What If You Were Truman ?

[Pat]

A few observations on the responses so far.

Most, obviously, favor dropping the bomb. Their reasons all strike me as either factually dubious ("it saved lives"; "it saved the need to invade"); irrelevant ("they committed atrocities too"; "my grandpa the vet says it was the right decision") both factually dubious AND irrelevant ("they would have done it to us") or just vacuous ("in war anything goes").

But what impresses me the most about the answers is not their invalidity but the glibness, force, and certainty with which they are expressed, amounting at times even to contempt that anyone could hold the opposing view. For one of the most momentous and complex decisions in history, such knee-jerk responses appear to me to be not so much reasoned answers as psychological defense mechanisms.

Specifically, I see: Excuses. Denial. Evasion. Changing the subject. Shifting of blame.

Defenses against: Guilt. Doubt. Fear. Remorse.

You'll all say I'm wrong about this. But I am paying you a compliment here. Truman, and most of those who built the bomb, were haunted by this decision for the rest of their lives. They were responsible, thinking men who did not rely on easy solutions. They would not be proud, I think, of anyone who 60 years later would toss off Truman's decision as a no-brainer. It is a bit of an insult to the agony they went through.

August

Wow! You are observant, August...however, I am as well.
I have "observed" that in your 4 posts in this thread, you have yet to answer the question that Bill posed at the beginning of the thread. I think I/we all know what your answer will be, but feel free to go ahead and tell us, anyway.

BTW, for the sake of debate, what would you have done if you were in FDR's shoes when Pearl Harbor was bombed? Try to appease the Japanese like Neville Chamberlain did with the Nazis in the late '30's? This isn't a personal attack, I just want to hear your "alternative viewpoint".

Yes, I agree with Truman's decision to use the Atomic Bombs. After all, the people who died as a result of them are no more "dead" than the Americans who died at Pearl Harbor. Whether it be a 30.06 slug from an M-1 Garand, 7.7 or 6.5 mm Japanese slug, piece of shrapnel, Japanese balloon bomb landing in the Pacific Northwest, Fat Man, Little Boy, whatever, they're all tools of death and destruction. It all boils down to accountability. Why have any sympathy for the Japanese? As someone else posted, they still haven't apologized for starting the war. They started a war and Truman used the most effective weapons/tools at his disposal to end it with as few American casualties as possible. I'm sure that you can understand that the risks of sending several B-29 crews pale in comparison to sending hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to the Japanese mainland.

-Pat

[marine air]

Okay I'm going to take Bill G.'s side for a moment(as I understand it).
1) America wasn't unanimous in it's decision to go to war against Japan. I believe there was one, IIRC, lady congressman from Maine that had a dissenting vote. What was her plan?Were her ideas ever voiced? TO give Hawaii and the Phillipines, etc. to Japan as a peace settlement/appeasement?
2) Is there a point in the war, where we could have stopped, say after a major Pacific battle and negotiated victory without further loss of life? I don't believe so because Japan was not an open society with free press and a democratic balance of power. Actually, Japan could have surrendered at any point during the war and chose not to.
3) Omit the nuclear option for a moment. Take a look at Joe Baugher's website, of the serial numbers for U.S. military aircraft, particularly USAAF. I stumbled across something a few months ago quite interesting.
Look at the aircraft types that were being ordered by the Pentagon in late 1944 and 45, and those orders cancelled late 1945, 46.
THey were ordering thousands of P-51M's(H), P-82 twin Mustangs, P-61 Black Widows, P-47N's, and all the thousands of B-29's, C-54's C-117's C-118's air mobility stuff they could get their hands on. They had a few hundred Piper L-4J Cubs, and then thousands of C-47's on order. Most interesting, because I thought they were a failed weapon after Normandy, were the thousands of Waco CG-4A combat gliders being contracted out to various companies. I lost count at over 4,000 Combat gliders that were cancelled at the end of WWII.
SO apparently the Pentagon's Plan A, if the bomb had been delayed was to continue the massive incendiarybombing and conventional bombing of Japan using an ever increasing supply of B-29's, P-61's for night ops., P-82's for long range and high altitude air superiority, P-47N's for long range ground attack,etc. Apparently in addition to an amphibious invasion there was to be a truly spectacular air assault using very large numbers of gliders and paratroopers.
In my mind, since the Emperor did not broker for peace, if the Allies had continued the incendiary bombing, followed by a softening up of the mainland with bombing and naval bombardment, then loss of life in the amphibious assaults and air assault, it can be ascertained that the 2 nuclear bombs were in fact more humane with less loss of life for both sides.

