Hiroshima: Harry Truman on Trial





In the summer of 2001, on the occasion of the anniversary of Hiroshima, History News Network staged a mock trial of Harry Truman. The charge: that he violated the Nuremberg standards regarding the lawful conduct of war.

Philip Nobile served as chief prosecutor, Ronald Radosh as chief defense counsel. In advance of publication, each writer was given the chance to review each other's statements.

Afterwards, the statements were submitted to a jury composed of leading scholars. Following the online publication of this"virtual" trial, readers were invited to submit their comments. These were collected and published. 

I accuse President Harry S Truman of war crimes under Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter outlawing"the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."

Specifically, I accuse President Truman of ordering the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki via an experimental terror weapon resulting in the massacre and maiming of some 200,000 Japanese women, children and old people.

Philip Nobile, August 2001

 


THE TRIAL

OPENING ARGUMENTS:

PROSECUTION
Philip Nobile

 

DEFENSE
Ronald Rados

CLOSING ARGUMENTS:

PROSECUTION
Philip Nobile

DEFENSE
Ronald Radosh


PHILIP NOBILE RESPONDS TO THE JURY

 

JURY VERDICT:


GUILTY

J. Dresner
Brian M. Jones

UNDECIDED

Arnold A. Offner



NOT GUILTY

R. John Pritchard
Richard Jensen
Oscar B. Chamberlain
Robert James Maddox
James R. Van de Velde
Larry Schweikart
Jeff Tenuth

Related Links

  • Readers' Response to the Truman Trial

  • comments powered by Disqus

    More Comments:


    FugePewo FugePewo - 3/4/2011

    I think you make a very good point of bringing to other's attention that those civilians still make an effort to help the war effect. Even though it is never okay to kill for any reason, especially to try and resolve things, it was a smart move. Truman did what he did with the intentions of ending war, which is good for both sides. If he just bombed them for the heck of it, that would be completely different, but he was trying to make the best decision, and i believe the one that he made was the smartest one.
    http://hnn.us/articles/179.html


    FugePewo FugePewo - 3/4/2011

    I agree with this completely, you make some really good points; Truman was only trying to be a good president and protect his people. Although bombing another country and killing other people is never a good thing, it was the best choice we had at that time. If we hadn't taken action, the thousands of people that died would have been deducted from our population rather than Japan's. We would have regretted not taking action when we did because we would have gotten attacked and everything would be backwards from how it is now.
    http://hnn.us/articles/180.html


    FugePewo FugePewo - 3/4/2011

    I agree that it is hard to choose whether or not he is guilty. There are some things that support each side; he didn't have to kill thousands of innocent people, but it was the only way he could stop war and protect the people of his country. If we hadn't attacked when we did, the Japanese would have done what we did to them, to us. We had to act fast, and that is what Truman did.
    http://hnn.us/articles/176.html


    Riley E. Doerrler - 3/4/2011

    I agree with this statement completely. You brought up a couple really good points. Truman should have killed all those people and I don't think he should get away with it.


    Riley E. Doerrler - 3/4/2011

    I think you bring up a lot of good points but over all I think he is not guilty... Only because he didn't give the Japanese people much time to evacuate before he dropped the second atomic bomb. I feel that he killed a lot of people who didn't deserve it.


    Riley E. Doerrler - 3/4/2011

    I agree with some of your comments, and I think your research is really good. But I think the line was drawn when Truman dropped the second atomic bomb. I don;t think he gave the people enough time to evacuate so I feel he is guilty.


    Kurzinger Pistone Wright - 3/4/2011

    Ronald Radosh’s view is not based on moral views or practical grounds. John Pritchard states that all issues focused on the world wide stage are equal and should be viewed as politics. He says that he doesn’t view the Truman bombing at all in a sense of criminal conspiracy. He uses this quote “The larger and more ferocious the war, the larger will be the number of innocent or otherwise protected persons who may well perish without breaching the rule of proportionality.” I think this sums up the extremely lengthy argument that Truman isn’t guilty, he’s just essentially protecting his country. It isn’t like he just sat in his room thinking, “hmm I wonder how many small innocent children I could kill today?” He was trying to show them what our country was potential of. The article basically talks about a bunch of codes of laws and acts talking about war crime. Towards the end he talks about the difference between murder and killing to prevent the loss of innocent lives. Pritchard states that anyone who kills to save people must be found Not Guilty. In this one Mr. Van de Velde is arguing that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are no different than any other attack and are no more unique or barbarous than to have incinerated civilians in Tokyo, Kobe, Niigata and Osaka. He says although Truman could have “beated around the bush” and tried to mess around with the surrender policy while winning the war could have sent mixed signals so instead, he just bombed them like crazy. He even states that if we wouldn’t have dropped the bombs that the Soviet Union would have invaded Japan and split them like Korea, so in essence Truman was doing them a favor. In the end he goes back to his theory of murder versus killing and talks about how paper-thin the difference is, but it is in fact, different.

    Schweikart talks about how war crime is different than regular crime and seems to have the same opinion as the previous article. Judge Schweikart also talks about how is was necessary to drop the atomic bombs in relationship to the amount of American soldier’s casualties. He argues that if it saves even ONE of our soldiers that it’s worth it. He goes on to say that it is the nature of war and that war isn’t a game for kids. It’s backstabbing, gruesome and dirty. He even goes on to say that Japan wasn’t really going to surrender. That if they were going to, they would’ve done it, surrendering isn’t that difficult. The judge says that millions of Japanese people probably would have been killed anyways. Also, he argues that they were hoping Pearl Harbor would have made us scared of them and that the atomic bombs were just payback for Pearl Harbor. Making Truman not guilty.

    Mr. Tenuth opens the argument by stating that our current opinions have no place in this trial. I think because we are to revolutionized by the past bicentennial. He is even saying that there almost is no spot for a case, the people creating the argument were not all directly involved and as a result was poorly made. He says that intent was no brought up by the prosecution which therefore defutes [same meaning as defeat, just sounds cooler] the case. He then relates it to the Japanese bombing of Tokyo and Dresden and also brings up the Holocaust and Nazis and states that their intent was to exterminate a specific, targeted population. In the case of President Truman his intent if any, was to end the war before the Soviets entered. He goes on to argue that we could have firebombed or dropped countless bombs which would have in the end killed more people, but may have made Truman appear to be “less guilty” instead of being “one and done” (well, two..) but still President Truman decided to cut straight to the point instead of doing something not as effective. He ends by saying it is way easier for historians fifty-sum years later to point fingers but Truman did all he could do at the time and now is being punished for protecting his country. Again, stating that Truman is not guilty.

    Jensen is saying that if Truman did not drop the atomic bomb, the the Japanese would have flew in to America and bombed us because they were already building fighter planes, bombers, and other war planes. Cities in Japan were the “war machines” because this is where it was all taking place. He claims that it was necessary to drop the bomb since Japan was planning for the same thing to do to America.

    Maddox is saying that Truman isn’t guilty but he didn’t have to end the war with the atomic bomb. He states that although if he didn’t drop the atomic bomb, then Japan was secretly planning to drop a bomb on America. Phillipe Nobile is a man who doesn’t really know what he’s talking about and Maddox explains events that went on between Nobile and different men fighting at the time.

    Brian Madison Jones is saying that Truman is guilty for dropping the atomic bomb because he went against a citation of Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter and he violated the custom laws of war. He states that it was a wanton and not a military necessity to drop the bomb. He believes that Japan had no intention on dropping a bomb on us. Jones claims it was unpatriotic and that Japan has people living there that are just like us.

    He says that he is a “hung juror”. He said that both arguments for whether Truman is guilty or not, are weak. He says, “I believe that Philip Nobile's prosecutor's argument is too weak to allow for conviction of President Truman for war crimes, while Ronald Radosh's defense arguments are weaker still, combining flimsy arguments and evidence with ad hominem attacks on "revisionist" historians.” He says that Truman IS guilty of making some unnecessary actions, such as the fire bombings. He also says the $2.7 billion for weapons, was not put to good use.

    Chamberlain says that because Japan was being so aggressive, we had to be even more aggressive to them, then they were to us. He wonders why the United States, and specifically President Truman are being prosecuted, considering all Truman was doing was responding to the aggression that Japan had on the United States. Chamberlain also is sad that people will be arguing over the Truman Trial for along time. He thinks that the reasons that America dropped the two atomic bombs on Japan was because America knew that Japan didn’t have much power, but America wanted to leave Japan with no power left at all.

    Dresner states that the prosecution and defense are talking about two totally different cases. He kind of sticks with the theory of bombing for peace is totally an oxymoron and the bombing was not at all necessary. He talks about war crime being in fact, war crime and that whether President Truman did it for peace, to save some of his soldiers, or to prevent having the same thing done to us being irrelevant. We shouldn’t look at the trial and think about if it was the easiest or most convenient thing to do. He talks about how the Japanese would almost rather have their civilians killed by their own people in military action than by the U.S.A. He says that we took out a very significant city in Japan that was crucial to all sorts of controlling towers. He then criticises the role of President Truman and states that we won by cheating. Which is immoral, therefore wrong. Finishing with stating President Truman guilty.

    We believe that Truman is not guilty because what he did was the right thing to do for America. In order to preserve our freedom he needed to show the rest of the world that he meant business, and he wasn’t going to take no for an answer. Truman dropped the bombs on Japan because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and America needed to not only stand their ground but prevent further escalation of the world war. Japan would have kept attacking America until Truman did something to show that we were not going to take it anymore. Overall this was the best decision for the future potential effects.


    Kylie Green - 3/3/2011

    I agree with your statement of Truman being GUILTY! I think a big point in your argument and a strong one are how could he have done otherwise. It is not to say that we should not have done anything about the war. It is war and it did need to be stopped some way and some how like any conflict. The issue arises with how. Truman semed to have taken the easy way out. Rather than strategical methods to over come the Japanese he did a one hit wonder and finished it all right then and there. Not only diid he go to extremes he also lied about it after. Truman although having ended the war had to many faults to over come his goods thus being found as GUILTY!

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7991


    marisa j dewolfe - 3/2/2011

    We believe that Harry S. Truman is guilty as a war criminal. It’s plain and simple- he killed thousands of defenseless people. How in any way that would be acceptable I do not know.
    First off, Truman had many alternatives to the atomic bomb that he could have used during this war. In the closing statement this quote, "The fact that the United States wanted to shock Japan into surrender and, hypothetically, to save more lives as well does not remove the burden of criminality” shows how wrong it truly was that Truman dropped the bombs on Japan. I definitely believe that Japan would have surrendered even if the bombs had not been dropped, and even if Russia hadn’t entered the war. If no invasion had ever even been planned Japan was likely to surrender, so it was absolutely unnecessary for the bombs to be dropped and many lives were taken for no good reason. Also solely based on the fact that after 65 fire raids that left most of the cities more than fifty percent destroyed we had to go further. Was the complete destruction of 2 cities even necessary? Sure we scared them to begin with, but then we had to take it a little too far. Also, the cities that were destroyed didn’t even have any military importance, they were just randomly chosen. There weren’t any military factories or anything in those cities that would have made it more intelligent for the United States to bomb those cities. You can plead that Truman if not guilty as a war criminal but he is still guilty for violating the laws of war... “the devastation of towns, cities, or villages not justified by military necessity.” Either way, Truman was wrong in many ways to murder many innocent Japanese people even if some think it is justified as war, Japan didn’t even have a chance to fight back. Therefore that’s not even a war.


    Chelsea Nicole Boucher - 3/1/2011

    I don't think Truman was guilty because there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the bombings either caused caused more or less deaths of civilians. There is also no way to prove that the deaths were unnecessary when the bombings contributed to the unconditional surrender of Japan. The population of that particular city was not completely made up of innocent citizens either because Hiroshima was actually a base for the assembly and dispatching of troops. Because of the insufficient evidence against and for Truman's case, there is no way to say that he is either guilty or not guilty. http://www.hiroshima-spirit.jp/en/museum/morgue_e11.html


    Beth Kalbach - 3/1/2011

    Even though I agree that he is guilty, hundreds of thousands were killed, not millions. I do agree that so many should not have had to deal with health problems that now effect them for their entire lives because of the decision that one man made.
    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1620.html


    Maia Jensen - 3/1/2011

    Truman's decision to drop the bomb was in no way a selfish act. He prevented the war from continuing and ultimately caused less casualties then would have occurred had the war been allowed to continue. Furthermore, it is outrageous to compare Truman's use of the atomic bomb to Hitler's "Final Solution". The bombs were not used to wipe out an entire race of people, they were used to cause a hasty cessation of the war.


    Maia Jensen - 3/1/2011

    While the bombs did take the lives of civilians they also prevented the deaths of many more people, on both sides of the war. It is speculated that the predicted amount of deaths for the remainder of the war were way, way low. Truman's use of the bombs prevented the further loss of American life, and ultimately caused less casualties than would have occurred had the war continued.


    Maia Jensen - 3/1/2011

    Something that needs to be kept in mind is that Truman is being tried for being a war criminal, not for being immoral. He did not do it for destruction's sake, it was to end the war in a timely fashion. He didn't have many other options at the time, and in fact the use of the bombs probably did prevent the war from continuing.


    Jake H Segall - 2/28/2011

    I agree. Truman's main prerogative was not to save the lives of Japanese participants, but to save the lives of American and allied soldiers. They, also, didn't surrender because they wanted to win, even if that meant destroying their homeland for the final defense.


    Jake H Segall - 2/28/2011

    True, the Japanese would have fought to the last man and there really was no other option. If they hadn't surrendered after 60+ fire bombings and more than 50% destruction of these 60+ cities, then what else would make them surrender than the pure shock of almost the entire annihilation of two cities? Nothing.


    Jake H Segall - 2/28/2011

    The military higher ups were not willing to surrender at all. They had millions of men lined up to defend the home land from the anticipated invasions of the United States and the USSR.
    However, there has been proof that the Japanese had tried to surrender and the United States learned about this after.http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html


    Rob Furmanek - 2/28/2011

    Yes we agree with a lot of what you said. But, we also agree with the previous comment. The major cities that were bombed were a lot more than just factories. These cities were in essence mobilized,therefore many of the people living in the cities were largely involved in the war effort. Wanton destruction is not at all an appropriate term in the case of the atomic bombs.


    Rob Furmanek - 2/28/2011

    We agaree with you 100%. Truman dropping the bomb was obviously just a way to end the war. It is proven, like you said, that the large cities in Japan were where most of the military production was taking place, therefore it can not be considered "wanton destruction".


    Leah Struble - 2/28/2011

    I agree, Preisdent Truman had to make some serious decisions whether to drop the bomb or not. I don't think you can judge Truman as guilty or not guilty because the fact of the matter is that either way people were going to die. War is war and there aren't really any rules you just have to follow your instincts and the advice of those around you.

    http://www.trumanlibrary.org/hst-bio.htm


    Kylie Green - 2/27/2011

    I completely agree that he was guilty. I think a hufe point that you made and that holds him to being gu8ilty is the fact that he did have other ways to go about doing this as well as he didnt have to lie about it.
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_the_7_alternatives_to_dropping_the_atomic_bombs_on_Japan


    Kylie Green - 2/27/2011

    I agree that there were lives taken that were not needed to be taken. But I think that people may have died either way but this took it to an extreme. Plus even after the bomb killed the initial victims it continued to kill due to health problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki


    Beth Kalbach - 2/26/2011

    I disagree. I think that was not reasonable to expect entire cities of people to just pick up lives and leave them behind just like that. When boats were given warning, they only had a few hundred to a few thousand passengers instead of a few hundred thousand who did not even live on the boat. Had not spent their entire lives on that boat like those in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/truman/psources/ps_leaflets.html


    Beth Kalbach - 2/26/2011

    I completely agree, we need to consider what we have put Japan through and how much they have suffered, not just whether our actions were morally ethical or not.

    http://artsci.wustl.edu/~copeland/atomicbomb.html


    Jessica Hesser - 2/25/2011

    I disagree. Only because you have to think of all the aftermath of what had happened. And how others have to live now due to something that we had done. Even if they weren't going to surrender, some of the Japanese people might not have agreed with their government. But yet they have to deal with the outcomes, between the diseases and the deaths of the people.


    Jessica Hesser - 2/25/2011

    Truman is guilty. It was wrong for all the things that he had done. And now poor people have to continue to suffer through.


    Jessica Hesser - 2/25/2011

    I feel that it is a wrong statement to say that Truman is not guilty. It is not fair to those who are still suffering for something that they might have not even deserved. They have to live the rest of their lives with disabilities and diseases. Some have to see that their loved ones are going through hardships and know that some of them died during the time of the bombings.


    Jessica Hesser - 2/25/2011


    In the trial of Truman and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I find the defendant guilty of the murder of millions. Other than the obvious war reasons, Truman had no right to attack innocent civilians that really had nothing to do with the situation. It was not under any military orders that is was necessary for the bombings. Millions of people died from the 1st bomb and millions from the 2nd. Currently those are still suffering from the radiation aftermath. Dealing with diseases, such as hematological disorders, nephropathy, respiratory diseases and many others. They did not deserve to have to deal with these problems. Truman was going after a self-fish act and for that he should be found guilty for everything that he is charged with. “The fate of all survivors is to live with the stigma that the atomic bomb stamped permanent marks on their minds and bodies.” Is that something that you would wish on someone?


    Rob Furmanek - 2/25/2011

    I agree that Truman did what he thought was right and he was only trying to save lives. It is a hard decision to make and his intent was not to simply kill Japanese people. He wanted to end the war and save the lives of American and Japanese soldiers. According to http://law.jrank.org/pages/2311/War-Crimes.html, war crimes are not justified by military necessity. This fact proves that Truman is not guilty of committing war crimes. Truman felt that dropping the Atomic bombs were necessary therefore he cannot be guilty.


    Sarah/Mikala Masters/Hursh - 2/25/2011

    We agree. Dropping the bomb was necessary to end the war. The Japanese in the cities that were bombed were given a warning so if they wanted they could have left. The people that lived there were heavily involved with the military. They were not going to surrender. Truman saved more lives than were taken by the bomb.
    http://hnn.us/articles/190.html


    Sarah/Mikala Masters/Hursh - 2/25/2011

    We agree. The presidents job is to save American lives. By making the decision to drop the bomb Truman saved many American lives. He also saved Japanese lives. The invasion would have lead to even more deaths than the bomb.

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


    Sarah/Mikala Masters/Hursh - 2/25/2011

    We agree. Many lives would have been lost if Truman had or had not decided to drop the bomb. The presidents job is to protect his people. By dropping the bomb he saved many American lives. He also saved many Japanese lives.

    http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html


    Jess/Sam Rogers/Way - 2/25/2011

    We really agree with your point about non-combatants. The majority of people who remained were essential to the war effort and were therefore contributing to American deaths. "The distribution of these leaflets, along with the radio broadcasts, does put a dent in the argument that America was unconcerned about the potential civilian deaths as a result of an atomic attack, but the debate over the bombs’ necessity in ending the war will never be truly resolved." http://www.damninteresting.com/ww2-america-warned-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-citizens


    Fletcher A. Ruby - 2/24/2011

    Truman is innocent because he only wanted to end the war right then and there. If he showed the Japanese a video of the A-bombs power, they might be a little skeptical and continue fighting. He didn't intend to slaughter innocents, but they weren't entirely innocent because the civilians were involved in the military and war, which helped the war effort against America. Had he not chose to use the bomb more lives would have been lost on both sides, and had the U.S. not created it, other countries would have, and may have used it with much less thought. The Japanese mentality was that to die in battle was a high honor which leads many to think they would not have come to agreements on both sides and would have continued fighting to the end. The A-bombs after effect was powerful enough to convince the Japanese that the war was pointless to continue, and any survivors would live in great pain the rest of their lives.
    http://hnn.us/articles/182.html
    http://hnn.us/articles/177.html
    http://hnn.us/articles/175.html
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n28_v11/ai17321106/
    http://www.helium.com/itmes/1288455-atomic-bomb-japan-united-states-wwii-president-truman


    Cory JAckson - 2/24/2011

    Right on.. Cory and Leanne agree with your statement. Truman is not guilty. Even though many people were killed, they stilled helped war efforts.
    www.trumanlibrary.org/museum/posters/index.html supports.


    Cory JAckson - 2/24/2011

    We Leanne and Cory totally agree.Even though many civilians were killed those civilians helped in the war efforts.Innocent people died but america had to do what they had to do to save our troops.
    www.johnwcooper.com/papers/atomicbombtruman.htm


    Cory JAckson - 2/24/2011

    We Leanne and Cory agree that Truman is not guilty as well. He had to do what was necessary even though many people were killed that were innocent, he needed to get the job done to win. American Heritage.com supports.


    Cory JAckson - 2/24/2011

    We Leanne and Cory agree that Truman is not guilty as well. He had to do what was necessary even though many people were killed that were innocent, he needed to get the job done to win. American Heritage.com supports.


    Cory JAckson - 2/24/2011

    These days, there is some debate as to if President Truman can be compared to Hitler. Although many people where killed from this attack, we find Truman not guilty of war crimes. Our reasons are clear cut and to the point. In this moment of time Truman found that in order to save our military from losing millions of soldiers, he dropped the bomb to save his own homeland.

    John Pritchard would agree with our opinion. In his statement, he clearly pointed out that he believed dropping bombs were necessary to prevent tragedies on home soil. It was not Truman’s intention to kill as many civilians as he did, but to take out the people who were helping with the war efforts. Most citizens were helpers of war and Truman can not be held accountable for the people around the area that he is not targeting. Richard Jensen (a professor history emeritus at the University of Illinois, and a writer for the History News Service), is on the same track as Pritchard. One more point to bring up would be in the favor of Larry Schweikart. With a stalemate situation we had to take action to get what we wanted. Going off Pritchard we wanted to save our own troops. We wanted to win.
    Truman ended up killing close to 250,000 people. His intentions were not to kill innocent civilians. He wanted to save the United States before the Axis Powers came to our soil (American Heritage).


    brian laskowski - 2/24/2011

    Dear Robert Furmanek, Quite frankly, I'm amazed that your brain can even tell your lungs to breathe and your heart to beat. Reading this was painful to say the least, and took a great deal of effort to try to convey any vestige of implied connotation whatsoever. As you mentioned, the Japanese were threatened by death to silence their cries of surrender. They were going to fight down to the very last man. Why so, are they not currently fighting, or has the army succeeded in killing every single person of Japanese descent. Also, the claim about the Japanese creating an atom bomb to use against us, well I just have something to tell you. I have a dinosaur, right in my basement! So does my neighbor! And my uncle owns an island that has secret ruins containing a time machine and vast riches! Too bad I'm not able to prove any of it, just like most of the points you have made. This was not a YMCA game of basketball, and you came totally unprepared.


    eddie heineken - 2/24/2011

    I agree with your comment that he's not guilty


    Samantha Lynn McWhirter - 2/24/2011

    We disagree with you. If we did not drop the bomb many more people would have been killed in invasion including many Americans would have been killed.


    eddie heineken - 2/24/2011

    Yeah i agree he's not guilty.


    Jake, Josh Thomas, Haefner - 2/24/2011

    smooch clown smoochevlis clownavelis smoutch smoutchaelis greek fat greek gyro
    sssssssssssssssssssssssssssmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoooooooooooooooooooooooocccccccccccccccccccccccccchhhhhhhhhhhhh is greek


    Samantha Lynn McWhirter - 2/24/2011

    We agree, because there was not enough proof to have Truman be guilty!!!


    Kurzinger Pistone Wright - 2/24/2011

    I couldn't agree more. I think we almost could have prevented 9/11 had we known it was coming and bombed them first. It was a matter of staying ahead of the game and we did it. I think we did the right thing by dropping the bomb just like the writer did. Truman was solely protecting his country.


    Shannon, Courtney Wagner, Poprik - 2/24/2011

    I agree with the point you make as he didn't act alone so why should only he be the only one for a war criminal. It seems like people are blowing the whole thing out of proportion and Truman really had the best interest of the USA. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/nuremberg/


    CJ Jones - 2/24/2011

    i agree with that an invasion would have had casualties that weren't necessary on both sided. and and invasion or continuing the fire bombing wouldn't have necessarily have gotten the Japanese to surrender.

    http://hnn.us/articles/182.html


    Ethan Reese Jones - 2/24/2011

    I cannot even begin to describe how utterly out of line you are with your unsupported accusations/opinions; not only do you go out of your way to insult Truman in the most juvenile and pathetic way possible by relying on closed minded assumptions. But you conveniently forgot to mention that the atom bomb was in fact, the most effective way to end the war. I would really like to hear your personal reaction to the fact that Truman was presented plans by his top generals and admirals that entailed that there would be marginally MORE civilian and solider deaths than both bombings combined! This is supported from scholars from the Truman website; Professor Richard Jensen writes: "But all the planners in 1945 knew how many Japanese soldiers would be killed: all of them. That is, about a million in Kyushu and several million in Honshu (including many of the 4 million women who in summer 1945 were being drilled in militia units to fight the invaders)". In conclusion, the information presented by your essay has no merit nor authority to call Truman's decision an act of tyranny or evil without better supported evidence.


    Janine-Selena Mistrick-Richards - 2/24/2011

    Firstly, who are you to decide Truman’s personal motives behind why he dropped the atomic bombs? How can you say he did it out of selfishness? No one but Truman himself knows if he did it for selfish reasons. Not even his personal writings will tell us what he really felt and thought. Secondly, there are no rules to war. War is about cheating – and being the first and best to do it. It is a terrible, dark thing about humans. We have a strong desire to exert our dominance and will do it in any way possible. Innocent civilians are killed all the time in war situations – it isn’t right but it is how the game is played. Thirdly, your statement that Truman and Hitler are similar because they “both killed innocent civilians and claimed it as an act of war” may sound forceful but lacks and actual bearing without evidence to back you up. Without any evidence, your argument is nothing but an pathos-laden rant of your opinion with no concrete fact beneath it. You are forgetting in your attempt to make Truman and Hitler parallel that the situations and the rationale behind their actions are very different. I cannot say it any better than James R Van de Velde said it in his statement of Truman’s non-guilt “There may be a paper-thin difference between killing civilians to effect civilian compliance with the occupiers (the German and Japanese attacks evoked terror) and killing civilians to effect political compliance (the Allied attacks evoked defeat), but there is a difference.” (http://hnn.us/articles/180.html) Hitler and Truman killed for different reasons, it comes down to that. Hitler wanted to change the world – for his own crazed agenda. Truman sought to end a war, which, in the end, would be an improvement for both parties. He did have to make the decision whether or not ending the war and killing many people was better than letting the war go on and possibly killing more people as the Japanese and American forces clashed. Finally, I think your blanket statement of Hitler and Truman both being “evil” and that they “need to really think about what they do before they do it” is a weak conclusion to your argument. Hitler, I presume, thought very hard about his desire to purge the world of the impure and leave only his perfect race. It wasn’t his lack of thought that was the problem – it was his ideals and what he considered to be the best solution. Similarly, Truman had to decide whether or not dropping the atomic bomb was the “lesser of the two evils.” Was it better to end the war now instead of letting it go on, resulting in who knows how many more deaths? I feel that that on the whole, your argument is weak and under-supported and the over-use of pathos to prove your point clouds your lack of data and un-supported personal opinions. I lost respect for your argument because I was too focused on the fallacies and pit-falls of your statements, rather than what you actually felt about the case.


    Janine-Selena Mistrick-Richards - 2/24/2011

    I would like to examine for a moment, the argument you make. The first portion of your argument is pure pathos. You are trying to convince me that Truman is a war criminal because he killed women and children that “did not have anything to do with the war.” However, when a country is at war, often times the ordinary people of the country have everything to do with the war effort. As Larry Schweikart explained in his statement, many of the “civilians” that were killed were still supporting the Japanese war effort with the time and labor (http://hnn.us/articles/178.html). No, not all the people killed were even working to fortify Japanese forces, but nonetheless they were Japanese citizens, assumedly behind their country’s actions wholeheartedly. The second portion of your argument focuses around your statement that Japan was bombed “even though it was not justified as a necessity.” However, you go on to make the following statement: “If it were a necessity then it would not be considered a war crime because it was needed to help end the war.” I feel that you countered your whole argument right there. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did end the war. Isn’t that military necessity? Following that statement are two sections that fully support my view of Truman’s non-guilt and quite frankly debunk what you previously stated as your opinion. Brian Madison Jones is quoted as saying: “Truman sought simply to ravage Japan, devastating cities so completely as to shock Japan into unconditional surrender.” You follow that with “I agree with this because Truman dropping the bomb made Japan struggle and shocked them because they did not know what to do with the bomb. It scared Japan and they did not want to deal with any more bombs being dropped on them so they gave up. This is what Truman wanted Japan to do after dropping the bomb.” If Truman dropped the bombs knowing that there would be no way they could continue fighting after such a devastating blow, and Japan did surrender afterward, thus proving his point, doesn’t that also show that there was military necessity in dropping the bombs? If they resulted in the end of the war, which you agree was Truman’s intention all along, how can that show they were NOT military necessary? You follow that statement with another quote, this one from Offner, “Politicians like HST and Byrnes did not believe bombing was wanton destruction so much as forcing the other side to quit an indescribably horrible war.” You respond to it saying, “I think this is an important thing that is said because some people do not think it was a good idea to drop the bomb but it did help to end the war.” Here you fully align with my point of view. I don’t condone the dropping of the atomic bombs in any way, shape, or form. However, I believe that, because the dropping of the bombs brought about a hasty end to what could have been a much longer, bloodier war, Truman dropped the atomic bombs out of military necessity and therefore cannot be found guilty as a war criminal. Remember, this trial is not about whether or not the atomic bombs were morally right or the 100% best choice, it is about whether or not Truman had no military agenda in mind when he okayed the dropping of the bombs. You state yourself, and I agree that Truman knew the atomic bombs would end the war quickly and that is military necessity. Therefore, I find him not guilty and feel that if you focused solely on the charges against him, you would as well.


    Janine-Selena Mistrick-Richards - 2/24/2011

    I must disagree with your opinion. A full-scale invasion of Japan would have resulted in large numbers of casualties on both sides, Japanese and American. To some speculation, though it is nothing but speculation, more Japanese and Americans would have died if we had invaded like at Normandie. In addition, Jeff Tenuth mentioned in his jury statement (http://hnn.us/articles/182.html) that Japan was better protected than Normandie and would have been a tougher, bloodier fight. A blockade, another proposed solution, would certainly have affected the civilians especially if Japan would have been as stubborn and slow to surrender as it is percieved. Finally, you say that "the bomb was wanton destruction with no military purpose." However, if it brought about the end of the war - a war that could have dragged on for months, years? (Here I ignore speculation given in this trial about Japan's proximity to surrender because it is nothing but speculation)how can it not have a military purpose? The atomic bombs were certainly destructive, I do not argue that fact, however, their ability to bring what could have been a long and bloody war to an end convinces me that as much as it may sadden me to know the lasting effects of the atomic bombs, they ended the war decisively and gave Japan a reason to surrender, which for a proud, nationalistic country might have been the unfortunate break they needed.


    James/Tyler Hlywiak/Eckley - 2/24/2011

    I also agree with your point that Truman didn't act alone. But you're saying that killing millions of Americans is almost better than killing millions of "innocent" Japanese civilians. A big percentage of those civilians were crucial to the Japanese war effort, so i disagree with the first part.


    James/Tyler Hlywiak/Eckley - 2/23/2011

    We feel that even though civilians were killed, these civilians still were playing a major part in perpetuating the war. Many of these civilians had jobs producing guns, ammunition, tanks, and planes. The dropping of the bombs had saved lives on both sides. American soldiers were saved along side Japanese soldiers. The Japanese would have fought and fought until nothing was left. Those casualties are much higher.


    James/Tyler Hlywiak/Eckley - 2/23/2011

    We agree with you guys. Even though many civilians were killed like you said, those civilians still helped in the war effort by manufacturing guns, tanks and planes. He also had the intentions of ending the war early which would have in-fact saved lives on both sides. It was also stated that without the dropping of the bombs, the war would have lasted much longer and would have resulted in many more Japanese deaths because during that time, many Japanese civilians were being trained to defend their homeland if Japan was to be invaded.


    James/Tyler Hlywiak/Eckley - 2/23/2011

    Truman’s decision to drop the atom bombs on July 25, 1945, is still one of the most controversial actions in U.S. history. The destruction that they caused were never before seen by anyone in the world, and resulted in years of fear and panic afterwards. Many condemn Truman for his decision. However, we agree with Truman’s actions. Because his intention was to end the war, not to destroy Japan, we find Truman to be innocent.
    Truman’s intent to use the bomb purely for military reasons is one reason we think that Truman is innocent. He was using the bomb to end the war, and it worked perfectly. He was in no way trying to obliterate Japan. Truman says in his diary, “I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children” (Dannen). Truman had an idea of what the extent of the damage would be, and he wanted to make sure the bomb was only used for militaristic reasons. Ronald Rodash of emphasized this point. He said, “Their purpose was to force the Japanese military to accept surrender and end the fighting---something which to my satisfaction, Richard B. Frank in particular has shown they would not have done were it not for the actual use of the A-bomb” (Radosh). Truman, as a human being with morals and ethics, did not want to destroy the civilians of Japan. He used the bombs to end the war sooner rather than later. Schweikart states that those civilians who were killed during the bombings were not actual noncombatants. “In this context, though, the civilians who still supported the war; who took no steps to end the war (i.e., civil disobedience); who continued to make guns and planes---they indeed were hardly true "noncombatants."” He states that even though they were thought to be civilians, they actually still played a major role it perpetuating the war by making guns, planes and many other war materials. Van de Velde argued that this was not pointless slaughter but in fact had a purpose. He states that it was necessary for the ending of the war. Van de Velde states that even if we would have not gone with the bombings, many of the cities would have been firebombed even more. The Japanese surrender would have been pushed back. “With some Japanese leaders vowing to fight to the bitter end, only a long military campaign or this atomic shock could have ended the war.” This was stated by the National Archives. Too many of the Japanese would have fought to the end. The atomic bomb was what ended it all.
    Many people speculate on whether or not the bombings of Japan were the right things to do. Many so called civilians were actually still playing a major role in the war effort, it ended the war, many American lives were saved, and it had stopped further bombings of Japanese cities. For all these reasons, we feel that President Truman is not guilty.


    Victoria/Carly Hopple/Weber - 2/23/2011

    We agree that the United States did take advantage of the Japanese military weakness. In some cases we disagree because the opinions of Radosh is less questionable than the one's of Nobile.


    Ethan Reese Jones - 2/23/2011

    What your describing about the effects of war and society is directly connected to my feelings towards this matter. The atomic bombs were dropped to save lives on both sides, which has been undeniably proved over and over again by scholars whom represented the side of the "not guilty" notion. An example of this can be easily seen while scanning through Oscar B. Chamberlain's comments on the matter, "Given the US insistence on occupation and transformation of Japan as conditions of surrender, the use of the Bombs may have been the least costly road to peace." In conclusion, I definitely agree with what you have said and thank you for elaborating on what war is by definition!


    Victoria/Carly Hopple/Weber - 2/23/2011

    We're agreeing with what you say, and one of the points that really stands out to us is the image that we're setting for the world. In our opinion we too believe that it was unnecessary to go forth knowing that Japan was close to surrender. In an article by Robert Freeman he discussed how the bombing of Japan was immoral because the reasons for the bombing were uncalled for and wrong.


    Karen Maynard - 2/23/2011

    If we had invaded Japan, it would have been a long war. Japan was defending for an invasion, meaning that they were ready for it. It would have been a long and bloody battle, for both sides. When people are told that Truman dropped the bombs because an invasion would have caused fewer casualties, they tend to think, "Why are American lives worth more than Japanese lives? Are they less human than we are?" These people forget that in an invasion of Japan, Japanese soldiers would die also. With Japan so dug in, both sides would take extremely heavy casualties. The atomic bomb brought a quick end to the war, and also gave the Emperor a way to surrender without losing honor.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
    The Atomic bombings made Japan surrender. Before the bombs were dropped, they were planning to keep fighting until they were no longer physically able.


    Jake, Josh Thomas, Haefner - 2/23/2011

    The point about the bomb ending the war but also keeping potential enemies away is a good point. Towards the end of the war the U.S. wasn't just thinking about the war they had going on but they were also looking towards the future and dropping the bomb showed potential enemies that we meant business.


    Jake, Josh Thomas, Haefner - 2/23/2011

    We agree with not guilty. The fact that the bomb ended the war sooner is a good point, the Japanese wouldn't have stopped fighting just because the U.S. invaded. It would have cost thousands more lives to end the war.


    Karen Maynard - 2/23/2011

    I think you presented some great arguments in your statement for both sides. However, you made the claim that the cities were not "strategically important cities" and "showed no military importance besides a military factory," but this is actually inaccurate. The city of Hiroshima "contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops," and Nagasaki produced "ships, military equipment, and other war materials," according to this website:
    http://www.world-war-2.info/atomic-bomb/
    With this information, you can see that the two cities were actually very important to the war effort, and therefore good targets for the bombs.


    Victoria/Carly Hopple/Weber - 2/23/2011

    We believe that he is both guilty and not guilty depending on the facts. Based off of your thoughts and opinions we could be persuaded to believe that he is not guilty. The point that Truman was protecting our country is a valid opinion to consider. According to "history.com", the actions of Truman, Hiroshima is still facing devastation from the bombing.


    Emily Saylor - 2/23/2011

    I agree that Truman is guilty. People say that Japan wouldn't have surrendered if not for the bombs, but how do they know for sure? There is always that chance that Japan was going to surrender, and now we will never know. In addition, the U.S. killed so many innocent people who could not have stopped the bomb if they tried.
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm


    Alla v Maslov - 2/23/2011

    WE DO NOT AGREE WITH U. the reason is because Truman did what he believe was the right reason and thing to do at that time. Yes he caused lots of pain to people of that country but he saved lots of lives. Truman wanted the war to be over and he wanted peace. The only way it could of been done is if he would of used the bomb.Kill or be Killed, Truman understood that if he would of not acted when he did Japanese would of took there own actions. No one has a guaranty that Japanese would of not attacked Unite States. If Japanese solders fought to death the that speaks of something. Also Truman gave warning to the Japanese about the atomic bomb. Japanese had time to surrender and stop fighting but they choose not to. President Truman is not guilty of any WAR CRIMES, once again Truman stood up for what he believed was a right thing to do.

    http://www.essortment.com/did-president-truman-drop-atomic-bomb-61496.html

    WEBSTER AND ALLA


    Ethan Reese Jones - 2/23/2011

    Truman made the choice to drop the atomic bombs because there were no other rational decisions presented to him at the time; the atom bomb actually saved the most lives on both sides. This is supported wholly by Professor Richard Jensen when criticizing all of the proposed plans, "But all the planners in 1945 knew how many Japanese soldiers would be killed: all of them. That is, about a million in Kyushu and several million in Honshu (including many of the 4 million women who in summer 1945 were being drilled in militia units to fight the invaders)". In conclusion, although you might have something on what military necessity is by definition, it is quite clear that there wasn't any other choice to go with.


    Jake, Josh Thomas, Haefner - 2/23/2011

    The fact that Truman didn't act alone is a good point. If people want to condemn Truman then all the other generals and scientists need to go on trial too. Truman isn't the one who developed the weapon, he gave the order to drop it.


    Karen Maynard - 2/23/2011

    Truman's decision to drop the atomic bombs is in no way similar to Hitler's decision to implement his "final solution". The atomic bombs were dropped to bring a quick end to the war, not to kill civilians. Furthermore, millions of leaflets were dropped, warning civilians about the bombing campaigns and telling them to evacuate. Hitler, however, focused on killing all the Jewish people he could. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were incredibly important to the Japanese war effort. Truman did his best to destroy these resources with minimal civilian casualties.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima#World_War_II_and_atomic_bombing

    Hiroshima served as the headquarters for two armies, and had huge amounts of military supplies


    Kelsy Ann Lelko - 2/23/2011

    I agree with you. Truman dropped the bomb and did not think about the people that did not even have anything to do with the people that live in Japan he just wanted to drop the bomb any way. Jonathan Dresner says “That civilians can be killed in military operations in now enshrined in our language: ‘collateral damage’ rather than ‘innocent bystander.’” He is saying that these Japanese people are not real people and they don't matter much. But they do matter, they were part of a family and they had lives just like the Americans


    Emily Saylor - 2/23/2011

    Whenever you are trying to destroy as much of the enemy as you can, if you must, you should be destroying the people who are against you. The innocent people of Japan were not the people who were up at the front lines of battle. Many of them did not have much of a say in what their country did in the war. It is not fair that the radiation is still hurting and killing people today; the war ended over 60 years ago.

    http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html


    Lauren Moerschbacher - 2/23/2011

    We agree with that and also thought he was not guilty. If he would not have dropped the bomb who's to say that we would have not gotten bombed? There was no evidence that the Japanese would not have surrendered. It could have ended very badly for us if Truman did not act.
    There would have been many more casualties. (http://hnn.us/articles/176.html)


    Alla v Maslov - 2/23/2011

    We agree that Truman was not guilty because he did what he had to do. He was going by the whole concept of Kill or be Killed. What Truman did might not look to great but the only reason why he really did it was because he understood that bombing is the only way of stopping the war from going on. Truman wanted to make peace and it was the only way of doing it. We are sure that if Truman fully understood what the atomic bomb would do to the people he would of used a different way. But because he had no idea of the consequence for the bomb he had no choose but to use it. We believe that Truman is not guilty of any war crime that he is being accused of.

    WEBSTER and ALLA


    Kelsy Ann Lelko - 2/23/2011

    Yes that is true that Americans could have died but they knew that they could die when they go off to war. There were innocent people in Japan that did not want to die and they were not in the war. Jonathan Dresner says “That civilians can be killed in military operations in now
    enshrined in our language: ‘collateral damage’ rather than ‘innocent bystander.’” This means that they don't care that they are killing people that are not in the war, they just want to kill Japanese people any way.


    Victoria/Carly Hopple/Weber - 2/23/2011

    President Truman, arguable one of the most infamous presidents the United States ever had. Some say he is guilty for the bombing on Hiroshima. We believe that there is evidence to prove both sides of the case. In an article Hiroshima: Harry Truman on Trial, in a brief summary Philip Nobile says, even though Truman may have saved millions of Americans by his questionable heroic deed, he killed millions of innocent Japanese in the process. In rebuttal, Ronald Radosh states that Truman’s intent was to not kill but to force the Japanese military to surrender. Radosh also brings up the point that the laws for military actions are based off of the countries customs and culture.
    In an article titled The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the author explains that Truman was warned that if he was to invade Japan he would suffer a loss of millions of Americans. Instead of risking the lives of millions of our men, Truman decided to use the atomic bomb to bomb Japan. Some believe this bomb would push the United States to power, which was probably one of the bigger reasons to why Truman chose the “selfish” reason to end the war.
    We also partially believe that Truman was not guilty. Most people overlook the fact that their were other people that could have pointed out that bombing Japan was not a good idea. In an article by Robert Freeman he stated how people involved were commenting after wards about how terrible it was. The question that stops us is, why didn't they do something to stop him from making that decision? So we believe that Truman was not the only one who is held liable for this crime.


    Alla v Maslov - 2/23/2011

    We do not agree with what ur pointing out. Yes maybe Truman did not recognize the consequences of his action and how could he. He had no idea that the bomb would cause so much pain and suffering. But he did what he knew was right thing to do. If Truman never acted then the next place Japanese might of attacked would of been United States cities. According to one of the Jurys Japanese thought to the death, they didnt care that they will be dead they only cared about there country. So we cant guaranty that Japanese would of never attacked US again. its the concept of survival, Kill or be Killed.

    WEBSTER and ALLA :)


    Lauren Moerschbacher - 2/23/2011

    We agree with this because it was a catastrophic event that when we look back on it we think it could have been avoided. But it did happen and this was the best solution for America and for its people. If Truman would not have warned them he was dropping the bomb and he just did it and had no reasoning behind it then I would think he should be charged with war crimes. He did warn them though and his purpose to do this was so nothing worse would happen and he did it to try to end the war and have the least amount of casualties. Jeff Tenuth has a good point that Truman's intents were a lot different than Hitlers because Truman did it to try and save lives of the American people and Hitler did it to actually kill people. http://hnn.us/articles/182.html


    Kelsy Ann Lelko - 2/23/2011

    I agree with you that Truman is guilty because it was an experiment and they should have used something else that they knew what would come from it. They did not know that is would how many innocent people that they would kill but they did know that they were going to kill civilians. Jonathan Dresner says “That civilians can be killed in military operations in now enshrined in our language: ‘collateral damage’ rather than ‘innocent bystander.’” They do not care if they are killing these people if they did not even have anything to do with the war, they just wanted to make Japan surrender.


    Emily Saylor - 2/23/2011

    I agree that Truman is guilty. According to http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&;sid=aJfXiq3oiuUI&www.dailytech.com, there are still lingering health affects for people in the area of where the bomb was dropped. Even if Truman said he didn't know that these health hazards would linger for so long, he should have never taken a chance on something he didn't know. So many people have died or developed cancer because of the effects of radiation, and this can not possibly be justified under any circumstances.


    Alla v Maslov - 2/23/2011

    WE agree with you :))) He was not guilty he just did what he believed was right thing. Im sure if he knew that it would never made a difference for the whole war then he would have never done it. According to http://www.trumanlibrary.org/teacher/abomb.htm Japanese leaders flatly rejected the Potsdam Declaration. If Japanese would have did what United States asked them to do it then there would never be any problems o no need for the bomb to be dropped. Over all we agree with what you are trying to say.

    WEBSTER AND ALLA


    Lauren Moerschbacher - 2/23/2011

    We also believe that Truman is not guilty and we agree that he did do what he thought was the right thing to do in that situation. If he had not done this then the Atomic bomb could have been dropped on us and maybe even more people could have died. John Pritchard says that if we would not have done this then many of our own soldiers would have died because the other solution was to attack them on land and they would have been waiting for us and they would have basically walked on the shores just to get killed. http://hnn.us/articles/176.html


    Emily Saylor - 2/23/2011

    I agree that Truman was indeed guilty. It was both morally wrong, and not the best solution for this situation. Too many innocent people were killed for this to be considered acceptable. It was not the citizens of the area who were at fault for the war, it was the government.


    Casey Brave Heart Fisher Sanchez - 2/23/2011

    Not guilty stands not only as a vote against his prosecution, but as a statement of unsureity. While his actions are undeniably questionable, the reasons behind his actions aren't the only things that are in question at this trial, but the actual fact, stripped of all the unnecessary discussion surrounding it. While I am not personally inclined to relieve him of guilt, not guilty stands as a reasonable, and fair verdict. Top marks!
    http://hnn.us/articles/176.html


    Tessa Kylie Mitchell Bumbarger - 2/23/2011

    We agree with this little paragraph. We agree because according to Walter Lsaacson, Truman dropped the bomb to end the war not to destroy Japan and kill the people of Japan. There was in fact no evidence that Japan was ready to surrender they were actually very much against surrendering.


    Jess/Sam Rogers/Way - 2/23/2011

    We also believe that Truman is not guilty. You made it clear that the Japanese have a time-honored tradition of not surrendering. Their 'fight until the last man' mentality is evident in their resilience after the fire-bombing.
    'There is no historical evidence to conclude that modifying the surrender demand would have elicited a Japanese surrender quickly,' says Van de Velde. http://hnn.us/articles/180.html


    Shannon, Courtney Wagner, Poprik - 2/23/2011

    I agree that the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if it weren't for the bomb. They were going to fight until the the last man was no longer standing. They didn't care if they lost all of their men, they just wanted to win (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_arguments_for_and_against_the_atomic_bombings_of_Japan_being_justified). With this mind set it is obvious that they wouldn't just up and surrender. Because of this Truman did have to drop the bomb.


    Daniel Collins - 2/23/2011

    I agree with the comment about the dropping of the bomb and how it prevent future catastrophes. By showing the potential of one bomb future plans to drop bombs were hesitated because of it. Therefore, many more lives were saved.

    http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hamby.htm


    Tessa Kylie Mitchell Bumbarger - 2/23/2011

    We disagree with this because we believe that Truman was not guilty. We think he was not guilty because for one, the Japanese were not going to surrender without it. We know this from a diary that was found that was written by a Japanese solder named Tojo. Tojo refused to back down and said that he never wanted to surrender. This shows the mentality of the Japanese of this time, and just an invasion was not going to end the war. They needed to be hit with something big and thats what we did. Also we ultimately ended up saving a lot of lives. The Japanese were prepared for an American invasion and if we followed through with that invasion we would have been screwed.


    chris desandre desandre - 2/23/2011

    I also agree that this is about if he was a war criminal not if it was the right thing to do. Everyone who says that Truman is guilty claims that it was the "wrong" thing to do. Well morally, war in general is the "wrong" thing to do. But is it illegal. In my opinion, it was not simply because of the fact that it ended the war as quickly as possible and saved as many American lives as possible. There is proof that these cities were a military necessity and the bombing of places such as that, are legal.


    Shannon, Courtney Wagner, Poprik - 2/23/2011

    I agree that it was Truman's job to protect the country and that is what he did. It was important to end the war, and Truman saw this as the only option. Although it may not have had a perfect outcome, none of the options did. I think this essay made a good argument of why Truman is guilty. One detail that I think it is important to elaborate on is the advice that Truman was given. Most of the advice he was given was to test a bomb and show the dangers first. But they only had a low number of bombs, and none could be wasted. Other advice given was that the Japanese were going to surrender soon but there was research proving they wouldn't. They were going to fight until the end. (www.trumanlibrary.org/educ/.../13-Atomic%20bomb.doc)


    peterson pk kight - 2/23/2011

    Evidence is apparent from John Prichard stating, "military necessity includes anything that has to be done to win the war, and that’s what he was doing- winning the war." This supports the evidence above restating that he is not guilty.


    Jess/Sam Rogers/Way - 2/23/2011

    We agree with your main points. The main point we agreed with was the issue of Truman saving American lives. Being the President, your main job is to save the lives of United States citizens and anyway you can accomplish that is important.
    "The President is ultimately accountable to the American people and thus must always strive for policies that favor the public interest, rather than the interest of a select few."http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/207736/the_job_description_of_the_president_pg2.html?cat=37


    Casey Brave Heart Fisher Sanchez - 2/23/2011

    How were the bombings of innocent women, children, and male civilians necessary? The bombs weren't even dropped on military sites, but on innocent towns, not just factories for the military. Why did we HAVE to drop the bombs, killing a couple hundred thousand lives?

    http://www.takeonit.com/question/143.aspx


    Daniel Collins - 2/23/2011

    I like your point on how firebombing Tokyo which killed thousands of Japanese civilians didn't make the Japanese peace party take action.

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


    Ian Paterson - 2/23/2011

    There aren't really rules for war, it's whoever has the most force and can push the hardest is who will win in the long run. We dropped the bomb so we could get the upperhand and hope to win. It was worth it to end the war.


    chris desandre desandre - 2/23/2011

    I agree with both of your opinions. Truman did only what he needed to do. Truman wanted nothing more than to end the war and the only way possible seemed to be using the atomic bomb. I really like when you said "If it were not Truman it would have been someone else...". I agree with that statement because if we didn't do something extreme to end the war it could have been the Japanese and no matter how bad it sounds, I would rather have bombs dropped in Japan than in the U.S.


    Ian Paterson - 2/23/2011

    I agree with Dan's comment and it makes a lot of sense. There really is no way to know if they would've done what we did first.


    Matt & Alex Beattie & Betz - 2/23/2011

    We agree with this pretty much 100%. America had to do something before Japan did, and the bomb was what needed to happen. We understand where the argument comes from for whether the bomb was necessary or not, but when you look at the facts and the support backing it all up, it really would have been dumb not to use it.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1459018/posts


    peterson pk kight - 2/23/2011

    How can you say that the bomb was too brutal. Yes, it killed many innocent people, but there were LOTS of innocent people dying already. As Jensen said from hnn.com, "the bombings saved more Japanese than continuing the war would have." Try justifying that????


    Ian Paterson - 2/23/2011

    I agree with these points. They make a lot of sense to proving his Innocence.


    Casey Brave Heart Fisher Sanchez - 2/23/2011

    We agree with what you said. The bombings were not the best resort, and the majority of the casualties could have been avoided.

    http://hnn.us/articles/183.html


    Tessa Kylie Mitchell Bumbarger - 2/23/2011

    We agree with Dan and Dom. War is not clean and sometimes that means using a greater force like a bomb to end it. Referring to "Why Did We Drop the Bomb" by Walter Lsaacson, dropping the bomb ultimately ended up saving more lives both American and Japanese. The bomb was the best idea for the time, and it did a lot of good in the long run.


    Daniel Collins - 2/23/2011

    I agree, there is no knowing what Japan would have done if we had not dropped the a-bombs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction


    peterson pk kight - 2/23/2011

    Truman is not guilty. This is all opinion based and to compare Hitler and Truman is not even valid considering the means were different. In the end, Hitler was trying to kill all the jews-genocide. Whereas Truman was trying to end the war. As Jensen said from hnn.com,"So the destruction of cities was not "wanton" but was "justified by military necessity." These are not related. Truman is NOT guilty.


    Ian Paterson - 2/23/2011

    I do not think that Truman should be accused for dropping the bombs, in the two cities of Japan. If we didn't bomb Japan first they wouldn't of hesitated to drop a bomb on us. We do not think that Truman did this to kill innocent people, but to simply end the war. With this decision he succeeded in doing so. Without the bombings the war would've continued, resulting in more casualties and more destruction to cities. There was no evidence that the Japanese would've surrendered. Truman should not be accused for the crime because, there is no way to predict that Japan wouldn't of came to the same measures.


    chris desandre desandre - 2/23/2011

    Me and scott agree that Truman is not guilty. Like you said "The bombs dropped were intended to save lives". That is important to remember when making a decision about if he is guilty or not. Truman was trying to save lives not just cause unneeded destruction. We also agree with when you said "Truman told the Japanese to surrender". He gave them a chance to end the war without loosing lives but they didn't. In a way, the Japanese could be considered just as responsible for the bombings as we were.


    Matt & Alex Beattie & Betz - 2/23/2011

    We agree with all your points and in fact used the same point where Nobile switches cities to civilians, and we think that you raise very good points throughout the whole rest of your piece that supply the same verdict that we came to and that is the conclusion of Not Guilty.


    peterson pk kight - 2/23/2011

    Truman is not guilty. This is all opinion based and to compare Hitler and Truman is not even valid considering the means were different. In the end, Hitler was trying to kill all the jews-genocide. Whereas Truman was trying to end the war. These are not related. Truman is NOT guilty.


    Matt & Alex Beattie & Betz - 2/23/2011

    We totally agree with this! Truman did what had to be done. Had he not done this, he would have most likely still been accused of war crimes for not doing anything. Also, you make a great point when you say that if the US would't have took action, Japan would have and we would be kicking ourselves in the butt still today for not taking action. Of course the usage of the bomb is sad, but we can never be unsatisfied with it because it was the best way to end the war.

    http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/reportessay/History/WorldWars%5CDropping_the_Atomic_Bomb-128.htm


    FugePewo FugePewo - 2/23/2011

    Truman is not guilty because he had lawful reasons of doing what he did. Dropping the bombs would be what had to be done for saving thousands of American soldiers, therefore, that’s what was done. It put an end to the war, along with saving lives of thousands of Americans. If the US had invaded Japan rather than dropped bombs, it would have resulted in many Americans and Japanese to die. Probably being just as many deaths, if not more.


    peterson pk kight - 2/23/2011

    Harry Truman is a figure in history that has been evaluated throughout the world. As a president of the United States, as all president have to do he had a big decision to make. He decided to drop the atomic bomb. Yet, despite the views of others he was not guilty of being a war criminal. Based on Pritchard, “military necessity includes anything that has to be done to win the war, and that’s what he was doing- winning the war.” He was only doing his job as a president in protecting his country and trying to end the war. Despite the deaths that did happen, Jensen stated, “the bombings saved more Japanese than continuing the war would have.” Pritchard also stated, “the rule of proportionality itself provides evidence of a clear understanding that the law of war does anticipate that some civilians and other protected persons inevitably are likely to perish in legitimate military operations. The larger and more ferocious the war, the larger will be the number of innocent or otherwise protected persons who may well perish without breaching the rule of proportionality, but in any individual attack (whether it be on a bridge or on a city) the rule may operate more closely than in the conduct of the whole pattern of conduct of a war in its entirety.” It is clearly said that his means were not to kill people, but rather end a war. To compare the means and ends is not fair exactly, but as said because this was such a huge war, its inevitable that people would die. It wasn’t just him standing alone who made this decision. Based upon this website, http://www.bestandworst.com/v/136318.htm also supported him in saying,

    “According to this standard, the entire US population should be held accountable since prior to the bombing, Truman polled the US population asking if they would approve? The poll revealed that 80% Approved, citing that "It would save thousands of American soldiers lives if the war ended now as a result of dropping the atomic bomb".
    It was a multitude of people who was for the atomic bombings including some in Japan. John Stewert clearly brings a point to the table within the website, http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=2093, stating that.

    “If just war theory means anything it is that the intentional mass slaughter of civilians cannot be justified. Had Hitler dropped an atomic bomb on London in 1941, prosecutors at a subsequent war crimes trial would have dismissed out of hand any defense (even if it was partially true) that one goal was to “shorten the war and save lives from an invasion.” They would have called it mass murder, pure and simple.”
    Here it brings Hitler’s bomb into the scene and clearly exemplifies the fact that Truman was not a war criminal and its not guilty of such charges. Rather he had good means and was trying to end and war and in essence save lives.


    Brendon Karchner - 2/23/2011

    Although the bomb killed thousands of people, it was for the better well being of American. Truman dropped the bomb to end the war sooner and save the lives of American soldiers.


    Brendon Karchner - 2/23/2011

    I dot agree with you the bomb was dropped to get Japan out of the war and end the war sooner.


    Brendon Karchner - 2/23/2011

    There is no way that Truman is guilty. The only reason that he dropped the bomb is to save the lives of American soldiers and end the war sooner.


    Alla v Maslov - 2/23/2011

    Harry Truman is NOT GUILTY

    we believe that Harry S. Truman is not guilty. He had to do what he had to do to keep our country safe. War happens and most of the time we don't know the really reason why it happens. War is cruel and things that happen during the war are also cruel, but they could not be changed. What Harry Truman did was just a simple way of playing by the rules of war.
    According to Jeff Tenuth, Truman’s actions were not a systematic approach to the annihilation of a whole people. His actions were, in a sense, incidental, in that they were incidents planned to end the war. He believed that the dropping of an Atomic bomb would bring the end to the war. That it’s the only way of making everything right, it was ether kill or is killed. Truman understood the consequences of his actions but he also knew that it was the only way of doing it.
    John Pritchard points out that if US would of not have taking any actions then Japanese would of. He also points out that Japanese fought to the death for their country. Which meant that if Truman had done what he did then Japanese would have done something that would of American solders suffer. If Japanese people thought to death no matter what then that means that nothing would of stopped them from bombing United State or killing our solders. Truman only wanted what was best for our country. He wanted to see the world be in peace. His actions were part of his motive, his motive was good and he thought that his actions would be as good as his motive was. The way we thing that Truman saw the whole picture was that he had to do something in order to let others live and be in peace.
    Also according to Jeff Tenuth, If Truman would of ordered a blockade it would have not worked without inflicting severe civilian casualties. Also continued firebombing of Japanese cities would have killed hundreds of thousands more and may not have forced the surrender for months or even years, so the only option that was left for Truman was just to use the bomb. We are not saying that it was the best choose that Harry Truman chosen but we do believe that it was the only one that was able to make the difference.
    In one of his speeches Truman said, "Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans." (http://www.doug-long.com/truman.htm) He points out that he had to do what he did because they would of killed millions of American solders lives. If They bomb Pearl Harbor with out any warnings then how do we know that they would of not bombed big cities. We don’t but we can image, because a Japanese solder would of done anything for his country.
    Finally Harry Truman can not be accused as a war criminal because according to this website (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/truman/psources/ps_leaflets.html) he gave a full warning to the Japanese about what United States is thinking of doing else Japan decided to surrender. This is the quote of what Japanese have gotten from United States we have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.
    Here we stand as one country, free and powerful. We question the morals of the past and things that should have been done instead of looking into the future and asking what can be done. Harry Truman knew that the only way to make Untied States a powerful country is to do what he believed was right. Once again the choose was between Kill or be Killed, and it is not a crime to want to live.


    Jake John Thomas - 2/23/2011

    We believe that Truman is not guilty. There are many reasons to say that he is innocent of war crimes, but our first reason is the fact that the Japanese cities bombed were strategic military points and helped in the Japanese war effort. The fact that these cities help supply materials for the war was a reason to bomb them, the thought of bombing any city comes with the consequence of killing innocent people. The atomic bomb was the same as carpet-bombing the cities, but there was only one bomb used.
    Truman is not a war criminal and even though his actions are questioned it is clear that the need to take drastic action to end the war was necessary. The Japanese way of war was to fight to the last man, and the entire nation would have died trying to keep their land out of the American’s hands. Not dropping the bombs would have resulted in a much higher death toll than the dropping did, and it wouldn’t have just been Japanese lives lost. He isn’t a war hero but it can be said that without him making the toughest decision America would have had to bury thousands more young men.
    Another one of is reasons that he is not guilty because he has a duty as our president. As president it is Truman’s duty to protect our country at all costs because the citizens of the US come first. He figured that dropping the bomb on Japan would lessen the casualties of American soldiers and lessen the death toll of the war completely. If the war did not end at the point it did there was a possibility that more deaths would come from a longer war rather than what happened in dropping the A-bomb. Although it was extremely harsh for him to conclude WWII with an atomic bomb his intentions were to protect the US and it citizens at whatever the cost. It is the nature of war to save the lives of your army which is inevitable vital in winning a war.
    Another reason is the fact that the Japanese seemed as if they would never surrender. Drastic measures needed to be made because the usual was not deterring the Japanese from fighting to the last man. Many feel that the use of the atomic bomb was over kill and that regular bombing of the cities would have had the same result, but the Japanese had already taken numerous bombings and had come out with little damage. Something big needed to be used, and the atomic bomb was the answer.


    Yoder Campolongo - 2/23/2011

    I partially agree with this argument. Well, perhaps more than partially. I completely agree that Truman is innocent, but for reasons that differ from the reasons given here.
    My main point is that the atomic bomb had to be dropped eventually. There was no way around it; humanity is just too curious for something so horrible and mysterious as an atomic bomb to never be dropped. If it hadn't been Truman, it would have probably been the Japanese, or the Russians, or another US president.
    All this does is partially free Truman from blame, because he was just one of History's required guinea pigs.
    THIS DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE ATOM BOMB. This abomination was a major moral violation (more than 100,000 people dead, says Philosophy Paradise). No, let's not be proud of dropping it. We may lament the lives lost and we may celebrate the lives saved. But we must not forget about it, ever. The devastation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were lessons to the entire world: "Let's not do this again, cuz bad things happen."
    So don't label Truman a war criminal. But realize that his actions should not be celebrated either.


    Adams Haberstroh - 2/23/2011

    I understand for him being not guilty, although under the circumstance he had many other choices to take that could have saved lives on both sides, and even of caused a complete surrender by japan.


    eddie heineken - 2/23/2011

    Now when we have read the trial of president Truman, the prosecution and also the summary, it is time to make a final decision if he is found guilty or not. The jury doesn’t help the decision I’m making, because the jury kind of split up in two saying he is guilty and that he is not. It is a hard decision to make, and I would stay not taking sides if it was an option.
    Before reading the trial my opinion was that he was guilty of making excessive suffering. I think only one atomic bomb would have been enough, and I didn’t really see the purpose for the other one. The prosecution made the same conclusion as I did, and it made my opinion even stronger. But then the defense pointed out facts that Nobile didn’t consider in the prosecution, such as the fact that the US sent those fliers to warn the people of the upcoming danger. So it wasn’t supposed to kill hundreds of thousands of people, but the stupidity of Japanese people made it cause so many victims. But still the Americans knew about the radiation and that the places where they drop the bombs are bad to live in for a long period of time afterwards. I think the good way would have been that they would have bombed those cities with dozens of missiles, causing the same amount of damage but not making innocents suffer.
    When it comes to the decision making, I have the same opinion as many of the people in jury who found him not guilty; there is just not enough to proof Truman guilty or not guilty. And when it comes to ties, the draw always goes to the defense. That said, I find president Truman not guilty of making excessive suffering, so they should drop all the charges. Enough said.


    Nick Jack Sharkey Thompson - 2/23/2011

    You say that the bombs were unnecessary and took lives that did not need to be taken. We believe that the bombs were the best way for Harriet Truman(lollercoaster) to end the war because without dropping the bombs more American lives would have been lost, and it was Truman's job to protect the welfare of the American people not to sympathize for the Japanese.
    http://hnn.us/articles/172.html


    Yoder Campolongo - 2/23/2011

    Agreeing with Heather here; you need to keep an open mind. Think about the damage a full out invasion of Japan would result in. Truman was a man who decided he wanted to win the war with as few casualties as possible, on either side. History shows that Truman took precautions before dropping the bombs so that fewer lives would be lost. A main island campaign should be considered a war crime. Just look at the statistics of other pacific battles. We lost thousands of men in days. In the battle of Guadalcanal both sides lost a combined 26,000 men in just a few months. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalcanal_Campaign) Many more than that would die if we attacked Japan directly over years. The bomb was a deceptively humane way to end the war.


    Adams Haberstroh - 2/23/2011

    I agree with this verdict strongly because of the after math of the bomb dropping.nearly 400 people with in the next 5 years have died of cancer related (deathshttp://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1945JAP1.html)


    Janine-Selena Mistrick-Richards - 2/23/2011

    This trial was weather or not he is a war criminal, not if what he did was morally right. Morals change and differ from person to person. You need to base it on facts and things you can prov that will not change. I'm not saying what he did was right but based on the information given he is not guilty.


    JusterVanDerSluys JUSTER AND VanDerSluys JusterVanDerSluys - 2/23/2011

    "...due cause that the Japanese would fight on until there was a considerable amount more damage than that of which happened from the atomic bombs".

    I agree on your statement that it wouldn't be beneficial to just try and take them over with troops/man power and that in the end the atomic bob as the way to go. One of the jurys, R. John Pritchard stated "military necessity includes the right to do anything that contributes to the winning of a war", this shows that it wasnt against any kind of military law at the time to really call upon the atomic bomb in order to end the war.


    JusterVanDerSluys JUSTER AND VanDerSluys JusterVanDerSluys - 2/23/2011

    "Army proposed two invasions, one of Kyushu and one of Honshu; the Air Force proposed that they would double to triple the amount of conventional bombing raids; the Navy proposed that there would be a total blockade of the islands to cause mass starvation and millions dead."

    As mentioned in your essay and elaborated by Richard Jensen these three other options were ridiculous when compared to just focusing on two cities and dropping the atomic bomb on them. Invading Japan with troops would just end in a more bloody battle due to each city having at least 1+million troops ready to fight to the end to defend their homeland. The mass bombing would somewhat work, but at the same time alot of resources and time would have to be put in to make it successful, which by the end of World War II, there wasn't much to spare. Also, the mass blockade is just a crazy idea and very inhumane to starve millions of citizens. Over, all I do agree with you that the atomic bomb was the right way to go.


    JONESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS


    Janine-Selena Mistrick-Richards - 2/23/2011

    We need do our best to remember this trial is about whether or not Truman is a war criminal not if the atomic bomb was morally right. By finding Truman ‘not guilty’ it in no way implies that we condone the destruction caused by the two atomic bombs. However, this trial is merely asking whether or not Harry Truman should be considered a war criminal under the Nuremberg Charter for his use of the atomic bombs. Many of the jurors also came to this conclusion during the trial.


    Nick Jack Sharkey Thompson - 2/23/2011

    You say that war is about the killing of enemy soldiers, and not innocent civilians. And that it was a "selfish" decision to use the bombs. I disagree with both of these statements. War is about doing as much damage as possible until your enemy refuses to fight back, or are unable to. Truman was not being "selfish" by ordering these attacks. In fact, the way I see it, it was a patriotic decision, and one that was hard to make. He did his best to defend our country, and he was successful in ending the war. This was the purpose of the bombings, and this is what they did.

    http://hnn.us/articles/173.html


    Nick Jack Sharkey Thompson - 2/23/2011

    Smooch. I strongly disagree that Truman was doing this solely out of revenge. He wasn't the only one who wanted to drop these bombs and he had a lot of pressure on him to make the right decision in this case. You said that by choosing to drop the bombs Truman was showing that he only cares about his country and the welfare of other, but that was his job. He was supposed to protect the American people, not the enemy.

    http://hnn.us/articles/177.html


    Yoder Campolongo - 2/23/2011

    Hey, guys. This is Caleb (and Tyler, sort of).
    First, I would like you to know that most of your facts cannot be argued with. It is basically the same argument that we made in our own post, and I commend your insight.
    I've got to argue with you, though, so I'm turning this argument into one concerning morality. Do you think, really, that dropping the A-bomb and killing off two cities was Truman's moral obligation as president? In war, morals seem to be neglected. I don't see this as respectable behavior. The United States should retain its morals no matter what the situation. Yeah, the Japanese sank to a lower level in WWII. But then the United States brought itself down to the same level as the Japanese with the dropping of the atomic bomb. Japan and the US were two toddlers in a playground; Japan bopped us on the nose and we slammed their face into the ground. Do we always have to abandon our morality in order to win? As Capitalism Magazine says "Morality is about what you do to people, not the technology you use." So do we blame the atom bomb? No. We blame the man who dropped it. There are always alternatives, and this man failed to see any alternative other than dropping down to the same level as the evils our country was fighting.


    Nick Jack Sharkey Thompson - 2/23/2011

    You say that war is about the killing of enemy soldiers, and not innocent civilians. And that it was a "selfish" decision to use the bombs. I disagree with both of these statements. War is about doing as much damage as possible until your enemy refuses to fight back, or are unable to. Truman was not being "selfish" by ordering these attacks. In fact, the way I see it, it was a patriotic decision, and one that was hard to make. He did his best to defend our country, and he was successful in ending the war. This was the purpose of the bombings, and this is what they did.

    http://hnn.us/articles/173.html


    Adams Haberstroh - 2/23/2011

    We believe that Harriet Truman is guilty, based on that The bomb was wanton destruction with no military purpose that ravaged the city for years to come. This was basically no different than what Hitler did in the 1940’s. Hitler deserves the same punishment. There were many other ways that Truman could have gone about fighting the Japanese. An atomic bomb was the worst thing that he could have done. J. Desner talked about other choices that could have caused surrender and of saved lives . As Nobile stated, this killed more civilians than soldiers, which was completely unnecessary. Even though the Japanese attacked first, Truman could have done a more humane attack back on the Japanese. Kids today are still feeling the effect that Truman put on their parents, with birth defects caused by the A bomb. These children aren’t even reasons for the war. This is simply unfair. According to Mark Younkins Generations of families have been affected by this, causing birth defects, high cancer rates and many more fatalities then the instant bombing. along with the two cities that have been devastated by the Atomic Bomb and the land there is still affected there. The bomb was unnecessary and resulted in 200,000 innocent civilians dieing along with villages and cities. Robert Johnson estimates that roughly 5 years after the actual bomb was dropped roughly 400 more cancer cases were reported. Truman is a war criminal causing death even after the war is over.


    JusterVanDerSluys JUSTER AND VanDerSluys JusterVanDerSluys - 2/23/2011

    "Truman’s intent was not to simply kill Japanese, but to stop the war and save the lives of his soldiers."

    I agree on your statement and also believe that he had the intention of bombing major cities in Japan due to factorys in these citites that were producing all the weapons and equipment for war. Also before they bombed these citites they would drop warnings to the citizens so they could get out of the war zone, leaving only people who were there for the war effort to be hit. This was all stated by Richard Jensen in which he goes in depth in the other options he had besides using the atomic bomb, which was the best choice at the time.


    Janine-Selena Mistrick-Richards - 2/23/2011

    In examining this trial we feel that the prosecution has not given enough information to say Truman is guilty as a war criminal. Therefore, he is not guilty in our opinion. War has always been a tricky subject and not very clear. It is even harder to look in the past at an event you were not even alive for, and give a verdict. We do believe that dropping the atomic was wrong, but this was not Truman’s decision alone. Our government prevents one man from calling all the shots, so Truman is not to take the whole blame. Also, one of the jurors brought up a good point, the prosecution and the defense were attacking each other instead of the facts that were given (which were few). This makes it even more difficult to find enough evidence to say Truman is guilty. To compound the matter, both parties based a majority of their information on their opinion of what would or would not have occurred if the bombs were not dropped which does not make for a strong argument.

    An article entitled “Why Did President Truman Drop the Atomic Bomb?” on Essortment.com (http://www.essortment.com/did-president-truman-drop-atomic-bomb-61496.html) discusses the many theories “revisionists” propose as to why Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Japan. It debunks many of them, in some rather opinionated ways, but on the whole it comes to the conclusion that “The only way anyone can judge Truman's motives in dropping the atomic bomb is by analyzing the result of his decision. No one can know, even by reading his personal diary, the exact reasons he had for using the bomb. It was likely a combination of many: punishment, justification of cost, saving lives, and ending the war as quickly as possible. However, it is evident that in the "grand scheme of things" the use of the atomic bomb saved lives. ... It may be concluded that no more people died in the atomic bombings than would have in an invasion of Kyushu, and that said bombings did have the effect of ending the war more quickly. Truman's motives, therefore, cannot be called into question in light of the results of his decision. At least in this case, the end justifies the means” (Essortment.com) This aligns with our decision that because, in the end, the dropping of the atomic bombs served a military purpose Truman cannot be called a war criminal because the action he took was for military reasons.

    Additionally, many of the jurors who found Truman not guilty stated that while bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki to break Japanese morale (and in turn killing large numbers of civilians) was not a perfect solution, the atomic bombs were dropped to serve a military purpose and therefore were not “wanton destruction.” Many jurors walked the line that we walk now: doing our best to remember this trial is about whether or not Truman is a war criminal not if the atomic bomb was morally right. By finding Truman ‘not guilty’ it in no way implies that we condone the destruction caused by the two atomic bombs. However, this trial is merely asking whether or not Harry Truman should be considered a war criminal under the Nuremberg Charter for his use of the atomic bombs. Due to the weak evidence given by the prosecution to support the notion that the bombs were dropped just to cause massive destruction as opposed to serving a military purpose, we find Harry Truman not guilty of the charges against him.

    Finally, it may not be the best practice to take the word of the very man one is trying, but in this case, Truman’s many statements about his decision to drop the bombs should be given at least some consideration. Such as this copy of a letter found at http://www.rjgeib.com/heroes/truman/truman-atom-bomb.html which Truman sent to a journalist, “I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war that would have killed a half a million youngsters on both sides if those bombs had not been dropped. I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again -- and this letter is not confidential.” (RJGEIB.com) Certainly, people in positions of power are able to lie and may be more disposed to lie to cover their own hides, but seeing that dropping the atomic bombs did eliminate the need for an American invasion of Japan and Truman mentions his desire to save American an Japanese lives as the guiding factor in his choice, his personal statements can be allowed a little weight in deciding whether or not is guilty under the Nuremberg Charter.


    Riley E. Doerrler - 2/23/2011

    Based on our collected information we feel that President Harry S. Truman is guilty of war crimes on Japan. We believe that the overall effects after the dropping of the bomb out weight the incentive. People who live in Hiroshima are still dealing with effects such as: cataracts, cancer, prenatal exposure, keliods, and leukemia (http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/97e/peace/e/06/bakugeki.htm). Doctors in Japan didn’t know how to treat it so many of the victims had to suffer through their disease. “It was Gensaku Oho, a physician, who found that the death rate of cancer of Hibakusha was particularly high around 10 years after exposure. After returning to Hiroshima from his place of war-time refuge, Oho resumed examining Hibakusha at the internal medical clinic in his half-destroyed house” (http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/97e/peace/e/06/bakugeki.htm). People were left to deal with the effects we were responsible for, millions were left to suffer because of our decision.

    o “Even before the bomb was tested, a second bomb was secretly dispatched to the Pacific for an attack on the Japanese city of Hiroshima” (www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/atomictest.htm+had+the+effects+of+the+atomic+bomb+been+tested&">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fZL6buCzEE4J:www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/atomictest.htm+had+the+effects+of+the+atomic+bomb+been+tested&;cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com).President Truman planned to send out the atomic bombs without even considering the effects it would have on the people in Hiroshima. "We were reaching into the unknown and we did not know what might come of it." Even though people didn’t know what would happen they didn’t care what might happen to the people. As we discovered later the side effects to the Japanese population was devastating.
    o While some people feel that he may have been justified in dropping the bomb in order to end the war, he was not. He especially did not need to drop the second bomb. He dropped it so quickly after the first one, how could he have even known if Japan would’ve backed down afterwards? It is not okay for anyone to get away with mass murder like that, even if he is the president of our country, that does not exclude him. If Obama turned out to be a serial killer nobody would be alright with that. What’s the difference? Truman destroyed two major cities and killed thousands of people and many still suffer from the effects of the bomb today. He completely missed the military base that he was “aiming” for, but it wasn’t even close. If he actually been aiming for that military base the bomb would’ve hit much closer. President Truman didn’t even realize how wrong his decision was, he thought it was completely justified. He stated that "We have used [the bomb] against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved, beaten and executed American prisoner of war, and against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare." He is most definitely guilty. He needs to understand how wrong his actions were and take responsibility for the lives he ended and all of the problems he caused.


    Casey Brave Heart Fisher Sanchez - 2/23/2011

    Truman:guilty

    Where is the fine line that defines “military necessity?” Since when is bombing two major cities the best solution? Where’s the definite proof that these figures President Truman presents are legitimate and factual? President Truman is in no way free of committing war crimes because of the bombing of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    What he did isn’t in question. He clearly, and irrevocably did drop the bomb on Japan, but it isn’t just his actions that are the reason that we are here today. His actions are highly controversial, nothing like this has ever happened in history before him, and while his actions cannot be changed, we can decide for ourselves on whether or not he is guilty of war crimes (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html) ; for these two jurors, it is decided that yes, he is.
    First off, what he did is no longer within the normal, and socially acceptable, rules of society, or morality. His actions are unlike any others ever been made. While other people in history can be said to have killed more, Truman's decision is set apart in that he did it in a single action. This single action strips him of his morality. In two swift movements, he killed approximately 200,000 Japanese women, children, and elderly folk. The proclaimed “military necessity” is sketchy, but with that aside, the fact remains that those that he killed were not just of military importance, they did not just build weapons and planes and things of war, but where also the family, such as wives and children of those that did. He killed them. For so-called “military necessity.” That is clearly wanton destruction. But more importantly, it leaves him a man without morals. Without that which makes him whole, that action stripped Truman of his humanity; a man who is capable of wanton destruction is guilty of war crimes. If that man does so in times of war, as Truman did, he is then guilty.
    Secondly, one of the main purposes of dropping the bomb wasn’t the destruction of the two cities, but to scare the Russians as well as scaring Japan into surrender. Therefore, the purpose wasn’t just for the destruction of the factories located at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but was to show the strength and power of the United States. It’s said that the reasons to drop the bombs was as an act of terrorism, to scare both Japan and Russia into not messing with the United states any more, or in the future. This is part of the reason for the dropping the bombs, and that is as an act of terrorism, and terrorism is listed under the Nuremberg Charter as a war crime. Harry Truman did drop those bombs, and killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, as an act of terrorism aimed towards the governments of Japan and Russia, thus proving that Harry Truman is guilty of war crimes.
    On another note, Truman’s bombing of these two Japanese cities was based on a big lie (http://www.workers.org/2005/world/hiroshima-0811/) Truman was told that if he didn’t drop the bombs on these cities, the United States would have to do a land invasion, which would result in hundreds of thousands of casualties of our countries soldiers. Truman also dropped the bombs in order to show the Soviet Union and Korea and Vietnam that the U.S. had this kind of power. Truman did not do it for military necessity, but for his own feeling of protection and power over other countries, and to jump start the war with the Soviet Union. By bombing these cities, ten percent of the casualties that occurred were those of Koreans forced to work in Japanese cities.
    Truman knew what he was getting into. He knew that this was not just to scare whole countries or to save our country. He was beginning an annihilation of the Japanese species. Like the Holocaust, it wasn’t just a war crime, but a crime against humanity.In doing so, he opened doors that our country could continuously drop these nuclear bombs at any time. Truman merely did this for his title, not the good of our country, or any others for that matter.
    According to the prosecutor’s opening statements, the bombings of these two cities was beyond unacceptable. He compared Hiroshima to Auschwitz in the fact that it was an incredible, yet unacceptable genocide. It was not a military necessity, therefore it goes against the Charter that lists war crimes. He states that Truman provided fake figures so that he himself would look like he was doing the right thing that was in the best interest of the United States. He quoted Herbert Hoover, who stated that the bombings were merely used to destroy the women, children, and innocent male civilians, other than the soldiers attacking us.


    Richard, Hunter Rado, Rauch - 2/23/2011

    Your first point was that Japan was going to surrender even if the bombs were dropped. This is just plain false. Larry Schweikart, as a judge, states that, Imperial Leaders threatened to kill anybody who even muttered the word Surrender. Some how, I feel you surrender by waving the white flag, throwing down your guns and putting your hand in air. Killing anyone you used the word "Surrender" in a sentence is not the way to do it.
    (http://hnn.us/articles/178.html)

    Secondly, You say that there was planned invasion of Japan. This is True, but I don't think that the Japanese would just leave their coast undefended. As Jeff Tenuth said,
    "Japan had been planning its defense of the home islands for months, anticipating the invasion. The Japanese civilian population also had been preparing to defend their homeland. The defense pointed to Japanese strengths and plans in its critique of Richard Frank's book. The prosecution should have realized that an invasion larger than D-Day, would result in casualties larger then those incurred by the allies on the beaches of Normandy. This is especially true when one considers that the Japanese home islands were much more heavily defended than the limited beaches of Normandy."
    Lager Japanese defenses= more deaths. Imagine D-day on steroids. Would an Invasion on the Japanese island really be better? If Truman would have Gone with the invasion he could just as easily been tried for war crimes, for sending thousands upon thousands of American soldiers to their deaths.


