Was Truman a war criminal?

[Narga_Rocks]

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

But unless the US really loves the term "unconditional" and wanted the Japanese to use it as a means of showing the world the US is amazing then the US could have just said "oh, you'll do everything we want you just don't want to call it unconditional? Let's do it."

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.

So are civilian lives worth more than soldiers' lives? Let's say for the sake of argument there was only the sucky alternative of Operation Downfall. Hypothetically killing 5x the number of soldiers on both sides than the bombs killed civilians. Is it better to kill more soldiers, including your own guys, than it is to kill civilians because soldiers knew what they were getting into or some other reason?

[Esau of Isaac]

But unless the US really loves the term "unconditional" and wanted the Japanese to use it as a means of showing the world the US is amazing then the US could have just said "oh, you'll do everything we want you just don't want to call it unconditional? Let's do it."

Right, they could have. But they didn't.

So are civilian lives worth more than soldiers' lives? Let's say for the sake of argument there was only the sucky alternative of Operation Downfall. Hypothetically killing 5x the number of soldiers on both sides than the bombs killed civilians. Is it better to kill more soldiers, including your own guys, than it is to kill civilians because soldiers knew what they were getting into or some other reason?

I am saying that regardless of alternatives it is wrong to slaughter civilians. I am not going to argue based on a binary situation because there is never a binary situation. The fact of the matter is that hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed. Many of them died an extremely painful, torturous death. It was unequivocally a war crime.

Let's use another parallel as earlier: Would the rape of Nanking have been justifiable if it saved more Japanese lives?

[Narga_Rocks]

Let's use another parallel as earlier: Would the rape of Nanking have been justifiable if it saved more Japanese lives?

There's lots of things that would be justifiable as a numbers game. If somehow there is a binary situation then the one that saves more lives is better. I have no desire to google the rape of Nanking so I have no idea how it could possibly save more Japanese lives nor how justifiable it is in that event. Weigh the costs of taking an action and compare to the costs of not taking that action.

Now, let's ignore the possibility of surrender. Even then, I agree that the situation is not binary. Bombing or Operation Downfall aren't the only options. They could also simply wait them out and see what happens, or just let the war never technically end and just be a stalemate for a few hundred years. With the Japanese apparently down to mostly ground forces, it's not like they would have been likely to leave their island any time soon, but is a blockade a better solution than forcing an action that would cause an earlier surrender? Tough to say.

[Esau of Isaac]

There's lots of things that would be justifiable as a numbers game. If somehow there is a binary situation then the one that saves more lives is better. I have no desire to google the rape of Nanking so I have no idea how it could possibly save more Japanese lives nor how justifiable it is in that event. Weigh the costs of taking an action and compare to the costs of not taking that action.

How is it that the saving of lives makes something better? Are you saying that no actions matter, so long as the outcome is good? The ends always justify the means?

Also, you should definitely google the rape of Nanking. It's a horrible event that everyone should know about, much like Unit 731. Which actually might be a better comparative use since they did inhumane shit in an effort to strengthen their home country and ultimately save Japanese lives.

[Constable Reggie]

How is it that the saving of lives makes something better?

Better doesn't equal good. If I was forced to choose between killing one person or two people, the first option is better.

*I caved on just this one part*

Edited April 14, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

Better doesn't equal good. If I was forced to choose between killing one person or two people, the first option is better.

*I caved on just this one part*

More good is better. Is it better to save more lives, regardless of the circumstances? Once again, do the ends always justify the means?

[Constable Reggie]

How would you define good in a case like this? If one person was killed versus two people being killed, which would you say has more good and why?

Do you consider greenlighting the tokyo firebombings to be a war crime? After all, it did kill several thousand innocent civilians in what you could consider a mass murder.

[Esau of Isaac]

How would you define good in a case like this? If one person was killed versus two people being killed, which would you say has more good and why?

Do you consider greenlighting the tokyo firebombings to be a war crime? After all, it did kill several thousand innocent civilians in what you could consider a mass murder.

Uh, yeah, the Tokyo firebombings (depending on which you are referring to) were absolutely a war crime. They killed several hundred thousand Japanese civilians. Murdering civilians in order to possibly "save" soldiers is neither noble nor justifiable. Killing innocent people is not right. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this with you people.

