Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Truman - a war criminal?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
This has probably been done before. If so, my apologies but Buckskinz (aka Matt) has been encouraging me and he can shoulder some of the blame!
Suppose Japan had managed to win the war despite the devastation inflicted upon her by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs. Would they have tried Truman as a war criminal? And would they have been justified in doing so?
For relevant historical documents regarding the events leading up to the dropping of the bombs see:-
Mick -
Message 2
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
Hi Mick,
Super post.
Although unjustified, they would have tried him (if he wasn't beheaded first) given him a fair trial, and shot him at first light.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 3
Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
Tried him? You've got to be kidding! The Japs were viscious killers. I will reserve my thoughts so I am not banned from this board.
-
Message 4
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
Good post,
But there was no way Japan could of won the Pacific war after US intervention even without the A-bombs being dropped let alone afterwards (I don't think even a What If could stretch that far!).
There is an argument that the heavy bombing by the US B29s would of ultimately forced Japan to surrender without the use of the Atomic bombs but this could of lengthened the war by another year or two and who wanted that?
However looking at the Japanese psyche of that time, I think an amphibious Invasion (Operation Downfall) would of had to have gone ahead for the Japanese to have surrendered. I think US estimates for the occupation of Japan would of been around £1 million US casualties let alone Japanese. I recall that they were extimating 250,000 dead for Operation Olympic.
So looking at that Truman's sanction of the use of atomic bombs was justified and could hardly be called a war crime in my opinion. After all it did effectively end the war.
But had the Japanese prevailed and somehow occupied the US or forced a surrender for the sake of argument????!!! to capture Truman then I would of had no doubt he would of been executed A bombs or not. -
Message 5
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
Hi Mick,
Super post. Although unjustified, they would have tried him (if he wasn't beheaded first) given him a fair trial, and shot him at first light.
Cheers, Matt.Ìý
People are strange,Buckskinz...
Listen,if drugs are such a problem on the streets of Britain why was I arrested at Heathrow airport for trying to smuggle cannabis on a plane to America? Surely I should be congratulated for attempting to take theis substance out of the country.
An enigma really. -
Message 6
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
Hi OUNUPA,
I don't get it either. Perhaps your blowing expelled smkoke in the customs officer face didn't help, and isn't that kinda like taking coals to Newcastle?
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 7
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
Actually the people that were in charge of the devastating B-29 air raids against Japanese cities pondered that question themselves. I saw a documentary about McNamara a few weeks ago, he wasn't really in charge but he was involved with the raids, so according to him the air force general that masterminded those raids once said to McNamara just that, namely that if they'd have lost the war they'd have been tried as war criminals and he wasn't even talking about the A-bombs, far as I know far more people died in the raids where B-29's dropped fire bombs on Tokyo and other cities.
For that matter both raids against Tokyo and raids against German cities were all war crimes as they specifically targeted civilian population. McNamara in that documentary admitted just that, that at one point a decision was made to switch from bombing industrial facilities to dropping fire bombs on residential areas in the japanese capital and other cities. Part of the rationale was that losses among UJS air crews during raids of industrial installations were higher while residential areas in Japan had minimal defesnes. -
Message 8
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
Tried him? You've got to be kidding! The Japs were viscious killers. I will reserve my thoughts so I am not banned from this board.Ìý
The Japanese have never been vicious killers, they are refined killers, to them killing a person is a form of art as well as death itself. They're one of a very few cultures where there goups of people who actually plan their death. Think about their suicide rituals, sepuku, hara-kiri and the like. The fact that you don't understand the anciet Japanese art of death and putting humans to death (taking your own life) is your loss. The way Europeans kill each other is pure barbarism to the refined Japanese mind. -
Message 9
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
I don't think there was anything "refined" about the Japanese torture and murder of British and American POWs during WWII........ -
Message 10
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
The day after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped Senator Richard Russell (Georgia) sent a telegram to Truman urging him not to go soft on Japan but to ‘carry the war to them until they beg us to accept the unconditional surrender’. He recommended further atomic bomb drops ‘to finish the job’ and thought that Tokyo ought to be ‘utterly destroyed’.
