Was Harry S. Truman a war criminal?

[Adler17]

Interesting to see. Most US guys here have no doubts to say: everything all right. Most Europeans say: Warcrime!
And IMO the US side does not argue very well. XIII is also because of historical reasons a strong supporter.
But first of all try to find a way out of your superpatriotic sight to a neutral one: What if Germany and Japan didn´t commit those attrocities in the war? Would you say then it was justified to kill innocent people willingly?
But before you tell me the answer on this question back to the reality.
Yes XIII, I heard abot Nangking. Yes I heard about the death of million of Chinese and Koreans. But is this a justification or excusion to kill millions of people? Innocent people in the air war? Darth Pugwash, you said civilians are a good target. Now you are back in the barbary of medievel times! When civilians could be attacked for nothing. This time is over! Civilians are not combattants and must be safed and not be slaughtered. Only if it is unavoidable, like collateral damages. But not as main target.
XIII, I meant the US rebased their fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbour. That´s the same for Japan as it is for Germany 200.000 Polish troops at the border. Or for the Vietnamese Chinese troops. Roosevelt wanted to provoke this attack. Not perhaps this attack, but Japanese hostilities. And he didn´t do that for China. That´s why it was provoked.
XIII, my next anwer. I can not remember to be part of the Japanese General staff in 1945. Is 34 years before me. But what do you think? An explosion of a nuke on an uninhabitant island in the Japanese Empire would have had no effect? If they had witnesses and could sent scientist to the island? So they would have surrendered also! IF you said they didn´t want to surrender. Taht some Japanese troops fought the war for decades after the end of the war is also no reason. There will be such kind of people for ever.
Your next argument about the Russians: The Japanese troops in Manchuria were still a danger to attack or only as troops in being. They would have to be beaten first. After that they had to land on the islands. With what? Do you really think the other allies would have given them ships? No way. They were not longer real allies. Many US and British generals said it was an error to stop in Germany. So they would have done everything to avoid a landing. And without help, they would have waited until this day for this help, the Russians were not able to invade Japan.
The next word, "dear sir", I tell you I´m studying law. And this is in international law, also war law, a base. There are no discussions about that. Killing so many innocent people is disproportional to the goal achieved. They were innocent and it was not the ultima ratio to nuke them. Also it is very questionable that these nukes really made the Japanese to surrender.
Do you really believe that killing innocent people by these terror bombings was a way to stop the war . Sorry I can only lough. It is too sad, but I can only lough. Not a single allied bomb made the war a single day shorter. The main target were civilians. As for Germany the biggest output of military equipment was in 1944 despite the bombings. The civilians were hit, but not the industry (almost). Until the very last weeks the US didn´t bomb refineries and transport stations. But not before. And what excusion do you have for Dresden, a city full of art and refugees from the East, where not a single military or industrial target was? I can not see any. Perhaps you know some. Tell me please.
Perhaps this is written too harsh. The I excuse me. But the ideas in some posts are unbelievable to hear from people from democratic and enlighted states.

Adler

 

[Adler17]

rilnator, Churchill is a very ambivalent man so this topic I want not to argue here. This topic is hot enough.

Adler

 

[nonconformist]

Originally posted by 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?

Obviously you have never read the Hague and Geneva conventions, and have no idea about the various clauses. Civilians (i.e people that are not recruited in an army, are not spies and are not bearing arms) are illegitimate targets. As are surrendered soldiers.

Also, a lot of you forget WHY the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbou, because the Americans cut off the Oil to the Japanese, and they needed oil, or their country would grind to a halt.

A question to all those who answered no: If Emperor Hirohito, who is not a criminal, dropped an atomic bomb on New York, would you consider him a war criminal? My feeling is yes.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

A question to all those who answered no: If Emperor Hirohito, who is not a criminal, dropped an atomic bomb on New York, would you consider him a war criminal? My feeling is yes.

This needs to be placed in context. If a nuke was dropped on New York as part of a plan to achieve peace and save millions of lives, then no, I would not consider him a war criminal.

