truman on trial?

Question

hi
i asked a question earlier about this, and it got a negative response as i phrased it badly.

i am a prosecutor in a mock trial of Harry Truman for dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
i have done some research; however i am interested in knowing other people's opinions.

what do you think? should truman have been punished? was the bomb needed?

thanks.

Answer 1

I think that you should consider how to attack Truman's position as you are a prosecutor. Think what the defender will argue, which is that the invasion of Japan would cost America 2 million lives of GIs and Japan would suffer casualties in the tens of millions. Using the bomb was a way to show the commitment to end the war this way if needed and was "humane" if you consider the cost of lives in the alternative of invation. Your job is to discover the flaw in this argument.

Some historians argue that the Japanese were really ready to capitulate and the only obstacle was that Japan did not want Hiroito to be put on trial as their only condition. The Americans did not want to accept anything but inconditional surrender. Now, if this is true, was the show of force necessary when in the end Hiroito was never touched by the Americans? If you can prove with the movements in the cabinets, the diplomatic notes, and the general state of the Japanese government this, you can argue the use of the bombs was unecesary. You also have the argument of humanity and genocide on your side, so exploit by showing photos, quotes, and even Einsten's letter against the bomb to reinforce your position.

My personal opinion is that while the Emperor and a great deal of the cabinet wanted to sign the peace, the armed forces who REALLY controlled Japan were ready for a costly invation, especially since they saw Iwo Jima and Okinawa as a triumph of Japanese resistance. The atom bombs made it easier for Hiroito to enforce his view and surrender "unconditionally". You should minimize my opinion by pointing why the Army would obey the emperor to succeed.

Answer 2

I didn't like to see all those people killed yet many Allied lives were
spared because it would have drawn out much longer. Do you forget the unprovoked attack by the Japanese?
It wouldn't have gone well if they or the Germans had come up with the bomb first. How much mercy would they have shown
judging by the way they treated prisoners?
You're talking about prosecuting Harry Truman in a mock
trial. If the other side had won you wouldn't have to worry. Harry Truman and all Allied leaders would have been swiftly exterminated without a trial. Those not mudered would spend their lives worked and starved to death in a concentation camp.
I 'm not an American and sometimes I can be anti- American
when I run into the master race attitude. Once I couldn't stand Harry Truman. I thought he was cocky arrogant and pompous.
I didn't like him for dismissing MacCarther. I grew up. MacCarter was arrogant himself. True he accomplished a lot yet he over stepped himself by defying and disobeying his Commander in Chief. Truman had no choice and I don't blame him a bit. Now as to your question Should Truman have been
punished?
No.
Was the bomb needed Yes unfortunatly. A necessary evil to conquer evil and I'll tell you why.
I f it had not been used the war would have drawn out longer giving the other side more time to come up with their own bomb or chemical weapons which I know they wouldn't have hesitated to use on us. Then you wouldn't have to worry about putting Truman on trial. Somebody would have strung him up for not ending the war when he had the chance. If anyone should have been put on trial it should have been Hirohito. If ever there was a miscarriage of justice. The political reasoning never washed with me. That the Japanese would hate and resent us.
What a crock. Look how they treated us when they had the upper hand. Hirohito surrendered because he didn't want his people obliterated. Thats a joke. He was afraid of his own life.
If that bomb wasn't used he'd have gone on sacrificing millions of lives as long as he was safe.
I was only following orders was not an exuse by the Germans for butchering people.
Do you think it fair that the ones like Hirohito that gave the orders went free?
Back to Truman. Still cocky and a pompous little fellow but it is my attitude that has changed towards him. I never knew why Americans said "Harry Truman We love you".
What do they see in him?
Now I know for I too love him for if it hadn't been for men like
him we wouldn't be debating the issue tonight.

Answer 3

It's true we lost the moral high ground after use of the nukes on Japan, but looking at what Truman faced in 1945, i probably would've done the same thing. To compare the moral depravity of state sponsored genocide where the death ovens at Aushwitz/Birkenau were topping out at 2,600 per day or 80,000 killed per month and the aerial bombardment of civilians is looking at different scales.

