Of its 90,000 buildings, over 60,000 were demolished. The desolate remains were aptly described as vapor and ashes. Man had torn from nature one of her innermost secrets. And with his newfound knowledge he had fashioned an instrument of annihilation. Menacing implications of this extraordinary weapon were frightening to everyday people. Frightening to everyday. What did you think of what did you think of that bomb was dropped on the japs, mrs. Glenn . Terrible. All of those people killed. Lat9 dropped an improved bomb on the seaport of nagasaki. A highly congested city boasting the best natural harbor in western kyushu. [explosion] this bomb, exploding over the district, took the lives of 42,000 persons. 39 of all of the buildings in nagasaki before the calamity. The japanese described their mutilated city as a graveyard, with not a tombstone standing. These terrifying blows were struck in japan only after profound consideration of all of the human and military factors. Dropped tobombs were end the war quickly, and they did in the war quickly. Richard franks offer author of downfall. Here to talk to us further about the 75th anniversary of the drop of the atomic bombs by the u. S. On japan. Richard frank, thank you for joining us. Guest thank you for having me. Host in that last clip, the military film from 1946, it said that the atomic bombs were dropped to end the war quickly, and they did in the war quickly. Was this the right decision to make and for those farms the reason for the end of the war . Guest the short answer is that yes and yes. Overwhelmingly the primary reason was to end the war as quickly as possible. One thing i think its critical that we get to at the start is to understand context of this. I have two sick principles. One is to count and the other is to cheat all of the dead as sharing a common humanity. I mean the japanese as well. Resulted inific war the death of about 19 million noncombatants. Number, a number of japanese noncombatants was maybe 1. 2 million. About 20 about 25 of them were due to the atomic bombs. That math tells you immediately that for every japanese noncombatants who died, between 17 and 18 other noncombatants died. They are overwhelmingly other asians and about 12 million of them are chinese. By the summer of 1945 most of those noncombatants who were not japanese were already dead. They were dying at a rate of about 14,000 a day. That is the context in which all of this takes place. It is important we not overlook or diminish the japanese. Equally it is important that we understand the total context of this and where the deaths are taking place. They are primarily not japanese. Host Richard Frank is with us for half an hour. We will take your calls after a couple of minutes of conversation. We will put the numbers on the screen for our guest. If you live in the central or eastern time zones, 202 7488000. If you live out west, it is 202 7488001. We have special lines this sunday morning. One of them is for world war ii veterans and their families. 202 7488002 and for japaneseamericans. 202 7488003. We look forward to talking with you and you talking to our guest, Richard Frank. Here. Erspective how widespread in 1945 was support for president truman and his decision to use atomic weapons . Has that changed over time . And 1945 andpport afterwards was extremely high. Numbers, ive seen above 80 . Its changed over the years because the narratives have been employed over the years have changed very much. Reallythe things that concerns me about this is, i dont question that we should talk about this and it should be controversial. But i find it astonishing that this conversation takes place in which alternatives are advanced eu of the atomic bombs. What is conspicuous is, they never talk about what the cost of these alternatives are. When you get down and start doing the costs of the alternatives, you understand why mr. Truman, in his decision, not make a good choice, he basically themaking choices between astonishingly awful to the horrendously horrific, and he chose what secretary of war stimson would call the least important choice. Abhorrent choice. Host this is the anniversary of the nagasaki bombing. August 16 the first one, hiroshima. What was different between those thee days and what was Truman Administration looking at . The destruction and hiroshima, what made them decide to drop a second bomb . Was no specific decision on the second bomb. The authorization order released the people to start dropping bombs and keep dropping bombs. Bombs, about the two this is another aspect that people, i think, dont understand. The problem with the notion that one bomb would have done it or a demonstration would have done it is this have to look at the japanese side. Their reaction was based upon the fact that they had an Atomic Bomb Program which had not produced a bomb, but it had educated japanese leadership in the fact that producing vision e material was difficult. The Imperial Army immediately responded, well, we can see they have one bomb. The Imperial Navy took the track that, they may have one bomb, they cant have that many, they