In the pacific. Welcome to washington journal. Washington journal on the 75th anniversary. Guest thank you. I am glad to be here. Host we have heard from harry truman after the hiroshima bombing. From your research and the study of the war and the bombings in particular, why did harry truman do it . I think the decision to use the bomb was really implicit in the manhattan project, so it was really assumed from the time, for the time truman came to office in ,pril after the death of fdr that this weapon, if it worked, it would be used. So it may be more accurate to say that there was a nondecision essentially. Truman did not decide to projecte, to stop a that was very much entrained when he came into office. The assumption had been made that if we had built the bomb, if we had the bomb, we would use the bomb in order to bring the war to an end, but i think from the perspective we have now that the atomic bomb, you know, is different, essentially different, from general weapon, that is something we have with hindsight. For truman and his advisers in the summer of 1945, i do not think that was as clear to them that the atomic bomb was fundamentally different from conventional bombings, and we had already essentially wiped out an enormous percentage of japans urban areas with conventional bombing at incendiary rates. So using the atomic bomb, in their view at that time, did not seem like sort of a break or departure from what they had been doing already. It is really with hindsight that we understand that webbing to be something basically different, in a different category. Host is it true when harry truman assumed the presidency in 1940 fiveeath 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 you become confident in his decision to use this weapon . True he wasit is not briefed on the manhattan project. He had been vaguely aware there is a very large and secret and expensive project underway. In the senate, for he was put on the ticket as fdrs president ial 1944, the thing that really made his name in the senate was he chaired a committee which investigated corruption and waste in the new nations industries, called the truman committee. In his capacity as chairman of that investigative senate abouttee, he had learned these enormous plants being built in tennessee and washington state, and he had begun to use his investigative resources to try and determine what was happening there. Stimsony simpson, henry secretary stimson, harry stimson, secretary of war, he went to truman and said, we are doing something very secret and we would ask you not to inquire further. Truman agreed. Very suddenly with fdrs death and when he was elevated to the presidency, he was reefed on stimson and by james burns he was briefed i stimson and james burns by stimson and james burns. He was fully briefed within about 24 hours from assuming the presidency on the state of the manhattan project. Host it is the 75th anniversary of the bombing of hiroshima. We are talking about it with ian toll, whose new book is coming out in september, twilight of the gods more on the weston pacific, knight western pacific, 19441955. The lines the same as they were last hour, mountain and pacific, 202 7488001. Easton, 202 7488000. For those who are world war ii veterans or family, 202 7488002. And our line for japaneseamericans, 202 7488003. Ian toll, 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 actually using it on a city . Mean, i think that is a hard question. View, the really hard questions when it comes to the atomic bomb is not so much should we have used the bomb or not, given the circumstances in the summer of 1945, the urgent need to end the war quickly without invasion, and in those circumstances, using the bomb i think was defensible. Dropping it on a city is a different question, and i think i am in the minority among military historians and this is a preference i had, that i would like to see the weapon used against a military target. The questions of demonstrations have been raised. There are arguments that a demonstration would have backfired, number one, and if it had not worked, that was a possibility, it would redouble japanese determination to resist. I do think there would be a way to demonstrate the bomb without running into that problem, dropping it very high in the atmosphere, off the coast, say ,f tokyo, of the tokyo bay would have made an enormous flash and send a message to japanese. I do not think that would have prompted a rapid surrender. So, the reason that you might have done that really is abstract, an abstract reason. And you do it because in the enhance the may countrys moral standings. I do think that is important, but you have some callers who have fathers or grandfathers in the war and for american veterans, particularly those who would have invaded japan, the atomic bomb has never been an abstraction to them but something real. It is something they believe saves their lives, and that belief is it something i think we need to acknowledge and respect. That is essentially where i come out. Came back, i would have liked to see the bomb used infinitely, particularly not dropped on a city, the first one dropped on a military target. I think that would have been more defensible. Host was there any military or rvs in any ofed those cities . Guest yes, hiroshima had an important Regional Military headquarters. Stationed inmy was hiroshima. It had been an army town going back to the days of the samurai. So it was an important military target in hiroshima. For city was not chosen that reason, however. None of the four cities on the target list of the bombs, hiroshima, nagasaki, near the sea of japan, and the northern tip of the island. Those cities had not been chosen because of their military character, and the military installations that were in those cities were not specified as the aiming points for the bomb. The cities were chosen because they had been relatively unscathed at conventional bombing raids, and the idea was he wanted to drop the bomb on a city that had the topography and conditions that it would provide the greatest demonstration to the bombs power. Yes . Host finisher. Guest yak finish your thought. Guest yes, so it became true that it was an important army base