Truman sent a reply dated 9th August, three days after the Hiroshima bomb, in which he said:
‘I know that Japan is a terribly cruel and uncivilized nation in warfare but I can’t bring myself to believe that, because they are beasts, we should ourselves act in the same manner. ... For myself, I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the "pigheadedness’ of the leaders of a nation and for your information, I am not going to do it unless it is absolutely necessary. It is my opinion that after the Russians enter into war the Japanese will very shortly fold up. …. My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I also have a humane feeling for the women and children in Japan.’ -
Message 11
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
Mick_Mac, reply to #1,
I'm sure that Truman would have been given a fair trial by the Japanese and then executed.
Would they have been justified, well, having beaten the USA, Soviets and Empire, (which they'll have had to do to get their hands on Truman), history is written by the winners and the history books would be full of the justification. Most of the posters on this board would be decrying the use of the bombs, (well, I wouldn't, I can't type in Japanese).
Cheers AA. -
Message 12
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
Arnold,
You are right of course.
My own view is that dropping an atomic bomb on a major industial city was always going to result in the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants. It seems to me that the deliberate, premeditated killing of civilians (non-combatants) in time of war is murder, and that is a war crime. It contravenes all the conventions and rules of war that existed at the time ( and that have existed since. All sides in the conflict were guilty of this kind of behaviour. Only the victors in this war would avoid being taken to account for their actions.
Most of the scientists who were involved in the development of the bomb were against its use. Some very high-profile individuals within the US government and military were also against its use (MacArthur, Eisenhower, etc., see
Hundreds of thousands of Japanese non-combatants were killed as a result of the combined attacks on their cities by B-29 incendiary bombing and the dropping of the atomic bombs. I am not trying to be emotive here but most of these were women, children and old men. This is an inescapable fact. They had no warning of their impending fate (if they knew what was coming they would have gotten out)and although they may all have been died-in-the-wool Japanese Imperialists they took no active part in any fighting.
It’s irrelevant to say that the Japanese themselves were ‘vicious killers’ or ‘cruel and beastly’. Japanese civilians were not vicious killers, nor were the women and children. However you look at this issue you cannot escape the fact that there is no justification for annihilating innocent people. Why didn’t they drop the bomb on concentrations of Japanese troops or other military targets.
Ask yourself this question: under what circumstances do you think your enemy is justified in killing your children, women and elderly relations?
I am not naïve about this issue. The fact is that all sides commit war crimes and some war crimes are viler than others. Only the losers are brought to book. People need to be a little more objective about the matter (.
Mick -
Message 13
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
Ask yourself this question: under what circumstances do you think your enemy is justified in killing your children, women and elderly relations?
Mick
Ìý
Mick_mac,
I agree with the rest of your post, however you have asked a question that deserves an answer.
To be honest at the moment in 2006 I can't think of a justification.
Let me ask a couple of questions. I'll give my answers honestly, it's what I believe I'd have to do.
1) Can you think of a reason why you should in London October 1940?
2) Can you think of a reason why you should in Washington August 1945?
My answers are 1) It is the only method I have of striking back at an enemy who is killing my civilians and military, who is threatening my country.
2) If this act saves the life of one of my soldiers then, yes, I think I have to do it.
If this makes me look heartless or cruel, so be it.
Cheers AA. -
Message 14
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
Good post,
But there was no way Japan could of won the Pacific war after US intervention even without the A-bombs being dropped let alone afterwards (I don't think even a What If could stretch that far!).
There is an argument that the heavy bombing by the US B29s would of ultimately forced Japan to surrender without the use of the Atomic bombs but this could of lengthened the war by another year or two and who wanted that?
However looking at the Japanese psyche of that time, I think an amphibious Invasion (Operation Downfall) would of had to have gone ahead for the Japanese to have surrendered. I think US estimates for the occupation of Japan would of been around £1 million US casualties let alone Japanese. I recall that they were extimating 250,000 dead for Operation Olympic.