Would you say Pearl Harbor was better than simply declaring war on America because it undoubtedly saved Japanese lives from the numerous naval warships stationed there?

[Constable Reggie]

Those bombings severely hurt Japan's war time industry and crushed their morale. It's intention wasn't to kill civilians just for sake of killing civilians, which is what the holocaust was. You can't just outright consider every person who killed a civilian to be a criminal. See: Tricky Dick's post.

A declaration of war in itself results in no deaths. It does nothing but declare war. So no, the attack wasn't better than declaring war.

You didn't answer my original question.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

Those bombings severely hurt Japan's war time industry and crushed their morale. It's intention wasn't to kill civilians just for sake of killing civilians, which is what the holocaust was. You can't just outright consider every person who killed a civilian to be a criminal. See: Tricky Dick's post.

Are you being serious? The firebombings ended half a million innocent people! So what if it crushed Japanese morale, it killed more civilians than you would ever meet in a thousand years! They used incendiary weaponry to specifically target populated centers, they didn't just drop bombs on factories.

A declaration of war in itself results in no deaths. It does nothing but declare war. So no, the attack wasn't better than declaring war.

As in, declare war and then attack, allowing the US to maneuver its forces and prepare for assault. The bombing of Pearl Harbor undebatably saved Japanese soldiers' lives, if perhaps not ultimately then certainly at the time.

You didn't answer my original question.

Because it doesn't properly engender the situation at hand. One choice is to engage in warfare, and the other is to indiscriminately slaughter innocent people. It's not a simple numbers game, where by pressing one button these people die and by pressing another those people die. If you're arguing from that utilitarian perspective then the most disgustingly inhumane acts can be justified because they potentially saved lives. Unit 731 could be argued to have been good from that point of view, so long as it saved more lives in its experimentation than would have died otherwise.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Constable Reggie]

Are you being serious? The firebombings ended half a million innocent people! So what if it crushed Japanese morale, it killed more civilians than you would ever meet in a thousand years! They used incendiary weaponry to specifically target populated centers, they didn't just drop bombs on factories.

You're seriously going to argue that any use of a bomb in a non-deserted area is a war crime? Or is there a specific limit on number of civilians killed before it's considered one?

As in, declare war and then attack, allowing the US to maneuver its forces and prepare for assault. The bombing of Pearl Harbor undebatably saved Japanese soldiers' lives, if perhaps not ultimately then certainly at the time.

Then the answer is still no, because it was, specifically, still a pre-war attack.

Because it doesn't properly engender the situation at hand. One choice is to engage in warfare, and the other is to indiscriminately slaughter innocent people. It's not a simple numbers game, where by pressing one button these people die and by pressing another those people die. If you're arguing from that utilitarian perspective then the most disgustingly inhumane acts can be justified because they potentially saved lives. Unit 731 could be argued to have been good from that point of view, so long as it saved more lives in its experimentation than would have died otherwise.

More civilians plus soldiers would have died from the invasion. Yes, the bombings were awful. The only viable alternative was worse. The bombings weren't used because it would have potentially saved lives, it was used because it did save lives. The invasion would have resulted in a significantly higher casualty number than the bombings, there's no "potentially" there.

So I ask you again, how would you define good in a situation like this? Is a mainland invasion "more good" because it's a typical invasion?

Edited April 14, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

You're seriously going to argue that any use of a bomb in a non-deserted area is a war crime? Or is there a specific limit on number of civilians killed before it's considered one?

Be honest, how much do you know about the firebombing of Tokyo? I'm becoming distressed and I want to know whether you're saying this because you really think it was okay or just because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Then the answer is still no, because it was, specifically, still a pre-war attack.

So? War was inevitable. Japan required resources and the US had an embargo in place. It's as binary as Truman's decision, if not moreso.

More civilians plus soldiers would have died from the invasion. Yes, the bombings were awful. The only viable alternative was worse. The bombings weren't used because it would have potentially saved lives, it was used because it did save lives. The invasion would have resulted in a significantly higher casualty number than the bombings, there's no "potentially" there.

There is "potentially". It didn't happen. It wasn't sure to happen. It is not a fact that more civilians would have died in the case of a ground war. The bombs did not save lives. The only thing they did is take lives.

