Was Harry S. Truman a war criminal?

[privatehudson]

If you say these conventions are lies or the death of civilians are okay you have nothing learned and you should read a good book about philosophy and war.

I see nothing wrong with a philosophy that states that in a total war, if it will be brought to a quicker and less violent end through one terrible act than it would by others then that terrible act, then that act should be committed. I have repeatedly stated that civilians should never be the main or sole target, but targets cannot simply be discounted on the basis that a civilian population surrounds it. I presume this philosophy you talk of requires a perfect world of clear cut situations were everthng is clear beforehand. WWII was not, I recognise that, you apprently do not.

There are rules; there must be rules unless you want to find yourself in a barbaric world

Again, I believe I have agreed with this before. However I differ in what I believe those rules to be when compared to you. I say that the rules should allow for targets that are in civilian areas to be attacked presuming that there is some military benefit, or that it can be shown that the war is likely to end sooner and less bloodily by doing so. Trueman and others in the US IMO believed this to be the case with Hiroshima. I don't see how wishing the war to end sooner and to his eyes less bloodily suddenly equates to being barbaric.

It is easy to say we defend freedom. But if you do so you have to use your own high values.

Which I believe the allies to have mostly stuck to. The Axis powers never usually rose above extremely low values as states.

But Truman is steps away. But only steps.

So by extension I presume you never allow such a difficult thing as motive to cloud your judgment of the past leaders. Trueman's motives for Hiroshima (whether they were based on accurate information or not) removes him a long way from the others, not IMO steps.

You should go into the next college and hear about law and philosophy. Perhaps you will see then your error.

Philosophy is many and varied. Perhaps for a moment you should consider that motive is as important as act. A person who kills another in self defence is not the same as a mass murderer. I find it impossible to think otherwise except perhaps in the extreme philosophy of the bible or similar taken literally.

By the way, your idea that all civilians are necessarily good targets because they can't be "innocent" is simply disgusting.

Perhaps before judging you'd like to re-read why I said that? Or maybe I'll repeat. I have not intended to say civilians should be the main or sole target. I do recognise though that in any situation where an army or country faces a choice where they believe the war will end sooner and with less civilian and military casualties by targetting something with civilians nearby, it is ridiculous to rule out targetting that completely. I don't advocate targetting civilians willy-nilly, I advocate that targets cannot be ruled out because of civilians. All attempts should be made to avoid civilian losses, but in a highly urbanised country like Japan or Western Europe this is all but impossible when attacking an enemy defending such an area.

360,000 french civilians have been killed during the liberation... I guess they were all supporting Hitler.

Very sorry for every last one of them, however since they died in the process of being freed from the tyranny of German rule and people from my country died to do this, I'm afraid that it is just part of war sorry. Again, I would not have advocated the decimating of a city or town full of civilians just to make the allied job slightly easier. I would suggest though that the allies were in the process of liberating the entire country of millions, and in that process, 360,000 is an unfortunate consequence that was mostly unavoidable. The greater good was served X million Frenchmen were liberated, if I was french, I would rather have risked being one of the 360,000 than spend the rest of my life under Nazi German rule.

 

[nonconformist]

What most people here do not seem to understand is that yes, possibly dropping bombs saved lives. However these were the lives of soldiers, legitimate targets under all of the conventions, against that of civilians, illegitimate targets. But again we come around to victor's justice. The irony is that Erich Raeder and Karl Doenitz were convicted to life and twenty years respectively for breaching the same international law as Truman.

Thestonesfan, the "they attacked us first" excuse is one of the most idiotic I have ever heard. But then, the Iraqi people would be justified in dropping an atomic bomb on New York.

 

[privatehudson]

What most people here do not seem to understand is that yes, possibly dropping bombs saved lives. However these were the lives of soldiers, legitimate targets under all of the conventions, against that of civilians, illegitimate targets.

