Will Trump be a war criminal like Truman?

[there4eyeM]

from 2004:

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

 

[gipper]

...and Truman was most certainly a war criminal and a liar.

He most certainly was not. His actions, while horrific, ended a war that would have certainly resulted in even thousands more dying than did by dropping the bomb.

Just a terrible lie. Read Ralph Raico.

I read it. It uses a handful of cherry picked quotes to support the assertion. It is flawed on so many fronts that it is practically comedy. Or it would be if it wasn't so sad.

If you go looking at History to learn and to understand everything about it you possibly can, you're starting in the right frame of mind. If you go searching for proof for a previously held belief, then you're doing a lot of work to justify your ideals instead of learning. You aren't learning, you're proving an assertion.

Ralph does not examine the question from the end of the 1800's like he should. Science Fiction was already examining the issue of air controlling the ground when the First World War starts. HG Wells wrote about an attack on New York City that drove America to it's knees in 1908. He wasn't alone. He wasn't the only one imagining and thinking of this kind of stuff. Jules Verne also wrote books about the subject in the 1880's.

You have to start much much earlier than 1945, or even 1944 to really understand the issue. You have to examine the period between World Wars, and you have to actually begin far before the First World War, when gas lanterns were the awesome invention that would replace candles.

That is when this all begins. The technology, the tactics, and strategies develop from that point.

With a few notable exceptions the military we will fight the war with in the 1940's is either developed, or in development in the late 1930's. The idea of strategic bombing, bombing targets that would harm enemy war efforts was in development. Close Air Support was proven by the Germans in Spain during the Civil War. That was the place where Blitzkreig was perfected.

There is so much more to consider.

No. Ralph logically blows up Truman's many changing reasons for his criminal act. What he did was no different from what the Nazis did with their extermination camps. Many leading Nazis were hung for their crimes.

Truth is hard for some Americans to accept. Man up.

 

[there4eyeM]

The bomb could have been dropped on the Japanese army in front of the Soviets in Manchuria, and everyone would have gotten the message without so many civilian innocents being immolated.
Any number of choices existed, not just invasion or nothing. The excuse of taking vengeance on the Japanese people for the acts of a régime it had no control over just doesn't wash.

 

[SavannahMann]

...and Truman was most certainly a war criminal and a liar.

He most certainly was not. His actions, while horrific, ended a war that would have certainly resulted in even thousands more dying than did by dropping the bomb.

Just a terrible lie. Read Ralph Raico.

I read it. It uses a handful of cherry picked quotes to support the assertion. It is flawed on so many fronts that it is practically comedy. Or it would be if it wasn't so sad.

If you go looking at History to learn and to understand everything about it you possibly can, you're starting in the right frame of mind. If you go searching for proof for a previously held belief, then you're doing a lot of work to justify your ideals instead of learning. You aren't learning, you're proving an assertion.

Ralph does not examine the question from the end of the 1800's like he should. Science Fiction was already examining the issue of air controlling the ground when the First World War starts. HG Wells wrote about an attack on New York City that drove America to it's knees in 1908. He wasn't alone. He wasn't the only one imagining and thinking of this kind of stuff. Jules Verne also wrote books about the subject in the 1880's.

You have to start much much earlier than 1945, or even 1944 to really understand the issue. You have to examine the period between World Wars, and you have to actually begin far before the First World War, when gas lanterns were the awesome invention that would replace candles.

That is when this all begins. The technology, the tactics, and strategies develop from that point.

With a few notable exceptions the military we will fight the war with in the 1940's is either developed, or in development in the late 1930's. The idea of strategic bombing, bombing targets that would harm enemy war efforts was in development. Close Air Support was proven by the Germans in Spain during the Civil War. That was the place where Blitzkreig was perfected.

There is so much more to consider.

No. Ralph logically blows up Truman's many changing reasons for his criminal act. What he did was no different from what the Nazis did with their extermination camps. Many leading Nazis were hung for their crimes.

Truth is hard for some Americans to accept. Man up.

Actually no. Ralph cherry picks a handful of quotes to justify the conclusion he wants. That isn't history. That is revisionist history. That is not truth.

