One question, in hindsight (I know, we can't change what happened then) what do you think he could have done better?
I believe that I stated something to the effect of "we'll never know," but what the heck...
The extreme case would to follow Patton in Europe and MacArthur in Asia. The outcome of that choice is the great imponderable.
Horrors! That would have meant nuclear war!
Probaly, but there were maybe 100 nuclear warheads available in 1946 to 1950, probably 95 of them ours. Nuclear war then and nuclear war now are two totally different things to contemplate. And Truman's alternative was to internationalize control of atomic weapons through the UN. Oh, that policy worked out well. Are we better off that we're facing that nightmare now? With potentially thousands of nuclear weapons in play?
If Patton were allowed to march East from Germany how many millions would have been spared entire lifetimes of slavery? How many would have died? That's impossible to tell.
Driving the Russians back into Russia would have been a worthwhile task, and we could have done it. There might be some places in eastern Europe that were nuclear battlefields, but what would be different, compared to what is there today?
The ecological and human damage to eastern Europe as a result of Soviet domination is probably greater than the results of that hypothetical nuclear exchange. Remember, we're talking about the results of kiloton devices then, versus multi megaton devices now. Chernobyl by itself was equivelant to several Hiroshimas in residual radiation. There are many millions of tons of toxic elements that have been liberally poured over eastern Europes countryside by uncaring Communist bureaucrats over the last 60 years that make the question arguable.
If MacArthur were allowed to not only reshape the postwar nation of Japan but also to have been given full control of the formerly Japanese held areas, namely China, Korea, etc., would that history have been different? I think Mao would have found an active and able opposition on his long march. I think a billion people might have lived in freedom.
maybe. Odds are probably against it succeeding. We do know that what Truman set out to do failed. Only Reagan, with his "radical" ideas and "cowboy" attitude changed the outcome. Gee, I wonder if that might serve as a model for what might have happened if we'd confronted these toads way back then?
As I say, not likely to have turned out better, too many imponderables. But possible. That doesn't make Truman any less gutsy for what he did do. Not necessarily right, but gutsy. He was the one who had to make the call, just as W is the one who has to make the call today. Somehow I don't think his partisan critics will give him the courtesies that our side has given to Truman's decisions.