[Ward]

link

It comes at about the 5:50 mark. Cliff May asks Stewart whether Truman's use of the atomic bomb was a war crime, Stewart ruminates and then responds with an unequivocal "yes." He's certainly not the only American who would take that view, but it's a useful reminder that the most vocal and popular criticism of the Bush administration's war on terror policies comes from people who, if they were being as honest as Stewart, would also judge Lincoln (suspension of habeas), FDR (internment), and Truman (use of nuclear weapons) as war criminals or tyrants or worse.

Stewart repeats the charge again later in the interview, but you have to wonder whether this was one of the rare times that he just got outmaneuvered on his own show. Serious people have debated Truman's decision for 60 years, but even those who disagree with that decision rarely describe it as "criminal." And if it was criminal, whatever crimes the left alleges of President Bush seem pretty trivial in comparison.

Go to the link for the video...

So, was Truman really a war criminal? In that light, was Bush?

[RickDeckard]

Yes and yes. Asserting this does not constitute being "outmanuevered".

[Zombie]

No it wasn't a war crime.

Only anti-nuclear bomb people say that.

[Ward]

Originally Posted by Zombie

No it wasn't a war crime.

Only anti-nuclear bomb people say that.

I think it would've been a far, far greater crime for Truman to order an invasion of Japan.

[Faceman]

He already apologized and retracted the statement.

[Zombie]

Originally Posted by RickDeckard

Yes and yes. Asserting this does not constitute being "outmanuevered".

As usual you are a moron.

There were two choices.

Drop the atomic bombs and hope they surrender or firebomb our way onto the island through an invasion.

An invasion would have been a thousand times worse for the Japanese people. Put aside the American troops for a second.

We would have literally firebombed our way across that island. We would have had to fight tooth and nail for every square inch against not just the Japanese army but the people who had been brainwashed into thinking they would meet us on the beach with bamboo spears. One only has to look at the invasions of the various islands as well as the Kamikaze tactic to know we would have had to slaughter almost every Japanese unit we came in contact with.

They fought like hell to defend tiny little islands. Imagine the fight they would have put up to defend their country, their families, and their homes. They weren't pussy ass cowards like you and most leftists today. They would have fought fiercely for every square inch.

An invasion would have shorted the already strained food supply of the island and there would have been mass starvation and disease.

On top of that the Soviets would most likely be invading from the north.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of Japanese would have died.

[Uncle Albert]

So what were the Japanese? Just misunderstood?

[RickDeckard]

Originally Posted by Zombie

As usual you are a moron.

There were two choices.

False.

Originally Posted by 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Originally Posted by Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

[Uncle Albert]

Originally Posted by RickDeckard

I disagree.

This I gotta hear.

[Faceman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Albert

This I gotta hear.

Surrender.

[RickDeckard]

Others who have expressed dissenting views on the bombing: Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur and Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy.

[Uncle Albert]

Of course. Shoulda thought of that.



Actually, I'm guessing his third alternative will have something to do with the economic sanctions that "forced" Japan into aggression.

[The Prussian Mafia]

Originally Posted by RickDeckard

False.

Yes, but I thought those "surrenders" were not unconditional and that was the big hang-up.

[RickDeckard]

Originally Posted by The Prussian Mafia

Yes, but I thought those "surrenders" were not unconditional and that was the big hang-up.

The only condition was the retention of the Emperor as a figurehead - one that was granted anyway.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Bock

link

Go to the link for the video...

So, was Truman really a war criminal? In that light, was Bush?

Probably. LeMay once said he fully expected to be tried for war crimes if the US lost.

Of course, we didn't, so I don't care.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by RickDeckard

Others who have expressed dissenting views on the bombing: Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur and Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy.

Douglas "Atomic Smores in Korea" MacArthur?

Yeah, if he opposed the bombings, it's only because it denied him the "glory" of invading Japan.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Zombie

As usual you are a moron.

There were two choices.

Drop the atomic bombs and hope they surrender or firebomb our way onto the island through an invasion.

