Supplement the growing power of our armed forces. In their present form, these bombs are now in production and even more powerful bombs are in development. It is an atomic bomb. It is a harnessing of the basic power of the universe. The force from which the sun draws its power has been let loose by those who brought power to the far. East we are now preparing to destroy more completely every preventive enterprise the japanese have in any city. We shall destroy their factories and their communications. Let there be no mistake we shall completely destroyed japans power to make war. It will spare the japanese people from other destruction that the ultimatum of july 26th was issued. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a reign of glory from the air the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this arrow tank will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen, and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware. Even toll is an author and independent scholar of pacific war history and he is set to release his latest publication twilight of the gods, war in the western pacific, 1944 to 1944. He, and welcome to washington on this anniversary. Thank you. We have heard from the former president harry truman after the hiroshima bombing. From your research and your study of the war and the bombings in particular, why did harry truman do it . I think the decision to use the bomb was really implicit in the manhattan project. It was really assumed from the time, before the time that truman came to office and april after the death of fdr that this weapon, if it worked, that it would be used. So it may be more accurate to say that there was a nondecision, essentially. Truman did not decide to intervene, to stop a project that was very much in trained when he came into the office. The decision was made that we built the bomb. If we had, it we would use it. And i think the perspective we have now that the atomic bomb is different, essentially different, from conventional weapons, that is something that we have with hindsight. For truman and his advisers in the summer of 1945, i dont think that was clear to them that the atomic bomb was fundamentally different from conventional bombings and we had already essentially wiped out an enormous percentage of japans urban areas with conventional bombing and raids. So using the atomic bomb in their view at that time did not seem like a break or a departure from what they have been doing already. Is it true that harry truman when he assumed the presidency in april 1945 that he did not know anything about the manhattan project. And how did he learn about it in the space of less than four short months . How did he become confident in the decision to use these weapons. Yes, it is true. He was not briefed on the manhattan project. He had been vaguely aware that there was a very large, very secret, very expensive project underway. In the senate before he was put on the ticket in 1944, the most important thing he had done in the senate, the thing that really made his name, was that he chaired a committee which investigated corruption and waste in the munitions industry. This was the truman committee. And in his capacity as chairman of that investigative senate committee, he had learned about these enormous plants that were being built in tennessee and in washington state. And he had inquired and begun to use his investigative resources to try and determine what exactly was happening. And secretary henry stamps, and the secretary of war, essentially went to truman and said we are doing something really important. And it is very secret and we are going to ask you not to inquire any further. And sherman agreed. So when he very suddenly, with fdrs, death was elevated to the presidency, he was briefed on simpson and also by james burns, who was the war mobilization czar, subsequently appointed secretary of state. And he was fully briefed within 24 hours of assuming the presidency on the state of the manhattan project. Its the 75th anniversary of the bombing of hiroshima. We are talking about it with the intel whose brand new book is coming out in september, twilight of the gods, war in the western pacific 1944 to 1945, the mines as they were last hour for the eastern and central time zone for those of you who are world war ii thats or family we there is another phone number. And our line for japanese americans exists as well. Ian toll, one of the questions that came up a couple times in the last hour was why didnt the u. S. Do some sort of demonstration of the bomb to show the japanese its power, instead of actually using it on a city . I think that that is a hard question. In my view, the really hard question is when it comes to the atomic bomb and not should we have used it. Given the circumstances in the summer of 1945, the urgent need to end the war and to end it quickly without an invasion. In those circumstances, using the bomb i think was defensible. Dropping it on a city is a different question. And i think im in a minority among military historians in this feeling. This is really a preference that i have that i would have liked to see the weapon used against a military target. The question of a demonstration has also been raised. Theres arguments against a demonstration. Number one, it might have backfired. If you had announced youre going to demonstrate the bomb and it hadnt worked, which was a real possibility, that would potentially double the japanese determination to resist. I do think there would be a way to demonstrate the bomb without running into that problem, dropping it very high in the atmosphere, off the coast of tokyo. That would have made an enormous flash. It would have sent a message to the japanese. I dont think that would have prompted a rapid surrender. So the reason that you might have done that really is abstract. It is an abstract reason. You do it because in the long run it may enhance the countries moral standing. I do think that is important. But you have had some callers who have fathers or grandfathers who are in the war. For american veterans, particularly those who would have participated in the invasion of japan, the atomic bomb has never been an abstraction for them. It is something real. It is something they believe saved their lives. And that belief is something that i think we