cant be that powerful. Basically, what the japanese leadership was looking at was not fear of one bomb, it was that the u. S. Had an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Thet happens, that is what nagasaki bombs dead. It convinced top leadership that the u. S. Did not have simply a bomb, we had an arsenal. The war minister, the second most powerful man in japan, he had been adamant for continuing the war after the hiroshima bomb. After the nagasaki bomb he went around telling leadership that the americans have 100 bombs and the next target is going to be tokyo. Host how far along with the u. S. At the time of the dropping of the bombs, in its planning for an invasion of japan . Question andood very different from what it is usually presented. There had been a plan to invade japan on november 1. Mr. Truman had approved that on the 18th of june, 1945. He was reluctant, but presented with a scenario in which we were going to have overwhelming superiority going into southern kyushu. And therefore american casualties would be acceptable. Know, radio intelligence had uncovered the fact that the japanese had exactly anticipated that the First American invasion was going to take place on southern kyushu. They built up over 10,000 airfare aircraft. 7000 troops. Instead of us going on with overwhelming superiority, our salt would be facing 700,000 japanese. We now know a senior naval toicer had never wanted invade japan. He had been biding his time and by the ninth of august, 1945, with the intelligence he was prepared to bring on this showdown with the army over whether there should be any invasion. Only the japanese surrender at off before it reached the level of mr. Truman having another review. Host lets take a call from tom. You are on with Richard Frank. We are talking about the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings in japan. Caller good morning. The age 60 and i remember howard zinn lectures of my college years, of how history is being rewritten so much right now with people with agendas. Radio that on talk the only reason we bombed progressive talk radio, that is the only reason we bombed japan, because they were not europeans. In other words, there were people of caller, which is nonsense because we bombed dresden in germany. A purpose of demoralizing the german people, for them to surrender. It is 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 . Guest no. Basically, you have to bear in mind that until the end it was assumed the bombs were going to be used against germany. It turned out from a tactical standpoint they didnt have bombs ready in time to use against germany. Bomb, wasbomb, a test detonated in july 1945. Let me come back again to a basic point. It is not that the argument time advancing says we dont care about the japanese who died. I wrote graphically about that in my book. Both the fire rated and hiroshima. What i have been going over these many years now is the fact that our narratives we have been using simply talk about japanese deaths, the fact that japanese were asians. I dont mention we were in the war because not abandon china. Our American People at that time, reading the New York Times had been reading it day by day to the whole war. There were well aware of how horrific the war was in asia. We have completely blotted that out. That is why those narratives are so powerful. People simply do not realize how horrific the asianpacific war was. Host how have japanese textbooks for Young Students portrayed the war . Has that approach changed over the years . Guest that is a complex question. Think, forissue, i japan was the. Iithe period of world war was an area not forthrightly discussed, still not forthrightly discussed. Japan toa tendency in view themselves as the greatest victims of the war. If you have been dealing with historians and people from other asian nations, you really get a full flavor of how infuriated that makes people in china and elsewhere. I was sitting in a conference fromwith a representative the peoples republic of china. The argument was made along the lines of the critical literature. Bafflementoing from to fury as he realizes that this narrative entirely omits, it does not count and doesnt treat chinese, vietnamese, indonesians, koreans as sharing a common humanity with japanese civilians in two cities. Let me add further, basically when the soviet union enters the dower,cording to john they capture between 1. 6 million and 1. 7 million japanese nationals. When they the repatriation process is over, they only returned 1. 