Was Harry S. Truman a war criminal?

[privatehudson]

Benderino: EEK! Typo, I should have put 17th, I recall it being erly to mid 1600's, but was dredging up some pretty old knowledge

 

[Marla_Singer]

What is a war criminal in the first place ?

According to my definition, it's a guy who's been in the wrong side during a war and who had done awful things during it. So no, Harry Truman doesn't fit to such a definition since he was in the right side of the war.

Well more honnestly speaking. I have a lot of respect about Harry Truman since he restored freedom, prosperity and hope to Western Europe. Eastern Europe have been a lot less lucky. So no, I won't consider him as a war criminal.

However, if we want to be objective. The US Air Force have commited the most murderous bombings of the war. It's a fact to admit that Americans considered the life of their soldiers as above the life of foreign citizens. If it's unnecessary to talk about it, it's once again because it's a small damage compared to Hitler, Stalin or even Hirohito if we consider what had been done in Korea.

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
It's a fact to admit that Americans considered the life of their soldiers as above the life of foreign citizens.

Right, and the French considered the life of their soldiers as above the live of foreign citizens.

The British considered the life of their soldiers as above the live of foreign citizens.

The Russians considered the life of their soldiers as above the live of foreign citizens.

The Italians considered the life of their soldiers as above the live of foreign citizens.

The Germans considered the life of their soldiers as above the live of foreign citizens.

The Japanese considered the life of their soldiers as above the live of foreign citizens.

And if I were fighting for my country, I'd want it to value my life more than that of a foreign citizen too.
...so I guess we're in agreement then.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

No. Never have, never will. Truman was a great man, both at home and abroad.

 

[Marla_Singer]

@Benderino :

No. I'm sorry but you can't say so. You obviously ignore the violence of the US bombings. German bombings were made at a low altitude to have better chance to hit their targets. American bombings were made at a high altitude for more safety, no matter if we had to drop 20 times more bombs since at least one would hit the target anyway. Those bombings were totally blind in the middle of a city. Another issue which didn't bother Americans was the fact that when a bomb is dropped from a higher altitude, it destroys building untill their basement and even the canalisation.

US bombings have been the most murderous of all. That wasn't necessary. Millions of civilians have been killed by the US army during World War 2. There's no excuse for such a behaviour which is criminal. However, those crimes are small compared to those of the Germans, Russians and Japanese, and I'm very glad that my country had been freed by Americans and not by the Russians for obvious reasons.

 

[DBear]

If Truman really wanted to nuke the Japs, he woulda had it dropped on downtown Tokyo. Hiroshima was and is a relatively unimportant city.

 

[Adler17]

No. If he had really bombed Tokyo, the Japanese would never have surrendered without invasion. Even if there was a 2nd or 3rd nuking. Kyoto was similar. The Japanese think it is a kind of holy city. So They might have surrendered, but they would never have forgiven. So it was only the weather which should doom one of the cities on the target list.
I know the US see this too patriotical, sometime too much to argue with them, but Truman was a warcriminal. So again: What are the reasons for nuking civilians?
1. The Japanese didn´t want to surrender. This is a lie. And there is nothing communistical within this FACT. I´m not a communist! Japan wanted to surrender. The US didn´t want to accept because they wanted to test their new "toy".
2. Japan attacked the US without warning. Well the US provoked the attack. And they were warned. However the US were attacked and the Japanese started the war. But revenge can not excuse the death of 200.000 civilians. If revenge is the only motive, it is murder! But there might be other reasons which could excuse it at least.
3. It was necessary to bomb Japan to surrender them. Without that an invasion would have costed millions of soldiers and civilians the life. No. The same goal would have been achieved by nuking a small uninhabitant island. Even IF we could agree the first nuke was okay, which is not right, the second was useless. It was only a test. So the surrender of Japan and to show the Soviets the power of the US could have achieved with nuking a small island.
4. The Soviets would have invaded Japan. Never. The Soviets wouldn´t have the üpossibility to do so. There were Japanese troops in Manchuria. They would have been beaten first. Then an invasion fleet would have to be used. Which ships? The few remaining Soviet ships were either based in Europe or too few to make an invasion possible of Japan. Although beaten the Japanese were able to beat the Soviets on the sea, at least on the beaches. No, the Soviets were not a danger for the Japanese to take them serious.
5. Even if something is the best and might be the only way to solve a problem it can´t be used if it is disproportional. This means the way has to be a resonable mean to use, which is very questionable, it must be the best way to achieve the aim, which is much more questionable, and the consequences of the way must be proportional to the goal. This is in this case very questionable to affirm this.
So nothing can justify or excuse the use of the nukes.
I said something about the protection of the civilians. I was a bit unprecise. Since the 30 years war there was a big movement to protect civilians. Pacts are not neccessary to make something a part of the international law. But in the time of ww2 there were pacts to protect civilians. NO side followed them. But is that an excusion to kill innocent people? No. The morale was on the western allied side. So they were oblieged to keep this morale. But they lost it in Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Königsberg,...
All warcrimes. A president is only a human being with errors. So they can do something criminal. And Truman was a weak and stupid president. But also this can´t excuse his crimes of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Adler

