Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Speculating Numbers

I've removed the following line

An estimated 500,000 additional american fatalities and 1,000,000 japanese fatalities could have occurred if japan's mainland was invaded.

I don't think such speculations can be stated in such a manner here.--Now might i do it pat 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Historical Revisionism?

REAL history please. Sixty two years does not change the facts. America did not ask to be attacked at Pearl Harbor. Japan did not ask if they could attack. Japan gave no warning in their unprovoked attack. Japan's proud warriors demonstrated their behavior all through the war. Japan was NOT going to raise a white flag of surrender ever. This is evidenced by The Battle of the Coral Sea, Midway, Okinawa, Iwo-jima and many other examples. Japan continued fighting after Germany surrendered and the Soviet's declared war. Even after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped Japan was NOT going to surrender. Only when they saw and realized after the Nagasaki bomb that America had OTHER bombs it became clear to Japan the end of the war was near whether they surrendered or not. Both cities were military targets. The bombs were dropped: the war ended. ALL FACTS. The Japanese behavior throughout World War II was seen by many AS a war crime. Where is the Japanese atrocities review during WWII? That's history now.--[[User:]] 09:11, 10 January 2007 (EST)

There is an article called Japanese war crimes. By the way, please put new discussion topics at the bottom of the page, not the top and sign your post by typing four tildes at the end. Cla68 04:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Where this user's comments are posted does not make them any more or less valid. Typical. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet's declared war? They declared war after Hiroshima, when Japan asked for help in contacting allied embassies in Moscow. They started war on the same day as the bomb was dropped over Nagasaki. At the battle of the Coral sea the Japanese battleships did not have enough fuel to return after battle. The Japanese was withdrawing fighting forces to homeland to defend themselves to deth like on Okinava (according to many sources with documentary evidence). They were arming the home defence with bambu javelins since they were short of metal for guns. They needed some big psycological push do declare surrender rather than honorable death. IMHO Seniorsag 15:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Using your best weapon against your enemy, to test it on actual target, impressing your future rival, and then won the war. simple.

After all, how could we think that killing 100,000 civilians with 'conventional' weapon is more honorable than killing 100,000 civilians with atomic bomb ? Both was terrible, and 'barbarous'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ihl0700677525 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

America did not choose military targets when selecting the cities to bomb. First they set aside Hiroshima and Nagasaki from bombing missions to fully demonstrate the atomic bomb's power. Second any city will have military instillations, but the ground zero of both bombs was in the city's geographical center. Theleap59 04:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

War Crime?

An attempt was made to assert (via the categories) that the atomic bombings were a war crime. This is a controversial, political opinion that is by no means commonly accepted or encyclopedic. Its inclusion in the "war crimes" category devalues that category; if anyone can classify an act as a war crime without use of some sort of objective criteria, the category will be reduced to a tool for political commentary. My off-the-cuff criteria for distinguishing a war crime would be some sort of formal international approbation, including UN Security Council resolutions to that effect, or findings of guilt in an international war crimes tribunal. Cross-posting to "war crimes" category talk page. Rem01 04:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds way too logical for Wikipedia. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It would kind of be hard to indict a member of the UN Security Council of war crimes or any other crimes when the static member has the ability to veto anything with their single vote. Subotai 01-18-2006

I read the same page in german. (Please don't conclude anything from my nationality - i feel deeply ashamed about what happened in my country in the past). On the german version of the page, there was some additional information about the time before the bombs were dropped. From that, it seems very reasonable that Truman just wanted to use the bombs in any circumstance. He didn't want to wait until the sowjets declared war on the japanese. And he didn't warn the japanese in a suitable way. The argument that many more U.S. soldiers would have died if the bombs were not used, seems questionable because another invasion was not planned before november and the U.S. Strategic Command expected the japanese to surrender in december provided that conventional U.S. air attacks were continued (the U.S. had air superiority). In the meantime, Stalin would have come into play, but Truman wanted to win the war without Stalin's help.
Perhaps there will never be an official investigation or some sort of apology to the victims in this case. In my opinion, this is a shame.
Tim 02-01-2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.158.207.161 (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps there will never be an official investigation or some sort of apology to the victims in this case.

No, the Japanese apologized already. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"My off-the-cuff criteria for distinguishing a war crime would be some sort of formal international approbation, including UN Security Council resolutions to that effect, or findings of guilt in an international war crimes tribunal." The problem with this definition is it inherently disregards "war crimes" committed by the victors i.e. it's only a "war crime" if there was a conviction in the International Criminal Court. The ICC defines purposefully targeting civilians as a war crime. So clearly the the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were "war crimes" by today's international definition (of course the ICC did not exist in 1945 so it's an academic discussion..) Whether they should be been dropped, whether they saved more lives than cost, etc, is another discussion. P. Moore 20:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think this should be labeled as a warcrime on wikipedia. The Japanese tortured and murdered millions (and more) of allied prisoners of war, and never apologized. They also forced Korea to be part of their empire without consent and banned their korean language and korean names, making them part of japan against their will. They also many raped women across asia. Those are warcrimes. However, it is very clear that if the bombs had not been dropped on Japan, then there would have been many many more casualties that need not have happened, seeing as how many people died and how long it took to invade a single island on the southern coast of Japan. However I do realize it is a controversial subject and it is no doubt true that truman wanted to show off the United State's nuclear power to the Soviet Union. However you can not just simply call this a "warcrime" without looking at the circumstances and the context. This is not a random act of genocide it was to end a war. And it worked. Unless somebody has some sort of link or citation supporting it was a "war crime" than it should not be listed as so, as Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral point of view and only list the facts. Although I have sympathies for the Japanese people killed and later affected by the Nuclear bombs that were dropped, I have more sympathy for the Canadian American New Zealander British and Australian that were starved to death and beaten daily in Japanese P.O.W. camps, and the victims of Japans empire. Those are warcrimes. (However, no act of violence or killing can be truely justified and again my sympathies to the Japanese victims are expressed) This was not NECESSARILY a war crime however and unless there are documents provided directly proving it to be so, it should not be listed as one. Therefore I am suggesting it should be deleted, the text that calls it a warcrime, unless somebody has an argument supporting it as a "warcrime". Again I respect those who died in Japan as a cause of the bombings and am sorry for peoples losses and the people who died and the only reason I think its label as a warcrime should be removed, is to keep a neutral point of view.