It can be done. It was done with the battle of midway in the book Shattered Sword. But it was done with an intensive study of the totality of documents from the era. That effort shows what really led to the Japanese defeat at Midway. Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway

I love truth. I call myself a truth whore, i will take it from anyone.

 

[gipper]

...and Truman was most certainly a war criminal and a liar.

He most certainly was not. His actions, while horrific, ended a war that would have certainly resulted in even thousands more dying than did by dropping the bomb.

Just a terrible lie. Read Ralph Raico.

I read it. It uses a handful of cherry picked quotes to support the assertion. It is flawed on so many fronts that it is practically comedy. Or it would be if it wasn't so sad.

If you go looking at History to learn and to understand everything about it you possibly can, you're starting in the right frame of mind. If you go searching for proof for a previously held belief, then you're doing a lot of work to justify your ideals instead of learning. You aren't learning, you're proving an assertion.

Ralph does not examine the question from the end of the 1800's like he should. Science Fiction was already examining the issue of air controlling the ground when the First World War starts. HG Wells wrote about an attack on New York City that drove America to it's knees in 1908. He wasn't alone. He wasn't the only one imagining and thinking of this kind of stuff. Jules Verne also wrote books about the subject in the 1880's.

You have to start much much earlier than 1945, or even 1944 to really understand the issue. You have to examine the period between World Wars, and you have to actually begin far before the First World War, when gas lanterns were the awesome invention that would replace candles.

That is when this all begins. The technology, the tactics, and strategies develop from that point.

With a few notable exceptions the military we will fight the war with in the 1940's is either developed, or in development in the late 1930's. The idea of strategic bombing, bombing targets that would harm enemy war efforts was in development. Close Air Support was proven by the Germans in Spain during the Civil War. That was the place where Blitzkreig was perfected.

There is so much more to consider.

No. Ralph logically blows up Truman's many changing reasons for his criminal act. What he did was no different from what the Nazis did with their extermination camps. Many leading Nazis were hung for their crimes.

Truth is hard for some Americans to accept. Man up.

Actually no. Ralph cherry picks a handful of quotes to justify the conclusion he wants. That isn't history. That is revisionist history. That is not truth.

It can be done. It was done with the battle of midway in the book Shattered Sword. But it was done with an intensive study of the totality of documents from the era. That effort shows what really led to the Japanese defeat at Midway. Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway

I love truth. I call myself a truth whore, i will take it from anyone.

I don't think you understand history. Ralph quotes Truman and others you were in the leadership at the time. That is history. He also states facts such as the two cities were not military bases, like Pearl Harbor was.

Ralph is an extremely intelligent man with many accomplishments. A PhD. What are your credentials?

 

[Redfish]

...and Truman was most certainly a war criminal and a liar.

He most certainly was not. His actions, while horrific, ended a war that would have certainly resulted in even thousands more dying than did by dropping the bomb.

Just a terrible lie. Read Ralph Raico.

dropping the bombs saved millions of lives on both sides. We were gearing up in the Phillipines for a land invasion of Japan, my dad was there in Manila. Truman made the tough decision and saved millions of lives. Remember, we did not start that war, Japan started it by invading Pearl Harbor, we finished it by destroying two Japanese cities.

Truman had guts and did what he had to do. I doubt that there any democrats today like Harry Truman.

 

[rightwinger]

It ended the war

 

[Redfish]

The OP shows how the liberal "mind" works. Japan attacks and Truman retaliates, NK threatens a nuclear attack and Trump promises retaliation. and the libtardians call Truman and Trump war criminals. Liberalism = insanity

 

[easyt65]

Snowflakeslove xalling people what THEY are:

Barry is a war criminal becauae...

1. He killed people in Libya without the US being offically, Constitutionally in an approved war

2. He jilled people in Syria wihout the US being offically, Constitutionally in an approved war

3. He un-Constitutionally killed Americans with his own personal drone assassination program

 

[Theowl32]

I am telling you, it was either drop the bombs or a long hot war with the USSR.

Those were the real choices.

That is what the bombs were about.

