Printable View
Not sure how old this is, but is there really a large contingent of people who believe Truman is a war criminal? I don't t usually take Jon's forays into the political arena too seriously but got to say I lost some respect for him on this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4pV27_7PI
I think thats harsh , i mean lets face it the guy just had a reality show about him , which i thought Jim Carey played well ;D
He was a war criminal and was not the only US President I would label a war criminal either. There are a lot of war criminals roaming free in the world and they only seem to be tried arbitrarily. If you are seen to be very powerful and influential then you can get away with commiting war crimes.
Miles can you please explain how Truman is a war criminal? Please include what you would have done in his position to defeat Imperial Japan.
by the way. Daily apologized the next day
I've heard many respectable historians make a similar assertion. Not that he was a war criminal, but that the dropping of the atomic bombs was unnecessary and that it had more to do with demonstrating American might to the Russians than it did with ending the war with Japan.
Sure it had something to do with intimidating the Russians but an invasion of Japan would have been brutal and there would have been huge amounts of casualties on both sides, just look at Okinawa. Kamikaze pilots attacking the fleet, huge amounts of civilian and troop deaths. The controversy at the time was not this, it was the did FDR know about Pearl Harbor thing, people just wanted it to be over and understandably so.
The funny thing about this (there's nothing haha funny about it obviously) is that the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo were absolutely brutal, especially Tokyo but for some reason conventional weapons get less attention.
From what I've heard and read, the crux of the argument is that the U.S. wouldn't have had to invade Japan as the government was ready to fall/surrender through other means. I'm trying to find a couple of articles on it at the moment, but I'm busy so *if* I find some it might not be for a whileQuote:
Originally Posted by OumaFan
I actually read a few books about this for a seminar, there's a revisionist argument that the Japanese could have been induced to surrender before but that's gone out of style a bit, newer books that have done research in Japanese archives don't agree with that, the Japanese thought they could actually successfully repel an invasion and the Americans weren't extraordinarily confident, that and the Japanese didn't agree to peace terms that would have let them keep the Emperor.
Granted I haven't read everything, its not my field.
But the newer revisionist argument (that I've read) refutes that Japan would have surrendered but argues that Truman would have wanted to use the nukes anyway, and do it quickly before the Soviets entered the war so they could get what they were promised to enter the war, the Sakhalin Islands, the Kurile Islands, I don't know if that's the right spelling, keep them out of Mongolia, etc.
for fucks sake, I just wrote the worst essay about the interwar period in Europe. :o
Fuck.
I had to put in like a two page conclusion just to try to get the professor to understand what I was talking about.
I don't even know why I'm talking about history, I'm sick of history.
Fuck it, I'm turning it in anyway.
Alcohol, fuck yeah.
I loved the truman show. I even cried a little.
Jon Stewart is a Bastard. :mad:
Are you specializing in European history?Quote:
Originally Posted by OumaFan
Why two bombs?
Why not one with the threat of "the next one is on the way" if you dont surrender."
There's a crime against one whole city of innocent people right there.
Pay backs a bitch, Sink our ships in Hawaii /we flatten your assess once and for all.
To be fair though : Nagasaki got unlucky,
they wernt an original target the real target was cloud covered and the delivery men took it into their own hands to drop on a town they could see on the way out.
This is a link that articulates a few of the main greviances with Truman. He seems to have been an unpleasant, corrupt individual. There was no need to use the nuclear bomb like he did.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/truman.html
He had no reason to apologize. He was correct in his assertion.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
This thread is going to a happy place...
I think the island wars showed that the Japanese would fight to the last man for meaningless pieces of volcanic island. To suggest that they were going to agree to an unconditional surrender I think is pretty well answered considering they didn't surrender after 6 months of conventional bombing, the first bomb and that almost every Japanese unit fought to the bitter end. The US was attacked by an imperialistic nation bent on ruling its sphere of the globe. The US lost almost 3000 at Pearl Harbor and 100K give or take in the Pacific theatre. This doesn't even begin to take into account the countless numbers of civilians the Japanese slaughtered during their conquest. The country had just finished winning a war in Europe and was facing a conquest of mainland japan that experts estimate would have killed 1 million Americans and even more Japanese civilians(some think military and civ casualties would reach 25 mill). 250-500K deaths from the bombs is a drop in the bucket compared to these numbers. In absolute war between nations there is no substitute for absolute victory. Ask the descendents of 25+ million people who didn't die b/c of the bombs if they think Truman was a war criminal. Considering the time period, technology available, lack of viable alternatives and number of casualties already dropping the bomb was one of the most courageous and difficult decisions ever made by a US president. Miles, find something better than a geocities web site that also has links slandering FDR, JFK, Clinton, promotes secession, and leaves portions unsourced to support your argument. I noticed you left out what you would have done as well.
