Was Harry S. Truman a war criminal?

[Adler17]

Well Private Hudson, the bombing of the German cities had effects. Of course. But of these effects none of them was able to end the war in a shorter time. And yes I admit there is a discrepancy cinsidering civilians. But that´s international law. Civilians must protected generally. Collateral damages excluded- and reprisal for partisan attacks! This last one should be deleted, but that´s the law! Oradur and Lidice were crimes no question. But some execusions not. Although the morale by such actions is at least questionable it is justified. It would also have been justified to kill German civilians for German partisan activity. All allied powers thread to do this.
Your next point is the 4th bomb. She was never built. This shows us the US didn´t plan to bomb a small island. Altough they had to considerit very well and to be prepared. You always say the Japanese didn´t want to surrender. That´s why we nuke 2 cities. But you can´t exclude the possibility of a success by bombing a samll island. And I repeat it again. Because of the consequences of the use of such a bomb they had to try it in this way first.
The Germans elected Hitler because of the crise of 1929 and because of Versailles (main reasons). He was elected not becuase his hate of Jews but despite it. He also was appointed by Hindenburg and not elected by the Reichstag. Hindeburg was an old man who was said the conservatives could have a marionette in Hitler. How wrong this was they didn´t know. Later he feared a civil war. That he had to risk one and to send Hitler away is now too simple spoken. But that´s the story for another thread.
Russia had no ability to invade Japan. An invasion of Sachalin was possible and perhaps the Kurils. But Hokkaido? Never. The Japanese navy was beaten but the last ships available and the last planes were able to repell such an invasion.
The allied help for the German resistance could have been a cease fire for a few weeks. It would have been a chaotic phase but such guys like himmler or Goebbels didn´t have the chance to get power under a new government. There was a "shadows cabinet" (as we call governmental plans of the opposition before elections). And no one of them was a Nazi. And the crimes? Germany was the first real law state. They would have been punished as well as it it happened. But that´s pure speculations. However the allies were not a big help for the only resistance group who could really stop the war fast. And yes if Stauffenberg was a suicide assassin he would have been successful- perhaps. There are so many bombs which should kill Hitler but didn´t hit him. And they planned properly. He had two bombs in the bag. But he was only able to make one sharp because of his wounds. This was negliable if the room was not the room it was. It should have been another but someone delayed the room. Nevertheless the bomb could have killed Hitler either. But she was put away. So much bad luck isn´t plannable!
And to your last point the last election was in 1933! So the opinion of the people will change in 12 years under Hitler I´m very sure.
But that´s not the point to discuss Hitler here. We´re here to discuss whether the bomb on Hiroshima was justified or not. So I would go back to this discussion unless you disagree.
And Riesstiu IV I don´t see any hate on the US in my posts. Only critics on their use of the bomb.

Adler

 

[naervod]

Originally posted by Adler17
Who were the assasinators of 20th July? Mostly Army officers. Generalfeldmarschall Rommel, Generaloberst Guderian, Oberst Klaus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg,...

I haven't finished reading the thread yet, but this mistake just wants to be corrected. While it is true Stauffenberg was directly involved, I think it is rash to say Rommel could been considered an "assasinator" (more like attempted assasin, the bombed killed one officer and barely scratched Hitler). He had relations with the conspirators, but nothing even remotely involving him being part of the plot to assasinate Hitler. Lastly, pardon me, but Guderian, what the hell are you talking about. Guderian was appointed chief of the OKW (Army High Command), on July 21st, 1944, the day after the failed bomb plot. Furthermore, he was appointed a member of the court of honor that investigated the officers implicated in the conspiracy (most of them falsely implicated I should say). He was responsible, along with Generalfeldmarschall Keitel and Generalfeldmarschall von Rundstedt for turing hundreds of his fellow army officers over to the court to be tried and (for the most part) falsely convicted.

 

[Zardnaar]

Rommel knew of the plot but failed to inform Hitler. Ironically Himmler may have known as well (but kept his mouth shut).

 

[naervod]

Yes, but still, such an offense should not be punished the way it was. It is thought that people today knew of the 9/11 plot but failed to inform he right people, or the right people chose to ignore the warnings, and those people should not be punished with death, no matter how much I dislike them.

But more to the point here, and then this is all I will say, for I am getting off topic, Rommel, although he had his series of falling outs with Hitler, would not go so far as to help plan a plot against Hitler, and therefore should not be included in Adler17's list.

 

[Adler17]

Rommel was involved but he was injured in France. Rommel was not agreeing to kill Hitler but he wanted to get rid of him. Guderian was first not involved but helped unknowingly when he stopped researches against some army officers. Because of Rommel´s injuries the assasins needed a new warhero. So they talked to Guderian. He agreed. That was the 18th or 19th July. Many other officers were asked to help. Most of them denied the assasination but were willingly to cooperate later. None of them talked. Himmler knew something I´m sure.
My source for Guderian is: Guderian, der Panzergeneral by Kenneth Macksey.
And for his role later- well he was involved and had nearly no other possibilities to rescue his life.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

Well Private Hudson, the bombing of the German cities had effects. Of course. But of these effects none of them was able to end the war in a shorter time.

