A short time ago an american airplane dropped one bomb on hiroshima and destroyed its usefulness to the enemy. That bomb has more power than 20,000 tons of tnt. The japanese began the war from the air at pearl harbor. They were been repaid many fold and the end is not yet. With this bomb we have now added a new and revolutionary increase in destruction to 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 a basic power of the universe, the force from which the sun draws its power has been loosed against those who brought war to the far east. We are now prepared to destroy more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the japanese have in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake we shall completely destroy japans power to make war. It was to spaer the japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of july 26th was issued at potstand. Their leaders rejected that ultimatum. If they do not accept our terms they may expect a ruin from the air the like of which has never been seen before. Behind this air attack will follow such sea and land forces in such power theyve not yet seen and which fighting skill of which theyre not already aware. Ian toll is an author and independent scholar, a pacific war historian and set to release his latest publications gods, war in the western pacific, 19441944. Ian toll, welcome to washington journal on this 75th anniversary. Thank you. Im glad to be here. We have heard from former president harry truman after the hiroshima bombing. From your research and study of the war, the bombings in particular, why his harry truman do it . Well, you know, i think the decision to use the bomb was really implicit in the manhattan project. So it was really assumed from the time before the time that truman came to office in april after the death of fdr that this weapon, if it worked, that it would be used. And 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 train when he came into office. The assumption had been made that that we had built the bomb, if we had the bomb, we would use the bomb in order to bring the war to an end. And i think the perspective we have now that the atomic bomb, you know, is different, essentially different from conventional weapons, thats something we have with hindsight. For truman and his advisers in the summer of 1945, i dont think that was as clear to them, that the atomic bomb was fundamentally different from conventional bombings. We had already essentially wiped out an enormous percentage of japans urban areas with conventional bombing and incendiary raids. So using the atomic bomb in their view at that time did not seem like a sort of break or a departure from what they had been doing already. Its really with hindsight that we understand that weapon to be something basically different. In a different category. Is it true that harry truman when he assumed the presidency after fdrs death, april 12th of 1945, that one, harry truman did not know anything about the manhattan project, and two, how did he learn about it in the space of less than four short months . How did he become confident in his decision to use those weapons . Yes, it is true that he was not briefed on the manhattan project. He had been vaguely aware that there was a very large, very secret, very expensive project under way. In the senate before he was put on the ticket as fdrs Vice President ial candidate 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 industries. This was called the truman committee. And in his capacity as chairman of the 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 to determine what exactly was happening there. And secretary stimson was the secretary of war, essentially went to truman and said were doing something really important and its very skretecret, and w going to ask you not to inquire any further, and truman agreed. Very suddenly with fdrs death, when he was elevated to the presidency, he was briefed by stimson and james burns who was the war mobilization czar, who truman subsequently appointed as secretary of state, and he was fully briefed within about 24 hours of assuming the presidency on the state of the manhattan project. Its the 75th anniversary of the bombing of hiroshima. Were talking about it with ian toll, whose brandnew book is coming out in september, twilight of the gods, war in the western pacific, 19441945. The lines as they were last hour for the eastern and central time zones, 2027488000. For those of you who are world war ii vets or family, 2027488002, and our line for japanese americans, 2027488003. Ian, one of the questions that came up a couple times last hour is 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 . Yeah, i mean, i think thats a hard question. I mean, you know, in my view, the really hard questions when it comes to the atomic bomb is not so much should we have used the bomb or not. Given the circumstances in the summer of 1945, the urgent need to end the war and end the war quickly without an invasion, i think in those circumstances, using the bomb, i think, was defensible. Dropping it on a city is a different question. And i think im in the mineeori really among military historians and this is a preference i have that i would have liked to have seen the weapon used against a military target. The question of a demonstration has also been raised. The aurrguments against a demonstration is number one it might have backfired. If you demonstrate youre going to use the bomb and it hadnt worked, that would have redoubled 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, say, of tokyo, off tokyo bay. You know, it 