An invasion would have been a thousand times worse for the Japanese people. Put aside the American troops for a second.

We would have literally firebombed our way across that island. We would have had to fight tooth and nail for every square inch against not just the Japanese army but the people who had been brainwashed into thinking they would meet us on the beach with bamboo spears. One only has to look at the invasions of the various islands as well as the Kamikaze tactic to know we would have had to slaughter almost every Japanese unit we came in contact with.

They fought like hell to defend tiny little islands. Imagine the fight they would have put up to defend their country, their families, and their homes. They weren't pussy ass cowards like you and most leftists today. They would have fought fiercely for every square inch.

An invasion would have shorted the already strained food supply of the island and there would have been mass starvation and disease.

On top of that the Soviets would most likely be invading from the north.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of Japanese would have died.

You're rationalizing. The proper attitude is apathy.

War is horrible. Don't get involved in them if you wish to live.

[RickDeckard]

Originally Posted by Chris

Douglas "Atomic Smores in Korea" MacArthur?

Yeah, if he opposed the bombings, it's only because it denied him the "glory" of invading Japan.

Apparently not.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[Ward]

Originally Posted by RickDeckard

False.

Nice find. The same Survey showed that the Allied coalition was starting to show strains as victory over the Germans had been achieved and the Japanese were apparently on the ropes. The authors made the guess that they would've unconditionally surrendered sometime soon (whenever that was). But, with the political decisions that Truman was having to face, getting that surrender and American forced on the ground in Japan was of tantamount importance. We'd already made the mistake of giving Eastern Europe and half of Germany to the Soviets. The Cold War would've been far, far worse if we'd made the same mistake in Japan.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by RickDeckard

Apparently not.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

Yeah, next time read your quote. The only thing negative about the bombings was that his ideas were ignored.

[RickDeckard]

Originally Posted by Chris

Yeah, next time read your quote. The only thing negative about the bombings was that his ideas were ignored.

Rubbish. He said that there was no military justification and that the conditional surrender (yes, his idea among others) should have been accepted.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by RickDeckard

Rubbish. He said that there was no military justification and that the conditional surrender (yes, his idea among others) should have been accepted.

Yeah, you don't know much about MacArthur.

[Rob Matter]

Historical figures are never as good or as evil as they're portrayed in pop culture.

[Ward]

Originally Posted by Rob Matter

Historical figures are never as good or as evil as they're portrayed in pop culture.

Same thinking has to apply to current ones.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Rob Matter

Historical figures are never as good or as evil as they're portrayed in pop culture.

Good and evil are just words.

[Ward]

Originally Posted by Chris

Good and evil are just words.

I have to disagree that they are "just" words. The ideas behind them exist.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Bock

I have to disagree that they are "just" words. The ideas behind them exist.

But that's just it, that's all they are: ideas.

It's a system humanity has created to decide what's acceptable and what isn't, that's all.

[Ward]

Originally Posted by Chris

But that's just it, that's all they are: ideas.

It's a system humanity has created to decide what's acceptable and what isn't, that's all.

OK. But "what's acceptable" and what's not are usually proven to be "true" (whatever that is) over long periods of time. For instance, LeMay talking about being treated as a war criminal if the U.S. lost the war. The charge, even if he'd been hung for it, wouldn't have been true. He was doing something outrageous in the cause of a greater good.

[Dayton3]

Originally Posted by RickDeckard

Others who have expressed dissenting views on the bombing: Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur and Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy.

They are military leaders.

You might not believe this but American military leaders have been historically against war and massive uses of force.

And remember, the alternative for Japan wasn't just invasion, but a starvation blockade of the islands.

The 1946 Rice famine would've caused millions of Japanese to starve had not the war been over and the U.S. able to assist in feeding them.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Bock

OK. But "what's acceptable" and what's not are usually proven to be "true" (whatever that is) over long periods of time. For instance, LeMay talking about being treated as a war criminal if the U.S. lost the war. The charge, even if he'd been hung for it, wouldn't have been true. He was doing something outrageous in the cause of a greater good.

No, you're just rationalizing.