What If You Were Truman ?

[Bill Greenwood]

The forum on NASM and Enola Gay, veered away from the original to the BOMB. So let's get the topic out on it's own. Here are the rules, and try to stick to em, please. You are Pres Truman,late 1945 and the final decison on the Bomb is Yours. I think "The buck stops here," had a different meaning then than it does now to Duke Cunningham, etc.! Try to offer a little logic, maybe even facts; we have plenty of emotion elsewhere. Also write as with what they knew then, not something from today. I have studied this a little, am not an expert,but I'll put my idea on after we get some others.

[Jack Cook]

Bill,
Do you know that the gov't ordered over 350,000 purple hearts for distribution to casualities expected from the invasion and they were ready to order more. Thanks to Truman these medals were still available for issue 40 years later. Drop the bomb-H*LL yes! When you're at war you can't be concerned with enemy deaths. You only 2 concerns are ending the war and saving Allied lives. Ending the war ASAP also saved Japanese lives.

[Bill Greenwood]

Jack, I knew about the purple hearts, read it on the other site. Did Haliburton have a no bid contract on that one? Just kidding Jack. Without explanation you seem to be saying "bomb, not invade to save Allied casualties"and that is probably the accepted point of veiw back then.

[Second Air Force]

I've met quite a few veterans who were being re-equipped for the invasion of the Japanese homeland after fighting in the ETO and they all had nothing but praise for Truman's decision to use the A-bomb, not to mention the "green" troops and airmen that would have seen their first combat in that invasion.

On the other hand, Truman had considerable pressure from the Manhattan Project upper echelon to use the weapon, not to mention the uproar that would have erupted if we'd invaded the home islands without using the bomb. All in all, the President made a tough decision and stood by his judgement. How many politicians can actually say that today? "I acually voted for the war before I voted against it."

Scott

[rwdfresno]

At the time we already had a steady strategic bombing campaign against japan that was working quite well at slowing down the Japanese war machine. If we had an opportunity to inflict the same amount or more destruction in Japan while potentially putting fewer American lives in danger then that would have been the only solution in my view. Also the massive destructive power of a single bomb has the potential of having a large psychological impact on people as evidenced by the constant discussions about "The Bomb." Obviously it has a different psychological impact on people otherwise people wouldn't even discuss atomic ordinance separately from other types of ordinance.

[Django]

From another board...

My Father was a Marine Lieutenant in 1944, slated to lead a 2nd Division recon platoon (i.e., first corpses on the beach...) in the planned 1946 assault on Sasebo, to be the first stage of the attacks on Japan proper.
The second assault on the biggest Island was scheduled for 1947.
No one considered it likely that he would be alive in 1948. Previous Marine assaults had repeatedly destroyed the main divisions as they traveled from Tarawa (more than 50% DEAD in the assaults) to Okinawa, and each battle had killed or maimed half a division.
I have never heard a WWII Marine mention the atomic bomb without the phrase "Thank God!".

Bruce Lancaster

[Former Member]

I support Truman's decision to drop the bomb. Far more Japanese were killed during regular bombings of Japan than were killed by both atomic bombs. Dropping the "bomb" actually saved far more Japanese and American lives than it killed. I'm just glad that the emporer finally came to his senses after the second bomb hit Nagasaki. I remember reading somewhere that the U.S. only had enough uranium for three bombs at that time (the test bomb, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki). If the war hadn't have ended it would've taken months to process enough uranium for further bombs.


John

[oscardeuce]

I read they expected 500,000- 750,000 Allied casualties ( that number may be a bit lean) , and 1-2 million Japanese.

They bomb saved many lives, and many of us may not be here now if not for the bomb.

I say "drop it".

[Former Member]

What really bothers me is when you hear some of the Japanese people talking about the horrors of atomic weapons while pointing out what happened in Hiroshima & Nagasaki. This is true...nuclear weapons are horrible and should only be used as an absolute last resort. However, you never see these same people denouncing the horrors of countless Japanese atrocities during the war such as the "Rape of Nanking". The Japanese people have a collective case of amnesia when it comes to WWII and their part in it. After 65 years it would be nice to have the Japanese government make a formal apology for their part in WWII. The Germans did it...why not the Japanese?

Sorry for veering off topic Bill...this has always been a thorny issue with me.

John

[Bill Greenwood]

J P, I definitley agree with you about the lack of apology and lack of remorse of the Japanese today. I read (no way of really knowing) that they don't teach their part of WWII in their schools, and also their system of justice and prisons is not very humane even today. I met Sakai their top ace, not much person there was my impression. I had breakfast with Gunther Rall, and was most impressed by him. Our schools don't ignore our abuses of the Indians, of slaves. I wonder if or govt has ever apologized or paid reparations for what we did in Vietnam or ever will for Iraq. But we do have to realize that many of the victims of the Bomb were innocent children, not the Emperor and the miltary scum that led Japan.

[rwdfresno]

we do have to realize that many of the victims of the Bomb were innocent children, not the Emperor and the miltary scum that led Japan.

Perhaps we should have dropped some leaflets telling all the bad people to get in one place so we could have avoided that.

[Former Member]

But we do have to realize that many of the victims of the Bomb were innocent children, not the Emperor and the miltary scum that led Japan.

I agree Bill...that's one of the many unfortunate things that happen during wartime. During wartime civilian deaths have usually outnumbered military deaths. You have to weigh the risks and the benefits of dropping the bomb. I remember reading that allied inteligence concluded there were likely a number of allied POW's held within the cities of Nagasaki, Hiroshima and other back-up targets. The intel was not conclusive, but did this stop them from dropping the bomb?...no. They weighed the risks and decided it was worth the costs.

John

[Taylor Stevenson]

Bill,
Do you know that the gov't ordered over 350,000 purple hearts for distribution to casualities expected from the invasion and they were ready to order more. Thanks to Truman these medals were still available for issue 40 years later. Drop the bomb-H*LL yes! When you're at war you can't be concerned with enemy deaths. You only 2 concerns are ending the war and saving Allied lives. Ending the war ASAP also saved Japanese lives.

I completely Agree. I am here today because of that decision. My grandfather and his crew (B-24 380th BG Okinawa) were being taught to put plywood racks in the bombbays of their aircraft to drop paratroopers for the invasion of Japan. Their unit would have suffered great losses. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives would have been lost on both sides. My opinion: God Bless Truman!

Taylor

[k5083]

The interesting thing is that prior to the 1930s, the Japanese had an international reputation for humane and appropriate treatment of POWs and for a generally high level of civilized conduct. But unquestionably they turned into brutal thugs for a while there. Amazing how sociopathy can infect a whole society like that. Somehow it seems important to understand how and why that happens. But those insights won't come from Japan, as you say. They have still got that closet locked real tight.

But then, every society has some issues that it won't face head-on.

August

[kenair]

This is a question for which I believe there is no right or wrong answer - had a different type of bomb with the same power and with no lasting side effects or radiation, then these questions would not arise but alas maybe we needed to be shown the horror of nuclear war and nuclear weapons and now we know that those type of weapons will destroy the earth and all of us.

Lately I read about soldiers soldiers becoming ill from the effects of delepted uranium from our weapons. http://www.peacecouncil.net/DUbroch.htm

We need to find the better way!

Would I have had the guts of Truman to make such a decision - I hope never to have to find out.

c u at OSH!

Last edited by kenair on Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.