SURVEY: Do you believe the using of the atomic bomb during WWII was justified?

[Loptr]

I believe if this vote were confined to those alive at the time, excluding Japanese the vote would be overwhelmingly yes

It is good that younger generations are more moderate, or are they I think the majority would execute those terrorists who behead their victims, I also think the Japanese executed many prisoners

They all committed war crimes, from the movies i was led to believe for instance the Germans were evil and the Americans angels. Later when i was a bit older i saw documentaries it became clear they both executed other soldiers as it was easier as taking care of them and guarding them. This were US soldiers saying they did this (so the truth)

All sides are bad in wars

I have yet to see Japanese civilians kill soldiers, if the bombs were used exclusively on soldiers it would have been a totally different story. To punish civilians for what their army did is not fair.

This is what un-nerves many when having this discussion... The horror inflicted on civilian populations on both sides of the conflict is often overlooked... Everyone remembers the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan, while no one speaks of the fire bombing of Japanese cities... On March 10, 1945, the US fire-bombed Tokyo, destroying 41 sq km of the city and killing over 100,000 civilians... We often hear about the Dresden fire bombing, but not the 67 Japanese cities the US fire bombed at the end of WWII...

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/10/national/deadly-wwii-u-s-firebombing-raids-on-japanese-cities-largely-ignored/#.VdE9fFOqqko

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/02/15/commentary/tokyo-firebombing-and-unfinished-u-s-business/#.VdE-7lOqqko

It is true that Japanese citizens didn't kill anyone, although, the same could be said for the 30,000,000+ Chinese that were slaughtered by the Japanese in Manchuria...

[Khun Paul]

In my view whether the bombings were justified is a silly question, had anyone really taken the time to know and observe the blatant horrific treatment of prisoners and the local populations in the countries the Japanese occupied or conquered, then it was humane to drop the bomb and although thousands died , not as many died as the numbers who were prisoners of war and those incarcerated in Singapore. Forget not the Japanese Military were ruthless to the point of almost genocidal.

[ABCer]

I voted "NO"

Than I have checked and found to be in a minority. Sad.

Of course we can only but speculate on this issue. It is well in the past and like all history will be uncertain, re-written, re-... anything.

US had A-bomb first, but it was due to a concentrated enormous effort of a

- rich and powerful country which though at war was not suffering as much as all of Europe including Russians, English, Germans etc.

- country that was seen by majority of scientists of that time as morally right compared to Germany

- country that managed to gather, concentrate, finance and manage a huge project supported by the best International community of scientists

Compared to US German scientists in their majority were less than enthusiastic to work for the Nazis, didn't have much of Hitler's support and lost their heavy water source in Scandinavia.

But leaving these considerations aside, once the bomb was made and tested -

not only many US Generals were against using it. Most of the scientists were opposed to use it on non combatant population.

Today, in retrospect, great many arguments are used for justification of this act. I am aware of all of them like everybody else:

- demo to Russkies

- demo to Japanese

- payback for Pearl Harbour

- saving American lives

- atrocities by Japanese in Asia

- and many other reasons.

Whatever, whoever says - it remains a barbaric atrocity performed against non-combatant population on an unprecedented scale.

My vote is still "NO".

Edited August 17, 2015 by ABCer

[robblok]

I believe if this vote were confined to those alive at the time, excluding Japanese the vote would be overwhelmingly yes

It is good that younger generations are more moderate, or are they I think the majority would execute those terrorists who behead their victims, I also think the Japanese executed many prisoners

They all committed war crimes, from the movies i was led to believe for instance the Germans were evil and the Americans angels. Later when i was a bit older i saw documentaries it became clear they both executed other soldiers as it was easier as taking care of them and guarding them. This were US soldiers saying they did this (so the truth)

All sides are bad in wars

I have yet to see Japanese civilians kill soldiers, if the bombs were used exclusively on soldiers it would have been a totally different story. To punish civilians for what their army did is not fair.

This is what un-nerves many when having this discussion... The horror inflicted on civilian populations on both sides of the conflict is often overlooked... Everyone remembers the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan, while no one speaks of the fire bombing of Japanese cities... On March 10, 1945, the US fire-bombed Tokyo, destroying 41 sq km of the city and killing over 100,000 civilians... We often hear about the Dresden fire bombing, but not the 67 Japanese cities the US fire bombed at the end of WWII...

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/10/national/deadly-wwii-u-s-firebombing-raids-on-japanese-cities-largely-ignored/#.VdE9fFOqqko

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/02/15/commentary/tokyo-firebombing-and-unfinished-u-s-business/#.VdE-7lOqqko

It is true that Japanese citizens didn't kill anyone, although, the same could be said for the 30,000,000+ Chinese that were slaughtered by the Japanese in Manchuria...

Those Chinese deaths are of course also war crimes, everyone knows about the Nanking. I am saying they all committed war crimes, this is targeting civilians. That is in my opinion always wrong, 911 we called terrorists because they targeted civilians.