I don't want to get into this in any deep form as I'm too busy at the moment with new classes and a dissertation to write up.
But to keep it simple, I don't think we can excuse dropping 2 nuclear bombs on two cities of mainly civilian people. Japan was on it's last legs prior to the bomb being dropped with blockades and tremendous shortages. Dropping the second bomb was just downright evil.
What would I have done? Well, I must admit that is not something I have considered too much. But I do know that as a human being I would have grave reservations about ever unleashing a nuclear weapon upon scores of people who are just living their everyday lives. Morally I think it is reprehensible. From my general reading of the subject it would seem that Japan was becoming weak and that blockades were having a serious impact. That might have sufficed along with bombing of military targets. But to kill a quarter of a million people with radioactive weapons just to get a job done more quickly? Takes some kind of person to make those kinds of decisions. :-\
I'd re-title the thread O'reilly is a douche ;D,what a koolaid sipping fluffer boy...:kissasskc4:....looked like a bait question and Stewart was speaking off the sleeve,but saying what he really thought with no B.S.but this really is not about Stewart.
That said,talk to some that have lived that era.Entirely different time,mind set and global dealings.You might say that dropping the first bomb had as much to do with backing the Emperor into a corner as it had to do with the politicos in D.C not being able to survive/withstand thousands of dead G.Is washed up on the shores of the mainland.And Russia,yeah I think they were a factor and threat.As history would prove out.
They didn't even surrender until we dropped the second one!!!! So I guess if we tried to invade them they would have just rolled over and gave up :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
This is typical revisionist history, the Allies gave Japan an ultimatum July 26, 1945 in the form of the Potsdam Declaration...Japan refused, then on August 6th and 9th we dropped the bombs and even then it took them some time to officially surrender.
Here's the deal, I am not ashamed to be an American for any reason especially just because we expedited the end of World War II by using nuclear weapons, and that's what this boils down to, it's ridiculous. Does Japan feel sorry that they attacked Pearl Harbor??? Does Al Queda feel bad about the 9/11 attack???? NOOOOOO and so we shouldn't feel sorry for giving it back as good as we got.
Truman used the bombs in a very responsible manner, he saved more lives than he took
I know Stewart and Colbert are on Comedy Central BUT they flip flop between being amusing and being serious whenever it suits their cause and their audience members, the same with Bill Maher's audience are just zombies.
I was gonna say, if anyone is looking for the reasons why he might be called a war criminal, then targeting hundreds of thousands of civilians might be one. But people can use whatever words they want to describe that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
I think you have to use the context of the time and not today. Total war was nation vs nation. Some very serious and catastrophic actions would have to take place today to see two super power nations wage total war against each other. Other than nuclear weapons falling into the hands of a mad man I cannot begin to fathom their use in today's world. From my reading and studies it is my humble opinion that Japan was not going to surrender w/o out an invasion of its main island(s). In the context of the time I think it was the right decision that I am sure was not come to in haste. I just think there is a lot of Monday morning quarterbacks out there that want to "what if" the topic to death. I think unless you are the President with the potential to end an unprovoked war of aggression while minimizing US casualties it is hard to second guess it.
Van, you make some valid points, about the context of the times and all. It's a tough call. Hard to agree or disagree with what you say.
Not really, more American diplomatic history but obviously that gets into European stuff a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHAre you specializing in European history?Quote:
Originally Posted by OumaFan
To me this is a complicated issue, its easy to make it a simple black and white good or evil thing but there is context, how many American soldiers, Japanese soldiers and Japanese civilians would have died in an invasion? My guess would be a shit ton.
I don't have the exact numbers but unless I'm wrong something like 100, 000 Japanese soldiers died there. Firebombing of Tokyo around the same but civilians.
