Opinion of Harry Truman

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I admire his tenacity, but not much else about him.

[JSojourner]

The Japanese offer of surrender by Naotake Sato included far more than a demand that Hirohito remain as Emperor. Indeed, this was NOT anything resembling an offer of surrender.  Rather, it was a request for a negotiated settlement. (Mediated by the Soviets, no less.)  Japan  expected to keep its armed forces more or less intact.  And while the overture intimated some willingness to return occupied territories (remaining pockets of resistance in the Philippines, etc.), the surrender offer did not include a willingness to retreat from China or Korea.  It is also unclear in the Japanese would have surrendered to all of the Allies, the Chinese in particular. Indeed, Sato himself cabled Tokyo and begged the government to accept unconditional surrender. (It has been posited that, being the Japanese envoy to the USSR, he had some inkling -- through Soviet sources -- of the atom bomb's potential.  Remember, Truman had given Stalin advance warning of the bomb.)  And still, Sato's plea was rejected.

The remark about Japanese militarism being overstated is absurd.  Nearly a thousand Japanese committed suicide on Saipan rather than surrender. On Okinawa and Iwo Jima, Japanese civilians also killed themselves and their children rather than accept surrender.  On the home islands, there is documented evidence (including newsreel footage filmed by and for the Japanese) that children as young as ten were being trained to fight an invasion with bamboo spears or to throw themselves under advancing tanks with explosives strapped on.  Even after Hiroshima, militaristic die-hards attempted to seize the Emperor and fight on. (Hirohito had finally "seen the light".)  Admiral Kantaro Suzuki, Tojo's successor, boldly stated that if the American invasion cost 100 million Japanese lives, they would fight to the bitter end. No one has "overstated" anything.  Japanese military fanaticism is pure, unadulterated historic fact.

I am glad there are those who, like me, find the use and even the existence of nuclear weapons abhorrent.  I am glad the use of atomic weapons in Japan has been and will continue to be questioned, criticized, second-guessed and debated. No nation, not least our own, should blithely and happily look on the horror and holocaust of Hiroshima. 

But we are mired in a real and substantive tension here.  There is the world we all want to live in and continue to work for.  It's a world where the use of atomic weapons is unthinkable and where, please God, they no longer even exist.  But it's also a world where they do exist. And where, at least at one time and place in history, their use was the least murderous of many bloody, brutal options.

I realize it is fashionable for liberals like me to question Truman's decision because, rightly I think, we are always suspicious of the military.  I realize it is fashionable for some conservatives, though not many, to question the decision because Truman was a Democrat. And I realize it is peculiarly in vogue, particularly here on the forum, for those who prefer anarchy to question the decision simply because it was made by government. 

No doubt, if government chose not to drop the bomb and to invade...or to starve them out...or to compromise...the very same anarchists would be referring to President Truman as a war criminal on those counts.

Sorry, pal. That bird is a turkey...it won't fly.

[k-onmmunist]

Actually, Japanese morale began to break later on. A surprising amount of their soldiers surrendered on Okinawa, rather than kill themselves.

[Associate Justice PiT]

And I realize it is peculiarly in vogue, particularly here on the forum, for those who prefer anarchy to question the decision simply because it was made by government. 

     Or rather, because it constituted the slaughter of ~150,000 civilians. I don't think anyone would be any more okay with it if it were Henry Ford ordering the bombing rather than Harry Truman.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

And I realize it is peculiarly in vogue, particularly here on the forum, for those who prefer anarchy to question the decision simply because it was made by government. 

     Or rather, because it constituted the slaughter of ~150,000 civilians. I don't think anyone would be any more okay with it if it were Henry Ford ordering the bombing rather than Harry Truman.

[President Mitt]

The remark about Japanese militarism being overstated is absurd.  Nearly a thousand Japanese committed suicide on Saipan rather than surrender. On Okinawa and Iwo Jima, Japanese civilians also killed themselves and their children rather than accept surrender.  On the home islands, there is documented evidence (including newsreel footage filmed by and for the Japanese) that children as young as ten were being trained to fight an invasion with bamboo spears or to throw themselves under advancing tanks with explosives strapped on.  Even after Hiroshima, militaristic die-hards attempted to seize the Emperor and fight on. (Hirohito had finally "seen the light".)  Admiral Kantaro Suzuki, Tojo's successor, boldly stated that if the American invasion cost 100 million Japanese lives, they would fight to the bitter end. No one has "overstated" anything.  Japanese military fanaticism is pure, unadulterated historic fact.

