Weapon bordering on the absolute. Thousands died instantly. 70,000 persons were killed or listed as missing. 140,000 persons were injured. 43,000 were badly hurt. The city was unbelievably crushed. Of 90,000 buildings, over 60,000 were demolished. The remains were described as vapor and ashes. Man had torn from nature one of her innermost secrets. With his knowledge he had fashioned an instrument of annihilation. Menacing implications were frightening to everyday people. What did you think of that bomb we dropped on the japs . It is terrible. All of those people killed. Three days later, another b29 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 factory district, took the lives of 42,000 persons. It destroyed 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 at the heart of japan only after profound consideration of all of the human and military factors. The atomic bombs were dropped to end the war quickly, and they did in the war quickly. Richard frank is 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. Thank you for having me. 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 end the war quickly. Was this the right decision to make and were those bombs the reason for the end of the war . 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 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. The asiapacific war resulted in the death of about 19 million noncombatants. Of that number, a number of japanese noncombatants was maybe 1. 2 million. 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 that 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. That are primarily not japanese. 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 guests. 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. More perspective here. How widespread in 1945 was support for president truman and his decision to use atomic weapons . Has that changed over time . The support for truman in 1945 and 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. One of the things that really 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 in lieu 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, did not make a good choice, he basically was making choices between the astonishingly awful to the horrendously horrific, and he chose what secretary of war stimson would call the least abhorrent choice. This is the anniversary of the nagasaki bombing. August 16 the first one, hiroshima. What was different between those three days and what was the Truman Administration looking at . The destruction and hiroshima, what made them decide to drop a second bomb . There was no specific decision on the second bomb. The authorization order released the people to start dropping bombs and keep dropping bombs. We talk about the two bombs, 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 we 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 fissionable 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. As it happens, that is what the nagasaki bombs dead. Did. 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. How far along with the u. S. At the time of the dropping of the bombs, in its planning for an invasion of japan . Very good question and very different from how 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. What we now 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 aircraft. 7000 troops. Instead of us going in with overwhelming superiority, our salt would be facing 700,000 japanese. We now know a senior naval officer had never wanted to 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. 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. Good morning. I am age 60 and i remember the howard zinn lectures of my college years, of how history is being rewritten so much right now with people with agendas. Im hearing on talk radio that the only reason we bombed progressive talk radio, that is the only reason we bombed japan, because they were not europeans. In other words, they were people of color, which is nonsense because we bombed dresden in germany. That was 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 . 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. The first bomb, a test bomb, was 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 we would not abandon china. Our American People at that time, reading the New York Times had been reading it day by day to the whole world 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. How have japanese textbooks for Young Students portrayed the war . Has that approach changed over the years . That is a complex question. The larger issue, i think, for japan was the. The period of world war ii was an area not forthrightly discussed, still not forthrightly discussed. There is a tendency in japan to 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 once with a representative from the peoples republic of china. The argument was made along the lines of the critical literature. I see him going from bafflement 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 war, according to john dower, they capture between 1. 6 million and 1. 7 million japanese nationals. When the repatriation process is over, they only returned 1. 