Harry S Truman's grandson to visit Hiroshima

I don't know much about Clifton Truman Daniel and can't imagine what it would be like to visit the cities your grandfather destroyed, meet survivors and also have the burden of the tens of thousands of people that died or faced a lifetime of pain and suffering on your family's shoulders.

Very surprised that the grandson has decided to accept the invitation when there is yet to be a clear consensus between the two countries at all levels on what that bombing was all about. Very courageous and undaunted act on his part regardless of whatever mission and agenda he may be contemplating. Would assume news of this nature should be of utmost sensitivity for the US - So far no news articles seem to have covered this topic in their media.

We've been through this before. I can imagine expectations of an apology from a high profile American and either disappointment or even condemnation if it doesn't come.

An empty gesture. Clifton Truman did not make the bomb any more than authorize it's use, he had absolutely nothing to do with it. This is a completely different person with no actual connection to anything that happened. And the fact that he is president Truman's grandson is irrelevant, since only a monster could blame an innocent child for the sins of their fathers (or grandfather's).

He owes no apology for something he obviously did not have anything to do with. Him making an empty gesture is not an indication that the actual perpetrators would really be repenting.

But if his presence mean something to the lobby groups and the victims, I say it's good for everybody that he comes.

Don't think many (if any) in Japan are seriously expecting an apology to come from the grandson and they should already understand well enough that he holds absolutely no responsibility to anything and is not not required to say anything on the behalf of anything in the first place. No one will be surprised if he remains quiet, which he is very much likely to do. It is rather his acceptance to attend the ceremonies which in itself carries the single most important political meaning, likely to be meant to signify further development from Ambassador Roos' attendance 2 yrs ago, loosely but calculatedly along the lines of Obama's anti-nuclear policies. Meanwhile, probably needless to say, the objective or the agenda of the ceremonies does not concern any specific criticism towards any specific country or to take any position on good vs bad or evitable vs inevitable, but rather to suggest all to focus on promising never to forget the actual atrocities caused and jointly sending a strong anti-nuclear message to the world. It should be natural to assume Obama's team is well behind the grandson's decision intended as an additional milestone. Next year may be Obama himself, who knows.

Watch out you dont get suckered into answering silly questions!

What his grandfather authorized is a part of his heritage.

Even though he his not responsible, any gestures or comments that he makes, that are apologetic in form, I do believe will be humbly accepted by the people who hear them, as coming from a private person who just happens to be of the direct lineage of the person who authorized their use.

His comments if he chooses to make any will be symbolic particularly to the victims and their surviving families.

As an example of how many Japanese may look at it, the Showa Emperor, Emperor Hirohito, never apologized, never visited, nor commented publicly, for what happened to the people of Okinawa during WWII, yet his son, the current Emperor, came to Okinawa, and formerly apologized to the survivors and people of Okinawa for their suffering, and his message of peace and good will was warmly received.

It WILL matter to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that it's a Truman, be it the man, or his grandson. It may just be a gesture, but gestures like this one are important to Japanese people.

Let's never forget the horror's lest we repeat them. Tomorrow btw is Okinawa's Memorial Day!

Edited....formally not formerly......

Many Japanese are still resentful of the fact that they have not received any acknowledgement that nuclear attacks on civilian targets were, at least in their eyes, morally indefensible. There have been many cases when US officials have visited the sites or replied to questions regarding the issue and have been resented for not acknowledging the wrong committed or apologizing. I fully agree that Truman's grandson cannot in any way be held responsible but for many observers he stands as a representative of the US. The thinking here seems to be that when questioned on or confronted with the horror story of the nuclear attacks, many are waiting to attack his perceived callousness for refusing to admit past wrongs.

There have been many cases when US officials have visited the sites or replied to questions regarding the issue and have been resented for not acknowledging the wrong committed or apologizing. I fully agree that Truman's grandson cannot in any way be held responsible but for many observers he stands as a representative of the US.

