Was Truman a war criminal?

[Paulina]

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.

Very well said, PE. I couldn't agree more.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Paulina

[Narga_Rocks]

the winners call the shots in many ways.

War Criminals is generally something only the winners get to label the losers as. Or in the case of a third party labeling winners as war criminals, it's still those in power labeling those with less power. You wouldn't have had nuremberg trials if the Germans won. Not even like 20 to 50 years later if they grew a conscience in the meantime. Similarly, Truman was just a guy who made a choice that either saved American lives or didn't, and either thought he was saving American lives or wanted to prove something to Russia, and either way isn't a war criminal.

[Dwalin2010]

I would like to suggest to everybody who thinks murders of innocents (for whatever reasons they were committed) can be considered justifiable, to simply imagine some of the victims being their relatives or friends. The end doesn't justify the means, and I doubt that Truman's end was really noble as some people think. To politicians, wars are just games like Fire Emblem is to us.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Fenrir]

Interesting question. Ultimately I say no. With the disclaimer that smart people can disagree on this topic.

The line of thought that Japan really wanted to make peace long before the nukes went off is kind of chilling. It's too bad that's even believable, but the US gov. did fucked up shit. That's obviously what they should have done if they could, but it seems like a story too good to be actually true in a lot of regards. I can believe the translation difficulties, but it doesn't seem like any type of government would be like, 'we'll totally blow them off and go ahead and bomb them.' But I can imagine the US not caring about high level language of the Japanese. They obviously didn't like them.

What about the American government being flat out criminals for the internment camps? They imprisoned their own citizens, that's as fucked up as it gets.

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.

I don't think you can make a statement like that about jewish people.

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.

These are good points. If you're a president should who's at war with Japan should you really prioritize those people's lives while jeopardizing your own people's life? That could easily be described as bad leadership.

Japanese had really pissed off Americans. That's another point I agree with, you can't just look at an isolated situation like this.

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

That's a good point, makes me think.

Best counter to that is my point of Truman being a bad president or leader of his people if he cares more about Japanese than American's. If 100 random people or 5 of your friends had to die who would you choose? And if your friends had elected you to be their spokesperson and be a leader and protector what would you do?

War Criminals is generally something only the winners get to label the losers as. Or in the case of a third party labeling winners as war criminals, it's still those in power labeling those with less power. You wouldn't have had nuremberg trials if the Germans won. Not even like 20 to 50 years later if they grew a conscience in the meantime. Similarly, Truman was just a guy who made a choice that either saved American lives or didn't, and either thought he was saving American lives or wanted to prove something to Russia, and either way isn't a war criminal.

I agree with most of this.

I would like to suggest to everybody who thinks murders of innocents (for whatever reasons they were committed) can be considered justifiable, to simply imagine some of the victims being their relatives or friends. The end doesn't justify the means, and I doubt that Truman's end was really noble as some people think. To politicians, wars are just games like Fire Emblem is to us.

I disagree with most of this. Truman's alternative was supposedly invading Japan with groud forces and having less casualties on their side but Americans would have died. And I don't think you can just generalize politicians like that and start talking like you're Ozzy Osbourne. They may have not given two shits about Japanese but they most likely cared about their own soldiers some amount.

[Dwalin2010]

I disagree with most of this. Truman's alternative was supposedly invading Japan with groud forces and having less casualties on their side but Americans would have died. And I don't think you can just generalize politicians like that and start talking like you're Ozzy Osbourne. They may have not given two shits about Japanese but they most likely cared about their own soldiers some amount.

So, to you the lives of Japanese civilians are less valuable than those of American soldiers? Please correct me if this interpretation of your words is wrong, but if it isn't, then that statement of yours is quite racist.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Constable Reggie]

Which would you prioritize more if you were the President of the United States? It's not a race issue.

[Dwalin2010]

Which would you prioritize more if you were the President of the United States? It's not a race issue.

To me, all human beings are equal, no matter what country they belong to. No priorities, except for reducing the number of deaths.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Psych]

I'd just bring up Korematsu vs US if you're going to talk about other crimes not specific to ending the war.

[Esau of Isaac]

These are good points. If you're a president should who's at war with Japan should you really prioritize those people's lives while jeopardizing your own people's life? That could easily be described as bad leadership.

