Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Had there been no Pearl Harbor or Singapore, there would have been no Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Kindly keep Manchukuo and the rape of Nanking in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.33.185 (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Case Against Should Lead, Case For Should Be the Rebuttal

The debate arises because in the first instance, the positive assertion was made that the bombings were wrong. The justifications are a response to these assertions, and are only necessary because of them.

There's a reason why in criminal trials, the case for the prosecution comes before the case for the defense. The case for the defense is necessarily a response to the prosecution's case -- in fact, it doesn't even make sense without the prosecution's case having already been made.

In this article, the argument for the defense comes before the argument for the prosecution. It's backwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.196.34 (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Debate

Whether one accepts the US, Japanese, or another's numbers for the dead, people will debate its morality since they are all pretty big numbers. (Unless one believes the line between moral and immoral is at a fixed casualty figure.) Anynobody 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is in regard to the quote at the top of the page "Had there been no Pearl Harbor or Singapore, there would have been no Hiroshima or Nagasaki". I dont believe that this statement is correct whatsoever. The reason for the bombings was not at all because of Pearl Harbor or Singapore. There was no "pay back", the war simply tapered out to the showdown at Japan. I ask you to step into the shoes of any one in that situation: The President, the American Soldier, the Chinese Soldier, the Japanese soldier, the Russian soldier, the Emperor, or any civilian caught in the fray. Now that you have done that tell me how many of your associates, friends, and family do you want to die: 2 or all. Those were what the choices are. There is not much of a choice. The decision was warranted and apropriote for the times. I understand the you are looking through a different window than they were but you are wrong. (Monster50s (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

recent large changes by ultramarine

I took a look and see some NPOV problems, some off topic problems, and problems of reliable sources. In particular the Standard Weekly is used as the source to make several controversial claims, as facts. I'll remove the Standard Weekly parts, but welcome the addition of a better source, preferably a scholarly journal. The standard weekly is not reliable. Its a well known neo-conservative propaganda piece that was notoriously inaccurate about its push for war against Iraq, falsely claiming Iraq ties with Al Queda, etc. Wikipedia should stick to best sources for history articles, esp. sources used to make claims about historical facts. No need for opinion advocacy "journalism" to replace sound scholarly sources. I also noticed some off topic points that distracted, and some redundancy. I'll try to clean it up, and look for better sources to add as well.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the article which is by a historian. Richard B. Frank.[1] Your own claims are unsourced. Your other deletions are unexplained.Ultramarine (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is something wrong--the source you use: The Weekly Standard. If this writer is a historian, he would have published these claims in a peer reviewed academic journal for historians. That would be a valid source for his history article. Standard Weekly, the source, is the problem. ::That is why I removed it and am looking for a reliable source to support the claims. Why have you restored it? Also, you can't use Wikipedia itself to support your claims.
Claim claims have I put in the article that are not sourced? I added no claims, only removed your standard weekly sources, that insult the integrity of this Encyclopedic article. I also explained that I made other changes based on redundancy. For example, you created a new section, called, "Speedy End to War Saved Lives." First of all its a POV title, but it merely repeats the info in the previous title/section: "Preferable to invasion", which states, already: "Those who argue in favor of the decision to drop the bombs generally assert that the bombings ended the war months sooner than would otherwise have been the case, thus saving many lives." Its POV pushing to repeat the same arguments over in a new section that you create just to hammer that same point over again. No need for that and its POV pushing redundancy.
Lastly, I don't see any consensus or discussion about these massive changes of yours before you effected them, and now edit war over them. That is poor editing behavior and I object to them on that basis as well.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Still no source for your claims against the Weekly standard. There is a difference between deaths caused by an invasion and deaths caused by the war on other fronts that would have taken place even with no invasion. Title not more POV than "Militarily unnecessary". We could possible change the title, but then equally for all sides.Ultramarine (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
My claims are here on talk so not relevant. What is relevant is your claims within the article. Are you trying to argue that Weekly Standard is a peer reviewed academic journal for historians? If so YOU have to support that claim, but I don't see you making it, even (which would be laughable). History articles writing about a specific historical fact should rely on the best sources. Do you disagree? I think my demand here is reasonable: leave weekly Standard for opinion pieces on political issues to report on the neo-conservative perspective. You are using it as a scholarly source to support a specific historical claim of fact. For that purpose it does not suffice. Yes, all the titles need to be changed but you did not address my issue of repeating the same claims in different sections.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, no source for your claims against the Weekly Standard. Richard B. Frank is historian who has written a book on the subject. He is a reliable source. Some duplication removed.Ultramarine (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
That the Standard Weekly is not an academic peer reviewed journal for historians is self evident. There is no need for me to cite anything as any reasonable person knows the difference. Citing historical factual matters in a history article are from this source is substandard; wikipedia must rely on the best reliable sources. This is also self evident and needs no further elaboration on my part. Ergo, your claims from Weekly Standard must be replaced with a better source. I urge reversion of your weekly standard material.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
"There is no need for me to cite anything" Actually, WP is built on V. Richard B. Frank is historian who has written a book on the subject.[2] He is a reliable source.Ultramarine (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
That pertains to the article, not on the talk page. If he is a historian who makes valid claims then please use a reliable source to use him. As you say WP is built on V. Verification is built on reliable sources for the subject matter. The Weekly Standard is not a reliable source for history articles. If you can't see that, then I'm not going to argue why that is the case any more than I already have. As I said, its self evident. Richard Frank's assertions are only as good as the source you are using to assert them. I can create a website right now and claim lots of stuff attributed to the best qualified people. That makes it no more valid, since those qualified people are being cited in a sub-standard source. That is the problem, not the historian himself. See the difference?Giovanni33 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If you do not give sources for your claims they are unverifiable and not very interesting. Even if Frank had published this himself on his webpage, it would arguable be acceptable: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." But the Weekly Standard qualify as a magazine published by a respected publishing house. You can see some comments here: [3][4] On the other hand, the critical section have some dubious sources, like commondreams.org and doug-long.com.Ultramarine (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why the Weekly Standard is not a reliable source as WP:RS describes ? Dance With The Devil (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Here is what the policy says:

Reliable sources

  • Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made.
  • In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
  • Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science...The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.