need to acknowledge and respect. So that is essentially where i come out. Looking back, i would have liked to see the bomb use differently. In particular, not dropped on a city. The first one dropped on a military target. I think that would have been more defensible. Was there any military or military related targets in either of those cities . Yes. Hiroshima had a really important Regional Military headquarters, the second army was headquartered in hiroshima. He russia had been an army town going back to the preinvasion days of the samurai. And so there was an important military targets in hiroshima. The city was not chosen for that reason. None of the four cities on the target list for the atomic bomb, hiroshima, nagasaki, near gotta which is on the sea of japan, and cokara which is on the very northern tip, none of those cities had been chosen because of their military character and the military installations that were in those cities were not specified as the aiming points for the bombs. The cities were chosen because they had been relatively unscathed by conventional bombing raids. And the idea was that you wanted to drop the bomb on a city that would have the topography and conditions that would provide the greatest demonstration of the bombs power. Finish your thought. It is true that if there was an important army base in hiroshima. In the clip that you played by president truman, upon announcing the atomic bomb he said we had an important Japanese Army base. Here is shame a was a large city, the seventh largest in japan. And so i think just from the point of view of looking back with 75 years of perspective, in that situation, you would prefer the president of the United States look into the eye of the camera and tell the world exactly what we had done without mincing words, using that kind of circumlocution. Was there a third bomb ready to be dropped in case the japanese did not surrender . The third bomb would have become available by the end of august. On august six, we hit hiroshima. August 9th we hit nagasaki. We did not have a third bomb at that point. It would have been another two or three weeks. Ian toll is our guest. First up calling is charles in richmond, virginia. Good morning. It is very interesting when you hear of those questions of dropping the bomb. The war was so passive against japan. They had pulled a sneak attack on pearl harbor. But japan didnt do that. What happened when the bomb became available, truman knew about it. All he knew is he had just become president and they didnt really like him. And they put it to him and said this is a bomb. You cant drop out atomic bomb and then say lets drop it tomorrow, next week. They already had plans and everything was planned for the bomb. And it didnt make much of a difference with truman had to say because it was going to work and the United States was going to drop the bomb. Do you think the president had a say in that . Absolutely. The constitution confers a normas powers, virtually Unlimited Power as commander in chief in wartime. Truman had the power to simply tell his cabinet and his military leaders we will use the bomb, we wont use the bomb, we are going to use the bomb in the following way. So i dont think theres any question that he had the power to make the decision. I do think that its true that the motive of revenge was in the mix there. I wouldnt say that was the reason that we use the weapon the way that we did, but it certainly did set the context. Its nick attack on pearl harbor, atrocities, prisoners of war, those were all factors that played into the decision to use the atomic bomb and also to burn down japanese cities with incendiary bombing raids. Truman certainly could have simply decided. He wouldnt have had to ask for permission or take a vote on. It he could have simply said we are not going to hit a city, or we are going to explicitly warned the japanese that we have this weapon. In his private diary, on july 25th, there was a strange injury where he actually says i have instructed secretary stems, in the secretary of war, to use this weapon against military targets and not against women and children and i have also instructed him that we will make an explicit warning to the japanese telling them to surrender. Thats odd because he didnt give that order. But in his diary he seems to have believed it or perhaps he wanted to have future historians believe that the whole decision had been made differently. But certainly, he had the power. One of the fascinating counter factual questions is if fdr had lived how would have fdr have decided to use the bomb. He certainly wouldnt have been hesitating to make his own decision. He was accustomed to doing that. Lets hear from anthony in north creek, new york. Good morning. I am calling for my father and his two brothers. My father went into the army in february of 1941. He fought in the philippines. He fought in here it jima and he was also in okinawa. He was also in the occupation in japan. He came home sometime in late 1946. But we never really found out why. He never really talked about the war until he got older. And he was against them dropping the bomb. But he says if we were to have a fight, i probably would have not come home. It was a flip of a coin and if i had to make that decision, i would say yes. Brothers one was in normandy and my other uncle was also a medic. So those people from that generation, they fought hard for our country. And when i talk about my father and his brothers i am very proud because that is something today maybe we wouldnt be able to do. Part of the planned invasion of japan is that figure of a predicted anticipated 1 million u. S. Military casualties fairly accurate in terms of your research as well. No. If the question is at the time we are planning operation downfall, operational limp it was the first stage of downfall, the invasion of a Southern Island of japan. At the time arbitrary leaders were planning that operation there was never a point at which they were projecting casualties on the order of 1 million. There has been quite a lot of work done on this because historians and researchers often hear that figure that we might have lost this many people are that many. The answer seems to be that the casualty projections were significantly lower than that. And its a disputed point and there were