Lets just keep the the fact, that it belong under the catogery of war crimes. That is a NPOV. --Arigato1 21:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a fact that it belongs under the catogery of war crimes. In the English speaking world it is a minority point of view. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Using the Military rules described in the Bombing of Dresden, this was not a war crime.

1. The raid had legitimate military ends, brought about by exigent military circumstances.

2. Military units and anti-aircraft defenses were sufficiently close that it was valid not to consider the city "undefended".

3. The raid did not use extraordinary means, but was comparable to other raids used against comparable targets.

4. The raid was carried out through the normal chain of command, pursuant to directives and agreements then in force.

5. The raid achieved the military objective, without "excessive" loss of civilian life.

In summary, it cannot be called a war crime if

1. Nobody was prosecuted.

2. We had declared war against Japan.

3. We chose to save American and Japanese lives.

Since all three of these are facts, it is not a war crime. Show how any of these three items is false, and we can consider War Crime status. Eating Americans like Hannibal Lecter, Suicide bombing them like Muhammed Atta, Sneak attacking in an undeclared war like in Pearl Harbor, killing jews and gypsies in concentration camps, those are the war crimes of World War II, not using a bomb in the middle of a war.

More Americans would have died had we stormed the beaches, I would probably not be alive, and civilians in multiple cities would have died had we gone through the conventional warfare that decided the European theatre. Lives were saved, both in that war, and by showing people how devastating nuclear weapons can be, in situations like the Cuban Missile Crisis. CodeCarpenter 14:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The following acts as par ant of international conflict: 1. Directing attacks against civilians.

Directing attacks against civilians with weapons of mass destruction. Totally war crime. So stop reverting my edit and stop your point of view pushing. --Arigato1 16:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And user:CodeCarpenter why do you say "WE". You want us to believe that you were in WW2? You probaly just a pathetic American internet patriot who still live home with your mother. --Arigato1 17:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I will avoid responding to you in kind, due to a desire to keep this encyclopedic. However, I have not reverted your edits, that accusation is false, and in the process, objectively reduces your other claims. I was not in WWII, but my grandfather was in Okinawa, and my father after him was also based there during Vietnam. Had my grandfather died in taking Okinawa, I would not be here today. Had he been forced to land on Japanese soil and died there, I would not be here today. I say "we" in the sense that I am an American, I use the Internet, and I am a patriot. The "pathetic" and "live with my mom" parts I respectfully disagree with. That might be considered a personal attack, which goes against the rules of Wikipedia. Your difficulty in understanding these rules is understandable, there are a lot of rules to follow. However, common courtesy suggests that attacking a person for their views is a dangerous path to follow. You turn a possible ally into an enemy when you perform an unprovoked surprise attack when nobody has declared war, please see as a reference Attack on Pearl Harbor. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana CodeCarpenter 18:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your grandfather and father died because they were weak like you. --Arigato1 18:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Arigato1 please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines in particular Behavior that is unacceptable --Philip Baird Shearer 20:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a "debate" section anyway?

Surely this page should be about the facts. Not a back and forth about why person X thinks it's genocide in 1998, or why person B thinks it was okay in 1980, surely this page should be about what actually happened. Not theorising about if's and but's. Split out the debate and non-factual sections into another page. This page should be about what happened only. I came here to find some facts, but have a page full mostly of theoretical nonsense and debate, mostly without any supporting facts and full of original research.

The "Debate" after the event (especially on if it should have been ordered) is probably worth it's own page, but it should not be in a wiki article which is suppose to be an encyclopaedic page of facts about what actually happened. I definately oppose opinion and bias in the opening section which, from what I know, is supposed to be a simple explanation of what happened.

I will clarify that I do not mean debate about facts of the event itself, such as how many people died, or what was targeted. Just extraneous debate from years after.Macktheknifeau 04:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If the debate over the morality of the bombings was considered "extraneous" by any significant number of scholars or general readers, your argument would be valid. It isn't. KarlBunker 14:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not claim it to be "extraneous" by any means, just that this supposed fact based article is riddled with opinion spots, best suited for a specific page on the discussion about it. Most military articles do not contain such opinion. Macktheknifeau 12:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about an ordinary military operation. To most, if not all readers, there is no question of even thinking about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki without thinking about the morality of them. To separate out the debate around the morality would be contrary to those readers' mindset, and therefor many would see it as an extreme POV statement--one suggesting that the morality debate is a lesser, peripheral topic.