Questionable sources

  • Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

So point #1. This is a history article and the claim is asserting a specific historical fact. The best source for this a peer reviewed academic journal for historians. This argument only says: use a better source. This is the best kind of source and it is available for supporting claims of this kind. If we want a neo-con opinion then the Standard Weekly will work. But that is not what its being used for. This gets into point #2:

The Standard Weekly does not have a reputation for accuracy. Look at the article on wikipedia about it. There are lots of other sources, btw, that allege this, and as far as I know, no one even disputes this. They have a reputation for pushing the Bush administrations lies about Iraq having ties to Al Queda, and pushed for war, telling these lies. Its a propaganda mouthpiece for the administration. They rely on rumor, poor fact checking, and what its termed, "advocacy journalism," much like Fox news. Its more of an extremist source in my view.

The easy solution is simply to use better sources. There is no reason why we can't stick to better sources, for an article like this, and this goes for all claims.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard B. Frank is a military historian who is a recognized expert on this subject, which he wrote about in his book, Downfall.
"In his comprehensive study of the last months of WWII, Frank (Guadalcanal) aims to present events "as they were perceived and recorded by American and Japanese participants in 1945 — not years or decades thereafter." ... Frank immerses his readers in the flow of intelligence estimates, battle experience and shifting strategy on both sides. The centerpiece of the book is an exacting and dispassionate examination both of the American decision to use the atomic bomb and of whether Japan would have surrendered absent the bomb. Frank marshals an impressive and complex array of evidence to support his contention that surrender by Japan was by no means imminent in August 1945, and that alternatives to the bomb, such as incendiary bombing, carried no certainty of causing less suffering and fewer deaths than the atomic bomb. In his balanced use of sources and in his tough-minded sensitivity to moral issues, Frank has enriched the debate about the war's conclusion." — Publishers Weekly.
If you're interested in Frank's original sources, you can check his footnotes (pp. 365–443 in the paperback edition) and his bibliography (pp. 445–459). His article, "Why Truman Dropped the Bomb ", published in The Weekly Standard (note correct name), obviously draws on the same sources. It doesn't have footnotes, but several sources are named in the article, notably the Magic Diplomatic Summaries. The article is a more convenient reference than the book, since it's available online.
The Weekly Standard may be a popular magazine, rather than an academic journal, but that does not distinguish it from several other cited references: Fox News, the International Herald Tribune, the New York Times, U.S. News and World Report, Combat, and The Nation. Unless you're claiming the magazine is a "mouthpiece for the [Truman] administration", I don't see what Iraq has to do with this subject.
—WWoods (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, I don't dispute the validity of citing Richard Frank, I object to citing the Weekly Standard. Unlike many other news journals, this one has a poor reputation regarding accuracy. Do really need to dig up more examples of this? The added convenience of using an online source is trumped when when that online source is of low quality. This is esp. true when a very high quality source can be found. What sources we use for our history articles reflect on Wikipedia. We should always use the best sources. The Weekly Standard is a heavily partisan source tainted by notorious reputation as low or lower than Fox news. Its an embarrassment to see any serious historical claims are based on such a source.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard: A reputation of accuracy or inaccuracy?

I present these gems from an article, "Kristol's War" by Scott Sherman; The Nation, Vol. 279, August 30, 2004. It reads:

Within days of the attacks, the Standard had already identified Saddam Hussein as a principal culprit for the violence. The cover of the Standard's October 1, 2001, issue contained a single word--"WANTED"--above stark black-and-white photographs of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. "Evidence that Iraq may have aided in the horrific attacks of September 11 is beginning to accumulate," Kristol (and contributing editor Robert Kagan) intoned in an editorial. Over the next eighteen months, the Standard mounted a furious campaign against Iraq with a torrent of essays and editorials that, as we now know, were long on hubris and wishful thinking, and short on accuracy:

[section] "It is not just a matter of justice to depose Saddam. It is a matter of self defense: He is currently working to acquire weapons of mass destruction that he or his confederates will unleash against America and our allies if given the chance." (Max Boot, "The Case for American Empire," October 15, 2001)

[section] "If all we do is contain Saddam's Iraq, it is a virtual certainty that Baghdad will soon have nuclear weapons." (Gary Schmitt, "Why Iraq?" October 29, 2001)

[section] "Iraq is the only nation in the world, other than the United States and Russia, to have developed the kind of sophisticated anthrax that appeared in the letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle." (Kagan and Kristol, "Getting Serious," November 19, 2001)

[section] "Today, no one knows how close Saddam is to having a nuclear device. What we do know is that every month that passes brings him closer to the prize." (Kagan and Kristol, "What to Do About Iraq," January 21, 2002)

[section] "According to an Iraqi newspaper ... Saddam told the bomb-makers to accelerate the pace of their work ... Saddam has been moving ahead into a new era, a new age of horrors where terrorists don't commandeer jumbo jets and fly them into our skyscrapers. They plant nuclear bombs in our cities." (Kagan and Kristol, "Back on Track," April 29, 2002) This incendiary language, directed at a grieving, traumatized nation, appeared in the pages of the nation's most influential conservative journal of opinion--one that has a symbiotic relationship with the present Administration. "Dick Cheney does send over someone to pick up thirty copies of the magazine every Monday," Kristol bragged to the New York Times on the eve of war. And the Washington Post has reported that Kristol meets regularly with Karl Rove and Condoleezza Rice. Kristol's clout in Washington, combined with his bellicosity toward Iraq, inspired in mid-2002 a phrase from columnist Richard Cohen: "Kristol's war."

A hallucinatory quality infused the Standard's Iraq coverage right up through the first phase of the war, and beyond. "In all likelihood, Baghdad will be liberated by April," contributing editor Max Boot averred in February 2003, adding, "This may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history--events like the storming of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall--after which everything is different." A delusionary note was sounded immediately after the fall of Baghdad, when a Standard editorial, written by executive editor Fred Barnes, wondered if George W. Bush would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for toppling Saddam.

