If you consider six and a half thousand American fatalities,20,000 Japanese fatalities, the better part of 19 and a half, 19 and a half thousand, American servicemen who are injured as part of the combat, it does raise expectations and confirms expectations. At the extent that the Japanese would actually defend their home islands. Now that's it. This is not the most significant of Japanese holdings in any imaginable way. Let's dial forward from February to August of 1945. The use of the images from Mount Suribachi to promote a landing also gives an indication of the, the nature to, the nature of expenditure in warfare. And the reliance of government, it, reliance of governments using broadly orthodox policies in the West to maintain how society funds wars. By the time we get to the middle and the end of 1945, after the fall of Adolf Hitler, and the division of Europe between East and West, we have an American public who has seen many thousands. Tens of thousands of their sons fall in the defence of nations overseas. And there were active plans to engage in an infantry landing on the main islands of Japan. And to try and over run the Japanese, at home. Now, it wasn't the only plan that was put forward. But we have a number of conflicting issues, operating at the same time. The weariness, of the American population at war. Not as direct combatants, certainly not in the way the Britain or France or Germany were. But nevertheless the concerns about the end of the European war and their sons returning. Not their sons returning to be redeployed in the Pacific for what could be a pitch battle a la Iwo Jima written many many times over. In 2005 Paul Wilmshurst directed a BBC documentary, very fine documentary which I use for one of my other courses. About the bombing of Hiroshima and John Hurt, the British actor, did the voice over from it. Now, this is two years after, Gulf War two and the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. In Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction which by the time didn't exist. But, perhaps that's for a different course. Now, the terms that were used in John Hurt's John Hurt's narration about what the battle for Japan itself, might be like. Revolved around something which has become a commonplace now. And the idea of suicide bombers, the fact that the Japanese civilian population were being drilled so that in the time in, in the event of an American landing. Individuals would roll underneath tanks and detonate explosives or grenades to take tanks out. The teenagers, and even children were trained to use, sharpened bamboo sticks to repel invaders. And there was a real, and quite genuine fear. That a full scale invasion of Japan, would be, it, sorry, would be Iwo Jima, writ large. Bloody, and consistent over time. Now, following on from that point, we come to the decision of president Harry S Truman to deploy the atomic weapons, on Japan on the 6th and the 9th of August 1945. And I raise this in reflection to something I said much earlier. Remember I talked about the cost of the Manhattan project, and to a lesser degree the cost of the B 29 bomber force. There are some discussions in the archive. That look at the implications of not using the atomic bomb, in terms of the political fall out. Forgive the pun of the expenditure on a weapon that was not used, the main emphasis of developing the atomic weapon was Berlin. By the second week of May of 1945, the European war was over. Yet you had the development of an extremely powerful weapon, something that was unlike anything we'd seen at that point. Initially, for fear that the Germans would develop their own version of this weapon. This goes back to Einstein's letter to Roosevelt before America's involvement in the second World war. Japan is now isolated. It's principle ally didn't necessarily offer grea, a great deal of material support. But the fall of Germany and Italy meant that it was now faced with both the American presence in the Pacific and also the remnants of the British Empire trying to take control back of the territories it had lost previously. An argument that is put forward. For Truman's use of the atomic weapon, was the likely level of American casualties. And we'll find very soon after the event a public statement in, in one of the major sort of reflective journals on this saying that the American government was concerned. That to invade and capture the four main homeland islands of Japan, would lead to the loss of half a million American lives. Now, that estimate is, is definitely out there. If we talked about, the range of estimates that we might find with bombing. Or the loss of human lives in other contexts. It's very difficult to be specific. However, there are reports in advance of the decision. That Japan who was coming to the end of their ability to sup, to maintain the war economically, may capitulate with a far lower loss of human life, and in fact some of the reports that were presented. Within the American military, suggested the loss of American lives might be 40,000. And that is a big difference of almost 11 fold difference in the estimates. I think it's now generally taken that the half a million. American soldiers dying in taking Japan was put out there as something that was discussed at the time of the decision to atomic bomb Japan. But also gave the surety to the American public that this decision was taken knowing how the Japanese would fight. And that while it lead to the destruction, I think between 1945 and about 1950, 51, half a million Japanese died directly from the two atomic bombings or died from diseases, cancers. Other aliments, which are associated with expo, exposure to extreme heat or radiation. So, there comes a point that two weapons were used because we had them. That, the cost of the war and cost of the continuing of the war might be prohibitive. And the public sentiment was victory has been achieved in Europe, do we need to commit our troops again to another front that might be even more bloody. So, where I think flags of our fathers. Fixing to that narrative is the way that the, the battle itself, the Japanese rules of engagement. Which is, you will defend this, with your lives, really comes into play. And, and from my broader perspective, while I think that, that, the book is, a powerful retelling of a story from a very personal perspective, it also reinforced contemporary concerns in 1945, about how the conduct of the war might progress. So, if you take the time to go and look at the Flags of our Fathers. As well as the war in the Pacific and some of you will have watched The Pacific or even Band of Brothers. It is in that particular, urve or, American reconsideration of their participation in the Second World War. I think it also gives you an idea if that is the way the Japanese would defend. What was not anything near their mainland territories. Was it reasonable for the American government to consider that the use of the atomic weapons would spare the lives of Americans, even if it meant the sacrifice of life of Japanese. That's not a happy thought at all. But I'm going to sign off here for this section and just let you think about that. And also for you to hopefully spend some time, if you can, looking at the book itself. >> Cut.