The "Final Solution" was the policy of only one country during the last century, and it wasn't the U.S. My beef is with the multi-national business cartels that allowed it to happen, the top being IG Farben (now BASF, Bayer, among others).

Not only did they finance Adolf, they supplied him with Zyclon B for use in the death camps. The American side of the company was not tried at Nuremburg, although they were just as culpable, go figure.

The fire bombing of Dresden by the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command, caused the destruction of 15 square kms including 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, etc. with a conservative estimate of around 30,000 civilians killed. At the time, the Germans used it as propaganda to advocate against following the Geneva conventions and to attack people's perception of the Allies claim to absolute moral superiority. The military claimed the railroad center was a military target, which it was, altho it was up and running a week later. Feb 1945 was only 3 months away from May 1945 (end of the Euopean war), the outcome of the war was not in doubt, so why bomb a 'cultural' medieval city of 600,000?

The firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, genocide should also include civilian victims of aerial bombardment. Even after saying this, i still don't think the Allies were close to the moral depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews.

The bombing of civilians is a great tragedy, none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself. Once full-scale war has broken out it can never be humanized or civilized, and if one side attempted to do so it would be most likely to be defeated. That to me is the lesson of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Answer 4

I am amazed that such a moot court would be held. This has been gone over many times and those against nuclear weapons always decide against the United States and President Truman even though not using them would have killed far more Allied soldiers and many more Japanese.
As late as May 1945, the U.S. was engaged in heavy fighting with the Japanese at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. In these most bloody conflicts, the United States had sustained more than 75,000 casualties. These victories insured the United States was within air striking distance of the Japanese mainland. President Harry Truman had many alternatives at his disposal for ending the war: invade the Japanese mainland, hold a demonstration of the destructive power of the atomic bomb for Japanese dignitaries, drop an atomic bomb on selected industrial Japanese cities, bomb and blockade the islands, wait for Soviet entry into the war on August 15, or mediate a compromised peace. Operation Olympia, a full scale landing of United States armed forces, was already planned for Kyushu on November 1, 1945 and a bomb and blockade plan had already been instituted over the Japanese mainland for several months.
The Japanese resolve to fight had been seriously hampered in the preceding months. Their losses at Iwo Jima and Okinawa had been staggering. Their navy had ceased to exist as an effective fighting force and the air corps had been decimated. American B-29's made bombing runs over military targets on the Japanese mainland an integral part of their air campaign. Japan's lack of air power hindered their ability to fight. The imprecision of bombing and the use of devastating city bombing in Europe eventually swayed United States Pacific theater military leaders to authorize bombing of Japanese mainland cities. Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe all were decimated by incendiary and other bombs. In all, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in these air strikes meant to deter the resolve of the Japanese people. Yet, Japanese resolve stayed strong and the idea of a bloody "house to house" invasion of the Japanese mainland would produce thousands more American and Allied casualties. The Allies in late July 1945 declared at Potsdam that the Japanese must unconditionally surrender.
After Japanese leaders flatly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, President Truman authorized use of the atomic bomb anytime after August 3, 1945. On the clear morning of August 6, the first atomic bomb, nicknamed Little Boy, was dropped on the city of Hiroshima. Leveling over 60 percent of the city, 70,000 residents died instantaneously in a searing flash of heat. Three days later, on August 9, a second bomb, Fat Man, was dropped on Nagasaki. Over 20,000 people died instantly. In the successive weeks, thousands more Japanese died from the after effects of the radiation exposure of the blast. The war ended with Japan’s unconditional surrender.

It is an added point that prior to Germany’s surrender, Japan had plans to accept a German manufactured nuclear bomb and put on a plane they were developing. A bomber that could take that bomb to the United States, drop it, and return to Japan for another load.

While the use of any nuclear weapon is a terrible decision, in this case it was the least terrible of the available options. President Truman’s responsibility to win the war by beating the enemy that had attacked the United States and in so doing protect our soldiers to the best of his ability. He did that job.

To even have a moot court on this subject is sick.