    Heather Lynn Desorcie - 2/23/2011

    James R. Van Velde argues that the Soviets would have split Japan in two just like Korea if we had not dropped the bombs and ended the war. The dropping of the atomic bombs sounds like a cruel, horrible act, but we must think what might have happened if we had not taken that risk. I agree with Tulsa. The death toll was greatly decreased by not invading Japan. The fatalities would have been around 400,000 to 800,000 (according to Radosh). James R. Van Velde makes the point that there is a difference between slaughter for slaughter's sake, and slaughter to end a bloody war. As Americans we should not be proud for causing numerous deaths, but proud of ending a world war. Imagine what might have happened if we had not ended the war... how long would it have lasted? How many more lives would have been taken?


    Caitlyn Falsone Alex Moutevelis - 2/23/2011

    Truman in my opinion just did what was necessary to end a war. Without dropping the atom bombs, many more Americans as well as many more Japanese would have died. I believe that even if the atom bomb killed more of our enemy than would have died if we would have just finished out the war the way it was going, a lot more american allies would have died as well.


    Scholly Weakland - 2/23/2011

    We agree that Truman is not guilty. There isn't anything that he could have done that would have pleased everyone. He chose to end the war, which in my mind was the best solution. The Japanese would have continued fighting until all hope was lost and they didn't back down easily. The war would have been prolonged for a long time without the ending of the war then. Richard Jensen said, "Were the Japanese cities a significant part of the Japanese war machine, or was it "wanton" to destroy them? WW2 was a war of production and almost all the Japanese war production came from its large cities. In 1945 alone they produced 5400 fighter planes, 1900 bombers and 3600 other warplanes--most of them intended as highly lethal kamikazis.” (http://hnn.us/articles/177.html)


    CJ Jones - 2/23/2011

    i disagree with the statement that is is not feesable i evacuate the cities of civilians. over 8 million people were evacuated form both cities combined. and you can't blame truman for picking the best alternative to ending the war because he ending up killing civilians that would have ended up being hostile if there was an invasion


    http://hnn.us/articles/177.html


    Caitlyn Falsone Alex Moutevelis - 2/23/2011

    A lot of people feel that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was an uncalled for act. The bomb was dropped during a time of war, and also in order to end the war quickly, and although some people think that the war could have been stopped by using different methods, we believe that dropping the bomb was the quickest and most effective.


    Richard, Hunter Rado, Rauch - 2/23/2011

    Truman did not target civilians. They were warned of the bombings, and approximately 8 million civilians took refuge and evaded the blast. Those who stayed behind were essential to the war effort.

    Truman's alternatives were not good; a homeland invasion would have caused far more damage and death than the bombs did. Estimated casualties at the time ranged from 250,000 to 500,000 American deaths. That's more people than were killed in the bombings, and it doesn't take into account the fact that there were actually over 1,000,000 troops available to fight the US forces. Deaths would have easily soared to 500,000 or 1,000,000 on the US side alone. By looking at the numbers, Truman saved countless lives.
    http://www.essortment.com/all/presidenttruman_rywp.htm

    If saving lives is a war crime, then Truman is guilty beyond a doubt.


    brian laskowski - 2/23/2011

    I must disagree with the statement being said here, because according to the undecided juror, Arnold A. Offner, Most government officials actually estimated the casualties of the invasion to be around 31,000 in the first thirty days, and it was not even expected to last that long. The saying goes that Japan was ready to fight down to the last man. Why did they quit after two bombs then, because I'm sure there were Japanese people still left on the island. This is all of course if an invasion was actually planned, which according to Nobile and a report from Japanese officials was absolutely unnecessary. Good Day.


    Caitlyn Falsone Alex Moutevelis - 2/23/2011

    wait yeah


    Scholly Weakland - 2/23/2011

    We believe that Truman is not guilty of war crimes when dropping the bombs on the Japanese cities. There wasn’t anything that Truman could have done that wouldn’t have been scrutinized by the American population. If he didn’t drop the bomb and the war went on longer people would have criticized him for not being able to end the war at that time and prolonging the war while adding up both American and Japanese death totals. Robert James Maddox said, "According to Nobile's "logic," if Truman had unnecessarily prolonged the war by failing to use atomic bombs, he should have been tried as a war criminal. " (http://hnn.us/articles/181.html)


    Heather Lynn Desorcie - 2/23/2011

    Although an invasion of Japan may have been more accepted by the world, it would not have ended the war like the bombs did. Also, what's the difference between killing civilians and killing military officials? They're both people. Radosh claims that the fatalities would have been around 400,000 to 800,000 (keep in mind 20,000 people died from the two a-bombs). I believe sparing lives is a good justification of bombing two major cities that were necessary to the war effort (as Richard and Hunter stated above).


    Caitlyn Falsone Alex Moutevelis - 2/23/2011

    Although we agreed that he is guilty, I disagree with your comment about how Truman is just like Hitler. Hitler was out to kill a race, Truman was just trying to end the war. Also, I would say that Hitler was evil, but I wouldn't go so far to say that Truman was also evil. He was doing what he thought was best for his country, which doesn't make him "evil".


    handrer nealgeist - 2/23/2011

    SMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCH!
    i have to say you pose a better argument than the prosecution of this trial as you have real facts that hit home, i disagree that he was attacking out of emotional rage because it was not just him that made the choice, it was his entire presidential cabinet and his atomic cabinet. they also have folders prooving that it was not just trumans choice to drop the bomb, it went through both cabinets stated above.

    http://hnn.us/articles/182.html


    Scholly Weakland - 2/23/2011

    We agree that Truman should be not guilty. He dropped the bombs and as a result he saved any American and Japanese lives. Also, Truman used the atomic bombs as a last resort. According to Jeff Tenuth, he says, "In the final analysis, President Truman made the only decision he could make, given the circumstances and options available to him." (http://hnn.us/articles/182.html)


    Richard, Hunter Rado, Rauch - 2/23/2011

    Truman was not aiming to attack the civilians; he warned them of the coming attacks with pamphlets. According to Richard Jensen, approximately 8 million people (civilians) avoided the blasts due to the prior warning they received. The only people who remained behind were those essential to the war effort. Civilians were never the target.

    Jensen's article: http://hnn.us/articles/177.html


    Jordan Garrigan - 2/23/2011

    Our final verdict is NOT GUILTY. Truman is not guilty of war crimes. Ronald Radosh stated “...because of the A-Bomb, the war between Japan and America could not go on” (Radosh). Upon entering the war, the countries that were participating were aware of the pros and cons of war. When war is declared there are no rules to what the countries can or cannot do. Truman was not only thinking of the United States, but he was also putting every other country into his perspective. Truman is not guilty, he made the decision to end the war, and to keep peace between countries involved in the war.
    Truman had a difficult decision to make, to end the war suddenly or gradually end it. The defense stated, “Both the Japanese peace group and the U.S. advisors accepted the atomic bomb and its use as the main instrument for ending the war” (Radosh). The Japanese agreed that the Atomic Bomb was the only instrument that was capable of ending the war. Truman knew the war would only be getting worse if they let it go on. The Atomic Bomb was a drastic idea, but the Japanese refused to surrender, therefore the only reasonable solution was to surprise them into surrendering. Robert Freeman, wrote an article on a website (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm) He said that the atomic bombs were dropped primarily to save American-Japanese lives.
    Japanese lives were lost during the bombings, but thousands were saved due to the fact that if the bombs were not dropped the war would have continued. The war would have continued and not only would Japanese lives been lost, but American lives would have been lost, and many other countries involved. Seattle Times researched how the droppings of the atomic bombs were justified. They came up with several reasons why they were justified, the Japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting to almost the last man on Pacific islands, committing mass suicide and unleashing kamikaze attacks. Fire bombing had killed 100,000 in Tokyo, but did not effect the Japanese. Only the atomic bomb could jolt Japan's leadership to surrender. With only two bombs ready (and a third on the way by late August 1945) it was too risky to "waste" one in a demonstration over an unpopulated area. An invasion of Japan would have caused casualties on both sides that could easily have exceeded the toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two targeted cities would have been firebombed anyway. Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger. The bomb's use impressed the Soviet Union and halted the war quickly enough that the USSR did not demand joint occupation of Japan.


    Nathaniel Fuentes - 2/23/2011

    My sources for my essay.
    http://hnn.us/articles/183.html
    http://hnn.us/articles/184.html
    http://hnn.us/articles/185.html
    http://www.workers.org/2005/world/hiroshima-0811/
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico40.1.html


    Tulsa Lose - 2/23/2011

    Okay I completely disagree. He didn't kill all those people for his own gain. He dropped the bombs because that was what was best for everybody. Also, war isn't about killing the other countries soldiers. Just because that happens doesn't mean the war is about that. We didn't go to war with Japan so we could kill their soldiers. Innocent women and children die in every war. They also had a chance to get out and they didn't (http://hnn.us/articles/177.html). Truman is not guilty for dropping the A-bombs.


    brian laskowski - 2/23/2011

    As you say "The bomb was intended to save lives, if we did not drop the bomb a war would have broken out in Japan that would have killed more Japanese and American lives" First of all there was already a war going on there so many lives were already lost. Also the fact that it was intended to save lives is a joke because before the atomic bombs, there were fire bombings which wiped out cities. Clearly Trumans intent was not to so much as save lives but to just take an easy way out and sacrifice the lives of the Japanese.
    Next you say "Truman sent a warning to the Japanese about the bomb they were planning on dropping; this was the only way he thought the Japanese might surrender". This may be true but the Japanese were already wiped out from the fire bombing and the casualties would have been way less than what people would have thought because of this.


    CJ Jones - 2/23/2011

    i disagree. Truman did look at that consequences of dropping the bombs. in fact if you look at the other options that truman had to go with it it was the best option because it saved the most lives on both sides. Also most civilians would fight back and weren't necessarily innocent.

    http://hnn.us/articles/177.html


    Heather Lynn Desorcie - 2/23/2011

    I think that it's great that you have a solid, personal opinion, but you fail to keep an open mind about the matter. What would happen if the U.S. chose a standard invasion instead of dropping the bombs? Yes, it would be more accepted by the world, but the fatalities would have been around 400,000 to 800,000 (keep in mind 20,000 people died from the atomic bomb). Fewer lives taken seems like a reason to justify the act.
    Also, as James R. Van Velde explains, there is a huge difference between slaughter for slaughter's sake and slaughter to end an evil and ongoing war. The Soviets could have done an incredible amount of damage to Japan if we had not ended the war. When Truman dropped the bombs he not only thought about America, but also of humanity.


    Kurzinger Pistone Wright - 2/23/2011

    I disagree with your verdict because if Truman didn't drop the bomb, then Japan would have came back and dropped one on us. Japan was in the middle of creating a plan to attack the U.S. again. They were using different cities in Japan to plan the attack and build the weapons.

    http://hnn.us/articles/177.html

    Richard Jensen wrote an article talking about what the Japanese were doing and how Truman did the right thing by dropping the bomb.


    Kurzinger Pistone Wright - 2/23/2011

    I agree, Truman is not guilty of war crimes. Truman made the right decision in dropping the atomic bomb because it protected America from danger. Richard Jensen says if Truman didn't drop the bomb on Japan, then Japan most likely would have dropped a bomb on America. Truman also wanted revenge on Japan, after they attacked Pearl Harbor. If Truman didn't make this decision to drop the atomic bombs, then America probably wouldn't be the free country that it is today.


    Tulsa Lose - 2/23/2011

    I definitely agree with what you are saying here. He chose the lesser of two evils. Either way people were going to die and if some people think that killing by an invasion is better than killing by A-bombs, it doesn't make sense. Killing is killing and it would have happened either way. He just chose to have less people die. If he had chose to go forward with the invasion, then people still would have accused him of doing something wrong.


    Richard, Hunter Rado, Rauch - 2/23/2011

    An excerpt from Truman's diary detailing his plans to save lives:

    www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html


    handrer nealgeist - 2/23/2011

    nathaniel, i disagree with this statement because as refrenced in van de velde's reply as a juror, he says "They were part of the strategic bombing campaign, conducted while Japan ignored the Allied demand for unconditional surrender, reiterated at the Potsdam Conference, and seem to have been the bare minimum necessary to have forced the Japanese Privy Council to vote into deadlock in deciding to accept the Allied surrender demand." basically saying that if we hadnt dropped the bomb there would have been a ton more casualties.

    http://hnn.us/articles/180.html


    Nathaniel Fuentes - 2/23/2011

    I completely agree with your essay. I t is true that the bomb still affects Japanese civilians today. I like how you said that Truman bombed population centers instead of military bases. He was not thinking of the civilians and need to go to jail for war crimes.

    www.independent.org/blog/?p=2093


    Richard, Hunter Rado, Rauch - 2/23/2011

    First off, Truman was not selfish. He did not gain anything from killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese. Secondly, he attempted to preserve lives by dropping pamphlets warning about the incoming bombs. Those who did not leave the cities were essential to the war effort. He was not at all like Hitler; Hitler went out of his way to destroy a race that he despised for personal reasons, while Truman wanted to save lives and end the war. Hitler organized the brutal demise of the Jewish people, whereas Truman weighed all options and selected what he thought was best to end the war quickly. Hitler killed 6 million people outside of combat, but Truman killed only a few hundred thousand. That's a significant difference in numbers.

    Truman's actions were justified by the necessities of war.


    Tulsa Lose - 2/23/2011

    I think it's really interesting how you comment that Japanese and American lives are the same. So why does it matter that in dropping the bombs, we saved American lives? Wouldn't it all be the same? If there had been an invasion, more lives overall would have been lost, American and Japanese (http://hnn.us/articles/173.html). Either way the numbers point to the fact that more people would have died if there was an invasion.


    Scholly Weakland - 2/23/2011


    We believe that Truman is not guilty of war crimes when dropping the bombs on the Japanese cities. There wasn’t anything that Truman could have done that wouldn’t have been scrutinized by the American population. If he didn’t drop the bomb and the war went on longer people would have criticized him for not being able to end the war at that time and prolonging the war while adding up both American and Japanese death totals.
    John Pritchard said “They were entitled to take into account the political and military consequences of failing to act sufficiently or at all in order to prevent others (the Soviet Union) from seizing the initiative through the conquest of territory and deaths of untold numbers of the enemy's forces and non-combatants alike in Manchuria and Korea.” (http://hnn.us/articles/176.html)
    Richard Jensen said “Nobile silently switches from "cities" to "civilians" but let's look at the text and think about "cities." Were the Japanese cities a significant part of the Japanese war machine, or was it "wanton" to destroy them? WW2 was a war of production and almost all the Japanese war production came from its large cities. In 1945 alone they produced 5400 fighter planes, 1900 bombers and 3600 other warplanes--most of them intended as highly lethal kamikazis.” Without the atomic bombs, their would have been many more Americans lost since the Japanese would not give up until they had almost loste every man. (http://hnn.us/articles/176.html)
    Most people who were alive at the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, especially veterans, subscribe to the "traditional" belief that Truman decided to drop the atomic bombs on Japan for solely military reasons. A timely end to the war would mean that no land invasion of Japan is necessary. Such an invasion would have been extraordinarily costly in terms of not only American lives, but also in terms of Japanese dead. Ending the war quickly would return soldiers to their homes and allow Americans to begin a life of normality again. (http://www.essortment.com/did-president-truman-drop-atomic-bomb-61496.html)
    James R. Van de Velde was saying that if Truman hadn’t dropped the bomb then, “The war throughout Southeast and East Asia would have continued. The Soviets would have invaded Hokkaido and split Japan like Korea was sadly split. Korea would have fallen completely to Soviet domination. Japanese and Asian civilians throughout Asia would have died and been killed on a daily basis while surrender was postponed to some time in the late fall or winter 1945. Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been fire bombed instead of incinerated.” This shows that by the United States ending the war, Japan was able to keep their country intact.(http://hnn.us/articles/176.html)
    Richard Jensen also adds, “The US Air Force dropped tens of millions of leaflets advising people to leave these war production centers--and over 8 million did so. Those who were essential to the Japanese war effort remained behind. So the destruction of cities was not "wanton" but was "justified by military necessity." (http://hnn.us/articles/176.html)
    Through all of these points we believe that Truman was not guilty of committing war crimes. With Truman using the bombs on Japan,” use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger.” (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/supplement/procon.html) If the United States didn’t drop the atomic bombs on Japan other countries would have used them and done even more harm than the United States did. Truman was able to accomplish many things with the atomic bombs with saving both American and Japanese lives, ending the war, and was able to keep the Soviet Union of invading Japan and taking over their territory. We believe that Harry S. Truman was not guilty of war crimes and that the atomic bomb was necessary.


    handrer nealgeist - 2/23/2011

    You make some great points and we completely agree that Truman is not guilty. What he did was for the good of the country. A minimum over 250,000 American soldiers would lie dead as a result of an invasion of the Japanese islands according to (essortment.com) and Truman helped to save every single one of those American lives


    brian laskowski - 2/23/2011

    For our final review, we decide to name Harry S. Truman guilty of charges. Our first reason, and main point is the necessity of the bombs. Radosh states that the bombs were used to reduce the number of casualties, American and Japanese alike. However, Nobile writes earlier that, “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, Japan would have surrendered even if atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
    This "wanton destruction" should be enough to prove Truman is guilty. Nobile further proves that the bombs were unnecessary as Japan teetered on the edge of surrender in late 1945. Still, he continues, with the planned invasion of Japan months away, Truman possessed numerous other alternatives to the bomb. Another point is that the statement stood that the Japanese would fight down to the very last man. I’m assuming that japan still had a population after the bombings, so if this statement was true, the Japanese would still be fighting no matter what, until there was not a single one left.
    Radosh tries to say that there would be more casualties on both sides from the invasion, however Arnold A. Offner refutes with “Finally, Radosh and others' casualty-death figures running to hundreds thousands are all poppycock. The Joint Chiefs of Staff said the maximum would be 31,000 in the first 30 days after the invasion of Kyushu--and they did NOT expect it to last that long. Japan was on its last military legs, the U.S. knew it, and while young Japanese officers wanted to fight--they could not hold out once the USSR entered the war.” These numbers are vastly smaller than Radosh proposes, and this was if the invasion was even needed, which Nobile’s point above proves the invasion to be unnecessary.
    To me, we should not be able to justify the horrible acts of war by comparing them to equally horrible acts of war. The justification of dropping the atom bombs being that we had already done just as much damage firebombing the cities seems idiotic and ridiculous. You might compare that to being tried for murder, and justifying it by saying that you had already raped the victim, so it was okay. Shits ridiculous. I get angry just thinking about it.
    Whether we think the bomb was necessary or better than the alternatives is the wrong question. With such a brutal enemy and a very effective act against them, the question of war crimes can come down to the question; can there be meaningful restrictions on the conduct of war? I don’t believe there is because now when innocent people are killed they are considered to be collateral damage instead of innocent bystanders. It seems as though the conducts of war can be changed to be interpreted as “it needed to be done” to make it seem like we did the right thing. In this case Truman’s acts were not necessary to win the war and obliterated hundreds of thousands of Japanese, therefore we believe he should be found guilty.


    Rob Furmanek - 2/23/2011

    As members of the jury, we find Truman not guilty. There are several reasons for our decision that prove his innocence. We believe that Truman cannot be tried as a war criminal.
    The first point is that the bombs ended the war. If the decision was not made to drop the bombs, the war would have lasted much longer. The other option, besides bombing, was to form a military blockade. This idea would have resulted in many more Japanese and American deaths.
    The prosecution charged Truman for “wanton destruction”. The bombings may have been brutal, but they were necessary. The bombs were relevant to the timing of the surrender because they caused the Japanese to finally give up. Truman’s intent was not to simply kill Japanese, but to stop the war and save the lives of his soldiers. Also, the Japanese were developing atomic bombs that they would attack the United States with. He cannot be tried as a war criminal because none of the laws apply to Truman’s decisions and actions. He is justified by the necessity of the bomb during the war.
    The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japanese cities, ended the war. They surrendered because of the attacks. If Truman did not make the decision to drop the bombs, than the Japanese would not have surrendered. This shows that the bombs truly ended the war. The Japanese would not have surrendered before this because if they would have, than they would make it clear. Also, they threatened any citizen who even mentioned the word surrender. Because they would not surrender unless extreme measures were taken, we had to bomb.
    Why Truman dropped the bomb is a question that many answers can be supplied. Some believe that it was to punish the Japanese for Pearl Harbor, but there is no proof of this and no evidence to support it. Though there is no actual reason, the best answer to why he decided to drop the bombs is a combination of ending the war, saving lives, justification of costs, and punishment. However, there is no answer that can make Truman guilty of war crimes.
    Finally the the dropping of the atomic bomb not only ended the war, and cause the Japanese to surrender, but kept other enemies away as well. The Soviet Union had been interested in the bomb since the very beginning of its creation. They had proposed that it be bargained over, postwar. Truman and his administration had seen the Soviet Union as a major threat and enemy to America from the very beginning also. The administration knew that they could not even begin to think about trading the bomb, and realized that there would need to be even more security put on the bomb (if not used) after the war had ended. Truman deducted from this that if the bomb was used in the war, not only would it cause the Japanese to surrender, but it would keep the soviet union at bay also.
    In conclusion, Truman is not guilty of war crimes, but did what made most sense politically. He was able to cause Japan to surrender by taking out its major places of production for the war, thus ending the war and keeping away threatening enemies on the hunt for the bomb themselves. He caused the fewest number of deaths possible while getting done what he needed to end the war.


    Ethan Reese Jones - 2/23/2011

    Ethan Jones
    Matthew Beiswenger

    President Harry S. Truman is not guilty in any way, shape, or form of the wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages without the justification of military necessity, he only made this extraordinarily hard decision based on what was presented to him with the added backhanded pressure birthed from brutality of the era; it was absolutely necessary to use the atomic bombs on both occasions as it was the only rational choice to end the war swiftly without yielding x-times the amount of casualties more on both sides of the spectrum. Firstly, the “Operation Downfall” plans presented by Truman’s generals and admirals at the time were all inhumane to say the very least. Secondly, the bombing was indeed a strategic decision and was not in violation of any “war laws”, as most Japanese cities were indeed central to wartime production. Lastly, there is undeniable proof that the atomic bombs were the bare minimum required for a Japanese surrender and even more proof yielding to the fact that the Japanese would have abided to the “last man standing” notion to withhold the honor of their Emperor.
    The plans presented by Truman’s Generals and Admirals alike were inhumane and downright disgusting that would have either yielded casualties in the millions on both sides or would have caused undeniable misery to the citizens of Japan; the Army proposed two invasions, one of Kyushu and one of Honshu; the Air Force proposed that they would double to triple the amount of conventional bombing raids; the Navy proposed that there would be a total blockade of the islands to cause mass starvation and millions dead. Firstly, if Truman had decided to side with the naval plan, there would have been millions sick and dead alike, as supported by Professor Richard Jensen (from Truman Trial site), “The Navy wanted to use a total blockade of the islands to cause mass starvation and tens of millions dead”. Secondly if the Army had gone through with their plan, there would have been casualties in the upwards of millions on both sides, as supported by Professor Larry Schweikart (from Truman on Trial Site), “there is no question in my mind that the Allied estimates of expected casualty rates were WAY low, and that probably upwards of a million Japanese would have been killed too”. Lastly, if the Air Force had carried out their strategic, bigger, more costly bombing campaign, there would have been a high multiple more of Japanese people killed as Japan had a stubborn tendency not to flinch even in the eye of multiple bombing attacks (they were almost unwilling to even surrender after the atomic bombs). To put his all in retrospect, it is overwhelmingly obvious that Truman made the right choice based on the options presented to him at the time.
    The atomic bombings ordered by Harry S. Truman were not, in fact, a war violation as his administration even gave fair warning to the citizens of many Japanese cities and all cities were central to military production. Firstly, Japanese cities were central to wartime production during World War II, as there was a gradual increase in military factories and facilities, as supported by the website Hiroshima Spirit, “By the time of the A-bombing, the Hiroshima Bay area, combined with the naval facilities in Kure, had taken on a strong military character.” Lastly, there were also signs that pointed to the second bombing on Nagasaki before it had occurred, as supported by the website Truman Library, “The program of psychological warfare included the dropping of thousands of leaflets on Japanese cities, which would not only save lives but also disrupt war production”. It is quite apparent that we did not violate any sort of law presented because there was obvious military justification and we even dropped leaflets over many Japanese cities to give a fair warning of what was to inevitably come.
    The atomic bombs, even to this day, should still be seen as the bare minimum tool that provoked Japan’s surrender, as their other alternatives would have cost them dearly. Firstly, there was undeniable proof that the Japanese soldiers would have abided by the “last man standing” notion, as exemplified by Emperor Hirohito (Emperor at the time), “to fight to the finish to defend his divinity and his throne”. Secondly, it is very evident that the atomic bombings actually helped Japan make a rational decision, as exemplified by Kido Kochi (the advisor of Hirohito), “we the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war”. All evidence points to the notion that the bomb was indeed instrumental in helping Japan end the war and make a rational decision in the end.
    In conclusion, every ounce of information provided, from the invasion plans to the fair warnings of bombings on Japan to the fair justification by war production, it is quite evident that the dropping of the atomic bombs was indeed justified beyond any popular belief. If this decision had not been made, Japan’s position in the world economy would be highly different due to mass population reductions by the speculated invasion plans and we as a country would be different because we would look back in the sorrow and tragedy of the invasion that could have been. The world we live in now would be quite different had the bomb not been dropped in order to safe an unheard of number of lives, but to still end end so many.





    Sources:

    http://www.hiroshima-spirit.jp/en/museum/morgue_e11.html
    http://www.hiroshima-spirit.jp/en/museum/morgue_e11.html
    http://hnn.us/articles/190.html


    Maia Jensen - 2/23/2011

    I have reached the conclusion that Truman was not guilty of war crimes for dropping two atomic bombs; one on Hiroshima and one on Nagasaki. The use of the bombs did cause large amounts of destruction however the destruction was not wanton, and for the sake of causing death alone. The use of the atom bomb also caused a swift end of the war. It was this timely cessation of battle that prevented further death of both American and Japanese soldiers that would have died had the war continued. These to previous points lead into the third, that Harry Truman’s actions were justified by military necessity. The job of the military is to protect the people of its country. The use of the Atom Bombs did just that, by preventing the further death of American soldiers. According to “The morning Call” the estimates of death projected for the rest of the war were very low, and because of the timely end to the war those deaths were all avoided. According to “history.com” Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also both legitimate military targets. They were centers for training and also arms storage for the Japanese.


    JusterVanDerSluys JUSTER AND VanDerSluys JusterVanDerSluys - 2/23/2011

    The Hiroshima bombing was an event in history of its own that defined how a human, a group, and a nation of people could win a war. World War II was a bloody and long war, which by the end of the European conquest of setting it free from German oppression, the world was ready to finally end the war. The only option hurdle standing in the way of ending the war completely was Japan. Numerous battles were fought in the Pacific in liberating many nations that were overthrown by Japans rule. By the time Germany fell, Japan was pushed back to its home-front and it would be possibly many more lives and years to end the great world war. One man named Harry Truman made a historic decision to end it all in less time and less lives by using an advanced technology called the atomic bomb. Overall, his decision was the right decision and in more modern times if trialed, he would not be guilty of war crimes due to numerous factors, which will be discussed more in this essay.
    President Truman is not guilty of anything what so ever because he was just making the right decision over all to humanity and mankind. If shown the options he had at the time you would see that he could either do a massive naval blockade and starve off the population slowly, triple bomb raids on Japan cities, or invade Kyushu and Honshu. All of these, which presented by one of the jurys, Richard Jensen in the mock trial showed that these three options, in the long run were not reliable. First off, just straight up bombing someone is time consuming in that numerous bombers would be needed to keep up on the pressure. Also many resources would be needed like numerous air fields to land and supply the bombers. Not only is it militarily straining, but also demanding on the many innocent lives in stake of the bombing, sure an atomic bomb can wipe out thousands in a second, but bombing over a long period of time would cause way more deaths and be spreaded out more and cause more casualties in the long run. A naval blockade is just cruel since alot of resources Japan gets is imported and that would just be a long slow death of numerous people, very inhumane and not a single citizen could do anything about it, but eat each other. The invasion on Kyushu and Honshu are also ridiculous in that not only alot of American lives would be lost, but there are also more then a million troops in each city waiting to fight the death in order to protect then homeland. All these options are crazy when put up to just bombing two cities with an atomic bomb and lessening the casualties and suffering to just two areas, which were warned with millions of leaflets before hand so they could get out of the war zone. There is also the other factor that Japanese people would fight to the death. America fought Japan in the Pacific over numerous islands and the Philippines and had trouble just taking over small islands do to crazy tactics of Japanese doing anything to fight for their control, which involved human wave attacks and suicidal plane crashes into their enemy. All the Japanese did this because they believed in one thing, that was that their leader/emperor Hirohito was seen as a god, and he himself told his people to fight to the finish to defend his divinity and his throne.

    All in all, President Truman is not guilty due to the circumstances and options that he had presented to him. It was the best and thorough way of ending a long and bloody world war in which every one just wanted to end. The enemy, Japan, was a nation that at the time didnt realize how crazy they were and were just fighting for what they thought was right and to please their “god”. It was the right and best choice, and it in fact did end the war, which was the ultimate goal.


    Sarah/Mikala Masters/Hursh - 2/23/2011

    We have come to the conclusion that President Harry Truman is not guilty of war crimes for dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have come to this conclusion threw several main arguments. (1) The bomb was dropped to end World War II. The war would have drug on for a lot longer if Truman had not dropped the bombs. The Japanese were not going to surrender. We had been fighting with them for a very long time, and they had shown no sign of surrendering. They were actually building up the size of their army. Another reason why Japan was not going to surrender was because the Japanese people thought that their emperor was god. They believed that he was actually god, and they did not want anything to happen to him. This is why the people did not push for surrender. Also, the Japanese military was not as concerned with Japan’s destruction as they were with losing honor. This caused them to delay surrendering. Because of these aspects, dropping the bomb was a military necessity, so therefore Truman is not breaking any rules and should not be considered a war criminal.(2) If Truman would not have dropped the bombs US soldiers would have had to invade Japan. This invasion would have lead to massive amounts of deaths on both sides, the Americans and the Japanese. Therefore the bombs saved more lives than it cost. Also, Truman thought that the bomb would take less lives than it actually did. He knew that the atomic bomb was very powerful, however he did not believe it would lead to so many civilian deaths. (3)The citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned about the bomb and chose not to leave. Pamphlets were dropped in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These pamphlets warned of the coming destruction. The citizens could have left if they wanted but they chose not to leave. (4) Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not total non-combatant cities. Both of these cities contributed largely to the war effort. They produced various supplies for the military. Although the citizens were not soldiers they were in support of the war and they were contributing to the Japanese war effort. (5) It is the presidents job to keep his country and it’s people safe. In times of war this may mean valuing the lives of your soldiers over the lives of your enemy. If Truman had not dropped the bomb many more American lives would have been lost. His job was to protect his people and he did just that. These points have lead us to believe that President Harry Truman is not guilty of committing war crimes because of his decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


    Sources:
    http://hnn.us/articles/190.html
    http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm
    http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html


    CJ Jones - 2/23/2011

    additional sites used

    http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm

    http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm


    Matt & Alex Beattie & Betz - 2/23/2011

    Nobile and Radosh both we think have decent arguments, but when it comes down to analysis of each side, Radosh is the only “legit” side that makes sense out of real facts. Nobile, based off of different sources we found, really doesn’t even have an arguement. What Nobile basically does is changes facts to favor his argument, but this strategy just won’t cut it in a court case. Radosh uses what he knows from facts and figures and presents them in a manner that basically just makes Nobile seem rather childish.

    + Nobile states things like “the wanton destruction of civilians...” and that the Japanese would have surrendered and more of the like. What we witness here is the practice of revisionism. Revisionism in a nutshell is simply the departure from teachings that is labeled as dangerous. This means that Nobile took basic facts and statistics, and purposefully “misinterpreted” them in order to support his argument in accusing Truman. The most noticeable of this practice would be his statement and support that Japan would have surrendered when facts clearly show that this is not true at all. Radosh’s argument clearly shows us just why Nobile was so wrong. He states “As Asado points out, the dropping of the two atomic bombs was the equivalent of American aid to Japan's beleaguered peace party. Thus, Kido Koichi, the emperor's main advisor, agreed that "we of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." He agreed, in other words, with the very man Nobile attacks, Henry L. Stimson, who understood the "profound psychological shock" the bomb would have. As Asado writes: "This 'strategy of shock' worked, for it encouraged the peace party to redouble its efforts to bring about a decision for surrender"”. That statement really just brings up the question in our minds, “why is there even a case?” Although this is the most noticeable of them all, the one that really proves this idea of revisionism would be his changing of the amendment deeming unconstitutional “the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.” Nobile “remakes” this statement to say “ the wanton destruction of civilians, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.” As you can see, Nobile cleverly tries to switch the words cities and civilians around in order to support his argument. This is where the idea of childish comes in. It seems that he almost runs out of information to support him so he tries to “tweak” other facts and figures in order to make his argument sound more convincing. When you hear this in his argument, everything sounds fine. However, when you really look at and analyze all of the argument, we can see that he really is basing his argument off of nothing. In addition, another key point that was argued, was the the bombs were not dropped through military necessity, but this was just an open ended opinion that lead no where, because when you look at the real evidence there was clear military justification for the dropping of the bomb. Not only were the Japanese not going to surrender after they knew the bomb would be dropped, they also were going to stay in the war after they knew that the USSR would join, and they denied talks of peace. Therefore, the only logical and militarily necessary thing to do, was to drop the bomb in order to save lives. As stated by Larry Schweikart, “In my book, during a war, if saving a single one of my soldiers can be achieved by any means, I'll take it. That is the nature of war. Wars are not clean.” So by these means, and the inability from the Japanese to surrender makes dropping the bomb all the more justified militarily.
    +
    + So in conclusion, from the facts stated above, that Nobile’s defenses were not only opinion based but also childish and not telling the whole truth, the intentional misinterpretation of numbers and facts, the justification of non Japanese surrender before the bomb was dropped, along with the justification of military necessity and that saving one life is saving a life, then the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just, and Truman nor any others involved in the case should be tried on the accusations of being war criminals. Lastly, to support our case, on another website debating the war, it gives a pros and cons list to summarize the dropping of the bomb. Again, like in this scenario there are 6 pros and 8 cons, but the pros are factual and cons are again childish misinterpretations of information. For example a con is, “Japan was ready to call it quits anyway.” As you can see this is again a false accusation, that was proven wrong in the above statement, as well as in the defense’s argument itself so there is no reason that the bomb should not have been dropped, and all justifications that Truman had hold strong.


    CJ Jones - 2/23/2011

    i believe that president Truman cannot be found guilty as a war criminal. this cannot happen because he has done nothing wrong. Truman was given a the the tough task of being the president during one of the largest most gruesome war that the united states has been a part of. He had to make tough decisions that were best for America. the prosecution says that,Trumann biggest decision, doping the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were acts of wanton destruction. But if you look at the facts it wasn't at all. Wanton destruction is the destroying of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. You can justify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as military targets for many reason. One flaw in the prosecutions arguments is that he silently switches between the term “cities” and “civilians” in the wanton destruction argument. But if you think, that most cities in japan produced the weapons, airplanes and vehicles used so fuel the Japanese war machine since 1895. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki were large cities that meant that they produced a lot for the war effort of japan. they can then be classified as a strategic military point to attack. Also it’s not as if we bombed them without any warning we dropped tens of millions of leaflets telling them to leave these production facilities and more than 8 million did end up leaving. The people who stayed and died were dedicated to the Japanese war machine. Another reason why the US military could classify Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a military necessity is it was the best plan to end the war, meaning with the least amount of casualties on both sides and would almost guarantee a surrender from japan. Truman was criticised by the prosecution because he “ignored” the advice of the generals. Truman's other suggestions were given by the Navy, Air Force, and Army. The Navy wanted to blockade Japan which would have lead to the starvation of 10 million and a possible surrender from japan. The Air Force wanted to continue the fire bombings of cities until Japan surrendered. Lastly the Army already had the invasion of mainland Japan planned which was set for November 29th, this plan was called Operation Olympic. it was first predicted that this would end up with 46,000 American soldiers would die to accomplish this. A second opinion was take and using the losses at Iwo Jima and Okinawa which we out numbered the Japanese 4:1 at Iwo Jima and 2.5:1 at Okinawa. We lost 6,200 at Iwo Jima and 13,000 at Okinawa. Using those the second prediction was estimated at least 250,000 American soldiers would lie dead at the end assuming that there were 560,000 stationed at Kyushu the site for the 1st invasion. it was later found that there were over 900,000 stationed there in August and we had it planed that we would sent 767,000 3 months later by that time they could double or triple the number of Japanese soldiers stationed there. With that in mind it mad half a million to 1 million American deaths conceivable. with the knowledge that twice as many Japanese were killed in Okinawa would make it plausible that the range of soldiers dead after one invasion would be from 100,000-3 million dead soldiers not counting the civilian, since they had been training their civilians to attack Americans. It’s likely that just as many civilians would died as soldiers, since in the Japanese culture they didn’t surrender, if you did you were dishonoring your family and ancestors. Which meant that the Japanese would most likely fight to the last person standing. with that in mind you can see that in the end there would be 250,000- 5 million dead and japan would surrender in 4 months time at the very earliest. to put that in to perspective there were 4,414 killed on D-Day the invasion of Normandy and 2,819 in the 911 attacks. With all of those figures in mind you can see why president Truman picked dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. in both bombings there were 105,000 Japanese killed and none on the American side. This is why i believe Truman did the right thing and could not be considered a war criminal.




    Citation

    http://www.essortment.com/all/presidenttruman_rywp.htm

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp

    http://hnn.us/articles/177.html

    http://hnn.us/articles/178.html

    http://hnn.us/articles/181.html


    Nick Jack Sharkey Thompson - 2/23/2011

    After carefully scrutinizing the arguments of both the arguments of the prosecution and the defense, we have com to the verdict that President Harry Truman is innocent of these accused war crimes. There is enough evidence that at the time of the decision, he made the best choice that he could, to defend his country. This was his job. He was the leader of a nation, and with the support of his people, he did what he had to do to win a war.
    The prosecution argues that he took more lives than he saved by using the atomic bombs, but truthfully, there is no way to know what would have happened. We cannot make assumptions in either direction about which decision would cost more lives. In any case, the object of war is to damage the enemy until they have no other option but to surrender. The Japanese challenged the United States, and when that happens, both parties are going to do whatever they can to defeat their opponent. If you know that you are going to be attacked, and you have the resources to prevent it, the logical thing to do is to use stop the attack by fighting back.
    This man was defending his nation. His country was looking to him to see what he was going to do. The people were waiting to be protected. What does it look like if your president has the means to end a war, but instead he sends thousands of your countries people to die instead? The defense states that Truman could have just as easily been tried as a war criminal if he hadn’t dropped the bombs. His country would have been shocked. It simply would not make sense to send troops there if you had this weapon at your disposal.
    We believe that Truman made the best possible decision. He was doing his job, and his people are the priority. The bombs did what they were meant to do, and that was end the war. He did what made sense. When you are at war, you do not have sympathy for the enemy. You do what is necessary to win.


    Richard, Hunter Rado, Rauch - 2/23/2011

    We believe that Truman is not guilty of war crimes. The defense states Truman killed innocent “Noncombatant” people in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But let’s examine that claim for a moment. Richard Jensen states that the United States dropped fliers to warn people of the bombings, and 8 million or so people did leave, but those who stayed behind were essential to the war effort. These were the people making guns, aircraft, and the like. They can hardly be considered noncombatants.
    Secondly, Robert James Maddox states that if Truman had not dropped the bombs, he could just as easily been tried as a war criminal. Given the fact that, had he not dropped the bombs, the war would have been prolonged and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands more, dropping the bombs was an acceptable alternative. When looking at the numbers, the bombs were a better option. According to an Essortment article, the Japanese forces were greatly underestimated, and could have resulted in anywhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 American deaths. Add the number of Japanese fatalities onto that and you have one hell of a figure. Even during the war, upwards of 250,000 American deaths were expected. Had Truman not dropped the bombs, he could have been tried as a war criminal because he had the option to save countless lives and refused to. In an excerpt from his journal, it can be seen that Truman intended for this to be a purely militaristic move: “The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives” (Truman). He was not out for bloodshed. If intending to save lives is a war crime, then Truman is guilty.
    In addition, Jeff Tenuth makes the point that there really were not any other alternatives. Had Truman gone with an Invasion, the deaths that would have occurred would have amounted to more than the deaths of the D-day invasion since the Japanese have been preparing for an invasion for months, if not years. A demonstration of the bombs would have been impractical; there were only four, and the Japanese probably would not have believed our nation capable of such an act of destruction. If the United States had blockaded the Japanese islands, untold suffering and death would have occurred. Had the United States continued firebombing the Japanese, thousands upon thousands more would have died. The bombs were quicker, cleaner, and more likely to succeed than any other alternative.
    Perhaps the question should not be whether or not dropping the atomic bombs constitutes a war crime. Evidently some feel very strongly that it does, while others feel that it was perfectly justified. Both sides agree that hundreds of thousands of lives are terrible to waste, but, when one considers the alternatives, it’s not a clear yes or no answer. Was Truman a war criminal? To us, no. Did he do a horrible thing? Yes. Was it the right thing? Who can say? Maybe that should be the question.
    In short, Truman did not commit war crimes by dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was not a decision that one should be proud of, but it was not the worst.


    Essortment article: http://www.essortment.com/did-president-truman-drop-atomic-bomb-61496.html
    Truman’s Diary: http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html


    Tessa Kylie Mitchell Bumbarger - 2/23/2011

    Truman has been put on trial for committing various war crimes. Some people feel that he is guilty while others feel that he is not. In our opinion, Truman is not guilty for many reasons. There are plenty of reasons that support why Truman is not guilty. One of the simple reasons is because it was really the only thing Truman could do at this point. The Japanese could have bombed us or invaded if we did not act fast enough. It is almost as thought Truman was using this as a way of defense. Japan had, in fact, never planned of surrendering and had been prepared for the American invasion for quite some sometime. Japan was not going to give up, if America wouldn’t have dropped the bomb, Japan could have easily turned around and attacked without any warning. America could have been easily destroyed. Truman should not be thought of as guilty by trying to defend the country he was leader of.

    Truman should not be considered guilty also because of the fact that he was only looking out for his country and doing what he thought was right for his people. As a leader, you have the duty of doing anything that is necessary for the well being of your country. No matter what you need to do to protect them it is your duty as a leader to take care of the people. That is what Truman had in mind when he had planned to go to war with Japan. No one goes to war because they enjoy it. Leaders go to war for the soul purpose of keeping their country alive.

    Another reason that Truman is not guilty is that the Japanese were not going to back down and surrender, so his acts of bombing and ultimately ending the war were justified. Just a simple invasion was not going to stop them. It was going to take a lot more to get them to end the war and that’s what Truman did. Many people think that the Japanese were on their way to a surrender before the bomb was dropped but that idea has been hard to be proven true. Hirohito, the emperor of Japan at the time, insisted that the Japanese fight to the finish. Other imperial leaders even threatened to kill anyone who even mentioned the word of surrendering. The Japanese were preparing themselves for the invasion with thousands of air crafts and millions of troops, and had no plan of backing down. The Japanese were known to be aggressive and this diary that was found, that was written by a Japanese soldier Tojo demonstrates that idea. Tojo continued to write about how he refused to back down, and even after the bombs were dropped. It’s that kind of mentality that we were facing and we needed to put an end to. Truman made the right decision and shouldn’t be punished for that.

    Truman shouldn’t be considered a war criminal also due to the fact that his intent was not war criminal like. Many people compare Truman to Hitler in the fact that he purposely bombed cities. Also many try to make the bombing a war crime referring to the Nuremberg Charter article 6 which talks about the definition of war crime, saying ideas such as: violations of art. 6 include “wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devistations not justified by military necessity.” Many try to argue that the bombing was not military necessity. Looking back now at the situation, dropping the bomb was a necessity. All of the other options that were given to Truman weren’t as good, or less American life costing. At that point, dropping of the bomb was the best option. Also looking back at the definition of war crimes, the destruction that was done to the cities was not wanton. Within those cities there were essential Japanese war production places, and to end this war we needed to hit the Japanese hard enough so that the war would end, which we did. Also unlike Hitler, Truman did not go into the bombings thinking about the killing of citizens. He was not deliberately trying to kill as many Japanese as possible while rather ending the war and stop the killing. It was essential to our victory, and was not against any idea of war crimes, thus making Truman not a war criminal.
    The last reason that Truman shouldn’t be guilty is the simple fact that it caused the reaction that was intended which was a surrender from the Japanese and the ending of the war. In an article by Walter Lsaacson, Walter discusses the idea that the bomb ultimately ended up saving many lives. Without it, we would have continued fighting, probably with the invasion, which would have just killed many more soldiers, from both sides. Not to mention the fact that with the invasion the firebombing wold have destroyed large sections of cities and caused many more unnecessary deaths. The bomb made the Japanese surrender and ended the war. It may not have been entirely necessary, but war is never really necessary. The fact is, Truman did what he felt he had to do to protect his country and it worked.

    There are many reasons to why Truman should be considered innocent. There are reasons such as the fact that the Japanese were not going to surrender, to dropping the bomb was the safest (for us) and best idea given at the time, to dropping the bomb doesn’t consider him a war criminal due to the intent of the dropping. Also Truman is not guilty because of the fact that he was just doing his job as the leader to our country and protecting us, and even more simply the fact that it gave us the outcome that was best for our country meaning the ending of the war and the no longer continuous losing of lives. There are also many reasons as to why many people think that Truman should be considered a war criminal but when it comes down to it, the reasons that he shouldn’t be guilty outweigh the number of reasons that he should be guilty. Ultimately, Truman did was right for the time and ended a war that could have continued and lost huge amounts of more lives, of both Japanese and American. Truman is not guilty, and is not a war criminal.


    Brendon Karchner - 2/23/2011

    Sometimes you have to do bad things for the better of your country. I think that Truman is not guilty simply because he dropped the bomb to get Japan out of the war and to save the lives of American soldiers. Truman had 2 choices, drop the Atomic bomb or invade Japan and end the war. 200 some thousand people were killed in the dropping of the Atomic bomb and that is a lot of human lives lost, but if he was to invade Japan the amount of deaths would have tripled.http://hnn.us/articles/190.htm
    By choosing to drop the A-bomb on Japan made them drop out of the war and then later eventually ended the war and it saved thousands of the lives of American soldiers. http://hnn.us/articles/190.html
    I also think that although thousands of Japanese lives were taken, dropping the A-bomb proves to other places that America is not afraid to do that and it will hopefully make people think twice before messing the the US. http://hnn.us/articles/190.html
    I think that the atomic bomb was a one time thing. It was used to get Japan out of the war and to end the war and get America out of there. It has not been used since simply because it is so dangerous and deadly.http://www.buzzle.com/articles/atomic-bomb-facts.html


    Daniel Collins - 2/23/2011

    “A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations” is the definition of war. War is described as a clash between nations. In a fight for survival humans, like all animals, need to do everything they can to survive. The strongest will survive and if resolution can’t be made through words, violence always erupts. Actions always speak louder than words. Truman is not guilty because Japan was building up military personnel, showing no sign of surrendering, and preparing a weapon of mass destruction; the bomb prevented future casualties, and ended a bloodbath between the USA and Japan.

    Towards the end of the war Japan was expanding their military to fight back against the United States invasion. Their total troops exceeded 900,000 men more than quadruple the total lost during the bombings. If the United State attacked with foot soldiers hundreds of thousands would have died, and the United States would not have won. Throughout the war many men died honorably but only a fraction were taken by the atomic bomb.

    War is a bloody and terrible habit of human beings. If one nation wants to dominate another they will do anything necessary to win. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 200,000 people; but that number is nowhere close to the casualties that could have taken place on U.S soil if the Japanese had finished their weapon first. Japan’s history is full of people who never gave up and did not surrender, without the force of the bomb Japan would have never surrendered.

    The Japanese did not plan to surrender before the bombs. The bombs were dropped two days apart; more than enough time to surrender. If they had intentions to surrender before the dropping of the first bomb, after that bomb was dropped they should have raised the white flag. It took two catastrophic bombings to get a response.

    The Atomic bomb roared around the world. People saw the devastation of one bomb and gasped. Without the bombing future wars may have turned out a lot differently. During the Cold War, much hesitation was taken between the Soviets and the United States because of the affects that were seen from the first two uses of the Atomic bomb. Not only did the bombs finish World War Two, but they also prevented future disasters.

    The Atomic bombs ended World War Two. They were dropped to save American lives. Truman ended the war by shutting down major manufactures for the Japanese army. It is not like he dropped it on a pointless city that had no affect on the Japanese war attempt. Nagasaki and Hiroshima produced many items and weapons the military relied on. The bombs crippled Japan and forced them to surrender by cutting of the supplies.

    Ending a war by means of greater force is not a war crime. Truman can not be accused of being a war criminal because of his position during the dropping of the atomic bombs. When you build your army it is not a sign of surrendering but preparing to retaliate. People learn from history and the atomic bomb was dropped for a reason but it’s power was shown and people hesitate to repeat it. 200,000 lives were lost in the bombings but many more would have suffered if they would not have been dropped. Truman is not a war criminal because war is war and it has no rules.


    Samantha Lynn McWhirter - 2/23/2011

    We have decided, after reading these articles and much discussion, that Truman is not guilty and should not have been hung for dropping the bombs. We have found many different reasons to conclude that he is not guilty. Some of these include that the Japanese had a fair warning of the bombs and Nobile’s logic was not reliable and seemed completely distorted. Also, Truman had no intent to wipe out a whole race, just to end the war.
    The bomb was intended to save lives, if we did not drop the bomb a war would have broken out in Japan that would have killed more Japanese and American lives.(1) As Larry Schweikart states, “If saving a single one of my soldiers can be achieved by any means, I'll take it. That is the nature of war. Wars are not clean.” Either way, someone was going to get hurt in the war, but by bombing Japan before the war got worse we felt as though we helped save many lives, even if there were more American than Japanese lives saved. Richard Jensen also has another good point that the army wanted to invade Kyushu and Honshu, “It was much debated at the time--and today-- how many American soldiers would be killed in these invasions; no one knows for sure. But all the planners in 1945 knew how many Japanese soldiers would be killed: all of them.” The bomb saved lives.
    Truman sent a warning to the Japanese about the bomb they were planning on dropping; this was the only way he thought the Japanese might surrender.(2) But they did not, which leads us to answer why Truman dropped the bomb after all. Truman did not drop the bomb to randomly kill, he did it to keep his country safe. “There is a difference between slaughter to effect a war aim and slaughter for slaughter's sake”, states James R. Van de Velde. To go back to the original defense argument of Radosh, he states "Japan was busy trying to perfect its own atomic bomb". This just concludes that even if we didn't use ours, it would have been the Japanese to use theirs on us.
    Many surveys and polls were taken before the bomb was dropped about if it should be used and if people approved, and they generally all approved. Many agreed upon the bomb saving more lives than destroying lives would come out of the bomb. This quote also shows that others agree- “The poll revealed that 80% approved of the bomb, citing that ‘It would save thousands of American soldiers lives if the war ended now as a result of dropping the atomic bomb’.”(3) Also, this topic is so hard to actually create a verdict upon, and who says that we have the right to do that. It is so hard to say that he is guilty because we have no idea the reality of being in World War 2 and having to make this decision. Jeff Tenuth states, “It is the reality of World War II that we are dealing with, not our current opinions on the immorality of nuclear weapons” and we agree him.



    1.http://www.anzasa.arts.usyd.edu.au/ahas/bomb/document_7.html#document5
    2.http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1947/02/president-truman-to-dr-compton/5432/
    3. http://www.bestandworst.com/v/136318.htm


    Scott Flick - 2/23/2011

    SMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCH!


    Scott Flick - 2/23/2011

    We believe that Truman is not guilty of war crimes for various reasons. The first reason that we believe that Truman is innocent is because that he was in a position to win a war and he had to do anything possible to end the war and save American lives. The opposition to this says that Truman killed more Japanese lives than American lives he saved. This is preposterous thinking though because there is no way to tell how many American lives could have been lost if the war continued. There could have also been another “Pearl Harbor” type of situation if we kept Japan in the war any longer.
    Another reason for why Truman is innocent is because, as stated by Richard Jenson, “the Japanese cities destroyed by the atomic bombs were necessary military positions and helped the Japanese war machine by supplying war materials and serving as a base of operations for Japanese officials”. If this is true than the bombings could not be considered against the laws of war. The bombings in this case were totally necessary and needed if we wanted to stop the Japanese army. Anyone would consider the destruction of important military
    complexes vital to the war effort and we feel that Truman did just that.
    A third reason for why Truman is not guilty is because the Japanese seemed as if they would never surrender. We needed to stop the war quickly and that meant forcing the Japanese to surrender, which seemed impossible. So the only option to do this without military invasion was to drop bombs on important cities that way the military could not function properly and they would be forced to surrender. The opposition feels that it did not take the atomic bomb to force them to surrender but what would have then? The Japanese had sat through numerous fire bombings to prior to the atomic bombings and they still did not surrender. It seems clear that there was a need for the bombings.
    Truman is not a war criminal and even though his actions are questioned it is clear that the need to take drastic action to end the war was necessary. The Japanese way of war was to fight to the last man, and the entire nation would have died trying to keep their land out of the American’s hands. Not dropping the bombs would have resulted in a much higher death toll than the dropping did, and it wouldn’t have just been Japanese lives lost. He isn’t a war hero but it can be said that without him making the toughest decision America would have had to bury thousands more young men.
    There is a story of a Japanese soldier even thirty years after the war he was still killing civilians. He was living in the mountains and had no idea that the war had ended. This says something about the Japanese military and their motto “Fight to the last man.” There was no way that the Japanese military was going to surrender.


    Heather Lynn Desorcie - 2/23/2011

    After much consideration, I have decided that Truman is innocent. Although the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan resulted in horrific consequences, worse things could have happened if the U.S. had not taken action. James R. Van Velde makes the argument that The Soviets would have split Japan just like how Korea was split into North and South. If the U.S. had tried an invasion, more men (on both sides) would have been lost, according to Radosh. Even though an invasion would be more accepted by the rest of the world, it would have been more deadly for Americans and Japanese both. The estimated casualties of an invasion on Japan would have been between 1.7 million and 4 million American casualties, and 5 to 10 million Japanese casualties. The fatalities would have been around 400,000 to 800,000. Sadly, according to Dietrich (Seattle Times), the two cities bombed by the U.S. would have been fire bombed anyway. Whether that justifies the dropping of the a-bombs, I’m not so sure, but it is a fact. James R. Van Velde makes another great point. He says that there is a difference between slaughter to end a war and slaughter for “slaughter’s sake”. The Nazis slaughtered innocent people to wipe out a particular race. Truman slaughtered innocent people to end a world war. He did the best he could with the situation. Finally, I’d like to reflect on a quote by Jeff Tenuth. He said, “We all wish the atomic bombings had never taken place; not only because of the resultant horrors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also because they started the nuclear arms race that have place our world in peril ever since. Having said that, it is the reality of World War II that we are dealing with, not our current opinions on the immorality of nuclear weapons”. What I believe he is saying we must keep in mind Truman’s motives. He tried to do good for human race by ending a war. He saved people, soldiers and civilians, who would have perished if the war continued. We as Americans should be proud of our ancestors for taking control of the current situation and doing the best they could. Faced with a hard decision, they took a path that has ended up okay. Because of this, I believe that Truman is an innocent man.


    Nathaniel Fuentes - 2/23/2011

    Harry Truman is 100% guilty for dropping the bomb and killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. He did it out of selfishness and completely forgot about all of the women and children that he killed that he claimed were going to die anyway, but last time I checked war isn't about killing innocent civilians it is about killing the other countries soldiers. He was completely out of line in that decision and I believe he did it without thinking about the consequences. I believe that Truman is similar to Hitler in many ways because they both killed innocent civilians and claimed it was an act of war. They also had no feelings toward these people they were killing and were just acting and thinking about themselves. That is why both are very similar to each other. I have no respect for Hitler or Truman because they are evil and need to really think about what they do before they do it.


    handrer nealgeist - 2/23/2011

    I agree that Truman was not guilty because as Pitchard says, the dropping of the bomb was purley used to make the Japanese surrender. otherwise there was due cause that the Japanese would fight on until there was a considerable amount more damage than that of which happened from the atomic bombs. Also Chamberlain states that due to Hitler’s madness and will to do anything to achieve his goals we had to do things that a mere few years before during world war 1 and the cold war we condemned as being illegal and immoral. again, they both touched on the dropping of the atomic bomb being based on necessity and not for personal gain. The atomic bombs were essential to the end of World War II and Truman should be found innocent for dropping the bombs(Doug-Long.com) Maddox makes a key point in saying that the prosecution makes no real legitimate point as to why Truman should be tried as a war criminal. as stated in this quote by Maddox himself: “Philip Nobile's shrill tirade is long on invective and sarcasm, woefully deficient in logic and historical accuracy.” (hnn.us).I f we had not dropped the bomb this war would have gone on for much longer and more civilians and soldiers would have lost their lives. (Trumanlibrary.org). Schweikart says that even though the civilians were not fighting the US directly they were in part helping japan with the war effort as they were making the goods required to keep a war machine working. he also says that his belief is that if he can save just one of his soldiers he will take as many of the enemy soldiers lives as is nescessary. he specifically states this when he says “In my book, during a war, if saving a single one of my soldiers can be achieved by any means, I'll take it. That is the nature of war. Wars are not clean. ” (hnn.us). A statistic provided by (essortment.com) states that 250,000 American soldiers would lie dead as a result of an invasion of the Japanese islands. This is showing how necessary it was to bomb Japan instead of any other alternatives. Although it may not have been the most humane way to end the war, it was absolutely necesesary and justified. Tenuth brings up a very valid point also stating that the prosecution used opinions of people that were not even directly involved with this war. He also throws in that the prosecution didn’t use any legalities other than the nuremburg charter which was made by the US after defeating Germany in the first place, thus why would the US try themselves for a crime that is enforced in their own international charters? The dropping of the atomic bomb was in order to save the lives of millions more people than what actually died during the bombing. (essortment.com) What
    Truman did was completely acceptable and should not be treated as a war crime.
    http://www.doug-long.com/summary.htm
    http://www.essortment.com/did-president-truman-drop-atomic-bomb-61496.html
    http://hnn.us/articles/178.html
    http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/index.php


    Yoder Campolongo - 2/23/2011

    The argument made by the defense surpasses the reasoning of the prosecution using multiple arguments. In our opinion, one of the strongest reasons not to prosecute Truman for the dropping of the atomic bomb was the inevitability of the bomb eventually being dropped. Obviously, we didn’t want to be the guinea pigs in this situation: “Japan was busy trying to perfect its own atomic bomb, and had it succeeded, ‘there is no doubt that the Japanese military would not have hesitated to use the atomic bomb.’”

    There is also the fact that an assault on the Japanese would have meant lots of death as well, both American and Japanese: “...any of the existing alternatives would have meant more death, destruction, loss of both American and Japanese lives, and would have likely been far worse than the effects of the two atomic bombs that were dropped.” There is no doubt that a failure to spare the lives of Americans would have been responded to in shock by America. This was actually the decision to “play it safe,” preventing Americans from being killed and pleasing the citizens of the country.

    The third largest reason was the question of whether or not Japan would have actually surrendered. The prosecution and the defense both make points that seem contradictory; however, the defense makes a point that stands out among the muddled mess of opinion vs. fact: “Pacific Historical Review in November 1998, Sadao Asada-- ‘...the bomb and only the bomb galvanized Japan's peace party to take actions necessary to terminate the Pacific War.’” Asada is very rooted in his opinion of the bomb’s effect on Japan. Let’s face it, Japan wasn’t known for giving up easily. The warriors fighting in WWII were trained to fight, and keep fighting (in addition to the kamikazes). We can’t be sure that Japan would have given up on the war under threat of something they had no idea about--the A bomb.

    Also, are we really going to denounce one of America’s most popular presidents? Many war veterans saw Truman’s dropping of the bomb as a life-saver; he was their hero. Placing the label “war criminal” on Truman could be seen as potentially anti-American and spark a great deal of controversy (more than this trial already has).

    Truman is not to be blamed for something that would have eventually taken place. Humanity could not resist trying out the atomic bomb, just to see what it would really do. If it had not been Truman, it might have been the Japanese, or perhaps the Russians, or another world leader. It could have even been dropped on America. Hopefully the devastation of the two Japanese cities will never be replicated, and we will never see the horror of the atomic bomb again.


    Shannon, Courtney Wagner, Poprik - 2/23/2011

    Being the President is not easy. Hard decisions must be made in order to keep U.S. citizens safe. Truman was presented with one of the hardest decisions in history, to bomb or not to bomb. The Atomic Bomb that is. He could either drop the bomb on the Japanese so that they would surrender and the war would end. Or he could invade Japan, millions of lives would have been lost in the process, and who knows when we would have seen the end of the war. Either decision clearly didn’t have a perfect outcome but I think that Truman made the best decision possible under the circumstances.
    Truman is not guilty firstly because he chose the decision which saved the most lives. When he dropped the bomb only 200,000 people were killed. Although that may sound like a huge number, the deaths that would have accumulated throughout the invasion, which was his alternate choice, and the rest of the war would have been much greater. We would have lost millions of American and Japanese lives(http://hnn.us/articles/190.html). Truman was thinking of the safety of American citizen first, which is the point of his job.
    Secondly because the bombings ended the war. After the second Atom bomb was dropped the Japanese surrendered and the war was over. Truman’s intention was to end the war with the bomb and he did. If we didn’t drop the bomb Japan wouldn’t have surrendered and the war wouldn’t have ended(http://hnn.us/articles/190.html). More lives would have been lost, more damage would have been done, and the war could have possibly gone on for years longer.
    Thirdly because the Japanese would have done the exact same thing to us. Truman weighed every option that he had before he used the bomb. He didn’t just wake up and decide one day that he wanted to bomb and destroy Japan. He used the bomb as a last option. There was a journal entry found from Japans leader stating that if he had the power to use the Atom bomb, he wouldn’t second guess its power, he would use it and he wouldn’t feel guilty(http://hnn.us/articles/190.html). This goes to show that although Truman is getting ridiculed for what he did, others out in the world would have done the same thing if they had the chance.
    Fourthly because dropping the bomb showed our strength. World War 1 and World War 2 were scary times during history. No one felt safe so it was important to show that we aren’t a force to be reckoned with. Not only did dropping the bomb win the war but it showed that we were going to take anything from anyone (http://surftofind.com/truman). Because of this we were able to show that we were strong and we were someone to wanted on your good side.
    Lastly because the bomb showed the world of it’s horror. There is a reason why the bomb hasn’t been used since that day. Because the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski showed the world the damage that it caused. It was known that the bomb was cause unthinkable damage but no one imagined how much damage it really did cause. After that day it was realized that the Atomic bomb isn’t something that should be messed with (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/supp
    lement/procon.html). In a way not only were lives saved from the war but also future lives were saved since the destruction of the atom bomb was realized.
    With all of these reasons combined it is easy to see that the right decision was to drop the bomb and no other decision would yield a good outcome. Because either situation wouldn’t give a perfect outcome Truman will always be ridiculed but I think that there isn’t enough evidence against him to be tried as a war criminal.


    Karen Maynard - 2/23/2011

    We believe that Truman was not guilty of war crimes because of the evidence that shows the bombs were a military necessity used to bring about the end of the war. This means that Truman’s decision to drop the bombs did not violate the Nuremberg Charter, because the act was justified by military necessity. Evidence of this justification is seen in the numerous alternatives to the bombs, presented by Jeff Tenuth in his jury statement, that would have resulted in more deaths. One of these other options was a land invasion of Japan, and according to documents planning these invasions, the Japanese were already ready and waiting for the Allied troops with thousands of aircraft and millions of their own troops. This invasion would have resulted in casualties far greater than those of D-Day on the beaches of Normandy. The U.S. army was actually urging Truman to adopt this plan, anticipating the deaths of a million Japanese in Kyushu and several million in Honshu, according to Richard Jensen’s jury statement. Another alternative was the option of creating a blockade, but this would have resulted in tens of millions of civilian deaths, as Jensen suggests. And yet another option, which the Air Force encouraged, was the continued, even tripled, firebombing, which probably would have prolonged the war. Given these other options, Truman chose the one that resulted in the least deaths, which therefore makes the decision militarily necessary.

    One definition of a War Crime is the murder of civilians, but there is much evidence showing that Truman did no such thing. The Atomic bombs were not dropped without warning. The U.S.A. dropped leaflets warning civilians to leave Japanese war production centers like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The majority of the civilians in these production centers did leave, and most of those who remained behind were those who were contributing to the war effort. Many people tend to believe that the bombs were a sudden occurrence, but that is not true. Millions of leaflets were dropped all over Japan’s production centers. By dropping these leaflets, Truman was making sure that these war production centers could be destroyed with minimal civilian casualties. It is not Truman’s fault that some civilians chose not to evacuate. Murder is legally defined as “The Killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought.” There are four states of mind that constitute malice, 1) Intent to kill, 2) Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death, 3) Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life, or 4) intent to commit a dangerous felony. Truman did not intend to kill civilians, nor did he intend to inflict grievous bodily harm upon them. He was also not attempting to commit a dangerous felony. As for the reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life, millions of pamphlets were dropped, warning the Japanese people about the coming attacks, and making it perfectly reasonable that any civilians would evacuate the area. When exposed to this evidence, it becomes blatantly obvious that Truman did not murder civilians. His intent was never to cause civilian deaths, it was to lessen Japan’s ability to make war by destroying critical production centers.

    One of the arguments presented by the prosecution stated that the civilians killed were noncombatants, meaning there was no justification for murdering them in the war. However, most of these civilians were actually aiding the war effort through production of weapons in the large cities such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As Richard Jensen presents in his jury statement, these large cities produced “5400 fighter planes, 1900 bombers and 3600 other warplanes” in just one year, which shows the military importance of these big cities. Larry Schweikart adds to this in his jury statement by arguing that these civilians, by not engaging in civil disobedience, or other actions that would help stop the war, and instead continuing to make weapons and vehicles for the war, “were hardly true ‘noncombatants.’” Because of their influence in the war effort, these cities and its civilians were actually important military targets.

    The prosecution accuses Truman of war crimes under Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter outlawing “the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages”. This accusation does not hold ground. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not simply cities, they were large production centers, making vast amounts of supplies that were critical to the war effort. In addition to this, according to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Hiroshima served as the headquarters for the Second Army and the Chugoku Regional Army, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port, which is in Hiroshima. Ujina port also served as home to the Army Transport Division. Nagasaki was a center of heavy industry, specializing in Ship-Building. During WWII, the Mitsubishi dockyards in Nagasaki was one of the biggest contractors for the Imperial Japanese Navy, which used Nagasaki Harbor as an anchorage point. With this evidence, it is clear that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very important to Japan’s war effort, and so were more than just simple cities.

    Finally, in response to the argument that Japan was on the verge of surrendering, and therefore should not have been bombed in order to end the war, there is compelling evidence that shows Japan was preparing for Allied attacks, not preparing to surrender. According to Richard B. Frank, a historian and lawyer, Japanese leaders refused to surrender and were planning tactics that would have resulted in many Allied deaths. And according to the U.S. Department on Energy’s history of the Manhattan project, Japanese leaders hoped “they would be able to inflict so many casualties on the Allies that Japan still might win some sort of negotiated settlement.” Even after the war, Japanese negotiators were asking for such outrageous terms that it seems highly unlikely that they were thinking about surrendering before the bombs struck. Based on this evidence, it appears that regardless of how much Japan wanted to surrender, their leaders were preparing for attacks and battles against the Allied powers that would have resulted in devastating casualties. If it weren’t for the bombs, the Japanese probably would not have surrendered for years to come, prolonging the war and causing even more unnecessary deaths.


    Leah Struble - 2/23/2011

    Jury Verdict Essay
    Leah Struble
    Jake Segall
    Reese Fisher
    Furm


    We are currently undecided. The argument can go both ways; President Truman is guilty for the wanton destruction of towns and he is not guilty of aimlessly dropping the bomb to pressure the USSR during negotiations. He made a decision that no man has ever had to make again, to drop an Atomic Bomb.
    On one side, HST dropped the bomb to prevent further military loses from the United States and the Soviet Union (1). With an estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 loses during the invasion on the mainland, it was a smart move to protect American soldiers. It also scared the Japanese into surrendering almost unconditionally, which is what the Big Three wanted. This was to ensure that no evidence of the military command was left in Japan after the war. For these reasons, the bomb was strategically necessary in WWII.
    On the other hand, after 65 fire raids that left most of the cities more than 50% destroyed, was the complete destruction of 2 cities necessary? And not 2 strategically important cities either, both showed no military importance besides a military factory in one of them. Evidence also shows that the bomb wasn’t even detonated near the factory, making this bombing questionable. Also, as Brian M. Jones states “Just as the Nazis and the Japanese were liable for war crimes, Truman is guilty for "violations of the laws or customs of war" through the "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." (3).
    For these reasons, we remain undecided. There is too much evidence both ways for us to have a definitive answer.




    1) http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_95_Notes.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Japanese_bombing
    http://hnn.us/articles/184.html


    Jess/Sam Rogers/Way - 2/22/2011

    We find President Truman to be not guilty of the charge of war crimes. We believe this because of the prosecution’s weaker argument and of Truman’s reasoning behind dropping the atomic bomb. Our first part of our reasoning is over the prosecution’s case, first of all the prosecution's argument is weak in the sense that it forces the jury to understand legal terms that the general audience would not understand, which most commonly makes up a portion of the jury. An example of this in the prosecution’s case is ‘For all their differences our two protagonists have examined the issue of the atomic bombing of Japan by a resort to arguments that in common are expressive of a single concept: that all law generally, and certainly all international law in particular, is politics’, for the jury to understand this statement, they would have to understand international law, without that understanding they could not make the connection to the politics of the time. We also found that the prosecution’s attempt to connect another event (Nanking) is a poor choice because it has nothing to do with the idea of dropping the Atomic Bomb, the prosecution is trying to set up the scene that the Atomic Bomb event was the set up to allow other atrocities. The second part of the prosecution’s argument is when the prosecution criticizes Truman for rejecting the advice of most of his generals and admirals, but the prosecution neglects to mention what advice he was given or how he analyzed it. The second part of our reasoning is over Truman’s own actions and understanding when he chose to drop the Atomic bomb. We found Truman’s attempt to end the war was justifiable though it caused many casualties for Japan; it is unrealistic to believe we could end a war with equal causalities on both sides of the war. In our opinion it was Truman’s job to protect American lives, and that is the job he carried out, may there been other choices, maybe, but with the pressure of time upon us, Truman chose the action that protected the United States. It is easy to say now what could have been done differently, but there is no real evidence to use to show that another option would have produced the same outcome. Many believe that Japan would have surrendered regardless, though is no true evidence backing this claim up. While researching we found websites that support our own opinion, one website named Debate Politics, allows people the ability to openly debate Truman’s actions bringing their own evidence to the table. Many debaters on the site believe the Atomic bombs had an alternative meaning to them to go allow with forcing Japan to surrender, it was to scare Stalin, to show him that it could happen to him. Another website titled, Best and Worst, shows a mock trail done between high school students, one group sets up a prosecution while the other the defense, ultimately the defense wins the case. This site helps in the sense that most American’s believe that is was the correct choice to drop the bomb, not the right choice. Was it correct to save American lives yes, was it right no, it was horrible that such an event had to occur.


    Sources:
    1. http://hnn.us/articles/190.html
    2. http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/85951-president-harry-truman-guilty-war-crimes.html
    3. http://www.bestandworst.com/v/136318.htm



    Carlita DeSousa - 2/22/2011

    President Harry S. Truman is guilty of "the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.” The decision to drop the atomic bombs biggest defense was to save lives and end the war with the fewest American casualties. "Despite any sophistries, its use is not to kill fighting men, but to kill women, children, and civilian men of whole cities as a pressure on governments," (Herbert Hoover). The cities targeted in the bombings were population centers not military control centers. The atomic bombs continue to effect the Japanese civilians today, causing cancer from nuclear radiation in areas. “The fact that the United States wanted to shock Japan into surrender and, hypothetically, to save more lives as well does not remove the burden of criminality,” (Philip Nobile). Even though the war ended after the second bomb was dropped it does not take away the criminal act of using nuclear warfare.
    Harry S. Truman is the most guilty out of the entire cabinet and members of the Manhattan project because he made the executive decision to drop the A-bomb. At Potsdam Japan was given the ultimatum to surrender or face utter destruction but there was no mention of the atomic bombs. Surveys conducted before and after the dropping of the atomic bombs show that Emperor Hirohito was ready to surrender and could not afford to finance the war much longer. “Three law experts from the United States, Costa Rica and Japan posing as judges recommended that the United States apologize to atomic-bomb survivors, pay damages to them and promise never to use nuclear weapons again,” (Japan Probe). The bombs were not military necessity because Truman was aware of alternate plans possible to end the war. “Here's what I think of the atom bombs. I think if you dropped an atom bomb fifteen miles offshore and you said, ‘The next one's coming and hitting you’, then I would think it's okay. To drop it on a city, and kill a hundred thousand people. Yeah. I think that's criminal,” (Jon Stewart). Leaflet’s that threaten entire cities during a war can be seen as propaganda, how were the Japanese suppose to know the atomic bomb was even real.
    Harry Truman is guilty for destroying Japanese cities and civilians lives for decades after the war. Even though the war ended for the Americans the Japanese still have to deal with effects the atomic bombs had on their society. “I imagine if we had lost the war, I'd be tried for it," (Phillip Morrison). If the atomic bombs would have angered the Japanese even further into warfare the Manhattan project members would be the ones paying for it. Harry Truman would try to escape all responsibility if the bombs would not have ended the war directly. Innocent Japanese civilians continue to die from the decisions of Harry Truman and this is why he is guilty of being a war criminal.


    Caitlyn Falsone Alex Moutevelis - 2/22/2011

    Truman is guilty because there was no need to kill innocent civilians. Although he was trying to get his point across, he could have done this in ways that did not involve all the civilians. He could have aimed toward killing their army. Dresner said, basically, that he was only getting revenge for Pearl Harbor and he didn't care about much besides that. He also never thought out what other options he had and he only cared about ruining the economy and terrorizing Japan. He did not follow the rules of warfare and was only worried about our country and no one else.
    http://hnn.us/articles/183.html

    1. Civilians must not be attacked.
    2. Civilian objects (houses, hospitals, schools, places of worship, cultural or historic monuments, etc.) must not be attacked.
    3. It is prohibited to attack objects that are indispensable to the survival of the civilian population (foodstuffs, farming areas, drinking water installations, etc.).
    4. It is prohibited to attack dams, levee or nuclear power plants if such an attack may cause severe losses among the civilian population. http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=1851&;;tid=006
    These four rules were broken by the invasion of Japan since Truman targeted towards hurting civilians and all the objects belonged to them. Again, he was not worried about the lives of civilians, he was only worried about getting revenge on Japan.

    This website tells about all the damage that nuclear weapons do to people and the environment. Along with killing many from the impact, it gives off radio active rays that can hurt people later in their life. Also, it can hurt people hundreds of miles away so many people were affected by it. If not death, there can be other painful effects. The rays can cause cancer, keloids, and cataracts. It can also hurt any fetuses inside the mother at the time of the dropping of the bomb.
    http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/97e/peace/e/06/bakugeki.htm
    http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm


    Kelsy Ann Lelko - 2/22/2011

    I think that Truman is guilty of war crimes because he dropped the bomb. He did not have to drop the bomb on Japan; there were many other things that He could have done than drop the bomb. Like Jonathan Dresner said “The defense does not accept the prosecution’s premise that there are absolute limits on weapons and methods.” I agree with this because there are things that can and are done in war and then there are things that should not be done because it is too brutal. The bomb was beyond the limits of what there are for war. Also the bomb hurt and killed many innocent Japanese people that did not have anything to do with the war. Jonathan Dresner says “That civilians can be killed in military operations in now enshrined in our language: ‘collateral damage’ rather than ‘innocent bystander.’” I think this is important because if they think it is okay to take an innocent person’s life doing what is not even necessary. There were thousands of people that got killed from this bombing and they had nothing to do with the war. Then there were just as many people that were injured for life and even their children have the effects of the bomb. There are still people today that show the effects of what the bomb did years ago. Brian Madison Jones said “Destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.” I think that this is important to point out because they still bombed Japan even though it was not justified as a necessity. If it were a necessity then it would not be considered a war crime because it was needed to help end the war. Also Brian Madison Jones states “Truman sought simply to ravage Japan, devastating cities so completely as to shock Japan into unconditional surrender.” I agree with this because Truman dropping the bomb made Japan struggle and shocked them because they did not know what to do with the bomb. It scared Japan and they did not want to deal with any more bombs being dropped on them so they gave up. This is what Truman wanted Japan to do after dropping the bomb. Arnold A. Offner says, “ Politicians like HST and Byrnes did not believe bombing was wanton destruction so much as forcing the other side to quit an indescribably horrible war.” I think this is an important thing that is said because some people do not think it was a good idea to drop the bomb but it did help to end the war. There could have been other things that we could have done but they might not have had such an impact on Japan that it would make them give up and surrender. Dropping the bomb was not the smartest thing to do, and it also caused a lot of destruction and death that it would have been better to do it a different way, but it did end the war. I think that Truman is guilty because he dropped the bomb on Japan and they suffered a lot of damage and pain and I think that someone does need to pay for what happened.


    Lauren Moerschbacher - 2/22/2011

    We believe that Truman is not guilty. R. John Pritchard says that the military can do anything that is necessary to win the war. We think that if this did not happen then many of our people would have died and it would have been a greater number of people that died. He also states that the military can do what they feel will bring justice. I think that by doing this Truman is trying to bring justice even though people are getting killed.

    http://hnn.us/articles/176.html

    Oscar B. Chamberlain has a point that Japan had a lot of hate towards us and were in the process of creating a bomb specifically for us. If they would have made this they would have used it on us and therefore we used it first before anything got too out of hand. He also says that Truman believed that Japan would’ve surrendered after we used the bomb, and it was too difficult to attack them any other way. Japan was waiting for our soldiers on the shores and many of our soldiers would have been slaughtered if we decided to attack them that way.

    http://hnn.us/articles/179.html


    Truman was very different from Hitler, Jeff Tenuth brings a good point that Truman’s intent was to end a war and was for military purposes, but Hitler’s intent was to cut out a certain group of people based on their beliefs. Truman did this for the better of the country and to save more people, and Hitler did it just to kill people and to try and take control.

    http://hnn.us/articles/182.html

    On this webiste below it states that 80 percent of American soldiers would have lost their lives if the bomb would not have been dropped. This is a good point because many more people would have died and we do not know how long the war would have gone on if this was not done, so this was the best solution to end the war.

    http://www.bestandworst.com/v/136318.htm

    On this website it says that most of the American people were behind Truman and wanted to drop the bomb in order to save lives. They also believed that Truman dropped the bomb just for military reasons and so he was not committing war crimes because he had a good intent for dropping the bomb.

    http://www.essortment.com/did-president-truman-drop-atomic-bomb-61496.html


    Emily Saylor - 2/22/2011

    I believe that Harry S. Truman is guilty of war crimes. The claims that prosecute Truman heavily outweigh the claims that defend him. For example, according to Philip Nobille, the atomic bomb was “an experimental terror weapon”. In this situation, Truman did not know what drastic effects there would be on Japan so many years later. If he did not have all of the information, he should not have taken such a huge risk. According to Workers World website, “All the U.S. senior generals and admirals, including Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Admiral William Leahy, told him it was unnecessary to use the A-bomb to defeat Japan.” Truman had so many people advising him against using the bomb, but he went through with it anyway. It took the lives of many innocent civilians in the country that were not necessary. According to Brian Jones, Japan was on the edge of surrendering anyway, so there was no need to bomb Japan once, let alone twice. Many Americans lives may have been saved, but think of the image we are sending to the rest of the world. The United States is too selfish to care about the lives of other innocent citizens in other countries. As long as we keep our people alive, everything will be just fine. Right? The United States is already looked down on by some other countries, do we really need to continue this trend? Jonathan Dresner looks at this in a comical fashion, using the old “well they were mean first” trick. Again, what message does that send to the rest of the world? That the United States uses childish antics to justify their actions? According to “Harry S. Truman: Advancing the Revolution” by Ralph Raico, Truman later gave many contradictory reasons as to why he dropped the bombs. It seems as if he wasn’t even so sure himself. If he would have thought through the realities a bit more, he probably could have saved even more innocent lives in the process. Jonathan Dresner says, “I am not in favor of losing wars against unprincipled aggressive enemies. But I am also not in favor of becoming an unprincipled aggressor.” If a war “needs” to be won, it is not necessary to take these incredibly drastic measures that are not justified. R. John Pritchard uses the US Military Tribunal in the High Command Case saying, "It has been the viewpoint of many German writers… that military necessity includes the right to do anything that contributes to the winning of a war.” But why was this considered military necessity? There are reasons to believe that this was not needed to make Japan surrender. Finally, according to Shannon Harrington of Bloomberg, people of Japan still felt the effects of radiation 60 years after the bombs had been dropped. If Harry Truman did not realize this would happen, he should have never dropped the bombs, and if he did realize this would happen, he still never should have dropped the bombs. In the end, the dropping of the atomic bombs was not necessary, therefore, Harry Truman is guilty of war crimes.