I give up, if you believe that you'll believe anything to suit your arguments.

And yes I admit there is a discrepancy cinsidering civilians. But that´s international law. Civilians must protected generally. Collateral damages excluded- and reprisal for partisan attacks! This last one should be deleted, but that´s the law! Oradur and Lidice were crimes no question. But some execusions not. Although the morale by such actions is at least questionable it is justified. It would also have been justified to kill German civilians for German partisan activity. All allied powers thread to do this.

Oh no, don't try that one, you suggested a good response to the death of a German soldier would be the execution of 10 civilians. On one hand you justify killing innocent civilians needlessly and on the other you rail against it. I smell bias here. What does it matter what international law says, the shooting of civilians that you cannot prove to be guilty should be, under your analysis every bit as bad as bombing civilians. Don't hide behind international law just because it supports you, either killing civilians is right or wrong.

Your next point is the 4th bomb. She was never built. This shows us the US didn´t plan to bomb a small island. Altough they had to considerit very well and to be prepared

They (the targetting committee and others) considered the option, but it was rejected as unlikely to have any real affect.

But you can´t exclude the possibility of a success by bombing a samll island. And I repeat it again. Because of the consequences of the use of such a bomb they had to try it in this way first.

And I repeat in YOUR opinion. Since you are sitting comfortably in peacetime without the pressures of war and fighting to preserve your country it's easy to throw criticism.

The Germans elected Hitler because of the crise of 1929 and because of Versailles (main reasons). He was elected not becuase his hate of Jews but despite it.

And yet you admit that his popularity only truly wavered by Stalingrad. I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy at that point for civilians prepared to support a man who would persecute a portion of society and pull a country into a global war and then drop their support because he's no longer winning...

Russia had no ability to invade Japan. An invasion of Sachalin was possible and perhaps the Kurils. But Hokkaido? Never. The Japanese navy was beaten but the last ships available and the last planes were able to repell such an invasion.

Nonetheless the Russians were planning it in 1945 and any signifigant delay of 2 months or so would have seen it at least attempted. Even if it wasn't attempted, Russia would have overan even more of the mainland, which as I said was not a wise course of action.

The allied help for the German resistance could have been a cease fire for a few weeks.

Yeah right, we're going to do that Besides, you're missing the overall point, "allied" ceasefire meant all allies, and getting Russia to do that would have been almost impossible.

It would have been a chaotic phase but such guys like himmler or Goebbels didn´t have the chance to get power under a new government.

I did not say it was likely, I did say the allies would fear it, big difference.

There was a "shadows cabinet" (as we call governmental plans of the opposition before elections). And no one of them was a Nazi. And the crimes? Germany was the first real law state. They would have been punished as well as it it happened

That's what you presume would happen, however, the allies wanted the right to conduct the warcrimes trials themselves, not have lenient German courts do it for them. This was also common when dealing with Japan. Leaving it to the enemy would likely result in at least some of it being covered up.

However the allies were not a big help for the only resistance group who could really stop the war fast.

Probably because the allies had neither the reason or ability to trust the Germans at that stage.

And yes if Stauffenberg was a suicide assassin he would have been successful- perhaps.

Everything I have read of his attempt suggested that had the bomb remained where he put it there would have been only one result, no more Fuhrer. It's possible that bad luck would have changed this, but the truth is, the chances of sucess improve many times if a suicide bomb was used, and Stauffenberg etc simply weren't prepared to take it to that level.

And to your last point the last election was in 1933! So the opinion of the people will change in 12 years under Hitler I´m very sure.

If as you say he was only really loosing public support in 1942, this would indicate that in all probability, the actions against Jews such as Krystalnact (sp?) etc didn't really dent his support. Nor did the overtaking of a number of neighbours. Nor did the invasion of countries with no conceivable German population, or neglible amounts. No what spooked most of them truly was loosing.

And Riesstiu IV I don´t see any hate on the US in my posts. Only critics on their use of the bomb.

Well uhmm, supporting the murder of civilians done by Germany on the weak basis of international law hardly seems to stay in line with your attitude against the murder of civilians done by the US to be fair.

