At left is a copy of the letter my Dad received from Harry Truman. It's a mass produced thank you from a grateful nation; the fact it was mass produced does not effect the poignancy and honesty it contains. I took the liberty of adding his image, a picture I will share with all of my brothers and sisters.
There were over 6,000 Americans who never received that letter because they perished on D-Day. How lucky we were, and are, that America produces young men and women willing to fight for the ideals we hold so dearly.
At the risk of repeating myself so soon after Memorial Day, I'd like to say thank you again, but this time, specifically to all the men and women who didn't survive D-Day. You gave your all, and it is our duty to recall your dedication to future generations.
We should also be thankful that we finally have a memorial in Washington D.C. to honor the WWII veterans, living and dead.
24 comments:
An interesting side bar to the successful "D-Day" invasion is a little known incident that occurred in England in late April 1944. A rehearsal for the Utah Beach landing was held on the beach called Slapton Sands in Devon, Southeast England. During the practice landings German "E-boats" got through the screening destroyers and sank a number of LSTs, killing more than 600 American soldiers and sailors. The Slapton Sands disaster was completely covered up and the "D-Day" invasion went as scheduled with 4000 Allied dead and 8000 wounded, missing or captured.
Imagine if you will that the Internet and cable news existed in 1944 and reporters where imbedded with the troops with no restraints or censorship as they are today. The "D-Day" invasion would undoubtedly been delayed or cancelled, Eisenhower would have been sacked and Roosevelt would have been called an inept butcher.
Prosecuting a war today is not just more difficult than in previous times, it is almost impossible due to the public's right to know absolutely everything, no matter what the effect on national security. Imagine if the American public knew immediately that the invasion of Saipan cost 3000 dead Americans and 10,000 wounded. Iwo Jima 7000 American dead, 20,000 wounded. Suppose the public knew that the two atomic bombs dropped in August 1945 would kill a million Japanese? Would public opinion keep the military from using that weapon leading to an invasion of Japan that could have cost 500,000 American dead and killed as many as 4 million Japanese? The simple fact is Public Opinion and outrage would have forced the government to sue for peace and the Nazis and the Empire of Japan might very well rule our world today.
charles,
you wrote, "The simple fact is Public Opinion and outrage would have forced the government to sue for peace and the Nazis and the Empire of Japan might very well rule our world today." do you honestly mean that, or did you get, um, a little overexcited? what a load of rubbish! what you wrote is pure fantasy -- of course, that's true in a literal sense since all of it is hypothetical, but that's also true in the sense that it's soundly detached from reality.
i'm too young to know personally, but my understanding is that the american people strongly united behind the wwii war effort, in no small part because they understood what we were fighting for, believed in the cause, and were asked to sacrifice. would they have tolerated the kinds of casualty numbers you cited if they knew about them? no one can actually know, of course, but i say yes -- because they knew the stakes. would they have supported dropping the atomic bombs on japan? i find that harder to say, because the stakes were different. at that point, germany had surrendered (so the chance of "nazis ruling our world today" had already evaporated) and japan was broken. maybe the war could have been ended another way without us having to invade, maybe it couldn't. but i do think your speculations reveal an unpleasantly low opinion of your countrymen and countrywomen.
Dear Anon:
Welcome back - I recognize the "low opinion of your countrymen...", I believe you used that line on me too.
You are missing the whole point - it's not the American people Sir Charles has a low opinion of - it's the media.
After the invasion of Tarawa, Nov. 23-26, 1943, President Roosevelt was shown film of the battle, a film that included the bodies of American soldiers. He made the decision to allow the film to be shown in movie theaters because he felt the American people needed to know what was happening. He also hoped it would anger them, and thus make the homefront more productive and united. The point being that it was the President who decided what the American people should see, not someone in the media.
Only apologists think the atomic bomb was unnecessary. The terms had been set from the start of the war: complete and total surrender, nothing less. It took two bombs, the only two we had at the time, before their beloved Emperor told his people they must "bear the unbearable." There are a lot of baby boomers that wouldn't be here today, myself included, if we had invaded Japan, so I feel no regret or sympathy for the Japanese - they started it, we finished it.
