Will Trump be a war criminal like Truman?

[Syriusly]

10 Most Devastating Bombing Campaigns of WWII

Considering that Nagasaki is estimated somewhere near 40,000 initially and Hiroshima at about 10,000 that puts both not quite on top of the list for bombing deaths.

Until WW2 the practice of civilian targets was pretty much banned. Armies would assemble in fields and fight it out. England actually changed that when the Germans accidentally bombed part of London, or some civilian target, which lead to the allies bombing of German cities. This was done to distract the Germans from bombing military targets which were determined to be more valuable. Quite the sacrifice.

That said, the use of the atom bombs was hardly less barbaric then the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden which resulted in as many or even more horrific casualties.

There was an enemy and the barbaric enemy was defeated with the means provided to the President. He really has nothing to apologize for considering places like Dresden, London and Tokyo. War is hell, and a good thing it is or we would repeat it. (William Tecumseh Sherman)

Does that somehow justify what American forces did to Japan? Does that justify what Truman did in incinerating 200K innocent Japanese women and children?

Why do Americans think Total War acceptable?

First of all- both sides 'incinerated innocent women and children'- no one had clean hands.

Nor were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki even the worst bombings on Japan- the fire bombings of Tokyo killed more.

Is it ever legitimate to kill 'innocent' civilians in pursuit of military targets?

If yes- then this is not a war crime. There were legitimate military targets in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

If no- then every countries leader who has ever ordered strikes against their enemies are probably equally 'guilty of war crimes'.

Those two Japanese cities were NOT military bases. Stop believing the lies to justify the war crime. Get informed before posting.

I didn't say 'military bases'- don't misconstrue what i said- I said 'military targets'- and they were both significant military targets- with military personnel- and with military industry

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military units were located nearby, the most important of which was the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan,[110] and was located in Hiroshima Castle. Hata's command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly anticipated.[111] Also present in Hiroshima were the headquarters of the 59th Army, the 5th Division and the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit.[112] The city was defended by five batteries of 7-cm and 8-cm (2.8 and 3.1 inch) anti-aircraft guns of the 3rd Anti-Aircraft Division, including units from the 121st and 122nd Anti-Aircraft Regiments and the 22nd and 45th Separate Anti-Aircraft Battalions. In total, an estimated 40,000 Japanese military personnel were stationed in the city.[113]

Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military, but it also had large stockpiles of military supplies.[114] The city was also a communications center, a key port for shipping and an assembly area for troops.[76] It was a beehive of war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns;
****
The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest seaports in southern Japan, and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The four largest companies in the city were Mitsubishi Shipyards, Electrical Shipyards, Arms Plant, and Steel and Arms Works, which employed about 90% of the city's labor force, and accounted for 90% of the city's industry.[188] Although an important industrial city, Nagasaki had been spared from firebombing because its geography made it difficult to locate at night with AN/APQ-13 radar.[117]

On the day of the bombing, an estimated 263,000 people were in Nagasaki, including 240,000 Japanese residents, 10,000 Korean residents, 2,500 conscripted Korean workers, 9,000 Japanese soldiers, 600 conscripted Chinese workers, and 400 Allied prisoners of war in a camp to the north of Nagasaki.[190][191]

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were as 'legitimate targets' as any of the other cities in Japan that the United States bombed in World War 2- the only difference is that we used atomic bombs on these two cities.

And I would not wish that on anyone-- but those bombs resulted in the end of Japanese militarism- and prompted the Emperor to push for peace- even at the risk of his own life from anti-peace Army factions who opposed surrendering.

 

[there4eyeM]

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an inexcusable, racist act. As stated above, dropping the first bomb on the Japanese Army that faced the Soviets near the end of the war would have;
a) destroyed a real Japanese military target
b) put the Japanese on notice that Tokyo, their Empereur and entire nation were vulnerable to become tinder for nuclear fire
c) let the Stalinist totalitarians know their ass was grass if they didn't toe the line
No need to drop even one more bomb of any kind on the poor Japanese people, who were as innocent (or even more so) of war crime guilt as are the présent Americans for the war crimes of their Presidents. The island was encircled with a hostile navy. Nothing could get through, and Japan must import to survive. Surrender was inevitable, though probably more Japanese would have died from hunger than died in the bombs. The régime in Tokyo,( like Hitler, Stalin and many more), was only too willing to sacrifice any number to their imbecile ideas. But, no invasion, as such, was 'necessary'. Walking in and occupying after the white flags were flying is not an invasion, with a million dead.