In mid- to late 2003, as the Iraqi resistance proliferated, the Standard dug in its heels with a series of editorials demanding additional resources for the war effort, while simultaneously expressing a rosy view. "Iraq has not descended into inter-religious and inter-ethnic violence," the editors announced last September. "There is food and water. Hospitals are up and running." As recently as June, the editors informed their readers that "we are actually winning the war in Iraq," and went on to say "the security situation, though inexcusably bad, looks as if it may finally be improving; Moktada al-Sadr seems to have been marginalized, and the Shia center is holding; there is nothing approaching civil war."

At the same time, the Standard worked assiduously to forge a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Over the past eight months, the magazine has published three cover stories on the "connection" by staff writer Stephen Hayes. "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein," Hayes wrote in November, in an article praised by Cheney, "had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction...." (Emphasis added.)

Hayes's second cover story arrived on newsstands just weeks before a staff statement by the 9/11 commission transformed his theory into a pile of rubble. (In the Standard's June 28 issue, Kristol dismissed the work of the 9/11 commission as "sloppy" and "unimpressive.")

The performance of Kristol & Co. raises disconcerting questions about the magazine. Is the Standard, which publishes the work of respected commentators like Christopher Caldwell, Joseph Epstein and John DiIulio Jr., a weekly compendium of responsible conservative opinion, or is it a haven for charlatans, conspiracy theorists and con men? In a recent appearance on Terry Gross's Fresh Air, Kristol groused about the Bush Administration's handling of the war but was rather reticent on the subject of Iraq's WMD. Not so long ago, Kristol addressed the matter with confidence. Before US troops entered Baghdad, he assured his readers, "The war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction."... Giovanni33 (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that this line of discussion should be taken to the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard where we can get wider community input. As Frank is a historian who is a recognized expert in his field, I don't think it matters that it was the Weekly Standard that published it, especially since the article was based on the same sources as his book. Dance With The Devil (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hm, how about this: "The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender.[27][28]"
Footnote 27 takes you to an article on a DOE site that doesn't address these claims directly and unambiguously. Footnote 28 takes you to a Weekly Standard article based (apparently) entirely on a book whose reliability has been questioned (see Wikipedia article on its author.) So, we've got known-partisan source, with an article based on a questionable source, conflated with the (not exactly identical) position of the U.S. Department of Energy, by footnoting this paragraph with both source. Also, the above passage was ripped verbatim from the Weekly standard article, rather than clearly quoted from it -- which is to say, it's plagiarism (unless it was unintentional, which I doubt).
I started looking into this paragraph because I questioned whether the relevant intelligence intercepts should be considered evidence of some absolute perfect consensus "determination" on the part of the Japanese Army to fight an invasion indefinitely. (Obviously it shouldn't, because obviously the Japanese Army surrendered.) Not even the Weekly Standard article, with its likely slant, seems to support that interpretation. I think this paragraph should either be rewritten to reflect the real ambiguities of the intelligence (and ambivalence of the relevant players), or it should be deleted. I think it's relevant enough to keep, so for now I'll just tag it as poorly sourced. Yakushima (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"... a book whose reliability has been questioned (see Wikipedia article on its author.)"
Um, what? I don't see anything at Richard B. Frank questioning his reliability.
—WWoods (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the ambiguity. When I wrote "a Weekly Standard article based (apparently) entirely on a book whose reliability has been questioned (see Wikipedia article on its author.)", the book I meant was Winterbotham's book about the Ultra secret(s). And I see now that Frank's article couldn't have been based entirely on Winterbotham's; I was misled by the seeming lack of other relevant references in Frank's article. See also my comment on your Talk page about this. Perhaps the fact that User:Ultramarine plagiarized the passage quoted from Frank's article put me on High Bogosity Alert, and I overreacted. Yakushima (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah! But Frank's book doesn't even list Winterbotham in the bibliography. I think by"Collectively, the missing information is known as The Ultra Secret of World War II (after the title of a breakthrough book by Frederick William Winterbotham published in 1974).", Frank is just saying that Ultra — rather than Magic — became the popular term for Allied codebreaking efforts because The Ultra Secret was the first book on breaking the Enigma machine. I've read it but I don't recall whether it covers Japanese codes as well as the Germans'.
—WWoods (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dubious quotes

Does anyone know the original sources of the quotes attributed to Leahy and Nimitz? (The immediate source is apparently an article on Commondreams.org.) The Leahy quote is contradicted in a previous section: "... None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral’s memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had “said up to the last that it wouldn’t go off.”" And the Nimitz quote includes a misstatement that I doubt Nimitz would have made: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace." In fact, the Japanese didn't sue for peace until the day after the second bomb.
—WWoods (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons

Leahy, W. D. (1950). I was there. New York: Whittlesey House. p. 441. OCLC 397109. Quoted in Walker (1997) Prompt and Utter Destruction and Wainstock (1996) The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb. Still looking for Nimitz.—eric 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Subsequently, in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Nimitz stated: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war."

Alperovitz Decision. p. 329, citing: The New York Times, October 6, 1945, p. 6.—eric 21:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that this was after the war when the bombing was becoming a hot topic since lots of journalists could visit the bomb sites. While tending to ignore less unusual war victims. But no evidence that they stated this before the bombing as noted in the article. Nimitz actually wanted to bomb earlier.Ultramarine (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Should be noted in the article probably, as the current text does not make this clear.—eric 23:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the Weekly Standard, these quotes are fabricated, which is simply not true. They never back up their false claims. And even if true, it would be the kettle calling the pot black. I think we need to open up to an Rfc concerning the wisdom of using The Weekly Standards as a reference to support claims of historical facts in a history articles. I find that idea repulsive to standards of any reference work, one that common sense should reject out of hand, or have our standards really sunken this low?Giovanni33 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I can find no such claim in the article y'all were discussing above. Can you provide a link or a brief quote if the article is not available online?—eric 23:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Peace probings through the Soviets

Ultramarine, regarding your fact request. In the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki I originally included this:(July 17 Allied discussion of the Japanese offer) into the already referenced sentence "Emperor Hirohito, who was waiting for a Soviet reply to noncommittal Japanese peace feelers, made no move to change the government position."see this diff. I though it would add value for the reader.