See Bombing of Dresden for a somewhat comparable article. KarlBunker 16:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing on "Japanese realization of the bombing"

I was interested in the citation of section 2.3, "Japanese realization of the bombing," and after much searching through old edits, tracked it through a very old version of this article to a book that is now listed in the article's Further Reading section: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima And Nagasaki by The Manhattan Engineer District. I'm a new user here so I don't have edit rights for this page; could someone else please clarify the reference on the page for the aid of other readers? It seems three paragraphs from that book are included verbatim in your article.

If anyone is feeling really ambitious about clarifying sources, reference 43--the quote by Father John Siemes taken from a book listed in footnotes as "The Avalon Project: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"--is from the exact same book as mentioned above, only reproduced on a different website.

Thanks. --Rapidfish 13:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Maps?

I would like to see maps showing the location of both cities in Japan. And actually, noting that Niigata and Kokura were potential candidates for the bombing, them too. (Just a passer-by.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.16.202.19 (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Nice idea. Please feel free to do so. Cla68 07:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

i feel sorry for the people who died!!!!!!!!!:(

References

From my talk page:

I apologize for RVing a batch of edits that you clearly put some time and effort into, but overall they were IMO a significant detriment to the article. I simply can't accept that putting the cite book references into a single line is anything other than a huge step backwards in the quality of the article. Of course, this change makes no difference to the reader, but for an editor it turns a clear and easily editable citation into an unreadable jumble. Furthermore, I can't see any value to such a change at all. I know you made a lot of other changes, and I'm not sure what some of them were, since your edit summary comments are unclear and version comparisons are often unhelpful. If you want to pursue any of your changes, let's discuss the issues before you do so. KarlBunker 16:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the citations on one line makes it easier to see the structure of the article (where one paragraph ends etc). Further there Guide to layout, citation and (to a lesser extent) footnote guidlines all suggest having a reference section. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, keeping the citations on one line makes it harder to see the structure, because it's harder to see what's article text and what's citation. This is in addition to my "unreadable jumble" argument above, which you have not addressed. I don't know what you mean about "having a reference section", because the article had one before your edits. If you want to pursue any of your changes, let's discuss the issues before you do so. KarlBunker 17:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I think it makes it clear to keep them on one line, you think otherwise. The article had a reference section until your edit at "5:20, 23 January 2007", after that it had a section called "References and further reading" which is not the same thing. Now we can play out the revert game until you have reverted three times (as you did the first revert), but that seems like a waste of time for both of us, so I suggest that you leave it and see what others think. Further just because you do not like the citations on one line is no reason to revert all the changes, you could revert the changes to the main body of the text and leave the references alone for example. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You've made a number of edits, and it's near-impossible for me to separate out the nature of all of them. In addition to the worsening of the citation formatting, I see that you've restored references that I removed for good reasons, and undone organizational changes to the References section that I made for good reasons. I believe that some of your edits also made changes that I would agree are worthwhile, and I'm willing to do the work of re-incorporating those changes. If you honestly think that there's some usefulness and significance to separating out "References" (presumably solely sources that have footnote citations in the article) from "References and further reading" (sources used in footnotes plus other useful sources), I'm willing to reincorporate that change too. Beyond that, since the major effect of your edits has been to undo work that I did a few days ago, I will continue to restore my version until I am given some valid reason not to. KarlBunker 18:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The edits I have made recently were made step by step, so you ought to be able to follow them. To the best of my knowledge apart from altering the format of some of the citations I did not alter the body of the text above the reference section. [1]. In a spirit of compromise I will put back the citations to the format they were before but keep the new reference section. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a mystery to me how you can consider this exercise in duplication and disorganization to be an improvement, but at least you aren't doing as much damage as before. I'll accept this as a "compromise." KarlBunker 21:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have found a book that would be good to put in your references section for this Wikipedia article. It is: McCullough, David (1992) "Truman" Touchstone/Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0-671-45654-7/0-671-86920-5 (pbk), pp. 436-464. This section of Truman's biography talks about the pros and cons of the decision to use the atomic bomb. There are also three points the book makes that might be of use in the Wikipedia "support" section for dropping the atomic bomb. 1. The Japanese were continuing to fight even though they knew it was for a lost cause, hoping to sue for peace. The book notes, "Japan's defeat, however, was not the issue. It was Japan's surrender that was so desperately wanted, since every day Japan did not surrender meant the killing continued. In theory, Japan had been defeated well before Truman became President. (Studies by the Japanese themselves had determined a year and a half before, by January 1944, that Japan had lost the war.) Yet in the three months since Truman took office, American battle casualties in the Pacific were nearly half the total from three years of war in the Pacific. The nearer victory came, the heavier the price in blood. And whatever the projected toll in American lives in an invasion, it was too high if it could be avoided." (p. 437) 2. The Japanese mindset did not admit of surrender, so something of shock value was needed to end the war. "'We had only too abundant evidence in those days that surrender was excluded from the Japanese ethos,' remembered a captain in Military Intelligence, Charlton Ogburn, Jr. 'Thousands of our Marines and soldiers had died rooting Japanese from their foxholes and bunkers when they were perfectly aware that their situation was hopeless.' During the whole war, not a single Japanese unit had surrendered." (p. 438) 3. Death is death is death: the use of conventional vs. atomic weaponry. The book quotes General Omar Bradley who wrote that it was "folly to argue whether one weapon is more immoral than another. For, in a larger sense, it is war itself which is immoral, and the stigma of such immorality must rest upon the nation which initiates hostilities." At the very least, I think including this book in the references section would be helpful. As for the three points brought out in the book (among others), feel free to use/not use/summarize them as you see fit for the Wikipedia article. 200.107.49.97 02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)David