 

[Syriusly]

10 Most Devastating Bombing Campaigns of WWII

Considering that Nagasaki is estimated somewhere near 40,000 initially and Hiroshima at about 10,000 that puts both not quite on top of the list for bombing deaths.

Until WW2 the practice of civilian targets was pretty much banned. Armies would assemble in fields and fight it out. England actually changed that when the Germans accidentally bombed part of London, or some civilian target, which lead to the allies bombing of German cities. This was done to distract the Germans from bombing military targets which were determined to be more valuable. Quite the sacrifice.

That said, the use of the atom bombs was hardly less barbaric then the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden which resulted in as many or even more horrific casualties.

There was an enemy and the barbaric enemy was defeated with the means provided to the President. He really has nothing to apologize for considering places like Dresden, London and Tokyo. War is hell, and a good thing it is or we would repeat it. (William Tecumseh Sherman)

Does that somehow justify what American forces did to Japan? Does that justify what Truman did in incinerating 200K innocent Japanese women and children?

Why do Americans think Total War acceptable?

First of all- both sides 'incinerated innocent women and children'- no one had clean hands.

Nor were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki even the worst bombings on Japan- the fire bombings of Tokyo killed more.

Is it ever legitimate to kill 'innocent' civilians in pursuit of military targets?

If yes- then this is not a war crime. There were legitimate military targets in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

If no- then every countries leader who has ever ordered strikes against their enemies are probably equally 'guilty of war crimes'.

So much wrong with that post...do you even read what you write?

Yes both sides committed atrocities. So? Does that mean that Truman's incineration of 200,000 innocent women and children, is justified? We Americans like to think we are not like those nasty Nazis, Commies, Imperial Japanese, etc....but unfortunately, our leadership is just as bad. Man up! Accept it as fact.

Those two Japanese cities were NOT military bases. Stop believing the lies to justify the war crime. Get informed before posting.

I never said those two bombings were the worst bombings of Japan. Why do you bring this up? So what of it? Does this also somehow legitimatize Truman's mass murder, since conventional bombings were worse?

And you of course refused to answer the questions

Is it ever legitimate to kill 'innocent' civilians in pursuit of military targets?

If yes- then this is not a war crime. There were legitimate military targets in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

If no- then every countries leader who has ever ordered strikes against their enemies are probably equally 'guilty of war crimes'.

Man up- answer the questions.

 

[gipper]

10 Most Devastating Bombing Campaigns of WWII

Considering that Nagasaki is estimated somewhere near 40,000 initially and Hiroshima at about 10,000 that puts both not quite on top of the list for bombing deaths.

Until WW2 the practice of civilian targets was pretty much banned. Armies would assemble in fields and fight it out. England actually changed that when the Germans accidentally bombed part of London, or some civilian target, which lead to the allies bombing of German cities. This was done to distract the Germans from bombing military targets which were determined to be more valuable. Quite the sacrifice.

That said, the use of the atom bombs was hardly less barbaric then the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden which resulted in as many or even more horrific casualties.

There was an enemy and the barbaric enemy was defeated with the means provided to the President. He really has nothing to apologize for considering places like Dresden, London and Tokyo. War is hell, and a good thing it is or we would repeat it. (William Tecumseh Sherman)

Does that somehow justify what American forces did to Japan? Does that justify what Truman did in incinerating 200K innocent Japanese women and children?

Why do Americans think Total War acceptable?

First of all- both sides 'incinerated innocent women and children'- no one had clean hands.

Nor were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki even the worst bombings on Japan- the fire bombings of Tokyo killed more.

Is it ever legitimate to kill 'innocent' civilians in pursuit of military targets?

If yes- then this is not a war crime. There were legitimate military targets in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

If no- then every countries leader who has ever ordered strikes against their enemies are probably equally 'guilty of war crimes'.

I never said those two bombings were the worst bombings of Japan. Why do you bring this up? So what of it? Does this also somehow legitimatize Truman's mass murder, since conventional bombings were worse?

Why do i bring this up?

Because you are hell bent on calling Truman a war criminal. The fire bombings of Tokyo caused 75,000–200,000 civilian deaths- approved of by FDR. And of course there was also Dresden.

So why are you comparing Trump to Truman- not FDR?

