Was Truman a war criminal?

[Constable Reggie]

Ugh, damnit, one more post.

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?

I'm saying it would have taken time to plan out a competent strategy for invasion. The US already had their entire invasion plan finished.

And indeed they did not because --and I will bold this since you seem to be ignoring it-- they were functionally identical.

I know they were practically the same. It doesn't change anything.

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.

I know that the Japanese tried to wager some other kind of surrender terms before the bombings. It still doesn't change anything.

Whether he felt he needed to satisfy the American people in his decision is of no bearing whatsoever.... No. Truman was his own man. What he did was the result of himself and no one else.

Um, what? Of course it does. Kind of the whole point of a representative democracy. When the entire country is behind Japan being soundly defeated, and the president you just succeeded is behind Japan being soundly defeated, you've got no choice but to have Japan be soundly defeated. You can keep arguing that people are better than that, but I'd bet money that if you were in that same position, you would do the same.

I agree that demanding unconditional surrender was a bad move, but that was Roosevelt's fault, not Truman's.

Let me ask you this: if Truman had decided to invade Japan via Downfall, would you consider him a war criminal? A simple yes or no.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Dwalin2010]

You can keep arguing that people are better than that, but I'd bet money that if you were in that same position, you would do the same.

I assure you, not all people are willing to commit murder just like that. I sincerely hope the majority of the population of this planet are decent people, even though the ones in charge often (if not mostly) don't value human life that much.

Let me ask you this: if Truman had decided to invade Japan via Downfall, would you consider him a war criminal? A simple yes or no.

I don't know if you were asking Esau of Isaac only or everybody, but my answer would be NO if it were not for the peace offer. Otherwise, it is YES.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Constable Reggie]

Considering the extreme circumstances of the situation, I'd sure as hell say they would. You can try and think yourself a better man when it comes down to it, but in the end, with so much going against you, you're not.

I don't know if you were asking Esau of Isaac only or everybody, but my answer is NO.

Why? Signing off on that invasion would have led to millions of deaths, likely including the ones killed by the bombings. Do you prefer a choice that would kill millions over one that killed some hundred thousand?

You do what you have to do.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Dwalin2010]

Why? Signing off on that invasion would have led to millions of deaths, likely including the ones killed by the bombings. Do you prefer a choice that would kill millions over one that killed some hundred thousand?

You do what you have to do.

I changed my initial post because the fact of the peace offer changes everything in this case. It's not known for sure how many deaths there would be if the invasion without bombings would have taken place. Also, people who died because of the following radiation and leukemia should be considered as well.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Constable Reggie]

Would you consider Roosevelt a war criminal if he rejected the peace offers (this is the guy who demanded unconditional surrender in the first place, btw) and enacted Operation Downfall?

[Dwalin2010]

Would you consider Roosevelt a war criminal if he rejected the peace offers (this is the guy who demanded unconditional surrender in the first place, btw) and enacted Operation Downfall?

YES. Definitely. To me, EVERYBODY who has killed more than could be avoided is a criminal.

[Constable Reggie]

Why? A typical invasion isn't a violation of typical war conventions. Do you also consider Churchill being a war criminal for pushing unconditional surrender on Germany?

[Dwalin2010]

Why? A typical invasion isn't a violation of typical war conventions. Do you also consider Churchill being a war criminal for pushing unconditional surrender on Germany?

When I said "criminal", I didn't mean "according to the war conventions", but from a moral point of view. Every logic that politicians who conduct wars can use to justify themselves goes to hell if they had to sacrifice some of THEIR friends or relatives. It's always easier to sacrifice unknown people, especially those belonging to the other side in the war.

As for Churchill and Germany, it's a difficult question because on one hand he could be considered a war criminal too for killing people, but on the other hand if Germany didn't surrender unconditionally, they might have maintained the Nazi regime and would have continued to massacre Jews and others. So I really can't answer this question.

