Daily Show calls Truman a war criminal

[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?

[El Kabong]

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

[CFH]

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

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.

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.

[CFH]

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
#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?

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.

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.

[El Kabong]

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.

[VictorCharlie]

b/c the above does not happen very often. Kudos for the statesmanship Lyle.

[CFH]

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.

The bolded part is the only thing I can address at the moment because I am rushed, but I've never heard any historian describe Truman as a war criminal, only that the surrender of Japan was not the only reason for the dropping of the atomic bomb and that it was not necessary in the eyes of some. I didn't realize I hadn't been clear about that.

[El Kabong]

Oh OK, the war criminal stuff was what was irritating me is all. I don't doubt that the US was racing to develop the bomb before Germany and the USSR, and maybe even Japan developed it. I know that the working relationship between the US/UK and USSR disentigrated with the end of the European Theater and that the Cold War started right then and there. Maybe by using the bomb Truman was able to kill two birds with one stone, he was able to end the Pacific Theater and intimidate the Russians.

Either way it doesn't make what he did a war crime or even bad....I mean it sucks that it took that much to end the war but the ends justified the means.

[OumaFan]

Where's Kirkland?

Everytime I post in these threads I do so for about two or three pages, realize points are just being rehashed and come back a few days later to see its like 15 pages long. Lyle and Kirk and indefatigable.

[Youngblood]

Is he that famous US president that used to like to dress up in womans cloths?