    Chelsea Nicole Boucher - 2/22/2011

    Essay
    The winners always get to convict the losers of war crimes, but are they exempted simply because they won? They went to the same lengths, possibly further since they won, during war and pushed the same moral boundaries as those who they accused after the fact. And yet, they walk away unquestioned, with a clean slate. In elementary school, if a bully gets into a fight with someone, even if he wins, they both get in trouble for fighting. They are both punished. Why do we not apply this simple, elementary concept to the real world as well? Being blessed with power does not give one the right to abuse it and ignore justice because of self-interest.

    When 9/11 occurred the U.S. was shocked. As soon as we recovered from our speechlessness and found our voices we called for revenge. 2,819 in total perished from that horrible, tragic event, a staggering statistic. We were outraged, how could someone ever do something so horrible to us? It was uncalled for, we said. We are not even at war with them. Why us? We ask these unanswerable questions without remembering that we were once on the other side. But instead of killing two thousand, we took the lives of more than 200,000, in just one day. How is that ever justified? From the Japanese perspective, the war was almost over. They were preparing to surrender. How could we, the U.S., do something so awful? The fact is, that taking so many lives instantly with just the press of a button is never called for.

    As young children we are constantly told to take the high road, to be the bigger person. To admit our faults and mistakes. The Japanese have admitted that both sides took things too far during the war. That both sides are guilty of war crimes. We, however, shy away from the notion that the American government could have ever done something so horribly wrong. We are quick to accuse others, Nazis, Japanese, of wrongdoing but instead of admitting our own faults and mistakes we deny that we committed war crimes. And because we won, we cannot be questioned.

    Some say that we did it to protect ourselves. We claim that unfathomable numbers of U.S. as well as Japanese soldiers would have died if we had not made such a bold statement. By dropping these bombs, lives were saved, not taken. Especially American lives. As Americans, we always should and will route for America. Yet, what makes American lives more valuable than Japanese? In the end we are all just people who care about the welfare of our family, friends, jobs, and lives. So who are we to make up statistics about saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans just to make ourselves feel better about the terrible actions we committed.

    Some say it is unAmerican to even think of questioning the past actions of American ‘hero's’. They say that our generation is ungrateful for what theirs did for us. We were not there, we cannot appreciate the sacrifices and choices they were forced to make. Yet, the point of history in itself is to learn about past mistakes so that they are not repeated. So that we can learn from them. If we do not question past decisions how can we ever challenge our beliefs? As Americans, we practice our right to freedom of speech when we say that President Harry Truman is guilty of committing war crimes. We are not exempt from conviction of war crimes simply because of the power we hold from winning. We can never return those hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives, but we can acknowledge our mistakes and apologize. We recognize that they were people too, not just numbers, with lives as important as our own. We believe that Truman is guilty and should be convicted of war crimes.

    http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm

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

    http://hnn.us/articles/184.html

    http://hnn.us/articles/183.html

    http://hnn.us/articles/174.html


    kelage david chenenco - 2/22/2011

    I agree. I think Truman did the right thing and killed LESS people in general by dropping the atomic bomb, then by continuing the war. He did what was best for his country, what would protect us, and what is morally right, though some would argue it is not, it is for the reason that LESS people were killed by dropping the atomic bomb. More people would have died if the war continued.
    f it weren't for the atomic bombs being dropped, the war would have gone on for a lot longer because neither side showed any sign of surrender at the time, and that would have resulted in many more casualties for both sides than the atomic bomb produced. And our job in warfare isn't to protect Japanese soldiers or civilians, it's to keep America safe and to win the war as soon as possible to try to bring peace. Japan is now a strong ally of ours anyway. So do the ends justify the means? Not every time, but in this case I think it definitely is justified; which is why Truman
    We have come to the conclusion that Harry Truman is not guilty for his actions on Japan. If the Japanese had developed the A-bomb they would have immediately used it on American homeland. The government gave a forewarning that the bomb was going to be dropped, and after the first bomb, they warned them again. The Japanese Emperor threatened anybody who would mention the word surrender. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military bases, and most of the citizens had a part in the war. Without the atomic bomb, the war would have continued, and it would have been far worse than the effect of the A-bomb. Truman did not intend to commit “fiendish” slaughters. To be guilty of the bombing, Truman and his associates would indeed have to conspire the slaughtering of many Japanese civilians.
    They were very close to having the atomic bomb ready to bomb us. We had to bomb them to end the war before they killed the American citizens. So Truman is not guilty for what he did because he did warn them and they didn't listen so he had to take of the American citizens first.Thats why we don't think he is guilty. Saige and Kelton


    Pistone Wright Kurzinger - 2/22/2011

    Prosecution Opening
    -Accusing Truman, Clinton and Truman’s “atomic cabinet” of being bad people.
    -Truman is not guilty in his actions because he was just defending his country. It wasn’t the best way to go about killing people but there are no rules to war and he can do whatever he wants without being guilty.
    -If Truman didn’t drop the bomb, then odds are, a bomb would have been dropped on us
    -It is fair that Truman dropped the bombs on Japan because he was simply keeping America’s freedom, and freedom isn’t free
    -Japan was also warned that we had bombs, and could drop them anywhere, any time, so Japan could have easily persuaded the United States to not drop them on Japan
    -America was simply getting revenge on Japan, Japan attacked the US first (Pearl Harbor)
    America was showing Japan that we were offended by the bold feelings towards America

    Prosecution Close
    -It is true that thousands of people died in this bombing, but as harsh as it sounds, if we didn’t attack them first, then we’re putting our country in jeopardy
    -For all we know, that bomb could have been dropped on us
    -It is also good that Truman dropped the bomb because this ended the World War, who knows how long the war would have gone if the bombs weren’t dropped.
    - Without dropping the bomb we may have been bombed first (like state above,) but also, we would’ve been viewed as a “coward” of a country, making ourselves more vulnerable for attacks.

    Defense Opening
    -Japan knew about our strength, we fire bombed Japan before we dropped the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They should have been apprehensive of every move that the US was going to make next
    -Japan knew this was coming, it’s not like this just came down from the sky (actually, ironically enough it did)
    - If Truman decided not to drop the bomb then, it was highly possible that Japan would have done it to the U.S.
    - Truman was just doing what he thought was best for the safety of America.

    Defense Close
    -Truman was a man of courage, and the secret to happiness is freedom, and the secret to freedom is courage.
    -Basically, if Japan would have ended the war OR not attacked Pearl Harbor, none of this would have happened, but Japan DIDN’T end the war and the DID attack Pearl Harbor, so Truman made the right decision to drop the atomic bombs on them. Case Closed, have a nice day.

    RANDOM:
    Without the dropping of the atomic bomb it would’ve came back to haunt us. (If we didn’t do it, they most likely would have.)


    Tulsa Lose - 2/22/2011

    What would you do if you were faced with a situation of killing some and saving more or doing the opposite? Would you have the guts to make the call? How would you know what was right? The answer is you would never know. Either path you chose people would ridicule you and tell you that you should have chosen the other path. You have to do the best with what you’re choices are and go from there. This is what Truman did. He could either kill 200,000 Japanese with an A-bomb, or he could have an invasion and kill millions of people (http://hnn.us/articles/173.html). Either way people were going to die. He just chose to kill less of them and people are ridiculing him for it. Therefore, Truman is not guilty for dropping the A-bombs.
    Truman also gave the Japanese a choice to leave before they dropped the bombs. If the Japanese recognized the threat the United States was issuing, then they would have left. The dropped thousands of leaflets telling the Japanese what was coming (http://hnn.us/articles/177.html). It’s their fault they did not leave, not Truman’s. Why would you choose to stay when you knew that an A-bomb was coming? Only the Japanese who chose to stay can answer that question.
    Truman was able to end the war with the atomic bombs. If they had not dropped them, then the Japanese would not have surrendered and the war would have gone on (http://hnn.us/articles/173.html). More lives would have been lost on both sides if that would have happened. It was the right decision because it ended the war quickly and less lives were lost. Truman dropped the bombs on August 6 and 9, 1945 (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/teacher/abomb.htm). He used these to bombs to let the Japanese know that they needed to surrender to end the war that neither country wanted to continue in. Japan needed less than a week to surrender. August 15, 1945 they flew the white flag (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20010805a5.html).
    Truman is not guilty for dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had he chosen not to drop the bombs and go ahead with the invasion, people still would have said that he chose wrong. He saved a lot of lives by making this decision and he is definitely not guilty.


    Selena Richards - 2/10/2011

    There is not enough evidence at all to say guilty or not.


    ted bohne - 8/13/2010

    I believe the quote states; "in the kingdom of the witless, the halfwit is king." "Graves of Academie" this statement would describe the US clearly and unequivocally.


    josh carl catral - 3/11/2010

    We agree that Truman is not guilty of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. The Japanese were demanding of power and the way they went about doing so wasnt right at all. Sinking pearl harbor, a US ship many people were on, and terrorism. They asked for it when they sunk our ship so Truman wanted to show them what happens when you mess with America. We are not saying that what Truman did was for revenge but he did have a lot of reasons to make it so that he wouldnt feel as guilty for doing it because they had it coming.


    David Austin Walsh - 3/11/2010

    To all of the students posting:

    I'd like to bring to your attention the articles we have up on the main page that are relevant to the bombings, specifically Peter Kuznick's interview (he's a scholar of nuclear history, among other things) and Ron Radosh's riposte from a conservative perspective.

    Hopefully, you find the articles stimulating for your debate!


    josh carl catral - 3/11/2010

    i agree with you. I think also that if the bomb wasn't dropped, there would be far more casualties. If we would of gone to war with japan, millions of lives would be taken.


    josh carl catral - 3/9/2010

    I agree with your verdict completely. Who's to say if we decided to give Japan the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't have done the same exact thing? Japan was never planning on surrendering anytime soon and who would want to just sit around, hoping that things will smooth out by themselves. The atom bomb was the only way out in my opinion. It might have been a quick and rash decision but in the end it got the expected results: the war ended. No, Japan probably isn't happy with the fact that a lot of their people died but in all war there is death, it just comes with the package. So in the end they could blame their peoples death's on the Bomb but honestly, they would have died regardless if the war were to continue and probably even more than that.


    Luke Jones - 3/5/2010

    I don't agree with you because, although you bring up good points, you still miss the fact that it was a close, intense war and we are putting America's safety before anyone else's, even if that means bombing a populated city, where war supplies were being produced. Not to mention they wre given fair warning to evacuate.


    Luke Jones - 3/5/2010

    This wasn't a very hard choice for me or my collaborator. We both chose that Truman should be found Not Guilty of War Crimes for his bombings on Japan, and especially the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. First off, have you ever heard the phrase "All is fair in love and war"? Well that definitely has some truth to it because if they're going to wage all out warfare, like in World War 2, they need to go in with a do-whatever-it-takes attitude; So essentially almost any act of the armed forces, especially a necessary bombing that won U.S.A the war, to be called a "war crime", is a petty and frivolous statement and those who believe it was criminal need to understand the severity of warfare and the importance and urgency of Truman's act. The atomic bombing wasn't an attack on civilians (as there were many evacuation warnings), but it was a powerful attack on the big cities where a lot war supply production was going on, and it was a statement to show the capacity of the power of America's military. If it weren't for the atomic bombs being dropped, the war would have gone on for a lot longer because neither side showed any sign of surrender at the time, and that would have resulted in many more casualties for both sides than the atomic bomb produced. And our job in warfare isn't to protect Japanese soldiers or civilians, it's to keep America safe and to win the war as soon as possible to try to bring peace. Japan is now a strong ally of ours anyway. So do the ends justify the means? Not every time, but in this case I think it definitely is justified; which is why Truman should be held Not Guilty.


    Matt Clymer - 3/5/2010

    I have to agree with you guys. Under international law, all direct killing of non-combatants is a war crime. His decision cannot really be justified. I mean he wiped out almost two complete cities. And you were right saying that American cannot be exempt from international law. It doesn't matter who wins a war, I feel like everybody needs to be put on trial if they commit a crime as big as Trumans.


    Brock and Abraham karg and parvin - 3/4/2010

    Brock and I fully agree with your statements. All these reasons were the ones that I thought were the strongest and defended Truman the best. I agree that Truman had no intent on killing so many people all he wanted was to get Japan to surrender. I also feel that the only reason he didn't use other alternatives was because the death toll would have been higher than the use of the abomb. Good Work...


    History Truman - 3/4/2010

    "...if not millions of men, women and children on both sides continued to die in conventional warfare." If he tried to end the war way did he kill majority of women and children? He should have killed the leaders or the soldiers in the army.


    Josh Kunig - 3/4/2010

    please go read our essay, Truman Turkey Essay. you will understand why we need the atomic bomb dropped where it was.


    Josh Kunig - 3/4/2010

    well first off the innocent people that you are talking about were in fact linked into the military. The civilians living their were working on weapons for the army including an atomic bomb project. and yes in fact we did save lives because if Russia and the other Allied powers started to invade those Japanese casualties would have sky rocketed. Japan was willing to sacrifice their whole country in order to win the war. that nation includes women and children.


    Josh Kunig - 3/4/2010

    did you just copy and paste information without actually trying to understand it? that was not the point of the assignment and just a waste of readers times. I personally stopped reading after you used information from the Truman is not guilty side for Truman is guilty. you found correct info but not for what you say it was making your information false.

    ps Adam that was a great time ripping on this essay during class lol


    Josh Kunig - 3/4/2010

    Something We forgot to add in our essay, the numbers that everyone is flashing in our faces aren't as bad as the alternatives.If you want to count numbers think about it this way. If we didn't drop the bomb we would have continued to firebomb them. If we didn't drop the bomb Russia would have invaded, as well as the U.S. Japan and Russia were both working on weapons of mass destruction, and there are statements from military leaders on both sides saying they would have dropped a bomb once their projects were finished. and if you don't believe me just take a look when the nuclear arms race started, its the same year. So we went from taking out 250,000 people to 5,700,000 people, that is almost 23 times the amount of people. the number difference to high to ignored.


    Josh Kunig - 3/4/2010

    You guys are just throughout around the phrase innocent people too freely without actually realizing what you are saying. please before you start running your mouth about how these people are innocent, think about why we bombed Hiroshima for example. the reason is because it has the least non-military civilians. Now understand there were alot of civilians but the majority worked/manufactured weapons for the war. one of those including an atomic bomb of their own. they were engineers for their army thus making them in the army.

    When you complain about the birth defects of children after the bombing it is not as common as you make it seem. only one 1000 of these cases ever happened. 800 recorded, im giving you a little leeway because there always could be more.

    I like the character comparison but you could have chosen someone better than darth vader.


    Josh Kunig - 3/4/2010

    Just a quick question. how are we being one sided if we used direct quotes from Japanese military leaders. Please read what you are trying disprove before you post. Thank you.


    marina roel - 3/4/2010

    I think Janee makes an excellent point, whats done is done. Years later we are analyzing his choice to drop the bomb. This should have been analyzed right after it happened. I think if we had lost the war then it would have been. What the bomb did is inexcusable and wrong. The number of lives that were lost was not worth it but I feel undecided just as you do. Even after knowing most of the details it is hard to make a conviction.


    Lauren White - 3/4/2010

    Lauren and I disagree. We feel that Truman was guilty. He was guilty of killing innocent people and he was guilty of commiting war crimes under Article 6 of the Nuremberg Trial. Sure, maybe there were people that were working and manufacturing weapons for Japan, but there were also many innocent civilians that had nothing to do with war manufacturing and got killed. Don't you think that if this happened to our country we would be considering them guilty of war crimes? If this happened to us it could have killed many loved ones and that is precisely what happened to Japan. We killed many of their loved ones who were innocent and did not deserve to die. Of course this was his way to ending the war, but there could have been many other alternatives that Truman could have done to end the war more peacefully than he did. Giving them just a two day warning was not enough to keep people safe. Truman used this bomb as an experiment and he could have just as easily done this experiment on a military base and not killed as many innnocent people. In the closing prosecution it was stated that Japan would have surrendered without the bombs being dropped, so was it really necessary? Truman could have made sure that what he was doing was not going to hurt many people. He could have tested the bomb somewhere else and they could have found a more peaceful way to end the war. Wouldn't that have been better for everyone?


    Donavon Frances Partsch - 3/4/2010

    You make some very decent points. However you have forgotten that Harry Truman had a general idea of what this bomb was capable of. He knew that innocent civilians could and would probably be killed. Further more the Japanese people where not wrong for helping with the manufacturing of bombs, planes and ammunition. Are working class in the United States, was doing the same thing. If the Japanese are guilty then so are we. It was a broken law. Its nationalism.

    Also I guarantee that if you where to go to Japan today, many of the people over there would not agree the bomb was a "gift from heaven". The destruction in these cities caused where catastrophic. The bomb was so horrible that it actually incinerated some of the bodies into the sidewalks. And some of them are still there today.

    Further more Harry Truman had to have known the mass casualties that would come from this. He had been given estimated numbers. An estimated 3 million deaths (American) for an invasion of Japan. Where as the estimated casualties from the A-Bombs where around 100,thousand. Not mentioning the aftermath of the nuclear fallout that followed that.

    As nice as it is to think that Harry Truman did not want to kill all those people, the fact remains that he did this. The Nuremburg Charter exist for a reason. To stop things like this from happening. War is hell, as they say. There has not been a single war in which there have not been civilian casualties. But with this, this was a direct attempt to rack up casualties. If Hiroshima was a military target then the same could be said for the city of Detroit which was also manufacturing bombs planes and ammunition for the American war effort.


    Greg Wenner and Mike Faussette - 3/4/2010

    We agree with you guys. In addition to all of your arguments, we'd also like to add the fact that we don't think there are really "rules" to war. When countries are using as much resources and effort to put the opposing one down, sacrificing people and money and effort just to kill the other, neither side really thinks about the "rules." The objective is simply to defeat the other side with the least amount of casualties, and Truman did just that. one of the jurors in this debate, said, " if saving a single one of my soldiers can be achieved by any means, I'll take it." Now that may be extreme, but think of this. Realizing that everyone is equal, who would you rather have die? 200,000 people in Japan or 200,000 people here? All Truman did was take that extra step to make sure that our 200,000 did not perish.


    Aidan Stromer - 3/4/2010

    Great post guys. Right on with the leaders killing anyone who said the word surrender. It was true. Truman had had many options to handle the situation and he chose the one that saved the most people. With a land invasion, we would have paid with five to ten million Japanese deaths and between 1.7 million and 4 million American casualties, including perhaps 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities. The same number of Japanese deaths would have occurred if the fire bombings would have continued as you correctly pointed out. Spot on info gentlemen.


    Greg Wenner and Mike Faussette - 3/4/2010

    @Rerko- We agree with you, Dan. It was used as military necessity to END the war before they could take that extra step to do it to us. The bombing took out the major productions of the war that supplied the Japanese, thus rendering them defenseless and totally weakened. "WW2 was a war of production and almost all the Japanese war production came from its large cities" -http://hnn.us/articles/177.html

    @Nicholson- I believe there are no "rules" in total war. They are morals that are suggested by many. What if someone does not follow the rules, yet still wins they war? Wat punishment will they get? None. They choose who gets to gets punish and you can guess who will receive the "justified penalties." If the Nazi's would have won, who knows how the Allies' countries would be now? After WW2, we took advantage of the situation and economically destroyed their country. Do you think they would not have don the same to us? The so called "rules" are determined by the victor.


    Greg Wenner and Mike Faussette - 3/4/2010

    I agree that Truman is not guilty because it was necessary to drop the bomb on Japan. If Truman wouldn't of dropped the bomb then there would of been an invasion which could of meant a lot of American lives lost. I believe it was a smart decision to drop the bomb because, it made Japan surrender and was basically the closer for WWII. We gave Japan a fair warning before and they were to determined to win the war and they paid the consequence by killing Japanese citizens. I believe that it was a smart decision on Truman's part and he should not be tried as a war criminal.


    History Truman - 3/4/2010

    I think you did not go deep enough with your verdict. Which means that you do not totally agree that he is not guilty. However, I disagree with you, because he is guilty of war crime. He had multiple choices which he could pick from. The opening arguments of the prosecution by Philip Nobile stated, "Mr. President, you were swamped with alternatives to a sneak atomic attack. Stimson, your chief of staff Admiral William Leahy, Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy, former Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew, Navy Under Secretary Ralph Bard, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they all urged you to demonstrate the bomb and/or give a specific warning and/or change the terms of surrender to allow Japan to keep the Emperor. Even Churchill pressed you at Potsdam to relent on Hirohito, which was the main sticking point for the Japanese, as the MAGIC intercepts revealed. But you refused every entreaty, every appeal. You and Byrnes were hell-bent on dropping the bomb on two defenseless cities as soon as possible. What was the hurry? The invasion was three months off" Truman had other alternatives but also he was so eager to drop the A-bomb that he dropped the bomb way too early. He obviously used "to end the war quickly" as an excuse to use the bomb.


    Mowery Daniels - 3/4/2010

    Madden Rose; The second bomb may not have been necessary, however no one knows if it was or not. You cant convict someone by opinion and that is what your point is, an opinion or your guess of what would have happened. Japan was very convinced to fight to the end and the bombings of both cities was very possibly a necessary action, and since we don't actually know, and you cant convict on anything less than facts he should be considered not guilty.


    Casher Clayton belinda barkman - 3/4/2010

    I also agree with your point of view on Truman. Any option that did not involve Atomic weaponry would simply have been unsuccessful or caused even more casualties than the bombs did. First off we gave Japan a fair warning of the power that we had and exactly how we were going to apply it if they did not comply and surrender. There was no plan of surrender by Japan. If you think about it logically, there is almost complete proof that dropping the bombs actually saved lives because Japan was not willing to surrender after the first one was dropped. They kept fighting until they literally had run out of the power that was needed to fight. Not to mention the president of the United States would not be in his right mind if he did not think one of his citizens was worth a world of others. As Chamberlain said, "I concur. The aggression of Germany and Japan required a brutal response."


    Casher Clayton belinda barkman - 3/4/2010

    I completely agree with Garrett that this is most definitely the most well thought out and accurate response that has been posted by our classes. Lauren White or whomever is really starting to anger me with her illogical views on the situation. Truman made the right choice defending the citizens who elected him to represent them, rather then letting them dive into the open jaws of the unforgiving persistence of the Japanese. We gave them a fair warning time again, and, against their own emperors pleading they refused to surrender, even with the knowledge of the power that we had. One American life is worth more than any other life. That is how Truman has to see it, or he should not have been president of the United States of AMERICA. We saved more lives than would have been lost in pain staking ground combat regardless. I think Truman should be awarded for having the guts to make such a brave decision for his country. As one says in the opening: “It occurred to me that a quarter million of the flower of our American youth were worth a couple of Japanese cities, and I still think they were and are.”

    Those of you who like Aiden’s check out Belinda/Barkman’s


    Casher Clayton belinda barkman - 3/4/2010

    "We felt this because his intentions were not to kill as many people as he could or to destroy cities, he simply just wanted to end the war." I agree with this statement. I don't think you can accuse Truman of being a war criminal when Truman's intentions were not to kill. "ment is that there was a treat that the Japanese were going to do the same to us. We couldn’t have just sat back and let Japan do even more harm to our country." I also agree with this, I think that dropping the bombs made a statement and ended the war. I think because we were so deep into a deadly war that this is what needed to happen. I think its one thing to drop bombs on a country that is week and losing moral, but Japan was not in that position. Japan was not about to surrender. As Larry Schweikart said japans Imperial leaders "threatened to kill anyone who mentioned the word surrender" so i agree with you that the bombs needed to be dropped to send a message to japan and end the war, And because this was a quick way to end the war i agree that Truman is not guilty.


    PhilJawn MartynPhil SebKen - 3/3/2010

    ^^meant to post this at the end...

    "Japanese authorities fail to admit their own responsibility for the war, or indeed, to acknowledge candidly in their own nation their country's sordid history of brutality and war crimes. The fact is that without the use of the A-bomb, Japan more than likely would not have surrendered, despite all of its serious problems. Its army had built up to 900,000 soldiers ready to defend against the planned American invasion of Kyushu, and would have been able to totally crush the first wave of invaders."


    Ngamassi Smith - 3/3/2010

    Ngamassi says sometimes you have to break the law to make achieve your goals. The goal was to win the war, and we did. So ha. Dropping the bomb was an easier way to win without America getting hurt in the process. John Pritchard says it was an act of defense which is exactly what it was.

    Smith says that the law was made for a reason and those laws weren't made just for guidelines; he was accused of a war criminal and if he fits the guidelines then that makes him a war criminal. War isn't an easy problem and should be solved in the safest way we can, especially since war causes so many deaths in itself. America is NOT the only country on this world and we should take into account more than just the lives of Americans.


    Emily Costello - 3/3/2010

    I agree with your 1, 3, and 5. However I do not agree with 2 and 4. I think that it is true that it was an act of defense and that we felt that that was the only way we could end the war.
    http://hnn.us/articles/179.html
    10. Because the mass killing of civilians had already become an end in itself, Truman and the military leaders most involved in the war against Japan had no moral difficulty in jumping from firebombing to nuclear weapons.
    I also agree that the war would have continued for a long time without the dropping of the atomic bomb
    15. Given the US insistence on occupation and transformation of Japan as conditions of surrender, the use of the Bombs may have been the least costly road to peace.
    As for the 5th one i don't think i could ever put myself in that position, but if i were i think i would have made the same decision.

    I don not agree though with 2 and 4. I think a life is a life and even though I would want to save someone close to me, I don't think that you can say someones life is more important than another.

    I agree with the part of 4 saying that it isn't right for them to be "above the law" so to speak, and i don't think that we should be blamed for dropping the atomic bomb when they dropped the bomb on Pearl Harbor. I don't know that i agree that we should fight fire with fire and bomb them because they bombed us. i think we should do it out of defense, but not out of spite.


    Girouard Wirtz - 3/3/2010

    We do not agree with you at all. Your summary was too simple to show all of the points of the war. In response to the only argument you made, that they were warned, you don't mention the very short amount of time that they warned them in before they destroyed all of the human lives they lived there, many of which were not involved in the war. You don't talk about why what he did made he not be considered a war criminal.


    Brock and Abraham karg and parvin - 3/3/2010

    Brock and I were on the side of not guilty. I had never thought of the fact in which Rerko states is that the civilians could have been a threat. Because if they see we're fighting a war they're most likely going to stand up for their country and fight back at Americans. Also I think Rerko was justified in saying that the bomb was necessary because Japan really had no intention of surrender.

    Also Nicholson points out that under definition Truman is in fact a criminal but the he used military necessity. Fire bombing was just as bad as the abomb if not worst and the death toll would have risen if we sent in more troops.


    Sarah Elizabeth Doweny - 3/3/2010

    We agree because we were defending ourselves. and there was a weak arguement to prove that he was in fact guilty of war crimes. Truman was trying to save the country. What else was there to possibly do


    josh carl catral - 3/3/2010

    I believe that Truman is not guilty. I think this because he saved more people than he killed. By dropping the bomb, it put a complete end to the war. If he wouldn't of dropped the bomb, we would of had to take time to militarize the united states which costs money and takes time. We would of also had to go to war with Japan, which would cost lives.


    Elaine and Dani Tillotson and Fantaskey - 3/3/2010

    We agree that Truman is not guilty because his actions were a military necessity. Yeah, killing thousands of people is not right but like they stated, Truman wasn't killing people just to kill them. Hitler's goal was to kill and slaughter thousands of people because he didn't think they were correct in society. That classifies Hitler as a war criminal. Truman's intentions were for the purpose to end the war. If the bombs wouldn't have been dropped, who is to say how long the war would have continued on for? I also agree with you guys when you stated who is to say that the Japanese wouldn't of done the same thing to the United States? You made some good points.I do believe that killing innocent people is not morally right, but in this case I think Truman made the right decision by taking action to protect his country. Therefore, making Truman innocent.


    Garrett Nicholson and Dan Rerko - 3/3/2010

    How can you say that he didn't care about the Japanese people? As Radosh said in his closing statements, the projections for a full-scale invasion of Japan would have left Japan with 1.7 casualties. As far as I am concerned, that is MUCH better than the maximum estimated total of 250,000 civilian deaths by two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    On top of this, these were not completely innocent civilians that had participated in any military organization during the war. At this time, every able civilian was preparing for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese homeland. Arms production was going on in homes. Civilians were preparing for war. In the event of an invasion, civilian and soldier would be fighting side by side, therefore making them the same on a battlefield. They were not completely innocent, they were a target that can be justified by military necessity.
    On top of that, how is it our fault that the Japanese government was too stubborn to warn their people of impending destruction. We gave them warning, and we gave them a chance to prevent this. They could have made some sort of attempt to warn their citizens in order to prevent this. They could have accepted our offer of unconditional, peaceful surrender and prevented this tragedy from ever happening. They did not accept surrender, so we went forward with the attack; an attack that was justified by military necessity. (See my post, I do not feel like typing my whole paper here.)
    In conclusion, there are many flaws in your opinion based statements. There is historical evidence against your statements, which will prove Harry S. Truman as 100% not guilty of the charges of war crimes.


    Ngamassi Smith - 3/3/2010

    Ngamassi says that this is true and very good. Larry Shweikart talks about the Pearl Harbor incident, which I also believe is good point. Why are we the only ones getting blamed?

    Smith says that Larry's comparison is not something to be compared to the death of 300,000+ people. Japan attacked marines who were prepared for war, and they sent a warning, the only thing is, it got to the US late and that's why it was a suprise attack. It's nothing like Pearl Harbor, and I think that's a unfair comparison.


    Donavon Frances Partsch - 3/3/2010

    I must admit Adam . You bring up some very good arguements. However we must remind ourselves that Franklin Delano Roosevelt is not on trial. This trial poses a simple question ? Was the atomic bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which took place from August 3rd 1945 to August 6th 1945 a "Military Necessity ?" There where civilian casualties from these bombs. And these casualties increases of years. Birth defects, mutations and many other horrible abnormalities occurred in young Japanese children. There where women and children killed in these bombings. It was not an air raid on a military. It was an atomic bombing of a urban city. Harry Truman is just as guilty as Slobodan Milosevic.


    Nichole Gargiulo - 3/3/2010

    We agree with this. Even if he did what he thought was right it doesn't mean it was. Hitler thought that he should kill all the Jews and that obviously wasn't right. I'm not saying the dropping of the bombs and the holocoast are the same thing at all but they did both have one thing in common. The leaders of both of them, Hitler, and Truman, are war criminals.



    "Article 6 Paragraph b of the Nuremberg Charter did not break new ground in its definition of war crimes:

    (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoner of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."


    josh carl catral - 3/3/2010

    Not Guilty: Harry Truman had every right to be mad at the Japanese for bombing pearl harbor for no good reason. Even if he did take innocent lives back then he did what he felt he had to as president to protect the US citizens. I also think at the times Japan was out of control with Germany to get as much power as possible but they were no match for the atomic bomb which wiped out villages and many places in Japan.


    Sarah Elizabeth Doweny - 3/3/2010

    we totally agree because we feel like the bomb stopped the fighting, and fighting would have continued. And the result would be more lives being taken. It was the last thing that we wanted to happen, but felt like it had to happen. And it did make Japan surrender.


    josh carl catral - 3/3/2010

    I believe that Truman should be tried as not guilty. Even though it seems as though he should be the one to blame for the fact that Japan got bombed by an atom bomb twice. It wasn’t his fault because obviously a decision that big that would impact that many people cannot be made by a single person; it would have to be a lot of people all considering this decision. Truman didn’t just wake up one day and decide to bomb Japan for the hell of it, he was probably just the face used for the decision. another reason is that even if it was only Truman who made that decision, I feel as though he knew that the Japanese would not have surrendered otherwise as Radosh points out: "What he accomplishes in a virtual tour de force is to correlate the day by day decisions of the Japanese government from August 6th through the 14th in the context of how the use of the A-bomb worked to produce acceptance of the Potsdam terms of surrender" (http://hnn.us/articles/173.html). The Japanese would have stretched the war out and most likely our lives would be different today if it wasn’t for the atom bombs. I’m not justifying what they did as something correct but some decisions are very hard to make. They would have to look at the bigger picture and see what is 'better for the greater good'. Radosh even says that Asado said that: "As Asado points out, the dropping of the two atomic bombs was the equivalent of American aid to Japan's beleaguered peace party"(http://hnn.us/articles/173.html). Just scaring the Japanese would not have been enough. They would have needed something large with a lasting effect to really get it through the Japanese’s heads that they need to chill, as Oppenheimer states: "...No display would be impressive enough to shock the Japanese into surrender...In fact, no one at the time argued that the A-bomb should not be used on a city in which non-combatants lived" (http://hnn.us/articles/173.html). If everyone at the time was completely fine with having the bombs dropped and there were no issues against it then who are we to disagree NOW after it has happened and all the possible witnesses are long dead? if Truman was still alive then he would be able to defend himself properly and explain that he is not a war criminal, as Nobile believes: "I accuse President Harry S Truman of war crimes under Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter outlawing "the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" (http://hnn.us/articles/172.html). Finally, I believe that without any of the other reasons I stated before, Truman didn’t really have any other viable methods of solving that dilemma that was bound to work, and Radosh agrees with my logic: "Harry S. Truman did not engage in a "sham excuse" and in fact was not "drowning in untried alternatives," because such alternatives were themselves faulty and were not sufficient to cause the President not to use the bomb" (http://hnn.us/articles/175.html).


    Gus Timothy Sommer - 3/3/2010

    Me and Moose are in complete agreement with these statements. The only real option that Truman had to deal with the Japanese was to drop the atomic bombs. A good point you made which i have read many times is that Japan had no real intentions of surrendering. Sending the bombs was a message that this needed to stop. Had we invaded Japan more than two times(estimated) of Japanese people would have died and 500,000 American soldiers would have lost their lives "History is not a controlled experiment." Truman went through this without knowing the real concequences that his decision could have and i believe he did what he had to do to protect his country at this time.


    Nichole Gargiulo - 3/3/2010

    We agree. He is a war criminal which would make him guilty. We pretty much agree with the other part to. That even if his decision may have been the best in some people's eyes it still doesn't meant its right.

    "Article 6 Paragraph b of the Nuremberg Charter did not break new ground in its definition of war crimes:

    (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoner of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."


    Girouard Wirtz - 3/3/2010

    I think that you have some good points in your argument and I agree with many of your points. I like the quotes you had and they summed up a lot of what I believe. One thing that our arguments clash with is saying that it isn't important to talk about whether he should have been convicted or not now years later. It is important to me because it was a significant issue and should be analyzed. I am with you in that Truman was not tried because he was a "successful" president and made our country look good in the eyes of out own citizens.


    Sarah Elizabeth Doweny - 3/3/2010

    We think that Truman should be not guilty for different reasons. The main point of his thinking was not to slaughter all those people. I doubt he went into every place, and had a goal to kill as many people as he can. No one has that bad of thinking. To be classifyed as a war criminal, he would have to conspire a plan against the United States Of America. He wouldn't take a bunch of bombs, and set them off in other countries. He would get the bombs, or the ideas of the bombs, and steal the ideas. Then he would use those to set a obstacle to the united states.

    1) R. John Pritchard- All who have at one time embraced it without thereafter repudiating the objective prior to the actual commission of the substantive offense may be found guilty of criminal conspiracy. However, if the substantive offense (e.g., a war crime or crime against humanity) is not found to have occurred, then the conspiracy charge cannot succeed in international law. We agreed with the statement he said because if the offense was substantive, it couldnt be tried in internation law.

    2) In the opening statements they say, "The Japanese agreed that the dropping of the A-bomb helped bring the peace party into effect and help end the feud between the US and Japan." They even say that this was the only way to end the war between them. They planned doing it aroudn the workers home to make a huge impact on them, and obviously succeeded. Their intentions were to scare them, and leave them scared. They also said "that we could not give the Japanese any warning, that we could not concentrate on a civilian area, but that we should seek to make a profound psychological impression on as many Japanese as possible".

    3) "The whole point of the bomb was not to slaughter the people but to end the fighting. The A-bomb gave the Japanese a way to surrender and save face. Members of the Japanese peace faction even said it was a "gift from heaven"." This was in the closing arguements. We totally agree with this because its' purpose wasnt to kill a bunch of people. It was to simply stop the Japanese thinking that they could get away with doing things to us. And it says something if people from Japan say it was a gift from heaven.

    4) "All direct killing of non-combatants is against international law regardless of weapons employed. The laws and customs of war clearly distinguish between discriminate and indiscriminate military actions. The Nuremberg Charter refers specifically to "wanton destruction." I disagree with what Nobile says because Truman wasn't trying to kill innocent people and those people weren't so "innocent" they were working on transitioning from normal day life to help the war effort and turning their homes and factories into armory manufacturing.

    5) "Of course, Truman and his men intended to commit fiendish civilian slaughters in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was the whole point! Otherwise, they would have arranged a bomb demonstration or aimed at a military target" We also disagree with what Nobile says here because if they hadn't sent out the bomb out on Japan where would they set it off at? Some part of the United States? And Hiroshima had the highest population and it was a good idea to use the bomb there because it was becoming a military target because of the major change in the manufacturing going on.


    Ngamassi Smith - 3/3/2010

    Smith totally agrees with you and all of the points you made. I think the definition of war criminal clearly fits his descriptions but we are too hot headed to admit this. "Radosh suggests that individuals who denounce the decisions of past "heroes" are un-American and intellectually bankrupt." (Brian M. Jones) I think that mistakes is what helps us grow, and if we don't admit when we do and don't make mistakes, history will repeat until nobody respects America.

    Ngamassi disagrees because if the bomb was counted as terrorism, then any war is terrorism. War kills anyone, it doesn't necessarily just target military forces. I feel that Japan would have just done the same because they also wanted to win the war. Since Truman wanted to end the war quickly, he wasn't sure that the Japanese would surrender, so he just dropped the bomb. "Hirhito, the Japanese leader, refused to give up and told his people to fight to the finish the protect his throne" (Richard Jensen) this is proof that the Japanese would have fought on.


    Nichole Gargiulo - 3/3/2010

    We disagree. Even if the war could have been ongoing, we don't know for sure if it did more good. And I'd bet the Japanese wouldn't think droping the bombs would do more good than bad. But lets say we had some way of knowing and it ended up that it actually had been better to drop the bombs it still doesn't make it right to kill so many innocent people.

    "The essence of Nobile's case is based on a highly legalistic and a-historical citation of Article 6 of The Nuremberg Charter."


    Elaine and Dani Tillotson and Fantaskey - 3/3/2010

    I agree with that first part, that Harry Truman is not a war criminal. I believe that his actions were a military necessity and that he was just trying to protect his own people. If he hadn't dropped the atomic bombs forcing Japan to surrender, who is to say how long the war would of continued on for? I agree that the war probably would of continued on for much longer if the bombs were not dropped and many more lives on both sides would have been lost. Truman's actions were of military necessity and to protect his country, which is his job as the President of the United States. His goal wasn't to kill thousands of innocent people. Therefore he can't be classified as a war criminal, in the same category as leaders like Hitler. Their intentions were completely different.


    Girouard Wirtz - 3/3/2010

    sooooo yeah i dont really think that just cause he stopped the war earlier it gave him the right to bomb them. it doesnt matter if they would have killed us, they are still people and are part of this world and still have every human right we have.


    Gus Timothy Sommer - 3/3/2010

    I agree with you, Tim. First off, had we not dropped the bombs we would have had to invade Japan from 5 spots (this was the intended plan of invasion). Professionals estimate that had we done this we would have lost 500,000 US soldiers and twice that number would have been seriously injured.

    True, what he did could be considered "legally" wrong but Truman was handed a situation that is more than we can even imagine. Drop a bomb and potentially kill more than 200,000 Japanese citizens, or send half a million of your own people to their death. This might have been one of the biggest decisions in American history. Another thing is that Truman had no idea of what the bombs would do.

    This was the only truly legitimate option for Truman.

    -Gus and Collin


    Garrett Nicholson and Dan Rerko - 3/3/2010

    I agree with you that Truman is guilty of war crimes. What he did cannot be justified no matter how necessary it was. Truman is guilty of war crimes under definition and that's all it comes down to. Maybe the result could have been many more people dying but it is people who are dying for their country. These people knew what they signed up for when they decided to go to war. It is not worth killing that many innocent women, men and especially children. What it would have been the U.S. who got bombed? Not many of us would have been taking it very lightly. I think that since we are the U.S. that we should have no exception to International Rules, and should be guilty of any war crime that we commit; no exception.


    Brock and Abraham karg and parvin - 3/3/2010

    The both of us agree that Harry Truman is not guilty for the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan. Here are five pieces of supporting evidence.

    1.) In the jury, R. John Pritchard defends that Harry Truman is not guilty. He says that it was an act of defense rather than a war crime. He also states that
    Philip Nobile had too weak of an argument to prove Truman is guilty.

    2.) In his defense, Ronald Radosh explains that if the U.S. would not have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan, it would have been done to the U.S. They were already readying an atomic bomb, and we were there biggest foe at that time. He makes a good point, would you rather see people of your country go down, or rather see the enemies of another country be killed? I believe that this is true.

    3.) James R. Van de Velde says that without the dropping of the atomic bomb, there would still be a war with Japan and the U.S. Since they were an ememie of the U.S. and they are such a successful force, they probably would have taken over U.S. and its territories.

    4.) Larry Shweikart says that he would do anything to save one of his soldiers in war in order to keep the U.S. strong. He also brings up the fact that Japan was the main cause for the attack on Pearl Harbor. He believes that they got away with it, and says “Why can’t we too.”

    5.) Jeff Tenuth of the jury, tries to put himself in Harry Truman’s shoes at that time. He says that he would have done the same thing to save his country. He also thinks that the defense presented a much stronger case, while the prosecutors had inaccurate and insufficient evidence.


    Elaine and Dani Tillotson and Fantaskey - 3/3/2010

    I agree with the not guilty verdict because I feel as though it was a military necessity. His goal was to end the war by making Japan surrender. He wasn't trying to kill a thousands of Japanese people to kill. The point made by Dan when he said that this would make it a military necessity, is very true. Truman was making a military move to protect his people, the United States, by attempting to force Japan into a surrender. I agree that the defense was able to shut down the points made against Truman in the accusations of a war criminal. I believe his actions were a military necessity, therefore he is not guilty.


    Garrett Nicholson and Dan Rerko - 3/3/2010

    This is by FAR the best recently posted comment on here. Aidan and Josh hit just about every single point that is relevant to proving that Harry S. Truman is innocent. Just as an addition to their statement, the United States and the other allies did give the Japanese a fair warning of what was about to go down. A little thing came out of the Potsdam Conference called the Potsdam Ultimatum. This basically outlined the terms of unconditional surrender to the Japanese. In this ultimatum, we told the Japanese that if they did not agree to surrender, we let them know that "the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

    This is just a little extra information to give this already rock-solid comment an even stronger hold. Right on fellas.

    http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html


    Emily Costello - 3/3/2010

    Though I don't think that assuming things is good, like assuming the Japanese would have dropped the bomb, I do agree that Harry Truman is not guilty. I agree with James R. Van de Velde when he said "The attack on the civilian-dominated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been barbarous, brutal, and perhaps even unnecessary to effect a surrender from Japan, but it is hard to argue that they were wanton, superfluous, irrelevant to the timing of surrender and apart from the war aim of shortening the war and effecting the Allied Powers' goal of unconditional surrender from Japan."
    I believe that Truman did the right thing for our country and killed the least amount of people as possible.

    Though I do not believe that killing innocent people is morally right, I do think that Truman did the right thing by protecting our country from harm, and war.


    Emily Costello - 3/3/2010

    I believe that Harry S Truman is a war hero, not a criminal. He did what was best for his country, by saving more people then he would have if the war continued and the bomb wasn't dropped.


    Emily Costello - 3/3/2010

    I agree. I think Truman did the right thing and killed LESS people in general by dropping the atomic bomb, then by continuing the war. He did what was best for his country, what would protect us, and what is morally right, though some would argue it is not, it is for the reason that LESS people were killed by dropping the atomic bomb. More people would have died if the war continued.


    Emily Costello - 3/3/2010

    Truman is not guilty, for the following reasons. More people would have died if the war had continued. Though innocent civilians lives were lost, we cannot put a value on someone’s life. Civilian or enlisted solider, a life is a life and we cannot say one life is superior to another. Though the bomb killed more civilians, people need to realize in regular war, civilians by-standards were killed too. In war, people die and if the country doesn’t want to deal with the loss of its citizens, they should not enter the war in the first place. Harry Truman prevented more deaths by dropping the atomic bomb, then he would have, had he let the war continue. It is not a matter of our men verses their men, it is a matter of trying to preventing deaths overall. It is unfortunate that so many Japanese lives were lost, and some may argue that it was not fair we “chose” to kill more of them over us. That is not the case, we did not chose to kill them over us, we choose to end the war and leave with less deaths total.
    When we dropped the Atomic bombs, we felt it was the last resort. Both sides wanted the fighting to end and it was up to one side to end it. Had it been them dropping the bomb on us, the war still would have ended with fewer deaths and end sooner than it would have if the fighting continued. The Japanese now are claiming that they were about to end the war and surrender. That is completely untrue. As one of the not guilty people have evidence saying they were planing on continuing the war and continue fighting with full force. The Japnaese were also creating their own bomb and had they been given the chance they would have dropped the bomb in us. I do not think that it should be a war of who gets to the creation of the bomb first, but i do think that less lives lost and the fact that they would have done the same are huge factors. had they dropped the bomb they would have ended the war, but we got to it sooner and in my opinion i think that the fact that the bomb was dropped sooner is better, rather than the bomb being dropped after years more of fighting. We felt that that was our only option at the time and we did it soon so that the fighting would end immideatly.

    I agree with this quote because Harry Truman made the correct decision and saved more people’s lives by dropping the bomb.
    “Not withstanding the many defects in the arguments put forward by the Defense, and without condoning or approving the conduct of the United States Government or of the several accused, in my judgment the Prosecution's case is unproved beyond reasonable doubt against Harry S. Truman and his co-defendants on the charges of war crimes and conspiracy to commit war crimes laid against them connected with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are therefore acquitted on all charges.”

    "The attack on the civilian-dominated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been barbarous, brutal, and perhaps even unnecessary to effect a surrender from Japan, but it is hard to argue that they were wanton, superfluous, irrelevant to the timing of surrender and apart from the war aim of shortening the war and effecting the Allied Powers' goal of unconditional surrender from Japan."

    "If we look at the circumstances under which President Truman made his decision, i.e., if we place the bombings in their historical context, as the defense noted, then there is no basis for a trial. Based on the historical context and evidence of a world at war, the prosecution's case was poorly made. It presented many opinions, some after the fact and some by people not directly involved. But in either case, few legalities were presented other than the Nuremberg Charter itself. And since the Nuremberg Charter was created by the victors, I would hardly expect them to try themselves. The victors were at Nuremberg to try the Nazis for crimes against humanity on a scale that goes beyond the civilian casualties that always occur in war. Yet the prosecution does not seek to try the allies for the firebombings of Tokyo or Dresden, where the casualties were as great as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But even if they did charge the allies with crimes against humanity or against peace, it still would not have been the same as the cases against the Nazis or Japanese because of one fundamental point the prosecution did not bring up: intent."

    "But as to the specifics: Not only did Nobile fail to prove that the dropping of the bombs were not required by "military necessity," even the evidence he offered---the expected "lower" casualty rates of American soldiers, etc.---only CONFIRMED that in fact this was a military necessity. In my book, during a war, if saving a single one of my soldiers can be achieved by any means, I'll take it. That is the nature of war. Wars are not clean. In this context, though, the civilians who still supported the war; who took no steps to end the war (i.e., civil disobedience); who continued to make guns and planes---they indeed were hardly true "noncombatants.""

    "1. The Army Air Force shifted to fire bombing in Japan mostly because of the difficulties encountered in mounting more conventional raids.

    2. Over time, the techniques for firebombing improved to the point that large sections of cities could be destroyed.

    3. Although this was justified as the only way to destroy Japan's military and industrial capacity, some military and civilian leaders began to see the destruction of the civilian population by bombing as a military end in itself.

    4. By the time of the March 9 Tokyo firebombing we had embraced the policy of mass slaughter of civilians as one military objective in itself, though the degree to which that is conscious varies from leader to leader.

    5. The invasions of Iwo Jima and, particularly, Okinawa, encouraged mass slaughter as a military objective by increasing fear of civilian resistance to an invasion.

    6. There was a largely unchallenged conclusion among military and political leaders that victory required not simply the military defeat of Japan but the occupation of Japan and the transformation of its government.

    7. An occupation required either near unconditional surrender or an invasion.

    8. The successful test of the Atomic Bomb suggested a possible alternative to invasion: terrifying the Japanese into surrendering by convincing them that they only had a choice between surrender and genocide from the air.

    9. The growing conflict with the Soviet Union made the use of the bomb as a demonstration of its power more desirable, but that desire was probably not a significant component of Truman's decision to use it against Japan.

    10. Because the mass killing of civilians had already become an end in itself, Truman and the military leaders most involved in the war against Japan had no moral difficulty in jumping from firebombing to nuclear weapons.

    11. Although there was no moral distinction between fire bombing and nuclear bombing, there was a corresponding change in their purpose that can be viewed as morally different: the slaughter of civilians was no longer meant to reduce resistance to an invasion.

    12. The use of the A-Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was meant to demonstrate that the United States had the capacity and the will to commit genocide from the air.

    13. There was, to my knowledge, no debate over how long to keep dropping bombs on Japan if they did not surrender. The destruction of a significant percentage of the population and the reduction of the remainder to starvation levels is a distinct possibility.

    14. The fact is, the Japanese did surrender.

    15. Given the US insistence on occupation and transformation of Japan as conditions of surrender, the use of the Bombs may have been the least costly road to peace.

    16. The reasons that US leaders could not consider surrender on lesser grounds, even after Japan's offensive power was decimated, deserve further research and consideration. If this hypothesis is correct, moral judgements would hinge largely on that point."


    Josh Kunig - 3/3/2010

    The area of the civilians were under going a project to devise their own atomic bomb like weapon. Their military leaders even said that they would have do the very same thing to us once this was developed. Where would they drop it? New York? As I said in my essay Japan was not going to surrender because of their code of honor. they are very nationalistic to the point that they would rather die than give up. Japan's leaders said that they were willing to sacrifice their entire nation to win the war. What we did was give them a chance to respectfully surrender with their head held high. If you want to count numbers think about it this way. If we didn't drop the bomb we would have continued to firebomb them. If we didn't drop the bomb Russia would have invaded, as well as the U.S. Japan and Russia were both working on weapons of mass destruction, and there are statements from military leaders on both sides saying they would have dropped a bomb once their projects were finished. and if you don't believe me just take a look when the nuclear arms race started, its the same year. So we went from taking out 250,000 people to 5,700,000 people. just dwell on those numbers.


    Mowery Daniels - 3/3/2010

    I think while the idea of having more testing and maybe dropping a smaller bomb on a more relivant place could have been good, it goes back to the fire bombings which were giving the same effect as a mini bomb would and they were not solving anything. If they were sure that would have made them surrender maybe that would have been better. However the point is not to create what he could have done better but to deal with what actually happened and in hind sight although he killed people it was a necessary war action that was necessary at the time.


    Lauren, Dani Elizabeth, Alyssa Fogelsanger,Hart - 3/3/2010

    I do not agree with this because Truman did what he thought was right and ended the war for U.S. terms and ended up saving more lives then what he would have without ending the war.


    PhilJawn MartynPhil SebKen - 3/3/2010

    We have to disagree with you Clymer, although the bomb did kill a lot of people, some being innocent civilians, any other means of ending the war would have resulted in even more deaths than the bombs. Imagine a naval blockade of Japan(this was under consideration before the bombs were dropped), the United States Navy would completely cut off Japan from importing or exporting anything, hundreds of thousands of people, most being innocent civilians would die of starvation. And a land invasion would have resulted in thousands of American deaths and hundreds of thousands of casualties, and on the Japanese side millions of people would have died. "Japanese authorities fail to admit their own responsibility for the war, or indeed, to acknowledge candidly in their own nation their country's sordid history of brutality and war crimes. The fact is that without the use of the A-bomb, Japan more than likely would not have surrendered, despite all of its serious problems. Its army had built up to 900,000 soldiers ready to defend against the planned American invasion of Kyushu, and would have been able to totally crush the first wave of invaders."


    marina roel - 3/3/2010

    I agree with most of your points. There were other options other than the bomb, as we talked a lot about that in our post. He could have chosen another option. He did violate laws when he dropped the bomb and that was not right. If he would have followed the rules then I don't think we would be having this issue.


    Josh Kunig - 3/3/2010

    Just for clarification I did this too


    Nick Scholz and Matt Delricco - 3/3/2010

    Tim, clearly you did not read what we wrote. No where in our verdict did we say he was trying to continue terrorism. You know for a fact that what he did was to try to scare the Japanese into surrender by demonstrating our power. The word terrorism is defined as, and I quote, "the use of violence and/or threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." There is no way to say that this is not what President Truman intended to do. And Al-Qaeda did not cause the September 11th terror attacks for no reason. They did it to spread fear in our country to get what it was they wanted. Truman spread fear in Japan to get what he wanted; unconditional surrender. And even though there were a few military ties to these cities, how come there actual military bases a few miles away from the cities were untouched? You cannot argue that the use of atomic bombs was wanton, malicious, or uncontrolled. Despite doing the right thing, there is not way you can say that President Truman is legally not guilty.


    Lauren, Dani Elizabeth, Alyssa Fogelsanger,Hart - 3/3/2010

    I agree with your comments of with out the bomb there would have still been an definite ongoing war that would have resulted in a lot more damage than what was done in the dropping of the bombs, and no surrenders would have been made.


    Lauren White - 3/3/2010

    This is wrong. Dead wrong. Truman was definitely guilty because he did kill many civilians. Although like you said, some may be working at factories to build weapons, but many were not. He killed 544 little girls who were at school. How do they deserve to be killed? Exactly, they don't. Not even half of the people died deserved to be killed. If someone had done this to our country we would not like this either. You're looking only from one side. If our country had gotten bombed and killed many civilians, would you be upset at the leader of the opposing nation? I know I would be. It could kill many of our loved ones. This is how Japan felt. This wasn't fair under any circumstances. Truman went in with no knowledge of how these bombs were going to work or how many people would get killed. It was his fault because he didn't take the time and work things out. An article online stated that they don't have an exact number of how many deaths were but by dropping the bomb they also killed 20 american soldiers that were held captive. Truman killed his own people too.


    marina roel - 3/3/2010

    I am agree and disagree with because because yes it save a lot of live but. Are we sure that we could not do anything else? Found a better way? A way that will not cost as much lives?
    I don't know I just think those are things to think about.
    And also It save lives but in long term of time today there still being people having issue because the too booms and the reactivity.


    Mowery Daniels - 3/3/2010

    The fact that the second bombing may not have been necessary is very true but how could they have known that? At the point of the dropping of the second bomb Japan had still not surrendered and therefore the United States felt that it was necessary to drop the second bomb to get Japan to surrender. In a case you have to have facts and the point is there is no concrete fact that the second bomb wasn't necessary.


    Katrina Arrie Bodenschatz - 3/3/2010

    Truman was guilty of the war crime that he is accused of. He violated article 6 Paragraph B of the Nuremberg Charter in its definition of war crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoner of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
    If you need further evidence beyond his reckless disregard for the law, Truman targeted two highly populated cities occupied by mainly by innocent civilians. People have made the argument that the civilians targeted were not innocent, because factory workers were manufacturing weapons, however, if you compare that to a total war period in the United States it should be obvious that targeting them for it is unnecessary.
    Also, a common argument has been that we gave warning to the cities before we dropped the bombs. The population of Nagasaki before the bomb as dropped, was an estimated 240000 people. Two days, for that kin of an evacuation is not feesable. Cicilians in the city of New Orleans had about a weeks time to leave the city before hurricane Katrina hit, the population, about 272000.
    Truman is guilty, of not because of he broke the Nuremburg charter, because of the little warning, and premature actions.


    Joyce e Bogard - 3/3/2010

    I strongly agree! If we put the people who think he is guilty into his shoes, they would most likely choose the same path that Truman thought was best at the time. I don't think it is right for people to say that Truman is a war criminal, i think that he is a great hero to our country, only because he was thinking about more than just saving people on the US side, he was also thinking about the greater deal of lives that would have been lost on both sides if he didn't drop the bomb.


    PhilJawn MartynPhil SebKen - 3/3/2010

    I completely agree. The slaughter of men just for the heck of it is much different than killing people for a justly cause. People need to take into consideration the intent of each person. They are two COMPLETELY different ideals. And I agree, it was a military necessity, and the man who said it wasn't is flat out wrong. He can't prove that it wasn't military necessity considering it was a NECESSITY to bring about the end of the war. Like Schweikart says, "Not only did Nobile fail to prove that the dropping of the bombs were not required by "military necessity," even the evidence he offered---the expected "lower" casualty rates of American soldiers, etc.---only CONFIRMED that in fact this was a military necessity." I simply do not know how the dropping of the atom bomb was not a military necessity.


    Mowery Daniels - 3/3/2010

    We disagree about that point of Japan surrendering without dropping the bombs. People dont know that, you can read into the future and tell what is going to happen next. So to say that Truman should have known that Japan was going to surrender is a false statement. The reasons that people think Japan was going to surrender is based on peoples "statements" but they can not just be expected as true. Again you just dont know what could have happened and those reasons should prove him to be guilty. Nobile had no proof of Japan surrendering and you can not win a point if you dont actually have proof.


    Dan Lesher and Ben Van Saun - 3/3/2010

    Truman is guilty of war crimes. In the Prosecution opening by Phillip Nobile, he defines what war crimes actually is. War crimes is: the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. It was definitely the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, and most of all was not justified by military necessity. We did not have to murder over 200,000 men, women and children just to end the war. It was a complete massacre. The term "military necessity" means emergency battle conditions during which armies and navies are permitted wider latitude under international law. The term does not apply to massacres planned in advance thousands of miles from the front. Accordingly, Truman never argued that destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a "military necessity." It is interesting to note that Truman said he was interacting with "God" when he killed 1/4 of the Catholics in Nagasaki.
    In the prosecution closing, Phillip Nobile makes another good point. We have convicted numerous war criminals on the German and Japanese forces, but what about on the allies? Maybe it is just because we know that what we are doing is right and that there is no way we are war criminals. This is completely false and should never be thought of like this. We have failed to acknowledge our historic brutality and war crimes that have been committed; we only focus on what the enemy does.
    "All direct killing of non-combatants is against international law regardless of weapons employed." Apparently, Truman didn't mind killing all the non-combatants. He instantly killed 200,000+ people, and over the next 60 years, 300,000+ have died. Phillip Nobile says to place yourself in Truman's shoes. You knew that Japan was on the brink of defeat and that Hirohito had sent a peace envoy to Moscow, but in these circumstances would you have barged into Japan and dropped many smaller bombs and then an atomic bomb even though a conditional surrender would have worked?
    Jury member Jonathan Dresner states that "Whether the bomb was "necessary" or "better than the alternatives" is the wrong question. The question of war crimes, particularly when applied to such an effective and dramatic act against a clearly aggressive and brutal enemy, can be distilled down to the question "can there be meaningful restrictions on the conduct of war?" He is saying that it is not the necessity that is the question it is the fact that he killed innocent people. He states that "That civilians can be killed in military operations is now enshrined in our language: "collateral damage" rather than "innocent bystanders." The deliberate attempt to destroy morale by targeting civilian populations or economic targets without significant military strategic value is called "terrorism."
    The jury member Brian M. Jones states "What was good for the Nazis at Nuremberg and the Japanese in Tokyo is also appropriate for Truman. Might does not make right. To the victors should not go the history. Power must not triumph over reason. America cannot be exempt from international rules because, despite Radosh's appeal to patriotism in lieu of candor, there is nothing more American than the promise of equal justice under the law." This is a very true statement that should be considered in all conflicts. Throughout history the winner of any conflict gets to say what happened and they can change any detail and no one will question. America should not be exempt from international rules just because we won the war.


    Aidan Stromer - 3/3/2010

    If he had not dropped the bombs, the blockades and firebombings would have simply continued. Every city would have been destroyed from it and many more would have died. The bombs effectively stopped the firebombings and the planning of a land invasion that would have killed many more civilians than we did. Not to mention, It Ended The War.


    Katrina Arrie Bodenschatz - 3/3/2010

    Truman was guilty of the war crime that he is accused of. He violated article 6 Paragraph B of the Nuremberg Charter in its definition of war crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoner of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
    If you need further evidence beyond his reckless disregard for the law, Truman targeted two highly populated cities occupied by mainly by innocent civilians. People have made the argument that the civilians targeted were not innocent, because factory workers were manufacturing weapons, however, if you compare that to a total war period in the United States it should be obvious that targeting them for it is unnecessary.
    Also, a common argument has been that we gave warning to the cities before we dropped the bombs. The population of Nagasaki before the bomb as dropped, was an estimated 240000 people. Two days, for that kin of an evacuation is not feesable. Cicilians in the city of New Orleans had about a weeks time to leave the city before hurricane Katrina hit, the population, about 272000.
    Truman is guilty, of not because of he broke the Nuremburg charter, because of the little warning, and premature actions.


    Nick Scholz and Matt Delricco - 3/3/2010

    Well Adam, I would first like to point out that you used the wrong word if your very first sentence. It should be fair, not fare, but this is all beside the point and so is your argument. You are justifying his innocence based on him saving lives and you're completely disregarding the fact that he broke the Nuremberg Charter, which does label him guilty and a war criminal. Sometimes what we believe is the right thing, such as to use nuclear bombs, is not legal in a more global scale. We are completely behind Truman's decision, but we do agree that he is guilty of war crimes.

    Article 6 Paragraph b of the Nuremberg Charter did not break new ground in its definition of war crimes:

    (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoner of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.


    alaina Henry - 3/3/2010

    I agree with your statement "I think he is guilty because he didn't just attack soldiers but innocent civilians. The civilians were still contributing to the war effort but only because of the government." Although Ronald Radosh says that "many civilians were in the military", they really had no choice because of their government situation. They are humans, and we need to respect and understand the struggles they have. Truman is guilty for being immoral and killing innocent people.


    marina roel - 3/3/2010

    We agree with you and we thought that your point about, "There is nothing more American than the promise of equal justice under the law, and to us, Truman should be found guilty so that our promise is kept" is such a good point that we should all follow and protect and obviously act like this is not protecting that mentality and it could ruin our purpose. And then also we think as you that too many people were killed and yes there were numbers about how many people will be died if we will go into anther war but also we know that there are other ways than massacre and terror.
    ~marina


    Quinn, Steven Turkey SMOOOOO - 3/3/2010

    After reading this you have persuaded me to vote not guilty. We wrote guilty because of all the civilian lives that were lost and how America should have used focused bombs to attack just the factories to save civilian lives. I think your right, that their wasn't really any other alternative unless we bombed them which indeed did end the war quickly. Looking at it from a new perspective I realize that your right, that civilian lives will be lost and by dropping the bomb we are destroying parts of their military factories. They did keep fighting and didn't put down their guns so we had to attack. A note to think about. Did we give them enough time to respond to our threat of dropping the bomb on them, for them to truly decide if they wanted to surrender? Strong arguments (strong enough to persuade me to the other side!)Well Done also


    PhilJawn MartynPhil SebKen - 3/3/2010

    We agree with you also Greg,you made some good points about the Japanese wanting to bomb us if they would have had the opportunity to do so. I completely agree that the bomb did, in the end, save lives. Any other means of ending the war that the U.S. was considering would have resulted in even more deaths on both sides (ex. land invasion or naval blockade). I think you bring up a good point about the Japanese not being willing to surrender, some people seem to think that they were on the brink of giving up and that the United States bombed them before they had a chance to surrender. That is not true, there is no way of knowing if the Japanese were going to surrender or not, but personally I doubt that they would give up; I think that they would have kept on fighting until there was no one else who could fight for them.


    Madden Rose - 3/3/2010

    I agree that the real problem was that he killed the innocent. These people really had nothing to do with their government/military's choices. I also agree that because of the outcome of the war no one treated it like it was real or even wrong. Brian Jones also says that, "America cannot be exempt from international rules." and it's true. There is no reason for one country to be able to do whatever they want and get away with it and have no reprecussions.


    Lauren, Dani Elizabeth, Alyssa Fogelsanger,Hart - 3/3/2010

    After 60 years later we ask ourselves, is Harry S Truman a war criminal or one of our Nations hero's.This is probably one of the hardest question that we can ask from one self. Harry Truman did what he thought was right for our country and our people, did he not? Do you think he had thought about all the thousands of innocent people who would be killed? Did he know the affects of the atomic bombs? Did he not send warnings to the Japanese cities? Did he not know any other way of stopping the war? Did he do this so thousand of more people from all sides wouldn't get killed later within the war? Ask yourself all of these question, and think what would you do in Truman's position. Would you sit back and do nothing and watch your own people die, or would you take care of the problem, and stop this terrible war once and for all?

    Obviously I believe that Harry S Truman is innocent of war crimes. He did what he needed to do to save this country and its people. Though in the end with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki he ended up killing over 200,000 people in order to end the war on U.S. terms. I think as Americans we need to think what if he didn't drop the atomic bombs? What would have happened? Honestly I believe if he did not drop the bombs this war wouldn't have ended for a very long time. Also if you think about it more people would have died if he didn't drop the bombs, because of the long lasting war. So to me and many other Americans I don't view Harry Truman as a war criminal, but as an American hero. This man is not guilty of anything and should be remembered as someone loyal and devoted to his country, also as a legend.


    Madden Rose - 3/3/2010

    Although none of the historians compared to fictional characters, so there's nothing saying you can't.


    Lauren, Dani Elizabeth, Alyssa Fogelsanger,Hart - 3/3/2010

    After 60 years later we ask ourselves, is Harry S Truman a war criminal or one of our Nations hero's.This is probably one of the hardest question that we can ask from one self. Harry Truman did what he thought was right for our country and our people, did he not? Do you think he had thought about all the thousands of innocent people who would be killed? Did he know the affects of the atomic bombs? Did he not send warnings to the Japanese cities? Did he not know any other way of stopping the war? Did he do this so thousand of more people from all sides wouldn't get killed later within the war? Ask yourself all of these question, and think what would you do in Truman's position. Would you sit back and do nothing and watch your own people die, or would you take care of the problem, and stop this terrible war once and for all?

    Obviously I believe that Harry S Truman is innocent of war crimes. He did what he needed to do to save this country and its people. Though in the end with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki he ended up killing over 200,000 people in order to end the war on U.S. terms. I think as Americans we need to think what if he didn't drop the atomic bombs? What would have happened? Honestly I believe if he did not drop the bombs this war wouldn't have ended for a very long time. Also if you think about it more people would have died if he didn't drop the bombs, because of the long lasting war. So to me and many other Americans I don't view Harry Truman as a war criminal, but as an American hero. This man is not guilty of anything and should be remembered as someone loyal and devoted to his country, also as a legend.


    Joyce e Bogard - 3/3/2010

    I think Truman is not guilty, Radosh states, with out the bomb there would have still been an definite ongoing war that would have resulted in a lot more damage than what was done in the dropping of the bombs, and no surrenders would have been made, and I agree. Another part of the argument is that dropping the bomb was the more humane thing to do compared to the alternative choices. Jensen argues with Nobile's quote of the Nuremberg trials, Jensen argues with this statement, "Nobile silently switches from "cities" to "civilians" but let's look at the text and think about "cities." Were the Japanese cities a significant part of the Japanese war machine, or was it "wanton" to destroy them?". Chamberlain says that the successful test of the Atomic Bomb suggested a possible alternative to invasion: terrifying the Japanese into surrendering by convincing them that they only had a choice between surrender and genocide from the air.
    This is helping the argument of necessity and option, making the dropping of the bombs a necessity and not just another option, to winning the war. Radosh also argues that if we all went by Noblies standards of what a war crime is, then everything in war with disastrous results or casualties would be under the section of war crimes and everyone would be charged with it. He also argues that many of the civilians were very involved in the war effort and carried out manufacturing in their homes and neighborhoods, so the argument of it being a war crime against Truman is crap because then every person ever involved in helping with the war would be charged.


    Tim C Taylor - 3/3/2010

    I disagree 100% because he didnt want to bomb Japan to continue terrorism. That's what he was trying to end. You cannot compare Truman to Al-Queda because he didn't bomb Japan for no reason. There was a military necessity to do so. Like Ronald Rodash said a war crime is defined by wanton destruction and it wasn't just for no reason we many reasons to do so. There were military ties in those cities.


    Madden Rose - 3/3/2010

    While I agree that Truman is guilty of War Crimes against Japan, I must admit that comparing Truman to Darth Vader from Star Wars is going to hurt more than help people see our side as to why Truman is guilty.


    Mowery Daniels - 3/3/2010

    Such simple history makes it impossible to argue conclusively that the bombings were wanton or superfluous. Which was said by Van de Velde goes back to our point about there not being enough evidence to prove him guilty.
    The destruction of cities was not "wanton" but was "justified by military necessity." said by Jenson proves that it was necessary and that other means of winning the war would not have worked.
    defects in the arguments put forward by the Defense which was pointed out by Pritchard was another reason that we chose to lean towards not guilty.


    alaina Henry - 3/3/2010

    I agree with the guilty verdict because he did cause destruction without military necessity. Truman was trying to end the war quickly, but the use of the atomic bomb was severe. In the prosecution opening, Nobile says, "There is no massacre exemption in international law for ending wars. What if Truman had decided to drop anthrax bombs to rush capitulation and prevent the bloodbath of an invasion, would that have been okay, too?"
    How far could Truman have gone and still argued not guilty?


    Nick Scholz and Matt Delricco - 3/3/2010

    Well Phil, way to sound like a broken record. You have stated nothing new or original to your argument. Yes, either way he would have been tried as a war criminal and either way he should have been guilty. Think if the Japanese would have done the same to us? There would definitely had been demands of war crime trials as well as accusations of terrorism, which this was.

    Brian Madison Jones- Guilty

    "America cannot be exempt from international rules because, despite Radosh's appeal to patriotism in lieu of candor, there is nothing more American than the promise of equal justice under the law. "


    Tim C Taylor - 3/3/2010

    I also agree that Truman was not guilty because i do believe it was military necessity. Like Ronald Radosh said it isn't a war crime unless it is wanton destruction or destruction without a purpose. I believe we did have a purpose because those cities were making military weapons such as planes, boats, and tanks so it was partly for military necessity that's why i believe he is not guilty for that reason.


    Madden Rose - 3/3/2010

    i completely agree with you it was an unnecessary action that killed more Japanese citizens then the number of of Japanese and American soldiers combined. Truman wasn't convicted because we won the war though.


    Katrina Arrie Bodenschatz - 3/3/2010

    I agree with Lauren. Truman targeted innocent civilians, and the fact that factory worker were working on manufacturing weapons is irrelevant. Would you not condemn people if they targeted United States civilians during our total war period? You might be able to scrounge up an argument that in the face of war some civilian lives will inevitably be taken, but two bombs, targeted at highly populated civilian areas was not necessary to win the war.


    Lauren, Dani Elizabeth, Alyssa Fogelsanger,Hart - 3/3/2010

    After 60 years later we ask ourselves, is Harry S Truman a war criminal or one of our Nations hero's.This is probably one of the hardest question that we can ask from one self. Harry Truman did what he thought was right for our country and our people, did he not? Do you think he had thought about all the thousands of innocent people who would be killed? Did he know the affects of the atomic bombs? Did he not send warnings to the Japanese cities? Did he not know any other way of stopping the war? Did he do this so thousand of more people from all sides wouldn't get killed later within the war? Ask yourself all of these question, and think what would you do in Truman's position. Would you sit back and do nothing and watch your own people die, or would you take care of the problem, and stop this terrible war once and for all?

    Obviously I believe that Harry S Truman is innocent of war crimes. He did what he needed to do to save this country and its people. Though in the end with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki he ended up killing over 200,000 people in order to end the war on U.S. terms. I think as Americans we need to think what if he didn't drop the atomic bombs? What would have happened? Honestly I believe if he did not drop the bombs this war wouldn't have ended for a very long time. Also if you think about it more people would have died if he didn't drop the bombs, because of the long lasting war. So to me and many other Americans I don't view Harry Truman as a war criminal, but as an American hero. This man is not guilty of anything and should be remembered as someone loyal and devoted to his country, also as a legend.

    According to R. John Pritchard, who pleads he is not guilty says" The doctrine of military necessity is NOT restricted to emergency measures adopted in the field. On the other hand the authorities recognized today (even the Subsequent Proceedings by US Military Tribunals at Nuremberg) although divided on the proper scope of it, tend to reject it as a defense. As the US Military Tribunal in the High Command Case put it, "It has been the viewpoint of many German writers… that military necessity includes the right to do anything that contributes to the winning of a war. We content ourselves on this subject with stating that such a view would eliminate all humanity and decency and all law from the conduct of war and it is a contention which this Tribunal repudiates as contrary to the accepted usages of civilized nations." In the Hostage Case, another US Military Tribunal declared that "We do not concur in the view that the rules of warfare are anything less than they purport to be. Military necessity or expediency do not justify a violation of positive rules. International law is prohibitive law. Articles 46, 47 and 50 of the Hague Rules of 1907 make no such exceptions to its enforcement. The rights of the innocent population therein set forth must be respected even if military necessity or expediency degree otherwise." In the Krupp Case, a US Military Tribunal states, "In short these rules and customs of warfare are designed specifically for all phases of war. They comprise the law for such emergency. To claim that they can be wantonly - and at the sole discretion of any one belligerent - disregarded when he considers his OWN situation to be critical, means nothing more nor less than to abrogate the rules and customs of war entirely."
    The criminality of any criminal conspiracy is not dependent upon proof that the accused actually met or jointly decided upon a course of action contrary to law. It depends upon the completion of the illegal act, and it embraces all who may in parallel and even unknown to each other embrace at any time efforts to promote, plan, prepare, initiate or carry out that illegal act. All who have at one time embraced it without thereafter repudiating the objective prior to the actual commission of the substantive offense may be found guilty of criminal conspiracy. However, if the substantive offense (e.g., a war crime or crime against humanity) is not found to have occurred, then the conspiracy charge cannot succeed in international law.

    Having regard for the lawful purpose of bringing about an end to the war and its suffering; for the wholly admirable objective of doing so with a minimal expenditure of human lives, for expert advice given to the President in June 1945 (that some 20,000 persons were likely to die in an atomic explosion, based on a reasonable assumption that the population of a city alert to the approach of a B-29 would have time and take shelter in underground civil defense facilities); for knowledge that efforts to negotiate an end to hostilities had hitherto failed and were unlikely to succeed without a clear demonstration that nothing whatever would be gained by further enemy resistance on the ground (the only means of resistance then open to that enemy), then the Allied Powers or any of them were entitled to make a choice of reasonable and lawful means to effect that early end of hostilities (a legitimate war aim). While it is true that the estimate of 20,000 was revised upwards after the Trinity explosion in the following month, so too was the calculation of how many people would die if the Allied forces directly engaged in a land campaign on Japan's sacred home ground.
    In making their calculations, the United States and their British allies were also entitled to take into consideration the certainty that were the war to continue, the Allied Powers would be forced to invade the Japanese mainland against a well-entrenched and implacable enemy willing to adopt all means at its disposal and willing to endure any sacrifice necessary to resist their invaders. An alternative, the starvation of the enemy into submission, would not succeed, if at all, short of incurring many tens or hundreds or thousands of thousands of innocent lives and untold suffering.
    They were entitled to take into account the political and military consequences of failing to act sufficiently or at all in order to prevent others (the Soviet Union) from seizing the initiative through the conquest of territory and deaths of untold numbers of the enemy's forces and non-combatants alike in Manchuria and Korea.
    They were entitled to take into consideration Intelligence information that they had in their possession to the effect that preparations had been made to exterminate all Allied Prisoners of War and Civilian Internees detained by the Japanese in certain eventualities which included a judgment that the prisoners would otherwise be liberated by closely approaching Allied forces.
    They were entitled to take into consideration the likely consequences if news of the existence and availability of the atomic bomb as a war-winning weapon were to come to the attention the public in the USA, Britain or other Allied Powers while the Allied diplomats continued with desultory negotiations with the enemy as hundreds of thousands if not millions of men, women and children on both sides continued to die in conventional warfare. Further, it IS believed that the French, who were thought to have stumbled onto the news of the Manhattan Project, were so alarmed or antagonized by being previously excluded from knowledge of it that they had it in mind to let the Russians know, thus placing at risk the capability of the United States and the British had of determining the most opportune moment at which to make the most of the bomb's war-winning potential.
    They were entitled to prefer that as high a preponderance as possible of any death and destruction necessary to bring about an end to the war should be borne by forces of the enemy rather than by the United States, its Philippine dependency and by all of the other Allied countries and possessions caught up in the fighting.

    Now lets hear what Brian Madison Jones, who pleads Truman to be guilty."Defense counsel Ron Radosh suggests that a case "based on a highly legalistic and a-historical citation of Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter" is insufficient to convict Harry Truman of war crimes for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Just as the Nazis and the Japanese were liable for war crimes, Truman is guilty for "violations of the laws or customs of war" through the "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." Prosecutor Philip Nobile makes clear that Truman sought simply to ravage Japan, devastating cities so completely as to shock Japan into unconditional surrender. This "wanton destruction" was enough for this juror, but Nobile further proves that the bombs were unnecessary as Japan teetered on the edge of surrender in late 1945. Still, he continues, with the planned invasion of Japan months away, Truman possessed numerous other alternatives to the bomb. Finally, Nobile maintains that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not of strategic significance (evidenced by the lack of attention paid to them during previous air campaigns), and thus "not justified by military necessity." Based on the Charter, the precedents of Nuremberg and Tokyo, and Nobile's evidence, Truman's guilt is indubitable and a larger fight is hereby commenced.
    For this historian, a "guilty" verdict takes a much needed shot at the growing anti-intellectualism of the Bush era. While some argue that arsenic is not harmful and global warming is a socialist conspiracy against divine industrialization, Radosh suggests that individuals who denounce the decisions of past "heroes" are un-American and intellectually bankrupt. He degrades Nobile's unique interpretation as an attempt "to rewrite the verdict of history by forging a new consensus," and denounces revisionism as a-historical. Unfortunately for Radosh, however, Nobile and history march forward. Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob argued convincingly that the revising of history may provide "the only way to move forward, perhaps not on a straight line of progress into the future, but forward toward a more intellectually alive, democratic community, toward the kind of society in which we would like to live." (Telling the Truth about History, 1994) Arguments like Nobile's allows us to do just that.
    Non-historians may also take great comfort in this decision. Radosh argues that this debate itself is reflective of frivolous "left-wing" history and dictated by an "anti-American political agenda." That is neither the case for this exercise, nor for this verdict. If fact, the opposite is true. What was good for the Nazis at Nuremberg and the Japanese in Tokyo is also appropriate for Truman. Might does not make right. To the victors should not go the history. Power must not triumph over reason. America cannot be exempt from international rules because, despite Radosh's appeal to patriotism in lieu of candor, there is nothing more American than the promise of equal justice under the law'.

    Determining if Truman is guilty or not guilty is a had decision, lets hear from a man who is undecided about it. Arnold A. Offner believes that the "Use of the bomb also rested on fact that Truman and Secretary of State James F. Byrnes did fear a) the Japanese might fight to the last soldier alive; b) the U.S. Congress and public would be enraged at the failure to use weapons after expending $2.7 billion, while also allowing "unnecessary" lost U.S. lives; c) Russians might advance in Manchuria and North China, and in Japan and claim the right of occupation governance, a la Germany; d) no official or group officials made a concerted argument not to use atomic bombs; e) no one--save a handful of scientists--grasped the quantum leap atomic weapons represented; f) after almost a decade of warfare--from Japan's attack on China 1937 to 1945, politicians like HST and Byrnes did not believe bombing was wanton destruction so much as forcing the other side to quit an indescribably horrible war. Hence, for many reasons that blended together--and prevented serious discussion of NOT using A-Bombs--HST and Byrnes acted, neither as saints nor sinners, nor as war criminals. Hence, I cannot convict them of war crimes unless I convict everyone who ordered any bombing that was not a military-industrial target exclusively.
    Defense lawyer Radosh does not seem acquainted with the vast body of literature that shows many political reasons that pushed HST in the direction of use of the bomb. For example:
    1) Stimson-HST discussions May 1945 about bomb being a "master card" and "royal straight flush" that would allow US to leverage USSR in negotiations; 2) Byrnes's belief that the bomb would allow the US to "out maneuver" the USSR in North China-Manchuria and Japan; and in Potsdam negotiations in general, including those concerning Germany. (See diary of Walter Brown, Byrnes's administrative aide). 3)HST himself saw the bomb as an "ace in the hole" --said it repeatedly--that would allow him to defeat Stalin in negotiations; 4) HST refused to weigh requests of Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy, Assistant Navy Secretary Ralph Bard, and former Ambassador to Japan Joseph C. Grew, and then STIMSON at POTSDAM to modify the demand for unconditional surrender to allow the emperor to remain on the throne; 5) the Potsdam Declaration deliberately left out: a)mention of the A Bomb; b) mention of the USSR coming into the war; c) no modifications to the demand for unconditional surrender. All this was designed to allow use of the A Bomb to end the war before the USSR joined (thus forestalling the USSR claims in China, Japan and Germany! ).
    Finally, Radosh and others' casualty-death figures running to hundreds thousands are all poppycock. The Joint Chiefs of Staff said the maximum would be 31,000 in the first 30 days after the invasion of Kyushu--and they did NOT expect it to last that long. Japan was on its last military legs, the U.S. knew it, and while young Japanese officers wanted to fight--they could not hold out once the USSR entered the war.
    In fact, Robert Pape's article, "Why Japan Surrendered," (1993) documents the profound impact Russia's entry on August 8 had on the Japanese decision to surrender--fear not just of military destruction but of communism!
    Finally, while Radosh talks abut Hiroshima etc, no historian--including those who say HST had little choice regarding Hiroshima--who knows the field suggests that the Nagasaki bombing was militarily necessary. So stop beating on "intellectuals" and those who do not share the bitter right-wing persuasion of Radosh et al. and try reading a few documents...
    That's it friends, except to say that this kind of "trial" does not allow for the best historical judgment....There's a reason historians weigh all sides of a case, and render humane judgments, while prosecutors and defense lawyers tend to seek conviction or acquittal at all costs.

