Daily Show calls Truman a war criminal

[Dark Lord Al]

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

[Gandalf]

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.

[VictorCharlie]

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.

[VictorCharlie]

by the way. Daily apologized the next day

[CFH]

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.

[OumaFan]

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.

[CFH]

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. The controversy at the time was not this, it was the did FDR know about Pearl Harbor thing.

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 while

[El Kabong]

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.

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


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

[El Kabong]

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.

[Gandalf]

by the way. Daily apologized the next day

He had no reason to apologize. He was correct in his assertion.

[VictorCharlie]

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.

[Gandalf]

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.

[Spicoli]

I'd re-title the thread O'reilly is a douche ,what a koolaid sipping fluffer boy.......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.