B29 dropped atomic bomb number two on hiroshima, japans seventh largest city. A communications, military and Industrial Center of considerable importance. A stunned universe now swiftly learned man had a new weapon of shocking destructiveness, a weapon boarding on the absolute. In the blast thousands died instantly. 70,000 persons listed as killed or missing, 140,000 were injured. Of those 43,000 were badly hurt. The city was unbelievably crushed. Of 90,000 meetings over 60,000 demolished. The remains were aptly described as vapor and ashes. Man had torn from nature, one of her inner most secrets and fashioned an instrument of annihilation. Menacing implications of this extraordinary weapon were frightening to every day people. What did you think of that bomb we dropped on the japs, mrs. Glenn . Isnt it terrible . All those people killed. Three days later another bomb dropped on the seaport of nag sa highly congested, the best natural harbor and extensive naval facilities. This bomb exploding took the lives of 42,000 persons and injured 40,000 more. It destroyed 39 of all the buildings standing in nagasaki before the calamity. Japanese described their bleak, mutilated city as a graveyard with not a tombstone standing. These two terrifying blows were struck at japan only after profound consideration of human military factors involved. The atomic bombs were dropped to end the war quickly, and they did end the war quickly. Richard frank is author of downfall here to talk to us further about the 75th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb by the u. S. On japan. Richard frank, thank you for joining us. Thank you for having me. In that last clip we just heard, military film from 1946, it said pretty definitively atomic bombs were dropped to end the war quickly and they did end the war quickly. First of all, was this the right decision to make and were those bombs dropped for the reason of ending the war . The short answer is yes and yes. They were dropped overwhelmingly the primary reason to end the war as quickly as possible, save lives, both american and japanese. One thing thats critical to get to at the start, to understand the context of this. From my side i have two basic principles we have to follow. One is to count all the dead. Second is to treat all the dead sharing common humanity. By that, i very much mean the japanese as well. Basically the Asian Pacific war resulted in the deaths of 19 million noncombatants. Of that number, the number of japanese noncombatants, 1 million or 2 million, due to atomic bombs and soviet intervention in 1945. That math tells you immediately that for every japanese noncombatant who died in the whole war, between 17 and 18 other noncombatants died. Overwhelmingly other asians and 12 million of them are chinese. By the summer of 1945, most of those 17 or 18 million noncombatants who were not japanese were already dead and they were dying at a rate between 8,000 and 14,000 a day, 240,000 to 400,000 a month. Its important we dont overlook or did he mean or diminish or dehumanize japanese but equally important we understand the total context of this and where the deaths are taking place, and they are primarily not japanese. Richard frank is with us for a half hour as we look back further on the 75th anniversary of the atomic bomb drops on hiroshima and nagasaki. We will take your calls after a couple of minutes of conversation. Well put the phone numbers on the screen for our guests. Eastern and central time zones 2027488000 is your number. Out west, mountain and pacific 2028001. We have two special lines, one for world war ii veterans and their families 2027488002 and for japanese americans 2027488003. We look forward to talking with you and you talking to our guest, richard frank. Richard frank, more perspective here. How widespread in 1945 was the support for president truman and his decision to use atomic weapons and has that changed much over time . Yeah. The support for truman in 45 and sometimes afterwards was extremely high. Looking at numbers ive seen punching up 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 i dont question we should talk about this. It should be controversy. I find it astonishing that this conversation takes place in which various alternatives are advanced in lieu of the atomic bombs. What is conspicuous about that discussion is they never talk about what the cost of the alternatives are. When you actually get down and start doing the cost of the alternatives, you understand why mr. Truman in his decision didnt make a good choice. He basically was presented with choices between astonishly awful to the horrendously horrific and chose what secretary of war stimson would call the least horrible choice in terms of the events. This is the 75th anniversary of the nagasaki bombing, the second bombing. August 6th being the first one, hiroshima. Richard frank, what was the difference between those three days and what the Truman Administration was looking at, the destruction in hiroshima . What made them decide to drop a second bomb three days later . There was no specific decision on a second bomb. The authorization order released people to start dropping bombs and keeping dropping bombs. There was no checkback. When we talk about the two bombs, another aspect about this controversy people dont understand, the problem with the notion that one bomb would have done it or a demonstration would have done it is this you have to look at the japanese side. Their reaction to this was based on the fact they had an Atomic Bomb Program which had not produced a bomb but it had educated the