What would you do? I know the left loved mother USSR, so I don't need answers from them. We know how they all have posters of the rosenbergs and still don't know or care that McCarthy was pretty much vindicated after the release of the Venona papers. Oh, they will of course claim that is totally false.

We know what they are, right? Rather clear.

So again, what do you do? Have a long drawn out intense war with the USSR like Patton wanted or drop the bombs?

Those are your choices. Please don't tell me about where the bombs should have been dropped. There was cloud cover issues, there was no such thing as precision bombing. So give that a rest.

Again....

Long drawn out war with the USSR?

Or

Drop the bombs?

Those are the choices. What do you do?

 

[gipper]

...and Truman was most certainly a war criminal and a liar.

He most certainly was not. His actions, while horrific, ended a war that would have certainly resulted in even thousands more dying than did by dropping the bomb.

Just a terrible lie. Read Ralph Raico.

dropping the bombs saved millions of lives on both sides. We were gearing up in the Phillipines for a land invasion of Japan, my dad was there in Manila. Truman made the tough decision and saved millions of lives. Remember, we did not start that war, Japan started it by invading Pearl Harbor, we finished it by destroying two Japanese cities.

Truman had guts and did what he had to do. I doubt that there any democrats today like Harry Truman.

Just another lie repeated long enough, that some believe it.

 

[Theowl32]

...and Truman was most certainly a war criminal and a liar.

He most certainly was not. His actions, while horrific, ended a war that would have certainly resulted in even thousands more dying than did by dropping the bomb.

Just a terrible lie. Read Ralph Raico.

dropping the bombs saved millions of lives on both sides. We were gearing up in the Phillipines for a land invasion of Japan, my dad was there in Manila. Truman made the tough decision and saved millions of lives. Remember, we did not start that war, Japan started it by invading Pearl Harbor, we finished it by destroying two Japanese cities.

Truman had guts and did what he had to do. I doubt that there any democrats today like Harry Truman.

Just another lie repeated long enough, that some believe it.

What do you do?

Long drawn out war with the USSR?

Or

Drop the bombs?

Those are the choices. What do you do?

 

[gipper]

...and Truman was most certainly a war criminal and a liar.

He most certainly was not. His actions, while horrific, ended a war that would have certainly resulted in even thousands more dying than did by dropping the bomb.

Just a terrible lie. Read Ralph Raico.

dropping the bombs saved millions of lives on both sides. We were gearing up in the Phillipines for a land invasion of Japan, my dad was there in Manila. Truman made the tough decision and saved millions of lives. Remember, we did not start that war, Japan started it by invading Pearl Harbor, we finished it by destroying two Japanese cities.

Truman had guts and did what he had to do. I doubt that there any democrats today like Harry Truman.

Just another lie repeated long enough, that some believe it.

What do you do?

Long drawn out war with the USSR?

Or

Drop the bombs?

Those are the choices. What do you do?

Easy. Accept Japan's surrender. Done and lots of innocent lives saved.

 

[Theowl32]

He most certainly was not. His actions, while horrific, ended a war that would have certainly resulted in even thousands more dying than did by dropping the bomb.

Just a terrible lie. Read Ralph Raico.

dropping the bombs saved millions of lives on both sides. We were gearing up in the Phillipines for a land invasion of Japan, my dad was there in Manila. Truman made the tough decision and saved millions of lives. Remember, we did not start that war, Japan started it by invading Pearl Harbor, we finished it by destroying two Japanese cities.

Truman had guts and did what he had to do. I doubt that there any democrats today like Harry Truman.

Just another lie repeated long enough, that some believe it.

What do you do?

Long drawn out war with the USSR?

Or

Drop the bombs?

Those are the choices. What do you do?

Easy. Accept Japan's surrender. Done and lots of innocent lives saved.

Those were not one of the choices.

Just to repeat.

Long drawn out war with the USSR?

Or

Drop the bombs?

Those are the choices.

What do you do?

 

[gipper]

Just a terrible lie. Read Ralph Raico.

dropping the bombs saved millions of lives on both sides. We were gearing up in the Phillipines for a land invasion of Japan, my dad was there in Manila. Truman made the tough decision and saved millions of lives. Remember, we did not start that war, Japan started it by invading Pearl Harbor, we finished it by destroying two Japanese cities.