Fuck, the numbers vary on Soviet civilians but its absolutely staggering. Growing up as a kid in America its easy to not know that the war was mainly on the Eastern front.
I've been focusing on U.S. history as well, it's a fascinating subject. However, I'm probably going to be changing my major, so I doubt I'll be spending much (if any) time in history classes, which sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by OumaFanQuote:
Originally Posted by CFHAre you specializing in European history?Quote:
Originally Posted by OumaFan
Not really, more American diplomatic history but obviously that gets into European stuff a lot.
To me this is a complicated issue, its easy to make it a simple black and white good or evil thing but there is context, how many American soldiers, Japanese soldiers and Japanese civilians would have died in an invasion? My guess would be a shit ton.
I don't have the exact numbers but unless I'm wrong something like 100, 000 Japanese soldiers died there. Firebombing of Tokyo around the same but civilians.
Fuck, the numbers vary on Soviet civilians but its absolutely staggering. Growing up as a kid in America its easy to not know that the war was mainly on the Eastern front.
I try to stay even handed with these issues. After two combat deployments I know what its like to make decisions that have human life implications, both of my Soldiers and civilians. I feel very blessed that I personally have never lost one of my Soldiers in combat. I just can't fathom having to make a decision where possibly 10s of millions of lives hang in the balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
We didn't want to have to drop the bombs and we certainly gave them the option of us not doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
But riddle me this, what would have happened had we tried to win the war without the bombs??? I mean we had to drop TWO on them for them to even consider surrendering. The United States lost 354,523 (106,207 killed/248,316 wounded or MIA) men in the Pacific theater and we lost over 6,000 men just taking Iwo Jima! Over 7,000 were killed in Guadalcanal! Over 12,000 were killed in taking Okinawa! ....so how the hell do you think taking Japan proper would have gone????
I guess the main question I am asking you is would the death toll be higher or lower than the 80,000 (45,000-75,000 immediate deaths) total speculated deaths caused by the two bombings?
Because I KNOW the death toll would have been much higher than just 80,000. The Death toll had the US invaded Japan would have been 2-4 times higher than the 80,000 that died on account of the bombs and everyone else seems to know that and aknowledge that except for you.
So tell me Mr. Butterflies and Rainbows, how else were we to end the war with Japan and have FEWER casualties?
And also were there not civilian casualties in England from the bombing? Germany? USSR? China? and even the in US from Pearl Harbor?
Must be nice being from the great Vanilla country of Canada who does nothing wrong because they do NOTHING at all :rolleyes:
I'm starting to get seriously tired of these kinds of statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleWe didn't want to have to drop the bombs and we certainly gave them the option of us not doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
But riddle me this, what would have happened had we tried to win the war without the bombs??? I mean we had to drop TWO on them for them to even consider surrendering. The United States lost 354,523 (106,207 killed/248,316 wounded or MIA) men in the Pacific theater and we lost over 6,000 men just taking Iwo Jima! Over 7,000 were killed in Guadalcanal! Over 12,000 were killed in taking Okinawa! ....so how the hell do you think taking Japan proper would have gone????
I guess the main question I am asking you is would the death toll be higher or lower than the 80,000 (45,000-75,000 immediate deaths) total speculated deaths caused by the two bombings?
Because I KNOW the death toll would have been much higher than just 80,000. The Death toll had the US invaded Japan would have been 2-4 times higher than the 80,000 that died on account of the bombs and everyone else seems to know that and aknowledge that except for you.
So tell me Mr. Butterflies and Rainbows, how else were we to end the war with Japan and have FEWER casualties?
And also were there not civilian casualties in England from the bombing? Germany? USSR? China? and even the in US from Pearl Harbor?
Must be nice being from the great Vanilla country of Canada who does nothing wrong because they do NOTHING at all :rolleyes:
How does his nationality make his opinion less valid? And before you say it bothers me because I am a Canadian - I don't give a flying fuck about my country and I would be absolutely fine if it broke up and disappeared completely.
Nationality does not inform the value of an individuals opinion and I can never understand why you're so focused on it. I know, I know, it's all in jest, right? It's ridiculous though, you're like a goddamn caricature. You just repeat the same things over and over again as if your belligerence somehow adds validity to your opinions and it makes it hard to take much of what you say seriously.
