ANSWERS: 2
  • He was in charge when the US used the first nukes on the empire of Japan. He brought WW2 to a close.
  • He committed genocide against the Japanese.
    • dalcocono
      No he didn't. The empire of Japan was busily taking over the world when THEY STARTED THE WAR with the US. They were warned about the new weapon, and asked to surrender before each bomb was dropped. They refused until after the 2nd one fell. The destruction of 2 of their cities was nowhere near the loss of life caused by them in their quest to expand their empire
    • Kevin1960
      Japan refused the opportunity to surrender. It was either use the bomb, or sacrifice thousands of American soldiers to an invasion of Japan.
    • 1465
      Genocide - "The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group." [] There was no need to drop the bombs on heavily populated cities. Dropping one over a remote area would have demonstrated its destructive power - that is IF bringing the war to a peaceful close was the intention of the US. Considering how they also committed genocide in Hamburg and Dresden with their terror bombing, it's safe to say that "peaceful" wasn't even on the table. When you win wars, your crimes get swept under the rug and called "justified".
    • dalcocono
      Bringing the war to a "peaceful close"? That was secondary. Those cities were seaports and manufacturing hubs for the Japanese war effort. If Japan had surredered before the first 1 fell, there would also have been no need for the bomb. We were at war with these people, and we had been for years. The wisdom of the era was that after all the atrocities of the Japanese empire against us, and the peoples they had conquered, total unconditional surrender was the only thing acceptable. Bombing 2 cities is far from "genocide" you seem to be a fan of hyperbole.As far as Germany, their manufacturing and rail hubs were also in major population centers, that is why their cities were targeted. Better idea is when you start wars and lose them, their war crimes will be exposed.
    • Victorine
      "Genocide" refers to the wiping out or the attempt to wipe out an entire group of people. There was no effort to wipe out the Japanese. Had it not been for the bombs, the loss of life in Japan could easily have been much greater, as a result of a necessary invasion and widespread -- country-wide -- conventional bombing. The word "genocide" also does not apply to the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden. Again, there was no systematic attempt to wipe out the German people or German culture. Go back to school, 1465. You are woefully undereducated. As a historian and professor of history, I am in a position to say.
    • 1465
      @ Victorine - My definition left out a crucial part that has a bearing on this discussion. Yours added a part that takes away from the facts. Genocide refers to "in whole or in part". It doesn't have to target an entire group of people. However you want to sugarcoat it, it's still crimes against humanity. [] "Had it not been for the bombs, the loss of life in Japan could easily have been much greater..." - this too, is false. Adm. William Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir "I Was There" that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… In being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy