Hoover vs. the Hoover Institution

[arisbe]

"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

Two days after the dropping of the bomb, Hoover wrote, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

[Via young Marcus Epstein.]

Comments

[marxist-thug.livejournal.com]

I disagree with Hoover's assessment.

[arisbe.livejournal.com]

Well Hoover was a pretty good president -- for an engineer (compare Carter). But I would think twice before debating Douglas MacArthur on matters of strategy.

[kosub.livejournal.com]

I've never been much interested in this debate, since it's not one that demands an either-or resolution. Was using the atomic bomb a terrible act? Absolutely. Anyone who can defend wholesale slaughter of civilians by saying it's not horrible... that person has a screw loose. But was the decision to drop the bomb at least well-considered? Yes.

War is horrible, and innocent death is horrible. Both should be avoided at all costs. At the same time, when war is in progress and decisions must be made, sometimes morally repugnant alternatives are all one has. That's the nature of war. And whatever else the A-bombs did in Japan, they did manage to bring a halt to hostilities. Should we ever do such a thing again? Well, we should try not to, but a situation may arise where such an awful choice must be made again. Pity those who have to make it.

[novak.livejournal.com]

Now I remember! This is one of the things I talked about the other night before the sherry fuzzed everything. I very much have to agree from all my reading that the decision was well-considered, and I really think, too, that a loss of historical perspective really distorts this old argument. I really think that it was further time and further development of nuclear weapons (after all, these bombs are now comparative pop-guns; useful as tactical weapons, but otherwise used to trigger a thermonuclear weapon) that brought us to the major realization behind this argument, which is that nuclear weapons are truly different in kind and not just degree.

At the time, this was the "superbomb," seen more, I think as a matter of degree. I think it was the luxury of peace and self-examination, as well as further understanding of what nuclear proliferation meant that began to force us to realize that perhaps there were intrinsic ethical problems in the very use, if not existence, of these weapons. But that seems much more a function of hindsight and further experience and reflection to me. Without that understanding, I really begin to suspect that the "Should we have?/Shouldn't we have?" argument begins to function as a bit of a red herring, leading us away from what the real understanding of the times were.

By the way, is it okay if I add your journal to my list?

[kosub.livejournal.com]

Of course! I'm not sure how much interesting stuff you'll find there, though I do try and make it worth a reader's while.

[novak.livejournal.com]

As a writer, I have every hope you'd do so! :-)

[arisbe.livejournal.com]

Well considered? No, not if the military weren't consulted -- and the thing had a military aspect, you know -- and would have advised against it, Eisenhower as well as MacArthur.

[novak.livejournal.com]

Okay, maybe I am way off here for not having read about this in years: I thought the military were fully a part of the decision, that their estimates for the human cost of the invasion were a huge factor, and such. Are you saying that the understanding is that this was an entirely executive decision from the President with no, or over and against, military input?

[kosub.livejournal.com]

I have no problem if MacArthur was left out of the loop. The man was a psycho, as his later actions during the Korean conflict indicated.