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.