Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
Dennis Prager ·
July 23, 2012 at 6:17pm
Fr. Wilson Miscamble is a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame and has written a book on a topic that I find to be fascinating and morally compelling. The Most Controversial Decision: Truman, the Atomic Bombs and the Defeat of Japan is a comprehensive analysis of the choices Harry Truman made to end WWII in the manner he did.
I thought this book and topic important enough to commission a Prager University course on the subject.
Many in this country base their low view of the United States largely on the decision to drop the atomic bomb. Professors at leading universities teach entire semester-long courses to that effect. I, however, agree with Fr. Miscamble.
Do you?
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
He's also a contributor to Ricochet.
Jun '10
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
It was almost divine providence. 1945 (and a few years beyond) was the only time in history when a national leader could use atomic weapons and not fear causing a nation-destroying in-kind retaliation. That was the short window in history when you could say that, and also, when the bomb's use could be so psychologically effective in causing surrender. With the Japanese, what other tactic would've worked to finally demoralize the Emperor? Probably nothing.
Edited on July 23, 2012 at 6:46pmMar '11
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
That this topic is even debated only points out the absolutely abysmal nature of our educational system with regards to US History. For those who desperately need something to smack over the heads of the chronically ignorant on this point Richard Frank's Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire is the definitive work to do so.
It staggers me though that simple facts regarding the end of the war are simply unknown. How many have I come across who had no idea there was an attempted military coup, barely stopped by an incredibly brave few, after the Emperor's surrender and two atomic bombardments from those who still wished to fight on? Too many. Or that the official plan for the defense of Japan called for the suicidal extermination of the entire populace? The details of Operation Ketsugō (決号作戦) make for rather chilling reading.
The bombing did not only save millions of Allied soldiers from a grisly, brutal death but the Japanese populace itself as well.
Edited on July 23, 2012 at 6:52pmDec '10
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
Roberto - You beat me to it...! Downfall is by far the best and most balanced account of that event.
My late father served in W.W. II, and my wife (also a service member - U.S. Army Nurse Corps), once asked him if he thought it was right to drop the bomb. My father was one of the most gentle and kind individuals on the planet. He was also a man of few words. Without hesitation, he replied "Hell yes !! We were all tired of the war, the death and the killing. We all just wanted to get back home." The twisted logic of the left argues that bombing for peace is like screwing for virginity. Only the left can come up with such profane and utter nonsense. If anyone with a modicum of sense ever took the time to read "Downfall," they might possible gain some insight and context.
Edited on July 23, 2012 at 7:03pmJul '12
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
Fr. Miscamble left one thing out of his list of alternatives to the atomic bombings - surrender of the US to Japan. Most of you are probably thinking "Are you [non-code-of-conduct word] kidding me?!" But as a "what-if" scenario, what would the Japanese likely have demanded? And how many Japanese and American lives would have been saved or lost under this scenario?
Transfer of sovereignty of Midway, Hawaii, and other islands to Japan?
The public suicide of President Truman and US Admirals?
Appointing the Japanese equivalent of Douglas MacArthur to oversee the occupation of the US?
Certainly the US would have suffered humiliation, but the Japanese, which as I understand it, are much more motivated by issues of honor and humiliation, and they bounced back to prosperity fairly quickly.
To be clear, I am not advocating US surrender, just curious what you all think the likely outcome would have been.
Edited on July 23, 2012 at 7:32pmMay '10
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
Kill a thousand people over the course of a year or kill a thousand people in a day, the human loss is the same. But the latter scenario has a much greater psychological effect.
Should we limit ourselves to killing one enemy combatant at a time, so the next one always has an opportunity to surrender? Of course not.
Excellent point. It couldn't figure into Truman's decision, obviously, but the use of nuclear bombs on actual cities, instead of barren testing grounds, might have introduced just enough fear all around to keep the Cold War cold.
My understanding is that hundreds of Japanese soldiers and civilians committed suicide when defeat was imminent in some of those late island battles. We probably would have found many dead mothers and children if we had invaded.
