Your View: Truman's decision an act of barbarism?

As one of those new people, this is a topic of great interest to me. I knew there were other posts about it, but just hadn't got to it yet - there are always so many other interesting threads that pop up everyday and I hadn't even touched on this topic.

I work a part-time job with a man who studied philosophy and throws philosopical viewpoints at me all of the time and he knows of my interest in WWII and has constantly brought up this topic - so it's one I've really been wrestling with. It's hard to argue that a weapon that killed so many civilians is a "good" thing, but I'd like to think we did it because we truly believed it was the best choice, in this case that it would ultimately save lives. He believes it was morally wrong to drop the bomb, and likened it to a terrorist act such as we suffered on 9-11. (I'll refrain from sharing my response to that comment.)

I want to say up front that arguing that killing another human being is a good thing, is actually quite ridiculous. It goes against the grain for me to say that a bomb that killed so many people, so many innocent civilians, was a "good thing." Of course it's not a good thing. But you have to look at it in the context that we were at war.

I just don't know enough about this topic to speak knowledgeably about it - yet. I am working on it. As of right now, my answer is based purely on emotion. My father is a WWII veteran, and he told me that he believed that the bomb ended the war and that there would have been far more deaths had we had to invade Japan, which was a common belief among the military in his day, I believe. I tend to think that the people who were involved and affected by the decision at that time have more say in it than we do. Maybe history can look at it through a lense of morality, whereas it may not be so clear when we are in the midst of a life-and-death situation and have to make the choice. Or maybe the decision may be even clearer when you are face-to-face with that choice, I don't know.

My very uninformed response is that I agree. I believe that with the Japanese attitude of the time, had we invaded Japan then there would have been far more deaths then the bombs caused, not just our military but among the Japanese civilians and and certainly the soldiers of the Imperial Army who were trained to fight to the death. And the Japanese did not care about the lives they held in their hands, the POWs, the people in other countries they invaded and controlled, causing hundreds of thousands of additional deaths, which would have continued. I believe even some of the top Japanese generals did not want to surrender, even in the face of the atomic bombs or an invasion of their homeland, and felt that the death of every Japanese civilian in such an event, their own people!, was simply a cost of war.

As an American, I want to be able to say that dropping the bomb was a horrible thing but it was the best of two terrible choices, the lesser of two rotten evils. But I can't do that without understanding both sides of the argument and understanding if it really was the best choice. I do want to hear both sides.

So I do welcome the debate.....

And, Lou, thanks for the book title, I've added Giangreco's book to the top of my reading list....

 

American opinion of the day, both civilian and military, were very happy to see the much dreaded invasion of the home islands, (Operation OLYMPIC), dissappear into the realms of speculation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is the job of the President to enact the wishes of the people, broadly speaking. This is his mandate and the principal reason for his existence.

Imagine the OUTCRY from parents of soldiers killed during operation Olympic....."Dear Mr. Truman. My son died on the beaches of Hokkiado and Honshu. I am told that you, as our Commander in Chief, had the necessary means to bring about surrender WITHOUT resorting to this horrible and costly invasion. How DARE you sacrifice my son when the means existed to end this damned conflict IMMEDIATELY."

Whether the Japanese diplomats of the day felt that the Bomb was "Totally unnecessary....(Shigamitsu)" is not the point. If there were any Japanese that had doubts before the Bomb, then dropping it meant that those doubts existed no longer. I note that modern Japan does not have a "Neo-Imperialist" movement as Germany does with Nazisim, something directly attributable to the shock factor of the Bomb. Some modern Japanese have expressed more than a little bit of relief that its was all over so quickly, for 'Olympic' was a death sentence for many Imperial serviceman, and a pointless death it would have been.

All weapons in war are terrible. Tagging the Bomb as any more terrible than others is something that civilians indulge in, sitting in armchairs with full stomachs, feet by the fire and a hot toddy in hand.

Put yourself in the shoes of the serviceman from from both sides. The possibility of ending it all before you next stepped out of the landing craft must have seemed like Divine deliverence.

 

Stepping away from the actual personal moral issues involved, which will undoubtedly and rightly continue for many years to be a point of debate, and although the Manhattan project and perhaps even more the political decisions regarding the bomb's use were and in some cases remain highly secret, most issues of this nature have at least released enough classified documents by now that the majority of the facts are undisputed.

I appreciate that more people have agendas relating to this topic than many others, but it seems unusual that there are many worldwide who have different opinions on what actually happened, and what the published opinions of those involved were. While much of this confusion may be due to misinformation and using the issue for political ends, is there not a relatively new, relatively unchallenged version of the events leading up to the use of the bomb that is widely known. Of course there are many references in related threads to various opinions and studies of the issue, but I find it strange that there is not to date a near definitive history that is factual, widely (by more than just those specifically interested in the war) known and accepted.

Perhaps it's just the nature of the beast.

