61% of Americans approve of atomic bombings of Japan

[FreeFocus]

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A majority of Americans surveyed believe dropping atomic bombs on Japan during World War II was the right thing to do, but support was weaker among Democrats, women, younger voters and minority voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.

The poll, released Tuesday, found 61 percent of the more than 2,400 American voters questioned believe the U.S. did the right thing.



Twenty-two percent called it wrong and 16 percent were undecided.
The first bomb was dropped Aug. 6, 1945, on Hiroshima. An estimated 140,000 people were killed instantly or died within a few months. Tens of thousands more died from radiation poisoning in the years following.
Three days later, another bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, killing about 80,000 people. Japan surrendered less than a week later.


"Sixty-four years after the dawn of the atomic age, one in five Americans think President Harry Truman made a mistake dropping the bomb," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.


The poll asked a single question: "Do you think the United States did the right thing or the wrong thing by dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?"


Among voters over 55 years of age, 73 percent of those surveyed approved the decision while 13 percent opposed. Sixty percent of voters 35 to 54 approved, while 50 percent approved among voters 18 to 34 years old, according to the poll.


"Voters who remember the horrors of World War II overwhelmingly support Truman's decision," Brown said. "Support drops with age, from the generation that grew up with the nuclear fear of the Cold War to the youngest voters, who know less about WW II or the Cold War."


Only 34 percent of black voters and 44 percent of Hispanic voters approved the decision, according to the poll. But Brown cautioned that the polling sample was smaller for those groups, so officials said the margin of error was 8 percentage points for blacks and 10 percentage points for Hispanics.
Support for Truman's decision was much stronger among Republicans than Democrats and among men than women.


Among Democrats surveyed, 49 percent approved, while 74 percent of Republicans supported Truman's decision.


Among women questioned, 51 percent supported the bombing, compared to 72 percent of men surveyed.


The poll showed about 70 percent of white Protestants, Catholics and evangelical Christians support the bombing, while 58 percent of Jews approved. The margin of error was 12 percentage points for Jewish voters, officials said.


Quinnipiac surveyed 2,409 registered voters from July 27 to Aug. 3. The poll has a margin of error of 2 percentage points.

Original article here (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jjobkhth3os0IAu20U8c9WVvu6vgD99S6FOG0).

I'm pretty sure no one on RevLeft outside of OI approves of the atrocious atomic bombings, but it's the anniversary just passed and I didn't see anyone post something acknowledging it. Anyway, I've argued on other forums with pretty typical Americans with typical, parochial political views. I'll post some of that up tomorrow, but what I found out when I did that last year was that even the US, after the war, concluded that the bombings were ineffective and did not cause Japan's surrender, which was basically a given at the time anyway. Check out the US Strategic Bombing Survey from 1946.


I wonder how it would be taken if a poll was conducted that found that 61% of Muslims approve of the 9/11 attacks. Americans would be up in arms about those "backwards, savage Islamics," and how they need to be civilized, by American rifles of course. :rolleyes:



The US nuked Japan to display raw power to the Soviet Union in particular. In the process, through American state terrorism, well over 250,000 people were murdered and countless thousands suffered from deformities from nuclear exposure which continues to this day. Cancer rates skyrocketed.

[Revy]

The majority of Americans can hold some dumb ass positions.
I read a poll not that long ago which said 57% support a war with North Korea.

Also, it's fucked up they left out Asians. Isn't that relevant, if they're going to include race in the poll at all?

[Manifesto]

I'm interested to see what other people have to say on the alternatives.

[Durruti's Ghost]

This is disturbing, but not surprising. I wonder how many Americans might change their tune if they were informed of the fact that Harry Truman acted more or less unilaterally, with multiple major figures in the establishment, including Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, and Herbert Hoover, opposing the decision? http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

EDIT: Or that the Japanese offered the same terms under which they ultimately surrendered several weeks before the bombs were dropped?

[RedSonRising]

I think it stems from the fact that they think it was necessary to win the war for the "greater good", when in reality officials at the time have clearly asserted since then that the Japanese were beaten and the US government simply wanted to test the bomb and show their military capabilities. I think most people in the US think the straight killing of innocent people is wrong, and I think when confronted with the reality of what those bombings were like to the civilian population, the poll results might be different, instead of the first reaction; taken out of its historical context and put into the perspective of an opposing nation, they see the bombing as something that regrettably had to be done.

