Was Harry S. Truman a War Crimminal?

[der affe]

This is exactly why Truman is a war criminal. His decision to use nuclear weapons was a crime against humanity. He is responsible for wiping out hundreds of thousands of innocent people instantaneously. Not even Hitler was this efficient at killing. If we would have lost the war, he would have been tried in a Nuremberg style trial and hanged. He is also pretty much responsible for the Cold War and thus Korea, Vietnam, etc. because of the Truman Doctrine. The man was a serious piece of shit.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST SHUT THE FUCK UP HOLOMS!!!!!
you know FUCKING NOTHING ABOUT HISTORY EXCEPT THE CUM THAT DRIZZLED DOWN YOUR CHIN FROM YOUR PROFESSOR'S COCK!

[der affe]

the majority of the scientist were german that devoloped the bomb.
if germany had a better source of uranium and more efficent way to enrich it, yes, they would have had themselves an atomic bomb too.

if not for the infighting in the upper command of the third reich they would have had an effective a bomb and a way to deliver it what do you think the v-1 and v-2 were?
the beginings of intercontinental missles AKA nuclear delivery systems.

those scientists who got us to the moon were german scientist who did not flee germany because of the 3rd reich. have you ever heard the name Verner Von Braum....one of the top scientist in the space program........ex nazi, father of the v-1 and v-2

[LBJefferies]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST SHUT THE FUCK UP HOLOMS!!!!!
you know FUCKING NOTHING ABOUT HISTORY EXCEPT THE CUM THAT DRIZZLED DOWN YOUR CHIN FROM YOUR PROFESSOR'S COCK!

Eat a dick. Everything I said was correct. Go fuck yourself asshole.

You insecure pieces of shit just can't stand anybody disagreeing with you.

[pbr87]

the majority of the scientist were german that devoloped the bomb were german.
if germany had a better source of uranium and more efficent way to enrich it, yes they would have had themselfs an atomic bomb too.

if not for the infighting in the upper command of the third reich they would have had an effective a bomb and a way to deliver it what do you think the v-1 and v-2 were?
the beginings of intercontinental missles AKA nuclear delivery systems.

those scientists who got us to the moon were german scientist who did not flee germany because of the 3rd reich. have you ever heard the name Verner Von Braum....one of the top scientist in the space program........ex nazi, father of the v-1 and v-2

This is all very true, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It is irrelevant because at the time when the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Germans had already been defeated. And the Hiroshima bombing and its moral plausibility (or lack thereof) is the topic at hand here.

Was Truman a war criminal?
No.

Was dropping the a-bomb a morally justifiable action given the fair fight principle?
Also no. Because it killed and severely burned peple who were not direct hostile threats to the U.S. Normally, the fact that the answer to both of these questions is "no" would present a contradictory juxtaposition. However, I believe that Truman was not a war criminal because he wanted to END THE WAR. He justified dropping the bomb by looking at killing a few hundred thousand people as a means to end what could have become another decade of brutal and treacherous combat in the South Pacific. Also, Truman had the interests of Americans at heart; at the time, there loomed the grim possibility that the Japanese could severely harm U.S. citizens. In summation, he caused a great deal of suffering in order to prevent a great deal of suffering. So he is not a war criminal.

[pbr87]

Eat a dick. Everything I said was correct. Go fuck yourself asshole.

You insecure pieces of shit just can't stand anybody disagreeing with you.

Don't be so cras. What you rattled off was a very moral-philosophical argument as to why you think Truma was a war criminal. What you said was extremely liberal, even by my standards. To really evaluate whether or not Truman was a war criminal, you must look at the potential negative consequences against humanity that might have happened had he not dropped the atom bomb. Then weigh those against your estimation of the value of the lives that were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

See what I'm getting at?
If you approach it from a leftist, moral-ethical position, Truman seems almost as bad as Hitler.
But if you approach it logically, Truman wasn't really a war criminal, was he?

[LBJefferies]

Don't be so cras. What you rattled off was a very moral-philosophical argument as to why you think Truma was a war criminal. What you said was extremely liberal, even by my standards. To really evaluate whether or not Truman was a war criminal, you must look at the potential negative consequences against humanity that might have happened had he not dropped the atom bomb. Then weigh those against your estimation of the value of the lives that were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

See what I'm getting at?
If you approach it from a leftist, moral-ethical position, Truman seems almost as bad as Hitler.
But if you approach it logically, Truman wasn't really a war criminal, was he?

Logically? Please explain what is logical in this situation? My argument was perfectly logical. Have you ever heard of the concept of a Philosopher King? All of these ethical questions which I have brought up are EXTREMELY relevant to the argument and any person in a position of power such as Truman. When ethical questions are ignored you get things like the Holocaust and the use of nuclear weapons.

