Was Truman a war criminal?

[eclipse]

You completely ignored the part where I said Truman actively chose to commit a crime whereas Roosevelt made a foolish decision.

Both had information, yet one is a foolish decision. Does not compute.

Let's assume that he kills anyone that voices dissent, but the kill count never reaches the number that died in World War II.

Then it becomes a standpoint of whether or not stifling opposing opinions is worth the cost of human life, which is another discussion entirely.

The fact that I am wholly against the slaughter of innocents has nothing to do with me liking Japan, and that you would even make such a sweeping generalization isn't only uncharacteristically hurtful, it also ignores the multiple times when I've cited the incredibly inhumane actions of Imperial Japan including Unit 731 and the rape of Nanking, both of which I utterly condemned. That I like anime and speak Japanese doesn't mean I support everything Japan does, just like me liking hamburgers and speaking English doesn't mean I support everything America does.

There is nothing wrong with judging the Allies for not dropping the weapon in a remote location, as Olwen had cited. You argued from a position that was as though Truman needed the ability to see into the future to possibly consider such an event. They discussed it. They weighed it. They dismissed it. How is this something beyond judgment by any reasonable person?

I know it doesn't. It was an example of a terrible conclusion, and I pointed out why it was bad. Why did you feel the need to respond to it?

It's a matter of how things would've ended if Truman hadn't dropped the bomb. I honestly don't know if the war would've ended as quickly/with those terms if such a display hadn't been shown. Every side in a political decision doesn't have all the information that hindsight has, and even hindsight may not reveal all the information immediately (government classification, among other things). To judge stuff like this solely from an informed standpoint doesn't do history justice.

[Esau of Isaac]

Both had information, yet one is a foolish decision. Does not compute.

Roosevelt did not have reason to believe that Pearl Harbor would happen. Either way one occurred because of the absence of knowledge and the other occurred because of the presence of it. They are not at all comparable.

Then it becomes a standpoint of whether or not stifling opposing opinions is worth the cost of human life, which is another discussion entirely.

It's entirely this discussion since this arose from the ideal that one life saved is innately of greater value. That was the entire thrust of Narga's argument, so far as I can tell.

I know it doesn't. It was an example of a terrible conclusion, and I pointed out why it was bad. Why did you feel the need to respond to it?

Oh, my bad. I thought those were two separate statements, not one towards the other.

It's a matter of how things would've ended if Truman hadn't dropped the bomb. I honestly don't know if the war would've ended as quickly/with those terms if such a display hadn't been shown. Every side in a political decision doesn't have all the information that hindsight has, and even hindsight may not reveal all the information immediately (government classification, among other things). To judge stuff like this solely from an informed standpoint doesn't do history justice.

We don't need to be right there to decide whether someone was acting in a morally justifiable manner. None of us need to have been alive in the forties to conclude that it was not alright to put together internment camps and throw Japanese Americans into them, right? Just because these things happened in the past doesn't mean they are beyond scrutiny now. I'm not going to pull my punches towards bad decisions, especially those that ended in killing hundreds of thousands of people, because they weren't omniscient or were under pressure. They approached a situation with a mindset, were faced with a choice, and made it over a long, repeated series of discussions. We're talking months that it took to put these plans together. There is absolutely no reason that any of us here are wrong in coming to the conclusion that these were terrible acts that should be condemned.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[eclipse]

Roosevelt did not have reason to believe that Pearl Harbor would happen. Either way one occurred because of the absence of knowledge and the other occurred because of the presence of it. They are not at all comparable.

If I'm ever motivated enough to pull up the theory that Roosevelt let Pearl Harbor happen, I'll do so. I can see the motivation behind letting it happen, which is something I disagree with on a personal level, but can understand on a tactical one.

It's entirely this discussion since this arose from the ideal that one life saved is innately of greater value. That was the entire thrust of Narga's argument, so far as I can tell.

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. It's impossible to tell whether or not having peace built on such a government is worth it.

We don't need to be right there to decide whether someone was acting in a morally justifiable manner. None of us need to have been alive in the forties to conclude that it was not alright to put together internment camps and throw Japanese Americans into them, right? Just because these things happened in the past doesn't mean they are beyond scrutiny now. I'm not going to pull my punches towards bad decisions, especially those that ended in killing hundreds of thousands of people, because they weren't omniscient or were under pressure. They approached a situation with a mindset, were faced with a choice, and made it over a long, repeated series of discussions. We're talking months that it took to put these plans together. There is absolutely no reason that any of us here are wrong in coming to the conclusion that these were terrible acts that should be condemned.

I'm not so quick to condemn precisely because I can't say whether or not someone else with those same facts and motivations would've come to a completely different conclusion. Yes, bad decisions happen under pressure. You are free to condemn them, but I think that doing so isn't going to help.

I have my own issues with the internment camps, even if my entire family was lucky to dodge that bullet (by virtue of being in the right place at the right time. . .well, 'cept for that relative of mine who died at Pearl Harbor, but can't do anything about that). While the decision itself is something I don't care for (I can see the con side of the argument through my own lens, but haven't seen the pro side of this argument, so I'm not going to vilify them outright), the racism that lingered afterwards is what I don't like.

[Esau of Isaac]

If I'm ever motivated enough to pull up the theory that Roosevelt let Pearl Harbor happen, I'll do so. I can see the motivation behind letting it happen, which is something I disagree with on a personal level, but can understand on a tactical one.

The conspiracy theory that Roosevelt let Pearl Harbor happen is a ridiculous one on its face. He could have easily attained war with comparatively less damages. The types that argue this seriously are also often those that attempt to argue that 9/11 was an inside job. It would make for an interesting movie, perhaps, but the facts are undeniably against it.

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. It's impossible to tell whether or not having peace built on such a government is worth it.

How is it impossible to tell? The argument is specifically whether making choices only based on the number of people living is of innately greatest importance. In other words regardless of equality, is it best for more people to survive? Let's say that the world in which the Allies surrender is really shitty. Some kind of despotic nightmare where people are killed for acting out of line. But there are more people alive than in our world.

I'm not so quick to condemn precisely because I can't say whether or not someone else with those same facts and motivations would've come to a completely different conclusion. Yes, bad decisions happen under pressure. You are free to condemn them, but I think that doing so isn't going to help.

It's not about being quick to condemn. You're seemingly against condemning in essence. I am not simply jumping to the conclusion that it was wrong to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention the firebombing of Tokyo. I have come to that conclusion after analyzing the actions that preceded them, the situation that America was in, and the discussions and behavior that the leaders of America showed.

It doesn't matter whether condemning them is going to help. I'm not aiming to help make the world a better place by pointing out that I believe these were war crimes, only to state a fact.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[eclipse]

The conspiracy theory that Roosevelt let Pearl Harbor happen is a ridiculous one on its face. He could have easily attained war with comparatively less damages. The types that argue this seriously are also often those that attempt to argue that 9/11 was an inside job. It would make for an interesting movie, perhaps, but the facts are undeniably against it.

I'll take your word on it, 'cause I'm not motivated enough to nose around for a counterpoint. In the grand scheme of things, it's not exactly worth my time.

