Harry Truman & War Crimes

Also, this was a huge chunk of why ww2 ended, probably saving millions and millions more.
Sort of like Abraham Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. :lol:

The Emancipation Proclamation is widely believed to have saved lives and potentially shortened the Civil War by transforming it into a moral crusade against slavery. By enabling the enlistment of nearly 200,000 Black soldiers and sailors, the Proclamation significantly strengthened Union military forces, while simultaneously deterring European powers from supporting the Confederacy. The proclamation allowed for the recruitment of Black men into the Union Army and Navy, providing crucial reinforcements that hastened the Union victory and, by extension, brought an end to the fighting. By shifting the war's focus from merely preserving the Union to ending slavery, the proclamation made it politically difficult for anti-slavery nations like Britain and France to intervene on behalf of the Confederacy. As Union troops advanced, the proclamation gave them the authority to free enslaved people, disrupting the labor force that fueled the Confederate war effort. It added moral weight to the Union cause, which helped sustain Northern support for the war, even as it became more prolonged. While the proclamation was a military measure that didn't immediately free all enslaved people—as it applied only to areas still in rebellion—it laid the legal and moral framework for the abolition of slavery and accelerated the end of the conflict.
 
how could Trump commit any war crimes?
If Trump deliberately ordered the bombing of Iran's desalination plants - or any targets that were deemed "indispensable to the survival of the civilian population" - it would likely be considered a war crime under international humanitarian law, as these facilities are essential for the survival of the civilian population. Such actions violate the principle of distinction between military targets and civilian objects, constituting a grave violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Article 54 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibits the destruction of objects "indispensable to the survival of the civilian population," which specifically includes drinking water installations and supplies.
 
Last edited:
Truman was never charged with war crimes
The Geneva Convention did not specifically list or ban the use of nuclear bombs when Harry S. Truman was president (1945–1953). The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 occurred before the 1949 Geneva Conventions were adopted, and nuclear weapons were not included in international humanitarian law at that time.
 
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
<~~~~~~~~~~>
Who're bullshitting? We're not talking about the two atomic nukes.
The firebombing of Japan killed more civilians than the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. The wider strategic bombing campaign against Japan resulted in over 300,000 civilian deaths.
Source:
 
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?
<~~~~~~~~~~>
Indeed, or Curtis LeMay ordering "Saturation (Fire) Bombing" of Japanese cities killing and estimated 300,000 Japanese civilians.
 
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.
The dumb OP desperately wants his orange Messiah to nuke Iran. He’s sick in the head.
 
The dumb OP desperately wants his orange Messiah to nuke Iran. He’s sick in the head.
That's what I keep on pointing out to him.

The OP isn't about condemning what Truman did. It's about trying to find a permission structure for Trump to use the tactics of total war in today's setting.

It's anstonishing how depraved they are willing to be.
 
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?
No one was innocent the two cities were munitions factories
 
That's what I keep on pointing out to him.

The OP isn't about condemning what Truman did. It's about trying to find a permission structure for Trump to use the tactics of total war in today's setting.

It's anstonishing how depraved they are willing to be.
It most certainly is. Some dumb Americans have become so desensitized by non-stop wars, they support using nukes.

The most ironic thing about Trumpers is they voted for no more wars, now some support using nukes. It’s depraved and pathological.
 
It most certainly is. Some dumb Americans have become so desensitized by non-stop wars, they support using nukes.

The most ironic thing about Trumpers is they voted for no more wars, now some support using nukes. It’s depraved and pathological.
It’s not just Americans. Most people in Western countries have no real frame of reference for what full-scale war actually looks like.

War, for them, is something you see on TV.

Even the wars we have been involved in over the past decades have been relatively contained, small-unit engagements, platoons and squads. Still brutal for the people involved, but limited in scope compared to state-on-state war.

That creates a kind of complacency. We can export weapons, intervene abroad, even fight wars, but the large-scale destruction, the mass civilian suffering, happens somewhere else.

Out of sight, out of mind.

And when war is abstract like that, it becomes easier to talk about escalation, including things like nuclear weapons, as if it’s just another policy option, instead of what it actually is: mass, indiscriminate destruction on a scale most people have never experienced or even properly imagined.


.
 
Last edited:
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes.

Japan started the war, and was given every opportunity to surrender unconditionally

They committed atrocities on par with Nazi Germany in China and Korea, and had to be stopped by any means necessary
 
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes.

Japan started the war, and was given every opportunity to surrender unconditionally

They committed atrocities on par with Nazi Germany in China and Korea, and had to be stopped by any means necessary
No. It was a war crime for which Truman should have been hung, like the Nazis at Nuremberg.
 
It most certainly is. Some dumb Americans have become so desensitized by non-stop wars, they support using nukes.

The most ironic thing about Trumpers is they voted for no more wars, now some support using nukes. It’s depraved and pathological.
<~~~~~~~~~~>
I keep hearing just how horrible Trump is about threatening to destroy Iran, When for nights Iran and their proxy Hezbollah sent missiles into the populated cities of Israel, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait.
Many of the missiles containing cluster bombs a direct violation of the Geneva Convention.
Meanwhile, Putin bombs the populated cities of the Ukraine killing civilians on a nightly basis.
Trump has threatened but not implemented these attacks on infrastructure as of yet.
IMO, the blockade of the Iranian ports is the best and the U.S. Navy can deal with the fast boats harassing traffic.
Then there's the human rights violations of the Iranian gov't seeking to hang women protesters.
President Donald Trump recently said that Iran had canceled the planned execution of eight women protesters after his request, with four to be released immediately and four sentenced to one month in prison. However, Iran's judiciary denied Trump's assertion, stating that the women were not at risk of execution and that some had already been released.
Where have the Democrats been? Haven't heard a peep on that coming from the Quisling Media, talking heads of the Left or Democrats.

Read more:
 
Last edited:
<~~~~~~~~~~>
I keep hearing just how horrible Trump is about threatening to destroy Iran, When for nights Iran and their proxy Hezbollah sent missiles into the populated cities of Israel, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait.
Many of the missiles containing cluster bombs a direct violation of the Geneva Convention.
Meanwhile, Putin bombs the populated cities of the Ukraine killing civilians on a nightly basis.
Trump has threatened but not implemented these attacks on infrastructure as of yet.
IMO, the blockade of the Iranian ports is the best and the U.S. Navy can deal with the fast boats harassing traffic.
Then there's the human rights violations of the Iranian gov't seeking to hang women protesters.
President Donald Trump recently said that Iran had canceled the planned execution of eight women protesters after his request, with four to be released immediately and four sentenced to one month in prison. However, Iran's judiciary denied Trump's assertion, stating that the women were not at risk of execution and that some had already been released.
Where have the Democrats been? Haven't heard a peep on that coming from the Quisling Media, talking heads of the Left or Democrats.

Read more:
Iran didn’t start this dumb war. Your guy did and all because Israel told him to. He’s likely blackmailed by the Zionists/Nazi regime, with their many spies infiltrated into dumb Don’s administration.
 
No one was innocent the two cities were munitions factories
<~~~~~~~~~~>
So, by your logic the civilians living there did not count in the scheme of war?
What is the difference then of Iran using cluster bomb munitions on Israeli cities where there are no munitions?
Then again Putin specifically bombing civilian area of the Ukraine.
Why the double standard?

Read more:
xxxxxxxxxx​
 
15th post

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom