Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Your View: Truman's decision an act of barbarism?

Discussion in 'Atomic Bombs In the Pacific' started by Spartanroller, Apr 30, 2011.

  1. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,964
    Likes Received:
    1,948
    Location:
    God's Country
    Chiang Kai-Shek was one shady character, as Takao said he lost China to Mao and the communists. R.J. Rummel estimates that Chiang's KMT killed 10,214,000 Chinese civilians between 1927 and 1949. This number excludes military deaths and deaths during conscription.

    "From the earliest years to their final defeat on the mainland, the Nationalist likely killed from 5,965,000 to 18,522,000 helpless people, probably 10,214,000. This incredible number is over a million greater than all the aforementioned 8,963,000 war dead in all the hundreds of wars and rebellions in China from the beginning of the century to the Nationalist final defeat. It ranks the Nationalists as the fourth greatest demociders of this century, behind the Soviets, Chinese communists, and German Nazis. This democide is even more impressive when it is realized that the Nationalists never controlled all of China, perhaps no more than 50 too 60 percent of the population at its greatest."

    China had been in a civil war since 1927, there was somewhat of a truce during Sino-Japanese War. Why on earth would Truman, after going through the carnage of the war with Japan over the last several years, get us involved in China's internal conflict in 1945? Truman didn't hand China to the communists; they took it from a corrupt, authoritarian KMT government that had little support from the civilian population after decades of depredations. Unfortunately, for the Chinese people, the communists were even worse. It is totally unfair to blame Truman for the results of something that had been ongoing for over half a century.
     
  2. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,462
    Likes Received:
    2,204
    Well, now we talk about the A-bomb. If there would have been an invasion we would be asking why the **** did Truman not use the A-bomb but killed some 500,000 US military instead. This way or that way, there had to be a solution and I put my money on not killing 500,000 of my country men if possible. Just my View. Not the happy decision but either way the blame is yours.
     
  3. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,922
    Likes Received:
    4,936
    Very true. "You had a bomb that might have ended the war without an invasion but didn't use it?" Lynchmob follows.
     
  4. Biak

    Biak Adjutant Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    7,820
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    According to a post in another thread there were 16, Yes 16, bombings that were more destructive than the dropping of the "big" one. Curiously all the umbrage ( put in layman's terms : getting their panties in a twist) rest on the one mission.
     
  5. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,922
    Likes Received:
    4,936
    We didn't know much about the aftereffects of the bomb. Oppenheimer and the big brass were photographed standing at the Trinity Test Ground Zero just thirty days after the bomb was used on Nagasaki. The best didn't know enough to be wary.

    The "we nuked the Japanese because we hated them" school beggars the facts that the men in charge of the war were making rational decisions about the way the war was going to be conducted. Those folks go on to beggar their selves by being horse's asses when they can't make a reasoned rebuttal to the debunking of their claims. Luckily they're disposable.
     
  6. Dennis Alexander Kalnoky

    Dennis Alexander Kalnoky Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2022
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    ^^^This is an excellent point. It's well worth noting chemical weapons were used on the battlefield in WWI but not on the battlefield in WWII because they knew about the aftereffects of chemical weapons. No nation wanted to open that Pandora's box.
     
  7. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,068
    Likes Received:
    2,549
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Well, no, not exactly. Chemical weapons were used against those who could not respond in kind. The Japanese are reported to have used chemical weapons against the Chinese over 2,000 times
     
  8. Dennis Alexander Kalnoky

    Dennis Alexander Kalnoky Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2022
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    Fair enough. They were also used in the Concentration Camps. However, given the scale of the war (and in comparison to WWI) they were used comparatively little. Although chemical weapons were manufactured and stored in large quantity during WWII, the US chose not to use them.
     
  9. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,922
    Likes Received:
    4,936
    Hitler is supposed to have banned chemical weapons until they were used against the Reich. Seems being a victim of poison gas makes one a little smarter at least.
     
  10. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,462
    Likes Received:
    2,204
    Ask Hitler why he did not use the neuro-chemicals. I am happy he did not. (Sarin)
     

Share This Page