Skip to comments.Truman Grandson – Political Pawn
Posted on 08/06/2012 1:03:34 PM PDT by Shout Bits
Today is the 67th anniversary of the US's bombing of Hiroshima, Japan. As with each anniversary, many Japanese hold a ceremony designed to promote peace and prevent the use of nuclear weapons. It is hard to judge these people, as the bombing is of course regrettable, but like the Austrians and Italians, these people have a convenient lapse in memory regarding their culpability in WWII. Most regrettable, however is the attendance of Pres. Truman's grandson at the event. While Clifton Daniel stopped short of decrying his grandfather's leadership in the decision to end the war, his presence was a blithe insult to the seriousness of the war against Japan.
Japan, like the other nations the US defeated in WWII, is now a peaceful and stable nation whose government cannot pursue war without the consent of its people. It is easy to condemn an atomic attack against today's Japan, but 67 years ago Japan was a vicious and intractable enemy. While the Japanese considered their emperor a walking god, Japan was also controlled by a military-industrial complex that was every bit as brutal as was Germany's. Before the Pearl Harbor attack, Japan had been a blatant aggressor in its region. Japan's treatment of the Chinese and Malays was inhuman, and the Rape of Nanking will be remembered as one of history's worst crimes. It is beyond rational dispute that the Japanese would have defended Honshu to the last man, including civilians. In short, Truman did not have the option of not killing many Japanese.
Another angle of attack against Truman is that the atomic bombs killed mostly civilians. Apart from the fact that there were no real civilians in Japan, this criticism again misrepresents the nature of war at the time. Targeting individual buildings while avoiding civilian casualties is a luxury of modern technology that Truman did not enjoy. Even at the end of WWII, bombs were inaccurate. Because of this, it was necessary to use incendiary bombs in places like Dresden and Tokyo. While fire bombs sound less scary than atomic bombs, these raids were devastating to the civilians. The atomic bomb was an extension of this strategy. Long before WWII, the doctrine of total war required the destruction of civilian capabilities used to support industrialized war.
Misguided revisionists, of which Clifton Daniel appears to be one, will never rest until the US apologizes for its atomic bombs. A WikiLeaks document suggests that Pres. Obama may have been ready to issue such an apology in 2009, or at least diplomats had discussed an apology. Such a move might appeal to those who need to see the US as the perennial villain and aggressor, but it would not serve the truth. Truman was faced with a choice of unleashing a powerful weapon or authorizing a land invasion. The Japanese alone forced such a terrible choice. Viewed from a reasonable historical perspective, Truman made the only choice that ended the war quickly and likely saved more lives that it cost. Clifton Daniel should not allow himself to be a political pawn to those who would rewrite the truth of Truman's call 67 years ago.
Shout Bits can be found on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/ShoutBits
This is what Clifton Daniel would prefer happened:
TENS OF MILLIONS of Japanese dead.
But at least they would have died the traditional way, by fire, famine and disease. That would have been morally far superior.
So what? Did he say anything negative? All I see in your blog pimping is your pissed about him attending at all. Where is your indignation about any US citizen or political offspring visiting Dresden or Hamburg?
With the world growing smaller, the Japanese are not sequestered in any line of thought because they live on an island. Sure you are going to have the anti-nuke goofs no matter where you go but, you also have many starting to see the reality of just how many lives it did save, on both sides.
Well at least Japan learned not to attack American territory without warning on Sunday, December 7th, 1941.
Japan was isolated.
Italy was under Allied control.
Germany was under Allied control.
The Japanese had been kicked out of most of Asia and were concentrated on their home island.
By July of 1945, their naval and air power was inconsequential.
The Russians were mobilizing eastward towards Japan.
They were surrounded, isolated, no secure way to get supplies in or shipments out.
It really was over.
To be honest, I think we could have waited them out with occasional bombing raids on any remaining factories and military installations.
At this point, they were utterly defenseless from air raids. The planes that dropped the atomic bombs met no opposition at all.