Speculation on alternate history is fun - if you ever get the chance to read any of Harry Turtledove's series of books that begins with an alternate history of our Civil War I think you'll find them very entertaining.
dear watson,
i'm definitely no fan of the media either, though perhaps for different reasons than you (i certainly don't think it skews to the left -- maybe it did a generation or two ago, maybe it didn't, but it doesn't now). i guess i find the issue of wartime censorship of the press to be a really tough one. too much censorship can lead to a lack of accountability for the government in power, but too little can hamper the war effort. i wouldn't trust the current administration with much censorship power, though, that's for sure!
regarding this "low opinion of your countrymen" business, i think there's a little more to it than just blaming it all on the media. it's the citizenry's responsibility to critically evaluate what's coming out of the media, after all. and to believe that people are greatly susceptible to media influence is to have something of a low opinion of them, i think.
as for the atomic bombs, i disagree that only apologists think they were unnecessary -- i think it's more complicated than that. what if the u.s. had staged a demonstration detonation on some uninhabited island? and was the second bomb actually necessary? i don't mean to advocate either way by raising such questions, only to point out that there are questions to consider
Well, my young anonymous friend let me enlighten you on a few things. At the Casablanca Conference on January 13, 1943, FDR and Churchill jointly agreed that the Allied Powers would accept nothing less than "Unconditional Surrender" by the Axis government. Had the press trumpeted the Army losses and missteps such as Slapton Sands and the 8th Air Force’s losses in the daylight bombing raids over Germany, if the press had announced the various "balls up" in the Mediterranean and the true casualty numbers in Italy, if the public had known what happened to Monte Cassino, the "D-Day" invasion might very well have been delayed or cancelled due to public outcry leading to a very different outcome in Europe. You are right in saying that it is extremely unlikely that the Nazi might have survived, but consider for a moment what the result might have been if Hitler had not declared war on the US in December 1941. He did so primarily because of the Tripartite Pact with Italy and Japan. He didn't need to at that point and if he hadn't Europe today might look very different.
As far as the Pacific War is concerned, "Unconditional Surrender meant the Japanese had to give up their Emperor as an infallible spiritual leader, something they were loath do. If you Google "Invasion of Japan" you will find some very interesting information regarding "Operation Downfall" and the attendant costs in American lives. Macarthur’s staff estimated as many as 1,000,000 American dead in the invasions of Kyushu and Honshu. The surrender was a very close thing in August of 1945. If the coup by young Japanese Army officers had been successful, Japan would have fought on in spite of the Atomic Bombing.
Yes there was a sense of shared sacrifice and unprecedented unity in the US during World War II. However, by 1945 it was already growing old. Rationing was breaking down with widespread “Black-marketing". The Labor Unions had already called a coal strike and a railroad strike was immanent. There were widespread stevedore strikes throughout the Pacific Theater, in some cases requiring armed action by the US military to get civilian crews to unload strategic cargo. The American public has always been superb in times of crisis when they are properly led. However, as Churchill once said, no country is willing to sustain a war that goes on for more than 7 years. In its April 1945 issue, Time magazine predicted an end to the Pacific war sometime in 1949 or 1950.
And by the way, and to affirm my fellow Turtledove fan Watson, the only way to truly understand the events of history is to consider what might have been.
Too bad you old codgers that are so proud of your fathers efforts in WW
II didn't emulate them by putting your own bodies on the line.
Maybe the first atom bomb was necessary. But did the second one really need to be dropped so soon after the first? I think it helped that it was Asians that the bomb was dropped on. Remember brave Americans during WWII locked up Japanese American citzens - really brave of them.
Hey Watson...have you noticed that there is an intelligent Anonymous and a not so intelligent Anonymous? The contrast is stunning.