Why can't I compare Trump to Truman? If Trump goes nuclear, what other president should I compare him to?

History Lesson for you...
Truman took it upon himself to drop the a-bombs. He said many times, that he was the one solely responsible for the decision to incinerate 200,000 women and children. Did you know this?

FDR was a major asshole...without question one of our worst presidents. That said, he just didn't live long enough to do exactly what Truman did.

 

[Freewill]

...and Truman was most certainly a war criminal and a liar. Let's hope Trump does not follow in his footsteps.

From the great Ralph Raico....the truth...you might not like it.

Harry Truman and the Atomic Bomb
Great controversy has always surrounded the bombings. One thing Truman insisted on from the start was that the decision to use the bombs, and the responsibility it entailed, was his. Over the years, he gave different, and contradictory, grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that he had acted simply out of revenge. To a clergyman who criticized him, Truman responded testily,

Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.2

Such reasoning will not impress anyone who fails to see how the brutality of the Japanese military could justify deadly retaliation against innocent men, women, and children. Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.

This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, “all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city — and escaped serious damage.”4 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: “The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible,” he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing “all those kids.”5 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people … all those kids.

Harry Truman’s Atomic Bombs - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

If there was no Pearl Harbor sneak arrack...there would have been no Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Don't start some if you don't want none. Should of dropped 10 A-bombs on their fucking asses.

Illogical, but many Americans think this way.

Pearl Harbor was a military base. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were cities occupied by civilians, mostly women, children, and old men. Truman mass murdered 200k innocent Japanese. The Japanese killed 2,335 mostly American military personnel, at Pearl Harbor. I guess if you are nuts, you might think those actions are comparable.

40,000 to 300,000 died in the rape of Nanking, all civilians

The civilian population supported the government and would have taken up arms against any invasion.

 

[gipper]

...and Truman was most certainly a war criminal and a liar. Let's hope Trump does not follow in his footsteps.

From the great Ralph Raico....the truth...you might not like it.

Harry Truman and the Atomic Bomb
Great controversy has always surrounded the bombings. One thing Truman insisted on from the start was that the decision to use the bombs, and the responsibility it entailed, was his. Over the years, he gave different, and contradictory, grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that he had acted simply out of revenge. To a clergyman who criticized him, Truman responded testily,

Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.2

Such reasoning will not impress anyone who fails to see how the brutality of the Japanese military could justify deadly retaliation against innocent men, women, and children. Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.

This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, “all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city — and escaped serious damage.”4 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: “The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible,” he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing “all those kids.”5 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people … all those kids.

Harry Truman’s Atomic Bombs - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

If there was no Pearl Harbor sneak arrack...there would have been no Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Don't start some if you don't want none. Should of dropped 10 A-bombs on their fucking asses.

Illogical, but many Americans think this way.

Pearl Harbor was a military base. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were cities occupied by civilians, mostly women, children, and old men. Truman mass murdered 200k innocent Japanese. The Japanese killed 2,335 mostly American military personnel, at Pearl Harbor. I guess if you are nuts, you might think those actions are comparable.

40,000 to 300,000 died in the rape of Nanking, all civilians

The civilian population supported the government and would have taken up arms against any invasion.

Thank you.

Could you please tell me what you think this means as it relates to my OP?

 

[there4eyeM]

The civilian population felt a visceral attachment to the civilian population.

 

[Freewill]

...and Truman was most certainly a war criminal and a liar. Let's hope Trump does not follow in his footsteps.

From the great Ralph Raico....the truth...you might not like it.

Harry Truman and the Atomic Bomb
Great controversy has always surrounded the bombings. One thing Truman insisted on from the start was that the decision to use the bombs, and the responsibility it entailed, was his. Over the years, he gave different, and contradictory, grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that he had acted simply out of revenge. To a clergyman who criticized him, Truman responded testily,

Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.2

Such reasoning will not impress anyone who fails to see how the brutality of the Japanese military could justify deadly retaliation against innocent men, women, and children. Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.

This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, “all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city — and escaped serious damage.”4 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: “The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible,” he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing “all those kids.”5 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people … all those kids.

Harry Truman’s Atomic Bombs - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

If there was no Pearl Harbor sneak arrack...there would have been no Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Don't start some if you don't want none. Should of dropped 10 A-bombs on their fucking asses.

Illogical, but many Americans think this way.