How is it impossible to tell? The argument is specifically whether making choices only based on the number of people living is of innately greatest importance. In other words regardless of equality, is it best for more people to survive? Let's say that the world in which the Allies surrender is really shitty. Some kind of despotic nightmare where people are killed for acting out of line. But there are more people alive than in our world.

Now I see your point, even if it takes a lot of logical jumps to get there (like assuming Hitler stopped the race killings after surrender). I'd say that there's simply too many factors in such a decision, and "number of people left alive" is only one of them.

It's not about being quick to condemn. You're seemingly against condemning in essence. I am not simply jumping to the conclusion that it was wrong to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention the firebombing of Tokyo. I have come to that conclusion after analyzing the actions that preceded them, the situation that America was in, and the discussions and behavior that the leaders of America showed.

It doesn't matter whether condemning them is going to help. I'm not aiming to help make the world a better place by pointing out that I believe these were war crimes, only to state a fact.

I know enough to know that I don't know enough. In other words, I'm certain that no matter what I see, I'm probably not going to see enough of the picture to truly say whether or not something of that magnitude was right or wrong. I also know that I have a lot of bias, which is why trying to analyze this objectively will be near-impossible, in my shoes. Even if I factor in hindsight, I'm still not sure if withholding the nukes would be for the better (those bombings reshaped history drastically; if not on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, then where would be the first, and would it have been for better or worse?).

[Esau of Isaac]

Now I see your point, even if it takes a lot of logical jumps to get there (like assuming Hitler stopped the race killings after surrender). I'd say that there's simply too many factors in such a decision, and "number of people left alive" is only one of them.

That is (in a roundabout way) mostly what I was trying to show. While valuing the number of live people, it is not the sole deciding factor.

I know enough to know that I don't know enough. In other words, I'm certain that no matter what I see, I'm probably not going to see enough of the picture to truly say whether or not something of that magnitude was right or wrong. I also know that I have a lot of bias, which is why trying to analyze this objectively will be near-impossible, in my shoes.

What about it do you not know enough about? If you were asked whether the Holocaust were right or wrong, would you be as sure that you are not aware of the entire reasoning behind it?

Both of them were certainly very large events, but the breadth of the events that followed up to these things are widely known and most of the facts and rhetoric supporting and denying the bombings have been repeated in this topic. What would you require to make a valid judgment?

Even if I factor in hindsight, I'm still not sure if withholding the nukes would be for the better (those bombings reshaped history drastically; if not on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, then where would be the first, and would it have been for better or worse?).

There would not necessarily have been a first. The government knew what it could do through testing. I mean I suppose you could argue that they didn't really know without having dropped it on a populated center, as in what it would literally look like, but they knew the magnitude of the weaponry's destructive power and what it would do to the populace before it was ever unleashed.

[eclipse]

What about it do you not know enough about? If you were asked whether the Holocaust were right or wrong, would you be as sure that you are not aware of the entire reasoning behind it?

Both of them were certainly very large events, but the breadth of the events that followed up to these things are widely known and most of the facts and rhetoric supporting and denying the bombings have been repeated in this topic. What would you require to make a valid judgment?

As I can't really see the logical upside to gathering certain races/types of people and imprisoning them/executing them (the former costs money and all), I'm more inclined to think that it was wrong. Even if we did gain some research off of it, I don't think the pain and suffering of that many people was worth it.

For the bombings of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, there's the attitudes of those in the United States (a later war in Asia wound up being not-so-successful, and I'm certain that low morale at home was part of the reason), the economical impact of ending it right then and there versus using another tactic which may have delayed the ending/ended it sooner, the attitudes of those in Congress (when Congress and the president really don't get along, it's not pleasant for the rest of the populace), the information that the three-lettered agencies were feeding to the president (and in the case of false information, motives behind that), how the rest of the Allies viewed the Pacific theater, how morale among the troops in the Pacific was, what the scientists were feeding the president in regards to nuclear testing and why. . .and that's just off the top of my head.

There would not necessarily have been a first. The government knew what it could do through testing. I mean I suppose you could argue that they didn't really know without having dropped it on a populated center, as in what it would literally look like, but they knew the magnitude of the weaponry's destructive power and what it would do to the populace before it was ever unleashed.

Perhaps we find another conflict to use it in (imagine if the Vietnam War was the staging ground for the atomic bomb). Or, another country could get their hands on that technology, and use it to their own advantage. The bombings, for better or for worse, showed the world that such power was not to be used carelessly.

[Rehab]

The possibility of having all the ships moved out of Pearl Harbor before the bombing existed, too. Lives could have been saved! Looking at things with hindsight glasses and then assigning a judgment to it is sloppy, if you're attempting to debate history.

Wait what? This is news to me, I-

I'll take your word on it, 'cause I'm not motivated enough to nose around for a counterpoint. In the grand scheme of things, it's not exactly worth my time.

arrgh

I'm not sure whether to boo you for bringing it up then abandoning it, boo Esau for preempting its discussion, or boo myself for caring enough to fixate on the whole thing

The part I haven't looked at much is exactly what information Truman was fed about the decision, and how he got from that advice to authorizing the bomb being dropped. I should give that document Narga posted a look.

[Chiki]

Both had information, yet one is a foolish decision. Does not compute.

So what? Can you prove Roosevelt had criminal intent?

I can prove Truman did. The reason he didn't drop a bomb, according to data, was fear of embarrassment. He weighed this over the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. It's very obvious where his priorities lie.

Second, why is it wrong to judge people in hindsight? I can't judge Hitler? What kind of logic is this?

Edited April 17, 2013 by Olwen

[Esau of Isaac]

As I can't really see the logical upside to gathering certain races/types of people and imprisoning them/executing them (the former costs money and all), I'm more inclined to think that it was wrong. Even if we did gain some research off of it, I don't think the pain and suffering of that many people was worth it.

The internment camps were made to prevent Japanese Americans from potentially wreaking havoc.The benefit couldn't necessarily have been quantified, but the reasoning should be sound to someone that condones mass killing of civilians to accomplish military goals.

For the bombings of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, there's the attitudes of those in the United States (a later war in Asia wound up being not-so-successful, and I'm certain that low morale at home was part of the reason), the economical impact of ending it right then and there versus using another tactic which may have delayed the ending/ended it sooner, the attitudes of those in Congress (when Congress and the president really don't get along, it's not pleasant for the rest of the populace), the information that the three-lettered agencies were feeding to the president (and in the case of false information, motives behind that), how the rest of the Allies viewed the Pacific theater, how morale among the troops in the Pacific was, what the scientists were feeding the president in regards to nuclear testing and why. . .and that's just off the top of my head.

All of these can be argued and I don't agree with any of them being valid reasoning to mass murder innocent people.

Perhaps we find another conflict to use it in (imagine if the Vietnam War was the staging ground for the atomic bomb). Or, another country could get their hands on that technology, and use it to their own advantage. The bombings, for better or for worse, showed the world that such power was not to be used carelessly.

I would think the Trinity bombs did just that. The Tsar Bomba could have done that without need for attacking a city.

[eclipse]

The internment camps were made to prevent Japanese Americans from potentially wreaking havoc.The benefit couldn't necessarily have been quantified, but the reasoning should be sound to someone that condones mass killing of civilians to accomplish military goals.