[Glenn]

Truman was a man of conviction. As many on this board have reiterated in their postings. Truman came from the "show me" state (how appropos) and was a habberdasher turned politician. A simple man with convictions for the time. Taking him out of those times or second-guessing his decision with what ifs is not necessary. It happened and therefore unless someone here can alter time it is in the past.

I have never read anywhere that Truman was haunted with this decision to Drop the bomb and end the war, only later did he see the horrific maccabre effects of those who survived through the radiation poisoning. He didn't regret the bombings or ending the war but regreted not knowing all the effects of such a weapon until after use.

Simply put the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagsaaki were done to end the war quickly with the least amount of loss of life. As has been discussed a secondary decision was the Russians and the dividing up of the Post WW2 world and the subsequent Cold War. Historians must not take the moment out of its context..no matter how horrific and distasteful. The Japanese used Zeros, used Arisakas, used Samurai swords, Balloon Bombs, Bonzai charges, Kamikaze, used POW labor, ignored the Geneva Convention at all turns, the Rape of Nanking as a weapon of terror, they used Bubonic plague and Cholera against the Chinese and had the war gone longer might have used it against San Diego with the Seiran float plane in October 1945. Did the Japanese deserve Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Who knows? There was a lot of hatred on our side after "sucker-punch" attacks at Pearl Harbor and Manila/Bataan Death march slogging throught the Pacific to Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa to name a few.

The ferocity of war is just that, THE GLOVES COME OFF. It is ugly, people die (innocent and guilty alike) and that is why war should be the last option. FDR tried to keep us out but even he saw the horizon getting very dark with the threat of Fascism and Militarism in Europe and the Pacific in 1939. Truman inherited it in early 1945 and wanted to put an end to it as quickly as possible. Revisionists can say what they will through the conjecture of rose-colored glasses from the comfort of their arm chairs in peace. We today simply don't know, we can only speculate. We weren't there at that moment and we exist because of their sacrifices. That's why it is so important to listen to the vets before they are all gone.

If we forget history we are bound to repeat it again. Fanatacism in any form is wrong. The Nazis found that out, the Fascists of Italy found that out, and the Japanese found it out. The AXIS powers history is one for the ash pile literally and figuratively.

[Forgotten Field]

Back then the media had the guts to report the good news and ignore the bad news (example terrible planning and execution of D-Day, the botched D-Day training that resulted in hundreds dead, the fairly disastrous results of some of the Japanese island invasions.)

Terrible planning and execution of D-Day? One of the smoothest operations of its size in history. What are you referring to, the bombing mistakes (most of the bombers released late to avoid hitting friendlies, and their ready made foxholes were crucial on D+1)? The mixed up landings of people(predicted, overcome by training)? The casualties (many less than predicted)? If it was so terribly botched, then why did they stay on land, and not withdraw? Air Marshall
Tedder worried Ike about the invasion, and up to the last minute expressed his doubts. In a letter of apology, he spoke glowingly of how well it went, and how wrong he was. Where do you get your information?

Slapton Sands? Big mistake, but not self-suppressed by the media. I spoke with several of the 29th Division guys who were there and witnessed the event, and they were told in no uncertain terms to shut up or else. It was so well suppressed that historians doubted the memories of guys who were there, claiming that they were remembering D-Day events, not Slapton Sands. Where do you get your information?

Bad execution of Japanese Island invasions? Which one are you talking about, the ones where we killed 10 for every casualty we took, or the ones where we killed 100 for every casualty we took? Where do you get your information?

I have, and would more than be glad to make a copy for you, a primer which was given to school teachers and other educators with a long laundry list of what they were supposed to teach in class, and what was not to be taught in class. It is for the Baltimore City School System, dated 1942, and has references to how other professions were being given similar handbooks. The press wasn't made of guts, but was made of people who were seeking information from a very secure, paranoid source, the US Government. That source was tightfisted about any info, from the top down (remember who gave the rumor about Shangri-La?), and gave as much disinformation as real information during the war. If you see a real difference between the press now and the press then, I would guess it is more of a difference of opinion between you and the press, not a commentary on the declining quality of the press, or "guts" of the press.

I'm open to better examples of the declining quality of the press, but the ones you gave don't seem to be very well thought out or researched.