So looking at that Truman's sanction of the use of atomic bombs was justified and could hardly be called a war crime in my opinion. After all it did effectively end the war.
But had the Japanese prevailed and somehow occupied the US or forced a surrender for the sake of argument????!!! to capture Truman then I would of had no doubt he would of been executed A bombs or not.
Ìý
Good grief, Enos, ''would of''. ''could of'' please get it right. ''Would HAVE'' or ''could HAVE''...brits are supposed to know their grammar better than that. ''OF'' is a prepoposition, not part of a verb.
But to address your observations....
Assuming no US invasion and without the A-bomb drops, there's a strong possibility that the war would HAVE (not of) gone on for another few months, maybe a year. The bombings of the islands would HAVE ruined the transportation system completely and the population would HAVE been in a starvation state. Had the islands been occupied at that point it would HAVE taken years to rebuild.
Had an invasion been forced, US casualties in the south would have been horrendous and progress up through the islands would have been very slow indeed. The Soviets probably would have taken and occupied Hokkaido and possibly a large chunk, if not all, of Honshu and the situation in the Far East as a result would have been very touchy indeed. Certainly no Korean war would have been necessary, because the Soviet sphere would have swallowed all of Korea.
As you correctly point out, there is no way Japan could have won, even if the A-bombs not been dropped, but things could have been very different.
To address the original question: if Japan had won even after the A-bombs had been used, I seriously doubt they'd have placed Truman on trial as a war criminal. For one thing, the Japanese military knew a fission bomb had been dropped when they inspected the damage at Hiroshima even before the Nagasaki bombing, and they reckoned it a legitimate weapon of war.
A Japanese victory may have been impossible, but even if we assume it happened, their armies never could have occupied the US -- it's just too darned big. An American surrender undoubtedly would have been negotiated and terms certainly would have included the treatment of the leaders and population of America -- the US would never have unconditionally surrendered. -
Message 15
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Wow are we back in the 19th centuary Erik? some of us have to multi-task, i.e. work full time and post topical replies when the moment allows, therefore one's grammer may be slightly off key old boy!!!
Besides isn't this a history board as oppoosed to an English Language assessment so as along as posts are basically legible what does it matter?
Anyway back to the issue I think we are broadly singing from the same hymn sheet in our opinions
-
Message 16
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
That should be "century" by the way back of the class for me
! -
Message 17
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
I don't think there was anything "refined" about the Japanese torture and murder of British and American POWs during WWII........Ìý
To Japanese military personnel those caputred POW's were warriors and as such they were deserving a warrior's death and the death of a warrior must always involve pain and suffering so the warrior will get the opportunity to have something really terrible to go thru and prove to himself and those around him hiw own worth by keeping a straight face the whole time. Especially if it's an officer.
In any case, cutting out the guts of a handful of POW's is a war crime but it definetly pales in comparsions with incenirating hundreds of thousands of civilians with incindiary and later atomic bombs. They're in different leages. -
Message 18
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
To Japanese military personnel those caputred POW's were warriors and as such they were deserving a warrior's death and the death of a warrior must always involve pain and suffering so the warrior will get the opportunity to have something really terrible to go thru and prove to himself and those around him hiw own worth by keeping a straight face the whole time. Especially if it's an officer.
In any case, cutting out the guts of a handful of POW's is a war crime but it definetly pales in comparsions with incenirating hundreds of thousands of civilians with incindiary and later atomic bombs. They're in different leages.Ìý
A POW anecdote
One of my uncles was a POW in Changi. He said the difficulty with the Japanese was their unpredictability.
At one point he escaped - not difficult from Changi - and when he was caught was told to turn around while his captors chatted behind his back. He was expecting to be executed in some way - beheaded as a warrior, or beaten to death if not. Instead they took his boots and sent him to a more secure camp
As well as relief he was bemused about the boots- he'd been aiming to swim his way to freedom -
Message 19
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
There were rather more than 'British and American' POWS.
