look. Three days after the tragedy visited hiroshima. The 9th of august, 1945. The day was calm, bright, and windless. The hot summer sun shchlt one upon the city. For 2. 5 hours it continued to prevail. Two super forces appeared over the city from a northeasterly direction at a high altitude. The first plane dropped three objects attached to parachutes. The second plane dropped an object, descent taking 40 seconds. Then came a blinding flash followed by an explosion and a blaze. The destruction was the greatest ever wrought by man. The bomb missed the center of the city and detonated above a canyon to the north. Let us now view the general scene of devastation the top of the hills to the east of the city. On the other side of the hills at the left of the harbor lies the city. These hills on both sides are the breaks which interpreted atomic blast and prevented it from extending to the harbor section and the heart of the city. At the right of this narrow pass lies the area of total devastation. All buildings, save those of reinforced concrete, were demolished. The whole of this neighborhood, once tooemd with wooden houses and factories, now its flattened out and did enuded of everything. Only broken tiles and pebbles remain. Our guest, director of Nuclear Studies institute at the american university. Thank you for joining us, dr. Kuznick, appreciate it of as we look back at the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings on japan, did harry truman make the right decision . No, he made the absolute wrong decision. He defended it throughout the rest of his life. He said i never lost a minutes sleep over that decision. He said he had no remorse over that decision but he made the absolute wrong decision. The United States the official mythology, official narrative is that the United States dropped the bombs because that was the only way to force japans surrender without an american invasion. If the u. S. Invade, truman says in his memoir that a half million would have been killed in the invasion. Years later they add to the fact that many japanese perhaps millions of japanese would also have been killed. The reality is there were two ways to end the war without the use of atomic bombs. The first was to change the surrender terms. The main obstacle to japanese surrender was u. S. Demand for absolute surrender, which meant emperor would be tried as a war criminal and probably executed. As Douglas Mcauthur said in background briefing in the summer of 1945, execution of the emperor to them would be like the crucifix of christ to us, all would fight. The understanding was pervasive in the advisers around truman. Secretary of war stimson, pretty much all of trumans close advisers urged him to change the surrender terms. Main impediment was jimmy burns. Truman relied on burns more than anybody else. From the day he becomes president , first day in office april 13th until july 3rd enhe names burns secretary of state hes relying on burns for advice and burns told him youll be politically crucified if you let them kill the emperor. They did everything they could to convince him to change surrender terms. Leahy, admiral leahy said there may be no way to get them to surrender if we demand unconditional surrender. How do we know that . Weve broken japanese codes. We were intercepting telegrams. Telegrams july 13th. From ambassador sato in moscow, in the middle of may japanese decided the best way to get better surrender terms was to ask the soviet union to enter veed on their behalf. Cable traffic went back and forth. July 13th, his majesty, the emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice of people of blinl rent powers desires from his heart it may be quickly terminated. Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. What did truman understand about that dism refers to the interpreted telegram as telegram from the jap emperor asking for peace. Those are trumans words. Walter brown, who was burns assistant aboard augusta on the way back from japan august 3rd, abort augusta the president , admiral leahy and burns agree the japs are looking for peace. They knew that. When they got the cables and broke the code, they all agreed with that assessment that the japanese knew they were defeated. Japanese knew they were defeated since battle of saipan in july of 1944. In february of 1945, the prince, threetime former Prime Minister sent a memo to the emperor saying i regret to inform you but defeat is inevitable. Jap filli japanese knew that and americans knew that. From the day after pearl her ar, they had been urging russia to commit to the war. They were busy fighting nazis. Through much of the war u. S. And british facing 10 german divisions combined while soviets facing 200 german divisions, so they had their hands full. Atiali february of 45 stalin agrees to come into the war three months after the war in europe, which would be around august 8th or august 9th. What did american intelligence say. Joint Intelligence Committee reported april 11th, quote, at any time u. S. S. R. Should enter the war, all japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable i can gif you more cases, intelligence summary, potsdam meeting, make the same point over and over again that once the soviets enter the japanese are finished. What did truman understand . Truman said he went to pots down in mid july to make sure russians were coming in. He had lunch with stalin july 17th. Afterwards he wrote in his diary, stalin will be in the jap war by august 15th. Fini japs when that occurs. He writes home to his wife bess the next day. Well end the war a year sooner now, think of all the kids that wont be killed. The question is why did United States drop the bomb. This is what historians need to debate. Was the bomb necessary to end the war . Absolutely not. Was it the most humane way to do it . Absolutely not. Not only the suffering of hundreds of thousands of japanese killed and hundreds of thousands more who were going to suffer throughout the rest of their lives but truman knew he was beginning a process that could ultimately end life on the planet. He gets his first real briefing on the bomb april 13th from burns. Truman writes his memoir, burns said a weapon great enough to destroy the whole world. On july 25th, truman gets a fuller briefing about the bomb and writes then that stimson said in four months well have a weapon, one of which can destroy an entire city. Said the way this is handled can determine the future of human civilization. Peter kuznick, let me jump in and take a phone call because we have plenty of callers waiting to talk to you. Director of Nuclear Studies institute at the american university. We have bayville, new york, up p. Its jeff for peter kuznick. Thank you for taking my call. Youre welcome. I agree with everything you said. I anticipated answering the last presenters questions. Theres also a moral depravity that should be spoken about with the use of an atomic weapon. Its not just a new weapon. There is a certain glibness to the way the decision was made. Not only was it understood in the future this may ab problem with nuclear war Going Forward but it was even at the time it could cause a Chain Reaction on the earth and destroy the world with one weapon or one weapon that was a little more powerful than the ones they had tested in the deserts here in the United States. To take that type of chance without knowing, that type of glibness, it really speaks to how can people rationally make a decision about using a weapon like this if they are taking the chance to destroy the earth, not to mention Going Forward giving license to everybody else to use a weapon when they develop it, which they knew they would, as soon as they got it. Its just astounding to me they can do such a thing. Jeff, thank you for calling. Peter kuznick. That was the point i was starting to make. Truman knew this was not a bigger more powerful weapon. When he gets the briefing at potsdam about how powerful the bomb test was at alamogordo he writes in his diary, we discovered the most terrible bomb in history. This may be the fire destruction prophesied in euphrates era after noah and fabulous ark. Not a bigger bomb, a fire destruction. He says this on many occasions. He wasnt the only one. Oppenheimer briefed the interim committee may 31st, military and political leaders and warned them in three years well likely have weapons between 700 and 7,000 times as powerful as the hiroshima bomb. The scientists were warning about this. When you get to the moral equation, seven of the eight five star generals in 1945 are on record saying that the atomic bombs were military earl unnecessary, morally reprehensible or both. The most outspoken about this was admiral william leahy. Hayley chaired the meetings of joint chief of staff and trumans personal joint chief of staff. Leahy wrote japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. The use of this barberous weapon was of no material assistance in our war against japan. Being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the dark ages. Weve got similar comments by eisenhower, mcarthur, king, and. They all knew it wasnt necessary and some of them recognized the moral significance of using it. Because as youre saying, we knew there was no secret to the bomb and that other countries would be developing them. The scientists thought it would take the soviets between three to five years to catch up. So if were setting this example that we could use the bomb, and the other thing about that, the soviets knew that the bomb was unnecessary because the japanese had been trying to get them to intercede to get better surrender terms. So in early may japanese former Prime Minister met several times with ambassador malik. He writes back to the kremlin and says the japanese are desperate to surrender. So when the United States dropped the bomb, the soviets knew better than anybody that there was no military reason to do it and they interpreted it exactly the way some of the scientists warned they would. That was the reaction of stalin and others in the kremlin. Lets hear from richard in missouri. Thank you for waiting. Youre