 

[thestonesfan]

I guess Japan shouldn't have attacked us. They must not have cared much about their civilian population.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by nonconformist
A question to all those who answered no: If Emperor Hirohito, who is not a criminal, dropped an atomic bomb on New York, would you consider him a war criminal? My feeling is yes.

Not if we attacked them first and behaved as badly as they did throughout the war.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Originally posted by nonconformist
Obviously you have never read the Hague and Geneva conventions, and have no idea about the various clauses. Civilians (i.e people that are not recruited in an army, are not spies and are not bearing arms) are illegitimate targets. As are surrendered soldiers.

Okay...first of all, you stated that you do not consider civilians a valid target becuase they have no effect on the combat , and that is the point I refuted. They do have an effect on combat.

Secondly, I never attempted to claim that attacking civilians was defined as legal by the Hague and Geneva conventions.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Originally posted by nonconformist
Also, a lot of you forget WHY the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbou, because the Americans cut off the Oil to the Japanese, and they needed oil, or their country would grind to a halt.

Right. Now are you going to mention why the US cut off the oil supply?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
I guess Japan shouldn't have attacked us. They must not have cared much about their civilian population.

That's not an excuse. In this case, France shouldn't be blamed to have invaded Europe since all other powers unified to declare war to France in 1794. So they shouldn't have declared war then.

That's totaly stupid. We can't excuse the massacres of civilians I'm sorry.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Obviously you have never read the Hague and Geneva conventions, and have no idea about the various clauses. Civilians (i.e people that are not recruited in an army, are not spies and are not bearing arms) are illegitimate targets. As are surrendered soldiers.

The various treaties only forbid the deliberate killing of civillians, civillians killed during the bombardment of legitimate military tagets are not protected.

 

[Adler17]

Yes, Crazy Eddie, but the target must be a military one. And in the bombings of the allies in ww2 only Essen was bombed because of a military target. Harrs himself admitted without Essen industrial/ military targets were only "cakes". Main target were civilians to "break the morale". And also Hiroshima and nagasaki were primary civilian targets. Other targets were only secondary. So the treateis do not justify the nuking of the two cities!

Adler

 

[joycem10]

Apart from XIII, many of you seem to be unaware of the nature of the Japanese state in this period.

This is a state which brutally attacked China, seized its northern province of Manchuria and installed a puppet governor. Subsequently, they continued that war in the face of overwhelming international condemnation and seized the coastal provinces by force of arms. The basis for the war was trumped up charges of attacks by Chinese troops against Japan ala Hitler in 1938.

Japan continually refused to participate in arms negotiations in the interim between the wars and walked out of the League of Nations.

This is a state which was ruled by one party, the militarists, who regularly employed assassination and intimidation to stay in power and advocate its positions.

In addition to the attack on Pearl Harbor (which was of course justified, after all, the US had cut off it ability to wage aggressive war against the Chinese through the oil and scrap steel embargo) the Japanese proceeded to attack all of its perceived enemies with the same regard for the conventions of war. The Japanese attacked without provocation, British Commonwealth forces and territories, Dutch territories, and associated territories of other minor powers.

During the course of the war the Japanese committed numerous atrocities against civilians of all nationalities. Their actions against the Chinese deserve the same label as that given to the actions of the Germans against European Jews.

Just some highlights.

The well documented Rape of Nanking

The actions of Unit 731 in Harbin in testing plague on Chinese civilians, attempting to spread plague through the Chinese countryside, the vivisection and experimentation on live Chinese civilians and Allied POWs. The attempt to weaponize plague for balloon based attacks on the US.

The attempt to firebomb the American northwest forested areas by way of long range balloons.

The Bataan Death March.

The burning alive of American POWS in the Philippines in the Palawan massacre. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bataan/peopleevents/e_atrocities.html

The murder of Chinese civilians in retaliation for the Doolitle Raid in operation Sei-Go, estimated at between 100-250K civilians.

The systematic degradation, starvation, murder and torture of Chinese and interned Allied civilians and Allied POWS. Japanese POW and internee camps had a death rate of 38%.

The forced prostitution of Korean and Chinese girls in Japanese army brothels.

The murder of Allied forces attempting to surrender.