top levels of japanese leadership and the fact producing fissionable material, which you have to have to take a bomb, was extremely different. When news of hi ro shi ma came and mr. Trumans announcement that it was an atomic bomb, the Imperial Army said we wont concede they had one bomb until we have an investigation. The Imperial Navy took the track, they may have one bomb but there cant be that many, cant be that powerful. Basically what japanese leadership was looking at, not the fear of one bomb but an arsenal of powerful atomic bomb weapons. As it it happened thats what the nagasaki bomb did, convinced top leadership that the u. S. Didnt have one bomb, we had an arsenal of atomic bombs. The war minister, second most powerful man in japan after emperor, had been adamant, after nagasaki hes going around telling leadership americans have 100 atomic bombs and the next target is going to be tokyo. Thats an amazing argument to make to continue the war. How far along was the u. S. In dropping of bombs in planning an invasion of japan, the main islands of japan . Very good question. Its very different from the way its usually presented. There had been a plan to invade on november 1st. Mr. Truman approved that on the 18th of june, 1945. At that time he was quite reluctant but presented with a scenario in which we would have overwhelming is he norty going into the japan, therefore american casualties would be acceptable. What we know now, radio intelligence uncovered the fact japanese exactly anticipated the First American invasion was going to take place on southern kyushu. They built this huge buildup of ground and air force, 10,000 aircraft, half of them kamikaze, 700,000 troops. Instead of us going in with overwhelming seniority our echelon would be faciing 700,00 japanese. The senior naval officer had never wanted to invade japan and had been biding his time to bring on a showdown over whether an invasion should take place. By the 9th of august 1945 with the intelligence, he was prepared to bring on this huge showdown with an army over whether there should be an invasion of japan. Only japanese surrender cut that off before it reached a level of mr. Truman having a review. Lets take a call from tom in arlington, west virginia. Youre on with richard frank. Were talking about the 75th anniversary of atomic bombings of japan. Go ahead, tom. Caller good morning. Good morning. Caller im age 60. I remember the howard zen lectures of my College Years of how history is being rewritten so much right now by people with agendas. Im hearing on talk radio the only reason why 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 over in germany. That was a purpose of demoralizing the german people, for them to surrender. Its 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, professor . No. Basically you have to bear in mind right up until the end it was assumed the bombs would be used against germany as soon as they were available. Turned out from a technical standpoint didnt have bombs ready to use against germany. Germany surrendered in may. The first bomb, which was a test bomb, was detonated in july 1945. Let me come back again to a really basic point. Its not that the argument on advancing says we dont care about the japanese, the japanese who died. I wrote very graphically about that in my book, both the fire raid in tokyo in 1945 and also hiroshima. But what ive been going over these many years now is the fact our narratives weve been using on this simply talk about japanese deaths, the fact japanese were asians. They dont mention we were in the war, basically because we wouldnt abandon china. Our American People at the time reading the New York Times, reading it day by day through the whole war, they were well aware of how horrific the war was in asia. Weve completely blotted that out. Thats why those narratives are so powerful because people simply do not realize how horrific the asiapacific war was. How have japanese textbooks for Young Students portrayed the war, and has that approach changed over the years . Thats sort of a complex question. The larger question, the larger issue, i think, for japan was the whole period of world war ii was an area that was not really forthrightly discussed, still not forthrightly discussed. Clearly theres a at the n tena 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 get a full flavor how infuriating it makes people in china and elsewhere. I was sitting at a conference with people from republic of china, presentation made very much along typical lines of what i call critical literature here. As hes sitting there, i see him going from bafflement to fury as he realized this narrative entirely omits, doesnt count and doesnt treat chinese, vietnamese, indonesians, koreans as sharing a common humanity with japanese civilians in two cities. Let me add further, a point i alluded to earlier. Basically when the soviet union enters the war, according to embracing defeat classic book about the occupation of japan they capture between 1. 6 and 1. 7 japanese nationals in manchuria. When its over they returned 1. 