Opinion of Harry Truman

[Bo]

No, we're not.

Do you really agree with Libertas here, Giovanni?

Not on this point. I agree that the Atomic Bombings were not necessary. But I find it insulting that Mendeleev is thinking Libertarianism is fringe concept that only out of touch Big Businessmen and Pot Smoking Hippies. I mean, I'm not a Big Businessman nor a Pot Smoking Hippie am I?

Super-FF for saving the lives of thousands of American soliders and thousands more Japanese civilians.  He had the courage to finally end the war that was begun by Japanese aggression.

Oh, he had to burn the village down to save it? Makes sense.

He had to shoot the aggressor in the arms to avoid shooting him in the heart.  Even with the destruction wrought by the nuclear bombs many Jap leaders wanted to stay in the battle and fight.

As difficult as it is for me to say this about a Democrat, Harry Truman may be one of our greatest Presidents for making such a difficult decision that saved so many lives.

No surprise there. The Democrats were the party of senseless war and death then just like your beloved Republicans are now.

Most of the time, libertarians are out of touch with reality.

No, we're not.

I wasn't talking about libertarian-leaning Republicans. I was talking about fringe-Ron Paul-kind of libertarians.

Ron Paul is not fringe, get over yourself.

Then how come he received less than 5% of the total vote in the Republican primaries in 2008 and less than 1% of the total vote when he ran in 1988. He IS fringe.

[JSojourner]

Again, there were three choices.  Maybe four.

1.  Use the bomb.
2.  Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces.  Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million.  About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3.  Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission.  They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4.  Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm.  And reinforce its armies in China.  This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag.  And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it.  A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.

So which alternative do you prefer?  I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices.  I detest false choices.  But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Again, there were three choices.  Maybe four.

1.  Use the bomb.
2.  Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces.  Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million.  About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3.  Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission.  They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4.  Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm.  And reinforce its armies in China.  This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag.  And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it.  A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.

So which alternative do you prefer?  I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices.  I detest false choices.  But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.

5. Accept Japanese surrender

[k-onmmunist]

War criminal, hawk, and general HP.

[JSojourner]

Again, there were three choices.  Maybe four.

1.  Use the bomb.
2.  Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces.  Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million.  About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3.  Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission.  They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4.  Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm.  And reinforce its armies in China.  This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag.  And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it.  A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.

So which alternative do you prefer?  I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices.  I detest false choices.  But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.

5. Accept Japanese surrender

I said realistic.  Japan was never going to surrender. 

[k-onmmunist]

Actually, I remember hearing that Japan was trying to get negotiations when they dropped the bomb.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Again, there were three choices.  Maybe four.

1.  Use the bomb.
2.  Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces.  Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million.  About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3.  Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission.  They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4.  Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm.  And reinforce its armies in China.  This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag.  And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it.  A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.

So which alternative do you prefer?  I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices.  I detest false choices.  But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.

5. Accept Japanese surrender

I said realistic.  Japan was never going to surrender. 

Uh yeah, they openly tried to surrender. Their only condition was that they be allowed to keep their emperor. And it was the emperor himself who was most sympathetic to surrendering.

But the arrogant asshole who led the U.S., i.e. Harry Truman, refused anything less than totally unconditional surrender.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Actually, I remember hearing that Japan was trying to get negotiations when they dropped the bomb.

Japanese response to the Potsdam Conference resolution:

"I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war." - Prime Minister Suzuki, courtesy of Wikipedia. 

This was the statement from the government on July 27, the bomb was dropped on August 6 and the Japanese government's position had not changed in the intervening period.

Even after the bomb was dropped, the Cabinet met on August 9 and still a majority of cabinet members would not recommend a surrender.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Actually, I remember hearing that Japan was trying to get negotiations when they dropped the bomb.

Japanese response to the Potsdam Conference resolution:

"I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war." - Prime Minister Suzuki, courtesy of Wikipedia.  

This was the statement from the government on July 27, the bomb was dropped on August 6 and the Japanese government's position had not changed in the intervening period.

Even after the bomb was dropped, the Cabinet met on August 9 and still a majority of cabinet members would not recommend a surrender.

Potsdam was after the Japanese had offered their surrender.

[k-onmmunist]

Actually, I remember hearing that Japan was trying to get negotiations when they dropped the bomb.

Japanese response to the Potsdam Conference resolution:

"I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war." - Prime Minister Suzuki, courtesy of Wikipedia.  

This was the statement from the government on July 27, the bomb was dropped on August 6 and the Japanese government's position had not changed in the intervening period.

Even after the bomb was dropped, the Cabinet met on August 9 and still a majority of cabinet members would not recommend a surrender.

Potsdam was after the Japanese had offered their surrender.

Also,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/06/secondworldwar.warcrimes

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Again, there were three choices.  Maybe four.

1.  Use the bomb.
2.  Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces.  Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million.  About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3.  Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission.  They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4.  Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm.  And reinforce its armies in China.  This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag.  And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it.  A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.

So which alternative do you prefer?  I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices.  I detest false choices.  But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.

5. Accept Japanese surrender

I said realistic.  Japan was never going to surrender. 

Uh yeah, they openly tried to surrender. Their only condition was that they be allowed to keep their emperor. And it was the emperor himself who was most sympathetic to surrendering.

But the arrogant asshole who led the U.S., i.e. Harry Truman, refused anything less than totally unconditional surrender.

So... using your flawed logic, should we have accepted surrender of Germany if they were allowed to keep Adolph Hitler as their Chancellor?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/japansurrender.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomic.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[k-onmmunist]

Um, the Emperor barely had any control over Japan. Hitler was absolute ruler of Germany.

Analogy fails.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Again, there were three choices.  Maybe four.

