Was Truman a war criminal?

[Chiki]

I'm inclined to say that he is. He didn't need to use the nuclear weapons the way he did; he could have instead used them on an isolated place in Japan. And many generals at the time thought Japan was ready to surrender regardless due to the Soviet Union's joining the war.

That's a short summary of my arguments. What do you guys think?

[MacLovin]

The transalator the Allies had to transalate the Japanese and their responses couldn't transalate the more complex japanese thus leading to shit happening.

Is what I've heard.

[Tables]

You're assuming it was all Truman's decision to launch nukes, which isn't necessarily the case. In fact, it's unlikely it's the case, chances are the military and at least some parts of congress were lobbying for their use as well.

Part of it might have come down to certainty. Dropping those nukes in an unoccupied region might have worked, but dropping them on Hiroshima & Nagasaki demonstrated that the US was ready to take action, and would do more if they didn't surrender. Not only that but some people thought the Japanese might be entering a state of total war, which could have easily lead to massive numbers of casualties on both sides, far worse than what the nukes inflicted.

I'm no expert on WWII, but these are what I understand as the main justifications for the nuclear attacks.

[Esau of Isaac]

You're assuming it was all Truman's decision to launch nukes, which isn't necessarily the case. In fact, it's unlikely it's the case, chances are the military and at least some parts of congress were lobbying for their use as well.

Part of it might have come down to certainty. Dropping those nukes in an unoccupied region might have worked, but dropping them on Hiroshima & Nagasaki demonstrated that the US was ready to take action, and would do more if they didn't surrender. Not only that but some people thought the Japanese might be entering a state of total war, which could have easily lead to massive numbers of casualties on both sides, far worse than what the nukes inflicted.

I'm no expert on WWII, but these are what I understand as the main justifications for the nuclear attacks.

The problem is that they are poor excuses. The Japanese had been attempting to enter into a state of surrender for months before the atomic bombings. They had only rejected the notion that their Emperor's position remain untouched, with terms otherwise mirrored. More, figures are often given which estimate the deaths that would have occurred in the case of a land invasion, but there was no real need for one either way. The Japanese navy and airforce were in shambles by the war's end. Contrary to popular belief, morale wasn't high and there was a growing sentiment of distrust in the populace, as opposed to religious fervor for the continuance of war. The notion that they would not have surrendered because of their commitment is a bold claim to make, given that they did surrender.

The reason that America bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki is two-fold: It simply wanted to get to Japan before Russia did, and it wanted to get the war over quickly. It was a weapon of expedience and convenience, and certainly not a forced hand or some sort of unavoidable choice.

[Chiki]

Any final decision would have had to go through Truman. It would be correct to say that Truman and others who were responsible are war criminals, then.

[Genuine Uncertainty]

All of the Allied powers were war criminals according to international law. But to compare them to the Axis is on a different magnitude and should not be lumped together or compared. Very different

[MacLovin]

Stalin should have hanged for killing 30 million christians as opposed to hitler killing 6 million jews but nobody cares about that since the media was mostly run by jews and the soviets that were in power were also most likely jews.

Anyways, Hap Arnold shoulda hanged too; but the winners call the shots in many ways.

[redturtle806]

Yes he is a terrible human being for saving countless American lives by preventing a full scale invasion of Japan. They airdropped warning to Japanese citizens before the nukes, which the Japanese government did everything in their power to discredit/destroy. The Japanese were also excellent fighters who would dig in and fight to the last man standing, and a full scale invasion would have probably been a bloodbath.

The Japanese conquest of the Pacific/ Asia was very brutal. They killed, looted, and raped freely among the Asian peoples they conquered; and also tortured American s to death in POW camps. If they didn't want to face the full power of a nation the size of America, they shouldn't have bombed pearl harbor.

[MacLovin]

Folks can say all they want in retrospect, but he had to do what he had to do.

Japanese men were willing to die fighting every step.

[Esau of Isaac]

The Japanese were also excellent fighters who would dig in and fight to the last man standing, and a full scale invasion would have probably been a bloodbath.

Why was a full-scale ground invasion necessary?

The Japanese conquest of the Pacific/ Asia was very brutal. They killed, looted, and raped freely among the Asian peoples they conquered; and also tortured American s to death in POW camps. If they didn't want to face the full power of a nation the size of America, they shouldn't have bombed pearl harbor.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is okay because the government of the soil they're standing on committed other atrocities?

[MacLovin]

Why was a full-scale ground invasion necessary?

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is okay because the government of the soil they're standing on committed other atrocities?

It was the alternative was a plan called Operation Trumpet or something like that.

[Acacia Sgt]

It was the alternative was a plan called Operation Trumpet or something like that.