2 million. So from soviet archival documents about 61,000 are japanese soldiers. Basically 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. We go to rick. He is in phoenix. Good morning. Good morning. Just want to add my voice. Not sure what had been discussed earlier, my father, who barely survived the war in europe, was being prepared to transfer to japan. That would have eliminated my brotherslife after that date. And many other mens lives. It would also have been criminal, when you add everything up here, it would have been criminal for truman not drop that bomb. Not just the rape of nine king, hundreds of thousands of chinese massacred in a horrible way. The russian threat that would have taken japanese territory and greatly complicated the post war era. Theres 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 four. What . Could you address those points that you havent yet. Thank you. Richard frank. Thats an excellent point. On the american side, there was basically an unstable compromise between the army and the navy over a strategy to end the war in unconditional surrender. The army thought the critical issue was time. Therefore, they advocated an invasion because they believed invasion would be the swiftest way to end the war. The navy but studied war with japan for decades and 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, or and this is basically the policy. All the Navy Officers lined up behind it and talked about it as an alternative to the bomb. The blockade was bluntly aimed at aimed at ending the war by starving to death millions of japanese non combatants. And view of the limited powers 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 against japan. That was the direction we were going in august of 1945. By the way, those agents who are not japanese and who are dying every single day, add their deaths on top of the japanese dying. The death tolls for these alternatives, when you actually sit down and contemplate them, are just sickening and mindboggling. We have lynn on the line from west virginia. Hello lynn. Good morning cspan and mr. Frank. On the son of an okinawa veteran who is trained to go to japan in the invasion. Of course, they never had to go because president truman had the common sense to do what he did. For those who criticize truman and the army, im going to tell you what my dad said. But every one of those critics go to the families of american gis who were safe from invading japan from certain death. Tell them the truman did the wrong thing. I know you dont have the guts to do that. Thank you, mister frank for your books. Its very informative. Lynn, glen thank you for calling. Richard frank, has history been fair to president truman regarding his decisions . In my view, no. Let me add another dimension to this. Mr. Truman he famously said he did not lose any sleep over the decision and brace comments like that. If you really go through everything he actually said, in his mind he had a whole area and sort of two compartments. One compartment was, did i make the best decision of what was presented to me . He always believed that if you really understood all the alternatives, he made what secretary stinson called the less aboard choice. As bad as the bombs were and those choices, the alternatives were actually worse. On a personal level, truman was never indifferent to the deaths of japanese that his order had caused. In fact, very shortly after hiroshima, we intercept this message from the Japanese Navy reporting that 100,000 japanese had died and hiroshima. Mr. Truman was clearly reading that because he talks in a Cabinet Meeting or just before it to other government officials. He says, the hiroshima bomb died 100,000 people. All those kids. He has various comments that hes making that it was horrendous. The decision may have been right, but the consequences were horrendous. He recognized it and felt very deeply. Once again, when you deal with people from other asian nations who were trapped in japans empire. Americans are saying, were two bumps necessary . Another common comment is, why only two . From their perspective, the death rate is so in comparable between the japanese and these other people that they find the american struggle over this to be baffling. Mr. Frank, a little more of the history at the end of the war in the pacific in 1945. Hiroshima happens on august 6th. On august 9th, the u. S. Drops the atomic bomb on nagasaki. On the same day, soviets declare war on japan and invade manchuria. Six days later on august 15th, the amber japanese member announces japans unconditional surrender. Walk us through those six days and what happened to get the emperor to the point of surrender. A little context here. Would you basically have to understand is to get japan to surrender theres two steps. Someone with legitimate authority had to decide the japan as a nation state with surrender. Then japans armed forces had to comply with that surrender. Neither one of those steps was certainty through most of 1945. The emperor makes the critical decision. He actually makes it in the afternoon of august 8th 1945 when he talks to the foreign minister and says the warmest and now. This is after hiroshima. This is before soviet intervention. There were other factors that were on his mind including his loss of faith in the strategy to meet the invasion. There was a concern about the japanese people reaching revolutionary state sometime around the fall. These all played into his mind. He announces that decision before the inner circle of leadership in the Early Morning hours of august 10th. We have the diary entry of the number two man in the Imperial Army. He learned from the inferiors emperors decision. I dont think the overseas commander will comply even with an order for the upper. Immediately, two military officers communicate they will not comply with the order for surrender. The first message which is the first serious message about ending the war has this language in it that says that the preconditions that they want is that the