2 million. Between 400,000 and 500,000 japanese either died or disappeared in soviet captivity. We know from soviet archival documents about 61,000 of them are japanese soldiers. So that tells you basically between 340 and 400,000 noncombatants died in soviet cap tv cap tvty after the hostilities. Those are higher numbers than atomic bomb attacks including latent deaths. We go to rick in phoenix. Good morning. Caller good morning. I just want to add my voice. Not sure what has been discussed earlier but my father, who barely survived the war in europe was being prepared to transfer to japan. That would have eliminated my brothers life after that state and many other mens lives. It would have been criminal when you add everything up here, it would have been criminal for truman not to drop that bomb. Not just the rapes and hundreds of thousands of chinese massacred in a horrible way. As you just mentioned, the russian threat that would have taken japanese territory and greatly complicated the postwar 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. What . Could you address those points that you havent yet . Thank you, rick. Richard frank . Thats a really 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 allocated an invasion because they believed the invasion would be the swiftest way to end the war. The navy studied war with japan literally for decades. One of the fundamental premises of that study was invading japanese home 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, all the Navy Officers lined up behind it, talked about it as the alternative to the bomb. This gets back to the very basic point i made about counting all the dead. Blockade was bluntly aimed to end the war by starving to death millions of japanese, mostly noncombatants. Thats what blockade was about. In view of the limited power of 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, if the invasion of kyushu was off and king gets his way we do blo blockade, kill millions of japanese noncombatants. By the way, those asians not japanese, who are dying every single day, had their deaths on top of the japanese dying. The death tolls for alternatives when you sit down and contemplate them was sickening, mind boggling. We have len on the line from west virginia. Hello, len. Caller good morning, cspan, and mr. Frank. Im the son of an okinawa veteran training to go to the invasion in japan. Of course they never had to go because president truman had the common sense to do what he did. For those who criticizes truman and the army ill tell you what my dad said, let every one of those critics go to the family of people, american gis who were saved from invading japan and certain death and tell them that truman did the wrong thing. I know you dont have the guts to do that. Thank you, mr. Frank, for your books. Very informative. Len, thank you for calling. Richard frank, has history been fair to president truman regarding his decisions . My view, no. Let me add another dimension to this. Mr. Truman postwar famously said he didnt lose any sleep over the decision and various comments like that. If you really go through everything he actually said, in his mind he had sort of an area two compartments. One compartment, did i make the best decision of what was presented to me . He always believed if you really understood all the alternatives, he made what secretary stimpson called the least abhorrent choice. As bad as the bombs were and those choices, the alternatives were 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 100,000 japanese had died at hiroshima. Mr. Truman clearly was reading that. He talks in a Cabinet Meeting or just before a Cabinet Meeting to other government officials. He said the hiroshima bomb killed 100,000 people. He didnt pull that out of the air. He said all those kids. He has various other comments hes making about the fact that this was horrendous, the consequences of the decision. The decision may have been right but the consequences were horrendous and he recognized it and felt it very deeply. You know, once again, when you deal with people from other asian nations trapped in japans empire or americans saying were two bombs necessary, a common comment from them is why only two. From their perspective, the death rate is so incomparable between the japanese and other peoples, they find the american struggle to be baffling. A little more of the history, end of the war in the pacific 1945. So hiroshima happens on august 6th. August 9th the u. S. Drops the bombs on japan. Same day soviets declare war on japan, invade manchuria. Six days go by, emperor announces unconditional surrender. What happened . Walk us through the six days to get the emperor to the point of surrender. A little context here. Basically what you have to understand is to get japan to surrender was really two steps. Someone with legitimate authority had to decide japan as a nation state would surrender. Then 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 in the afternoon of august 8, 1945 when he talks to the foreign minister and says the war must end now. This is after hiroshima, before soviet intervention. There were other factors on his mind including loss of faith and the strategy to meet the invasion, concern about the japanese people reaching revolutionary state sometime in the fall. These all played into his mind. He announces that the decision before the inner circle of leadership in the Early Morning hours of august 10th. We have the doir diary entry of number two man when he learns of the decision. One of the officers in imperial headquarters says i dont think commanders will comply with an order of the emperor. Two from the Imperial Army send messages say were not going to comply with surrender orders even from the emperor. Theres more back and forth in tokyo. They send their first message, really their first serious message about winning the war. It has language saying the precondition they want is the prerogatives of the emperor as ruler will not be compromised in the surrender. American state Department Officials immediately realize this is a demand that the u. S. To