I don't remember people being systematically executed in the US camps (though I'm still pretty peeved with them, for reasons that are definitely not the same as yours).

All of these can be argued and I don't agree with any of them being valid reasoning to mass murder innocent people.

The fact that you're not taking the time to analyze such things (which I feel are important when making judgments on history, and also not an all-inclusive list) tells me that you're pushing your point based on emotion. Emotion cannot overrule logic when making decisions with thousands of lives at stake.

I would think the Trinity bombs did just that. The Tsar Bomba could have done that without need for attacking a city.

Again, I don't know what would've happened if WWII had somehow concluded without atomic bombs. Perhaps they would've never been used. Perhaps it would've been a bigger disaster. History has already dictated that two Japanese cities were hit by atomic bombs, and hollering about it afterwards won't change it.

I'm ignoring everything that has more emotion than logic; such things breed nothing but ill will.

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't remember people being systematically executed in the US camps (though I'm still pretty peeved with them, for reasons that are definitely not the same as yours).

I never said they were. They did hold people in squalid conditions however, nevermind forcibly detaining people for nothing beyond pure racist motivation.

The fact that you're not taking the time to analyze such things (which I feel are important when making judgments on history, and also not an all-inclusive list) tells me that you're pushing your point based on emotion. Emotion cannot overrule logic when making decisions with thousands of lives at stake.

I didn't take the time because I didn't have the time in the first place, but while I'll certainly go ahead and argue against all of them, it wouldn't make the choice to bomb the cities valid in my eyes even if they were all true.

Logic isn't going to overrule my insistence that innocent people are not okay to kill. The use of utilitarianism to justify barbaric acts such as that are the first step in a long journey of depravity and amorality. In any event:

1.) the attitudes of those in the United States (a later war in Asia wound up being not-so-successful, and I'm certain that low morale at home was part of the reason)

2.) the economical impact of ending it right then and there versus using another tactic which may have delayed the ending/ended it sooner

3.) the attitudes of those in Congress (when Congress and the president really don't get along, it's not pleasant for the rest of the populace)

4.) the information that the three-lettered agencies were feeding to the president (and in the case of false information, motives behind that),

5.) how the rest of the Allies viewed the Pacific theater

6.) how morale among the troops in the Pacific was

7.) what the scientists were feeding the president in regards to nuclear testing and why

1.) If you're speaking of the Vietnam war, the two are not really comparable. One was a conflict regarding a standing army as opposed to a guerilla war, and the difference in the capability of the US government to pick and choose what information made it to the public allowed for them to behave far more terribly than the people would otherwise have been fine with.

2.) I'd ask you to quantify this before debating it. What would have been the economic impact of continuing the war? How long are we to believe the war should have or would have continued to avoid the use of nuclear weapons?

3.) I don't understand exactly what you are debating here. What exactly would Congress have done in the event of not nuking Japan that would have been a net loss compared to killing several thousand civilians?

4.) I'm sorry but I don't get what you are suggesting.

5.) Why is this relevant?

6.) How would not nuking civilians or instead nuking an island have negatively effected morale?

7.) What information are you referring to?

Again, I don't know what would've happened if WWII had somehow concluded without atomic bombs. Perhaps they would've never been used. Perhaps it would've been a bigger disaster. History has already dictated that two Japanese cities were hit by atomic bombs, and hollering about it afterwards won't change it.

The problem is that American kids are taught from childhood that it was necessary and helped make a better world. The arguments and rhetoric supported throughout high school, which is the greatest extent of the majority of Americans' understanding of the events, is propped up upon undeniable bias and indeed lies that commonly represent Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the final justified nail in the coffin of Japan's war machine. Most Americans today are simply unaware of the events that led up to it in greater detail, and they won't be taught about it because the truth is not pretty and glorified. And that is wrong.

I'm ignoring everything that has more emotion than logic; such things breed nothing but ill will.

The morals you hold are based largely upon emotion. You can logically waive away many of the morals we hold today with the chilling utilitarian line of logic that was so popular decades ago. Being logical is great, but you shouldn't lose touch with your humanity in doing so. You have to draw lines in the sand which you will not explain away. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Torture is wrong. Etc. Under a logical mindset all of these can be justified and used to great effect with some objective in mind.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Dwalin2010]

History has already dictated that two Japanese cities were hit by atomic bombs, and hollering about it afterwards won't change it.

No, seriously, just because a fact is history and can't be changed, does it mean is should be excused? Then why do we remember Hitler or Stalin as incarnations of evil, theoretically there is no point anymore in accusing them either if we follow that logic. Or what happened just now in Boston, does that mean the law enforcement shouldn't go after those who did it just because the victims can't be brought back?

It's not to provoke you, the fact you at least lost a relative to the war gives you the right to express judgements, but I seriously don't understand the logic. For me, agreeing Truman did the right thing or that his actions can be in any way justified would mean disrespecting the memory of his innocent murder victims.

[Steampunk]

I don't believe Harry Truman was a war criminal. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen by US military leaders because of their military importance. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd Army, which was responsible for defending the southern half of Japan. Nagasaki was chosen because it was an industrial center, important for building ships, ordinance, and producing steel. This shows the intent was to eliminate Japan's ability to repel the invasion forces involved in Operation Downfall. Even after dropping two bombs, the Allies feared they would still have to invade Japan proper. I think that says a lot for how confident Truman and his military advisers were that Japan was ready to surrender. Clearly, they believed the country could fold at any moment if they dropped two atomic bombs on it and still believe an invasion force twice the size of the one at Normandy would still be necessary.

As for military commanders staying the bombs weren't needed, I'd like to see some dates attached to those statements. It's one thing for them to tell Truman the bombs were excessive before he gave the order to use them. It's a whole different ball of wax if these statements popped up after the decision became unpopular, which is what I feel happened. I can either believe Truman was so determined to see the world burn that he ordered the bombs dropped despite every general and admiral he had telling him not to do it or, those people said jack shit about using the bombs before they were dropped but became outspoken opponents of atomic weapons after public outrage set in. So, if you have a date that shows these men allegedly telling Truman the bombs weren't needed before they were used, I'd appreciate it. If not, that's not really proving he was a war criminal, because the man can't factor those statements in to his decision after the fact. If he used the bombs despite the advice of his generals, that's a different story.

As many people stated, Operation Downfall would have been far bloodier than the bombs themselves, but I'm not sure if the anti-bomb crowd fully appreciates the scale we're talking about. The Japanese military proper was pretty whipped, but the Volunteer Fighting Corps that Japan had formed using civilians was enormous. All civilians, ages 17-60, male and female, were required to serve in this militia. When all was said and done, the VFC contained about 28 million people the Japanese government considered "combat capable." Think about that for a moment. 28 million civilians fighting what could have been the largest maritime invasion force in history. The two atomic bombs killed 200,000 people. There's no way Operation Downfall would have killed fewer civilians, as they would be making up the vast majority of Japan's defensive forces and repelling a massive, aggressive, well coordinated invasion with naval bombardment, air support, and trained, experienced, and conditioned military personnel. As reprehensible as innocent deaths from the bombing is, I find it equally if not more so reprehensible that Japan was actually going to send its civilians to their deaths.