And that is why Truman should have blockaded. The Japanese could not have held out for much longer anyway. You can't invade, but that doesn't mean use the bomb.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

And that is why Truman should have blockaded. The Japanese could not have held out for much longer anyway. You can't invade, but that doesn't mean use the bomb.

There's no guarantee a blockade would have worked.  The atomic bomb was the only surefire way to end the War.

[Scam of God]

And that is why Truman should have blockaded. The Japanese could not have held out for much longer anyway. You can't invade, but that doesn't mean use the bomb.

There's no guarantee a blockade would have worked.  The atomic bomb was the only surefire way to end the War.

Uh, if they'd run out of gasoline, what would the Japanese have done? Powered their planes with Kami spirits?

[JSojourner]

The remark about Japanese militarism being overstated is absurd.  Nearly a thousand Japanese committed suicide on Saipan rather than surrender. On Okinawa and Iwo Jima, Japanese civilians also killed themselves and their children rather than accept surrender.  On the home islands, there is documented evidence (including newsreel footage filmed by and for the Japanese) that children as young as ten were being trained to fight an invasion with bamboo spears or to throw themselves under advancing tanks with explosives strapped on.  Even after Hiroshima, militaristic die-hards attempted to seize the Emperor and fight on. (Hirohito had finally "seen the light".)  Admiral Kantaro Suzuki, Tojo's successor, boldly stated that if the American invasion cost 100 million Japanese lives, they would fight to the bitter end. No one has "overstated" anything.  Japanese military fanaticism is pure, unadulterated historic fact.

And that is why Truman should have blockaded. The Japanese could not have held out for much longer anyway. You can't invade, but that doesn't mean use the bomb.

I was actually a blockade supporter for awhile.  Or a combination of the blockade + a demonstration of the bomb on a remote island, giving the Japanese every opportunity to surrender.

The problem we're dealing with involves surrender and what it means.

We could blockade the home islands and starve two or three million Japanese to death.  Meanwhile, the war rages on in SE Asia and China? Who would clear the East Indies?  The Aussies?  More slaughter.

Meanwhile, the blockade would not guarantee surrender.  All it would guarantee is starvation.  And how long does it take for a population to starve to death?  We'd be into 1948 at least before Japanese resistance outside the home islands was eliminated.  By then, yeah...we could land and conquer the home islands with relative ease.  Most Japanese would be too weak to resist. But if you want to talk about deaths, again, we're talking about far more death and dying with a blockade than with what took place.

And then there's this -- who would do all the fighting in SE Asia, China and Indonesia?  Would any more US troops be committed to these fights or would we rely on the equally (perhaps more) exhausted and war-weary Brits, Chinese and Aussies?  At what point do we surrender all of China, Korea and perhaps Sapporo to the Russians?

How eager were the American people to continue the war effort? At what point would there be unrest at home over a war that we could end, but wouldn't?  At what point might someone in the press or public discover that a bomb existed that was capable of ending the war.

Sorry guys, the dreadful bomb -- and dreadful it surely was -- ended the war decisively and put the Japanese in a position of what, before the bomb, was unimagineable submission.  The war was over in August of 1945, not 1949

(I hope you guys know I don't disrespect you personally or your position on the issue.  I am just pretty convinced there was no other realistic way.)

[Torie]

Excellent and well thought out post JS. Not bad for a bleeding heart Christer! 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned using the bomb, but at a military target. A demonstration of it against a mostly uninhabited area might've done the trick really, but at the very least a military target would be more justifiable. And the blockade idea wasn't very considered, though granted there are concerns about our POWs.

[Franzl]

One of the best Presidents we've had.

[Antonio the Sixth]

FF

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'm surprised at the vote count......he was one amazing dude.

[GMantis]

A war criminal and a liar. HP

[Franzl]

I'm surprised at the vote count......he was one amazing dude.

Indeed, and I'm glad I didn't have to make the decisions he did.

[rebeltarian]

A massive douche, may have done even more damage than FDR if he had also gone a 3rd term.