2 million. No from soviet archival documents about 61,000 are japanese soldiers. Between 300 40000 and 440,000 japanese noncombatants died in soviet captivity after the end of hostilities. Those are higher numbers than died in the atomic bomb attacks. Host we go to rick. It is in phoenix. Good morning. Caller good morning. Just want to add my voice. Not sure what had been discussed earlier, my father, who barely europe, was war in being prepared to transfer to japan. That would have eliminated my brothers life after that date. And many other mens lives. Also it wouldve been criminal, and you add everything up here, it wouldve been criminal for truman not to drop that bomb, not just the rape of nanking, socalled. Chinese of thousands of massacred, as you say. The russian threat that would have taken japanese territory and greatly complicated the postwar era. There are so many reasons why truman had to do that. What was the alternative . I heard generals saying they were going to blockade japan until they gave up. What . Could you address those points that you havent yet . Host thank you, rick. Richard frank . Guest that is a really excellent point. On the american side there was an unstable compromise between the army and the navy over a strategy to end the war. The army thought the critical issue was time. Therefore, they advocated invasion because they believed invasion would be the swiftest way to end the war. The navy, one of the fundamental premises of that study was that invading the islands would produce politically unacceptable casualties. The navys alternative was blockade. What doesnt get mentioned in these discussions as it should and this was basically the policy the Navy Officers lined up behind this get back to the very basic point i made about counting the dead. Ending thes aimed at war by starving to death millions of japanese, mostly noncombatants. That is what blockade was about. In view of the limited power of the 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. That was the direction we were going in august 1945. If the invasion was off, then we do blockade. And we do try to kill millions of japanese noncombatants. By the way, those asians who are not japanese, who are dying every single day, at their deaths on top of the japanese done. The death tolls for these alternatives when you sit down and contemplate them are sickening, mindboggling. On the linee lynn from west virginia. Morning cspan and mr. Frank. Okinawa sun of an veteran who was trained to go to japan. Of course, he never had to go because president truman had the sense to do it he did. What he did. For those who criticize truman, im going to tell you what my dad said. Let every one of those critics go to the families of people, american gis who work saved from invading japan and tell them that truman did the wrong thing. I know you dont have the guts to do that. Thank you, mr. Frank. Host thank you for calling. Richard frank, has history been fair to president truman . No. T in my view, let me add another dimension to this. Know, hen, you famously said he didnt lose any sleep over the decision and various comments like that. If you go through everything he actually said, in his mind he in twohole area compartments. One was, that i make the best decision of what was presented to me . He always believed that if you understood all of the he made what secretary stimson called the least abhorrent choice. As bad as the bombs were, the alternatives were actually worse. On a personal level, truman was never in different to the deaths of japanese that his order had caused. In fact, shortly after he was shima we intercept this message from the Japanese Navy reporting that 100,000 japanese had died he was shima. Mr. Truman clearly was reading that. He talks at a Cabinet Meeting and says, the hiroshima bomb killed 100,000 people. And all those kids. He has various other comments he is making about the fact that this was horrendous, the consequences may have been right, but the consequences were horrendous and he felt that very deeply. You know, once again, when you deal with people from other asian nations were trapped in japans empire or americans saying were two bombs necessary . A common comment from them is, why only two . Ism their perspective, that so incomparable between the japanese and these other people that they find the american struggle over this to be baffling. Host we have a little bit more of the history. Hiroshima happens on august 6. On august 9 the u. S. Dropped the atomic bomb on nagasaki same day, soviets declared war on japan. 15, the go by, August Emperor announced japans unconditional surrender. It happened . Walk us through those six days to get the emperor to the point of surrender. Guest a little context here. What you have to understand is, to get japan to surrender was two steps. Someone with legitimate authority had to decide that pan with surrender. In 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 on the afternoon of august 8 he talks to the foreign minister and says, the war must end now. This is after hiroshima. This is before soviet intervention. There were other factors on his mind including his loss of faith in the strategy to meet the invasion. Concern about the japanese people reaching revolutionary state in the fall. These are played into his mind. He announces that decision ofore the inner circle leadership, and the Early Morning hours of august 10. We have the diary entry of the number two man, a general named koabe. One of the other officers comes to him and says, i dont think the overseas commanders will comply. Right on cue, two of the three overseas commanders send a message saying, we are not going to comply