It was called Operation Downfall.

[PresidentEden]

Does the term matter? War is fucked up and anyone who causes unnecessary deaths of innocents for their own political gain is sociopathic. Whether or not the triumphant set of sociopaths wishes to call the defeated set "war criminals" matters not to me (nor does the attempt to assign the same honorific to the victors mean anything substantive).

Dropping the bombs was unnecessary and horrific. The conventional wisdom raises a false dichotomy (full scale invasion vs atomic bombs) when a perfectly viable third option (accept a barely conditional surrender that practically makes no difference compared to unconditional surrender) was on the table. Dropping the bombs was a dick-waving move in the direction of Moscow, nothing more. Totally unnecessary.

[Chiki]

Yes he is a terrible human being for saving countless American lives by preventing a full scale invasion of Japan. They airdropped warning to Japanese citizens before the nukes, which the Japanese government did everything in their power to discredit/destroy. The Japanese were also excellent fighters who would dig in and fight to the last man standing, and a full scale invasion would have probably been a bloodbath.

The Japanese conquest of the Pacific/ Asia was very brutal. They killed, looted, and raped freely among the Asian peoples they conquered; and also tortured American s to death in POW camps. If they didn't want to face the full power of a nation the size of America, they shouldn't have bombed pearl harbor.

The issue, which you seem to be missing, is that what Truman did was unnecessary to save American lives.

[redturtle806]

That's your opinion. I think he did what was necessary personally.

[PresidentEden]

It's not really a matter of opinion. There was a virtual consensus among America's military leaders that Japan was ready to accept a conditional surrender that would achieve America's WWII aims, and multiple generals felt that the atomic bombing was explicitly done to show off to the Soviets.

[Chiki]

That's your opinion. I think he did what was necessary personally.

Uh, this isn't an opinion in the subjective sense. Would Japan surrendered regardless of the bomb? That proposition is a pure fact, not a matter of opinion.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Olwen

[PresidentEden]

Some quotes on the matter for further review.

[redturtle806]

Oh so things that never actually happened are pure fact now? Please elaborate more down this wonderful line of reasoning.

[PresidentEden]

The quotes openly expressing misgivings regarding the atomic bombing by the overwhelming majority of America's military happened. I'm not sure what other proof is necessary.

[Chiki]

Oh so things that never actually happened are pure fact now? Please elaborate more down this wonderful line of reasoning.

It's the sort of question which can have a truth value or not. Would Japan have surrendered if we looked into an alternate universe in which this didn't happen? That's a true false question. It would either happen or it wouldn't.

"Killing innocent babies is wrong" isn't a true false question. It's a true matter of opinion. Sociopaths would say it is, while others wouldn't. It isn't a potential fact.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Olwen

[Esau of Isaac]

That's your opinion. I think he did what was necessary personally.

How was it necessary at all? The Japanese were defeated militarily and in spirit. They were suing for peace for months prior to the bombings, and the people were not in fact shored up and prepared to end their lives in service to the military. There were zealous figures, to be sure, but the notion that Japan was ready to perish is ridiculous and heavily exaggerated to lend credibility to the atomic bombings.

[Acacia Sgt]

I suppose that tells a lot of the Battle of Okinawa then, from both sides. From what I've read up it was quite the mess with the place almost completely devastated, the American suffering a fraction of forces lost, the Japanese forces suffering almost a complete rout, and thousands of civilian deaths. Happening from April to late June, that certainly was an unfortunate step then if they were searching for peace at the time.

Oh, almost forgot. I say unfortunate, because unless I'm mistaken, the devastation and bloodshed at Okinawa was one of the factors that led to green-lighting the usage of the bombs.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Acacia Sgt

[Keiya]

If the question is, "Was President Truman a war criminal for sanctioning the use of two bombs that made two cities and their populations disappear with quantum physics?", the answer is, seen through the prism of the our modern, contemporary world, unequivocally yes, and objectively, no amount of trying to sugarcoat the facts with "either that or full-scale invasion that will leave 4 million Americans dead and Japan a nation of 'broken jewels'" statements will change the subject matter.

But wars are strange times, and history tends to heavily favor the winners when exonerating them for their sins (otherwise, I'd imagine the entire Allied Pacific Command would have been hanged and shot for the Tokyo Firebombings, whose casualties far outnumber the number of people killed in both Hiroshima AND Nagasaki).

Edited March 26, 2013 by Keiya

[Phoenix Wright]

I don't think Truman should be remembered as a war criminal. The situation he was placed in was quite difficult to handle, and whilst I disagree with his final decision, I don't think it would be fair to declare him a war criminal.

At the very least we can say Truman was wise enough not to use it a second time in Korea.