Why I Hate Harry Truman

[k-onmmunist]

Can we safely agree that during the War of the Pacific, the most justified victims were those tortured in POW camps, slaughtered in Peking, and forced into internment camps here in America?

Yes.

[Oakvale]

I'll state my opinion as bluntly, and as crassly, really, as I can:

Harry Truman was, in Atlas lingo, a 'FF' and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was (IMO) morally right. The Japanese government were fanatics, and the bombings were absolutely necessary to break the morale of the nation.

Really, it's rare that a politician, President or not, makes a decision of that kind of importance, and it probably takes a politician of Truman's moral fortitude to make it, but he did the right thing. I really do believe that.

You guys ever hear of the Potsdam Declaration? Basically, Truman, Stalin and Churchill/Attlee declared that, if Japan didn't surrender immediately, they would face "prompt and utter destruction". Japan were warned, and they didn't surrender. They rejected the ultimatum.

In fact, the Japanese Prime Minister, Suzuki, treated the declaration with mokusatsu, which loosely translates as "to kill with silence", an expression of contempt. So any rubbish about Japan being desperate to surrender, only to be murdered by, y'know, the 'evil Americans' is revisionist tripe at best.

So, that's why the Hiroshima bomb was necessary. Because - and I apologize for 'shouting', but this is important, JAPAN WEREN'T GOING TO SURRENDER. Even after the Nagasaki bombing there were hardliners in the military who wanted to fight on.

In response to Hiroshima, you might reasonably expect the Japanese to surrender. Nope. In fact, the Minister of War made preperations for martial law in attempt to prevent anyone from brokering a peace. You've got to understand the sheer fanaticism in the mentality of the Japanese military here.

In fact, it wasn't until after the two blows of

a) The Hirsohima bombing

and

b) The Soviet Union declaring war on Japan

that Suzuki et al began to even contemplate surrender. And even after Nagasaki the Cabinet didn't manage to come to a consensus - it took an intervention from Hirohito himself, along with the belief that the Americans had even more atom bombs, to allow for surrender.

I get that thinking that "killing" = "inherently bad", is an easy axiom to cling to, but try to imagine an Allied invasion of Japan for a moment, and imagine how many millions - tens of millions - would have died.

Yeah.

[/rant]

EDIT: I'll confess to using the phrase "moral fortitude" with the intent of annoying people. The rest stands.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Not to mention that should an invasion have occurred, during the date of the landing, a storm similar to the one that destroyed the Mongol Fleet in Feudal Times occurred, which would have taken out it's fair share of ships alone.

[Derek]

Japan was attempting to surrender when the A-bombs were dropped.

We'll never know.

[??????????]

Portraying Japan as a victim in the last days of the war (a victim that struck first against Chinese, British, French, Dutch, and American interests) is disingenuous at best.

To be fair, Japanese interests were rather more legitimate than British, French, Dutch and American interests.

Like raping women and murdering infants?

[Хahar 🤔]

Portraying Japan as a victim in the last days of the war (a victim that struck first against Chinese, British, French, Dutch, and American interests) is disingenuous at best.

To be fair, Japanese interests were rather more legitimate than British, French, Dutch and American interests.

Like raping women and murdering infants?

You say that as if it were unusual.

[Oakvale]

Thanks for debunking the usual crap fed to people about this, Libertas.

The sad thing is that history just keeps repeating itself.

People scoff at the notion that as unpopular a failure as George W. Bush would one day have the history books vindicate him as a great president, and yet that's precisely what happened to Harry S Truman over the years.

Truman was largely unpopular over

a) Economic recession

b) Some corruption in his government

...both of which are seen as relatively minor today in comparison to ending World War II with a minimum of bloodshed, the Marshall Plan, containment, the establishment of Israel, and desegregating the army, to name but a few other aspects of his government.

I hardly think history will be as kind to Bush's disastrous handling of the botched Iraq adventure and the economic disaster. Perhaps the best that can be said of Bush's tenure is that he increased foreign aid.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'll state my opinion as bluntly, and as crassly, really, as I can:

Harry Truman was, in Atlas lingo, a 'FF' and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was (IMO) morally right. The Japanese government were fanatics, and the bombings were absolutely necessary to break the morale of the nation.