Support/Opposition Section

These two sections need to be balanced out more. The sections were originally a compromise to prevent non-stop edit warring and to present two separate and equal viewpoints without the typical tit-4-tat that usually accompanies a subject like this and to keep facts in the article and relegate opinion here. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Any support for merging the sections and placing everything in chronological order? A history of the debate rather than the debate itself?—eric 20:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To prevent the tit-v-tat I would oppose a merge. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any advantage to merging the two sections. I don't know whether "balancing" is required; the fact that two opposing viewpoints exist doesn't necessarily mean that they each deserve the same word count. Sometimes the opinions of "reliable sources" favors one side or the other. Unfortunately, determining where that balance of sources' opinions lies is often difficult. KarlBunker 20:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the edits you've made to the "support" section TDC, I would argue against the format you've chosen with the items "the bombings forced the Japanese to surrender immediately" and "The bombings saved the lives of Allied military". The first item is not much of an argument in itself. Forcing surrender is only a valuable thing insofar as it saves lives, brings order and prosperity to the nations involved, etc. I think that at a basic level, there is only a single prominent argument supporting the bombings: that they saved lives. Japanese lives, American lives, the lives of those in areas occupied by Japan, even Russian lives. Under your current headings structure, not only is there the questionable "forced immediate surrender" item, but the "saved Allied lives" item carries the implication the only lives that mattered were those of Allied forces. KarlBunker 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

However you want to tweak, reorganize is fine, all I am looking to do is introduce some parity between the two sections regarding content/format/organization. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

POWS Caught in the Atomic Bombings

The Following are references to POWS caught in Atomic Bombings: {reference only}

• Hiroshima:
  • LOs Angeles Times "List of POWS Killed in A-Blast Found" December 6, 1977
  • Los Angeles Times "US War Prisioners killed by Hiroshima Bomb listed" December 7, 1977
  • Manoff, Robert Karl. "American Victims of Hiroshima" The New York Times Magazine Dec 2, 1984
  • Peterson Iver. "G.I. Deaths on Hiroshima are Documented" THe New York Times August 23, 1979 .p. 16
  • Sayle, mMurrary "Hiroshima's Newest Memorial" On Line Magazine Sept 1998
  • The Japan Times "A-Bomb Hall shows photos of U.S. POW" Jan 5, 2004
  • The JApan Times "US pair now Offical A-Bomb Victims" June 22, 2004 {related story appeared in "The Yomiuri Shimbun" same date}
• Nagaski:
  • The Japan Times June 25, 2005 "Nagasaki memorial adds British POW as A-Bomb victium"
  • The Japan Times Augs 5, 2005 "Two Dutch POWS join Nagasaki bomb Victium list"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.53.145.146 (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

major POV issues

The article makes the same faulty assumption that I've seen repeated countless other times--that Japan HAD to surrender, that they ultimately HAD to be invaded regardless of whether or not we bombed them. The "Support" section is hopelessly biased because all of its points hinge on the assumption that we had to completely and utterly defeat Japan.

It cannot be rationally argued that the Japanese Navy was poised to launch another attack on American soil. Some might argue that our invasion and occupation of Japan was a needed retribution, but I hardly think this sentiment is universal or morally unquestionable (given the relatively small loss of life at Pearl Harbor.)

That leaves only Japan's invasion of the Asian mainland. This is, perhaps a valid argument, but no one ever mentions the possibilities of, say, a ground war in mainland Asia combined with a naval blockade to prevent reenforcements from Japan. Or, perhaps, a treaty allowing Japan to keep the territory it had already conquered with the stipulation that it ended all hostilities--I'm not in love with the idea, but it's certainly not too dissimilar to our treatment of Soviet Union, and it would have ended open combat and perhaps gotten our troops released as well. Japan knew it was not winning the war--they would have positively JUMPED on a chance of ending it on such a positive note. Hell, they might have even jumped on the chance to surrender all overseas land so long as their homeland wasn't occupied.

On another note entirely, instead of the bomb being demonstrated on a live target, we could have simply invited Japanese officials to the Trinity test (perhaps first constructing a makeshift village, for dramatic effect.) That's another assumption that shouldn't go unchallenged--that in order to effectively wield nuclear fear, we had to use it on a sizable civilian target. Is this really a valid assumption, given that the Soviet Union and the USA wielded the nuclear threat against each other for decades without a single actual attack?

I'm aware that these assumptions are commonly ignored in the mainstream press, but that doesn't mean wikipedia should accept them. I'm sick and tired of people saying "We HAD to do it! Otherwise we would have had to invade and millions of Japanese and American lives would have been lost, blah blah blah..." Well no, we didn't have to do it. We didn't have to bomb them, nor did we HAVE to invade them. We weren't in any danger of attack on our home soil, and we certainly didn't have a problem with letting Soviet Union take over half Europe, so I fail to see how letting Japan take over half of Asia was somehow completely out of the question. If we chose not to nuke Japan, hundreds of thousands of USA soldiers were not going to magically die overnight. We could have done nothing but hold our position and still the loss of life (which would have been a purely military loss) would have been trivial compared to the Nagasaki and Hiroshima civilian deaths.

