Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Truman dropped the bomb...

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse



X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Truman dropped the bomb...

    As the 60th anniversary of the end of WWII in the Pacific nears, we are seeing a plethora of articles in all sorts of publications, including newspapers here in Japan.

    Here is an article (with the same title as this post) that discusses Truman's choice in light of formerly classified material that has only in the last few years become available to the public:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...5/894mnyyl.asp

    Enjoy,
    ft

  • #2
    Neoconservative babble...

    Originally posted by freetoken
    As the 60th anniversary of the end of WWII in the Pacific nears, we are seeing a plethora of articles in all sorts of publications, including newspapers here in Japan.

    Here is an article (with the same title as this post) that discusses Truman's choice in light of formerly classified material that has only in the last few years become available to the public:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...5/894mnyyl.asp

    Enjoy,
    ft

    Let's see. The Weekly Standard is a conservative newspaper which acts as a mouthpiece for the neoconservative movement in America. Its editor, William Kristol, is also the chairman of the Project for the New American Century which is (in)famous for its support of a Pax Americana for the future. To achieve this they advocate an increase in military spending as well as what they term "strong moral leadership". Some say that the invasion of Iraq was the beginning of the implementation of this plan (considering the Bush administration consists of and is a big fan of neoconservatives such as Kristol).

    Knowing all of this helps to put the article you linked to into context...

    Comment


    • #3
      (1)Maybe, (2)True, but also (3) Irrelevant to...

      ... the fact of why Truman did what he did.

      Originally posted by Tyler
      Let's see. The Weekly Standard is a conservative newspaper which acts as a mouthpiece for the neoconservative movement in America.
      (1) Well... maybe. You're being a bit harsh I think on the WS as while it has been a "conservative" rag it would not be fair to simply call it a mouthpiece of any particular group. It has published over the years from a variety of people. Also, those folk who you label "neoconservative", like any interest group, will use quite a few outlets to get their message across...

      Originally posted by Tyler
      Its editor, William Kristol, is also the chairman of the Project for the New American Century which is (in)famous for its support of a Pax Americana for the future.
      True, no guessing needed about who W.K. is...

      Originally posted by Tyler
      To achieve this they advocate an increase in military spending as well as what they term "strong moral leadership". Some say that the invasion of Iraq was the beginning of the implementation of this plan (considering the Bush administration consists of and is a big fan of neoconservatives such as Kristol).

      Knowing all of this helps to put the article you linked to into context...
      Well, I really couldn't find a link to whatever source (national archives, smithsonian, etc...) would have the original docs... Also, it is always more interesting to have articles written by highly opinionated authors :-)

      BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY ---->

      What Truman did, and why, is a popular topic these days. Note even in GP forums, in discussions not necessarily about WWII, Hiroshima comes up. E.g.,
      http://www.gaijinpot.com/bb/showthread.php?t=12629

      So, I think it is important to defend Truman and what he did. From my vantage point, 60 years later, it seems he did simply what he had to. Bad as it was, as far as total quantity of human suffering, it was simply par for the course for fighting WWII.

      -ft

      Comment


      • #4
        Well folks the whole argument is silly, as it happened and there is nothing that any of us can do about it. It is ridiculous to bring it up as we were not there and all the principals are either dead or near dead. History is always written by the winners, however, we should learn from it and not let it happen again. I understand how that generation of Americans, who lived in that time must have felt. Speaking with my Japanese in laws, they have stated over and over again that they and their relatives had undergone training in what to do to repel the invaders. Also they told me about the propaganda they were subjected to, ie. "The Americans will eat your babies" and crap like that.

        Both sides were wrong and many people died. It is silly to bring up something that happened at a time that many of us were not even born.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes, but..............

          Did you know that Truman was originally a haberdasher??

          How many Roosevelts can claim that, eh?

          Comment


          • #6
            Kurogonads !!!!!!!! enough !

            Originally posted by kurogane
            Did you know that Truman was originally a haberdasher??

            How many Roosevelts can claim that, eh?
            You've been dropping little ____lets into everybody's post today, why ?

            What does Haberdasher got to do with this Truman issue ? This term is so outdated, much like you.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mcalpine
              You've been dropping little ____lets into everybody's post today, why ?

              What does Haberdasher got to do with this Truman issue ? This term is so outdated, much like you.
              Ladies and Gentlemen, we now have proof that MacTojam is an anti-haberdasherite.

              Next thing you are going to tell us is that the Handkerchief War never really happened? That men never wore garters on their socks?

              You revisionists make me ill.