Listen, NSI Anonymous, you have no idea about my Father's service in WWII or the reasons why I didn't serve in the military. I, on the other hand have a real good idea about your grasp of American History.
dear charles,
i certainly agree that europe today might be fantastically (and horribly) different if the u.s. hadn't become involved in the war there -- sends a chill down the spine, doesn't it? and as for the pacific theater, if the question was between a full-on invasion of japan or dropping the bomb (the first one, at least), then i don't think there's the faintest doubt that truman's decision was the right one. but for me, it's not clear that that really was the question. was there a better way yet to end the war? it's grist for milling. with hindsight, i'm not sure that our leaders decided upon the very best way, but i also know there was certainly no royal road, and my inclination is to withhold any harsh judgment. i'm glad it's a decision i didn't have to make.
regarding speculation, i take your point as using it as a valuable way to understand history. my original intent (inartfully conveyed) was only to take issue with the quality of your speculation, not that you simply engaged in it. i do think there's a danger in allowing our speculations to reinforce our biases and subjective perceptions of reality, though; and i'm certainly no angel on that count. i think it best to always temper our speculations with a healthy dose of skepticism, as best we can.
to the other anonymous, i agree that racism played an unfortunate role in the u.s. war effort, and the internment of american citizens of japanese ancestry was an ugly mistake that our government (under president reagan, no less!) has since apologized for. but on the other hand, awful as it is to admit it, i have a hard time seeing any country wage a war like that without some kind of racial animus entering the mix. the u.s. faced a clear existential threat from the axis powers; isn't demonization of the enemy to be expected? and what's more, i think any racial animus towards the japanese leftover from the war evaporated long ago. it's terrible that that racism was turned on loyal americans during the war, but personally, that's where i draw the line at getting upset about it.
i also have to say, service in the military is hardly a prerequisite for patriotism or for the moral standing on which to opine about military matters.
Dear I Anon: I endorse your comments completely. While Executive order 1099 signed by FDR did effect Japanese in California [[from Wikipedia: General John L. DeWitt each questioned Japanese American loyalty. DeWitt, who administered the internment program, repeatedly told newspapers that "A Jap's a Jap" and testified to Congress,
I don't want any of them [persons of Japanese ancestry] here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty... It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty... But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map.]] with very few exceptions, Japanese in Hawaii were not interred. Its important to remember that long before California, Washington and Oregon because the "left coast", racial hatred of Orientals ran deep.
Thanks for you intelligent comments. NSI Anon, take note.
Sir Charles, I'm sure you had a good reason for not serving. Family man like Dick Cheney or ass cyst like Limbaugh. We understand.
Sir Charles, maybe you ought to do a little research on what several military commanders had to say about the atomic bombing of Japan.
anonymous 12:14, you need to do better than that. you may well have a valid point, but like him or not, charles at least tends to cite specific facts or even (the novelty!) hyperlinks in support of his arguments. i'd find it helpful if you did the same. (and i'm not trying to be snotty -- i'd honestly like to learn more about what you have to say!)
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
Adm. William Leahy (FDR and Truman Chief of Staff), I Was There, pg. 441
"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512
I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."
John McCloy (Ass't Sec. War) quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500.
"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary."
Paul Nitze (Vice Chair, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey), From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 44-45.
"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz
"The War would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the War at all." Gen. Curtis LaMay
You have a choice, confirm your beliefs or look at the evidence. History doesn't change, but information that can be used to interpret history does change. Secrets become declassified etc. All you need to do is watch what is happening with the Bush administration right now.
Hindsight is great isn't it? I guess it was just Japan's bad luck that Truman was President. You did a good job looking up quotes to support your position, but Harry Truman, and no one else, made that final decision. It must have been a hell of a decision to make too. I, for one, give the man credit for doing what he thought was right. Revisionist historians will have their say, but Truman was right in my book, and that's based on literally hundreds of books I've read on the subject of WWII.
To the NSI Anon - thanks for making things personal and showing your intellect at it's finest. You can report back to the Daily Kos what a fine job you did.
It must be remembered that up until August 6, 1945 very few people knew the entire picture surrounding the atom bomb. Certainly none of the sources named by NSI Anonymous. Both Nimitz and MacArthur, the two field commanders responsible for the prosecution of the war in the Pacific were in agreement that the only course open to the Allies was the invasion plan outlined in Operation Downfall. A blockade of the home islands was considered, but the "experts" felt it could go on for years. The big fear was the Russians invading the northern home islands. Had the war not ended when it did, the Russians were ready to invade before the November date for the Kyushu invasion.