Ergo, your fact request is not needed since the referenced book already covers it. What seems to have happened here is that (1) I lifted in this text chunk into this article (2) At some point you formated it so that it looked like the allied discussion was a source for part of the sentence. (3) wwoods was mislead into formalizing this impression (4) you delete both the link to the allied discussion of the peace probe, and the sentence regarding the Japanese peace probe., stating " primary sources should be avoided, peace negotiations already discussed above". I still don't understand your explanation about the Japanese peace probe through the soviets being "discussed above", as far as I can tell there is no mention of it.--Stor stark7 Talk 20:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Primary sources, which your source is, are not allowed. 2. Your source does not state anything regarding the situation after the Potsdam declaration which was on a later date. 3. What the Japanese really wanted in this peace offer was known through Magic and this has been added to the article.Ultramarine (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(1). Primary sources are not allowed to be used as references. However this was not a reference, this is just a primary document directly related to the topic inserted as a "see also", it was not used to "source or support" any argument. Your attack on it is reminiscent of straw man argument. (2). Your statement regarding the date is accurate, but I fail to see the relevance of it. How the Allies regarded the Japanese peace feeler before demanding unconditional surrender at Potsdam is not interesting? (3). Yes, I see the magic paragraph sourced to the weekly standard now. It still does not justify removing the sourced information that the Emperor choose not to act since he was awaiting a reaction to the peace probe. (4). Have you read the notes from the discussion between Churchill and Stalin? I found them quite interesting. Stalin told Churchill that the emperor of Japan stated that unconditional surrender could not be accepted by Japan, but if it was not insisted upon, Japan might be prepared to compromise with regard to other terms. Churchill told Stalin that he did not want the Americans to think they were not behind them in their aim of achieving complete victory over Japan. But he also said that people in the U.S. were beginning to doubt the need for unconditional surrender, was it worth having the pleasure of killing 10 million Japanese at the cost of one million Americans and British? Stalin remarked that the Japanese were frightened, the consequences of unconditional surrender could be seen in Berlin and the rest of Germany.--Stor stark7 Talk 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Your source is not interesting regarding how the US perceived the situation. The Soviet Union was certainly not told about Magic. The US and possible Churchill knew about this peace feeler before Stalin did since they had intercepted the messages to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow. Stalin did not know what the Japanese really wanted. The US did. No occupation, no war crimes tribunals, and that the militarists should continue to be in power.Ultramarine (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would have guessed that what the Japanese really wanted was to win the war, but I guess diplomatic intercepts between members of the government and an ambassador know better. Failing that I guess it was for the Japanese a question of getting whatever type of peace they could get short of the German version. But since there never was a U.S. reaction other than the ultimatum and the nukes we'll never know where negotiations for a conditional surrender would have led, what the Japanese would have been willing to trade away to avoid the same fate as Germany.--Stor stark7 Talk 21:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
As a sidepoint Stalin and Churchill was both just lying regarding possible options. Churchill knew about the bomb but did not mention this to Stalin. Stalin already knew about the bomb through spies but of course did not mention this either. The US knew the Japanese position very well through Magic. The militarists though that their position would improve with a failed or very costly invasion attempt. They were determined to fight. Waiting was not a cost free option as noted in the article. The US had two bombs and thought that using them would tip the balance in favor of the civilians. They were right.Ultramarine (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The Japanese themselves didn't know what they (collectively) wanted, which is one reason they had trouble with their Soviet gambit. I think they all realized that "win[ning] the war" wasn't an option, but some of them had hopes of keeping their pre-war empire more-or-less intact. Of course, that included the territories Stalin wanted.
The terms offered by the Allies in the Potsdam Declaration were far more lenient than the unconditional surrender imposed on Germany, which ceased to exist as a nation.
—WWoods (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

While I welcome images that add to an article, the images added to the total war section are a little dubious. I dont see any relevance in having an execution image, which does not have anything to do with total war. Neither do I see why an image that is stated to be "Ten Thousand Corpse Ditch”, where bodies of mass execution victims were buried." is put here stating that the victims are civilians. Please be a little more careful when adding images, and provide verifiable sources. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I changed them to more appropriate photos. BillyTFried (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for moving that image to the correct section. The image is good, my placement of it left a lot to be desired. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The images of the victims of Japanese violence are relevant. But that there should be more showing the sufferings of japanese victims that of Japanese sufferers on this page of all pages is going over the top. I think that there should be a couple more images of suffering at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.--Timtak (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Innaccuracy with total Chinese Deaths during '37-'45.

The section in question is: "For China alone, depending upon what number one chooses for overall Chinese casualties, in each of the ninety-seven months between July 1937 and August 1945, somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 persons perished, the vast majority of them noncombatants."

There appears to be some mix up in quoting the cited articles (7&8). Someone probably misread this paragraph in article 8: "On August 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb, the equivalent of 12,500 tons of TNT, was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later a second, the equivalent of 22,000 tons of TNT, was dropped on Nagasaki. Between 100,000 and 200,000 people were killed by the two bombs, a large proportion of them civilians. (For comparison, the 2000 census for records the Buffalo population as 292,648.)"

Infact, article 7 states: "He recounts how between 1931 and 1945 a total of 17 million people died as a result of Japanese aggression."

I'm new to the whole editing thing in Wikipedia, can someone more experience perhaps do it?

IronDrake (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Poll and discussion on article content related to state terrorism

Please see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism#Ending the war over the war over Japan -- Kendrick7talk 01:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is now back at Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States#Ending the war over the war over Japan. -- Kendrick7talk 08:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted seppuku image

I deleted an image from this article while removing Ultramarine's plagiarism (whether intended or not -- maybe he/she just doesn't understand quoting conventions) of an Air Force Association historian. I tried to make Ultramarine's supplied quote a proper block quote. Maybe it's a Wikipedia formatting bug, maybe it's my lack of skill in these things, but the block quote wouldn't render indented with the image in place. That made me really look at the image -- the only one for this section. And I had problems with it.