An invasion likely would have been unnecessary.
I don’t know why the a-bombs were used, really. Perhaps it was to end it before the Russians could get involved and divide Japan the way they did Europe.
We may never know for certain.
Didn't read the cited story, did you?
I guess it would have been better if we had used biological weapons on the Japanese. The Japanese killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese with bubonic plague and anthrax during WW2 - and the problems lingered long after the war.
The Japanese would not have surrendered. It would not have been acceptable to them. Also, they had a biological weapons program plannned for the United states. If we had waited them out we may have given them time to execute it.
Ask Mr. Alton Frost of Wortham Texas if he thought it was necessary. He had flown 95 combat missions as a USMC fighter pilot.
I had the privilege of shaking his hand at the WWII museum on New Orleans this past May. His thought was that President Obama should come and visit the museum before apologizing to the Japanese.
And since my father was a Pacific theater veteran I’m kind of glad we didn’t wait either.
[ I dont know why the a-bombs were used, really. Perhaps it was to end it before the Russians could get involved and divide Japan the way they did Europe. ]
I’ll bet it was this reason. Russia could have claimed all of Japan or half of it...
It was probably about intimidating the Ruskies too.
And let 50 million of them die of famine and disease?
Wait - let me guess - you call yourself a "humanitarian", right?
You do know that there was a faction in the Japanese army that attempted to overthrow the Emperor after they found out that he had decided to surrender, right?
GUILT is a potent weapon in the hands of leftists.
While watching the focus on the UK these past few days, I realized that the British have been trained by their ruling class to have widespread historical guilt and shame - and in that way, they look at themselves, and view their recent history much like the Germans (and to some extent, the Japanese), even though the British have not lost a war or have not been conquered.
I realized as well that controlling such attitudes are quite a tool in the hands of Leftists
I was born in Wortham..God bless Alton Frost and your father.
It was necessary to drop the bomb..It saved a lot of lives in the end..theirs and ours.
Is there any truth to the rumor that he and Ronny Reagan (the Jr. the idiot) are getting married?
In his statements, he came a hair’s width from condemning his grandfather. He actively refused to support him.
The fact that he stood with those who want to rewrite history and did not correct them in any way demonstrates that he is at a minimum a political pawn for their ends (which is what the article says).
I dont know why the a-bombs were used, really. “
No personal offense, but are you really that ignorant of history?
There are many ways/sources to read up on what Japan and us were preparing for in an invasion.
You really should be aware of the hundreds of thousands of casualties that were expected.
The A bombs saved many many lives....
Sheesh; shouldn't have someone post that on a conservative website.
The unrestricted American attacks on Japanese merchant shipping in 1944 and 1945 were devastating to Japan.
Imports of iron ore, coal, petroleum, lumber, tin, soybeans, rice, etc plummeted during that period.
Japan needed imports of these materials and could not survive without them.
The firebombing campaign against 65 Japanese cities was also devastating and dramatically reduced industrial production.
By July 1945 Japan was crippled. Unable to supply its troops and unable to produce significant amounts of anything.
The Japanese would have certainly surrendered before 31 December 1945 even if the bombs had not been dropped.
But I think the use of them was still a wise decision.
Opinions and posteriors, you know the drill.
A hair’s width when viewed with a different view looks like a power pole.
By not addressing the issue by all sides the assumption is that the one not there has something to hide or is embarrassed to be there, in such prolonging all of the perceived things those in attendance use to justify their opinion.
Westbrook should read rather than opine. There are informative books on the subject with answers.
They should be happy the military chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They could have chosen Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, Yokohama or Nagoya the most populous cities in Japan.
After Pearl Harbor, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and the Bataan Death March they had every right to kill EVERYONE.
On what do you base your "certainly" assertion, other than wishful thinking?
Even if they did surrender in 1945, there would have been several tens of millions fewer to surrender, those having been killed by starvation and disease.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.