Aerial bombardment wouldn't have worked because it would have taken too long. By the time Japan was ready to surrender, US and UK citizens would have been so tired of the war in the Pacific that it could have easily turned into another Vietnam situation: people dying, no real progress being made, and people getting tired of their loved ones getting shipped out to the Pacific. Japan would have actually been in a stronger bargaining position if the Allied countries were eager for the war to end, and would have actually been able to dictate terms of a peace agreement to the Allies knowing they were under pressure to have the conflict resolved. In fact, this seemed to be Japan's strategy at the end of the war: simply drag the conflict out long enough that the Allied Powers would be pressured by their citizens to end the conflict. At that time, Japan could propose its own peace treaty and have some leverage in the negotiations. That is also why, when Op. Downfall was being organized by the Allies, the one thing they all completely agreed on was that the war with Japan had to end before 1946 was over. They didn't think they could keep morale and support for the war strong enough to keep fighting through 1947-1948

I think, given the options he had, Truman made what he honestly believed was the best decision. I don't feel he was malicious or excessive in his judgement based on information that was available to him at the time. If all those generals were convinced the bombs weren't necessary, I can't help but wonder why none of them said anything. I don't think he was so determined to use the atomic bombs that he would have dropped them anyway. The bombs were dropped on targets of military importance, and ended up killing fewer people than what was expected of just the American casualty projections alone, and well below the total casualties of Operation Downfall would have been. He made what he thought was the best decision based on information he had, and I think that counts for something when you are asking if someone is a war criminal or not. The fact that he actually went to great measures to prevent MacArthur from using atomic bombs on China also tell me that he wasn't using them just for the hell of it.

[eclipse]

I never said they were. They did hold people in squalid conditions however, nevermind forcibly detaining people for nothing beyond pure racist motivation.

The unnecessary deaths are the reason why I'm more likely to speak out against one than the other. I'm still peeved about the lingering racism, but being angry isn't going to solve the underlying problem.

I didn't take the time because I didn't have the time in the first place, but while I'll certainly go ahead and argue against all of them, it wouldn't make the choice to bomb the cities valid in my eyes even if they were all true.

The world political stage isn't simple. It's not a matter of being the best humanitarian ever; there's a lot of powers, each vying for their own ends. Aiding someone here can make enemies over there, not stepping in somewhere else can cause allies to view you as enemies, etc. Very few things in history can be quantified as an easy black-and-white decision, and Truman's case is not one of them.

Logic isn't going to overrule my insistence that innocent people are not okay to kill. The use of utilitarianism to justify barbaric acts such as that are the first step in a long journey of depravity and amorality.

If this is your stance, then I'm wasting my time. If you're unable or unwilling to comprehend why the other side might do things ("shits and giggles" is not a valid reason), then I think you're debating the wrong subject. History is not a simple subject.

In any event:

1.) If you're speaking of the Vietnam war, the two are not really comparable. One was a conflict regarding a standing army as opposed to a guerilla war, and the difference in the capability of the US government to pick and choose what information made it to the public allowed for them to behave far more terribly than the people would otherwise have been fine with.

2.) I'd ask you to quantify this before debating it. What would have been the economic impact of continuing the war? How long are we to believe the war should have or would have continued to avoid the use of nuclear weapons?

3.) I don't understand exactly what you are debating here. What exactly would Congress have done in the event of not nuking Japan that would have been a net loss compared to killing several thousand civilians?

4.) I'm sorry but I don't get what you are suggesting.

5.) Why is this relevant?

6.) How would not nuking civilians or instead nuking an island have negatively effected morale?

7.) What information are you referring to?

1. The public still had a voice in it, so I don't see how your response addresses what I said.

2. That's a factor to take into account; if you're burning absurd amounts of money on a war, and you're not interested in tanking your own economy, it's in your best interest to end it quickly (or end up with the budget we have nowadays).

3. The checks and balances system exists so that one side doesn't get too powerful. When both sides refuse to see eye-to-eye, things get done slowly, if at all. I'm not sure what back-room deals (if any) existed, but something like this can be a factor.

4. It's in regards to intelligence, and the information they passed on. If Truman was getting faulty/false information, I would expect him to act in the best way possible, in terms of that information.

5. "Hey, US, GTFO, or we're not going to back you any more." For someone who's debating politics and history, why aren't you taking this into account?

6. If morale was rapidly declining, then ending the war ASAP would be the ideal solution. If morale was strong (along with the economy and the general public opinion), then Truman could consider a strategy that could take more time, and possibly be kinder to the enemy civilians.

7. "See, these bombs here will completely flatten buildings, but we think that the impact to human life will be minimal." While I'm pretty sure the scientists didn't say anything like that, it's something to take into account when making a decision to use a weapon.

The problem is that American kids are taught from childhood that it was necessary and helped make a better world. The arguments and rhetoric supported throughout high school, which is the greatest extent of the majority of Americans' understanding of the events, is propped up upon undeniable bias and indeed lies that commonly represent Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the final justified nail in the coffin of Japan's war machine. Most Americans today are simply unaware of the events that led up to it in greater detail, and they won't be taught about it because the truth is not pretty and glorified. And that is wrong.

I agree with this sentiment. See those numbered questions above? That's the kind of stuff you take into account when dissecting someone's choices. I know I missed some other things that influenced that decision. Now, given all those factors, can you come up with a train of logic that says that Truman's decision was unnecessary?

The morals you hold are based largely upon emotion. You can logically waive away many of the morals we hold today with the chilling utilitarian line of logic that was so popular decades ago. Being logical is great, but you shouldn't lose touch with your humanity in doing so. You have to draw lines in the sand which you will not explain away. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Torture is wrong. Etc. Under a logical mindset all of these can be justified and used to great effect with some objective in mind.

This works on a personal level. The more responsibility you've got, the more utilitarian you'll have to become. I can't think of any logical basis behind rape/murder, and I have a hell of a time justifying torture. However, when you're debating a decision that involves irreversible consequences, logic must enter the equation. I'm seeing far too much emotion, and far too little logic.

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't believe Harry Truman was a war criminal. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen by US military leaders because of their military importance. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd Army, which was responsible for defending the southern half of Japan. Nagasaki was chosen because it was an industrial center, important for building ships, ordinance, and producing steel.

The majority of the people stationed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were women and children, as all capable men had been drafted. They were obviously of military importance, but it was not one of dire need and they were slim pickings by the time of August.

As for military commanders staying the bombs weren't needed, I'd like to see some dates attached to those statements. It's one thing for them to tell Truman the bombs were excessive before he gave the order to use them. It's a whole different ball of wax if these statements popped up after the decision became unpopular, which is what I feel happened. I can either believe Truman was so determined to see the world burn that he ordered the bombs dropped despite every general and admiral he had telling him not to do it or, those people said jack shit about using the bombs before they were dropped but became outspoken opponents of atomic weapons after public outrage set in. So, if you have a date that shows these men allegedly telling Truman the bombs weren't needed before they were used, I'd appreciate it. If not, that's not really proving he was a war criminal, because the man can't factor those statements in to his decision after the fact. If he used the bombs despite the advice of his generals, that's a different story.

I am positive that MacArthur was outspokenly against its use, but I've no source at the moment. I can give it some effort to hunt one down.