prerogatives of the emperor will not be compromised in the surrender. American state Department Officials immediately realize that this is a demand that the u. S. In order to get the japanese to render, make the emperor supreme over the occupation reforms. He has a veto. We send a message back saying the emperor will clearly be subordinate to the occupation commander. That causes more turmoil in japan where that is satisfactory. The emperor persists that the japan should surrender and gets the government to agree. They never would have agreed with the emperor earlier im not sure. And we see a very front period about whether there is a question to get the Japanese Forces to surrender. They are five to 6 million strong. One of the cabinet members later tells american into rare gaiters that the most fraught days that he spent where these four or five days warning about whether the armed forces were going to comply with the embers ordered. Ive described this in another context as a miraculous deliverance. That we actually got the government and the armed forces of japan to surrender in august of 1945. We hear from steve now in fredericksburg, virginia. Good morning steve. Good morning. My father served in world war ii. I would like to ask professor frank if he reached japanese. Second of all, i would like to ask him if he has read the numerous overwhelming number of comments just after the war by japanese generals and admirals. There was not the two Nuclear Attacks on hiroshima and nagasaki, but the entrance of the soviet union into the war. They had invaded manchuria and they were occupying the korean islands which they still occupy to this day. They were threatening hokkaido. The decision to surrender was based on that much more than it was based on the two nuclear tax. Thank you. Thank you steve. Okay. Let me unpack that at several levels. First of all, in terms of the impact of soviet intervention. When the in the early hours of august 10th of 1945, the chief of staff of the Imperial Army tells the emperor and a classic understatement that soviet and intervention is unfortunate, but it does not negate their plan to counter the american invasion. If you go through all of these other statements that i have been through, the notion that all these japanese officers are talking only about soviet intervention being the key reason, that is simply not true. Its certainly not true in terms of the officers who were in the inner cabinet who make the decisions for the government to surrender. Soviet intervention does play an important part as i point out in my book, its important in terms of getting compliance of all the Japanese Armed forces. Particularly those who were on the asian continent for whom soviet intervention is a direct menace unlike atomic bombs which they neither understand nor did the u. S. Have a viable target. Theyre not going to drop a atomic bomb on singapore or chinese city to convince the japanese to surrender. Soviet intervention is important in getting compliance of all the Japanese Armed forces when the issue was very much in doubt. It does not, however, move the key Decision Makers to move the government and eventually japan to surrender. On to san diego now. Barbara lives in san diego. Good morning to you. Yes, good morning. Yes, im very interested in this subject because im australian. I was a small child in australia at the time of the second world war. My father was a coast watcher. We lived in north queensland. The japanese had been coming down through the islands and we were terrified. We had set up in the mountains ready to evacuate. I always say, i want to thank america for saving us trillion because we could not have done it alone. We had such a small population. All of our men were fighting in other areas. Thats about all i want to say. Its easy to be an armchair quarterback all these years later. They do not remember how it was. How intense the finding was. Barbara, thank you very much for calling. Richard frank, your reaction to that. Hes trillions, in our history we tend to overlook the australians. They were invaluable allies in carrying the burden of finding a new guinea in 1942 in 1943. The other thing about australias military is the deaths which numbered about 17,000 fighting against japan. Of the 17, 000, about 8000 of them died as prisoners of war of the japanese. They were marie mostly captured in singapore and other locations early in the war. That is just one part of the whole thing with japan. American historian herbert because points out that at the end of the war, the japanese had been fighting in china for eight years and killed at least 3 million Chinese Military personnel. They are supposed to turn over all the prisoners of war they held. According to him, they turn over 56 individuals after eight years of fighting the chinese and killing millions. Thats just part of the savage of the war. It was driven by the terms the japanese insisted the war beef ought upon. Richard frank, author of the downfall of the japanese empire. You look back on history and the 75th anniversary of the bombings. We appreciate your time. Thank you. Next on washington journal, the director of the Nuclear Studies institute at the american university. He talks about the 75th anniversary of the u. S. Dropping of the atomic bomb on nagasaki three days after hiroshima. But first, we have an expert from the film was shot and created in 1945 and 1946 by japanese film crews. They are documenting the aftermath of the bombings for scientific purposes. Heres a look. [video] music three days after the tragedy visited hiroshima. The ninth of 