Uhmm, not really. In either invasion or starvation, or even under Russian control, a lot of estimates I've seen of the civilian losses under those scenarios are either equal to or higher than those that died in the atom bomb attacks. Okinawa showed this in a way, civilians died there in droves, and militia, ie until very recently civilians would have died also in the event of invasion. It did save American and Japanese military lives, but to say it ONLY saved military lives is a fallacy.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Originally posted by nonconformist
What most people here do not seem to understand is that yes, possibly dropping bombs saved lives. However these were the lives of soldiers, legitimate targets under all of the conventions, against that of civilians, illegitimate targets.

Alot of civilians would have died in an invasion of Japan. Probably more than died due to the nukes.

 

[Adler17]

It MIGHT saved lives. The main question was and is: was it neccessary? No. They should have at least tried to bomb an uninhabitant island and then wait a few month. Only after then a city was allowed to be nuked. But only then. And that´s the point why Truman is also a warcriminal. Might he be lightyears ahead of such scum like Hitler or Stalin he was a warcriminal.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

It's your opinion that it wasn't necessary, it's not necessarily the only opinion, so it's hard to say that either way.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by nonconformist
Thestonesfan, the "they attacked us first" excuse is one of the most idiotic I have ever heard. But then, the Iraqi people would be justified in dropping an atomic bomb on New York.

Why wouldn't they be justified in doing that?

Anyway, what I said is undeniably true. Their irrational belligerance directly caused them to be bombed.

Every civilian who doesn't fight the enemy, aids the enemy. A woman who works in a tank factory helps the enemy as much as a soldier. They are legitimate targets, they always have been, and they always will be.

It's brutal. That's what war is. Every single damned thing about it.

All the morality in the world doesn't matter if you are conquered and enslaved.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Yes he is definately a war criminal in my book, and one of the worst, but that article was tripe.

 

[Benderino]

Care to explicate your views? How about you read through all the pages of this thread, and perhaps you'll be pleasantly enlightened.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Originally posted by nonconformist
Japan caused an almost insignificant aount of casualties on the American homeland; the USA hit them with everything they had.

Noncon, you have said many times that the actions of one side cannot justify the actions of another. This sentance implies the opposite. It implies that if Japan had dropped a nuke on America, then America could drop a nuke on Japan, and, in your eyes, justify it.

Originally posted by nonconformist
the "they attacked us first" excuse is one of the most idiotic I have ever heard.

Oh really? In the example above you seem to be saying exactly the opposite.



Edit: Sorry if this seems like unessesary nitpicking, but this mistake just jumped right at me.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Originally posted by thestonesfan

It's brutal. That's what war is. Every single damned thing about it.

All the morality in the world doesn't matter if you are conquered and enslaved.

My views exactly.

If you play by the 'rules' in total war, then you, and everything you stand for and protect, will go down in flames. As much as you may not like it, sometimes you gotta play dirty. Keep your eyes on the prize...

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by Civvin
EDIT: and I am not sure exactly what your figure of Frenchmen represents, ones killed during Allied retaking of France? If those French were fighting Hitler, they died heroes, as HUMAN BEINGS fighting for the right, if they weren't fighting Hitler then the fact that they died for nothing is tragic and their own responsibility.

It's truely hard to get detailed figures about World War 2 civilian casualties. I'm doing as much as I can to find them, but it's seriously very hard.

300,000 French soldiers have been killed during that war. Most of them have been killed during the German invasion. About the other, I guess it's about North Africa and the liberation. The French soldiers who joined Germany was very few, The Division Charlemagne had about 7,000 soldiers maximum, and they didn't all die during the war. If I say so, it's simply to prove how marginal that kind of soldiers could be in the figure of 300,000 soldiers casualties, it can't be more than 1%.

360,000 French civilians died during World War 2. Most of them died during the allied bombings on Normandy and Flanders. The German Invasion had been a military disaster, but not a civilian one. However, once again I repeat it, I don't put in question the part of the United States during World War 2. Once again, we've been freed from Hitler, but also from Stalin's threat, this is huge. So you won't find in me someone against America. However, I can't help to wonder whether the allied really needed to reduce in ashes so many cities in Europe. That's all. Of course, it's the past and we can't do anything anymore, but that still makes us think about what a war is about.