I agree with you here!

(Sadly, after reading what you wrote here the first thing that popped into my head was I find it rather hypocritical for the Japanese to feel or think this way as their Asian neighbors feel pretty much the same way too.)

Yubaru; I think there is a certain difference in that when it comes to Asian neighbors there are those representing Japan who have officially apologised on various occasions. While Japan continues to be challenged by its neighbors, the issues in most cases have to do with specific themes (eg acknowledgment of comfort women or specific expressions in its history textbooks) or occasional offensive or controversial remarks made by key political figures (Tokyo governor for example, although we are beginning to see less of those) and that Japan has overall maintained an apologetic behavior in terms of its acts during the war and the damages caused to its Asian neighbors. Having said that however, I am not necessarily pointing at the need for an apology in this other case - I merely wanted to clarify the differences.

This guy shudnt apologise in any shape or form, period!

Japan even as of today cant even acknowledge what it did for petes sake, and all the vague mumblings mean next to nothing when elected officials turn around & deny Japan did no wrong all the time.

While Japan continues to be challenged by its neighbors, the issues in most cases have to do with specific themes

Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't specific enough?

Japan has overall maintained an apologetic behavior in terms of its acts during the war and the damages caused to its Asian neighbors

If this was so then pray tell why do the countries still harbor ill will towards Japan and feel like the apologies given so far have been meaningless? (Hint: yearly visits to Yasukuni pop into mind)

Having said that however, I am not necessarily pointing at the need for an apology in this other case - I merely wanted to clarify the differences.

I disagree with your premise because......

or occasional offensive or controversial remarks made by key political figures (Tokyo governor for example, although we are beginning to see less of those) and that Japan has overall maintained an apologetic behavior in terms of its acts during the war and the damages caused to its Asian neighbors.

This isn't "occasional" by any means, it's a constant reminder that people of Ishihara's age feel and act like Japan did no wrong and still hasn't been sincere in it's apologies.

Money doesn't cover everything, and one's actions after the fact speak louder than any apology could ever say.

Many Japanese are still resentful of the fact that they have not received any acknowledgement that nuclear attacks on civilian targets were, at least in their eyes, morally indefensible

I can understand the sentiment however hindsight is 20/20.

@Yubaru I'm not sure what you mean by 'hindsight is 20/20'. I don't see how hindsight is relevant here.

The only reason the US dropped the bomb was economic reasons.no need for apologising US was simply doing what was in its best intrest.

@Yubaru I'm not sure what you mean by 'hindsight is 20/20'. I don't see how hindsight is relevant here.

That the people of today who have no direct experiences with WWII, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki, have only their current education to base their opinions and ideas about WHY both bombs were dropped and the effects that they had on the world at the time.

History is mixed on why the US had to drop the bombs or not, yet from the Japanese point of view they only see themselves as the victims and not the cause.

Yubaru: Just sticking to the official facts.

Then stick to the facts, Japanese apologizes are and have been insincere. Sincerity comes when the nation as a whole accepts their history and their part in it and doesnt try to whitewash away the facts.

Yubaru: Appreciate your persistence but understand if we are to debate the facts it indeed has to be based on facts which can be evidenced and confirmed at both ends. How do you intend to evidence the degree of intended or perceived sincerity?

Okay, here we go again. Evil US vs innocent Japan; SOS, different day.

I don't know much about Clifton Truman Daniel and can't imagine what it would be like to visit the cities your grandfather destroyed, meet survivors and also have the burden of the tens of thousands of people that died or faced a lifetime of pain and suffering on your family's shoulders.

Or the pride and dignity of providing a swift and decisive end to a conflict started by the country that your are bombing to begin with. By the reasoning some are using that by 'heritage' he is at least answerable to his family's 'sins' then should not then the Japanese people who are attending the ceremony be apologizing to everyone in the US, China, Britain, the Philippines, etc, etc for what they did?

