Curious - Did Truman Address Pearl Harbor in '46?

[HornBuckler]

Like Bush has 9/11?

I can't find evidence of it - I know it's a different time/season of things - seems the chimp loves this subject -


food for thought.

[Sherman A1]

1. Not that I know of, however

he was actually busy doing things like running the government and such.

[HornBuckler]

2. Ahhh Good Point

forgot about that...

[Kutjara]

3. I think the whole 'sneak attack' argument was used...

...to justify development of thermonuclear weapons. The war had just ended and the lessons of unpreparedness were too recent to ignore. However, WWII was decisively won and placed America in a much more advantageous international position than it had been prewar. As a result, there was no need to look back; the future was far more appealing than the past.

Unlike today, of course.

[HornBuckler]

4. So he did make a radio address? thanks

I did not know and could not find out sure - but as you ascertain it was a "sneak attack" argument and not a big lolly-gag push for patriotism (or whatever)

[Kutjara]

5. I don't have a specific address to point to,...

...just an overall understanding of the political forces at work in the immediate post-war world, culled from reading quite a few books on the period. I don't know of any particular speech by Truman that set this position out in black and white. I think it was pretty much assumed that every adult would understand the danger America faced after the war, so political speeches tended to use a shorthand that might be less comprehensible today (just as our 'terrorism' threat may be incomprehensible to future generations).

[HornBuckler]

6. thank you

I just assumed (and rightly, maybe?) that Truman didn't use Pearl Harbor to advance fear in the nation. Of course it was a different time - but I'm trying to draw a corollary - you understand :)

[Kutjara]

9. I understand completely, but...

...I think it's hard to draw a direct comparison, because America won WWII and was riding the crest of a wave of victory. In that time, we were invincible and equal to any challenge. Pearl Harbor was certainly a wound on the public psyche, but it was the wound of a victorious soldier, not the wound of a beaten victim. Post-war politicians commemorated the suffering of the war in indirect terms (after all, Pearl Harbor was only one among many battles on the road to victory). In fact, expressly mentioning Pearl Harbor might have risked alienating veterans of Guadalcanal, Saipan, Okinawa, the Ardennes, Normandy, Tunisia and the rest. There were many symbols to choose from, not merely a single iconic moment.

[HornBuckler]

11. Understood - you make sense

I was just looking to the only other US attack and trying to draw a parallel with our leaders - it's obviously a flawed approach.
Main point - Bush has squeezed WAY too much out of 9/11

[Kutjara]

12. Oh yes.

He's definitely squeezed that particular rag bone dry. It demonstrates the sheer lack of imagination of BushCo that they're still kicking this dead horse for all they're worth. FDR, Truman, Lincoln, Washington and the rest must be spinning so fast in their graves that you could generate electricity by attaching jumper-cables to their headstones.

[HornBuckler]

13. Well said

I just wish I could draw a glaring parallel but I can't due to circumstance.

So, I guess we'll all just agree that Bush is a douche.

:)

[Kutjara]

14. Actually, I think you can still draw the comparison if you....

...forget about the 5 year gap and, instead, focus on the political situation.

BushCo say we're in the midst of the 'War on Terror,' so it's appropriate to compare our experience with the actual war years, rather than the post war world of 1946. Certainly, during the war, Pearl Harbor was repeatedly used to motivate the military and remind America of the reasons for the war.

The only difference is that, in the 1940s, we (together with our allies) were able to beat back a formidable nation (actually, three nations) decisively and completely, and then have the nobility and political astuteness to rebuild our former enemies into viable economic powers. Now, we can't even decisively conquer a country weakened by ten years of sanctions, and certainly can't even begin to implement a recovery program.

Then, we might have been misguided in modern terms, but we built a world order that was largely peaceful. Now, all we can do is foment chaos.

[HornBuckler]

16. Great point

you should have started the thread! :)

[Kutjara]

18. Not at all.

Your OP made me think of how we did things back then. It makes the current situation all the more intolerable for me. And that's a good thing. :)

[displacedtexan]

7. FDR was the president, and here's the speech...

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/radio.htm

[HornBuckler]

8. thank you

Ahh I was wrong - I guess FDR would still have been the Pres - thanks - interesting listening to it - there are some corollaries - I am surprised by that.

Thanks again.

[elperromagico]

17. The fifth anniversary of Pearl Harbor was 12/7/46.

If FDR was giving speeches on Pearl Harbor on that date I'm impressed, because he died on 4/12/45.

[HornBuckler]

20. I thought it was Truman - I guess I'm wrong???

Others here swear it was FDR - now I'm confused.

[elperromagico]

22. It was Truman. FDR was dead.

But Japan had surrended long before the fifth anniversary of Pearl Harbor. The US was working to rebuild Japan and Germany; bringing up Pearl Harbor was likely not considered the wisest thing to do in that context.

[HornBuckler]

24. right - I had originally posted Truman

and someone corrected me - I thought I was right, thanks.... You're right, it was a totally different time, but others have made great points here.

[HornBuckler]

21. That cant be right

As the war drew to a close, Roosevelt's health deteriorated, and on April 12, 1945, while at Warm Springs, Georgia, he died of a cerebral hemorrhage.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[HornBuckler]

23. He was dead - I was going 5th anniversary

[displacedtexan]

29. Oh. Sorry.

[NewJeffCT]

10. I don't know, but didn't Truman make his name...

by leading tough investigations into war profiteering through WW2?

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

15. You are absolutely correct on that point, sir.

Up until then Harry was thought of as a tool of the Pendergast Democratic political machine in Kansas City, MO by "some people" within the Democratic Party.

[elperromagico]

19. Here's Truman's schedule on 12/7/46:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/calendar/main.php?currYear=1946&currMonth=12&currDay=7

To be fair, by this point WWII had been over for more than a year. Japan had been vanquished, so the rhetorical power of Pearl Harbor had faded. I do find it odd, though, that there weren't any memorial services attended by the President.

[Berry Cool]

25. No

Because a, it didn't happen on his watch, and b, he didn't invade Mexico over it and then have to justify to us why.

[onenote]

26. no, but Clinton went to Oklahoma City on the fifth anniversary

of the Murrah Building bombing...

The fifth anniversary of Pearl Harbor really was a different situation: different president at time of attack, war against Japan over, etc.

A better comparison would be the Oklahoma City bombing...Clinton went to Oklahoma City and attended a ceremony at the site of the attack on the fifth anniversary. Of course, the difference between Chimpy and Clinton is that Clinton didn't use the Okla attacks to score political points every freakin' day of the intervening five years.

[zbdent]

27. The chimp will only have to "love it" two more times

and then he'll be blissfully unaware of what day it is, when he starts being able to resume his quota of drinking 1/21/2009 ...

[jollyreaper2112]

28. he didn't have to

Five years after Pearl Harbour, the war was won.