So I ask you again, how would you define good in a situation like this? Is a mainland invasion "more good" because it's a typical invasion?

It is "more good" because it doesn't specifically target civilians.

[Constable Reggie]

Be honest, how much do you know about the firebombing of Tokyo? I'm becoming distressed and I want to know whether you're saying this because you really think it was okay or just because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Are you going to answer the question or just to try deflect stuff back at me? If the only difference in the bombings was that they were conventional bombs, you wouldn't have a problem with it, would you.

So? War was inevitable. Japan required resources and the US had an embargo in place. It's as binary as Truman's decision, if not moreso.

So what? It was still a pre-war strike.

There is "potentially". It didn't happen. It wasn't sure to happen. It is not a fact that more civilians would have died in the case of a ground war. The bombs did not save lives. The only thing they did is take lives.

Downfall was going to happen had it not been for the bombs, since it was the quickest and most surefire way to get Japan to surrender. You can argue "what-ifs" all you want, but the evidence points toward a mainland invasion occurring.

It is "more good" because it doesn't specifically target civilians.

Would you consider the killing of five soldiers + the accidental killings of 2 civilians "more good" than the killing of two civilians? At what point do you cut off the value ranking? One civilian versus a hundred soldiers? A thousand?

[Esau of Isaac]

Are you going to answer the question or just to try deflect stuff back at me? If the only difference in the bombings was that they were conventional bombs, you wouldn't have a problem with it, would you.

I'm going to assume you are ignorant. Because otherwise you're out of your fucking mind. I'm not going to debate with you over the smallest of semantics and re-state once again what I have said before, because it absolutely is not needed regarding the most devastating, murderous air raid that has ever taken place in history. One hundred thousand innocent people lost their lives in a single night.

It was unequivocally wrong, and you can spin it all you want but the amount of death and destruction it caused was and still is beyond inhumane. The fact that you and others have the gall to talk about these things as though they saved anything is beyond revolting.

So what? It was still a pre-war strike.

It saved lives. I don't understand what it being before war has anything to do with anything.

Downfall was going to happen had it not been for the bombs, since it was the quickest and most surefire way to get Japan to surrender. You can argue "what-ifs" all you want, but the evidence points toward a mainland invasion occurring.

I have argued multiple times that the United States could have attained peace months earlier with almost identical terms. If the quickest and most sure-fire way to get Japan to surrender was to slaughter innocent people then it was wrong to seek the quickest means of surrender.

Would you consider the killing of five soldiers + the accidental killings of 2 civilians "more good" than the killing of two civilians? At what point do you cut off the value ranking? One civilian versus a hundred soldiers? A thousand?

There is no numeric value. It is always wrong to aim to kill civilians, regardless of how many it can possibly save.

This is incredibly simple. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. It is not okay to kill civilians. It is wrong to murder innocent people.

[Constable Reggie]

I'm going to assume you are ignorant. Because otherwise you're out of your fucking mind. I'm not going to debate with you over the smallest of semantics and re-state once again what I have said before, because it absolutely is not needed regarding the most devastating, murderous air raid that has ever taken place in history. One hundred thousand innocent people lost their lives in a single night.

It was unequivocally wrong, and you can spin it all you want but the amount of death and destruction it caused was and still is beyond inhumane. The fact that you and others have the gall to talk about these things as though they saved anything is beyond revolting.

Are you fucking kidding me? Now you're calling it a war crime because of the number of deaths, when apparently you don't give a shit about millions dying from a conventional invasion? The bombing was terrible, but it's not a fucking war crime. It was a military decision that intended to drop morale and stunt wartime growth. It wasn't pointless POW mutilation.

It saved lives. I don't understand what it being before war has anything to do with anything.

It's generally accepted that attacking a nation you're not at war with is wrong. The kind of action alone marginalizes any casualties issue. From a purely tactical point of view, Pearl Harbor was a favourable attack, but this doesn't make it the "better option" when you consider everything.

There is no numeric value. It is always wrong to aim to kill civilians, regardless of how many it can possibly save.

So you prefer the death of 7 people over the death of 2 people. Are soldiers not human to you or something?

