Anyone else think Truman one of the worst presidents ever?

[Myra Bronstein]

The more I read about Truman the more appalled I get. In addition to the obvious--dropping atom bombs on civilian targets--he: Started the Cold War (which is the tie in to President Kennedy), hatched the CIA, and oversaw the creation of the World Bank. That's quite the smorgasbord of evil. Individually each did (does) a lot to undermine democracy; collectively it's overwhelming to contemplate the impact.

Am I being unfair to him? Are many of these episodes and institutions a good idea gone bad? Or are they, as they seem to be, a bad idea gone bad? Was Truman just clueless or was he well meaning but deluded?

And why did he tell the US public that he'd just dumped an atom bomb on Hiroshima, and call it a "military base"???

http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-ag09.html

He also wrote in his diary that he would only drop bombs on military targets.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html

Then the matter seems to be dropped (so to speak) and alluva sudden bombs are tossed onto cities.

Does anyone know what happened in this gap between insisting he'd target Japanese military bases and not cities, and bombing cities?

[Pat Speer]

The more I read about Truman the more appalled I get. In addition to the obvious--dropping atom bombs on civilian targets--he: Started the Cold War (which is the tie in to President Kennedy), hatched the CIA, and oversaw the creation of the World Bank. That's quite the smorgasbord of evil. Individually each did (does) a lot to undermine democracy; collectively it's overwhelming to contemplate the impact.

Am I being unfair to him? Are many of these episodes and institutions a good idea gone bad? Or are they, as they seem to be, a bad idea gone bad? Was Truman just clueless or was he well meaning but deluded?

And why did he tell the US public that he'd just dumped an atom bomb on Hiroshima, and call it a "military base"???

http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-ag09.html

He also wrote in his diary that he would only drop bombs on military targets.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html

Then the matter seems to be dropped (so to speak) and alluva sudden bombs are tossed onto cities.

Does anyone know what happened in this gap between insisting he'd target Japanese military bases and not cities, and bombing cities?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reportedly military targets. Notice that they didn't nuke Tokyo. (Of course, they'd already fire-bombed Tokyo.) The killing of civilians was almost certainly part of the plan, in order to scare the Japanese Emperor, and send a message to the Russians. (It worked.)

Truman is much more innocent when it comes to the CIA. He interpreted the CIA as an intelligence collection service. In his later years, he wrote letters to the media stating that if he'd known the CIA would become involved in operations, he'd never have allowed its creation.

[Terry Mauro]

The more I read about Truman the more appalled I get. In addition to the obvious--dropping atom bombs on civilian targets--he: Started the Cold War (which is the tie in to President Kennedy), hatched the CIA, and oversaw the creation of the World Bank. That's quite the smorgasbord of evil. Individually each did (does) a lot to undermine democracy; collectively it's overwhelming to contemplate the impact.

Am I being unfair to him? Are many of these episodes and institutions a good idea gone bad? Or are they, as they seem to be, a bad idea gone bad? Was Truman just clueless or was he well meaning but deluded?

And why did he tell the US public that he'd just dumped an atom bomb on Hiroshima, and call it a "military base"???

http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-ag09.html

He also wrote in his diary that he would only drop bombs on military targets.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html

Then the matter seems to be dropped (so to speak) and alluva sudden bombs are tossed onto cities.

Does anyone know what happened in this gap between insisting he'd target Japanese military bases and not cities, and bombing cities?

*************************************************************

"Anyone else think Truman one of the worst presidents, ever?"

My Dad, rest his soul. He was a Democrat before [as he used to complain] FDR pulled MacArthur from the Asian theatre just as he was positioning to take North Korea under the U.S. flag. After that egregious error [in my Dad's opinion] in strategic military/political maneuvering, he voted Republican, right or wrong.

Although, he did agree with some of Kennedy's policies and often referred to him as a "conservative liberal," or a "conservative democrat," which seemed like a contradiction in terms to me, at the time. I was 15 to 18 years of age, during Kennedy's term in office.

"he: Started the Cold War (which is the tie in to President Kennedy), hatched the CIA, and oversaw the creation of the World Bank."

I was under the impression that it was Winston Churchill who helped create the climate of the "Cold War" by terming the Russian occupied territories as "The Iron Curtain." Remember, Russia had been part of the Allied Forces helping to liberate Europe from German occupation. The spoils of war were divided up by the conquering forces on both sides of the battle lines.

"Was Truman just clueless or was he well meaning but deluded?"