The war was already won before the bombs were dropped. The threat of invasion was plenty to force the Japs to surrender. The bombs being dropped was pointless and only served the purpose of flexing our muscles at the Soviets.

[der affe]

if you look at some of the other shifty dealing truman had during his presidency, yes i can agree he is not an eviable person, but his decisiin to use the a bomb was a logical one based of what would end the war at the smallest cost to american and to an extent jap lives. not a war criminal for dropping the bomb.

tom made a reference to hitler and nerumberg trials infering a link to hitler using the atomic bomb. that prompted my responce to his question with the facts i stated.

tom likes to make inflamatory comments that he can't back up with facts maybe that is why he changed his name when he returned. maybe this is the effect of too much pot consumption of time, i do not know although farbin does not behave this way.

[pbr87]

Logically? Please explain what is logical in this situation?

What I said in my post.
Did you read it?
I'll reiterate: Harry Truman was not a war criminal. He did cause a great deal of suffering, but he did so only to prevent a great deal of suffering.

My argument was perfectly logical.

Your argument, while valid, was one-sided and unsound.

The war was already won before the bombs were dropped.

On the European front, yes, but the South Pacific was a different story.

The threat of invasion was plenty to force the Japs to surrender.

I'm pretty sure there was still fighting going on when the bomb was dropped. Maybe you should consult a history book, or ask a WWII vet if you think otherwise.

The bombs being dropped was pointless and only served the purpose of flexing our muscles at the Soviets.

The bomb served the purpose of ending the war. At the end of WWII, the soviets were still reeling from unbelievably large economic and human losses. Not to mention, they were nearly half a decade away from developing a nuclear weapon. More nuclear testing after the war, including hydrogen bomb testing, served the purpose of "flexing" our muscles at the soviets. Do not get the separate series of events confused.

[SpecM]

The threat of invasion was plenty to force the Japs to surrender.

Not really, the Japanese would have fought a ground fight tooth and nail, and could have done so very effectively (look at the defence of Iwo Jima and Okinawa). They surrendered because they feared more bombings, a war that they could not deffend themselfs from.

The bombs being dropped was pointless and only served the purpose of flexing our muscles at the Soviets.

no, it flexed our muscles at the Japanese. The Soviets were not considered a threat at that time, they had a technologicly inferior military in the mid-40s.

and if you wan to be all PC and liberal and moral and crap, stop calling the Japanese people "japs". Its considered derogitory.

[pbr87]

tom likes to make inflamatory comments that he can't back up with facts

Yea, I noticed the lack of facts part. Like where he implied the following:

1) We dropped the bombs on Japan to "flex our muscles" in the face of the Russians false. Russians were not a concern when the bombs were dropped.
2) The war was over before the bomb was dropped. false. Fighting was still happening.

[pbr87]

Not really, the Japanese would have fought a ground fight tooth and nail, and could have done so very effectively (look at the defence of Iwo Jima and Okinawa). They surrendered because they feared more bombings, a war that they could not deffend themselfs from.



no, it flexed our muscles at the Japanese. The Soviets were not considered a threat at that time, they had a technologicly inferior military in the mid-40s.

and if you wan to be all PC and liberal and moral and crap, stop calling the Japanese people "japs". Its considered derogitory.

This.

Not to mention, the Soviets had their hands full with recovering from their extensive losses from WWII.

[LBJefferies]

Haha the Soviets weren't a threat? Haha

[SpecM]

Oh and by the way, it is no different than the RAF bombing the dog crap out of Berlin and Dredson and Munich at night, and the USAF fire-bombing Tokyo, and the Luftwaffe bombing London...

...just because the a-bombs used a more effecient transfer of energy, doesn't make it any more morally unjust. War is a terrable human action, no matter who does it or why or how effecient.

[LBJefferies]

Oh and by the way, it is no different than the RAF bombing the dog crap out of Berlin and Dredson and Munich at night, and the USAF fire-bombing Tokyo, and the Luftwaffe bombing London...

...just because the a-bombs used a more effecient transfer of energy, doesn't make it any more morally unjust. War is a terrable human action, no matter who does it or why or how effecient.

It is different because nuclear weapons have the ability to wipe out every spec of life on this planet. By dropping them on Japan, the oh so holy and moral America, has justified their use.

[pbr87]

Haha the Soviets weren't a threat? Haha

They weren't at the time.
They were our allies throughout WWII.
Not to mention, they didn't test their first nuclear bomb until 1949.....four years after the bombs were dropped in Japan.

So, explain to us again how they were a threat in 1945?
I haven't yet seen either a factual or sensible answer from you.