 

[Inhalaattori]

They were testing their toy. I still ask why second bomb?

I believe these dudes are no "commies", (nice short article)
http://www.oneworld.org/news/world/bloomfield.html


You, our American friends, should really admit that when it comes to bombing US has been the worst criminal.

By the way, BORODINO, it was US planes who destroyed Dresden. British planes just did some "warm up", the "ugly work" was done mainly by US planes.

US always says that it is defending humanity and all that bull****.
You really sdont see through US propaganda. Learn to question things.

US "democracy" is no real democracy. So dont send your "freedom bombers" and "democracy fighters" around the world to spread your only freedom, freedom to DIE!

1 party democracy, hey its just like in Soviet Union!

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by Adler17
And Truman was a weak and stupid president. But also this can´t excuse his crimes of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Adler

Still, I'd rather have Truman running the country than Hitler.
The only moral high ground German and Japanese people can take is that their civilian poplulation was murdered by mass bombing. Fair enough.
The fact remains however that they both started a war which cost approximately 50 million lives. A figure many times greater than all those killed by Allied bombings.
I've said it once and I'll say it again. No sympathy.

 

[Adler17]

Sure I also would have Truman as my president rather than Hitler. But again Murder is murder. The counting of dead civilians is questionable. Each one is one too much. And not the German or Japanese people started the war but their governments. You can´t blame a total nation for the deeds of some of them. It isn´t fair to say murdering innocent people is right. I must misunderstand you rilnator! That can´t be your opinion. Each one is a murderer who gives the order to kill innocent people willingly without any need (collateral damages excluded; but NO city bombed by the Allies in Japan or Germany except Essen was bombed because of the industrial/ military targets) is a warcriminal and murderer. So ALL leaders of the 40s of the big powers are warcriminals!

Adler

 

[tossi]

Originally posted by Moss321
Truman did what he felt he had to do, and you must remember that it was Japan, not the US that started this war. If they did not want their cities destroyed than they should not have attacked Pearl Harbor.

Could their have been other outcomes possible, yes. But was this the quickest and best for American citizens, yes.

Who attacked Peal Harbor? The citizen of Hiroshima? Don´t think so. The government did. The dropping of the two nukes was a warcrime IMO. The targets were not somekind of a massive tank fabric and they USA only wanted to show the soviets how damn cool they were.

Btw could we pleace get some trustworthy sources? I don´t believe anything in internet .

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Adler17
Yes, he was a warcrime! Civilians as MAIN and nearly only target was a warcrime. Let it be London, Hamburg, Dresden or Nagasaki and Hiroshima. XIII, you might have reasons to dislike the Japanese especially what they did to your country. But in times of war Cicero was not right when he said: Inter arma enim silent leges. (in times of war the laws are silent). We have international law to protect the civilians since the 30 years war! And in the time until ww2 this was kept generally. But there is no excusion why using these bombs on CIVILIANS. If he dropped it on a military base I could live with it. But so- no way. He is a warcriminal like Göring or Himmler or Butcher Harris. Not in the number of the victims but they are all warcriminals.

Adler

The Japanese themselves didn't pay any darn heed to these laws. Shld they then expect others to pay the same heed, when their turn come? Sounds like a double-standard to me...

You reap what you sow.

It's all very easy for you to accuse the Americans of war-crimes fr the safety of hindsight and times, but remember they started this. Had they gotten the A-bomb, I doubt they would hesitate at all, on using it on the Chinese, or the Allies, at all.

And they still hadn't acknowledged their atrocities up till this day; with all their covering up, self-delusion and misleading highschool textbooks.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by nonconformist
Japan did attempt to surrender in January, for exactly the same conditions as they did in August after the bombs were dropped.

By beginning to arm the civilians with bamboo spears and telling them to fight the American devils to the death? Sure......