 

[Adler17]

First of all I am against the death of any civilians in a war. Collateral damges are bad enough. But we´re talking about international law in 1945! And this allowed the killing of civilians as reprisal. However I personally do not agree with that rule!
Of course they considered the option. But with such a weapon they had to try it first. Another example: You are attacked by someone. You have to possibilities to end the attack. Once is an MG the other is a bomb. You´re not so good as shooter, but you think you´ll hit him with the MG. The other is a bomb. Then you´ll stop the attack at once, but the neighbours are killed. So you have to use the milder MG first. And that´s why the US didn´t do that the bombing of Hiroshima was a crime.
In Germany suicide missions are not very common. So most of the assasins never agreed about that. However IIRC these option had been considered. But for certain reasons I don´t know Stauffenberg had another task. So he had to survive. I can´t expalin why Hitler didn´t die. Bad luck, fate I don´t know.
The Kristallnacht was made by Goebbels. And Hitler blamed him for that. Bad image. Most Germans couldn´t think about the cruelity. Some might have heard rumors but most of them not. IF this would have been made public his support in the population would have been neraly 0. Then he only had the chance to flee out of Germany. Within half a year he had to retreat.
The Germans in the begining didn´t want a war. They thought until the very end everything would be good. But then the invasion of Poland. The Germans were told the radio station of Gleiwitz/ Oberschlesien had been attacked. So they thought of being attacked. And a war with Poland and France was not very unpopular since the lost war 1918 and the peace of 1919.
To your last point: Go into the next college and ask a professor for international law and war law. It was the law in 1945 and if I´m not wrong even today. This is not my personal opinion. But I do not want to excuse any deeds done in this war. But I only wanted to show that the nuking was a crime. This is solved from the questions the Germans or Japanese did in the war, was it within the law or not. Nothing in that time could justify the US nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That´s why they were crimes. As well as the holocaust or Dresden or Nanking.
The USA are today a German ally and good friend. Prussia/ Germany supported the US in the revolution and the civil war. The US helped us after the wars. We are friends today if there are some disputes or not.

Adler

 

[Zardnaar]

In Adlers defence there was a suicide plan to kill Hitler while he was inspecting new uniforms. Allied bombing destroyed the train that was carrying them. Kinda ironic.

 

[Archer 007]

Not in the least.

 

[MarineCorps]

Originally posted by Archer 007
Not in the least.

Why do you say that. i find it very Ironic.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, kinda hard to decide I do not think that he was a criminal for the A bomb. But he was a criminal for trying to get rid of the Marine Corps. So yes he was.

 

[naervod]

Originally posted by Adler17
Rommel was involved but he was injured in France. Rommel was not agreeing to kill Hitler but he wanted to get rid of him. Guderian was first not involved but helped unknowingly when he stopped researches against some army officers. Because of Rommel´s injuries the assasins needed a new warhero. So they talked to Guderian. He agreed. That was the 18th or 19th July. Many other officers were asked to help. Most of them denied the assasination but were willingly to cooperate later. None of them talked. Himmler knew something I´m sure.
My source for Guderian is: Guderian, der Panzergeneral by Kenneth Macksey.
And for his role later- well he was involved and had nearly no other possibilities to rescue his life.

Adler

With Rommel, you may have a point, although Guderian I still don't think he should be included. Guderian may have known about the plot, but Guderian made a smart decision and decided to be loyal to Hitler, and for I point I feel was more loyal to Hitler than to Germany until they had a falling out in early 1945 when Guderian wanted to transfer more forces from the west to the east and sign an armistice with the western Allies.

 

[nonconformist]

I think Guderian proceeded over the trials of the plotters, not to cinvict them of death, but to expel them from the army, and so transfer jurisdiction to the Gestapo, or to some other body. I will look this up later.

 

[pomsa]

Originally posted by nonconformist
I think Guderian proceeded over the trials of the plotters, not to cinvict them of death, but to expel them from the army, and so transfer jurisdiction to the Gestapo, or to some other body. I will look this up later.

He tried to find some lesser charge, to get them out of the army, and off his hands.

 

[nonconformist]

I think officially, there were very few organisations that dealt with the military. Most were civilians. The Gestapo, officially had no jurisdiction over people in uniforms.

 

[Adler17]

The jurisdiction had the Volksgerichtshof. It was for Civilians and everything else than a neutral court. The exclusion of the officers out of the Wehrmacht was not able to be stopped. But he was a member. Why he became member of it I don´t know. But I think he saw perhaps a small chance to help some of the minor assasins- or he wanted to save his own life. He was in opposite to Hitler- ever. So that he wanted to become a firend of Hitler, the Bohemian corporal I do not think.
Perhaps I should read Macksey´s biography again...

Adler

 

[Donkels]

By all means the murderer Truman was not only a warcriminal but also the worst president in American history

 

[tonberry]

Wow, the students of the Necromancers University graduate early this year…

 

[NickyJ]

This thread has been dead for half my life.

 

[nerdfighter13]

Same here. But it was his first post, so cut him some slack.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You guys are so freaking young.....

Edit: Wait wait wait, it's his first post, and he used it to dig up a thread that's been dead nearly a decade. How does that even happen? And why?