Harry Truman & War Crimes

[Independent thinker]

I keep on hearing that if Trump does this or does that then it is war crimes. So, it got me thinking, when was Harry Truman accused of war crimes for dropping two separate atomic bombs on millions of innocent civilians? I can't remember him ever being charged with war crimes, let alone serving any time for them. Maybe those on the left can help me out with this. If Truman was never charged with war crimes for that, then how could Trump commit any war crimes?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I keep on hearing that if Trump does this or does that then it is war crimes. So, it got me thinking, when was Harry Truman accused of war crimes for dropping two separate atomic bombs on millions of innocent civilians? I can't remember him ever being charged with war crimes, let alone serving any time for them. Maybe those on the left can help me out with this. If Truman was never charged with war crimes for that, then how could Trump commit any war crimes?

You see, its ok if a democrat vaporizes hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children but let an R go take out some lunatic occult shiite mahdi worshipping loonbats who shot down women and children in the streets............................., and the left starts screeching like banshees.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

 

[LordBrownTrout]

View attachment 1246709

Like they say.........it was just different then. Those were healing bombs.

 

[forkup]

I keep on hearing that if Trump does this or does that then it is war crimes. So, it got me thinking, when was Harry Truman accused of war crimes for dropping two separate atomic bombs on millions of innocent civilians? I can't remember him ever being charged with war crimes, let alone serving any time for them. Maybe those on the left can help me out with this. If Truman was never charged with war crimes for that, then how could Trump commit any war crimes?

You’re mixing two different things and treating them like they’re interchangeable when they’re not.

First off, Harry S. Truman was never charged with war crimes for the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That part is true. But the reason isn’t “there were no war crimes,” it’s that the rules, enforcement mechanisms, and even the nature of warfare were completely different.

The modern framework for war crimes, things like the International Criminal Court and clearer interpretations of the Geneva Conventions, either didn’t exist yet or were still being defined.

And just as importantly, that framework is a product of its time. In WWII, “precision bombing” basically meant the bomb landed in the right country. Civilian casualties in the hundreds of thousands, even millions, were considered acceptable in total war.

Today, you can hit a specific building, sometimes a specific room. Because of that, the legal and moral expectations have narrowed dramatically. An attack that kills 100 civilians today can trigger serious war crimes scrutiny.

So the line has moved, not because people suddenly discovered civilians matter, but because capability and law evolved together.

That’s why your comparison doesn’t really work. War crimes aren’t judged by historical consistency, they’re judged by whether specific actions violate the laws of armed conflict at the time they happen.

Saying “Truman wasn’t charged” isn’t a defense for anyone today. It just reflects a completely different legal and technological era.

It’s a bit like asking why Genghis Khan didn’t use machine guns to avoid mass slaughter. The tools, the norms, and the constraints simply weren’t the same.

If you want to argue something is or isn’t a war crime today, you have to point to a specific action and a specific rule being violated, not just reach back 80 years and assume it’s the same standard.

 

[Independent thinker]

You’re mixing two different things and treating them like they’re interchangeable when they’re not.

First off, Harry S. Truman was never charged with war crimes for the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That part is true. But the reason isn’t “there were no war crimes,” it’s that the rules, enforcement mechanisms, and even the nature of warfare were completely different.

The modern framework for war crimes, things like the International Criminal Court and clearer interpretations of the Geneva Conventions, either didn’t exist yet or were still being defined.

And just as importantly, that framework is a product of its time. In WWII, “precision bombing” basically meant the bomb landed in the right country. Civilian casualties in the hundreds of thousands, even millions, were considered acceptable in total war.

Today, you can hit a specific building, sometimes a specific room. Because of that, the legal and moral expectations have narrowed dramatically. An attack that kills 100 civilians today can trigger serious war crimes scrutiny.

So the line has moved, not because people suddenly discovered civilians matter, but because capability and law evolved together.

That’s why your comparison doesn’t really work. War crimes aren’t judged by historical consistency, they’re judged by whether specific actions violate the laws of armed conflict at the time they happen.

Saying “Truman wasn’t charged” isn’t a defense for anyone today. It just reflects a completely different legal and technological era.

It’s a bit like asking why Genghis Khan didn’t use machine guns to avoid mass slaughter. The tools, the norms, and the constraints simply weren’t the same.

If you want to argue something is or isn’t a war crime today, you have to point to a specific action and a specific rule being violated, not just reach back 80 years and assume it’s the same standard.

Many of Hitler's men were charged with and paid the price for war crimes (including soldiers just following orders from their superiors) but Harry Truman killing mllions of innocent people with atomic bombs didn't seem to rise to the level of war crimes, not to mention that those atomic bombs undoubtedly took out bridges, power plants, and other civilian infrastructure (like grocery stores and medical facilities) for two very large cities.