- Bombing of London

- Bombing of other cities by the Germans aimed at civilians

- Bombing of Dresden and other cities

- Atomic Bombs

- Firebombing of Tokio

Actually all war crimes when you target civilians, they all did it, I wonder if Germans and Japanese were convicted for those crimes (Allies of course not they won so I doubt they would be)

[captspectre]

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

having been alive then I say you are wrong! even now the Japanese mentality is to NEVER surrender! if the Americans would have invaded Japan, it would have been a blood bath for both nations, just look at what happened when the Emperor taped his surrender speech. his castle was invaded and many Japanese were killed by their own Army in search of the Emperors surrender speech! Monday morning quarter backing is the trend but nothing like being there!

[jackh]

I voted yes.

But keeping in mind of the knowledge of this device at that time. No one knew what level of damage or radiation damage would occur from the use of the bomb. Furthermore, desperate times calls for desperate measures, especially given the level of Japan's ruthless atrocities they committed in war.

[Ulic]

My mother was in a Japanese POW camp in Vietnam. If the war had lasted another 6 months

her and her sisters would have died. So for me absolutely. The Japanese were vicious.

[Jdiddy]

I voted yes.

But keeping in mind of the knowledge of this device at that time. No one knew what level of damage or radiation damage would occur from the use of the bomb. Furthermore, desperate times calls for desperate measures, especially given the level of Japan's ruthless atrocities they committed in war.

What desperate times? The US at the end of the war were steamrolling the Pacific and firebombing multiple cities in Japan, Japan was surrounded and cutoff from anything, Navy was defeated, airforce had no fuel

[dcpo]

I don't know if it was justified or not but I do know that at the time the US was fire-bombing Japanese cities in massive air raids. The death and destruction from these raids was on the same scale as that from the nuclear strikes (for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo). It's weird how if you raze a city with a million bombs it's perfectly reasonable, but if you do it with single bomb it's a war crime.

[Chicken George]

No

[does]

All right, be honest. You are actualy Donald Trump.

YES

[Loptr]

My mother was in a Japanese POW camp in Vietnam. If the war had lasted another 6 months

her and her sisters would have died. So for me absolutely. The Japanese were vicious.

My father was stationed on Guam at the end of the war and would have been part of the final push into Japan, so I too feel the atomic bombs was justified for the sake of my own existence... If for no other reason than to stop the war without further deaths...

[AlexRRR]

The Japanese were savages and ruthless they started the war with the USA and the US finished it in style, the bombing took them to their knee's and they quickly surrendered and the War was over.

It also serves as a message and detterant to any other nation that wants to pick a fight with the worlds strongest power

I will always remember the movie TORA TORA TORA when the Japanese officer after bombing Pearl Harbor say oh god what have we done

And he was right and they paid a terrible price for their action but also do not forget the vicious and ruthless way they treated captors the Japanese have a history of it and the bombing of Nagasaki put them in their place for the last 70 plus years.

Loved the way you just glossed over the entire history of the second world war in the pacific.

Should i remind you of Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Iraq, Afghanistan, if you like to go way back Cuba, even further the forcefully removal of the Spanish from Southern US.

Should we talk about Napalm, Agent Orange, Flame Throwers, Cluster bombs, Drones.

The US has always shown a willingness to use the most lethal weapons on anyone, i vote no, the US used the excuse to save further lives when in reality it was politicly motivated, the Japs were beaten and contained and no need to invade, they could have sailed up and down both sides of the island nation pounding the place to the ground, by the time the bombs were dropped both there navy and Air force were of little threat.

Edited August 17, 2015 by AlexRRR

[Catoni]

The Japanese have a reputation of fighting to the death. Surrender being dishonerable and shameful in a country where honour is everything.

Where is the evidence that they were ready to throw in the towel?

The U.S., Britain, Canada and Australia where already tabling plans for invasion... Like another D-Day..... but it would have been much worse...

The bombs... although horrible... were necessary.

[Thaddeus]

Killing hundreds is justified if it saves thousands.

Especially if it saves thousands on both sides.

The end.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Thaddeus

[Loptr]

I voted yes.

But keeping in mind of the knowledge of this device at that time. No one knew what level of damage or radiation damage would occur from the use of the bomb. Furthermore, desperate times calls for desperate measures, especially given the level of Japan's ruthless atrocities they committed in war.

What desperate times? The US at the end of the war were steamrolling the Pacific and firebombing multiple cities in Japan, Japan was surrounded and cutoff from anything, Navy was defeated, airforce had no fuel

The resistance that the Japanese put up while the US slogged across the Pacific is one of the primary reasons that Gen LeMay recommended to Truman to use the A bomb, as he estimated an additional 5,000,000+ would die if the US had to invade mainland Japan... If the Russians and Chinese had invaded the northern islands, there would have been no Japanese left to surrender...

[does]

Please do a followup poll with a question that deals with the cause rather than the effect: "Who or what was responsible for the Pacific War"?

X Western colonialism

X The US oil embargo on Japan

World War II was a war between established colonial powers (England, France, Holland) and upstarts (Germany, Italy and Japan).

