Opinion of Harry Truman

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Massive HP and war criminal. Disgusting excuse for a human being.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Clearly many problems and tragedies resulted from the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, either several hundred thousand Japanese had to die by being nuked (and its aftereffects) or several hundred thousand Americans would have had to die in a U.S. invasion of Japan. Truman, as U.S. President, decided to save the lives of several hundred thousand of his own citizens and soldiers by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ending WWII much quicker and with much less American casualties than otherwise.

Nope, false dilemma. Neither "option" was a necessity. Truman committed mass-murder unnecessarily. Twice. He is on par with Stalin and Hitler.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

FF

Made the excruciatingly painful decision to use the bomb.  But, in the end, saved millions (literally) of lives that would have been lost in an invasion of the Japanese homeland.  And yes, millions.  Most estimates have American losses at about 500 thousand. But add to this the million or so Japanese who would be killed, both soldiers and civillians.  The firebombings of the major Japanese cities would continue.  And, with the expected dogged resistance to invasion, there is almost no doubt that eventually allied troops from other nations would also be used as follow-on forces.  Too, the Soviets would almost certainly invade the northernmost home island (Sapporo?) and may well have claimed it as their own.  More loss of life.

No one, not least this supporter of abolishing ALL nuclear weapons, would ever want or wish them to be used.  But one cannot argue with history.  There were no other practical choices available to Truman for ending the war in Japan.  Invasion, blockade and starvation, or a swift nuclear strike.

Certainly not without his flaws but overall, one of our better Presidents.

Once again, false choices. An invasion of the Japanese homeland was no more a necessity than was Harry Truman's showing off his ability to commit mass-murder twice.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Super-FF for saving the lives of thousands of American soliders and thousands more Japanese civilians.  He had the courage to finally end the war that was begun by Japanese aggression.

Oh, he had to burn the village down to save it? Makes sense.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Super-FF for saving the lives of thousands of American soliders and thousands more Japanese civilians.  He had the courage to finally end the war that was begun by Japanese aggression.

Oh, he had to burn the village down to save it? Makes sense.

He had to shoot the aggressor in the arms to avoid shooting him in the heart.  Even with the destruction wrought by the nuclear bombs many Jap leaders wanted to stay in the battle and fight.

As difficult as it is for me to say this about a Democrat, Harry Truman may be one of our greatest Presidents for making such a difficult decision that saved so many lives.

No surprise there. The Democrats were the party of senseless war and death then just like your beloved Republicans are now.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Again, there were three choices.  Maybe four.

1.  Use the bomb.
2.  Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces.  Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million.  About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3.  Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission.  They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4.  Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm.  And reinforce its armies in China.  This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag.  And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it.  A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.

So which alternative do you prefer?  I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices.  I detest false choices.  But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.

5. Accept Japanese surrender

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Again, there were three choices.  Maybe four.

1.  Use the bomb.
2.  Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces.  Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million.  About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3.  Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission.  They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4.  Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm.  And reinforce its armies in China.  This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag.  And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it.  A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.

So which alternative do you prefer?  I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices.  I detest false choices.  But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.

5. Accept Japanese surrender

I said realistic.  Japan was never going to surrender. 

Uh yeah, they openly tried to surrender. Their only condition was that they be allowed to keep their emperor. And it was the emperor himself who was most sympathetic to surrendering.

But the arrogant asshole who led the U.S., i.e. Harry Truman, refused anything less than totally unconditional surrender.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Actually, I remember hearing that Japan was trying to get negotiations when they dropped the bomb.

Japanese response to the Potsdam Conference resolution:

"I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war." - Prime Minister Suzuki, courtesy of Wikipedia.  

This was the statement from the government on July 27, the bomb was dropped on August 6 and the Japanese government's position had not changed in the intervening period.

Even after the bomb was dropped, the Cabinet met on August 9 and still a majority of cabinet members would not recommend a surrender.

Potsdam was after the Japanese had offered their surrender.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/japansurrender.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomic.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Again, there were three choices.  Maybe four.

1.  Use the bomb.
2.  Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces.  Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million.  About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3.  Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission.  They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4.  Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm.  And reinforce its armies in China.  This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag.  And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it.  A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.

So which alternative do you prefer?  I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices.  I detest false choices.  But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.

5. Accept Japanese surrender

I said realistic.  Japan was never going to surrender. 

Uh yeah, they openly tried to surrender. Their only condition was that they be allowed to keep their emperor. And it was the emperor himself who was most sympathetic to surrendering.

But the arrogant asshole who led the U.S., i.e. Harry Truman, refused anything less than totally unconditional surrender.

So... using your flawed logic, should we have accepted surrender of Germany if they were allowed to keep Adolph Hitler as their Chancellor?

I believe preventing mass murder, death and destruction outweighs presidential prestige and wartime grandstanding, but that's just me.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Again, there were three choices.  Maybe four.

1.  Use the bomb.
2.  Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces.  Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million.  About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3.  Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission.  They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4.  Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm.  And reinforce its armies in China.  This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag.  And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it.  A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.

So which alternative do you prefer?  I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices.  I detest false choices.  But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.

5. Accept Japanese surrender

I said realistic.  Japan was never going to surrender. 

Uh yeah, they openly tried to surrender. Their only condition was that they be allowed to keep their emperor. And it was the emperor himself who was most sympathetic to surrendering.

But the arrogant asshole who led the U.S., i.e. Harry Truman, refused anything less than totally unconditional surrender.

So... using your flawed logic, should we have accepted surrender of Germany if they were allowed to keep Adolph Hitler as their Chancellor?

I believe preventing mass murder, death and destruction outweighs presidential prestige and wartime grandstanding, but that's just me.

If only we had developed the bombs sooner, we might have stopped Hitler before he could massacre seven million Jews, Homosexuals, and other enemies of his evil regime.

Do you ever get tired of making the most predictable hackish responses possible? The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan had nothing to do with Hitler.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Do you ever get tired of making the most predictable hackish responses possible? The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan had nothing to do with Hitler.

That isn't the point he's making.

He's not making any point other than that you Republocrat and Dempublican warmongers are all the same.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

And I realize it is peculiarly in vogue, particularly here on the forum, for those who prefer anarchy to question the decision simply because it was made by government. 

     Or rather, because it constituted the slaughter of ~150,000 civilians. I don't think anyone would be any more okay with it if it were Henry Ford ordering the bombing rather than Harry Truman.