    I accuse President Harry S Truman of war crimes under Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter outlawing "the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."
    Specifically, I accuse President Truman of ordering the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki via an experimental terror weapon resulting in the massacre and maiming of some 200,000 Japanese women, children and old people.
    Philip Nobile, August 2001

    It has been 60 years since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and now as American people we come together to determine if Harry S Truman a war hero or a criminal. The choice is up to you!!!


    http://hnn.us/articles/190.html
    http://www.unit5.org/ncwhsimc/Hotlists/Truman%20Trial%20Simulation.html
    http://www.trumanlibrary.org/hstpaper/nurembergsg.htm


    marina roel - 3/3/2010

    I think that Truman and all those around him are guilty of war crimes. In Truman on Trial, Guilty by Jonathan Dresner the Defense states: "We didn't think we had any choice" Prosecution : "You always have other choices" Defense: "Well, they would have died anyway, no matter what choice we made". The number of people that would have died if Truman would not have dropped the atomic Bomb was greater than the number of people that the Bomb killed. It is clear that the the atomic bombings were effective from looking at thestatistics but did it sacrifice too many civilian lives? The effects in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not end after the war, they still having problem because of the high radiation of the bomb. In Truman on trial : The Prosecution, Closing Argument by PhilipNobile, when he said " it is not easy to defend premeditated massacres of women and children in wartime under international law" and "The fact that the United States wanted to shock Japan into surrender and, hypothetically, to save more lives as well does not remove the burden of criminality" I think those two quotes define where I stand on this whole issue even though the bombings were effective. It is hard to support such a largemassacre of people. Another issue is what we have done in the past. In Brian Madison Jones guilty defense "Just as the Nazis and the Japanese were liable for war crimes, but Truman is guilty for violations of the laws or customs of war" through the "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." This is a great point, in previous wars the Nazis and Japanese were guilty for similar crimes. They were the losers of the war, why should the winner be a war hero and the loser be a war criminal. Even though we are taking the guilty side of this there also is the undecided part. James R Van De Velde who thinks he is innocent says, " Truman may still have effected unconditional surrender by choosing a demonstration of the weapon offshore or warned the cities or Privy Council of the impending attack, but the fact that hedidn't does not make his act criminal" . The fact that he did some things wrong doesn't make him a war criminal. He was doing what he thought was best for the united states and not thinking about what the repercussions of the bombing were but that doesn't make him a criminal. But to defend my point I would say that even though it was a mistake, most criminals made a mistake when theycommitted a crime but the courts do not care. What he did was a matter of ethics. What he did was not right. He made a decision to kill a ton of innocent people which is not okay. For that I say he is guilty.



    Lauren, Dani Elizabeth, Alyssa Fogelsanger,Hart - 3/3/2010

    After 60 years later we ask ourselves, is Harry S Truman a war criminal or one of our Nations hero's.This is probably one of the hardest question that we can ask from one self. Harry Truman did what he thought was right for our country and our people, did he not? Do you think he had thought about all the thousands of innocent people who would be killed? Did he know the affects of the atomic bombs? Did he not send warnings to the Japanese cities? Did he not know any other way of stopping the war? Did he do this so thousand of more people from all sides wouldn't get killed later within the war? Ask yourself all of these question, and think what would you do in Truman's position. Would you sit back and do nothing and watch your own people die, or would you take care of the problem, and stop this terrible war once and for all?

    Obviously I believe that Harry S Truman is innocent of war crimes. He did what he needed to do to save this country and its people. Though in the end with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki he ended up killing over 200,000 people in order to end the war on U.S. terms. I think as Americans we need to think what if he didn't drop the atomic bombs? What would have happened? Honestly I believe if he did not drop the bombs this war wouldn't have ended for a very long time. Also if you think about it more people would have died if he didn't drop the bombs, because of the long lasting war. So to me and many other Americans I don't view Harry Truman as a war criminal, but as an American hero. This man is not guilty of anything and should be remembered as someone loyal and devoted to his country, also as a legend.

    According to R. John Pritchard, who pleads he is not guilty says" The doctrine of military necessity is NOT restricted to emergency measures adopted in the field. On the other hand the authorities recognized today (even the Subsequent Proceedings by US Military Tribunals at Nuremberg) although divided on the proper scope of it, tend to reject it as a defense. As the US Military Tribunal in the High Command Case put it, "It has been the viewpoint of many German writers… that military necessity includes the right to do anything that contributes to the winning of a war. We content ourselves on this subject with stating that such a view would eliminate all humanity and decency and all law from the conduct of war and it is a contention which this Tribunal repudiates as contrary to the accepted usages of civilized nations." In the Hostage Case, another US Military Tribunal declared that "We do not concur in the view that the rules of warfare are anything less than they purport to be. Military necessity or expediency do not justify a violation of positive rules. International law is prohibitive law. Articles 46, 47 and 50 of the Hague Rules of 1907 make no such exceptions to its enforcement. The rights of the innocent population therein set forth must be respected even if military necessity or expediency degree otherwise." In the Krupp Case, a US Military Tribunal states, "In short these rules and customs of warfare are designed specifically for all phases of war. They comprise the law for such emergency. To claim that they can be wantonly - and at the sole discretion of any one belligerent - disregarded when he considers his OWN situation to be critical, means nothing more nor less than to abrogate the rules and customs of war entirely."
    The criminality of any criminal conspiracy is not dependent upon proof that the accused actually met or jointly decided upon a course of action contrary to law. It depends upon the completion of the illegal act, and it embraces all who may in parallel and even unknown to each other embrace at any time efforts to promote, plan, prepare, initiate or carry out that illegal act. All who have at one time embraced it without thereafter repudiating the objective prior to the actual commission of the substantive offense may be found guilty of criminal conspiracy. However, if the substantive offense (e.g., a war crime or crime against humanity) is not found to have occurred, then the conspiracy charge cannot succeed in international law.

    Having regard for the lawful purpose of bringing about an end to the war and its suffering; for the wholly admirable objective of doing so with a minimal expenditure of human lives, for expert advice given to the President in June 1945 (that some 20,000 persons were likely to die in an atomic explosion, based on a reasonable assumption that the population of a city alert to the approach of a B-29 would have time and take shelter in underground civil defense facilities); for knowledge that efforts to negotiate an end to hostilities had hitherto failed and were unlikely to succeed without a clear demonstration that nothing whatever would be gained by further enemy resistance on the ground (the only means of resistance then open to that enemy), then the Allied Powers or any of them were entitled to make a choice of reasonable and lawful means to effect that early end of hostilities (a legitimate war aim). While it is true that the estimate of 20,000 was revised upwards after the Trinity explosion in the following month, so too was the calculation of how many people would die if the Allied forces directly engaged in a land campaign on Japan's sacred home ground.
    In making their calculations, the United States and their British allies were also entitled to take into consideration the certainty that were the war to continue, the Allied Powers would be forced to invade the Japanese mainland against a well-entrenched and implacable enemy willing to adopt all means at its disposal and willing to endure any sacrifice necessary to resist their invaders. An alternative, the starvation of the enemy into submission, would not succeed, if at all, short of incurring many tens or hundreds or thousands of thousands of innocent lives and untold suffering.
    They were entitled to take into account the political and military consequences of failing to act sufficiently or at all in order to prevent others (the Soviet Union) from seizing the initiative through the conquest of territory and deaths of untold numbers of the enemy's forces and non-combatants alike in Manchuria and Korea.
    They were entitled to take into consideration Intelligence information that they had in their possession to the effect that preparations had been made to exterminate all Allied Prisoners of War and Civilian Internees detained by the Japanese in certain eventualities which included a judgment that the prisoners would otherwise be liberated by closely approaching Allied forces.
    They were entitled to take into consideration the likely consequences if news of the existence and availability of the atomic bomb as a war-winning weapon were to come to the attention the public in the USA, Britain or other Allied Powers while the Allied diplomats continued with desultory negotiations with the enemy as hundreds of thousands if not millions of men, women and children on both sides continued to die in conventional warfare. Further, it IS believed that the French, who were thought to have stumbled onto the news of the Manhattan Project, were so alarmed or antagonized by being previously excluded from knowledge of it that they had it in mind to let the Russians know, thus placing at risk the capability of the United States and the British had of determining the most opportune moment at which to make the most of the bomb's war-winning potential.
    They were entitled to prefer that as high a preponderance as possible of any death and destruction necessary to bring about an end to the war should be borne by forces of the enemy rather than by the United States, its Philippine dependency and by all of the other Allied countries and possessions caught up in the fighting.

    Now lets hear what Brian Madison Jones, who pleads Truman to be guilty."Defense counsel Ron Radosh suggests that a case "based on a highly legalistic and a-historical citation of Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter" is insufficient to convict Harry Truman of war crimes for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Just as the Nazis and the Japanese were liable for war crimes, Truman is guilty for "violations of the laws or customs of war" through the "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." Prosecutor Philip Nobile makes clear that Truman sought simply to ravage Japan, devastating cities so completely as to shock Japan into unconditional surrender. This "wanton destruction" was enough for this juror, but Nobile further proves that the bombs were unnecessary as Japan teetered on the edge of surrender in late 1945. Still, he continues, with the planned invasion of Japan months away, Truman possessed numerous other alternatives to the bomb. Finally, Nobile maintains that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not of strategic significance (evidenced by the lack of attention paid to them during previous air campaigns), and thus "not justified by military necessity." Based on the Charter, the precedents of Nuremberg and Tokyo, and Nobile's evidence, Truman's guilt is indubitable and a larger fight is hereby commenced.
    For this historian, a "guilty" verdict takes a much needed shot at the growing anti-intellectualism of the Bush era. While some argue that arsenic is not harmful and global warming is a socialist conspiracy against divine industrialization, Radosh suggests that individuals who denounce the decisions of past "heroes" are un-American and intellectually bankrupt. He degrades Nobile's unique interpretation as an attempt "to rewrite the verdict of history by forging a new consensus," and denounces revisionism as a-historical. Unfortunately for Radosh, however, Nobile and history march forward. Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob argued convincingly that the revising of history may provide "the only way to move forward, perhaps not on a straight line of progress into the future, but forward toward a more intellectually alive, democratic community, toward the kind of society in which we would like to live." (Telling the Truth about History, 1994) Arguments like Nobile's allows us to do just that.
    Non-historians may also take great comfort in this decision. Radosh argues that this debate itself is reflective of frivolous "left-wing" history and dictated by an "anti-American political agenda." That is neither the case for this exercise, nor for this verdict. If fact, the opposite is true. What was good for the Nazis at Nuremberg and the Japanese in Tokyo is also appropriate for Truman. Might does not make right. To the victors should not go the history. Power must not triumph over reason. America cannot be exempt from international rules because, despite Radosh's appeal to patriotism in lieu of candor, there is nothing more American than the promise of equal justice under the law'.

    Determining if Truman is guilty or not guilty is a had decision, lets hear from a man who is undecided about it. Arnold A. Offner believes that the "Use of the bomb also rested on fact that Truman and Secretary of State James F. Byrnes did fear a) the Japanese might fight to the last soldier alive; b) the U.S. Congress and public would be enraged at the failure to use weapons after expending $2.7 billion, while also allowing "unnecessary" lost U.S. lives; c) Russians might advance in Manchuria and North China, and in Japan and claim the right of occupation governance, a la Germany; d) no official or group officials made a concerted argument not to use atomic bombs; e) no one--save a handful of scientists--grasped the quantum leap atomic weapons represented; f) after almost a decade of warfare--from Japan's attack on China 1937 to 1945, politicians like HST and Byrnes did not believe bombing was wanton destruction so much as forcing the other side to quit an indescribably horrible war. Hence, for many reasons that blended together--and prevented serious discussion of NOT using A-Bombs--HST and Byrnes acted, neither as saints nor sinners, nor as war criminals. Hence, I cannot convict them of war crimes unless I convict everyone who ordered any bombing that was not a military-industrial target exclusively.
    Defense lawyer Radosh does not seem acquainted with the vast body of literature that shows many political reasons that pushed HST in the direction of use of the bomb. For example:
    1) Stimson-HST discussions May 1945 about bomb being a "master card" and "royal straight flush" that would allow US to leverage USSR in negotiations; 2) Byrnes's belief that the bomb would allow the US to "out maneuver" the USSR in North China-Manchuria and Japan; and in Potsdam negotiations in general, including those concerning Germany. (See diary of Walter Brown, Byrnes's administrative aide). 3)HST himself saw the bomb as an "ace in the hole" --said it repeatedly--that would allow him to defeat Stalin in negotiations; 4) HST refused to weigh requests of Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy, Assistant Navy Secretary Ralph Bard, and former Ambassador to Japan Joseph C. Grew, and then STIMSON at POTSDAM to modify the demand for unconditional surrender to allow the emperor to remain on the throne; 5) the Potsdam Declaration deliberately left out: a)mention of the A Bomb; b) mention of the USSR coming into the war; c) no modifications to the demand for unconditional surrender. All this was designed to allow use of the A Bomb to end the war before the USSR joined (thus forestalling the USSR claims in China, Japan and Germany! ).
    Finally, Radosh and others' casualty-death figures running to hundreds thousands are all poppycock. The Joint Chiefs of Staff said the maximum would be 31,000 in the first 30 days after the invasion of Kyushu--and they did NOT expect it to last that long. Japan was on its last military legs, the U.S. knew it, and while young Japanese officers wanted to fight--they could not hold out once the USSR entered the war.
    In fact, Robert Pape's article, "Why Japan Surrendered," (1993) documents the profound impact Russia's entry on August 8 had on the Japanese decision to surrender--fear not just of military destruction but of communism!
    Finally, while Radosh talks abut Hiroshima etc, no historian--including those who say HST had little choice regarding Hiroshima--who knows the field suggests that the Nagasaki bombing was militarily necessary. So stop beating on "intellectuals" and those who do not share the bitter right-wing persuasion of Radosh et al. and try reading a few documents...
    That's it friends, except to say that this kind of "trial" does not allow for the best historical judgment....There's a reason historians weigh all sides of a case, and render humane judgments, while prosecutors and defense lawyers tend to seek conviction or acquittal at all costs.

    I accuse President Harry S Truman of war crimes under Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter outlawing "the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."
    Specifically, I accuse President Truman of ordering the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki via an experimental terror weapon resulting in the massacre and maiming of some 200,000 Japanese women, children and old people.
    Philip Nobile, August 2001

    It has been 60 years since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and now as American people we come together to determine if Harry S Truman a war hero or a criminal. The choice is up to you!!!


    http://hnn.us/articles/190.html
    http://www.unit5.org/ncwhsimc/Hotlists/Truman%20Trial%20Simulation.html
    http://www.trumanlibrary.org/hstpaper/nurembergsg.htm


    Madden Rose - 3/3/2010

    You can't say that BOTH bombs were truly necessary after the first Japan had absolutely no chance to surrender before the second was dropped. The first bomb got the job done and completed our objective the second was nothing but overkill which is why Truman is guilty of a war crime.


    alaina Henry - 3/3/2010

    We think that your statement, "He had saved thousands of lives, with his action of dropping the bomb on Japan" is not correct. How can you say that he saved thousands of lives, when he killed 200,000 Japanese? There is no way of proving that more people would have died without the use of the atomic bomb. Nobile says that in Article 6, paragraph B states that civilian slaughter is considered criminal, which is a war crime. Truman is guilty of murdering 200,000 innocent Japanese women and children. Yes it may have saved American lives, but what about the Japanese lives....


    Nick Scholz and Matt Delricco - 3/3/2010

    Disagree. Completely. You are continually arguing the morality of what Truman did and not the legality. These were two of the most populated areas in Japan and not only because of the military production there. He wanted to ruin the moral of the country by killing a bunch of terrorism. That's terrorism right there.

    Jonathan Dresner- Guilty

    "The deliberate attempt to destroy morale by targeting civilian populations or economic targets without significant military strategic value is called "terrorism." "


    Quinn, Steven Turkey SMOOOOO - 3/3/2010

    The difference between targets is one of the many parts of war that Trueman had to considered before dropping the bomb. Even though the civilians were helping to aid Japan and part of the war effort he should have destroyed the factories with more focused energy and attacked military bases instead of killing so many and even more from after effects of bomb.


    Madden Rose - 3/3/2010

    In our group of two, Janee and Tyler, we both have different opinions about Truman's guilt. Tyler says that Truman is guilty because this is a war crimes trial and even if you can justify the necessity of the first atomic bomb the second bomb was unnecessary and uncalled for and the destruction and civilian death toll caused by these two bombs classify this as a war crime that Truman could've avoided. Janee says that she's undecided because as a lot of the jurors who are saying not guilty state, there is no premise for the prosecution. It has no historical context and there is no reason for Truman to be tried now. On the other hand though, as the guilty side points out, Truman had no idea the strength of the bombs and he therefore should not have dropped them among other things.
    Truman committed a war crime according to the Nuremberg Charter and a few historians whose articles shall be summoned to support my thesis. One scholar stands out to me, Jon Dresner states, " I am not in favor of losing wars against unprincipled aggressive enemies. But I am also not in favor of becoming an unprincipled aggressor. That the atomic bombings were effective is unquestioned; the question is, are we prepared to sacrifice civilized legal behavior to accomplish our aims? I am not. " So what he's saying is that even though some historians say that the bombs were effective, is not the argument. the atomic bombs did so much damage to Japan, soldiers, civilians, buildings, and so much more was destroyed so instead of just fighting like we had been doing before, we quite literally blew away the competition. I feel the only reason that Truman wasn't tried as a war criminal is basically because we won the war, if we'd lost Truman would've been dead meat. Another historian whose opinion I favored was Brian Jones, who says, " Might does not make right. To the victors should not go the history. Power must not triumph over reason. America cannot be exempt from international rules because, despite Radosh's appeal to patriotism in lieu of candor, there is nothing more American than the promise of equal justice under the law. " Who says basically that we should still have to follow all the rules no matter how many battles and wars we win, no matter how mighty we think we are, we still need a good spanking and a nice long time out when we destroy over half of Japan. I however think that while all of those arguments are good and they make a point, Truman really cant be tried all this time later. There really is no historical premise for them to rely on. It just doesn't mean anything for them to accuse him now. You can't really judge completely unless you are in the situation.


    Adam John Harrington - 3/3/2010

    I like the argument, but we had deliberately dropped the bombs 2 days before the Russian Invasion. We didn't want commie influence in the area. But, that is besides the point, the Japanese had treated everyone they treated conquered POW ours in particular with great brutality. War is war people die it is a fact, are you saying that conventional bombing raids didn't brake their morale? Are you saying that FDR is not a war criminal? If you are convicting one convict all, don't just target one person. Darth Vader is not that great of an example, because unlike the Dark side we wanted the Japanese homeland. In war if you play by the so called rules all the time, you are going to lose all the time.


    Erica and Dylan Nolan and Kubina - 3/3/2010

    We do see where you are coming at when you say, "killing innocent civilians", however, do you really think dropping mini bombs would do anything at all? Robert James Maddox points out something very important that you must look at. He said that if we hadn't dropped this big bomb, many more American lives would have been lost. Do you really think that would of been right? Also we gave fair warning to the Japanese, it was their own choice to ignore it and try to go against us. So you can't blame Truman for war crimes because we killed innocent civilians when we warned them about the dropping of the bomb. When Oscar B. Chamberlain said, "this was the only way to destroy Japans military force and industry capacity was by bombing them" you have to consider the other things that could of occurred if Truman didn't make this decision of dropping the bomb. We think that we all would want to save the U.S civilians before anything else.


    Aidan Stromer - 3/3/2010

    First off, you are wrong. Truman was justified in dropping those bombs through military necessity. You say that he killed innocent civilians when in fact those civilians were working in factories that were mass producing war equipment that was used to kill American soldiers. If we had not dropped the bombs, Japan would have succeeded in developing their own atomic bomb which was in fact in production. When you quote Philip Nobile saying "Japan would have surrendered without the bombs being dropped," you are doing nothing more than stating opinion. He has no facts to back that statement up when there are facts that prove the opposite. Japanese leaders were willing to sacrifice every man, woman, and child to try and defend their country. In fact, a former head of the Japanese Medical association sated that "Considering what Japan would have sacrificed, the bombs can be described as saving Japan." Truman did not tell Japanese leaders that the bombs were going to be dropped because they would have been able to prepare, thus negating the intended effects of the bombs, so it would have been a waste. War is ugly. It is not meant to be fair. When people are dying every day in bloody battles, fairness goes out the window. In wartime, who is to say what is fair or not. And what is to stop people from doing it anyway? War is not meant to be clean. There is nothing clean about killing people. But when one considers how many more were saved by preventing a land invasion, Truman can almost be considered as a hero.


    Adam John Harrington - 3/3/2010

    War is a nasty brutal battle that is not fare by any means. War crimes do not include murder. Murder is what war is all about. The Japanesse were told to kill themselves trying to kill Americans. If you were trapped by 20 Americans and you had a gernade on you, you would kill yourself to kill the Americans. This was a war that would never end. Dropping the bombs was the only way to end the war responcibly. Women and children would of died whether we drop the bomb or invaded. This was a terrible war that had to be ended as soon as possible. Truman loves this country and wanted the best for it. Therefore his actions were justified and his actions also saved thousands of lives. Therefore Truman is not guilty of war crimes.


    Specht Jones - 3/3/2010

    I do see where you're coming from but would you rather the Americans go in and continue fire bombings? "Continued firebombing of Japanese cities would have killed hundreds of thousands more and may not have forced the surrender for months or even years. Would the prosecution have tried President Truman for approving a blockade or continued firebombing?" - Jeff Tenuth. That i feel would have caused so much more destruction, pain, and suffering then the quick end of using the bomb. I don't think that his power was used to extinguish the reason. The reason would only be the civilian deaths, yet with blockades and fire bombing those deaths would have still happened. There would be no end or way to overcome the war peacefully. There is just no way. Truman was stuck between a rock and a hard place and people are judging him for trying to do the right thing. That in fact i think is horrible because no many people have ever had to be in that situation, so how would they know what they decided is right.


    History Truman - 3/3/2010

    We agree with your verdict, Truman's actions were not justified enough, and it was a quick fix to end the war. The closing argument of the prosecution stated, "All direct killing of non-combatants is against international law regardless of weapons employed. The laws and customs of war clearly distinguish between discriminate and indiscriminate military actions". He definitely went over board with this war against Japan. Also, did not follow the international law of war.


    darby eleanor punt - 3/3/2010

    My partner and I also believe that Truman was not guilty. As you stated before, Truman was simply trying to end the war, not take innocent peoples lives away. You bring up what Larry Schweikart says about surrendering, and one thing he said that struck me was, "Surrendering is quite simple. You stop shooting and say, "we surrender." Instead, the Imperial leaders threatened to KILL anyone who even mentioned the word." This shows that the Japanese weren't planning on surrendering like many claim they were, ultimately leading us to drop the bomb for military necessity. Jeff Tenuth explains to us that their were no other alternatives to the bomb. He says, "Allowing the Japanese to view a test of the bomb was impractical. Blockade wouldn't have worked without inflicting severe civilian casualties. And continued firebombing of Japanese cities would have killed hundreds of thousands more and may not have forced the surrender for months or even years" Overall, Truman made the right decision for our country, and should be looked upon as not guilty.


    Adam John Harrington - 3/3/2010

    I like the logic in this statement. The fact that you have to us scare tactics and brutal firepower in a couple blows force a nasty imperial power to give up, and land invasions would have been drawn out and the loss would have made Truman look bad a would have been tried as a war criminal. This is well stated and has good strong arguments. WELL DONE


    Erica and Dylan Nolan and Kubina - 3/3/2010

    We agree, because when you said more attacks would of been led, so many American lives would of been taken away. It isn't right to take away the lives of the Japanese because they were innocent, but if it is in order to save our own lives, then it is sometimes the only option and Truman did what he had to."The Japanese warlords were playing the same game in 1945 that they played at Pearl Harbor---striking the United States in hopes that we would just be lazy or stupid and go away. And they reaped the whirlwind for it." We like this statement, this shows how Japan was trying to catch us off guard, which never happened. The U.S was not going to let something like the Pearl Harbor happen again. Larry Schweikart stated, "Imperial Japan " trying to surrender, and we bombed them anyway" but the imperial threatened to KILL anyone who spoke of those words " I surrender." If Japan even spoke of the word they would have been killed which meant that there was no way that Japan was going to surrender, unless we took action.


    Specht Jones - 3/3/2010

    I think that Truman was a good person, he just had to make an extremely hard decision that no one in this day and time would have any clue on what to do. "His actions were, in a sense, incidental, in that they were incidents planned to end the war. There was no other intent" That was part of Jeff Tenuths statement. As harsh as that sounds it did save many American lives, as you said above.


    darby eleanor punt - 3/3/2010

    We agree with you that Truman is not guilty. You're points are very true, about dropping the bomb for one reason, and one reason only. To end the war. There have been many questions about the military necessity of the dropping, and I believe Arnold A. Offner makes a good point. He says, "Truman and all those around him are guilty of war crimes for causing wanton destruction of cities and villages (and people) without military necessity. But so then must we convict the Germans for bombing the east end of London and Coventry and London, the British and U.S. for fire-bombing Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo...albeit with conventional bombs not atomic ones. But that makes the issue the weapon not the deed. I cannot convict them of war crimes unless I convict everyone who ordered any bombing that was not a military-industrial target exclusively." By saying this, it allows those opposed to Truman being not guilty to reconsider because they're able to see that this is not the first or only time this has happened. Other countries have dropped bombs, though not atomic ones, that haven't exactly been necessary. Overall, Truman was definitely trying to end the war, not trying to end the lives of Japanese men and women, and he should be seen as not guilty.


    Adam John Harrington - 3/3/2010

    Your information is completely false. 400,000 Japanesse died, not 15 to 30 million. Those numbers make a little bit of a difference and you might want to consider changing your argument once you get your numbers right.
    Here's what really happened
    -only 400,000 Japanesse died
    -Your numbers are what would of happened if we did not drop the bombs. I read that argument and that article was what was predicted to happen if we invaded Japan. (So your arguing the wrong way)
    -Also if the Japan military would have never of surrendered. They were told to die fighting rather than surrender.
    -According to my math and your false numbers dropping the bombs saved millions of lives.
    Therefore Truman is not guilty.


    History Truman - 3/3/2010

    Harry Truman, our former president is guilty of war crime. There were many choices given to him other than the A-bomb. Also, Mr. Truman mainly targeted the innocent civilians, many of them, 200,000 of innocent women and children were killed because of Mr. Truman unintellectual decision. Jonathan Dresner, his verdict was that he is guilty stated, " The deliberate attempt to destroy morale by targeting civilian populations or economic targets without significant military strategic value is called "terrorism." There is no strategy used in fighting this war, it was basically hammering each other, Japan and the United State. Also, Jonathan Dresner stated, "That the atomic bombings were effective is unquestioned; the question is, are we prepared to sacrifice civilized legal behavior to accomplish our aims? I am not." Can we, humans sacrifice the right way to fight a war? That's means there is no limits or rules on how to win or fight a war. If your answer is yes, than you might not see the sun tomorrow if that illegal behavior functioned in our society today. Another jury Brian Madison Jones said he is guilty because of obvious reasons, he states, "Truman is guilty for "violations of the laws or customs of war" through the "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." Truman clearly did not fight this war kind heart-ted. He wanted to get revenge and was also selfish. He wanted Japan to taste their own medicine. I'm pretty sure after the first bomb, they knew how it felt. However, it is not the civilians fault, it's their leaders, why would Truman want the regular people, innocent people to suffer rather than their leaders? Jones says, "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not of strategic significance (evidenced by the lack of attention paid to them during previous air campaigns), and thus "not justified by military necessity." Based on the Charter, the precedents of Nuremberg and Tokyo, and Nobile's evidence, Truman's guilt is indubitable and a larger fight is hereby commenced" Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military necessity, therefore the invasion was not needed, basically, Truman wasted a lots of money and lives fighting this deadly war. The prosecution Philip Nobile, who accused Harry Truman and others of war crime stated, " We still tried our enemies under [Nuremberg] rules and did not apply them to ourselves". If the United States are not going to apply the Nuremberg rules to themselves, how do they expect other countries to do so. United States needs to set a good example to the rest of the world that this is what we need to do and we are going to do, United State is very persuasive. That what sparked other wars, countries were not following the Nuremberg rules and caused troubles and endless wars.


    Erica and Dylan Nolan and Kubina - 3/3/2010

    We agree very much with the statements that you have compiled. We agree with the statement that dropping the bomb saved many American lives, as well as Japanese ones. R. John Pritchar also said that Truman was not guilty, when he said "that the atomic bomb did nothing more but further the Japanese from moving forward in the war." This statement relates to your thoughts with Truman not doing anything wrong when dropping the bomb on Japan. He had to drop the bomb in order to end that war and there was no time to waste, because all that would do was kill even more innocent people.


    Specht Jones - 3/3/2010

    I agree with you 100%. The fact that the people who saw Truman as guilty, kept going on about how Japan was going to surrender. There was no such thing about to happen. Larry Schweikart mentioned that "the portrayal of an Imperial Japan "trying to surrender, and we bombed them anyway," is lunacy. Surrendering is quite simple. You stop shooting and say, "we surrender." Instead, the Imperial leaders threatened to KILL anyone who even mentioned the word." So if there wasn't even a mention of the word, there was no way Japan was going to surrender.


    darby eleanor punt - 3/3/2010

    We too agree that Truman is not guilty. Not only did Larry Schweikart say those things about surrendering, but he later told us, "The Japanese warlords were playing the same game in 1945 that they played at Pearl Harbor---striking the United States in hopes that we would just be lazy or stupid and go away. And they reaped the whirlwind for it." By saying this, it allows us to have no mercy for the Japanese, because they have committed the same crimes. One last valid point that Schweikart makes is, "During a war, if saving a single one of my soldiers can be achieved by any means, I'll take it." I strongly agree with this statement because in the end, during a war you kind of have to be selfish. Many people are going to face death, and if you can eliminate the amount of your own men who have to die, then by all means do what ever it takes.


    Greg Wenner and Mike Faussette - 3/3/2010

    By taking that extra step before anyone else, the Japanese were pushed out of the war, and we were left as the victors. It was a military necessity to end the war. If we just would have kept fighting as we were, the Japanese would have never surrendered. By doing this we ended the war with considerably less casualties for both sides.
    Think about if the Japanese had bomb. Do you think they would drop it on us if they had the chance? YES. They had kamikaze planes fly into and explode on targets, sacrificing their lives willingly and purposefully for they’re country. And do you think that they would have just given up eventually?
    You people that are saying he’s guilty say that he is just as guilty as the Nazi’s. It’s not like this was killing people just because we don’t like them (like the Nazis did). We took a chance to end the war, and it worked. It was the right decision. We saved lives. It’s true that we did kill some innocents with the bombs, but it was a military strategy to end the killing overall.


    Grace Cordelia Hamilton - 3/3/2010

    The slaughter of thousands of innocents is wrong. The intentional killing of women and children is disgusting. Truman committed instant genocide, when dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. We know this was a quick end to the war, but where is the need, when it cost us so many lives? I believe this was a show of power, not solely a military act. Truman although a good man, acted to rashly and should be prosecuted for his actions. We are the strongest nation in the world, but that does not negate us from being prosecuted. Every other person who committed crimes against humanity has been prosecuted, and it was a just way of dealing with their poor decisions.

    Article six says:
    (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoner of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

    Truman committed war crimes, that are similar to other criminals such as Hitler and Trotsky. By dropping the bombs he violated the charter because he never argued that dropping the bombs were a "military necessity" and "the universal prohibition against civilian massacres surely extended to rational atrocities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, especially by the flexible judicial standards in play at Nuremburg."
    (He murdered many innocent people) - Opening Argument, Prosecution

    This was the quick fix to a problem, and in so many cases we see that this is not the answer, and it ends up bringing great consequences.

    Truman is guilty for "violations of the laws or customs of war" through the "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" - Bryon M. Jones, Jury

    "Truman and his men intended to commit fiendish civilian slaughters in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Otherwise, they would have arranged a bomb demonstration or aimed at a military target." (sixth paragraph down from the closing argument)

    We are too quick to defend his terrible actions, because his action reflects upon us, by shedding a darker light on America, but that does not mean we can so easily pardon his actions. "Power should not triumph over reason" wise words spoke by Bryon M. Jones. We turn a blind eye to atrocities when they are poor in our favour.


    Elaine and Dani Tillotson and Fantaskey - 3/3/2010

    President Truman is not guilty. In our opinion he was fulfilling his responsibility to protect the United States. Japan was preparing to invade the United States, which would have given them the opportunity to do similar damage to us. Truman's tactics were to force Japan into a surrender, which in the end, resulted in success. I am not saying that killing thousands of innocent Japanese people is moral by any means. It is just as Jeff Tenuth stated in his not guilty verdict “it’s the reality of war we are dealing with, not our current opinions on the immorality of nuclear weapons. Our current opinions have no place in a trial like this." The prosecution is weak because if they are prosecuting him for being a war criminal in dropping the bomb then, as Robert James Maddox said, "he should have been charged with the number of additional killings that actually took place because of his actions, as opposed to what would then have been only the theoretical deaths the bombs would have caused." We do not think he should convicted as a war criminal, because he wasn't trying to kill thousands of people just to kill, he was trying to stop Japan and make them surrender, to end the Pacific War. Larry Schweikart claims in his not guilty statement "I reject the entire concept of "war crimes" as being separate and distinct acts of violence, the same way I reject "hate crimes" as being different from acts." Hitler is a war criminal, because he set out to kill thousands of people, and that was what his main goal was. A war criminal is someone who acts out and slaughters people who have not engaged against them in military action. They had not taken any military action against Hitler and the German Nazi's. But in the end they were slaughtered and killed by Hitler, just because. The Japanese were in a war against the United States, and there was plenty of military conflict between the two countries. Therefore, Truman's actions cannot be considered as war criminal characteristics. Truman was just trying to save his people and end the war. Brian M. Jones claimed that the killing done by Truman was "not justified by military necessity,” but it was completely justified. By causing Japan to surrender, more lives were saved for both the Japanese and the United States. In the defense’s opening statement it says "it is fantasy, not history, to believe that the end of the war was at hand before the use of the atomic bomb." If Truman hadn't dropped the bomb, who is to say how long the war and invasions would have continued on for? Truman made a decision which caused the war to be shortened. And for that reason he is innocent.


    Donavon Frances Partsch - 3/3/2010


    I find that overall this case of Nuremburg Vs. Harry Truman comes down to a simple question. Did Harry Truman, the 33rd president of the United, violate the Nuremburg Charter ?

    The answer is yes. At the time there was no imediant need to bomb the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Yes it was a way to the end the war quickly and maybe even save lives. But it was not a necessity.

    Truman was going under pressure. He could not let the Soviets take the manchurian pennisula, not when we were about to enter the cold war. The war had to be ended pronto.
    Also this apparent save of lives where projected numbers. Simulations, they could have been more or less. War is fought by people and you cannot predict people.

    The Comparison of Auschwitz to the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are very comparable. However in Auschwitz people suffered through this knowing there was a slim chance to survive. When those Japanese civillians saw the Enola Gay coming and when they saw that bomb drop, they probably realized what was going to happen.

    I can also draw a comparison between Harry Truman and the fictional sci-fi character Darth Vader from Starwars. When Darth Vader said "You may fire when ready" and the empire blew up the planet Alderaan that exactly the sort of thing to happen on hiroshima and nagasaki. It was like thousands of lives cried out in helplessness and then... there was nothing. And why did the empire do this ? To attempt to scare the rebels out of rebellion. To break their spirit. Only at the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it worked. The Japanese Empire surrendered. Does that make what Harry Truman did less despicable than what the Inter-Galactic Empire did ?


    In Robert Radosh's twisted fantasy maybe Hiroshima and Nagasaki where applicable military targets. However in the real world the idea that Hiroshima and Nagasaki where specifically military targets is an incredible fact to even begin to swallow. If you can convince yourself of that you might as well runoff and deny the holocaust as well. What would we have said if Japan had bombed a city such as Detroit or New York, both of which where producing military equipment? If they had claimed that these cities where military targets would we have believed them ? Even though hundreds of thousands of Americans would have been slaughtered because they saw fit to make a "military target" of our cities because our civilians where being employed to help with the war effort what could we say? Nothing. We did this exact same thing in Japan. The Japanese building aircraft and bombs to help with there war effort was the same as our civilians helping with ours. It is a display of patriotism and pride no matter which side you were on, being as most likely you would root for the nation you live in.

    ALTERNATIVES TO MASS MURDER

    There were a lot of alternatives: Truman could have demonstrated the power of the bomb without wiping out several hundred thousand civilians. He could have altered the Rooseveltian insistence on unconditional surrender. At the time, the US was intercepting all Japanese coded messages, and deciphering them, and Truman knew that this was the main obstacle to Japan’s peace party. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill urged Truman to relent and allow the Japanese to surrender, keeping their Emperor system and their honor intact. But it was no go. When Truman stook the reins, US pronouncements on the subject did not significantly deviate from the unconditional surrender formula, and were purposefully vague.

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2001/08/08/hiroshima-mon-amour/



    Hirohito's surrender was also imminent. With the defeat of the Nazi's on the European front, there was nothing stopping the allies from launching a full scale invasion into Japan. Hirohito would have no choice to surrender. Yet Harry Truman had decided to end the war his way. Not the way Winston Churchill, man of great stature had recommended. Even though he had Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill and many other Allies on his side to invade Japan he went nuke these cities for a so called military necessity. There would have been no necessity if we had allowed Japan to surrender. If we had allowed Japan to keep there Emperor and there honor. If Truman could have realized what this meant to them and not have been so ignorant to the Japanese culture maybe we wouldn't have "had" to nuke Japan for so called "military necessity".


    Another one of Radosh's boggling reasons was to stop the Soviets from taking the Manchurian Pennisula. There was no evidence to the contrary that suggested this. FDR had begged the Soviets to come into the pacific war at the Yalta conference. We had allied ourselves with them.
    Yet Truman had decided that with the cold war around the corner we must drop the bomb and show the world that we the united states are capable of doing horrible horrific things to our fellow man. We where not only trying to scare Japan into surrender but we where also tryng to scare, The Soviets and almost anyone else who would side with them.


    Specht Jones - 3/3/2010

    After reading both sides we have decided that Truman is not guilty. We believe this because one of the jurors, Larry Schweikart, said "the portrayal of an Imperial Japan "trying to surrender, and we bombed them anyway," is lunacy. Surrendering is quite simple. You stop shooting and say, "we surrender." Instead, the Imperial leaders threatened to KILL anyone who even mentioned the word." Richard Jenson said that the US Air Force were to double and triple the conventional bombing raids if the bomb was not dropped. He also said the the Army would have had two invasions (Kyushu and Honshu)and that would have meant many American lives at risk. I mean it is sad to think that the planners thought they knew that they were going to kill all of the Japanese and still went through with it, but what would you do in this situation? Arnold A. Offner said that this kind of trial does not allow for the best historical judgment, and that i also agree with. But with the information that we do know i feel that we made the right decision.


    Langton Punt - 3/3/2010

    We have come to the conclusion that Truman is not guilty. Statements made by many of the jurers, including Tenuth, Jenson, Maddox, and others, that millions of Americans and Japanese would have been killed had the atomic bomb not been dropped. Estamites for the Japanese was reaching up to 10 million, much higher than those that were killed by the bombs. Tenuth and Jenson added that the navy wanted to blockage Japan, which would have cause the death of millions of civilians. Also, there was no sign that Japan had any intentions of surrendering before the atomic bombs were dropped. According to Maddox, every bombing Truman did made him a war criminal, not just the atomic bombs. Last, Pritchard has stated that the doctrine of military necessity is not restricted to emergency measures adopted in the field. The cases made for Truman being not guilty is too strong to disagree with.


    PhilJawn MartynPhil SebKen - 3/3/2010

    My partner and I believe that President Truman is not guilty, there is substantial evidence to support our claim and defend the action that Truman took while serving as the commander and chief of our country. While there is no doubt that the dropping of the atomic bombs was a sad outcome, but one that was almost inevitable. By dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman actually saved lives, a fact that is overlooked by many people who seek to blame President Truman for his controversial decision. Many American soldiers and many Japanese would have died if President Truman would have chosen another one of the proposed plans to handle the situation in Japan; a land invasion, naval blockade, or an increase in the fire bombings that were already taking place over the cities of Japan, all would have resulted in a huge number of deaths, more so than the dropping of the atomic bombs.
    “…the Allied Powers would be forced to invade the Japanese mainland against a well-entrenched and implacable enemy willing to adopt all means at its disposal and willing to endure any sacrifice necessary to resist their invaders. An alternative, the starvation of the enemy into submission, would not succeed, if at all, short of incurring many tens or hundreds or thousands of thousands of innocent lives and untold suffering.” (R. John Pritchard) This quote shows what would occur if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, the alternatives were far worse than the damage that the bombs caused.
    “WW2 was a war of production and almost all the Japanese war production came from its large cities. In 1945 alone they produced 5400 fighter planes, 1900 bombers and 3600 other warplanes--most of them intended as highly lethal kamikazis. The US Air Force dropped tens of millions of leaflets advising people to leave these war production centers--and over 8 million did so. Those who were essential to the Japanese war effort remained behind. So the destruction of cities was not "wanton" but was "justified by military necessity." (Richard Jensen) This quote shows that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not some surprise attack meant to catch the Japanese off-guard, these targets were selected because of the production of war materials, and the inhabitants of the city were given warning before the bombs were dropped.
    “But in the present case we are faced with the incontrovertible fact that the use of the atomic bombs was by the British and Americans thought likely to end the war at a small fraction of the human misery, destruction and death that likely would have attended any other means at hand.” (R. John Pritchard) This quotation states very simply that the bombs were less destructive to human lives on both sides than anything else that they could have done.
    “According to Nobile's "logic," if Truman had unnecessarily prolonged the war by failing to use atomic bombs, he should have been tried as a war criminal.” (Robert James Maddox) This quote was a very good point and well put. Even if Truman used a different tactic, he still would have ended up being tried as a war criminal in this mock trial. It was honestly a lose-lose situation for him and he picked the best way to save the lives of his own people. It’s not like the Japanese would have gone out of their ways to save American lives. People need to start realizing the reality of war, civilian lives will always end up being a cost of war, no matter how much we try to prevent it, whether intentional or by accident, people need to accept the harsh reality. Truman did what he thought would end the war quickly and the most efficiently by trying to save lives. For all any of you know, maybe the Japanese would have ended up doing the same thing to us if we would have decided to act later. Maybe it is because of Truman’s action to drop this bomb that we have the opportunity to be alive and be able discuss this “crime” today.
    “Finally, the portrayal of an Imperial Japan "trying to surrender, and we bombed them anyway," is lunacy. Surrendering is quite simple. You stop shooting and say, "we surrender." Instead, the Imperial leaders threatened to KILL anyone who even mentioned the word.” (Larry Schweikart) This quote hits the point right on the nose. After the war, the Japanese claimed to have been planning to surrender to the U.S. for a long time. You can’t just say you were trying to surrender to try and create sympathy for a country that was working with a tyrant trying to annihilate a race of people, and in the process take over the world. They won’t get any sympathy from us. Like he said, all they had to do was put down their guns and stop shooting, but did they do that? No, they didn’t. So, America did what we felt we had to in order save American lives, drop the atom bomb.


    Nick Scholz and Matt Delricco - 3/3/2010

    Philip Nobile, Prosecution Opening


    1st Main point: Article 6 Paragraph b of the Nuremberg Charter did not break new ground in its definition of war crimes:

    (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoner of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

    Philip Nobile, Prosecution Opening

    "Although "trying" Truman for war crimes may seem like counter-factual history run amuck, it is a long overdue exercise in intellectual honesty. If we expect the nations of the world to pursue foreign war criminals, we must be willing to face the truth about our own. "

    Jonathan Dresner- Guilty

    "The deliberate attempt to destroy morale by targeting civilian populations or economic targets without significant military strategic value is called "terrorism." "

    Brian Madison Jones- Guilty

    "America cannot be exempt from international rules because, despite Radosh's appeal to patriotism in lieu of candor, there is nothing more American than the promise of equal justice under the law. "

    Jonathan Dresner- Guilty

    "are we prepared to sacrifice civilized legal behavior to accomplish our aims?"

    This discussion that we are simulating involves ONLY legalized evidence. This discussion does not involve moral beliefs and points of view about atomic bombs. The fact of the matter is, we both believe that morally, president Truman was correct in his assessment of the extremely complex situation in Japan. Japan was not going to surrender until they were completely obliterated. The Atomic bombs did their job. Looking back on it now, with so many Leukemia related deaths in the cities that were bombed, it is hard to say that Truman was right. However President Truman had no knowledge of the destructive aftermath that would continue until today. His decision made the most sense to most people at that time.
    However, even though we think that President Truman's decision was correct, he should be labeled a war criminal. The fact that highly ranked officials in Germany were prosecuted in a court of law for similar war crimes to those of President Truman, is intangible. Also, the fact is that Truman committed wanton destruction of two cities, which is a blatant violation of the Nuremberg Charter, makes him a war criminal. If dropping nukes on cities is not wanton destruction of cities, then what is? With those main points, the court should be adjourned and President Truman should receive an appropriate punishment.
    In continuance of our decision, we would like to point out that if for some reason we were to have lost the war, Japan would have tried Truman and his cabinet of war crimes using the exact same justifications we are using now. If the Japanese were to have developed the bombs first and nuked us, then we would try the Japanese leaders for breaking the Nuremberg Charter. Unless we are a nation of hypocrites and cheats, we should be able to have the strength of being able to admit that yes, what President Truman did was breaking the Nuremberg Charter and is guilty of war crimes, despite the fact that what he did was the morally righteous thing to do and it saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Also, we claim to be the epitome of a morally just nation and we pride ourselves on our civility, honor, and freedom. The defense admitted that the use of nuclear bombs was an effort to force the Japanese to give up hope. Is this not terrorism? The fact that we have committed what in present day we strive to eradicate from the globe and yet due to our own opinion, we believe we did the right thing. We go about pushing acts of terror as heroic accomplishments yet we label Al-Qaeda and other terror organizations as the enemies of anything that is just. It is no wonder why so many people have problems with the United States. We should stand up and show that even we can blame ourselves of a despicable act such as terrorism and we are willing to own up to our wrongdoings and face the corresponding consequences. Labeling President Truman as a war criminal may be hard for many to conceive, but if we are to make even the slightest change in our rapidly-changing world, we must be a leader in setting forth a new code of rules for people world wide to live by. That everything and everyone are equal and what may seem to be a grand act of valor from one perspective is a horrid and grotesque deed from another, and any misdeed must be delt with regardless of who committed it and what the outcome was. So in conclusion, we Americans cannot continue hiding behind our perceived illusion that we are above the natural laws set before us by a higher power. By finding Mr. Truman guilty of crimes against humanity we are starting to equalize the instability that is responsible for the great amount of tension that exists in our world. This could be the push our world needs to start a snowball effect into the creation of a world where even though there is still war, there is less of it and there will be no indifference based on an imbalance of respect or power. Hopefully we can do the right thing and create the change that past, present, and future generations have been, are, and will be striving to bring into existence.


    Madden Rose - 3/3/2010

    In our group of two, Janee and Tyler, we both have different opinions about Truman's guilt. Tyler says that Truman is guilty because this is a war crimes trial and even if you can justify the necessity of the first atomic bomb the second bomb was unnecessary and uncalled for and the destruction and civilian death toll caused by these two bombs classify this as a war crime that Truman could've avoided. Janee says that she's undecided because as a lot of the jurors who are saying not guilty state, there is no premise for the prosecution. It has no historical context and there is no reason for Truman to be tried now. On the other hand though, as the guilty side points out, Truman had no idea the strength of the bombs and he therefore should not have dropped them among other things.
    Truman commited a war crime according to the Nuremburg Charter and a few historians whose articles shall be summonded to support my thesis. One scholar stands out to me, John Dresner states, " I am not in favor of losing wars against unprincipled aggressive enemies. But I am also not in favor of becoming an unprincipled aggressor. That the atomic bombings were effective is unquestioned; the question is, are we prepared to sacrifice civilized legal behavior to accomplish our aims? I am not. " So what he's saying is that even though some historians say that the bombs were effective, is not the argument. the atomic bombs did so much damage to Japan, soldiers, civilians, buildings, and so much more was destroyed so instead of just fighting like we had been doing before, we quite literally blew away the competion. I feel the only reason that Truman wasn't tried as a war criminal is basically because we won the war, if we'd lost Truman would've been deadmeat. Another historian whose opinion I favored was Brian Jones, who says, " Might does not make right. To the victors should not go the history. Power must not triumph over reason. America cannot be exempt from international rules because, despite Radosh's appeal to patriotism in lieu of candor, there is nothing more American than the promise of equal justice under the law. " Who says basically that we should still have to follow all the rules no matter how many battles and wars we win, no matter how mighty we think we are, we still need a good spanking and a nice long time out when we destroy over half of Japan. I however think that while all of those arguements are good and they make a point, Truman really cant be tried all this time later. There really is no historical premise for them to rely on. It just doesn't mean anything for them to accuse him now. You can't really judge completely unless you are in the situation.


    Ross quinn park - 3/3/2010

    Stopped the killing cost of almost a million American dead and wounded.

    Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima so he resulted in a sneak attack of the atomic bomb. It was a hurried decision dropping the bomb only 10 days after testing it. He wanted a surrender by any means possible.

    In Class:
    I think he is guilty because he didn't just attack soldiers but innocent civilians. The civilians were still contributing to the war effort but only because of the government. It was also done in such a short while. He didn't Could have evacuated. We did give them a warning. It was to hard to evacuated the largest city in Japan. The government may have not even told some parts so it wouldn't create mass kaos. He was just trying to end the war with the least casualties on our side and didn't care about the Japan casualties. Today they're are beating us in Olympic events and stealing our stinkin medals. They may have not planned on surrendering for awhile but it made it seem so much worse that they were thinking about it. The fact that we still dropped the bomb not knowing the aftermath before they were about to surrender with out any major casalities on the Japan side. Did we have to drop one huge bomb when we could have dropped a mini one on all the military basses. Would the outcome would have beem different because we attacked the military instead of an entire city. Would the world fear us to this day because of this event? One bomb would have been fine.

    Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter outlaws "the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."
    As the Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel warned years ago, to forget a holocaust is to kill twice.


    Matt Clymer - 3/3/2010

    In this trial I have concluded that Harry S. Truman is guilty. He should be considered a war criminal. Now, is he as bad as other war criminals in past wars? No, but after killing 200,000 innocent civilians living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, somebody has to be guilty of those deaths.
    Truman had a decision to make about how to end the war in the pacific and he took the easy way out. Philip Nobile called Truman “a reverse Otto Schindler who hurried the final solution to the Pacific war by mercilessly sending 200,000 innocents to grotesque skin-melting, chromosome-cracking deaths.” There was no hurry at all in his decision. The allies could’ve thought up better solutions, but instead they went with the fast way, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children dying within a three day span.
    The reason why Truman wasn’t really thought of as a war criminal after we dropped the bombs, is mostly because we won the war. Brian Jones says “ America cannot be exempt from international rules,” and he has a great point. Just because we, or anybody for that matter, win a war, doesn’t mean we did everything right. Truman used devastating methods to end the war and he is anything but a hero in our victory over the Japanese.
    The main problem with these bombs was that it killed civilians and not military soldiers. These people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just living their normal lives and most of them really didn’t have much to do with the war, but they were all killed anyway. ”Collateral damage, rather than innocent bystanders” is what we are now calling civilian deaths in our wars or at least that’s what John Dresner is saying. He is basically talking about how we have to come to accept civilian losses in all the battles we fight in.
    And Truman didn’t just drop the bombs on two major cities, he dropped the bombs on the main parts of each city. Ground Zero was the population center in Hiroshima instead of the military headquarters a few miles away. He talked about how he needed to stop the military bases in mainland Japan, but he dropped atomic bombs on a bunch of non-combatant civilians.


    Aidan Stromer - 3/3/2010

    Based on the arguments and evidence presented by the prosecution, defense, and jurors, we have concluded that Harry S. Truman is not guilty of war crimes. Yes, he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, but it was a military necessity. By dropping the bombs, Truman saved the lives of more than double the people who perished. The defense attorney. Ronald Radosh, stated on numerous accounts that Japan would have fought to the last child to defend their country. The Japanese were and are a very proud people.

    As a former chief of the Japanese Medical Association has said, "When one considers the possibility that the Japanese military would have sacrificed the entire nation if it were not for the atomic bomb attack, then this bomb might be described as having saved Japan." This is coming from a Japanese citizen. However few, there were those who believed that the A-Bombs did in fact save their homeland.

    On the question of what amount of casualties would have occurred if the A-bombs had not been dropped, Richard B. Frank, a former air platoon leader who fought in Vietnam and is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center, notes the report commissioned for Stimson by W. B. Shockley, who argued that defeating Japan by invasion would have cost five to ten million Japanese deaths and between 1.7 million and 4 million American casualties, including perhaps 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities. Those are astounding numbers compared to the number of people who actually died. It is not an exageration to say that U.S. troops would have had to fight from the second they stepped on the beach for every inch until they stepped off the beach on the other end of Japan.

    Japan is a very nationalistic country and would have never surrendered if the A bombs weren't dropped. The Japanese would never have surrendered if we just went after them with invasion after invasion. Their Code of Honor was to die fighting for their country and never surrender. If you came upon three Japanese soldiers with a platoon of marines backing you up, they would rather die or blow themselves up trying to take you out rather than surrendering to a military force.

    What Truman had done, honored their ways. He gave them the option to surrender on the terms of science and biological warfare rather than sheer military power. The Japanese saw it as a "gift from Heaven" (said by a member of the Japanese peace faction). After the bombs they removed themselves from the war while keeping their head held high knowing that their military had not been defeated.

    I don't believe that the killing of civilians is as bad as it is being made out to be. Hiroshima actually was a very strategic plan to drop the bomb because the civilians in the town were building products for war within their own homes. The production was actually encouraged by their government. By the so called civilians producing weapons of destruction makes them involved in the military. These people were also in the development of an atomic bomb-like project. The military leaders of the time later confessed that they would (if developed) drop an atomic bomb on us not caring about the effects to American main land. This statement shows us that if we would have drawn this out longer, we might not have a country, and the world as we know it would be at the feet of the Japanese.


    Lauren White - 3/3/2010

    In our opinion, we think Truman is guilty. In the opening prosecution, Nobile mentioned that while Truman was bombing Japan, he killed 544 children at the First Hiroshima Municipal Girl's School. We don't think this is right at all. Killing people is bad enough but to go and kill a bunch of children is horrible. The children didn't do anything and didn't deserve to be killed like that. He shouldn't have killed that many innocent people at all. We understand that he was testing out his bomb but he should have taken more precautions. If Truman would have thought his actions out more, less people would have been killed. The bombings killed too many innocent people and he went too far when little girls were killed. They lost their lives because our president pulled a stupid move before thinking about his actions.

    Not only did Truman kill innocent little children but he killed civilians of any type. Whether they were young or old, man or woman- they all ended up dead. Also in the opening prosecution by Nobile, he states that while Truman was president it was a crime to kill civilians. This is flat out against the law. He should not have gotten away with killing so many innocent people. He did not logically think the bombings through. Because of that, he should get punished. He may not have known how explosive the bombs were or how many people it would kill but he still knew it was going to kill people and damage the cities. He should have been guilty and should not have gotten away with this.

    Stated in the closing prosecution is, "Japan would have surrendered without the bombs being dropped." This goes to show that the bombs were unnecessary for two reasons: one was that it killed so many innocent people and the second was that Japan would have surrendered. Why did Truman drop the bombs if he didn't even negotiate it or talk to Japanese leaders? This all would have been solved if he had communicated more and spent less time worrying about if we had enough bombs to kill everyone.

    The whole reason that Truman was put on trial in the first place was because he committed war crimes under Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter. According to Brian Madison Jones, Truman is guilty for "violations of the laws or customs of war" through the "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." This statement is showing why Truman was put on trial, and this proves the fact that Truman is guilty. When he dropped the bomb he was doing it as an experiment, but he could have just as easily done this experiment on a military base. If he would have dropped it on a military base then he wouldn't have killed so many innocent people and there would have been more security. Also, if he would have dropped it on a military base he would not have been put on trial because then the dropping of the bomb would have been justified by military necessity and he would have been taking precautions and not killing so many people.

    There is also a great quote from Brian Madison Jones where he says, "Power must not triumph over reason. America cannot be exempt from international rules because, there is nothing more American than the promise of equal justice under the law." This quote is basically saying that even though Truman had the power to drop the bomb and he did...reason is still more important. So, if Truman would have had a better reason for dropping the bomb where he did, then his power wouldn't have dominated the situation. I feel that based on the information, Truman dropped the bomb there because he knew he had the power to do it and he really had no reason for it. This quote is also saying that Truman can not be exempt from rules and laws just because we have a lot of power and we are kind of like a "big dog" to other states. He committed war crimes and since the American promise is equal justice under the law, then Truman should have been found guilty if he were to be treated with equal justice like everyone else. He can not have special treatment. He committed war crimes and that's what matters.

    Overall, in our opinion, we found Truman guilty because he committed war crimes under Article 6 of the Nuremberg trial and that is the whole reason he was put on trial. He killed so many innocent civilians and there was really no reason for it. Truman's power was dominating over his reason for dropping the bomb, and power must not triumph over reason! There is nothing more American than the promise of equal justice under the law, and to us, Truman should be found guilty so that our promise is kept!


    Casher Clayton belinda barkman - 3/3/2010

    President Truman is not guilty. The Japanese were a very determined people, As Larry Schweikart says in his argument, the Japanese Imperial Leaders went as far as to threaten to kill anyone who even mentioned the word surrender. Normally I am very against war and killing, but in this case we were already deep in a very deadly war so I think that ending the war as fast as possible was the right thing to do. Based on military necessity, to end the war, our only option other than the bombs, was to invade Japan with our troops in ground combat. The projected death rates of invading Japan were way above the amount killed by the bombs. "I concur. The aggression of Germany and Japan required a brutal response." This quote is from Chamberlain’s response and is brief but yet appropriate in defense of Truman’s reasoning. Japan was fighting to destroy us at any means necessary which justifies Truman’s decision to defend us by any means necessary.

    In personal opinion, one life for your country should mean more than any number of lives from another. Truman did the right thing in defending his homeland and people. Maddox notes in his reply that it might have cost us millions more in American lives. That could have been your husband, your father, or your child that had been drafted and sent into Japanese territory. If you had lived in America during World War II, that could have been you or your loved one that was spat back out of Asia. For what cause would this have been? Do those of you who think Truman is guilty want to drag the war on for even longer and risk millions of American lives? If you were in Truman’s shoes and decided that it was justified to let our military clash with Japan’s, only to result in both allied and enemy casualties opposed to just enemy, than you are corrupt. One man states in the opening that: "It occurred to me that a quarter million of the flower of our American youth were worth a couple of Japanese cities, and I still think they were and are."

    We had done bombings on levels nearly equal to the atomic bombs and the Japanese pushed through regardless of our force. The atomic bombs were simply the next step up. More bombing with our other artillery, although nearly equally devastating, was not enough. Japan was forewarned more than once of the power that we had but yet surrender was not in their vocabulary. Pritchard has the same thoughts in his reply and states that: "The larger and more ferocious the war, the larger will be the number of innocent or otherwise protected persons who may well perish without breaching the rule of proportionality."

    Japan is at fault for what happened and that cannot change. We played fair in a game of tyranny and yet people still try to accuse Truman of war crimes. Truman cannot be accused as a war criminal because his intentions were not to kill civilians, but to damage military bases and communications as well as to force surrender. According to war crimes there has to be intent for someone to be accused for murder, so Truman is not guilty.


    Collin Muthler - 3/3/2010

    My partner and I found Truman to be not guilty. We felt this because his intentions were not to kill as many people as he could or to destroy cities, he simply just wanted to end the war. Truman was not trying to be the bad guy nor was he trying to send a message to the Japanese he just wanted to end the fighting and end everything that was going on in our countries.
    My first argument is that Truman simply just did not want to destroy Japan and their cultures. As said by R. John Pritchard the bombings plainly were in breach of a general prohibition. This mans these bombs were not sent to destroy Japan but they were sent to end a war and prove that without this action the fighting would continue. I think it was the right choice that Truman dropped the bomb because it saved our troops, and ended one of the biggest wars in our history. I do not think that Truman should have been punished for trying to end a war I think he had the right mindset and did the right thing.
    My second argument is that there was a treat that the Japanese were going to do the same to us. We couldn’t have just sat back and let Japan do even more harm to our country. That would have been un-American and really could have brought our country way down and maybe almost break as a whole. Robert James Maddox said that if we didn’t drop that bomb it could have ended up with twice the amount of Americans dead and even twice that wounded. Is that really what we wanted to happen to our country? Radosh Stated that there were many Japanese people planning to do the same to us but maybe even bigger. This would have been a huge change in history if this would have happened to an already beat up United States
    My final argument is that all we wanted to happen was to have the Japanese surrender and want to end the war. This was again best said by Radosh that we didn’t mean to kill so many people, but to simply end the war. Larry Schweikart states that his main reason for say Truman was not guilty was because he wanted to save our solders. He said that to many Americans were dying and to quick and something needed to be done about that. He also stated that if he could save on of his solders were are all supposed to do what we can to get them back, and by dropping this bomb this was achieved by bringing all of our fighters back and saving many Americans lives.
    Finally I would like to say that I do agree with what Truman did and I do agree that he was not guilty. He had the right idea in mind and I’m sure he didn’t love the fact that he had to kill so many people, but at the same time he saved a lot of lives. It is hard to think like that but he did save many Americans and other Japanese solders from death.


    Erica and Dylan Nolan and Kubina - 3/2/2010

    We believe that Truman was deemed not guilty of being a war criminal. It is not arguable to convict a president for war crimes, when is action was not considered one. Truman was just trying to do what was right for our country and our troops. He had saved thousands of lives, with his action of dropping the bomb on Japan. You can't charge him for war crimes just because of an action that was for the people, its also a part of war. The statement that Oscar B. Chamberlain said was "this was the only way to destroy Japans military force and industry capacity was by bombing them" We agree with this statement because if Truman was not going to do anything about ending the war, there would of been many U.S lives taken away. So we feel that Truman made the right decision on dropping the bomb on Japan. He simply did what was necessary to insure the security of his nation and to end the violence. The U.S had warned Japan ahead of time that this was going to occur to give people time to escape from their homes. When James R. Van de Velde said, "although attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were brutal and barbaric, and maybe not even necessary for surrender, they were in fact necessary for shortening the war and saving more American live." This is right because Japan's military threatened anyone that Richard Jensen brought up the point that the U.S air force wanted to triple the bombings, but Truman did not want to do more than was necessary. He had the intentions of ending the war, not killing the innocent, so for that reason he is not guilty.


    Garrett Nicholson and Dan Rerko - 3/2/2010

    While Nicholson believes that Harry S. Truman was guilty of war crimes as outlined by the Nuremberg Charter, Rerko believes that Truman is innocent. Here is why...

    Rerko-

    I believe that Harry S. Truman is not guilty of the war crimes that are outlined Nuremberg Charter. My classification of not guilty is based upon what Truman is being tried for, which is "the wanton (disregard for what is right) destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."
    My first argument against this accusation is the fact that there was a military necessity to eliminating the targets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Radosh's closing arguments, he states there was evidence that the majority of Japanese citizens were fully involved in the preparation for the imminent American invasion. Therefore, these "civilians" were technically a military target. While they are not a member of the Japanese military, they still posed a threat to American soldiers, so the dropping of the bombs did have a reason that could be explained my military necessity.
    Secondly, there was another element of military necessity. As told by Radosh, one of the main reasons for the dropping of the atomic bombs was encouraging the Japanese to surrender. The surrender of the Japanese would have to be a military necessity, because it would have protected future American (and Japanese) lives in combat. As far as I am concerned, the bombs had fulfilled their intended militaristic purpose.
    Lastly, the statement of Larry Schweikart, a member of the jury, really denied the statement made by the prosecution that the Japanese were close to surrender. Schweikart said, the Imperial [Japan] leaders threatened to KILL anyone who even mentioned [the word surrender]." To me, this historically accurate statement clearly denies Nobile's statements that the nuclear weapons were not needed to force the surrender of the Japanese. A nation that is prepared to surrender would not kill anyone who even mentions the word.
    All in all, the defense gave many of the necessary points in order to shut down all of the accusations that the prosecution could use to accuse one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States of war crimes.



    Nicholson-

    I believe that Harry S. Truman is guilty of war crimes which are clearly described throughout the statements made by several other jury members. I feel that what Truman did was a very inhumane act of his part and that he should be found guilty for it. What he did was not justified by military necessity and claimed that it must have been done which is incorrect in my eyes.
    I'd like to start by noting in the opening statement of the prosecution that explains the definition of war criminal that Truman fits. Truman also explains what his defense is in that statement and after looking it you need to wonder if any of his justifications stand up under cross-examination? Truman makes a statement that he has used the bomb against people who have hurt and attacked Americans for several reasons which is not true because he used the bomb against youth as well as innocent people. I am not claiming that the entire population he killed consisted of youth and innocent people but many of them were making it unacceptable.
    In Jonathan Dresner's argument he discusses whether the bomb was really necessary or not is wrong question. The right question is can there be meaningful restrictions on the conduct of war? Truman violated the laws of war and that's all it comes down to.
    Brian M. Jones compares Truman to others like the Nazis and the Japanese who were liable for war crimes. Truman used the bomb as a scare tactic which I feel is the wrong reason. Sure it may have meant that we would need to send in infantry if the bomb was not used and by doing that we would eliminate killing innocent people. Truman also had an invasion planned out so it was definitely an option.

    I feel that it comes down to Truman causing destruction without military necessity that makes him guilty. One needs to think that since this is our country is the main reason why we are defending him. If this was another country who did this to us I don't think that many Americans would be trying to argue the murderer to be innocent. Likewise, it is how Japan feels about us. If we want to promote justice then America cannot be exempt from the international rules.


    Ngamassi Smith - 3/2/2010

    Unfortunately, my partner and I don't agree on if he should be found guilty or not. My partner believes he is innocent because if the Japanese and US switched places, then the Japanese would have done the same to us, because they wanted to win the war as well. He uses the statement "Although this was justified as the only way to destroy Japan's military and industrial capacity, some military and civilian leaders began to see the destruction of the civilian population by bombing as a military end in itself." by Oscar B. Chamberlain, because he believes this is a true assumption of the Japanese. I, on the other hand, think that he is guilty. A war criminal is definied as "Any of various crimes, such as genocide or the mistreatment of prisoners of war, committed during a war and considered in violation of the conventions of warfare.", which I think is what Harry Truman is. He went took the lives of millions of innocent bystanders, not only once, but twice. "The deliberate attempt to destroy morale by targeting civilian populations or economic targets without significant military strategic value is called "terrorism."", said by Jonathan Dresner, who also found Truman guilty. A war criminal should not be definied on what started and ended the war, but on how the person handled the war.
    "Another factor to consider is that European War was over and America wanted to end the Pacific War as soon as possible. America was tired of war as was the rest of the world." (Jeff Tenuth) My partner and I both disagree on the meaning of this quote. He thinks that if your at war, people have to fight contribute, and the Japanese-American war may have become bigger with the end of the European War. Ending it kept the war from becoming larger and killing more people. I believe that people get tired of war because of all the killings and death. Adding more and more deaths doesn't end a war.
    "Given the US insistence on occupation and transformation of Japan as conditions of surrender, the use of the Bombs may have been the least costly road to peace" (Oscar B. Chamberlin) My partner believes the cost was a good reason to end the war, and by dropping the bomb we saved more money and saved more lives. I think that money shouldn't be a concern when it comes to life or death. Life doesn't have a cost and I don't think that's a reason to justify the dropping of the bomb.
    "The question is, are we prepared to sacrificed civilized legal behavior to accomplish our aims?" (Jonathan Dresner) My partner disagrees with this quote because even when a war is going on, people are going to die non the less. Ending the war this war was better all around. I disagree, because I think there are better ways to solve a war than decide to drop something so big. Twice. We're supposed to be evolving and if all we evolve into is more and more violent individuals, then civilization will crumble.
    Overall, this charge is not based on what Harry did, but on what the jurors morals are. Either you think it's wrong, or you don't. It's about how you define a war criminal and what you think is too much. The argument just goes back and forth and trying to change other people opinions on the situation will just separate us more than we already are.


    Nichole Gargiulo - 3/2/2010

    look in the mirror.

    Verdict:
    Truman is guilty. He went against article six of the nuremburg charter by dropping da bombs.


    Article six says:
    (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoner of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

    Hence, by dropping the bombs he violated the charter because he never argued that dropping the bombs were a "military necessity" and "the universal prohibition against civilian massacres surely extended to rational atrocities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, especially by the flexible judicial standards in play at Nuremburg."
    (He murdered many innocent people) - Opening Argument, Prosecution


    The government's own 1946 study concluded that the bombs were unnecessary



    Truman and his men intended to commit fiendish civilian slaughters in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, otherwise, they would have arranged a bomb demonstration or aimed at a military target

    Truman is guilty for "violations of the laws or customs of war" through the "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" - Bryon M. Jones, Jury
    "Truman and his men intended to commit fiendish civilian slaughters in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Otherwise, they would have arranged a bomb demonstration or aimed at a military target." (sixth paragraph down from the closing argument)


    Girouard Wirtz - 3/2/2010

    The Truman Trials were a discussion on whether Harry Truman should have been convicted as a war criminal based on the actions in Japan in WWII during his presidency. Based on fact and opinions of research on the past event and the trials Truman should have been found guilty.
    Mass numbers of innocent people were abolished based on the atomic bombs released over Hiroshima and other regions.
    “There were 400,000 to 800,000 American deaths and 5 million to 10 million Japanese translating to 1.2 million to 3.2 million Americal wounded and 15 million to 30 million Japanesse.”- Alexa Danielle Gregory March 28, 2007
    We believe that this overpowering number of deaths is highly inhumane and should not be justified under the title of protection. Even in looking at how many American lives were lost should show any people who argue the bomb was in the best interest of American safety that valued American lives were lost as well. Not to mention that Millions of Japanese lives were lost that were not directly involved in the war. We believe that one of the main goals of American government during the time of WWII was to prove our power and project a clear message to the world that the USA is not a country to mess with. Truman was a man who said he wanted to protect his country, and that very well may have been true, but he was not always smart about the actions he approved and enforced.
    “Truman claimed that he thought the two Japanese cities were army bases that were important to eliminate. This proved to be absolutely incorrect.”- Halie Maria Kupinski on March 28, 2007
    HT was irrational and too quick in deciding that regions in Japan were a serious threat to American lives. His estimations were incorrect and because of his severe mistakes Millions of lives were lost for highly unnecessary reasons of unjust war. We believe that Truman should be considered a murderer and war criminal even after his death because the crimes he committed directly violating common laws of humanity prove he is.
    “This article also states that Truman dropped the first a-bomb and without waiting to see the results of the first, dropped the second”- Megan Peterson on April 1, 2007
    This information shows that HT was not smart about his plan of action. We think that Truman was unrealistic and unfair because he did not even consider what damage could have concluded from the first atomic bomb, and even if he did he clearly did not care. If the man who was chosen to be a protector of a large quantity of the worlds population killed millions of citizens of innocent and unwilling people just because they lived on a different continent under a different leader, we don’t believe that his actions should be justified only for his title.
    “[…] the atomic bomb was an untested weapon but was known to be able to cause mass destruction, chaos, doom. the utilization of such a weapon especially without proper insight into its true potential of devastation on humanity, especially fellow beings of our own kind, is inexcusable despite the candy-coated reasonings he used to justify.”- Shelby Caitlin King Ungar on March 17, 2009
    The argument that Truman did not analyze any further options other than the atomic bomb shows that he did not care how much damage was done, but that he only cared about his opinion on the war being heard. Our research shows that he did not want to take a remotely human or fair route for the people who were not even involved in the war that were murdered.
    “He dropped the bomb in 1945 to end the war by killing 200,000 innocent civilians in a grotesque way in a mere three days. He is guilty because he violated the customs of war in more ways than one. This list includes murder, ill-treatment of civilian population, killing of hostages, destruction of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages.”- Lauren Elizabeth Dechellis on March 17, 2009
    Harry Truman was a man who did not follow the laws of his own country and did not respect any lives of the city that he chose to declare a threat and destroy. We believe that his actions should be considered harsh enough to have been convicted as a war criminal. He destroyed cities, land, and people all home to a different country to his own and so therefore is often considered fair. Just because most people in America were not affected directly does not justify what our past leader of the United State of America did. He was the cause and corruption of huge numbers of devastated lives and should be held accountable for his horrid and inhumane actions as a president of our country.

    -Girouard, Wirtz


    Adam John Harrington - 3/2/2010

    I believe that you can not convict a president of war crimes when his actions were for the benefit of the country and saved thousands of American lives in the long run. Truman is not guilty of war crimes because in war there is not limits to war. War is a nasty brutal battle that can not be judged. Truman's actions were justifiable and therefore he is not guilty of war crimes.
    I agree with what Jeff Tenut said,
    "His actions were not a systematic approach to the annihilation of a whole people. His actions were, in a sense, incidental, in that they were incidents planned to end the war." No president should be accused of crimes that at the time he truly believed were for the best of his county that he loved. They were the only actions that would be necessary to a responsible end to the war. Therefore I can conclude that there is no reason for Truman to be accused of war crimes.


    alaina Henry - 3/1/2010

    cousins and henry


    alaina Henry - 3/1/2010

    On the trial of Truman, we concluded that Truman is guilty. At the time, Truman was trying to stop the war from going on and on, and though he was not aware that the bomb was as strong as it was, it killed 200,000 Japanese citizens. A lot of the people killed were innocent people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and then a bomb destroyed their lives. He thought that war could bring peace, but how can killing 200,000 women and children create peace? A line dividing countries should not mean that American lives are more valuable than Japanese lives. Article 6 Paragraph b. clearly states that civilian slaughter is a war crime. We killed 200,000 people and that enough is enough proof to make Truman guilty. Brian M. Jones' quote "Power should not triumph over reason", shows that although it may have made us seem more powerful and feared, we knew that dropping a bomb would kill thousands. That is the purpose of a bomb. Common sense reasoning easily made Truman know that it was not the moral thing to do, but he ignored that. J Dresner said "The question is not: Whether bombs were "necessary" or "better than the alternatives". Question is: can there be meaningful restrictions on the conduct of war? This quote states that it doesn't matter if the bomb was "needed" to win the war, because we need to know how to stop as a country when the situation is getting out of hand. There is a fine line between doing what we need to do to protect our country, and going overboard to gain power, and we crossed that line. According to Dresner, the defense said, "They did nasty stuff first", ("they" being Japan). I think this statement makes the defense look silly because they are trying to say that the bombing is justified like a stupid game of tattle tale. The defense continued by saying, "We didn't think we had any choice, they would have died anyway no matter what choice we made." This statement is completely untrue because millions of Japanese families would not have died if it weren't for the atomic bomb. Nobile says in Article 6 Paragraph b holds the definition of war crimes: "namely, violations of the laws or customs of war- including, murder, ill-treatment, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." This clearly states that Truman is guilty because he committed war crimes. Nobile says, "Since Truman admitted pulling the atomic trigger, his main defense, expressed in numerous postwar statements, interviews, letters, and memoirs, was, in effect, not guilty by reason of (a) just deserts for Japanese war criminals; (b) ending the war quickly; (c) saving hundreds of thousands of American boys from a bloody invasion; (d) lack of viable alternatives; and (e) following God's will. But do any of these justifications stand up under cross-examination?" These were the defenses that Truman used, although none of them are strong. It seems as if every defense is simply an excuse to cover up the massive murder in Japan. This ended the war quickly because Japan was dead. Yes, American's were alive, but millions of Japanese were dead. The worst excuse is, "following God's will" because no Christian would support the argument that God would want 200,000 innocent Japanese dead.
    In conclusion, we feel that it is easy to say that Truman was guilty for dropping the atomic bomb which killed innocent women and children, when there could have been alternative solutions.


    Mowery Daniels - 3/1/2010

    We thought that the juror Chamberlain made a good point in saying that there just is not enough evidence to convict him. Chamberlain said " As a result, neither made a compelling case. A tie goes to the defense; therefore, "not guilty" was the only possible verdict."
    The point that Jenson made as a juror was good as well, saying that it was the best way to end the war. Jenson said "The Navy wanted to use a total blockade of the islands to cause mass starvation and tens of millions dead. If Truman had adopted THAT plan Nobile would be here again, denouncing Truman ten times more vehemently."



    Tim C Taylor - 3/1/2010

    I agree that dropping the bomb might not have been the best way to end the war. The fact that he gave them warning means to me that he wasnt trying to just kill civilians he wanted them to live.


    Tim C Taylor - 3/1/2010

    If we decided to take another approach to the problem in Japan like invasion for example, we would have killed and lost more people than the bombings. Dropping the bombs looks like the more efficient, and easiest way to stop Japan. We didn't have to worry about any American casualties, and even less Japanese casualties, i think that justifies it a little but we don't know for sure how many would have really died. Would you rather have 14 million Japanese and Americans killed or 500,000 Japanese civilians?

    "On the question of what amount of casualties would have occurred if the A-bombs had not been dropped, Frank notes the report commissioned for Stimson by W. B. Shockley, who argued that defeating Japan by invasion would have cost five to ten million Japanese deaths and between 1.7 million and 4 million American casualties, including perhaps 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities."- Ronald Radosh (Defense opening)



    My final verdict is that Truman was not guilty of a war crime because of the following:
    1. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were used for the production of planes, boats, and many other things that went towards the Japanese war effort.- Richard Jensen
    2. Most likely more people would have died if we would have invaded Japan. This would include America soldiers as well as Japanese ones.- Ronald Radosh
    3. Japan might have not ended the war as quickly as they said after the bombing. It could have gone on for a lot longer than anyone would have wanted.- James R. Van de Velde
    4. Japan could have created their own bomb before we could drop ours. That is saying we dropped it in defense effort.- Asado (general)
    5. These are all things that military necessity fall under:
    "(a) just deserts for Japanese war criminals; (b) ending the war quickly; (c) saving hundreds of thousands of American boys from a bloody invasion; (d) lack of viable alternatives; and (e) following God's will. I say all those reasons except following God's will have justification for dropping the bomb. I do think we shouldn't have dropped the bombs straight on the city but try and do something with military ties



    Mowery Daniels - 3/1/2010

    We think that Truman is mainly not guilty. We were stuck between guilty and not guilty because some of his actions make him guilty and some make him not guilty. The fact that dropping the atomic bomb was probably the best way to end the war kind of makes him not guilty then again it is a drastic measure that killed many people. Also he gave the people a warning, indicating that it was not his true goal to kill innocent citizens. People make the argument, why didn't he drop it on a more military focused area, but the places he hit were supplying the Japanese army. The one thing that really did not seem right was him dropping the second bomb was a little bit of over kill and that technically wasn't necessary.


    Tim C Taylor - 3/1/2010

    Was the destruction of the 2 cities really wanton destruction?

    I dont think so because those cities were a part of the Japanese war effort and they weren't just cities filled with civilians, many war related things were present in the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima at the time of the bombings. Here is a citation from a party that thinks Truman was not guilty of a war crime.

    "Nobile silently switches from "cities" to "civilians" but let's look at the text and think about "cities." Were the Japanese cities a significant part of the Japanese war machine, or was it "wanton" to destroy them? WW2 was a war of production and almost all the Japanese war production came from its large cities. In 1945 alone they produced 5400 fighter planes, 1900 bombers and 3600 other warplanes--most of them intended as highly lethal kamikazis. The US Air Force dropped tens of millions of leaflets advising people to leave these war production centers--and over 8 million did so. Those who were essential to the Japanese war effort remained behind. So the destruction of cities was not "wanton" but was "justified by military necessity."


    Foster Blue Kazoo - 12/19/2009

    Oh hai guise, I'm just your neighborhood troller!


    Jonathan Dresner - 3/24/2009

    Repeated postings of the same comment may be considered SPAM and deleted, and may result in the loss of comment privileges and removal of previous comments.

    See the Comment policy for more, please.

    Jonathan Dresner
    HNN Editor


    Skylar & Casie - 3/23/2009

    wow, yeah "careful" i see.

    Well maybe Obama will just talk things out with the mean Taliban with the big scary guns, then we can all hug some trees and sing Kumba around a faux fireplace (cause god forbid we use real trees for our recreation) while drinking hot nasty green tea.

    yeah, this is America sweetie (:


    Skylar & Casie - 3/23/2009

    i love sara so i wont say anything here (:


    Skylar & Casie - 3/23/2009

    Well maybe Obama will just talk things out with the mean Taliban with the big scary guns, then we can all hug some trees and sing Kumba around a faux fireplace (cause god forbid we use real trees for our recreation) while drinking hot nasty green tea.

    yeah, this is America sweetie (:


    Skylar & Casie - 3/23/2009

    haha, this is great you guys, even if i don't agree with your liberal remarks.

    made my day.


    Skylar & Casie - 3/23/2009

    Well maybe Obama will just talk things out with the mean Taliban with the big scary guns, then we can all hug some trees and sing Kumba around a faux fireplace (cause god forbid we use real trees for our recreation) while drinking hot nasty green tea.

    yeah, this is America sweetie (:


    Skylar & Casie - 3/23/2009

    To everyone who thinks that Truman is guilty, you can pack you're bags and move to canada, cause im sure they're not about to stick up for the innocent people of their country anytime soon.
    How could anyone believe that the president of our united states could ever be guilty of anything involving protecting our country and it's people? It blows my mind the ignorant people we have in our school. Actually, i lied, i already knew that. Ok kiddies- America 101- we dont take shit! Pardon my french, but when it comes to us being kicked down, we don't just sit around and let other stuff happen, we take action and show the "bad guys" we mean buisness. I mean look at Mr. Bush (fav. president by the way) he took things very well coming into Clinton's mess of national security and all. The decision he made allowed the rest of the world to know, America ain't takin' it no more. Most people who disagree, probably are liberal, so i don't really care what you have to yell at me about it really.