Pearl Harbor was a military base. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were cities occupied by civilians, mostly women, children, and old men. Truman mass murdered 200k innocent Japanese. The Japanese killed 2,335 mostly American military personnel, at Pearl Harbor. I guess if you are nuts, you might think those actions are comparable.

40,000 to 300,000 died in the rape of Nanking, all civilians

The civilian population supported the government and would have taken up arms against any invasion.

Thank you.

Could you please tell me what you think this means as it relates to my OP?

I am usually on your side of the argument, I don't think they needed to bomb the cities. But when you start using the words war crime and condemning those who could only imagine being in their shoes I do have a problem.

I do have a problem with total war. The bombing of Dresden, in my opinion, was totally uncalled for, it was basically a civilian target.

But at the time the Japanese people were not like the German people. The Japanese people were totally dedicated to the Emperor and would have gladly died for him. The massacres and despotic behaviors I point out are those of a country that needed dealt with the same violence that they would have inflicted in us, if they had the chance. Hell they tried with their balloon attack on the west coast. The attacks were not very effective but they did manage to kill a few civilians.

So that is the atmosphere at the time. I don't blame them for decision they made, it is not the one I THINK I would have made but I will be damned if I am going to play Monday quarterback on something that happened 70 years ago.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is important that the thinking of today not replicate the insanity of the past.

 

[Freewill]

The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb: Arguments in Support

Very good breakdown of how and why the decision was made.

From the article:
Despite Roosevelt’s “appeal” in 1939, he and the nation had long crossed that moral line by war’s end. This fact perhaps reveals the psychological effects of killing on all of the war’s participants, and says something about the moral atmosphere in which President Truman found himself upon the President’s death. On February 13, 1945, 1,300 U.S. and British heavy bombers firebombed the German city of Dresden, the center of German art and culture, creating a firestorm that destroyed 15 square miles and killed 25,000 civilians. Meanwhile, still five weeks before Truman took office; American bombers dropped 2,000 tons of napalm on Tokyo, creating a firestorm with hurricane-force winds. Flight crews flying high over the 16 square miles of devastation reported smelling burning flesh
below. Approximately 125,000 Japanese civilians died in that raid. By the time the atomic bomb was ready, similar attacks had been launched on the Japanese cities of Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe. Quickly running out of targets, the B-29 bombers went back over Tokyo and killed another 80,000 civilians. Bomb supporters argue that, although this destruction is distasteful by post-war sensibilities, it had become the norm long before President Truman took office, and the atomic bomb was just one more weapon in the arsenal to be employed under this policy. To expect the new president, who had to make decisions under enormous pressure, to roll back this policy—to roll back the social norm—was simply not realistic.

 

[SavannahMann]

It is important that the thinking of today not replicate the insanity of the past.

True enough, but there is more to it than that. You have to not only know the insanity of the past, but the reason behind it. You have to understand it, and you have to understand the people who did it. What they did, and why. The people who planned and carried out the bombing did not wake in the morning with wood and slobbering as they dreamed of wiping civilians off the map. They were doing a job.

The problem with studying history is always that we know where their decisions end up. We look at one decision and scream you idiots, can't you see it? Can't you see if you do this you end up here?

They were not blessed with the hindsight we view the situation with.

 

[Syriusly]

10 Most Devastating Bombing Campaigns of WWII

Considering that Nagasaki is estimated somewhere near 40,000 initially and Hiroshima at about 10,000 that puts both not quite on top of the list for bombing deaths.

Until WW2 the practice of civilian targets was pretty much banned. Armies would assemble in fields and fight it out. England actually changed that when the Germans accidentally bombed part of London, or some civilian target, which lead to the allies bombing of German cities. This was done to distract the Germans from bombing military targets which were determined to be more valuable. Quite the sacrifice.

That said, the use of the atom bombs was hardly less barbaric then the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden which resulted in as many or even more horrific casualties.

There was an enemy and the barbaric enemy was defeated with the means provided to the President. He really has nothing to apologize for considering places like Dresden, London and Tokyo. War is hell, and a good thing it is or we would repeat it. (William Tecumseh Sherman)

Does that somehow justify what American forces did to Japan? Does that justify what Truman did in incinerating 200K innocent Japanese women and children?

Why do Americans think Total War acceptable?

First of all- both sides 'incinerated innocent women and children'- no one had clean hands.