 

[forkup]

Many of Hitler's men were charged with and paid the price for war crimes (including soldiers just following orders from their superiors) but Harry Truman killing mllions of innocent people with atomic bombs didn't seem to rise to the level of war crimes, not to mention that those atomic bombs undoubtedly took out bridges, power plants, and other civilian infrastructure (like grocery stores and medical facilities) for two very large cities.

First off, let’s at least get the numbers straight. Harry S. Truman didn’t kill “millions” with the atomic bombs. The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed on the order of a bit over a hundred thousand people, not millions.

That doesn’t make it trivial—but accuracy matters if you’re making a moral argument.

Now zoom out for a second. Total deaths in World War II are estimated somewhere between 60 and 85 million. And by 1945, casualty rates, civilian and military, were accelerating, not slowing down.

So Truman made a choice between options that were all brutal. One option killed tens of thousands immediately. The alternative, continued firebombing, invasion of Japan, blockade, very likely would have killed far more over a longer period.

You can argue about whether that decision was justified. People still do. But comparing it to the Nuremberg Trials and saying “why wasn’t Truman prosecuted like Nazi officials” ignores a key point:
Those trials were about aggressive war, genocide, and systematic atrocities. Not just “civilian casualties happened in a war,” but how and why they happened.

What’s striking here isn’t so much a consistent condemnation of Truman, but that his decision is being used as a benchmark for what should be acceptable today.

And that raises a simple question:
Do you actually want to roll back to a standard where civilian casualties in the hundreds of thousands are treated as an acceptable baseline of warfare?

Because the entire point of modern laws of armed conflict is that we moved away from that, not toward it.

 

[my2¢]

If Truman was never charged with war crimes for that, then how could Trump commit any war crimes?

Truman and Trump are operating under different criteria of what constitutes a war crime under U.S. code 2441.

18 USC 2441: War crimes

Definition.-As used in this section the term "war crime" means any conduct-

(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;

I'm not advocating anything here. The media I pay attention to hasn't brought up anything about war crimes and I have no opinion on the matter of pending war crimes. The question itself perked my interest.

 

[Independent thinker]

First off, let’s at least get the numbers straight. Harry S. Truman didn’t kill “millions” with the atomic bombs. The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed on the order of a bit over a hundred thousand people, not millions.

That doesn’t make it trivial—but accuracy matters if you’re making a moral argument.

Now zoom out for a second. Total deaths in World War II are estimated somewhere between 60 and 85 million. And by 1945, casualty rates, civilian and military, were accelerating, not slowing down.

So Truman made a choice between options that were all brutal. One option killed tens of thousands immediately. The alternative, continued firebombing, invasion of Japan, blockade, very likely would have killed far more over a longer period.

You can argue about whether that decision was justified. People still do. But comparing it to the Nuremberg Trials and saying “why wasn’t Truman prosecuted like Nazi officials” ignores a key point:
Those trials were about aggressive war, genocide, and systematic atrocities. Not just “civilian casualties happened in a war,” but how and why they happened.

What’s striking here isn’t so much a consistent condemnation of Truman, but that his decision is being used as a benchmark for what should be acceptable today.

And that raises a simple question:
Do you actually want to roll back to a standard where civilian casualties in the hundreds of thousands are treated as an acceptable baseline of warfare?

Because the entire point of modern laws of armed conflict is that we moved away from that, not toward it.

I see what you're saying. You're saying that Truman was justified in mudering over 100,000 innocent civilians but it wasn't a war crime.

 

[Independent thinker]

Truman and Trump are operating under different criteria of what constitutes a war crime under U.S. code 2441.

18 USC 2441: War crimes

Definition.-As used in this section the term "war crime" means any conduct-

(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;

I'm not advocating anything here. The media I pay attention to hasn't brought up anything about war crimes and I have no opinion on the matter of pending war crimes. The question itself perked my interest.

Well, I'm not really following why it is that we charged a bunch of Germans from WWII with war crimes (even those just merely following orders from their superiors) and yet Harry Truman can nuke out two large cities filled with civilians and that isn't a war crime. If we didn't make the rules until after WWII then why were the Germans charged with war crimes?

 

[forkup]

;I see what you're saying. You're saying that Truman was justified in mudering over 100,000 innocent civilians but it wasn't a war crime.

I'm saying that only one of us is trying to argue that that's what the rules of war should be. And that's you, not me.

 

[Independent thinker]

I'm saying that only one of us is trying to argue that that's what the rules of war should be. And that's you, not me.

All I'm saying is that Democrats continue with their two tiered system of justice, one for them and a different one for Trump and the Republicans. Looks like you agree with that.

 

[martybegan]

I keep on hearing that if Trump does this or does that then it is war crimes. So, it got me thinking, when was Harry Truman accused of war crimes for dropping two separate atomic bombs on millions of innocent civilians? I can't remember him ever being charged with war crimes, let alone serving any time for them. Maybe those on the left can help me out with this. If Truman was never charged with war crimes for that, then how could Trump commit any war crimes?