His comments if he chooses to make any will be symbolic particularly to the victims and their surviving families.

Who is apologizing to the victims in China, Pearl Harbor, all the GI's that had to go die, all the Brits, Aussies and untold numbers of others brutally killed by Japan's military regime? Great that the Emperor apologized to Okinawa, but hell with the rest, eh?

Many Japanese are still resentful of the fact that they have not received any acknowledgement that nuclear attacks on civilian targets were, at least in their eyes, morally indefensible. There have been many cases when US officials have visited the sites or replied to questions regarding the issue and have been resented for not acknowledging the wrong committed or apologizing.

Again, it simply astounds me that the Japanese expect some type of apology for something done in a war that they created, and refused to end despite the inevitable conclusion. They are horrified that civilians were killed, but when their troops were throwing babies on bayonets in China (well documented) or beheading defenseless prisoners on Bataan (also well-documented) and forcing them on a death march because they were too ill-prepared to take so many prisoners, or conducting a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor (again with civilian casualties) - they find no issue or need to apologize in any way. Rather they say 'it was war' and tend to blame us for their 'necessity' to start the conflict. What utter rubbish.

Yubaru; I think there is a certain difference in that when it comes to Asian neighbors there are those representing Japan who have officially apologised on various occasions.

When? Cite examples of them apologizing as all I've ever heard is the apology to those on Okinawa, and perhaps the 'comfort women'.

It's the same old story. WAAAAH - we were wronged by the old Evil USA. Never mind that we were co-conspirators in plunging the world into an extremely horrible and costly war that no one wanted, murdered our way across much of Asia and fought like lunatics to the last man because of some F-ed up code of honor. Say your sorry for bombing us. If those bombs saved one American, English, Australian, etc life, then it was well worth doing. End of story.

@Yubaru I wasn't getting into the debate on the justifications for the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs. I was merely pointing out the expectations of many Japanese when a high profile American, in an official capacity or not, deals with this issue. By the way, I think you've misunderstood the meaning of the word hindsight.

@Tigermoth Please read what I said before launching into a tirade. I was pointing out the expectations of Japanese in situations such as this - I did say 'in their eyes'. Your very muscular defence of US action isn't too far removed from the one- dimensional victimhood complex of the ones you attack.

Just been reading about the two bombs... and they were different types - the Horoshima bomb was a uranium 235 gun-type bomb, while the Nagasaki bomb was a plutonium implosion-type bomb. Now why use two different bomb types... unless they were using the cities as testing grounds rather than ending-the-war type missions. I also read that they were looking for targets with a high concentration of wooden structures with dense populations to gauge the effects.

@Thunderbird 2 Killing two birds with one stone?

To me it sounds as if they were looking for targets to test the weapons rather than end the war...

Your very muscular defence of US action isn't too far removed from the one- dimensional victimhood complex of the ones you attack.

'Muscular' attack? Suppose that's supposed to sound high-brow. But to your point, yes your assessment of the situation is a bit more clinical, and perhaps my angered rantings were more designed to illustrate my frustrations concerning the mere thought that the Japanese might expect some sort of apology. It's quite easy to shrug and say 'telle est la guerre' I as far as the use of nuclear weapons go, but the Japanese seem to invoke this attitude all the time when it comes to the defense of their own behavior. How can one dare expect an apology for a conclusion wrought by their government's (yes, primarily dictated by the warlords) dangerous and deadly actions - particularly when it resulted in world conflagration with the death of so many millions? If you accidentally knock someone down, you help them up and apologize. If you knock them down only as a result of them blind-siding you in the head with a stick, then beheading your best mate, you don't. I have always failed to see how some child who perished in the flames of Hiroshima is somehow more worthy of an apology than some child burned to death in China, or some sailor drown in his ship while anchored in port. All are equally tragic, but the reasons that precipitated them are telling.