I'm not saying that the pro-bombing argument isn't without merit--just that it relies on certain assumptions, certain beliefs that MUST be spelled out, because they are NOT unassailable beliefs. And no, I don't think this is corrected by the "Militarily unnecessary" portion of the Opposition section--that section repeatedly uses the term "surrender." Saying that our choices were to:

1. Invade Japan.

or

2. Bomb them (conventionally) until they surrender, then invade 'em.

or

3. Nuke 'em until they surrender, then invade 'em. (Which is what we did.)

is a rather blatant false dichotomy. I don't CARE how many sources you can cite that use this argument--it's not Wikipedia's place to blindly support illogical statements, regardless how popular they may be. They must be qualified, just as (for instance) moon landing hoax theories are qualified with a rational rebuttal.

If we're going to include statements saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved tens or hundreds of thousands of American and/or Japanese lives, then we need to specify, very clearly, that this assertion is only valid when constrasted with a land invasion of Japan. We need to not imply that such an invasion was inevitable or necessary or unavoidable (either by avoiding all discussion of its necessity altogether or by presenting yet another pro/against section.) We need to not imply even that Japanese surrender was a necessity.

I believe that changes can be made even without additional sources (because these assumptions are so inherent to the arguments that, IMO, they're implicitly stated), but, obviously, sources would be welcome. --Lode Runner 07:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you make some interesting points, but without sources, they're your points, and that isn't allowed in WP articles. As you point out, the notion that a Japanese surrender was an absolute requirement is a widely accepted (albeit largely unexamined) conventional wisdom. To argue against this position, you need a WP:Reliable source who argues against it. Also, whether or not you "care how many sources can be cited..." That's how WP works. It's not about "rationality" or even "truth" (since different people have different opinions about what's true or rational); it's about WP:Verifiability. KarlBunker 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But they aren't *my* points--they're THEIR points. The assumptions (that nuking a live target was the only way to thoroughly impress them, and that a full surrender, invasion and occupation of Japan was necessary) are an *inherent* part of their arguments. The fact that they do not explicitly state them does not mean that we should not state them. I would argue that any objective paraphrase of these arguments MUST include their unspoken assumptions. Implying that bombing Hiroshima saved 10 million of lives because we would have been "forced" to bomb their railways thus disrupting the food supply is, as it stands (i.e. without any qualifications), patiently absurd. It's not about implying that the assumptions are faulty; it's about not pretending that they don't even exist.

For the purposes of mentioning the assumptions, I think that the current sources can be used as citations, because they (the assumptions) are logically inseparable from their arguments. For a more in-depth analysis and debate of the assumptions then yes, we would need a source --Lode Runner 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

LR, I totally agree with KarlBunker. The question is not : what a particular user think is good but how historians interpret the decision. You also miss two points : the use of atomic bomb should not be analysed retrospectively but in the context of a savage war where Japan had already commonly use chemical and bacteriological weapons against civilians (on Wuhan and Changde for example) and made intensive bombing campaigns of cities like the ones on Chongqing or Shanghai. The atomic bomb in that context was not perceived as a special weapon and was not the symbol it is 60 years later. In fact, the civilians of Chongqing, Dresde and Tokyo did not saw the difference either.. --Flying tiger 21:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to KarlBunker first. My argument is not anti-bombing, though I can see how it would read that way. I actually have a great deal of respect for the rational pro-bomb position and I'm not entirely anti-bomb myself; I just take issue with those who try to distort reality into an absurd false dichotomy. And I do not CARE what historians say (though I'm sure if I knew where to look I could find someone to agree with me)--nothing they say should compel us to present an incomplete argument. The pro-bomb argument hinges on certain assumptions that are not currently addressed by the article, period. The assumptions are even present in the "Opposition" section--again and again the term "surrender" is used, as if pre-nuke Japanese surrender was the ONLY alternative to post-nuke Japanese surrender. --Lode Runner 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comparison betwen USSR and Japan is also irrelevant as USSR was an ally and not Japan. Why would the allies have been more generous than in 1941 when USA sent an ultimatum asking for withdrawal of China (except Manchukuo) and Indochina and in response, Hirohito cautionned the attack of Pearl Harbor? --Flying tiger 21:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I was comparing the moral and political consequences of letting the USSR run wild with the consequences of letting Japan run wild. We could have made peace with Japan long before we dropped the bomb, and we could have likewise declared war on the USSR, or at least not allowed them to take more territories. I'm not arguing that we should have done either of these things, nor even that this should be mentioned in the article. I should have been more clear about what I was advocating we include in the article vs. those points which I was using merely for analysis and comparison. I'm not advocating that we include specific hypothetical scenarios or comparisons without sources. I AM advocating that we mention the underlying assumptions which both the Support and Opposition sections are based on. --Lode Runner 21:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your argument can be presented in the article if you have reliable and credible sources to support it. I believe some Japanese historians support what you're saying, so that might be one source for references. If you add neutrally written statements to the article about an associated issue with in-line citations in the appropriate section most Wikipedia editors will probably leave it alone. Cla68 23:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

LR, Cla68 puts it well, and I stand by my original response. The point of view you describe is a creditable one; find a source for it and it can be added to the article. KarlBunker 00:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The butchers bill for continuing the war, even if options one, two, or three, are discounted was, if my memory serves me well, around 20,000 a week, and for the weeks immediately before the bombings this included a lot of Western Allied POWs (most of those captured in the initial Japanese successes were at the end of their tether). After 6 years of war, the Commonwealth public opinion attitude, -- particularly the British , who had already elected their post war government, and would not have looked kindly on Attlee's Government if it delayed its promise of building of the New Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land, to fight prolonged far-eastern war -- would have been to paraphrase Bomber Harris comments over Dresden, (changing just the word German for Japanese):

"I… assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking Japanese cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Japanese are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain that they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Japan as worth the bones of one British Grenadier."