with the surrender order, even from the emperor. There is more backandforth in the tokyo. Message, their first which is really the first serious message about ending the war that has this language in it that says, the precondition they want is that the prerogatives of the emperor, the sovereign ruler, not be compromised in surrender. The American State Department officials immediately realized that what this is, this is a demand that the u. S. Make the emperor supreme, not only over the government, but over the occupation authorities. So he has a veto over the occupation. Of course, send a message back saying, clearly the emperor is going to be subordinate to the occupation commander. That causes more turmoil in japan. Thatmperor insisting japans surrender, and he gets the government to agree. Then we still have a very fraud. Where Japanese Armed forces, going on 7 million to surrender. One of the admirals later tells interrogators that the most fraught days he spent with these days worrying about whether the armed forces were going to comply with the emperors order. I described this as a miraculous deliverance that we actually got the government and armed forces to surrender in august 1945. Host lets hear from steve now in fredericksburg, virginia. Caller good morning. My father served in world war ii. I would like to ask professor frank if he reads japanese . I would like to ask him if he has read the overwhelming number waromments just after the by japanese generals and admirals that it was not the two nuclear attacks, but the entrance of the soviet union into the war. They had invaded manchuria and they were occupying the islands, which they still occupy to this day, and they were threatening do. Qaeda hokkia thank you. Host thank you, steve. Guest let me unpack that at several levels. First of all, in terms of the impact of soviet intervention, when the impure the emperor is at that imperial conference, the chief of staff of the Imperial Army tells the emperor in a classic understatement that soviet intervention is unfortunate that doesnt negate the plan to counter the american invasion. If you go through all of these other statements i have been through, yeah. The notion all of these japanese officers are talking about soviet engine intervention being the key reason, it is simply not true. Thes certainly not true of inner cabinet. Soviet intervention does play an important part. It is important in terms of getting compliance of all of the Japanese Armed forces, particularly those on the asian continent, for whom soviet intervention is a direct menace, unlike the atomic bombs, state either understand nor did the u. S. Have a viable target. Not going to drop an atomic bomb on singapore or some chinese city to convince the japanese to surrender. Soviet intervention is important and getting compliance of all of the armed forces, but it does not move the key decisionmakers to move the government and eventually japan to surrender. Host on to san diego now. Barbara is in san diego. Caller good morning. I am very interested in this subject because i am an australian. At the timel child of the second world war. My father was a coast watcher and we lived in north queensland. The japanese had been coming down through the islands and we were terrified. Huts set up in the mountains, ready to evacuate. I always say, i want to thank america saving australia. We could not have done it alone. We had such a small population. All of our men were fighting in other areas. Anyway, that is about all i want to say. Anept, it is easy to be armchair quarterback. All of these years later. They dont remember how it was, how intense the fighting was. Host barbara, thank you very much for calling. Your reaction to that . Guest the australians, we tend in our histories to overlook the australians. There were valuable allies and carrying on the main burden of fighting in new guinea. Deathstralian military in the part of the war fighting against japan numbered about 17,000. Thosese, about 8000 of australians died as prisoners of war of the japanese. There were mostly captured on singapore and other locations early in the war. That is just one part of the whole thing with japan. Bix points out that at the end of the war, the japanese have been fighting in china for eight years. They have killed at least 8 million Chinese Military personnel. They are supposed to turn over all of the prisoners of war. Individuals. R 56 after eight years of killing millions. 56 pows. That is part of the savagery of the war that was driven by the terms by which the japanese insist of the war before upon. Host Richard Frank is the author of downfall. Thank you for your time, your insight on the 75th anniversary of the bombings in japan. Appreciate your time. Guest thank you. Host next, Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies institute talks about the 75th anniversary of the u. S. Dropping of the atomic bomb on nagasaki, three days after hiroshima. First we have this excerpt from a shown for my film shot in 1945 and 1946 by japanese film crews documenting the aftermath of the bombings for scientific purposes. Here is a look. [video] tragedy days after the visited hiroshima. August 1945. The hot summer sun shone upon the city. An area alarm was on. Then it was lifted. For 2. 