get the japanese to surrender make the emperor supreme, not only over the japanese government, but over the occupation authorities. So he has a veto over the occupation and occupation reforms. Of course we send a message back saying clearly the emperor is going to be subordinate to the occupation commander. That causes more turmoil in japan. The ema emperor persists to get japan to surrender and get the government to agree. Whether they would ever have agreed without the emperor, i dont know. Then we saw a fraught period where its a question whether they are going to get Japanese Forces to surrender. One of the inner cabinet members later tells american interrogators the roughest, most fraught days he spent, these four or five days worrying whether armed forces would comply with the emperors order. I described this in another context as sort of a miraculous deliverance that we actually got government and armed forces of japan to surrender in august 1945. Hear from steve now in fredericksburg, virginia. Good morning, steve. Caller good morning. My father served in world war ii. Id like to ask professor frank, first of all, if he reads japanese. Second of all, id like to ask if hes read numerous, overwhelming number of comments just after the war by japanese generals that it 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 islands, which they still occupy to this day, and they were threatening hokkaido. The decision to surrender was based on that much more than it was based on the two Nuclear Attacks. Thank you. Thank you, steve. Okay. Let me unpack that at several levels. First of all, in terms of the impact of soviet intervention. At the imperial conference in the Early Morning hours of 1945, chief of staff of the Imperial Army tells the emperor in a classic understatement soviet intervention is unfortunate but doesnt negate their plan to counter the american invasion. If you go through other statements ive been through, this notion that all these japanese officials are talking about the only reason for the surrender was the soviet intervention being the key reason, thats certainly not true. Certainly not true in terms of the officers in the inner cabinet who make the decision for the government to surrender. Soviet intervention does play an important part, as pointed out in my book. It is very important in terms of getting compliance of all the Japanese Armed forces, particularly those on the asian continent for whom soviet intervention is a direct menace, unlike atomic bombs, which they didnt understand or have a viable target. Were not going to drop a bomb on singapore or a chinese city to convince the japanese to surrender. Soviet intervention is important in getting compliance of all the Japanese Armed forces when that issue is very much in doubt but it does not move the key decisionmakers to japan to surrender. Barbara in san diego. Barbara, good morning to you. Caller good morning. Yes, im very interested in this subject because im an australian, and 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 huts set up in the mountains ready to evacuate. But i always say i want to thank america saving australia because we could not have done it alone. We had such a small population all of our men were fighting in other areas. Anyway, thats about all i want to say accept its easy to be an armchair quarterback all these years later. They dont remember how it was, how intense the fighting was. Barbara, thank you very much for calling. Richard frank, your reaction to that . Australians, in our history we tend to overlook the australians. They were invaluable allies carrying the main burden on fighting in new guinea in 1942 and 1943. The other thing about the australians, Australian Military deaths, and the part of the war where they are fighting against japan numbered about 17,000. Of those 17,000, about 8,000 of those australians died as prisoners of war of the japanese. They were mostly captured on singapore and couple of other locations early in the war. Thats just one part of the whole thing with japan. Herbert bicks an american historian points out at the end of the war the japanese had been fighting in china for eight years. They killed at least 3 million Chinese Military personnel. They were supposed to turn over all prisoners of war they held. According to the doctor, they turned over 56 individuals after eight years of fighting the chinese and killing millions, 56 p. O. W. S. Thats just one part of the savagery of the war was driven by the terms the japanese insisted the war be fought on. Richard frank, author of down fall, the end of the Imperial Japanese empire. Thank you for your time and look back at the 75th anniversary of the history of the bombings of japan. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Next on washington journal, peter kuznick, talks about the 75th anniversary of the u. S. Dropping of atomic bomb on nagasaki three days after hiroshima. But first we have an exert of a film shot and created in 1945 and 46 by film crews documenting aftermath of the bombings for scientific purposes. Lets take a look. Three days after the tragedy visited hiroshima, the 9th of august, 1945. The day was calm, bright, and windless. The hot summer sun shone upon the city. Since Early Morning an air raid alarm was on. Then it was lifted. For 2. 