The United States was not under a obligation to observe the rules of war when the Japanese had already defecated all over those rules. This was a brutal, totalitarian, aggressive racist government which had to be defeated in the most expeditious manner possible.

Allegations that they Japanese were willing to surrender prior to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not correct. Japan was attempting to come to a negotiated settlement with the United States which would leave its government intact and its country unoccupied, in other words a conditional surrender. The United Nations had agreed to not accept anything less than an unconditional surrender from both the Japanese and the German Reich.

In fact, the Japanese final surrender was still "conditional" as regards the emperor. There was a tacit understanding between that the emperor would remain in place and no action would be taken against him by the Allies.

 

[nonconformist]

That may be Joycem, but in that case why nopt drop an atomic bomb on Moscow? The Russians were just as, if not more brutal than the Japanese. And Berlin, that might save some Allied lives. Or Normandy, it would save thousands of Allied troops! The "we saved our own military's lives by using one of the most horrible and fearsome weapons ever on a town full of civilians living their lives" is complete rubbish.

And to come onto Adler's point about the Europeans being the ones most concerned about these war crimes, it may be that America has never experinced total war. Britain, France and Germany all have.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by joycem10
Apart from XIII, many of you seem to be unaware of the nature of the Japanese state in this period.

No, obviously, it's you who doesn't understand an obvious thing : It's not because they've done even worse in front that our crimes are more just. That's the only thing I've said in this thread. And that's something obviously you don't get. More than 4 million civilians have been killed during the American bombings. You can't justify that because Hitler was doing the holocaust.

God damn'it, is this so hard for you to understand that world war 2 was just the ugliest era of the Humanity ?

 

[joycem10]

The US was not at war with the Soviet Union. The Nazis surrendered before the bombs were available.

"The "we saved our own military's lives by using one of the most horrible and fearsome weapons ever on a town full of civilians living their lives" is complete rubbish.:"

I never made that argument, I merely stated that the Japanese conduct of the war, specifically, thier actions towards civilians and POWS, evidences the fact that they had urinated on the "rules of war" and were treated accordingly.

As fo German claims that Britain's bombing of German cities was criminal, please remember that the Germans were the ones who invented terror bombing, specifically German attacks on Coventry, Rotterdam and Warsaw.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

@Adler17:
Breaking the morale of the enemy is a legitimate aim of war really, the only things that are specificly banned are weapons specificly designed to cause unnecessary suffering - gas, chemical, dum-dums, "dirty" nuclear bombs etc.
The target in Hiroshima was the 2nd army headquarters and the military supplies in the city (it was one of the biggest embarkation ports for Japanese overseas operations), in Nagasaki it was the large Mitsubushi weapons factories.

Incidently, British bombing policy was based on a study of the effects of a German bombing raid on a British city in 40/41 or thereabouts. The study reported that deaths had less effect on morale than was thought, but the disruption caused by de-housing industrial workers caused a lot of problems both in loss of morale and reduced production. Given that the bombers of the time had problems even hitting the correct city let alone a specific factory, the "area bombing" tactic was adopted. Civilian deaths were not the objective; as the study had shown, they didn't cause sufficiant disruption to production.

edit: Checking the above story in more detail it seems that the study was "re-interpreted" by Cherwell to some degree.

 

[joycem10]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
No, obviously, it's you who doesn't understand an obvious thing : It's not because they've done even worse in front that our crimes are more just. That's the only thing I've said in this thread. And that's something obviously you don't get. More than 4 million civilians have been killed during the American bombings. You can't justify that because Hitler was doing the holocaust.

God damn'it, is this so hard for you to understand that world war 2 was just the ugliest era of the Humanity ?

you dont seem to understand, I made no argument about morality. I stated that the Japanese had not conducted the war in accordance with international law regarding the treatment of civilians and that, therefore, the americans were under no such obligation as regards the Japanese.

You can bleat and moan and tear your breast about the horrors of the war as much as you want and i'll agree with you, I will not agree that Truman was a war criminal for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My reasons are stated above.

Where exactly did i mention that the Japanese should have been bombed because of the German holocaust?

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
God damn'it, is this so hard for you to understand that world war 2 was just the ugliest era of the Humanity ?