And of course, the republicans (and dems) who couldn't give two shits about the people under a government who dared screw with us.

[Guerrilla22]

Yeah well they get fed propaganda justifying it when you're a kid in school. "We had no choice, it literally saved millions of American lives, ect." :rolleyes:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I'm quite impressed really I expected it too be far higher.

[Bilan]

How many of them know anything about it that isn't veiled in some nostalgic and rose tinted nationalist light?

[Das war einmal]

When I was younger, I approved the atomic bombings as well, for the fact that it indeed shortened the war and that the alternatives, a ground scale invasion of Japan, would also result in to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions.

But I could safely say today that the a-bomb droppings where primarily there to terrorize the USSR and its allies. The cold war was in fact already taking place (even before WW2 and in my opinion, WW2 was just a break in the Cold War that was reality since 1917)

Of course, the a-bomb droppings are also a war atrocity, why did they choose civilian targets instead of military ones?

[rednordman]

When I was younger, I approved the atomic bombings as well, for the fact that it indeed shortened the war and that the alternatives, a ground scale invasion of Japan, would also result in to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions.

But I could safely say today that the a-bomb droppings where primarily there to terrorize the USSR and its allies. The cold war was in fact already taking place (even before WW2 and in my opinion, WW2 was just a break in the Cold War that was reality since 1917)

Of course, the a-bomb droppings are also a war atrocity, why did they choose civilian targets instead of military ones?I think the bombs are and will always be one of the 'crimes against humanity'. Its quite interesting how this seems to be watered down alittle bit the more history goes on. But regardless what americans say, they droped the atom bombs on innocent civilians (who had already suffered enough under the japanese regime), NOT dangerous military targets (who had been responsible for awful atrocites of their own doing). But then its not like the USA hasnt rewarded the enemy on other occasions (such as the former nazi scientists and such).

I have even heard that the americans also did medical tests on the victims, yet refused to actually treat them, letting them die of radiation poisoning.

You are dead correct that the cold war had alot to do with it, and to be honest, I think that the Americans and the British wanted to use it on the Soviet Union as well, as they underestimated how powerfull the Russians would emerge after the Nazi onslaught, and realised how much of a hinderance to western hegemony they would be for years to come.

[Bankotsu]

You are dead correct that the cold war had alot to do with it, and to be honest, I think that the Americans and the British wanted to use it on the Soviet Union as well, as they underestimated how powerfull the Russians would emerge after the Nazi onslaught, and realised how much of a hinderance to western hegemony they would be for years to come.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Totality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dropshot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

[x359594]

When I was younger, I approved the atomic bombings as well, for the fact that it indeed shortened the war and that the alternatives, a ground scale invasion of Japan, would also result in to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions...

This is the standard US propaganda narrative. You can't describe something as a fact that didn't take place; it's an untestable hypothesis at best. In fact, some US planners didn't think a ground invasion necessary at all.

Concerning the "millions of lives saved", original calculations were for 35,000 US casualties and deaths; the figure was inflated for ex-post facto justification. Again, several plans were considered, including a joint invasion with the USSR. In fact, Japanese archival evidence indicates that the Red Army's invasion of Manchuria was as much a factor in the decision to surrender as the use of the bomb.

Finally, while the bombing of Hiroshima may be debatable, the bombing of Nagasaki was an out and out war crime. The usual reason given was that since there was no response from the Japanese for three days they must have intended to fight on. But it took five days after Nagasaki was bombed for the Japanese to surrender, and a third bomb was ready to go. The Nagasaki bomb was a plutonium bomb, and the US wanted to conduct an experiment.

As to why the US public still approves the bombing see Hiroshima in America: 50 Years of Denial (published in 1995) by Robert J. Lifton and Gregg Mitchell.

[Bankotsu]

A narrative here:



The decision to use the bomb against Japan marks one of the critical turning points in the history of our times....The scientists who were consulted had no information on the status of the war itself, had no idea how close to the end Japan already was, and had no experience to make judgments on this matter. The politicians and military men had no real conception of the nature of the new weapon or of the drastic revolution it offered to human life. To them it was simply a "bigger bomb," even a "much bigger bomb," and, by that fact alone, they welcomed it.

