Did President Truman Ever Regret His Hiroshima Decision?

Newsweek ^ | Aug 05, 2020 | Greg Mitchell

[SeekAndFind]

Seventy-five years ago this week, President Harry S. Truman exulted when he heard the first report that the atomic bomb he had ordered dropped over Hiroshima, Japan, by a B-29 bomber, had exploded as planned and on target, most likely devastating most of the large city.

Truman was on the ocean, returning to Washington from the Potsdam Conference in Germany, where he had secured Joseph Stalin's promise to declare war on Japan around August 10. An article in the press the day after the first atomic attack depicted Truman, his voice "tense with excitement," personally informing his shipmates about the atomic attack. "The experiment," he announced, "has been an overwhelming success."

Missing from this account was Truman's burst of triumphalism when the news of the bombing first reached the ship: "This is the greatest thing in history!"

Truman's official announcement, released while he was still at sea, again showed pride in America's achievement. The atomic bomb, he declared, represented "a harnessing of the basic power of the universe." America had "won the greatest scientific gamble in history." And Japan had now been repaid for Pearl Harbor "manyfold."

From that moment on, Truman rarely (some would say, never) looked back from a different angle, inevitably responding to questions about ordering two bombs dropped over Japan—from the media or in sometimes hostile letters to him at the White House—by affirming that decision, or even with what we would now call "doubling down."

He said he "didn't have any doubt" about the wisdom of the decision—unlike those he pictured as "eggheads" or "Monday morning quarterbacks."

[God luvs America]

Regardless- the Japs refusal to surrender after the fire bombing/nepalming of their major cities like Tokyo, led to the dropping of the A-bombs...

[Fury]

In view of the demonstrable monstrousness of the Japanese Empire and its absolute refusal to recognize any standards of decency or humanity in waging its war of aggression in the Pacfic and Eastern Asia - I remind you that the infamous Rape of Nanking, lasting from Dec. 1937 till March 1938, i.e., occurred long before the Einstein–Szilard letter had even been conceived - there was no "moral dilemma" on America's side, once hostilities erupted.

Except the war crimes committed by the Japanese at Nanking were committed almost exclusively by the Japanese military.

[Captain Walker]

I wouldn't have demanded unconditional surrender; it made capitulation by Japan that much more difficult (even if it resulted in our propagandists being able to claim, "Hey, look. They're not surrendering; the Bombs are justified).

You brought up Unit 731.

The people who ran Unit 731 were tried by the Russians, not the Americans. In fact, the Americans (the Good Guys) went so far as to protect the psychopaths who ran it from any prosecution.

So how bad were they, really, if the Good Guys took pains to protect them?

[alexander_busek]

In view of the demonstrable monstrousness of the Japanese Empire and its absolute refusal to recognize any standards of decency or humanity in waging its war of aggression in the Pacfic and Eastern Asia - I remind you that the infamous Rape of Nanking, lasting from Dec. 1937 till March 1938, i.e., occurred long before the Einstein–Szilard letter had even been conceived - there was no "moral dilemma" on America's side, once hostilities erupted.

Except the war crimes committed by the Japanese at Nanking were committed almost exclusively by the Japanese military.

What, in my post, suggested anything other than that?! Everyone knows that the Japanese bear the sole responsible for the "Rape of Nanking!"

Why are you trying to "correct" me?!

Regards,

[alexander_busek]

I wouldn't have demanded unconditional surrender [...]

So what concessions would you have made to the Japanese?

They already tacitly understood (it had been communicated through "backchannels") that they could retain their Emperor (though he would have to renounce godhood).

So what else would you have conceded to them, to "sweeten the pot" and induce them to surrender?

The Japanese fascists were morally on a par with the Nazis - and we had demanded the unconditional surrender of Germany. For what possible reason should we have accorded Imperial Japan better conditions than Nazi Germany?!

Regards,

[Captain Walker]

So what else would you have conceded to them, to "sweeten the pot" and induce them to surrender?

It's a question that could go back prior to their attack on PH. (Do we allow them any of their desired Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, seeing their point about our grip over the Western Hemisphere with the Monroe Doctrine? I don't know.)

In other words, the guidance would have to have preceded our entry into the war; otherwise, you're handing me a schitt sandwich and laughing when I have no options.

The short answer is to fall back on the naval blockade. The US Pacific Fleet at war's end was the largest armada assembled in the history of the human race. We could have had warships doing donuts around those islands for years; there's no need for an invasion and we achieve our objective of a restrained Japan.

Put them in place and give the Japanese a phone number where we could be reached when they're tired.

[Fury]

Everyone knows that the Japanese bear the sole responsible for the "Rape of Nanking!"

I was contrasting that the war crimes committed by the Japanese military in Nanking have no nexus to the US military developing war plans to firebomb Japanese cities.