He never said anything bad or controversial, yet you jump all over him because it has to do with one of your Presidents. All he was doing was presenting a difference view of war in general, a valid one held by many people, and he never once said he subscribed to it.
I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but it's annoying to have to read the same rhetoric ad nauseam, and it makes it very difficult for legitimate discussion to take place because it frustrates and alienates people very quickly.
"Nationalism is a psychopathic, pernicious form of idiocy."
lol i can't be sure, but I think Lyle just got called a honky.
Truman was probably the greatest leader we have ever had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleWe didn't want to have to drop the bombs and we certainly gave them the option of us not doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGM
We gave them no such thing, we planned it in secret and dropped it on their fukkin heads. :confused: didnt we?
We didnt give them an option not to drop did we?
(other than the fight you guys finally decided to join in after Pearl Harbour?
The British knew about Pearl harbour way before it occured becuase we had already decoded the Gerrrys messages.Churchill decideded not to twll you guys becuasee was being ignored when he asked for your help over the past two years or so.
You guys wouldnt have even joined the war unless you got dragged into it so enough of the Canada does nothing stuff.
Oh and just in case... leave Australia out of it too. If you knew how things acutally operate between us all, you would know for a fact that Australian Sas were in deep doing work months and months prior to what people belive is the first shot. Even in the last conflicts in Iraq and Afganistan to prepare the way for your boys to arrive and do their ground work,we were in there about 8 months before anyone public even knew it was going to go down. NewZealanders and Canadians too. Even though we dont have the numbers you have to turn up on mass we are there with 'silent bells' on before you even know it and usually before you too if you look into it.
But riddle me this, what would have happened had we tried to win the war without the bombs??? I mean we had to drop TWO on them for them to even consider surrendering. The United States lost 354,523 (106,207 killed/248,316 wounded or MIA) men in the Pacific theater and we lost over 6,000 men just taking Iwo Jima! Over 7,000 were killed in Guadalcanal! Over 12,000 were killed in taking Okinawa! ....so how the hell do you think taking Japan proper would have gone????
I guess the main question I am asking you is would the death toll be higher or lower than the 80,000 (45,000-75,000 immediate deaths) total speculated deaths caused by the two bombings?
Because I KNOW the death toll would have been much higher than just 80,000. The Death toll had the US invaded Japan would have been 2-4 times higher than the 80,000 that died on account of the bombs and everyone else seems to know that and aknowledge that except for you.
So tell me Mr. Butterflies and Rainbows, how else were we to end the war with Japan and have FEWER casualties?
And also were there not civilian casualties in England from the bombing? Germany? USSR? China? and even the in US from Pearl Harbor?
Must be nice being from the great Vanilla country of Canada who does nothing wrong because they do NOTHING at all :rolleyes:
And for the record Im with the bombing, I dont think the Japs would have stopped for anything else.
In hinsight: If we knew the devestation that was to occur; ONE bomb and a threat to drop more would have been plenty enough to stop them.
Enough of the Vanilla and rainbow crap mate there are kids still being born that look like knots from that horrible fusion,the suffereing still goes on.
If we knew what we do now, we woudnt of dropped that size or that amount on the same targets.
Andre, you are well intentioned but alas history proves you wrong. Truman and other Allied leaders got together and on July 26, 1945 they issued the Potsdam Declaration which outlined the terms of Japan's surrender. They basically told Japan's leaders "If you don't surrender there will be a hole on the Earth where Japan used to be"...and apparently they thought we were bluffing.
Here's a timeline for everyone to follow: Potsdam Declaration July 26, 1945; Hiroshima was bombed August 6, 1945; Nagasaki was bombed August 9, 1945; and Truman announced the surrender of Japan SEPTEMBER 1, 1945.
FYI Andre, nobody knew the long term effects of those bombs but we did give them proper warning. The actual mission was carried out in secret because it had to be but Japan got warning and the fact that we HAD to drop a second one tells you they weren't going to just give up.