in hiroshima. In the clip you played from president truman, upon announcing the first atomic bomb, he said we hit an important Japanese Army base. Host right. Guest hiroshima was the seventh largest city in japan with the base in it, so, you know, i think looking back with 75 years of perspective, in that situation, he would prefer the president of the United States look into the eye of the camera until the world exactly what we had done without missing words mincing words or using that. Host before we get to calls, was there a third bomb ready to be drop in case the japanese did not surrender . Bomb would have become available by the end of august, so on august 6, we had hiroshima. On august 9, we hit nagasaki. It would have been another two weeks to three weeks for the third bomb. Host ian toll is our guest. First call is carlsberg richmond, virginia. Caller good morning call is carl in richmond, virginia. Caller good morning. It is very interesting and you hear about why they dropped the bomb. Attackad pulled a sneak we did notrbor, and even know the war was going to start as soon as the war was declared, and japan did not do that. What happened when the bomb did notvailable, truman know thing about it. All you knew was he became president. They do not really like him, and they put it to him and said, look, we have this mom. To me, you cannot drop an atomic bomb and say, lets drop it tomorrow or next week. They had already planned for the bomb. What trumanooks at wasto say because he changing his words that the United States is going to drop the bomb. Host do you think the president had a say in that . Guest absolutely. The constitution confers virtuallyowers, unlimited power, as commanderinchief and wartime in more. Truman had the power to tell his weinet and military leaders will or will not use the bomb, we will use the bomb in the following way, so i do not think there was any question that he had the power to make the decision. I do think it is true, as charles said, that the motorboat revenge was in the mix. I think that was may, not the reason we used a weapon, but it context, did set the the sneak attack on pearl harbor, the japanese atrocities against civilians, the treatment of prisoners of war. Those are all factors that played into the decision to use the atomic and burn down japanese cities with incendiary bombing rates. Yes, truman certainly could have simply decided and would not have had to ask for position or ask is military chiefs to take a vote he could have simply said we are not going to hit a city, or we are going to explicitly warned the japanese we have this weapon. In his private diary on july 25, it was a strange entry where he actually says i have instructed secretary stimson to use this weapon against military targets, and not against women and children, and i have also instructed him that we will make an explicit warning to the japanese and telling them to surrender. He did not give that order, but in his diary, he seems to have believed it or perhaps he wanted to have future historians believe that the whole decision had been made differently. Certainly, he had the power. One of the fascinating counterfactual questions is if fdr had lived, how would have fdr decided to use the bomb . He certainly would not have hesitated at all to make his own decision. He was accustomed to doing that. Host lets hear from anthony in new york on our line for world war ii veterans and family. Caller good morning. I am calling for my father and his two brothers. My father went in the army in february of 1941. He fought in the philippines, hiroshima, and he was also an open hour, and he was also in the occupation of japan. Wecame home late 1946, but never really found out he never really talked about the war until he got older. He was against them dropping the bomb. Then he says if we would have had a fight, fight them and invade japan, i probably never would have came home. So it was a flip of a coin. If i had to make that decision, i would say, yeah. One was in normandy, a paratrooper in the 101. My other uncle was also a medic. So those people from that generation, they fought hard and they fought for our country. When i talk about my father and his brothers, i am proud of them because that is something today we may not be able to do. Host ian toll, on your book on one of the planned invasions, part of the planned invasion of japan, is that figure anticipated of one million u. S. Casualties fairly accurate in terms of acrosstheboard . 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. That was the invasion of Southern Island in japan. At the time, our military leaders were planning that operation, there was never a point at which they projected casualties on the order of one million. There has been quite a lot of work done on this by historians and researchers because of how often you hear that figure that we might have lost a million or half a million. The answer seems to be the casualty projections were significantly lower than that. It is a disputed point, and they were different ways of thinking about it. Our militaryid leaders, while planning that operation, at what point did they expect something in the order of one million casualties, but projections were much lower. Maybe as many as 200 for total casualties. Now, that does not really tell us much about the atomic on decision. It wouldt say, well, have been lower, so we should that invaded. I think invading would have been a disaster, regardless of the casualties we would have taken. So avoiding a bloody invasion of japan was absolutely essential. That is why i think using the atomic was inevitable. As i say, using it against a city was a different question. I do not think we should have dropped it. That is my preference, my belief. Mentioned, there are so many people in this country who have fathers, ran fathers, great, uncles who were veterans of that war and who really believe their lives were on the line. That is something that i respect very deeply. It is interesting that the caller said, i think it was his father, had been in japan with the occupation after the war. And his personal belief had been that we should not have dropped the atomic bomb. I really interesting phenomenon when you look at