I do not think that historians can ignore the political reality that the public in the West expected the war to be won as quickly as possible and that the aggressor had to be military defeated as comprehensively as the Axis powers in Europe. (BTW if the Japanese did not surrender immediately after the dropping of the fist A-bomb on a city, why would they have done so if invited to a demonstration?) It would have been a very foolish politician who ignored those views. It would be a very foolish historian who tried to build a counter hypothesis which moved too far from that reality for as Churchill said "the terrible ifs accumulate". luckily for us we only have to write up the generally agreed historical point of view and do not have to worry about the other alternatives, because they are covered by no original research, and the WP:RS section exceptional claims require exceptional sources--Philip Baird Shearer 02:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Piling on: That the war wasn't going to end until Japan surrendered is so obvious that it does go without saying. A war isn't like a softball game, which has to be stopped if one team gets too big a lead. The Allies weren't going to make the same mistake they'd made in WWI, which they'd allowed Germany to get out of without surrendering, and thereby set the stage for WWII. (Foch on the Versailles Treaty: "This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years.")

The surrender of Germany and Japan had been a settled Allied war aim for years before, and while the terms of surrender offered to Japan in the Potsdam Declaration were much better than those under which Germany surrendered, the Allied weren't going to amend them unless they had to. Which, it turned out, they didn't.

China was one of the Allied powers, in which the war was costing about 200k civilian deaths per month in 1945. Try to imagine their view of "a treaty allowing Japan to keep the territory it had already conquered"! Or even a policy of not attacking Japan with whatever weapons were available.

—wwoods 08:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Reminding people that this page isn't supposed to be a chat group for general discussion of the article's topic, nor is it the best place for ghoulish, ruin-your-breakfast quotes from "Bomber" "I'm a bloody lunatic" Harris, nor the best place for bizarro-world, everything-I-say-is-backwards interpretations of WWI and Versailles. :-) KarlBunker 11:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Karl (As I mentioned to you on your talk page last time you commented on something I wrote on this talk page [2]) I think you should use "I think" a little more when writing such comments. Both Wwoods and I made what we thought were pertinant points to Lode Runner's initial point which in itself was I think a point worth raising on this talk page and conrtibuted to why Lode Runner's option is not mentioned in the article. IMHO paragraphs like the last one do make it more difficult for me to work in harmony with you on this project. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that your whining is tiresome and petty. KarlBunker 18:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but it does appear that he minority but notable opinion of Gar Alperovitz and others regarding the tactical rationale (or lack thereof) for dropping the bomb is underreported. Is there a way we could mention the demonstration to Russia theory that Alperovitz raises in his published work The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a brief mention in the Inherently immoral subsection, naming Peter Kuznick and Mark Selden as supporters. In America, Alperovitz is certainly the more well known proponent, but for Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam rather than Decision i think. According to Sadao Asada:

In Japan, the revisionist thesis of "atomic diplomacy" has carried much appeal, not because Alperovitz is widely read (his Atomic Diplomacy has never been translated) but because P. M.S. Blackett's Fear, War, and the Bomb, which anticipated Alperovitz's main thrust, was translated in 1951 and has been very popular among Japanese intellectuals, especially on the Left.

i've got The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb here, but unfortunately neither of the earlier works.—eric 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no one here or in the article discusses Edwin O. Reischauer's opinion on this issue. Needless to say, he has a lot of credibility on his opinions about Japanese subjects as he was born in Japan, was a professor in east Asian history, founded the Japanese Institute at Harvard, was fluent in Japanese, was married to a Japanese citizen, served as ambassador to Japan under President Kennedy, wrote a book about Japanese culture as well as at least nine other books about Japan, and advised the U.S. government on Japan-related issues during World War II. In his book My Life Between Japan and America he discusses the debate about the atomic bombings, including the "demonstration theory" and other alternative ideas of how the weapon could have been employed. His conclusion was that the Hiroshima bomb was necessary but the Nagasaki bomb wasn't. I don't remember his reasoning well-enough to repeat here, I just remember his conclusion. If someone can gain access to this book I think that his opinion would add value to this article and to this debate because he is such a credible source of opinion on the matter.