Canadian, Dutch Indian, Australian..others -
Message 20
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Your right Wollemi, forgive my ommission as obviously Canadian, Australian and Dutch Indian et al were POW's too. The point I was trying to make was any "allied" soldier tortured or executed by the Japanese would hardly have found it refined.
Also looking at the comparison between "warrior deaths" and the honour of bombing civillians by A-bombs and incendiaries, your trying to tell me that the Japanese wouldn't have used A-Bombs against the Allies if they possessed them? Or that civillians weren't killed in Japanese air raids? What about Pearl Harbor & Darwin also Singapore? -
Message 21
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Also looking at the comparison between "warrior deaths" and the honour of bombing civillians by A-bombs and incendiaries, your trying to tell me that the Japanese wouldn't have used A-Bombs against the Allies if they possessed them? Or that civillians weren't killed in Japanese air raids? What about Pearl Harbor & Darwin also Singapore?
Ìý
You're replying to henrylee's post I think. What I would say is that WW2 began with Japan in 1931 in Manchuria - and ended with Japan at Nagasaki in 1945. The European war in this part of the world is seen as the shorter part of WW2. The dominant war was with Japan. They killed an enormous number of civilians - estimated 20 million Chinese alone
I think by the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki there was a regional perception that the imperative was the war with Japan had to end.
We can argue the morality of that decision - the end justifies the means - but I think for the WW2 generation that was their thinking. -
Message 22
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
I was replying to both your's and henrylee's posts but I agree you can't really argue about the morality of war as atrocities are committed by all sides. After all the objective is to win and inevitably casualties both military and civillian will be high. But I do get the meaning of what Henrylee is trying to put across about the Japanese interpretations i.e. warrior ethics and honour in death etc, which arguably holds far more significance to them than it does for the west.
-
Message 23
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
It can be only be a matter of opinion as to whether Truman was a war criminal or not. However, after the dropping of the first Atomic weapon, surely it was a criminal act of folly to on the Japanese part to continue the war a second longer. The devastation unleashed was unparralled in history; Hiroshima was incinerated in seconds. For the Japanese leader to even think about fighting on was one of the most terrible (crimainal)decisions they could have made.
Should Hirihito and his cohorts not have forfeit the right to reign after that. And post-war explain himself to his people and in a Nagasaki court of law. -
Message 24
Posted by Eliza8beth (U3126788) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
The problem as ever is that 'innocent people' died at Hiroshima - even if you only count the children as innocent (not that I suppose many Japanese women were in any position to influence decision making - but then again, maybe very very few Japanese were at all).
The hideous moral dilemma is do we kill them, and stop the war in five days (or whatever it took), or don't we. I do think that, because the war was started by Japan, because they had committed atrocities on a hideous scale in their occupied territories against the national populations (an interesting point raised about how Japan will fare now that China is rising from the ashes of poverty....)(And don't ask the Koreans to put in good word for the Japs either...), and because they had committed atrocities against their western POWs, then there is 'more' justification for ending the war in such a nightmarish way (and yes, there is the arguemnt that however many died in the two bomb attacks, it was less - sorry fewer, if we're being picky on grammar here! - than would have died , even 'just' Japanese, in an invasion.
However, I think two factors weigh down the Allied/American decision.
The first is the issue of their insistence on unconditional surrender. This is hard for even our culture to do - for Oriental ones with face saving so prominent, this must have been even harder. I don't know, however, what conditions the Japanese had been hoping for - maybe they WERE unacceptable to their victims? Can anyone tell me?
Secondly is the issue of demonstration. What was the argument AGAINST exploding a 'demo bomb', to which the Japanese would have been alerted, invited to witness by neutral states, and then given PRACTICAL sufficient time to offer to surrender. I always felt that the Nagasaki bomb was really hassling them - it's HARD in practice for any governmetn to have to make that kind of monumental decision, in such a short space of time. I don't say to let them play for time, but were they threatened with the second bomb, or did the Americans just drop it anyway?