Some people, like General Groves, wanted it to be used to justify the $2 billion they had spent. A large group sided with him because the Democratic leaders in the Congress had authorized these expenditures outside proper congressional procedures and had cooperated in keeping them from almost all members of both houses by concealing them under misleading appropriation headings. Majority Leader John W. McCormack (later Speaker) once told me, half joking, that if the bomb had not worked he expected to face penal charges. Some Republicans, notably Congressman Albert J. Engel of Michigan, had already shown signs of a desire to use congressional investigations and newspaper publicity to raise questions about misuse of public funds. During one War Department discussion of this problem, a skilled engineer, Jack Madigan, said: "If the project succeeds, there won't be any investigation. If it doesn't, they won't investigate anything else." Moreover, some air-force officers were eager to protect the relative position of their service in the postwar demobilization and drastic reduction of financial appropriations by using a successful A-bomb drop as an argument that Japan had been defeated by air power rather than by naval or ground forces.


After it was all over, Director of Military Intelligence for the Pacific Theater of War Alfred McCormack, who was probably in as good position as anyone for judging the situation, felt that the Japanese surrender could have been obtained in a few weeks by blockade alone: "The Japanese had no longer enough food in stock, and their fuel reserves were practically exhausted. We had begun a secret process of mining all their harbors, which was steadily isolating them from the rest of the world. If we had brought this operation to its logical conclusion, the destruction of Japan's cities with incendiary and other bombs would have been quite unnecessary.



But General Norstad declared at Washington that this blockading action was a cowardly proceeding unworthy of the Air Force. It was therefore discontinued."


... The degree to which it has since been distorted for partisan purposes may be seen from the contradictory charges that the efforts to get a bomb slowed down after the defeat of Germany and the opposite charge that they speeded up in that period. The former charge, aimed at the scientists, especially the refugees at Chicago who had given America the bomb by providing the original impetus toward it, was that these scientists, led by Szilard, were anti-Nazi, pro-Soviet, and un-American, and worked desperately for the bomb so long as Hitler was a threat, but on his demise opposed all further work for fear it would make the United States too strong against the Soviet Union. The opposite charge Noms that the Manhattan District worked with increasing frenzy after Germany's defeat, because General Groves was anti-Soviet. A variant of this last charge is that Groves was a racist and was willing to use the bomb on non-whites like the Japanese but unwilling to use it against the Germans. It is true that Groves in his report of April 23, 1945, which was presented to President Truman by Secretary Stimson two days later, said that Japan had always been the target. The word "always" here probably goes hack only to the date on which it was realized that the bomb would be so heavy that it could not be handled by any American plane in the European theater and, if used there, would have to be dropped from a British 1,ancaster, while in the Pacific the B-29 could handle it.


... The original decision to make the bomb had been a correct one based on fear that Germany would get it first. On this basis the project might have been stopped as soon as it Noms clear that Germany was defeated without it. By that time other forces had come into the situation, forces too powerful to stop the project.



It is equally clear that the defeat of Japan did not require the A-bomb, just as it did not require Russian entry into the war or an American invasion of the Japanese home islands. But, again, other factors involving interests and nonrational considerations were too powerful. However, if the United States had not finished the bomb project or had not used it, it seems most unlikely that the Soviet Union would have made its postwar efforts to get the bomb.


There are several reasons for this: (1) the bomb's true significance was even more remote from Soviet political and military leaders than from our own, and would have been too remote to make the effort to get it worthwhile if the bomb had never been demonstrated; (2) Soviet strategy had no interest in strategic bombing, and their final decision to make the bomb, based on our possession of it, involved changes in strategic ideas, and the effort, almost from scratch, to obtain a strategic bombing plane (the Tu-4) able to carry it; and (3) the strain on Soviet economic resources from making the bomb was very large, in view of the Russian war damage. Without the knowledge of the actual bomb which the Russian leaders obtained from our demonstration of its power, they would almost certainly not have made the effort to get the bomb if we had not used it on Japan.



On the other hand, if we had not used the bomb on Japan, we would have been quite incapable of preventing the Soviet ground forces from expanding wherever they were ordered in Eurasia in 1946 and later.



