The Complexity of American Public Opinion During World War II

Abstract

A nation's public has proven the power they hold over politicians' major decisions. From starting revolutions to overthrowing a government with which they are unhappy, to affecting a choice simply with their opinion. However, it is not always obvious exactly what the public wants. While one glance at an issue shows an overarching sentiment, a closer look reveals the countless sides and opinions present. The complexity of public opinion appeared before the war even started, as it broke out in Europe and the United States was debating on intervening or not. The majority of historians today believe that before Pearl Harbor, the American public was strictly isolationist, wanting no part at all in the war in Europe after the pains of the Great War. However, it has become evident that there was a fairly strong interventionist feeling amongst the people that simply could not defeat the isolationism present. In the case of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, James F. Byrnes, the Secretary of State under President Truman, was famously quoted to have said that accepting Japanese terms or softening unconditional surrender terms would lead to the "crucifixion of the president". Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War at the time, also mentioned in his article published in the Harper's Magazine that one could not look at fellow Americans knowing that the bombs could have saved American lives.1 While political leaders in the years leading up to the end of the war believed that the American public would be outraged knowing the possibilities held in the bombs in fact there was much more debate centering around whether unconditional surrender should be pursued or whether the terms of surrender be modified. Along with the surrender terms, there was further debate around Hirohito himself and the position and level of importance he should hold in post-war Japan.