As many people stated, Operation Downfall would have been far bloodier than the bombs themselves, but I'm not sure if the anti-bomb crowd fully appreciates the scale we're talking about. The Japanese military proper was pretty whipped, but the Volunteer Fighting Corps that Japan had formed using civilians was enormous. All civilians, ages 17-60, male and female, were required to serve in this militia. When all was said and done, the VFC contained about 28 million people the Japanese government considered "combat capable." Think about that for a moment. 28 million civilians fighting what could have been the largest maritime invasion force in history. The two atomic bombs killed 200,000 people. There's no way Operation Downfall would have killed fewer civilians, as they would be making up the vast majority of Japan's defensive forces and repelling a massive, aggressive, well coordinated invasion with naval bombardment, air support, and trained, experienced, and conditioned military personnel. As reprehensible as innocent deaths from the bombing is, I find it equally if not more so reprehensible that Japan was actually going to send its civilians to their deaths.

While the VFC existed, and would have been present in repelling an invasion force, I don't think they would have been used in the capacity you are suggesting. Japan's industry wasn't so hot even at the time of its creation, they weren't armed with weaponry that would have been suitable for battle. I guess you could argue that they would all charge to suicide, but they were primarily used for other purposes.

Aerial bombardment wouldn't have worked because it would have taken too long. By the time Japan was ready to surrender, US and UK citizens would have been so tired of the war in the Pacific that it could have easily turned into another Vietnam situation: people dying, no real progress being made, and people getting tired of their loved ones getting shipped out to the Pacific. Japan would have actually been in a stronger bargaining position if the Allied countries were eager for the war to end, and would have actually been able to dictate terms of a peace agreement to the Allies knowing they were under pressure to have the conflict resolved. In fact, this seemed to be Japan's strategy at the end of the war: simply drag the conflict out long enough that the Allied Powers would be pressured by their citizens to end the conflict. At that time, Japan could propose its own peace treaty and have some leverage in the negotiations. That is also why, when Op. Downfall was being organized by the Allies, the one thing they all completely agreed on was that the war with Japan had to end before 1946 was over. They didn't think they could keep morale and support for the war strong enough to keep fighting through 1947-1948

Aerial bombardment wouldn't have been necessary because Japan was prepared to surrender. They had been for over half a year. Just not to unconditional terms.

The unnecessary deaths are the reason why I'm more likely to speak out against one than the other. I'm still peeved about the lingering racism, but being angry isn't going to solve the underlying problem.

You can't change what happened in the past, but you can change what will in the future. Letting people know that it was not alright it happened is better than nothing.

If this is your stance, then I'm wasting my time. If you're unable or unwilling to comprehend why the other side might do things ("shits and giggles" is not a valid reason), then I think you're debating the wrong subject. History is not a simple subject.

I have plenty of empathy, that does not mean I have to have sympathy. I can understand why Soviets sent millions of innocent people to the gulags. It doesn't mean I will agree it was alright or suspend judgment because of the many factors that went into it.

1. The public still had a voice in it, so I don't see how your response addresses what I said.

2. That's a factor to take into account; if you're burning absurd amounts of money on a war, and you're not interested in tanking your own economy, it's in your best interest to end it quickly (or end up with the budget we have nowadays).

3. The checks and balances system exists so that one side doesn't get too powerful. When both sides refuse to see eye-to-eye, things get done slowly, if at all. I'm not sure what back-room deals (if any) existed, but something like this can be a factor.

4. It's in regards to intelligence, and the information they passed on. If Truman was getting faulty/false information, I would expect him to act in the best way possible, in terms of that information.

5. "Hey, US, GTFO, or we're not going to back you any more." For someone who's debating politics and history, why aren't you taking this into account?

6. If morale was rapidly declining, then ending the war ASAP would be the ideal solution. If morale was strong (along with the economy and the general public opinion), then Truman could consider a strategy that could take more time, and possibly be kinder to the enemy civilians.

7. "See, these bombs here will completely flatten buildings, but we think that the impact to human life will be minimal." While I'm pretty sure the scientists didn't say anything like that, it's something to take into account when making a decision to use a weapon.

1.) Because it's not a cogent point in facing the bombs being dropped. They aren't comparable events.

2.) I'm asking you to quantify what the economic loss would have been to continuing the war as to ending it. What would it have been to be relevant?

3.) What would Congress have done if Truman had decided not to drop the bomb? Why would Congress even be involved in this event?

4.) I guess, but I can't see why he would be given faulty information given his position and the consequences of doing so.

5.) What kind of pressure was the US receiving over nuking these people from the Allies? I can't imagine there was any at all.

6.) But how would the lack of use of the nuke have negatively affected morale? If they had instead nuked an uninhabited island why would that negatively impact US troops' morale?

7.) I guess, but even as you said they simply did not say that.

I agree with this sentiment. See those numbered questions above? That's the kind of stuff you take into account when dissecting someone's choices. I know I missed some other things that influenced that decision. Now, given all those factors, can you come up with a train of logic that says that Truman's decision was unnecessary?

Yes, which is what I started with, that mass-killings of civilians is wrong. Japan was militarily defeated. It had no navy to speak of, an air force of near non-existence. Its wartime economy was in shambles, and by the war's end bombing runs weren't being conducted because there was literally nothing left worth the trouble. Sorry, but I don't think a lot of what led up to the bombs were necessary, even forgetting them.

This works on a personal level. The more responsibility you've got, the more utilitarian you'll have to become. I can't think of any logical basis behind rape/murder, and I have a hell of a time justifying torture. However, when you're debating a decision that involves irreversible consequences, logic must enter the equation. I'm seeing far too much emotion, and far too little logic.

It's even more important for men in power to operate as a sound human being. The notion that innocent people are not okay to kill should not be something that is waived away as you gain control over other people. Logic can and should enter the equation, it can even be the largest factor, but before making any decision any and every human should lay ground rules that are unshakable. Think of it from the actual point of view of the citizens, even; would it be preferable for a country's people to fear any consequence so long as it helped the rest of the country or even the world? Do you really think people should be weighed on a scale like that?

Edited April 18, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[eclipse]

You can't change what happened in the past, but you can change what will in the future. Letting people know that it was not alright it happened is better than nothing.

You are one person out of billions. What makes you think your opinion will be considered in the future? There's people out there that deny the Holocaust happened/was as bad as it was; what's to say that those in the future won't view you in the same way?

(I really hope that they don't, 'cause Holocaust deniers are one of the few opinions who I wouldn't mind disappearing, just so that stuff like mass executions in a concentration camp never, EVER happen again)

I have plenty of empathy, that does not mean I have to have sympathy. I can understand why Soviets sent millions of innocent people to the gulags. It doesn't mean I will agree it was alright or suspend judgment because of the many factors that went into it.

I, on the other hand, can't comprehend why.

1.) Because it's not a cogent point in facing the bombs being dropped. They aren't comparable events.

2.) I'm asking you to quantify what the economic loss would have been to continuing the war as to ending it. What would it have been to be relevant?

3.) What would Congress have done if Truman had decided not to drop the bomb? Why would Congress even be involved in this event?

4.) I guess, but I can't see why he would be given faulty information given his position and the consequences of doing so.