WW2 was indeed humanity's ugliest era. But when you find yourself in an ugly situation, the best thing you can do is try and find the least ugly way out.

This is how the use of the nukes is justifyed. It prevented the need for an invasion of Japan, which would have cost at least a million lives. The nukes killed less than 200,000, and brought about the end to the war. It was the least ugly way out.

 

[privatehudson]

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".

No, it is not fact, the issue was both confused and uncertain. One faction of 3 agreed fully to pursue peace at the terms later offered by the US. Two were unable to agree on that issue. Furthermore, you place an assumption on US motives without looking further into what drove US policy. The US was also insterested in ensuring that Japan was demilitrised, became more democratic and ceased to be a threat to the area. Most of those wishing to surrender wanted none of these. Continuing to spout the same worn out information about one Japanese faction trying half-heartedly to achieve a peace that the US was unlikely to want at the time through Russia is not proof that Japan was about to surrender. Nor is the opinions of a bunch of Admirals or politicians without the backing logic as to why they came to that conclusion.

And I hate to burst the bubble of this "Japan was seeking peace" theory, but at exactly the same time, Japan was planning for a last ditch battle to force the US to negotiate peace in the event of an invasion. Japan was doing both, the question is which the allies trusted them to do more. Also I hate to be pedantic, but the efforts often came from the Emperor or linked to him. The emperor was NOT the main political power in Japan, it is doubtful whether he alone could have stood against a belligerent party of Hawks in the other two factions.

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.

My mistake, it's ok to persue a pre-war policy of agression followed by a war of agression if you state your intentions first... Revenge was never the highest reason for US actions. Many in the US saw the issue as either the Bomb or invasion. Common sense says which is preferable for all involved of those 2.

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.

What makes you imagine Japan would surrender after nuking a small island if it took some time to surrender after they nuked Hiroshima? I would deem it quite likely that Japan would presume that the US could not repeat the trick, or that the effect would be so deadly over a populated area, and fight on anyway. How do you know Japan wouldn't have rejected the reports of the bombing as propaganda?

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.

Uhmmm, No.

Russia was planning to leapfrog into Japan's northernmost island from the moment they finished off the Japanese forces in Manchuria. What delayed them was unexpected resistance. The distance is remarkably small (pacific wise anyway) between those two areas and much easier than you suggest to invade. As for the Japanese navy's ability, uhmm no, the most she could have mustered would have been submarines and battered cruisers and destroyers, most of her fleet had either been sunk or were severely damaged. Japan may not have taken her seriously, but Russia would have done it anyway in all likelyhood. She certainly planned to.

Besides, the point is made irrelevant in a way anyway. What land Russia did take in Manchuria had something like 3 million Japanese nationals in it (inc. army troops). Despite what was almost a walkover in the campaign leaving little casualties, well over 300,000, many of whom were civilians simply "disapeared" by the time Russia left again. Allowing Russia more time to occupy more land is to possibly condemn more civilians to death in Russian hands. Not a wise solution given your stance against waging war on civilians so far.

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.

Now there's a quote from a idealist if ever I heard one.

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.

As has been pointed out to you, WWII was fought (mostly) on the basis of crippling an enemy's ability to fight, be that economically or militarily. As much as you may dislike the fact, it remains that total war means precisely that, gloves off time. Japan and Germany entered the war to play for keeps, they got their fingers burnt. I have sympathy for the civilians involved, but I still would say it was the right action.

So they were oblieged to keep this morale. But they lost it in Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, Königsberg,...

You can't loose the moral highground when one of your opponents is gassing 6 million civilians and the other is doing similar warcrimes. Germany and Japan's actions had no motive but hatred, greed and slaughter, America's and Britain's had at least the hint of morality to them. You simply cannot compare the targetting of a military city and say that it reduces the allies to the level of a country responsible directly for attempting the anhialation of an entire race.

The targets were not somekind of a massive tank fabric and they USA only wanted to show the soviets how damn cool they were.