veterans from the pacific war, those 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. They were more ready to make the distinction between the way the fighting forces had behaved through the war, and the way the japanese people are in general. We were more than willing to make that distinction because of the personal exposure they had had to japan and the japanese in the nation of japan after the war. Host on our line for japaneseamericans, 202 7488003. On that line, in los angeles, scott. Caller good morning. I am half japanese. My father was drafted in world war ii. My grandfather was drafted by the Japanese Army. Whenp seeing every year they talk about pearl harbor that america was attacked unprovoked, which is not true. Truman said on that clip that he has shown them like said on pearlll, that they bombed harbor unprovoked. That is not true. Under thelying tigers president , and until 1996, when i think it was either reagan or acknowledged the flying tigers were part of the military to get the v. A. Benefits and it did show that awg was under military payment from the United States government through a company. This japaneseing unprovoked attack when that is not true. I am not saying that the war was not a bad thing. It was a terrible thing on what it did to china, russia, philippines, to the americans and the people who ended up fighting with them, they were terrible things that happen. Host scott, we will get a response from ian toll. Think theh, well, i count against the japanese for the way they began the war was not so much that it was an unprovoked attack. Yes, fdr said it was unprovoked in his speech in congress the day following the attack, but there was no formal declaration of war prior to the attack. The idea of this sneak attack or surprise attack that really know,ated americans, you the attack had been planned undercover of diplomatic talks. We were engaged in negotiations directly with the japanese government to try and adjust the differences we had in the pacific. That attack suddenly defended on pearl harbor without declaration of war. I think that played into the particular brutality of the pacific war. Scott did not say what his ,ather did when he was drafted but i think one of the most interesting stories about the pacific war and little heard is the role of japaneseamericans who worked as interpreters or language officers who helped develop propaganda messages to a method japanese. It was an essential role in places like okinawa, the heroism of the japanese american soldiers who went down to the caves and negotiated with japanese voices, trying to encourage them to surrender. It was enormous personal risk. That is one of the greatest stories of the pacific war that is not familiar to people. Host pitching in maryland. Ind morning jean maryland, on our line for veterans. Caller i was 12 years old when we declared war on the japanese. I was the youngest of five children, three brothers and a sister, all inactive duty in the military. One person ass, one family, we love trumans decision. My two brothers were in combat in the navy in the pacific, one a navy fuel tanker. Both had close calls with death. I will 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, and this is personal for myself, i am sorry, but the way japanese treated prisoners. My sister was a nurse at a hospital. There were 10 nurses. Navy,nted to stay in the and she wanted to get married in october of 1941, and as a naval officer, she was not allowed to stay in the navy. She had to leave the navy to get married. And she used to come out to our home to play tennis, and they were full of life. They were just i will say this, they were part of the death march, and after the war, my sister called the supervisor and asked what happened to those young ladies, nine of them. Went insane. D two they did not have medicine for what those goals went through. So there is one other fact, and this one i have never heard mentioned. I think it may be true. That the People Killed in the hiroshima bomb were not all japanese. I believe in hiroshima, and killed by that bomb were more than 25,000 korean slave workers. And i think it is also true nagasaki. Wereat true that there tens of thousands of slave workers who were killed in these bombings . It is never mentioned. Host ian . Guest yes, it is true. It is true. There were. I do not know but was 20,000, but it sounds like it might be about the right number of koreans who were working in hiroshima. You know, an enormous number of koreans. To a lesser extent, chinese were told in the atomic bombings, as well as the conventional bombing raids. Also, there were others in japan. Almost 1 of the population of japan during the Second World War had been christians or were christians. Some of them were secretly christians. So christianity had a foothold in japan going back several centuries because of the gesso at missionaries who had come from jekyll and spain just do missionaries who had come from portugal and spain. Some of the most harrowing stories appear oshima came from priests who were european or hiroshima came from priests who are european or german. I would not say they were international, but to the extent they were foreigners living in japan, they tended to be in the large cities, so they were affected in both bombs. Host whether any american pows in either city to mark either city . Guest yes, they were pows in the area of hiroshima and nagasaki. The number of personal accounts about theirhe war having witnessed the bombings. There were even pows who believed they had heard or seen a flash in hiroshima and nagasaki, who gives you some idea of how far away they could see and hear these explosions. Host next is frank in lexington, north carolina. Caller good morning. Thank you for letting me speak. I am calling in for my father. I had his new testament he carried and made notes and during his service made notes. He was a Navy Serviceman attached to the marine corps. This is the aftermath of the dropping of the bomb. , september, japan 16, 1945. He had been training for the invasion. September in japan 22, 1945. Sasebo, japan, is the seaport next to or inland. There, twofter being weeks after being there, and he was on both sides of at least fro