CFH, I'm sorry if the "nationalistic" comments offended you, however, to call the guy who effectively ended World War II a war criminal should offensive to everyone and HELL YES calling Trumana war criminal is controversial!!! I'm sorry, but I have no use for this revisionist history where America is turned into the villain it's bogus, nationalism may have something to do with it and the fact that America is a wonderful place to live and I am thankful for the opportunity to live here, or perhaps it's because the TRUTH is Truman did what was right to end the war, and thankfully he's the only US President/World Leader to ever use nuclear weapons and sure if he knew about the after effects he may have given Japan extra warnings other than the ones he actually issued but he would have still chose to end the war. When someone attacks America unfairly as just happened I do tend to get a little irritated, I'm not sure if someone missed that memo...but that's the case and in this case an unfounded (and unsupported) attack on what America/an American leader did was made and perhaps I reacted a little bit emotionally but I wanted to set the record straight and do it quickly because the type of ignorance that says "Truman is a war criminal" is shocking...do you kids not ask questions in class??? I hope to God this type of bullshit isn't being taught in American schools.
To be totally honest as an American I am really fucking tired of people painting America as the bad guy and the only reason we catch shit is because unlike Russia and China we try to do the right thing. I don't feel bad about being an American, and I probably never will.
I'm in a hurry so I have to respond pretty much in point form:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Your "nationalistic" comments don't bother me per se, however when you debase someones opinion based on their nationality and then ridicule them about it because they're not from America (as if that makes someone's opinions less valid), it aggravates me (and nearly everyone else) and it is insulting. It also leads to the degeneration of discussion, as is taking place in this thread.
Calling Truman a war criminal is somewhat controversial, but CGM did no such thing. He merely attempted to present a view by which some people would classify Truman, and many other military leaders, as war criminals for killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. In fact, from what I've seen, CGM's views on these matters are pretty close to the center.
No one "attacked" America, Van started a thread about the Daily Show's Truman comment and asked people to respond. If you can't handle those responses, then stay out of the thread.
You don't want people to question anything, you want them to agree with you. People do question things, that's why there are so many different opinions on these matters. In fact, your perspective is directly inline with what is commonly thought/believed, so it could be inferred that you are not questioning anything. I can't speak for everyone else, but where I attend school we are evaluated on our independent research and our critical thinking, which many times involves questioning what we are taught; if that doesn't encourage questioning, what does?
No one is painting America as the "bad guy" in this thread, we're merely discussing a polarizing figure who happens to be American. You just can't handle anyone saying anything remotely bad about the States, which is absurd.
In sum, if you can't respond like and adult and have a mature conversation, then don't respond.
Well I'm sorry CFH, but I got more than a tad peeved over a Canadian making a moral judgment of what an American President did, especially when given the results (ending World War II fast and with fewer casualties). I usually reserve my name calling for humorous purposes (even if you aren't laughing) but when you look back over Canada's history (and it is a fine one) they were never in the position that the US or England have been in and so they have never had to answer for their responsibilities the way the US and England have. That doesn't mean you don't get an opinion on the matter at all but you absolutely have to put yourself and your country in that situation, if you think losing 200,000 soldiers is better than losing 80,000 people altogether including civilians then that's fine, that's your opinion. I think it's fine to Monday Morning Quarterback all you want but to take a shot at a US President's morals in a time of war where he was faced with perhaps losing the war by taking Japan by force (either Japan pushes us back or they get the bomb and use it against us) or ending it quickly albeit with a lot of civilian casualties by dropping 2 bombs (and unbeknownst to him causing destruction with the fallout which no one expected/knew of at the time) then you have to say he was faced with 2 tough choices, he did what was right for his country and in the end it benefitted both countries because fewer Americans died AND fewer Japanese died. It was never Truman's intent to destroy that many civilians AND there were US POW's held there and some of them died as well and of course that is an unintended consequence.
Harry Truman was faced with 2 very piss poor options that could have had very grave outcomes but being the LEADER he was, he took a stand, he made a choice, and he stuck by it. He shouldn't be considered brave and noble for dropping the bombs but to be able to make the decision and stick by it was a VERY tough thing to do and I admire that he had the guts to make the call and not to flip flop over it.
People shouldn't agree with me on my opinion but they should agree with me about the actual history because it's correct.
#1 We did warn Japan
#2 We didn't know about the fallout
#3 We didn't intend to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people (I mean we intended to kill thousands of people just not as many as we did)
#4 We DID want to end the war and save the lives of our soldiers
#5 We DID also save Japanese lives
If we're looking at the moral aspect of this event and whether or not Truman is a war criminal then how the hell could you make a case against him knowing what the facts were?? And if you can make a war criminal of Truman then why not FDR and Chruchill????