I have argued multiple times that the United States could have attained peace months earlier with almost identical terms. If the quickest and most sure-fire way to get Japan to surrender was to slaughter innocent people then it was wrong to seek the quickest means of surrender.

What they could have done is different from what they would have done, and they would have enacted downfall had it not been for the bombs.

This is incredibly simple. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. It is not okay to kill civilians. It is wrong to murder innocent people.

Oh shit, a war criminal! http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=39001&p=2353944 (why can't i put links in text in this new site)

I'm going to stop responding now, that last, blanket line speaks for everything.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Dwalin2010]

It's useless to argue as everybody will maintain their opinion (mine is that everybody who kills a civilian is a criminal, including the circumstances Tricky Dick described). I just want to ask the same question for the third and last time, since nobody of the bombing apologists replied to it:

Why don't you just imagine some of the victims being YOUR friends and relatives? Is it so hard?

[Constable Reggie]

Let's say that the US decided not to use the atomic bombs, and went with Operation Downfall (since they were going to do that until the bombs came in place)

Why don't you imagine some of the G.I. draftees of Operation Downfall being YOUR friends and relatives?

[Dwalin2010]

Let's say that the US decided not to use the atomic bombs, and went with Operation Downfall (since they were going to do that until the bombs came in place)

Why don't you imagine some of the G.I. draftees of Operation Downfall being YOUR friends and relatives?

You know, answering questions with other questions won't get us anywhere. I asked first, so please answer then I will answer your question.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[eclipse]

It's useless to argue as everybody will maintain their opinion (mine is that everybody who kills a civilian is a criminal, including the circumstances Tricky Dick described). I just want to ask the same question for the third and last time, since nobody of the bombing apologists replied to it:

Why don't you just imagine some of the victims being YOUR friends and relatives? Is it so hard?

One of my distant relatives a casualty in Pearl Harbor. Yet I will not call for the heads of anyone because of it; he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It's war, and people are bound to die one way or another. War is horrific, and rather than assign blame to someone or other who has long since died, I'd rather move forward. I cannot change the past, but I can change my tiny portion of the future!

[Dwalin2010]

One of my distant relatives a casualty in Pearl Harbor. Yet I will not call for the heads of anyone because of it; he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It's war, and people are bound to die one way or another. War is horrific, and rather than assign blame to someone or other who has long since died, I'd rather move forward. I cannot change the past, but I can change my tiny portion of the future!

But the topic is about Truman and what we should think about him, so it's not really out of place to dig into the past in this exact thread.

I understand what you are saying, but I wouldn't be so extreme in looking only to the future and never to the past. If we reason like that, what's the point of hunting down Nazis, Khmer Rouge and any other criminals linked to dictatorships long after their regimes had fallen? And what would be the point of the existence of police "cold case" units that investigate past crimes in which the guilty parties will probably never kill again? I know that this goes off-topic, but still... Even if it's history, it's not wrong to have a moral point of view on it.

[eclipse]

But the topic is about Truman and what we should think about him, so it's not really out of place to dig into the past in this exact thread.

I understand what you are saying, but I wouldn't be so extreme in looking only to the future and never to the past. If we reason like that, what's the point of hunting down Nazis, Khmer Rouge and any other criminals linked to dictatorships long after their regimes had fallen? And what would be the point of the existence of police "cold case" units that investigate past crimes in which the guilty parties will probably never kill again? I know that this goes off-topic, but still... Even if it's history, it's not wrong to have a moral point of view on it.

You wanted my opinion. You got my opinion. Contesting it in this manner will not change my mind. Move on.

[Dwalin2010]

You wanted my opinion. You got my opinion. Contesting it in this manner will not change my mind. Move on.

What manner? I didn't mean to offend you, you at least have lost a relative and if you chose not to blame anybody, it's your right. What I am against is when people who personally never faced any tragedies and haven't lost anybody to war try to justify murder.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Life]

It's useless to argue as everybody will maintain their opinion (mine is that everybody who kills a civilian is a criminal, including the circumstances Tricky Dick described). I just want to ask the same question for the third and last time, since nobody of the bombing apologists replied to it:

Why don't you just imagine some of the victims being YOUR friends and relatives? Is it so hard?