5 hours it continued to prevail. At exactly 11 00 two super forces appeared over the city from the northeasterly direction at a high altitude. The first plane dropped three objects attached to parachutes. At 11 02 the second plane dropped an object. Its descent taking about 40 seconds. Then came a blinding flash followed by an explosion and a blaze. The destruction was the greatest ever wrought by man. The bomb missed the center of the city and detonated above a canyon to the north. Let us now view the general scene of devastation the top of the hills to the east of the city. On the other side of the hills at the left of the harbor lies the city. These hills on both sides are the breaks which intercepted the atomic blast and prevented it from extending to the harbor section and the heart of the city. At the right of this narrow pass lies the area of total devastation. All buildings, save those of reinforced concrete, were demolished. The whole of this neighborhood, once teemed with wooden houses and factories, now its flattened out and denuded of everything. Only broken tiles and pebbles remain. Our guest is peter kusnick, director of Nuclear Studies institute at the american university. Thank you for joining us, dr. Kuznick, appreciate it. 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 minutes sleep over that decision. He said he had no remorse over that decision but he made the absolute wrong decision. The United States the official mythology, 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 a half million would have been killed in the invasion. Years later they add to the fact that many japanese perhaps millions of japanese would also have been killed. The reality is there were two ways to end the war without the use of atomic bombs. The first was to change the surrender terms. The main obstacle to japanese surrender was u. S. Demand for absolute surrender, which meant the emperor would be tried as a war criminal and probably executed. As Douglas Mcarthur said in a background briefing in the summer of 1945, execution of the emperor to them would be like the crucifixion of christ to us, all would fight. The understanding was pervasive in the advisers around truman. Secretary of war stimpson, pretty much all of trumans close advisers urged him to change the surrender terms. Main impediment was jimmy burns. Truman relied on burns more than anybody else. From the day he becomes president , first day in office april 13th until july 3rd when he names burns secretary of state hes relying on burns for advice and burns told him youll be politically crucified if you let the japanese keep the emperor. They did everything they could to convince him to change surrender terms. Leahy, admiral leahy, said there may be no way to get them to surrender if we demand unconditional surrender. How do we know that . Weve broken japanese codes. We were intercepting telegrams. Their telegrams for example july 13th from ambassador sato in moscow in the middle of may the japanese decided the best way to get better surrender terms was to ask the soviet union to intervene on their behalf. Cable traffic went back and forth. July 13th, his majesty, the emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice of people of powers desires from his heart it may be quickly terminated. Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. What did truman understand about that . Truman refers to the interpreted telegram as telegram from the jap emperor asking for peace. Those are trumans words. Walter brown, who was burns assistant aboard the augusta on the way back from japan august 3rd, aboard augusta the president , admiral leahy and burns agree the japs are looking for peace. They knew that. When they got the cables and broke the code, they all agreed with that assessment that the japanese knew they were defeated. Japanese knew they were defeated since battle of saipan in july of 1944. In february of 1945, the prince, threetime former Prime Minister sent a memo to the emperor saying i regret to inform you but defeat is inevitable. Japanese knew that and americans knew that. The second way to force a surrender was to wait for the soviet invasion. From the day after pearl harbor, president roosevelt and the secretary of state had been urging to come into the pacific war. The russians were busy fighting against the nazis. Through much of the war u. S. And british facing 10 german divisions combined while soviets facing 200 german divisions, so they had their hands full. February of 45 stalin agrees to come into the pacific war three months after the end of the war in europe, which would be around august 8th or august 9th. What did american intelligence say . Joint Intelligence Committee reported april 11th, quote, at any time u. S. S. R. Should enter the war, all japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable. I can give you more cases, july 6, a lot of these reports, the potsdam meeting, make the same point over and over again that once the soviets enter the japanese are finished. What did truman understand . Truman said he went to potsdam in mid july to make sure russians were coming in. He had lunch with stalin july 17th. Afterwards he wrote in his diary, stalin will be in the jap war by august 15th. Fini japs when that occurs. He writes home to his wife bess the next day. The russians are coming in. Well end the war a year sooner now. Think of all the kids who wont be killed. Then the question is why did the United States drop 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 to do it . Absolutely not. Not only the suffering of hundreds of thousands of japanese killed and hundreds of thousands more who were going to suffer throughout the rest of their lives but truman knew he was beginning a process that could ultimately end life on the planet. He gets his first real briefing on the bomb april 13th from burns. Truman writes in his