5 hours, the warning continue to prevail. 11 00, two super fortresses appeared over the city. Flying at high altitude. The first plane dropped three objects attached to parachutes. 11 02, a second plane dropped an object. Then came a blinding flash. Followed by an explosion and a blaze. The destruction was the greatest ever wroght the bomb missed the center of the city and detonated above a canyon to the north. View the general seen of devastation from the top of one of the hills. On the others of the hills, left of the harbor, lies the city. Of theills on both sides city where the brakes which intercepted the atomic blast and pretended and prevented the devastation from reaching the harbor and the heart of the city. Those ofings, save reinforced concrete, or demolished. The whole of this neighborhood, wench teeming with houses and once teeming with houses and factories, denuded of everything. Host our guest is Peter Kuznick , director of the Nuclear Studies institute at the american university. Thank you for joining us. The 75thk back at anniversary of the atomic bombings on japan, did harry truman make the right decision . Guest no. He made the absolute wrong decision. He defended it throughout the rest of his life. He said i never lost a minute of sleep over that decision. Butaid he had no remorse, he made the absolute wrong decision. TheUnited States, in official mythology, the 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. Invaded, truman says in his memoir, that marshall told him 500,000 boys would have been killed. Years later, they add to that japanesethat many would have also been killed. The reality is there were two ways to the war without using the atomic bomb. The first was to change the surrender terms. The main obstacle to japanese surrender was the u. S. Demand for unconditional surrender. The emperor would be tried as a war criminal and probably executed. As Douglas Macarthurs southwest command said in the briefing, execution of the emperor would be like the crucifixion of christ to us. They would fight to die. The understanding was pervasive among the advisers around truman. Almostry of war stimson, all of his close advisors all of trumans close advisors, urged him to change the terms of surrenders. The biggest impediment was burns. From the day truman becomes names burnstil secretary of state, he is relying on burns for advice. And burns tells him that he will be politically crucified if they allow the japanese to keep the emperor. M al lahey said their there may be no way to get the japanese to surrender if we demand unconditional surrender. Togo are terra grams from telegrams from togo to the ambassador in osaka. Cable traffic went back and forth, and it went like this. Majesty, mindful of the fact that the present war brings cradle greater evil and sacrifice, hopes that it may be quickly terminated. Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. What did truman understand about that . He refers to the telegram as the telegram from the chaplain per asking from peace telegram from the jap emperor asking for peace. Aboard gusto, admiral lahey, the nd burns agree that the japanese are looking for peace. But mccloy and, others all agree with that assessment, that the japanese know they are defeated. The japanese knew they had been defeated since the battle of saipan in july, 1944. 1945, the Prime Minister sent a memo to the emperor saying two fee is inevitable defeat is inevitable. The second way to force a surrender was to wait for soviet invasion. From the day after pearl harbor, president roosevelt and the secretary of state had been urging russia to commit to the pacific war, but the russians were busy fighting against the nazis. Throughout most of the war, the re facingbritish we combined,divisions while the russians were facing hundred. To enter the war at yalta. What did american intelligence say . The joint Intelligence Committee reported on april 11 if at any time the ussr should enter the war, all japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable. I can give you more cases. Strategic intelligence summaries for the pot stamm mean for the pot stamm meeting make the same point. What did truman understand . Am in midnt to potsd july to make sure the russians were coming in. Afterwards, he wrote in his japry, stalin will be in the war by august. The writes to his wife, the russians are common in. We will end the war a year sooner now. The question is, why does the United States dropped the bomb . This is what historians need to debate. Was the bomb necessary to end the war . Absolutely not. Was in the most humane way . Absolutely not. Of they the suffering hundreds of thousands of japanese who were killed and the hundreds of thousands more who would suffer throughout their lives, but truman knew it was the beginning of a process that could ultimately end life on the planet. He gets his first briefing on the bomb from burns. Weaponwrites, this was a great