Truman had guts and did what he had to do. I doubt that there any democrats today like Harry Truman.

Just another lie repeated long enough, that some believe it.

What do you do?

Long drawn out war with the USSR?

Or

Drop the bombs?

Those are the choices. What do you do?

Easy. Accept Japan's surrender. Done and lots of innocent lives saved.

Those were not one of the choices.

Just to repeat.

Long drawn out war with the USSR?

Or

Drop the bombs?

Those are the choices.

What do you do?

Doesn't matter. That is the choice that ends the war and saves lots of lives. EASY PEASY.

 

[Theowl32]

dropping the bombs saved millions of lives on both sides. We were gearing up in the Phillipines for a land invasion of Japan, my dad was there in Manila. Truman made the tough decision and saved millions of lives. Remember, we did not start that war, Japan started it by invading Pearl Harbor, we finished it by destroying two Japanese cities.

Truman had guts and did what he had to do. I doubt that there any democrats today like Harry Truman.

Just another lie repeated long enough, that some believe it.

What do you do?

Long drawn out war with the USSR?

Or

Drop the bombs?

Those are the choices. What do you do?

Easy. Accept Japan's surrender. Done and lots of innocent lives saved.

Those were not one of the choices.

Just to repeat.

Long drawn out war with the USSR?

Or

Drop the bombs?

Those are the choices.

What do you do?

Doesn't matter. That is the choice that ends the war and saves lots of lives. EASY PEASY.

Ok, you won't answer the question. It's cool.

Oh and on a side note, if Japan planned on surrendering to the USSR, what do you do?

For the record, they were not surrendering.

You realize they did not surrender until USSR backed off and after the second bomb, right?

Just wasn't sure if you knew that.

 

[SavannahMann]

He most certainly was not. His actions, while horrific, ended a war that would have certainly resulted in even thousands more dying than did by dropping the bomb.

Just a terrible lie. Read Ralph Raico.

I read it. It uses a handful of cherry picked quotes to support the assertion. It is flawed on so many fronts that it is practically comedy. Or it would be if it wasn't so sad.

If you go looking at History to learn and to understand everything about it you possibly can, you're starting in the right frame of mind. If you go searching for proof for a previously held belief, then you're doing a lot of work to justify your ideals instead of learning. You aren't learning, you're proving an assertion.

Ralph does not examine the question from the end of the 1800's like he should. Science Fiction was already examining the issue of air controlling the ground when the First World War starts. HG Wells wrote about an attack on New York City that drove America to it's knees in 1908. He wasn't alone. He wasn't the only one imagining and thinking of this kind of stuff. Jules Verne also wrote books about the subject in the 1880's.

You have to start much much earlier than 1945, or even 1944 to really understand the issue. You have to examine the period between World Wars, and you have to actually begin far before the First World War, when gas lanterns were the awesome invention that would replace candles.

That is when this all begins. The technology, the tactics, and strategies develop from that point.

With a few notable exceptions the military we will fight the war with in the 1940's is either developed, or in development in the late 1930's. The idea of strategic bombing, bombing targets that would harm enemy war efforts was in development. Close Air Support was proven by the Germans in Spain during the Civil War. That was the place where Blitzkreig was perfected.

There is so much more to consider.

No. Ralph logically blows up Truman's many changing reasons for his criminal act. What he did was no different from what the Nazis did with their extermination camps. Many leading Nazis were hung for their crimes.

Truth is hard for some Americans to accept. Man up.

Actually no. Ralph cherry picks a handful of quotes to justify the conclusion he wants. That isn't history. That is revisionist history. That is not truth.

It can be done. It was done with the battle of midway in the book Shattered Sword. But it was done with an intensive study of the totality of documents from the era. That effort shows what really led to the Japanese defeat at Midway. Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway

I love truth. I call myself a truth whore, i will take it from anyone.

I don't think you understand history. Ralph quotes Truman and others you were in the leadership at the time. That is history. He also states facts such as the two cities were not military bases, like Pearl Harbor was.