If you want to read about war crimes, read about what the Japanese were doing to civilians on mainland Asia right up until the end of the war.

We killed more Japanese via incendiary bombing during 1945 than with the A-bombs.

 

[my2¢]

Well, I'm not really following why it is that we charged a bunch of Germans from WWII with war crimes (even those just merely following orders from their superiors) and yet Harry Truman can nuke out two large cities filled with civilians and that isn't a war crime. If we didn't make the rules until after WWII then why were the Germans charged with war crimes?

Before WWII bombardment of civilians addressed only by land and sea. And from what little I've read, I believe Truman could have been charged if those nukes had been dropped from a hot air balloon. The 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare weren't put into effect prior to the war....

Here is an AI summary:

The 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare were never adopted as a legally binding treaty because major powers found them unrealistic, restrictive, and technically obsolete due to rapid advances in military aviation. States were reluctant to limit their strategic options, especially regarding the emerging doctrine of strategic bombing, rendering the rules a "non-starter".

 

[forkup]

All I'm saying is that Democrats continue with their two tiered system of justice, one for them and a different one for Trump and the Republicans. Looks like you agree with that.

No I don't actually. If Truman would order a nuclear strike on Iran today. I would accuse him of genocide. If he would target desalinization plants in a country that relies on them for drinking water I would accuse him of war crimes.

If Trump would have ordered a nuclear strike on Japan to end WW2 I would have considered it the right decision.

What I won't do is apply the same logic of WW2 to a situation today. You are doing just that.

That doesn't make me a hypocrite, it does make you a supporter of killing hundreds of thousands in furtherance of war aims.

I'm comfortable with the position I end up in.

 

[Independent thinker]

Before WWII bombardment of civilians addressed only by land and sea. And from what little I've read, I believe Truman could have been charged if those nukes had been dropped from a hot air balloon. The 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare weren't put into effect prior to the war....

Here is an AI summary:

The 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare were never adopted as a legally binding treaty because major powers found them unrealistic, restrictive, and technically obsolete due to rapid advances in military aviation. States were reluctant to limit their strategic options, especially regarding the emerging doctrine of strategic bombing, rendering the rules a "non-starter".

That is very true. In any war there are civilian casualties. And, the miltary uses major highways for transportation, not roads only built for military use. Same with airports. The military often uses civilian airports. So, you bomb all that stuff and you bomb "civilian" targets. Add to that that nowadays these thugs purposely build military infrastructure under civilian homes, schools, hospitals, churches, power plants, etc. I say that makes all of these places legitimate targets. Everything becomes vague after a while. Nothing is cut and dry.

 

[Independent thinker]

No I don't actually. If Truman would order a nuclear strike on Iran today. I would accuse him of genocide. If he would target desalinization plants in a country that relies on them for drinking water I would accuse him of war crimes.

If Trump would have ordered a nuclear strike on Japan to end WW2 I would have considered it the right decision.

What I won't do is apply the same logic of WW2 to a situation today. You are doing just that.

That doesn't make me a hypocrite, it does make you a supporter of killing hundreds of thousands in furtherance of war aims.

I'm comfortable with the position I end up in.

But Truman actually did all of that stuff. He nuked two major cities containing everything you mentioned. And yet you let Truman pass.

 

[forkup]

But Truman actually did all of that stuff. He nuked two major cities containing everything you mentioned. And yet you let Truman pass.

Not just Truman. I would have let Trump pass too. You are accusing me of have different standards. I don't, same exact ones.

Your entire argument is that Trump should get a pass now because Truman got a pass in 1945. This means that you support killing hundreds of thousands of civilians today.

As I said. I like were my position leads me much more than were yours leads you.

See this is the problem with making an appeal to hypocrisy. You aren't really defending actions by someone. You simply hope that you get away with those actions by crying "but they did it too." like Joey trying to explain to a parent why he had the right to put a lego in Jimmy's nose because Jimmy toppled his tower.

In your case it's even dumber than that. Because you are trying to defend Joey doing it in the future while pointing to events his grandfather did as a kid.

 

[Doc7505]

You see, its ok if a democrat vaporizes hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children but let an R go take out some lunatic occult shiite mahdi worshipping loonbats who shot down women and children in the streets............................., and the left starts screeching like banshees.

<~~~~~~~~~~>
Then there's the Fire bombings in Germany and Japan where cities were burned to the ground with civilians dying in mass numbers.
Dresden, Hambourg, Berlin, Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe, Yokohama, and Nagoya.
Who was brought to justice for these "atrocities" ordered by Democrat Presidents?

 

[TNHarley]

Well, war crimes and such, werent as clearly defined as they are know. Probably because of this lol.
Also, this was a huge chunk of why ww2 ended, probably saving millions and millions more.
They did this to also move away from a ground invasion in japan. Google bushido lol