Also, if we discuss Churchill, here goes another problem he had: if he didn't demand unconditional surrender, the Soviet Union which didn't want any negotiations could have grabbed the whole Germany for themselves.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Constable Reggie]

You can try and nitpick all you want, but the end result is that Churchill and (primarily) Roosevelt's demand for unconditional surrender from the beginning led to much more unnecessary deaths than needed.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

I'm saying it would have taken time to plan out a competent strategy for invasion. The US already had their entire invasion plan finished.

Beyond the forces that Japanese had on the mainland that Russia was rushing through with a battering ram, there was nothing to stop them. The Soviets would have had little difficulty putting together a plan for invasion with nothing stopping them.

It doesn't matter in any event because unless you're arguing that the Soviets wouldn't have attacked Japan's mainland at all they absolutely would have conquered Japan.

Um, what? Of course it does. Kind of the whole point of a representative democracy. When the entire country is behind Japan being soundly defeated, and the president you just succeeded is behind Japan being soundly defeated, you've got no choice but to have Japan be soundly defeated. You can keep arguing that people are better than that, but I'd bet money that if you were in that same position, you would do the same.

That is not how a representative democracy works. What the President before you wishes to do is not what you have to do, and the people weren't aware of the presence of differentiating terms so it's entirely irrelevant in the first place. There was nothing that could have been done to stop Truman even in the event that everyone did want otherwise and he accepted peace, however. It's not illegal to accept different surrender terms or something, get real.

You've invented this point out of whole cloth, why do you continue attempting to use it as valid reasoning?

Let me ask you this: if Truman had decided to invade Japan via Downfall, would you consider him a war criminal? A simple yes or no.

It depends on what occurred during the invasion. If it represented combat we had seen prior to the invasion, then no.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

Damnit, last post for realsies.

Beyond the forces that Japanese had on the mainland that Russia was rushing through with a battering ram, there was nothing to stop them. The Soviets would have had little difficulty putting together a plan for invasion with nothing stopping them.

It doesn't matter in any event because unless you're arguing that the Soviets wouldn't have attacked Japan's mainland at all they absolutely would have conquered Japan.

Again, islands. The Soviets would have crumbled if they just rushed into the main islands if Japan's previous battles are any good indication. The US had to create an entire contingency plan, Russia's "throw every body we have at them" strategies don't work over huge bodies of water. They may have been able to take control of some more Japanese-occupation states, but never Japan itself.

That is not how a representative democracy works. What the President before you wishes to do is not what you have to do, and the people weren't aware of the presence of differentiating terms so it's entirely irrelevant in the first place. There was nothing that could have been done to stop Truman even in the event that everyone did want otherwise and he accepted peace, however. It's not illegal to accept different surrender terms or something, get real.

You've invented this point out of whole cloth, why do you continue attempting to use it as valid reasoning?

Really? Because the only support you have that the public didn't know the terms of unconditional surrender is your assertion that everyone is a moron. Roosevelt made radio announcements about it and news medias announced the several unconditional surrenders that Germany made. The population wanted a total victory over Japan (even more than Germany, who had just uncondtionally surrender), considering what they did and were doing at the time.

When the weight of the entire world is on you to force Japan into unconditional surrender, you don't not do that. Quit the bullshit about pretending that any person could reasonably shake off that insane pressure.

It depends on what occurred during the invasion. If it represented combat we had seen prior to the invasion, then no.

So you're fine if someone decides to sacrifice millions of lives on both sides, but if they sacrifice a few hundred thousand lives (which were likely to die in the invasion anyway) to prevent the alternative, you cry foul. Half a million purple hearts were produced in anticipation of the invasion, for god's sake.

So to sum it up, no, I do not believe Truman was a war criminal by traditional standards. We can keep bickering over whether Truman would have been able to do this or that or not, but we'd honestly get nowhere.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Rehab]

Is there direct proof that it was public knowledge what the state of negotiations were, to the point that the public was directly clamoring for the Japanese army's offer of a conditional surrender, functionally the same as an unconditional one, to be denied? As opposed to it being the situation that Roosevelt had simply said something along the lines "we will have their unconditional surrender" because it's the kind of thing somebody with the [u.S.] bully pulpit would say while at war, to sound tough.

