Re: Truman

hancock4@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 28, 5:35 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
hanco...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Indeed, there was no idea if the bomb would even work. Truman's
bigger concerns completing the war against Germany, getting the
Soviets to attack Japan to encourage their surrender, and postwar
relations.

I think you mean that he didn't want Stalin to occupy Tokyo after the war.

No. They weren't sure the bomb would work and wanted Stalin to invade
Japan so as to add additional pressure to the Japanese to surrender.
That was a top priority.

Encouraging Stalin to take even more territory than he did during WWII
ain't the way I learned history.

Dropping the second bomb served no military purpose. Its main
purpose was to get Stalin's attention during the disastrous Potsdam
negotiations so Stalin would think we could keep dropping them. Surely,
we wouldn't exhaust our entire supply of bomb-grade material.

Both bombs were deployed after Potsdam was over, so they were not used
as you suggest.

Dates of Potsdam Conference: July 17 to August 2

Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9

Very well. It seems that it happened a few days later. Nevertheless,
Stalin was still paying attention.

The second bomb was used per standard military procedure. It was to
show Japan that the first bomb was not a one-time fluke and also that
the U.S. was prepared to use them in multiple until Japan surrendered.

The terrible weapons of war were built. As the war still hadn't ended,
we dropped another one. You understand that the men working on the
weapons were worried that the war would end before they could get used.
It's theoretically possible that if they'd been ready earlier they would
have been dropped in Germany. We'd already demonstrated a willingness to
inflict massive civilian deaths in Germany at Dresden.

There was a strong possibility that Japan still wouldn't surrender.
After all, they refused to surrender after massive civilian deaths at
Tokyo, which you mentioned. Japan's generals simply didn't care about
civilian losses at home.

What would we have done?

That is what war is about, hitting the enemy as hard as one can. It's what
LeMay did in the firebombing campaigns (which were as deadly and horrific
as the atomic bomb).

The real enemy was Stalin. Perhaps the Cold War began at Yalta.

The bigger suprise than the bomb was how Roosevelt had tied our hands in
the outcome of WWII, allowing the Stalin to control all of central
Europe and to partition Germany and Korea and not give back any of the
territory he won from the Molotov Pact with Germany, not to mention
giving back territory in Asia to the European allies, particularly France.

FDR and Truman didn't have many options in dealing with Stalin.

Mr. Churchill disagreed.

What I think can be blamed on Truman was not standing up to McCarthy, I
guess an unintended consequence of his exaggeration of the Soviet threat.

As stated in McCullough's book, Truman did NOT exaggerate the Soviet threat.

Stalin's postwar butchery and aggressive espionage operations did an
excellent job of convincing Americans of the danger.

Really? There was danger of Stalin initiating a resumption of
hostilities in Europe after VE Day? Stalin was better at espionage, not
to mention diplomacy, than we were. You don't counter espionage by
terrorizing your own civilians.

The invasion of South Korea and Stalin's stubborness at forming the
United Nations didn't help either.

Again: America agreed to the Korean partition at Potsdam. There was no
valid reason to do so. We did so badly at that conference that we agreed
to allow Stalin to occupy even more of the peninsula than he intended to
demand.

Nearly every major 20th century partition has led to war. The only
reason why it didn't in Germany is that we all continued to occupy the
place for many decades.

The book also documents McCarthyism. It should be noted that
McCarthyism was far more than merely Joe McCarthy running around,
there were others in Congress and the private sector doing the same
long before he came along.

Of course he didn't invent it, and purging continued for a time after he
lost power. You mentioned Alger Hiss, which was post-McCarthy.

As to standing up to McCarthyism, Truman did resist. His hands were
tied somewhat in that he faced a hostile Republican Congress and a
very nervous American public.

He failed to use the power of the Presidency to fight it. A few speeches
from the bully pulpit would have ended the fiasco.

He did resist loyalty oaths for govt employees. He pushed for his
appointments to go through, such as Lillenthal on the AEC, despite nasty
accusations. He called the communist witchhunt unjustified. But Congress
had an independent power to hold hearings and subpeona witnesses and used
that power; there was nothing Truman could do about that.

Wrong. He had the power to prevent any US Attorney from prosecuting for
contempt of Congress, investigating Americans merely exercising
liberties. He could have had his attorney general make explicit statements
on what civil liberties are constitutionally protected, particularly
freedom of speech, freedom to publish, and freedom to associate.

Nor could Truman do anything about organized efforts by concerned
private citizens.

Again: It's a matter of showing leadership. He was the goddam president
after all. He didn't act like it.
.

Loading