Join us for an evening discussion featuring Ian Toll and our very own Rob Citino, as they discuss the third and final volume of Toll’s “Pacific War Trilogy,” Twilight of the Gods.
How many died in the last year of the war? Toll says 1 and a half million Japanese. My wife is Vietnamese. Have you ever heard of Vietnam even discussed in the Pacific theatre? I doubt it. Did you know one million Viets died from starvation in 1945 alone under Japanese occupation? Far more than ever died in any year fighting the French or Americans. Thats just one country, not even China or Korea. Likely fifteen thousand non Japanese were dying every day in 1945 under Japanese occupation. You think the Japanese suffered? 40 thousand in Hiroshima? 20 thousand in Nagasaki? Let's remember the true history here, folks.
"For China alone, depending upon what number one chooses for overall Chinese casualties, in each of the ninety-seven months between July 1937 and August 1945, somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 persons perished, the vast majority of them noncombatants. For the other Asian states alone, the average probably ranged in the tens of thousands per month, but the actual numbers were almost certainly greater in 1945, notably due to the mass death in a famine in Vietnam." -- from Richard Frank's _Downfall_ (1999).
Sometimes the harshness of numbers reflects the true reality, approximately 3 million Japanese war deaths compared to over 18 million non-combatant deaths caused by Japan. Japan came out of it easy especially with the way the West helped rebuild them after the war. Other countries in Southeast Asia did not receive near the help the Japanese did. Trying to sugarcoat the Japanese war against mankind is easily defeated by simply posting the numbers.
Good point - maybe part of that is simply the name. "Indochina" is the heading over many accounts I have read. People also are clueless about geography. But I agree, proper attention has not been given to Vietnam, Borneo, Java...most people focus on the primary belligerents. Those that seek to understand and appreciate the broader/deeper....ACCURATE narrative will dive deeper than hollywood or youtube productions. Richard Frank's "Tower of Skulls" includes much more content, giving dignity to those in the less commonly known (but no less horrific) events/places.
China in WW2 for Japan reminds me of Spain and the Peninsular War in Napoleon's time - a never ending drain on the enemy's resources. Most of the lack of attention on Korea, occupied French Indochina, the Dutch East Indies, Thailand, etc is there were few victorious and interesting Allies vs Japanese battles fought in these places. Contemporary journalists and other writers didn't go to these countries either. For history, a modern author would mostly dig through the archives of the Japanese occupation forces and some diaries to relate non combat stories. There's more about the German occupation of Western Europe and the best known is The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank. The language and cultural barriers for most modern WW2 readers in the English speaking world are pretty high. I appreciate logistics, but stories about captured Dutch engineers keeping the oil flowing don't really compare with the Battle for Tarawa or Iwo Jima. Chapter 2 - shots fired! as Citino and Toll point out in this interview.
You left out about 1 million Japanese that died in the firebombings of 40+ cities that happened in the months BEFORE the atomic bombs were dropped. So yes indeed, let us remember the history.
75 years later and we continue to find new and interesting ideas and concepts about THE WAR. I don't think there will ever be an end. The ETO, which was really small in relation to the area fought upon by the Allies, continues to reveal so many facets of war that it will be used as doctrine for generations. The Pacific Theater dwarfs the ETO in scale and movement. Thank you to all who have served. Thank you to those serving and to those who will.
Let’s no forget John Toland’s book “The Rising Sun-The decline and fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945”. Published in 1970. An excellent account of the Pacific war, much of it from a Japanese point of view. Covers the struggles politically of the different factions within the Japanese government.
I found "Twilight" the most interesting, and particularly for the masterful exposition of the political intrigue within the political/military factions within Japan. But that was a hard call because the entire trilogy is so brilliant and of such value. I cannot think of any other example that so pulls you in, page by page, and demands that it be, cover to cover in one sitting. (No, I couldn't even come close).
Twilight of the Gods is an excellent history of the final year of the war in the pacific. The book is an amazing and highly informative read. The part of the book that was probably the most emotional was the battle of Manila and the horrific atrocities carried out by the Japanese army and navy troops. I don’t want to spoil the book so read this great book.
Fascinating and informative. I would suggest, on a somewhat discordant note, that the Japanese civilians were well aware of military failure. The firebombing of Tokyo and dozens of other major cities was extensive. Strategic bombing offensives are by nature in your face. The Germans were similiarly informed that this time there would be no stab in the back surrender. As awful and terrible as war is, there is total clarity when your major cities are leveled. The power of radio and posters pales in comparison. The Japanese and German civilian populations were homeless and starving. They damn well knew the war wasn't going entirely in their favor.
You would think so, right? When Hiroo Onoda returned to Japan after his three decades-long guerrilla war against the Philippines, he was disgusted and ashamed that Japan DIDN'T fight to the bitter end, every man, woman and child. He was so put out that he emigrated to Brazil. He remained a hard-core nationalist his whole life.
