Was President Harry Truman guilty of war crimes?

[Deuce]

he also saved countless Japanese lives. that 103K would have been a drop in the civilian blood that would have flowed in an invasion of the Home Islands. a part of the story that isn't often mentioned.

Other options:

Nuke an empty island
Nuke a military base
Nuke the whales

Wait. Maybe not that last one.

 

[samsmart]

Nanking Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Three Alls Policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Downfall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Japanese war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Japanese government and military were incredibly brutal in WWII, in some ways more so than the Nazis. We are talking about millions of people dying in an invasion, and hundreds of thousands already dying a month in China and southeast Asia from Japanese mistreatment, and for what? Do you think that the people of Asia would be better off with Japanese domination. Sometimes the lines can get pretty grey.

The question, apparently, isn't really whether the world was better off with Truman dropping The Bomb on Japan.

Apparently the question is, "If it's okay for Harry Truman to drop The Bomb, including on Japan, was it okay for GWB to waterboard suspected terrorists who may have only been civilians?"

That is quite a different question.

 

[MaggieD]

The question, apparently, isn't really whether the world was better off with Truman dropping The Bomb on Japan.

Apparently the question is, "If it's okay for Harry Truman to drop The Bomb, including on Japan, was it okay for GWB to waterboard suspected terrorists who may have only been civilians?"

That is quite a different question.

Zakly. I put up a poll, but didn't do it right. Waiting for a mod to help me out.

 

[samsmart]

he also saved countless Japanese lives. that 103K would have been a drop in the civilian blood that would have flowed in an invasion of the Home Islands. a part of the story that isn't often mentioned.

I once saw a documentary about the planned invasion of the Home Islands. On it, they said that they were expecting casualties so high that the military pre-ordered so many Purple Heart medals before the invasion was scrapped in lieu of use of The Bomb that those medals are still being given out today.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

That's only a worthwhile discussion if you think there were no options between "nuke civilians" and "the Japanese win"

As you can see in the third link an invasion would be worse. As for the Japanese surrendering, the Allies didn't really have a way of knowing the conflict within the Emperor's inner circle. Even then surrender was doubtful, as the army and navy wanted to keep up the fight, despite the insistence of negotiations by other government officials. What other options were there?

The question, apparently, isn't really whether the world was better off with Truman dropping The Bomb on Japan.

Apparently the question is, "If it's okay for Harry Truman to drop The Bomb, including on Japan, was it okay for GWB to waterboard suspected terrorists who may have only been civilians?"

That is quite a different question.

The OP makes no mention of Al Qaeda, and I think Deuce was just using that group for an analogy. There is a water boarding tangent in this thread, but II was not discussing that.

 

[Coronado]

actually, when the Japanese went through Nanking, the abuses were so bad that the Nazi observors with the Japanese Imperial Army complained about them.


....when you have Nazi's complaining that you are too abusive to members of different races... man.....

I've been to the museum in Nanjing commemorating the massacre. There are no words to adequately describe the absolute horror of what happened there. The very worst of the Nazis were Girl Scouts compared to the Imperial Japanese. Yet it was the Nazis that were hanged and the Japanese top brass that went on to be successful businessmen. Go figure ...

 

[Deuce]

As you can see in the third link an invasion would be worse. As for the Japanese surrendering, the Allies didn't really have a way of knowing the conflict within the Emperor's inner circle. Even then surrender was doubtful, as the army and navy wanted to keep up the fight, despite the insistence of negotiations by other government officials. What other options were there?



The OP makes no mention of Al Qaeda, and I think Deuce was just using that group for an analogy. There is a water boarding tangent in this thread, but II was not discussing that.

Yeah, my mention of Al Qaeda had nothing to do with waterboarding. It was just to illustrate that we tend to excuse horrible acts based on what we see as good intentions or the right thing to do.

Yes, top military brass thought the Japanese would never surrender. Whether they were right, we'll never know. We thought a lot of crazy things about the Japanese back then. It's entirely possible that a nuke hitting an uninhabited island near Japan would have made them realize this war was no longer winnable. Failing that, hitting a military base instead of a civilian population may have very well done the trick. We don't really have a way of knowing that.

Dropping nukes on civilian cities was a horrible thing to do. So was fireboming Tokyo. The Japanese did some heinous ****. So did the Germans. And the Russians. And guess what? Us too. It was a horrible time in history and we need to realize that doing horrible things for the "right" reasons is still doing horrible things.

Of course, you know what they say about hindsight.

 

[SheWolf]

To answer you question Maggie, I do think that, if somehow, the U.S. lost WWII Truman would have been brought up on War Crimes for not only dropping the nukes, but various other crimes committed by the Allies. Dresden, for example, comes to mind. The fact that the war turned out the way it did is part of the reason why he wasn't brought up on war crimes. Although, I read something freshman year to suggest that the Soviets would have the brunt force of the crimes.

It was found to be a war crime, but because of a treaty between US and Japan nothing was done about it... and dropping an A bomb on a city today would be a war crime

Posted on the other thread.