memoir, burns said this is a weapon great enough to destroy the whole world. On july 25th, truman gets a fuller briefing about the bomb and writes then that stimpson said in four months well have a weapon, one of which can destroy an entire city. Said the way this is handled can determine the future of human civilization. Peter kuznick, let me jump in and take a phone call because we have plenty of callers waiting to talk to you. Peter kusnick is the director of Nuclear Studies institute at the american university. We have bayville, new york, up. Its jeff for peter kuznick. Go ahead, jeff. Caller thank you for taking my call. Youre welcome. Caller i agree with everything you said. I anticipated answering the last presenters questions. Theres also a moral depravity that should be spoken about with the use of an atomic weapon. Its not just a new weapon. There is a certain glibness to the way the decision was made. Not only was it understood in the future this may a problem with nuclear war Going Forward but it was even thought at the time it could cause a change reaction in the atmosphere of the earth and destroy the world with one weapon or one weapon that was a little more powerful than the ones they had tested in the deserts here in the United States. To take that type of chance without knowing, that type of glibness, it really speaks to 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 giving license to everybody else to use a weapon when they develop it, which they knew they would, as soon as they got it. Its just astounding to me they can do such a thing. Jeff, thank you for calling. Peter kuznick . That was the point i was starting to make. Truman knew there was not a bigger more powerful weapon. When he gets the briefing at potsdam about how powerful the bomb test was at alamogordo he writes in his diary, we discovered the most terrible bomb in history. This may be the final destruction prophesied in euphrates era after noah and fabulous ark. Not a bigger bomb, a fire destruction. He says this on many occasions. He wasnt the only one. Oppenheimer briefed the interim committee on may 31st, military and political leaders and warned them in three years well likely have weapons between 700 and 7,000 times as powerful as the hiroshima bomb. The scientists were warning about this. When you get to the moral equation, seven of the eight five star generals in 1945 are on record saying that the atomic bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally rep reprehensible or both. The most outspoken about this was admiral william leahy. He was tr trumans chief of sta. Hayley chaired the meetings of joint chief of staff and trumans personal joint chief of staff. Leahy wrote japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. The use of this barbarous weapon was of no material assistance in our war against japan. Being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the dark ages. Weve got similar comments by eisenhower, mcarthur, king. They all knew it wasnt necessary and some of them recognized the moral significance of using it. Because as youre saying, we knew there was no secret to the bomb and that other countries would be developing them. The scientists thought it would take the soviets between three to five years to catch up. So if were setting this example that we could use the bomb, and the other thing about that, the soviets knew that the bomb was unnecessary because the japanese had been trying to get them to intercede to get better surrender terms. So in early may japanese former Prime Minister met several times with soviet ambassador malik. Malik writes back to the kremlin and says the japanese are desperate to surrender. So when the United States dropped the bomb, the soviets knew better than anybody that there was no military reason to do it and they interpreted it exactly the way some of the scientists warned they would. They were the real target, not the japanese. That was the reaction of stalin and others in the kremlin. Lets hear from richard in missouri. Thank you for waiting. Youre on with richard kuznick. Caller yeah, you know, this is fine and good. I was about 8 years old whenever they dropped the bomb. I remember the attitude in the United States, in school and everywhere. We had a gentleman from our little town, the death march. We was tickled to death they dropped that bomb and stopped the war. They told us they would stop the war. Boy, we was happy it did. The other two American People, the kamikaze pilots and all this, we seen all that. Nothing was too bad to do to the japanese at the time. I think mcarthur actually truman, he was in war himself. He seen what war was. I think mcarthur at one time wanted to drop the bomb in korea when it was getting hard up there. The bombs, its an awful thing. If we didnt have bombs, would there be more war . We all know that everybodys got a bomb and were all playing chicken with it. Maybe it stopped by having bombs. I dont know. Richard, thank you. Peter kuznick . The American Public was told exactly what richard was saying that the bombs ended the war and saved lives. Susan rice might be our next vice president. She wrote in an oped in the New York Times that truman saved her fathers life. He was ready to deploy to the pacific and dropping the atomic bombs ended the war and forced japanese surrender. Thats the myth. Obama basically said the same thing when he was in hiroshima. He said world war ii reached its brutal end in hiroshima and nagasaki. 85 of the American People, according to the gallup poll in 1945 supported dropping the atomic bomb. A roper poll that came out shortly after in 1945 said that 22. 