By the way, unlike the comments from the other editors in this section (excluding myself) whose comments on this matter were well said, I find Karl Bunker's comments to be very unhelpful. Cla68 07:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I also have Alperovitz's Decision. I don't think there's a morality argument in it - it's, obviously, a history book. It is, I would argue, more about the motive and the military necessity. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia can an individual use self-evident logic then be harassed for not providing sources. One day I will make myself "notable" enough so that I can declare, "Wikipedia is a joke," at which point some lib admin will whine about WP:NOR. Business as usual. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"(given the relatively small loss of life at Pearl Harbor.)" -- This is the second time I have seen this. We lost over 2000 souls to their 64, that is not relatively small, that is 40-1 against. Compartively small, relatively small, these are not only POV, but they are unsubstantiated by the facts. We lost civilian and military lives against a country we were at peace with. To choose to fight back with everything we had is not only understandable, but to save American lives is logical. After all, we are not just talking about the 2400 innocents killed in Pearl Harbor, we are talking about a war in which American soldiers were slaughtered on each island they were captured on, the Death Railway and other abuses and murder of Allied prisoners of war was going on daily, by a people allied with the concentration camp Nazi's, and sailors armed with nothing more than mops were getting attacked the way of Mohammed Atta by the Kamakaze each day. To suggest that a group of people willing to suicide themselves for their beloved emperor were going to just stop fighting, say "okay, you win", return all stolen lands, people, and materials, based on a threat of a possible big bomb, is naive at best. Finally, to say that we did not have to fight them because they could not attack American soil right away would imply that we should have been isolationist even after Pearl Harbor, and by that same logic, we should never have invaded the French at Normandy, because after all, the French and Germans were not going to attack US soil anytime soon. We should just let the atrocities continue, and not use the weapons available to stop them. I respectfully disagree with that idea, and consider it unencyclopedic to suggest that in the article. CodeCarpenter 04:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just my 2¢ Japan was ready to sign a pact of peace with USA, GB and other as long as they were alolwed a free hand in China. They were forced to war since USA said "No more scrap until you leave China alone." ( Likevise Germany was ready to leave France and the rest of West Europe alone if they was given a free hand in East Europe.) Allowing that was not in Rosevelts plans. He was one of the few moralistic rulers, thank god (or whatever). Japan knew from the word GO that they could not win against USA, at least not for a long time. Seniorsag 16:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What you're all missing here is that Japan was going to lose all of its mainland possessions within a matter of weeks. It lost almost all of Manchuria in seven days to the Soviets, who invaded on the 8th of August. Had the war continued, Japan would not have been able to demand free reign in China, because it would no longer have possessed the country. The Soviets also took the Sakhalin and Kuril Islands, and were planning an invasion of Hokkaido. Japan would only have been left with the Home Islands by the time it came to the negotiating table. -Thucydides411 08:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact

From thie history

• 17:57, 23 February 2007 Philip Baird Shearer(Having withdrawn from the neutrality pact on August 5,)
• 18:05, 23 February 2007 Wwoods (No, the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact ran through April 1946. The Soviets had merely announced that they weren't going to renew it for another five years.)

Yes it did run until 1946 BUT On April 5, 1945 the Soviet Union informed the Japanese Government that the pact was redundant and that "in accordance with Article Three of the ... pact, which envisaged the right of denunciation one year before the lapse of the five year period of operation of the pact, the Soviet Government hereby makes know to the Government of Japan its wish to denounce the pact of April 13, 1941."

So they used weasle words to get out of the pact a year earlier, but they did not break the pact. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But — according to our article — the pact said

"Article three: The present Pact comes into force from the day of its ratification by both Contracting Parties and remains valid for five years. In case neither of the Contracting Parties denounces the Pact one year before the expiration of the term, it will be considered automatically prolonged for the next five years."

I take that to mean that in April the Soviets were activating the non-renewal provision, but the pact still had its last year to run. What did they do or say on August 5, or was that just a typo?

—wwoods 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You read it that way, the Soviets clearly did not otherwise they would not have bothered to tell the Japanese anything before their attack/decleration of war. The Hague conventions use the words "In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Declaration, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the Netherlands Government, and forthwith communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers." In this case there does not seem to be a time limit on how soon the denunciation comes into effect, therefor they could withdraw immediately.

The interpretation of what was done, if they broke is in my opinion a novel or surprising interpretation and so it needs to be from an unbiased source attributable to an expert on international law, because it is in danger of being used as part of an historical revisionist argument that although the Japanese attacked pearl harbor without warning one of the allies did the same to Japan, so Japan's actions were no worse than the Allies. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the Soviets bothered to denounce the pact, but the terms seem pretty clear — "The present Pact ... remains valid for five years." — with no provision for early termination. According to the [translated] text of the Soviet statement of April 1945, the Soviets weren't claiming otherwise:

" 'In these circumstances the neutrality pact between Japan and the USSR has lost its sense, and the prolongation of that pact has become impossible. [emph added]

... one year before the lapse of the five year period of operation of the pact, ...

The denunciation thing seems to be the same one-year warning as in your Hague convention cite. If a party to the pact could denounce it one day and legitimately declare war the next, what would the point of the pact be? (Disclaimer: IANAL.)

—wwoods 16:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite the contary. Unlike most of Hague, there was a time limit on the length of the neutrality pact (as there there was on Hague: Declaration on the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons). There was nothing in the treaty, unlike Hague, stopping either side to denounce the treaty and have that denunciation come into effect immediately. Article 3 says "The present Pact comes into force from the day of its ratification by both Contracting Parties and remains valid for five years. In case neither of the Contracting Parties denounces the Pact one year before the expiration of the term, it will be considered automatically prolonged for the next five years" It is your reading of it that says "with no provision for early termination". Unlike Hague there is nothing in that paragraph that explicitly says that it can not be denounced at any time by either party. I think that to interpret the Soviet actions as breaching the treaty is OR and should be backed up with an attributable source from a recognised expert on international law.

If you re-read the Soviet statement of April 1945 with the idea that it could be denounced at any time with immidiate effect, then it can be read differently:

In these circumstances the neutrality pact between Japan and the USSR has lost its sense ... the Soviet Government hereby makes know to the Government of Japan its wish to denounce the pact of April 13, 1941.