We do not know where they might have been ordered because we do not know if the Kremlin is insatiable for conquest, as some "experts" claim, or is only seeking buffer security zones, as other "experts" believe, but it is clear that Soviet orders to advance were prevented by American possession of the A-bomb after 1945.


It does seem clear that ultimately Soviet forces would have taken all of Germany, much of the Balkans, probably Manchuria, and possibly other fringe areas across central Asia, including Iran. Such an advance of Soviet power to the Rhine, the Adriatic, and the Aegean would have been totally unacceptable to the United States, but, without the atom bomb, we could hardly have stopped it.



Moreover, such an advance would have led to Communist or Communist-dominated coalition governments in Italy and France. If the Soviet forces had advanced to the Persian Gulf across Iran, this might have led to such Communist-elected governments in India and much of Africa.


http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/16.html

[Sarah Palin]

61% of Americans think it was great because of the propaganda surrounding it. EVERYONE is told that "We had to do it to win." It's taught to all children in schools and repeated in the media all the time. But we didn't do it to win. The Soviets and Chinese communists were moving east, and so Truman had to act fast. What did he do? Obliterate 2 cities. The bombs were the quintessentially American way of saying keep out.

[blake 3:17]

Thank you for remembering this crime against humanity.

Nagaski Nightmare by Crass: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aHFRwGD47M

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

EDIT: Or that the Japanese offered the same terms under which they ultimately surrendered several weeks before the bombs were dropped?

Really? They offered Okinawa to be an American superbase? To completely get rid of their army? To make their country an American military zone controlled by Douglas MacArtrhur?

I've heard they offered to surrendur, but not to what the US demnaded.


The US nuked Japan to display raw power to the Soviet Union in particular. In the process, through American state terrorism, well over 250,000 people were murdered and countless thousands suffered from deformities from nuclear exposure which continues to this day. Cancer rates skyrocketed.

To be fair, not that I necessarily agree with the bombings, the powers that were were pretty ignorant of the effects that the bombing would have.

If you want, you can look up the video of the US testing the H-Bomb, I believe, and afterwards the way the sailors are inspecting the damage it's obvious they had no clue. It's taken decades for those guys to have the government recognize that their freazkishly high cancer rates were caused by those testings.


On another note, I don't think it was only to impress the Soviets that was behind Trumans actions. As a politician, I think he would of realized what would happen next election when he had to confront parents who lost their kids even though a superweapon existed.

[NecroCommie]

The most covertly racist defence I have ever heard for this postition is that the bombings: "saved human lives"

How outrageous is that!?!!??! Remember children, Japanese are not human, nor do their lives count when calculating death tolls.



As a politician, I think he would of realized what would happen next election when he had to confront parents who lost their kids even though a superweapon existed.


As a president of the USA, it is not a new activity fo him to hide something as big from the entire population.

[gorillafuck]

Everyone is constantly told "We had to do the bombings or a ground invasion, and the bombings would ultimately cost less lives." It's bullshit but really not surprising.

[x359594]

...To be fair, not that I necessarily agree with the bombings, the powers that were were pretty ignorant of the effects that the bombing would have.

If you want, you can look up the video of the US testing the H-Bomb, I believe, and afterwards the way the sailors are inspecting the damage it's obvious they had no clue. It's taken decades for those guys to have the government recognize that their freazkishly high cancer rates were caused by those testings...

On the contrary, the "powers that were" knew well enough the radiation risks involved, starting with the cover up of the accident at Los Alamos when physicist Harry Dhaglian was exposed to a lethal dose of radiation at the "Omega Site" on the compound. Further, Congressman Edward Markey wrapped up a 1986 investigation and published his committee's findings as "American Nuclear Guinea Pigs." In 1993 Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary finally admitted to official wrong doing and said, "The only thing I could think of was Nazi Germany."

Radiation exposure tests were made as part of the Manhatten Project, and from 1945 to 1947 31 people were given bomb-grade plutonium injections as part of a top secret US Government project. I assure you, I am not fabricating this. The relevant material can be found in Hiroshima in America and sources cited there. See also the book Atomic Soldiers for details of radiation experiments carried out on military personnel.

[*Red*Alert]

I thought it would be much higher. When its broken down, its almost encouraging.

