[wombatpm]

There is a strong argument to be made that Truman should have been tried for war crimes for dropping the second bomb. You can justify the first bomb as shortening the war, bringing Japan to surrender. The second bomb was about getting an unconditional surrender with terms dictated by the USA.

[FatalLogic]

The Nagasaki bomb may not have been necessary. As well a simple attack on Japan, the Nagasaki atomic bombing was also a cold-blooded test of the implosion bomb technology, and a demonstration for the rest of the world, particularly for the Soviet Union.

But between 100,000 to 250,000 died, Japanese and American, in the battle of Okinawa in 1945, the 3 month US invasion of Okinawa, before the atomic bombs were used. That was the first and only US attempt to invade the main Japanese islands, and it was a tragic and unnecessary loss of life.

About 80,000 died in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.

But Japan should have surrendered long before any of the atom bombs fell. They had obviously lost. If Japan's leadership could not take that obvious step, then there was no easy solution.

[phone[phone]]

Especially with how little change the unconditional surrender had on Japanese life in the long run. Yes, the emperor came out and told the people he was not divine and has taken on a ceremonial role since then but the emperor was not forced to resign, members of the imperial family were immune from prosecution for war crimes (so the person at the top responsible for the atrocities in Nanking was never held to account for them), several politicians who were class A war criminals rose to the top of the Japanese political leadership after the war, and Japan has never officially apologized for their atrocities.

[kragen]

unconditional surrender meant that all of this was at the pleasure of the occupiers, who were currently operating concentration camps for japanese-americans; other possibilities included turning japan into a second nanjing or pine ridge, where to this day occasional rapes by whites continue with impunity

https://www.niwrc.org/restoration-magazine/june-2017/today-i...

things have in fact worked out fairly well for japan, much better than it worked out for the people of jiangsu, but you can hardly blame the japanese leadership for expecting otherwise

[phone[phone]]

[flagged]

[kragen]

you are the sort of person who compares people who disagree with them to neo-nazis; that is not the sort of person who is in a position to question my integrity in any way, much less viciously attack it as you have

it is not controversial that the japanese-american internment camps were concentration camps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp

(you can probably find neo-nazis saying the sky is blue as well)

i didn't mention the actually occurring rapes by soldiers in japan, which i agree in the actual world we live in are appropriately investigated and prosecuted; as demonstrated by my link, i was talking about rapes by whites in pine ridge and other so-called indian reservations, which to a large extent are neither investigated nor prosecuted

[phone[phone]]

[flagged]

[philwelch]

> There is a strong argument to be made that Truman should have been tried for war crimes for dropping the second bomb.

By who?

[ndsipa_pomu]

Historians

https://www.historyonthenet.com/reasons-against-dropping-the...

[philwelch]

I'm asking who would have tried Truman.

[wombatpm]

Crimes against humanity at the Hauge. Same place we tried Nazis

[philwelch]

You've answered the questions of "where" and "on what charges", but not the question of who would be prosecuting.

[naasking]

From my hazy recollection, Japanese leadership didn't believe the US had been responsible for Nagasaki. The second bomb settled that matter. All of these could be true though, they aren't mutually exclusive.