On 7 December 1963, in Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the subject of a Japanese judicial review.[3] On the 22nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the District Court of Tokyo declined to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons in general, but found that "the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war".[4] In the opinion of the court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by international law found in Hague Convention of 1907 IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land,[5] and IX - Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War,[6] and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923,[7] and was therefore illegal.[8][9]

Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I read the statements in the trial and it sounds like it was found to be a war crime under numerous international laws. However, because of a peace treaty between America and Japan the plaintiffs could not sue for damages or try anybody involved with the bombing for war crimes. Article 19 (a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan. So that amount of bombing and damage is considered a war crime, and will be in future cases.

I didn't read much into other areas of the bombing, but I do question the President's judgment to bomb Nagasaki so soon without warning civilians. If he really knew the damage and suffering in Hiroshima, then his decision seems careless and cruel from my POV today, knowing what I know. I admit I didn't read into everything or the rational however, so that is at face value.

 

[SheWolf]

QFT.

People seem to forget the bloodbath that Okinawa was. The Japanese didn't retreat an inch from that island, and that wasn't even really one of the "home" islands (as they treated the Okinawans about as inhumanely as they did the Koreans and Chinese). The most humane thing Truman could have done was to drop the bombs on Japan. Otherwise you can rest assured that tens of millions more would have died in the invasion of Japan.

For what it's worth, my late grandfather was in the Pacific for VJ day and he said they were giddy with delight that the bomb had been dropped and the Japanese had surrendered. I have to say that I'm pretty stoked over it myself, because the odds are pretty good that he would have wound up at the bottom of the ocean instead of going home and raising a family.

I don't think anybody here is going to debate aerial bombardment or that doing it would have saved American lives compared to a land invasion. However, the debate is really weather or not this amount of civilian destruction and suffering was actually necessary to end the war. I don't think it was. I think Japan would have been stopped with other, less lethal weapons that wouldn't have taken so many civilian lives and caused suffering for generations for fallout.

I also think this wasn't just about winning the war and showing of our technology, but also for anger towards Japan for Pearl Harbor.

Somebody was going to be the first to drop an A bomb and it was Turman.. It changed the world, but it was a war technology that was going to happen and thankfully it wasn't the Germans to get it first.

 

[Boo Radley]

Not all terrorism is bad. Sure, I suppose nuking Japan to scare the Soviet Union fits the definition. I think if the US had nuked Japan strictly to scare the USSR, that would have been wrong, but that's not what happened.

Also to scare the Japan. Also terrorism, right?

 

[Boo Radley]

If you were fighting in the Pacific, about to invade mainland Japan, would you prefer to drop the bomb and end the war or to continue with the invasion?

It more likely killed 2 birds with one stone, rather than its sole purpose to send a political message to another country.

I can only pseak for myself. I would not ask that civilians in that number die to make my job easier. I would hope we could find an alternative, even if it meant letting the emperor keep his position.

 

[Coronado]

I don't think anybody here is going to debate aerial bombardment or that doing it would have saved American lives compared to a land invasion. However, the debate is really weather or not this amount of civilian destruction and suffering was actually necessary to end the war. I don't think it was. I think Japan would have been stopped with other, less lethal weapons that wouldn't have taken so many civilian lives and caused suffering for generations for fallout.

I also think this wasn't just about winning the war and showing of our technology, but also for anger towards Japan for Pearl Harbor.

Somebody was going to be the first to drop an A bomb and it was Turman.. It changed the world, but it was a war technology that was going to happen and thankfully it wasn't the Germans to get it first.

I respectfully disagree. The Japanese did not surrender after the first bomb, and they very nearly didn't after the second. Additionally, I don't know what other technology that was available to the Allies at the time that would have been less devastating, yet equally convincing.

 

[Coronado]

Also to scare the Japan. Also terrorism, right?

Well yeah, but as I stated, I don't find all terrorism to be bad.

 

[Gill]

I don't think anybody here is going to debate aerial bombardment or that doing it would have saved American lives compared to a land invasion. However, the debate is really weather or not this amount of civilian destruction and suffering was actually necessary to end the war. I don't think it was. I think Japan would have been stopped with other, less lethal weapons that wouldn't have taken so many civilian lives and caused suffering for generations for fallout.

If Japan wanted to save it's population from further death and injuries, they would have surrendered immediately after Hiroshima.

They didn't. The deaths at Nagasaki are on the heads of the Japanese government and military.

 

[SheWolf]

I can only pseak for myself. I would not ask that civilians in that number die to make my job easier. I would hope we could find an alternative, even if it meant letting the emperor keep his position.

I think people are often dehumanized in war anyway.. The Japanese hated Americans and Americans hated "Japs." It's well know there was a lot of racism and degradation is US towards the Japanese.. I am not saying everybody was racist. However, it's no secret they wouldn't have problems killing our civilians and we didn't have a problem killing theirs.

I have read some really interesting research about WWII soldiers and their psychological need to dehumanize the enemy so it was easier to kill them.. of course a lot of them were drafted and not as hardened, so I am not sure if that would throw the results off.