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. Exactly at 11 00, two super fortresses appeared over the city. Flying at high altitude. The first plane dropped three objects attached to parachutes. At 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 by man. The bomb missed the center of the city and detonated above a canyon to the north. Let us now view the general seen of devastation from the top of one of the hills to the east of the city. On the others of the hills, left of the harbor, lies the city. These hills on both sides of the 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. All buildings, save those of reinforced concrete, were demolished. The whole of this neighborhood, once teeming with houses and factories, denuded of everything. Our guest is peter kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies institute at the american university. Thank you for joining us. As we look back at the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings on japan, did harry truman make the right decision . No. He made the absolute wrong decision. He defended it throughout the rest of his life. He said i never lost a minute of sleep over that decision. He said he had no remorse, but he made the absolute wrong decision. The United States, in the 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 the fact that many japanese would have also been killed. The reality is there were two ways to end 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. Secretary of war stimson, almost all of trumans close advisors, urged him to change the terms of surrenders. The biggest impediment was burns. From the day truman becomes president until names burns 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. Admiral lahey said there may be no way to get the japanese to surrender if we demand unconditional surrender. How do we know that . We were intercepting their 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 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 jap emperor asking for peace. Aboard gusto, admiral lahey, the president , and burns agree that the japanese are looking for peace. Not only truman, 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. In february, 1945, the Prime Minister sent a memo to the emperor saying 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 u. S. And british were facing 10 german divisions combined, while the russians were facing hundred. Stalin agrees 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 potsdam meeting, making the same point. What did truman understand . Truman went to potsdam in mid july to make sure the russians were coming in. Afterwards, he wrote in his diary, stalin will be in the jap 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 it the most humane way . Absolutely not. Not only the suffering of the 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. Truman writes, this was a weapon great enough to destroy the world. On july 25, truman gets a fuller briefing about the bomb, and writes that stimson said that in four months we would have a weapon that could destroy in entire city. This could determine the future of civilization. Let me take a phone call. We have plenty of callers waiting. Peter kuznick is a professor at the american university. Jeff from new york for peter kuznick. Mr. Kuznick, i agree with everything you said. I anticipated the last 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 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 Reaction in the atmosphere of the earth and destroy the world. To take that type of chance, 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. Thank you for the call. Peter kuznick. Truman knew this was not a bigger, more powerful weapon. When he gets the briefing about how powerful the bomb test at alamogordo was, he writes, we discovered the most terrible bomb in history. This may be the fire destruction prophecy in the euphrates era after noah and his fabulous ark. 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. The japanese were already defeated and ready to submit. The use of this barbarous weapon was of no assistance in our war against japan. We adopted an ethical standard comment to the barbarians of the dark ages. We have 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 but they were the real target, not the japanese. And that was the reaction of stalin and the others in the crowd. Lets hear from Richard Richard is in verona missouri. Yes you know, this is finding good, but i was about eight years old when they drop the bomb. And i remember, our attitude in the United States, we had a gentleman and we were tickled to death that they drop that bomb. They told us it would stop the war and we are happy it did. The other two is the kamikaze pilots and weve seen all that and nothing was too bad for them in the time but i think mcarthur, he was you know he seen what war was, and i think mcarthur one point when we drop the bomb in korea when it was getting hard up there and the bombs, its an awful thing that if we didnt have bombs they would with there be more wars now and you know we knew we had the bomber all playing chicken with it. But maybe it stop somewhere by having the bombs . Thank you. Peter cosmic. The American Public was told, exactly what richard was saying, that the bomb ended the war and saved lives. The person who may be our next Vice President , road in an oped in the New York Times. That truman saved her fathers life, because he was ready to deploy to the pacific. And then dropping the atomic bombs force the japanese surrender thats the mid. Obama basically said the same thing when he was in hiroshima. 