[x359594]

The most covertly racist defence I have ever heard for this postition is that the bombings: "saved human lives"

How outrageous is that!?!!??! Remember children, Japanese are not human, nor do their lives count when calculating death tolls...

Indeed comrade, and there is some doubt that any lives would have been saved at all since an invasion of the Japanese Islands was only one option among many, and even deemed unnecessary by Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy.

The United States Strategic Bomb Survey, whose team interviewed the important Japanese decision-makers right after the war, came to this official conclusion:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 21 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

And this from Admiral William D. Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "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 short, the bombings were monstrous crimes against humanity.

[Axle]

Well, we've been taught for sixty years to love the bomb, that the bomb keeps us safe.

With that in mind, we should at least be glad its as low as 61%.

[Korchagin]

The barbarity of the atomic bombings was exceeded only by Auschwitz. There was no justification or military necessity to use the bombs, especially when the Russians had just begun the process of liberating Manchuria. If you read Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's book about Japan's political leaders, he proves that they surrendered solely because the Russian advance in the Far East beginning on August 8, 1945 had made it pointless for the Japanese to continue fighting. The bombs were used because the Washington ruling circles wanted to conquer Japan before the Russians would be able to make gains.

[BlackCapital]

Astounding and terrifying, although I feel pretty confident that the percent of Americans who approve of it will continue to steadily fall. Since this was based on voters, older generations that were alive during the war or had parents in the war and would be more likely to favor it definitely have a disproportionate representation since they make up the majority of voters.

In others words, people are no longer fired up about WW2 nor are they being fed the same propaganda, and are realizing that it was horrifically fucked up.

[JimmyJazz]

1945: US responses to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://libcom.org/history/1945-us-responses-atomic-bombing-hiroshima-nagasaki):


"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Air Forces Under President Truman

"I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) 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. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"It is my opinion 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. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children."
- Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb."
- John McCloy

"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."
- President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945

"Some of my conclusions may invoke scorn and even ridicule.
"For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945.
"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."
- Stewart L. Udall
US Congressman and
Author of "Myths of August"

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Lies of Hiroshima Live On, Props in the War Crimes of the 20th Century (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/06/10835):


In the immediate aftermath of the bomb, the allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning and insisted that people had been killed or injured only by the bomb's blast. It was the first big lie. "No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" said the front page of the New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic abdication, which the Australian reporter Wilfred Burchett put right with his scoop of the century. "I write this as a warning to the world," reported Burchett in the Daily Express, having reached Hiroshima after a perilous journey, the first correspondent to dare. He described hospital wards filled with people with no visible injuries but who were dying from what he called "an atomic plague". For telling this truth, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared - and vindicated.

...

"Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength". He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb". His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip". General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis." The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment".

[9]

While I would not be surprised if this were the case, I do have some serious questions regarding the accuracy of the poll, and I think it is wise to be very cautious about polls and surveys which claim to be representative of an entire population. A sample size of 2,400 hardly seems sufficient to represent the opinions of a nation of 305 million. I'm curious about the degree to which the nation's overall demographics were accurately represented in the poll, particularly, again, with such a small sample size.
So I'd definitely take these results with a grain of salt.

[Red Apex]

Seriously, they killed all of those innocent people just to scare USSR

[Radical]

It's sickening to know that citizens of the most powerful country in the world would happily exterminate over 200.000 thousand civilians in a second.

[24thOfJuly]

The atomic bombings were an act of genocide, it is nice to see that 39 percent though does not approve of the actions. :)

[NecroCommie]

Lets nuke everyone who agree with the bombing! Just to scare the shit out of capitalists.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

At least 61% of the Americans are totally crazy.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Seriously, they killed all of those innocent people just to scare USSR

Yeah, it's not like firebombing and utterly destroying cities and industry had been a central part of Allied strategy for years in Europe and Japan.

I think everyone needs to keep in mind that the atomic bombings represented only a very small amount of the total bombing damage done during the war.

Here's Tokyo after a more humane bombing:

http://www.andyross.net/tokyo.gif

Since many Japanese cities were made out of wood, you can see the impact of Napalm, which was regularly used in this theater by the USAAF after it's introduction in 1944.

A little more down to earth view:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Tokyo_kushu_1945-3.jpg


The US didn't just use it to impress Joe. It was a weapon that simply made what they were already doing more efficient.