    OK, anyway, to the cold hard facts behind my decision. (besides being an 100% republican and knowing i'm right when it comes to this kind of stuff) It has been stated that Truman's decision to bomb the Japanese did bring the end of World War II to a more timely end, which in the end saved many a folks here in america and in Japan as well. He could have went to war, like most wanted, but that would have cost America more money, and so many more lives trying to beat the Japanese. Also with the war ending because of Truman, American soliders were able to come home again, restoring the American life back to "normal" for now. Also it was stated on esstorment.com that Trumen merely wanted to impress Stalin and Russia with Americas all mighty power of the Atomic bomb, but this is soooo not true people. Truman wanted to aviod going into war with Japan, like when i said before would have cost America money, and people.. and cost Japan even more people then with the bombs.

    ...blah...blah...blah...


    I could probably sit here for hours and spew out a bunch of facts and statistics at y'all.. but i don't feel like i need to do that to get my piont across.

    Basically it comes down to this...
    I don't cry when I watch movies, and when I watched Pearl Harbor, I cried like a little baby who wants her mommy. It was one of the most devasting thing I ever witnessed in my life, and I couldn't imagine being there, and going through that. I feel it was justified to attack back, I mean what, are we just gonna let the big bad bully on the playground knock us off the swing, and then expect the jerk to listen to us when we want to "talk" it out.

    NUH UH.

    That's not how America rolls, and if you don't know that by now.. get out!

    Love y'all (:


    -Skyy & Casie.

    (but mainly Skyy with the strong opinons, but you guys probably already guessed that)


    Adele Burcin Moore - 3/23/2009

    We also agree with Trumans decision to drop the atomic bomb. First of all the Japanese attacked America and not the other way around. About 105,000 Japanese lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While this is a high number, the number who died in the American bombing raids on the six largest Japanese cities is far greater, about 250,000. Consequently, such a large number of deaths is by no means unprecedented. An invasion of Japan would possibly have cost between 250,000 and three million Japanese and American lives and ended the war four months later, at the very earliest. It may be concluded that no more people died in the atomic bombings than would have in an invasion of Kyushu, and that said bombings did have the effect of ending the war more quickly. Truman’s motives, therefore, cannot be called into question in light of the results of his decision.


    Adele Burcin Moore - 3/23/2009

    Truman should no found absoulty not guilty because he saved millions of americans lives and if he would of not dropped the bomb world war 2 would of still continuted and many american lives would of been then put into jepority. After all, the Japanese attacked America, and not the other way around.


    neb edallas - 3/23/2009

    http://hnn.us/articles/172.html
    http://hnn.us/articles/173.html
    http://hnn.us/articles/174.html
    http://hnn.us/articles/175.html


    Caitlin A. Simpson - 3/21/2009

    The Japanese are not the only ones who believe what Truman did was a war crime. Under the Nuremberg Charter "wanton destruction" and the killing of civilians is considered a war crime. No matter his reasons, Harry Truman is still guilty under the Nuremberg laws. We also have information from a 1946 Government study which claims that the Japanese where planning on surrendering prior to December 31, 1945, so it seems that Truman made his decision even with the other options available. It is this decision that makes him guilty.


    Caitlin A. Simpson - 3/21/2009

    I completely agree with Darryl and Anna's original statement. Yes, if the Japanese had succeeded in creating an atomic bomb, they would never have thought twice about using it--but Truman still broke the laws of war. For some reason the defense thinks it's ok that the president is excluded from the judgment we held over other countries in the Nuremberg Trials. Who are we to condemn others when we ourselves are not willing to be tried along side them? No matter his reasons, Harry Truman still committed acts of "wanton destruction" most of which affected Japanese civilians. Therefore there is no other verdict other than to declare him guilty.


    Caitlin A. Simpson - 3/21/2009

    I disagree with your statement that Truman is not guilty. There is no way we can actually be sure that the droppings of both bombs was the best way to end the war. There are other options of compromise that don't include "get them before they get you".
    Even if what Truman did was what he though was best for America, he still killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, which is considered a war crime and "wanton destruction" under the Nuremberg Charter.


    Caitlin A. Simpson - 3/21/2009

    After heavy research and some intensive thinking, I have come to find Harry Truman guilty under violation of the Nuremberg standards. The Nuremberg Charter specifically states that all direct killing of non-combatants is against international law--regardless of the weapons used. The entire purpose of the Nuremberg Charter was to be used as a guide to prosecute the Nazi's and the Japanese. If we are using it for this purpose, who are we to say that our president is exempt from the same laws that we say should govern all other nations? During the Nuremberg Trials Lord Justice Geoffrey Laurence even stated "It is not the purpose of this court to try the activities of the Allies." How are we able to make an honest evaluation of the acts others make in war, when we do not even let others judge the ones we are accountable for ourselves? We tried the Germans and the Japanese because it was their intent to exterminate a certain group of people, but the defense say extermination was never President Truman's intent. Just because he did not intend to wipe out a certain group of people, he still issued an order that ended up killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese people (mostly being civilians.) Does the intent truly matter when the result ends up being, in fact, the same? Another argument the defense continues to bring up is the fact that Truman's decision to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and another on Nagasaki, was in fact, saving lives. It is argued that by dropping these two enormously destructive weapons more Japanese and American lives were saved than those that would have been if we were to have continued regular combat. This is such a transparent excuse, as no one can ever obtain information on whether or not the droppings of these bombs saved the greater amount of people. To kill hundreds of thousands of civilians simply on a belief that it saved more lives is not enough. In order to make such a drastic decision actual concrete evidence is a priority. Truman had no such evidence that dropping the bombs would save more lives than not, and that alone is enough to at least postpone his decision, or even abstain him from making it at all.


    Jonathan Dresner - 3/19/2009

    Since the Japanese weren't killing Jews, and Hitler's Germany had surrendered four months earlier, what does the Holocaust have to do with it?

    Also, the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is 5-6 million, unless you're trying to cite only the victims in the biggest death camps.


    Katelyn Gill - 3/19/2009

    I agree with the statement that he is not guilty. It does not seem right that we are thinking about calling him a war criminal when he saved a lot of Americans lives. The Japanese were making their on atomic bomb. It is right that we did what we did. The Japanese never would have thought twice about not sending the bomb on us. It would have killed a lot of people. I think this statement is true and i completely agree.


    Katelyn Gill - 3/19/2009

    I agree with the statement that if we didn't bomb then that we would have gotten bombed. They were very close to having the atomic bomb ready to bomb us. We had to bomb them to end the war before they killed the american citizens. So Truman is not guilty for what he did because he did warn them and they didn't listen so he had to take of the american citizens first.


    Emily Ann Slimak - 3/19/2009

    We agree with you on your post. We agree with the fact that the bomb was a pretty good idea and that in the end it basically had to be done. Yes, of course the bomb killed many people, but they were in a time period of war, so killing is inevitable. It had to be done, and people are going to die either way. A bomb seems to be very violent, but we also agree that fire arms would be much much more violent and uncalled for. The Japanese would have most likely turned on the US and tried to bomb us if it was possible. So either way, one side or the other was going to suffer a great number of casualties. So we should just be thankful that the United States got the better hand of the deal, and had a lot more survivors than the opposing side. We agree that Truman is not guilty.


    Ryan Miller - 3/19/2009

    I agree I don't know how anyone can even question whether Truman is guilty or not. It makes sense that Japan would say it was a war crime even though they bombed pearl harbor and killed innocents and they were also going to drop atomic bombs on the US if they could have figured out how to make them. The fact that Americans questions Truman's guilt is disgusting the man is a hero who stopped World War II and that saved many Americans and in the end possibly saved many Japanese that could have possibly died if the war continued. Anyone who claims Truman to be guilty has betrayed their country.


    John & Cameron Kowalski & Eyster - 3/19/2009

    We apologize for our tasteless comment and lack of historical correctness on the topic of Godzilla. We rote the Godzilla portion of out comment to amuse our fellow students who were also required to comment on the article as a class assignment.

    Thank you very much for commenting. We were aware that Godzilla had a connection to the bombings, but chose to be slightly obnoxious. I'm glad that you corrected our statement and added new depth to it.


    will wagner sefter - 3/19/2009

    We agree. The dropping of the bomb scared Japan into surrendering. If the bomb didn't end the war then this action may not of been justified however it did so therefore Truman is not guilty.


    neb edallas - 3/19/2009

    I agree with almost everything you have said. I think that by accusing Truman of war crimes then you splitting hairs to the highest degree because all war is seemingly a crime. This is just a high profile case and the consequences are well documented. I also really liked the fact that you talked a lot about the fact that the Japanese were warned and given offers to surrender. I think these are very important points to consider and I liked the information you supplied on them.


    Anna and Darryl Juska and Hill - 3/19/2009

    First off...Steve...I not once justified PEARL harbor. It was definately a cruel act of murder, for which war crime charges should of been charged on Japan. That does NOT justify the slaughter of so many innocent civilians. If this would of happened today we'd be on trial in front of the UN, without a doubt. If you want to save lives of soldiers, you don't replace them by a lesser number of civilians.

    The United States did not only break laws by dropping atomic weapons, but also by the intense fire bombings on Japan. We committed atrocities in this war that only a blind man would not recognize.


    Ryan Miller - 3/19/2009

    I agree with that fact that we should follow the Nuremberg Laws. When you say that we violated the Nuremberg Laws and your example being 6c the extermination of civilians being unacceptable this is should be followed in all wars. But I am going to have to disagree with you that Truman is guilty because the Japanese ignored the Nuremberg Laws when they bombed Pearl Harbor also killing many civilians. What logic are you using when you expect the US to follow the rules when they enemy is not. This would have led to the US losing the war. There must be exceptions to the Nuremberg Law they become irrelevant when your enemy is not following them.


    david reggio - 3/19/2009

    Atrocious as it was it was a necessary atrocity, as the Japanese would never have surrendered unconditionally and any conventional military option an invasion for example would have resulted in the deaths of millions and would have dragged the war out for several more years not to mention an occupation so it was needed


    Shelby Caitlin King Ungar - 3/19/2009

    But with that, there was no effort made to find another solution that would not have killed so many lives. So what if they would have used it on us if they had an atomic bomb. We would just be accusing them for committing a war crime. This goes back to child's play, you know where if they hit you, you hit them back. But you know in the end nobody was right. Yeah, we're not children now, and we take full responsibility for our actions, and taking the penalties for being adults, not children.


    alexgrant alexgrant bowersprinkle - 3/19/2009

    We think that Truman was not guilty, for many reasons. First, he had to make a tough decision for our country. He wanted to end the war with as little casualties as possible. Also, Truman warned the country of Japan that the bombs were going to be dropped, but Japan failed to warn its citizens. If Truman had not made the decision to drop the bomb and end the war, Japan had a weapon of mass destruction that they could have used on Americans.


    will wagner sefter - 3/19/2009

    I agree with this statement. Truman needed to end the war and protect American lives while doing so. An invasion or any other plan had a higher risk of American life's. The A bomb proved to be very effective and it preserved American casualties. Yes, Truman was not aware of what the A bomb could do but a large number of fire bombs can have the same destructive nature.


    Katelyn Gill - 3/19/2009

    Ok this wrong from what we have read in the trial. If you read the the open statements then you will learn that the Japanese prime minister made a statement about it not being possible to continue the war after we dropped the bomb. The Japanese also were trying to make there own bomb. They would have no problem using the bomb against us. It did save a lot of the americans lives by dropping the bomb. I made Japan surrender because they had nothing that could beat us.Japan had an invasion planned but they could not go through with it because of us dropping the bombs. Dropping the bombs completely stopped the war. We warned them about dropping the bombs. They did not listen they knew it was coming.


    keanna daye - 3/19/2009

    We agree with your verdict. The Japanese were in the making of producing there own atomic bomb. If they would have achieved, they would have dropped it on us as soon as possible. We agree with your statement, we do not know for sure if they would have surrendered after the first bomb. We warned them before the first one, and after the first one to say that another was coming.


    alexgrant alexgrant bowersprinkle - 3/19/2009

    This is definitely an interesting way of looking at the effects of the atomic bomb, but we think that the atomic bomb was necessary in ending the war in the Pacific. Truman took these measures in order to end the war with also having less casualties. Japan was making a weapon of mass destruction of its own, so if Truman had not used the atomic bomb, then Japan could have used the same against us.


    neb edallas - 3/19/2009

    Kevin I agree with you on the fact that Truman is innocent. Your statement that the atomic bomb ended the war is a strong point in the argument that he is innocent. If we had not dropped the bomb thousands of more people would have died, and more than likely they would have been our soldiers. Dropping the bomb and ending the war was the best possible solution. Also he is not guilty becasue we warned all of the Japanese people that the bomb was coming. Its their fault.


    Peanut butter dog


    david reggio - 3/19/2009

    Though it was not the only option it was the best option as it did end the war much faster and more effectively than a blockade or invasion and the idea of most wars is to win them


    keanna daye - 3/19/2009

    We disagree with your verdict. The Japanese were in the making of their own atomic bomb. If they would have finished before we dropped ours, they would have immediately dropped their bomb on American homeland. When you say alternative options, using the atomic bombs was the quickest and easiest way to save american and japanese lives. You can never tell when Japan was going to surrender. We gave them a chance to surrender with the leaflets that were dropped. In war, you cannot not kill innocent people, that is war.


    Shelby Caitlin King Ungar - 3/19/2009

    Did you make up your whole "Godzilla" story or what were you even getting that from. It was so ridiculous.


    neb edallas - 3/19/2009

    Mr. Edwards, I believe that you have made many valid points in your post. Many are even in line with the same points that you have made. I really like your statistics and I completely agree protecting our troops is one of the most important aspects to the argument. Truman's actions were justified and within the boundaries of war and because of this I agree with you and your verdict of not guilty. There is no doubt that the bombs caused destruction, but I do not believe that is was "wanton destruction".


    Anna and Darryl Juska and Hill - 3/19/2009

    These statements are completely irrelevant to the case. Truman is being tried on whether or not he broke laws of war, which he did. He used a weapon deemed inhumane by the major powers of the world. If a man commits mass murder, do you honestly give them a chance to explain themselves and justify it? I think not. If the United States had not been a major power, or if they had lost the war, there is not a doubt in my mind that the majority of our government would be charged with murder. Many politicians, including advisor's of both Truman and FDR admit that they would of been charged with war crimes.


    alexgrant alexgrant bowersprinkle - 3/19/2009

    We agree with your belief that Truman is not guilty. We also thought that the dropping of the atomic bombs caused the end of the war. Japan would not have surrendered if we had not dropped them. Japan was also fearful that we would drop another bomb after the first two. Also, Truman warned the country of Japan that they were going to drop the bombs and the government didn't tell its citizens.


    Nick and Sam Gallagher Gruneberg - 3/19/2009

    "It’s as simple as that. You break the law, and you’re guilty."

    Thats trash, it depends on the severity of the crime and in this case, your relating to a war crime, something thats so vague that you cant pin point whats right and whats wrong.


    Robbie Edwards - 3/19/2009

    This is Leanna and Adele...Robbie did not sign out and we didn't know how to.

    In every war, innocent people always get killed. That is the nature of war fare. You agreed it was a military necessity, so he should not be convicted just because innocent people died.


    alexgrant alexgrant bowersprinkle - 3/19/2009

    We agree with your belief that Truman is not guilty. We also thought that the dropping of the atomic bombs caused the end of the war. Japan would not have surrendered if we had not dropped them. Japan was also fearful that we would drop another bomb after the first two. Also, Truman warned the country of Japan that they were going to drop the bombs and the government didn't tell its citizens.


    Emily Ann Slimak - 3/19/2009

    We agree with your statement that Truman is not guilty. You make a good point when you say that if we did not drop the bomb on the Japanese, that they would have most likely dropped a bomb on us. We are quite fortunate that the Japanese were not as advanced as us, and did not have the resources, sciences, and equipment to drop a bomb of such size on us. Also, in our post we had all of the same key points as yours, therefore of course we agree with your post. Another thing that your post brought to our attention that we agree with, is the fact that some people were arguing that the Japanese would have surrendered and ended the war even if the bomb wasn't dropped, but we agree that that most likely wouldn't have been the case. Like you said, the Japanese had no specific reason or motive to surrender, so dropping the bomb was an efficient way to force them to surrender.


    keanna daye - 3/19/2009

    We disagree with your statement. The destruction of cities and towns happened through fire bombing as well as the atomic bombs. If the fire bombing is allowed, why wouldn't the atomic bombs be? In a radio broadcast, Harry Truman claimed to have dropped the bombs on military bases in Hiroshima. It was a military base, containing regular civilians, that we warned. It was their choice to leave, if they believe the leaflets or not. We were not aware of the radioactivity that would be part of the after effects.


    Christopher James Schneider - 3/19/2009

    Truman is not guilty!!!!
    Holocaust??? Remember that time???
    2 million jews, were burned, alive, slowly. From the above coment about the NAZI's and producing Atomic Bomb's, Japan currently 10 years more advanced than we, the US, are. Later, the Japanese, would have joined the NAZI's, and they could have made the atomic bombs. They invented the missles that could hit the US from across the Atlantic. And also, the NAZI's would of fire-bombed us, but with atom-bombs, which would suck. Truman made the right decision.


    kameren michael king - 3/19/2009

    I do not feel that Truman was guilty. It was either drop the bomb or let our country go to hell. He saved our country by dropping the bomb. He helped us greatly by doing it. Although I do not agree with killing innocent people


    will wagner sefter - 3/19/2009

    I agree with this statement. We do not know that this choice of action by Truman would have the highest casualty rate. We know that it had a high casualty rate but the outcomes of the other options Truman was offered could of had similar results. The atomic bomb however proved to be highly affective forcing Japan into submission. The success of the bomb justifies Truman.


    Shelby Caitlin King Ungar - 3/19/2009

    Leaning to almost claiming Truman to innocent, I will agree that his decisions came to a sudden command. Stuck in the situation, he probably didn't know what to do. Which also proves that he probably did not give much thought to what this might cause. He gave the chance for the civilians to flee the territory with the pamphlets and what not. But given the time, there probably wasn't much time or places to flee to. He also proved himself that he did not give much consideration to what other possible solutions he could have also attempted. Understanding that this might have stopped killing thousands of people in the future, going about it could have prevented killing what, 200,000 people. Had the right decision been made. The war ended abruptly, but if someone had given thought to this it would have taken more time. But might have saved a lot more lives of citizens than what we had saved. Which doesn't seem to be a whole lot.


    Ryan Miller - 3/19/2009

    To answer your question of how can killing thousands or millions of people be justified the answer is simple to save the lives of people in your own country. In war you should not be concerned for the safety of the enemy at least not equally to the concern of your fellow citizens. Truman may have killed thousands of Japanese, many innocents, but he saved American's and he may have in the end saved Japanese as well by finally ending the war. The Japanese seemed to have no problem with bombing Pearl Harbor and admitted that if they could have gotten their hands on the atomic bomb they would have used it on us. He even gave them the opportunity to surrender before dropping the second bomb but they refused. Do you truly believe that the Japanese would have come to a peaceful comprise when they wouldn't even agree to end the war after the first atomic bomb was dropped?


    Shelby Caitlin King Ungar - 3/19/2009

    I completely agree. Look at the rules of war, the Nuremburg Trials- which ever. That we, simply because we won, should escape prosecution for killing citizens is hypocritical to our supposed sense of American 'justice'.


    Emily Ann Slimak - 3/19/2009

    We strongly agree with your post. In our post we pretty much covered all of the same topics. We liked the fact that you used many statistics to prove your point as of why Truman is not guilty. We really agree with the fact that Truman made the right decision when choosing to drop the bomb. Yes, of course dropping the bomb was much more humane than torching cities. Also, dropping the bomb was a simple way to surely end the war. Your statistics were good, in the fact that you proved that the fliers that were dropped, lead to about 8 million people evacuating the city. The fliers saved a lot of lives, and this proves that Truman was actually a genuine guy, and wasn't just trying to kill off a bunch of people. If Truman was guilty of war crimes, he most likely definitely wouldn't have dropped the fliers and given the citizens a warning that the bomb was coming.


    Nick and Sam Gallagher Gruneberg - 3/19/2009

    We firmly believe that Truman is guilty, but at the same time he shouldn't be tried for this as a crime. under Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter outlawing "the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." It was a time of war so this we considered to be a act of war, and to some extent a necessary act. In times of war I believe all is fair, if you do not create some sort of standard for whats wrong and whats right. In this case he violated Article 6, a rather important and seditious act. We believed that if the officers and officials from Nuremberg we're tried Truman should at least be recognized for this inhumane, but again, necessary, atrocity.


    kameren michael king - 3/19/2009

    I agree that Truman is not guilty. Although what he did was wrong he should not be punished for it. He did it to save his country.


    david reggio - 3/19/2009

    To say that the bombings didn’t save lives is clearly a false statement. The casualty estimates for American forces alone were as high as the number of people that were killed in the bombings not to mention the large numbers of troops and civilians that would have fought to the death defending Japan were estimated to be in the millions. On top of all that the Japanese were using large civilian populations help produce weapons and ordinance for the war effort making them a viable target for strategic bombing as part of the of the war machine.


    keanna daye - 3/19/2009

    We have come to the conclusion that Harry Truman is not guilty for his actions on Japan. If the Japanese had developed the A-bomb they would have immediately used it on American homeland. The government gave a forewarning that the bomb was going to be dropped, and after the first bomb, they warned them again. The Japanese Emperor threatened anybody who would mention the word surrender. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were military bases, and most of the citizens had a part in the war. Without the atomic bomb, the war would have continued, and it would have been far worse than the effect of the A-bomb. Truman did not intend to commit “fiendish” slaughters. To be guilty of the bombing, Truman and his associates would indeed have to conspire the slaughtering of many Japanese civilians.

    With war comes casualties. Japan was working on their own atomic bomb at the time, but failed. Fire bombing is equivalent to dropping the two atomic bombs in the long run. Harry Truman’s troops released trillions of leaflets to the citizens of Japan warning them to get out of town before the bombs drop. After the first bomb, Truman dropped the leaflets again, warning the civilians and many fled. The Japanese Emperor did inform his people about the war. The leaflets were the only way to let them know that something was coming. By dropping the two A-bombs, the war ended within two days, when Japan had intentions of continuing if we would not have taken action.
    Therefore we find Harry Truman not guilty.

    eileen kain :) and keanna daye :)


    Anna and Darryl Juska and Hill - 3/19/2009

    Whether or not human lives where saved here is not the topic. Truman is being tried here by the laws of war. Using an atomic weapon of any sort to take CIVILIAN lives is completely and in every way illegal. Truman had agreed to these laws and blatantly broke them. You cannot justify murder with the excuse that others would not be hurt. Imagine Truman walking the streets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with a handgun executing each and every civilian one at a time. Horrifying isn't it? The thing is, those people would of went through less main then what they did when the bomb hit. At least that brutal slaughter would have killed them instantly. To use an atomic weapon is not only murder, but inhumane.


    Christopher James Schneider - 3/19/2009

    Go aaf jgy.
    Remember the holocaust? Over 2 million jewish people died then. Would you rather have another 2 million innocent people die, or 400,000 people who were pre-warned about the droppings, and who would fight to the death die. Or would you rather have the jews, who would be burned alive, and other atrocitys happen to them? Truman did the right thing.


    david reggio - 3/19/2009

    To say that the bombings didn’t save lives is clearly a false statement. The casualty estimates for American forces alone were as high as the number of people that were killed in the bombings not to mention the large numbers of troops and civilians that would have fought to the death defending Japan were estimated to be in the millions. On top of all that the Japanese were using large civilian populations help produce weapons and ordinance for the war effort making them a viable target for strategic bombing as part of the of the war machine.


    Shelby Caitlin King Ungar - 3/19/2009

    I disagree- it is precisely because he did not know the destructive potential of the atomic bomb that he should be accused of mis-using it. I think, that his dropping of the bomb to the war is akin to making a barking dog stop by shooting him with a shotgun. Unecessary, and in the end, totally uncalled for.


    Christopher James Schneider - 3/19/2009

    If you were in his shoes, what would you do? If he hadn't dropped the bomb, the war could of gone on for much longer. It could have ended up like the Iraq Conflict, sooner or later, the war would of ended up costing money, and the citizens of the US, would of started to hate it. Also, the Dropping of the atom bombs helped to end WW2. Would you rather have 400,000 people die, or another 2 million jewish people, either way, you will lose lives in the process. Also, if we, the US, landed troops, on the main islands, civialians would have fought to the death.


    kameren michael king - 3/19/2009

    i totally agree with you. What Truman did was wrong but he had to do it. It was to save the country. Although he may have been able to find a different way to do it then kill a bunch of innocent people.


    Jonathan Dresner - 3/19/2009

    Yes.

    A few years back there was an academic conference in honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the first Godzilla movie.

    Just because you don't know the history doesn't mean that it isn't important.


    Xavier Johnson - 3/19/2009

    HAHA what!? are you serious?!


    Xavier Johnson - 3/19/2009

    I'm living in the real world. where wars are fought based on rules of engagement. if you please, those rule are defined here:

    http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C118.txt
    see that ".gov" there? that means that it is an official government website here is the excerpt:

    "(D) Murder. - The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities"

    this rule is not "my rule" or how I think war should be fought, it is how U.S. law says it should be. Truman broke this law EN MASS. I wonder what world you think YOU live in... perhaps a world where you can break the rules of engagement and kill hundred of thousands of innocents and it's okay as long as you feel good about it?


    oh and by the way... from what I hear, radiation poisoning and leukemia are very slow, and VERY painfully ways to die. that was the fate of those who weren't instanty vaporized.


    Xavier Johnson - 3/19/2009

    yes, yes they are... and you know what the sad part is? no one ever does anything about it...

    I didn't make the definition. that's united stats military policy. take it up with the government.


    Jonathan Dresner - 3/18/2009

    Normally I stay out of these things, but I have to comment on the Godzilla paragraph. Aside from being a bit tasteless and crude in the context of this discussion, it actually gets the history wrong.

    Godzilla was a Japanese movie originally, and the discussion of radiation and urban destruction were closely tied to Japanese concerns about lingering effects from the atomic bombings, as well as concern about fallout from ongoing nuclear testing -- which Japan vehemently opposed due to their experience with the atomic bombs. Godzilla is a cautionary tale -- messing with radition could have disastrous consequences -- and a way of reliving and redeeming the destruction of Japanese cities as part of a pro-peace narrative.

    Godzilla, the representative of Japan's nuclear victimhood, then becomes a heroic figure, fighting villain after villain in an attempt to stamp out the weapons of war and consequences of modernity. Godzilla represents, in an odd way, Japan's strong ties to pacifism and anti-nuclear activism after WWII, as well as their wish that their cities had been protected by some great defender, instead of left vulnerable by a feckless aggressive policy..


    Kevin Disanto - 3/18/2009

    I agree with mike if the bomb hadn't been dropped the war could have gone on for who knows how long and the amount of casualties from the bomb could have been way more from other attacks that happened over time.


    sandy rayman - 3/18/2009

    are you joking? dropping flyers makes us innocent?! how could people in these cities, most of them living humble lives without much economic freedom, get far enough away in time to escape the drop? that's like slipping someone a note 30 seconds before you burn their house down. it's a thoughtful gesture, but it doesn't make the action any more justified or less grotesque.


    Vikte Lionikaite - 3/18/2009

    I agree that it was a way to stop the war however, even though Truman saved soldiers, he killed young children, women and elderly.


    sandy rayman - 3/18/2009

    i agree with your verdict and it is very true that Trumans actions violate the Nuremburg charter. however, if the god-bless-the-united-states more or less set up these laws, are you not surprised we don't hold ourselves to them? that's the the teacher punishing himself for being late to class. this was our attempt to dictate what other countries could not do during warfare, but the big guy who makes the rules is usually the first to break them.


    sandy rayman - 3/18/2009

    the phrase "Truman may have ended the lives of hundreds of thousands of non-combatants" refutes your entire argument. the ending of lives of hundreds of thousands of non-combantants is precisely what he is being put on trial for. we did not HAVE to strike; we wanted to display our might not only to Japan to force them to surrender, but show the world our "big stick," if you will.


    sandy rayman - 3/18/2009

    I cannot decide the verdict on the Truman trial. It is my initial instinct to say that he is guilty due to the 200,000 civilian casualties and “wanton destruction” caused by the bombs and lack of effort put forth to hold peace talks with Japan. On the other hand, war is cruel in it’s very nature. Pointing out the use of the a-bomb, which effectively and quickly ended the war, therefore making it a success, while ignoring tactics that were equally as gruesome seems unjust. One example is the use of firebombs on Tokyo. The use of incendiary bombs on March 9, 1945 alone caused 90,000 civilian deaths, a comparable number of civilian deaths suffered in Hiroshima. (http://warhistorian.org/wordpress/?cat=5) The tactic associated with the use of the incendiary jelly (it is literally jellied gasoline, i.e. napalm) was shady in itself. Curtis LeMay, newly appointed commander of the XXI Bomber Command, was put in his position in order to achieve the results the US military was not achieving with regular bombings. An article from (http://b-29s-over-korea.com/firebombing/firebombing3.html) reads, “They [planes dropping napalm] would approach at night, low, not in formation but singly, each plane now carrying twice the previous bomb load. LeMay knew his job depended on this radical decision, and he also knew his tactics would kill thousands of civilians.” When napalm was tested, a square mile was burned from a drop at 25,000 feet. These planes ranged in altitude from 9,200 feet to as low as 4,900 feet, each plane dropping one 500 pound cluster every fifty feet. If we are accusing Truman of war crimes for the use of the atomic bomb, we must either convict all of the gruesome war tactics used by both sides, or we must accept the horrible nature of war itself. The atomic bomb was simply the next step in the progression of weapons used for mass extermination and to shock the Japanese into surrender.


    steve mellott - 3/18/2009

    Harry S. Truman has been deemed not guilty by us on the issue of war crimes committed during the times of the Atomic Bombings in August 1945. He simply did what was nessecary to insure the security of his nation and and bring the violence in the Pacific to an end. By dropping the bombs, he saved tens of thousands of American lives that would have been lost in the years to come. And as for those that argue for Japan, so many lives did not have to be lost. American planes dropped pamphlets days before both bombings warning against the horror that was about to come. It is very likely that Japan would have refused surrender and the war would have carried on into the late 1940’s and maybe even ‘50’s. By any rational calculation Japan was a beaten nation by the summer of 1945. Conventional bombing had reduced many of its cities to rubble, blockade had strangled its importation of vitally needed materials, and its navy had sustained such heavy losses as to be powerless to interfere with the invasion everyone knew was coming. By late June advancing American forces had completed the conquest of Okinawa, which lay only 350 miles from the southernmost Japanese home island of Kyushu. They now stood poised for the final onslaught. Rational calculations did not determine Japan's position. Although a peace faction within the government wished to end the war (provided certain conditions were met) militants were prepared to fight on regardless of consequences. They claimed to welcome an invasion of the home islands, promising to inflict such hideous casualties that the United States would retreat from its announced policy of unconditional surrender. The militarists held effective power over the government and were capable of defying the emperor, as they had in the past, on the ground that his civilian advisers were misleading him.
    A full out invasion of Japan to end the war may have been too risky. The Japanese were openly ready to defend the homeland till the bitter end, no matter what that took. No doubt kamakazis would have been used widely throughout the campaign, and the Japanese troops would have fought until their last dying breath. The Japanese had more than 2,000,000 troops in the home islands, were training millions of irregulars, and for some time had been conserving aircraft that might have been used to protect Japanese cities against American bombers. An invasion would have been uncalled for when the bombs provided a quick end to the war with minimal American lives lost.
    (http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/history261/
    why%20we%20had%20to%20drop%20the%20bomb.htm)


    Clara Ocneanu Alex Waters Caitlin Wilson - 3/18/2009

    Truman was hailed as a hero for ending the bloody conflict, so his crimes were swept under the rug. If he had decided not to drop the bomb, he might have been found guilty later on after the war ended, but only because his nation wouldn't have been able to claim immunity from its status as the glorious war-ender.
    If Truman had told the Japanese that he had won the nuclear arms race and had an a-bomb in working order before Hirohito, the Japanese might have surrendered from a Cold War-like deadlock. The Japanese, although they were attempting to create an atomic bomb, and desperately wanted one, would have been in second place to the United States. Being the first and only one to have possession of a working A-bomb is fun, but being second to the party? Not so much. The reason why the world didn't end in a flurry of nuclear winter during the Cold War is that the United States and the Soviet Union were terrified of their nation being bombed to smithereens by the opposing force. Even if the Japanese had managed to create an A-bomb some time after we did, they most likely wouldn't have used it for fear that we would bomb them. Similarly, if we had shown Japan proof of our nuclear capabilities, instead of dropping frivolous leaflets days before the attack, they might have surrendered. A valid threat with a high probability of being put into play is often as effective as the action itself (again, see the Cold War).
    Secondly, the Germans surrendered on April 24, 1945, months before the atomic bomb. The German forces were depleted and the Nazi officials were escaping and trying to take refugees and concentration camp victims with them. Plus, Hirohito and Hitler had never met. Japan was busy taking over the Asian Theatre while the Germans were concerned with Europe. Even though they both had plans of world domination, the two would not have collaborated, especially when Germany was on the verge of a total collapse and repossession by the Allies.

    Clara Ocneanu


    Kevin Disanto - 3/18/2009

    First of all Japan and the US had a peace agreement when they attacked Pearl Harbor so we weren't planning on being attacked by a currently peaceful nation. Also from your definition then every soldier in any army who was a part in killing an innocents citizen would be considered a war criminal. Every pilot who has ever dropped a bomb on any city is a criminal then.


    lauren elizabeth dechellis - 3/18/2009

    We agree with you Lizzy. Truman is guilty for "violations of the laws or customs of war." The reason he did drop it really was to end it quickly and he took all of those lives in the process and it's still effecting people today. The 9/11 comparison was a good point. If that happened in America it would be a complete disaster and nobody would argue that it wasn't a crime.


    sarah and lizzy johnson ciccarone - 3/18/2009

    The war would have continued if the bombs were not dropped yes. I agree with what you said about the rules if war, I found the same information. It is illegal to slaughter civilians according to the "terms of war". If the war would have continued then solders would have dies instead of civilians. We bombed japan so that they wouldn't bomb us, which seems hypocritical. We bombed them to destroy their bombs. So instead we were the bad guys. Truman IS guilty.


    Clara Ocneanu Alex Waters Caitlin Wilson - 3/18/2009

    I completely agree with Zach. How would you know that Japan would nuke us as soon as they acquired them? We were a vastly superior country with hundreds of nukes and thousands of troops and supplies. They would also have to make it over the pacific ocean and past the American surveys and radars to get to the main land. Which would discourage the Japanese even more. These defensive positions that Japan was taking up couldn't last long against American bombardments and the Russians who were also preparing to attack. Truman's ignorance about the nuke is the reason for the civilian deaths. That is completely inexcusable.


    nikki hange - 3/18/2009

    agreed. dropping the a-bomb saved more lives then if we would have invaded and dropped firebombs. so dropping the a-bomb actually saved more lives on both the Japanese and American sides.


    Kelly&Kayley BartonGaines - 3/18/2009

    Though it may have been very harmful to have dropped the bomb and killed many people, the alternatives could have been much worse. The amounts of killings due to a barricade would have been more inhumane and much more shocking than the bomb. And it did put an end to the war and stopped from anything worse to happen.


    nikki hange - 3/18/2009

    You have a good point, but even if we had not dropped the bomb innocent people would have been killed. We would have invaded Japan and continued to drop fire bombs on their cities which would have also killed civilians. But for some reason we aren't trying Truman on the use of fire bombs?

    GODZILLA :]


    lauren elizabeth dechellis - 3/18/2009

    MiKe...really..? Truman IS a war criminal!!! It wasn't a military necessity, devastation is not justified by military necessity. Truman is guilty for "violations of the laws or customs of war" through the "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. There have been several medical issues linked to the atomic bomb. The laws and customs of war clearly distinguish between discriminate and indiscriminate military actions.Truman IS guilty. BOOM ROASTED!


    aaf jgy - 3/18/2009

    We disagree with your statements. We believe the drop of the atomic bomb ended in a good result for the future. It wasnt good killing the japanese but someone had to step in and do something. The atomic bomb ended the war, and helped the United States move onto other things..........................................


    Kelly&Kayley BartonGaines - 3/18/2009

    Ended a different way how? by killing millions of civilian with regular bomb droppings in increased numbers, a barricade, and an invasion. Although it might be sad civilian deaths come with war its just a natural part of war and although wars not good its no use trying to save everyone what matters is just to save as many as you can.


    aaf jgy - 3/18/2009

    I Disagree. Fair warning was given, and if a threat was not taken seriously that is not Truman's fault. He did what he felt he needed to do to protect the country he represented. If Truman had not done what he had done and Japan's government had attacked the U.S. in some way people in our country would of been in complete uproar.


    Kevin Disanto - 3/18/2009

    we almost totally destroyed 67 cities with fire bombs prior to dropping the atomic bomb so how was destroying two cities completely, different than what we were doing before. Also the Japan refused to sign the Potsdam declaration, this would most likely lead to the death of more American citizens, and soldiers. Lastly they showed us their destruction on the the US at Pearl Harbor by taking out an entire fleet.


    aaf jgy - 3/18/2009

    this is by Jameson/Gregory/Yeager


    Kelly&Kayley BartonGaines - 3/18/2009

    I don't know what kind of world your living i guess a la la land because now matter what with war they're will be death its an inevitable thing and to say that someone is a war criminal because they made a decision that not only ended the war as fast as possible, and forced the Japanese to surrender saving hundreds of thousands of both American and Japanese lives. the point of war is not to prevent death it is to try to prevent as many deaths as possible, and to call dropping the bomb morally wrong is just ridiculous, would you rather have had us keep dropping regular bombs killing just as many people as the atomic bombs on top of a barricade and an invasion, yeah thats much better considering we don't want to harm women and children who would die a far more painful death from a barricade. In China when they were barricaded millions of innocent civilians died MILLIONS, but by all means keep believing that that millions of slow and painful deaths are better than maybe a hundred thousand quick ones.


    Clara Ocneanu Alex Waters Caitlin Wilson - 3/18/2009

    I disagree with this idea, Truman did not have to drop the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to ensure safety for our country. First off Japan was already willing to surrender and if we would have allowed them time to they would have surrendered and we would have avoided killing thousands of innocent women and children. Truman was also in violation of the United States contract of the Geneva Convention. Military Necessity is one of the three main principles in the Geneva Convention. Truman did not have true Military Necessity when he decided to drop the bombs. So, in fact, Truman violated the Geneva Convention and should therefore be prosecuted as a war criminal. The Atomic Bomb was also a weapon that left lasting effects on generations after the war, such as radiation exposure. So the fact that Truman's decision is still effecting the Japanese citizens of today is also another reason he should be indited as a war criminal.


    aaf jgy - 3/18/2009

    I agree with your post, we had no idea how long the war would have gone on. Without the decision to drop the bombs and end the war indefinitely, a lot of other lives both civilian and military from all nations would have been lost. It sent a strong message to the Japanese people that the war needed to be ended. We dropped fliers letting the civilians know that we were dropping a bomb, which shows that we were targeting the military bases and leaders.


    lauren elizabeth dechellis - 3/18/2009

    lol thnx kateycarleybrittany
    <3laurencassidy


    nikki hange - 3/18/2009

    yeah many innocent people died but even if Truman didn't drop the bombs these people would have died anyway. if it wasn't for the atomic bomb the war would have kept going and there would have been even more death and destruction. so in the end dropping the bomb saved more lives then if he had decided to just continue with warfare.


    lauren elizabeth dechellis - 3/18/2009

    You say that Truman didn't have malicious intentions, but just because he didn't doesn't mean that it wasn't malicious in general. It killed 200,000 people but it effected a lot more, and is still effecting people today that had nothing to do with the war. He IS guilty because he only had one mind-set;to kill. All direct killing of non-combatants is against international law regardless of weapons employed. The laws and customs of war clearly distinguish between discriminate and indiscriminate military actions. BOOM ROASTED.


    sarah and lizzy johnson ciccarone - 3/18/2009

    Yes Truman was trying to create peace by ending the war. But how far should we go to create peace? Do we have to create devastation and oblitteration in another country to gain peace in our own?? The dropping of the A bomb doesn't create peace, it does the opposite. Harry Truman is guilty of murdering thousands of japanese people, peace is not a good reason for doing that, the price is way too high. Bombs equal violence, not peace.


    Kevin Disanto - 3/18/2009

    President Harry Truman is innocent of war crimes for dropping the atomic bomb on the two Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His actions were necessary for ending WWII and the upcoming violence that the continuing war would have brought onto all of the involved world powers. First of all the atomic bomb was a huge factor in ending the war that had gone on for 6 long years. The Potsdam declaration offered a ultimatum for the Japanese government to surrender, or the US would continue bombing on Japanese cities. Japanese papers reported that the declaration had been rejected by the Japanese government. Only 6 days after the bomb was dropped the war ended. If we had not dropped the bomb the war could have gone on for years longer causing equal even greater amounts of casualties and destruction to not just Japan.

    Also, if we waited long enough to use this great power we held the axis powers could have produced similar weaponry and used it without hesitation or limit against any country it pleased.

    Another factor in our decision is the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The Japanese government was holding peace treaty's between the US and Japan, and yet they showed no hesitation in bombing the US and and killing US citizens at Pearl Harbor. "We found the Japanese in our locality were not eager to befriend us - after all, they had not long ago had the most fearful weapon of all time dropped on our doorstep." Before using the atomic bomb we were using incendiary bombs that when dropped burned a large percent of cities to the ground. The US was using these methods before the atomic bomb and more than 67 cities were mostly destroyed by these attacks which did more damage than we did with both atomic bombs.

    news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/6/newsid_3602000/3602189.stm

    The Potsdam declaration issued 10 days ago, which called for the unconditional surrender of Japan, was a last chance for the country to avoid utter destruction, the President said.

    "If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the like of which has never been seen on Earth. Behind this air attack will follow by sea and land forces in such number and power as they have not yet seen, but with fighting skill of which they are already aware."



    KateyCarleyBrittany FinkGatesGibson - 3/18/2009

    We agree with you 100%, because he should of been guilty. We agree wiht your statement that He is guilty because he violated the customs of war in more ways than one. He could of done it in a better way rather than taking away the lives of innocent civilians. You guys rock. Keep up the good work!! :)


    Allie coleman - 3/18/2009

    If the Nuremberg Trial sent 12 Nazis to the death because of the genocide they created, why should Truman get away with it? Both the Nazis and Truman murdered hundreds of thousands of people. Nazis used torture, and Truman used a bomb. War crimes inlcude anything that involved torture, destruction, or mass murder. Dropping the bomb wasn't our only option. Truman had intentions of killing thousands and ending war


    Nick and Sam Gallagher Gruneberg - 3/18/2009

    WE ROCK!!!!!!!


    sarah and lizzy johnson ciccarone - 3/18/2009

    I totally agree. The atomic bombs had never been dropped before, so how was the U.S supposed to know the full damage it would cause? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were like guinea pigs, a cruel experiment to see just how much power the United States could unleash.


    KateyCarleyBrittany FinkGatesGibson - 3/18/2009

    According to http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm, Truman warned that if Japan still refused to surrender unconditionally, as demanded by the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, the United States would attack additional targets with equally devastating results, which means that he knew what the bomb had the potential to do.


    will wagner sefter - 3/18/2009

    My group and I believe that Mr. Harry S. Truman is innocent concerning the conviction of committing war crimes. President Harry S. Truman was accused of "the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." “Specifically, I accuse President Truman of ordering the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki via an experimental terror weapon resulting in the massacre and maiming of some 200,000 Japanese women, children and old people.” Yes, When President Truman dropped an atomic bomb the result was a heavy amount of casualties. However the use of fire bombs or an invasion would have had similar numbers making it hard to justify that the heavy amount of casualties deserves a conviction. “There was a large unchallenging conclusion that among military and political leaders that victory required not simply the military defeat of Japan but the occupation of Japan and the transformation of its government.” Oscar B. Chamberlain (Not Guilty) The atomic bomb may not have been the only way to subdue Japan but it turned out to be a very effective one. In the end Mr. Truman accomplished his goal and the fact is the Japanese surrendered. This proves that the atomic bombs goal was not to massacre the Japanese people but to in fact get them to surrender, which was accomplished. If an invasion were the course of action to be taken many more American lives would have been claimed. The large Japanese military numbers may not be frightened into surrendering with an invasion. President Truman made the only decision he could make and this is why I believe he is not guilty.


    Allie coleman - 3/18/2009

    Truman dropped the bomb with intentions of causing destruction, death, and to end war. He was well aware that Japan was weaker than the United States was because they were running out of supplies and were ready to surrender. If we didn’t drop the bomb, Truman was planning on invading. No matter what we decided to do, Japan was going to loose the war anyways. The rules of war say that force attack on civilians is prohibited, but Truman went ahead and did that. They didn’t invade and attack the civilians, but he still managed to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people who didn’t play a role in the war.


    will wagner sefter - 3/18/2009

    My group and I believe that Mr. Harry S. Truman is innocent concerning the conviction of committing war crimes. President Harry S. Truman was accused of "the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." “Specifically, I accuse President Truman of ordering the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki via an experimental terror weapon resulting in the massacre and maiming of some 200,000 Japanese women, children and old people.” Yes, When President Truman dropped an atomic bomb the result was a heavy amount of casualties. However the use of fire bombs or an invasion would have had similar numbers making it hard to justify that the heavy amount of casualties deserves a conviction. “There was a large unchallenging conclusion that among military and political leaders that victory required not simply the military defeat of Japan but the occupation of Japan and the transformation of its government.” Oscar B. Chamberlain (Not Guilty) The atomic bomb may not have been the only way to subdue Japan but it turned out to be a very effective one. In the end Mr. Truman accomplished his goal and the fact is the Japanese surrendered. This proves that the atomic bombs goal was not to massacre the Japanese people but to in fact get them to surrender, which was accomplished. If an invasion were the course of action to be taken many more American lives would have been claimed. The large Japanese military numbers may not be frightened into surrendering with an invasion. President Truman made the only decision he could make and this is why I believe he is not guilty.


    Allie coleman - 3/18/2009

    Xavier, you make several really strong points, and I agree with you completely. You’re absolutely right about Japan surrendering if we didn’t drop the bomb. They were running out of military supplies and they were well aware that the United States was a much stronger and more powerful nation. They didn’t surrender before they had to because they were very nationalistic, and didn’t want to look weak by surrendering. They wanted to stay strong for as long as they could. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was Japan’s way of seeking revenge it seems. We bombed them, so they bombed us. Before we bombed Japan’s second city, we warned them before we took action. They bombed us on December 7, 1941, and before they did, they warned us and like you said, Truman decided to let it happen anyways. I completely agree with your entire statement. Truman is guilty.


    Xavier Johnson - 3/18/2009

    but what your missing is that it WAS a war crime.
    read this:
    http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C118.txt
    see that ".gov" there? that means that it is an official government website here is the excerpt:

    "(D) Murder. - The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities"

    i don't make the laws... I just point them out to people.


    John & Cameron Kowalski & Eyster - 3/18/2009

    I never said that the bombing of Pearl Harbor is justified. The Japanese attacked a military base whereas we Americans knowingly killed mass quantities of civilians.


    zach rhoads - 3/18/2009

    The acts can only be personally deemed necessary militarily, although it ended the war, as we have stated earlier, there could have been alternative means to conclude the war; that did not involve people dying in such a grotesque manner. Looking at this incident from a completely moral standpoint, there would be no way to accept this or let this action slide as something that is acceptable. This was a horrible offense and Truman was definitely guilty of war crimes.


    Xavier Johnson - 3/18/2009

    :D


    Kelsey Quinn - 3/18/2009

    All this proves is the fact that both countries are technically oblivious. We warned them, they warned us. What makes their bombings different than our bombings? Nothing. Period. Dropping of the atomic bomb was needed in order to end the war ten times faster and more efficient than traditional war-tactics, and therefore, there is nothing "unjust" of what Truman had done. Dropping of the atomic bomb does not go under "war crimes" but out of military necessity. Many people, including Japan's emperor's MAIN ADVISOR agreed that the bomb was needed in order for their surrender. That's proof enough that what Truman did was NOT man slaughter and should not be thought of as a "Japanese Holocaust."

    The end.


    Xavier Johnson - 3/18/2009

    was that really our purpose? our true reason for dropping the bomb was to intimidate the soviet union! read my post for more. ... oh yeah and it WAS a war crime. he is a war criminal.


    Allyson Reid Megan Porter - 3/18/2009

    The bombs were supposed to be powerful; we were trying to make a point to end the war. They expected us to attack on the ground so they were prepared for that and that would have killed more people, including American soldiers. By dropping the bombs from the air, we were able to surprise them and save American lives.


    John & Cameron Kowalski & Eyster - 3/18/2009

    This is a very interesting concept. There are several conspiracy theories out there on this articular topic. Most people are sure that Japan was bombed to protect America, however we'll never really know the exact reasoning for the bombings.


    Josh Martain - 3/18/2009

    Truman could seriously be considered guilty but if he is guilty that means us, the United States of America are the bad guys in this war. So if we are the bad guys then why did they Bomb us a Pearl Harbor. Why did Hitler start a mass Genocide. Why did we free over 250,000 people from death. If Japan united with Hitler would have been in trouble. The United States we have lost. We wouldn't have our freedom or our country. Truman made a decision for the fact that, if he had not made a stand we would all be dead. And it's either them or us.

    Steven Ellis


    John & Cameron Kowalski & Eyster - 3/18/2009

    There is always the possibility (that Xavier brought up,) that it was entirely a conspiracy created by the American government.

    But seriously. Mecha Godzilla can't fly. Godzilla can, though.


    steve mellott - 3/18/2009

    ok and killing people in hawii is ok. no it was neccessary and because we didnt have to invade japan thats what saved lives


    Dan Bowman - 3/18/2009

    We agree, Truman was in the position where he needed to make a devastating decision. Even though many people died from the two bombs, many more would have died if traditional warfare had continued. “Frank notes the report commissioned for Stimson by W. B. Shockley, who argued that defeating Japan by invasion would have cost five to ten million Japanese deaths and between 1.7 million and 4 million American casualties, including perhaps 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities.” (defense) Also, the difference between traditional bombing and nuclear bombing is not as big as it seems. Traditional bombing had killed about 100,000 people and destroyed nearly 250,000 buildings leaving many people homeless and left to die. Japan was not a country that wanted to surrender and it has been said that they may have went as far as sacrificing their whole country to win the war. Therefore this decision made by Truman not only saved many on both sides, but also may have potentially saved the country of Japan.


    Mike Gaetano - 3/18/2009

    Dropping the atomic bomb was completely necessary. There are not nearly as many negative effects as there were positive effects. The only negative effect that is imminent was the 200,000 lives that were taken. However, these lives and many more would have been taking during an invasion of Japan. The positive effects however, are much more numerous. First, it ended one of the most brutal wars in the history of the world. Millions of people were lost in Europe, and many more would have fallen to the same fate had we not dropped this bomb. Also, after thoroughly defeating Japan, the U.S. was able to impose a new post-war government in Japan. And the U.S. has been trading partners ever since. Truman is not guilty!


    Xavier Johnson - 3/18/2009

    this is reiculous. you make it seem ike more lives were saved than would have been spend with an amphibious invasion. even if such an invasion became necessary, it would not cos 200,000 lives! to say that killing civilians in a monstrous act of terrorism is justified, is ridiculous. besides. as you'll see here:
    http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C118.txt
    dropping the bomb, was, technically a war crime. whether or not it was justified is irrelevant.


    Allyson Reid Megan Porter - 3/18/2009

    We agree that he is not guilty. He was put into a situation that he was not prepared for and it was not just Truman making the decision. He had a group of people supporting him and giving him facts to persuade his decision.


    Maria/Kendyl DiMuccio/Parker - 3/18/2009

    It did matter that we were a powerful country. If we weren't as powerful, Japan wouldn't have been scared and decided to surrender. No, the point wasn't just to prove that we were strong; the point was to put a quick and well thought out end to the war with Japan..which is what we did


    Josh Martain - 3/18/2009

    Ok so are you imply that Your country is the bad guys. if we had not stopped The Japanese Force then they would have joined up with Nazi forces and made a stronger force. Possibly they could produce Atom Bombs and bomb us. If the bombed us then we would have lost. There would be no America anymore Hitler would be controlling the world with his army of Nazi and their Allies.

    Steven Ellis


    John & Cameron Kowalski & Eyster - 3/18/2009

    I do think it saved lives and ended the war, however the killing of 200,000 civilians is still an act against the Nuremburg laws and should have a repercussion.


    Maria/Kendyl DiMuccio/Parker - 3/18/2009

    First of all, the story concerning Japanese health care is irrelevant to your claim about Truman. We don't control how the Japanese run their health care programs, whether we dropped the bomb or not. A lot of people died but its a fact that a lot of people die in wars. With or without the bombs, there would have been a number of casualties.


    Madeline LaBorde - 3/18/2009

    It doesn't matter if it helped everyone or not in the future. Attacking civilians like that is against the rules of war.


    Robbie Edwards - 3/18/2009

    Lauren.....we did what we had to do given the circumstances of the war. If an invasion would have occurred Japanese fatalities would have been exponentialey increased. We were able to save lives on both sides by dropping the bomb as well as ending the war. Would you have sacrificed American lives? We did what was best for our people.


    Allyson Reid Megan Porter - 3/18/2009

    There were not very many other options to ending the war. They dropped notes to warn the Japanese people and they could have evacuated if they wanted. We wanted to drop the bombs to make a point and to burn the industrial buildings, not kill the people.


    Mike Gaetano - 3/18/2009

    I completely agree with what you said here. Truman is not a war criminal!!! All of these statistics really paint a picture of what would have happened had we not dropped the bombs. It seems that had we invaded Japan, many more lives would have been lost. I found many more statistics and articles that said as the war in the pacific got closer to the Japanese coast, the fighting got much more brutal. This means that many more casualties would have been lost had we invaded the Japanese front. I completely agree with what you said and I think that your writing style was awesome.


    steve mellott - 3/18/2009

    the reason for droping the bomb was to save lives and to not invade japan. but when you talk about killing civilians i guess killing americans at purl harber was just fine. so truman did what was write.


    Josh Martain - 3/18/2009

    I agree that the destruction of cities is not justified, but they might have attacked our cities if we hadn't attacked theirs. Also, there is no way that Godzilla could beat Mecha Godzilla, don't be silly.


    Vikte Lionikaite - 3/18/2009

    I don't think that dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "military necessary" because they didn't have to do it, they could have just kept fighting, however i do believe that it was the only way to end the war. I don't see how "Using the atomic bomb simply proved how powerful we were to the rest of the world " because i don't think that was really the point at that time.


    Xavier Johnson - 3/18/2009

    oh... my... god... that explains everything


    zach rhoads - 3/18/2009

    We disagree with you entirely, sir. You made a point that it was a necessary action, but it was the complete opposite. Many innocent civilians were killed due to this act of either sheer stupidity or severe inhumanity. The war could have been resolved by different means, means that didn't involve the slaughter of civilians instantly and for many years to come.


    Josh Martain - 3/18/2009

    oh and this is Steven Ellis commenting :)


    Josh Martain - 3/18/2009

    I disagree, my point is that if we had not put a stop to japan then the Nazi army would i have moved on and they would supply japan with stronger forces. Our act of violence was considered harsh but if you think about it, what would have happened they would bomb us again and maybe they might have made Atomic Bombs of their own. We would have been attacked and possibly we could have lost our country.


    steve mellott - 3/18/2009

    ok. this is a project at school, not a WOW conversation but wile we are on the subject the a-bomb was a good thing in every part it saved lives and ended the war without having to invade


    Robbie Edwards - 3/18/2009

    I agree in that Truman is not guilty of war crimes. By dropping the bombs on Japan he was able to save millions of American soldiers as well as Japanese lives. War is brutal and you have to accept that there is going to be sacrifice and mass destruction if order for one side to prevail. Some of the statistics that you gave were similar to ours. I agree strongly with your essay and i believe that dropping the Atomic Bomb on Japan was the rational thing to do given the circumstances.


    Lucia Sofo Tom Gray - 3/18/2009

    We disagree. The prosecution doesn't accuse Truman of being morally correct, but rather accuses him of violating the Nuremburg Charter. The fact is he did violate the Charter because even if it was a military necessity, he still killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Although the dropping of the bomb was necessary to end the war, Truman still ended the lives of innocent people. This is why he is in violation of the Charter and should be prosecuted as a criminal.


    Xavier Johnson - 3/18/2009

    regardless of what his diabolical reasons were, what he did was a direct assault against unarmed civs. the UNITED STATES LAW defines such action as a WAR CRIME. period.


    Dan Bowman - 3/18/2009

    You make a point that too many casualties were killed, therefore declaring Truman as a war criminal. However, that is the nature of war. There has never been a war without innocent civilians getting killed. Plus, the Japanese people were warned of what might have been coming in their direction. Warning letters were dropped. The Japanese government had a chance to surrender. However they did not. And even after the bombing at Nagasaki, it took a threat of a third bomb before the Japanese finally surrendered. The amount of people killed by the two atomic bombs is far less than the amount that would have died if the war had continued. Even though many people lost their lives from the bombs, the bombs still saved many, many lives, on both sides of the trenches.


    Madeline LaBorde - 3/18/2009

    I don't really agree. I don't think it even matters that this is nothing compared to other options. The thing is is that we don't know the outcome for every single option there was to end it. Also there's the fact that killing civilians like this is kinda against the rules of war anyway.


    John & Cameron Kowalski & Eyster - 3/18/2009

    It is our belief that Truman is a war criminal. The dropping of the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are against the Nuremburg laws <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp>; that the United States agreed were the laws of war on August 8th, 1945.
    One law in particular that was broken by Truman was Article 6b that states that the mass destruction of cities, towns, and villages or destruction that is not justified as a military necessity is considered a war crime.

    Another is 6c saying that the extermination of civilians is also a crime. From these attacks, there were roughly 200,000 civilian casualties of both cities <http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml>;.

    Truman was also the cause of Godzilla. Shortly after the dropping of the bombs, the atomic fallout drifted out to sea where Godzilla lay dormant. After being stirred from his deep slumber, Godzilla came out of the ocean as a giant, tyrannosaurus-like dinosaur-esque monstrosity who wreaked havoc all over Tokyo for days as he flew around the city incinerating people with his atomic breath. When Truman dropped the second bomb, he not only killed even more people, but gave Godzilla more power to kill, in his new form, Mecha-Godzilla. When the second bomb was dropped, Mecha Godzilla met his only true rival, the other Godzilla. They fought for days, neither of which succumbing to the other until finally, our hero Godzilla finally brought down Mecha Godzilla and all was better, until of course, Godzilla realized that he was blood thirsty and had to kill more people. The new Godzilla killed even more people than the first Godzilla, and this is all Truman’s fault because had he not dropped any of the bombs, the atomic radiation wouldn’t have drifted to his place of eternal slumber.

    Cameron Eyster and John Kowalski


    Mike Gaetano - 3/18/2009

    I completely agree with what you said here. I feel that Truman is not guilty, and that his decision saved many lives, including Japanese and our own. Also, it ended WWII, one of the most brutal wars in history, in a timely manner. This, as you said, was the United States primary goal. Also, the fact that more than 8 million people left the cities before the bombs were dropped obviously means that the people that were left in these cities were mainly military personnel. This means that most of the casualties that were caused by the bombs were people who were willing to die for their country. Overall, I agree with all of the statements you made, and I do not think that Truman is a war criminal.


    Josh Martain - 3/18/2009

    I don't think that there was a more ethical way to end the war, lives would have been lost either way. Also, that convention in Geneva happened after the bombs.


    steve mellott - 3/18/2009

    I dont agree with that because there was no comspiericy about droping th bomb. why would we want to distroy the whole country we just didnt want anymore americans to die. the reason we did it was to end the war and end it fast. it was neccesary


    Allyson Reid Megan Porter - 3/18/2009

    We believe that Truman is not guilty. We came to this conclusion after reading both the closing and opening statements and also reading some of the jury verdicts. We were in a time of war, and Truman did what he thought was best for the American people. There were a lot of American people being killed during the war and dropping the atomic bomb was the quickest and most effective way to end the war and the way to save the most lives. In the defense’s opening statement, he says that “whether or not the Japanese government would have agreed to end the war if the A-bomb had not been dropped” was a question in everyone’s head. The Japanese were in no way ready to surrender, because they had no reason to. “Asado also notes that Japan was busy trying to perfect its own atomic bomb, and it had succeeded, “there is no doubt that the Japanese military would have hesitated to use the atomic bomb.” The only reason that the Japanese did not drop their A-bomb on us is because their sciences were not as advanced as ours and we dropped our bomb before they got a chance to drop theirs. (http://www.doug-long.com/rambling.htm) If Truman did not make the decision to drop our bomb, they would have dropped one on us and we would have been the one losing a lot of citizens. The atomic bombs that we dropped killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki. (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/teacher/abomb.htm) However, it did not have to be this way. We sent out a letter warning all of the citizens in the cities that the atomic bombs were going to be dropped and they should evacuated the cities to save their life but they decided to not do anything about it.


    steve mellott - 3/18/2009

    I dont agree with that because there was no comspiericy about droping th bomb. why would we want to distroy the whole country we just didnt want anymore americans to die. the reason we did it was to end the war and end it fast. it was neccesary


    Madeline LaBorde - 3/18/2009

    I agree. While it did end the war, killing that many citizens like that is just wrong and is against the rules of war anyway.


    sarah and lizzy johnson ciccarone - 3/18/2009

    I agree with what you're saying. It was wrong according to the Nuremburg Charter to drop the bombs but if it's up to the person to conclude if you think it was the right thing to do in his situation.


    zach rhoads - 3/18/2009

    We completely agree with this point, we pretty much agreed entirely.

    For the most part our points are directly related, we both felt that it was unjust to drop these bombs on the poor civilians, even it was intended for military forces, it still hit civilians and murdered a large amount of them, which undoubtedly is unjust.

    We agree, Truman is guilty.


    Maria/Kendyl DiMuccio/Parker - 3/18/2009

    Yes, the bombs the Truman used on Japan were powerful but they seemed to have a greater impact than the initial warning he gave. Dropping the first bomb showed Japan how prepared and serious we were about ending the war. The bombs did kill many people but it saved a much greater number of lives from both sides.


    Robbie Edwards - 3/18/2009

    I agree with your statement in that war is brutal and that the termination of this war would not be easy. I agree that if there was a real trial that President Truman would not be found guilty. We did give Japan warnings about what would happen and their government refused to take action to protect their people. By dropping these bombs we were able to save millions of American lives and also millions of Japanese lives as well as putting a stop to the war.


    Lucia Sofo Tom Gray - 3/18/2009

    We agree that he is guilty but for a different reason. The prosecution accuses him of war crimes and that is what he did. Whether it was ethical and a military necessity is a different argument. We believe that he is guilty for violating the Nuremburg Charter but the dropping of the A-bombs was the only way to end the war.


    Kelsey Quinn - 3/18/2009

    Truman is not guilty, for he did not commit any war crimes. All of his acts were of military necessity. Though you say that many people died due to the mass bombings, many people would have died due to "traditional fire bombings" and hand-to-hand combat. Many women, children, and innocent people would've died in the war regardless of whether the atomic bombs were dropped or not, and therefore, there was no difference between the atomic bomb and traditional war, besides the fact that the atomic bomb ended the war ten times faster.

    Kelsey Quinn & Zoe Calkins


    neb edallas - 3/18/2009

    I find president Harry S. Truman not guilty of the accused war crimes and more specifically of “wanton destruction”. The nature of war is a brutal and very unpredictable and tough choices have to be made. Truman made a decision that he knew would end WWII and this was the US’s primary goal. The death of hundreds of thousands of Japanese was undoubtedly an unfortunate price to pay, but no matter what strategy Pres. Truman would have taken the death toll would be high. I also think that it is very important to recognize that there is little difference between the destruction of the 2 A-Bombs and the destruction caused by torching cities or conventional bombing. Truman warned Japan of the impending bombings and gave them plenty of time to surrender. I believe there is not nearly enough credible evidence to convict Harry Truman of war crimes.
    During the time directly before the dropping of the atomic bombs the Us government was considering a number of different actions to get the Japanese to surrender and effectively end WWII. The Navy wanted to use a blockade around the island to cause wide spread starvation. The Air Force recommended tripling the conventional bombing raids already in place. The last proposal, the Army’s plan for a pair of invasions, would have been extremely risky to the American soldiers. With these as the possible options it is clear to see why Pres. Truman would have turned to the atomic bombs.
    Another very important piece of information in this case is that Truman did give the Japanese a sufficient warning of the bombings. The attacks were by no means a surprise. The Japanese government was given a chance to surrender multiple times and refused. Also, the US dropped millions of flyers on to city advising civilians to leave. It is estimated that over 8 million did so and this leads me to believe that mainly people essential to the war efforts were the remaining citizens.
    Lastly, I believe that the atomic bombs were not outside the bubble of traditional warfare. Though the death toll per bomb was unrivaled at the time, what separates this from the dropping of 40 or 50 standard bombs. In addition, another common war strategy at the time was torching cities. This is much more inhumane and also leaves cities in ruins. In my opinion, this is much closer to the boundary of war crimes.


    Ryan Miller - 3/18/2009

    We have found the defendant Harry S Truman not guilty on the accusation of war crime. When a country is at war sometimes you must make difficult decisions that you would not normally make. It is a time when you are first concerned with the safety of your own country and although you are concerned for the innocent citizens of the enemy country, that does not get in the way of protecting your own citizens. Philip Nobile accuses my defendant based on war crimes in Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter, which states “the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.” With in this very statement Truman had the right and responsibility to drop the atomic bombs because it had become a military necessity for Truman to quickly find a solution before many more US citizens were killed. Dropping those bombs ended World War 2 and even though it killed 200,000 innocent Japanese it saved many more. If the war would have continued many Americans would have died which is who we should truly be concerned with but it also saved Japanese lives as well because the war would have continued to go possibly far beyond the 200,000 deaths caused by the bomb. Also Harry Truman did not directly drop bombs on cities full of just random Japanese he aimed for well-known military bases. He also gave them a warning to surrender before the second bomb was dropped and when they refused they decided the fate of their own people which was death. The Japanese may feel that it was war crime but it is known that if the Japanese could have gotten access to atomic bombs they would have attacked and killed many Americans not even concerned with whether it is a military area or an area full of pedestrians. It is disgusting to see that a hero like Harry Truman is being accused by the very people he helped save and even though it may not be the right decision in everyone’s eyes he was looking for the fastest solution and had no idea the power behind the bomb and in the end it completed its goal of ending World War 2.
    Based on information from this website and http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/history261/why%20we%20had%20to%20drop%20the%20bomb.htm


    Adele Burcin Moore - 3/18/2009

    We believe that Truman should be found “not guilty.” First off, many historians tend to disregard statements made by Truman and Stimson after the war, while they take Eisenhower's statements to be a hundred percent truth. Who is to say who's statements are more legitimate than the others'? Plus, not to mention, The United States did warn Japan about the attack, and asked for a surrender before dropping the bomb. People are accusing Truman as if he had malicious intentions and dropped it out of the blue.
    Also, if it wasn't for the United States releasing their atomic bomb sooner than Japan, Japan would have developed their own atomic weapons prepared to drop on their own enemies. Not to mention, “there were thousands of Japanese ready to commit suicide to save the home islands; far more than had been anticipated.” (http://plungepontificates.blogspot.com/2005/05/atomic-bomb-section-2-japans-defenses.html) No doubt were they planning to invade and destroy enemy grounds themselves. If the United States defeated Japan by strictly invasion, there would be 1.7 to 4 million American and Japanese casualties, not to mention the expected 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities. Who is right to say that the Japanese soldiers and noncombatants that died had any more of a right to live, than any other soldier or civilian? By arguing that Truman was a war criminal, who eliminated warfare as quickly as possible, than the argument is really that any war that harms noncombatants is criminal, and we're sorry to say, but that is the nature of war. We conclude that Truman is pleaded, “not-guilty”, and should not be looked at as a criminal for what he has done for our country.


    Josh Martain - 3/18/2009

    Verdict-
    We find that Harry Truman is not guilty. We were in a position where something had to be done and it had to be done quickly. Truman may have ended the lives of hundreds of thousands of non-combatants, but he stopped the fighting between Japan and America and in this case the end justifies the means. The Japanese army had built up to nine hundred thousands soldiers ready to defend against a planned American invasion. Those soldiers would have crushed the first wave of invaders. We had to strike before Japan did. Japan was busy trying to perfect an atomic bomb of its own and they would not have hesitated to use it against us.

    We had to strike and we did. We ended the war before there were more casualties, and may have stopped them before they bombed us. The bombs may have killed many, but it was all necessary to end the war and save lives. It caused Japan to sign a peace treaty and in the end it may have killed many noncombatants, but hundreds of thousands of soldiers and American civilians could have lost their lives. I in no way condone killing innocent people, especially on this scale, but war is hell and innocent people are bound to die.
    Josh Martain Steve Ellis

    http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/supplement/procon.html


    Clara Ocneanu Alex Waters Caitlin Wilson - 3/18/2009

    With regards to the classification of Harry Truman's order to drop two atomic bombs on Japan in order to end World War Two, we regard the then-president of the United States as guilty. It has come under speculation that the victory of the Allies in the War played a large role in shielding American atrocities from a negative light, along with prohibiting them from coming under question. The practice of giving the spoils, without their respective consequences, to the victors of war is an unjust and flawed process. Victory in a bloody conflict should never insure immunity from punishment. Any crime of such a scale carried out by any persons during wartime should come under scrutiny. This is why we strongly believe that Harry Truman should have been convicted of war crimes, as defined in article six paragraph b of the Nuremberg Charter. Truman is guilty of war crimes which effected future generations after World War II, to whom the A-bomb should not have been directed. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only affected those Japanese who may have been working, as Radosh points out, for the war industry, however indirectly, but also their children, who were completely innocent of war guilt. Five hundred and forty four students of the First Hiroshima Municipal Girl's School died with their eyeballs ripped out of the sockets from the tremendous force with which the first atomic bomb erupted (as Nobile mentions). Despite Truman's claim that he was only doing to the Japanese what they had done to the Americans at Pearl Harbor, these young girls had nothing to do with the war industry, the Japanese military tactics, or anything regarding Allied troops. They may have had pride in their country and pride in the war effort, as all of the extremely patriotic Japanese did, but such an onslaught of civilian death was not warranted by any of Japan's actions. There will always be civilian deaths in war. It is inevitable until technology advances to a point where countries can chose the precise human targets of their attack, however, the carpet-bombing of a hub of civilian activity should not be enacted lightly without serious thought and debate. There may have been people building war weapons and equipment in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the seeds of future generations, the children, unknowing and ignorant of the world's workings, who would grow up to be deformed and scared fifty years after the two American atomic bombs caused a sudden cessation to World War II. The peace that Truman desired in order to save future generations had no such effect.
    One of the reasons we believe Truman wasn't indicted for the war crimes against Japan was because of the allied victory. We strongly believe that if the United States, along with the other Allied forces would have lost the war, Harry Truman along with his entire office would have been convicted of war crimes against the people of Japan. Because of the victory, many people overlooked what had to be done in order to ensure victory and thus viewed Truman as a hero instead of a murderer and a criminal. During current times many of our citizens now see that Truman was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Japanese citizens. On one website we found that in 1949, countries around the world signed the fourth Geneva Convention, the United States being one of them, which stated that each country that participated in this must also make their own Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) which insured three main ideas, Millitary Necessity, Proportionality, and Distinction (www.comm2320.com/fall-2008/harrytruman-us-president-war-criminal/). Harry Truman violated the LOAC when he dropped the atomic bomb on both Japanese cities, because the ultimate plan was to have Japan surrender and they were already planning to do so before the bombs were dropped. Therefore Truman's actions were both unecessary and in violation of the United States Law of Armed Conflict. This is just one more reason why we believe Harry Truman should be indicted as a war criminal.
    After World War II, the German Nazis went through trials to account for their war crimes. Most of the crimes that they were held accountable for were civilian deaths. These crimes were lesser in scale than those that Truman committed against the Japanese people. After the war, one of the Nazi soldiers was put on trial for the deaths of 300,000 civilians which was many less casualties than what the Japanese suffered at the dropping of the bombs. Truman should be guilty because if we punished someone so harshly for something that was more civil than what our president did, then we are being hypocritical. With the deaths of over 500,000 Japanese people he should have be found guilty.
    The two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, euphemistically named "Little Boy" and "Fat Man", would have lasting effects for generations to come. Unlike the deadly ground strikes and air raids carried out on Japan, the effects of which were over after the attacks ended, the nuclear radiation from the atomic bombs would stay in Japan for many years to come. The younger the victims of the two bombs were at the time of the attacks, the greater the risk that they would develop leukemia became. The death rate for survivors of the bombs who were afflicted with leukemia was twice as high as leukemia victims who were not exposed to radiation. Of the 800 women who were pregnant in their third or fourth months of gestation, twenty-one of them gave birth to children with severe retardation. Other children were found to have extra digits and facial deformations. Although several surveys of the survivors' children were conducted, scientists argue that they do not display the full picture of the radiation damage because many of the gene mutations that might have occurred from the radiation would have resulted in spontaneous abortions. Twenty six percent of the survivors of the bombings died two months afterwards. The two bombs had an extremely devastating effect on Japan, both mentally and physically, and the aftershocks of the bombings continued long after the shock-waves of the bombs dissipated. (Anhalt).

    Anhalt, Lindsey. "The Atomic Bomb -- A Study of Aftermath." Washington 
         University in St. Louis. 2000. 17 Mar. 2009 <http://artsci.wustl.edu/ 
         ~copeland/atomicbomb.html>.


    sarah and lizzy johnson ciccarone - 3/17/2009

    There is a difference between war casualties and the slaughter of innocents. What Truman did was terrible, too many people died. There are more ways to solve a war then killing innocent people. The only excuse under american law for killing people is if it is a necessity in war. Truman actually never argued that destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a "military necessity". Truman's reason's for dropping the bomb were simply: ending the war quickly, and saving american soldiers from a bloody invasion. But what about all of the japanese people's lives? They were not even soldiers and they were slaughtered and died painful deaths. The dropping of the bomb was completely unnessecary. The bombs could have been dropped anywhere, but they were dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki, two of japan's largest cities, where there was bound to be plenty of civilians. The dropping of the A bomb was like 9/11 times 10. In black and white thousands of innocent people were brutally murdered, is that a crime in america? I think so.


    KateyCarleyBrittany FinkGatesGibson - 3/17/2009

    We believe that Harry Truman is guilty of maliciously killing 200,000 innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including 544 students from First Hiroshima Municipal Girls School. This is against Article 6 paragraph b of the Nuremberg, which states that, “the wanton destruction of cities towns and villages or devastation not justifies by military necessity.” Truman must of intended to commit slaughters of the civilians, because he would of aimed at a military base or a bomb demonstration. The laws and customs of war distinguish between discriminate and indiscriminate military actions. Truman claimed Hiroshima was, “an important military base,” even though it was left five months untouched, worrying about the six other Japanese city's before destroying Hiroshima. According, to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1902 and the Paris Peace Pact of 1928 Civilian slaughters were considered criminal.

    We decided to make Harry Truman guilty, because According to War Crimes are Namely, violations of the law or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoner of war on persons of the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. “Military necessity,” refers to emergency battle conditions during which armies and navies are permitted wider latitude under international law. This term does not refer to massacres planned many weeks in advance thousand of miles from Japan. Truman also never said that destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a "military necessity." Truman dropped the bomb irresponsibly, because he dropped it without knowing the affects of it, and without considering the many civilians. Truman's Chief of Staff, Assistant Secretary of War, former Ambassador of Japan, Navy under secretary, and Joint Chief staff all urged him to at least demonstrate bomb, give a more specific warning, and/or change terms of surrender. According to http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm, Truman warned that if Japan still refused to surrender unconditionally, as demanded by the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, the United States would attack additional targets with equally devastating results, which means that he knew what the bomb had the potential to do. According to http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/History/Damages.html, Wooden houses within 2.3 kilometers of ground zero collapsed. Concrete buildings near ground zero (thus hit by the blast from above) had ceilings crushed and windows and doors blown off. Many people were trapped under fallen structures and burned to death. People exposure within 500 meters of ground zero was fatal. People exposed at distances of 3 to 5 kilometers later showed symptoms of aftereffects, including radiation-induced cancers. Lennox Hinds, a U.S. professor specializing in international law, said the bombings were the act of “an indiscriminate extermination of all forms of life,” and that the targeted cities were like “guinea pigs” used in experiments to measure the impact of an atomic bombing.


    Xavier Johnson - 3/17/2009

    Truman is guilty of not only war crimes , but of crimes against humanity. He is just as guilty as anyone who would drop an atomic bomb on us today would be. For everyone who says that "we had to drop the bomb to avoid massive casualties" you are wrong and that is not the true reason at all. a 1945 survey orderd by truman himself the results were as follows.

    “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"

    the truth is that everything, from the bombing of pearl harbor, to the instantaneous destruction of 80,000 Japanese civilians, was a well planed conspiracy to get a jump start on the war against the soviet union. title 18 part 1 chapter 118, section (d), subsection (D), of the united states code, specifically defines the following as a war crime:

    "The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities"

    this definition is united states martial law. and no one is above the law.

    now the most interesting part, the conspiracy is this: the Japaneses government warned us of the impending attack on the u.s. naval base pearl harbor. But the U.S. military, deliberately let them attack it anyway. why? because during that time, entering the second world war was unfavored by the American people. pearl harbor was just what Truman needed to rally the support needed to enter the war. the government knew pearl harbor was going to be attacked and we let them bomb it so we could have an excuse to join the war. once we were part of the war. the government hid behind the false threat of "a dangerous amphibious invasion of Japan" so it could test the destructive capacity of it's new, super weapon, the atomic bomb. but this is where it all comes together, Hiroshima and Nagasaki for that matter, were not only tests of our new power, but demonstrations. We were waving our famous "big stick" in the face of the soviet union, hoping to use the terrible climax of the second word was to demonstrate our newfound atomic power. this was a carefully orchestrated conspiracy to intimidate the soviet union, at the cost of an estimated 150,000 lives.

    the dropping of the atomic bomb was a monstrous violation of the of the united states rules of engagement and was a blatant war crime and a sinister act of terrorism. Truman, and every other government official involved, is GUILTY of war crimes. this verdict is supported not only by the workers world official website (http://www.workers.org/2005/world/hiroshima-0811/) but by the previously mentioned doctrine written into united stated law. (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C118.txt)


    Shelby Caitlin King Ungar - 3/17/2009

    The above figures speak for themselves- the vast devastation as caused by the atomic bomb,is, quite simply, inexcusable under any circumstance, particularly when most of these victims are civilians unassociated with the military, and especially when the radiation is factored in. Not only are lives lost, but land permanently rendered inhabitable and any gain either developmentally or agriculturally is eradicated- the bomb destroyed lives, and it poisoned the land irreversibly.
    The very idea that Truman could escape consequences for such wanton use of a weapon of just that magnitude is astonishing. It is propaganda and mindless patriotism, as well as foolish pride that protects Truman from condemnation. The protection of a country, of a society that is too arrogant and self-absorbed to admit their own critical mistakes. No. Truman is guilty of all accusations, and as such should shoulder the responsibilities of his own actions, and suffer the justice that should so swiftly meet him.


    Katelyn Gill - 3/17/2009

    We believe that Truman is not guilty. There are many people in the world that have treated their own countries poorly this was another country. An article Sadao Asada was titled “The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender”. His article states that the bomb and only the bomb start Japan’s peace party. It made Japan take actions toward peace and not toward the war. It also stated that the prime minister had decided the A-bomb war between Japan and the USA could no longer be carried on. He also added that he feared to stage an invasion on the US because they could continue to drop Atomic bombs. A quote from Minister Togo added that “ Since the atomic bomb had made its appearance, continuation of the war had become utterly impossible.” All of these examples show that the leaders of Japan before the atomic bomb did not think about surrendering. It was the shock effect as Asada called it. Also there was evidence that Japan was also building its own Atomic Bomb. Their scientists were not up to the standards of the Americans so we built it first. If the Japanese did build their bomb first they concluded that they would have no problem in using it in the war. The verdict from one of Richard Jenson talks about how Nobile has talked about the Nuremburg Charter. He quotes part of the Nuremburg Charter “it outlawed the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessarily.” He states that the Japanese cities were a significant part of the war machine of the Japanese army. The war production came from its large cities.
    Also according to some historians some Japanese civilians favored surrender and the atomic bomb was like the surrender. "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." These are two quotes from this website that shows what people in Japan wanted. This was not just a civilian but a chief of the cabinet. There are more civilians other that these that convinced the military that courage doesn’t help when many people are being killed. This website has many other sources from people that supported the bombing that were in Japan.


    http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/atomic-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/debate-over-the-decision-to-drop-the-bombs.html


    alexgrant alexgrant bowersprinkle - 3/17/2009

    We, as members of the jury, find Harry S. Truman to be innocent of all accused charges. He made the executive decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It caused many civilian deaths in Japan, but it saved many more American lives while also ending the war. The country of Japan was warned that there were going to be bombs dropped, and they did not warn their citizens. Truman was not aware of the lasting effects it was going to cause many years later. The Japanese did also not show Truman any evidence of a possible surrender.