There's being a bad leader of a nation and just being a bad human. The nukes didn't avoid any necessity. It wasn't like if Truman didn't sign off on the atomic bombings a bloody ground war was the only other choice. It was the alternate plan at the time, but that doesn't mean it was one or the other, and it certainly doesn't automatically justify vaporizing several thousand non-combatants.

Here's a fun fact: A couple dozen American POWs died in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Which means now you move from the ideal that Americans are worth more than Japanese to simply a numbers game of Americans too.

That's a good point, makes me think.

Best counter to that is my point of Truman being a bad president or leader of his people if he cares more about Japanese than American's. If 100 random people or 5 of your friends had to die who would you choose? And if your friends had elected you to be their spokesperson and be a leader and protector what would you do?

That's the rub: It wasn't a binary choice. The war could have been ended even more easily by accepting overtures of peace months prior which were necessarily identical minus the loss of the Emperor's position; which is irony of the utmost degree, since he was a necessary force in the occupation that followed afterwards and effectively nothing changed other than the title of the surrender.

I disagree with most of this. Truman's alternative was supposedly invading Japan with groud forces and having less casualties on their side but Americans would have died. And I don't think you can just generalize politicians like that and start talking like you're Ozzy Osbourne. They may have not given two shits about Japanese but they most likely cared about their own soldiers some amount.

Why? The Japanese navy was defeated. Air superiority had been gained. The defeat of Japan was a matter of time, it's not like the US military force was in any immediate danger without a single military strike.

The expedience was a matter of beating the Russians, and little else.

[Constable Reggie]

I'd say that ~160,000-250,000 is definitely smaller than an estimated several million.

I doubt Truman had the ability to try and force a conditional surrender from Japan. Roosevelt made it abundantly clear that he wanted an unconditional surrender, and Truman definitely couldn't go against that. He really was left with two options. Even though both of them are awful, I'd say he made the right choice.

[Esau of Isaac]

I'd say that ~160,000-250,000 is definitely smaller than an estimated several million.

Again, wasn't a binary choice. There was no need for a bloody occupation at the time.

I doubt Truman had the ability to try and force a conditional surrender from Japan. Roosevelt made it abundantly clear that he wanted an unconditional surrender, and Truman definitely couldn't go against that. He really was left with two options. Even though both of them are awful, I'd say he made the right choice.

There was nothing to go against. An unconditional surrender was unnecessary, the terms were identical and you're justifying the killing of hundreds of thousands of people over a word that meant nothing in the end. How can you possibly look back on the events, let alone look forward, and reason that this was the right choice to make?

[Dwalin2010]

I doubt Truman had the ability to try and force a conditional surrender from Japan. Roosevelt made it abundantly clear that he wanted an unconditional surrender, and Truman definitely couldn't go against that.

What do you mean, he couldn't? Didn't want to or didn't have the courage to, I would say.

Anyway, in all discussions that involve injustices, why many people are always so reluctant to put themselves in place of the victims?

[Constable Reggie]

Again, wasn't a binary choice. There was no need for a bloody occupation at the time.

It was for Truman.

There was nothing to go against. An unconditional surrender was unnecessary, the terms were identical and you're justifying the killing of hundreds of thousands of people over a word that meant nothing in the end. How can you possibly look back on the events, let alone look forward, and reason that this was the right choice to make?

The issue of this topic was whether Truman was a war criminal for ordering the strike. Roosevelt demanded an unconditional surrender, and bled that belief into every American who listened to him. To try and go against the president everyone loves who just died would have been impossible. You can't change the hand you're already dealt.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

It was for Truman.

The issue of this topic was whether Truman was a war criminal for ordering the strike. Roosevelt demanded an unconditional surrender, and bled that belief into every American who listened to him. To try and go against the president everyone loves who just died would have been impossible. You can't change the hand you're already dealt.

Truman was the commander in chief of the US armed forces. How was it a binary choice for him?

[Constable Reggie]

It just so happened that he became president months before the bombings. Are you going to antagonize your entire country by going against the direct wishes of the guy (who everyone loved) you just replaced?

Edited April 11, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

It just so happened that he became president months before the bombings. Are you going to antagonize your entire country by going against the direct wishes of the guy (who everyone loved) you just replaced?

As opposed to the pointless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people? Sure.

A third of the country wanted to completely obliterate the Japanese. Why stop at unconditional surrender if you're trying to argue from the point of view of the insanity of some of the population? Nevermind that people weren't mired in the idea of an "unconditional surrender" in the first place. They would have had no notion of the goings-on until after it happened.