1.  Use the bomb.
2.  Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces.  Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million.  About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3.  Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission.  They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4.  Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm.  And reinforce its armies in China.  This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag.  And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it.  A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.

So which alternative do you prefer?  I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices.  I detest false choices.  But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.

5. Accept Japanese surrender

I said realistic.  Japan was never going to surrender. 

Uh yeah, they openly tried to surrender. Their only condition was that they be allowed to keep their emperor. And it was the emperor himself who was most sympathetic to surrendering.

But the arrogant asshole who led the U.S., i.e. Harry Truman, refused anything less than totally unconditional surrender.

So... using your flawed logic, should we have accepted surrender of Germany if they were allowed to keep Adolph Hitler as their Chancellor?

I believe preventing mass murder, death and destruction outweighs presidential prestige and wartime grandstanding, but that's just me.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Again, there were three choices.  Maybe four.

1.  Use the bomb.
2.  Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces.  Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million.  About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3.  Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission.  They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4.  Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm.  And reinforce its armies in China.  This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag.  And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it.  A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.

So which alternative do you prefer?  I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices.  I detest false choices.  But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.

5. Accept Japanese surrender

I said realistic.  Japan was never going to surrender. 

Uh yeah, they openly tried to surrender. Their only condition was that they be allowed to keep their emperor. And it was the emperor himself who was most sympathetic to surrendering.

But the arrogant asshole who led the U.S., i.e. Harry Truman, refused anything less than totally unconditional surrender.

So... using your flawed logic, should we have accepted surrender of Germany if they were allowed to keep Adolph Hitler as their Chancellor?

I believe preventing mass murder, death and destruction outweighs presidential prestige and wartime grandstanding, but that's just me.

If only we had developed the bombs sooner, we might have stopped Hitler before he could massacre seven million Jews, Homosexuals, and other enemies of his evil regime.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Um, the Emperor barely had any control over Japan. Hitler was absolute ruler of Germany.

Analogy fails.

One was a King who gave his cabinet some authority and the other was a Dictator who listened to his close advisors - the ones he didn't kill anyway.  You say tomato, I say to-mato.

The Emperor was still the leader of Japan and his assent - despite personally being a pacifist - allowed it to start and to continue.

Allowing an enemy regime to stay in power is usually a bad idea.  Unconditional surrender is the only option.

[k-onmmunist]

Um, the Emperor barely had any control over Japan. Hitler was absolute ruler of Germany.

Analogy fails.

One was a King who gave his cabinet some authority and the other was a Dictator who listened to his close advisors - the ones he didn't kill anyway.  You say tomato, I say to-mato.

The Emperor was still the leader of Japan and his assent - despite personally being a pacifist - allowed it to start and to continue.

Allowing an enemy regime to stay in power is usually a bad idea.  Unconditional surrender is the only option.

Constitutional monarchy means not pissing all over your governments decisions. For example, I bet the Royal Family of the UK haven't agreed with alot of what has been passed over the last 50 years.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Um, the Emperor barely had any control over Japan. Hitler was absolute ruler of Germany.

Analogy fails.

One was a King who gave his cabinet some authority and the other was a Dictator who listened to his close advisors - the ones he didn't kill anyway.  You say tomato, I say to-mato.

The Emperor was still the leader of Japan and his assent - despite personally being a pacifist - allowed it to start and to continue.

Allowing an enemy regime to stay in power is usually a bad idea.  Unconditional surrender is the only option.

Constitutional monarchy means not pissing all over your governments decisions. For example, I bet the Royal Family of the UK haven't agreed with alot of what has been passed over the last 50 years.

The UK is an example of a functional Republic that happens to dish out a lot of money to preserve an ancient royal tradition.  Its not a real Constitutional monarchy -- not that there are many real ones out there these days.

[MasterJedi]

Can the Democarts go back to having people like him in power?

[Magic 8-Ball]

Can the Democarts go back to having people like him in power?

Such as pushing for national health insurance?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Again, there were three choices.  Maybe four.

1.  Use the bomb.
2.  Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces.  Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million.  About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3.  Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission.  They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4.  Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm.  And reinforce its armies in China.  This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag.  And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it.  A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.

So which alternative do you prefer?  I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices.  I detest false choices.  But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.

5. Accept Japanese surrender

I said realistic.  Japan was never going to surrender. 

Uh yeah, they openly tried to surrender. Their only condition was that they be allowed to keep their emperor. And it was the emperor himself who was most sympathetic to surrendering.

But the arrogant asshole who led the U.S., i.e. Harry Truman, refused anything less than totally unconditional surrender.

So... using your flawed logic, should we have accepted surrender of Germany if they were allowed to keep Adolph Hitler as their Chancellor?

I believe preventing mass murder, death and destruction outweighs presidential prestige and wartime grandstanding, but that's just me.

If only we had developed the bombs sooner, we might have stopped Hitler before he could massacre seven million Jews, Homosexuals, and other enemies of his evil regime.

Do you ever get tired of making the most predictable hackish responses possible? The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan had nothing to do with Hitler.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Do you ever get tired of making the most predictable hackish responses possible? The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan had nothing to do with Hitler.

That isn't the point he's making.

[Scam of God]

Stupidly hawkish. If his concern was casualties during a possible invasion, why not blockade? The Japanese may have been a lot of things, but self-sufficient they most certainly were not.

[Scam of God]

3.  Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission.  They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.

Stupid. Japanese militarism in the era is vastly overstated; their chief concern would be energy supplies, not food. They'd have submitted within four months at most, as that's how long their domestic reserves of oil would have lasted.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Do you ever get tired of making the most predictable hackish responses possible? The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan had nothing to do with Hitler.

That isn't the point he's making.

He's not making any point other than that you Republocrat and Dempublican warmongers are all the same.