Probably a little of both. Stepping in behind four terms of FDR's office would seem to be a daunting exercise for anyone to be presented with, let alone be left to implement its policies, both domestic and foreign.

Edited November 14, 2006 by Terry Mauro

[Terry Adams]

As horrible as the effects of the bombs were, they prevented estimated deaths of up to 1,000,000 American soldiers, had the U.S. conducted a ground war on mainland Japan. It was , sadly, a necessary evil.

Terry

[John Dolva]

the photo plane was the only 'necessary evil' in the sky that day. A million US lives saved is Nixons take on things.

It's not quite that simple. The truth is rather less palatable. In destroying the German war machine, the Soviets were freed to attack Japan...Had they done so...

http://www.infonature.org/english/cultural...mb_genocide.htm

"The politics of the atomic bombing become evident from the timing of its use. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed to force the capitulation of Japan before the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan and advanced into Japanese-held Manchuria, northern China and Japan itself. This tactic worked.

The Allies had agreed at the Yalta conference of Truman, Churchill and Stalin in April that Russia would declare war on Japan on August 8. Following the successful July test of the A-bomb in the Nevada desert, however, Truman negotiated a week's delay to August 15 for Russia's entry into the war against Japan. This allowed the Manhattan Project to swing into top speed to produce two bombs, which were then dropped on Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. Japan formally surrendered to the Allies on August 14. The atomic bombing thus was successful in keeping the Soviet Union out of China, Japan and Asia, leaving these as a US corporate playground. "Our dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan", confided Truman to his diary, "forced Russia to reconsider her position in the Far East". "

[Pat Speer]

the photo plane was the only 'necessary evil' in the sky that day. A million US lives saved is Nixons take on things.

It's not quite that simple. The truth is rather less palatable. In destroying the German war machine, the Soviets were freed to attack Japan...Had they done so...

http://www.infonature.org/english/cultural...mb_genocide.htm

"The politics of the atomic bombing become evident from the timing of its use. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed to force the capitulation of Japan before the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan and advanced into Japanese-held Manchuria, northern China and Japan itself. This tactic worked.

The Allies had agreed at the Yalta conference of Truman, Churchill and Stalin in April that Russia would declare war on Japan on August 8. Following the successful July test of the A-bomb in the Nevada desert, however, Truman negotiated a week's delay to August 15 for Russia's entry into the war against Japan. This allowed the Manhattan Project to swing into top speed to produce two bombs, which were then dropped on Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. Japan formally surrendered to the Allies on August 14. The atomic bombing thus was successful in keeping the Soviet Union out of China, Japan and Asia, leaving these as a US corporate playground. "Our dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan", confided Truman to his diary, "forced Russia to reconsider her position in the Far East". "

Thanks, John, for providing those quotes. That Truman dropped the bomb to save American and Japanese lives is one of the myths fed Americans with their morning breakfast. I believed it myself until a few years back. Another myth fed us, even in the new anti-war propaganda film Flags of our Fathers, is that bloody battles such as Iwo Jima were a necessary evil. According to MacArthur's memoirs, the battle of Iwo Jima was totally unnecessary, as the recapture of the Phillipines put the U.S. in striking distance of Japan. As Iwo Jima was Japanese soil, it seems likely in retrospect that the U.S. wanted the battle for Iwo to be bloody, so that it could justify dropping the bomb to prevent "loss of life." War is hell.

[Norman T. Field]

The more I read about Truman the more appalled I get. In addition to the obvious--dropping atom bombs on civilian targets--he: Started the Cold War (which is the tie in to President Kennedy), hatched the CIA, and oversaw the creation of the World Bank. That's quite the smorgasbord of evil. Individually each did (does) a lot to undermine democracy; collectively it's overwhelming to contemplate the impact.

Am I being unfair to him? Are many of these episodes and institutions a good idea gone bad? Or are they, as they seem to be, a bad idea gone bad? Was Truman just clueless or was he well meaning but deluded?

And why did he tell the US public that he'd just dumped an atom bomb on Hiroshima, and call it a "military base"???

http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-ag09.html

He also wrote in his diary that he would only drop bombs on military targets.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html

Then the matter seems to be dropped (so to speak) and alluva sudden bombs are tossed onto cities.

Does anyone know what happened in this gap between insisting he'd target Japanese military bases and not cities, and bombing cities?

*************************************************************

"Anyone else think Truman one of the worst presidents, ever?"