One factor against the demo bomb strategy might just have been shortage of bombs, of course! I don't know how many the Americans had, and could they afford to use one up as a demo?
Of course, the final strand in any evaluation is to consider that Hiroshima and Nagasaki might just have saved the world from nuclear anihilation. It scared us ALL so much, and we know now just what we'd be in for if we do it again. (Saying which, maybe we should forcibly beam film footage of the aftermath to Iran - or send them Hiroshima survivors, to show them how insane they are being right now.)
Eliza. -
Message 25
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Eliza,
Every time I want to go off an a rant, you just pull the rug from under my feet. (And I end up, well you know where).
Anyway, too attempt to explain. The A Bomb was a very closely guarded secret. The USA and The Empire had invested a large amount of money into the bombs and were going down different lines of research in The Manhatten Project / Tube Alloys. Yes thre was a Uranium Bomb and a Plutonium Bomb, I'll come back to this later.
Now, you don't invite your enemy along too witness a secret weapon test (I don't recall Hitler inviting Churchill and Roosevelt along to the first tests of the V2 Rockets for example), on the very reason that (as some of the scientists on the project believed) it may not work. Hope that explains the Demo Bomb.
Okay, the Trinity Test Bomb was Uranium based as was the bomb dropped on Hiroshima (and forgive me if I can't remember the name of the bomb). The bomb dropped on Nagasaki was Plutonium based.
Some people claim that this was also a demonstration bomb to prove that plutonium based fission could work. I say, these people do not understand science. Once nuclear fission has been proved to work, it's simple, any fissionable material will work.
Now, we come to the main point of my arguement. The Manhatten Project was a rush job. The big problem was the detonation, the Physicists had developed a theory (as long ago as the 11thC if you believe it) that the atom had immense powers. Once you can detonate the power within the atom in a more or less controlled fashion then away we go.
Now once it had been proved that nuclear fission was real with the Trinity Test, the engineers were way behind with the resources they had to build more bombs (as until the Trinity Test they had only to produce the materials to make the scientists dreams come to reality). All they could do was to use the resources they had to produce another two bombs.
Aplogies, I've ranted on for far too long already. AA. -
Message 26
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
I think the name of the Hiroshima bomb was 'little boy'
-
Message 27
Posted by Scarboro (U2806863) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
The problem as ever is that 'innocent people' died at Hiroshima - ....
The first is the issue of their insistence on unconditional surrender. ...
what conditions the Japanese had been hoping for - maybe they WERE unacceptable to their victims? Can anyone tell me?
Secondly is the issue of demonstration. What was the argument AGAINST exploding a 'demo bomb'...
One factor against the demo bomb strategy might just have been shortage of bombs, of course! I don't know how many the Americans had, and could they afford to use one up as a demo?....
Eliza.Ìý
As to the question of "innocent civilians", this is largely academic in the mindset of "total war". Today's child is tomorrow's warrior. Why wait until they grow up, carry guns and can shoot back? Today's "civilian factory worker" makes the weapons and supplies that the enemy army needs. It is not sporting or humane, but in total war, there are no innocents. That is why nations must act to prevent recurrences.
As to why Allied insistence on unconditional surrender, I think they were applying the lessons of Versailles. After allowing the defeated nations of WW1 an opportunity to rebuild, they faced a rematch in WW2. I think there was no willingness to allow Germany or Japan the opportunity for any further rematches.
As to demonstration bombs, the American's debated the matter. They had 3 bombs - one was used in the Trinity test, and the remaining 2 were dropped on Japan - one was uranium, the other was plutonium.
I think they were counting on the shock factor to have an impact on the Japanese, and ultimately decided that a demonstration would lessen the shock value. I also think that the Americans were surprised by the damage done by the bombs. They had calculated the blast effect, but the resulting firestorms were the most devastating feature.