85 of the American People according to the gallup poll in 1945 supported dropping the america the atomic bomb. Full the came shortly after in 1945 said 22. 7 of the American People wished the japanese had not surrendered so quickly so we could have dropped more atomic arms on them. 30 in the southwest said so that was the attitude. Was it racism . That might have factored in a little bit. But the japanese were brutal and vicious. The baton death march which happen in 42 doesnt get known in the u. S. Until january 44. What the japanese did was horrific. What the japanese were doing throughout the pacific was horrific. Thats not a debate. Were not debating about that. Were debating about whether the dropping of the bomb was the right thing and what the consequences were. As the scientists and others warned, it did lead to one and uncontrollable arms race and were lucky that weve survived since then. From that day, weve had it hanging over the head of all humanity. Truman was not bloodthirsty. Truman was not evil. Truman went into this with his eyes wide open. Knowing he was beginning this process and knowing that the way we did it, which he had been warned about, triggered the exact response from the soviet union that was predicted at the time. The soviets had their own crash bomb program and they tested their bomb on august of 1949. Then in 1952, the United States tests the Hydrogen Bomb and the soviets test their prototype in 53. The bulletin of atomic scientists moves the hands of the Doomsday Clock at that point to two minutes before midnight. Now its at 100 seconds before midnight. The closest it has ever been. We are in a very dangerous situation. There were many instances during the cold war and sense where we have survived by pure blind luck. Including during the cuban missile crisis. Peter kuznick, youve let student groups for roughly 25 years now every summer to japan to attend the annual memorial services. What have you learned from the japanese over that period of time . Whats their perspective been and has it changed over the years about the bombings. One of the things that makes my student trip so interesting is that we travel with japanese students and professors. We get to see the war through the americanize and through the japanese ice and theres always a lot of other asians on the trip. They have a very different perspective than the japanese. We go to the commemorative events in hiroshima and nagasaki. We go to the Atomic Bomb Museum and the peace parks. We also stay with the japanese from the pacific. One museum i take my students to is a museum that is dyed dedicated to japanese atrocities. People have to keep in their minds that the japanese were victims and also victimized was. American students who will participate have to deal with their guilt about what the u. S. Did in world war ii. The japanese have to deal with their guilt and their sense of responsibility. Neither the American Government for the japanese government has dealt well with their history. One country that has taken responsibility for their past much more in a much more comfortable way is germany. The japanese have not done it, especially not under shinzo abe and the United States is not done it. We saw what happened when the smithsonian tried to have in honest historical exhibit in 1995. Maybe we are now getting ready to have this discussion in a way that we didnt. Lets go to brian. Brian is in east sandwich, massachusetts. Good morning. Good morning, thanks for the new me speak. Yes sir. I have a question for your guest. At the conference, we see roosevelt with stolen in churchill. Im wondering if they hadnt made the decision to drop it then or was it still in the planning stage . Was stalins spies in the Manhattan Project, did he know exactly what was going on . The other question i have considering personnel is what about the generals and the admirals that were closer to the front lines in the pacific . You mentioned mcarthur, what about the admirals . Were they briefed on what was going to happen before those bombs were dropped . They have knowledge of that . Thank, you go ahead brian finish up. Did oppenheimer had a chance to talk to truman about what would go on if they dropped this bomb . Several different points there. When was the decision made to drop that first bomb do you think . The meeting on may 5th, 1943. They decided that japan would be the target and not germany. The project began under the urging of the and the gray scientists who fled nazi occupied europe. After the germans split the uranium atom in december of 1938. The in the great scientists were very alarmed by the prospect of hitler developing an atomic bomb. They went einstein and then einstein got roosevelts attention. He wrote the first of three letters to roosevelt urging the u. S. Began a bomb project, not to drop on japan but as a deterrent against the japanese bomb a german bomb. The project gets off the ground very slowly and does not get much momentum until 1942. Some of the generals were briefed about the use of the atomic bomb. He mentioned both admirals were both on record saying the atomic bombs were not necessary to end the war. Even someone like eisenhower. Under eisenhowers presidency, Americas Nuclear arsenal increases almost 30 fold. Eisenhower when he takes office, they have about 1000 bombs. When his budgeting cycle finishes, they have 30,000 bombs. Eisenhower said that stinson told them at potsdam they were going to drop the bomb. He says, i was getting more and more depressed thinking about it. He asked for my opinion. I