enough to destroy the world. A fuller5, truman gets briefing about the bomb, and stimson said that in four months we would have a weapon that could destroy in entire city. An entire city. This could determine the future of civilization. Host let me take a phone call. We have plenty of callers waiting. Is a professor at the american university. Jeff from new york for Peter Kuznick. Mr. Kuznick, i agree with everything you said. The lastated presenters question, but there is also a moral depravity that should be spoken about with the use of an atomic weapon. It is not just a new weapon. There is a certain gladness to the way the decision was made certain glibness to the way the decision was made. It was understood that this would not only be a problem, but it was even understood at the time that it could cause a chain admitte a Chain Reaction in the atmosphere of the earth and destroy the world. Chance,that type of without knowing, that type of glibness really speaks to how, 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, they have given license to everybody else to use a weapon when they develop it, which they knew they would soon as they got it. It is astounding to me that they could do such a thing. Host thank you for the call. Peter kuznick. Guest truman knew this was not a bigger, more powerful weapon. When he gets to the briefing about how powerful the bomb test wealamogordo was, he writes, discovered the most terrible bomb in history. Destructionthe fire prophecy in the euphrates era after noah and his fabulous arik. He was not the only one. Oppenheimer briefed the interim committee of military and political leaders and warned them that, within three years, we will have weapons likely 700 times as powerful as the hiroshima bomb. The scientists were warning about this. When you get to the moral equation, you have to remember that seven of americas eight five star admirals and generals in 1945 are on record saying the atomic bomb was militarily unnecessarily, morally reprehensible, or both. The most outspoken was admiral lahey. He was the chairman of the joint chiefs and trumans personal. Chief of staff. Hero, the japanese were already defeated and ready to submit her. Barbarous weapon was of no assistance in our war against japan. Standardd an ethical comment to the barbarians of the dark ages. Similar comments by eisenhower, macarthur, arnold. They all knew it was not necessary. Some of them recognize the moral significance of using it. As you are saying, we knew there was no secret to the bomb, and that other countries would be developing them. Scientists thought it would take the soviets between three to five years to catch up. If we are setting this example. In the other thing about that and the other thing about that, the soviets knew the bomb was unnecessary because the japanese had been trying to get them to intercede to get better surrender terms. In early may, the former prime met severaljapan times with the soviet ambassador in tokyo. Theck writes back to kremlin and says the japanese are desperate to surrender. Knewnited the soviets better than anybody there was no military reason to do it. And they interpreted it some of the waynterpreted it some of the scientists had warned, that they were the target, not the japanese. Host lets hear from richard in verona, missouri. Caller this was fine and good, but i was about eight years old whenever they dropped the bomb. The attitude in the United States, in school and everywhere, we had a gentleman from our town who was in the bit batan death march, and we was tickled that they dropped the bomb. Pallets the comic ozzie pilots, we saw all that. There was nothing too bad to do to the japanese at the time. I think macarthur actually truman, he was in war himself. He had seen what war was. At one timerthur wanted to drop the bomb in korea whenever it was getting hard up if wet the bombs did not have bombs, would there be more wars now . We all know that everybody has a bomb and we are all playing chicken with the, and maybe it stops somewhere by having bombs. I do not know. Host thank you. Guest yes. The American Public was told exactly what richard was saying, that the bombs ended the war and saved lives. Next rice, might be our Vice President , wrote that truman saved her fathers life, that he was ready to deploy to the pacific, and that dropping the bombs ended the war and forced the japanese to surrender. That is the myth. Obama basically said the same thing in hiroshima. 