    The approximate death count of both American and Japanese soldiers that would have been killed in battle would have been substantially greater than the 250,000 Japanese civilians that were killed instantly when the bombs were dropped. There was a planned invasion of American soldiers on Japan and there was a blockade that Japan created that would have caused many American deaths. By dropping the bombs, Truman eliminated these deaths. The Japanese also had no intention of surrendering during the time that he dropped the bombs. There was also rumor that the Japanese were also working on their own weapons of mass destruction that they would not have hesitated to use on Americans if they had gotten the chance. If Harry S. Truman had not made the first move, Japan would have used their own weapon of mass destruction against the Americans. The use of the atomic bomb was necessary to try and get the Japanese to surrender. Truman made this decision to end WW II and create peace, as this site states. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/index.php?documentdate=1946-06-00&;documentid=69&studycollectionid=abomb&pagenumber=1


    david reggio - 3/17/2009

    Sources http://www.operationolympic.com/p1_casualties.php
    http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~eroberts/courses/ww2/projects/firebombing/websitehamburg1.htm
    According to this website projected casualties for operation Olympic which was the planned invasion on the Japanese islands and operation Coronet the planned campaign through the Japanese homeland would be at the low end 500,000 to 4,000,000 dead or wounded American soldiers alone plus 7.5 million dead Japanese from the invasion. This argument does not also include casualties that would result from soviet invasions to the north and into Japanese Indochina. Further more it cannot be concluded that those cities were not legitimate military targets as there are many conflicting reports from that time. It is a known fact that during the second world war the Japanese utilized large civilian populations to produce weapons and ordinance both in factories and in there own homes thus making them part of the enemy war machine and allowing them to be seen as military targets under the doctrine of destroying an enemies production capabilities. To say that bombing these cities was a war crime even though they were part of the enemy war machine than the upper echelon of the RAF and Winston Churchill would have to be imprisoned with Truman for the fire bombings of major German cities and production centers such as Berlin and Hamburg.


    Mike Gaetano - 3/17/2009

    http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/87475
    http://worldwar2history.info/Pearl-Harbor/
    Those were the websites used when finding our information


    aaf jgy - 3/17/2009

    gggggg


    Shelby Caitlin King Ungar - 3/17/2009

    Sorry- post continued on to reply, because you can't edit. T.T Alright. At any rate, Truman has been deemed guilty, and our further research into the matter continues to prove our position. The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs.[1] In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.c "Frequently Asked Questions #1". Radiation Effects Research Foundation. http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html. Retrieved on 2007-09-18. Further research on another post.


    nikki hange - 3/17/2009

    We believe that Truman is not guilty. This decision was not easy for him, and in the end we believe it was necessary. Had he not decided to drop the atomic bomb the war would have kept going and many more Japanese and American soldiers and civilians would have been killed unnecessarily. In fact if we had not dropped the atomic bomb our only option would have been to invade Japan. 5 -10 million Japanese (including civilians) would have been killed in the invasion as well as 400,000 to 800,000 Americans. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/supplement/procon.html) Our first priority is our country and we need to protect ourselves before we think about other countries. That is what Japan would have done. Had they had nuclear weapons they would have used them on us. Our goal was to end the war, we were not looking to kill as many people as possible, even if we had not used the atomic bomb traditional methods would have been just as destructive. Yet we are not trying Truman on the use of incendiary bombs or other “traditional” weapons of warfare.
    Again we were not out to get Japan. We were looking to end the war, and we did warn them before we dropped the bomb. Civilians could have gotten out of the city if they had heeded our warning. We were not actually saving the cities from any harm the cities would have been fire bombed if we had not dropped the atomic bomb. Also the Japanese did not seem to have any respect for themselves. They had many suicide missions and kamikaze missions, if they did not care about saving themselves why should we care how they die. (See source)


    aaf jgy - 3/17/2009

    We do not believe that Truman was guilty of war crimes against Japan. Truman acted on his decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan to support and defend his country. His job was to protect and keep peace within the United States and he truly felt that dropping the bombs was the right decision. One reason we believe that it was acceptable to drop the bombs was the fact that deaths of Americans and other nations would have kept piling up had the war not been ended by the atomic bombs. Throughout World War 2, 10’s of millions of people died both civilian and military. Therefore, no one knows how long the war would have kept going on and more civilian and military deaths kept occurring. Another reason was the fire bombings in 1945 where the US was bombing Japanese cities everywhere destroying and lighting the cities on fire killing many Japanese civilians. More people actually died initially in the fire bombings and I do not see much of a difference between the two. These bombings were aimed at destroying the Japanese moral, which is a very sick reason to kill people and unnecessary. Another reason is that Truman warned the Japanese to get out of the city and the date that we were going to drop the bombs. This action warned the civilians and showed that our main goal was to kill military leaders and destroy military buildings. We also wanted to show a message to the Japanese that this war needs to be ended and peace needed to be made.
    Online it says “Japan could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and this cabinet was dominated by militarists from the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Navy, all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal.” http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/atomic-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/debate-over-the-decision-to-drop-the-bombs.html So, it would take something very extreme to get these people to decide it was necessary to make peace with the world and that the fighting needed to be ended to save lives. Talking about the fire bombings, it was said that the fire bombings “are widely considered to be the most devastating air raid in history.” http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0310-08.htm
    "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." This shows that people in the Japan peace party thought of the droppings as a good thing. “Supporters of the bombing also point out that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option—as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month. The firebombing had killed well over 100,000 people in Japan, since February of 1945, directly and indirectly. That intensive conventional bombing would have continued prior to an invasion. The submarine blockade and the U.S. Army Air Force's mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan's imports. A complementary operation against Japan's railways was about to begin, isolating the cities of southern Honshu from the food grown elsewhere in the Home Islands. This, combined with the delay in relief supplies from the Allies, could have resulted in a far greater death toll in Japan, due to famine and malnutrition, than actually occurred in the attacks. "Immediately after the defeat, some estimated that 10 million people were likely to starve to death," noted historian Daikichi Irokawa. Meanwhile, in addition to the Soviet attacks, offensives were scheduled for September in southern China, and Malaysia.” This shows how many people would have died had the bombs not been dropped.


    sarah and lizzy johnson ciccarone - 3/17/2009











    The atomic bomb causes nuclear radiation which results from the neutrons and gamma rays associated with fission and causes death and injury as a result of damaging the living tissue. Both bombs killed more than 100 thousand people. Thermal radiation which results from extremely high temperatures of the atomic bomb creates burns over all expose parts of the body. Therefore the deaths caused by the bombs were extremely painful and herendous. Thermal radiation also ignites fires over a wide radius, thus leveling the earth for miles. To this day, Japan is still paying the price from what we did to them. The radiation caused a variety of birth defects and cancers in the Japanese people that are still occuring today. The U.S could have waited to drop the atomic bombs since we knew that they weren't ready for it. We had been at war with Japan for years before we claimed that we were going to drop a bomb on them so how were the Japanese people supposed to take us seriously? The act of dropping a bomb seems like such a terrible crazy idea and even though the pamphlets were dropped not every person was able to access one and how ere they supposed to evacuate on time? Over all The dropping of the bomb was a poor choice on our part and it ended the war in a terrible, unesesary way, killing thousands of innocent japanese people. (www.cfo.doe.gov/me70)


    lauren elizabeth dechellis - 3/17/2009


    We feel that Harry S. Truman is guilty in relation to the dropping of the atomic bomb. He dropped the bomb in 1945 to end the war by killing 200,000 innocent civilians in a grotesque way in a mere three days. He is guilty because he violated the customs of war in more ways than one. This list includes murder, ill-treatment of civilian population, killing of hostages, destruction of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages. This devastation is not justified by military necessity. He never argued that destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a “military necessity”, therefore we are finding Harry Truman guilty.
    According to nyiana-sama.deviantart.com the dropping of the atomic bomb still has effects on today. When the atomic bomb was being developed the element fluorine was a major key in the development. There is still controversy today whether fluorine is safe in water or not. Another effect of the bomb was the effect it had on weather patterns. People thought that violent hurricanes could be created or destroyed, or create heat or cold waves. One of the most substantial effects the atomic bomb still has on society is thyroid cancer and many other cancers caused by rearranged chromosomes in some survivors who later developed papillary thyroid cancer as adults, according to Japanese researchers. Kiyohiro Hamatani, Ph.D., laboratory chief, Department of Radiobiology and Molecular Epidemiology at the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) in Hiroshima said, “Thyroid cancer is associated with exposure to external or internal ionizing radiation.Elucidation of mechanisms of radiation-induced cancer in humans, especially early steps and pathways, has potential implications for epidemiological risk analyses, early clinical diagnosis, and chemopreventive interventions.” She is making the case that the atomic bomb dropped in 1945 is still having a lasting effect on people today. The laws of war do not apply only to the suspected criminals of vanquished nations. There is no moral or legal basis for immunizing victorious nations from scrutiny. The laws of war are not a one-way street."- Telford Taylor.



    Kelly&Kayley BartonGaines - 3/17/2009

    Kayley Gaines, Kelly Barton

    We chose to support the choice of dropping the atomic bomb, finding Truman not guilty, not because it was morally right but because we felt it was necessary in order to end the war as fast and efficient as possible. Although yes many Japanese civilians died in the process many more Japanese and American’s would have died if the war had continued and further. Donald Kagan wrote that “Americans may look back on their decision [to use the A bomb] with sadness, but without shame.” In his essay “Why America dropped the bomb”. And yes although it is a sad occasion that so many died we should not feel ashamed that we made a decision that although horrific was the best decision possible. The decision to drop the A bomb was regarded as barbaric, and that a barricade would be a much better alternative as the defense states in his opening argument “His point is that a blockade has itself always been considered a barbarous form of warfare because its effects do not discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Moreover, aerial bombardment caused civilian deaths in the hundreds of thousands, and the blockade in China killed noncombatants in the millions.” So is it not hypocritical to say that killing hundreds of thousands people in a bombing is so much worse than a barricade that could kill millions. Also as the defense also states that a regular bomb did as much damage to the Japanese as the Atomic bomb did the only difference being that with regular bombings they would have continued along with a blockade and an invasion and surely that is no “moral improvement” compared to the Atomic bombings. Also the prosecution intends to accuse of war crimes, any one who was remotely involved in the incident, by going as far as saying that anyone who supported was a war criminal. Former chief of the Japanese medical association stated “When one considers the possibility that the Japanese military would have sacrificed the entire nation if it were not for the atomic bomb attack, then this bomb might be described as having saved Japan.” If Japan had, had an atomic bomb they would have used it against us without looking back possibly destroying L.A or New York City. And yes we could have demonstrated the power of the bomb and talked about it but without the Japanese actually witnessing the power for them and the devastation it could because they would never have been convinced to surrender. The Japanese had no intent on surrendering the only thing that pushed them forward to the decision to surrender was the dropping of the atomic bombs because they were prepared for an invasion but because we did something they were not expecting and not prepared for it forced them to surrender. It is called the “shock effect”. So although it may have been a tragic occasion indeed, it was a tragedy that we believe was necessary in order to prevent future tragedies form occurring. On the article by Jeff Tenuth called Truman on Trial: Not Guilty says, “No other alternatives were possible. Allowing the Japanese to view a test of the bomb was impractical because it may not have worked and there were only four bombs available after the Trinity test. Nor would a blockade have worked without inflicting severe civilian casualties. Continued firebombing of Japanese cities would have killed hundreds of thousands more and may not have forced the surrender for months or even years. Would the prosecution have tried President Truman for approving a blockade or continued firebombing?” This article shows the impact of the bomb and how it may have been good for the bomb to have happened because the alternatives could have been much worse. In another article also called Truman on Trial: Not Guilty by James R. Van de Velde says, “To single out two attacks on two Japanese cities and not include other attacks on Japanese cities suggests that these attacks were somehow unique in character and inconsistent with the death that occurred elsewhere in Japan in the overall strategic bombing campaign of the Allied Powers. Yet there is nothing unique about these attacks. It was not less barbarous to have incinerated Japanese civilians in Tokyo, Kobe, Niigata, and Osaka.” This also does show how the bombing was not worse than what would have came because of the alternatives. Though there would be many people on the outside who would not understand this reasoning because of how it looks from the outside. Even a 1976 SNL skit picked fun at the bombing situation saying that a high school in America had a mock trial saying Truman was not guilty and so did a high school in Japan and, just for fun, they bombed that high school. This was a demographic for the public viewing and, yes, from the outside it would seem like it would not be fair. But when looking more indepth into the situation, he should be not guilty because of the other situations Truman was put in during that time.


    Mike Gaetano - 3/17/2009

    President Truman is innocent. To be guilty of a war crime, President Truman and his associates would have had to, as Nobile writes, conspire to “commit two of the most fiendish slaughters in the annals of war”. The facts are that this so called “massacre” was necessary in order to save millions of lives. The dropping of the atomic bomb ended the war, had the allies invaded Japan, far more than 200,000 lives would have been lost. As the war in the pacific front got closer to Japan, the Japanese fought more and more fiercely. For example, in the battle of Iwo Jima, when the Japanese soldiers started to run out of ammo, rather than surrender, they staged a kamikaze charge. Soldiers without fire arms charged the American lines with the intent to kill as many as they could and take their weapons to continue the fight. In the end, of the 20,700 Japanese infantry that were defending the island, only 1,083 lived to become POW's. The rest fought to the death. Surely if this type of warfare had continued more than 200,000 lives would have been lost. It was predicted that had we invaded Japan, 5-10 million Japanese lives would have been lost, and there would have been between 1.7 and 4 million American casualties. Also, shortly after the bombing, the United States offered to help rebuild the devastation caused by the bombing. In doing so, America introduced new and improved technologies that Japan had never seen. During the reconstruction of Japan, its infrastructure became stronger and better. In addition, as a country, the United States has a right to defend itself. When Japan destroyed the military base in Pearl Harbor, they decided to face the consequences that came with that decision. The United States had a right to end this war on its own terms. This war was a necessary war, and by defeating Japan, we helped defeat the evil in the world. By bombing Japan, the United States helped end one of the most brutal and horrific wars this world has ever seen.

    When the Japanese attacked the military base on Pearl Harbor 2,896 American lives were taken without warning. Before the dropping of the first bomb, the United States gave a sufficient warning to the Japanese of what was to come if they chose not to surrender. When the Japanese decided to continue their destructive ways, it forced the United States to put an end to this war. Another look at the brutality of the battles fought in the war in the Pacific took place in Okinawa. On Okinawa, the Japanese forces suffered 110,000 dead versus 7,455 captured. The civilians of the island had been lied to about what they could expect under US occupation and many committed suicide rather than surrender. It can easily be said that dropping the bombs on Japan actually saved lives and shortened the war. In a world weary of war, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was completely justified. The positive aspects of it outweigh the negative aspects of it by a great amount. Although many civilian lives were lost, it was a war and in war there are always casualties.


    Allie coleman - 3/17/2009

    Dropping the Atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed thousands of people. In the defense opening statement it said that Truman would have planned to slaughter thousands of innocent civilians in order to be guilty. Annihilating cities and people must have been his intentions, because he was successful. If he was looking for peace, the bomb should have been dropped on a Japanese military base. Truman is guilty of committing war crimes. War crimes include mass murder, and destruction of cities. Much of Japan was partially destroyed by the United States before the bomb was dropped. Dropping the bomb killed Japanese women, children, and the elderly people.
    Radosh said in the opening statement that if the United States didn’t bomb Japan, our second option would have been to invade. He also said that choosing to drop the bomb saved lives. He said that invading would have killed more people than the bomb would have. The bomb caused more destruction, and death than an invasion could have. Truman wanted to quickly end the war, and he wanted to do it in a cheap way. The only benefit about bombing Japan was it abruptly ended the war. Even before the bombing, Japan couldn’t fight back. The United States destroyed a good majority of their military equipment. Japan was in the middle of construction of building their own atomic bomb when their cities were destroyed. If Truman was looking for peace, he shouldn’t have bombed them. During this time period, Japan was a very nationalistic nation, and they didn’t want to surrender, but they had no choice. They were out of weapons, and money.
    While researching this issue further, another source claims that thousands have died years later due to the radiation from the bomb. Truman is guilty for mass murder. 80,000 people were killed in Nagasaki and 140,000 were killed in Hiroshima. There were many other options to end the war, and dropping caused nothing but destruction. The bomb was the quick way out for the United States. Truman chose to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima because those two cities are important to smaller urban cities surrounding it. Bombing that area would create a lot of damage because that area is flat. Bombing ended the war, but it was not the best way to do so. Truman’s decision killed hundreds of thousands and is still killing people today. He’s guilty of war crimes. He knew Japan was weaker than the United States and he still chose to attack them, even if they couldn’t fight back.
    If the Nuremberg trials sentenced twelve Nazis to death, Truman should be guilty too. Nazis conducted genocide in Western Europe. They too killed hundreds of thousands of people who didn’t do anything wrong. This wasn’t a war but it was still mass murder. Truman did the same thing the Nazis did. He killed innocent people and tortured Japan until they couldn’t fight back anymore. Like the Nazis, Truman is guilty of war crimes. Like I said before, a war crime includes mass murder, torture, and destruction of cities. In the end, we believe he is guilty.


    Second source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

    Third source:
    http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/wcrime.htm


    Maria/Kendyl DiMuccio/Parker - 3/17/2009


    We believe that Harry Truman should not be declared guilty. As the president, he had to make a difficult decision but he did what he thought was best for the country. There are many legit reasons as to why the bombing was necessary in order to end the war. According to the Nuremburg law, Truman could only be tried as a war criminal if he was the direct cause of wanton destruction. Truman wasn’t a cause of wanton destruction because the dropping of the atomic bomb was militarily necessary. According to Ronald Radosh, “the purpose, in other words, would have had to be a desire to use the A-bomb in order to produce precisely such an end—“fiendish slaughter”—and not to force the Japanese military to make peace or save even more American and Japanese lives than died as a result of the bombing.” Because the United States is such a large and strong nation, we were the only country to have such a powerful bomb. Using the atomic bomb simply proved how powerful we were to the rest of the world.
    In a letter written by Truman himself, he explains that many people such as “Revisionists” are still questioning whether or not his choice was helpful. Truman’s main point is to remind everyone that “the bombing of Pearl Harbor was done while we were at peace with Japan and trying our best to negotiate a treaty with them” (www.rjgeib.com/heroes/Truman/truman-atom-bombhtml) Truman also stated that the main reason for dropping the bomb was to save lives. He said that 125,000 Americans and 125,000 Japanese lives would easily be saved, and nearly half a million lives would be saved from any injury. If more soldiers died, the United States would lose power, and wouldn’t be able to fight further battles. According to essortment.com, “even if Truman had chosen to invade instead of use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they still would have been used, just in a different capacity.” Truman was trying to prevent a land invasion by dropping the bombs. Finally, Truman’s main purpose for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was to protect his country and save as many lives in the military as possible.


    Madeline LaBorde - 3/17/2009

    In my opinion, Truman is guilty.

    My reason is simple. I don't believe he is guilty because the bombs should have never have been dropped and that the war could have been ended a different way. Since no other huge attempts to end the war in Japan were taken, it's difficult to say if the bomb droppings were the only way or not.

    It all goes down to the simple matter of the rules of war (http://people.howstuffworks.com/rules-of-war4.htm). It says here that an armed force attack on civilians is prohibited. The bomb droppings were not meant to kill soldiers, but innocent civilians who were not in the war. It doesn't matter if they were willing to fight or supported the war; they are civilians and should be kept out of the war.

    And that is basically it.


    Lucia Sofo Tom Gray - 3/17/2009

    We disagree because although it was the right thing to do, it still violated the Nuremburg Charter. The prosecution accused Truman of War Crimes. The verdict should be guilty because he destroyed 2 cities and killed many innocent people. 200,000 people died as a result of these attacks, which is a violation of the Charter.


    Robbie Edwards - 3/17/2009

    Not Guilty
    The people who are now questioning Truman’s motives are often known as Revisionists, because they attempt to revise common perceptions of history, proposing alternate theories and motives. As early as 1946 they begin to postulate new ideas, but their words only began to receive credence in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Revisionists contend that Truman either had ulterior motives in the dropping of the atomic bombs or that he used these bombs on Japan for an entirely different reason, one that had nothing to do with saving lives. I believe that dropping the A-Bomb on Japan was the only choice the United States had at the time. I believe that if Truman was tried as a war criminal, that he would be not guilty.
    At the end of World War II, few questioned Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most Americans accepted the obvious reasoning: the atomic bombings brought the war to a timelier end. They did not have a problem with over one hundred thousand of the enemy being killed. After all, the Japanese attacked America, and not the other way around. My main point that Truman is not guilty is, the potential lives that would have been lost if the A-Bomb would not of been dropped.
    The Main point on why to drop the atomic bomb on Japan was quiet simple, save American lives and also Japanese. It was estimated by a U.S. General that the Japanese mainland had well over 2,000,000 soldiers and were training civilian soldiers. With an invasion of Kyushu it was estimated that 32,700 to 147,000 would loose their lives within the first month. 100,000 – 500,000 would later die. To say the Japanese wear prepared for an invasion of the mainland is an understatement. The Japanese had 58 Divisions, 100,000 aircrafts (75% kamikaze), 3,300 ships and boats, 2,250,000 Army, 1,300,000 Navy, 250,000 patrol troops and lastly 28,000,000 volunteer soldiers. Any of the existing alternatives would have meant more death, destruction, loss of both American and Japanese lives, and would have likely been far worse than the effects of the two atomic bombs that were dropped. The United States warned Japan of their plans to drop the Atomic bomb in order to win the war. Japan was given numerous times to surrender in order to prevent causalities but the Government underestimated the ability of the United States to make a weapon of such power. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/truman/psources/ps_leaflets.html
    This might bring the point of, why don’t we (United States), drop atomic bombs in Vietnam or Iraq? Truman did not know the power that the Atomic Bomb would have on Japan. Since the recoil was so severe; that is why we have not used it since Japan. Since the power of the Atomic bomb has been revealed, it has not been used since due to its power. Another reason why the bomb was dropped was because Japan had a Victory or Death attitude due to the samurai descendents. With an invasion there was no guarantee that American would come out on top. Many American and Japanese lives would have been lost if an invasion would have been called. The Atomic bomb ended the War with the least causality that was possible. Lastly I would like to point out that the United States need to end the war before Russia join. If Russia would have joined and helped invade, the splitting of Japan would have turned into another post war Germany. Truman did not want Japan to fall under the Communist Block after the war.
    http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq11-1.htm

    the website, were all the information was found about the deaths.


    Kelsey Quinn - 3/17/2009

    Your verdict basically backs up our verdict, and therefore, we also agree. If the point of the atomic bomb was to make the Japanese surrender, and it had been successful, what's the question? We hadn't thought about the fact that women in children would die in traditional war anyway, and that the atomic bomb had therefore been the same thing, just in one swift moment. We agree with the fact that the atomic bomb was needed in order to end the war and that it had saved many American lives.

    Kelsey Quinn & Zoe Calkins


    Vikte Lionikaite - 3/17/2009

    Truman is guilty of war crimes under Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter outlawing "the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." Not only that, but he also choose to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing up to 200,000 Japanese elders, children, and women.
    The population center of the city of Hiroshima was ground zero of the atomic bomb, not the military headquarters a few miles away that “Truman claimed in a radio broadcast that target-Hiroshima was "an important Japanese Army base"(Prosecution). The bombs dropped at the population center of the city killing children at schools like the First Hiroshima Municipal Girl's School. Truman claimed "We have used [the bomb] against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved, beaten and executed American prisoner of war, and against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare." (Prosecution) But did those children beat and execute prisoners form the USA? Or was Truman lying to us by saying that the target is an army base? Truman is guilty of killing thousands of children, women and elderly who had no effect on the war. In Nagasaki, the bomb took the lives of 42,000 people and injured 40,000 more. In Hiroshima, the first of the two bombs, 70,000 people died immediately from the explosion and another 70,000 died from radiation within five years. The effects of radiation from the atomic bombs still have and effect on people who survived the attacks. In an article I found on http://www.gensuikin.org/english/photo.html, a patient was diagnosed with atomic bomb cataract in 1970, 25 years after the bomb! “The patient filed an application with the Ministry of Health and Welfare of the Japanese Government in August 1971 so as to be registered as an A-bomb victim. His application was turned down because 'it is not considered necessary that you be medically treated now; the patient filed the second and third application in August and November of 1972. The second one was turned down and he was told to apply anew at the time was commenced. The third one was turned down with a reply saying, 'submit application at the time of operation.' So, the patient had no other choice but to sue the Government and Ministry of Health and Welfare in May 1973. After 3 years in court, the patient's request was finally approved in July 1976”. So, six years after diagnosis the patient finally managed to get treatment.
    Not only did the atomic bombs dropped by Truman’s request kill, injure and make thousands of people homeless, but they also had a negative effect on the environment. Soil became contaminated from the radio active particles and therefore, for a long time, no plants grew at the two bombed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Water became contaminated as well. The radioactive material seeped into the soil and when the rain came (usually immediately after the explosion, as the result of huge heat energy being released) the particles then flowed into seas or rivers and could have caused marine life to die.

    http://history1900s.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/hiroshima.htm

    http://www.vce.com/hironaga.html
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_atomic_bomb_effect_environment


    zach rhoads - 3/17/2009

    We feel that Truman is guilty of committing war crimes. Looking at this on an international and a moral perspective, what happened was grotesque and completely unethical. These acts, which were initiated by Truman, were destructive and unnecessarily killed many innocent civilians. According to the prosecution, Truman is guilty of committing war crimes. The bombs were both highly powerful in their destructive force, and although they ended the war, there could have been a more ethical manner used in order to achieve the same result. This is considered to be an unsavory act and by no means should Truman have gotten away with these crimes. He is guilty of committing war crimes for these disgraceful acts, and deserves punishment regardless of the outcome of the attacks.

    According to the research found from these websites; 70,000 innocent civilians died instantly just within Nagasaki, and later a total of 140,000 were dead by the end of five years due to radiation. That was in Nagasaki alone, within Hiroshima, 80,000 people died instantly. The site used for this information was http://www.world-war-2.info/atomic-bomb/. It is evident that this was an unjust action that although it ended the war, it ended the lives of many undeserving citizens. The definition of a war crime according to the Cornell Law website is: “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.” Within this definition, Truman is most definitely guilty of war crimes, and should have been persecuted for his actions. These actions fall into the murder category within the common violations, as the bombs technically murdered many people who were guilty of nothing.

    ~Zach Rhoads, Brady Ripka, Nathenigeil Randelph


    Dan Bowman - 3/17/2009

    We 100% agree with your verdict. The Japanese were nowhere near surrender, and had no plans of doing so. Also Japan was in the process of perfecting its own Atomic bomb, and had they succeeded, there is no doubt that they would have used it. With war comes casualties, and there is no way to avoid it. The Japanese citizens were warned of the bomb, and had the chance to surrender. However they did not, forcing Truman and other leaders of the U.S. to make the decision which in the end saved more lives than the bombs themselves killed. Truman made the right decision. That's all there is to it!


    Kelsey Quinn - 3/17/2009

    The statement that was about the difference between traditional bombing and the atomic bombing seems significant. The death and destruction rates of the war would have been significantly higher than the rates created by the bombs together. Not only would Japanese lives be lost in traditional bombing and war, but American as well, and by dropping the atomic bombs, Truman saved lives all around. Even in the quote from "www.amnation.com" it specifically proves that the Japanese had been warned and that they decided to ignore it, and refuse to surrender. This proves that Truman's act was not a planned massacre and that he hadn't ignored all suggestions of surrender because he was "hungry to drop the bomb."

    Kelsey Quinn & Zoe Calkins


    Lucia Sofo Tom Gray - 3/17/2009

    The question isn’t whether it was right or wrong to drop the bomb; the question is whether Truman was violating the Nuremburg Charter by dropping the bomb. In order to end the war quickly, effectively, and in a way to save more lives in the end, he had to drop the bomb. In this sense, he was forced to drop the bomb. However, in a technical sense, he was guilty because he killed thousands of innocent people. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t the right thing to do. It just means he was guilty of violating the charter. Harry Truman should be charged as a criminal and prosecuted. “War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;” Article 6 of the Nuremburg Charter. Truman was in violation of this article because Truman claimed in a radio broadcast that the target at Hiroshima was an important Japanese army base, when the actual target was the population center of Hiroshima. Truman also said that the bombs killed those who attacked Pearl Harbor, when in fact the bomb killed innocent people, including 544 innocent students from the First Hiroshima Municipal Girl’s School. The whole point of the atomic bombs was civilian slaughter or else they would have sent the bombs to a military target. Not only that, but all direct killings of non-combatants is against international law regardless of weapons used.
    In an article published by John Catalinotto called "Truman was a war criminal" (http://www.workers.org/) , it says “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.” An estimated 80,000 people were killed on August 6th in Hiroshima and another 70,000 in Nagasaki. By the end of that year, at least another 70,000 people died from radiation and injuries. The man who ordered the unjustifiable destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulting in the killing, maiming, and poisoning of about 200,000 civilians deserves a guilty verdict, even though the dropping of the bomb was the most effective way to end the war in the Pacific. He was guilty of violating the Nuremburg Charter, even if it was a military necessity to drop the bombs.


    Kelsey Quinn - 3/17/2009

    We believe that Truman is not guilty. At first, we were surprised to hear that someone might accuse Truman of "planning a massacre" when dropping the atomic bomb. The prosecution says that planned massacres do not fall under "military necessity" and therefore it should be considered a war crime. However, this was not a planned massacre, and it was of military necessity. The atomic bomb was needed in order to end the war, and even the emperor's main advisor agreed that "we of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Therefore, we believe that Truman is not guilty, for the bomb aided to help end the war, and that the atomic bomb should not be considered "the Japanese Holocaust." The point of the atomic bomb was not to commit “fiendish slaughters” but to force the Japanese military to accept surrender, and to end the fighting. Even stated by the Japanese members of the peace faction, they said it was a “gift from heaven.” If the war had been continued, the death rate and destruction of war would have been far greater than that created by the two atomic bombs together, whether they had been American deaths or Japanese deaths.

    We found many other websites that help our claim that Truman is not guilty and that the bomb aided the end of the war. On one of these websites, it quote Truman himself. "It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." (http://www.historynet.com/world-war-ii-second-atomic-bomb-that-ended-the-war.htm) Another website that we found talked about the fact that the Japanese were warned about the bomb. "After Japanese leaders flatly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, President Truman authorized use of the atomic bomb anytime after August 3, 1945." (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/teacher/abomb.htm) This proves that the use of the bomb was justified; the Japanese were warned about it's use, and about the ultimate ultimatum, and when they rejected, we meant business.


    Emily Ann Slimak - 3/17/2009

    We believe that Truman is not guilty. We have come to this conclusion after reading all of the opening and closing arguments. A lot of people feel that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was an uncalled for act. We feel that he made the right choice by dropping the bomb. The bomb was dropped during a time of war, and during a time of war one has to accept the fact that there will be casualties. The bomb was dropped in order to end the war quickly, and although some people think that the war could have been stopped by using different methods, we believe that dropping the bomb was the quickest and most effective. Also, dropping the bomb may have killed many Japanese civilians, but it also saved a lot of American lives. During a time of war it is inevitable that women and children will be killed, so by using the bomb method to stop the war, obviously women and children will die, but also a lot of others, in this case mainly specifically Americans, will be saved. The whole intent of dropping the bomb was to get the Japanese to surrender. Some say that the Japanese were going to surrender without the dropping of the bomb, but that could not be known for sure. The bomb was just a forceful, and yes, devastating method that forced the Japanese to surrender, but it was successful in making them surrender. The statistics showed that the bomb killed 200,000 Japanese, but we were desperate to stop the war. Americans suffered in the Pacific, within the first six months, 27,000 casualties within 5 weeks, and 48,000 within 3 months. ( Basically, the Americans were getting destroyed a lot quicker and we had to do something about it, therefore Truman dropped the bomb. Either way people were going to die, either Japanese or American. In the end Truman made the best decision for the Americans. Of course, wouldn’t you want to save American lives rather than Japanese lives, if you had a choice and were living/and or in charge of the American soil? Some people were saying that Truman rushed his decision in dropping the bomb. But in reality, evidence shows that Truman had actually been discussing and contemplating dropping the bomb for many months. Also, Truman dropped millions of warning letters over the two cities before dropping the bomb. (R. John Pritchard) The warning letters stated pretty much exactly what was going to happen, and it encouraged people to evacuate immediately. It is sort of their own fault for not evacuating, since they knew that the bomb was coming. There were also a lot of others jurors besides R. John Pritchard that stated sufficient information displaying why Truman was not guilty.


    david reggio - 3/17/2009

    Ben Browder David Reggio


    We as a group find Truman not guilty of war crimes. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki while unfortunate and devastating were needed to end the war quickly thus saving lives. According to several accounts of upper naval and army commanders the two other viable options to solicit a surrender from the Japanese involved either a long term blockade of the Japanese mainland to starve them into submission or a full scale invasion either option would have costed many more lives than were taken by the atomic bomb.


    Emily Ann Slimak - 3/17/2009

    We believe that Truman is not guilty. We have come to this conclusion after reading all of the opening and closing arguments. A lot of people feel that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was an uncalled for act. We feel that he made the right choice by dropping the bomb. The bomb was dropped during a time of war, and during a time of war one has to accept the fact that there will be casualties. The bomb was dropped in order to end the war quickly, and although some people think that the war could have been stopped by using different methods, we believe that dropping the bomb was the quickest and most effective. Also, dropping the bomb may have killed many Japanese civilians, but it also saved a lot of American lives. During a time of war it is inevitable that women and children will be killed, so by using the bomb method to stop the war, obviously women and children will die, but also a lot of others, in this case mainly specifically Americans, will be saved. The whole intent of dropping the bomb was to get the Japanese to surrender. Some say that the Japanese were going to surrender without the dropping of the bomb, but that could not be known for sure. The bomb was just a forceful, and yes, devastating method that forced the Japanese to surrender, but it was successful in making them surrender. The statistics showed that the bomb killed 200,000 Japanese, but we were desperate to stop the war. Americans suffered in the Pacific, within the first six months, 27,000 casualties within 5 weeks, and 48,000 within 3 months. ( Basically, the Americans were getting destroyed a lot quicker and we had to do something about it, therefore Truman dropped the bomb. Either way people were going to die, either Japanese or American. In the end Truman made the best decision for the Americans. Of course, wouldn’t you want to save American lives rather than Japanese lives, if you had a choice and were living/and or in charge of the American soil? Some people were saying that Truman rushed his decision in dropping the bomb. But in reality, evidence shows that Truman had actually been discussing and contemplating dropping the bomb for many months. Also, Truman dropped millions of warning letters over the two cities before dropping the bomb. (R. John Pritchard) The warning letters stated pretty much exactly what was going to happen, and it encouraged people to evacuate immediately. It is sort of their own fault for not evacuating, since they knew that the bomb was coming. There were also a lot of others jurors besides R. John Pritchard that stated sufficient information displaying why Truman was not guilty.


    Christopher James Schneider - 3/17/2009

    Most people do not really know what it means to kill. In a Quote by Dan Bowman, he states, "When your country is at war, sometimes you have to make devistating decisions." His quote is really good, because in essence, if the US hadn't ended the war, it could have costed millons of more dollars, and it could of pushed our economy deeper into depression. After the Hiroshima, and Nagasaki bombings, World War 2 ended a little after these bombings.
    Phillip Nobile states that President Truman, ordered the bombing of these cities, with and experimental bomb, but the US had already tested the Atomic Bomb. Arnold A. Offner, states that dropping the Atomic Bombs, when Britan, and other nations Fire-Bombed. But that can cause painful wounds, which will eventually lead to death. In war, people die, in every war; there are civilian deaths, remember Pearl Harbor? The Japanese bombed the base, and partially destroyed a city, killing civilans in the process. People who find them guily, need to get over the fact of civilan deaths. Even civilan's, can become soldiers.


    Shelby Caitlin King Ungar - 3/17/2009

    After careful deliberation, our group has concluded the late President Truman is guilty to all charges as accused by the prosecution. Our reasons to come to this verdict are as followed; There were alternative options available to President Truman, however he did not pursue any oft these and instead utilizing the last resort, the atomic bomb. Diplomacy was barely explored as an option, which may have led to a more peaceful compromise. Another reason to support our claim is the fact that the atomic bomb was an untested weapon but was known to be able to cause mass destruction, chaos, doom. the utilization of such a weapon especially without proper insight into its true potential of devastation on humanity, especially fellow beings of our own kind, is inexcusable despite the candy-coated reasonings he used to justify. What reasoning could justify the taking of thousands and millions of innocent lives, be they enemy or friend?


    Anna and Darryl Juska and Hill - 3/17/2009

    After reading the Harry S. Truman atomic bomb situation, it’s easy to see that he’s guilty. Truman broke several of the basic rules of war.

    1. Civilians must not be attacked.
    2. Civilian objects (houses, hospitals, schools, places of worship, cultural or historic monuments, etc.) must not be attacked.
    3. It is prohibited to attack objects that are indispensable to the survival of the civilian population (foodstuffs, farming areas, drinking water installations, etc.).
    4. It is prohibited to attack dams, dykes or nuclear power plants if such an attack may cause severe losses among the civilian population. (http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=1851&;tid=006).

    It’s as simple as that. You break the law, and you’re guilty. According to Jonathan Dresner, “Whether the bomb was "necessary" or "better than the alternatives" is the wrong question.” Many people who think Truman was not guilty could think this because of a few reasons. First, if the Japanese would’ve created an atomic bomb and it had succeeded, they would not have hesitated to drop it on us. Secondly, Truman was the man who carried out the bomb; FDR was the man who made that decision to create it. Thirdly, the atomic bomb is said to have saved more lives, Japanese included.

    We are not saying that these facts are incorrect, but the fact of the matter is Truman dropped the bomb and killed thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki).

    After reading some of the past students comments who believed Truman was not guilty, almost all of the students said that if Truman had not dropped the bomb, more people for both America and Japan would have died. Do we really know this for a fact? Virtually overnight Truman decided to basically demolish two cities without waiting to measure the effect of Stalin’s declaration. If we expect the nations of the world to pursue foreign war criminals, we must be willing to face the truth about our own (Truman on Trial: The Prosecution Opening Argument by Philip Nobile). Even though the dropping of the atomic bomb ended World War 2, Harry S. Truman deliberately violated the rules of law, making him guilty.


    kameren michael king - 3/17/2009

    I do not think Trumal should be on trial. I know he did do wrong by killing inocent people but however he did to save America. He did it because of the war not because he wanted to do it. I feel that nobody wants to kill anybody no matter how much they hate the other person. But sometime it needs to be done. So maybe it was wrong for what he did but I do not feel that he should be on trial.


    Dan Bowman - 3/16/2009

    Our Verdict:

    Truman is not guilty. When your country is at war, sometimes you have to make devastating decisions. Everyone knows that with war comes casualties, and it is nearly impossible to go to war without innocent civilians getting killed. That is the nature of warfare. The noncombatants in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned by the United States about what may have been coming in their direction. Dropping the bombs was not a complete surprise, and Japan had no plans of surrendering. The difference between nuclear weapons and regular weapons is not as large as it may seem. Regular firebombing killed approximately 100,000 Japanese (the amount killed at Hiroshima), and destroyed nearly 250,000 buildings, leaving thousands of Japanese homeless. If traditional bombing had continued, an outrageous amount of fatalities would have occurred. In the end, dropping the two atomic bombs saved lives on both sides of the war. As we said earlier, Japan had no intentions of surrendering, and had war continued, the result of casualties and fatalities would have far surpassed those created by the two bombs combined.

    When you look at the context within the decision that Truman made, it was defiantly the right choice. At the time, Japan was in the process of perfecting its own atomic bomb. “…and had it succeeded, ‘there is no doubt that the Japanese military would not have hesitated to use the atomic bomb’”. (Defense) “Colonel Ogata Ken'ichi, a military aide to the Emperor, wrote in his diary : ‘Is there not somehow a way to invent a new weapon that would forestall the enemy? If we had such a weapon it would then be possible to annihilate the enemy's task force and attack the mainland of the United States, thus turning the tables and affording a golden opportunity to reverse the tide of the war.’” (Defense) Japan was obviously thinking of ways to destroy the United States, and had Truman not made that decision, it could have been two United States cities that were destroyed instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The amount of people that were killed by the two bombs was far less than the amount of casualties that would have occurred, had the war continued. “…the dropping of the A-bomb ‘forestalled sacrifices on both sides far surpassing those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.’” (Defense). Japan was nowhere near surrender. They had built up a military of 900,000 soldiers ready to defend a planned invasion by the United States. “Frank notes the report commissioned for Stimson by W. B. Shockley, who argued that defeating Japan by invasion would have cost five to ten million Japanese deaths and between 1.7 million and 4 million American casualties, including perhaps 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities.” (Defense) The civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned of what the United States was planning to do. “On August 1, 1945, five days before the bombing of Hiroshima, the U.S. Army Air Force dropped one million leaflets over Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities warning that those cities were going to be destroyed within a few days and advising the residents to leave to save their lives.” (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008604.html). The atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th. Some could argue that this was not enough time for the Japanese citizens to escape. However, at least Truman and the United States decided to warn the Japanese. The Japanese knew what could have been coming their direction. They had the opportunity to surrender before anything would have even taken place. Since the Japanese did not surrender and had no plans of doing so, “The A-bomb saved American and Japanese lives, ended the war quickly, forced a Japanese surrender, and precluded an invasion of the home islands… As a former chief of the Japanese Medical Association has said, ‘When one considers the possibility that the Japanese military would have sacrificed the entire nation if it were not for the atomic bomb attack, then this bomb might be described as having saved Japan.’” (Defense) Japan was a country that did not believe in giving up. Japan did not surrender after Hiroshima, and even after Nagasaki, it took a threat of a third bombing in order to get the Japanese military to finally surrender. In a time of disaster, President Truman, as well as other American leaders made the right decision in bombing Japan. It was not a matter of destroying Japan, but a matter of saving millions of lives on both sides of the trenches.

    - Dan Bowman & Cody Gummo


    Mimi Bevan - 4/2/2008

    I like what they say and the main points that they picked out. Truman did what was most right at that time and there is nothing we can do to change that now.


    Mimi Bevan - 4/2/2008

    On the trial for Truman I have come to the conclusion that Truman is not guilty. The prosecution had lack of evidence and did not support their claim as well as they should have. I feel like they did not go into every detail on what really happened with Japan and why it took us to bomb them to surrender. I think that some part of us all wishes that we did not bomb Japan. At the time there was nothing else that was being decided to happen and Truman was doing his job by protecting our country and take action. One point that stood out to me was when Pritchard made was when he says" In the Hostage Case, another US Military Tribunal declared that "We do not concur in the view that the rules of warfare are anything less than they purport to be. Military necessity or expediency does not justify a violation of positive rules. Also I think a valid point was made when Jensen says The problem is that Hirohito was one of the main perpetrators of WW2, and the man largely responsible for insisting that the Japanese fight to the finish to defend his divinity and his throne. We needed someone to come up to the plate and take action. Truman did just that. Even though looking back at it today it might not have been the best decision it got the job done and that was all that needed to happen.


    Mimi Bevan - 4/2/2008

    On the trial for Truman I have come to the conclusion that Truman is not guilty. The prosecution had lack of evidence and did not support their claim as well as they should have. I feel like they did not go into every detail on what really happened with Japan and why it took us to bomb them to surrender. I think that some part of us all wishes that we did not bomb Japan. At the time there was nothing else that was being decided to happen and Truman was doing his job by protecting our country and take action. One point that stood out to me was when Pritchard made was when he says" In the Hostage Case, another US Military Tribunal declared that "We do not concur in the view that the rules of warfare are anything less than they purport to be. Military necessity or expediency does not justify a violation of positive rules. Also I think a valid point was made when Jensen says The problem is that Hirohito was one of the main perpetrators of WW2, and the man largely responsible for insisting that the Japanese fight to the finish to defend his divinity and his throne. We needed someone to come up to the plate and take action. Truman did just that. Even though looking back at it today it might not have been the best decision it got the job done and that was all that needed to happen.


    James Burke - 3/18/2008

    After analysing the facts and listening to both sides I've come to believe that Truman is innocent and should not be charged with being guilty of these crimes. One of my main points for believing not guilty is the fact that the casualties D-Day would have been greater then those incurred by the allies on the beaches of Normandy. That would have been a disasteris decision to make that would have lost many American lives. Truman had to do what was best for us. Because the beaches where we would have been storming were more well guarded than the beaches of Normandy. And we all know how horrible that was. My second point is that the war had to end somehow. And if we didn't drop the bomb it was expected that the war would have gone on for many years later. This also would have taken a tole on American casualties. This is another reason how dropping the bomb saved many American lives. What I believe to be the biggest point for the guilty party is the fact that we dropped the bombs over cities highly compacted of civilians and not over the military bases that we said we were dropping them over.


    Megan Floyd - 3/7/2008

    Sika and I believe he is not guilty because of several reasons. The first, quite obviously is because this was not Truman's idea. It was this or a blockade, which would have caused harsher, longer suffering do to starvation, dehydration, and disease. This was clearly the lesser of two evils. Also, there were two generals who wanted three bombs to be dropped. Truman only dropped the two. Another reason is that the Japanese were nowhere close to surrendering. Actually the emperor, I believe, said that he would kill anyone who mentioned it. Another reason is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, indeed, military sites. They produced many plane parts. The final, most important reason is simply that this is war. You cannot second guess every attack because you might 'hurt' people. It may sound callous but in a war you must first look after your own because, I assure you, the 'enemy' won't look after you. President Truman was just doing exactly that, as a president of a big nation should. This is why he obviously is definitely not guilty.


    Vincent James Delricco - 3/7/2008

    "Bombing for peace is like having sex for virginity, it simply doesn’t work"

    Except for the fact that it did work. After we dropped the bombs, Japan surrendered which obviously results in peace. So as far as your saying goes, it simply doesn't work.

    Regarding your definition of war crimes; "War crimes are the careless destruction and devastation of cities and people". If that really is your definition that you believe constitutes a war crime, then you should consider Truman not guilty. You mention the word careless in your definition, which does not accurately describe what Truman did. If you read the verdict of Jensen, he specifically says that the two cities that were bombed were major production sites of war machines, namely planes. So the bombings were not careless, but more so militarily strategic.

    Lastly I would like to respond to your comment regarding genocide. "One fact is not good enough to justify a, 'genocide by air.' As the one person said. Genocide is bad, wrong, and illegal in every national and international law in the world. The people that consider genocide to be a good idea were the axis powers. The same powers that the US helped to convict under the Nuremburg Charter. So which side are we on?" I will start out with a definition of the word genocide; "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." If you believe that Truman wanted to kill every last one of the Japanese people, you are a naive fool. In 1945, the population in Japan was 72 million. The bombs killed about 250,000 people, on the top end. That means that .3472% of Japan's population was killed by the bombings, hardly a genocide.

    The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended World War II. I have not even mentioned the fact that by ending the war, Truman saved an incredible number of American lives. To be quite frank, if that fact does not have an impact on your verdict, I have no understanding of how you can call yourself a true American.


    Justin and Nick Joeseph Henry O'Brien Storch - 3/7/2008

    We agree and disagree with you. We disagree because feel that the bombings were essential to forcing the Japanese to surrender. Without the bombings the war would have been dragged on until something major was done. As far as everything else goes we completely agree. The bombs were stratigically placed in places that benifited the Japanese Military.


    Joe P Woll - 3/7/2008

    I completely agree with Teeters' comments. The bombings were definatly a necessity in causing the Japanese to surrender. This stops the possibility of another invasion on the Japanese saving American lives.


    Joe P Woll - 3/7/2008

    I found Truman to be innocent after reading the trial. He is not guilty of committing war crimes through the dropping of the atomic bombs. The two strongest points that I thought to help this verdict were; The dropping of the bombs put an almost immediate stop to the war. Instead of fighting the Japanese and possibly loosing even more American and Japanese lives. The second point that I felt was that we had warned Japan prior to the dropping of the bombs on their country. They then showed no signs of surrender or any signs of attempting to surrender. These points to me really show that Truman is innocent. Even bringing this trial up is completely Liberal and a waste of time. It was war and what we did was not nearly as bad as what the Japanese did to the US POW's. The prosecutions strongest point seemed to be that the bombing was wanton destruction and not a military necessity. Well there were Japanese metal factories and other weapon processing plants in the two cities so that would be called a military necessity to me. This was a very long project for something that isn't real. Truman is innocent.


    Justin and Nick Joeseph Henry O'Brien Storch - 3/7/2008

    We the jury (Nick and Justin) find in this case the plaintiff Harry S Truman, not guilty of all charges. We feel that the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were essential to saving millions of lives both American and Japanese. If it were not for Truman’s decision to drop the bomb hundreds of thousand of US military soldiers would have perished in the invasion of Japan. It is the job of the leader of this country to set a side a plan that would have the least amount of casualties. The dropping of the bomb reassured Truman that hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would be saved. Countless numbers of Japanese soldiers, women and children would have also died horrible deaths.
    Another reason we believe that President Truman is innocent is because the Nuremburg Charter only said it was illegal for a country to commit mass murder on a specific group of innocent people. Truman however did not do this. He bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a military strategy to end the war and stop the killing. He felt that the cities were a military necessity, which they were. The Japanese people helped in the mass production of the military objects used against US forces. If he was attempting to commit mass murder on the Japanese he would not have given them a chance to surrender before the bomb was dropped.
    The prosecution stats in their argument that there were other ways to bring Japan to surrender other than just dropping the bomb. One plan set a side was to triple the amount of air raids on the mainland and then invade it with the army. This may sound like a good plan but however there are many flaws. America was fighting an enemy who did not understand the word surrender and would fight to the death. This plan would lead to American lives being lost and allow the war to continue. This would leave the door open for Russia to become seriously involved in the war. The Navy also had their own plan drawn up. They wanted to create a blockade around the mainland of Japan and starve everyone until they surrendered. This would cause Japanese citizens to suffer horrible and painful deaths. The total amount lost would be greater than that of the bomb.
    Anyone who finds President Truman guilty of war crimes is a bleeding hart liberal who wants to reap the benefits of a free society, while not appreciating those who sacrificed so much for their freedom.


    Phil W Collins - 3/7/2008

    We like the way that you worded it, and agree with the fact that the massacre shouldn't be taken lightly, but if you put it into the context of the war, he isn't really a bad person for doing it. We're a bit more solid in our opinion over his 'Not Guilty' verdict, but we are in accordance with many of the things you have said.


    Alex Soto and Matt Scarpino Alex Soto and Matt Scarpino - 3/7/2008

    Yo i agree with Steph, Truman did what was the most logical thing at that time, and that was to end the war as quickly as possible, i really think his intentions were good.


    Alex Soto and Matt Scarpino Alex Soto and Matt Scarpino - 3/7/2008

    We came to the agreement that Truman is not guilty because of the lack of evidence in the prosecution and the good point that the defense.One of the main points why Truman wanted to drop the A bomb was because he wanted to end the war quickly and wanted to save more lives, we truly don't think he dropped the A bomb just to kill people. Another good point in the defense is that they gave Japan the chance to surrender and Japan refused to surrender which lead to people to believe that if Japan had the chance they would strike against the U.S. If Truman had known the amount of damage the A bomb would have caused he would not have dropped because he was trying to save more lives.


    Phil W Collins - 3/7/2008

    Both Marisa and I believe that Truman is not guilty of violating the 6th article of the Nuremburg Charter. One of the strongest points we came across was how even though Truman ignored advice of military officials, the advice he ignored would have caused far more damage than the bombs did. The Air Force wanted to increase the frequency of general air bombings, and the Navy wanted to set up a blockade that would have starved off millions of people. Our other main point is Truman’s intent; He did not ‘okay’ the two bombs just so he could slaughter civilians and force Japan into submission. He bombed Japan so he could end a horrible war that had been going on for a while in the hopes of saving countless American and Japanese lives. Since his intent was a good one, we feel like he isn’t really at fault.
    A strong point for the Guilty side was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not of military importance. They were mostly populated by civilians, and the destruction of those cities were not justified by a military purpose and could constitute ‘wanton destruction’. However, The Peace Museum in Hiroshima makes it very clear that Hiroshima, at least, was a very big part of the Japanese war effort, and the war factories there were churning out highly lethal kamikazi planes. This argument does have a valid thought process, as while there were a large number of civilians, many of these civilians were involved with the factories. It could also be valid if someone doesn’t know all the facts about the cities; The guilty side never talked about the war factories in Hiroshima, so someone reading it could think it was an entirely civilian city.


    Julia Dempsey Warren - 3/7/2008

    In response to the prosecution of Harry S Truman for violation of the Nuremberg Charter, we find the defendant not guilty on the charge of commanding the release of two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    We have decided this because, during a war, there are certain circumstances that can be justified. First of all, Truman and America had virtually no other choices in the way of protecting the Allies further attack from Japan. The Japanese were planning to gather their forces and plan a mass attack on Allied forces. Also, the USSR was planning on entering the war and, in order to prevent more opposition and possible death, the U.S. dropped the bombs to stop the war and prevent more power behind the deadly Axis forces. Secondly, during the war, numerous types of unethical actions are taken as men are being murdered or bombed in every which way. While atomic bombing two highly populated cities is seemingly unethical, there are other, even worse actions that could have been taken if atomic bombing was not the answer. Fire bombing causes much more harm and pain to members of the bombed area while atomic bombing (no matter how cruel it seems) kills its victims instantly. Truman had choice but to bomb the cities because he knew that this was the only action (through affecting a great number of the country) that could be taken to assure Japan’s surrender and the end of the war.
    In Nobile’s opening argument, he makes sure that the gruesome deaths of the citizens in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are specifically outlined. He states that, although Truman ended the war, he murdered thousands of Japanese in the process, the including children, women, and “old people.” Although we believed that this it was a gruesome and merciless act (as greatly emphasized by Nobile), there really wasn’t any other option for Truman and so we find a “hole” in Nobile’s prosecution. Many more historians voted “not guilty” than “guilty” and this can be seen through the mass evidence and statements of Truman having reason for his actions. Therefore, even though murder of thousands is immoral, Nobile’s sentimental approach to the conviction can be proved incorrect by the multitude of other historians and their claims for Truman’s proper actions.


    Andrew H. Pons - 3/7/2008

    We agree with what they are saying here, and it sounds really good. They did a good job of analyzing everything thoroughly and listing the main points. This is all true stuff, and we agree with every bit of it. They pretty much sum up everything that we believe, and say it clearly, which is good. We agree that the defense pretty much took over when he shut down the prosecutions main arguments, and that it really wasnt a logical contest between the two.


    Julia Dempsey Warren - 3/7/2008

    Wow, Alayna, this is good. It is really good that you focus on both Nobile and Radosh when deciding and I think that putting it into the perspective you put it into is helpful in understanding the situation. We, Allison and Julia, agree with this statement because, as you put it, if Truman would have simply dropped the two bombs with no other reasoning, then obviously, his actions would be "wanton destruction." However, since the decision was made during the deadliest war in history, there were very accountable reasons for Truman to act as he did. Through ordering the two bombs to be dropped, he successfully got Japan to surrender and the end of war came. By looking at the deaths in this perspective, Truman saved more lives than he did end, and therefore, he is not guilty or "wanton destruction."


    Stephanie A Cardillo - 3/7/2008

    Mia and I both agree that Harry Truman is not guilty. Schweikart made a few good statements. He noted that Nobile failed to prove that the droppings of bombs were required by “military necessity.” Saving soldiers was most important. He also states that surrendering is not that hard. All they have to do is say “We surrender.” But instead of that happening, the Imperial leaders threatened to kill anyone who mentioned the word ‘surender.’ Truman did not kill people just to kill people. He was attempting to save American lives with the bomb. He set the bomb out, in hope to end the war faster. He had no intentions of hurting this many people.
    The strongest point that was made was that Truman had no way out of the atomic bomb. Nobile says that Truman killed, and poisened roughly over 200,000 cilvilians. Truman did not want to hurt this many people. If he knew he was going to kill this many people then he would not have put out that atomic bomb.


    Bradley Frantz - 3/7/2008

    Ben and I have a very similar view to you ladies as to why Truman is innocent. We feel that he is innocent because the bombings were wanton and their was no want to surrender in the Japanese army. The bombs needed to be dropped and we agree that Truman is not guilty and should be acquitted of all charges.


    Jonathan Dresner - 3/7/2008

    Mr. Ceglar,

    A reminder: HNN comment board rules about the use of derogatory language should be followed.

    Jonathan Dresner
    HNN Assistant Editor


    Chris Kelleher - 3/7/2008

    Jake and i also agree that he is innocent. We believe that Truman did what he had to do to end the war and save many American live, (we also probably saved Japanese lives to). I also agree with you that we had the "shock factor", they didn't expect us to do such a thing which is where we got them. So in the end i think that Truman is obviously not guilty and i think he made the right choice.


    Alex P - 3/7/2008

    You have to be out of your mind. No its not ok to kill thousands of innocent people but how would you handle a situation like this in a time of war when your country was in a state of fear and thousands of American soldiers are dying. You would want to stop the war right? Thats exactially what Truman did. He went against all advice the military gave him (which was horrible advice by the way) and brought morals into play and saved as many lives as he could with ending the war.


    Alex P - 3/7/2008

    Pihlak & Dan
    Truman on Trial
    Furm
    Pd. 8


    All in all after reading over the whole story, we both agree that Truman is not guilty, which almost everyone agrees with.
    One of the major issues in the trials was the Nuremburg Trials. After reading and studying about these Trials, we came to the conclusion that Truman’s actions had no dealings with the Nuremburg Trials mainly because the purpose of the Nuremburg Trials was for Hitler mainly for the way he massacred a specific group. Truman had no intention of eliminating a specific group of society. His soul purpose of the atom bomb was to end the war and save as many lives as he could.
    We believe that the main points that lead us to our verdict was the Nuremburg Charter for one, The false evidence that the prosecution gave, and basic moral issues. The number one thing that lead us to our verdict was the military advice that was given to Truman at the time. The prosecution used that to their benefit but never went in depth until the defense tore that apart. The Navy at the time wanted to do a blockade, which would have killed many more civilians than the atom bomb. The Air Force wanted to do more regulated bombings, which again, would have killed more civilians than the atom bomb. The military officials had given all their advice to Truman and Truman still went with his morals and made the best decision.
    Again, going back to the prosecution, their two biggest arguments were just false attempts to bring up a strong argument. The defense tore up the two biggest, which were the Nuremburg Charter and the whole issue of the military advice. In the beginning they came out with a strong argument about the Nuremburg trials which later the defense just poke holes in, those holes were the key to making us chose not guilty. The reason for the Nuremburg trials has no relation to what Truman did. They barley even compare.
    For the military advice, the prosecution just said that Truman didn’t listen to the military officials, but once you see what their advice was, you would see that all the militaries advice had a lot more casualties than what Truman decided on. Truman had the best intentions, which was to stop the war and stop it with the least amount of casualties. If he had listened to the military officials, then WW2 would have gone on for a lot longer costing a lot more lives than just the atomic bomb.


    Megan Byler - 3/7/2008

    We feel that Truman is innocent. This kind of discussion is always a hard one, and the choices are hard to make. There was a point behind the bombings. Truman wasn't trying to take out a group of people, he just wanted to end the war and save lives. In war you need to moralize the public, you have to make it so that no one wants to be at war any more. The Japanese didn’t think that the United States would be willing to inflict so much pain, and thought that they would be able to outlast the US. That is were we got them, we had the shock factor. Another point is that the casualty rates did go down, and American, as well Japanese, lives were saved.


    Ashley C E - 3/7/2008

    If Truman had dropped the bombs off the coast of Japan I feel it would have given the same result. It's a pity he did not take that coarse of action. Though before you say that he could have picked a better target, ask yourself one question: Perhaps many of the "better targets" had already succumbed to fire and carpet bombings? Would it have been as effective to bomb an already bombed area?


    Vincent James Delricco - 3/7/2008

    My verdict on the trying of Harry S. Truman for committing war crimes by definition of the Nuremburg Charter is not guilty. What Truman did by bombing the Japanese was not wanton destruction, but in retrospect, almost the opposite. The bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended a Pacific War that may have lasted for months, or years longer. Compared to the number of Japanese killed, the number of Americans saved is even higher. Although this may be a very nationalistic frame of mind, dropping those bombs was the best decision because we did not have to sacrifice any more American troops to help aid a war that could have been ended instantly by the bombs. Also, for all the people who claim that bombing the cities was arbitrary and unneeded, the cities were two of the largest production areas for war machines such as planes. So in essence, by destroying those production areas we were ending any sort of hopes that Japan may have had to continue the war. In the end, much of the prosecution was made up of biased opinions and liberal bologna. Not to say that much of the defense is the same, the fact is that the defense had more facts going for it, which ends in a stronger case. I would also like to say that, in my opinion, anybody who goes this far to take a great American president to trial for getting us out a terrible war is not a real American. Namely, Philip Nobile.


    Brad Podolski - 3/7/2008

    agreed, a lot of the "facts" and things that both sides were saying seemed unreliable but in the end Truman dropped the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. THAT we know is a fact. I never heard either side talk about why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were marker for destruction. Why not somewhere else? Was is because they had factories set up to help the war? That hardly seems like an excuse. Dropping the bombs was probably the right descition in ending the war quickly, but picking a verdict is difficult.


    Ashley C E - 3/7/2008

    I agree a lot with what Tenuth and Offner said. You should keep your head in the historical context of the trial and how can anyone really make a solid decision about such a flimsy argument? There really wasn't much solid evidence between the prosecution and defense to make their arguments either believable or easy for the jury to make a decision. At first, I thought that it was a very good idea that we look back at a time and learn from it. But the more I read the jury verdicts, the more it made no sense. To actually have a “fair trial”, the jury may know nothing about the person on trial or their crime and then they must go with their gut to whether or not they were guilty or not. Only two people (Tenuth and Offner) either put the trial into context or realized how hard it was to make a decision about such a flimsy argument.

    It can’t be deemed anything beyond undeniable that HST’s actions should be viewed as unacceptable. The massacre of 200,000 should not be taken lightly simply because we were the ones committing this crime. Harry S. Truman is accused of "the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." The prosecution deems the dropping of the bombs as “wanton,” as in it did not have a substantial “military necessity”. But in terms of the war, as Offner proposes, how can we say that for sure? HST is by no means innocent, but not for the “wanton” act of dropping the bomb without “military necessity”, but of the “wanton” act of war even with “military necessity”. That seems to be the real horror, that war, even to a degree has been deemed acceptable by our society. Unfortunately this is not what the Prosecution charges him with. When it comes to the "the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." We find him Not Guilty.



    Joseph Paul Smith - 3/7/2008

    I agree with your points about the bombs putting an end to the war. I also think that they saved American lives, which is the nature of war... saving your own men. No one knows the number of deaths there would have been if an invasion took place, but I think it would have been a very high number.


    Brad Podolski - 3/7/2008

    Truman used the bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in order to quickly put an end to WWII and save American and Japanese lives. If the bomb saved lives can be disputed though. Figures as big as one million have been thrown around, and I don’t find much credibility in the numbers. By dropping the bomb we certainly saved American lives but what about the civilians that were killed? They are noncombatants, people who you are not allowed to attack in war. Sure they were factory workers helping the Japanese army, but would you call bombing the town with the American gun factory fair? Another argument in favor of dropping them is that all of Truman’ other options were worse. It’s true that a naval blockade to starve the Japanese is a bad idea, as is storming the beaches and losing lives. Other than waiting for Russia to help us, the bombs were the best choice, and they did bring a speedy end to the war. Their location is the thing I have a problem with. Why weren’t they dropped on a military base or some area that wouldn’t kill innocent civilians? Killing soldiers isn’t good but in war I think killing civilians is worse. In the end Truman is guilty of wanton destruction in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It’s a tough call and if he dropped the bombs on a better place I would have to call him not guilty. Location location location.


    Joseph Paul Smith - 3/7/2008

    Harry Truman is not guilty in connection to the Nuremberg Charter. First and foremost, he is not guilty of wanton destruction because he had good reason behind bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He dropped the bombs in order to force Japan to surrender and save lives. If Truman hadn’t dropped the bomb, history showed that Japan would have fought until they had no more soldiers to sacrifice. The invasion on Japan’s well-entrenched mainland would have been larger than D-Day to put it in perspective. There was an estimate of casualties that numbered up to one million. Japan was not about to surrender. It Japan wanted to surrender, they would have done so. They were so far from surrender that they even killed anyone who even mentioned the word. Finally, Truman was the victor of the war, so it would be terribly unlikely that when creating the Nuremberg Charter, they would have tried themselves for crimes of war. Truman didn’t drop the bombs for wanton destruction, but to end a war and save lives. The realities of war are that any sacrifices must be made to save even one of your soldiers’ lives. Truman was doing so by dropping the bombs. The prosecution was made based off of current morals, which have no place in the historical context of the trial. The strongest point from the opposition is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not militarily significant and the bombs were dropped in highly populated areas of the cities, rather than their military bases. This is a valid point, but I still think that based on Truman’s reasons for dropping the bombs (psychologically forcing Japan to end the war and save lives) it was necessary to drop the bombs in these areas. I’m not saying it was morally the right thing to do, but Japan did indeed surrender. Also, the people in the city were involved in the production of goods for Japan’s military. The bombs started a nuclear arms race which placed our nation in a great deal of fear, but Truman cannot be guilty given the circumstances of which I have spoken.


    Mia Z. Greenleaf - 3/7/2008

    i agree with Craig's point when he said that " as a juror i would not morally be able to imprison let alone exicute Truma for doing such a great deed for his country." which is completely true. how can you put your president in jail for saving so many more lives for the use of the A-bombs?


    Vincent James Delricco - 3/7/2008

    I agree with all your points, especially the last one being that we will never know the comparison between the two death tolls. Although in reality, that does not matter because what was done is done, and American lives were saved by Truman's decision. That is enough for me to disregard an alternative action that he could have taken.


    Gary Teeters - 3/7/2008

    Aaron if you were the president at that time why would you risk your troops for an invasion that had a possibility of killing so many lives. Do you have no patriotism, wait, that doesn't even matter because lives were saved either way by dropping the bomb by quickly ending a bloody, slaughterhouse war. Dropping the bombs would have been the obvious solution for the leader of our country.


    Mia Z. Greenleaf - 3/7/2008

    what Tyler said about Harry S Truman being the president of the US and him "just doing his job" is absolutely correct. i stand by Truman being SO NOT GUilty because i believe what he did was respectable and for the good of his country. there would be more lives that would have been lost on both the Japanese nation and the Unites States, if truman had not dropped those bombs.


    Gary Teeters - 3/7/2008

    I feel that Truman should be not guilty for war crimes that cause wonton destruction. I feel that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary but they were instrumental in forcing surrender by the Japanese. I also feel that if we didn’t use the bombs then the loss of American lives would not be worth the invasion. Another reason is I feel that if the factories that were bombed and they were making resources for the war that it was reasonable to bomb them. The best case that Truman should be guilty is that the loss of life in Japan from the bombs would have out numbered the death toll in an invasion of the islands. The only problem with that is no one knows the exact number death toll.


    vitoria novais - 3/7/2008

    My first impressions were that Truman was right and did what he did to protect his country, but later, reading the other statements, searching more about the war, the bombs, and reading comments from people who were there when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, people who were innocent and were not involved with the war, people who lost family, house, everything, or even people who were not there but see and suffer the consequences from that time, while i was reading I could feel how said they were and that for many of them life did not have sense anymore because of their loss.
    Truman wanted to end the war quickly and he did, and some say that this was the cheapest way to do it, but until what point ?? It could have spent less money for the US but it cost a lot of innocent lives and possibly genetic consequences that even Americans can face in the future. That's why I believe that Truman is guilty, no one has the power or the right to kill someone, or even destroy entire cities.
    HE IS GUILTY !


    Chris Kelleher - 3/7/2008

    We think that Truman is not guilty for dropping the bombs over the Japan cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Truman was the president of the United States and is considered a good if not great American president. He made the right choice to drop the bombs, the US was struggling to keep the war gong money wise so Truman did what he thought was best for his country, he dropped bombs and ended the war. The bombs may have ended many Japanese lives but i think it had to be done to preserve our freedom. You also have to factor in that the Russians were waiting to strike from the north and if we didnt end the war quickly Japan might now be Russian territory so in a sense we might have saved there whole country by ending the war. If Truman didnt drop the bomb over those cities in Japan and the war lasted a couple more years it might have consumed the country.
    We agree with what Maddox said whatever you can do the save American solders lives is basically the right thing to do. The less American casualties the better it will be. Truman did what he thought would save more lives, and it worked perfectly.
    We also agree with Tenuth because hes saying that modern day historians can easily criticize what it was like back then but in reality they don't know what it was like back then they can only speculate. We also think that Tenuth is the most critical of all the jurors and makes it his priority to refute everything the prosecution has to say and provide you with "facts not opinions".
    The best counter argument we thought there was against the defense was by Dresner. He says there are many other alternatives we could of taken such as traditional invasion. But what he didn't realize was how man more lives would have been lost had we taken a different approach. So what we are saying is the evidence against Truman is minimal and it wasn't just a rash decision there was actual thought that was put into it, and it turned out good for us in the end.


    Natalie Torretti - 3/7/2008

    We agree with all of this. We shouldn't be questioning Truman's decision because it ended the war a lot sooner and it probably saved lives. We also agree with how week the prosecution in some areas.


    Andrew H. Pons - 3/7/2008

    We think that Truman is not guilty of war crimes because the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient enough to convict him. It was all evidence that did not hold up under closer inspection, and was taken out of historical context. The responses of the jury also helped us make our decision. They sometimes shared facts that neither the prosecution or defense had shared, and they helped clear things up. Because of the situation at the time, and the lack of other practical options, we feel that the bombing was the right thing to do. Any other option would have produced more casualties or been impossible due to lack of resources. The defense had a more logical and practical argument, that made more sense in regards to the time period and the choices made available to Truman.

    Andrew Pons, Matt O


    tirzah stashko - 3/7/2008

    In regards to the Nuremberg Charter we believe Harry Truman is not guilty. It’s difficult in this type of situation to decide whether or not someone is guilty, especially when this someone was our president. This entire trial in our eyes is hypocritical because there is no justice in war, so how can you say someone committed an unjust act? As much as my partner and I don’t want to disregard the awful circumstances which Japan suffered as a result of the A-bomb, we have to take into consideration that it’s what was best for America. Truman’s job as president was to protect America and American lives, so how can he be prosecuted against that?

    One point which drove us to our verdict of not guilty is that dropping the Atomic bomb was ultimately the fastest and best way for America to end the war. It may not have been the nicest or cleanest in respect to Japan, but it was war! We believe that there are a lot of factors which went into Truman’s decision to drop the bomb. The prosecution of Truman is based on the horrible effect of a single bomb but ignores the context of the decision. If the context was taken into account people would realize that it was not wanton destruction; one of the principles in the Nuremberg Charter which Truman was being prosecuted against. How can someone who is truly educated about this situation at the time say that Truman did not have good reason to drop the bomb? It killed many Japanese lives. That is tragic. But can we really believe that fewer lives would have been killed any other way? Possibly, but we think highly unlikely. Truman had many reasons to drop the bomb. His biggest reason was to force Japan into surrendering. This war had been going on for a very long time and the U.S. had already wasted so much money and so many lives. This is another factor which contributed to Truman’s decision because the A-bomb was deemed to be less expensive and to save more lives than any of the other existing options.

    Another point which led us to our verdict was something put forward by Offner. We don’t believe that all the blame can be put on Truman for this decision because no one made a solid argument not to use the bomb. None of the members of his cabinet attempted to persuade Truman otherwise. We don’t agree that the president isn’t influenced by members of his staff. What’s more, we don’t even believe that the president gets the final say-so in a situation like this. Therefore we think that Truman cannot be rightfully convicted.

    However we feel the prosecution has a lot going for it as well. It most definitely is a valid thought process, which makes it nearly impossible to decide on a verdict. One claim put forward by Offner is that Japan was about to surrender when the USSR entered, but we still dropped the bomb. The main point which we view as the prosecution’s strongest is that dropping the bomb was not militarily necessary. The only thing that can justify an act such as the one Truman committed is military necessity. Usually what constitutes this is an emergency. It was not an emergency that we end the war and drop the bomb. Where we don’t see Truman’s act as wanton destruction, we do however see where he planned, prepared, and initiated a war of aggression (article VI of the Nuremberg Principles). Also, Truman had several hidden motives for dropping the A-bomb, other then ending the war. Some of these motives include allowing the U.S. to leverage the USSR in negotiations, and being able to “out maneuver” everyone. In addition, Truman was shady and left things out of the Potsdam Declaration. Consequently we cannot fully trust that Truman dropped the bomb solely to end the war and save American lives.

    In the end Tirzah is undecided, but Kayla believes that Truman is not guilty.


    Alayna Wagner - 3/7/2008

    We agree with you that in the end Truman should be given a not guilty verdict. YOu are right in saying that if we
    blamed Truman for the bombings then we have to blame every other president that was in office during a war for the war and its actions which is an absurd thing to do. The bombings did save lives and were done for the good of the country.

    Adam and Alayna


    jake gazda - 3/7/2008

    I agree with both of you. I think that if he would have not bombed them he would have gotten even more negative feedback. And i also agree with the fact alot of "innocent" people died, but like you said we did what we needed to do to get the u.s back on thier feet. I also like the whole getting back for pearl harbor. Most people would say that we did more tan just get even but we cant let others countrys tihnk that they can start wars with the U.S.


    Shay Ceglar - 3/7/2008

    Of course we had the right to bomb them. If we wouldn't have the U.S. wouldn't have been as powerful as it is today. Your right on.Yes the bombs were still experimental but we also had a plan that worked. We put the Japs into shock and had them surrender.


    jake gazda - 3/7/2008

    Tyler Maines and I both believe that Truman made the correct decision to bomb. If you think about it from his point of view it would have been a controversial decision either way. If he would have not dropped the bombs, most likely the war would have kept growing. This would have been looked down upon by Americans because he would have had a chance to end the war. Also many people dis agree with the decision that he did make, because it ended so many peoples lives. Some people say that he killed many civilians but the way I look at it is we sent pamphlets down to the people living in the areas where we planned on bombing. If they had nothing to do with the war they would not have stayed around if they knew we were going to kill them.
    I think one of Nobles most valid points is the fact that the bombs were still experimental when we dropped them. I still think that we did the right thing in dropping the bombs but if I had to come up with a reason that we should have not dropped them that would be my reason. I uses its kind of odd that the U.S would drop a bomb that we ar not even sure of its affects. Then again it is war and if we did not drop those bombs the would may not be what we know it as now.


    lindsey harpster - 3/7/2008

    We also agree that the bomb was needed. It did save a lot of American lives. However I disagree when you say it saved a lot of lives in general. The bomb did not save lives. It just replaced any Americans that could have been killed with Japanese ones. But I still do think it was necessary because it saved our country and because of it we won the war.


    Alayna Wagner - 3/7/2008

    I think that Harry Truman should not be found guilty under the charges of wanton destruction that Phillips Nobile is accusing him of. Nobile accuses him of “wanton destruction” because he thinks it was not a military necessity to drop the bombs and therefore Truman killed thousands of Japanese people unnecessarily. Nobile says in his prosecution opening statement that 'Truman and his willing executioners got away with mass murder.' I however don’t believe that this is true. I think that it was necessary for Truman to drop the bombs and it was not mass murder that it, in fact saved people. I have two main reasons for deciding on a verdict of not guilty the first one being that Truman dropped the bombs as an act of war and the second being that the bombs in fact saved lives.

    For my first reasoning, the bombs were an act of war; I think this because with out them the war wouldn’t have ended as quickly as it did. “The fact is that without the use of the A-bomb, Japan more than likely would not have surrendered, despite all of its serious problems. Its army had built up to 900,000 soldiers ready to defend against the planned American invasion of Kyushu, and would have been able to totally crush the first wave of invaders (Radosh defense opening).” The Japanese army was still mobilizing even when the surrender offer had been put on the table and in reality it seemed like they had no intentions of surrendering. As Schweikart, a juror of the trial, said surrendering isn’t that difficult 'You stop shooting and say, 'we surrender.' ' Also Nobile says that because the bombs were used there was a lower number of American solider causalities and also if the war would have continued more lives would have been lost. Based on these facts and opinions I think the atomic bombs were in fact a military necessity.

    For my second reason (the bombs saved lives) I think that this is a main reason why I think Truman is not guilty because he saved lives, not destroyed them. Nobile says that Truman committed the war crime of “wanton destruction” because he killed thousands of Japanese unnecessarily but really if the war would have continued not only would have more Japanese lives would have been lost but so would have American lives. Even though some may see this as “wanton destruction”, killing “innocent” Japanese to save the lives of Americans and really potentially more Japanese it really isn’t it is war. We were at war with Japan and the other Imperial powers and that’s what happens in war, people die.

    I think that people could possibly find Truman guilty because he did in fact order the bombs to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the bombs did kill thousands of innoncent lives. If you believe that the Japanese in fact were close to surrendering on more peaceful terms then it is understandable that you would think the bombs were indeed not an act of war but an act of “wanton destruction”. Under these beliefs I understand why some might find Truman to be guilty.


    tyler matthew Tice - 3/7/2008

    we agree with you guys totally. yea it did kill alot of people but it was for the good of our country. it was actually a was we were involved in unlike the vetnam war. you cant be blamed for something someone else started.


    Marissa Steudler - 3/7/2008

    We feel that he should be found guilty. Bush is guilty of the Iraq war and we as a country know that. He was defending our country after what was done to us at Pearl Harbor, however he could have gone about defending the US in a different way. He killed such a large number of innocent people that it was unreal. If in his mind the only way to go about things was to drop the bombs, he should have at least done so to a military base, rather than innocent towns. Truman did get his point across that the United States was not going to accept what happened and move on, but rather defend our nation, but we believe he could have gotten it done in a different way.


    Aaron Dodson - 3/7/2008

    “We found it unsettling to settle on something that we did not fully believe in; therefore we compromised our beliefs and settled on a verdict of not guilty.” By saying you think it’s wrong to side on an opinion with something you don’t fully agree with is hypocritical in your statements. You chose not guilty, which in your theory mean you agree with ALL points given by the defense. I know this cant be true because of your last paragraph. I feel undecided is the easy way out. “This is because war in itself is a crime.” If you believe that to be true, fight for your belief. Prosecute this war criminal. Whither you feel this single action was right or wrong; prosecute for the entire basis of war. We provoked an attack by the Japanese. We started the war. This is a crime and criminals get prosecuted.


    Andrew Mckenna - 3/7/2008

    We agree with everything you guys said, Truman is innocent, and saved lives.


    Andrew Mckenna - 3/7/2008

    Our group finds that Harry Truman is not guilty in connection to the Nuremberg Charter. We believe that these charges are outrageous and absolutely ridiculous. There is no reason that Phillip Nobile should be accusing Truman of war crimes. We came to this verdict because dropping the Atomic Bombs forced the Japanese to surrender. If the bombs weren’t dropped the war would have continued, and in all likelihood an invasion would have taken place, which would have resulted in hundreds of thousands or if not millions of more deaths both Japanese and American. Who knows how long the war would have lasted if the bomb wasn’t dropped. The other alternative to dropping the bombs was to blockade the island, which would have resulted in mass starvation, or the other was to continue fire bombing the cities, which caused as much damage as the Atomic Bombs. Thus, dropping the bomb saved more lives in the long run. Conventional bombing raids did as much damage to other cities, and that wasn’t a crime. So why should the atomic bombs be any different than the fire bombings. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military necessities, and were vital to the war effort. The U.S. dropped millions of leaflets and most people evacuated. The ones who stayed were keeping the war machine going.
    The prosecutions best argument was that the two cities didn’t need to be destroyed, and the damage was too severe. This argument is very weak because the defense gives plenty of evidence that the cities were a legit military target. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were producing thousands of planes and weapons which were killing thousands of American soldiers. Nobile says that just because America won, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be held accountable for their crimes. The defense again proves that Japan committed many atrocities of their own, and they only play the victim card. Therefore we conclude that you can not convict every war criminal. Some actions need to be taken to win the war. If you are in a war you should be prepared to do what ever is necessary to win, Truman was prepared and did what was best for his country.


    Aaron Dodson - 3/7/2008



    Betty Little:
    I am leaning towards not guilty. I have come to my verdict because for Truman to do his job he needs to decide what should be done in a situation like this, and he did what any noble and honorable president should have done, protect America. It was not his intension to lash out at the Japan Civilization and destroy innocent women and children. He was kind enough to give them a warning that if they not evacuate, then bombs would be dropped. He was not only trying to save Japanese but also save our American troops from going over there and being killed. We chose him to defend this country and he did that to the best of his abilities.

    Aaron Dodson:
    I believe President Harry S. Truman is guilty of war crimes under article 6 of the Nuremburg Charter. This is contradictory to my original opinion where I though he was not guilty. War crimes are the careless destruction and devastation of cities and people. Whether it was with fire-bombings or an atomic bomb, it is just as bad. A president is not over the reign of law and whether the Nuremburg Charter was directed for axis or ally powers, a crime was committed. By saying he doesn’t qualify for the charter because he was part of the people who passed it is like saying the members of the Supreme Court cant be prosecuted for any law that they pass. It doesn’t matter who passes the law. Once the law is passed, it is passed for everyone. Saying that the bomb saved lives is hard for me to grasp as a fact like people have said. There is no possible way of knowing beyond mathematical speculation which is a form of estimating or a simpler word, guessing. Guessing does not qualify as a fact in any case. Now, the bomb did stop the war. There is one fact I cannot argue. One fact is not good enough to justify a, “genocide by air.” As the one person said. Genocide is bad, wrong, and illegal in every national and international law in the world. The people that consider genocide to be a good idea were the axis powers. The same powers that the US helped to convict under the Nuremburg Charter. So which side are we on? Bombing for peace is like having sex for virginity, it simply doesn’t work. Truman needs to be convicted of war crimes to set an example of what happens to a president when they commit a crime of war. Presidents are not above any law.