[Constable Reggie]

What more do you want me to say. Truman was put in an awful situation because of Roosevelt's death and the influence he (and Japan's atrocities) had on the country. I doubt he was thinking "oh man, them russians gonna be pissed that we got super bombs" at the time. He did it because he had no choice.

[Esau of Isaac]

What more do you want me to say. Truman was put in an awful situation because of Roosevelt's death and the influence he (and Japan's atrocities) had on the country. I doubt he was thinking "oh man, them russians gonna be pissed that we got super bombs" at the time. He did it because he had no choice.

He did it because it was expedient and ensured that the Soviets, who were carving a path through Manchuria at the time, would not make it to the mainland before Japan's "unconditional" surrender. Truman didn't have a gun to his head, he could have easily had the Japanese surrender to the same terms minus the Emperor's loss of position when he first entered office. Which, again, were the exact same terms that were actually later agreed to anyways, since the Emperor was integral during the later occupation of Japan. And even if his hand was forced, it wouldn't justify the inhumane actions he signed off on. People were put to trial and killed claiming the exact same thing on the Axis side, and rightly referred to as war criminals.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

Russia was dealing with mainland Asian forces when the US was preparing the Japan island attack. Unless the Soviets were somehow able to make up a plan in record time that could reliably take control of Japan, the US was in no danger of losing Japan to them. While showing off the bombs to the Soviets may have been a factor in the decision, I'm 99% sure that the decision to use them was primarily in order to prevent even more deaths.

As for getting a conditional surrender, I still assert the fact that the entire country was vehemently against it. With pressure that huge, you simply don't have any other options. To Truman, the only option was unconditional surrender, and the only control he had was the method of obtaining it. Who knows, if Roosevelt were still alive, things might have been different.

If you consider the dropping of the bombs to be so awful, would you have preferred if he had chosen to enact Operation Downfall?

Edited April 11, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Fenrir]

So, to you the lives of Japanese civilians are less valuable than those of American soldiers? Please correct me if this interpretation of your words is wrong, but if it isn't, then that statement of yours is quite racist.

No, it's not racist at all. If you're elected PRESIDENT you'd better care more about the lives of the people who elected you than the people you're at WAR with. As much as you can talk about keeping people alive, this was a goddamn war. Nuking someone probably makes Truman morally wrong in this situation. By no means makes him a war criminal. And it was definitely a statement to Japan and the rest of the world saying, "America, fuck yeah!" But did that not carry an amount of positive weight? Nobody on the face of the earth wants a nuclear war, and after that if you got in any conflict it became a real possibility. War was now worse than it had ever been.

There's being a bad leader of a nation and just being a bad human. The nukes didn't avoid any necessity. It wasn't like if Truman didn't sign off on the atomic bombings a bloody ground war was the only other choice. It was the alternate plan at the time, but that doesn't mean it was one or the other, and it certainly doesn't automatically justify vaporizing several thousand non-combatants.

Here's a fun fact: A couple dozen American POWs died in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Which means now you move from the ideal that Americans are worth more than Japanese to simply a numbers game of Americans too.

Ok, more than 25 POWs would have died. And you can't act like Japan would've just rolled over to America, they were still engaged in the war even if they did have a low morale. You're also talking like you were inside the oval office when this was going on. We're both talking purely on speculation.

Also: I didn't know we were talking about if Truman was a bad human or not. Before we get back onto the main topic, I just want to say Amanda Bynes is a way worse human than Truman ever was.

Why? The Japanese navy was defeated. Air superiority had been gained. The defeat of Japan was a matter of time, it's not like the US military force was in any immediate danger without a single military strike.

The expedience was a matter of beating the Russians, and little else.

It was a matter of time and more battles would still have had to be fought. If they hadn't quit despite the begging of Japanese like you claim, what in your eyes would make them stop until total control of all of Japan?

[Esau of Isaac]

Russia was dealing with mainland Asian forces when the US was preparing the Japan island attack. Unless the Soviets were somehow able to make up a plan in record time that could reliably take control of Japan, the US was in no danger of losing Japan to them. While showing off the bombs to the Soviets may have been a factor in the decision, I'm 99% sure that the decision to use them was primarily in order to prevent even more deaths.