 

[Boo Radley]

I think people are often dehumanized in war anyway.. The Japanese hated Americans and Americans hated "Japs." It's well know there was a lot of racism and degradation is US towards the Japanese.. I am not saying everybody was racist. However, it's no secret they wouldn't have problems killing our civilians and we didn't have a problem killing theirs.

I have read some really interesting research about WWII soldiers and their psychological need to dehumanize the enemy so it was easier to kill them.. of course a lot of them were drafted and not as hardened, so I am not sure if that would throw the results off.

This fairly true of all wars. We have to see the enemy as less than human and resist seeing them as being human. There was some good footage of some former Israeli soliders exploring this some years ago. It is what allows people to do horrible things. it's why terrorist can kill as they do. And it's the root of much of the evil of war.

Even when we have just cause for war, and must kill, we shoudl do so with a heavy heart and not with the false image of killing something less than human.

 

[SheWolf]

I respectfully disagree. The Japanese did not surrender after the first bomb, and they very nearly didn't after the second. Additionally, I don't know what other technology that was available to the Allies at the time that would have been less devastating, yet equally convincing.

Firebombing Dresden was very devastating and produced the same results there...

Don't get me wrong.. an A bomb had to be dropped. It was going to happen.. Somebody had to be the first to do it.. The technology was too coveted.

 

[Coronado]

Firebombing Dresden was very devastating and produced the same results there...

Tokyo was firebombed several times, all the way up until March, 1945. And it was devastating, yet it did little to make the Japanese consider surrender.

Don't get me wrong.. an A bomb had to be dropped. It was going to happen.. Somebody had to be the first to do it.. The technology was too coveted.

I don't doubt for a minute that there was a certain segment of the American leadership that wanted to drop the bomb just to see what would happen, or for sabre-rattling purposes. I just don't think that was the main motivation, nor that there was really any other viable choice. It was either Operaton Downfall or deployment of the atomic bombs, and I think with the information Truman had at the time, the choice was obvious.

 

[SheWolf]

Tokyo was firebombed several times, all the way up until March, 1945. And it was devastating, yet it did little to make the Japanese consider surrender.I don't doubt for a minute that there was a certain segment of the American leadership that wanted to drop the bomb just to see what would happen, or for sabre-rattling purposes. I just don't think that was the main motivation, nor that there was really any other viable choice. It was either Operaton Downfall or deployment of the atomic bombs, and I think with the information Truman had at the time, the choice was obvious.

I am not saying that there wasn't any justification for the bombing.. I am stating they could have done other things than to drop the bombs. I know the forces were tired and exhausted from fighting. I even knew a woman who worked on the Manhattan Project in TN, and I heard her own reasoning within her family (all her sons and her husband were fighting).. although she personally didn't know the implications the bomb would have.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that historical context very well.

Could they have fought by other means.. yes, they could have. Dropping an A bomb was more convenient for American forces. And like somebody else said, it was a nuclear experiment. The world changed, and the rules of war were changed forever... enter the cold war

I am not trying to argue if they should or should not have dropped it. I keep saying it was a matter of fate and that I do understand the reasons for doing it. But does the damage of the bomb constitute as a war crime.... yes, it does and that isn't my own biased opinion.

 

[Coronado]

I am not saying that there wasn't any justification for the bombing.. I am stating they could have done other things than to drop the bombs. I know the forces were tired and exhausted from fighting. I even knew a woman who worked on the Manhattan Project in TN, and I heard her own reasoning within her family (all her sons and her husband were fighting).. although she personally didn't know the implications the bomb would have.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that historical context very well.

Could they have fought by other means.. yes, they could have. Dropping an A bomb was more convenient for American forces. And like somebody else said, it was a nuclear experiment. The world changed, and the rules of war were changed forever... enter the cold war

I am not trying to argue if they should or should not have dropped it. I keep saying it was a matter of fate and that I do understand the reasons for doing it. But does the damage of the bomb constitute as a war crime.... yes, it does and that isn't my own biased opinion.

But what could they have done? What other option was available at the time?

 

[Deuce]

But what could they have done? What other option was available at the time?

Nuke an island. No surrender?
Nuke a military base.

 

[SheWolf]

But what could they have done? What other option was available at the time?

The question is a false dilemma.. what would they have done if they didn't have an A bomb?

 

[Coronado]

The question is a false dilemma.. what would they have done if they didn't have an A bomb?

Operation Downfall would have commenced, there would have been tens of millions of casualties on both sides, and the war would have gone on for up to two more years.

 

[drz-400]

Nuke an island. No surrender?
Nuke a military base.

Lets ask the only relevnt question though. If japan did not surrender from either of those situations would you drop a nuclear bomb on hiroshima?

 

[drz-400]

I can only pseak for myself. I would not ask that civilians in that number die to make my job easier. I would hope we could find an alternative, even if it meant letting the emperor keep his position.

I would not ask that many american soldiers to die by making their job harder. There are negatives on either side. There is no way to avoid it.