It's admittedly an assumption of mine, but I'd think that otherwise, they could've claimed they achieved "total victory" and "the complete elimination of the Japanese Empire as we know it," and people wouldn't have really known or cared for the difference. Or at least that I haven't myself seen much damning proof that it wouldn't have been the case that the public would've accepted it.

(and frankly, what would they have done if they didn't like it? not reelected Truman?)

I don't know what I think about the bombings specifically making Truman a war criminal, as it's admittedly not like we didn't cause a shitload of innocent deaths with the firebombings at the very least. And maybe even in the event that Truman wouldn't have been castigated by the public for taking the original surrender terms, it's possible that he thought that would've been the case, for whatever it's worth. But the idea that the exact same end could've come to the war, except without our having inflicting the additional psychic friggin' wounds on the world that Hiroshima and Nagasaki sustained, and that for whatever reason they still happened, all seems like a special kind of "pretty fucking appalling" to me, regardless.

[Esau of Isaac]

Again, islands. The Soviets would have crumbled if they just rushed into the main islands if Japan's previous battles are any good indication. The US had to create an entire contingency plan, Russia's "throw every body we have at them" strategies don't work over huge bodies of water. They may have been able to take control of some more Japanese-occupation states, but never Japan itself.

Why? Japan had no navy or air force to speak of. How would the Soviet war machine have had any difficulty mobilizing a military force over months to attack Japan's mainlands?

Really? Because the only support you have that the public didn't know the terms of unconditional surrender is your assertion that everyone is a moron.

As opposed to your bountiful evidence that the public was well aware of some differentiation? They weren't even ever made aware of alternate peace terms until after the fact

"It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)"

Face it: The public didn't know shit aside from gossip that meant absolutely nothing. They would never have noticed the difference if the wholly separate terms were accepted, and no one would have cared. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Roosevelt made radio announcements about it and news medias announced the several unconditional surrenders that Germany made. The population wanted a total victory over Japan (even more than Germany, who had just uncondtionally surrender), considering what they did and were doing at the time.

The population wanted to obliterate the Japanese. Who cares, even if you are right (which you aren't)? It doesn't legally or morally absolve Truman.

When the weight of the entire world is on you to force Japan into unconditional surrender, you don't not do that. Quit the bullshit about pretending that any person could reasonably shake off that insane pressure.

Anyone could have. He was under no actual obligation. The people wouldn't have strung him up. Most people would have never known the difference because there was no actual difference. He could have easily just taken the peace terms outlined and called it an unconditional surrender.

You're making up the idea that this was some kind of big point. It wasn't. Stop using this as though it is a cogent argument. It is not.

So you're fine if someone decides to sacrifice millions of lives on both sides, but if they sacrifice a few hundred thousand lives (which were likely to die in the invasion anyway) to prevent the alternative, you cry foul. Half a million purple hearts were produced in anticipation of the invasion, for god's sake.

I am saying you are a war criminal if you commit war crimes. If sacking and raping all of Japan would have stopped one more American from dying it still would have been a war crime. Conducting war isn't itself a war crime, what the hell are you babbling about?

So to sum it up, no, I do not believe Truman was a war criminal by traditional standards. We can keep bickering over whether Truman would have been able to do this or that or not, but we'd honestly get nowhere.

There is no way you can logically claim he was not a war criminal while also condemning the hundreds of people that were slain in Nazi Germany for behaving similarly under pressure of their nation's people.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Rewjeo]

A genuine question here: If Japan was ready to surrender before the bombings, why did it take roughly a month for them to surrender after the bombings? What was going on for that month?

[Esau of Isaac]

A genuine question here: If Japan was ready to surrender before the bombings, why did it take roughly a month for them to surrender after the bombings? What was going on for that month?