Russia was in the Asian mainland, but again was making strong headway through Manchuria. Considering the state of Japan's forces it would have been knocking down the doors in a matter of months. Japan since January had been seeking to use Russia as a mediating force in peace talks; its sudden move away from the tenuous ceasefire that had been was evidence towards the inevitable occupation that would have occurred.

There was never any need for a further loss of American lives, you don't need to continue trumpeting that. American military forces could have comfortably shelled and conventionally bombed the Japanese into the stone age if they had actually desired it. The firebombings of Tokyo were evidence enough of that.

As for getting a conditional surrender, I still assert the fact that the entire country was vehemently against it. With pressure that huge, you simply don't have any other options. To Truman, the only option was unconditional surrender, and the only control he had was the method of obtaining it. Who knows, if Roosevelt were still alive, things might have been different.

I have never once read of there being a unanimous need from the American people for a specific "unconditional surrender". Once again, many Americans at the time supported the complete annihilation of the Japanese people. Clearly Truman wasn't attempting to satisfy the bloodthirsty portion of America's people. The fact of the matter is that these peace discussions were closed talks, events of which were not known of by civilians at all until after the fact. The surrender terms that could have been reached as early as February with mutual cooperation would have been functionally identical to those that were reached after the loss of hundreds of thousands more lives, both American and Japanese.

If you consider the dropping of the bombs to be so awful, would you have preferred if he had chosen to enact Operation Downfall?

I would have preferred him to accept the peace offer that was given months prior.

Ok, more than 25 POWs would have died. And you can't act like Japan would've just rolled over to America, they were still engaged in the war even if they did have a low morale. You're also talking like you were inside the oval office when this was going on. We're both talking purely on speculation.

It is a fact that Japan was discussing peace talks as early as January of 1945, and that completely identical terms were available months prior to the bombing save for the Emperor retaining his position

It was a matter of time and more battles would still have had to be fought. If they hadn't quit despite the begging of Japanese like you claim, what in your eyes would make them stop until total control of all of Japan?

Accepting the identical terms that were already on the table and that were enacted despite the "unconditional surrender" that was trumpeted as common reasoning. There was never any effective difference in its application

Edited April 11, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

When was the last time Russia performed a large-scale naval invasion, if ever?

As for the rest, we can speculating alternative options that could have happened, or pretend that the country wasn't behind the whole idea of unconditional surrender (because it's not like Germany surrendering unconditionally a few months beforehand had any impact on this, and that the american public wouldn't be even more invested in a total victory against the country that actually invaded them, or anything), but the end result is the same. Japan was to surrender unconditionally, and this was set in stone before Truman took office. He played the cards he was dealt.

All we're doing is repeating stuff so that's it for me.

[Esau of Isaac]

When was the last time Russia performed a large-scale naval invasion, if ever?

What is your point, that Russia would have stopped at the eastern borders of China because it was incapable of floating boats or something? Are you saying it was beyond the logistical scope of the Soviet war machine to invade Japan which had no naval or air power at the time?

As for the rest, we can speculating alternative options that could have happened, or pretend that the country wasn't behind the whole idea of unconditional surrender (because it's not like Germany surrendering unconditionally a few months beforehand had any impact on this, and that the american public wouldn't be even more invested in a total victory against the country that actually invaded them, or anything)

Incredibly ironic given that the Allies instantly regretted the unconditional surrender they gained from Germany in the first place, nevermind that a total victory would have already been won months before in the aforementioned surrender. The public was under no notion of "unconditional surrender" as we are discussing it. In other words, they would not have ever noticed the difference between the terms of surrender that the Japanese put forth prior to the nuking and those they accepted afterwards. And indeed they did not because --and I will bold this since you seem to be ignoring it-- they were functionally identical.

Most damningly, the fact that many of you seem completely unaware of the existence of these other surrender terms even nearly seventy years after the events have transpired is proof enough of the public's ignorance.

but the end result is the same. Japan was to surrender unconditionally, and this was set in stone before Truman took office. He played the cards he was dealt.

It was anything but set in stone. Truman was the commander in chief of the armed forces. He could have accepted the terms right when he took office if he so desired it. He was under no oath or obligation to seek unconditional surrender other than what he himself wished. Whether he felt he needed to satisfy the American people in his decision is of no bearing whatsoever. Every single one of the people tried and executed for war crimes could have claimed the exact same sentiment. Were those put to death in the Auschwitz trials somehow not war criminals because they were just doing what they were told?