Really, it's rare that a politician, President or not, makes a decision of that kind of importance, and it probably takes a politician of Truman's moral fortitude to make it, but he did the right thing. I really do believe that.

You guys ever hear of the Potsdam Declaration? Basically, Truman, Stalin and Churchill/Attlee declared that, if Japan didn't surrender immediately, they would face "prompt and utter destruction". Japan were warned, and they didn't surrender. They rejected the ultimatum.

In fact, the Japanese Prime Minister, Suzuki, treated the declaration with mokusatsu, which loosely translates as "to kill with silence", an expression of contempt. So any rubbish about Japan being desperate to surrender, only to be murdered by, y'know, the 'evil Americans' is revisionist tripe at best.

So, that's why the Hiroshima bomb was necessary. Because - and I apologize for 'shouting', but this is important, JAPAN WEREN'T GOING TO SURRENDER. Even after the Nagasaki bombing there were hardliners in the military who wanted to fight on.

In response to Hiroshima, you might reasonably expect the Japanese to surrender. Nope. In fact, the Minister of War made preperations for martial law in attempt to prevent anyone from brokering a peace. You've got to understand the sheer fanaticism in the mentality of the Japanese military here.

In fact, it wasn't until after the two blows of

a) The Hirsohima bombing

and

b) The Soviet Union declaring war on Japan

that Suzuki et al began to even contemplate surrender. And even after Nagasaki the Cabinet didn't manage to come to a consensus - it took an intervention from Hirohito himself, along with the belief that the Americans had even more atom bombs, to allow for surrender.

I get that thinking that "killing" = "inherently bad", is an easy axiom to cling to, but try to imagine an Allied invasion of Japan for a moment, and imagine how many millions - tens of millions - would have died.

Yeah.

[/rant]

EDIT: I'll confess to using the phrase "moral fortitude" with the intent of annoying people. The rest stands.

So basically you just repeated the standard old narrative justifying Truman's act of mass-murder, even though that's already been addressed and debunked in this thread.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Thanks for debunking the usual crap fed to people about this, Libertas.

The sad thing is that history just keeps repeating itself.

People scoff at the notion that as unpopular a failure as George W. Bush would one day have the history books vindicate him as a great president, and yet that's precisely what happened to Harry S Truman over the years.

Truman was largely unpopular over

a) Economic recession

b) Some corruption in his government

Destroying the economy, abusing his executive authority, having a terrible foreign policy, commiting acts of mass-murder...all of these came together to alienate just about everyone.

Just like George W. Bush.

Of course, as with Bush, it's hard to tell whether Truman was evil or just plain stupid. You can make arguments either way for both men.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL! Just LOL.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Truman is any guide, Bush will certainly be remembered as one of the greats. Although Dubya's body count didn't quite match that of Harry S Truman.

[hcallega]

I pretty much agree with Truman's policies across the board. I believe that the A-Bomb was a necessary choice to take, and saved lives on both sides of the fight. Also, Korea was the right fight as we were defending our allies against our chief ideological enemies (crazy commies).

[President Mitt]

against our chief ideological enemies (crazy commies).

So you support starting a war against a nation because they are ideologically different than you?

[k-onmmunist]

Also, Korea was the right fight as we were defending our allies against our chief ideological enemies (crazy commies).

Not only are you an Irish republican, you also support neoconservatism. Truly disgusting.

[Хahar 🤔]

Also, Korea was the right fight as we were defending our allies against our chief ideological enemies (crazy commies).

Not only are you an Irish republican, you also support neoconservatism. Truly disgusting.

This juxtaposition of yours is amusing.

[k-onmmunist]

Also, Korea was the right fight as we were defending our allies against our chief ideological enemies (crazy commies).

Not only are you an Irish republican, you also support neoconservatism. Truly disgusting.

This juxtaposition of yours is amusing.

Indeed.

[Oakvale]

Also, Korea was the right fight as we were defending our allies against our chief ideological enemies (crazy commies).

Not only are you an Irish republican, you also support neoconservatism. Truly disgusting.

A post which is full of weapons-grade irony given your recent adoration of Mao, surely.

[hawkeye59]

tl;dr

[Frink]

against our chief ideological enemies (crazy commies).

So you support starting a war against a nation because they are ideologically different than you?

The United States didn't start the Korean War.

[dead0man]

Such details don't matter when being a dick to an asshat.