 

[Mrogreturns]

I have been reading through this thread with interest, but with all these confident assertions of what was and was not the case- I have the following questions:

1. Have you personally examined the relevant primary sources or are you simply repeating what you have read in someone else's account? Where you are relying on someone else- do you know that they have examined the primary sources?

2. How much of the relevant primary source material is actually available at this time?

 

[blindside]

Like I mentioned earlier, I read primary sources in a DBQ I had to do for AP history. There were several primary sources, speeches and memoirs of Eisenhower, Truman, Churchill, several nuclear scientists (not sure if those were primary sources, think one was), the commander of american air force in the pacific (forget his name). They dealt more with the reasoning behind bombing Japan (to end the war or to intimidate the Soviets). Eisenhower and the air force commander both say that Japan was on the verge of surrendering, they were broken and mostly defeaten.

How available is this stuff? Not sure, I would imagine book stores or websites sell memoirs of people like Eisenhower but I've never looked for any. There will be plenty of passages dealing the nuclear bombing of Japan.

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
360,000 French civilians died during World War 2. Most of them died during the allied bombings on Normandy and Flanders. The German Invasion had been a military disaster, but not a civilian one.

Let's not forget the approximately 100,000 Jews that Vichy willingly gave up to the Nazis. They are a significant portion of your civilian casualties stats.

 

[Zardnaar]

Has anyone bothered examining why the RAF bombed German cities? At the time it was the only way they could directly strike at Germany- which blitzed them 1st (apart from a minor raid on Berlin that made Hitler change targets from airfields to cities). Also how many German civilians were really innocent? The children were about the only ones.

Consider

1. No one forced Germany to invade Poland.
2. Germans bombed cities 1st.
3. Germany decleared war on America
4. Enough Germans voted for Hitler for him to seize power.
5. The Army supported Hitler more or less right to the end.
6. The German people supported the war effort even when they started to lose.
7. It wasn't only the SS who commited the Holocaust. The army and civilians were also responsable.
8. The bombing was intended to make the Germans surrender ie end the war quickly.
9. The Germans could have surrended or negotiated a peace anytime after Stalingrad. Up until mid 1944 Stalin was willing to discuss peace- they didn't.
10. 13 Million+ russians died in the USSR during the war. Could even be as high as 18-20 million. Not to sympathetic here.

The massed bombing raids didn't really get under way until 43. That was after the holocaust had started and god knows how many russians/poles/ukrainians etc had been murdered. I don't agree with all of the sentences handed out at the Nuremburg trials but the Germans brought it upon themselves. With hindsight things could have been done differently. However German industrial production peaked in late 44. But due to bombing the Germans fuel production collapsed. In May 1945 the Luftwaffe still had 3000 planes left but no fuel. Without the Allied bombing the war would have been prolonged. Of the 2 A bombs dropped on Japan originally one of them was intended for Germany.If Germany held out for 3 more months its likely one of their cities would have been nuked.

Honestly Addler17 what would you have done in the Allies place? Germany took alot of damage during the war but would you have prefered either an Abomb or house to house fighting a'la Stalingrad through virtually every German city had Hitler managed to prolong the war. In that war morality went down the gurgler. For the allies it wasn't about winning or losing. It was about survival. A German victory would have resulted in a mass genocide in the east and the utter destruction of the western parlimentarian system and probably way of life.

 

[Adler17]