Nor were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki even the worst bombings on Japan- the fire bombings of Tokyo killed more.

Is it ever legitimate to kill 'innocent' civilians in pursuit of military targets?

If yes- then this is not a war crime. There were legitimate military targets in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

If no- then every countries leader who has ever ordered strikes against their enemies are probably equally 'guilty of war crimes'.

I never said those two bombings were the worst bombings of Japan. Why do you bring this up? So what of it? Does this also somehow legitimatize Truman's mass murder, since conventional bombings were worse?

Why do i bring this up?

Because you are hell bent on calling Truman a war criminal. The fire bombings of Tokyo caused 75,000–200,000 civilian deaths- approved of by FDR. And of course there was also Dresden.

So why are you comparing Trump to Truman- not FDR?

Why can't I compare Trump to Truman? If Trump goes nuclear, what other president should I compare him to?

LOL- I asked why are you comparing them- not telling you that you can't.

It is odd that you always read the responses the wrong way.

If Trump goes nuclear why would you feel obligated to compare him to any other President?

 

[there4eyeM]

There is no excuse for not seeing the obvious. Willful blindness is not the same as being born without the perception of sight.

 

[namvet]

...and Truman was most certainly a war criminal and a liar. Let's hope Trump does not follow in his footsteps.

From the great Ralph Raico....the truth...you might not like it.

Harry Truman and the Atomic Bomb
Great controversy has always surrounded the bombings. One thing Truman insisted on from the start was that the decision to use the bombs, and the responsibility it entailed, was his. Over the years, he gave different, and contradictory, grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that he had acted simply out of revenge. To a clergyman who criticized him, Truman responded testily,

Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.2

Such reasoning will not impress anyone who fails to see how the brutality of the Japanese military could justify deadly retaliation against innocent men, women, and children. Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.

This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, “all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city — and escaped serious damage.”4 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: “The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible,” he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing “all those kids.”5 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people … all those kids.

Harry Truman’s Atomic Bombs - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

pussy alert here

 

[Syriusly]

10 Most Devastating Bombing Campaigns of WWII

Considering that Nagasaki is estimated somewhere near 40,000 initially and Hiroshima at about 10,000 that puts both not quite on top of the list for bombing deaths.

Until WW2 the practice of civilian targets was pretty much banned. Armies would assemble in fields and fight it out. England actually changed that when the Germans accidentally bombed part of London, or some civilian target, which lead to the allies bombing of German cities. This was done to distract the Germans from bombing military targets which were determined to be more valuable. Quite the sacrifice.

That said, the use of the atom bombs was hardly less barbaric then the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden which resulted in as many or even more horrific casualties.

There was an enemy and the barbaric enemy was defeated with the means provided to the President. He really has nothing to apologize for considering places like Dresden, London and Tokyo. War is hell, and a good thing it is or we would repeat it. (William Tecumseh Sherman)

Does that somehow justify what American forces did to Japan? Does that justify what Truman did in incinerating 200K innocent Japanese women and children?

First of all- both sides 'incinerated innocent women and children'- no one had clean hands.

Nor were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki even the worst bombings on Japan- the fire bombings of Tokyo killed more.

Is it ever legitimate to kill 'innocent' civilians in pursuit of military targets?

If yes- then this is not a war crime. There were legitimate military targets in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

If no- then every countries leader who has ever ordered strikes against their enemies are probably equally 'guilty of war crimes'.

I never said those two bombings were the worst bombings of Japan. Why do you bring this up? So what of it? Does this also somehow legitimatize Truman's mass murder, since conventional bombings were worse?

Why do i bring this up?

Because you are hell bent on calling Truman a war criminal. The fire bombings of Tokyo caused 75,000–200,000 civilian deaths- approved of by FDR. And of course there was also Dresden.

So why are you comparing Trump to Truman- not FDR?

Why can't I compare Trump to Truman? If Trump goes nuclear, what other president should I compare him to?


Truman took it upon himself to drop the a-bombs. He said many times, that he was the one solely responsible for the decision to incinerate 200,000 women and children. Did you know this?

Yes- because Truman actually took responsibility for his actions.

The bombs were going to be dropped- that had already been decided prior to Truman becoming President- what targets to drop them on, Truman did take responsibility for.

As he should have.

Those bombs ended the war, and saved millions of allied and Japaneses lives.

And created the situation we have today- a strategic partnership with one of our strongest allies in the world.