The actual document was made formal a month later but the unconditional surrender happened about a week after the first bombings.

During that time there was turmoil as parts of the council that wanted to continue undaunted both prior and afterwards were attempting to take control. There were radical persons in the council that were dead set on continuing regardless of what happened despite pressure from more moderate members to accept the wishes of the Emperor.

[Rehab]

That was the formal signing of surrender terms, far as I can tell from just wikipedia. My understanding is that it took a week after the bombing on August 9 for Emperor Hirohito and his advisors to convince the top brass to accept the Allies' surrender terms. Within a day, they were talking more seriously about surrender, and by 8/14 it had been totally decided, barring a failed move that day by some officers to seize control from the Emperor. Emperor Hirohito delivered a radio address on 8/15 publicly announcing the surrender, so it wasn't like they were still fighting the rest of that month. The Allies began actual occupation by 8/28, and the surrender terms were ceremonially signed on 9/2.

I'd say ninja-ed, but yeah

[Narga_Rocks]

There's been a lot of "facts" thrown around here but no proof. Do you have references for the statement that the Japanese were practically begging to surrender before the bombs?

Edited April 12, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Esau of Isaac]

There's been a lot of "facts" thrown around here but no proof. Do you have references for the statement that the Japanese were practically begging to surrender before the bombs?

It's common knowledge. A link I posted earlier references the events, however.

That this is represented as a "fact" is laughable.

[Narga_Rocks]

Have you read this written by the guy that actually told Truman to drop the things? For one thing, you seem to suggest that the Americans wanted the emperor done away with, when the article seems to suggest they wanted to use him. Also, have you considered that your article was written 50 years after the war? More than enough time for these conspiracy theories to gain enough traction to obfuscate reality. It's hard to see truth through the fog.

Yes, there were many people that wanted to end the war. There were also many people that wanted to keep fighting. There's even an attempted coup to prevent the surrender. It took two bombs plus the Manchuria invasion plus the threat of more bombs for the Emperor to be able to convince enough people to surrender, and even that wasn't enough for everyone.

[Esau of Isaac]

Have you read this written by the guy that actually told Truman to drop the things? For one thing, you seem to suggest that the Americans wanted the emperor done away with, when the article seems to suggest they wanted to use him.

Americans at large wanted to do away with him, and the Japanese feared that they did. I stated very clearly that the Emperor was an important mediating force multiple times throughout this topic.

Also, have you considered that your article was written 50 years after the war? More than enough time for these conspiracy theories to gain enough traction to obfuscate reality. It's hard to see truth through the fog.

Are you seriously telling me right now that it is not a fact that Japan was attempting to end the war as early as January 1945? Are you, in all seriousness, trying to argue that it's a conspiracy theory that Japan wanted to surrender before being nuked?

I'm dumbfounded right now

Yes, there were many people that wanted to end the war. There were also many people that wanted to keep fighting. There's even an attempted coup to prevent the surrender. It took two bombs plus the Manchuria invasion plus the threat of more bombs for the Emperor to be able to convince enough people to surrender, and even that wasn't enough for everyone.

The coup was attempted by a radicalist section of the council. The majority and indeed the Emperor himself were in favor of peace as opposed to the continuance of war.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Narga_Rocks]

" Japan, in July 1945, had been seriously weak

ened by our increasingly violent attacks. It was known to

us that she had gone so far as to make tentative

proposals to the Soviet government, hoping to use the

Russians as mediators in a negotiated peace. These vague

proposals contemplated the retention by Japan

of important conquered areas and were therefore not considered seriously. There was as yet no indication

of any weakening in the Japanese determination to

fight rather than accept unconditional surrender. If she

should persist in her fight to the end, she had still a great military force. "

So, you equate their actual surrender with "let's surrender but keep everything we took during the war." Or do you have some link to something official looking by the Japanese government showing they'd actually give up what they took?

