Daily Show calls Truman a war criminal

[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

[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.

[OumaFan]

for fucks sake, I just wrote the worst essay about the interwar period in Europe.

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.

[Youngblood]

I loved the truman show. I even cried a little.

Jon Stewart is a Bastard.

[CFH]

for fucks sake, I just wrote the worst essay about the interwar period in Europe.

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.

Are you specializing in European history?

[Andre]

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.

[Gandalf]

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

[CGM]

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.

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.

[VictorCharlie]

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.

[El Kabong]

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.

We didn't want to have to drop the bombs and we certainly gave them the option of us not doing 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

[OumaFan]

for fucks sake, I just wrote the worst essay about the interwar period in Europe.

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.

Are you specializing in European history?

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.

[CFH]

for fucks sake, I just wrote the worst essay about the interwar period in Europe.

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.

Are you specializing in European history?

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'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.