As others have pointed out- hindsight is a wonderful thing- but Truman- and all of the others in charge of making the tough calls in WW2 didn't have the luxury of hindsight.

 

[gipper]

Does that somehow justify what American forces did to Japan? Does that justify what Truman did in incinerating 200K innocent Japanese women and children?

Why do Americans think Total War acceptable?

First of all- both sides 'incinerated innocent women and children'- no one had clean hands.

Nor were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki even the worst bombings on Japan- the fire bombings of Tokyo killed more.

Is it ever legitimate to kill 'innocent' civilians in pursuit of military targets?

If yes- then this is not a war crime. There were legitimate military targets in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

If no- then every countries leader who has ever ordered strikes against their enemies are probably equally 'guilty of war crimes'.

I never said those two bombings were the worst bombings of Japan. Why do you bring this up? So what of it? Does this also somehow legitimatize Truman's mass murder, since conventional bombings were worse?

Why do i bring this up?

Because you are hell bent on calling Truman a war criminal. The fire bombings of Tokyo caused 75,000–200,000 civilian deaths- approved of by FDR. And of course there was also Dresden.

So why are you comparing Trump to Truman- not FDR?

Why can't I compare Trump to Truman? If Trump goes nuclear, what other president should I compare him to?

LOL- I asked why are you comparing them- not telling you that you can't.

It is odd that you always read the responses the wrong way.

If Trump goes nuclear why would you feel obligated to compare him to any other President?

Damn you are slow. Truman is the only president to use nukes. If Trump were to use them, don't you think it appropriate to compare him to the only other POTUS to use them?

 

[gipper]

...and Truman was most certainly a war criminal and a liar. Let's hope Trump does not follow in his footsteps.

From the great Ralph Raico....the truth...you might not like it.

Harry Truman and the Atomic Bomb
Great controversy has always surrounded the bombings. One thing Truman insisted on from the start was that the decision to use the bombs, and the responsibility it entailed, was his. Over the years, he gave different, and contradictory, grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that he had acted simply out of revenge. To a clergyman who criticized him, Truman responded testily,

Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.2

Such reasoning will not impress anyone who fails to see how the brutality of the Japanese military could justify deadly retaliation against innocent men, women, and children. Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.

This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, “all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city — and escaped serious damage.”4 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: “The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible,” he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing “all those kids.”5 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people … all those kids.

Harry Truman’s Atomic Bombs - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

pussy alert here

^^^

Dumb Alert.

 

[Syriusly]

First of all- both sides 'incinerated innocent women and children'- no one had clean hands.

Nor were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki even the worst bombings on Japan- the fire bombings of Tokyo killed more.

Is it ever legitimate to kill 'innocent' civilians in pursuit of military targets?

If yes- then this is not a war crime. There were legitimate military targets in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

If no- then every countries leader who has ever ordered strikes against their enemies are probably equally 'guilty of war crimes'.

I never said those two bombings were the worst bombings of Japan. Why do you bring this up? So what of it? Does this also somehow legitimatize Truman's mass murder, since conventional bombings were worse?

Why do i bring this up?

Because you are hell bent on calling Truman a war criminal. The fire bombings of Tokyo caused 75,000–200,000 civilian deaths- approved of by FDR. And of course there was also Dresden.

So why are you comparing Trump to Truman- not FDR?

Why can't I compare Trump to Truman? If Trump goes nuclear, what other president should I compare him to?

LOL- I asked why are you comparing them- not telling you that you can't.

It is odd that you always read the responses the wrong way.

If Trump goes nuclear why would you feel obligated to compare him to any other President?

Damn you are slow. Truman is the only president to use nukes. If Trump were to use them, don't you think it appropriate to compare him to the only other POTUS to use them?

Again- you have trouble answering questions:

If Trump goes nuclear why would you feel obligated to compare him to any other President?

Rather than address Trump's actions directly(assuming that we are still around to ask those questions)

 

[gipper]

It is important that the thinking of today not replicate the insanity of the past.

Yes...this is not learned.

Akin to..."Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

 

[Syriusly]

Questions Gipper refuses to answer:

Is it ever legitimate to kill 'innocent' civilians in pursuit of military targets?

If yes- then this is not a war crime. There were legitimate military targets in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

If no- then every countries leader who has ever ordered strikes against their enemies are probably equally 'guilty of war crimes'.

Man up- answer the questions.