on with richard kuznick. This is well and good but i was about 8 years old when they dropped the bomb. I remember the attitude in the United States, in school and everywhere, we had a gentleman from our little town, the death march. We was tickled to death they dropped that bomb and stopped the war. They stopped the war and, boy, we was happy that it did. The other two American People, the kamikaze pilots and all this, we seen all that. Nothing was too bad to do to the japanese at the time. Mcarthur and truman, he was in war himself. He seen what war was. I think mcarthur at one time wanted to drop it in korea when we was getting hard up there. The bombs, its an awful thing. If we didnt have bombs, would there be more war . We all know we have bombs and were playing chicken with it. Maybe it stops somewhere by having bombs. Thank you. Peter kuznick. The American Public was told exactly what richard was saying that the bombs ended the war and saved lives. Susan rice might be our next Vice President wrote in an oped in the New York Times that truman saved her fathers life. He was ready to deploy to the pacific and dropping the atomic bombs ended the war and forced japanese surrender. Thats the myth. Obama basically said the same thing when he was in hiroshima. He said world war ii reached its brutal end in hiroshima and nagasaki. 85 of the American People, according to the gallup poll in 1945 supported dropping the atomic bomb. A roper poll that came out shortly after in 1945 said that 22. 7 of the American People wished the japanese had not surrendered so quickly so he could drop more atomic bombs on them. 30 in the southwest. So that was the attitude. Was it racism in that might have factored in a little bit but the japanese were brutal and vicious. The death march in 1942 doesnt get known in the u. S. Until 1944. What the japanese did was horrific the what the japanese were about that. Were debating about whether the dropping of the bomb was the right thing and what the consequences were because as the scientists and others warned, it did lead to an uncontrollable arms race, and were lucky to have survived since then. From that day, its been hanging over the head of all humanity, and truman the thing is that truman was not blood thirsty. Hes not evil. Truman went into this with his eyes wide open knowing he was beginning this process and knowing that the way we did it, which hed been warned about, triggered the exact response from the soviet union that was predicted at the time. And the soviets have their own crash bomb program, and they test their bomb in august of 1949 and then in 1952, the United States tests this Hydrogen Bomb and the soviets test a prototype hiydrogen bomb in 53, and it moves the hand of the Doomsday Clock at two minutes before midnight. Now its at 100 seconds before midnight, the closest its ever been. We were in a very dangerous situation, and there were many incidents in the cold war and since where weve survived by pure blind luck, including during the cuban missile crisis. Pete kuznick, you have led student groups for roughly 25 years now every summer to japan to attend the annual memorial services. What of you learned from the japanese over that period of time . Whats their perspective been, and has it changed over the years about the bombings . One of the things that makes my trip so interesting is that we travel with japanese students and professors. So we get to see the war through the american eyes and through the japanese eyes, and there are always a lot of other asians on the trip. So they have a very different perspective than the japanese. And we go to the commemorative events in hiroshima and nagasaki. We go to the atomic bomb museums at hiroshima and nagasaki, the peace parks, but we also study the japanese war in the pacific, and one of the places i take my students to is the oka masaharun mu vooseum in nagasaki, and tha entirely dedicated to japanese atrocities. Somewhat to americans but mostly to other asians. What people have to keep in their minds is that the japanese were victims, but they were also victimizers, and so while American Students who participate have to deal with their guilt about what the u. S. Did in world war ii, the japanese have to deal with their guilt and their sense of responsibility, and neither the American Government nor the japanese government has dealt well with their history. The one country thats taken responsibility for their past much more in a much more conscionable way is germany. The japanese have not done it, especially not under shinzo abe, and the United States has not done it. We saw it happened when the smithsonian tried to have an honest historical exhibit in 1995. Maybe now were getting ready to have this discussion in a way that we didnt. Lets go to brian, in east sandwich, massachusetts, good morning. Good morning, thanks for letting me speak. Yes, sir. I have a question for your guest about some of the personalities. Sure. And in the conference we see a very ill looking Franklin Roosevelt with stalin and Winston Church hilill, and im wonder