So yes, I do tend to get a bit angry when this same old argument is dragged out time after time after time after.....

The US should apologize for slavery. The US should apologize to Native Americans. The US should apologize to Japanese-Americans interned here in this country at the start of the war. Unfair and despicable actions. I could even see point to argue for an apology for American military action in Southeast Asia, and perhaps Iraq. But not the Second World War, and not to Japan who's pretense of innocence and continued denial of any real guilt is an utter insult to anyone who was caught up in and slaughtered by the Japanese war machine. It's an often too-used adage, but you do indeed sow what you reap.

er, rather reap what you sow. You know what I mean.

To me it sounds as if they were looking for targets to test the weapons rather than end the war...

Thunderbird that's easy to conclude some 67 years on from the comfort of your computer chair and perhaps only scant knowledge gleaned from a few glances at Wikipedia entries. I'm sure the young Army Air Corps ball turret gunner stationed in-theatre who would rather be back home milking the family's dairy cows and courting the local girls would have a very different view. And from what I've read about Harry Truman, it wasn't a simple and cold-hearted decision to go 'incinerate some japs' as some would like to portray. One would be a fool to assume they did not approach it with an idea of collecting scientific data - as cruel as that might seem. But almost five years into it, there were other reasons dictating that the war needed to be over.

Tigermothll: Very much impressed with and admire your colorful and dramatic way of expressing yourself but your message itself probably alongside many other readers I unfortunately find overly stereotypical and simplistic. The fact of the matter is things are not always as simple as one would like it to be and many are likely to agree that our generation would remain incapable of putting the Pacific war incl the atomic bombings in the right perspective and that is probably why many of us at both sides of the Pacific remain quiet and would be perfectly fine with the grandson returning to the US without speaking a word. You fail to understand that there should not be that many in Japan incl victims or relatives thereof who would actually be jumping with joy to hear a word of apology from the US because they too realize things are not that simple. What was generally learned and what also constitutes the principles of the anti-nuclear peace ceremonies is that war when it comes to that between civilized nations consisting of people struggling to thrive in difficult times is not necessarily about good vs bad or evitable vs inevitable but tend to be complicated in nature and that the only rationale that will continue to make perfect sense at all times is that war will kill everyone and their loved ones, it will generate stronger hate and thus everyone should jointly pursue peace as the only simple solution. As naive as it may sound this is pretty much the conclusion reached by many who have personally experienced the war either through killing or dying in the hot jungles of southeast Asia as result of efforts to win over others in the imperialistic competition in the region or having the entire nation being mercilessly bombarded as result of efforts to gain control over the Pacific seeking natural resorces. While the history of slavery or native Americans can possibly be defined in a much simpler context, defining the Pacific war incl the atomic bombing will not be completed in our lifetime.

In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. had no moral ground to stand on. The atomic weapons were ostensibly developed to counter a supposed Nazi research attempt to develop the same weapons. However, even before the Germans surrendered, the targets for the bombs had shifted to Japan. The targets were deliberately kept off the list of targets for the conventional firebombing missions so that bomb damage analysis would not be "corrupted" by prior bombing runs. The targets were not chosen for any military reason, but for the number of civilians likely to be harmed. Sure, there was bound to be SOME military installation in each of those cities, but nothing of a nature to warrant an atomic bomb attack.

Some of the scientists who developed the bomb had sent a request in to Washington that rather than using it on civilians, a "demonstration" of the weapon's power be given to Japanese authorities at an uninhabited island near Japan. Washington ignored the request, probably out of fear that the bomb might be a dud.

The funny thing is there is evidence that Japan was more concerned with Russia entering the war than they were with the atomic weapons that had been used on them. Japan surrendered the same day Russia entered the war against Japan.