[Bill Greenwood]

What I meant when I started the post was really what factors Truman faced ? Example: with only 2 Bombs, the target choice was critcal and dificult. They considered a demonstration blast such as just offshore to convince Japanese leaders to surrender. I believe some of the scientists wanted this, I recall reading somewhere about the cabinet level debates on this and it was interesting. They considered the civilain deaths, I have always heard the party line about the Bomb saving the heavy casualties from invasion. But you just never hear that the Japanese had virtully no offense left, that mabe we did not have to invade; and it seems in recent years we are hearing more about the Russian threat. I don't think the decision is just as black and white as some make out. If the Japanese were close to Peace as Truman knew from the intel intercepts it seems he should have pursued this in the short term. But his first responsibility is to US troops, and while they train for invasion there are deaths from disease, accidents as well as combat. I don't think he would have waited 6 months, but perhaps a few weeks would have been wise. Many Bomb advocates cite the Japanese code of fighting to the death, but that was only when it was policy. Once the emporer brodcast the surrender, the people generally cooperated and were pretty docile.

[k5083]

Great post Pat! Let me answer your second question.

BTW, for the sake of debate, what would you have done if you were in FDR's shoes when Pearl Harbor was bombed? Try to appease the Japanese like Neville Chamberlain did with the Nazis in the late '30's? This isn't a personal attack, I just want to hear your "alternative viewpoint".

First off, let's consider what it means to be in FDR's shoes at that moment, and bear in mind that history did not start on December 7, 1941. Japan was pursuing an empire in China and FDR had imposed an embargo that was severe and effective. So much so that Japan was left with three choices: (1) keep doing what it was doing and starve, (2) pull back from Asia, or (3) strike at the U.S. to get us to relax the sanctions and go away. FDR and the U.S. were nearly 100% sure that Japan was going to pick Door #3. War with Japan had been planned for years. We were just waiting for the attack. In that context, there was no choice on Dec. 7 whether to go to war. The decision had already been made earlier in the confrontation.

The reasons for the confrontation are themselves interesting. The putative reason was to preserve the friendly, though hardly democratic, Chinese government of Chiang. Historians have, however, raised an alternative explanation. Thomas J. Fleming, in The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II, gathers evidence that I find moderately persuasive that FDR confronted Japan, at least in part, to provoke an attack that would cause an isolationist Congress to declare war on Germany. (Historical note: In those days, Congress was the "decider" of whether we went to war.) According to the argument, FDR calculated (correctly) that Congress would declare war on Germany as an ally of Japan, freeing the U.S. to contribute fully to the war in Europe; but he grossly miscalculated the strength of Japan as an enemy, figuring that they could be brushed away handily so that the U.S. could get on with the main event. Other historians have advanced this thesis as well (see e.g. Thomas Toughill, A World to Gain: The Battle for Global Domination and Why America Entered WWII), and I almost hate to endorse it because it comes from the right wing; it is anti-FDR, anti-New-Deal, and supported by people like Pat Buchanan, but although it is a minority view among historians, it is taken seriously. To the extent that it is true, obviously going to war with Japan was even more of a foregone conclusion for FDR when Pearl Harbor was attacked.

So, whatever you think of the back-door-to-war thesis, the U.S. had to go to war. Ah, but what kind of war? Here it is important to recall that Japan had only one goal in attacking the U.S., and that was to spank the U.S. Navy so that the U.S. would leave Japan to pursue its territorial goals in Asia. Japan never had either the inclination nor the means to conquer or invade the U.S. itself. Japan realized that its military would be stretched too thin even to control all of China, so it wanted only the resource-rich parts; it certainly had no designs on trying to occupy a vast continent, an ocean away, populated by an unruly inferior race (Japan's racist contempt for us at that time was even worse than ours for them). So Total Victory, in Japan's view, was simply being left alone. The American public's fears that the Japanese would invade California were never anything more than wartime hysteria. And our initial objective was to get Japan out of China and preserve Chiang's government, not to annihilate Japan's society.

But the attack on Pearl Harbor and Japan's other early victories were far more successful and embarrassing to the U.S. than either side had predicted. Having no real beef with us, Japan tried not to anger us too much -- for example, they did not bomb Honolulu or any other civilian target during the Pearl Harbor raid, although they easily could have -- but they were still too successful. When the folks back home saw those photos and newsreels, Japan was in for retribution, American style: You give me a bloody nose, I'll kill your whole family. FDR could not rein in that emotion, and the Pacific War became not a war over who would control China, but a war for survival -- the survival of Japan, not the U.S. I'm sure that after a few months of war, the Japanese would have loved to annihilate us as much as we did them, but they never had the slightest capability or realistic plan to do so. For the entire war, Japanese victory simply meant the U.S. packing up and going home.