Had the emperor not gone on the air to declare the war over, most Japanese units would have continued fighting. IMO even after 2 A-bombs, it's hard to say if the Japanese would surrender, had it not been for the emperor's intervention (at great danger to himself).

Some few of those Japanese soldiers continued to fight in the jungles of SE Asia for decades, after the end of the war; believing the surrender to be American propoganda.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
No. I'm sorry but you can't say so. You obviously ignore the violence of the US bombings. German bombings were made at a low altitude to have better chance to hit their targets. American bombings were made at a high altitude for more safety, no matter if we had to drop 20 times more bombs since at least one would hit the target anyway. Those bombings were totally blind in the middle of a city. Another issue which didn't bother Americans was the fact that when a bomb is dropped from a higher altitude, it destroys building untill their basement and even the canalisation.

If they want to save the lives of as many of their pilots as possible by playing it safe, it's hard to see what wrong they're doing with it... It's war, for goodness' sake. Remember, it's the Germans who started the darn war in Europe.

As a non-American, I'm very glad and grateful for the great effort Americans put into WW2, and help to roll back the militarists of Japan, and Nazis of Germany.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Alot of you seem to be utterly unaware of the importance of civilians to the war effort of any army.

The performance of any national army depends largely on the economic performance of their country, and the economy of any country is dependant on the performance of its workers. Every army needs equipment to do their job. They need food, uniforms, guns, ammo, trucks, etc. All of these things are provided by the economy, the state of which is determined by the performance of the workers. Therefore, the army and its performance in combat is linked to the average joe back home.

You have claimed that civilians are not a legitimate target during war becuase they have nothing to do with the fighting. This is utterly untrue.

You are about to claim that many workers do not want to work and are therefore not a valid target, right? Well then, what about conscripts that have been forced to fight? According to you lot they are a legitimate target simply becuase they are wearing an army uniform. Both are linked to the performance of their army, and both do not nesseserily support the war effort, yet one is a valid target and the other is not? Seems like a double standard to me. And how exactly do you plan on solving this little problem? Asking soldiers on the battlefield if they support the war or not?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Adler17
1. The Japanese didn´t want to surrender. This is a lie. And there is nothing communistical within this FACT. I´m not a communist! Japan wanted to surrender. The US didn´t want to accept because they wanted to test their new "toy".

The Japanese didn't want to surrender - they didn't expect any mercy fr the Americans upon surrender. Some few would continue fighting for decades, after the end of the war, though the Japanese troops by and large were brought home.

2. Japan attacked the US without warning. Well the US provoked the attack. And they were warned. However the US were attacked and the Japanese started the war. But revenge can not excuse the death of 200.000 civilians. If revenge is the only motive, it is murder! But there might be other reasons which could excuse it at least.

Provoked? Provoked?

Yeah sure, the IJA were angels. Tell that to the millions of Chinese and Koreans who had already perished prior to 1941.

Tell me, ever heard of the Rape of Nanjing?

3. It was necessary to bomb Japan to surrender them. Without that an invasion would have costed millions of soldiers and civilians the life. No. The same goal would have been achieved by nuking a small uninhabitant island. Even IF we could agree the first nuke was okay, which is not right, the second was useless. It was only a test. So the surrender of Japan and to show the Soviets the power of the US could have achieved with nuking a small island.

How could you tell? Were you part of the Japanese general staff during WW2? Would you know that the Japanese would be terrified by a weopan used on some out-of-the-way island? Would the Japanese even bother to observe what happened on the said island?

4. The Soviets would have invaded Japan. Never. The Soviets wouldn´t have the üpossibility to do so. There were Japanese troops in Manchuria. They would have been beaten first.

The Japanese were already in full rout and retreat fr Manchuria - they had no armor to meet the Soviet tanks. The battle-hardened and blitzkering Red Army swept in and chased the Japanese Kwantung Army southwards in the last days of the war.

Their defeats in Manchuria were as much a shock as the A-bombs.

Then an invasion fleet would have to be used. Which ships? The few remaining Soviet ships were either based in Europe or too few to make an invasion possible of Japan. Although beaten the Japanese were able to beat the Soviets on the sea, at least on the beaches. No, the Soviets were not a danger for the Japanese to take them serious.

As Allies, I think the Americans, British and Canadians would only be too happy to lend a few ships to ship the Soviet troops over, to help with the fighting...