Source: "Cultures of War: Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, 9-11, Iraq" by John W. Dower

http://books.google.com/books/about/Cultures_of_War.html?id=pck6h_K09b4C

So what he told?

during war, countries dropped bombs on each other. Berlin, London, Pearl Harbor, Shanghai, Dresden, Tokyo and the list go on and on. It's just a new and bigger bomb. You think Japan won't use it if she had it during WW2 ?

Learn from history .

Jimizo Jun. 22, 2012 - 04:23PM JSTMany Japanese are still resentful of the fact that they have not received any acknowledgement that nuclear attacks on civilian targets were, at least in their eyes, morally indefensible. There have been many cases when US officials have visited the sites or replied to questions regarding the issue and have been resented for not acknowledging the wrong committed or apologizing.

A good section of neighboring countries family tree was wiped out in WWII, but I feel no anger and bitterness towards Germany or German people at all because of sincere apolgy and reparation. They admit it and move on and built a better society. However, the Japanese only ignored it and but tried to build a better society. The problem is that this leaves room for it to happen again in the future which might become their goal. There has been a complete lack here to face up to WWII guilt. That A-bomb dome in Hiroshima is all about Japan as the suffering party, without any historical balance or context. Full of Junior high scholl kids walking around being told how poor little Japan had this terrible weapon used on it. You only see one side to the destruction. All countries have bloody pasts, some more than others. Why can't the Japanese admit what they did to Asia? It's one of their most infuriating traits.

@oberstJun. 23, 2012 - 05:25AM JST

I'm sorry, but USA planing test of nuclear bomb on Germany. But Russian army was fast, because USA was late. But Japan had stay as last target for test of nuclear bomb and demonstrate to all world new military power USA as result of WW2. While all countries of all world lose power, but USA had been R&D new technology, new bomb. Harry Trumen was set USA as 'world policeman'.

Very important understand that what this test was military NOT effective, but it was effective only as weapons for peaceful victims and pressure on Japanese politics. Japanese politics was cracked (like some years ago USA crack Hatoyama by use SK Chhonan). USA world terror that is main result of nuclear test in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Japanese army was not lose something after nuclear test. That is very important moment.

By the way, I think you've misunderstood the meaning of the word hindsight.

No not at all, reread what I wrote, I do believe your comments are jaded by only having the benefit of history books to read to make your opinions.

However not all that is written in history books is accurate nor complete. One can not go back in time and read the minds of the people who had to make the decisions regarding whether or not to use them.

There was no moral issue at the time, hindsight however tells us differently.

Yubaru: Appreciate your persistence but understand if we are to debate the facts it indeed has to be based on facts which can be evidenced and confirmed at both ends. How do you intend to evidence the degree of intended or perceived sincerity?

Perfect, a Japan apologist who will only accept "facts" if they can be confirmed from both sides.

It's impossible to debate or even discuss any issue related to the war with someone who won't even acknowledge that events that everyone, EXCEPT Japan, accepts as fact are so.

Yubaru: everyone except Japan.. It is unfortunate to see a seemingly intelligent and well intended person like you when it comes to topics like this unable to respond to the suggestion for a rational discussion purely based on what everyone can agree to as facts without being biased by whatever else that may affect our logical thinking. Important to remember that this discussion will not get us anywhere unless we are both based on mutually confirmable facts. But at least good that we have agreed on one thing.

alliswellinjapan Jun. 22, 2012 - 06:22PM JST There are those representing Japan who have officially apologised on various occasions. While Japan continues to be challenged by its neighbors, the issues in most cases have to do with specific themes (eg acknowledgment of comfort women or specific expressions in its history textbooks) or occasional offensive or controversial remarks made by key political figures (Tokyo governor for example, although we are beginning to see less of those) and that Japan has overall maintained an apologetic behavior in terms of its acts during the war and the damages caused to its Asian neighbors. Having said that however, I am not necessarily pointing at the need for an apology in this other case - I merely wanted to clarify the differences.