Zardnaar, the German bombings were generally bombings of industrial/ military targets. That in Britain so many civilians were hit was mostly because their homes were in the factory areas! They were mostly collateral damages. I do not deny German terror bombings but they were less than the British/ US. But the difference of the allied bombings is: Civilians were their main target. This admitted Butcher Harris himself. The exception is only Essen. And like you said: the bombing raids were not able to stop the German industry until in late 44 the refineries were bombed. Why didn´t they do that first?
Hitler was also not elected by the Germans. Even in the last election which was hardly a democratic one he got only 44 %. He had to coalate with the DNVP by Hugenberg. Hugenberg said only one day after he made the biggest error in his life! How right he was...
The army didn´t support Hitler. They supported Germany. They fought not for Hitler but for Germany. In the west the resistance was low in the end but in the east the fightings were hard until May 9th. Who were the assasinators of 20th July? Mostly Army officers. Generalfeldmarschall Rommel, Generaloberst Guderian, Oberst Klaus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg,...
The same is the German people. After Stalingrad Hitler had no real support. But what should they do? In the resistance? Mostly had no courage unfortuantely. Going on the street? The Allied bombings made them fighting for their life with no time to deal with the government.
The Holocaust was mainly done by SS. Who were leading the KZs? Yes there were also civilians, but mainly the SS is responsible. There were also sometimes Wehrmacht soldiers involved, but that´s very rare in contrast to the SS.
The bombings should destroy the German support for Hitler. That´s why Civilians were bombed. But this was not stopped when they saw the opposite was the fact. No these bombings prlonged the war and did not stop it.
Hitler wasn´t able to negotiate a peace. He was crazy. The army on the other side wanted to negotiate. And if Hitler died in 1944 there would have been a peace treaty instead of an unconditional surrender. But that´s another theme for another thread.
There were indeed 20+ millions Russians dead in the war. But these figures are not very trustworthy. Sure too many civilians were among the dead but mostly SS deeds. 13 millions of these deads were soldiers. With these deads well it was war and they were our enemies. No sympathy with them.
Remember Stalin is in fact as evil as Hitler!
I do not think they would have nuked Germany. First they had problems to have enough Uran. They found some on a German Uboat enroute to Japan. If the war would have lasted longer perhaps Germany had alos a nuke. And if the US would have dropped the bomb on Ludwigshafen, which was their main idea in thse days, the Germans would have retaliated. Germany had also gas ammo. They didn´t use it because they feared a gas retaliation by the enemy on our cities. But if the allies would have used WMD against Germany I can´t believe the Germans would have n ot used their WMD.
With the terror bombings the war was prolonged. And the killing of innocent civilians in times when it was clear that Germany can´t win I think is nothing but murder!

Adler

 

[Zardnaar]

The allies didn't bomb the refineries earlier because they were out of range. The Wehrmacht was also more involved than you think in massacres. I also said enough Germans voted for Hitler for him to seize power. The army could have removed him numerous times but failed to act. The Russian soldiers may have been your enemy but the Germans invaded them. Even had the majority of the army removed Hitler from power I doubt they would have surrendered- they wanted a negotiated way out. The generals probably would have prolonged they war as Hitler made alot of bad decisions. Even then you said yourself the Germans only stopped supporting Hitler after Stalingrad- I suppose its alright to invade and bomb other countries when you are winning the war. Stauffenburg realized the war was lost in 41. From what I have read and the Germans I have spoken to have said the Germans either knew about the Holocaust or at least suspected what was going on. German soldiers on leave told their families what was happening on the eastern front. By the time the allied bombing got underway the Germans had already gone down the road of the Holocaust and the massacres in occupied territory. Yes German civilians suffered. Yes there were cases of of German POWs being shot (not just by the russians) but the bombing happened in a wartime enviroment during a time of great insanity. Compare the occupation of Western Germany post war with any country the Germans occupied during the war. See the difference? The bombing killed millions but the objective was to destroy the German war industry rather than to exterminate the German people.

 

[Adler17]

The refineries out of range ?!? They were in range. If you can reach Königsberg you can also reach Pölitz or Thuringia or Sachsen- Anhalt. That´s nonsense! And I spoke also to many elder German. My grandma for example didn´t know anything. But her father never told her. Another example is a German of whom I read in the Spiegel magazine who heard about the KZs in the only BBC report about that. He thought boy that´s the most eveil prpaganda ever heard. He was a foe of Hitler but that he could´t imagine. He thought the Jews are in the new captured areas in the east and the KZs are just prisons. But he searched for hints. He needed a year until he got the truth!
And the bombing runs had not the industry as target but the living quarters. I suggest to look in a book about the air war and the bombing in Germany. Then you´ll see the truth. I don´t know an English book about that. But you will find it.

Adler

 

[Adler17]

100 posts within 3 days. This should be record!

Adler