5.) What kind of pressure was the US receiving over nuking these people from the Allies? I can't imagine there was any at all.

6.) But how would the lack of use of the nuke have negatively affected morale? If they had instead nuked an uninhabited island why would that negatively impact US troops' morale?

7.) I guess, but even as you said they simply did not say that.

1. Public opinion should be taken into account in regards to "end it now" versus "end it later".

2. Here's a really farfetched example: "If the war continues for three more months, we won't have enough food to send to the troops." In such a situation, I'd say landing a decisive final blow would be warranted. However, I don't think America's economy was anywhere near that dire.

3. Politics is rarely about one person. Maybe a bunch of people in Congress had stock in steel companies, and wanted to prolong the war (as an example). Not everything that's done in politics is done on an open floor.

4. There's several ways to mess with intelligence flow, ranging from outright recruiting the other spy to intentionally feeding them faulty information. I don't know if such a thing was a factor in this situation.

5. I don't know enough about the intricacies of the politics of that time, which is why I put it out as a factor.

6. The kamikaze attacks were doing a number to American troop morale, IIRC. I'm not sure just how big of a factor this would be in deciding whether to end it now or later.

7. I'm pretty sure they didn't say that, but it's also something to consider.

Yes, which is what I started with, that mass-killings of civilians is wrong. Japan was militarily defeated. It had no navy to speak of, an air force of near non-existence. Its wartime economy was in shambles, and by the war's end bombing runs weren't being conducted because there was literally nothing left worth the trouble. Sorry, but I don't think a lot of what led up to the bombs were necessary, even forgetting them.

You're looking at this from the Japanese point of view, which is a good thing. Now, what kind of information was Truman fed? He was nowhere near the war zone, so he'd have to rely on others to be his eyes. That information, combined with what was happening in/with the US should be enough to determine whether or not this was a case of "fuck you Japanese", bad decision, being greedy, or a genuine attempt to end things before they got more out of hand.

It's even more important for men in power to operate as a sound human being. The notion that innocent people are not okay to kill should not be something that is waived away as you gain control over other people. Logic can and should enter the equation, it can even be the largest factor, but before making any decision any and every human should lay ground rules that are unshakable. Think of it from the actual point of view of the citizens, even; would it be preferable for a country's people to fear any consequence so long as it helped the rest of the country or even the world? Do you really think people should be weighed on a scale like that?

The problem with this sentiment is that it doesn't carry over to the higher levels of any position where you have the fate of others in your hands. Let's pretend that you're in charge of a company, and you have five workers, all of which are damn good at their job, and you told them that you wouldn't fire any of them. Your company's income is such that you can only afford to keep four of those workers, and it is impossible for you to acquire the funds for you to keep all five of them hired. What do you do? While having a perfectly moral government is ideal, it is not always going to work out - sooner or later, things are gonna force you to compromise.

[Esau of Isaac]

You are one person out of billions. What makes you think your opinion will be considered in the future? There's people out there that deny the Holocaust happened/was as bad as it was; what's to say that those in the future won't view you in the same way?

(I really hope that they don't, 'cause Holocaust deniers are one of the few opinions who I wouldn't mind disappearing, just so that stuff like mass executions in a concentration camp never, EVER happen again)

Nothing. But telling the truth is better than saying nothing. Many people here were made aware of events that they weren't beforehand. If it didn't change their minds then at least it might change their view of the situation from the drivel most Americans are raised on.

I, on the other hand, can't comprehend why.

Why I have empathy but not sympathy?

1. Public opinion should be taken into account in regards to "end it now" versus "end it later".

2. Here's a really farfetched example: "If the war continues for three more months, we won't have enough food to send to the troops." In such a situation, I'd say landing a decisive final blow would be warranted. However, I don't think America's economy was anywhere near that dire.

3. Politics is rarely about one person. Maybe a bunch of people in Congress had stock in steel companies, and wanted to prolong the war (as an example). Not everything that's done in politics is done on an open floor.

4. There's several ways to mess with intelligence flow, ranging from outright recruiting the other spy to intentionally feeding them faulty information. I don't know if such a thing was a factor in this situation.

5. I don't know enough about the intricacies of the politics of that time, which is why I put it out as a factor.

6. The kamikaze attacks were doing a number to American troop morale, IIRC. I'm not sure just how big of a factor this would be in deciding whether to end it now or later.

7. I'm pretty sure they didn't say that, but it's also something to consider.

1.) The public would always have wanted to end it early. There wasn't rioting in the streets or massive protests over the war however.

2.) I mean I understand what you're saying, but since you're giving the example as being one of those which contributed, it would be needed to know what kind of a contribution was given. At the end of the day, can we ultimately even conclude that it was a relevant negative loss for America economically?

3.) Okay, but I don't know of anything that would have been relevant to the atomic bombing of Japan between Congress and the President.

4.) I'm not sure how that could really happen. I mean unless you're saying that Truman's military advisors themselves were double agents.

5.) But shouldn't the factor be relevant if you're using it as reasoning for why something happened?

6.) Sure, but the kamikaze attacks were making the air force even weaker than it already was. By the end of the war there were no experienced pilots left, their airforce was destroyed. They had a ton of planes hidden, but by and large the majority of them were without vital parts needed to fly.

7.) I suppose, but I was operating under the assumption that these were cogent to Truman's decision at the time, rather than something that could possibly be factored in if they happened.

You're looking at this from the Japanese point of view, which is a good thing. Now, what kind of information was Truman fed? He was nowhere near the war zone, so he'd have to rely on others to be his eyes. That information, combined with what was happening in/with the US should be enough to determine whether or not this was a case of "fuck you Japanese", bad decision, being greedy, or a genuine attempt to end things before they got more out of hand.

Most of what has been said in this topic is more or less what he was fed. It's commonly accepted today that the real reasons of the validation were simply that it was a weapon of convenience and expedience, and also to grab Japan from Russia. The US was already looking towards the next conflict at the time. I highly doubt the civilians were an issue to the Allied commanders. These are the same kind of people like LeMay who greenlit attacks that inflicted disgustingly massive levels of destruction, people who knew that were the war ended in the enemy's favor they would be tried as war criminals. So long as it served their military objectives they were quite fine with doing whatever was needed.

The problem with this sentiment is that it doesn't carry over to the higher levels of any position where you have the fate of others in your hands. Let's pretend that you're in charge of a company, and you have five workers, all of which are damn good at their job, and you told them that you wouldn't fire any of them. Your company's income is such that you can only afford to keep four of those workers, and it is impossible for you to acquire the funds for you to keep all five of them hired. What do you do? While having a perfectly moral government is ideal, it is not always going to work out - sooner or later, things are gonna force you to compromise.

The point of the moral baseline is that you never, ever compromise. You say, "Okay, these are the problems I have before me. These are things that I cannot do regardless of what occurs. So that said, how should I approach this?" Telling workers at a company that you will not fire them is a promise, but it's not the base of human morality. There never was a point where a compromise had to be made. These were several men in charge of one of the most powerful forces on the planet. They weren't harried, they weren't forced. They had the best and brightest minds with them, and they could have easily avoided what occurred if they put their heads together and commonly acknowledged they would not cross that line. They didn't, and a lot of people died, for better or worse.