My Dad, rest his soul. He was a Democrat before [as he used to complain] FDR pulled MacArthur from the Asian theatre just as he was positioning to take North Korea under the U.S. flag. After that egregious error [in my Dad's opinion] in strategic military/political maneuvering, he voted Republican, right or wrong.

Although, he did agree with some of Kennedy's policies and often referred to him as a "conservative liberal," or a "conservative democrat," which seemed like a contradiction in terms to me, at the time. I was 15 to 18 years of age, during Kennedy's term in office.

"he: Started the Cold War (which is the tie in to President Kennedy), hatched the CIA, and oversaw the creation of the World Bank."

I was under the impression that it was Winston Churchill who helped create the climate of the "Cold War" by terming the Russian occupied territories as "The Iron Curtain." Remember, Russia had been part of the Allied Forces helping to liberate Europe from German occupation. The spoils of war were divided up by the conquering forces on both sides of the battle lines.

"Was Truman just clueless or was he well meaning but deluded?"

Probably a little of both. Stepping in behind four terms of FDR's office would seem to be a daunting exercise for anyone to be presented with, let alone be left to implement its policies, both domestic and foreign.

The U.S. anticipated so many injuries from a Japan invasion that they are today still issuing Purple Heart medal that were created prior to and intended for the planned invasion.

Re: "According to MacArthur's memoirs, the battle of Iwo Jima was totally unnecessary, as the recapture of the Phillipines put the U.S. in striking distance of Japan. "

I would be real sketical about anything in MacArthur's memoirs, the man's self serving arrogance and disreagard for the facts when not in his favor is monumental. His primary reason for denigrating Iwo is, it wasn't his idea. A great general who, in the opinion of many, was more than a little mad by the time Truman sacked him.

Sure you can base bombers in the Phillipines, but what do you do about the damaged planes that can't make it back to base? This, along with being able to provide a fighter escort to the bombers, was the primary reason for Iwo Jima.

Edited November 14, 2006 by Norman T. Field

[Myra Bronstein]

the photo plane was the only 'necessary evil' in the sky that day. A million US lives saved is Nixons take on things.

It's not quite that simple. The truth is rather less palatable. In destroying the German war machine, the Soviets were freed to attack Japan...Had they done so...

http://www.infonature.org/english/cultural...mb_genocide.htm

"The politics of the atomic bombing become evident from the timing of its use. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed to force the capitulation of Japan before the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan and advanced into Japanese-held Manchuria, northern China and Japan itself. This tactic worked.

The Allies had agreed at the Yalta conference of Truman, Churchill and Stalin in April that Russia would declare war on Japan on August 8. Following the successful July test of the A-bomb in the Nevada desert, however, Truman negotiated a week's delay to August 15 for Russia's entry into the war against Japan. This allowed the Manhattan Project to swing into top speed to produce two bombs, which were then dropped on Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. Japan formally surrendered to the Allies on August 14. The atomic bombing thus was successful in keeping the Soviet Union out of China, Japan and Asia, leaving these as a US corporate playground. "Our dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan", confided Truman to his diary, "forced Russia to reconsider her position in the Far East". "

Thanks, John, for providing those quotes. That Truman dropped the bomb to save American and Japanese lives is one of the myths fed Americans with their morning breakfast. I believed it myself until a few years back. Another myth fed us, even in the new anti-war propaganda film Flags of our Fathers, is that bloody battles such as Iwo Jima were a necessary evil. According to MacArthur's memoirs, the battle of Iwo Jima was totally unnecessary, as the recapture of the Phillipines put the U.S. in striking distance of Japan. As Iwo Jima was Japanese soil, it seems likely in retrospect that the U.S. wanted the battle for Iwo to be bloody, so that it could justify dropping the bomb to prevent "loss of life." War is hell.

That really is a smoking gun kind of quote John: "Our dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan forced Russia to reconsider her position in the Far East." That's exactly the kind of rationalization I'm looking for in trying to make sense of Truman's thoughts.

And Pat that's my definite impression too, that the bomb drop as life saver scenario was a way of making the horrible facts more palatable, i.e., propaganda. For example Truman's insistence on unconditional surrender seems almost designed to keep the Japanese in the war until the moment was right. There were people in his administration--Sect of War Stimson for one I believe--who damn well knew that denying the Japanese their Emperor, their god, would destroy them. (Stimson, in spite of his title, seemed to be the one to try, unsuccessfully, to modulate the blood thirst.)

There's no way the Japanese could risk losing their Emporer. So the tosses bombs on a couple of hundred thousand civilians, *then* lets them keep their Emperor anyway. Could have done that without the bombing, unless of course the objective lay elsewhere, as Pat said.