    I’m sorry we did not post as a group but we simply disagree and I nor Betty will lie about our stance on such a powerful topic such as this.


    Erica Lynne Larson - 3/7/2008

    I completely agree with what you said. I think when people come to the verdict of guilty it's because they only see that people were dieing because of it. and yes thats sad, but it could have been so much worse if he hadn't dropped the bomb


    Molly E Reese - 3/7/2008

    We have decided that we believe that Truman is NOT GUILTY because we believe he made the choice for military necessity which is not considered wanton destruction. The two main points that helped us make our decision is that he didn't kill people to kill people, he was actually trying to save American lives by ending the war faster. Also he was accused of not listening to his generals and admirals but then later proved that the generals wanted to drop another bomb on Tokyo, so he actually wanted to end the war faster and not just take other lives because he decided not to drop the bomb. The opposing side says that it is wrong to kill all the Japanese and say your saving lives when your are only saving American lives. The holes found in this is that it is thought that both American and Japanese lives were saved because invading would have lasted longer and took more lives. Also Japan would have bombed us and only taken American lives but their technology wasn't as advanced.


    Vanessa M Haney - 3/7/2008

    Vanessa and I agree totally with you! Truman was protecting America and he did the right thing at that time of need. He not only saved American lives but Japanese lives because an invasion would have been worse and if we didn't bomb Japan then the Soviets would have taken over Japan for who knows how long. Dropping the bombs was the less costly route to peace in the world. Truman is the President of The United States and he protected America the best way he knew how at that time. Truman is completely innocent. He didn't set out to slaughter people of Japan, he did it for peace and to end the horrible war. Truman is not guilty.


    sara gray - 3/7/2008

    We agree that this was the best decision at the time and other decisions just would be worse and he would end up in the same position. Other options could have caused worse consequences. We agree that Truman rejected the ideas of the Navy and his Generals, but he thought that this would be the best decision in the end and save more lives. We agree that this was an emergency situation and he had to do what was best for the American's and the Japanese.


    Erica Lynne Larson - 3/7/2008

    Erica Larson and Emma Stevenson

    Erica and I have arrived at a verdict of not guilty. We arrived at this because there is no other rationale verdict. If we deliver a guilty verdict, then it will be assumed that we fully support Nobile’s prosecution statements. This, in itself, would be a fallacy. We do not agree with all of his statements, but rather a select few. There is enough evidence presented to make use consider his statements, but all in all, Truman cannot be blamed for the crimes of many people in many nations across the world. We went with the verdict of not guilty because we are, for the most part, undecided. Although we are undecided, the system of our courtroom states that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. We believe that he has not been fully proven guilty or been completely proven not guilty. Radosh makes many good and valid points, but we still found ourselves disagreeing with some. We found it unsettling to settle on something that we did not fully believe in; therefore we compromised our beliefs and settled on a verdict of not guilty.

    Because we believe he is not guilty (but we remain ultimately undecided), we find that an argument that caught our attention was when Radosh stated that Japan had 900,000 troops ready for our invasion as well as their acts to perfect their own atomic bomb. For these reasons, we see that while the bomb did have devastating effects, there may have been more consequences if we hadn’t dropped the bomb, thus forcing Japan to surrender. In opposition a point that was made by Nobile equally interested us: Truman’s decision of where the bombs were dropped. This grabbed our attention because if he had dropped them on just the military bases, outside of the cities, then this issue would not have been so severe. In addition to this point we believe that any action of war is hard to justify. This is because war in itself is a crime.

    On the surface, we believe that the strongest point in the prosecution’s argument was the location in which the bomb was dropped, which “killed mostly women and children” not involved in the war. This makes it seem as though Truman really was just dropping the bomb carelessly, disregarding other options. However, as Dresner- a juror, points out “Hiroshima, makes it very clear that the city was a significant command-and-control center for Japanese forces in Asia, a role it had played in every Japanese war since 1895” this creates a whole in the argument of the prosecution. If it had been such a “significant command and control center” for so many years, why wouldn’t it be an important location in this war? I think that specific argument was so significant because it did at first sound so cruel, and I know if I was a juror, it would sway me emotionally which is a good tactic, but not practical.


    Katie and Megan Cawley and Byler - 3/7/2008

    We agree that the decision to drop the bombs ended in devastation for many people. The question being asked is if it did more harm than help. This is a hard question to answer because you don't know what would have happened had a different choice been made. But you can't prove that lives weren't saved. It's also agreed that the prosecution made his argument too personal and based in opinion. There were no real facts presented to declare Truman guilty. It was all about the feeling that the decisions were unjustified. Dropping the bomb was bad in the same sense that war is bad. But if there is such a thing as a just war, you must try to win it. And we believe that's what Truman was trying to do.


    Steven Silicon RedHay - 3/7/2008

    After looking at both sides of the argument, and closely analyzing what each jury member and lawyer presented, we both would have concluded that Truman is not guilty of war crimes based on the information that was presented in the trial and through the jurymen. We do not necessarily agree with what Truman did—by way of dropping the bomb—but believe that the evidence presented was not concrete enough in order to accuse someone of a crime, especially to such a degree. The trial left us with reasonable doubt. While going through the argument, there were three flaws which brought us to this conclusion: the first being that throughout the prosecution there was too much based on opinion, such as “wanton destruction”, and what Truman was actually attempting to accomplish with the dropping of the bombs. There were also several points of views/opinions brought up, but no “cold hard facts” which are needed to make such a determination. The second issue with the prosecution was several other ideas used during the trial which dealt with the issue in “retrospect”. In order to give Truman a fair trial, everyone must be in the same time period way of thinking and mindset—throughout the prosecution Nobile showed many facts/ideas/feelings/opinions that were only known after the dropping of the bombs. Thus, much of the information Nobile presented seemed flimsy and untrustworthy. The third reason that we chose “not guilty” was due to the inconsistency of the facts that were presented from both sides. For example, one person showed facts said one million estimated fatalities, while someone else said that was wrong and that only a few thousand fatalities were estimated. The inconsistency with these simple facts caused us to question other facts that were presented from either side, once again leaving us with reasonable doubt that Truman was not guilty.

    One of the major points on the prosecution side was that dropping the bombs was excessive military action, causing 200,000 deaths and the complete destruction of two major cities. Looking back at what happened—which no one really wanted to occur—it is true that dropping two atomic bombs seems excessive and destructive, although at the time, Japan seemingly showed no sign of slowing down the war (even if Russia had entered) and was becoming a major threat to the safety United States and several other countries. At the time dropping the bombs seemed to have a positive side, for it would end the war and “supposedly” kill fewer people than alternative methods that were presented—which would have caused very slow deaths to the Japanese, and more fatalities to our soldiers. Also during the time period, I hypothesize that many American civilians supported the dropping of the bombs (especially from speaking with grand-parents and other people who lived through the war). Nevertheless, dropping the bombs was excessive but it did the job—war is a horrible thing and should always be avoided—had there been “better” alternative methods they should have been taken. However, since we can’t go back in time and do research, we must move on and aim to help those whom we hurt. What Truman and his cabinet did was probably what they thought in the best interest United States at the time.


    Steven Silicon RedHay - 3/7/2008

    Not only would the other alternatives create more fatalities, the war would have drug on longer causing more issues. Also, the prosecution brought up many good points but several of them were based in opinion and didn’t really have much fact behind them and in such trial facts are crucial in order to give a fair trial. Truman issued the situation as an emergency and warned Japan beforehand, giving them time to surrender. Hannah and I believe that Truman and his cabinet did what they thought was in the best interest of the US at the time.


    Bradley Frantz - 3/6/2008

    After hearing the defense and prosecutions opening statements and their main points, Ben and I have reached a verdict- Not Guilty. After hearing the opening statements we decided that the defense had a lot stronger points for a not guilty verdict, and their was a hole in the prosecution. The main reasons for the not guilty verdict was that the nuclear bombs were the best alternative to the situation and that the Japanese people were not close to surrendering. When Truman was weighed the alternatives he realized that the atomic bombs were the best solution to ending the war. The other solutions to ending the war were firebombings, which would have killed more lives than the atomic bombs, and an all out blockade, which would have caused starvation and hurt even more women and children of the island. So after hearing the alternatives he decided that dropping the atomic bomb was the best way to go about ending the war, and we agree. As far as the prosecutions statement there is a big hole in finding him guilty. The Nuremberg Charters only eliminated wanton destruction of towns and cities, but if their was an emergency situation and the destructions were necessary, it was allowed. Truman declared this an emergency situation and he felt it necessary to drop the bombs and end the war, saving the most lives as possible. Even though that there is a rule against wanton destruction, which is a valid point in prosecuting Truman, this was not wanton. This is why we found Truman, Not Guilty.


    Amber & Lisa AE - 3/6/2008

    We think that Truman is NOT GUILTY. Based on the Nuremburg charter it says that the action he took was a military necessity. He made the wisest decision with the situation he was given. One of the main points that led us to this decision was that we thought that the argument saying, “Japan was going to surrender” is weak and not necessarily true. How would someone know for sure what Japan was really planning on doing? To be honest, this is war and in a realistic view anything can happen in war. Our second main point we feel that is strong is that other war strategies would have been just as devastating. Although the bombs lead to a lot of destruction there is no way of telling how much a blockade or foot troops would have affected Japan. If we had gone the blockade group it would have been almost less humane. More innocent people would have suffered from lack of necessities. Food would have become very scarce. Even though the bombs did cause some devastation they put a Japan in a position to surrender. If we would have gone with other war routes chances are more then likely that the number of American soldiers would have been greatly increased. Truman chose the safest way possible to go with this particular war. We thought that the strongest opposing point was that Japan was on the brink of surrender. However, through all of the could haves, Japan may not have surrendered. If in fact Japan had created military means vaster then ours would they have used them? Our thought is yes. There is no way to be certain that if had given Japan the opportunity to surrender that they would have. If we had not dropped the bomb and they had not surrendered the war may have gone on for much longer and could have been much more devastating to both sides.


    Marissa Steudler - 3/6/2008

    We think that Truman is guilty of the war crimes for which he is being prosecuted.

    One of the main points in leading our thoughts was one from Dresner. He relates the trial to today to put it in retrospect. He says if something similar were to happen today, it would be considered an act of terrorism. Take September 11th for example. They killed thousands of people and devastated the entire country. We are now fighting a war because of it, called the war on terror. Most likely the only reason the war stopped then, was because the war had already been going for so long, and everyone was shocked by what happened. The most recent terrorist attack on the U.S. was only the beginning of the war.

    Another key point that was brought up time and time again is the fact that the bombs were unnecessary. Japan was so close to surrendering, without the use of the atomic bomb. Also, the bombs should have been focused on a military base, rather than on innocent towns. The war should not have been brought directly to the civilians. We should have put more focus on weakening the military, rather than the country as a hole, because with the military weakened they still would not be able to fight to their full potential.

    One of the strongest points for the defense is that we saved American lives by dropping the atomic bombs. We may have saved thousands or more American lives, but we can never be sure as to how many. Also, how many lives did we sacrifice by dropping the atomic bombs? Granted they were not American lives, but they were still valuable human lives. When looking at numbers, the lives saved or lost should not be counted by race, but as a whole. Surely we could have come up with some other method of “getting our revenge” rather than killing so many innocent people. They may have killed many of our people, but we as the United States of America should have stepped up and been the bigger “man”.


    Shay Ceglar - 3/6/2008

    Truman, the president of the U.S., how can a person arrest our president alone for giving an order to protect the country. Truman had a plan to get Japan to surrender with the least amount of U.S. casualties. If Japan wouldn't have attacked us we wouldn't have had to attack back. The U.S. is a host in the Host- Satellite model and cannot sit back and let someone else control us. We are a world power and can't give up any power. If the president was convicted so would at least another 30 people or more would be convicted. Truman's Innocent!!


    chris s wagner - 3/6/2008

    we think not guilty because he bombed them to defend our country. And her did what needed to be done.

    one reason is that he did it to defend our country an he got the point across.
    Another reason is making him guilty is like making bush guilty of the Iraq war.

    a good point for him being guilty is that he ordered the bombs and it killed a unbeleivable amout of people.


    Seth Kochersperger - 3/6/2008

    We find Harry Truman not guilty and he did not commit war crimes that would go against the Nuremberg Charter. It was necessary to drop the bomb during WW2 given the circumstances the President was under. By dropping the bomb instead of invading Japan it potentially saved us millions of dollars in war spendings and saved thousands of Japanese and American lives. More importantly though was the response the United States had after dropping the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We rebuilt Japans economy and helped stabilize their cities and towns, and we also provided military protection. It wasn't like we were leaving them out to dry or anything, now look at Japan. Not to bad, hey? The Japanese Empire had plenty of opportunities to surrender and failed to do so after several peace treaty attempts. In the end, you can more so blame the Japanese empire for their arrogance when they were clearly outmatched, out powered, and outnumbered. You can argue that the Atomic was used to "shock" Japan into a surrender, but, hey it worked. Japan had no choice to surrender afterwards and was not ready for a nuclear attack. If Truman were to invade Japan me and Trevor feel he would of received more blame for deciding to invade, then his decision to drop the Atomic Bomb. I feel Nobile's research has no valid points because his essay is completely built off of speculation. Its hard to prove what someone is thinking. Nobile argued the information was in Truman's diary, but Radosh argued the information involving when to drop the bomb on Japan was clearly a summary of what Congress thoughts had been all the way up to the week before the actual bombing. Truman was not guilty. He made the right decision given the circumstances and provided support to the Japanese people after the bombing. He did not commit war crimes.


    Mackenzie/Bridget Shea/Elaine Wine/Mullin - 3/6/2008

    I agree with you on how the bombing was needed. Truman did what he thought was best for our country. I don't believe we had a right to drop the bomb because of what they did to Pearl Harbor. It's an interesting point but I don't know that it would be the right thing to do, to just get back at Japan for what they did to us. I believe the war would have ended eventually, it would have unfortunately taken more lives than with the bomb.


    Mackenzie/Bridget Shea/Elaine Wine/Mullin - 3/6/2008

    Our group believes that Harry Truman is NOT GUILTY. Our two main points that he was being prosecuted for simply being in charge of a war. Can someone please tell me how you can possibly make a RIGHT decision in a situation thats always wrong? It may not have been completely necessary to kill so many in war, but nevertheless it ended i, thus, our second point. If the bomb ended the war, then didn't it accomplish it's goal? Our goal wasn't to kill as many people we could, but it ended the war. And we believe if there was another way to effectively stop the war without hurting anyone, we're sure Truman would have opted for that instead.
    Nobile makes a very strong opening statement. He states that Truman had other options he could have taken and when truman responds to him by saying that it could have saved lives, however Nobile says that he saved lives by bombing 200,000 people. He also says that it was a rash decision that was made over a long period of time. The one hole in his argument was that he never had the full facts. He'd give only the little clips of facts of manipulate them into only appealing to his side, like most good lawyers do. However he didn't do it well enough because in the end Truman was not guilty.


    Vanessa M Haney - 3/6/2008

    Our groups verdict on the Truman file is Not GUILTY! We have come to this decision because while reading the jury statements we found agreed with the not guilty statements. They proved many things about Nobile statement and how it was false. We feel that Truman made the right decision, as stated in one of the jury statements if he had opted to take others advice more people could have been killed. They wanted Truman to create a total blockade around the island, killing possibly more people. The strongest point on the other side was the death rate. But as stated before. Yes, many were killed but in reality we and other jury members believe that many more people would have died if Truman had listen to others. You cant just blame one person for this even, he made the decision and everyone should trust his judgment! NOT GUILTY!!!


    sara gray - 3/6/2008

    After seeing all of the verdicts, we decided that Truman should not be held accountable for his war crime actions. We believe so because there could be other possible reasons that Truman could be held accountable if he did not drop the bomb and let the war continue. Also, he should not be held accountable because in the end, he saved more lives than were killed. If he decided not to drop the bombs, then we wouldn't even know how long the war would of lasted. With the dropping of the bombs, he ended the war as quickly as possible. He also did a good job in not pulling through with his generals and the navy's suggestions to make the blockade. This could have created more havik in the war. We think the strongest point on the opposing side was Truman not knowing that the bomb would end the war. However, we still believe that if Japan decided not to surrender, they would have been aware of how powerful our weapons could be.


    tyler matthew Tice - 3/6/2008

    Nessesity was the bomb. The bomb in Joe and my eyes was that it not only wrote the wrong for all the lives lost at Pearl Harbor but it saved so many other lives aswell. Yea sure we bomb the hell out of the japs but we had to in order to save all those lives. Also Nobile failed to back himself up with any convrete evidence. When it came time to put Truman on the trial there was nothing to argue that the way the lives were lost and the hardships that were felt had been done in not the best way possible but the Turman way.....All in all Truman did the right thing just try to immagine how our nation would be if he hadnt dropped the bomb. thats right you cant because the next thing you know we might have gotten bombed like they did. And America would not be what is is today if WE didnt drop that big, fat bomb or two that ended the war.

    By: JOE and TICE


    lindsey harpster - 3/5/2008


    In our opinion Harry Truman is not guilty when his actions are compared to the laws in the Nuremburg charter. One reason that leads us to the verdict of not guilty is that you cannot describe the bombings as wanton destruction or not of military necessity. The cities that we bombed (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) were military capitals of Japan. They built and held mass amounts of weaponry in these cities. Therefore there was military strategy, and reasoning behind both of the bombings. Not only that the bombings were at the time the best and most humane way for Truman to complete the attack on Japan and end the war. If he would have taken one of his other choices and invaded Japan, there would have been thousands of more deaths and the war wouldn’t have ended as abruptly. Another reason you can’t say that Truman is guilty is because it was war. Nothing in war can be seen as right or wrong. In general everything action and what you think about it is based on politics and values. Since you can’t say someone is wrong for what they believe and war isn’t meant to be fair you can’t just plainly label Truman’s actions as wrong. There is just too much goes into military strategies and actions to, as one person, have the power to say what is right and what is wrong during war.
    On the opposing side the strongest point may be that there were thousands of innocent lives lost so the bombings shouldn’t have happened. However, again, this is war innocent lives are lost all the time in war. Besides not only that but by sacrificing a couple thousand innocent lives Truman saved millions more by ending the war.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 4/4/2007

    First off I am not a communist, communism could never work, It's all idealist and giving the common man power, if you want to know my thoughts on how true government should be ran talk to me later...
    Honestly I would let you kill my family not because I do not care about them but I truly do not think I could live after I have taken a human life, at least not peacfully (which is non-livable to me) You are right the presidents job is to take care of american lives, but he should do that with reason and consideration of other nations. Regardless if the "philosphy" was not returned we always have to uphold it. Look its just like first grade, a kid hits you first do you hit him back? Of course you do your bad ass america! But what does the teacher tell you "I dont care who hit you first you shouldn't have hit them back" Obviously you didn't listen to the teacher.
    We're at war? Are you talking about the political party's? If so that is rediculous and such ideas are underminding and contradicting the very government our country runs on.


    Ethan Harwell Harwell - 4/4/2007

    I agree fooly with your statement because it sound alot like mine. It is very strage to be doing this 50 years after the fact. This debate i think is more about what eachothers morals are more than what happened.


    Ethan Harwell Harwell - 4/4/2007

    I agree with your statement. the bomb was nessisary to the ending of the war because it gave both the U.S. and Japan a good end. Japan never wanted to lose to another country but the bomb had them lose to advanced technology istead of the U.S. and the U.S. won by creating that technology. I still think though there were some things that could have been change to reduce the civilian deaths but truman didn't murder them. In a way he might have gotten rid of gerila war fair by taking out people who would atack just because they could.


    adam p cochrane - 4/4/2007

    Hey elizabeth what if i said that i was going to kill your entire family and the only way to stop me was by killing me would you do it. If so why did you, you clearly state that you shouldn't lower yourself to my level not only that but doesn't my life have value?. Well what if you let me kill your family why did you, you essential sacrificed your family only because you believed you wanted to take the moral high ground and say I will not kill you.

    The same choices I gave you were the smae ones Truman faced. As the president his job is to protect amercian life no matter how unpopular his why of doing so seems.

    If Truman decided not to drop the bomb because he considered all lives to be equal that same philosophy was not returned by the japanese. Evidence of the is given though the treatment the japanese showed the American prisoners of war.

    also independents suck, go republican or democrat, pick a side we're at war.
    (you truly sound like a communist)


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 4/4/2007

    Your stereotype of "peace" is apparent, but however not accurate. It cannot all be peace and love? Funny how did M.L.K stop segregation? Hmm..OH THAT'S RIGHT! Non violence protesting...hmm...NOT VIOLENCE! Oh I get it! wait..no violence? then how did he get things done? He used logic, kindness and respected people as HUMAN BEINGS! You know the thing that you and I are? Yes we are the same, we are part of the human race. No matter what border we live behind, no matter religion, race, culture, views, we are of the same race, and by being part of that race we are born with the RIGHT to live. Also Jared, you contradicted yourself, if AMERICA is such a great country, why would have we been taken over by Japan? We are so great we could easily defeat them! Go america! Putting logic and reason over, fighting like animals isn't being an idiot, it's being smart, productive and realizing that as the human race we have to live peacfully. God forbid we do that!
    GO AMERICA! :)


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 4/4/2007

    Have you ever asked yourself why Al queda hates us? Maybe it's with your attitude here. Call me stupid but if someone came in your face going "I am way better than you nanana" I think you'd get a little pissed. Oh and god forbid I am a tree hugger and I care about the ONLY WORLD WE WILL HAVE but that's ok I am sure you drive a gas guzzling car anyway. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind EVEN AMERICA! Actually with the whole "don't deserve to live here" deal. I'm native american and I was here before you! So technically I do deserve to live here since i've been fighting "terrorism" since 1492. Again if we are such a great and WONDERFUL country why do we do such things that lower countries such as Japan do? Hmm? Don't do the crime if you cannot handle the consequences? What about those AMERICAN soldiers that harmed, tortured, and abused those captive iraqi's? We did not suffer the consequences of our actions, (if you did not know some of the soldiers were put in jail but their lieutenant that informed them of doing such things was not) So where are those consequences? Oh wait I forgot! We are such a WONDERFUL AND LOVING AND GREAT NATION that we don't need rules! Don't preach to me that our country is so great. All that is glitter is NOT gold. I value lives regarless of border, race, religion, and politcal views unlike you. It is a sad sad thing to think that you are part of our future, maybe when you go out in the real world and see it's cruelties will you truly understand the meaning and VALUE of a HUMAN life.


    adam p cochrane - 4/4/2007

    Lets all be civil for a second and think of the dosmetic and economic successes we have becuase truman dropped the bomb. Truman dropped the bomb for the future of America not to end the war. After all during world war II Japanese military commanders were so smart to the point of super geniuses. Scientific fact as proven that asians are smart after the ones that conducted this scientific research were asians. So to prevent Japanese immigrants coming to america and taking jobs in fields in science and technology Truman dropped the bomb. That right he prevented 200,000 japanese immigrants from becoming are next MIT graduates. If truman had not dropped the bomb the asians would have been able to convince retarded political democrats to make the official langauge Japanese. However because Truman dropped the bomb he was able to show the Japanese how big america's dick is. He didn't dropped the bomb for foriegn policy reasons but to preserve the american culture.

    Before you decide to look in a year book for who i am. I am telling you now that this is a sick joke. (dont kill me)


    Jason Smack - 4/4/2007

    But Andrew. Understand that besides the 200,000 lifes that were lost, there could of been millions of more at stake if he wouldn'tve. I don't think there's any other way to stop this war besides surrender and the United States are just too proud for that. He felt sorry for the lives lost, but he made a smart decision regarding the fact they were just as ready for war as we were.


    Jason Smack - 4/4/2007

    Well you have a point, there really was no right or wrong thing to do at this time. But he made a choice that it was either us, or them. He chose what was best for our needs and acted upon it. It just so happened that he saved lives in doing so.


    Jason Smack - 4/4/2007

    Tim's making a good point on where the bomb should've been dropped. But even a better point, that it was in fact dropped. He acted on impact sure, but he made the right choice in saving many lives and ending the war where it should've been ended. You do still have to think on the location before you act on anything else.


    Jason Smack - 4/4/2007

    My inital reaction to putting Truman on trial is that this whole situation isn't Truman's fault and therefore he shouldn't take the blame for all of this. He did get some kind of opinions from others. If I were a juror, he would've been found innocent. He made the right decision to drop the bomb. More and more lives would've been lost everyday from war if would have chose otherwise but he ended it with one decision and that haulted all deaths the United States would've had to deal with. He made an overall smart decision which affected the United States positively and kept us from experiencing a lot more damage than we might've been able to handle without doing so.


    kayla joy kollman - 4/4/2007

    I didnt think to be undicided and remain in he grey area but I see where your coming from. It could be a hard decision when there are good points from both sides. But I still feel that he is not guilty of war crimes he was simply ending a war and looking out for the US's best intrestes.


    kayla joy kollman - 4/4/2007

    You made some good points, but how can he be found guilty when all of the acusations were proven to be false.


    kayla joy kollman - 4/4/2007

    You made a really good point with the Holocaust and Hitler and how what he did was truly a war crime. I could see Hitler being put on trial and be found guilty for good reasons. But when it comes to Truman he is not guilty.


    kayla joy kollman - 4/4/2007

    I conpletely agree with this your statement, I also think it was important to look out for our soldiers. Also if he didn't the war just be prolonged.


    kayla joy kollman - 4/4/2007

    When I first heard that we were doing a project on the Truman Trial my initial reaction was that it is ridiculous that they were putting a president, who was already dead, on trial for "wanton destruction." I personaly think that it is pointless this late in the "game" it happend so long ago, why bring it up now.
    If I had to pick a side I would say Truman was not guilty. He did what he had to do he bomb Japan not for the heck but because those places were essential to their war efforts. Another thing he was critisized for was because he didn't action on some of the advice he was given but if he did that there would have been so much more devistation. Therefore he did what he had to do and is not guilty.


    Matt Grey Steindorf - 4/3/2007

    the japaneese hit us with an atack on out naval base in Hawaii in a surprise attack. therefore, even if one considered our attack to have an unjust cause, is was well deserved. we attacked them at a manufacturing center and they attacked us at a naval center. both attacks costed many lives. theirs was to start a war and ours was to end one. how is this a war crime. i agree with you that this was a way to end the war and therefore he is innocent.


    Matt Grey Steindorf - 4/3/2007

    there is not a way to eliminate war without killing other people. truman knew this. therefore he took the only answer and fought the japaneese to their eventual surrender. we know it worked because the did indeed surrender, saving millions of lives at the expense. i believe in the killing of the one man to save the other 9. Truman believed in this as well. Therefore his actions are justified and are not classified as war crimes.


    Matt Grey Steindorf - 4/3/2007

    Due to the fact that I actually am an American, I believe that Truman is not guilty of the war crimes of which he is accused. His action in the deployment of the two atomic bombs on Japan during 1945 was for the benefit of not only the American people, but also the Japanese people. Japan was prepared for an assault from all sides. Truman knew the danger of a full scale landing attempt on Japan. It would be just the same as D-Day but so much worse. Japan was simply a large island and I believe that the USA was going to try and use their small landers in the only way they knew how to, by sending troops onto the coast. there was a just cause for these devices to be implemented so I believe that there is no war penalties and charges against Truman. Truman was simply the commander in chief of a nation who was winning the war. there is no way to charge him for the casulties of war. these people were going to fight to the death anyway, so it is not injust to blast them with the atomic bomb.


    William G. Barksdale - 4/3/2007

    I have a lot of mixed thoughts on this one. It has become clear that Japan was not going to surrender, and that the bombs might have saved more lives than they took (for both sides)Truman probably made the right choice. However the Nuremberg charter is highly debatable. The law is the is the law, no one is exempt. If one goes with the quote that wanton killing is prohibited, then Truman is guilty of the deaths of 200000 people. However, other articles of the charter state that it is perfectly legal to bomb military targets from the air so long as warning was provided. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets. If one sides with these articles, then Truman is cleared off all charges. This really makes it impossible to determine if Truman is guilty. Therefore, due to the ambiguousness of the charter,it is impossible to charge him either way. In my opinion however, Truman is not guilty.


    Sarah Elizabeth Patrick - 4/3/2007

    I agree wiht you and am undecided as well. I think that both sides argued strong points and its hard to have a strong opinion on an issue that already happened previous to our time. I agree with your ideas that our nation (trumannnn) could have taken other avenues of attack to modify the surrender of Japan, but i think that going as far as saying that his actions were wanton are a little extreme.

    Peace on Earth.


    Sarah Elizabeth Patrick - 4/3/2007

    1. My initial reaction to putting our former president, Truman, on trial were skepitcal and at first i was sure of myself that he was not guitly. How could someone, who was looking out for the good of our country and acting in respect for what was best for our nation, be out on trial? However, both sides have proved their point and now i remain undecided.

    2. THe attack on the civilain-dominated cities in Japan was brutla and possibly unnesessary to the surrender of japan, but it is difficult to argue that these actions were wanton and unjust. Even though these bombs were par tof a strategic plan, that doesnt make them any more valid. However, there is a difference between slighter to effect a war aim and slughter for slaughters sake. BOth sides argued strong points and my opinions remain in the middle.


    Andrea Clouser - 4/2/2007

    Since I ran out of time last time, I'm going to post y real comment now. I agree with Alyssa because yes he had the idea, but he never all out believed in it and it wasn't his main intention to bomb innocent people. Both sides had valid statements so I can understand where they are both comming from but at the same time, its hard to follow what everyone is saying and therefore I am still undecided.


    Sarah Elizabeth Patrick - 4/2/2007

    I also remain undecided. I agree with the idea that we as a nation had the " I will punch you before you punch me" attitude. If we hadn't dropped bombs on japan what would have come of the war? How many more possible deaths would there have been? The defense makes strong points trying to jusify our presents actions as well as the prosecution proves that what Truman had our country engaged in was wrong and our actions were wanton. I remain undecided.


    Kirsten Leigh Makowiec - 4/2/2007

    It's interesting to think that one person's good is another person's evil. What Truman thought was good (dropping the nuclear bombs to spare millions of lives) is Japan's (evil.) In the eye's of the Japanese, at least at the time, what we did was evil. We destroyed entire cities and took the lives of thousands of innocent Japanese citizins. In America, we mostly only read about the American stand point. But there are always two sides to a story, and I wonder what they are teaching teenagers in Japan about the war right now.


    Kirsten Leigh Makowiec - 4/2/2007

    I am undecided on whether or not Truman can be tried as guilty or innocent. I believe that Truman did what he thought was best for his country at the time. However, the decision to drop the nuclear bombs didn't seem to be thought through enough before the actual events. I think that there are other ways that we could have tried to end the war. Like previously discussed in class, Truman could have warned Japan, and then maybe if they didn't back off, the nuclear bombs could have been further discussed.


    David Thomas Thorpe - 4/2/2007

    I completely agree, they are trying to charge him for something that occured many years ago, and you cant look back and try to understand how he was thinking because the times were different. They were dire and suspeseful and people had to act when they could to try to win the war. Ultimately he ended the war with less deaths then if he kept it going on longer, and it would have lasted numerous years longer.


    Jared Slike - 4/2/2007

    Yeah let these kids know whats up. I wonder if they ever heard of Pearl Harbor. Obviously not becuase if they did they wouldn't write posts like this and make themselves sound like idiots. It can't all be peace and love..lets smoke a joint while we sign a peace treaty. This was a huge conflict that there was no easy way out of. If any of those three were in charge of our country we prob. wouldnt be around today. We would be part of Japan rigt now.


    Jared Slike - 4/2/2007

    Who is Elizabeth Hunter? You really just make yourself out to sound like a tree hugger. Hetrick is right in my opinion. If you could save half a million American lives by killing 200,000 Japanese lives, why wouldnt you? Your relative or someone you know could be in that war and if there was an invasion they would most likely have died. Do you want to hold that over your head for the rest of your life just becuase you don't think it's right to value American lives over the lives of our enemies? Have you ever heard of Pearl Harbor? Was it right for them to do that to us? Hell no it wasn't, and they got what they asked for. Don't do the crime if you can't handle the consequences. And if you hate our country so much then you don't deserve to live here. Go move to the Middle East and live with Al Queda ...you prob. value the lives of terrorists over American lives anyway. I agree with Hetrick.


    Jared Slike - 4/2/2007

    Trumans goal was not to kill innocent people, it was to end the war completely. It was either kill the people now or wait three months and end up killing more. We were already bombing Japan to begin with. It was said that the Japanese were going to surrender, but that was proven to be a huge speculation. They weren't going to surrender unless a big change was made. If we had decided to invade there would have been over half a million dead Americans. So who is more important to you...your dad or maybe other family memebers fighting in the war, or the lives of a Japanese soldier or civilian. Not to sound like a dick, but that's really what it comes down to. Anyway... by using the Atomic bomb he saved more lives as a whole. Kill the one to save the nine. Wars aren't clean...


    Johnny Duff Hopkins - 4/2/2007

    I would have to disagree with you. It's not about what the intentions were, it's about what actually happened. What ACTUALLY happened was that he killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, when he could've ended the war in many different ways. Japan was on the brink of surrender, so an American victory was inevitable. The bomb was completely unnecessary, even though it was supposedly aimed specifically at a military base and the civilians were unfortunate collateral damage. And besides, the Nuremburg Charter that we used to prosecute Japanese and German war criminals during the ending days of the war has not been evenly applied to the U.S. at this point. We know this because it strictly explains that the killing of civilians and innocent people, no matter what the purpose, is ALWAYS considered a war crime, and we should've been called out on that. I would have to say he is, without a doubt, guilty.


    Graham Ross Colby - 4/2/2007

    1.) In almost any given circumstance I will say that I am against war and violence, however I belive that putting a former U.S. president on trial for "wanton destruction" that happened over 50 years ago is absurd. Truman was not trying to cause wanton destruction, he was trying to end the war the only way he thought he could.
    2.) No one can claim that Truman is Guilty without really understanding what our country was going through then. Also no one can blame Truman alone for commiting these war crimes. If we convict him, we must also convict Germany, Russia, the British, indeed all that were a part of the war.


    Megan Peterson - 4/2/2007

    I believe Truman is guilty. The article "Hiroshima: Was it Necessary?" states that the US was bombing Japan with non-nuclear bombs while 'a Naval blockade was strangling Japan's ability to import oil and other vital materials and its ability to produce war materials'. It also says that because of this, Japan was just about defeated, even though they would not declare defeat at this time. This article also states that Truman dropped the first a-bomb and without waiting to see the results of the first, dropped the second. I think that this fact causes Truman to be guilty. I know that the Japanese did not surender right away even after the second atomic bomb was dropped, but Truman should have waited to see the results of the first one before dropping the second. Had Truman waited to drop the second atomic bomb, everyone could have seen at least a little more of the results, and might have caused Japan to surrender after just one atomic bomb, rather that not having any time to discuss and not being able to even think about surendering until after the second bomb was dropped. I think that had Truman waited to see the results of the first atomic bomb, and see whether or not Japan would surrender before dropping the second atomic bomb, there would be room to debate whether he could be considered innocent or not. But, I believe his impatience caused him my verdict.


    Megan Peterson - 4/2/2007

    I understand that Truman supposedly saved many American, as well as Japanese lives by dropping the atomic bomb, and I realize that Japan was willing to continue fighting until they got what they wanted, but does that mean that if we have a new experimental wepon today, that it would be ideal to try it out on Iraq? Wanting to stop a war with as few casualties as possible is a fantastic idea, but also keeping as many innocent bystanders alive is ideal. I don't think that Truman is innocent because what he did would equate to us completely pulling out of Iraq today, and totally destroying a large part of their country and population just because we want this war to end now. I am all in favor of ending the war today, but I also don't think 'pulling a Truman' would be a good idea. I know that some documents say that he is innocent because he saved many more lives than if we had stuck it out, but no one knows this for sure. He shouldn't have dropped the bomb without knowing all of its effects.


    Stephen Thor - 4/2/2007

    I don't think this can quite relate to 9/11. Al Qaeda is not associated with the Iraqi government and therefore does not have this authority.
    Concerning the war in Iraq, this is a definite possibility. Either the US or Iraq could use that same tactic again. If it can be argued that the bomb will in fact save more than it kills, it may be implemented. But today, soldiers are in smaller groups and millions won't die together. So it is not militarily justified.


    Adam Bland - 4/2/2007

    I agree with you mostly Ethan Harwell Harwell. The only thing i would say differently would be that his choice of target, while could have been slightly better, was not bad enough that this would make him guilty. He needed a densely populated area to hit. What would make him guilty would be the fact that the weapon was still experimental. If he knew all the effects of the bomb, he might have picked a slightly less civilian target. But if it would have been just a bigger explosion, then it would have been just like a lot more conventional bombs at once, basically just saving the US some time and adding a shock factor.


    Adam Bland - 4/2/2007

    I think President Truman is not guilty. The Japanese were a very determined people. As Larry Schweikart says in his argument, the Japanese Imperial Leaders went as far as to threaten to kill anyone who even mentioned the word surrender. They were not a country to give up with fighting to tooth and nail down to the last man. Conventional bombing and other means would have produced just as many, if not much more civilian casualties and the Japanese would have kept fighting through it with that much more determination. Nothing in the normal terms of war would deliver the shock value that was needed to break their morale. Granted, it was still experimental, and using experimental weapons in warfare is something that should never be done, but without it, an invasion larger than Normandy and D-Day would have had to be launched. Numerous more casualties would have occurred than the estimates predicted. Truman, while his actions were questionable, did the right thing in the end.


    nick paul langton - 4/2/2007

    So would 9/11 be justified if osama would have called us up and let us know he was going to do something to us? I didnt think so. Let me relate this issue to today. RIght now we are in a war in Iraq. If They wanted to end the war against us would it be ok to drop bombs in our major cities and killed millions of people. It should be ok since they want to end the war. Its easy to say that TRuman is innocent because he is American but if you reverse the situation many people would change opinions


    nick paul langton - 4/1/2007

    I agree that Truman is guilty of war crimes. The bombs killed 200,000 innocent people. Japanese and germans killed many innocent people in concentration camps and those leaders were prosecuted and convicted of war crimes. The only difference betweem this and TRumans case is that the bombs were dropped at the end of the war. PEople argue that he was doing what was neccessary to end the war. OK lets say we drop these bombs but the war doesnt end for awhile and then the war ends for some other reason According to the pro-Trumans is he now guilty?


    nick paul langton - 4/1/2007

    I was surprised to see that one of our presidents could be put on trial but after reading Philip Nobiles argument i think Truman is guilty.

    I think Truman is a war criminal. All direct killing of non-combatants is a crime according to international law. The message Truman is sending is that its ok to break the law if it helps yourself.


    Terna Ityokumbul - 4/1/2007

    Mac that might be the most legit thing you have ever said. We gave them a warning and they could respond to it however they selected. Another important point Mac brought up was the fact that the Japanese could have possibly dont the same thing to us.


    Terna Ityokumbul - 4/1/2007

    Exactly. this is a key point i think people are forgetting. If we wouldn't have dropped the bomb hundreds of thousands of more people would have been killed.


    rachel thor - 4/1/2007

    guys!! i am all about peace, but come on, don't you think we TRIED to talk it out? have you even researched beyond this project? because in real life we looked at many other options, and attempted to contact the Japanese peacefully with no success. THEY were the ones who wanted a war. also, truman's original inclination was against bombing Japan, but ALL of his advisors and military leaders unanimously agreed that we should indeed bomb. so even if you dont think that bombing was appropriate, there is no way you can convict ONE man for the crimes of a nation.


    rachel thor - 4/1/2007

    i agree that war sucks and should be the LAST option, but we did not start a war with this bomb, we ended it. we didn't throw the first punch here, we defended ourselves to keep from being hit again. also i am unsure of what logic you are refering to in this situation, peer mediators obviously didn't cut it between us and Japan, or we wouldn't have been involved in the first place. and lastly, this is WAR, it's the last straw, there's no more talking things over. it's survival of the fittest at its best, reverting back to primal instincts. in matters of life and death it becomes no longer a question of morality, but will to continue at whatever cost.


    rachel thor - 4/1/2007


    In general i am very against war, killing and destruction, but if we're already in the middle of a war with a massive death toll, ending it sooner is better than later. People make the argument that we killed so many civilian lives in dropping the bombs, but according to warchronicle.com there were a total of 350,000 Japanese civilian deaths in comparison to 2,000,000 military deaths. this is less than 1 civilian death per every 5 military deaths. Looking at total deaths in the war however, there is about 1 civilian death per every 3 military deaths, so in comparison Japan had less civilian casualties than the rest of the world.
    Based on military necessity to end the war, our only other option besides bombing was to invade Japan with our own troop in man-to-man combat. The projected death rates of this choice soar above the amount killed with the bombs, for both Japan and America. Basically, we actually saved lives in the long run by ending the war quickly.
    Also, Truman’s intention was not to recklessly injure and kill Japanese civilians, it was to damage military communications and force them to surrender. Since intent is part of the definition of “murder” according to war crimes, Truman isn’t guilty.


    Lauren Muthler - 4/1/2007

    I agree. Putting Truman "on trial" is unecisary. We can not rightfully decide if his actions were right or wrong because we will never fully understand the circumstance he was in. As for being able to find him guilty for breaking the "laws of war": the only law that was brought up was the Nuremburg Charter. The Charter said that during war, it is illegal to kill noncombatants. Under Imperialistic control, all of Japan was, in some way, involved in the war (making weapons, guns, planes, ect.). Therefore, they cannot be reffered to as "noncombatants." Therefore, Truman did not break any laws. Even if he did, he's dead so it doesn't matter. People need to stop bringing up stuff from the past and just focus on what is now. That is the only way we'll ever overcome our differnces and get along.


    Lauren Muthler - 4/1/2007

    Yes, I definitely agree that we need to move on. I don't think people should worry about what did, should have, or didn't happen. It is just going to cause more problems if we don't put it behind us. Two nukes may have been a little extreme but what I read about Imperial Japan, it seemed like that may have been the only choice. They had their minds set on taking over all of Asia and would not let anyone get in their way. I agree that the two bombs actually saved more lives than they kiled. The war need to be stopped.


    Lauren Muthler - 4/1/2007

    Harry Truman is not guilty of wanton destruction. By the dropping of the two bombs on Japan, Truman saved more lives than he killed. The bombings essentially ended WWII, therefore saving lives of Americans, British, French, Germans, Soviets, Italians, and Japanese. Imperial Japan had their minds set on expanding their empire from Thailand to Manchuria. If they were not set, they could have gone even further, taking WWII to a new level or even starting WWIII. The fact that millions of innocent Japanese died because of the bombs is tragic but that needed to happen. The amount of people who died because of the bombs is no where near the amount that would have died if the war went on or Japan got out of control. After word that the U.S. had effective nuclear bombs got out, other countries would have got busy developing their own bombs. If the war would have gone on, it could have become a nuclear war and the end of the world. I have no evidence that would prove any of this would happen but the chances that it could are high. It would have been taking a huge risk not to do something drastic.
    Japan was an Imperialistic country at the time and mobilized the entire country for war. Everyone except those practicing civil disobedience (who usually ended up killed or in jail) were supporting the war in some way (making weapons, guns, planes, ect.). Therefore, these people were not noncombatants and Nuremburg’s Law would not affect them. Because this law does not apply to the situation, the prosecution has no basis on which to accuse Truman of this particular crime.


    Heidi Beman - 4/1/2007

    I'm not saying that the statement that it would have saved lies isn't true, but just because a president says something doesn't necessarily make it true. Politicians are sometimes the best liars.


    Heidi Beman - 4/1/2007

    "Is war the only way to bring peace? No. This is the farthest from the truth. Truman believed that by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki he would bring and end to the war, and peace to everyone. Truman believed that by killing between 15 to 30 million Japanese, peace would be brought to the war"

    I agree with your point. I think killing people/war to create peace is just an illusion. Although killing off many civilians of our current rival country seems to be a quick, easy solution, there will always be an aftermath if you take lives.


    Heidi Beman - 4/1/2007

    Well, perhaps not 'above' them, but atleast more powerful is what I meant to say.


    Heidi Beman - 4/1/2007

    "There are really no rules to war so by dropping those bombs he wasn't really doing anything wrong."

    Actually, there are rules to war. Like the Nuremberg Charter, where we stated and basically defined war crimes and made up 'rules' to war. We just chose not to follow them by using the Atomic bomb. I personally find it rather stupid and arrogant that we chose not to follow our OWN rules that we ourselves created. Just because some of us saw/see ourselves 'above' the Japanese, doesn't justify us killing or injuring them.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 4/1/2007

    "it ended up saving American lives " As opposed to the 200,000 INNOCENT people that died? I'm gonna have to agree with Andrew, there were many other alternatives that Truman could have invested in. Also a human life cannot be worth more or less because of the border it lives behind. Such an Idea is barbaric and it will never survive in this upcoming world.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/31/2007

    " any number of lives is worth one American life" I find that statement appalling and hellishly scary. How can you value a life just because the borders they live behind? Do you realize the man that created/invented/found the A bomb was not american?! We only have one earth it is our only ticket to live in this Universe so to bomb the hell out of each other isn't going to solve the problem! Do you realize that the attitude you gave here is the attitude the world has stereotyped us in? Do you realize beacuse of your thoughts that Americans are thought of as only being ignorant as well as arrogant? By thinking this and being this way and holding yourself over others is only stirring the pot of hatred around the world?
    You have left me speechless and it's people like you that make me feel terrified for our world's future. Yes OUR world.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/31/2007

    Well for now I am going to ignore the petty statements of being a liberal (I am an idependent thank you) regardless, Truman was our president our leader, so he is responsible for everyone under his rule. And Truman made the initial desicion just because he was backed up by people does not justify it. Hitler was backed up by many people may I point out. However I will admit that I did not know about Canada and the war's it was in. At least I will ADMIT to MY mistakes. Well on one side of the story people try to justify the killing of Japanese people by exclaiming that Truman saved "millions of American lives" Obviously a propaganda tactic in such discussions. Yes I agree that the A bomb saved many Japenese troops lives however the people that were killed for them were not troops. So innocent were killed so people that would sacrafice their lives for their country, could live. The bomb was used to end the war on our terms. We wanted it to end but only if we got what WE wanted. And if we wanted to Scare Japan into surrendering we could've dropped the bomb in a remote area of Japan as a demonstration. And also may I point out that Russia under the Potsdam Declaration would've invaded Japan for us (thus the Declaration) So the number of Japanese soldiers would've been their problem (so all those precious american lives would be spared) I find it funny, and sad that you find killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people as "a smart decision"

    Oh and on the Canada Note, just because they do not have the power does not mean they are worthless or not as important. Power means nothing in the eyes of human value and to use such a notion obviously reflects capitalistic society we are in.


    claire quinn weaver - 3/30/2007

    The real question is are we only 'Gooks'. We would have had millions of casualties had we not sacraficed several hundred thousand. As a humanity we benifited from it.


    Kim Sun Rhoads - 3/30/2007

    I agree with some points (like I don't understand why there are rules for war, but unfortunately and oddly enough there are.)And yes, it is wrong to say his decision is wrong, and that people complain so much about the war you'd think they'd like it to end. My point was, again, for whatever reason there are rules of war, and people need to stand by them. Again, I don't see the point of making this a trial, because occurding to the article he did go against the rules. Regardless of reason, he did it. I don't see how people think he should be punished for his thoughts or not (especially since this is fake and he's not even ALIVE), and it's not like other people have done worse things. Trying to be as cut and dry as I can be, he went against the rules, and that's the end of it. If he didn't approve of these rules he should have done something before hand...


    skylar burke - 3/30/2007

    I agree with kirstens point. Where do you draw the line for who should be put on trial. If we are putting Truman on trial for a war crime then many other people that were involved should also be put on trial. Truman did what he thought was best for our country.


    Brady Robert Sheerin - 3/30/2007

    Well if you heard from both sides of the story you would know that we weren't holding American lives over Japanesse lives. Before the bomb was dropped it was projected that it would save even more Japaneese lives than Americans than if the war were played out without the aid of a nuclear weapon. And to say that the bombs weren't used to coax the end of the war is just a completely false statement. From the very begging it was used as a scare tactic to shock the Japaneese into surrendering out of fear, which it in turn did. there was no random decision by truman to drop a nuke either. They had been speculating that the japs were going to stage an attack of 900,000 strong so to defer this attack he droped the bomb which in turn saved more lives than would have probably been killed if the attack happined. It was a smart decision that only the united states was in the position of making.


    kristen louise granger - 3/30/2007

    I agree with Joe's comments, it is surprising that the nation would consider putting the president on trail however it is important that as a nation we consider our options and understand the consequences of our actions. The decision the president made was in the favor of our country, saved many American lives, and was a quick and abrupt way to end the war.


    Andrew Berenbrok - 3/30/2007

    Just the mere fact that Truman regretted what he had done after he did it, obviously means that he doesn't THINK before he makes dumb decisions. Though it did get us out of the war faster, there could have been more effective alternatives that didn't involve the killing of 200,000 INNOCENT people if he just thought deeper.


    Lindsay Marie Troup - 3/30/2007

    I also beleve that a president is able to commit a crime the same as everyone else. I agree with you he shouldn't be considered guilty. I thought that same. People most likely won't drop anymore atomic bombs on people.


    claire quinn weaver - 3/30/2007

    Although I would much prefer to have a world of peace than a world with war, your point is grounding and logical. Sometimes it is suicide to 'turn the other cheek' like the Bible often teaches us. Morally wrong is much more apparent to those who don't have to throw the first stone, or any stone at all for that matter. For those unfortunate victims of power such as Truman who must make incredible decisions and be the voice of hundreds of millions, hours can be spent sweating a specific subject when it insures the certain death of hundreds of thousands, yet in return potentially saves millions. When weighing the odds tha answer is obvious. Truman saved lives- and the only way to do so was by killing.


    Lindsay Marie Troup - 3/30/2007

    I agree with what you are saying. I think that he isn't guilty also. I think he did the right thing. He thought that what he was doing was the right thing to do.


    skylar burke - 3/30/2007

    I also agree that it is hard to say if Truman is guilty or not. I think that dropping the a-bomb was at the moment the right choice to make because we had nothing else to do. And if you look back at it we saved many of our own by doing so. And the fact that we killed lots of innocent people i think that we should of looked more into the location of where the a-bomb was being dropped.


    Andrew Berenbrok - 3/30/2007

    oh ya and murdering 200,000 INNOCENT people is a good war tactic. ya right. even though the bomb did end the war sooner, there had to have been alternatives that do not involve killing 200,000 innocent peeps.


    Aubrey Beiswenger - 3/30/2007

    I really agree with what you said. I think that he clearly did regret what he did, no one in the right mind wouldn't regret killing people, no matter the race or religion of the people. I think that it is rediculous that they would bring him back on trial so long after his presidency. I really can agree with what you are saying here, Alyssa.


    miranda rohrbach - 3/30/2007

    This I agree with. It is mot right how the targeted people were the civilians. The women, children, the sick, and the elderly were all a part, a big part of this targeted attack. What was supposed to come of this event was that the Trumen was trying to help the boys escape the brutality of the war. To hide them from the exsposure of the blood and famin of all the dead and brutally murdered people of the war. Even if they didnt belong in the position the were put in. I think that the target chosen was very wrong in the means of how the women, children, sick and elderly were not even involved in what the issue was that cause the war.


    kristen lea podwika - 3/30/2007

    I think putting Truman on trail is so stupid. The united states was in a world war and Truman took the necessary action to put a stop to the war. Also Truman is dead and this was a long time ago do we really need to fight about it now? yes it is kinda interesting and a kinda cool way to learn more about the bombing, but basically i find the whole trail worthless.

    Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind. ~John F. Kennedy, 1961
    I think Truman is not guilty. I agree with the quote from JFK (above), if Truman hadn’t have done anything the war would have been drug out for who knows how long and so many more would have been killed. It was estimated that between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths and between 1.4 and 7 million American casualties, which would lead to between about 400,000 and 800,000 American deaths. Which is totally not good. There was no evidence that the Japanese were ready to surrender. So Truman simply took the necessary action to end a war.


    Ethan Harwell Harwell - 3/30/2007

    The shock of what Truman did didn’t faze me but the charges that were brought against him did. The fact that as our president he was charged with a crime that help the US and probably help the Japanese did not lead me to believe he was a criminal. After reading through the jurors opinions I decided that he’s a little of both guilty and not. He is guilty on the part of killing lots of civilians and that the bomb did not destroy the industries because they had already been destroyed by earlier bombings as presented by Dresner. On the other hand he is not guilty because he ended the war without bloodshed on the American side and a lot less blood shed on Japans side. This was because the US was preparing to conduct a massive land invasion on Japan and basically take over the country.


    Keegan Anthony Intorre - 3/30/2007

    well by saying that there hasnt been any canadian war, you are completely dumb. Canada has had troops in conflicts including world war two, Korean War, Gulf war, kosovo, and the invasion of afghanistan in 2001. Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Truman is innocent


    Jared Slike - 3/30/2007

    You must be liberal....very unfortunate


    Canada isnt a powerhouse either. If someone attacked them they would get destroyed.


    Cameron Dean Rhoads - 3/30/2007

    I agree with you that there would be more war. I would rather be bombed then starved to death.


    Eric J Vonada - 3/30/2007

    How can you say that truman himself is guilty its not like he was the only one that wanted to do it. Everyone in the cabnit ok it. Besides that bomb saved a lot of US and Japanese lives. I dont even know how to respond to your canada comment.


    Johnny Duff Hopkins - 3/30/2007

    I would have to disagree with you. Before the drop of the bomb, Japan was already preparing to surrender to us. He was also being overwhelmed with alternatives to ending the war without the bomb. And third, The Nuremburg Charter specifically labels all direct killing of non-combatants and civilians as a war crime and directly against all international law. This is EXACTLY what Truman did. Although the bomb was supposedly aimed toward a military base, it also killed millions of innocent Japanese elderly, women, and children in the process. Some studies also suspect that more innocent bystanders were killed in the bombings than military personnel. The war could've been ended in another, more peaceful, and civilized, manner, without the wanton killing and destruction that directly opposed all that Truman was SUPPOSED to be protecting.


    Ben A. Bowman - 3/30/2007

    I agree but how many more people would have died if we didn't drop the bombs and what would Japan have done?


    Eric J Vonada - 3/30/2007

    Yes I to agree with all the stuff that Keegan has said above. For example when he said that dropping the bomb would save lots of lives I looked it up and that was acually a statment made by the president so it has to be true. If it is true then it did save lives on both the american Side and the Japanese side so it had to be the way it happined.


    alex ray hetrick - 3/30/2007

    I think that the US should be help accountable for our actions in any aspect, but I never think that the US has, would, or could go out of their way to do something unjust. America has always been the good guy, the one who goes into battle and sticks up for what is right. But maybe what we are sticking up for isn’t the “right” thing, it’s more the “American” thing. In my mind these towo things go hand in hand but I could see how someone could see them differently. Like I said, I do think that we should be held accountable for are actions, but I do not think an American president could be seen as doing something unjust when the action he took saved American lives. For this reason alone I think that Truman would have to be found innocent. In my opinion, any number of lives is worth one American life, I feel that Truman was justified in this way. Regardless of how many Japanese lives were lost in the bombings, all it comes down to is that American lives were saved.


    Cameron Dean Rhoads - 3/30/2007

    I fully agree with you. If we had not taken action towards japan eventurally they would have dropped a bomb on us.


    Keegan Anthony Intorre - 3/30/2007

    I agree, It was good that truman used the bombs to end the war, it made it end fast without losing as many people.


    Ben A. Bowman - 3/30/2007

    Right on Karen! Japan didn't think twice about bombing us at Pearl Harbor and if the would have been in our position they would have probably dropped three bombs on us. War is war, stuff happens and it happens for a reason. Truman is definetly not guilty.


    Alex Baukus - 3/30/2007

    LINDSAY I LOVE YOU will you go to prom with me, <3 <3Alex.


    Keegan Anthony Intorre - 3/30/2007

    Truman was innocent of war crimes, because what was considered wanton destruction, was done in a way that at the time, they didn't know what the results would be, because it was the first time the atomic bomb was used in war. Putting him on trial was pretty much a waste of time and money, mainly because he allowed the bomb to be dropped in the interest of saving American lives and ending the war which caused less damage to happen to both sides than invading japan would have, which is a good enough reason by itself. Another reason that it was a waste of time is because, he was not the only person that was responsible for dropping the bomb. His administration was in on it too, and they did what they thought was best to save lives for both sides.


    Heidi Beman - 3/30/2007

    Canada rocks.


    Lindsay Marie Puhlman - 3/30/2007

    I completly agree yes sad but we had to do it..... it probly saved more then it did kill but we can't turn back the time so i don't know why they even thought about it


    Lindsay Marie Puhlman - 3/30/2007

    i completly agree with you on that... yes i blieve it was a horible out come of what we had to do but there is always going to be bad out of something good.
    lindsay


    Lindsay Marie Puhlman - 3/30/2007

    Not guilty:
    I believe Truman is not guilty only because he was acting on what would be the out come of what would happen if we did and what would happen if we didn’t. It clearly says there was no evidence that Japan was going to surrender the Allied powers and would just keep going. I think if they didn’t surrender we would most likly have send in troops and pretty much start another war. I believe Truman also didn’t know the effect of the atomic bomb until after they first dropped it.
    Also I believe if we didn’t do Japan would have been invaded by the Soviet Union and bombed and put in shambles or we could have incinerated it. Also my point comes down to if we didn’t do that we were just getting out of World War II our country needed to regroup and rest and we couldn’t really afford to go into another war. Also it is estimated that if we did send troops out there we would have up to million in casualties. I see it has I would rather have 200,000 people killed then over millions. So yeah I believe if they were willing to surrender then yeah it would definatly be a war crime but I believe what Truman was doing was looking out for all of our best interest.


    Mark Rocco Harrison - 3/30/2007

    i do not think truman should even be looked @ as to weather or not he is guilty for this. in order to be guilty for something, it has to be a crime in the first place and i do not believe that there was a crime committed here. Truman did what he had to do to end an awefull war and in the end it is possible that this decision actually saved more lives than it took. As well as saving more lives in the end, it kept many of our own american troops out of harms way which was of course a gigantic plus. I believe in the saying that "all's fair in love and war" and this is one of the most trying tests for that statement. I believe that truman is NOT GUILTY and should be equitted of all charges!!!!!


    Blair Lauren Porterfield - 3/30/2007

    Canadians are pot smokin pansies!!!


    Julianna Miller - 3/30/2007

    Obviously, I agree with both Hannah and Liz on this subject. My initial reaction was that Truman was guilty, but i think that is partly because the author of my article set it up in a way that made you believe most of what he was saying. After reading more of my article, the entire thing seemed to be more of a mistake than anything, and lucky for Truman, the war really did end, giving him a reason for sending the bombs in the first place. but no matter my opinion on whether Truman is guilty or not, I agree that it's good for our country to pay attention to our past in order to set us straight on where to go in the future.


    Julianna Miller - 3/30/2007

    I definitely agree with what you are saying, the only problem is that in Truman's trial, he didn't know that the bomb would stop the war. He didn't even really understand the full consequences of his actions until after it was too late. It wasn't until later that he could "cover up" his reasons for sending the bomb in the first place. However, besides all of that, I still agree that Truman was innocent.


    Blair Lauren Porterfield - 3/30/2007

    Actually there are rules to war that applied to us because we agreed to them. Also, japans population problem is just that, their problem. Although i agree with Trumans reasons for bombing saying we helped them is a bs excuse for it.

    p.s. would you be willing to give up your life to help our population problem? cuz i dont think you would be.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/30/2007

    I agree with your statement that we should put our presidents on trial and that our laws should not exempt them. And yes it is a good thing that people would not consider using the Atomic Bomb again. Hopefully it'll stay that way *cough* North korea *cough*


    Blair Lauren Porterfield - 3/30/2007

    I think we should be able to put presidents on trial. They can commit crimes just like any other citizen and they shouldn’t be exempt from the rules. Personally I don’t think Truman was guilty. He didn’t drop the bomb just for the sake of destruction; he dropped them to end the war. Even though their military was in bad shape they wouldn’t have surrendered. If he hadn’t then we would have had to invade and more of their people and ours would have died. Also, now that the world has seen the horrible destruction that the A-bomb does I don’t think it’s likely that anyone will consider using one again, which is a really good thing.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/30/2007

    "I agree he did kill millions of innocent people, but he had to do it." Had to do it. That is a poor excuse. A lives can always be saved with logic and reason. And saying Truman wanted to save lives is an understatement. What lives did he want to save? Obviously not Japanese lives he just killed 200,000 if them! He wanted to save AMERICAN lives! Is that good? TO value a life because of a border? I think not!
    "If we evaluate things in the past, we can prevent their happenings in the future." I totally agree with this statement. That is why I think we need to do this more often. How can we learn from our mistakes if we keep ignoring them? Do I think truman is guilty for killing mass amounts of people? Yes. Did Truman drop the bombs because he thought it was best? Yes. But I do not think Truman's Best is our best as a country.


    Abby Montler - 3/30/2007

    Yeah I agree. It is always easier to look back in hindsight and see the mistakes we made but we can't blame ourselves or anyone else for not knowing at the time. To comment on the article you read: we must take into consideration the fact that the author twisted Truman's answers to hear what he wanted to. I think that this is pretty unfair because this was probably not what Truman would have said.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/30/2007

    "You cannot prosecute someone for killing people during a war"

    So How do you explain U.S's actions with Saddam Hussien? He killed lots of people but it was during a "war" how would you define a war? Iraq never declared War on us in our response to declaring war on them (I really do not know if we officially declared war or we just invaded) So are you saying we should stoop down to our enemies level and be just like them? Comparing our actions to Iraq's rebel groups and finding similarities are not good! God I feel like a broken record! If we are such a GREAT AND WONDERFUL COUNTRY why do we do the same things other countries do? Countries that we look down upon and go "oh that is horrible" Why not look at ourselves in the mirror and judge ourselves as we judge the world?

    Also " to worry about our troops first before we start worrying about other countries" the people that were slaughtered in the Atomic Bombings were not troops they were INNOCENT people. Women, Children, Families, Human beings like you and I people with feelings hopes and dreams. To justify their death by saying that our lives our more important just because of a simple border line is insane! How would you feel if someone dropped an A bomb on America?! What if Iraq did it right now?! Could you justify that? Could you say "well it was war oh well!" Killing mass amounts of INNOCENT people that have NOTHING to do with the war is unjustifiable. Hell look at 9/11! Innocent people were killed! Do you want to justify alqueda? Again killing INNOCENT lives is wrong and anyone trying to justify it is, to me, insane.


    Abby Montler - 3/30/2007

    Yeah, I also think that it is hard and kind of unfair to put him on trial now because he can't defend himself. But I agree that it is a tough call but I side on not guilty. I agree that the number of total casualties of bombing is more than the number of victims of Hiroshima. I also agree that every life is important, which only makes this harder to decide, but I think that we had no choice but to choose a bomb versus invasion. We also asked them to surrender after the dropping of the first bomb. They could have given up then, but they chose not to.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/30/2007

    How is talking about Atomic bombs 'cute'?


    Liviy E Pope - 3/30/2007

    Wow, Karen! You wrote an ESSAY!

    Okay okay, I just have one thing to say. We could have dropped the bomb in a remote location to show the Japanese what COULD have happened. I know you will say, "They have no intention of surrendering". You are probably right but you never know until you try. I think it would have given them a chance to understand, Hirohito knew the power of the USA anyway.

    I wouldn't say his actions were... "pure". Ahh I am so sicking of saying the same thing over and over again, haha. I think I am undecided, how can you be confident with a decision? Not you personally, but, I think it's really difficult to be able to defend one side without running into other.


    Abby Montler - 3/30/2007

    I think that Truman is not guilty and completely justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He should not be tried as a war criminal because the goal was peace. In order to be tried as a war criminal, he would have had to commit a deliberate "fiendish slaughter." We also asked Japan to surrender before dropping the bomb but they refused. They also refused after the first bomb was dropped on August 6th. They were no where near surrendering or working toward peace before the dropping of the bombs. This is why it was miIitarily necessary. I also think that a civilian target was
    necessary to create a shock to move Japan towards working actively on peace.
    Also, if we were to defeat Japan by invasion, it would have cost around 5 to 10 million Japanese deaths and between 1.7 million and 4 million American casualties.


    Liviy E Pope - 3/29/2007

    Quote:
    Japan has a population problem anyways so if those other ones didn't die it would be an even bigger problem because there would be like way more Asians now.

    WOW, I am not really sure how to respond to that. I am both offended and outraged that you would dare say something like that in public. I realize that Japan was overpopulated, but so is the United States. If George Bush decided to burn the lower class to death, would you be okay with that? The atomic bomb wasn't about getting the population under control. That little part of your proposal was very much uncalled for. Liz was correct. One should never value a life above another.

    Truman didn't drop the bomb to be a bad person, he did it to save lives, but I am most certainly undecided. He did break the law, and he did kill thousands of people. What he did was right and wrong. It is too complicated.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/29/2007

    I love your sarcasm!!! I agree killing innocent people are not the way to go. People try to justify this saying "well their country is in the war they are building the weapons so they are like soldiers too!" Which is completely unjustifiable (is that a word?!) You cannot blame innocent people that are just doing a job because they need to the money or it was the only job avaliable. I also agree with what you said on the bullying. America has often depicted itself as a "Peacemaker" country. Obviously not in this case.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/29/2007

    Well, Truman SHOULD have known the effects of the bomb before using it, ignorance is not an excuse especially if you are a U.S president. Maybe Truman should have ordered more testing? Maybe he should've been more knowledgable with his military. Maybe he should've ordered an example of the bomb in the Nevada Desert (where we do our bomb testing today) And we did not build the bomb to save lives, we built the bomb because we did not want to be the only country that did not have them. We wanted power. Because someone else had it and we wanted to be at the top of the ladder. Finally, I really would not consider a country killing mass of mounts of people as a "peacemaking" country.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/29/2007

    I honestly do agree with you. Although I find truman guilty it is what I personally believe and I agree with your statement about Truman doing what he felt was right. I don't think we should convict him (he's dead come on) but I do think we should follow our own laws since well it's our laws...duh. I liked how you said that you respect his personal decison, it seriously takes alot of maturity to respects someones decison that you disagree with so I comend you on that.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/29/2007

    I am not trying to justify what Japan did, yes I agree Japan's actions were not good but we shouldn't return the blow. Again if we are such a great nation like we say we are why did we sink to Japan's level and retaliate? And do not say that we HAVE TO in order to stay alive. Ghandi Pushed Britian out of India with NO retaliation. Again "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind."


    cassondra black - 3/29/2007

    I totally agree with everything you said in this. I read part of the CNN article and I think it does a good job of relating the Truman thing to today sort of. I too agree that Truman was not guilty and he had reason to drop the bombs. I think the saying all is fair in love in war sums up this whole thing. Wars are not fair but pretty much anything can go. Wars are never good or a positive thing and people shouldn't have expected much good to come out of it. The bombs were not a good thing but they were totally necessary to help end it because the Japanese were not going to surrender.


    Justine Marshmellow Hauser - 3/29/2007

    I completly disagree with you. I think that Truman is not guilty. He did what he thought was best at that moment in time. He was trying to stop a war from dragging on and on. He was also trying to save lives. When he decided to drop the bombs,he was thinking of the lives he was saving and putting a stop to this war. I agree he did kill millions of innocent people, but he had to do it. This action stopped the war and saved lives. I definitely do not think he is a cold blooded killer. Also, I was surprised by this mock trial of a former president. I think it is nuts to put Truman on trial for wanton destruction. What would you have done?


    Heidi Beman - 3/29/2007

    Although I am undecided about the trial, I have to agree with you about how Truman wasn't fairly judging himself. It seems to me like he just got a lot of pride after it was all said and done and didn't feel like he needed to justify himself on the standards that we made to judge our enemies on, even though I believe everyone deserves to be equally questioned and justified.


    Heidi Beman - 3/29/2007

    I agree with you that people everywhere should definitely try hard to reason with our enemies before we decide to be bomb-happy.


    Heidi Beman - 3/29/2007

    1. My initial reaction to having a former US president on trial was surprise. It’s not very often that you see society questioning a US president from a rather long time ago, not to mention a man who was basically in charge of our role in a major war. Also I was surprised because through out all the years of school, many textbooks and lessons are, in my opinion, biased and make the US automatically seem correct and justified. Although I was surprised, my reaction was also positive. It’s only fair that we question ourselves just as much as we question the other countries involved in the war. Everyone is equal, and therefore everyone deserves equal questioning and justification of their actions, especially in wars.

    2. I am in the gray with the Truman trial. I understand and believe in different points from both the guilty and the non-guilty sides. I feel that even though Truman said he used the Atomic bomb to end the war, that does not justify killing thousands of innocent people (and most likely many people who might have not even supported Japan's attacks on the US). Also, Japan was basically about to surrender without bombing or Russia getting involved, yet we continued to drop the bomb on them anyways. I feel that we are all just neighbors on this planet and just because some water and land seperates us doesn't mean that justifies killing them. We wouldn't bomb one of our own states, and in a way we are all just like a bunch of different states on earth, so why would we bomb them? It also seems quite hypocritical to me, because I'm sure if another country bombed us claiming to just be "ending the war", we wouldn't like it very much. Would we understand if Iraq suddenly bombed us to 'end the war'? No, I don't think we would. But on the other hand, I respect that it was Truman's personal decison on what to do, and I dont think you can convict someone for doing what they believe is right (if he truly did feel it was right, but no one will never really know that). So although I personally don't really agree with what Truman did, I don't think I could convict him of being a war criminal because I can't get into his mind and see what his intent was, because in my opinion intent is the most important factor in a trial like this.


    Maria Zhivitskaya - 3/29/2007

    I do completely agree with your argument. My position was changing the same way as yours and I do also believe that the fact that the Atomic bomb ended the war is very important, and that Truman did not do it because he wanted to show everybody how powerful America was, by killing innocent people.


    Maria Zhivitskaya - 3/29/2007

    Very nice comment. It makes a lot of sence and I do also believe that being completely desided and sure about this issue is impossible.


    Maria Zhivitskaya - 3/29/2007

    My initial reaction to putting former U.S. president on trial was positive, because I was always believing that killing hundreds of thousands innocent people was an awful war crime. After reading the arguments, that were supporting and opposing this statement, I, however, changes my mind. Before I did not realize that the drop of the atomic bomb ended the war, and saved many lives. Both American and Japanese.

    The main supporting argument of those, who think that Truman was a criminal, is the Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter outlawing "the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.” But who defines the war necessity? Every war is the fight of the ideas, and people are being killed for it. I do not believe that there is an idea that is worth a human life. Every war is a crime, and it should always be prevented, but I do also believe, that people are already fighting in the war, their actions should not be considered a crime, especially if they lead to the quick end of the war and as the result prevent many deaths. According to the information, that was researched by many historians- the drop of the Atomic bomb was exactly this case. It prevented the prolongation of the war and many lives were saved.


    Alyssa Ann Steudler - 3/29/2007

    I feel like war should be the last option and that Truman really didnt know the consquences of his actions until after the fact. I am agreeing that i feel what truman did was wrong but i still stand behind him that he is not guilty!


    Alyssa Ann Steudler - 3/29/2007

    I fully agree with you there tim, i couldnt have said it better myself!


    Alyssa Ann Steudler - 3/29/2007

    I feel like war should be the last option and that Truman really didnt know the consquences of his actions until after the fact. I am agreeing that i feel what truman did was wrong but i still stand behind him that he is not guilty!


    Alyssa Ann Steudler - 3/29/2007

    I strongly feel that it is ridiculous that we as Americans put a former president on trial for Wanton Distruction. At the time when Truman made these decisions, he didn't know or understand the full consequence of his actions. II read, when the jurer was asking all of these questions that Truman couldn't answer and he was using after the fact information to support his actions. I don't think that the entire situation was taken into account. When i was talking with my dad last night, i heard that Truman regretted his actions once he realized what he had caused to happen. As you can probably tell, I side as Truman being not guilty, but I do think that he acted before he knew all of the information that he could've known or found out.


    Seth Robert Hockenberry - 3/29/2007

    No


    Molly Elizabeth Snyder - 3/29/2007

    The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II, irrespective of political alignment, was roughly 62 million people. The civilian toll was around 37 million, the military toll about 25 million. The Allies lost around 51 million people, and the Axis lost 11 million. (take from http://www.answers.com/topic/world-war-ii-casualties)

    This helps to further explain my position by showing the estimated number of deaths for both the allies and axis. Although it was not specific for United States and Japan, it helps to show that the estimated number was much greater than it actually was therefore Truman was not guilty in dropping the bomb because he prevented more deaths.


    Christine Styker - 3/29/2007

    Matt, I love your post. It's soo cute.
    I'm doing this for social studies too. By the way, are you taking me to prom? Talk to you after school!!


    Julianna Miller - 3/29/2007

    I think that it is a little ridiculous that we put a former president on trial for wanton distruction. At the time when Truman made these decisions, he didn't know or understand the full consequence of his actions. In the article I read, the jurer was asking all of these questions that Truman couldn't answer and he was using after the fact information to support his actions. However, I don't think that the entire situation was taken into account. I think I heard somewhere that Truman regretted his actions once he realized what he had ended up causing. As you can probably tell, I side as Truman being not guilty, but I do think that he acted before he knew all of the information that he could've known or found out.


    tim ling - 3/29/2007

    I agree that we did need to do something. It was a good idea to drop two bombs instead of getting our men killed, but why on innocent people. Why not a base?


    Stephanie Masters - 3/29/2007

    Matt that is sooo good!!

    You know what would make it even better?? If you'd pleease go to the prom with me!! Trust me, I'll make it worth it ;-)

    <3


    Christine Styker - 3/29/2007

    Matt, this was a really cute post. I'm doing this for social studies too. Talk to you after school. By the way, are you taking me to prom?


    tim ling - 3/29/2007

    A bunch of the jurer's made the comment that we needed to do this in order to save American lives... Wth? So we are going to blow up women and children. That doesnt make sense. Another arguement was that Japan was still working on their atomic bomb and they would hesitate to use it, but i still think that blowing up innocent people was a good decision. They said that we had to blow up a city with innocent lives becuase we needed to fear them into giving up. So we are trying to bully them around? Thats not nice. we should have used the bomb on a base or something else.


    Molly Elizabeth Snyder - 3/29/2007

    I agree with Caitlin on the fact that Truman had no knowledge of whether or not the Japanese intended to surrender and the possibility that the war could have continued for much longer helped to convince Truman to drop the atomic bomb in attempt to stop the progression of the war. I think that Caitlin is correct in saying that Truman was just in his actions of dropping the bomb to stop the war from going on any longer and to prevent even more deaths of American people.

    I love you caitlin rush.


    Derek Rose - 3/29/2007

    I agree with the fact that the bombs where needed to end the war. Also I agree that if the bombs where not dropped that more people could have died . It makes dropping the bombs needed and it makes Truman not guilty for what he did.


    Leah Kraytz - 3/29/2007

    My question for you would be why?, throughout history we have been bombing millions of innocent civilians, as well as many other countries...not to murder innocent people, but in defense of our country. This bombing was a measure of precuation to something we believed was a military base and a potentially threat to our country and it people. To name Truman as a killer, for supporting and defending the lives of our country, sounds like no guilty man to me.


    Jeff Mistrick - 3/29/2007

    Why?????


    Jeff Mistrick - 3/29/2007

    Why?????


    Alexa Danielle Gregory - 3/29/2007

    Halie,
    I agree with what you said in the first question. I think it is so interesting that people actually went back into all the evidence and created a mock trial. And it was such a good idea because you were right when you said that we can prevent things from happening in the furture by learning more today. I also agree with the fact that Truman is guilty of murdering millions of people. Truman was wrong to thing that he could could kill all those people and everything would be restored to normal. Look at us, years later and a mock trial was created because it was such a questionable attack. The aftermath of what he did was more than anything I'm sure he thought it would be.


    Adam Bland - 3/29/2007

    Nice post Stein. Very descriptive...


    tim ling - 3/29/2007

    I think that it is a good idea that people are still looking at this and remember what our past leaders have done. At the moment I really do not know if he should be charged guilty or not. It wasnt just Truman that should be charged if anyone is going to be blamed for this. I think that they should have checked out the A-bomb a bit more before they dropped it. They didn't know the full affect of the atom bomb yet, or so they said. I'm sure that it seemed like the best choice to just drop two bombs and have to war be over with then send it troops, but i think they should have droped in on more militaryish places. Instead of killing so many people. There was an argument that it was necessary to drop it on a civilian area but I do not think it was the right choice to make just based on the impact it made. I agreed with Ford's juror a lot. He gave numbers to how many people would have died and how many people we saved by dropping bombs instead of sending in troops, but i didnt agree totaly. I thought that it was a good idea that we were saving lives but why not drop it on a military base instead of inosent people.


    Mark Rocco Harrison - 3/29/2007

    you go red head. you speak your littly fiery mind! final verdict..................................... TRUMAN
    NOT GUILTY


    Mark Rocco Harrison - 3/29/2007

    ya alyssa is totally correct, as president truman had the right to do what he felt was necessary, and i think he chose the right course of action


    Mark Rocco Harrison - 3/29/2007

    There is no way that truman could be considered guilty. he did what was necessary to end a war. Without dropping the atom bombs many more americans as well as japanese would have dieed. I believe that even if the atom bomb killed more of our enemy than would have died if we would have just finished out the war the way it was going, a lot more american allies would have died as well. so the dropping of the A.Bomb saved many american lives as well as ending the war in just 2 seperate strikes


    Hoo-in Jane Min - 3/29/2007

    I believe that judging on what is right or wrong at this point is not right. However, although it is true that Harry truman's decision of dropping the a-bomb, had killed a great amount of people, we all know that it was his best choice trying to save the country and to end the war. It would have been a bigger problem if he just let it go and did nothing. It could've killed much more people and cause the war to continue on. I believe he tried his best.


    Hoo-in Jane Min - 3/29/2007

    It is true that the decision had killed a large amount of people who could have lived, but the important thing is that it stopped the war and saved much more people.


    Karen B Cannon - 3/29/2007

    I'm glad to hear that the civilians were warned and it was only a danger to those who continued to stay in cities that had become strictly for military support. In this case there is no question about the legitimacy of Truman's actions.


    Hoo-in Jane Min - 3/29/2007

    I totally agree to what you're saying because he tried his best to save more people. If he had not dropped the a-bomb, more people would have died and it could have been a bigger problem. I believe he is not guilty.


    Karen B Cannon - 3/29/2007

    I don't think our generation has any concept of a country trying to take over the world. During that time period Japan was not a country you could simply appease to keep peace. They took over countries such as China and ruled the people literally with guns to their heads. They had no intention of keeping peace with us and that was made apparent when they sent their emmissaries over to Washington to "negociate" peace when they were really trying to make a diversion so that we would be unprepared for them when they attacked pearl harbor in the immidiate days following.


    Karen B Cannon - 3/29/2007

    When determining whether Truman should be considered guilty or not guilty we must consider the time period. You can not apply current sensibilities of today to a situation that occurred in 1945. The rules to war were different mainly because the accuracy of bombs was different. In those days during a time of war the governments of both sides blew up as many cities that contained tank factories, potential military troops and a workforce as possible with the sole goal of concurring a country (however in our case defending one).
    When Truman dropped the bomb he did not know the full effects of the atomic bomb. He had Robert Oppenheimer, the leader of the Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb, studying the square miles, the enormous amount of power and the fall out however no one really new the impact of vaporizing a city let alone the effects of radiation poisoning on a region that size. To Truman this one bomb seemed no better or worse than conventional bombs with the equivalent amount of T&T. If he had bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima with the same amount of T&T in conventional bombs no one would have questioned his justice.
    The reason why we built the bomb was to prevent Germany from using the atomic bomb to take over the world as Einstein warned in a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt dated 1938. The reason we used the bomb was for the same reason we built it: to end the war and save lives. But after we dropped the bomb we realized the destructive power that the bomb possessed. At that time we had the power in our grasp to take over the world however we decided to play the part of a world peacemaker instead of concurring territory for ourselves. Truman motives were pure. Indeed, several years’ later Truman court marshaled one of his five star generals, General Douglas Macarthur for advocating the use of nuclear weapons in Korea. From Hiroshima and Nagasaki he learned very quickly the effects of these nuclear weapons and recognized the extreme amount of responsibility the president had. So I conclude that his motivation was to save the millions of lives that would have been lost in a direct attack against Japan and because of the arguments above Truman should be exonerated.


    Justine Marshmellow Hauser - 3/29/2007

    I was surprised when I heard about this mock trial of Harry Truman for “wanton destruction.” I had never thought about one of our presidents being on trial for intentionally killing millions of people. I believe Harry Truman is not guilty of “wanton destruction.” His decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was made with the intent to save lives. The war would have drug on and on if something was not done. Nobody knew if or when Japan would surrender. Truman explains why they used the bombs in a statement after the bombing of Nagasaki. "Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans." ("Public Papers of the Presidents: Harry S Truman, 1945", pg. 212). When Truman authorized the bombings he was not thinking of it as a massacre, but as a way to stop this war and save lives.


    Tabatha I. Wagner - 3/29/2007

    Yeah, I totally agree. Truman did use the bombs for the right reasons, to end the war. And no wars are clean wars there is always killing and that is what makes a war. And people involved with war know this. And I totally agree that dropping the A-bombs weren't a war crime like the holocaust was because the Jews weren't in a war and were pushed into violence unlike Truman attacking someone else involved in the war. War is like playing self defense, you do all you can to the enemy before they can do it to you. Truman used this idea of dropping the bombs to end the war and it worked so he actually saved lives of those who would've been involved in continued fighting. He dropped the bombs for a good reason. He is not guilty like you said.


    Tabatha I. Wagner - 3/29/2007

    Yeah, I agree. That is what I said about him actually saving lives by dropping the bombs because more people would've been killed if the war continued and that he used this tactic to end the war rather than make it worse or start a war. He had good ideas with using the bombs and he killed people for the right reasons. Right on! My beliefs are the same as yours. YAY!