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. Its an abstract reason. You do it because in the long run, it may be it may enhance the countrys moral standing. You know, i do think thats important. But youve had some callers who are who have fathers or grandfathers who are in the war for American Veterans particularly those who would have participated in an invasion of japan, the atomic bomb has never been an abstraction to them. Its something real. Its something that they believe saved their lives. And that belief is something that i think we need to acknowledge and respect. And so thats essentially where i come out. Looking back, i would have liked to see the bomb used 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 was there any military or military related targets in either of those cities . Well, yes. Hiroshima had a really important Regional Military headquarters. The second army was headquartered in hiroshima. Hiroshima had been an army town, really going back to the premagi days, the day of the samurai. So there was an important military target in hiroshima. The city was not chosen for that reason, however. None of the four cities on the target list for the atomic bombs, hiroshima, nagasaki, nigata on the sea of japan, and kokura, which is on the very northern tip of the island, those cities had not 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 in conventional bombing raids. And the idea was that you wanted to drop the bomb on a city that had the topography and conditions to provide the greatest demonstration to the bombs power. And so yes. Finish your thought. Yeah, so it is true that there was, you know, an important army base in hiroshima. In the clip you played by president truman upon announcing the first atomic bomb, he said we had hit an important Japanese Army base. Hiroshima was a large city, the seventh largest city in japan, with a base in it. So, you know, i think just from the point of view of looking back with 75 years of perspective, you know, in that situation, you would prefer that 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, without using 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 6th, we hit hiroshima. August 9th, we hit nagasaki. We did not have a third bomb at that point. It would have been another two to three weeks. Your calls are next, and first up is charles in richmond, virginia. Good morning. Caller yes, good morning. Its very interesting when you hear those defections. One thing about why they dropped the bomb, because america was so passionate against japan. Japan had pulled a sneak attack on pearl harbor, and we didnt even know that the war was going to start. It should have been a war declared. And japan didnt do that. And what happened when the bomb became available, truman, all he knew, he had just become president. They didnt really like him, and they put it to him, look, this is it. We have this bomb. To me, it was you cant drop an atomic bomb and say, well, lets drop it tomorrow. Lets drop it next week. They had already planned, everything was planned with the bomb. And really, it didnt make too much difference what truman had to say because it was in the works. And the United States was going to drop that bomb. All right, charles. Ian, do you think the president had a say in that . Well, absolutely. I mean, the constitution confers enormous powers. Virtually Unlimited Power as commander in chief in war time, so truman had the power to simply tell his cabinet and his military leaders, you know, we will use the bomb. We wont use the bomb. Were going to use the bomb in the following way. So i dont think theres any question he had the power to make the decision. I do think that its true, as charles said, that the motive of revenge was in the mix there. I think that was i wouldnt say that was the reason we used the weapon the way we did, but it certainly did certainly did set the context. The sneak attack on pearl harbor, japanese atrocities against civilians, the treatment of prisoners of war. These were all factors that played into the decision to use the atomic bomb and also to burn down japanese cities with incendiary bombing raids. But yes, truman certainly could have simply decided, he wouldnt have had to ask for permission. He wouldnt have had to have his military chiefs or cabinet take a vote on the question. He could have simply said, were not going to hate city. Or were going to explicitly warn the japanese we have this weapon. In fact, in his private diary, theres a strange entry where he says, actually, he says i have instructed secretary stimson, the secretary of war, to use this weapon against military targets. And not against women and children. And i have also instructed him to that we will make an explicit warning to the japanese telling them to surrender. Now, thats odd because he didnt give that order, but in his diary, he seems to have believed it or perhaps he wanted to, you know, have future historians, you know, believe that the whole decision had been made differently. But certainly, he had the power. And one of the fascinating factual questions is if fdr had lived, how would fdr have decided to use the bomb . He certainly wouldnt have been he wouldnt have hesitated at all to make his own decision. He was accustomed to doing that. Lets hear from anthony in north creek, new york. The line for world war ii veterans and families. Caller hi, good morning. Im calling for my father and his two brothers. My father went in the army in february of 41. He fought in the philippines. He fought in eojeemiwo jima, an was also in the occupation of japan. He came home some time late in 1946, but he never