Eisenhower, in Contrast to Truman, Opposed the US Nuclear Bombing of Japan and Confronted Israel Which Developed an Arsenal of Nuclear WMD [# 225 ]1
March 31, 2014 by Alfred
The average American is not aware that just as the only nuclear bombing of a nation in history, namely the US bombing of Japan, was not only not acceptable but as well not necessary, the average American is equally not aware that the US policy of Israel-can-do-no-wrong, which almost all US presidents have pursued since Israel was disastrously carved out of Palestine in 1947-1948, is deemed absolutely not acceptable and not sustainable by the preponderant number of governments globally.
With respect to the horrific holocaust-like nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ordered by President Harry Truman, it was then General Eisenhower who documentably opposed it, as well as Admiral William Leahy, a former Chief of Staff of the US Armed Forces.
General (and later President) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:
“The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” (Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike)”.
Eisenhower also noted in [July] 1945 that “…Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…”
Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote:
“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.”
Admiral Leahy further added : “The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”
Now, with respect to the US uncritical support of Israel, which is the only nation in the Middle East which was allowed to develop a nuclear weapons arsenal in a 1969 secret agreement between President Nixon and Israeli PM Golda Meyer, from the moment of it being carved out of some 75% of the land of Palestine, in 1948, it was President Truman, initially with some trepidations and then under the undue influence of the politically powerful Zionist Jewish pressure, who founded the misguided policy of regarding Israel a so-called “exceptionalist” phenomenon, and again, and it was only President Eisenhower who commendably demonstrated an independent criterion outside of the group-think box, and adopted a forceful approach to Israel, most particularly during the 1956 Suez war when Israel bombed the USS Liberty ship killing over 100 sailors.
Truman’s uncritical pro-Zionist policy legacy has had tremendously harmful implications up to the present times to the interests of all genuinely concerned with bringing the last 60 years of conflict to a peaceful resolution with justice for particularly Palestinians, but certainly as well for decent, rationalist, humanist affected (and not-necessarily Zionist) Jews, such as were the parents of this writer who survived the Nazi crimes against them and countless others.
Noteworthy documentation for these allegations is provided by, inter alia, Lawrence Davidson, Professor of Middle East history at West Chester University, West Chester, PA, and author of America’s Palestine : Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.
Last but not least, in terms of documentation exposing President Truman’s established the laissez-faire policy and/or attitude towards Israel coupled to the enabling funding of the state with literally billions of dollars, and which has been followed uncritically and therefore erroneously by all US president’s, except President Eisenhower and by President Carter after he was out of office, is found in the excellent book just published by John B. Judis, one of America’s best political historians, titled “Genesis : Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict.”
The time has long come for the US to reform significantly and comprehensively its policy towards Israel and to thereby become part of a one or two state solution by engaging robustly and pro-actively in the final resolution of the conflict, by means including the use its economical clout to impose drastic sanctions on Israel since the US is the crucial enabler of Israel’s countless violations of human rights and violations of international law as regards to the rights of the Palestinians.
The United Nation Human Rights Council composed of representatives of 40 nations has just released (on March 29, 2014) another major indicting report on Israel’s brazen criminal transgressions in the Palestinian occupied territories .