had they made the decision to drop it then or was it still in the planning stage. And with stalins spies in the Manhattan Project, did he know exactly what was going on . And the other question i had considering personnel is what about the generals and the admirals that were closer to the front lines in the pacific . You mentioned mcarthur, what about nimitz and halsey . Were they briefed on what was going to happen before those bombs were dropped . Did they have knowledge of that . And finally thank you, go ahead, brian, finish up. You finally had an image of oppenheimer d he have a chance to talk to truman about what was going to go on if they dropped this bomb . Thank you, brian, several different points there. When do you think the decision was made do you think, pete kuznick to drop that first bomb . The meeting on may 5th, 1943, they decided there that japan would be the target and not germany, which is, you know, the project began under the urging of the emigrate scientists who had fled from nazi occupied europe, and after the germans split the uranium atom in december of 1938, the physicists were very alarmed about the prospect of hitler developing an atomic bomb, and they went to einste einstein, and einstein got roosevelts attention, and urged not to drop on japan but as a deterrent against the japanese bomb. The project really gets around very slowly and doesnt really get momentum until 1942. So the the admirals and generals, some of them were briefed about the use of the atomic bomb, and he mentioned halsey and nimitz, both of whom were on record saying the atomic bombs were not necessary. But even somebody like eisenhower, under eisenhowers presidency, Americas Nuclear arsenal increases almost 30 fold. Eisenhower takes office, got a little more than a thousand bombs but his budgeting cycle was finished, weve got almost 30,000 bombs. Eisenhower says at potsdam stimson told him we were going to drop the bomb. So they told me they were going to drop it on the japanese. I listened, i didnt volunteer anything. After all my wa r was over in europe, and it wasnt up to me. And i was getting more and more depressed just thinking about it. Then he asked me for my opinion. I told him i was against it on two counts. First, the japanese was were ready to surf render. Mcarthur says in an exchange with former president hoover who had written to truman urging him to change his surrender terms in may, mcarthur said that if truman had followed your wise advice, the japanese would have surrendered and happily, and mcarthur imapologiplies that it have been as early as may. The poblssibility if we had tol the japanese theyd be able to keep the emperor, we told them we had a horrible new weapon, we could have ended the war possibly a month or two earlier and saved more lives, american lives, clous fuchs, Theodore Hall were the two most prominent who were doing so, and so stalin knew the americans were developing a bomb. He didnt know exactly when it was he knew it was going to be tested. He didnt know the results until truman finally told him at potsdam toward the end of the conference that the United States had a terrible new weapon. Stalin was poker faced. Truman thought that he didnt get it, that stalin didnt understand. Stalin knew exactly what that meant. Marvin calling from tuscaloosa, alabama, welcome to the program, marvin. Thank you. I just i think youve played a little fast and loose with the facts, and i dont think youve given enough credit to the great sacrifices that americans put into this and the fact that it was it was germany, japan, and italy and their dictators who started the war. I think youve ignored the fact of all the atrocities committed by the japanese. Youve mentioned them but we dont hear a lot about that. Those atrocities were proven at the tokyo war trials, for example, you mentioned the bataan death march, the killing all those slaughter and torture of american p. O. W. s. One in three died in prison, the Burma Death Railway that was built. I think youve played fast and loo loose with the facts because truman had the facts and he made a reasonable decision. Im not going to go into all that kind of detail, but i think we owe it to americans on this 75th anniversary of the end of world war ii to just say to the america americans and the families that died including my two uncles and my father fought in it and my fatherinlaw, that honor and glory to all of those people, all of the families and all of the americans that died in world war ii, and i feel like you righthand turn fair and arent putting this in context, and i definitely disagree with your statement that, oh, we had atrocities just like the japanese. Thats rewriting history, and thats wrong, sir. Marvin, lets get a response from pete kuznick. Marvin, you werent listening very closely. Now, first of all, i think that world war ii was a necessary war. I think the United States was on the side of the angels in world war ii. Im happy we won world war ii. That is not a question for debate. The debate and i certainly dont play japanese atrocities or