[RedStarOverChina]

If a similar poll was conducted in China, the Koreas, the Philipines, etc, the approval rating would be 90%+---In other words, overwhelming support for the use of the atomic bombs. Because it did end their unimaginable suffering under Japanese occupation.

In principle, I am not opposed to the use of the atomic bomb either. However, Truman could have chosen better targets, to put it mildly. That is, military targets that would result in fewer civilian casualties.

What the comrade above mentioned is also important to realize. The bombings rained down on German, Japanese cities were no less atrocious (some of them even more so) than dropping two atomic bombs, yet they attract considerably less criticism.

Moreover, bombing civilian targets in Germany and Japan with conventional weapons received no tangible results. They were highly costly and had little effect on the outcome of the war. The effects of dropping the A-bombs on the Japanese Empire were mostly psychological that the conventional weaposn failed to achieve even though the latter were more costly in terms of human life.

From that perspective, bombing Japan with atomic bombs made much more sense.

But once again, the same psychological effect could have been achieved through A-bombing Japanese military targets.

In the end, we simply don't know if dropping the A-bombs saved more lives or not. If you ask the Asians, most tend to think it saved more than it destroyed.

And they have a point. What difference does it make if a civilian dies of an atomic bomb or if he dies of being bayoneted by the Japanese Imperial Army?

[x359594]

...it did end their unimaginable suffering under Japanese occupation...

Virtually every person who's posted in this thread disputes that claim. Please re-read (or read) post #25 by JimmyJazz.

What sort of evidence do you have for the use of the bombs ending the war? Why a second bomb for Nagasaki?

[MarxSchmarx]

What sort of evidence do you have for the use of the bombs ending the war? Why a second bomb for Nagasaki? This is actually the less justifiable of the two. Hiroshima, you could say, people had little idea of the sheer human devastation and suffering. It was the first instance for something like this. There is some indication that after Hiroshima, the Japanese themselves felt that it was even more imperative to build their own atomic bomb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapons_program

Further, it was indeed an industrial center that had not been bombed much during the war. If the goal was to scare the soviet union, Hiroshima would have sufficed. Also, many Americans of Japanese descent were from around Hiroshima, and there is some suggestion that the government knew of this.

Not that any of this justifies Hiroshima, but at least it provides something of an explanation, and we can understand why it happened. It is still as despicable, but at least there is some coherent narrative.

But Nagasaki is a very different story. I wonder if it was sheer vindictiveness? Was it fear that the Japanese would not surrender until it was made clear that Tokyo could be next?

I suppose we will never know why the American leadership felt Nagasaki had to be bombed as well. But ultimately, in some sense the bombing of Nagasaki symbolizes a far darker side of human nature than the bombing of Hiroshima.

[Die Rote Fahne]

80% of Americans are idiots.

[Abc]

i think America did it as a test, it knew the war was ending and wanted to see the effects of a atomic bombing on a large city, so it would have advanage over the U.S.S.R. and with the racist propaganda it was spreading most Americans would not object to the fact 220,000 people were killed.
On a side note what i find sad is how many Americans who dont give a fuck about the japanese who died in the bombings, act like September 11 is the worst day in the history of mankind :mad: fucking racist double standards

[MarxSchmarx]

i think America did it as a test, it knew the war was ending and wanted to see the effects of a atomic bombing on a large city, so it would have advanage over the U.S.S.R. and with the racist propaganda it was spreading most Americans would not object to the fact 220,000 people were killed.

As noted above, this may be understandable for Hiroshima, but does not explain Nagasaki. Something more had to be at work.

[JimmyJazz]

The US didn't just use it to impress Joe. It was a weapon that simply made what they were already doing more efficient.

I wouldn't say that the scale of the atrocity was any different between the conventional bombing and the atomic bombing, in fact the firebombing of Tokyo killed more than either Hiroshima or Nagsaki IIRC. But I would say that the motivations were different. The atomic bombs were dropped near the end of the war, when it was pretty clear that they were unecessary; and furthermore, I think everyone alive at the time was clear in understanding that this was a new kind of weapon which would change the face of war forever, and that the country to develop it first would have a significant upper hand for many years. So I do think that they did it to impress Uncle Joe above all else. And, hell, to impress Europe as well--which side do you think you'd want to align with in the Cold War, the side that has nukes or the side that doesn't?