In a section that should summarize, with due weight for each viewpoint, the arguments supporting the position that Japan wouldn't surrender, the placement of the image suggests that "death before dishonor" was the root motivation for resisting surrender terms. Thus the image seems to me rather POV, possibly placing undue weight on a factor that was probably significant but hardly overwhelming.

After all, there was in fact one highest-level military suicide over Hirohito's decision to announce his surrender, but it seems the purpose of that honor-preserving death was to clear the way for the imperial veto of the militarists' votes to continue fighting. So if anything that suicide was actually seppuku in the name of making peace with the Allies.

It's OK to say "ironically" on Talk pages, isn't it? ;-) Yakushima (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Useful resources

Thanks. This is just the sort of quote I was looking for, but is the source encyclopedic if it is quoted by the bbc, or is it still just someones opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtak (talk • contribs) 12:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You would need to introduce this one as what it is.. an opinion. The BBC then gives it value (ie its no a blog site)--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You mean "reliability", not "value". To put a finer point on it: The fact that it was on the BBC website only makes it fairly certain that the POV expressed in the article came from a real person expressing her real opinions.
I would leave out this kind of source, especially considering it's second-hand. There are plenty of heart-wrenching stories about the atomic bombings. Far more such stories, in fact, than for any of the other firebombings of cities in Japan (the A-bombs being basically super-powerful incendiary bombs from any contemporary tactical point of view; the long-term radiation risks weren't well understood at the time.)
Let's keep the topic in mind. This article concerns a notable debate over some very specific events: the A-bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and perhaps other A-bombings of Japan contemplated but not undertaken). With this BBC account, we have an "article" (invited op-ed) that simply recounts at second hand, yet again, some horrifying details of one of the attacks, then (yet again) asks (rhetorically, i.e., spurning debate), whether the attacks were necessary. How does that reflect the debate? Well, no, it doesn't. Rather, it reflects a relative lack of debate in Japanese society about this issue. Here (yes, I live in Japan), it's widely assumed that the A-bombings were wrong, a point pounded into the public psyche with frequently scheduled documentaries on NHK and with annual ceremonies in Hiroshima. THat's interesting, but it's for another article. Maybe we could call it Japanese Consensus on the A-bombings as a Crime but Somehow All the Other Firebombings Were Not So Bad Oh Hell Why Complicate the Issue After All These Years. Yakushima (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "reliability" is a more precise word than "value" (value in reliability is what I meant). I wouldn't put this quote in on its own - I was thinking more of using it to support a wider picture. I included it here mainly because of what she said at the end of it. It's good to build up 'reliable sources' in here, so we can all refer to them. RE Japanese society - I am planning (when I have time) to introduce a proper culture section into the main article (please see the talk page). Would anyone here like to work with me? --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Nagasaki

The bombing of Hiroshima is debatable as is shown in the article. But, as mentioned before[5] the bombing of Nagasaki coming only three days after Hiroshima is far harder to defend. The debates are significantly different. Keeping these debates together hides the bombing of Nagasaki in the rhetoric of the bombing of Hiroshima. Please at least add a Nagasaki section. --Timtak (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It think that both Professor Bruce Cummnings and Professor Marty Sherwin can be cited in support of the notion that the second bombing was clearly unnecessary.
On page 237 of /A World Destroyed: Hiroshima and Its Legacies/ (Stanford University Press, 2001) [this is the current version of the original /A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance, /Knopf,1975] Professor Sherwin wrote:
"That unconditional surrender remained an obstacle to peace in the wakeof Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Soviet declaration of war -- until the government of the United States offered the necessary (albeit veiled) that neither emperor nor throne would be destroyed -- suggests the possibility, which even Stimson later recognized, that neither bomb *may* have been necessary; and *certainly* that the second one was not." [my timtak's emphasis]
Professor Bruce Cummings wrote on page 54 of Cumings, Bruce (1999). Parallax Visions. University Press of Duke, that the 2nd bomb was 'gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst.' --Timtak (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I am merging the following into this talk section