Mar '11
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
deoac: Fr. Miscamble left one thing out of his list of alternatives to the atomic bombings - surrender of the US to Japan. Most of you are probably thinking "Are you [non-code-of-conduct word] kidding me?!" But as a "what-if" scenario, what would the Japanese likely have demanded? And how many Japanese and American lives would have been saved or lost under this scenario?
Transfer of sovereignty of Midway, Hawaii, and other islands to Japan?
The public suicide of President Truman and US Admirals?
Appointing the Japanese equivalent of Douglas MacArthur to oversee the occupation of the US?
Certainly the US would have suffered humiliation, but the Japanese, which as I understand it, are much more motivated by issues of honor and humiliation, and they bounced back to prosperity fairly quickly.
To be clear, I am not advocating US surrender, just curious what you all think the likely outcome would have been. · 1 minute ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
They would have retooled and continued the war a few years later. Internal communications released since the war reveal this was their intent all along while they were "negotiating" with US officials.
May '11
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
Had we not used the bomb, America-haters would have found some other excuse.
What they ignore is the atomic bombs we did not use. Few other nations in the history of the world would not have exploited such a monopoly on power.
Jan '11
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
For those of you who love politics (everyone here!) I highly recommend the book "Plain Speaking" by Merle Miller, based on a series of interviews with Truman. He talks a bit about the bomb, and essentially it was "the decision was made to drop them, and I didn't lose any sleep over it". After reading the book, you may agree with me that he was the most honourable and thoughtful president in living memory.
Also, those who hand-wring over the dropping of the bomb forget about the firebombing of Japan under Curtis LeMay, addressed in the fine movie "The Fog of War". In the space of a few hours, over 100,000 Japanese civilians were burned to death according to many sources.
We can all be armchair generals, but our conjectures mean nothing compared to the real uncertainties and dangers of the times. The decisions that had to be made were horrific, and we should fall down on our knees and thank whatever higher power we want that we don't have those decisions. We are very lucky indeed, and many in the past suffered so that we can enjoy what we have today.
Jun '10
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
The other question is, if Truman decided not to use the new weapon first, went ahead with the invasion, and we lost hundreds of thousands more soldiers in the process, what then? Eventually, the public would hear about the option that Truman had, and turned down. I think a lot of Americans would want to string Truman up by his neck, on the White House front gate.
Nov '10
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
It also needs to be said that in Truman's eyes, the atomic bomb was nothing more than a really big bomb. The idea that people would be dying of radiation poisoning thirty years later was unknown, and probably would have been dismissed as fear-mongering if it had been suggested. As Erik Larsen mentioned above, the Allies saw Hiroshima simply as doing with one bomb what they had been doing all along with hundreds.
A classmate of mine once pointed out that the fear of Hitler acquiring the bomb was based on his using them repeatedly and against civilians, both of which could be said of Truman. I responded that the difference is that Truman wrestled with the decision and saw the bombings as the least of several bad options. Hitler would have nuked London and Moscow without a second thought, thought the outcome unambiguously good, and probably made at least an attempt at Washington and/or New York.
Jul '11
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
If this decision was truly a tough call then it speaks poorly of Harry Truman. We were a country at war in a world at war with itself. Our victory over Japan was not assured because in war nothing ever is. Our people, everybody’s people were dying by the thousands either in the wars themselves or the devastation they caused. The only solution to this was to WIN, as fast and by any means necessary, because losing was unthinkable. Any good leader understands this. I am not sure why many in this country seem not to.
If Truman had decided not to use the bomb and it later became public I suspect that he would have been impeached, maybe tried for treason and possibly lynched if the populace got hold of him. He definitely would be on the list of worse presidents of all time.
So you see Truman’s tough call was not tough at all. He decided to do the only acceptable thing that he could have done. All this hand wringing afterward is just political correctness.
Jan '11
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
Fake John Galt, I recommend that you read the book I reference above "Plain Speaking"; it details Truman's decision making around the bomb. It was not a tough call or an easy call, it was simply a decision that he made based on the information at the time. And he never looked back, regretted, or "play acted" sorrow about it.