With the benefit of hindsight, the shock effect is exactly what motivated Hirohito into action to order the surrender, over the opposition of the generals. Before the A-bombings the Japanese generals were behaving irrationally, and were preparing for a suicidal defense of the homeland. They sent the battleship Yamato on a "banzai" attack, and lost it. They were ordering island garrisons to fight to the last man. They had appointed an aging diplomat as their new Prime Minister, expecting to get a conciliator. Instead he acted like a Japanese Churchill - ("we will never surrender").
The Japanese had one final hope - that the Russians would negotiate a peace settlement. The Russians strung the Japanese along in this hope long enough that the Russians could position troops on the Japanese frontier before the surrender, so that the Russians would be in a position to share in the fruits of victory.
Of course none of these factors would have been apparent to the American command at the time. They probably were thinking like a street fighter - "hit the enemy till he goes down - kick him till he stays down. Don't make our people die for our country - make the enemy die for his country."
In my opinion, if the Allies were morally right in fighting WW2 - and they were - then any action that ends the war earlier with fewer Allied deaths is justified. Having said that, any nation which does not aggressively act to prevent future wars is morally wrong.
regards
brian -
Message 28
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Scarboro, (or Brian),
Thanks for picking up on my "fumble". I agree.
Cheers AA. -
Message 29
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
I think the Russian position raises many questions. Stalin was told at Potsdam that an 'unusual' weapon (or similar description) might be used against Japan and was said to have approved. Isn't this so? So Russia's position as some kind of third party in the final stages can be seen as questionable/duplicitous
Like Eliza I wonder about the justification for the second attack at Nagasaki, whether the Japanese needed more time to surrender. I've heard arguments against that
The bombs can be seen as a deterrent not to be repeated....or they can be seen as setting a precedent. History will tell us. -
Message 30
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
If unconditional surrender was indeed based on the 'lesson of Versailles' (message 27) then that's a tragic postscript that the bombs were dropped on Japan, an ally in WW1
A Japanese warship escorted the first ANZAC convoy off the the Middle East in WW1 -
Message 31
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
It can be only be a matter of opinion as to whether Truman was a war criminal or not. However, after the dropping of the first Atomic weapon, surely it was a criminal act of folly to on the Japanese part to continue the war a second longer. The devastation unleashed was unparralled in history; Hiroshima was incinerated in seconds. For the Japanese leader to even think about fighting on was one of the most terrible (crimainal)decisions they could have made.
Should Hirihito and his cohorts not have forfeit the right to reign after that. And post-war explain himself to his people and in a Nagasaki court of law.
Ìý
I think it's important to realize that while Hirohito was the spiritual and nominal leader of Japan, he really had very little control over that country's foreign policy or its internal operations. He could (and was required to) attend major cabinet meetings, but he seldom opened his mouth to voice an opinion. Once war was declared, being Japanese and loyal to his country, he naturally supported his army and wanted a Japanese victory, but he was not responsible for starting the wawr and could do little to force a surrender when the tide turned against them.
It's important to realize that while the A-bombings killed and destroyed huge numbers of people and structures, they were not nearly as murderous or destructive as the fire-bombings by the B-29's that had devastated Japanese cities. But IMO the A-bombs did have a decisive effect.
They gave the peace party in Japan a great deal more strength than it had and, I'm reasonably sure, were what stimulated Hirohito into finally deciding to issue an Imperial Command to the country's leaders to end the war. He realized that there were a lot of hawks in power who would not obey these commands, so he made a record to be broadcast to the people, instructing them to ''endure the unendurable'' and surrender. This recording was made in secret and was hidden very carefully because the Japanese war parties were not even considering surrender. However, once an Imperial Command was broadcast to the people, they would HAVE to obey and they knew it. So when its existence became known, it was sought-for with tremendous vigour by the die-hard warriors of Japan who tried every means in their power -- including murder -- to prevent its being broadcast. They tried to occupy the radio station so it couldn't be put on the air, they ransacked the premier's office and home and chased officials of the peace party all over Tokyo....they knew the people would listen to the Emperor and that once it was broadcast, they were finished.