Americans at large wanted to do away with him, and the Japanese feared that they did. I stated very clearly that the Emperor was an important mediating force multiple times throughout this topic.

You've also stated very clearly that a President is not an extension of his bloodthirsty people. The fact that Americans at large wanted to do away with him and that the Japanese at large feared this is irrelevant. The leaders apparently had no intention of doing away with him, so if the only sticking point of the surrender and unconditional surrender is the removal of the Emperor, why would the President bomb them to try to get rid of the Emperor if they didn't actually want to get rid of him? Don't you see that there are holes in this argument?

Now, let's say that Konoye was indeed there to accept any terms whatsoever, but to appear to negotiate to save face or whatever. Ok, so the Japanese government tricked the Americans into thinking that they wouldn't accept the terms to withdraw from occupied territories, as STIMSON believed. Is Truman still a war criminal for bombing if he truly believed that it was A or B with the bombs or operation Downfall? If you say yes, then I'm hoping you are arguing "ignorance is no excuse", but even if you are I don't think it is as cut and dried as you say.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Life]

YES. Definitely. To me, EVERYBODY who has killed more than could be avoided is a criminal.

You clearly don't understand what it means to be a soldier.

Let me give you a good and very realistic example. I was "supposed" to go into Gaza in November as part of Operation Pillar of Defense due to me being a combat soldier in the IDF. My section commander told me that after night falls, if I see something moving without a helmet, I'm to shoot first and ask questions later. Why? Because better collateral damage than one of our own. Yeah, we try to avoid collateral damage when possible (a lot more than any country in the world) but shit happens in a warzone.

Had I shot an innocent civilian, would that make me a criminal? Keep in mind that I could in theory wait to identify the person at the risk of mine or my friend's lives. But it would be one less unnecessary death.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Tricky Dick

[Esau of Isaac]

" Japan, in July 1945, had been seriously weak

ened by our increasingly violent attacks. It was known to

us that she had gone so far as to make tentative

proposals to the Soviet government, hoping to use the

Russians as mediators in a negotiated peace. These vague

proposals contemplated the retention by Japan

of important conquered areas and were therefore not considered seriously. There was as yet no indication

of any weakening in the Japanese determination to

fight rather than accept unconditional surrender. If she

should persist in her fight to the end, she had still a great military force. "

So, you equate their actual surrender with "let's surrender but keep everything we took during the war." Or do you have some link to something official looking by the Japanese government showing they'd actually give up what they took?

The link I noted of earlier gave mention to specifics of the memorandum McCarthur gave to Roosevelt which outlined multiple surrender terms, but if you look around regarding the discussions that Japan had with the Soviets it was made clear through discussion that the only specific term they disagreed with in an unconditional surrender was the loss of the Emperor's person.

You've also stated very clearly that a President is not an extension of his bloodthirsty people. The fact that Americans at large wanted to do away with him and that the Japanese at large feared this is irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant since the reasoning for rejecting unconditional surrender fell upon the reasoning that the Emperor's life would be in danger were it accepted/.

The leaders apparently had no intention of doing away with him, so if the only sticking point of the surrender and unconditional surrender is the removal of the Emperor, why would the President bomb them to try to get rid of the Emperor if they didn't actually want to get rid of him? Don't you see that there are holes in this argument?

The leaders did not have any intention of doing away with him, but the Japanese feared that he would be harmed in the acceptance of an unconditional surrender. Even barring this, it could be seen as an expedient decision, which also allowed for a show of force to the Soviets.

Now, let's say that Konoye was indeed there to accept any terms whatsoever, but to appear to negotiate to save face or whatever. Ok, so the Japanese government tricked the Americans into thinking that they wouldn't accept the terms to withdraw from occupied territories, as STIMSON believed. Is Truman still a war criminal for bombing if he truly believed that it was A or B with the bombs or operation Downfall? If you say yes, then I'm hoping you are arguing "ignorance is no excuse", but even if you are I don't think it is as cut and dried as you say.

