My research yielded amazing letters between "New Yorker" editor and the White House following publication of one of the most heralded and important articles of the century.
A colleague over at the Truman Library alerted me to this article and I think you might find some useful tidbits on this subject in the latter half of my " 'Mr. Straight Arrow,' John Hersey, and the decision to drop the atomic bomb'' at the History News Network, https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/172708.
I wouldn't make too much of the wording in the 10/22/46 letter from Charlie Ross. Long before he wrote that it was clear that he had become heavily influenced by the "Hassett Valentine" style of FDR's, then Truman's, correspondence secretary William D. Hassett, where press-related inquiries of this sort were handled in a genial tone, but presented little real information. This was done whether or not a publication was perceived to be generally favorable or critical of the Truman administration.
In fact, not only did Charlie Ross profess to find Hersey's article "magnificent" but Truman himself told George Elsey that it was an "important" work. It's also worth noting that although many publications were held in low esteem by the president, he said of the New Yorker, "I enjoy reading it very much."
Regarding that HNN article linked above, you may also find the Emperor Hirohito and Herbert Bix quotes in the "To Hugh Curran'' comment of some value.
Yes: a blockade. I agree our troops should not have had to suffer and die in an invasion. But I find dropping those bombs to be morally indefensible, due to the death and suffering they caused.
This is a complicated topic.My father suffered through kamikaze attacks on his ship and knew that women, old men, and children on Okinawa committed suicide rather than surrender. The horrific firebombing of Japanese cities had not prompted the Japanese to surrender. Knowing what the cost in American lives in an invasion would be, did Truman really have a choice?
A colleague over at the Truman Library alerted me to this article and I think you might find some useful tidbits on this subject in the latter half of my " 'Mr. Straight Arrow,' John Hersey, and the decision to drop the atomic bomb'' at the History News Network, https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/172708.
I wouldn't make too much of the wording in the 10/22/46 letter from Charlie Ross. Long before he wrote that it was clear that he had become heavily influenced by the "Hassett Valentine" style of FDR's, then Truman's, correspondence secretary William D. Hassett, where press-related inquiries of this sort were handled in a genial tone, but presented little real information. This was done whether or not a publication was perceived to be generally favorable or critical of the Truman administration.
In fact, not only did Charlie Ross profess to find Hersey's article "magnificent" but Truman himself told George Elsey that it was an "important" work. It's also worth noting that although many publications were held in low esteem by the president, he said of the New Yorker, "I enjoy reading it very much."
Regarding that HNN article linked above, you may also find the Emperor Hirohito and Herbert Bix quotes in the "To Hugh Curran'' comment of some value.
Yes: a blockade. I agree our troops should not have had to suffer and die in an invasion. But I find dropping those bombs to be morally indefensible, due to the death and suffering they caused.
This is a complicated topic.My father suffered through kamikaze attacks on his ship and knew that women, old men, and children on Okinawa committed suicide rather than surrender. The horrific firebombing of Japanese cities had not prompted the Japanese to surrender. Knowing what the cost in American lives in an invasion would be, did Truman really have a choice?