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

[Sutty]

More relevant question was it ok for the Japanese to treat POP'S like dogs.

[kovaltech]

amazing question...

Is it justified to kill 100.000 innocent civilians to win your battle ?

We can not change the past... but would we do it again ?

Why not drop the bom on a non habited area to show how powerful you are ?

Using the bomb to show your power, ok

But innocent lives ?? never ok...

Lets pray nobody does it again...

[boomerangutang]

More relevant question was it ok for the Japanese to treat POW'S like dogs.

....worse than dogs.

[Sutty]

Japs killed thousands of innocent people treated POW's like dogs attacked pearl harbour before declaring war. Justified I would say so personally I would have opted for Tokyo itself.

[jwongbkk]

YES, YES and YES!

Think of the atrocities the Japanese soldiers committed.

The millions they killed, the women they raped and then killed, the women they used as sex slaves, the babies they killed, the tortures they committed on POWs.

The scars still stay with so many countries and so many people even until today.

What disgusts me the most is that the Japanese government blatantly disregards and does not acknowlege the crimes they have committed in the past and refused to educate their younger generation so as to keep their "pure" Japanese culture.

Absolutely appalling and disgusting. Everyone should learn the lessons from history to prevent them from happening.

2 Bombs dropped on Japan was not even enough to cover up the sins that they have committed

[tpazzi]

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.

In that sense then perhaps it was still justified.

Clearly they didn't get the message since the Russians rejected the Baruch Plan choosing instead to accelerate their own atomic research & development project, thus launching the arms race. so it seems a stretch to say it was "still justified."

As to the justification to drop the the bomb for the more direct purpose of shortening the war with Japan, here's what Eisenhower wrote in his memoirs (referring to Secretary of War Stimson who was informing DDE of the decision to use the weapon):

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

On the 40th anniversary of the bombing, then former-President Nixon recounted that:

"[General Douglas] MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants."

According to MacArthur, "The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Major General Curtis LeMay stated publicly in a press conference that: "The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb." When pressed to clarify, the stated: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war. ... "

There are many more WWII era US commanders who echo similar sentiments. I'd suggest these men have a track record in regards to evaluating military tactics.

[little mary sunshine]

Sad!!But YES

[boomerangutang]

amazing question...

Is it justified to kill 100.000 innocent civilians to win your battle ?

We can not change the past... but would we do it again ?

Why not drop the bom on a non habited area to show how powerful you are ?

Using the bomb to show your power, ok

But innocent lives ?? never ok...

Lets pray nobody does it again...

That's a Q I've asked for years. No one really knows the answer, now or then. American top brass decided they needed to make a big statement. The smoke was still rising from Okinawa, where Japanese had resisted so insanely, they even choked their own babies in caves they were hiding in at the northernmost fringe of the island - afraid that a baby's whimper would give their location away to searching American 'devils.' Yet, the Japanese still didn't surrender, even though American flattops were breathing down their necks and American bombers could fly anywhere over Japan, at will.

Truman and his advisors had to make the tough choice of killing thousands of civilians - in order to send a very strong message to Hirohito and his band of nutcases. Here's a hypthetical: What if army brass, who went to inspect the destruction of the H-bombs, went back to the palace and told Hirohito something like, "the damage is bad, but not overwhelming. We must continue to resist until the last man."

Thankfully, Hirohito got the correct message: that the damage was profound, and therefore he went against the pleadings of some of his most obstinate generals, and decided to surrender.

[Barin]

The results of the vote only prove that the majority of Thaivisa members are Americans or Pro American...

[MyFriend You]

But we being "Nice Guys" it would have been more effective dropping it over Tokyo, then we wouldn;t have had to drop the second one...........Japan was one mean SOB of an enemy, not only to the United States but of all Asia at that time, you can;'t kill a Rat with a Fly Swatter, you need a Sledge hammer..............its too bad out current world leaders don't have the balls to do what needs to be done in the ME, Africa and ISIL. Exterminate them, replace them, and be done with it.

[brain150]

The problem about the question is that most people have a very wrong impression of what really happened in WWII.

The history you learn in school is twisted and mostly quite far away from the real events.

The reasons for WWI and WWII are very different from what all of us are made to believe.

Cue Bono is the question to ask and if talking history patriotism or nationalism is to be kept out f the discussion !

NOBODY who participated in the war can be a winner !

No country won the war but all of humanity lost.

What people obviously don't want to understand is that we are all pawns in a game of some mighty people.

If they did they would never even try to defend bombings and killings as "necessary" ... that's where the deep brainwash comes to light.

It is completely irrelevant where you come from .... calling yourself [or your country] a winner of a war is just insane !!!

... and the people who had the real benefits of all of these wars are laughing their asses of on how stupid the world has become !!!