I don't know much about this topic so my apologies if this is already dealt with somewhere. What I wonder is, is there no debate if only the first bomb was necessary? The idea was to keep dropping bombs until Japan surrendered, but did they even wait after the first bomb? And threatened Japan to throw a second? I can understand that some consider dropping an atomic bomb necessary, but wouldn't one have been enough? - PietervHuis (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question. And you might be right that this topic belongs in this article in some fashion. I believe the answer to your question is, YES, the Japanese still refused to surrender after the first a-bomb was dropped, and only surrendered after the second bombing and the subsequent declaration of war by the USSR. But I don't think that has much relevance in this article, because it is based on the initial decision to actually drop an atomic weapon at all. BillyTFried (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Did the japanese "refuse to surrender" after the first bomb was dropped because they had not time to realise its significance? According to this article the war minister was claiming that the bomb was non nuclear, a claim that would have been rescinded hat they had time to investigate. As far as I am aware, Tokyo only really became aware of the extent of the devastation on the day before Nagasaki, and the next morning another 80,000 people were incinerated. The US could have said "there is another one coming soon, we give you x amount of time to make up your mind." Was it a conicidence that there were two types of bomb, and did their develoment costs need to be justified or destructive potential need to be tested? IMHO Hiroshima is arguable. Nagasaki, at that time, was not. It is high time, that the two bombings are considered seperately. --Timtak (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
So, anyway, with the above mentioned historical research, and since the "Support" section is providing excuses for two bombs, the opposition section should mention the controversy over the second bombing. Professor Okamoto of Hiroshima Shudo university is making the same point as noted by Polinghorn, so I have added it to the article.--Timtak (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has any references to historical research suggesting that the Nagasaki bombing was a bomb test rather than a deterent, please add it to the article. --Timtak (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The literature quoted *in this article* so often speaks of the two bombings as if there were a sigularity: "Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision (not DecisionS),"America’s Decision (not DecisionS) to Drop the Atomic Bomb (not BombS) on Japan," "Why Truman Dropped the Bomb(not Bombs)" and mention of Hiroshima outnumbers mention of Nagasaki by two or three to one. Concealed in the rhetoric of promoting peace at Hiroshima, the seperate bombing of Nagasaki (and the 74000 deaths) is almost a side issue. --Timtak (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The only argument against assertion that the second bomb was unecessary comes in the Surrender section of support where Robert James Maddox is quoted: Some historians have argued that while the first bomb might have been required to achieve Japanese surrender, dropping the second constituted a needless barbarism. The record shows otherwise. American officials believed more than one bomb would be necessary because they assumed Japanese hard-liners would minimize the first explosion or attempt to explain it away as some sort of natural catastrophe, precisely what they did. The Japanese minister of war, for instance, at first refused even to admit that the Hiroshima bomb was atomic. A few hours after Nagasaki he told the cabinet that “the Americans appeared to have one hundred atomic bombs . . . they could drop three per day. The next target might well be Tokyo.” The single supportive fact here (other than american "beliefs"), is that the Japanese war ministered denied that the Hiroshima bombing was atomic. This fact however, suggests that the Japanese should have been given time. Given time, and bearing the mind of the existance of Japanese nuclear scientists, all would have realised that the Hiroshima bombing was indeed atomic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtak (talk • contribs) 05:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, by mid-1945 the writing was on the wall for Japan, in boldface. Their friends the Nazi's were history, they had been losing for some time now. If they could not figure out by then it was over, then it was clear harsh measures were needed. Jokem (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Truman's announcement of the first bomb said, "If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on earth." Seems like a reasonably clear threat to me.
Sounds very clear. But if he did not want to be judged a "barbarian" or "genocidal" then you'd think he would have given a workable deadline.
Why? We were, after all, at war. This is not a case of a misbehaving guest being invited out of your home for smoking pot in the restroom. Jokem (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Whether or not the Japanese believed that it was an atomic bomb, they knew the city had been destroyed by a single bomb of some sort. But some tried to hope that it had been a one-off.
  • "In his memoirs, Admiral Toyoda reported that 'a rather bullish atmosphere' dominated as the meeting [of the Supreme Council on August 9] began. 'To be sure,' he stated, 'the damage of the atomic bomb was extremely heavy, but it is questionable whether the United States will be able to use more bombs in rapid succession.' Then the news arrived of the atomic-bomb blast over Nagasaki." (Frank,p.290) But the meeting still ended with a 3–3 deadlock on what to do.
Wow. So the council had not even met until the 9th!! That is how much time the Americans gave them!
  • The plutonium bomb design had already been tested in New Mexico; the uranium bomb design was so simple that they felt no need to test it (and there wasn't enough uranium for a second bomb anyway).
So you are saying there was no need to test the bombs.
No, That is not what was said... Jokem (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There was only one decision to drop the bombs.
Wow. You mean that they did not consider each bombing on its own merit, weighing it up with the care that one might expect when incinerating a city?
Remember, these weren't the first Japanese cities to be incinerated. They weren't even the fiftieth; see strategic bombing of Japan. The increased power of atomic bombs wasn't really appreciated — until after they were actually used.
—WWoods (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that this is a good point. I guess, feel sure that, Truman was no involved in the decision to firebomb each city but rather made the decision to let the firebombing commence. After each firebombing, some of which had casualities in the same order of magnitude, I doubt if consideration was given to allow the Japanese a sinking in time, a time to surrender. I do think that this is a good point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.62.198.24 (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Truman ordered the first one to be dropped after August 3, weather permitting, and "additional bombs ... as soon as made ready." (Frank,p.262)
How incredible! He must have thought the Japanese utterly inhuman not to think to give them thinking time before incinerating another city full of civillians.
Japan was not a signer of the Geneva Convention and was pretty haphazard about observing it's protocols. Their treatment of civilians was pretty high-handed also. So, yes, I would have to say 'inhuman' is not a bad word to describe Japanese policies. Jokem (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "The original schedule ... slated Fat Man for use over Japan on August 11, but a forecast of deteriorating weather starting on the tenth and extending for five days ignited a rush ... 'Everyone felt ... that the sooner we could get off another mission, the more likely it was that the Japanese would feel that we had large quantities of the devices and would surrender sooner ...'" (Frank,pp.283–4)
—WWoods (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Please feel very free to add all this to the article. Very interesting stuff.
Personally I think that there should be two articles. Tomorrow is the 63rd anniversary. --Timtak (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

New structure proposition

Dont want to make major modifications before the future of this page (on its own) is guaranteed, but I would like to make some structure modification propositions, as discussed back in Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki. The debates about the bombings is a very interesting and complex subject, and each opinion should be understood in the historical context it was emitted. Therefore, a simple opposition Support-Opposition is not adequate I think. The page could be reorganized like this :

  • Debates before the bombings. Military, political, and moral debates about the justification of using (both of) the bombs, and where to use them. Between the (quite few) US knowers/deciders. Specific context of total war, and of Japan choosing not to surrender, as well as incertitude on the effect of the bombs. Interest in saving lives and (new addition) possible will of impressing the soviets / rushing before a soviet invasion, vs. moral and (for some) military issues (not necessary to make Japan surrender).
  • Reaction to the bombings. International public opinion, quite favorable (scientific progress, end of war) with some dissident voices. Context of end of war, and no real knowledge on the bombs.
  • Historical/moral "heritage". Only real use of atomic bombs until now. Much more knowledge on the effects, and of the historical situation/discussions/decisions (Japan, US, soviets). Peace (pacifist for Japan, some European countries) context. Opinions ranging from moral and necessary to immoral and unnecessary.