7 of the American People wished the japanese had not surrendered so quickly so he could drop more atomic bombs on them. 30 in the southwest. So that was the attitude. Was it racism . That might have been factored in a little bit. The japanese were brutal and ruthless. The death march in 1942 doesnt get known in the u. S. Until 1944. 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 whether dropping 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. From that day this has been hanging over the head of all humanity. The thing is truman was not blood thirsty. He was not evil. Truman went into this with his eyes wide open knowing he was beginning the process and knowing that the way we did it, which he had been warned about, triggered the exact response from the receisoviet union that predicted at the time. The soviet had their own crash program. They tested their bomb in august of 1949. In 1952 the u. S. Testing their hydrogen bomb. The bulletin of the atomic scientists moves the hands of Doomsday Clock to two minutes before midnight. Now its at 100 seconds before t point to two minutes before midnight. Now it is at 100 seconds before midnight. The closest it has ever been. We are in a very dangerous situation and there were many instances during the cold war and since where we have survived for sheer blind luck, including the missile crisis. Soft you have led student groups for roughly 25 years now, what have you learned from the japanese over that period of time . What is their perspective and has it changed over the years about the bombing . One of the things that make my student trip so interesting is that we travel with japanese students and professors. We get to see the war from the american ice and through the japanese eyes. There are 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 i could psyche. We go to the peace parks. And the japanese wars and the pacifics. I take my students to other museums nagasaki in. Dedicated to japanese atrocities. People have to keep in mind that the japanese were victims, but they were also victimize ors as well. 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 their sense of responsibility, and neither the american or the japanese government has dealt well with their history. One country that has taken responsibility for their past in a much more constable way is germany. The japanese have not done it, especially not the United States as well. When the smithsonian strike to have an honest historical exhibit, maybe now we are getting ready to have a discussion in a way that we didnt. Lets go to brian from massachusetts. Good morning. Good morning. Thanks for letting me speak. I have a question for your guest. In the conference we see Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, and im wondering if they have made the decision to drop it then or was it still in the planning stage. With stalins spies in the Manhattan Project, that he knew exactly what was going on . The other question i had concerning personalities, what about the generals and admirables that were more closer to the front lines in the pacifics. What about the admirals . Were they briefed on what was going to happen before those bombs dropped . They have knowledge of that . Thank you. Get open hummer have a chance if they drop this bump . Thank, you brian. Several different points there. When was the decision made do you think to trot that first bomb . May 5th 1943. They decided japan would be the target and non germany. The project began under the urging of the ever great scientists who fled from nazi occupied europe and after the german split the ottoman were very alarmed about the prospect of hitler developing an atomic bomb. They went einstein and then einstein got roosevelt attention. Three letters to roosevelt to begin a bomb project. Not to bomb japan, but as a deterrent against japanese bomb. The project gets around very slowly and doesnt really get momentum until 1942. Anne the admirals and generals, some of them were briefed about the use of the atomic bomb, and you mentioned housing and minutes. Both of them run records and utah make bombs were not necessary in the war. But even somebody like eisenhower. Under eisenhowers presidency, america increases almost 30 fold. A little more than 1000 bombs and the budgeting cycle was finished and you got almost 30,000 bombs. Eisenhower says that at potsdam we would drop the bomb. They told me they were going to chop it on the trump pennies. I didnt volunteer anything because my war was over in europe. It was an up to me. I was getting more and more depressed just thinking about it. Then he asked for my opinion so i told him on two counts. First, japanese already to surrender, and it was not necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, i hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon. Mcarthur says an exchange with former president hoover who had written to truman urging him to change the surrender terms and may. Mcarthur said that if truman had followed the wise advice, the japanese would have surrendered and happily. Mccarthy implies that would have been as early as may. The possibility if we had told the japanese they could keep the emperor, which we let them do afterwards anyway. I told them we had a weapon. We told them we were about to come into the war. We couldve ended the war possibly a month or two earlier. Save more lives. American lives, japanese lives, chinese lives, vietnamese lives. But instead we dropped the bomb on august 6th in order to prevent an invasion that was 