On August 6, 1945-Harry S. Truman decided to drop a bomb on the Japanese city, Hiroshima. In doing so, he says to have saved many lives that would later be killed in further war. Do you think this man should be prosecuted as a war criminal, or merely be aknowledged as a war hero?
2006-12-13 10:33:55 · 30 answers · asked by Santi 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Truman was known as a man who cut through all the political bullsht, TOLD THE TRUTH, and let the chips fall where they may. We need another Harry S. Truman in the oval office now!
As far as your question goes, I'm sure your trying hard to make a point in some smug, sarcastic way. But I can't comprehend whatever it might be. I guess my little tiny Moderate/Democrat brain isn't a match for your superior intellect. So you win, congratulations.
2006-12-13 17:20:17 · answer #1 · answered by Do You See What Happens Larry? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it was a war. Truman stopped the war by sending the bombers, and the Japanese would have dumped the bomb on us if they had it. The Japanese were in a race to try to get the bomb sorted out just so they could drop it on people. Actually, not many people know but in a few weeks time the Japanese would have had their bomb and the entire world would have been their target.
The Japanese war machine would not stop, even the Emperor wanted the war to cease but the generals carried on; someone had to stop the insanity before it destroyed the whole world.
It's a terrible reality but Truman actually probably saved millions of lives and I know he hated the decision but it had to be done.
2006-12-13 10:44:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the use of atomic bombs was worse than the firebombing of Tokyo, which incinerated somewhere on the order of 100K people. In defence of Truman, the Japanese government had prepared to arm most of their citizenry to fight an invasion of the home islands, and I think that there was good evidence, based on the fighting in the Pacific, that an invasion of Japan would have been unimaginably costly for both sides. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki really freed the Japanese people from the grip of the military, which seemed prepared to sacrifice the entire population.
2006-12-13 10:49:41 · answer #3 · answered by Nicole B 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For one thing, he is dead, so it is a little late.
Second, there is something called situational ethics and historical context. Was the dropping of the bomb horrific, yes. But, we were not in a position to know everything they knew. We don't understand the context today that they were facing. To them, it was the correct action, and not something they did lightly.
Third, the bombings of Dresden, London, and many other locations through conventional weapons were almost as bad. What makes this horrific was it was a single bomb, but, concentrated conventional bombing would have been just as devastating. I have no doubt that to defeat Japan the USA would have had to bomb those locations, and perhaps several other cities, to the same degree of damage as was caused by the bomb. This action likely saved many people living in Tokyo and other Japanese cities.
2006-12-13 10:41:47 · answer #4 · answered by Wundt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He should be acknowledged as a hero. Go back and put yourself in the times. He did what needed to be done to end the war quickly. Too many people try to use todays standards to judge people back then. Learn from your history lessons and you too will judge Harry S. Truman as a hero.
2006-12-13 10:39:55 · answer #5 · answered by Pop D 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hell no. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war in the Pacific. Japan started it, we finished it. And in total victory and unconditional Japanese surrender, brought major changes to a militarist society and made Japan into one of the world's great democracies.
2006-12-13 11:47:15 · answer #6 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hi The first bomb was justified, and the Japanese government was warned but their intelligence said it was not possible. The second bomb was dropped, again after a warning, but the Japanese again felt something like "Well, they built one but could not possibly build two". The second bomb could have been dropped just about anywhere and the outcome of the war may have been the same. So, no, not a war crime but a more humane second target may have been found.
2006-12-13 10:39:23 · answer #7 · answered by Cirric 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No,ya plug...It was the right thing to do ay the time,To clear the island of Japan would of taken an extra 8 months and at least half a millon more lives ,and judging by taking the islands before hands, I believe it would of been more.At the time it was correct,and it put a stop to the war Toute-suite.
2006-12-13 10:49:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It was a tough decision. Hundreds of lives were lost on both sides in the war of Iwo Jima. Add to that the Japanese refused to surrender and fought to the death. So an invasion of Japan would surely have cost millions of lives on both sides.
2006-12-14 11:22:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey pal, did you ever think that had we invaded Japan,, I t would have been a fight that we would have won, but at the cost of several military and non combatants. The numbers showed that we would've faced 200,000 to 400,000 killed and injured. God knows how many Japanese would have died.
So no he shouldn't
get a life and take a look at history.
2006-12-14 13:43:27 · answer #10 · answered by pgmurry 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