--Firkenknecht 05:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, sounds logical to me. Anynobody 05:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually the bigger this page gets, the less reason there would be to move it back. Anynobody 05:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there also not some debate that there are elements in Japanese society who wish to portray the atomic bombings as a crime so as to make Japan seen as the victim of World War Two when Japan is the country who started the war in the Pacific theater? Rorschak (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Where? That's not really an argumenent.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is an arguement even today in Japan. 71.214.65.192 (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of this is clearly the main article's stuff - how is the 'cultural legacy/historical impact' part of the 'debate'?

Dubious image

Perhaps this image labeled in the article as "victims in Hiroshima" should be removed as it is not sure whether it shows the Hiroshima bombing or the Kanto earthquake. --Jvs.cz (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Defending the idea that one bomb was enough

I pulled a Maddox quote where he defends [against] the idea that one bomb was sufficient. Maddox describes how it took the second bomb to convince Japan's hard-liners. The reason I took this paragraph out is because we have no section which advances the belief that one bomb was enough. If someone writes such a section, the Maddox quote will most certainly be usable as the balance to it. Binksternet (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the deleted Maddox quote rejects, not defends, the idea that one bomb was sufficient. Bo99 (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant "defends against". Corrected. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we do have a section that claims one bomb was enough -- "Second bombing was too soon". Bo99 (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I disagree in that the two concepts are not identical. The thought that more time should have been allowed between bombs is at root assuming two bombs. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe such section title "Second bombing was too soon" does not, as you say just above, "at root assume" that a second bomb was mandatory; instead, such title is just standard title shorthand for "Second bombing was too soon to be certain of its need" (and that meaning is clear from the section's content) (and such section title could be spelled out in full, so that it reads nicely for your type of reading approach). In any case, your deletion of the Maddox quote was reversed, and i agree that such reversal is a positive small step for the article, so maybe this section of this Discussion page is resolved for now. Bo99 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
With its restored heading of "Nagasaki bombing unnecessary", the previouse "Second bomb too soon" section is a perfectly appropriate place for Maddox's defense against the idea that one bomb was enough. I have moved that part of Maddox down to the right position. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I completely disagree with both your moving a Pro-Bombing quote into the Anti-Bombing section, which is totally improper under the current format, and your removal of the image of Massacred Chinese civilians, (a hallmark of Total War), that was under the "Part of Total War" section that starts right out saying "the Japanese government had promulgated a National Mobilization Law and waged total war (read: The massacre of civilians as shown in photo)". Just as that Maddox quote is now in the wrong place, so is the 14 year old Bombing victim now in the wrong place being under the Pro-bombing section. BillyTFried (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that we don't have each heading define a known position for or against and then have rebuttal text following the position? Without such a framework, the Maddox bit where he talks about one bomb NOT being enough is stuck defending against a position that nobody has yet taken. It's only later in the article that such a position is introduced. Here's how I see the framework--each section contains its own rebuttal:
# 1 Support
    * 1.1 Preferable to invasion
    * 1.1.1 rebuttal
    * 1.2 Speedy end of war saved lives
    * 1.2.1 rebuttal
    * 1.3 Part of "total war"
    * 1.3.1 rebuttal
    * 1.4 Japan's leaders refused to surrender
    * 1.4.1 rebuttal
# 2 Opposition
    * 2.1 Fundamentally immoral
    * 2.1.1 rebuttal
    * 2.2 The bombings as war crimes
    * 2.2.1 rebuttal
    * 2.3 State terrorism
    * 2.3.1 rebuttal
    * 2.4 Militarily unnecessary
    * 2.4.1 rebuttal
    * 2.5 Nagasaki bombing unnecessary
    * 2.5.1 rebuttal
    * 2.6 Racism and dehumanization
    * 2.6.1 rebuttal

Hope that helps in understanding why I moved some of Maddox. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate structure. --Timtak (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well that seems like a lot of work just to deal with one single quote that could probably be handled much more easily by simply prefacing it with something like "To counter the argument that Blah Blah Blah, Maddox states that Blah Blah Blah". But, yes a complete format overhaul like that would work as well, though I'm not sure there is a perfect rebuttal for every single point made on both sides. Either way, if you really feels it is necessary and are up to making all those changes, have at it. BillyTFried (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

allegation by the BillyTFried person of view-pushing

to the BillyTFried person: You alone perceive and allege "improper POV pushing edits" by me. (You made that allegation in this article Diff-version, in the Edit Summary.) You did not disclose the supposed point of view by me that you perceive -- that the second atomic bombing was justified, or that the second bombing was unjustified, or some other POV? When you do the necessary disclosure i'll re-read my edits to try to see what you perceive. Bo99 (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC) (P.S.: I drew Fried's attention here by putting a note to him on his Talk page, on 3 Jan.)