              Comment


              • #8
                Truman bein an ex-haberdasher was a very important element in his decision to drop the bombs. Haberdashers are known to be people with clear heads and good judgement. So the decision to drop the bombs, must have been one that Truman, as an ex-haberdasher did not make lightly. Haberdashers are known to be very careful and the type of people who do not rush or can not be intimidated into making rash decisions. Now if George Bush was an ex-haberdasher, America would not be in Iraq and the world would be a better place.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Haberdashersmasherdasher !

                  Blueballs and kurogonads,

                  Please be a little more less like each other. You use the term haberdasher incorrectly of your analogy of Truman.
                  Yes, he was a level headed thinker but he had no originality. McAuthor should of been our president !

                  Lovingly,

                  General Tojo

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Presumably he means Arthur McAuthor, the Scottish yarn-spinner.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      well I'll be haberdashed

                      haberdasher is a perfectly respectable word, in fact there are not enough of them left... the sewing type of haberdashery, that is, I understand that an American haberdasher has a slightly different trade... now I shall be lambasted for irrelevance I suppose

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You guys no better.

                        Truman never authorized the bomb ? The Dept. of the Army dropped it based off Trumans assumption that he wanted the bomb dropped. Yeah, he's a real haberdasher.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Update on the author of the original article....

                          It appears the online editor of the WS wrongly posted the original article. The author of the article is a historian by the name of Richard Frank, as the published version (and now updated online) now show. You can find a very brief bio of Mr. Frank here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pacific...orum_bios.html

                          If you are really, really interested in this topic you can buy Mr. Frank's book from Amazon....

                          Well, so much for this WS story being another conspiracy by the neo-conservatives...

                          Quite a bit, of course, is being published about Hiroshima this weekend in various press and online pubs. There are lots of good reasons for this, but I still wonder why so many people, sixty years afterwards, believe *their* 20/20 *hindsight* has any relevance to the actual decision making process of Truman, simply a man making the most expedient of choices amongst a list of bad choices set before him. I'm beginning to believe that many Japanese actually appreciate this more than some contemporary westerners.

                          -ft
                          Last edited by freetoken; 2005-08-05, 01:56 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by freetoken
                            Well, so much for this WS story being another conspiracy by the neo-conservatives...
                            What are you talking about? Who ever said anything about a conspiracy? All I said was that anyone reading the article should understand the context of its publication.

                            The author of the article has written a book in which he argues that the atomic bombing of Japan was morally correct and inevitable. The article was published in a conservative newspaper (the Weekly Standard) which is known to support the invasion of Iraq and the development of a strong American military. It therefore doesn't take much to work out that a newspaper advocating such things would want to propagate the idea that the use of nuclear weapons is a rational, sane and even morally defensible choice during times of war.

                            There is no conspiracy - merely one author's point of view which happens to coincide with the newspaper's ideology...

                            Originally posted by freetoken
                            but I still wonder why so many people, sixty years afterwards, believe *their* 20/20 *hindsight* has any relevance to the actual decision making process of Truman, simply a man making the most expedient of choices amongst a list of bad choices set before him.
                            Well, to point out the bleeding obvious, we are still interested in and examining his actions simply because they still have repurcussions up to this day.

                            Recently Bush has gained funding for research into the construction of a nuclear device designed to enter underground bunkers to destroy weapons of mass destruction that may be there. These weapons will be ten times more powerful than that which destroyed Hiroshima.

                            So they're building more powerful weapons of mass destruction in order to destroy weapons of mass destruction that may or may not exist - these so called bunker busters were originally designed for Saddam's alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. He didn't have any... but they're still going to build their new weapons...

                            So, again, why would the Weekly Standard be interested in putting the defense of the atomic bombing of Japan on its front cover on the 60th anniversary of said event? Simply because it ties into its belief that the U.S. has the moral right and responsibility to take such actions in order to secure Pax Americana.

                            Why should we care? Because the V.P. of the U.S., ____ Cheney, and the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, are the founders of the think tank Project for the New American Century which, if you remember, has William Kristol (the editor of the Weekly Standard) as its chairman and espouses neoconservative ideals of strong military and "moral" leadership.

                            No conspiracy theory for you - just the resultant facts from a little time googling for you to chew over...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Blues
                              Well folks the whole argument is silly, as it happened and there is nothing that any of us can do about it. It is ridiculous to bring it up as we were not there and all the principals are either dead or near dead. History is always written by the winners, however, we should learn from it and not let it happen again... It is silly to bring up something that happened at a time that many of us were not even born.
                              How are we supposed to learn from the past and stop previous mistakes from happening again if we can't bring up events that happened in the past and talk about them? Aren't you being rather contradictory throughout your post?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X