Daily Show calls Truman a war criminal

[CFH]

This thread is going to a happy place...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.