Eisenhower never spent a minute in the Pacific Theater.
Adm Leahy didn’t even think the bomb would work. He was for continuing the blockade and fire bombing of Japanese cities which would have killed many more Japanese civilians that the two atom bombs.
William Manchester was an American hero who more than earned the right to his opinion with which I respectfully disagree.
I have no respect for John McCloy and will not dignify his comments.
Paul Nitze was certainly entitled to his opinion, but based on his lifetime track record on strategic intelligence, I don't give it much credence.
Adm Nimitz and Gen. LeMay both ran marvelous campaigns for their respective services. They both felt that the bomb was somehow unchivalrous. That feeling speaks well of both of them, but has nothing to do with the reality that the bomb saved untold American and Japanese lives.
What you don't and won't quote are the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and sailors who didn't have to participate in the invasion because dropping the atom bomb drove the Japanese military to accept the decision of their Emperor.
"The big fear was the Russians invading the northern home islands. Had the war not ended when it did, the Russians were ready to invade before the November date for the Kyushu invasion."
Exactly right. And this argument has been used to predict that the Japanese would have surrendered to the USA so they wouldn't come under control of the Soviets.
And Watson, what is "revisionist history" about quoting what people said?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
The revisionist history I posted was at the request of the smart anonymous person. I didn't really expect Watson or Sir Charles to pay much attention.
to the anonymous with the quotes,
thank you for posting them. i certainly feel i've profited from this discussion. and i think you should pay charles and watson the respect of higher expectations; at the very least, how can you call charles' response to you anything but thoughtful? there's nothing wrong with finding lots to disagree about, but we're not in the fever swamps here.
and while i appreciate the flattery about my purported intelligence, let me tell you all, if you only knew the truth....
When I wrote "revisionist historians will have their say" I was not referring to you NSI. What you posted were the opinions of others, and I certainly wasn't classifying you as a historian. Instead of participating and enjoying a discussion of "what might have been", you decided to attack both Sir Charles and I personally, which reflects rather poorly on you don't you think?
Thanks to Anon2 for making the discussion lively and showing a little respect for his/her fellow human beings.
Well Watson it's rather fun to attack you and Sir Charles when you refuse to adequately look at the evidence for both sides of an argument. You are more interested in confirming your beliefs than learning the details of the complex decision whether to use such a terrible weapon as the atomic bomb. Maybe you and Sir Charles are just too embarrassed about what the USA did and thus have to defend its actions. Or, maybe the fact that it was Asians that were bombed makes it ok in your minds. Afterall, the USA perceived Asians as less than human during the war. Or maybe it's because of your extreme fear of the "bad guys" out in the big world. You two guys are exactly what the word "chickenhawk" was invented to describe. You're more than happy to brag about our power and fighting skills and defend our unethical practices but when the time came you were not willing to put your own bodies on the line. I think that reflects rather poorly on you. Don't you think? The country would be a far better place if there were fewer guys like you living in it.
Ah, come on, NSI Anonymous...don't be shy...tell us what you REALLY think!
Dear NSI:
Not looking at both sides of the argument? Look in the mirror my friend. Not learning the details of a complex decision - I've only read 400-500 books on WWII, so my knowledge is limited, but it's all I have to go on.
Embarrassed of our country for bombing Japan? Never.
It was okay because they were Asian? What a stupid argument, but not unexpected considering the source.
As Sir Charles noted, and I concur, you don't know jack about the circumstances of our lives, and your desire to denigrate us for not having served only reflects on the mean nature of your character.
If you really think we have no enemies in the world, that there are no bad guys, that's your privilege. Enjoying the ostrich view of the world are you?
Should you wish to continue the personal attacks, please feel free to do so. I have never, and will never, edit any post to this blog. The people that come here to read should be entitled to the full depth of your analysis - which is located at the shallow end of the pool.
Post a Comment