Jul '11
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
Great video. Bookmarked for Aug. 9. Thanks. There's so much ignorance on the circumstances.
There's a series of books, called "What If?", edited by Robert Cowley, which is a series of counterfactuals. What if Truman hadn't dropped the bomb? At least 2 million Japanese would have starved to death as the railroads were destroyed, and America probably would have lost as many soldiers as they had lost in WW2 to that point.
At that point, you drop that sucker, twice.
Jun '12
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
In all this discussion I haven't seen what I believe is the contemporary Japanese argument against using the bomb: the Japanese surrendered not because of the bomb, but because the Russians declared war on Japan. Therefore, the argument runs, the Emperor saw the writing on the wall and would rather have made peace with the Americans than the Russians (a good choice, if it were one). I need to read more on the subject to know whether that's at all true (in his address to the Japanese people, Hirohito mentions the bomb, but in speaking to his military he apparently referred to the Soviets).
However, I would encourage anyone who has doubts about whether Truman's was the least best choice to read With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa. The Japanese way of war has to be understood to comprehend the context of Truman's decision. Similarly to the Nazis, the Japanese had made a death pact with war, and that mindset had to be destroyed. Truman's choice wasn't a good one, but it was the best choice he had.
May '10
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
I agree with FJG, above, this decision could not have been difficult for a man who took his role as CiC seriously. Unconvinced? Then, quick while you still have time, talk to a US Marine who fought across the Pacific. My uncle found the experience so horrifying that he never spoke of it for over 50 years. I spoke briefly to am old man who, as a young Marine Lt. went ashore on Iwo Jima with 200 men. He arrived at the other side of the island with 13. People who question the decision are at least ignorant....and probably stupid.
Mar '12
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
Yes. It is consistent with the recognition that the Germans surrendered and the Japanese did not. The Japanese died virtually to a man on many of those Pacific islands.
I am sorry that it took a second atomic bomb to bring about the Japanese surrender, but I am not surprised. I never held Truman at fault for his decision.
Dec '11
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
In hindsight this is a tough call but at the time I don't see where people were worried about killing thousands of the enemy if they could. The only difference was the method of the killing. My understanding of the Pacific Theater of WWII was that even when the Japanese soldiers knew the battle was lost they did not surrender. They would rather die than surrender. In the same spirit before the end of the war, schools were training young girls with bamboo spears to fight the invading Allied soldiers. Japanese culture would not find dying with honor in an unwinnable battle unappealing. Because of this, the atomic bomb gave them an honorable way to end the war, but I think we all wish another course could have been found.
Edited on July 24, 2012 at 12:01amJan '11
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
Further to many comments (recently 17 and 18), many younger people do not comprehend the magnitude of the carnage, and have no context.
VDH rightfully points out that some Battles are totally forgotten by some. Example, Okinawa. Allies = >12K killed. Japanese = >95K killed. Incredible, tragic, horrific.
May '10
Re: Harry Truman and the 'Most Controversial Decision'
Erik Larsen: Further to many comments (recently 17 and 18), many younger people do not comprehend the magnitude of the carnage, and have no context.
VDH rightfully points out that some Battles are totally forgotten by some. Example, Okinawa. Allies = >12K killed. Japanese = >95K killed. Incredible, tragic, horrific. · 0 minutes ago
And thousands of Okinawans, convinced by the Japanese that the Americans would slaughter them, jumped to their death as well. I use the Showtime movie Hiroshima as part of my unit on that decision.
Truman comes off pretty well...and the stubborness of the Japanese military leaders is plainly to blame for us needing to hit them twice to bring the Emperor to finally call a halt to it. USSR's invasion is mainly key because it meant that the Soviets were not going to intervene on their behalf...but against them. We knew this all along, but still saw that the Japanese weren't quitting.
It's a pretty fair film...with the Japanese filming what went on in the civilian gov't (and many interviews inserted) with subtitles.