[Rothchild, Rockefeller, JP Morgan ..... they all sound very Japanese I guess]

Edited August 18, 2015 by brain150

[brain150]

But we being "Nice Guys" it would have been more effective dropping it over Tokyo, then we wouldn;t have had to drop the second one...........Japan was one mean SOB of an enemy, not only to the United States but of all Asia at that time, you can;'t kill a Rat with a Fly Swatter, you need a Sledge hammer..............its too bad out current world leaders don't have the balls to do what needs to be done in the ME, Africa and ISIL. Exterminate them, replace them, and be done with it.

By definition your last statement is psychopathic !!!

No empathy ... no human emotion left.

Fully brainwashed and that's how the elite want you to be ... and now back to American Gladiators !!!

[Ulysses G.]

The results of the vote only prove that the majority of Thaivisa members are Americans or Pro American...

...or possess a working brain.

[Oziex1]

They built the bomb it had to be used and the Japanese were the perfect test for it, and so the world was in shock and awe of its power.

Would we still be fighting the Japanese had it not been dropped, maybe.

[lostoday]

amazing question...

Is it justified to kill 100.000 innocent civilians to win your battle ?

We can not change the past... but would we do it again ?

Why not drop the bom on a non habited area to show how powerful you are ?

Using the bomb to show your power, ok

But innocent lives ?? never ok...

Lets pray nobody does it again...

That's a Q I've asked for years. No one really knows the answer, now or then. American top brass decided they needed to make a big statement. The smoke was still rising from Okinawa, where Japanese had resisted so insanely, they even choked their own babies in caves they were hiding in at the northernmost fringe of the island - afraid that a baby's whimper would give their location away to searching American 'devils.' Yet, the Japanese still didn't surrender, even though American flattops were breathing down their necks and American bombers could fly anywhere over Japan, at will.

Truman and his advisors had to make the tough choice of killing thousands of civilians - in order to send a very strong message to Hirohito and his band of nutcases. Here's a hypthetical: What if army brass, who went to inspect the destruction of the H-bombs, went back to the palace and told Hirohito something like, "the damage is bad, but not overwhelming. We must continue to resist until the last man."

Thankfully, Hirohito got the correct message: that the damage was profound, and therefore he went against the pleadings of some of his most obstinate generals, and decided to surrender.

You wrote, "What if army brass, who went to inspect the destruction of the H-bombs, went back to the palace and told Hirohito something like, "the damage is bad, but not overwhelming. We must continue to resist until the last man."

They did. Many of the Japanese figured the Americans had only a couple of bombs.

The Emperor met with the most senior Army and Navy officers. While several spoke in favor of fighting on. At a conference with the cabinet and other councilors, Anami, Toyoda, and Umezu again made their case for continuing to fight.

The Americans had two more bombs and would have used them if the Emperor declined surrender.

[glasswort]

70 years ago. What is the point of this survey? The event happened and no amount of opinion is going to change that.

[lostoday]

The results of the vote only prove that the majority of Thaivisa members are Americans or Pro American...

I would say pro Allies WWII. At the Tehran conference Stalin proposed executing 50,000–100,000 German officers so that Germany could not plan another war. Roosevelt, replied maybe 49,000 would be enough.

[Credo]

The results of the vote only prove that the majority of Thaivisa members are Americans or Pro American...

You might want to re-think that rather silly statement. It was World War II. It was not an American war and those fighting were from numerous countries. Those killed in the Asia-Pacific might disagree with your assertion that this was an American or pro-American thing.

[little mary sunshine]

Survey may also indicate people wanted an

End to a horrible war!!

[SiSePuede419]

"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."

Especially since they were allowed to keep the Emperor to "unify" the people under a US Occupation.

It was an act of State-sponsored terrorism.

It made a political point.

It said, you started this war, Hirohito. Would you now prefer to end it UNCONDITONALLY?

555

[lostoday]

It was posted, " "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."

Kyūjō incident The War Ministry knew the decision of the conference and stirred up a fierce reaction from many officers who intended do-or-die resistance. At 9 o'clock, in the session held at the Ministry of War, the staff officers complained to the MinisterKorechika Anami, and not all of them heeded Anami's explanations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

It could have gone either way.

Edited August 18, 2015 by lostoday

[StefanBBK]

There can never be a justification to kill civilians, children etc.

If we argue that killing few (relatively) saved many, humanity is lost. Philosophical question really. Anyway, I vote for Not justified, however I do recognize that the decision was made in good faith.

[lostoday]

There can never be a justification to kill civilians, children etc.

If we argue that killing few (relatively) saved many, humanity is lost. Philosophical question really. Anyway, I vote for Not justified, however I do recognize that the decision was made in good faith.

