Theyve been repaid many fold and the end is not yet. With this mom, we have added new and revolutionary increase in discussion to supplement the growing power of our armed forces. In their present form, these bombs are now in production and even more powerful forms are in development. Its an atomic bomb. Its a harnessing of the 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 spare the japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of july the 26th was issued at potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not accept our terms, they may expect rain from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack 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. Ian toll is an author and independent scholar, a pacific war historian and set to release his latest book twilight of the gods. Welcome to washington journal on this 75th anniversary. Thank you very much. Im glad to be here. We have heard from the former president , harry truman, after the hiroshima bombing. From your study of the war, why did harry truman do it . Well, you know, 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 in april after the death of fdr that this weapon, if it worked, that it would be used. And so, you know, it may be more accurate to say that the there was a nondecision. Essentially, truman did not decide to intervene to stop a you know, a project that was very much in train when he came into office. The assumption had been made that if 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 ef nowe h now, the atomic bomb is 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. And we had already wiped out an enormous percentage of japans urban areas with convention bombing and incendiary raids. Using the atomic bomb 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 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 . It is true he was not briefed on the manhattan project. He had been vaguely aware that there was a large, secret, expensive project under way. In 1944, the most important thing he had done in the senate, the thing that made his name, 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 that investigate senate committee, he had learned about these enormous plants that were being built in tennessee and Washington State and he had acquired and begun to use his investigative resources to try to determine what exactly was happening there. And secretary stimson was the secretary of war, he went to truman and said, were doing something really important and its very secret and were going to ask you not to inquire any further and truman agreed. When he very suddenly was elevate today the presidency, he was briefed on stimson and by james burns who was the war mobilizations czar who truman 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 becoming of hir row soshima. Were talking about it with ian toll. The lines for the eastern and central time zones 202748800, 2027488001. One of the questions that came up a couple of 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 using it on a city . Yeah. I think that thats a hard question. In my view, the really hard question is not so much is 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 a minority really among military historians in feeling this is a preference i have. That i would have liked to have seen the weapon used against a military target. A question of a demonstration has also been raised. The arguments against a demonstration, number one, it might have backfired. 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 of tokyo bay. It would have made an enormous flash and sent a message to the japanese. I dont think that would have prompted a rapid surrender. So, you know, 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 enhance the countrys moral standing. I do think thats important. But youve had some callers who are who have fathers or grandfathers who were 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 they believed saved their lives and belief is something we need to acknowledge and respect. And so, you know, thats essentially where i come out. Looking back, i would have liked to see the bomb used differently and 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 militaryrelated 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 going back to the days of the samurai. There was an important military target 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, in a gnaga 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 would have the topography and the conditions that would provide the greatest demonstration to the bombs power. And so yes. Finish your thought. Yeah. It is true that there was, you know, an important army base in hiroshima. In the clip that you played from 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. I think just from the point of view of looking back with 75 years of perspective, in that situation you would prefer that the president of the United States, you know, look into the eye of the camera and tell the world exactly what we had done without mincing words, without using that kind of locution. 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. So, you know, on august 6th we hit hiroshima. On august 9th we hit nagasaki. We did not have a third bomb at that point. It would have been a few weeks. Ian toll is our guest. Fi first up is charles in richmond, virginia. Good morning. Caller good morning. Its interesting when you hear those defections. One thing about why they dropped the bomb is 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 war declared. Japan didnt do that. And what happened when the bomb became available truman didnt know a thing about it. All you knew, you just become president. They didnt really like him. And they put it to him and said, look, this is it. We have this bomb. To me, it was all 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 for the bomb and i didnt make too much difference what truman had to say. It was in the works and the United States was going to drop that bomb. Do you think that the president had a say in that . Well, absolutely. The constitution confers enormous powers virtually unlimited as commander in chief in wartime. And 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. I dont think theres any question that 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 that 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 are all factors that played into the decision to use the atomic bomb and burn down japanese cities with incendiary bombing raids. Truman could have simply decided. He wouldnt have had to ask for permission or have his military chiefs or cabinet take a vote on the question. He could have simply said, were not going to hit a city or we are going to explicitly warn the japanese we have this weapon. In his private diary on july 25th, theres a strange entry where he says, i have instructed secretary simpson to use this weapon against military targets and not against women and children. And i have structured him that we will make a warning to the japanese telling them to surrender. Its odd because he didnt give that order. 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 questions is, if fdr had lived, how would have fdr decided to use the bomb . He certainly would have been at all he wouldnt have hesitated at all to make his own decision. He was accustomed to doing that. Lets hear from anthony on our line for world war ii veterans and families. Caller 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 hiroshima and in okinawa and in the occupation of japan. He came home in 1946 but we never really found out why he he never 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 a fight, to fight them and invade japan, i probably would have never came home. It was a flip of a coin. My personal opinion, if i had to make that decision, i would say, yeah. Brothers were one was in normandy, he was a paratrooper in the 101 and my other uncle was a medic. Those people from that generation, they fought hard and fought for our country. When i talk about my father and his brothers, im proud of them. Thats something today we wouldnt be able to do. From your book on 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 half a million. The answer seems to be that the causality projections were significantly lower than that. And, you know, its a disputed point and there were different causality 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 cant say, well, the casualties would have been lower so we should 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, you know, as the caller, you know, mentioned, there were so many people in this country who have fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers, 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. Just a last comment. One of the really interesting phenomenon is that those who were in japan after the war with the occupying forces, they tended to have a much more nuanced view of the japanese. 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 during the war and the way that the japanese people are in general because of the personal exposure they had had to japan and to the japan in the nation of japan after the war. Scott, good morning. Caller good morning. Im half japanese. And my father was drafted into world war ii. My grandfather was drafted by the Japanese Army. I keep seeing every year when they talk about pearl harbor that america was attacked unprovoked which is not true. Truman said on that clip that youve shown and like charles said on the in the call that japan bombed pearl harbor unprovoked. The flying tigers were flying under the awg under secret order of the president and until 1996 when it was it was either reagan or clinton acknowledged that the flying tigers were part of the military so they could get their va benefits, it showed that the awg was under military payment from the United States government through a company. So i keep hearing of this japanese unprovoked attack, thats not true. Im not saying that the 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. Scott, well get a response from our guest ian toll. Yeah, you know, 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. Fdr did say it was unprovoked in 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 of the pacific war and little heard is the role of japaneseamericans who worked as interpreters and language officer and is helped develop propaganda messages to aim at the japanese and it was an essential role in places like okinawa, the heroism of the japaneseamerican soldiers who went down into the 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. Thats not as familiar to people. To jean in maryland. Good morning. On our line for vets and families. 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 a sister all were on active duty in the military. For two reasons, one personal and one family. We loved trumans decision. My two brothers at the time of the just before the invasion, my two brothers were in combat in the navy, in the pacific. Both had close calls with death and my brother knew ill 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, 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 the naval hospital. She wanted to stay in the navy but she wanted to get married. As a naval officer she was not allowed to stay in the navy. That was the rule. She had to leave the navy and get married. The nine girls that were there, i remember them vividly. They used to come to our home in massachusetts to play tennis. They were full of life and wonderful young ladies, they were ill just say this, they were caught in the death march and after the war i asked my sister, she called and the supervisor and asked what happened to those young ladies. There were nine of them. Seven died and two were, quote, strapped down. We were fore trumans decision. But theres one other fact. This one ive almost never heard mentioned. I think its maybe true. That the People Killed in the hiroshima were not all japanese. I believe in hiroshima there were killed by that bomb were more than 20,000 korean slave workers and i believe its also true in nagasaki. Is that true, that there were tens of thousands of slave workers who were killed in these bombings . Its never mentioned. All right, gene. Yes, it is t