Ralph is an extremely intelligent man with many accomplishments. A PhD. What are your credentials?

A PhD does not make you right. For example, has Ralph addressed the simple fact that any place where roads or rail converged was considered a military target and had been by this time in the war for six years? That's the justification for the bombing of every single city. They were military communications junctures. In other words, the roads and rails converged. Or are you and he suggesting that there were no roads in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

Additionally Hiroshima had the headquarters for the 2nd Army.

Avalon Project - The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

So you have lines of communication, that's what roads and rail and sea ways are called to the military, and military headquarters. Unless Yale University is full of shit that is.

That's the problem with Ralph's analysis. You have to get rid of literally decades of work by literally tens of thousands of researchers to join with him. It's like the fools who claim that Roosevelt wanted the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor as an excuse to get into the war. It doesn't make any sense. If the Japanese had attacked a prepared Pearl Harbor, and been defeated the war would have still been on. Or that Kimmel and Short were idiots chosen to be the fall guys, I've read that. It was ludicrous. Both of them had exceptional records, and the evidence clearly shows that they were chosen because they both had long careers of successful assignments.

I've heard most of this nonsense before, and it flies in the face of all the evidence, and all the history. Johnathan Parshel did this with both the battles of Guadalcanal, and the Battle of Midway. In the Midway book he showed that the accepted view, that the bombers hit the Japanese carriers five minutes before they would have launched their own attack against the Americans is nonsense. He had to dive into the procedure manuals, construction records for the Japanese ships, Standard Operating Procedure manuals, and he was able to show it did not happen that way.

I'll give you a hint. It took an hour to move the airplanes from the hanger deck to the flight deck to prepare them for launch. While these planes are on the flight deck, with a straight deck carrier, you can't land anything. So the fighters that were recorded as landing to be rearmed, and refueled and sent back aloft would have caused a massive crash and destruction as they landed into parked aircraft. Carriers in that era could launch aircraft, or recover aircraft. They could not do both at once.

The movie Battle of Midway has the pilot claiming that bombs were on the decks. Plainly visible in other words. Again, virtually impossible. The elevators for the munitions did not rise to the carrier flight decks, only as far as the hanger decks. And while the planes were being rearmed, they would have prevented the staging and launching of fighters to fight the waves of American planes. So rearming them on the deck was not happening.

Why did the Japanese Carriers go up so fast? In short, Damage Control policy and procedures.

All of this was referenced and demonstrated and any reader who doubted the conclusion could go to the archives and see for themselves. Yes, it changes the way we view an event decades later, but it does so by questioning every assumption, and belief. It just doesn't discount them, the author went and checked the facts.

Ralph writing a handful of quotes is absolutely just revisionist history. There was no prohibition against atomic weapons, because they did not exist before. There were no international agreements on how airplanes would be used. We had not the time as a people to really consider it.

Conflicting estimates that claim this many casualties, or that man, is normal. Everyone has an opinion, and reasons for it. But make no mistake, the Japanese were not ready to surrender. The Emporer was nearly killed when he did make the decision thanks to a Coup Attempt.

Oh, they would never do that to their beloved emporer right? Guess what. Hirohito's father was locked in his chambers for his own protection after he rolled a parchment into a cylinder and peered through it like he was a pirate using a telescope. From then on all Imperial Scripts, that is to say orders, were taken to the chambers by the trusted aides, and then brought back out signed and sealed.

Hirohito knew this, saw it, and knew if he did not act exactly the way the military wanted, he would likely be subjected to the same fate, for his own protection.

Do you think these actions were faked? Even after the first bomb, the Japanese Military was not ready to surrender. It took Hirohito to personally order it, clearly, not just a suggestion or vague desire. That only took place after the second bomb. Finally the war he didn't want, was over. The chosen people were defeated.

You can't just cherry pick a few quotes and say that the rest of the information, the rest of the evidence does not matter. That's what Ralph is doing. It's history, the picture is never going to line up perfectly, but you can get it pretty clear. Ralph is ignoring everything, and trying to prove the Picture was faked. He needs a lot more than a few quotes, and he doesn't have it.