As for Truman being a war criminal, he wasn't. When it came to using the bombs, I don't think he had much choice. They gave the Japanese a means of surrendering with at least a shred of national honour. Had they not been used, and had Japan not surrendered, the result would have been a mass slaughter of humans -- Japan would have become an abatoir. -
Message 32
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
Re: Message 31.
Erik,
thank you for this survey. I read already about your third paragraph but nevertheless it is interesting to see it once again in a survey.
BTW. I read also that the Japanese war parties were making absurd reckonings as to the fact that they thought the Americans hadn't that much atomic bombs (I don't know how they could suppose that? Intelligence?) And once the bombs were used that they could fight further as planned...Some parallels with Nazi Germany?
Kind regards. -
Message 33
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
As to the question of "innocent civilians", this is largely academic in the mindset of "total war". Today's child is tomorrow's warrior. Why wait until they grow up, carry guns and can shoot back? Today's "civilian factory worker" makes the weapons and supplies that the enemy army needs. It is not sporting or humane, but in total war, there are no innocents. That is why nations must act to prevent recurrences.
Ìý
if so then the allies had no moral right to try the so called German war criminals, let alone Japanese, after all all those guys were doing was applying the principles of total war, in other words their actions were not any different from the allies'. Both sides committed war crimes, the only difference is that one side lost the war so some of their military personnel ended up getting tried and convicted by the victors. I mean those executions of British/American POW's by Waffen SS were totally justified accodring to your logic, because if you don't waste POW's , sooner or later they're bound to rejoint the enemy's army once again, so it's best to dispose of them while you have them to make sure they never fight you again.
he remaining 2 were dropped on Japan - one was uranium, the other was plutonium
Ìý
I thought they were both uranium, they just used urianiums with different atomic masses.
They sent the battleship Yamato on a "banzai" attack, and lost it.
Ìý
you probably mean kamikaze attack, because banzai literally translates as "I wish you good health and a long life"
In my opinion, if the Allies were morally right in fighting WW2 - and they were - then any action that ends the war earlier with fewer Allied deaths is justified. Having said that, any nation which does not aggressively act to prevent future wars is morally wrong.
Ìý
so the ends justify the means - the same old mistake that people keep making again and againt, the ends never justify the means, rather the means determine the ends that you'll eventually get. and as for aggresive action to prevent future wars, does this also imply waging wars in the present so as to prevent wars in the future? Isn't it sort of, well absurd? Especially if you take into consideration the fact that none of us can actually predict the future. -
Message 34
Posted by MB (U177470) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
I don't think there was anything "refined" about the Japanese torture and murder of British and American POWs during WWII........Ìý
To Japanese military personnel those caputred POW's were warriors and as such they were deserving a warrior's death and the death of a warrior must always involve pain and suffering so the warrior will get the opportunity to have something really terrible to go thru and prove to himself and those around him hiw own worth by keeping a straight face the whole time. Especially if it's an officer.
In any case, cutting out the guts of a handful of POW's is a war crime but it definetly pales in comparsions with incenirating hundreds of thousands of civilians with incindiary and later atomic bombs. They're in different leages.Ìý
And how does killing hundreds of thousands of Chinese by various brutal methods compare with the bombing by the Americans. The Japanese probably killed more Asian civilians by more basic methods.
MB -
Message 35
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Monday, 6th February 2006
And how does killing hundreds of thousands of Chinese by various brutal methods compare with the bombing by the Americans. The Japanese probably killed more Asian civilians by more basic methods.
Ìý
I wasn't trying to justify the Japanese atrocities I was trying to make the motives behind those atrocities easier to understand. And it has to be said that one's atrocities cannone be justified by the atrocities or another. Thus you can't say that dropping A-bombs on Japan was ok because the japanese wasted lots of chinese civilians unless of course you're willing to turn into the same sort of beast as your enemy.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.