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it could be denounced at any time, but the second sentence of Article Three says the effect of denouncing it at the end of four years (and presumably earlier) is to cancel the otherwise-automatic prolongation for a second five-year period. Even the denunciation speaks of the "five year period of operation of the pact".

But we're just going around in circles, saying the same things over and over. Anyone else want to chime in?

—wwoods 09:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you've put a reference to "August 5" back in. Is that a typo, or a reference to some other action? And "abrogation" means termination, which IMHO is not what the Soviet "denunciation" of April 5 did.

—wwoods 09:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The date is my mistake. I'll fix it. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Hiroshima radiation free today?

Someone should add information on the current state of radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today!!!! I know people say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are free from radiation today, but I still haven't found conclusive proof or a good source on this. A simple google search for 'Hiroshima radiation today' brought up only one useful footnote in the first ten results.I actually don't trust the source I'm posting, but if it helps, here it is. http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/faqs/faqse.htm#faq12

Check the News sites such as the BBC or the Japanese equivalent. I'm sure you'll find something. From what I recall, Hiroshima, at least, is still radioactive to a degree. I'm not sure about Nagasaki though, and I can't back it up.--JavaJawaUK 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a search for studies of background radiation in various cities? I'll look into it. cyclosarin 01:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I recall a US President placing a wreath there, and Pope John Paul visited there as well. According to this page from Japan, it is currently a thriving city, with no mention of an exclusion zone due to radiation. http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/kikaku/joho/toukei/08_dijest/english/18/shisei-e18.html

In addition, the building now known as the A-Bomb dome in Hiroshima has many photos taken up close to it. I tried to find images of people near the site, but was not successful. http://www.ric.edu/pamental/hiroshima/abombdome.gif

Finally, within the page itself are monuments built in both cities near the center of the blasts. I would guess the radiation levels, if existing at all, are at the non-lethal level at this time. CodeCarpenter 17:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okinawa numbers.

I have added a source for Okinawa numbers with exact numbers, BUT my source i 3rd hand. (original source - English pocket series - Swedish translation.) If somebody can find a copy of Benis Frank´s "Okinawa: touchstone to victory" and cite exact words THANK YOU. Sadly enough the English series was quite trustworthy but did not give god citations so it will be some trouble to trace the citation back. My guess is that it probably was "Okinawa: The Last Battle - The War in the Pacific - US Army in World War II Roy E Appleman et al (History Division, Department of the Army, Washington)". (Caps for titles are exatly cited as printed in the Swedish edition)Seniorsag 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A recapitulation of enemy losses for the entire Okinawan campaign showed 107,539 counted dead plus 23,764 estimated to be sealed in caves or buried by the Japanese themselves. A total of 10,755 prisoners of war had been captured. Since this casualty total of 142,058 was "far above a reasonable estimate of military strength on the island," Tenth Army intelligence officers concluded that approximately 42,000 civilians had fallen victim to artillery, NGF, and air attacks because of their unfortunate proximity to Japanese combat troops and installations.
American losses were heavy. Tenth Army reported 7,374 Americans killed or died of wounds, 31,807 wounded or injured in action, and 239 missing. In addition there were 26,221 non-battle casualties...The United States Pacific Fleet and attached British carrier forces suffered a servere mauling in supporting and maintaining the operations of Tenth Amry in Okinawa Gunto. During the three-month ICEBERG Campaign 36 ships were sunk and 368 were damaged, 763 aircraft were lost to all causes, and 4,907 seamen were killed or missing in action and 4,824 were wounded. In grim return for these losses, ships and ground AAA and planes operating under Navy coordination or control accounted for 7,830 Japanese aircraft and 16 combatant ships.Nichols Jr., Chas S. (1955). Okinawa: Victory in the Pacific. Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps. pp. p. 260. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I'll change the ref if no one has a problem w/ the article text or source.—eric 18:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

After further review...

User:Arigato1, based upon his talk page history (he has cleared out many of his recieved negative comments and admin warnings) seems to enjoy confrontation. His credibility appears to have come into question on other pages as well. I would suggest caution in attempts to reason with him in the future. IMO, of course. CodeCarpenter 20:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC:Was Atomic Bombing of Japan a War Crime

For those interested, I have added an RfC for this issue in the talk page of Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#RfC:Was_Atomic_Bombing_of_Japan_a_War_Crime. Despite the apparent belligerent method of one side of the argument, this will allow for outside moderation to occur, and a final decision to be made. Feel free to add your comments there, as it is likely that that decision will carry over to this one. CodeCarpenter 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously the article cannot take a position one way or another. Stating flat out that the bombings were or were not a war crime would violate wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. There are plenty of notable individuals which have stated they were, and we can and should report their views, along with those which state the opposite.

If it's a question of what to do with editors who persist in promoting their opinion within the article, i say point out the WP:NPOV and WP:V policies, try and engage them on the talk page and see if they can otherwise make any useful contributions, but if they continue to edit war then simply revert and ignore.—eric 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Using weapons of mass destruction of worst kind against civilians is a war crime. I don't think any non-American will disagree in that. --Arigato1 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

^Please don't feed the troll, thank you... CanadianMist 16:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Arigato1, do you have a source to substantiate those claims? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Support section modified

I moved some peices that were in different areas (operation downfall, lives saved) together, and gave the sections titles for easier access. The support section was quite long without sub-headings. Feel free to make changes, I have no emotional attachment to the change, but it made for an easier read to me. CodeCarpenter 17:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)