Now what if we had, at some point, packed up and gone home? What if, after Pearl Harbor, we decided to lick our wounds, cut China loose, and let Japan have its empire? Or what if we had waged the war up through the Battle of Midway, then called up Japan and said, "Okay, we've whupped you and avenged Pearl Harbor, the score is about even now, let's work out how to carve up Asia equitably?" I don't believe these options were realistic, but if they had been, ironically, things wouldn't have been that much worse in the postwar world than they turned out when we "won". After all, we didn't get what we wanted when we set up the Japan confrontation: a friendly, stable government in China. Chiang's government didn't last. The commies took over. If we had let Japan have China, could a Japanese-controlled China possibly have been more hostile to us than Red China? For that matter, even for the Chinese, would life under the Japanese have been worse than life under Mao? He certainly did a lot of things as bad as the rape of Nanjing. Maybe, if we had left Japan alone, the Reds would have beaten up the Japanese for us; or maybe, if the Japanese had beaten up the Reds, we could have made friends (as we have been known to do with military dictatorships when it suited us) and had a strong military ally against communism that we could try to ease into democracy, instead of an impotent Japan whose economy we had to rebuild from scratch on our own nickel. Bottom line, in hindsight, victory over Japan left us with about as bad of a situation in Asia as walking away would have, only many thousands on both sides didn't get to live to see it. Of course, we could not have predicted the rise of Chinese communism in 1941 and anyway, walking away was never a viable political option.

This all has some relevance to Bill's intended topic for this thread, I think, at least insofar as it reminds us of why the Japanese started the war and what their actual goals were. Some of the arguments for using the A-bomb have been predicated on a fallacy that Japan threatened our way of life at home, which really was not true.

August

[k5083]

Bias?? Dude, you have got to be kidding. In WW2 the media were the most biased they could possibly be.

August I will agree with you on one point. They were biased, as they are now. Back then they were pro allies winning the war. Now the are pro allies loosing the war.

And in turn I will agree with you. Although the media are not a monolithic entity with a single view, a substantial number of them do want us to lose the war. The reason is because losing this particular war will be better for us, better for Iraq, and better for the world. If we "win" this war the way we won WWII, by flattening the whole country, it will mean decimating a largely innocent civilian population, reducing a country to rubble, and then having the responsibility to build its infrastructure back up again from scratch, all at great expense in money and lives. And in the end, its government may end up no friendlier to us than it was in the past, and we will have stirred up a hornet's nest of terrorism there and elsewhere. We have already "achieved" a good deal of this.

If by "winning" the war you mean something else besides the way we won WWII, I don't know what that would be, but it would be something we've never done and don't know how to do. We're mainly good at flattening stuff.

"Losing" means letting our kids come home and letting Iraq build whatever government it deserves -- which is what it will have in the end anyway. So yes, some people want us to lose this war. But -- and here is where you may disagree with me -- all Americans, including the media, want what is best for America. They just disagree about what that is.

August

[mustangdriver]

They had three choices? Keep going and starve was first . Second was leave China alone, oh yeah the humane thing to do, right they didn't go that route, or three bomb us. So basically we gave them a chance to get out of the war and they didn't. Remember while they were claiming to try for peace, a task force was already on it's way toward Pearl.

[bdk]

The reason is because losing this particular war will be better for us, better for Iraq, and better for the world. If we "win" this war the way we won WWII, by flattening the whole country, it will mean decimating a largely innocent civilian population, reducing a country to rubble, and then having the responsibility to build its infrastructure back up again from scratch, all at great expense in money and lives. And in the end, its government may end up no friendlier to us than it was in the past, and we will have stirred up a hornet's nest of terrorism there and elsewhere. We have already "achieved" a good deal of this.

So if we just go away, we won't be held responsible for the rebuilding anyhow? And if we continue, we will stir up a hornet's nest of terrorism worse than exists now? If we leave, will we embolden the terrorists as a result of their (factual) belief that we have no resolve?

What responsibility does Jimmy Carter have for facilitating the destabilization of Iran? Does Clinton have any responsibility for the ineffective actions agains terrorism during his administration?

To date, has a largely innocent population been decimated by us in the region? What is your definition of decimation? Is there any allowance for the collateral death of innocent civilians in war?

Seems to me that Germany and Japan are better off as a result of our intervention, but maybe you would have preferred them to win?