People should question what they are taught at all times CFH. And my main reason for doing so is because you CANNOT judge someone from history by today's standards and consider that judgment relevant. Morals and values aren't always the same, they aren't always culturally similar either.
I just want that understood because the way I try to view history is how it went down when it happened and not how I read about it or am taught about it by some guy who uses today's standards to judge historical figures....it's good if you want to talk hypothetically but not if you want to understand what actually happened.
I hate to seem "immature" about it but I think that way of thinking (judging histrical figures by today's standards) is immature
First of all, I never made any assertions that Truman was a war criminal or that he shouldn't have dropped the bomb, only that I've heard well-respected historians make those statements with reasonable supporting positions, so I'm not going to bother addressing any of those points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Second, you essentially contradicted yourself by saying Canadians, and to extend your logic, anyone who's not a citizen of a country that is or once was a super-power (Canada was once part of England, we didn't really break 100% free until 1981, but we'll just ignore that fact for now), should not make moral judgements about an American President. You then proceed to make judgements about the abilities of Canadians to put themselves in the position of others when considering their actions. Why not? People from differently nations makes all sorts of justifiable claims about indidivuals from other nations all the time. By you logic, Americans shouldn't be able to make moral judgements about anyone who is not American. That's so fucking absurd I don't even know how to address it.
And don't tell me about the "fine" history of my country, because you don't know jack fucking shit about it beyond what you could read on wikipedia. Canada has done some terrible things and had to answer for them; we instituted a racial, assimilatory (with near-genocidal implications) policy against the First Nations people which is every bit as terrible as aparthied and other similar policies.
Finally, I clearly stated that by using the logic (I know that's pretty much a foreign term to you) applied by CGM that many other leaders (including Churchill, FDR, Mackenzie etc. etc. etc.) could be considering war criminals.
That's about as condescending a post as I've ever read. Thank you, oh wise one, for explaining to this simple-minded Canadian the ways in which history should be understood. You sound like Trainer Monkey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Explain to me how I do not question the things I am told? That statement is preposterous considering I have never once given my opinion on the matters being discussed in this thread (re: whether or not Truman should be considered a "war criminal".
Why should today's knowledge be ignored? More sources become available over time as certain files are declassified etc. and it makes sense to draw on as much information as possible when making historical statements.
All I did was answer CGM's claim that Truman was a war criminal...and that's what I figured your main point of contention was and so I tried to support my side of the argument is all.
Historians that believe Truman is a war criminal should probably look at the death tolls from the Island Hopping the Marines were doing I already posted the American casualties but the Japanese casualties were even worse: 21,703 (KIA) Iwo Jima; 31,000 (KIA) Guadalcanal; 94,000-130,000+ (KIA) Okinawa (also an estimated 42,000-150,000 civilians were killed in Okinawa too)....so have some historian tell me the 2 bombs didn't save a number of American AND Japanese lives!
CFH, I'm sorry, I don't know much about Canada, I shouldn't have tried to make that point. I do think World Super Powers look at things differently than other countries, but that's just my opinion. Sorry about that though...and you're right I never really got around to learning anything about Canada....you call your Indians "First Nations people", I had no clue...learn something new everyday.
I didn't mean for my other post to be condescending...I just meant to explain the way I look at things and why it may differ from someone else is all. But I can see that all I've done recently by trying to explain things has just stoked your anger at me....so I would appologize but I didn't intend to be condescending so I'll just welcome the chance that'll you might re-read that post in a different tone because condescending wasn't the tone I was shooting for.
Sure you can use today's information when you look at history! I never meant to imply that at all. You learn a lot of different things as you go along that you didn't pick up on before and when you apply those findings to history it may change or alter your views on the intentions of historical figures, why and how events happened and so on. All I was saying is that we can't assume historical figures knew the things we do now and we cannot judge a historical figure on modern moral values and social norms, and I think that is very relevant to the whole idea of even considering Truman as a war criminal as he did not know a lot of things about the bomb, like the fallout and how badly the survivors (or the people who lived for a little while after the bomb was dropped) would suffer, but he knew it could end the war and it could save lives and that I think should clear his name from any of this war criminal stuff because anyway you can look at it Truman saved lives.
:camera: b/c the above does not happen very often. Kudos for the statesmanship Lyle.