5. Even if something is the best and might be the only way to solve a problem it can´t be used if it is disproportional. This means the way has to be a resonable mean to use, which is very questionable, it must be the best way to achieve the aim, which is much more questionable, and the consequences of the way must be proportional to the goal. This is in this case very questionable to affirm this.
So nothing can justify or excuse the use of the nukes.

And who are you, dear sir, that you might make a judgement like that?

But in the time of ww2 there were pacts to protect civilians. NO side followed them. But is that an excusion to kill innocent people? No. The morale was on the western allied side. So they were oblieged to keep this morale. But they lost it in Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Königsberg,...
All warcrimes. A president is only a human being with errors. So they can do something criminal. And Truman was a weak and stupid president. But also this can´t excuse his crimes of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes, and it would have nice too if the angelic Nazis and Japanese militarists had won the war, and now ruled over the rest of us subspecimens of the human race?

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

On the subject of Truman and the nukes; I think that the attack was worth it. In the long run many lives were saved due to the avoidance of a continued war against Japan.

Continuing the war against Japan would mean an invasion of Japan would be needed at some point, it has been predicted that this would result in over a million casulties.

Less than 200,000 people died as a result of the nuclear bombs (85,000 at Nakasaki and 75,000 at Hiroshima).

Both scenarios have the same outcome (peace), but one costs much, much more in terms of lives lost.

It is very sad that such a thing (the nukes) became nessessary in achieving peace, but sometimes thats just how things work out. Ideally situations like that would never come about in the first place.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
They were testing their toy. I still ask why second bomb?

I believe these dudes are no "commies", (nice short article)
http://www.oneworld.org/news/world/bloomfield.html


You, our American friends, should really admit that when it comes to bombing US has been the worst criminal.

By the way, BORODINO, it was US planes who destroyed Dresden. British planes just did some "warm up", the "ugly work" was done mainly by US planes.

US always says that it is defending humanity and all that bull****.
You really sdont see through US propaganda. Learn to question things.

US "democracy" is no real democracy. So dont send your "freedom bombers" and "democracy fighters" around the world to spread your only freedom, freedom to DIE!

1 party democracy, hey its just like in Soviet Union!

Do you have some massive inferiority complex, or what?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by rilnator
Still, I'd rather have Truman running the country than Hitler.
The only moral high ground German and Japanese people can take is that their civilian poplulation was murdered by mass bombing. Fair enough.
The fact remains however that they both started a war which cost approximately 50 million lives. A figure many times greater than all those killed by Allied bombings.

The 50 million casualties of ww2 includes the victims of the Allied Bombings. You thought it was only the germans who did that alone ?

Another paradox, when we talk about ww2, germans are responsible of everything, even the nuking of Japan. When we talk about ww1, the same germans also declared the war and started the invasion, but then it's outrageous to consider them as fully responsible of the war at the Versailles Treaty. Why what is acceptable in one case isn't in the other ?

Originally posted by rilnator
If they want to save the lives of as many of their pilots as possible by playing it safe, it's hard to see what wrong they're doing with it... It's war, for goodness' sake. Remember, it's the Germans who started the darn war in Europe.

No, it isn't. Since when there's nothing wrong in killing freely civilians ? Do you think it was right to reduce Dresden into ashes... including the people ? They were all naughty nazis who declared the war ?

Listen to me Rilnator. We must learn to grow up, of course the good side has won the war. I can't stop to repeat that in this thread. But that doesn't mean that Americans did nothing wrong during that conflict. People always talk about the naughty bombings of the Germans on Britain, but those bombings have killed 150,000 people. The US bombings on France have killed 400,000 civilians, of course that's not really important because, once again, the good side has won but it's just to make you realize things. And finally, almost 4 million german civilians have been killed in bombings. You should realize that it's still a lot. No matter how evil they were.

World War 2 was ugly. If the Good side has won, that doesn't mean it hasn't done ugly things too. If I'm saying so, it's because I'm realizing more and more that Americans haven't already learnt yet why that world war was horribly wrong.

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by Adler17
So ALL leaders of the 40s of the big powers are warcriminals!
Adler

Winston Churchill is a great man!
We're obviously not going to see eye to eye on this so its pointless arguing. To think a war like WW2 can be conducted without civilian casualties accidentalor otherwise is pure fantasy.
I think it is terrible the devestation in such cities as Cologne and Dresden.
Len Deighton wrote a book called 'Bomber'. It gives an accountof British bomber pilots, Germans civilians, Fighter pilots and radar operators during a misdirected raid in 1944. Good book!