The fact of the matter is, you drown yourself in logic and you lose what it is to be human. You can justify anything if you put your mind to it. One could pull up numerical data that would justify killing a family, taking control of their goods, and investing them in a capital venture that makes a greater positive economic benefit to the world than they would have made being alive.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Steampunk]

The majority of the people stationed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were women and children, as all capable men had been drafted. They were obviously of military importance, but it was not one of dire need and they were slim pickings by the time of August.

I'm curious what your assertion they were not of dire need is based on. Bear in mind that the Allies were still expecting to invade Japan even after dropping the bombs, and those two cities were not targeted or really affected by aerial bombardment. I'm interested to hear why Allied commander didn't see any need to eliminate one intact military stronghold housing the Japanese 2nd & 5th armies and the 224th mobile division and one intact ordinance, steel, and ship production center was not of dire need in preparation for a mainland invasion after the second bombing. If you are going to suggest they were prepared to surrender, my last point deals with that.

I am positive that MacArthur was outspokenly against its use, but I've no source at the moment. I can give it some effort to hunt one down.

If that is the case, it will be incredibly ironic. MacArthur tried very hard to give himself the authority to the use of atomic weapons despite Truman's adamant refusal to approve them during the Korean War.

While the VFC existed, and would have been present in repelling an invasion force, I don't think they would have been used in the capacity you are suggesting. Japan's industry wasn't so hot even at the time of its creation, they weren't armed with weaponry that would have been suitable for battle. I guess you could argue that they would all charge to suicide, but they were primarily used for other purposes.

Originally, they were intended to put out fires and render medical aid. By April 1945, however they were reorganized into a civilian militia intended for combat purposes. You can find images of schoolgirls in the VFC receiving rifle training, and there are many testimonials of them being instructed on how to kill enemy soldiers. It doesn't make sense for Japan to take these measures, then not call upon this militia to defend the homeland, and some were used against the Soviets in the Manchuria Campaign, which shows me that Japan was willing to send civilians to the front lines. It doesn't make sense use them in Manchuria, but not use them to defend Japan itself. Fortunately, we'll never know what their in Operation Downfall would have been as the invasion never happened.

Aerial bombardment wouldn't have been necessary because Japan was prepared to surrender. They had been for over half a year. Just not to unconditional terms.

The Potsdam Declaration did not call for unconditional surrender. I believed that as well until I actually looked at what it said. This is the declaration so you can read it for yourself: http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/P/o/Potsdam_Declaration.htm

Japan may have referred to it as such to encourage resistance against the Allies, but you can clearly see it is not unconditional. It makes several guarantees to protect Japan from exploitation or excessive retribution. You can also see a very clear threat of complete destruction if they did not respond, which also makes it clear that Truman gave them fair warning he would be taking extreme measures to end the war if they refused. Japan did not respond to this declaration, and I can't say if they believed Truman's threat or not. I'm sure they did after Hiroshima, but they continued very determined resistance against the Soviets in Manchuria despite clear evidence the US had the means to carry out its promise. That is not the conduct of a country prepared to surrender.

As the link correctly mentions, Japan was largely controlled by hawkish military leaders. A look at Japan's strategic behavior in the Pacific paints a very clear picture of their views on surrender and yielding. For specific examples, look at the figures and accounts of Iwo Jima & Okinawa (Volcaco/Ryukyu Campaign), Kohime & Imphal (Burma Campaign), and the Manchurian Strategic Offensive.

I am not saying the atomic bombs are something to celebrate, but I do feel they were the lesser of two evils. The alternative would have resulted in astronomical deaths for all parties, not just the US. I'm also not convinced Japan was prepared to surrender. What official documents or cabinet meeting transcripts suggest this, despite continued military resistance?

[Esau of Isaac]

I'm curious what your assertion they were not of dire need is based on. Bear in mind that the Allies were still expecting to invade Japan even after dropping the bombs, and those two cities were not targeted or really affected by aerial bombardment. I'm interested to hear why Allied commander didn't see any need to eliminate one intact military stronghold housing the Japanese 2nd & 5th armies and the 224th mobile division and one intact ordinance, steel, and ship production center was not of dire need in preparation for a mainland invasion after the second bombing. If you are going to suggest they were prepared to surrender, my last point deals with that.

They were not in dire need because the Japanese military was in shambles and the targets chosen were, as I stated, slim pickings. By the time of August when the bombs were dropped the US had already leveled over 60 Japanese cities. The city was not a base, it was a city with some trace military elements in it. Moreover, the industrial areas of the city were on the outskirts. The bomb was dropped in the direct center of the city. Of the bare bits that survived the explosion, the industrial areas were among them.

If that is the case, it will be incredibly ironic. MacArthur tried very hard to give himself the authority to the use of atomic weapons despite Truman's adamant refusal to approve them during the Korean War.

Now that I think about it, it might have been Nimitz, but MacArthur seemed against it as well. Though these are stated after the fact, as you had mentioend.

Originally, they were intended to put out fires and render medical aid. By April 1945, however they were reorganized into a civilian militia intended for combat purposes. You can find images of schoolgirls in the VFC receiving rifle training, and there are many testimonials of them being instructed on how to kill enemy soldiers. It doesn't make sense for Japan to take these measures, then not call upon this militia to defend the homeland, and some were used against the Soviets in the Manchuria Campaign, which shows me that Japan was willing to send civilians to the front lines. It doesn't make sense use them in Manchuria, but not use them to defend Japan itself. Fortunately, we'll never know what their in Operation Downfall would have been as the invasion never happened.

As far as I am aware the VFC was never sent out on combat missions, and only used realistically for military aid. Construction and the like. And while I suppose you have a point that it never reached that point, I have a hard time believing that a militia, few even armed with guns, would have been included in genuine military engagements. Maybe I'm downplaying how callous leadership would have been and devoted citizenry was, but I don't think it would have happened.

The Potsdam Declaration did not call for unconditional surrender. I believed that as well until I actually looked at what it said. This is the declaration so you can read it for yourself: http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/P/o/Potsdam_Declaration.htm

Japan may have referred to it as such to encourage resistance against the Allies, but you can clearly see it is not unconditional. It makes several guarantees to protect Japan from exploitation or excessive retribution.

The point is that Japanese leadership interpreted it as referring to the Emperor. It was not made clear that he would be spared from the terms, which is what they had been worried about and refused to accept.

You can also see a very clear threat of complete destruction if they did not respond, which also makes it clear that Truman gave them fair warning he would be taking extreme measures to end the war if they refused. Japan did not respond to this declaration, and I can't say if they believed Truman's threat or not. I'm sure they did after Hiroshima, but they continued very determined resistance against the Soviets in Manchuria despite clear evidence the US had the means to carry out its promise. That is not the conduct of a country prepared to surrender.

Despite having issued surrender terms months prior, with multiple attempts to enter mediated discussions over the possibility of peace?

I am not saying the atomic bombs are something to celebrate, but I do feel they were the lesser of two evils. The alternative would have resulted in astronomical deaths for all parties, not just the US. I'm also not convinced Japan was prepared to surrender. What official documents or cabinet meeting transcripts suggest this, despite continued military resistance?