said i was against it on two counts. First, the japanese were ready for this surrender and it wasnt necessary to hit them without awful thing. Second, i hated to see our country to be the first to use such a weapon. Mcarthur says in an exchange with former president hoover who had written to truman urging him to change his surrender terms and may. Mcarthur said that if truman had followed your wise advice, the japanese wouldve surrendered and happily. Mcarthur in place it would have been as early as may. The possibility if we had told the japanese they would be able to keep the emperor, which we let them do afterwards anyway. We told them we had a awful new weapon. We told him the soviets were in during the war. We could have ended the war possibly a month or two earlier and saved more lives. American lives, japanese lives, chinese lies, vietnamese lives. Instead, we drop a bomb on august 6th in order to prevent an invasion that is supposed to begin november 1st. An invasion which many of the military leaders did not want to see happen at all, especially the naval leaders. The logic behind this escapes me. Briefly, do you think stalin knew . Yes. There were two or more prominent people who were giving intelligence to the soviets. Stalin knew the americans were developing a bomb. He didnt know exactly he knew it it was going to be tested, but he didnt know the results until truman told him at potsdam at the end of the conference. Stalin was poker faced. Truman thought that he didnt get it, that stalling didnt understand. Stolen knew exactly what that meant. Marvin calling from tuscaloosa, alabama. Welcome to the program. Thank you. I think youve played a little fast and loose with the facts and i dont think youve given enough credit to the great sacrifices of americans and the fact that it was germany, japan and italy and their dictators. They started the war. I think youve ignored the fact of all the atrocities committed by the japanese. You mentioned them, but we dont hear a lot about that. Those atrocities were proven at the tokyo war trials. For example, you mention the death march in the rape of nankin. The slaughter in torture of p. O. W. s. One of three died in prison. The Burma Death Railway that was built. I think you played fast and loose with the facts because truman had the facts and he made a reasonable decision. I wont go into all that kind of detail, but i think we owe it to americans on this 75th anniversary of the end of world war ii to just say to the americans and the families that died, including my two uncles. My father in law fought in it. Honor and glory to all of those people. All the families and americans who died in world war ii. I feel you arent fair and arent putting it in context. I definitely disagree with your statement that we have atrocities just like the japanese. Thats rewriting history and thats wrong sir. Lets get a response from peter kuznick. Martin, you are listening very closely. First of all, i think that world war ii was a necessary war. I think the United States was on the side of the angels in world war ii. Im happy we won world war ii. That is not a question for debate. The debate is, and i certainly dont play german atrocities or japanese atrocities. But the issue is very different. Its for that reason that the entire history of the cold war and the Nuclear Arms Race is not something that we can ignore. Dropping the bomb was instrumental in starting that cold war. The thing about it theres so many people we should be quoting. Admiral leahy for example said i was unable to see any justification from a National Defense point of view for an invasion of an already thoroughly defeated japan. If you are saying that we shouldve dropped the bomb to get revenge on the japanese, thats a different question. That is one that, crewmen in his initial statement, says were paying them back for pearl harbor and their atrocities. That is not the argument that is made by historians. The argument is whether or not the bomb is necessary to end the war. I will quote Brigadier General carter clark whos in charge of repairing the magic. We broken down through abject render through accelerated surrender of their merchant marine. We did not need to do it, we knew we did not need to do it, and they knew we knew we did not need to do it. We use them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. Why would we do that . The United States was not in a moral country. We are fighting the good war that we had to win. General groves who is in charge of the Manhattan Project said, it was about two weeks from the time i took charge of this project, any illusion on my part that russia was our enemy and the project was conducted on that basis. Another general said in march of 1944, you realize of course that the main purpose of this project is to subdue the russians. James burns, trumans top political adviser, said the same thing. He said this is our way to make the russians more manageable in europe. If you think that is a justifiable reason for killing hundreds of thousands of people, then theres almost no limit to what you can justify now. Then you can justify using atomic bombs today if its going to give us a way to achieve some moral purpose. Fortunately, thats not the attitude of the world has adopted. But under the current u. S. Nuclear posture of europe and the Trump Administration from february 2018, weve lowered the threshold for use of nuclear weapons. We are developing two more usable Smaller Nuclear weapons and the world is really in a very precarious situation now. 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