Your quote: "Apologetic behavior in terms of its acts during the war and damages cuased to its Asian neighbors"? Where the substance? In the real world, people are defined by what they do. The 14 class A war criminals in Yasukuni are defined by the brutality of the regimes they ruled and the shame and defeat they brought to Japan. Last August, like every year, 50+ of these J-goverment officials that represents millions of Japanese people in their district visits Yasukuni, he or she is, whether he likes to or not, implicitly endorsing their actions. Actions which included the murder of millions of Chinese, Koreans, Philipinos, slavery, the murder of POWs and human experimentation. Likewise, if Angela Merkel visited Erwin Rommels grave in order to “pray for peace” she too would be tacitly endorsing the third reich. In any event, I hope that you’ll be able to see why these 50+ J-goverment officials actions are wrong.

It is unfortunate to see a seemingly intelligent and well intended person like you when it comes to topics like this unable to respond to the suggestion for a rational discussion purely based on what everyone can agree to as facts without being biased by whatever else that may affect our logical thinking. Important to remember that this discussion will not get us anywhere unless we are both based on mutually confirmable facts.

Condescending attitude aside here a moment; it is people who make comments like this that make it difficult for people in China, Korea, P.I., Taiwan, Okinawa, Singapore, and anywhere the Japanese Imperial army put it's footprint in Asia to discuss intelligently or otherwise, any issues related to the war BECAUSE Japan, and from what it seems here, you as well, continue to refuse to openly acknowledge the atrocities it committed.

Here's a fact for you that intelligent people typically agree upon, Japan started the war with the US, and the US finished it.

All readers back on topic please. Posts that do not focus on the upcoming visit by Truman's grandson will be removed.

Back on topic thankfully, my view remains that the grandson will remain quiet during his stay but Japan will be perfectly OK with it. This is not about good vs bad or evitable vs inevitable but a collective recognition of the anti-nuclear policy and the quest for peace. As for clarifying the true definition of the Pacific war incl the atomic bombing it will need to be given to the hands of historians a century later. For the time being my hope is that the US and Japan can quietly remain the greatest of friends based on mature mutual trust.

"Even though he his not responsible, any gestures or comments that he makes, that are apologetic in form, I do believe will be humbly accepted by the people who hear them, as coming from a private person who just happens to be of the direct lineage of the person who authorized their use."

Put aside the sufferings of the the victims & survivors that most on earth share the pain...however there is no room for 'apology / apologetic gesture' in the same way as defenders of Japanese imperial army's invasions usually put it -- it happened during a war, that erased all past without genuine apologies..

The grandson can say anything he wants on a personal level but he should not speak on behalf of his nation.

@Yubaru Jun. 22, 2012 - 03:43PM JST

It WILL matter to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that it's a Truman, be it the man, or his grandson. It may just be a gesture, but gestures like this one are important to Japanese people.

So what he told? So what he does? What gestures you see?

Her grandfather this is pawn. Opinion of Harry Thrumen can not something means because her decision that reflection of opinion of USA business elite who made him as president USA. Her grandson not doing something and not told. So What can do? Nothing. History is occurred.

Her grandfather this is pawn. Opinion of Harry Thrumen can not something means because her decision that reflection of opinion of USA business elite who made him as president USA. Her grandson not doing something and not told. So What can do? Nothing. History is occurred.

His not her, his, not her, and his not her.....

Truman is long dead, one has to have read about American history to understand that Truman became president only because Roosevelt died in office, he became FDR's 3rd VP mostly because of his work with the Truman Committee and his national exposure and prominence at the time. Nothing to do with business elite.

His grandson was invited, if you read the article at all, by an anti-nuclear group.

Anti-nuclear or other bodies disguised as anti-war or for peace etc donot change the basics -- why Mr. Truman's grandson has to present any apologetic gesture in August and at the very precise event to 'kowtow' ? Anti-nuclear bodies could have invited him to join the crowd in front of Mr. Noda's house !?