 

[gipper]

Just another lie repeated long enough, that some believe it.

What do you do?

Long drawn out war with the USSR?

Or

Drop the bombs?

Those are the choices. What do you do?

Easy. Accept Japan's surrender. Done and lots of innocent lives saved.

Those were not one of the choices.

Just to repeat.

Long drawn out war with the USSR?

Or

Drop the bombs?

Those are the choices.

What do you do?

Doesn't matter. That is the choice that ends the war and saves lots of lives. EASY PEASY.

Ok, you won't answer the question. It's cool.

Oh and on a side note, if Japan planned on surrendering to the USSR, what do you do?

For the record, they were not surrendering.

You realize they did not surrender until USSR backed off and after the second bomb, right?

Just wasn't sure if you knew that.

The US military had complete control of the air and sea around Japan. It would not have mattered if they surrendered to the USSR, the US controlled the region.

 

[Theowl32]

What do you do?

Long drawn out war with the USSR?

Or

Drop the bombs?

Those are the choices. What do you do?

Easy. Accept Japan's surrender. Done and lots of innocent lives saved.

Those were not one of the choices.

Just to repeat.

Long drawn out war with the USSR?

Or

Drop the bombs?

Those are the choices.

What do you do?

Doesn't matter. That is the choice that ends the war and saves lots of lives. EASY PEASY.

Ok, you won't answer the question. It's cool.

Oh and on a side note, if Japan planned on surrendering to the USSR, what do you do?

For the record, they were not surrendering.

You realize they did not surrender until USSR backed off and after the second bomb, right?

Just wasn't sure if you knew that.

The US military had complete control of the air and sea around Japan. It would not have mattered if they surrendered to the USSR, the US controlled the region.

If they had surrendered to stalin, then stalin would have controlled the region.

Understand that the cold war had begun.

Understand that the bombs were to prevent a war with the USSR.

You don't buy that. I get it.

The question is, if dropping the bombs prevented a war with the USSR, was it worth it?

You don't have to believe it to answer. Remember, August 8th 1945, the USSR declared war on Japan. August 9th, fat boy was dropped. Is that a bizarre coincidence? Russia was clearly trying to take over the whole region. Stalin knew the American people would not be behind another long war. If anything, the USSR spies certainly had the pulse of the American people. That only emboldened the encroachment.

Patton knew all too well what was happening and he wanted a war with them.

The bombs were dropped in order to save us from a long drawn out war with Russia.

Period. Still not quite sure what your choice would be if what I am saying is true.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Harry Truman was the last democrat worth a damn. He didn't know FDR had the Manhattan Project underway for almost 2 years and didn't find out before Roosevelt died and he became president. When the bombs (we only had two) were ready he was told we would lose hundreds of thousands of Troops in the invasion of Japan. Claiming an invasion wasn't necessary is idiocy...the Japs were trying for a cessation of hostilities and Truman answered with Hiroshima. They didn't quit so a couple days later we hit Nagasaki. We were out of A-bombs and if the Japs had known that, they still wouldn't have quit. Here's Harry:

The Japanese were out of oil and other war essentials, and had been sending messages of wilingness to surrender. Truman must have been aware of this. The best guess is that USA wanted to send a message to a future enemy, Russia, of it's capabilities.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?

gip, If they were willing to surrender, UNDER OUR TERMS and not their own, there would not have been a second bomb.
The Japanese citizenry was in full support of their country. And their country was so resistant to surrender that 1. knowing the devastation caused by the first bomb, and 2. having no bombs to retaliate with, it STILL took two bombs to convince them it would be prudent to concede defeat.
That war could have gone on for years and cost an untold thousands of American deaths had Truman not made that difficult decision. Husbands came home. Sons and daughters came home because he did. My Daddy was one. Truman was right.
They declared war on us. We ended it. Japan didn't have the right to dictate how we stopped them from killing us.
Truman and the rest of our country were war victims. We were sleeping. They came a killing. Hirohito and the Empire of Japan that passed a lawful Declaration of War against the United States were the criminals. you dumbass..