That was truly superb, even with the lighting fail. Glad to see Ian was unhurt and thanks for touching on the Soviet entry into the war from that angle. I have come to believe they (Soviet invasion and atom bombs) were the last in a series of coffin nails from the demise of Japanese fleet air power at the Philippine Sea to that final week of the war
I've recently started on Mr. Toll's trilogy and so far it's great. Detailed and fairly balanced in covering action from the perspective of the two sides
Great discussion. And wonderful books. Toll is correct of course how the military had total control over the information available to the Japanese people. But I have always wondered. Even school children can read a map. And is the island battles began to get closer and closer to the Hime Islands even before the bombing, weren't a lot of people aware that the war was not going well?
"Over the transom" is an old publishing expression, referring to manuscripts that came to the publisher without an agent's representation. Bennett Cerf was asked why he kept people on staff who did nothing but read 'over the transom' manuscripts since he rarely published them. He answered, "I only published two of those books. One I don't remember, but the other was Paton's "Cry the Beloved Country."
A transom, in addition to the nautical meaning, is a window that goes over the door. Something that arrives "over the transom" is something that went through that window, at least metaphorically, instead of the door.
It is an interesting idea. A pacific war lead by Kimmel instead of Nimitz? I used to think the Soviets entering the war was decisive. I used to think the atomic bombs were decisive. Then I read the "end this" conference and realized neither was important to Hirohito's decision. The war council simply didnt know what the situation was in Manchuria. He simply didnt care about the obliteration of 2 cities. It is clear his >only< concern was his own personal safety. He feared US bombs falling on him. He feared US troops putting their unclean hands on him. Mostly however he feared the idea of a starving population turning on him.
While Admiral Halsey was the public "face" for the US Navy in the early stages of the war, Admiral Frank J Fletcher commanded at the first 3 carrier vs carrier battles of the war and suffered badly in the PR versions compared to Halsey who was a more colorful figure.
I'll you give three words that describe Adm. Frank Jack Fletchers problem in WWII history. Samuel Elliot Morrison, FDRs flunkie. Morrison was an asshole all his whole life and died an asshole. OK that's more than three words. But I meant what I typed.
So glad somebody asked the question about the role of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in the decision to surrender! And so glad to hear the honest answer. Then of course everyone is entitled to his own opinion on the relative importance of the atomic bombs vs the Soviet invasion... But at least the facts are laid out...
The question is how serious the Japanese actually were about a diplomatic end to the war through the Soviet Union. some historians like Herbert Bix argue there was a high level of distrust on both sides with both sides knowing there was no realistic chance of a settlement. From Stalin's position, why would he need to negotiate with the Japanese at this point when his military situation was far stronger than theirs? He could simply take his territorial demands by force and there was little the Japanese could do about it. And that's what he did.
The last bombing mission over Japan was 15 Aug. 1945, and it was conventional. The bombing, conventional and nuclear was much more important to a Japanese surrender than Russian invasion. The Russians did not have one tittle of what anyone one would call an Amphibious Navy.
The Russians had very little effect. The Kwantung Army was already written off and had no effect on the Japanese decision makers. By the end of July there was massive infighting between the Imperial Japanese Army and the Imperial Japanese Navy as to whether and under which conditions they would surrender. They had 5 distinct conditions under which they would terminate hostilities. 1. There would be no occupation of Japan; 2. The Japanese would be allowed to keep Formosa and Korea; 3. The Japanese were to disarm their own military; 4. The Japanese were to try their own war criminals; and 5. The Emperor was to remain inviolate. They know this from original Japanese documents. That ALL changed on August 6, 1945.
@@theccpisaparasite8813 I disagree. The Japanese knew that an Allied invasion, would likely have resulted in the Russians occupying Hokkaido. Not to mention that Chinese troops might have participated in the Western Ally invasion. Surrendering before the invasion enabled them to play off the Western Allies against the Soviets, and ensure an American only occupation.
@@brunopadovani7347It doesn't matter whether you disagree or not. It is simply a fact. The Imperial documents and transcripts of the Big Six meetings make this abundantly clear. Your conjecture was never a consideration. They were hoping that the Russians were going to be an intermediary, no more. I think the Japanese leadership knew what they were thinking better than you do, no? The bombs gave them an immediate reality check. Hell, the Emperor makes specific reference to the atomic bombings in his so-called Jewel Box surrender broadcast. Faced with the possibility that his people would be eradicated without the Home Islands being touched was the final straw. Truman did what anyone would have done.
The emperor told us why they surrendered. The "cruel" weapon. Only unimaginable pain caused the fanatics to quit. Frank does a great job explaining (or asking) why in the minutes of all the Japanese cabinet meetings they never mention casualties? They were being slaughtered by the millions. Needlessly. Because they didn't care at all, about their enemies or even about themselves. They were barbaric, suicidal maniacs who got slapped into reality. When you read about when the captured Japanese officers themselves said they knew when the war was over.....you will read they say "Guadalcanal". That was in 1942-early 43. And was easy to see. But hard to accept.
Interesting how Richard Franks has now opined that Hirohito had concluded the war must end by the afternoon of Aug. 8, before the Soviets invaded, and that the Big Six were more concerned about revolution at home than either the Soviet invasion or the use of the atom bomb.