really talked about the war until he got older, and he was against them dropping the bomb, but then he says, if we would have had to fight them and we had to invade japan, i probably would have never come home. It was flip of a coin. In my personal opinion, if i had to make that decision, i would say yeah. His brothers, one was in normandy. He was a paratrooper in the 101, and my other uncle was also a medic. So those people from that generation, they fought hard, and they fought for our country. And when i talk about my father and his brothers, im very proud of them. Because thats something today maybe we wouldnt be able to do. Ian, a map from your book on operation olympic, one of the planned invasions, 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 across the board . Is that from your research as well . Well, no. If the question is at the time that we were planning operation downfall, operation olympic was the first stage of downfall. That was the invasion of the Southern Island of japan. At the time that our military leaders were planning that operation, there was never a point at which they were projecting casualties on the order of a million. Theres been quite a lot of work done on this because by historians and researchers, because of how often you hear that kind of figure we might have lost a million or a half a million. The answer seems to be that the casualty projections were significantly lower than that. And you know, its a disputed point, and there were different casualty figures, different ways of thinking about it. But at no point did our military leaders while planning that operation, at no point did they expect something on the order of a million casualties. The projections were much lower, maybe as many as 200 total casualties. Now, you know, that doesnt really tell us much about the atomic bomb decision. You know, theres not you cant say, well, the casualties would have been lower so we shouldnt have invaded. I think invading would have been a disaster, regardless of what kind of casualties we 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, i believe. Thats just my preference, my belief. But as the caller, you know, mentioned, there were so many people in this country who have fathers, grand fathers, great grand fathers, uncles, who were veterans of that war and who really believed that their lives were on the line. And thats something that i respect very deeply. Its interesting that the caller said that his i think it was his father, he said, had been in japan with the occupation after the war. And that he had 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 those in japan after the war with the occupying forces, they tended to have a much more 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 kind of make the distinction between the way Japanese Fighting forces had behaved in the war and the way the japanese people are in general. They were more willing to make that distinction because of the personal exposure they had to japan and to the japanese in the nation of japan after the war. Our line for japanese americans is 2027488003. On that line, in los angeles, scott. Good morning. Caller good morning. Im half japanese, and my father was drafted in world war ii. My grand father was drafted by the Japanese Army and fath in manchuria. I keep seeing every year when they talk about pearl harbor that america was attacked unprovoked which is not true. Like truman said on the clip you have shown and like charles said in the call, that japan bombed pearl harbor unprovoked. Thats not true because flying tigers were flying under the awg, under the secret order of the president , and until 1996, when either it was reagan or clinton acknowledged that the flying tigers were part of the military so they got the v. A. Benefits. Then it showed that the awg was under military from the United States government through the company of chenault. So i keep hearing of this japanese unprovoked attack when thats not true. Im not saying that war wasnt bad. It wasnt a bad thing, because it was a very terrible thing of what japan did to china, parts of russia, to the philippines, to the americans and the people who actually ended up fighting with them. There were terrible things that happened. Well get a response from our guest, ian. Yeah, well, i mean, i think the count against the japanese for the way they began the war was not so much that it was an unprovoked attack. Yes, fdr did say it was unprovoked in his speech to congress the day following the attack. But that there was no formal declaration of war prior to the attack. And so it was the idea of a sneak attack, a surprise attack, that really infuriated americans. You know, 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. And so yeah, that, i think, played into the particular brutality of the pacific war. Scott didnt say what his father, i believe he said, did when he was drafted, but you know, one of the i think most interesting stories about the pacific war and little heard is the role of japanese americans who worked as interpreters, who worked as language officers, who helped develop propaganda messages to aim at the japanese. And it was an essential role in places like okinawa. The heroism of the japanese american soldiers who went down into caves and negotiated directly with Japanese Forces trying to encourage them to surrender, at enormous personal risk. Thats one of the Great Stories about the pacific war. Its not as familiar to people. To gene in buoy, maryland. Good morning. On our line for vets and families. Go ahead. Caller 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 all were