german atrocities, but the issue is something very, very different, and its for that reason that the entire history of the cold war and the Nuclear Arms Race is not something that we can ignore. Dropping the bomb was instrumental in starting that cold war, and the thing about it let me theres so many people we should be quoting. Admiral lahey, for example, said, i was unable to see any justification from a National Defense point of view for an invasion of an already thoroughly defeated japan. So, now, if youre saying that we should have dropped the bomb to get revenge on the japanese, thats a different question, you know. And thats one that truman in his initial statement says that were paying them back for pearl harbor and their atrocities, but that is not the argument thats made by historians. The argument is whether or not the bomb was necessary to end the war, and ill quote Brigadier General carter clark who was in charge of repairing the magic summaries and he said we brought them down to an abject surrender, and when we dnt need to do it, and we knew we didnt need to do it and they knew we knew we didnt need to do it. We used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. Now, why would we do that . The United States is not an immoral country. We were fighting a good war that we had to win. General groves who was in charge of the Manhattan Project said there was never from about two weeks from the time i took charge of this project any illusion on my part that russia was our enemy and the project was conducted on that basis. General groves told the future Nobel Peace Prize winner in march of 1944 over dinner, he said, you realize, of course that the main purpose of this project is to subdue the russians. James burns, trumans closest adviser said the same thing to leo zalard and walter bartkey when they met with him in spartanburg, south carolina, on may 28th. He said this is our way to make the russians more manageable in europe. Now, if you think that that is a justifiable reason for killing hundreds of thousands of people, then theres almost no limit to what you can justify now. Then you could justify using atomic bombs today, if its going to give us some way thats going to achieve some moral purpose. Fortunately, thats not the attitude that the world has adopted, but under the current u. S. Nuclear postural view of the Trump Administration from february 2018, weve lowered the threshold for use of nuclear weapons. Were developing two more usable Smaller Nuclear weapons, and the world is really in a very, very precarious situation now. Pete kuznick as we wrap up, whats the legacy in, in your view, of the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki . The legacy, i think it undermined americas claims towards exceptionalism. The United States, we like to think of ourselves as americans as different from all the other countries, as more moral, more just. We go out in the world and do things. We want to spread freedom and democracy. At the heart of that, that understanding is this it begins with the cold war. It begins with our victory in world war ii. World war ii was a good war. Thats the closest weve ever come to a good war, but theres no such thing as a good war really, and the use of the bomb certainly compromises our moral position around the world, and we have to look honestly at our past because if we dont study the past honestly, were going to commit the same mistakes or new mistakes Going Forward in the future, and theeluxu world just too dangerous for us to have that luxury. Ty. Pete kuznick is director of the Nuclear Studies institute at the american university. Thanks a lot for your time and your insight this morning. Much appreciated. Thank you. Youre watching American History tv, every weekend on cspan3 explore our nations past. Cspan3, created by americas Cable Television companies as a Public Service and brought to you today by your television provider. Weeknights this month were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan3. Tonight a look at the 100th anniversary of womens suffrage, on august 18th, 1920, tennessee became the 36th and last state needed to ratify the 19th amendment granting women the right to vote. On the eve of the anniversary we feature a conversation hosted by the womens sufficient ran Centennial Commission with hillary clinton, elaine weiss. That will be followed by a forum on the 19th amendment hosted by all in together which includes remarks by House Speaker nancy pelosi and former secretary of state condoleezza rice. Watch tonight beginning at 8 00 eastern and enjoy American History tv this week and every weekend on cspan3. Next on the presidency, we hear from michael neiberg, war studies chair at the u. S. Army war college about the personalities and stakes involved at the 1945 potsdam conference convened near the end of world war ii. President truman had just assumed office after the dret of franklin d. Roosevelt when he met with Winston Churchill and josef stalin. It was during these meetings that mr. Truman informed his soviet counter part about the new u. S