I think your view is called chivalry and went out with King Arthur and the Knights of the round table. Perhaps I'm wrong and you can point me to a modern conflict in which civilians were not killed. If not maybe you want to amend your statement about humanity being lost.

Edited August 18, 2015 by lostoday

[Publicus]

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.

In that sense then perhaps it was still justified.

Clearly they didn't get the message since the Russians rejected the Baruch Plan choosing instead to accelerate their own atomic research & development project, thus launching the arms race. so it seems a stretch to say it was "still justified."

As to the justification to drop the the bomb for the more direct purpose of shortening the war with Japan, here's what Eisenhower wrote in his memoirs (referring to Secretary of War Stimson who was informing DDE of the decision to use the weapon):

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

On the 40th anniversary of the bombing, then former-President Nixon recounted that:

"[General Douglas] MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants."

According to MacArthur, "The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Major General Curtis LeMay stated publicly in a press conference that: "The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb." When pressed to clarify, the stated: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war. ... "

There are many more WWII era US commanders who echo similar sentiments. I'd suggest these men have a track record in regards to evaluating military tactics.

Ike and Mac were West Point career military and MacArthur came from a military family while Gen Curtis LeMay was also a career warrior who was simply younger at the time of the bomb. All three of 'em and the whole bunch of 'em in every country suffered from the romantic view of war and warfare through the ages, i.e., the Caesar professional commander leading trained soldiers of a high caliber in a campaign of battles to ultimate victory for the greatness and the glory of Rome.

All of 'em lamented nuclear weapons for their unprecedented horror. More than that however was the realization by the entire class of global professional warriors that nuclear weapons with their sudden and devastating power took the fight out of war and warfare.

Nuclear weapons changed fundamentally the nature of war as heroic acts of bravery by individual soldiers into one sudden strike of oblivion. More than that, nuclear weapons changed the heroic nature of conventional military strategies by which generals and admirals could be genius strategists that make the difference on the battlefields, land, sea and more recently air.

There's just nothing romantic about nuclear war.

In fact President John F. Kennedy who was a WW2 Naval veteran in the Pacific inherited Curtis LeMay when LeMay was a four-star and was chief of staff of the USAF. During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 Pres Kennedy had to order Gen LeMay to stand down from LeMay's furious demands to invade Cuba on the spot. Gen LeMay was so fierce JFK had to present LeMay with the choice of standing down or resigning at the "request" of the commander in chief.

Pres Kennedy instead successfully ordered a US Naval blockade of Cuba that forced Soviet Russian missile supply ships to turn around in the mid-Atlantic. Good thing too cause only recently was it revealed the Soviet Russians had already placed tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba to use if the US had invaded Cuba. Indeed, General LeMay would have walked into a nuclear war thinking it was going to be just another conventional warfare beach landing far away from Soviet Russian conventional or nuclear forces.

Generals and admirals have invaluable perspective and roles in both war and peace, however, they are and must always be subordinate to civilian command and authority. President Truman decided to drop the two bombs which is what President Franklin Roosevelt had already decided to do, which was the whole idea of the Manhattan Project, i.e., to conclude the war for the Allies suddenly, decisively, conclusively.

[soalbundy]

There can never be a justification to kill civilians, children etc.

If we argue that killing few (relatively) saved many, humanity is lost. Philosophical question really. Anyway, I vote for Not justified, however I do recognize that the decision was made in good faith.

To think that a war can be fought in which civilians are spared is a fallacy. Even in the dark ages civilians were killed. Why does the fact that one bomb caused such casualties be more horrific than say the continual day and night bombing with conventional bombs of Germany which taken as an amount of deaths over a longer period far outweighs the number of deaths in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

[bridge2bridge]

Yes it was justified.

IT STOPPED THE WAR against Japan.

And SAVED MANY LIVES.

[Ulysses G.]

There can never be a justification to kill civilians, children etc.

Until very recently, that is how ALL wars were fought. To some extent, it still is. It is not realistic to pretend that wars can be fought without killing the innocent.

[brain150]

Yes it was justified.

IT STOPPED THE WAR against Japan.

And SAVED MANY LIVES.

This is simply NOT true !!!

It's what your masters want you to believe ... still, it's not true !

[retarius]

Classic case of the 'victor writes the history'....killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to get to Japan before the Russians, who were rampaging through Manchuria at the rate of 100 miles a day against no resistance, while America was bogged down in the islands, is not and was not justified. It is a war crime, pure and simple.

[Ulysses G.]

Yes it was justified.

IT STOPPED THE WAR against Japan.

And SAVED MANY LIVES.

This is simply NOT true !!!

That is your personal opinion and there is plenty evidence that it is incorrect.