I don't know anything about Iwo Jima or MacArthur, but I believe the photograph that the Arlington statue was taken from was staged. Figures. It only makes sense that the symbol be as bogus as the war.

Anyway, I guess another question is why the second, Nagasaki bomb, was dropped. Presumably also to force an end to the war before Russia could insist on a slice of Japan.

Well, I'm trying to be quasi-fair in my assessment of Truman. But he just made so many decisions that, in retrospect, turned out so horribly. Even if he meant well at the time in some cases (and I'm not convinced he did), isn't a prez supposed to be judged over the long term?

[Myra Bronstein]

The more I read about Truman the more appalled I get. In addition to the obvious--dropping atom bombs on civilian targets--he: Started the Cold War (which is the tie in to President Kennedy), hatched the CIA, and oversaw the creation of the World Bank. That's quite the smorgasbord of evil. Individually each did (does) a lot to undermine democracy; collectively it's overwhelming to contemplate the impact.

Am I being unfair to him? Are many of these episodes and institutions a good idea gone bad? Or are they, as they seem to be, a bad idea gone bad? Was Truman just clueless or was he well meaning but deluded?

And why did he tell the US public that he'd just dumped an atom bomb on Hiroshima, and call it a "military base"???

http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-ag09.html

He also wrote in his diary that he would only drop bombs on military targets. http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html

Then the matter seems to be dropped (so to speak) and alluva sudden bombs are tossed onto cities.

Does anyone know what happened in this gap between insisting he'd target Japanese military bases and not cities, and bombing cities?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reportedly military targets....

Truman is much more innocent when it comes to the CIA. He interpreted the CIA as an intelligence collection service. In his later years, he wrote letters to the media stating that if he'd known the CIA would become involved in operations, he'd never have allowed its creation.

Well that's an interesting kind of loophole to consider Hiroshima a military target. I googled around to find more on this. I love this post I found at: http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/lists_archiv...ies-l/1213.html "A brief comment in hopes of clarifying some of this discussion on the bombing o Hiroshima. I'm not sure any if what I write below really affects the question of morality during wartime--or adds much to what has been written before--but perhaps a few new facts might assist some in making up there mind about this intriguing debate that has been going on.

It is true that there was a Japanese army base on the outskirts of Hiroshima--it was a major staging area for the invasion and occupation of Southeast Asia. But historians have questioned the claim that the existence of the military base made Hiroshima a "military target." The only text I have on the bombing handy is Lifton and Mitchell, _Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial_--not the most objective source--but the two most prominent historians who have written on the development and use of atomic weapons, Richard Rhoades and Gar Alperovitz, agree on many of the basic facts.

On the military nature of the bombing: It is doubtful that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was intended for any of the military bases. The bomb was dropped in the center of the city, miles from either the army or navy base. Given that the destructive capability of the bomb was not fully known, it is doubtful that the air force would have targeted the center of town if the bases were the intended targets. But few historians have ever argued that the bombing of Hiroshima was intended as a strategic, tactical strike on a particular target.

...

What worked well as a message to the Japanese might also work as a message to the Soviets, who were mobilizing to enter the war in Asia. I believe the old saying goes, "Hiroshima was bombed at the end of WWII, but Nagasaki was bombed at the beginning of the Cold War."

...

Sadly, we have never learned any real lessons from our military escapades. And that is perhaps the most immoral thing of all. Successful or unsuccessful, American never learn the lessons that wars might teach. As much as we think war memorials are about remembering, they are in fact about forgetting."

And regarding this: "Truman is much more innocent when it comes to the CIA. He interpreted the CIA as an intelligence collection service. In his later years, he wrote letters to the media stating that if he'd known the CIA would become involved in operations, he'd never have allowed its creation."

I know Truman claimed innocence in his Washington Post letter dated exactly one month after President Kennedy's murder at the hands of the CIA. But I have a hard time believing that he honestly didn't see any potential harm in having covert agents accountable to no one. Isn't that exactly why he supposedly broke up the OSS after WW2? He was afraid it would turn into a gestapo. So what changed in the year or two between breaking up the OSS to avoid a gestapo and creating the CIA?

The more I read about Truman the more appalled I get. In addition to the obvious--dropping atom bombs on civilian targets--he: Started the Cold War (which is the tie in to President Kennedy), hatched the CIA, and oversaw the creation of the World Bank. That's quite the smorgasbord of evil. Individually each did (does) a lot to undermine democracy; collectively it's overwhelming to contemplate the impact.