Yes. Mass murder of civilians is a war crime, period.

[Narga_Rocks]

The link I noted of earlier gave mention to specifics of the memorandum McCarthur gave to Roosevelt which outlined multiple surrender terms, but if you look around regarding the discussions that Japan had with the Soviets it was made clear through discussion that the only specific term they disagreed with in an unconditional surrender was the loss of the Emperor's person.

So if the Americans knew that the Japanese would surrender and give up all those conquered territories, why does the guy seem to think they wouldn't? Or are you suggesting that they are lying about what they knew?

It's entirely relevant since the reasoning for rejecting unconditional surrender fell upon the reasoning that the Emperor's life would be in danger were it accepted/.

But it doesn't matter what Japan thought, it matters what the US thought. If they knew that Japan would give up all the "important conquered areas" then someone in the US intelligence apparently forgot to send that memo to the guy that decided whether or not to nuke.

The leaders did not have any intention of doing away with him, but the Japanese feared that he would be harmed in the acceptance of an unconditional surrender. Even barring this, it could be seen as an expedient decision, which also allowed for a show of force to the Soviets.

Is there a leaked memo somewhere saying "let's needlessly murder thousands of people to show the Russians what'll happen if they get cocky" or must we just accept this assertion because it's a theory that fits the information provided? (noting that a theory that fits the facts doesn't mean it is the only theory that fits the facts)

And is the bomb to scare the russians or is the bomb an attempt to make the Japanese unconditionally surrender and humiliate the Emperor in some public brutality? You've argued both. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, obviously, but I'm just wondering which one is the main reason the US committed such an atrocity. Or is there a third reason like "The US likes the phrase unconditional and wanted to force the Japanese to use it rather than 'surrender except our emperor?'"

Yes. Mass murder of civilians is a war crime, period.

Period? So then why are we even arguing over this A or B vs A or B or C thing? If A was a war crime in any event, can't we end this discussion about whether option C existed?

(A being the bomb, B being operation downfall, C being accept whatever terms of surrender the Japanese were willing to give)

[Esau of Isaac]

So if the Americans knew that the Japanese would surrender and give up all those conquered territories, why does the guy seem to think they wouldn't? Or are you suggesting that they are lying about what they knew?

I don't know. It could be his interpretation of the events. Or it could have been all of their interpretations. Alternately, as his document relates, it was ultimately a weapon of convenience. He notes multiple times how difficult an occupying force would have with a resistant populace, even after factoring in deaths that would occur in attempting a ground war.

But it doesn't matter what Japan thought, it matters what the US thought. If they knew that Japan would give up all the "important conquered areas" then someone in the US intelligence apparently forgot to send that memo to the guy that decided whether or not to nuke.

It matters because the Japanese were the ones refusing to accept unconditional surrender.

And is the bomb to scare the russians or is the bomb an attempt to make the Japanese unconditionally surrender and humiliate the Emperor in some public brutality? You've argued both. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, obviously, but I'm just wondering which one is the main reason the US committed such an atrocity. Or is there a third reason like "The US likes the phrase unconditional and wanted to force the Japanese to use it rather than 'surrender except our emperor?'"

All of the above, in all likelihood. The most impoartnt could have easily been any, though I most strongly favor with the US wanting to retain a projection in Japan in being the sole occupying force, especially with its later re-writing of Japan's law.

Period? So then why are we even arguing over this A or B vs A or B or C thing? If A was a war crime in any event, can't we end this discussion about whether option C existed?

(A being the bomb, B being operation downfall, C being accept whatever terms of surrender the Japanese were willing to give)

Period. Whether there are alternatives or not mass slaughter of non-combatants is a war crime.

I entered the discussion to dispel the notion that the United States' hands were forced in their decision, but either way I believe it was absolutely unprecedented and an unjustified killing. Almost all victims that suffered at the hands of these weapons were civilians.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Esau of Isaac