No. Truman was his own man. What he did was the result of himself and no one else.

[Fenrir]

It is a fact that Japan was discussing peace talks as early as January of 1945, and that completely identical terms were available months prior to the bombing save for the Emperor retaining his position

What's meant by the Emperor retaining his position? Usually if your country is surrendering to a nation that really doesn't like you then your life can't really go on the same.

Most damningly, the fact that many of you seem completely unaware of the existence of these other surrender terms even nearly seventy years after the events have transpired is proof enough of the public's ignorance.

Sorry I can't know everything on earth like your royal highness. We are all fools, except esau of isaacu the almighty!

It was anything but set in stone. Truman was the commander in chief of the armed forces. He could have accepted the terms right when he took office if he so desired it. He was under no oath or obligation to seek unconditional surrender other than what he himself wished. Whether he felt he needed to satisfy the American people in his decision is of no bearing whatsoever. Every single one of the people tried and executed for war crimes could have claimed the exact same sentiment. Were those put to death in the Auschwitz trials somehow not war criminals because they were just doing what they were told?

You can't compare anybody from the Auschwitz trials to Truman. That's fucking crazy. They brought violence to the jews and murdered millions. America had stayed neutral in the war and was bombed by Japan. You cannot treat this situation by itself. Truman would be a war criminal if Japan was ready to put their guns down, but they hadn't done anything besides talk.(And their talking didn't get through to America apparently) These were two nations at war with each other and their had been tons of casualties on both sides. You seem to think all the Japanese soldiers were begging for mercy as Americans fired away. US victory was inevitable, but so were more deaths. I don't think it was as simple as banging out some generic treaty conditions and keeping the emperor happy.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Fenrir

[Esau of Isaac]

What's meant by the Emperor retaining his position? Usually if your country is surrendering to a nation that really doesn't like you then your life can't really go on the same.

All of the peace overtures that were made by Japan insisted that they would not have to hand over the Emperor to the United States and that Japan would retain his person. They had been fearful that he would be tried as a war criminal and executed for the war. All of the other terms that were demanded in the unconditional surrender were otherwise identical.

And funnily enough, the Emperor's life did go on the same as it was. He was a mediating presence in the ensuing events.

Sorry I can't know everything on earth like your royal highness. We are all fools, except esau of isaacu the almighty!

I wasn't saying you're a fool. I said some of you seem ignorant of the events that transpired. The high school education that most Americans are spoonfed regarding the bombings is unequivocally biased in nature.

I'm not saying you're a worse person for (assumedly) not being aware of earlier peace overtures. I don't care about or know much about several areas of United States and world history.

You can't compare anybody from the Auschwitz trials to Truman. That's fucking crazy. They brought violence to the jews and murdered millions.

Who? The people in the Auschwitz trials? Did Johann Kremer murder millions? No. And if he claimed that he had simply been doing what he was told, what his country wanted, no one would have given a shit. Because he was involved in the slaughter of innocent people.

The point wasn't that they were of the most similar nature, but that doing what their countries' people desire doesn't absolve them of guilt. It doesn't matter whether or not the people of America were gung ho about slaughtering innocent Japanese people, it would still be a war crime to do so.

America had stayed neutral in the war and was bombed by Japan.

What? How can you possibly categorize America's position prior to Pearl Harbor as neutral in the slightest? They may not have been involved in the most military sense but they supplied billions of dollars to the Allies and placed a crippling embargo on resources crucial to Japan's war efforts. They were unquestionably biased towards one side. That's why they were attacked.

You cannot treat this situation by itself. Truman would be a war criminal if Japan was ready to put their guns down, but they hadn't done anything besides talk.(And their talking didn't get through to America apparently) These were two nations at war with each other and their had been tons of casualties on both sides. You seem to think all the Japanese soldiers were begging for mercy as Americans fired away. US victory was inevitable, but so were more deaths. I don't think it was as simple as banging out some generic treaty conditions and keeping the emperor happy.

The entirety of what I am saying can be summed up as thus: Truman could have ended the war without killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, retaining the very same peace that was otherwise found, but instead chose to do so for the purpose of expedience.

The fact that Japan and the United States were at war does not justify every act imaginable. Are you trying to say that because Japan and China were embroiled in battle that the rape of Nanking was justifiable?