Am I being unfair to him? Are many of these episodes and institutions a good idea gone bad? Or are they, as they seem to be, a bad idea gone bad? Was Truman just clueless or was he well meaning but deluded?

And why did he tell the US public that he'd just dumped an atom bomb on Hiroshima, and call it a "military base"???

http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-ag09.html

He also wrote in his diary that he would only drop bombs on military targets.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html

Then the matter seems to be dropped (so to speak) and alluva sudden bombs are tossed onto cities.

Does anyone know what happened in this gap between insisting he'd target Japanese military bases and not cities, and bombing cities?

*************************************************************

"Anyone else think Truman one of the worst presidents, ever?"

My Dad, rest his soul. He was a Democrat before [as he used to complain] FDR pulled MacArthur from the Asian theatre just as he was positioning to take North Korea under the U.S. flag. After that egregious error [in my Dad's opinion] in strategic military/political maneuvering, he voted Republican, right or wrong.

Although, he did agree with some of Kennedy's policies and often referred to him as a "conservative liberal," or a "conservative democrat," which seemed like a contradiction in terms to me, at the time. I was 15 to 18 years of age, during Kennedy's term in office.

"he: Started the Cold War (which is the tie in to President Kennedy), hatched the CIA, and oversaw the creation of the World Bank."

I was under the impression that it was Winston Churchill who helped create the climate of the "Cold War" by terming the Russian occupied territories as "The Iron Curtain." Remember, Russia had been part of the Allied Forces helping to liberate Europe from German occupation. The spoils of war were divided up by the conquering forces on both sides of the battle lines.

...

Ohh, that does predate the Truman Doctrine. What a powerful and lasting image that conjured up--"iron curtain." Mm hm, thank you Terry. Very helpful info.

[Myra Bronstein]

the photo plane was the only 'necessary evil' in the sky that day. A million US lives saved is Nixons take on things.

It's not quite that simple. The truth is rather less palatable. In destroying the German war machine, the Soviets were freed to attack Japan...Had they done so...

http://www.infonature.org/english/cultural...mb_genocide.htm

"The politics of the atomic bombing become evident from the timing of its use. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed to force the capitulation of Japan before the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan and advanced into Japanese-held Manchuria, northern China and Japan itself. This tactic worked.

The Allies had agreed at the Yalta conference of Truman, Churchill and Stalin in April that Russia would declare war on Japan on August 8. Following the successful July test of the A-bomb in the Nevada desert, however, Truman negotiated a week's delay to August 15 for Russia's entry into the war against Japan. This allowed the Manhattan Project to swing into top speed to produce two bombs, which were then dropped on Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. Japan formally surrendered to the Allies on August 14. The atomic bombing thus was successful in keeping the Soviet Union out of China, Japan and Asia, leaving these as a US corporate playground. "Our dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan", confided Truman to his diary, "forced Russia to reconsider her position in the Far East". "

An interesting quote from Einstein/"Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb" :

"A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view: "Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." ("Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb", New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1)."

http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm

And here's a good article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html

[Tom Kutzer]

Truman did what he thought he had to, according to how the situation was presented to him.....much like the American "Left" approved going into Iraq, imo...and unless I'm remembering wrong, Truman had many misgivings about more than a few things he approved, the nascent C.I.A. being one....also...wasn't Hiroshima the 2nd target of choice that day?.....Kokura, iirc, was....a city as much a military target as Hamburg in the terms of the era, and way higher on the scale than Dresden, for instance....as for the Bolshi's, well, "Shock and Awe" certainly comes to mind, eh?

I'd be interested in seeing some "what if" scenarios from the "un-neccessary" posters.....what exactly do you think might have happened if Truman didn't scare the heck out of the Japanese, and by extension, the USSR and "Funny Uncle" Joe?

[Myra Bronstein]

I would be real sketical about anything in MacArthur's memoirs, the man's self serving arrogance and disreagard for the facts when not in his favor is monumental. His primary reason for denigrating Iwo is, it wasn't his idea. A great general who, in the opinion of many, was more than a little mad by the time Truman sacked him.

Sure you can base bombers in the Phillipines, but what do you do about the damaged planes that can't make it back to base? This, along with being able to provide a fighter escort to the bombers, was the primary reason for Iwo Jima.

I'm starting to think that MacArthur had good reason to be pissed:

"The best book, in my opinion, to explode this myth is The Decision to Use the Bomb by Gar Alperovitz, because it not only explains the real reasons the bombs were dropped, but also gives a detailed history of how and why the myth was created that this slaughter of innocent civilians was justified, and therefore morally acceptable.