You're not serious about my case. Because if you are, you're far too idealistic in this world.

There are two main problems with your thought process. I'll lay them out nice and straight for you:

1) Are you telling me that if a soldier dies intentionally, it's better than if a civilian dies accidentially? Keep in mind that the combat soldiers in this army are KIDS. Had I gone into Gaza, my friends who would be with me could lose thier lives at age 18/19. They have family, friends, girlfriends and lives. On Saturday nights, they go out drinking with buddies. On weekends, they are as much a civilian as the hypothetical civilian that lost his life since they were defending their own. When you ask your question, just remember that the soldiers are just as human as you are.

2) What about human shields? If a terrorist holds up a baby and I kill him and the baby, am I still a criminal? A "yes" answer here tells me that you are naive and should probably leave this topic before I actually get offended. I haven't checked your age yet but it sounds like you're under 20, probably about 16/17. If so, you need to grow up before entering into discussions such as these.

[Dwalin2010]

You're not serious about my case. Because if you are, you're far too idealistic in this world.

There are two main problems with your thought process. I'll lay them out nice and straight for you:

1) Are you telling me that if a soldier dies intentionally, it's better than if a civilian dies accidentially? Keep in mind that the combat soldiers in this army are KIDS. Had I gone into Gaza, my friends who would be with me could lose thier lives at age 18/19. They have family, friends, girlfriends and lives. On Saturday nights, they go out drinking with buddies. On weekends, they are as much a civilian as the hypothetical civilian that lost his life since they were defending their own. When you ask your question, just remember that the soldiers are just as human as you are.

2) What about human shields? If a terrorist holds up a baby and I kill him and the baby, am I still a criminal? A "yes" answer here tells me that you are naive and should probably leave this topic before I actually get offended. I haven't checked your age yet but it sounds like you're under 20, probably about 16/17. If so, you need to grow up before entering into discussions such as these.

Believe it or not (I don't care), I am 26. Also, you are not a moderator to order me to leave the topic. And I personally would never be able to shoot a baby under any circumstances. Also, I am not saying there is no difference between cases and that the circumstances don't matter, but still there should be at least some remorse if a soldier has killed a civilian accidentally. I am not saying soldiers are not humans, I am not saying they are bloodthirsty monsters. In fact, there are countries where people are FORCED to enter military service. But if somebody joins the army on their own free will on the occasion their country attacks somebody else (another occasions are a different matter), just because of the fanatic desire "to serve their country", then I think they can't blame anybody but themselves if they don't return home.

I am not saying though you are one of people with such a mentality as I don't know you at all.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Esau of Isaac]

Are you fucking kidding me? Now you're calling it a war crime because of the number of deaths, when apparently you don't give a shit about millions dying from a conventional invasion? The bombing was terrible, but it's not a fucking war crime. It was a military decision that intended to drop morale and stunt wartime growth. It wasn't pointless POW mutilation.

The rape of Nanking destroyed morale, can you possibly justify it from a military standpoint? So what if it dropped morale, it mass murdered more civilians in a single night than any raid before it. It's absolutely a war crime, innocent people were purposely slaughtered with incendiary weaponry.

It's generally accepted that attacking a nation you're not at war with is wrong. The kind of action alone marginalizes any casualties issue. From a purely tactical point of view, Pearl Harbor was a favourable attack, but this doesn't make it the "better option" when you consider everything.

There's no way that you can possibly justify the mass-killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents while also claiming that it's wrong to launch a surprise attack on a very clear enemy. You have to be fucking with me right now.

So you prefer the death of 7 people over the death of 2 people. Are soldiers not human to you or something?

I prefer not intentionally killing innocent people. The events in question are irrelevant. Aiming to kill civilians is always wrong. Period.

What they could have done is different from what they would have done, and they would have enacted downfall had it not been for the bombs.

Only one thing has happened, any other thing is what could have happened.

Oh shit, a war criminal! http://serenesforest...39001&p=2353944 (why can't i put links in text in this new site)

I'm going to stop responding now, that last, blanket line speaks for everything.

Accidentally killing a civilian and aiming to kill civilians are two different things.

Please, I agree, stop responding. You're only justifying progressively more inhumane behavior in an effort to sustain your bias.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Esau of Isaac