Ahem, I believe the targeting comittee chose Kokura arsenal as one of their choices

Oh and btw, one of the reasons that the Allies did not choose Tokyo was that the orders specified a target that had not been extensively damaged before in prior raids, and would be unlikely to by attacked before the raid. Tokyo was firebombed extensively, it failed on that count, not because it would be unlikely to produce a surrender.

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...

Hmm, most of what you say I agree with, this however I do not. The western allies mistrusted Russia and would have no desire to see her occupy 1 or two Japanese islands. This would have been very likely to have produced a similar affect as Germany in the aftermath of the war.

Interesting to see. Most US guys here have no doubts to say: everything all right. Most Europeans say: Warcrime!

Hang on a moment, last I checked the UK was attached to Europe still That still doesn't excuse the fact that you assume I support them for biased reasons, and yet the facts I have offered in support of my points you don't seem to recall...

What if Germany and Japan didn´t commit those attrocities in the war? Would you say then it was justified to kill innocent people willingly?

Leading question, I don't think they targeted civilians willingly, they targetted Japan's ability to fight. Secondly it would depend on the nature of Japan's will to surrender and Russia's attitudes at the time.

Darth Pugwash, you said civilians are a good target. Now you are back in the barbary of medievel times!

Again, leading the point. He was suggesting that in total war, civilians are not as innocent of involvement in it as you make out. Or if they are, so are conscripted soldiers. Or to summarise he's saying that it's more complicated than labelling every civilian innocent and every soldier a target.

But not as main target

Which is irrelavant as they were not the main reason the cities were targetted

XIII, I meant the US rebased their fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbour. That´s the same for Japan as it is for Germany 200.000 Polish troops at the border. Or for the Vietnamese Chinese troops. Roosevelt wanted to provoke this attack. Not perhaps this attack, but Japanese hostilities. And he didn´t do that for China. That´s why it was provoked.

So invading your neighbours, committing gross warcrimes and threatening former european colonies isn't provoking someone?

It is too sad, but I can only lough. Not a single allied bomb made the war a single day shorter. The main target were civilians. As for Germany the biggest output of military equipment was in 1944 despite the bombings.

Ooops, faulty logic, it's to be assumed that it probably would have been even greater without the bombings. Ergo, it shortened the war. Further it diverted precious fighters and resources away from the front lines assisting in gaining air superiority that was so vital to the allies form of war.

Also, a lot of you forget WHY the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbou, because the Americans cut off the Oil to the Japanese, and they needed oil, or their country would grind to a halt.

Perhaps you're forgetting WHY the US cut off the oil.

That may be Joycem, but in that case why nopt drop an atomic bomb on Moscow? The Russians were just as, if not more brutal than the Japanese. And Berlin, that might save some Allied lives. Or Normandy, it would save thousands of Allied troops!

As was stated, Russia was an allied nation, Germany was defeated prior to it's deployment. Also any use in europe would have been vehemently opposed by Churchill due to the effect it would have on the allied countries.

Yes, Crazy Eddie, but the target must be a military one. And in the bombings of the allies in ww2 only Essen was bombed because of a military target

Again the total idealism against the reality of the war itself. Geneva and others were bended by the allies to defeat a great evil.

And also Hiroshima and nagasaki were primary civilian targets. Other targets were only secondary

Uhmmm No. Check your facts, Hiroshima had some solid military targets in it.

A question to all those who answered no: If Emperor Hirohito, who is not a criminal, dropped an atomic bomb on New York, would you consider him a war criminal? My feeling is yes.

Again, you ask a question with set boundaries demanding the answer you want. Those boundaries though are silly, as stated, the circumstances determine the validity of the attack, not idealism.

 

[Adler17]

The war itself was the ugliest of mankind. As you mention the Japanese didn´t respect the conventios you can´t blame them. Although their deeds are ugly and unmorale Japan was not member of the mentioned treaties. The US, Germany and the UK like most other states were. But this shouldn´t excuse the Japanese deeds.
Nevertheless Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with nukes. And nukes are WMD like gas or biological weapons. And these weapons have human life as main target. Also nukes. So what was the main target achieved? over 200.000 killed civilians. And the industry plants or the army HQ? only minor targets. So this attack was against civilians. And such a murder can´t be excused by the facts the supporters of the nuking say.

Adler