...

Another startling fact about the military connection to the dropping of the bomb is the lack of knowledge on the part of General MacArthur about the existence of the bomb and whether it was to be dropped. Alperovitz states "MacArthur knew nothing about advance planning for the atomic bomb’s use until almost the last minute. Nor was he personally in the chain of command in this connection; the order came straight from Washington. Indeed, the War Department waited until five days before the bombing of Hiroshima even to notify MacArthur – the commanding general of the U.S. Army Forces in the Pacific – of the existence of the atomic bomb." --The Hiroshima Myth by John V. Denson, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html

Edited November 15, 2006 by Myra Bronstein

[Terry Mauro]

I would be real sketical about anything in MacArthur's memoirs, the man's self serving arrogance and disreagard for the facts when not in his favor is monumental. His primary reason for denigrating Iwo is, it wasn't his idea. A great general who, in the opinion of many, was more than a little mad by the time Truman sacked him.

Sure you can base bombers in the Phillipines, but what do you do about the damaged planes that can't make it back to base? This, along with being able to provide a fighter escort to the bombers, was the primary reason for Iwo Jima.

I'm starting to think that MacArthur had good reason to be pissed:

"The best book, in my opinion, to explode this myth is The Decision to Use the Bomb by Gar Alperovitz, because it not only explains the real reasons the bombs were dropped, but also gives a detailed history of how and why the myth was created that this slaughter of innocent civilians was justified, and therefore morally acceptable.

...

Another startling fact about the military connection to the dropping of the bomb is the lack of knowledge on the part of General MacArthur about the existence of the bomb and whether it was to be dropped. Alperovitz states "MacArthur knew nothing about advance planning for the atomic bomb’s use until almost the last minute. Nor was he personally in the chain of command in this connection; the order came straight from Washington. Indeed, the War Department waited until five days before the bombing of Hiroshima even to notify MacArthur – the commanding general of the U.S. Army Forces in the Pacific – of the existence of the atomic bomb." --The Hiroshima Myth by John V. Denson, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html

****************************************************************

"Another startling fact about the military connection to the dropping of the bomb is the lack of knowledge on the part of General MacArthur about the existence of the bomb and whether it was to be dropped. Alperovitz states "MacArthur knew nothing about advance planning for the atomic bomb’s use until almost the last minute. Nor was he personally in the chain of command in this connection; the order came straight from Washington. Indeed, the War Department waited until five days before the bombing of Hiroshima even to notify MacArthur – the commanding general of the U.S. Army Forces in the Pacific – of the existence of the atomic bomb." --The Hiroshima Myth by John V. Denson,"

I'm just speculating here, but considering that MacArthur was a career warrior, possibly a 20th Century "Caesar," if you will, due to his affinity for strategic acumen. Therefore, I would venture to guess that the War Department was less than forthcoming with MacArthur regarding their plans for Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they knew MacArther would accuse them of wholesale slaughter for attacking the civilian quarter. In all probability he would have accused them of cowardice for not fighting fairly, hand to hand, and made his objections known well ahead of time, which more than likely might have thwarted the plans.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Terry Mauro

[Donald Diabo]

Although, before my time, Trumans presidency is filled with the most contraversial event in U.S. history.

"a-bomb, roswell, c.i.a." etc....

All i can say is, where was the opinion of the american people, then and now?

May the creator help humanity.

I believe, we are on our own.

Hipocracy and big money will always make the rules.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Donald Diabo

[Pat Speer]

In case anyone reading this thread still believes the bombing of Hiroshima was necessary to save American lives, and that the Japanese were committed to fighting to the last man, they should heed the words of no less an authority than Allen Dulles. Dulles concludes his book, The Secret Surrender, about his efforts to negotiate a peace with German forces (who also were reported to be willing to fight to the last man), with the following passage...

"On July 20, 1945, I went to the Potsdam conference and reported there to Secretary Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo--they desired to surrender if they could retain the emperor and the constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people...If there had been a little more time to develop this channel of negotiation, the story of the Japanese surrender might have had a different ending."

The Japanese were boxed in. They weren't going anywhere. We could have bombed their factories faster than they could have built new ones. By writing "If there had been a little more time" Dulles is admitting that the decision to bomb was based upon activities unrelated to the will of the Japanese to surrender. He is as much as admitting that our fear of splitting the Japanese empire with Uncle Joe superseded any concerns we had with killing civilians. IMO.