I had already discussed this sometime earlier with Narga. A link makes note of surrender terms that had been given earlier in the year, and multiple attempts by Japan to use Russia in mediation.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Steampunk]

They were not in dire need because the Japanese military was in shambles and the targets chosen were, as I stated, slim pickings. By the time of August when the bombs were dropped the US had already leveled over 60 Japanese cities. The city was not a base, it was a city with some trace military elements in it. Moreover, the industrial areas of the city were on the outskirts. The bomb was dropped in the direct center of the city. Of the bare bits that survived the explosion, the industrial areas were among them.

You are correct that they were not housing massive reserves for the military. The point I am attempting to make, however, is that Truman himself did not choose these targets. They were chosen by Gen. Leslie Groves, who oversaw the Manhattan project and presumably knew where the bombs could be most effective bearing in mind that an invasion was still planned. So the question in my mind at this point is, did Truman know that HIroshima and Nagasaki were largely populated by civilians and were of debatable value to the Japanese military? The evidence I've found suggests that Truman was largely unaware of the details of the two cities: they were merely explained to him as having military significance. This tells me he wasn't aware that he would be killing mostly civilians before the bombs were used, and makes it hard for me to believe he was a war criminal who acted with a clear desire to murder innocent people.

Here is his diary entry 07/25/1945: "He (Sec. of War Mr. Stimson) and I are in accord. the target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance."

Truman's diary 07/25/1945: "The weapon is to be used against between now and August 10th. I have told the Secretary of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target, not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, murderers, and fanatics, we cannot"

From Henry Wallace's diary 08/10/1945, after Truman received reports and photographs of the effects of the bombs: "Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids'."

Maybe I'm downplaying how callous leadership would have been and devoted citizenry was, but I don't think it would have happened.

We cannot say definitively, but I do believe the military figures in the Japanese government would have insisted upon such extreme measures. Those leaders showed they would prefer Japan's destruction over a surrender of any kind.

The point is that Japanese leadership interpreted it as referring to the Emperor. It was not made clear that he would be spared from the terms, which is what they had been worried about and refused to accept.

The Potsdam Declaration does not mention the Emperor at all, but it does state that Japan would be free to create its own government (which could have presumably kept the Emperor). Moreover, Truman stated that Japan could keep the Emperor under conditions the Allies would set, so you still haven't proven Japan was willing to surrender to the Allies. They asked for neither an unconditional surrender nor the Emperor's removal, and Japan still resisted.

Despite having issued surrender terms months prior, with multiple attempts to enter mediated discussions over the possibility of peace?

This statement gives me the impression you are not aware of Japan's internal situation with regards to surrender. That statement also assumes it was the stance of a united government, which is incorrect. Disagreement within Japan's cabinet was actually the reason why Japan remained at war even after both bombs were used. You are correct that Japanese officials sent messages to the USSR communicating terms Japan would find acceptable for surrender however, they were vague and inconsistent with their requests. Also, even if the Allies agreed to those terms, those officials had no means of guaranteeing Japan would honor its promise to cease hostilities.

Nagasaki was bombed August 9, 1945. The Japanese cabinet met on the 13th to discuss surrendering. They needed a unanimous vote, but the War Minister, the Army's Chief of Staff, and the Navy's Chief of Staff opposed. The military refused even after two atomic bombs fell on their own soil. Since there wasn't a unanimous vote, Japan refused to surrender. The ministers who did want the war to end realized the military planned to use political gridlock to prevent Japan from giving up and the atomic bombs showed them they couldn't wait any longer, so they broke tradition and asked the Emperor to tell the military to stand down. Only after that did the military vote in favor of surrender. As pointed out, all of this happened after the bombs were used. I fail to see how anything I just described suggests Japan was prepared to end the war long before the bombs became a factor. There were definitely people within Japan's government who were willing to yield to the Allies, but that is not the same thing as Japan's entire government being willing to do so. We have to differentiate between what many people wanted to do and what decisions were actually made, which your statement doesn't seem to take into consideration.

With that in mind, I can't help but wonder if Japan would have surrendered even if the Allies accepted any of those proposals (especially since the terms of the Atlantic Charter were similar to Potsdam, and they indicated they'd accept terms based on the charter but refused Potsdam). Considering two atomic bombs did not sway the military, I don't believe a peace agreement proposed by pacifists in the Japanese government would have done so either. The military crowd was actively persecuting any pacifist sentiment within the citizenry, and had the political weight to make life uncomfortable for any outspoken pacifists within the cabinet. I'm not even sure a guarantee to leave the Emperor in power would have done it. If the US decided to drop a third bomb, it could just as easily have landed in the Emperor's lap. While that is pure speculation, it was the reason cabinet ministers asked him to intervene: they feared any future bombs the US might drop could kill him. At least there was a chance (no matter how small) he would remain Emperor under the Potsdam Declaration. The possible adverse health effects of an atomic bomb on the Emperor did not seem to concern the military, which makes me wonder if the threat of losing the position of Emperor was merely justification for their opposing a surrender for other reasons.

I had already discussed this sometime earlier with Narga. A link makes note of surrender terms that had been given earlier in the year, and multiple attempts by Japan to use Russia in mediation.

Japan's Minister of Foreign Affairs Togo was one of the biggest advocates of peaceful settlement with Allies, and he was the one who sent those proposals. That's good, as it opened up diplomatic opportunities and showed that not everyone in Japan's government was willing to "burn the village in order to save it." He was a major supporter of the Potsdam Declaration and considered it the best terms for surrender Japan could hope to get. He and many others were eager for the conflict to end. They were not the problem. The problem was the military people in the cabinet who were not considering surrender in the first place. Now, we do know Truman was aware of these messages. The question is, did he deliberately ignore them because he was chomping at the bit to kill Japanese people? I don't believe so. I believe Truman genuinely felt the atomic bombs were the only real option: not because he was a mass murderer, but because he didn't have faith in his diplomatic options. I cannot say for sure, but that's the way it looks to me based on the facts I've seen. I do feel he had good reason to think Japan wasn't genuinely interested in peace talks. He wasn't a bad person, he had thrust upon him a difficult situation and an even more difficult decision.

In hindsight, we know now that Togo was serious. That's beneficial for making decisions like this in the future. As for whether or not Truman should be condemned for that, I think, given what he had seen from, knew of, and experienced with Japan, his decision was not malicious in nature beyond the degree one would expect in warfare. With that in mind, I still don't believe he should be considered war criminal. I'm always willing to be shown though. Still, I think I've made my case as effectively as I can make it. If I find any new information related to this, I'll add it. Until then, I need to get some sleep.

I'll just add this one last thing that Harry Truman said to David Lilienthal (Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission) in private, July 1948. After he came to fully understand what the atomic bombs were and what they did, he made one of the truest statements I have ever heard about the atomic bomb:

"I don't think we ought to use this thing unless we absolutely have to. It is a terrible thing to order the use of something that...that is so terribly destructive, destructive beyond anything we have ever had. You have got to understand that this isn't a military weapon. It is used to wipe out women and children and unarmed people, and not for military uses."

[blah the Prussian]

Why don't we stop worrying about Truman, and drag that slime Kissinger to court. He is after all still alive, unlike Truman.