85 of the American People, according to a gallup poll in 1945, supported dropping the atomic bomb. A poll that came shortly after order to fight a five after in 1945 said that 77 of the American People wished the japanese had not surrendered so quickly. That was the attitude. Was it racism . That might have factored in a little bit, but the japanese were brutal. Doesatan death marches not get known in the u. S. Until later. What they were doing was horrific. We are not debating about that. We are 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 we are lucky to have survived since then. From that day come the sword of damocles has been hanging over the head of all humanity. Truman is not bloodthirsty. He is not people. He is not people. He went into this with his eyes open. Itwing that the way we did triggered the exact response from the soviet union that we that was predicted at the time. The soviets had their own crash bomb program. They tested their bomb in 1949. Tests2, the United States its Hydrogen Bomb and the soviets test a prototype in 1963. Atomic scientists move the hands of the atomic clock to two minutes before midnight. Now it is at 100 seconds before midnight. We are in a dangerous situation, and there were many instances during the cold war and since then where we have survived by blind look, including during the cuban missile crisis. You have led groups to japan to the annual memorial services. What have you learned from the japanese over that period of time . What has their perspective been and has he changed over the years . What makes the trip so interesting is that we travel with japanese students and professors. We get to see the war through american and japanese eyes, and there are always a lot of other asians on the trip. They have a different perspective from the japanese. We go to the commemorative events in hiroshima and nagasaki, to the atomic bomb museum, and we also studied the japanese war in the pacific. One place i take my students to is a museum and nagasaki. That museum is dedicated to japanese atrocities, somewhat to americans, but mostly toward other asians. What people have to keep in their minds is that the japanese were victims, but they were also victimizers. While the 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 sense of responsibility, and neither the American Government nor the japanese government have dealt well with their history. The one country that has taken responsibility for their past in a much more conscionable way is germany. But the japanese have not done it, especially not under shinzo abe, and the United States has not done it. We saw that when the smithsonian tried to have a historical exhibit in 1995. Now we are maybe able to have a discussion. Host brian in massachusetts. Good morning. Question fore a your guest about some of the personalities. Alta conference, we see an ill looking wrinkle in looking franklin roosevelt. Stalins spies, did he know what was going on . And what about the generals and admirals that were closer to the front lines in the pacific that , nimitz andd halsey, where they briefed . Did they have knowledge of that . And did oppenheimer have a chance to talk to truman about what will go on if they dropped this bomb . Host several points there. When was the decision made to drop that first bomb . May 5, 1943, they decided japan would be the target and not germany. The project began under the scientistshe emigre who had fled from nazi occupied europe. Split the uranium atom in 1938, they were very alarmed at the prospect of hitlers developing an atomic bomb. Scientist wrote three letters to roosevelt urging they begin a bomb project as a deterrent against japanese bombs. The project gets off the ground very slowly and does not really get momentum until 1942. Generals, somed of them were briefed about the use of the atomic bomb. You mentioned halsey and mentionedth of whom said the atomic bombs were not necessary to end the war. Arsenals nuclear increases almost 30 fold. Eisenhower says that at potsdam, stimson told him they were going to drop the bomb. Not offer did anything because my work was over in europe. , and i told him i was against it on two counts. The japanese were ready to surrender, and i hated to be the first country to use such a weapon. Macarthur says in an exchange with former hoover, who had urged truman to change cerner terms, and macarthur said that if truman followed hoovers advice, the japanese would have surrendered happily. P implies it would have been as early as may p implies it would have been early as may. We told him we have a horrible new weapon, the soviets are about to come into the war. We could have ended the war possibly a month or two earlier and saved more lives, american lives, japanese lives, chinese lives. On instead, we drop the bomb august 6 in order to prevent an invasion that is supposed to begin november 1, an invasion which many of the military leaders did not want to see happen at all, especially naval leaders. The logic behind this escapes me. Host did stalin know . Guest yes. Prominent two or more people who were giving intelligence to the soviets. S and Theodore Hall were the most prominent. Stalin knew the americans were developing a bomb. He knew it was going to be tested. He did not know the results damil truman told him at pots toward the end of the conference. Stalin was pokerfaced. Truman thought he did not get it. Stalin knew exactly what that meant. Host marvin calling from tuscaloosa, alabama, welcome to the program. Caller i think you have played a little fast and loose with the facts and have not given enough credit to the great sacrifices americans put into this and the italy,at it was germany, and japan who started the war. You have ignored the fact of all