Welcome to the History Extra podcast, fascinating historical conversations from the makers of BBC History Magazine.

The decision by the United States to drop atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 remains one of the most

controversial moments in modern history. In this episode, we hear from the historian Professor

Richard Overie, whose new book, Rain of Ruin, considers the role of Oppenheimer's bombs and

the firebombing that paved their way

in forcing the Second World War to an end. Speaking to Ellen Evans, Richard traces the varied

factors that complicate the argument that the atomic bomb was a war-ending weapon. From American

misreadings of Japan's willingness to surrender, to the scientists' eagerness to

test out their creation.

Richard, your new book rethinks how we should regard this later stage of the war and what

the role of the bombs meant in ending the conflict. I wanted to start with a little bit of

context from you, please.

In what listeners need to understand about the US plans to bombing Japan, what historical

elements do we need to appreciate that paved the road for the atomic bombs being dropped in August?

Well, the Americans have thought for a long time about the possibility of war with Japan and what they would do and how they would solve a geographical problem because Japan's difficult to get to.

And they had planned really from the 1920s that if it ever happened, they would force their way across the Pacific, using the US Navy.

And when they got to islands near enough,

they would then bomb Japan, and in that way, it might be able to avoid an invasion altogether.

Now, I think most people don't know that this is something that the American military had already

been considering long before the outbreak of war in Pearl Harbor. But after Pearl Harbor, and once the United States found itself at war with Japan,

basically that strategy was the one they pursued.

They fought the Japanese across the islands of the Central Pacific

...