As noted above, this may be understandable for Hiroshima, but does not explain Nagasaki. Something more had to be at work.

If I had to guess, I would say that:

1. They probably decided to bomb both Nagasaki and Hiroshima before bombing either one
2. They wanted to prove that they had more than one bomb

[RedStarOverChina]

Virtually every person who's posted in this thread disputes that claim. Please re-read (or read) post #25 by JimmyJazz.

"Virtually every person" disputes there are any suffering under Japanese occupation?

Well then, Mr. "Virtually every person" is wrong.


What sort of evidence do you have for the use of the bombs ending the war?Well, the war ended immediately after the bombs were dropped. Are you saying that these incidents were unrelated? :confused:

Without the A-bombs, exactly when Japan will surrounded is everybody's guess. The claim made above that "air supremacy over Japan" (i.e., bombing the shit out of Japanese civilians with conventional bombs) will force Japan into a surrender is unfounded. It did not force the Germans into surrendering, nor did it force the Japanese into surrendering. On the contrary, as some would argue, it strengthen their resolve.

Just as it is suggested that the Japanese Empire were about to surrender, plenty of evidence suggests that the Japanese were getting ready to dug in and continue the war in Japanese soil.

So in the end, like I said, no one knows if the bombs saved or destroyed more lives. No one knows if Japan was going to surrender, or under what terms it would have surrendered.

As late as 1944 Japan launched "Operation Number One" in China, a military campaign that devastated much of China and lasted until the end of the year.


Why a second bomb for Nagasaki?Why do I have to justify that? Do I look like a White House spokesperson?

[Revy]

An earlier poll from 2005 showed that 60% of Americans think World War III is likely.
Combine this and that poll and what do we have? Oh...the end of the world, my friends.

"I know not with what weapons World War III would be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones" - Albert Einstein

[x359594]

...Nagasaki is a very different story. I wonder if it was sheer vindictiveness? Was it fear that the Japanese would not surrender until it was made clear that Tokyo could be next?

I suppose we will never know why the American leadership felt Nagasaki had to be bombed as well. But ultimately, in some sense the bombing of Nagasaki symbolizes a far darker side of human nature than the bombing of Hiroshima.

In the case of Nagasaki, the date of the mission was advanced, a defective plane was allowed to take off in bad weather, the mission was not aborted over Kokura the primary target, and the bomb was dropped off target instead of into the ocean according to contingency plans.

The evidence indicates that the Nagasaki bomb was an experiment. The bomb used there was a plutonium bomb in contrast to Hiroshima, a uranium bomb. Moreover, Nagasaki was a secondary target. The plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki was twice as powerful as the uranium bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

As for targeting industrial centers, Kyoto was on the short list because it's a valley city surrounded by mountains on three sides. It is not an industrial center at all. Kyoto was on the list because the "effects of the bomb blast on a population of one million in a contained area" could be studied as General Lesley Groves put it. It was spared because Secretary of War Henry Stimson vetoed the decision backed by Truman; the reason Stimson gave was that Kyoto was a center of cultural artifacts worth preserving.

For a discussion of the Ngasaki bombing, see Hiroshima in America by Robet J. Lifton and Greg Mitchell, pages 161-164, paperback edition.

[Pawn Power]

A while ago John Stewart said the Truman is a war criminal for using the bombs, then, the next show he rather pathetically apologized for it (http://granfalloonforsale.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/stewart-speaks-truth-then-backs-down/).

People justify there actions. So even if they think it is an immoral act to begin with, after it happens it needs to be morally rationalized or then, you become an immoral actor.

That, and the fact that anything the US has done in regards to war is always considered necessary and just.

[pastradamus]

Well this isn't surprising at all really. You must look at the way western propaganda highlights the atomic bombing - Not as a tragedy but as a necessity. A necessity that "stopped the second world war and won the day for justice and freedom". If your listening to this garbage day and night you eventually start considering it the truth.

"tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" - Benito Mussolini.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

The atomic bombings are indeed shown by American and western media as a necessity to defeat the Japanese, while in those days everybody know that the surrender of Japan was just a matter of days.
Although many Japanese soldiers were totally crazy fanatics, emperor Hirohito himself had decided to surrender long before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.