Daily Show calls Truman a war criminal

[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.

[CGM]

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.

[VictorCharlie]

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.

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.

[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

[CFH]

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

I'm starting to get seriously tired of these kinds of statements.

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."

[Youngblood]

lol i can't be sure, but I think Lyle just got called a honky.

[boozeboxer]

Truman was probably the greatest leader we have ever had.

[Andre]

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.


We gave them no such thing, we planned it in secret and dropped it on their fukkin heads. 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

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.

[El Kabong]

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.

[CFH]

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:

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.

[El Kabong]

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?

[Andre]

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.

Cool mate, I didnt know that.
So your forefathers did issue a warning! Makes me feel alot better that they did to be honest, but it surprises me somewhat.
I would have thought a lesser target would have been a fair warning, you know: show them the hole in the ground in their not so populated areas and then give them a count down..I imagine in hindsight they would probably do that now.