Many Asians hated the Japanese but they hated the Western colonialists with equal measure. What would have happened if Japan had not followed the Western colonial powers in its conquest of East Asia? Would Indonesia, Indo-China, Singapore, etc. still be colonies?

Little known historical tit bit to illustrate the point: When the American liberated Indonesia, they asked Japanese troops to guard the Japanese camps with Dutch prisoners to protect them from angry Indonesian mobs.

Edited August 17, 2015 by does

[brain150]

It was plain and simple mass murder !

[pmarlowe]

Lots of controversy on the "Japan wanted to surrender" bit. Some say they went to the Russians to intermediate, which of course was anticlimactic since the Russians then declared war on Japan. Also, it is difficult to find evidence that any tangible surrender terms were put on the table anywhere...I have no doubt the Japanese wanted to surrender at some point but exactly when and under what conditions remains a mystery...

[ebonykap]

How anybody can justify the organised planning of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is beyond me.

There is no argument here.

No.

[trainman34014]

Anyone who thinks the Japanese were ''Ready to surrender '' is living with their head up their arse. I would suggest that people who think such things have never visited the country for any reasonable amount of time or spoken to Japanese war veterans/ former Allied Prisoners of war.

The Japanese civilians were told by the Emperor that every Man, Woman and Child should prepare to fight to the death using anything they could as a weapon including sharpened sticks, against the expected invaders. Military Personnel were 'ordered' not to return alive and 'never surrender'...under any circumstances.

Those who say the dropping of the Atom Bombs was not required to end the war without further Allied bloodshed are naive pacifists who are against extreme military measures for any means. Sometimes extreme measures have to be taken to conclude extreme situations.....and this was one of those times.....as even many Japanese people will tell you if you want to listen.

[sdanielmcev]

I'd heard before that the Japanese wanted to surrender, but that doesn't really wash. It probably saved more lives as a deterrent to Russia than it did stopping WW2. I'd say, in hindsight, after learning of the atrocities committed by Japan, the American populace would agree.

If necessary equates with justified, then I'd say yes. War is hell.

I'd heard before that the Japanese wanted to surrender, but that doesn't really wash

why doesn't wash?

f necessary equates with justified, then I'd say yes. War is hell.

the necessity is debatable, why does your pinion fall on the necessary side ?

I'd like to answer, but I'm not sure what your question is.

Edited August 17, 2015 by sdanielmcev

[boomerangutang]

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

"the Japaneses [sic] were desperately trying to surrender,"

Who would that be? The Japanese people? They didn't have any voice

Japanese generals? They weren't trying to surrender. They'd sooner stick a knife in their gut and have their 2nd in command take over

Would 'The Japanese' be the emperor - the only person who could make that decision.

There were frantic meetings between top generals/admirals and the emperor just prior to the bomb drops. The emperor was a meek and small man with intense generals pleading with him to not surrender. At the time (and due to historic precedence) surrender for Japan would mean (in their archaic view) take over of their territory, rape of their women, and the populace become a slave nation.

Personally, I think the bombs should have been dropped on different targets, but I grudgingly admit it was what was needed at that time to end the war. Even with the bombs, it was dicey. The day before the surrender announcement, if someone had asked me, I would have opined they wouldn't surrender. Thankfully, I would have been wrong.

[Brer Fox]

What sort of nonsense is this. As if anybody's opinion is going to change history.

[jtTamad]

My ol man was on a troop ship in the straits of Gibraltar when they got the news and headed to port of New Orleans instead of Panama Canal so might owe my existence to it, but I tend to believe it was to impress the Russians as much as make an invasion unnecessary.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[than]

This attack was not justified.... Us just looked for an excuse for tested this on civil population

[chiang mai]

What sort of nonsense is this. As if anybody's opinion is going to change history.

Some of us are interested in history and some of us are interested in other peoples opinions on history, if you're not interested in either you don't have to play.

BTW I'm pretty sure that anyone who says it was mass murder and innocents etc., is likely to be aged under 30, people who have not studied WWII in any way and who don't have near relatives that fought in it.

Edited August 17, 2015 by chiang mai

[Colabamumbai]

I voted no. Only America could justify such a desperate act.

[Emster23]

American experience in Okinawa battles confirms Japanese mind set was "death before dishonor" and take as many enemies with you as possible. How could Truman ever give acceptable apology if not used? "Well, we could have dropped a couple of bombs, but we chose to invade instead. Sorry about your loss...." As many or more were killed with fire storm bombings. Thing about atomic bomb is that is was so efficient: one plane, one bomb, one city.

Japanese "desperate to surrender"? What, could not get an open phone line to say "We surrender"? Japan was preparing all citizens to repel invasion by any means possible. May not have been a "nice" choice to drop bombs, but was appropriate. War is hell.

[Thaddeus]

How anybody can justify the organised planning of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is beyond me.

There is no argument here.

No.

Because it saved the lives of millions of innocent people is why.

Not difficult to understand.