different casualty figures and ways of thinking about it. But at no point in our military leaders while planning that operation expect something on the order of 1 million casualties. The projections were much lower. Maybe as many as 200 total casualties. That doesnt really tell us much about the atomic bomb decision. You cant say casualties would have been lower so we should have invaded. I think invading would have been a disaster regardless of what kind of casualties you would have taken. And so avoiding a bloody invasion of japan was absolutely essential and thats why i think using the atomic bomb was inevitable. As i say, using it against a city is a different question. I dont think we should have dropped it on a city. We should have avoided that. Thats just my preference, my belief. But as the caller mentioned, there are so many people in this country who have fathers, grandfathers, greatgrandfathers, on culls, who are veterans of that war and you really believe that their lives were on the line. And that is something that i respect very deeply. Its interesting that the caller said, i think it was his father, had been in japan with the occupation after the war and his personal belief had been that we should not have dropped the atomic bomb. One last comment. One of the really interesting phenomenon when you look at veterans of the pacific war is that those who were in japan after the war, but the occupying forces, they tended to have a much more kind of nuanced view of the japanese. In fact, many of them came to like the japanese generally as a people. And they were more ready to make a distinction between the way Japanese Fighting forces had behaved during the war and the way that the japanese people are in general. They were more willing to make that distinction because of the personal exposure they had had to japan and to the japanese in the nation of japan after the war. The line for japanese americans in los angeles, scott. Good morning. I am half japanese and my father was drafted in world war ii. My grandfather was drafted by the Japanese Army has fought in manchuria. I keep seeing every year, they talk about pearl harbor. The american was attacked unprovoked, which is not true. Truman said on that clip that japan bombed pearl harbor unprovoked. Thats not true. Because the flying tigers were flying under the eight w. G under secret order of the president. And until 1996 where reagan or clinton acknowledged the flying tigers were part of the military so they could get va benefits, then it shifted a w. Gee was under military guidance. So i keep hearing of this japanese unprovoked attack, but thats not true. Im not saying that the war was not a bad thing because it was a very terrible thing what japan did to china and russia and the philippines, they were terrible things. We will get a response from our guest, in toll. I think that the count against the japanese for the way they began the war was not so much that it was an unprovoked attack. But that there was no formal declaration of war prior to the attack. There is the idea of a sneak attack, a surprise attack that really infuriated americans. The attack had been planned under cover of diplomatic talks. We were engaged in negotiations directly with the japanese government to try to adjust the differences that we had in the pacific. And that attack suddenly descended on pearl harbor without a declaration of war. So i think that played into the particular brutality of the pacific war. Scott didnt say what his father did when he was drafted. One of the most interesting stories about the role of japanese americans who worked as interpreters or language officers who helped develop propaganda messages to aim at the japanese. That was an essential role in places like okinawa. The heroism of the japanese american soldiers who went down to the caves and negotiated directly with Japanese Forces trying to encourage them to surrender had enormous personal risk. Thats one of the Great Stories about the pacific war thats not as familiar to people. To jean and maryland, good morning. I was 12 years old when we declared war on the japanese. I was the youngest of five children. My three brothers and sister were all in active duty in the military. Two reasons, we laughed trumans decision. My two brothers at the time just before the invasion were in combat. Two of them were combat men in the navy. One was in the navy. I will never forget how my mother was absolutely terrified every time the telephone rang for about the last four months of the war. A second reason and this one is more personal, this i cannot forget about the japanese. Im sorry but the way they treated prisoners. My sister was a naval nurse at Chelsea Naval hospital. She wanted to stay in the navy but she wanted to get married in october 1941. As a naval officer, she was not allowed to stay in the navy. So she had to leave the navy and get married. The dying girls, i used to visit them and they would play tennis and they were full of life and wonderful young ladies the nine of them. They were caught in the death march and after the war, my sister called the supervisor to see what happened and seven died and two were quote strapped on sane. They didnt have medicine for people. We were for trumans decision. But there is one other fact. This one i almost never hear mentioned. I think it may be true. The People Killed in the hiroshima bomb were not all japanese. I believe there are more than 20,000 korean slave workers. And i believe its also true that it nagasaki. Is that true . Tens of thousands of slave workers were killed in this bombing and its never mentioned . Yes it is true. It is true. I dont know if its 20, 000, but that sounds like it might be about the right number of koreans who are working in hiroshima. And enormous number of koreans and to a lesser extent chinese were killed in the atomic bombings as well as in the conventional bombing raids. There are also westerners in japan. There were about 1 of the population of japan during the Second World War had been christians or were christians. Some of them were secretly christians. So christiana de actually had a foothold in japan that went back several centuries because of jesuit missionaries coming from portugal and spain. And some of the most compelling eyewitness accounts of the bombing of hiroshima are by jesu