the atrocities committed by the japanese. You mentioned them, but we do not hear a lot about that. Those atrocities were proven at the tokyo war trials, for example. Batan deathd the king, the rape of an ian pows. Rture of american i think you have played fast and loose with the facts because truman had the facts and made a reasonable decision. I will not go into all that kind of detail, but i think we owe it to americans on the 75th anniversary of the end of the war to say to the americans into the families that died, including my two uncles, and my fatherinlaw, that honor and glory to all of those people, all of the families and americans that died in world war ii, and i feel like you are not fair and are not putting this in context. I definitely disagree with your statement that we had atrocities just like the japanese. That is rewriting history and that is wrong, sir. Host lets get a response. Guest marvin, you werent listening closely. First of all, i think world war ii was a necessary war. I think United States was on the side of the angels in world war ii. I am happy we won world war ii. That is not a question for debate. Not downplayly do japanese or german atrocities. The issue is something very different. Thes for that reason that entire history of the cold war and the arms race is not something we can ignore. The bomb was instrumental in starting that cold war, and the thing about it there are so many people we should be quoting. I was lee he said unable to see any justification from a National Defense point of view for an invasion of an already thoroughly defeated japan. Now, if you are saying we should have dropped the bomb to get revenge on the japanese, that is a different question, and that is one that truman, in his initial statement, says that we are paying them back for pearl harbor and their atrocities, but that is not the argument that is made by historians. The argument is whether or not the bomb was necessary to end the war. I will i will quote for you general clark. He said we brought them to an abject surrender through accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone. We did not need to do it and we knew we did not need to do it. Use them as an experiment and why would we do that . The United States is not an immoral country. General groves come in charge of the manhattan project, said from the time i took charge of i lost anyt, russia was our enemy and the project was on that basis. The main purpose of this project is to subdue the russians. James burns said the same thing in spartanburg, south carolina. He said this is our way to make the russians manageable in europe. If you think that is a justifiable reason for killing hundreds of thousands of people, then there is almost no limit to what you can justify. You could justify using atomic bombs today if it will give us some way that will achieve some moral purpose. Fortunately, that is not the attitude the world has adopted, view,der the current u. S. We have lowered the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. We are developing two more usable Smaller Nuclear weapons and the world is in a precarious situation now. Host as we wrap up, what is the legacy, in your view, of the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki . It undermined americas claims toward exceptionalism. We like to think of ourselves as different from all of the countries, is more moral, more just. We go out and the world and do things, spread freedom and democracy. At the heart of that understanding it begins with the cold war, really, and our victory in world war ii. World war ii is a good war, but there is no such thing as a good war. Certainly the bomb compromises our moral position around the world. We have to look honestly at our past. If we do not study the past honestly, we will commit the same mistakes or new mistakes in the future, and the world is too dangerous for us to have that luxury. Directorer kuznick is of the Nuclear Studies institute at the american university. Thank you for announcer youre watching American History tv, all weekend every weekend on cspan3. To join the conversation, like us on facebook at cspan history. Wenext on the presidency, 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 at the end of world war ii. President truman had just assumed office after the death of franklin d roosevelt, and the when he met with joseph stalin. It was through these meetings that mr. Truman involved his soviet counterpart about the new u. S. Super weapon. It would soon be unleashed on the japanese cities of hiroshima and nagasaki. The Truman Library institute provided this video. Prof. Neiberg we are at the 75th anniversary of the potsdam conference. Big numbers like the 75th anniversary or 100th anniversary are always occasions for looking back and drawing attention. I think there is another reason to look back at potsdam, as we are reentering a world of Great Power Competition and reentering a world where geopolitics seems to have come back to the fore of International Relations thinking. So it is well worth us coming
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.