A VERY good series of comments about Emperor Hirohito. I had, sadly, viewed him as a sissy in costume riding a white horse. Now that I've heard Ian Toll's comments, I've had some mind-changing thoughts. In retrospect, I can see how he was bound by a set of governmental requirements that often left him is a position from which there was no escape for him. This is not an apology in any way. He was a ruthless autocrat whose actions led to the deaths of untold millions. He did, however, have a largely unknown side (that is unknown to we who aren't sufficiently read to know, much less understand. One thing that I likely will never reconcile, personally, is that Hirohito was against the war!!! Hard to understand that one!!! Bu just barely. Regarding the word used by the Japanese when replying to the Potsdam declaration: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bulls***.
Wild speculation: if the US had decided to take Formosa and occupied the island after the war, I strongly suspect the KMT forces would not have been allowed to retreat there after defeat by Mao forces since FDR favored the communist forces against the Nationalist (i know, FDR died earlier but Truman was loyal to FDR and ignorant of foreign affairs). So, we would not have had a free Taiwan today and maybe Taiwan would have been handed over to the Mao.
I was unfamiliar with this author until a few months ago when the first volume (Pacific Crucible) was suggested to me through Audible I couldn't put it down recently finished this final piece of the story. Simply incredible and engrossing right up there with the Atkinson Liberation trilogy.
I must respectfully disagree with the claim that the Soviet entry into the war and the atomic bomb were equally important in the Japanese decision to surrender. From what I have read, the brief, internal Japanese surrender discussions focused on the atomic bomb. To the extent the Soviets were a factor at all, it was only because the USSR was removed as a potential mediator and the Japanese feared that communist occupation really would destroy the Japanese culture. If the Soviets had not intervened, the A-bombs would still have ended the war. If there were no A-bombs, the Soviet intervention would not have prompted surrender. The Emperor cited the atomic bomb in his surrender speech to the nation but did not mention the Soviets at all. I don't think that this analysis is ethnocentric at all. I think that it is common sense that inevitable death from the air -- in attacks that cannot be defended or avenged -- concentrates one's attention in ways that losses on a distant battlefield do not. So, I would strongly disagree that the A-bomb and the Soviet intervention were equally important.
I wrote a paper about the conjunction of two atomic bombs and the Russian war advance debating that the Emperor would rather have the U.S. taking the van rather than the Russians thus ending who gets to win. It was a very serious writing component class. I got an A! Also the US should have demonstrated the bomb. Pretty sure the Tojo leadership would have ignored it.
We did demo the bomb, twice. Clear and convincing salesmanship. Frankly, as demonstrated over Toyko and Hamburg, conventional bombings that formed catastrophic infernos were as and more destructive than the a bombs. This was war. The trauma of hitting a city with a nuke made a point.
@michael boultinghouse US had only two. Obviously, built more. I would think the actual number a very closely held secret. By secret, I mean absolutely unknown to you, me, foreign governments, anybody. Secret even to internet experts. National security. The entire manufacturing facilities hummed merrily away, until, voila. I fully realize conventional universally held opinion says two, at the time. I rather doubt it, but that's my opinion. I would bet money you think only two. End of my story.
@@RemoteViewr1 _"I would think the actual number [of bombs] a very closely held secret."_ Not any more -- They'd have had a third available in mid-August, plus three or four a month thereafter. nsarchive.gwu.edu/documents/atomic-bomb-end-world-war-ii/087.pdf
FDR always said his 2 greatest political threats were Huey Long and Douglas MacArthur in the mid 1930s. Long was killed by an assassin in 1935. Roosevelt appealed to MacArthur's vanity by promoting him to Military Advisor to the Philippines in 1935 after he finished his tenure as head of the Joint Chiefs. A similar position his father held 30 years prior. Get MacArthur out of the states before the 1936 re-election.
So FDR complained about the biased press and went directly to the American people with his fireside chats. Sounds a lot like Trump with his Twitter account.
I just don't see the wisdom of attempting Formosa. Any effort would have been subject to intense attack from so many airbases. the big mistake in retrospect was not taking Iwo Jima immediately after Guam or even Saipan. At the beginning of the war, some Americans may not have given Japan enough respect. But late in the war, they were too cautious, more risk could have been manageable. If you don't fail, may be you didn't take enough risk
@@livingtribunal4110 You know there is a book about British Rock n Roll by the same title that sold pretty well in 2018. With that said, I find this one much more interesting.
Just cringed as an Asian American hearing 2 white guys talk positively about the possibility of American imperialism in Taiwan. Nobody ever wants to talk about the Iraqi parliament demanding that we stop occupying Iraq and we said no and the American media simply refused to talk about it.
Do you actually think the russian army wanted to invade japan after berlin fell EVEN if an invasion was possible? lol ... Do you actually think a country could have an entire city laid to ruins by a single bomb, that it had no clue even existed, did not matter? These guys overthink many points of these conflicts...