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, peter, did stalin know according to that last question . Yes. There were two or more prominent people who are giving intelligence to the soviets. Theater hall, ducks, and the two most prominent who were doing so. Stalin knew the americans were developing a bump. He did not know exactly he knew it was going to be tested. He did not know the results until truman finally told him at potsdam at the end of the conference that the United States had a terrible new weapon. Stalin was poker faced. Truman thought he did not get it. Stolen did not understand. Stalin knew exactly what that meant. Marvin, welcome to the program. Thank you. I dont think youve given enough credit to the great sacrifices that americans put into this and the fact that it was germany, japan and italy and their dictators that started the war. I think youve ignored the fact that 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 mentioned the death march. Killing all those slaughter and torture of american p. O. W. s. One oh and three died in prisons. The 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 the 75th anniversary of the end of world war ii to just say to the americans and the families that died, including my two uncles and my father in law, that honor and glory to all of those people, all of the families, all of the americans who 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. That is wrong, sir. Marvin lewis get a response. Marvin, you are not listening very closely. First of all, i think that world war ii was a necessary war. I think the United States were not 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. The debate is, and i certainly dont play japanese or german atrocities, but the issue something very very different. It is 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 bond was instrumental in starting that cold war, and the thing about it, people should be quoting, admirably he, for example, i was unable to see any justification from a National Defense point of view for an invasion of an already thoroughly defeated japan. Youre saying we should have dropped the bomb to get revenge on the japanese. That is a different question. That is one that truman and his initial statement says that we are paying them back for pearl harbor and for 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 quote Brigadier General carter. He was in charge of he said we brought them down to an abject surrender through accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and what we did not need to do we knew we did not need to do it, they knew we didnt need to do it. Used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. Why would we do them . The United States is not in a moral country. We were fighting a good war and had to win. General groves in charge of the Manhattan Project said, there was never for about two weeks from the time i took charge of this project, any illusion on my part that russia was a part of it and the project was conducted on that basis. General groves told robert over dinner and said you realize that the main purpose of this project is to subdue the russians. James burns told his top advisor said the same thing to the rest when they met with him and South Carolina on may 28. 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, and theres almost no limit to what you cant justify now. And you can justify using atomic bombs today. If it is going to give us a way that is going to achieve some moral purpose. Fortunately that is not the attitude that the world has adopted, but under the current u. S. Posture view under the Trump Administration from february 20 18th, weve lowered the threshold. Weve use nuclear weapons. We are developing two more usable Smaller Nuclear weapons and the world is really in a very precarious situation now. As we wrap up, what is the legacy in your view from the bombings of who hiroshima . The legacy. I think it undermined americas claims toward exceptionalism. The United States, we like to think of ourselves americans, its different from all the other countries. As more moral, more just, we got in the world to spread freedom and democracy. At the heart of that, at that understanding is, it begins with the cold war. It begins with our victory in world war ii. World war ii was a good war, as close as weve ever come to a good war but theres no such thing as a good war, really. The use of the bomb certainly compromises our moral position around the world. And we have to look honestly at our past, because if we dont study the past honestly, we are going to commit the same mistakes or new mistakes Going Forward in the future and the world is just too dangerous for us to have that luxury. Peter quds nick is the director of the Nuclear Studies institute at the american university. Thanks a lot for your time. And your insights this morning, much appreciated. Thank you. Watch tonight, beginning at eight eastern, enjoy American History tv this weekend every weekend on cspan three. Next, on the presidency, we hear from michael neighbor, were studies chair at the u. S. Army war college, about the personalities and stakes involved at the 1945 potsdam conference, convenes near the end of world war ii. President truman had just assumed office after the death of Franklin Roosevelt when he met with britains Winston Churchill and the soviet unions joseph stalin. It was during these meetings from july 17th until august 2nd, that mr. Truman informed his soviet counterpart about the new u. S. Superweapon. It would soon be unleashed on the japanese cities of hiroshima and nagasaki. The truman library