 

I guess I am being difficult and don't mean to be that way so I will mention more about my "bias" on this subject. My Dad who had served in the Phillipines has told all of his children that if it had not been for the bomb he did not think he would be alive based on what he was assigned to do in the invasion that he was heading towards as his ship was one that was turned around from the invasion of Japan when Japan was made to surrender. In various circumstances other "war babies" like me were told the same things as a result of the dropping of the two bombs. My Dad's service was well supported by my mom in those war years and the two of them were quite convinced of this. However, we had some people in later years that moved into the community, one who was married to a victim of the A-Bomb and recovered from associated burns who raised lots of concern for the decision of why the bomb was dropped. It was a subject of local newspaper stories and representations so as time went by I read everything I could about the decision and have found that it is fairly easy today to read up on things and find out the thought processes that caused our leaders to make the hard decision. So I kind of feel like the facts have been around for quite a long time but perhaps it has not been finalized in a single documentary paper or book. I would welcome that someone might do that. I don't consider myself to be a very good writer of these things so if you give some talks on the subject feel free to write down the thought process as well. In this forum members have presented a lot of the statistics of the known projected figures our leaders used to analyze what to do. It resulted in the decision that was made and to be honest I was surprised by how much can be found that was actually used in this incredibly considered decision. Lots is said of our military advice and strategic considerations but we must also remember the concerns that caused Albert Einstein to write to the leaders of the U.S. government and spur them on to get busy before someone else did it first. So there was non-military input that first led to this "Manhattan Project" because someone , a scientist with a conscience, was concerned enough to write a letter.

 

Yes, but TODAY they don't care.

(But unfortunately only for today - tomorrow it's politics as usual.)

I agree, this argument will continue as long as we do.

 

Is this ..... still going on ?
And,it is that simple
1)H+N were good things for the US :it saved them a lot of lives,thus the commander-in-chief(Truman) was taking a good decision
2)H+N were good things for Japan(although Truman did not care about the consequences for Japan):it saved a lot of Japanese lives .

 

Biak, my parents at first had a little difficulty realizing that there would be Japanese who would move to the U.S. but soon were able to forgive them as a people and this took some time. The lady who came over was the wife of an American that, as I understood it, was in Japan during the Post-War period with our military. Although their presence sparked the controversy as she was overcoming some of the damage from the burns they were just happy to be in the United States. Although there has been some ongoing health issues she actually has outlived both of my parents. Nevertheless writers were quick to abhor and condemn the use of the bomb without doing any other study of the matter. I did not latch on to the researched facts until years later but I did understand my parents crediting of the bomb for their ability to come back and raise a family. I realized this from the troops point of view at the time but did not dream until I studied more about it that so many more lives besides soldiers were also saved in the prevention of continual conventional bombing that would have been necessary if we had invaded Japan. I guess another point I missed mentioning is that the philosophy of the Japanese was not to ever surrender so the conventional bombing may not have triggered a surrender. The Japanese troops were always loyal to that belief and the arguments that they were about to surrender do not convince most, who have studied that belief system, that they would have surrendered. The Bomb was shocking enough to succeed in the breaking of this long held war time belief and it was to our leaders relief, that they were willing to surrender because we did not know if we were going to have to use continual nuclear bombing to bring about the surrender. I am also compelled to mention that I grew up in school with children from this couple and did not know it until I was out of high school that the kids I knew were their children. I know that some from adjoining family members have served in the military so I think we also have in a way benefited from having a forgiving ability.

 

There's actually pretty strong evidence he (Truman) did care about the lives of Japanese civilians. That was one of the reasons the various casualty estimates included them.

 

Well,that would be something curious:a military commander caring about the fate of enemy civilians in a military operation .

 

Not really. Indeed the international law at the time required it not to mention the that it would be a significant factor in achieving long term goals. And that's without getting into the moral and ethical considerations.

 

Well,Truman was wearing two hats
1)he was commander-in-chief,whose duty was to defeat the enemy with as few as possible US casualties,the fate of the Japanese civilians being irrelevant,or worse,if they were blocking a US victory.
2)he also was president,whose aim (from the moment he became president ) was to be reelected:
a) a quick and cheap (=FEW US losses) victory would help his reelection
b) a quick and cheap victory (=FEW US losses and also few Japanese civilian losses) also would not be bad
c) a long and costly war (=a lot of US losses) would not help his reelection
logically,a) was preferred,the Japanese could not vote for Truman .
If Truman was caring about the Japanese(possible:nobody is perfect),he was that cautious not to care in public,because the US voters would not like a president,who was permitting that the fate of Japanese civilians would influence military operations .If a trifle was going wrong (ONE US soldier getting killed because the president cared about Japanese civilians),well,I know a GOP senator from Wisconsin,and one from Ohio,who would nail Truman to the cross .
To put it bluntly:
caring about Japanese civilians was irrelevant :it would not bring in one vote;it also was dangerous :it could cost the election.
Better was to care in secret,but,as nothing remains secret in Washington DC,the best was not to care .

 

I could reply that Japanese children could not vote for Truman,but the relatives of killed and murdered US soldiers could vote against Truman,but,I will not do this,because some people could be shocked .
And,if he didn't want to see any children killed,why did he order H+ N to be nuked .

 

Another point:it seems that the predecessor of Harry had not all these scruples about Japanese civilians,when he ordered the attacks on Tokyo in march 1945.
Of course;one could reply that after more than 3 years of war,after Bataan a.o.bad things,a US president could not afford the luxury of scruples .
Other people will reply that after 4 presidential elections and 12 years of presidency,all scruples and honesty had vanished .
I also suspect that there are members on the forum (belonging to the GOP) who will be convinced that FDR and scruples and honesty are excluding each other .But,that's for their account .