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/28/2007

    regardless of what you think the fact remains is that it broke the charter a law that we created and enforced except when it came to us. This is not a moral issue it is an issue about following our own rules. If we can't follow them why should the rest of the world follow them? (that was rhetorical mind you.)


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/28/2007

    wow after reading all these message boards i'm gonna have to change my stance on this. Do I think what truman did was wrong? Yes but do I think we should convict him and any other people of the past/present? no (well with the present they should just be taken out of power but we shouldn't hurt them in any way) plus all the people in the past are dead and you can't convict a corpse that's just plain wrong.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/28/2007

    I am really proud that someone has the same opinion as me here! I honestly think war should be the LAST option when it comes to conflicts between countries, simple logic can be used to appease both sides.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/28/2007

    well I'd just like the point out the lives that were lost on the dropping of the bomb do not take into account the lives that are still being affected today. Today children are being born with defects because of the radiation from the bomb, there's a childrens book that is about a young japanese girl who is born with cancer because of her mom surviving the bomb (Sadly I cannot remember this story or cannot give specific details it was in middleschool and my memory is kinda fuzzy) So to say only 200,000 lives were lost I think is an understatement when the people of Japan are having the pay for our Nuke with their future generations.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/28/2007

    I agree I think our ego now is getting a little to big. I mean it's great we have such power in the world but we should use that for good of the people of this world. Plus I think it's good to really take a step back and go "ok let's see what we've done here" Personally I think truman is guilty but I don't think we should by trying this man, he's dead it doesn't matter, but I do think discussing our past choices will help us make better ones in the future.


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/28/2007

    Yes I agree what happened in the WTC was very sad. But I don't think hating the people that did it is the way to go. I don't know if anyone has seen V for Vendetta but in that movie is shows that people who do "terriost" things have a reason to, because they feel opressed by the people they are terrorizing. So with the WTC we have to think "well geeze why did they do that to us? Maybe we should find out why and fix it." and I feel that that type of attitude should've been presented to Japan in WWII. Yes japan attacked us first but we shouldn't stoop down to their level, if we are such a great nation like we say we are why should we do exactly what Japan did? An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.


    Caitlin Joy Rush - 3/28/2007

    I believe that Harry Truman is not guilty of war crimes. Numerous arguments have been presented supporting this point, one of the most convincing being the fact that by killing 200,000 instantly, he saved millions of lives in the long run. The article of the Nuremberg Charter he is being accused of violating reads:
    WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoner of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
    Truman did none of these. For us to assume that the attack was not of military necessity is ridiculous. We were in a war and had already been struck (Pearl Harbor). Fighting and death happens in war.
    Without the bombings the war would have continued, resulting in more deaths and more destruction of cities. There was no evidence that the Japanese were ready to surrender. Truman simply took the necessary steps to end a war that had already claimed the lives of millions.


    Sarah Valchar - 3/28/2007

    I think it is important to think about what Liz said; "We cannot hold American lives over others." When we talk about Truman on Trial, sometimes it comes across as American lives being more important. All lives taken are lives taken. It is a sad reality that the Japanese in the towns were murdered from the bombs we dropped, just the same as the people who were murdered in the World Trade Center. In the WTC the number of American's who perished was not close to the number of Japanese who died from the bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but it is still sad that these people died.


    Sarah Valchar - 3/28/2007

    The statement about Japan doing better today than then, is not a valid statement. We only received information about the effect of the bombs on Japan then not now. And for more Asians being here today, population control does not have anything to do with the question whether or not Truman was guilty. Stick to the facts and opinions provided, than using information not relative to the topic.


    Sarah Valchar - 3/28/2007

    When it comes down to judging Harry Truman for the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I feel remorse for the deaths those bombs caused and the pain it is still causing today. I feel that putting Truman on trial is surprising because we are doing it now and will continue doing it. This is something that we can learn from and discuss but we will probably never come to a universal decision on whether he is guilty or not.
    I think that if there were another way to stop Japan and the war without death it would have been done. The war is over now, but looking back I think that the people who died from the bombings would have been more, if we had gone into Japan rather than drop a bomb. By dropping the bombs Harry Truman saved the lives of the American's and the Japanese. He ended the war quickly but lives would have been lost in either case and in this case less lives were lost. When anyone is killed it is a tragedy. The people in those cities were helping the military in their war efforts also, not that that justifies their deaths. I side on undecided. I find it hard to condemn Harry Truman of murder in this situation because it is very complicated.


    Alyssa Greenleaf - 3/28/2007

    obviously i'm going to agree with andrea. i think undecided is the best way to go. the facts are he killed thousands of people, destroyed millions of acres of land, and if we convict truman we have to convict everyone else who has made a "war boo boo".


    Tabatha I. Wagner - 3/28/2007


    I think that putting a former leader on trial is a bit strange because we trusted the person to lead our country the right way but in a time of war there is a whole bunch of decisions needed to be made. This trial is kind of like when a law enforcement officer is accused of wrongfully killing someone. You have to think to yourself if it was really wrong because it could of been in self defense. You need strong facts to accuse a person of doing something wrong. He did do destruction but it was for the best of our country because Japan refused to surrender.

    If I was a juror I would say that he is not guilty because the facts are mostly based on the Nuremburg Charter which states that civilians shouldnt be murdered. Well death is a part of war and that is just the way it is. Yes, its sad when people die but it has to happen sooner or later. And Truman didn't just randomly bomb cities, he chose Heroshima and Nagasaki because they were mass produces of military equiptment aiding the war and the civilians there were just basically in the wrong place at the wrong time. The A-bomb is big and no matter where he would've dropped it
    innocent people would've got killed. And you have to think that the people manufacturing war goods were basically part of the war just not in the front lines. Japan refused to surrender so this was the last option for Truman to end the war. But ending the war he killed many people but more would've got killed if the fighting continued. He made the right decision in this.


    Lindsay Michelle Paterson - 3/28/2007

    As a juror, I am undecided. Both the defense and the prosecution give good arguments. The defense offers the argument that by dropping the bomb, we are saving lives. They also argue that Japan was threatening the United States with bombs. We kinda have the “I’m going to punch you before you punch me” attitude towards this issue. By dropping the bomb on Japan before they could drop the bomb on the US, we are showing them that we can and will fight back. Also, by dropping the bomb, we intimidated Japan to the point where they wouldn’t dare drop a bomb on us. The prosecution argued that the President should not be treated any differently than any other person in the country. The prosecution is saying that the president should not be given the authority to kill people at will. However, he may think his actions are justified, he still killed many people. Given these two sides, I am unsure what the right thing to do was.


    Hannah Nicole Lehman - 3/28/2007

    I was slightly suprised truman was being put on trial just because his actions ended a war. Once i thought about it i thought it kind of made sense and was good that america was brought down a notch by being questioned even if i think he is not guilty.


    Andrea Clouser - 3/28/2007

    It's a well known fact, that I'm going to agree with Alyssa...not only becuase we were in the same group, but because we both make valid statements.


    Kirsten Leigh Makowiec - 3/28/2007

    I think that it's hard to compare Truman to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, because like juror Jeff Tenuth said, they were interested in causing casualties for the mass extermination of certain people. Truman did it, because he thought it was what needed to be done for his country and for all mankind to leave the battle of wars. I think its very interesting to think about who all goes on trial for the murders. Certainly the creator and designer of a bullet and gun shouldn't go on trial for the actions someone else took with the help of their product. But where is the line, who all should be on trial? Because this does raise an interesting point, where should the line be drawn?


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/28/2007

    Yea cuz asians aren't smart or anything they would just totally ruin our AMERICAN WORLD!!!! Uh may I point out the computer you are typing on was probably produced and created in the country of JAPAN!!! Don't value other peoples lives because of the boundries they are behind.


    David Thomas Thorpe - 3/28/2007

    I agree, i think trying to reason should have been the first line of action, before jumping in with bombs and death, if more people sat down and talked about the problems between the fighters, instead of comming out swinging, wars would be less of a problem and there would be ultimately more peace.


    Andrea Clouser - 3/28/2007

    I agree with Leah in all aspects. The innocent people killed was the military tactic, not the MAIN idea. Even though this remains the issue, it was still his idea which makes the trial hard for me to choose a side. On the terms of the war today and Iraq, it's our military and governments choice to go to war, not to just go over and go on a killing mascarade and kill the innocent iraqies. It happens, but thats not our reason to go over there, just as it wasn't Trumans idea to bomb Japan. The convicted the war crimes which could make them guilty, but he also had false accusations against him which could make him not guilty.


    Alyssa Greenleaf - 3/28/2007

    Truman shouldn't have been tried for dropping the bomb. he was doing what he thought was best and he has the right to as our president. yet, in terms of the trial, i think that both cases were weak. yet i do agree with you and taylor.


    cassondra black - 3/28/2007

    I agree with like your whole first paragraph about this whole thing being kind of a pointless debate considering he is dead anyways, but i hate your whole second paragraph. I still don't think he's guilty even after reading all that. the good of dropping those . bombs totally outweighed the bad. he did the right thing


    Elizabeth Youwillneverfindout Hunter - 3/28/2007

    Alrighty! I think Truman was indeed guilty for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (yes there were two for those of you that did not know.) I think the excuse of saying it was necessary is just that, an excuse. We cannot hold american lives over others. Just because people live behind a certain border does not mean they are not human beings. Also saying that in order to be a country you must have some conflicts is short sided. Uh I've never heard of a Canadian war? Hm? Canada seems to be gettin along just fine as a country, true they don't have the same political "power" as the U.S but they are a friendly laid back country (and lets face it Hockey rules!) Also we did not bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki because we wanted to end the war. That was NOT Truman's Intention! The day before the Potsdam Declaration he just randomly decided to drop a nuke! Basically he wanted to end the war on HIS terms and on his show. If we really wanted to end the war we would've either let Russia step in or either Tried to work it out again and again with japan. Look I know it's hard being the president and yea Truman had to make some pretty hard choices but He was chosen for that job so cowboy up!
    *This is all a personal opinion kinda so um.... just know that*


    Garrett Michael Day - 3/28/2007

    Reasoning with the japanese would be a much better strategy than "blowing them to bits" I agree. Power does not conquer reason. Reason provides strategy which provides great success! :) :) :)


    Taylor William Nordberg - 3/28/2007

    Garrett, I completely agree with you man. As I said other times, reason is a more logical solution than slaughtering people.


    Liviy E Pope - 3/28/2007

    I agree with you. I think that being undecided is for the better. This situation is very intense. The right and wrong just seem coalesce. How can one possibly decipher?


    Garrett Michael Day - 3/28/2007

    There are other ways to end a war no matter how badly it "needed to end" Killing civilians to destory morale is not proper military conduct and Truman is guilty for the wanton destruction and slaughter of two cities and 200,000 civilians.


    Taylor William Nordberg - 3/28/2007

    I agree with what you said. But not fully. I know that Truman tried to save lives by dropping the bombs, but I still think he should'ved tried to reason first, then bomb later if they did not do what we say.


    Liviy E Pope - 3/28/2007

    I agree with you. Truman did end the war, and America was successful. But what Truman did was very rash. I realize we were in a war, and time was limited, but I think it is difficult to be fully confident with an opinion. If Japan had bombed us because they believed it would end the war, we would probably consider this situation differently. I do not know whether I find Truman guilty or not guilty. It is a very complicated issue. Couldn’t Truman have dropped the bomb elsewhere to show the Japanese the damage instead of having to inflict it right away? Some say it was correct not to warn them, but if we would have warned them, they could have gotten their civilians out and we could have shown them the damage WITHOUT harming anyone.


    David Thomas Thorpe - 3/28/2007

    My first reaction to this is that there is no way a former president could be on trial for war crimes, due to the very nature of wars how can there be war crimes between two armies that have been fighting. In the sense of Hitler and the Holocaust, the Jewish people had no defenses and they weren't in a war, that is a war crime what he did, Truman just ended the war. Truman made the right decision to end the war by dropping the bombs. It ended the war without prolonged fighting that would cause even more deaths from an invasion that would last years. There is no such thing as "rules of war" the Nurdenberg Charter had proposed rules, but the whole part of war is to take something someone else has, or defend yourself. How can there be rules to killing people and taking their land, its war and it happens.


    cassondra black - 3/28/2007

    I think that truman should be found as not guilty. There are really no rules to war so by dropping those bombs he wasn't really doing anything wrong. He thought he would be doing a good thing by dropping those bombs and in a way he did because they got the Japenese to surrender and end war. He only did what he thought was right. He didn't do it to be a bad person and kill a whole bunch of Japanese people, just to end the war. People always complain about war anyways so you think they would be happy it was over. The Japanese are doing fine today, maybe even better than Americans so I think they have made up for that loss, maybe. Japan has a population problem anyways so if those other ones didn't die it would be an even bigger problem because there would be like way more Asians now.


    Hannah Nicole Lehman - 3/28/2007

    I agree with Mindy, many more people would have died if we would have invaded Japan and the war would have been dragged on for many more years. Truman just did what he thought was best for our country and he should not be punished for that.


    Garrett Michael Day - 3/28/2007

    1. At first I was confused as to why we would put a former U.S. president on trial. Then, I was informed of his actions which include the slaughter of 200,000 japanese civilians, and wanton destruction of two cities.

    2.My personal opinion is that Truman is guilty for wanton destruction. Dresner says that whether or not the bomb was necessary is the wrong question, but whether or not there can be meaningful restrictions on war is the real question.


    Kirsten Leigh Makowiec - 3/28/2007

    I agree, I believe that all nations commited unethical crimes for various reasons. The reason that is keeping some people from trying Truman as guilty is his explanation that his actions were to end the war-- that they were "for the better," that they saved lives. And maybe Truman did save millions of American and Japanese lives, but believing that there are rules to war and that those rules should be followed out of respect for humankind, he failed. He broke the rules. I am undecided, because I think it was heroic that Truman saved so many lives, but it was tragic that he did not warn Japan and that innocent people suffered the price.


    Andrea Clouser - 3/28/2007

    The whole trial seems a little sketchy, and to be honest...I don't take either sides. I'm undecided. He did kill thousands of people and cause wanton distruction on the citites and people, but he wasn't ALL for the killing. Truman and Byrnes didn't believe in the bombing itself, but they were still considered War Criminals. Nobile's accusation was so thin and too simple, that it can't be backed up. His arguement was " Truman and all those around him are guilty of war crime..." Anyone can point fingers and make those stupid remarks, but you have to have something to back it up. Offner stated that the trial was pointless and meant nothing, which I can agree with. I take both sides and thats why I remain undecided.


    Hannah Nicole Lehman - 3/28/2007

    I agree, forming blockades is just as bad as dropping the bombs and i think that less people died from dropping the bombs than an invasion or a blockade and it stopped the war sooner. And Japan, England, and Germany were all trying to develop atomic bombs as well we were just the first people to be able to do it.


    Kirsten Leigh Makowiec - 3/28/2007

    I agree, I believe that all nations commited unethical crimes for various reasons. The reason that is keeping some people from trying Truman as guilty is his explanation that his actions were to end the war-- that they were "for the better," that they saved lives. And maybe Truman did save millions of American and Japanese lives, but believing that there are rules to war and that those rules should be followed out of respect for humankind, he failed. He broke the rules.


    Taylor William Nordberg - 3/28/2007

    1.I think putting Truman on trial seems pretty wacked at first, but after I thought about it, it makes sense. He kept comparing Truman to the Nazi's and the trouble they caused.

    2. I think I semi-agree with him being guilty. I think we should have reasoned with the Japanese before we blew them to bits. Jones said that power does not conquer reason.


    Hannah Nicole Lehman - 3/28/2007

    I don't think that Truman should be guily of war crimes because he dropped the bombs. Due to the information i heard during the trial, it seems like more people would have died if we had invaded japan and not dropped the bombs. James Maddox says that the japaniese officers were not going to surrender before we dropped the bombs, therefor we would have had to invade them and the war would have continued. The japanese fought in guerilla warfare, and they refused to surrender, so the war could have gone on for years and the casualties would have been far greater than those caused by the atomic bombs. I also think that Truman deciding to drop the atomic bomb is much different from the war crimes that Germany and Japan were convicted of. Their acts started and fueled the war when ours stopped it. The act of dropping the atomic bombs was very necasary and I do not think that Truman should be guily of war crimes.


    Alyssa Greenleaf - 3/28/2007

    Even after hearing all sides of the story i'm still undecided. Yes, he did kill thousands of people but on the other hand if he hadn't used the bomb he most likely would have killed a lot more people. We knew that Japan was on it's last leg of its military and we still bombed them. But if Japan had been in our position and us in theirs, don't you think that they would have done the same thing to us? Both sides didn't seem like they had enough facts to contain full cases. So i agree with the undecided side. i think both arguments were weak and could have used more facts.


    Taylor William Nordberg - 3/28/2007

    My article was Jones. He made many referances to the Nazis. He said power is not better than reason. I sort of agree with this guy, I think we should've reasoned with the Japanese before we blew them into bits.


    Kim Sun Rhoads - 3/28/2007

    I mentioned to some else's, that the facts aren't real, they're assumtions. Your arguement is a little confusing, but understandable. It's not right to accuse someone of his/her beliefs.


    Lindsay Marie Troup - 3/28/2007

    I think that he is not guilty. I do agree with some of the points that you have made but, I still do beleive that he is not guilty.


    Mac Schrantz - 3/28/2007

    There is no way that Truman should be found guilty of war crimes. What he did was for the good of the order. If we hadn't bomb them terrible wars would have spawned. Nagasaki and Hiroshima would have been firebombed anyway, so this discussion shouldn't even be in debate. The U.S. would have also blockaded the coastline of Japan, would you rather be bombed or starved to death slowly?


    Josh Masorti - 3/28/2007

    I agree with both of you, we can't forget about the fact that if we would not have ever used the bombs, then they might have used A-bombs on us. Rumors were that they were making them and were prepared to use them. If T-man hadn't given the word, the U.S. could have suffered a worst fate.


    Andrew Berenbrok - 3/28/2007

    1) I was not very surprised to see a former president on trial. Though they were the face of the US at one time, that does not mean they get special treatment when it comes to the law. Just the mere fact that a president would ever commit such a fiendish crime. It just makes me cringe.

    2) In my opinion, I would most likely be in the prosecution. I believe that former president Truman knew very well what his options were. There were definitely alternatives without kill 200,000 innocent people.


    Stephen Thor - 3/28/2007

    Yep. If the Japanese were killed slowly and brutally, Truman would have gotten it a lot worse. This is almost terroristic. I don't like the risk analogy.


    Andrew Lentz - 3/28/2007

    I like that you took the initiative to disagree. But I think that Truman did the right thing. He used the tools that he had on that table. The japanese would have used an atomic weapon on us if they had the chance. What's important is that we did not just leave Japan to smolder after the war. We stayed and rebuilt there country and those in Europe.


    Brady Robert Sheerin - 3/28/2007

    I believe all the statements that you made were very valid and make a lot of sence. i agree completely with what you have posted. what he did was very stratigic and altimately saved millions of lives.


    Kim Sun Rhoads - 3/28/2007

    True, he as not the only one who made this decision, and he should not be the only one blamed in trial. My problem with the facts though is that they're not real. They're based on assumtions. They are good points, I just feel you could try to justify more, maybe strategically....


    Brady Robert Sheerin - 3/28/2007

    1. When I first heard of putting Truman on trial I was a little confused. I didn't understand why people were trying to convict him of a war crime when he was the one who had ended the war. I always thought of him using the boom as a scare tactic to end the war not to cause destruction to civilians like he is being accused of. If you think about it he could have just as easily droped the boom on Tokyo and killed millions of people if he felt like killing innocent people.

    2. If I were a juror i would say that he is not guilty. By droping the bomb he indirectly saved millions of American and Japanese lives that would have been lost if the war continued. The purpose of the boom was to shock the Japanese into an early surrender. If the bombs were never dropped the Japanese were more than ready to continue fighting. Truman wayed his options and made the right decision.


    Andrew Lentz - 3/28/2007

    I like what you said. I think that firebombings would have been less humane then an instant killing from the atomic bomb. You can't only blame Truman, and i think that if he is guilty, the entire government and the military are guilty.


    Aubrey Beiswenger - 3/28/2007

    I completely agree. They said that if the war wasn't ended, then many more people would have been killed. How can you tell someone that they are guilty when they just saved lives by ending the war? I think Truman did think he was doing the right thing, he just didn't know how many people would be killed by the double a-bomb when he made his decision. Truman is not guilty.


    Lindsay Marie Troup - 3/28/2007

    I agree with you. I thought too that he shouldn't of been charged. I also think that there really wasn't any other option for him.


    Andrew David Ball - 3/28/2007

    Yeah Truman was definatly not guilty Japan woulda wiped us off the map if they got the chance.


    Josh Masorti - 3/28/2007

    I agree Ball, if T-man wouldn't have given the word for the bombing, then we would have had alot more innocent people die.


    Kim Sun Rhoads - 3/28/2007

    As far as even putting a past president on trail, I feel it is completely unfair to accuse a dead man. He can't speak for himself obviously, and he doesn't have his right for his choice of defense. While
    it is nice to reflect about history, you can't change the past. It's agruing for the sense of arguing. To "put him on trial" is almost pointless. It's more of an arguement of morals, not of history.

    This is such a hard topic to talk about, and for the longest time I was undecided of Truman's innocence. I kept trying to bring up the moral question of whether or not the A-bomb should have been used, but that is not the accusation. The trial is against Truman for acting against Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter, by attacking the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki without military strategic reasoning. By this, I believe he's guilty. I can understand why he used the bomb and all the good points behind it, and do believe that sometimes you need to do something drastic. Dieing is a part of war, that is horrible, but something you can't get around. But again, it's not a trail on morals, it's about whether he broke the charter or not. And by that point I believe he's guilty.


    Aubrey Beiswenger - 3/28/2007

    According to what my essay said, the accounts for the amount of people that would be killed by the a-bomb was completely off. If they would have had accurate calculations, then the actual death toll would have seemed like it was less, because it would be expcted to be more. There is no way that Truman can possibly be called guilty, when he actually saved people by ending the war with that bomb.


    Stephen Thor - 3/28/2007

    I initially didn't believe that one of our former US presidents was put on trial as a war criminal. Especially, since a citizen from our own country was the prosecutor. Harry Truman was a good, respected leader, but after reading the arguments against him, I realized that this could be a tough decision.

    I personally believe that Truman should be not guilty. The statements against him just aren't strong enough. He is accused for the "wanton destruction" of innocent civilians. However, these were war production cities, the civilians were warned, and some continued to stay. After over 8 million left, the cities became strictly military support, which had to be bombed.


    Andrew David Ball - 3/28/2007

    Yeah I will agree with that.


    Josh Masorti - 3/28/2007

    When pertaining to the subject of whether or not Truman was guilty, we must think about the facts first. Not only was it acceptable to drop the bomb, it was a good idea. If we hadn't drop the bomb, there would have been more unnesessary casualties. Though the bomb killed inoccent civilians, the fire bombings would have done the same thing. Putting Truman on trial for this incident would also mean that you would have to put everyone else on trial that helped with it. You can't blame everyone. Truman was just a scapegoat for all the anti-war critics.


    Andrew David Ball - 3/28/2007

    1. I thought it was pretty lame that we put him on trial for the bombing of Japan. The war had been going on far, far to long and it wasn't going to end unless a lot more people were killed. Plus I think any other country would have jumped on the chance to use an atomic bomb on us. People that got all upset about it at the time didn't know what they were talking about.

    2.I would have gone with not guilty probably due to the fact, as I stated before that a lot of people would have died had something drastic not been done.


    Lindsay Marie Troup - 3/28/2007

    I don't think that he should of been put on trial because he thought that what he was doing was the right thing to do even though that didn't make it the right thing to do. Dropping the atomic bomb may of killed many civilians but it also stopped the war.

    I would say that Truman isn't guilty. He did what he thought was the right thing to do, even though it ended up bad. I do beleive it when it says that you can't call the political and civilian leaders criminals. It says that they did this for victory but, I think that there were other ways to get the victory that they wanted. I think that there were some good points that were made but some of the reasonings weren't so good.


    Zach Scott Kight - 3/28/2007

    Agreed Mac Daddy. He must have played risk earlier because what he did was right in many ways. It ended war a lot faster and many lives were saved due to him dropping a bomb. It was very strategic, which is where the risk game comes into play


    Zach Scott Kight - 3/28/2007

    Heck yea claire.. I think that what he did was right and there is no reason for charging him guilty


    Zach Scott Kight - 3/28/2007

    I believe that Truman shouldn't be guillty for dropping the bombs on Japan. In the long run it ended up saving American lives because of us dropping these bombs. It also was a good idea because it ended the war a lot sooner than it could have been. All the props to Truman it was a good war tactic to get in there and do what he needed to do then get out.


    Mac Schrantz - 3/28/2007

    There is no way that Truman should be found guilty of war crimes. What he did was for the good of the order. If we hadn't bomb them terrible wars would have spawned. Nagasaki and Hiroshima would have been firebombed anyway, so this discussion shouldn't even be in debate. The U.S. would have also blockaded the coastline of Japan, would you rather be bombed or starved to death slowly?


    Mac Schrantz - 3/28/2007

    I agree with you. Lives on both sides were saved by trumans actions. Millions would have died if we didn't drop the bomb. It is not right to put one of your own on trial for a moral rule that shouldn't exsist in the first place.


    Mac Schrantz - 3/28/2007

    did*


    Mac Schrantz - 3/28/2007

    The japanese had warning that they we're going to be bombed. If Truman hadn't of done what he didn't, millions of people would have been slaughtered. Wars would have continued to rage through Asia. The atomic bomb was what was needed to put all this to a halt.


    skylar burke - 3/28/2007

    I feel that putting Truman on trail for dropping the atomic bombs in Japan is wrong. In the outcome of him dropping the bomb American lives were saved. I feel this was a good decision on his behalf to drop the bomb to do what is best to save American soldiers. Also the war was not going to be over for many years so in the end there would have been more killed then what the atomic bomb had done.


    claire quinn weaver - 3/28/2007

    I think that according to the articles there was no other option for Truman. Stated countless times is the fact loud and clear that although it was a shocking (as it was supposed to be to force Japan into surrender) act on our part, it ended the war soundly in one terrible swift movement. Also, multiple articles state that there was a lower death toll than what would have resulted with any other method of ending the war. Such methods as fire bombing, and invasion would have resulted on millions of deaths on both sides rather than several hundred thousand-a significant number yet much less than could have resulted-on one side. So I say applaud Truman for saving millions of lives, not for killing the few hundred thousand whose lives were not given in vein, rather to save millions of others.


    Andrew Lentz - 3/28/2007

    1. My initial reaction was skepticism. I didn't really like the idea of putting a president on trial for something that ended a world war. I didn't think it was right for us to judge him on information that we know now that he didn't back then. After reading the article i realized that this was not the case.

    2. I would side on the Not Guilty side. The Japanese had many warnings that the bomb was coming. They would not surrender and I think that we needed to wake them up. The war needed to end, whether it be from 200, 000 civilian deaths or over a million. It needed to end. Truman did what he thought was right, and I don't think it's our place to judge him on it.


    Jared Slike - 3/28/2007

    I agree. Not dropping the bombs would have caused more deaths and casualties. Around 200,000 civilians died, but we saved the lives of many more Americans. It's like a choice between them and us. You kill the 1 to save the 9. The decision Truman made saved more lives as a whole.

    P.S. Hey hows Erica Hummer. I saw her black eye....was that from you?


    Johnny Duff Hopkins - 3/28/2007

    I believe that Truman is very much guilty of war crimes. I believe this because when we were prosecuting Japanese and German war criminals during the Nuremburg Trials, the Nuremburg Charter was obviously applied to all of their actions. We neglected to analyze one key participant's actions, though: The U.S.'s. The Nuremburg Charter was created to cover all war participants, which means it is applied equally to everyone, not selectively. Also, Article 6 of the Nuremburg Charter explains what are considered to be war crime-like actions. It says that all direct killing of non-combatants is against international law, as well as all wanton destruction. Truman's use of the A-bomb violates both of those criteria. Hitler, of all people, once said, "After all, the cicot will not be asked wheter he spoke the truth of not. The stronger is always right". This is exactly what Truman was doing. As the victor of the war, he wasn't accurately displaying his reason for using the A-Bomb, and nobody was questioning him, because he was the winner. What he failed to say was that he was being bombarded with alternate solutions on how to end the war, and on top of all that, he failed to say that Japan was on the edge of surrendering. What he was saying was that Japan wasn't accepting their responsibility for causing the war and bringing the bombings on themselves. In actuality, as proved by Philip Nobile's study in Japan, Japanese politicians did in fact believe that both sides were guilty of war crimes. This just shows how we were the one not properly accepting our blame for improperly using the A-Bomb to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Also, one of our own studies, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, didn't buy the fact that the bombs were necessary. Actually, most of Truman's high-ranking military staff didn't buy it. In the end, Truman is, or should have been, guilty of war crimes for the ruthless killing of hundreds of thousands of people and the unreasonable destruction of Japanese cities.


    Cameron Dean Rhoads - 3/28/2007

    I feel that putting him on trial was not a very good thing. I think this because the issue that they were dealing with was somthing that can't be changed. That what truman did was wrong, that he had no reason to drop the bomb. But if he didn't that would mean that we would have to shell out money that would more than likely go to waste and we would put thousands and even millions of troops out there and most likely half will come back. I feel that what he did was acceptable in the terms of saving millions of american and japanese lives.


    Ben A. Bowman - 3/28/2007

    I think that it is awkward to put a former U.S. president on trial especially for crimes that were committed over 50 years ago. I also dont understand how you can put a dead man on trial.

    I think that Truman is innocent of the charges accused. I think this because the Japanese had no problem bombing Pearl Harbor even though they only killed like 3,000 people. But at least we gave them plenty of chances to surrender. Also we don't for sure what would have happened if we didn't drop the bomb. Any number of things could have happened that no body has ever predicted. Dropping the bomb led us to a point where something like that has never happened in a war since and shouldn't ever happen. Maybe it was wrong for Einstein to make that bomb but in a sense he saved hundreds of thousands of lives because we just do use that high caliber bomb in war anymore.


    Matt Grey Steindorf - 3/28/2007

    i believe he is not guilty


    halie maria kupinski - 3/28/2007

    Good job quoteing shindler!!


    I agree that true power is having a reason to kill, but not acutally going through with it. If Truman would have kept this in mind, he would have had a better outcome of the war, and he would not be on trial today. If Truman would not have abused his power as president of the United States people might actually like him.


    Leah Kraytz - 3/28/2007

    Not Guilty: The Truman Trial in my opinion, was something that obviously needed to be questioned, due to the innocent people killed after the effects of the bomb, but something that not only has been a military strategy through out hisotry, but something that was also necessary for the war in order to achieve victory as well as end it. The intent of this bomb was not to kill innocent people, but to hit something that we beieved was a miltary base that could have been a potential threat to us, and if we hadent bombed, they could have potentially had the same motives towards us. I believe this was necassary, although unjust to those innocent civilians involved, this was not the first accurance of a situation such as this, and was necessary to save our country. To name Truman as a killer or murderer, with no intent to kill the innocent, is completly unjust. On Washingtonpost.com the recent story of the iraq suicide bomb that took place at Interior Ministry headquarters by two iraqi men dressed in police officers uniforms reportedly killed themselves and 29 other american police officeres, More than 200 Iraqis and 16 U.S. soldiers have been killed in high- and low-profile attacks by insurgents since Wednesday. It is these events of the intentual killing of other innocent people that needs to be addressed, rather than the self defense of our country.


    Molly Elizabeth Snyder - 3/28/2007

    I think that the fact that Truman had not been in office for that long when the first atomic bomb was dropped helps to contribute to the idea that he would drop the atomic bomb so quickly. He was a new president, and although that does not give him an excuse for dropping it, it must also be taken into account. However, the second bomb does not recieve this "mis roll" effect because he had already dropped the bomb once and seen the effects that it could cause. Even though he dropped 2 atomic bombs, I do not think that he should have been placed on trial for "wanton destruction" because the true side effects of the bomb were not known at the time of the droppings.

    I think that Truman was not guilty. It was a time of war, when tensions were very high and when people's actions are effected by more things than usual. I think that although no one can really say what would have happened if the a bomb had not been dropped, it was a sure way to end a war that had been going on for a very long time and even though it killed 200,000 Japanese people in the process, it also saved many millions of all different nationalities of people. Like Radosh, the man defending Truman, had explained in his opening argument that the numbers of people killed, American and Japanese would have been much higher. There was estimated to be between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths and between 1.4 and 7 million American casualties, which would lead to between about 400,000 and 800,000 American deaths. I believe that Truman was not guilty because even though he caused a great number of deaths, he took the action that was necessary to end a world war that had been going on for too long and that would eventually kill more people than Truman had with the atomic bombs.


    Jeff Mistrick - 3/28/2007

    Yes, I completely agree. If you blame Truman, you have to blame the people who built the bomb, the pilots and bombardiers who dropped the bombs... It becomes too big to contain. Although I was undecided as a juror, this argument is one that I agree with.


    Victoria Foster - 3/28/2007

    I think that he is not guilty. I don't beleive that it is right to accuse Truman or anyone for that matter of the bombings becuase it wasn't like he just dropped the bombs for no reason at all. The Japanese refused to give up the war so the bombs were neccessary to end it. In Pritchard's argument he says that "Death and destruction are inseperable from the conduct of war." This is the exact truth. You cannot prosecute someone for killing people during a war, it just doesn't make sense and since there was a purpose for the bombs, they weren't just dropped to be dropped, they beleived that there might be a military base there that could have been a threat to us it would only make sense to do something to make sure that wouldn't harm us. We need to worry about our troops first before we start worrying about other countries. The 2 bombs together even left a smaller death of people then there would have been if the war continued without them. So it's better that he just got it over with fast and dropped the bombs and got them to surrender. Yes, innocent people were killed, but it was a war, you can't expect anything less.
    At the website http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/28/iraq.main/ it talks about an Iraq suicide bomb that had killed 125 people. In this case the bomb didn't really do anything except kill innocent people. It's not like they are going to stop fighting over in Iraq because they had a suicide bomb. All that they are doing is killing people.


    Alexa Danielle Gregory - 3/28/2007

    1. I think that recreating this trial is kind of interesting. It is unusual to think that a president would be put on trial for dropping a bomb durng a time of war, especially because nothing happened when he was alive. There was no controversy while he was president so I think it is very interesting that years later, people felt the need to actually creat a mock trial of what a former president did.

    2. I would find Truman guilty. Truman and his men intended to commit fiendish civilian slaughters in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was the point, therwise they would have dropped the bomb for a military base. All direct killing of non-combatants is against international law regardless of weapons employed. There were 400,000 to 800,000 American deaths and 5 million to 10 million Japanese translating to 1.2 million to 3.2 million Americal wounded and 15 million to 30 million Japanesse. This was completely unnecessary, it could almost be called a terroristic attack. The fact that we are williong to kill millions of people in order to make the United States happy. There were many alternatives to this bomb, it was uncalled for. Here is a quote that I have heard that I thought went really well with this argument, "True power is when we have every justification to kill, and don't." This justifies itself.


    Seth Robert Hockenberry - 3/28/2007

    I totally agree I think that anyone who kills for no reason should be punished. However, it was a situation of war. Action needed to be taken and dropping the bomb in the end helped to save more lives.


    john witherite - 3/28/2007

    I belive that it is impractical that we should drop the the a-bomb because it would stur up more attention then what we need at this time.I think that in that time truman was guilty for the a-bomb.


    Derek Rose - 3/28/2007

    I believe that he is not guilty. The reason is that Japan would have responded the same way. The purpose of dropping the bombs where to stop the war. They where not intended to kill innocent civilians. They where asked to surrender before the bombs where let go. The numbers would have been much greater then 200,000 if the bombs where not dropped. As Velde stated, Japanese and Asian civilians throughout Asia would have died and been killed on daily basis. It shows that with out the bombs the civilians would have still been killed. There was a war going on and bombs will be dropped and people will be killed. America used it as a tool to end the war and it was not used as an uncivilized device. Therefore I would calm the Truman would not be guilty for dropping the bombs.


    Jeff Mistrick - 3/28/2007

    First, I think that putting Truman on trial now was a little strange, especially since the action in question occurred over 50 years ago. I understand that it is just for "academic fun", but still, why does it matter? The atomic bomb caused the end of the war either way and now the US and Japan are allies and economic partners.

    As a juror, I would stand undecided because both the prosecution and the defense made good arguments. True, Truman did wantonly attack civilians, but he also caused the end of a high-casualty war that would have kept on going had Truman not allowed the bomb to be dropped. As juror Jeff Tenuth said, an invasion of Japan would have been bigger than the D-Day invasion. I completely agree with undecided juror Arnold A. Offner: if Truman is to be tried for war crimes, so too should Germany, Britain, Russia, and especially Japan. All nations involved in WWII committed some type of war crime, whether it be wanton destruction, killing civilians, etc. I agree and disagree with both sides of the argument, but I cannot form a verdict for either case.


    Terna Ityokumbul - 3/28/2007

    I personally believe that you can’t put president Truman on trial for wanton destruction. President Truman was truly trying to stop the war, which would have just ended up putting more peoples lives in danger. By ending the war using the atomic bombs it was researched and seen that this tactic easily helped us save probably millions of lives. Roughly 200,000 peoples lives were taken by the dropping of the two atomic bombs will it was rumored that about 1.2 million people would have died if we hadn’t dropped the bomb. I defiantly agree with Robert Maddox when he says if we didn’t actually drop the bomb and those large amounts of people would have continued to die then people would be talking about putting Truman on trial for war crimes because he didn’t do anything to stop the large number of casualties in World War Two. Another flaw in trying to charge him as being guilty is that he was the only person that made these decisions. He received information from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which told him to go on with the invasion. If you put him on trial then you would also have to put several groups and hundreds of people on trial for helping to aid Truman and making his decisions on whether or not to drop the bomb.


    Seth Robert Hockenberry - 3/28/2007

    I believe that Truman is innocent. Reason being is that you can’t put the blame of a whole war on one person no matter what happened. Although Truman had a final say in dropping the bomb, it wasn’t his sole idea that made the very poor decision. To me there is no reason in disciplining one person for something that many people did. This seems like choosing a scapegoat to me. No matter how anyone tries to justify dropping the bombs it was not a necessary act of war, it was a rash decision that shouldn’t have taken place. On the other hand you still can’t pick one person and decide to blame him for creating the entire catastrophe. All in all not guilty is the verdict from me. Much love T-man.


    halie maria kupinski - 3/28/2007

    1.) My reaction to the trial is not at all suprised. I believe that Truman deserves to be on trial, although he is no longer living to recieve the consequences. It is interesting that we go back and re-evaluate history years later, and question events that have taken place and the mistakes that were made. By putting Truman on trial, we could learn many things that war that we can use today in our war in Iraq. History repeats itself as we have seen in the past, and it will coninue to. If we evaluate things in the past, we can prevent their happenings in the future.



    2.)Truman is a guilty man and a murderer. He went into a city of innocent civilians, and wiped them out without military proof that it was even necessary for the war.Truman claimed that he thought the two Japanese cities were army bases that were important to eliminate. This proved to be absolutely incorrect. Truman has no clue, and acted way too fast. This decision to take out an entire city of people who had nothing to do with the war was a sick and twisted idea that he belived was the only way to end the war. This brings up the question of war and peace. Is war the only way to bring peace? No. This is the farthest from the truth. Truman believed that by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki he would bring and end to the war, and peace to everyone. Truman believed that by killing between 15 to 30 million Japanese, peace would be brought to the war? Truman didn't seem to have a clue. If he were still alive today, he should be thrown in jail for being a cold blooded killer.


    George Robert Gaston - 3/20/2007

    Consider this:

    1. The United States does not use nuclear weapons against Japan in 1945.

    2. The worse case scenario plays itself out and the following occurs:

    a. There are 800,000 American casualties with 300,000 dead.

    b. The Soviet Union invades Japan through the northern islands.

    c. The war ends in mid-1950 with the following ground situation.

    (1) Japan is divided, with the Soviet Union occupying the Northern half of the island.

    (2) The Soviet Union also occupies Manchuria along with the entire Korean peninsula.

    (3) Both the United States and the Soviets by now have a nuclear capability.

    3. Finally, it leaks that the United States had useable nuclear weapons in 1945 that would have ended the war as early as September, 1945.

    4. What impact would this set of circumstances have on the state of American politics, or even the nature of American government in the post war world of the 1950s and 60s?

    5. You can not condemn Truman until you think these kind of things trough. Also you can not think about them using an early 21st century mind set, but through the eyes of the leader of a country who had either been at war, or in an economic depression for most of the population’s lives.


    George Robert Gaston - 3/20/2007

    Consider this:

    1. The United States does not use nuclear weapons against Japan in 1945.

    2. The worse case scenario plays itself out and the following occurs:

    a. There are 800,000 American casualties with 300,000 dead.

    b. The Soviet Union invades Japan through the northern islands.

    c. The war ends in mid-1950 with the following ground situation.

    (1) Japan is divided, with the Soviet Union occupying the Northern half of the island.

    (2) The Soviet Union also occupies Manchuria along with the entire Korean peninsula.

    (3) Both the United States and the Soviets by now have a nuclear capability.

    3. Finally, it leaks that the United States had useable nuclear weapons in 1945 that would have ended the war as early as September, 1945.

    4. What impact would this set of circumstances have on the state of American politics, or even the nature of American government in the post war world of the 1950s and 60s?

    5. You can not condemn Truman until you think these kind of things through. Also you can not think about them using an early 21st century mind set, but through the eyes of the leader of a country who had either been at war, or in an economic depression for most of the population’s lives.


    Sverre B Aamlid - 4/30/2006

    I agree with accusing Truman for "wanton desruction." After WWII a lot of Axis leaders leaders were prosecuted for the very same crimes. There are no reason not to prosecute Allied leaders, including President Truman, too.

    Despite the fact that the atomic bombs caused Japan to surrender, I think Truman made the wrong decision in this case. The consequences were enormous, and the bombs probably killed a lot more people than they saved. I defenitely find President Truman guilty.


    Soraya K - 4/23/2006

    "he simply dropped a bomb in a stratigic location to end a war that had been going on for too long. War brins causalities, that is a known fact."

    Wow, he just SIMPLY dropped a bomb, killing and injuring (whether it be physically or mentally/emotionally) MILLIONS of people...

    Guess I shouldn't be too shocked anymore, considering our gov't is in Iraq right now, 'simply' killing and hurting many civilians there as well...But that's okay, because we (US) are ALWAYS, always...the innocent ones :)





    Katherine Jane-McKibbon Dawson - 4/20/2006

    Harry Truman's job was not to slaughter 200,000 citizens.


    Katherine Jane-McKibbon Dawson - 4/20/2006

    It was careless and irresponsible of Truman. This was not just a simple mistake, we're talking about 200,000 human lives.


    Katherine Jane-McKibbon Dawson - 4/20/2006

    As a member as the jury deciding Truman's fate, I have come to the conclusion Truman is guilty for the murder of 200,000 Japanese women, children and the elderly. War is not an excuse to brutally kill innocent bystanders.


    Cori E. Hoy - 4/19/2006

    i agree with Abby. Truman was only trying to save men, and Japan wanted to fight and win, even if it went down to the last men standing. Truman did what was right, and i completely agree with his decision.


    Cori E. Hoy - 4/19/2006

    i agree with both amy and alex. truman was not guilty at all, he was only doing what he felt was right and would help stop the war. truman is so innocent.


    Catherine Soo Rhee - 4/18/2006

    my initial reaction is that Truman made wrong decision. he should not drop the bombs on Japan. there could be better idea and it is the same as murdering. he could not blame that Japan murdered innocent people. Truman did it too.

    i side on the guilty of the trial, J.Dresner, because he killed so many people anyway. no matter the reason, he should not drop the bombs on Japan. Japanese lives and Americans lives, both have the same worth. and there could be better idea.


    Breanna Besiwenger - 4/18/2006

    Luke, I couldn't agree with you more. You had said that his decision was justified and it saved lives in the long run. I think that a lot of people who found Truman guilty overlooked that issue. We had very simular views on the topic and you brought up some good points in the comment.


    Breanna Besiwenger - 4/18/2006

    Well Steam, I really enjoyed your take on the topic. The interesting thing was that your views on Truman's trial was a lot like mine, in the sense that we both thought it was rediculous to belittle the war efforts of Truman.


    Drew C Yukelson - 4/18/2006

    although i disagree with you kurt, ill defend to the death your right to say it. you make good points and i understand your point of view.


    Drew C Yukelson - 4/18/2006

    i like what i read gaz.
    i agree.
    keep up the good work champ.


    Drew C Yukelson - 4/18/2006

    i think truman was guilty of killing innocent people unjustly. there was no need for such an extreme action and i believe there could have been alternative acts done to rectify the acts committed by japan. truman is guilty and i think there is no doubt about it.


    Linden Danger Keal - 4/17/2006

    My first reaction to hearing about Truman on trial was surprise. I knew the story of how Truman had made the decision to drop the bomb and of how many had died. I never knew that he was tried as a war criminal. I had never heard any of the strong opinions that some people have about what went on.
    I believe that Truman is innocent. Through all the fog that strong opposition creates, I see a man who ended a horrible war. I see the numbers of dead in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I also see the estimated numbers of those who could have died if the war had not ended, and they do not balance.


    Joeseph Patrick Gazza - 4/17/2006

    Good point. Even though I probably wouldn't have minded just dropping the Atomic bomb on the Japanese for just hating them (lol). We definitlely needed some kind of revenge for their suprise attack on Pearl Harbour. Other than that, there were to many facts that make his decision a very good one.


    Maggie Lynette O'Keefe - 4/17/2006

    I believed Truman to be innocent but I confess it is because it's fearful to think that my country's leader is 'the bad guy'. But its absolutely true that if Truman was Russia or Japan's leader we would be pointing fingers and not making up excuses. Thanks to Soraya I'm changing my mind. Truman is guilty because he killed innocent people buuut it was something that happens when there is a war. I am not pardoning him from killing people, I'm just saying that in case of war, its nothing un natural.


    Joeseph Patrick Gazza - 4/17/2006

    Kurt, I agree completely. The points that stand out are definitely Pro "not guilty". Keep up the good work


    Joeseph Patrick Gazza - 4/17/2006

    I feel like the thought of putting truman on
    Trial for war crimes of dropping the atomic bomb on japan is absolutely absurd. The only thing that matters to me, is that American lives were saved. For this reason alone, I feel President Truman made the right move by dropping the bomb in Japan. I also feel like the war would not have ended for a much longer period of time, possibly leading to more Japanese deaths than there were as results of the atomic bomb in Japan.


    E Beman - 4/17/2006

    The only reason that an Atomic bomb was used was for the destruction factor, and considering that it was a "dumb bomb" brute force was the only option. Today a bomb of this magnitude is not needed due to GPS enabled missiles, which can lock on a target, and cause little to none civilian casualities.

    In retrospect I believe the Atomic Bomb was the only feasible option in the time period, and was justified to prior actions including an atempted dialog with Japan.


    E Beman - 4/17/2006

    Exactly, those who go back and critique war actions in the middle of battle are plain ignorant. If something looks good on paper, say an invasion, it may not work at all in real life. Invasion was a risk that was not worth taking, and there was another alternative which could save lives comparitivly to a battle.


    kurt patrick michelotti - 4/17/2006

    Ryan, as I can see what you are saying, I have to say I disagree. I feel that the facts shown from dropping the atomic bomb were much more beneficial to America than had we not dropped the bomb. Both sides did have a good argument but saving American lives is always our number one priority.


    Tom Mihalik - 4/17/2006

    My initial reaction was why he was being tried for war crimes. What I think President Truman did was the right thing to do. The only way I think that Truman could be tried for war crimes is if he did it to just kill the Japanese for the fact that he hated them. But from all facts that was never said.

    Now if i was a juror on the Truman Trial I would have voted no guilty. What Truman did was end the war. He ended the war before more people died on either side. Now the Atomic bombs droped did kill lots of people but if the war would have kept going most likely more people would have died. And that why i think President Truman is not guilty.


    kurt patrick michelotti - 4/17/2006

    Moon, I completely agree. President Truman made the best decision of his career when he decided to save American lives, and end World War II by dropping the atomic bomb in Japan.


    kurt patrick michelotti - 4/17/2006

    My initial reaction for putting a former U.S. president on trial for 'wanton destruction' was that I had really known nothing about the topic. After learning more about this mock trial for president Truman I have come to the conclusion in my mind that Truman was not guilty. After hearing both sides of the argument I felt that the not guilty side was much more effective. The most apparent reason for me siding with the not guilty side is that we saved many American lives, and possibly more Japanese lives. There was no proof that the war would not have ended if Truman not made the decision to drop the Atomic Bomb.


    Michael Nistor - 4/17/2006

    At first, when i heard that there was a president on trial, i thought it actually happened, until i saw the web site. Needless to say, i think it's really stupid to put a president on trial. There is no need to put them on trial unless we thought they were a bad president and commited war crimes or such things. But, if the people thought that the president was going to be a bad president, then a) they would not have voted for him in the first place, and b) on the off chance he did win the election, they would have impeached him at the first bad thing he did, NOT put him on trial.

    To whether i believe or not that he was guilty, i stand by Arnold A Offner. Because i didn't get as many facts as i would have liked to reach a verdict during class (which for someone like me would have to be every single thing Truman did leading up to and after the bomb, including whatever he ate) i could not say at the time, nor now, whether Truman was guilty. In some senses, such as the mass destruction of people and towns, he was guilty. But, looking at the underlying reasons, one would reach the conclusion that he wanted to just end a war that could have been even longer and even worse had he not dropped the bomb. Also, i doubt there has ever been a perfect president in the world, so putting this president on trial for war crimes would mean we would have to put Bush on for war crimes and stupidity, and we would also have to put Bill Clinton on trial for crimes.


    E Beman - 4/16/2006

    There has to be a bit of attention paid to what happened <before> the bombing. It was not destruction out of the blue without prior warning. There was the Potsdam declaration which was issued by Truman along with other allies which warned of dire consequences if there was a lack of compliance.

    Excerpt: "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

    This did not directly describe the nuclear weapons, which was still under a top secret clearance at the time. There was also a lot of planning of where to drop the bomb, which effects were taken into mind beforehand, where they picked a town of military importance, not a significantly civilian center.

    So, if this is still seen as a war crime, then Winston Churchill, and Chiang Kai-Shek must ALSO be charged, since it was a group decision, and the U.S. tried to follow through with a method that would save Allied and Japanese lives.


    Kaitlyn Marie Loop - 4/16/2006

    I think Truman being put on trial was ludacris. Being the president of the United States you have to think about the safety of your country and if you think it is in danger you need to take action. That is exactly was president Truman did. He felt our country was in danger of an attack and he took action and made a counter attack before Japan could get to us. It is a shame that so many lives were lost but if President Truman hadn't stepped in when he did, and hadn't made the decision to drop the Atomic bomb more lives might have been lost. He was just doing his job and looking out for the well-bing of the United States.


    Brigitta Brech - 4/16/2006

    I believe putting a former president on trial for "wanton destruction" is only fair, if "wanton destruction" truly occured. Presidents are not, and should not be, exempt from laws that govern the rest of the world. Both German and Japenese leaders were prosecuted and convicted of war crimes in Oradour and Nanking, both of which were sites of large scale massacres very similiar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If prosecution based on the Nuremburg Charter was good enough for them why would it not also apply to us?

    I have to stand by my initial reaction that Truman is guilty. The United States wanted to "shock Japan into surrender," To hypothetically save more lives. The fact that the US's goal was accomplished does not remove the criminality of the act.


    Kyle James Hartzell - 4/13/2006

    My person says that Truman is not guilty and points out the problems in Nobiles indictment. My initial reaction to them putting the president on trial was that they shouldnt have becasue it was war and he shouldnt be charged with "war crimes". Japan was going to fight to the end and it was the only way to stop the war. I think that he is not guilty because Nobile is accusing him for faulty reasons as pointed out by Richard Jenson. He is accusing him for not listening to his generals when they wanted to make a blockade around Japan and if he did listen to them it wouldve caused mass starvation. Nobile wouldve accused him worse for that.


    josiah matthew schmidt - 4/13/2006

    The whole trial to me seems a bit pointless. The whole case is to prosecute a dead president over an incident that happened a long time ago. I personally side with the not guilty verdict over the fact that i felt they had stronger support and evidence. Militarily, invading japan with our troops would have been a difficult endeavor. The reason i say this is the fact that Japan had ample time to build up its pacific land defenses. Also the 200,000 japanese lies lost would not even compare to the number of losses that would ensue from both sides. taking in the millions of American lives already lost. In short i feel the A-bomb ended the war quicker and with far less casualties compared to invading Japan and losing a million more lives.


    James Benjamin Evert - 4/13/2006

    I don't think it's insane to put someone on trial for war crimes. Don't you think Hitler deserved to be put on trial? Or more recently, Saddam Hussein. A trial is fair, regardless of the jury's decision. Acts of war aren't always “right” (not saying this one was or wasn't right-I personally don't know enough facts). If someone is murdered with a 9mm handgun, does the creator of the bullet, designer of the gun, and the person who sold the gun also go on trial for murder? Think about it.


    joe malizia - 4/13/2006

    rightious job dude!!!


    amy marie gaetano - 4/13/2006

    I do not believe that Truman did anything wrong in this situation. It is not wrong to protect your country and it is not wrong to win a war, not matter what measures it may take. I do agree that it does not make sense to debate this now because there is nothing that anyone can change. We can only learn from this.


    Courtney Anita Kolesar - 4/13/2006

    right on


    Richard Anthony De Luca - 4/13/2006

    Right on Mooney.


    Courtney Anita Kolesar - 4/13/2006

    Amen sister....right on


    James Benjamin Evert - 4/13/2006

    I agree with you Dan. If we didn't end the war soon the Japanese would have drug the war out for a long time, costing many American lives. However, I do believe Truman's decision was made too quickly.


    Jessica Leigh Tirko - 4/13/2006

    1... My initial reaction was not that extensive due to the fact that I did not have much prior knowledge of this topic and personally I was not shaking in my boots to find out more. Actually if I had a hearing aid, during the presentations, it would have been turned off. I'm sorry but going back some fifty years to punish a president for something he could just as easily be guilty or not guilty for is rediculous. I can maybe understand it from the point of view of wanting justice to be served but isn't being president of the U.S. stressful enough? That alone is enough served justice.

    2... I deffinately side with Truman not being guilty. I'm sure he didn't take a coin and flip it. His decision was probably based off of extensive research and much debate. BUT!! This makes me think. I am not a fan of G. Bush mostly because of his decision to send troops into Iraq but in a fifty years would I feel differently? Would I look at his decision the way I look at Trumans?


    Richard Anthony De Luca - 4/13/2006

    "Bombings are bad."

    oh really?
    That explanation compells me to agree ;)


    Charlie Clifford Kain - 4/13/2006

    If I were juror, I would definitely vote Truman is innocent. He only did what he thought necessary to win a major war. World War II in general took millions of lives, not even including those in Hiroshima. If Truman was found guilty, then the rest of the world leaders would have to be convicted as well, for all have killed the innocent, not just Truman. He is no more guilty than the rest of them. He was only trying to help his country win the war.


    Joyce Eveleth - 4/13/2006

    My initial reaction is that it is very suprising that we would put a former us president on trial, naturally because we always hold our presidents in high respect especially since it was years later and most people celebrated the end of the war.

    I think that Truman is not guilty. Firstly, because i believe that dropping the bomb prevented a more drawn out war and nothing less than the destruction achieved would've stopped the Japanese from fighting. We prevented a land war, which both sides had already lost lives to, most likely adding up to more than the lives lost at Hiroshima.
    Secondly, because Japan initiated the war at Pearl Habor, on a sunday with no forewarning, on sleeping sailors. We gave the Japanese warning and time to evacuate yet they did nothing
    Thirdly, because the I think the end justifies the means. We may not have really understood the full extent of destruction the bomb would unveil, but felt it was the only option we had to stop the war completely. This war was more than just Japan and the U.S, and the bomb helped to end it.
    Although the casualties were mostly civilians, it is important to point out they the Japanese put their own people in harms way and it obviously, the Japanese were willing to sacrifice military (sucide bombers etc) so civilians would be more effective.


    Kaitlyn Anne Dowling - 4/13/2006

    i agree. thank you. we, as a people, voted him to serve our country in the way that he deemed best. because we put him in the presidential position, and he acted upon it for our best interest, i hardy think we can condemn him for it.


    Richard Anthony De Luca - 4/13/2006

    The idea of putting President on Trial for the 'Wanton Destruction' is crazy. First off, he's dead. Secondly, he made the final decision about the A-bomb being dropped not because he wanted to kill these people, he dropped the bomb to end the war and save lives.
    Truman knew that almost all of the citizens of Japan were ready to arm themselves and fight to the death. Killing them off was not a large civilian only killing. These people showed in Okinawa and Pearl Harbor that they were ready to sacrifice themselves '"for the greater good". Killing those people was not solely killing citizens, but potential soldiers.


    amy marie gaetano - 4/13/2006

    I completely agree with Alex. Truman is not at fault in this situation and it was ridiculous that he would be blamed for a war crime. Truman took the measures necessary to protect our country and defeat Japan.


    Lauren Voigt - 4/13/2006

    My first reaction to this whole thing is that it is crazy. I think that there were to many people responsible for the decision to drop the bomb and you cannot hold one person responsible. After researching more, and hearing both sides of the argument I maintain that Truman should be found not guilty. I think that dropping those bombs was a horrible thing to do, and I feel for them, but what other choice was there. Truman made the decision with the help of many others because it was the best thing for the country he was in charge of defending. We were in a war and in a war innocent people die. If someone was to be found guilty for the death of these people it should be the leaders of these people. Truman should not be punished for dropping the bombs.


    Stephanie Kehoe - 4/13/2006

    My first reactions on this trial is that Truman was guilty. Truman did not have the right to kill thousands of innocent people in Japan. Truman should have been able to come up with another plan to end the war. I know that Truman felt that it was the only way to end the war, but by killing the people who weren't involved, it only makes him look bad and have not other people like him. Truman was right to be on trial because what if a country dropped a bomb like that on the U.S.? We would be very much affected like Japan was and it would hurt us as a country and probably on a personal level as well. I would accuse Truman as being gulity of killing thousands of people based on the imformation of real facts. The opposing side that supports Truman does not present hard facts and just states things like it was to end the war and that we had no other choice... because we did in reality and he chose to make the worse one.


    joe malizia - 4/13/2006

    My initial reaction twards this event is that Truman deserved to be on trial right after the bombings in Japan. Why the heck are people putting a guy on trail who has already croked?? Why didnt they do somthing about the situation when he was living. Am i the only person who thinks that this whole thing is alittle weird? Truman did somthin illegal so i guess it just makes sence to some old geezers, who have nothing else better to do, but to press charges on Truman years after he bit the dust.


    Kaitlyn Anne Dowling - 4/13/2006

    mindy, i completely agree. how can we charge a man whose actions were in the best interest of our own country. now, if we want to condemn someone, condemn hitler because he took ruthless actions to an extermination he himself planned. we did not want to enter this war in the first place. we were forced into it and we took the initiative to end it before even more people were brought in and killed.


    Brianna Nicole Peters - 4/13/2006

    my initial reaction to the issue: I was very suprised. I don't think president Truman deserved to be put on trial considering that what he did was justified. The bombings, as horrible as it was, created less casualties than an attack bigger than D-day. The bombings demanded an immidiate surrender, rather than resorting to a firebombing that would have killed hundreds of thousands and may have postponed the surrender for months or years.
    As a juror, I think truman was not guilty. Bombings are bad. however it had better and more peaceful results than any other option that we had.


    Craig Johnson - 4/13/2006

    i feel that Truman did take a massive risk by calling for a-bombs to be dropped hiroshima and nagasaki, but as a nation we can not incriminate him for a crime that saved the lives of many of our elder relatives, and even allowed for our existances.

    As a juror I would not morally be able to imprison let alone exicute Truman for doing such a great deed for his country. By bombing hiroshima we told the japs we ment business, but they still hadn't gotten the point and continued to keep troops mobile. By them not showing the us that they planned to end the conflict we had to take drastic measures and bomb nagasaki to show them we didn't want , but needed an end to the war. The casualties of a complete war with a country as strongly based on loyalty as japan could not be ended without multiple times the casualties acumulated by the a- bombs.


    Marissa Lower - 4/13/2006

    My first thought of this was how could you put a former president like Truman on trial for war crimes. I believe that it may not have been the right thing to do but i dont understand how we can charge him of this crime that was never stated in international law that it was wrong. So i dont think that Truman is guilty, it may have not been the right choice to make but he should not be charged for war crime.


    amy marie gaetano - 4/13/2006

    My intial response to the accusation was surprised. I did not think there was a case against Truman for using atomic bombs against Japan.

    If I was a juror I would say that Truman was not guilty because he made a decision as the President and that decision should not be questioned 50 years later. Truman did not commit a crime in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, he was just protecting America.


    James Benjamin Evert - 4/13/2006

    My initial reaction to put a president on trial for 'wanton destruction' was that the idea was absurd. However, as I began to think about it longer, it only seemed fair that we treat him as any other person.

    As a juror, I would stand undecided. There were too many great points on both sides. (Japan was forced to surrender--but at what cost?) I personally believe that the decision to drop the bomb was made in haste and there was not enough research to back up a good decision.


    mike Mooney - 4/13/2006

    I cannot believe that former President Truman was put on trial for war crimes after the two atomic Bombs dropped on Japan. This was a stratigic decision made not only by Truman but also with the help of the rest of the American government. This bomb saved countless American lives that wold have been lost durning an invasion of Japan. It was in the best intrest of our nation to drop these two bombs on Japan.

    If I was a juror in this trial, I would vote Truman NOT gulity. There is nothing that he did that can be seen as a war crime, he simply dropped a bomb in a stratigic location to end a war that had been going on for too long. War brins causalities, that is a known fact.


    Molly Suzanne Dodson - 4/13/2006

    I thought that the idea of putting Truman on trial was a little out there. He was a US president who ended a war. How can you blame him for war crimes when he stopped war? He not only helped our country but also the world. He saved lives, and I'm sure that family members of soldiers killed did not complain.
    I don't think that Truman was guilty, and therefore should not be confused of war crimes. Someone had to take a step to end the war, and I think that, by dropping the bombs, he gained more respect for America. Truman saw that something had to be done, and was put on trial for something that saved both nations and lives. Technically, to convict him of war crimes is to convict him of ending the war.


    Kaitlyn Anne Dowling - 4/13/2006

    I wasnt entirely sure what to think. As much as my heart goes out to those individuals who lost their lives and/or loved ones, I am not convinced that he should be charged for criminal actions. He had the saftey of OUR people in mind. He was OUR president therefore our people's safety should be his first concern. Dropping the atomic bomb, i believe, was not done in order to make civilians suffer. it was to bring a much needed end to a deadly war that what killing thousands from around the world. i do not justify that taking thousands of lives to bring an end, but thousands more would have died if it had not stopped. If i had been a jurer at the trial i think i would have seen him as not guilty. japan was in the process of creating its own atomic bomb to be used for defence against us, which may have been done without warning. we, at least, gave them fair warning...twice. and though hundreds of their people died the first time they did not surrender. obviously, their own people's deaths did not hold a strong enough weight against the country's pride.


    Courtney Anita Kolesar - 4/13/2006

    Putting a former U.S. president on tiral impressed me becuase it showed the effectiveness of our government.

    As a jurur i would have chosen not guilty because he had no idea how effective the bomb would have been and he was saving lives in the long run and ended the war. But in all honesty, it kind of sounds like the historians were bored or somthing because the guy is dead..who cares?


    Charlie Clifford Kain - 4/13/2006

    I think the thought of putting Truman on trial is absurd. He was obviously only trying to help his country and was doing what was necessary to win a battle. People don't realize, whether they want to or not, that innocent civilians will almost always die in war. The Japs bombed Pearl Harbor without warning, and took many innocent lives as well. To put Truman on trial for something as stupid as that s just ridiculous.


    Matthew john Blocksom - 4/13/2006

    I thoght it was really stupid to put something like that on the spot it was war and it had to be done. maybe it chould have been a little less massive but it worked. If I was a juror i would have voted that he should not be charged with anything.


    Mike Wiedemer - 4/13/2006

    I feel as though putting a former president on trial for wanton destruction is crazy. I feel that war is war, you can do anything you want to do so that your country wins. If Truman waned to drop a total of four atom bombs, that would be fine. There are no rules and regulations for war.
    If i were a juror on this trial, there is no question in my mind that i would vote not guilty.


    Matthew john Blocksom - 4/13/2006

    I thoght it was really stupid to put something like that on the spot it was war and it had to be done. maybe it chould have been a little less massive but it worked. If I was a juror i would have voted that he should not be charged with anything.


    Molly Susan Ryan - 4/13/2006

    I felt it was ridiculous because if former U.S. president was on trial for dropping a bomb during a war then other country leaders could also be charged for fighting and killing in wars also.
    As a juror i would have found him not guiltly because the International Law states that if an action is taken to end a war then it is lawful, if there is no result after a particular action than the action is unlawful. In this case, the action the U.S. has taken resulted in an end to the war, making the dropping of the bomb okay.


    Alisha Brodie - 4/13/2006

    Initial reaction- putting Truman on trial is ridiculous. He was not wrong, maybe just midunderstood. In no way is Truman guilty. I was enlightened by Jensen's article and it is quite convincing, considering the prosecution's argument was lacking. If the bombs were not dropped, Japan would have never backed down and more soldiers on both sides would have been killed. Truman was looking out for the interests of the Americans and tried to preserve more American lives. His other option included a mass starvation, which would have killed more Japense and would have been worse for Truman/ America in the end.


    Sarah England Hall - 4/13/2006

    Ryan i liked how you really took in what your person had to say, i can tell you really understood what he was saying.


    Sarah England Hall - 4/13/2006

    i like how your so blunt about everything. you know what you want to say and you say it


    India Miller - 4/13/2006

    My initial reaction towards Truman was that he is not gulity. I still feel that way. I feel that he is not gulity beacuse the bombing was nessary to bring a end to war. Japan had plenty of opportunities to bring the war to end. Everybody knew about the bombing so Japan had time to prevent or prepare for the bombing. Truman didn't intend to kill that many people, but Truman had to do what would end the war.


    Sassafras Ann Houts - 4/13/2006

    My initial reaction to putting a former U.S. president on trial for 'wanton destruction' was "what is this all about?" It is interesting how even though a president has so much power, they can still get in trouble for abusing those powers. I believe that the dropping of the atomic bomb could have been planned out better. Even though the dropping of the bomb may have shortened the war, it caused so many unwanted deaths. So many deaths of innocent Japanese civilians. Because of this I vote him guilty.


    Katelyn M. Houts - 4/13/2006

    #2: As a juror I would have voted 'Not Guilty' this is because of his rights as President and he did what was in his control to fix what was wronged.


    Luke Franchock - 4/13/2006

    I feel that putting Trueman on trial for warcrimes is ridiculous because what he commanded the military to do was backed by many other authoritative figures, it was not his decision alone, although he made the final call to bomb Japan. As a juror, i would side as not guilty. I feel that his decision to nuke Japan in order to coax an immediate surrender was justified and that it saved lives in the long run.


    sean benjamin zembower - 4/13/2006

    i beleive truman is innocent and the mock trial made the information even more clear that he is not guilty. a war criminal is someone who kills for no reason at all and truman had a reason he shocked the japenese military into ending the war and by dropping the bomb it caused fewer deaths


    Will Emmett Cooper - 4/13/2006

    if you couldnt tell, i would vote not guilty.


    Austin Lee Borden - 4/13/2006

    You said that Truman "had many other people behind him helping him with the decision". How is this true when his chief of staff, the assisstant secretary of war, a former ambassador to Japan, the Navy Under Secretary, and Joint Chiefs of Staff all urged for alternatives to the bomb? He simply did not review alternatives and wanted to use force against defenseless people.


    Geoff A. Sebastianelli - 4/13/2006

    Therefore, as a juror, I believe that he is non guilty because, he ended the war quicker since the Japenese were not going to surrender, and he saved American lives by not sending them over there to form an attack on Japanese soil.

    Sorry, Mr. Furmanek, I just wanted to add a couple more sentences.


    Jonathan Robert Rumbaugh - 4/13/2006

    I feel as though putting a former president on trial for wanton destruction is outrageous. War has no limits, so how can you punish someone who dose not break a law. Truman had all intent on helping America. And the Japanese. The atomic bomb created fewer casualties then if there was to be a ground attack.
    As a juror I feel as though Truman should be found not guilty. His actions were fair game and it was not just his decision.


    Will Emmett Cooper - 4/13/2006

    My initial reaction to putting former U.S. President Truman on trial is that it is completley ridiculous. its a war, and people get killed in wars. it was a bold move that gave the enemy no choice but to surrender, thus ending the war. people die in wars, so he can ot be called a mass murderer. the bomb was dropped in the best interest of the american people and in order to end the war.


    Tommy Christopher Kondash - 4/13/2006

    My initial reaction is that he should not be put on trial because his actions were to protect the American people and end the conflict quickly. As a juror, I see Truman not guilty for charges against him. As president of the United States it was his duty to put his people first and ensure their safety over all other priorities. His actions may have ended the lives of many Japanese people, but at the same time saved the lives of so many Americans.


    Carrie Joy Tomco - 4/13/2006

    I think that Harry Truman did nothinig wrong, he was just doing what he had to do to win the war. Anybody in that position would have done the same thing. He shouldn't have to be punished for doing his job.


    sean benjamin zembower - 4/13/2006

    I think putting truman on trial was a mistake. What he did, did not make him a
    war criminal if anything he was a hero. truman saved the lives of many in the process of dropping the A-bomb. If truman were to decide to do a ground attack more people would have died. When faced with the decision of killing a large number of people and ending the war or continuing a long battle where more lives would be lost truman made the only decision he thought was possible


    ashley marie oliver - 4/13/2006

    My personal opinion on this trial is that Truman is not guilty of commiting war crimes only trying to end a war. There is no way to tell whether or not more people died than could have with just ground attacks so the point of saying we killed more people than would have died in any other form of battle is void. I do not believe that Truman was soley trying to slaughter a large amount of people for any other reason to end the war. The idea that Japan was going surrender is also not logical because there are no signs pointing that they were going in that direction.


    Geoff A. Sebastianelli - 4/13/2006

    At first, I was shocked, and could not believe that someone wanted to put the former President of the United States on trial. I always thought that Truman did the right thing by dropping the bombs on Japan. It was for the best interest of American security and therefore, I believe he made the right decision. Even though there are many reasons why Truman might be viewed as a war criminal, I still believe that dropping the bomb was the best decision of the nation. In these uncertain times, you could not wait until the other country made their move, you had to make you move first. He did not want to risk losing more American lives in WWII and besides, he wanted to end the war as soon as possible. Truman took his oppertunity and capitalized on it.


    Sean Martin McGann - 4/13/2006

    I dont agree with putting Truman on trial because I dont feel he did anything wrong. He did kill innocent people, but it was to end the war and protect America. We all have more insight on this matter, and my opinion hasnt changed. He was our president and I feel that I should be supporting him. I would be on Trumans side as a juror because he ended the war and if it would have continued more people would have died. Japan wouldnt surrender, and he did what he had to to make them do it. If people are so upset about what Truman did, they should look into the Nanjing Massacre which was completely unjustified and stop complaining.


    Danielle Christine Cardell - 4/13/2006

    My initial reaction was surprised, I was surprised that someone would put the president on trial at all. He took action in order to win the war for our country. When I took a second look it is very understandable that we are concerned about the lives lost but I believe the issue cannot be judged until looking further into it.

    After looking into the various reasons as to why Harry Truman was put on trial I think I would vote Not Guilty. Harry Truman did not intentionally try and kill civilians. He was aiming for a war plant unfortunately surrounded by workers and their families. He did what he thought would end the war and he wanted to prevent even more Japanese and Americans deaths.


    Joe David Coccia - 4/13/2006

    My initial reaction of putting Truman on trial for war crimes was that it was shocking that a president from our country would be put on trial for that specific reason. However as I heard other people present I began to see how he could of been put on trial.

    My personal opinion of the situation is that he was not guilty of war crimes. Although I beleive that what he did was not right, under international law the it doesn't state that anything he did was wrong. It also saved many American lives.


    Austin Lee Borden - 4/13/2006

    If we were speaking hypothetically, he couldn't have said that the bomb would've ended the war either. He didn't know for a fact that the bomb would have stopped the Japanese from continuing the war. The fact is though, we were back by Stalin's Red Army and if we wanted to show Japan the power of the bomb to scare them out of the war, we could have done a simple demonstration.


    Jonathan Robert Rumbaugh - 4/13/2006

    I feel as though putting a former president on trial for wanton destruction is outrageous. War has no limits, so how can you punish someone who dose not break a law. Truman had all intent on helping America. And the Japanese. The atomic bomb created less casualties then if there was to be a ground attack.


    Katelyn M. Houts - 4/13/2006

    I feel that putting Truman on trial for dropping the bomb is just asinine. It was bound to happen in a war, and because of them dropping on Pearl Harbor. This trial just surprises me because of how dropping the bomb saved many American lives, and ended the war in the short run.


    Robert James Lillie - 4/13/2006

    My initial reaction when I read about Truman being put on trial for dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, I was outraged. Basically what happened was people agreed with his action of bombing until they saw how many people died, and then everyone started to use Truman as a scapegoat. They then thought that "less people would've died if they wouldn't have dropped the bomb", but that cannot be proved. Many, many people would've died either way regardless.

    If I were a juror, I would vote Not Guilty. Using all the evidence provided by Robert James Maddox, I conclude that Turman is not guilty. After listening to all the arguments, he summed it up the best, giving arguments from both sides and then voicing his opinion on the matter. I agree with his stance of Not Guilty.


    ashley marie oliver - 4/13/2006

    My innitial reaction to the entire Truman trial is that the the idea of him commiting " war crimes" is rediculous. In war all is fair strategically and I do not belief this was a direct attack moraly against Japan. The numbers of people killed were drastically lower than those of the estimated amount initially thought. The bomb was a way to end the war quick , with as few lives taken as possible and the entire point of war is to let as few as possible of your own men die to get your point across. I also believe that it would have been a mistake to just assume that Japan was on the brink of surrender and have the war be extended even further.


    neil maruszewski - 4/13/2006

    i really don't think Truman should have been put on trial because he is our president and he tried to make the best decision for our country. as a juror i would side with truman


    Steve J Tippeconnic - 4/13/2006

    My initial reaction to put a former U.S. president on trial for " wanton destrucion" is that he should not of been put on trial. I do not believe that he was the only driving force to drop the A-Bomb. There were many other people that were behind Truman that made the decision.

    If i were a juror i would say not guilty because it was his job to make a decision and he did it. He also had many other people behind him helping him with the decision to drop the bomb also.


    Austin Lee Borden - 4/13/2006

    My gut reaction was to not put Truman on trial at all. I did not think of the bombings as a criminal act, but that was before reading all of the statments made by the profesors. After reading the opening prosecution's arguement and hearing the defense's arguement, I would have judged Truman guilty for what he did. The main arguement that persuaded me was the fact that he did not have to drop the bomb in order for Japan to surrender, they were on the brink of destruction already.


    Katie Marie Dull - 4/13/2006

    Deffinately sounds something like mine but yours is better. If you continue the war then more people will die than if you set off the bomb. The bomb just ends the war and creates less suffering for innocent citizens.


    Katie Marie Dull - 4/13/2006

    I agree. I think that if Truman wouldn't have done it then it just would have happened in another battle with another president. Also I think you're right when you say that basically one thing will lead to another starting with not dropping the bomb to "put japan in their place." I think that saving more lives from ending the war would be a lot better than saving lives from the bomb. With ending the war, less people die because it doesn't continue.


    Katelyn Ann Bergen - 4/13/2006

    A lot of people say that the bomb stopped the war but was that really the only thing left to do that could actually stop it? I'm sure there was other ways around it. they could try and negotiate a deal or something, make peace, i don't know but there's other ways of solving problems instead of murder.


    Brian Matthew Kowalski - 4/13/2006

    I feel that it is unbelievable that you could put Truman on trial for a war crime. There was no “wanton destruction” of Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Both were totally necessary and it would have only cost more American lives, as well as Japanese lives, if we had invaded Japan by land. Under the circumstances Truman made the best decision possible.
    In my opinion he is not guilty and actually saved thousands of American and Japanese lives by dropping the bombs. Some people may say that since neither city was of strategic importance that it was “wanton destruction.” But if you think about it, the number of lives lost if it had been dropped on Tokyo or another major city would have been much greater. Total destruction of Tokyo would have also caused economic chaos in Japan, and would have led to a longer reconstruction time after the war. By dropping “fat man” and “little boy” on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Truman accomplished his goal of making a point and ending the war.


    Chelsea Little - 4/13/2006

    When I first heard that putting Truman on trial was an issue I though it was facetious. By dropping the bomb Truman was putting an end to the war. Although the prosecution claims that Japan was going to surrender without dropping the bomb, there is no way to really know this. Japan may now say that they were going to surrender, but whether their words are truth or not, is for one to decided. The fact of the matter is that by dropping the bomb the war was ended.
    The juror I sided with the most was Oscar B Chamberline. Chamberline said that the bomb was the best way for peace, and I agree that is was the fastest and best way to ending the war. Although the prosecution claims that more casualties would have been saved without dropping the bomb, I agree with Oscar when he says that by dropping the bomb there were more necessities saved overall. Truman droped the bomb inorder to bring peace, not to harm people. War always ends in death, but the faster war is ended the better the war is.


    Katie J Petzold - 4/13/2006

    My intial reaction is that Truman should have not been put on trial he was doing what he had too, to protect our country in a time of war.

    I side on the not guilty side of the trial because Truman did the only thing he could to end the war. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima lead to less casualties. If we had gone into fight Japan we would have lost hundreds of thousands of American's lives.


    Katie Marie Dull - 4/13/2006

    I think that putting president Truman on trial came to me as a suprise. It's a war. That's what happens in a war. Bombs are set off and people die because of them. They destroy things. Wars never end pretty with everyone alive in the end. It's as simple as that. All Truman was trying to do was end the war with good intent. I would have pleaded him not guilty because he did it with intent to watch out for his own country.


    Derrick Wayne Lange - 4/13/2006

    Truman is not guilty of anything but but ending the war with good judgement. The japanese were assembly a lot more troops at the time and that is no sign of them being about to give up.If we hadn't of dropped the A bomb, there is no doubt there would have been not only further battles between japan and the united states, but more between japan and other countries to. Casualties in war are unavoidable. By dropping the A-bomb, we killed a bunch random civilians that were helping the government build their war equipment. This would have happened from futher battles just as well. The goal of the bomb was to end the war, and it did. If we didn't put japan in their place, they could have contenued to help germany, and they would have delayed germanys lose of the war. This would have caused more causualties on germanys part, between soldiers, and the jews in the concentration camps. The fact is, in war, innocent people die. Thats a fact that people just need to deal with. I would rather have all bombed japan, then see how many deaths we could have caused by contenueing the war.


    William Stephenson Thomas - 4/13/2006

    I feel that it is a good idea to have Harry Truman, one of our former presidents, be put on trial. He is a human being just like everyone else and has the same rights and freedoms as us, so to do this to him is completely fair in my mind. In the end though, I find Harry Truman to be innoccent. War is hell, and of course there are going to be many casualties. I undersatnd why these weapons of mass destruction were dropped, but when I think of the many innoccent lives that were taken, I start to regret what he had done. Japan had been massing troops for a final assault on America, and we had to stop this. In the end, I guess that this was the only way to really end this chapter in the book we call, "War."


    Phil Kennedy - 4/13/2006

    My initial reaction to this trail was what was the exact matter for dropping the A-bomb that could of continue the war between us and Japan. It was also a surpise that Truman was put on trail for an act that had two sides of it.
    My opinion / side of this would have to be an alternate choice. You look at it the bomb did good for both sides, but what if there was a more peaceful way of doing it, because not everything has to end in a big bang. The other point is, was Truman sure of the out come? I mean you can never be to sure if the a-bomb is going to end the problem or continue it.


    Katelyn Ann Bergen - 4/13/2006

    How could he mean to not do any harm to the Japanese by dropping a huge freaking bomb on them? Like did he seriously not think that the bomb would kill people? Cause that's what bombs do and that's what the bomb did. He obviously ment harm when he did it. He wanted to harm them so they would get scared and the war would come to and end.


    ashley suzanne young - 4/13/2006

    My reaction to Truman on trial was why is he actually here. Yes he used a bomb of mass destruction. But it also stoped the war from lasting for years. But this would stop all the causalties from increasing if it kept going.

    In my oppinion, this could go either way. Yes the bomb killed many people who didn't deserve to be killed, but at the same time if he didn't there could have been alot more blood shed. He just did it out of his best interest for everyone.


    Erica M Harp - 4/13/2006

    I had a similar view on Whitney's reaction. I also believed the idea to be bad.
    I hadn't thought about the financial and economic aspect of the A-bomb. I believe that she has a good point. As I am undecided, I can definatly see her point!
    Whitney brings up the important issue of American Aggression. We are usually not a sitting duck country.


    Katelyn Ann Bergen - 4/13/2006

    QUESTION #1
    My initial reaction to putting a former U.S. president on trail for wanton destruction was that I could understand why he did it. In war the object is to solve the problem is with fighting and destroying the enemy. I guess that means innocent civilians too. he did it to scare the Japanese off and it worked.
    QUESTION #2
    I'm against mass destruction of people. I don't think Truman is the one and only one to blame many people took action in what happened it wasn't just because of him. Who actually dropped the bomb blame them too. I think it was a wrong decision and could have been handled differently.


    Brian M Tompkins - 4/13/2006

    I feel that there is some l