I may have missed it, but if the clock was turned back to 9/11/01, what would you have recommended Bush's response to that event have been?

Last edited by bdk on Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Former Member]

I may have missed it, but if the clock was turned back to 9/11/01, what would you have recommended Bush's response to that event have been?

Go into Afghanistan...YES!
Invade Iraq...NO!

[mustangdriver]

Hey Pete, I think there are alot of people that feel that way.

[k5083]

So if we just go away, we won't be held responsible for the rebuilding anyhow? And if we continue, we will stir up a hornet's nest of terrorism worse than exists now? If we leave, will we embolden the terrorists as a result of their (factual) belief that we have no resolve?

You are absolutely right, bdk. I'm a little agnostic on that emboldening the terrorists point, but I totally agree on the first two. We have already damaged Iraqi society enough that we owe them some responsibility for rebuilding. Still, we could stop the damage while there is still a little infrastructure left. And, luckily, Iraq will have plenty of wealth to use in rebuilding as long as the rest of the world needs oil, so hopefully it is just a matter of having it allocated properly. And yes, the hornet's nest is well and truly stirred up.

I may have missed it, but if the clock was turned back to 9/11/01, what would you have recommended Bush's response to that event have been?

Something that had anything to do with 9/11/01 would have been nice. Personally, I would suggest massive investment in intelligence-gatherers and infiltrators within the Arab world. Think of how many moles whose loyalty we could buy with the money we've flushed into Iraq. Probably 60% of the membership of Al Qaida could be working for us by now.

What responsibility does Jimmy Carter have for facilitating the destabilization of Iraq? Does Clinton have any responsibility for the ineffective actions agains terrorism during his administration?

Yes, there's blame to spread around there. America's treatment of the mideast has been ham-fisted from the get-go and without interruption. But, we are where we are. All I said was that at this screwed-up moment, losing the war is our best option, or at least that's a reasonably point of view.

Seems to me that Germany and Japan are better off as a result of our intervention, but maybe you would have preferred them to win?

Um, let's see ... no, I'm glad they lost. WWII was a win-win for us and them. We benefited greatly in industrial growth and profits and global influence, and our casualties were minor compared to the other large combatants. Germany and Japan both got rid of lousy political systems and aging industrial bases, and qualified for massive economic aid and free defense courtesy of the Allies. Shame about losing 11% and 4% of their populations respectively, but that's the breaks, right?

Getting a little off-topic here, though.

August

Last edited by k5083 on Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[k5083]

Wow! You are observant, August...however, I am as well.
I have "observed" that in your 4 posts in this thread, you have yet to answer the question that Bill posed at the beginning of the thread. I think I/we all know what your answer will be, but feel free to go ahead and tell us, anyway.

In an attempt to get this thread back on track, since I feel guilty about being one of the people who derailed it, I will finally answer Pat's question.

In Truman's shoes, with the information he had, I probably would have green-lighted the bombs. With the benefit of hindsight or even of contemporary information that Truman did not have, almost certainly not. That is, I consider dropping the A-bombs a tragic mistake, but one that I would likely have made also under the same circumstances.

I believe it was clear to Truman that in all likelihood the war would soon be won without any need to invade, and the bombs would save very few American lives and far fewer total lives than they cost. The crucial information he was missing, or not attending to sufficiently, had to do with the nature of the Bomb itself -- the long-term radiation effects and the fact that it contained the seeds of global extinction -- things that make it unconscionable to use nuclear weapons unless you are facing imminent destruction. Most people outside of the scientific community probably thought of the A-bomb as just a bigger bomb, a logical though dramatic extension of the Blockbuster and the Grand Slam. If you thought of the Bomb that way, then you might as well use it for the sake of simple efficiency; use one plane to destroy a city rather than 500. (Of course, the bomb in that one plane cost a gajillion dollars, but once you've built it, it's a sunk cost.)

Some of the Manhattan Project scientists who opposed using the Bomb had a remarkably sophisticated and prescient understanding of its effects and implications; in my view, they were pretty much right on the money. But with all the other voices screaming in my ears, even if those scientists had been talking to me, I cannot say that I would necessarily have had the good judgment to listen to them.

August

[mustangdriver]

I would have to say that I don't think the Japanese planned on giving up before the bombs. They new they were getting beat, but not giving up. AS for the whole 9/11 thing, I just don't know how I feel anymore. I was for Afghanistan 100% and still stand behind that. I just don't know how I feel about this war that is on going. I am not against it or for it, but rather kind of numb. I do support the troops as what they are doing is not easy.