to the BillyTFried person: You have not yet responded to my above question regarding the bombing and your allegation, but i see that you are writing about e.g. music and food, at your Contributions page. If you see now that your allegation was mistaken then let's fix it and the article. If you feel there is even slight support for your allegation then please reply to my question (stated in the above paragraph). Bo99 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, just as in your text above, your edits were rife with grammatical errors including failing to capitalize letters among other errors. Second, you changed the heading from the second bombing being "Unnecessary" which is discussed in the cited source to saying it was "Too Soon" implying it was the RIGHT thing to do, just a bit too soon, which is not stated in the cited source and clearly pushed the POV that it was not unnecessary, just simply a bit too early. Then you removed the word "Racism" from the "Racism and dehumanization" section, to water it down, even though racism clearly played a major roll is said dehumanization. Referring to a woman as a "sexy piece of ass", is Sexist Dehumanization. Referring to Japanese people as savage animals is Racist Dehumanization. You also moved a Pro-Bombing quote from the proper section to the Anti-Bombing section, going against the current formant. And then, you went ahead and added your own unsourced WP:original research Pro-Bombing arguments under the Anti-Bombing section (wrong section again) stating that "But such criticism has seen several counterarguments in the literature...". Bad grammar, POV pushing, breaking current Pro-vs-Anti format, and adding original research. All of this constituded a degradation of the article, thus I was WP:Bold and reverted it all. BillyTFried (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
There seems zero validity in the above Fried verbiage. Analysis to follow in due course. Bo99 (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I look forward to your carefully considered and well written response. BillyTFried (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
There seems no validity in Fried's above 5 new attempted allegations (that sought to support his having reverted text without having given an intelligible reason). Fried, i'm open-minded to seeing any cited textual or logical support for you.
preliminary notes:
shield not sword approach: I, consistent with Wikipedia, unlike Fried, will try to avoid making any allegation that is not necessary to negate a prior Fried allegation against me.
Fried's vulnerabilities: I will try not to comment with specificity on lack of quality in Fried's above-exemplified thinking, knowledge, diligence, writing structure, numbering consistency, writing ability, judgment, mental profile, etc.
link-loading caveat: Some of the links below are structured to jump to a cited subsection of a cited webpage. That jump will probably only work if one patiently lets the cited webpage load. (If instead one moves to another computer window while waiting for the cited webpage to load, perhaps to continue reading this text, then the jump to the cited subsection will stop probably.)
1. Fried, you start by criticizing grammatical errors in an article regarding which there are substantive concerns (of various editors). You allege "rife ... grammatical errors" by me. I believe you give not one example, because the one example you might be attempting semi-intelligibly to allude to -- when to capitalize section title-phrases that are not sentences -- is i believe an issue of style preference, not grammar. I'm open-minded if you can defend your claim by showing "rife" "grammatical" errors by me in the article. And even if you present one trivial grammatical error by me i would review it carefully (and then remind you of triviality, and then ask to see "rife" grammatical errors).
As to my capitalization style preferences as i write on this talk page, if it bothers you, that's fine. As an extreme aside, although such preference is a style preference that tautologically requires no supporting reasons, i think there are good supporting reasons: I seek to capitalize only (a) the start of sentences and (b) true proper nouns (except for the ubiquitous "i"). Capitalizing anything else constitutes a writing step that (x) is needless and that therefore should be omitted under generally accepted writing principles (e.g. capitalizing section titles that are already highlighted by vertical spacing and bolding constitutes triplication), and (y) tends to hide the useful capitals that help the reader find the useful things i.e. proper nouns and the starts of sentences. I apply such capitalizing style consistently, but if you can point to even a trivial inconsistency i will want to consistent-ize it (and then will remind you of triviality).
I will try not to comment with specificity on lack of quality in your above-exemplified grammar, punctuation, spelling, quoting-protocol knowledge, consistency in capitalization, etc.
2. You allege that i pushed a view in my having changed a section title from "Nagasaki bombing unnecessary" to "Second bombing was too soon". Such latter title obviously does not mean that a second bomb was clearly mandatory; instead, such title is routine title-shorthand for "Second bombing was too soon to be confident of its need". That meaning is clear on a reasonable reading, and crystal clear from even a glance at the text of the section content. All you had to do was talk about your strained, blinder-ed reading of the title, and the additional words could have been added. My edit of the title was designed to make no change in meaning. So this allegation by you of pushing seems invalid. (And i continue to state that "Nagasaki bombing unnecessary" is much less specific and useful to the many readers who come to the article seeking an efficient briefing on bombing 2 primarily. Such readers are much more aided by "Second bombing was too soon to be confident of its need", because it is the quickness of bombing 2 after bombing 1 that is the most immediately glaring issue to many readers.)
3. You allege that it was wrong to have removed the words "Racism and" from the section title "Racism and dehumanization", because it is clear to you that racism "played a major rol[e] i[n] said dehumanization". So you restored the words "Racism and" to the section title. Thus you seem to have violated of one of the three fundamental Wikipedia policies, No Original Thinking. The word "racism" was not mentioned once in the article version at issue, until you added the word. What's clear to you is irrelevant; you would have to cite sources that speak of "racism". So far you seem to have violated this fundamental Wikipedia policy.
4. You allege that i wrongly moved a pro-bombing quotation from the "proper" section.
I think you are alone in your imagining as to what type of section structure is "proper". (P.S., 2009-Jan-13: In the foregoing sentence the italicized "in" fixes a typo.) I think you alone are so comfortable with having one pro-bombing section and one anti-bombing section, covering two bombings, with little or no cross-referring between such sections. Problems in that rigid structure are also seen by the editors Binksternet and Timtak, and i don't see a single person supporting you. One problem might be that a good portion of readers want to quickly look at bombing 2 in isolation from bombing 1. They suspect that bombing 2 is much more difficult to justify. They see several thousand words under "Support", and as they wade through such thousands they see that such thousands relate to bombing 1 primarily. But all they want to know is why could not the USA have waited more than three days after bombing 1. They see a mere two sentences on bombing 2[Fried's doing]; the two sentences simply say bombing 2 was wrong, and these readers may immediately draw that conclusion. These readers predictably may miss and/or forget that the overly-mentally-rigid author(s) of the article insisted on hiding the few diamonds that tend to support bombing 2 in the haystack of primarily pro-bombing-1 analysis. Good writers should anticipate what reasonable readers are likely to perceive.
As an aside to e.g. the editors Binksternet and Timtak, one structural change that might lessen the problem would be to have a pro-con section on bombing 1 only and then a much shorter pro-con section on bombing 2 that: (a) summarily indicates the relevance to bombing 2 of the large amount of text on bombing 1, and (b) states for the first time the two or three pros and cons that focus on whether waiting merely three days was too soon (or if those few relevant points are to remain hidden in the bombing 1 haystack, then cross-refers summarily to them, akin to what i drafted in the relevant Diff page).
So this Fried allegation, of my supposedly wrong movement of a quotation, seems invalid.
5. Fried, you allege that i added pro-bombing-2 arguments that constituted prohibited original research. In the relevant Diff page, regarding bombing 2 i cross-referred to the few relevant points that were already stated in the bombing 1 haystack; i looked only at what was already in the article; i referred only to what was already in the article, and expressly stated that i was doing an act of referring and expressly gave a link to the section of text i was referring to. That seems not to be original research, and seems to be merely non-O.R. "stick[ing] to the sources". (If you produce even a bit of Wikipedia text supporting your conception that such cited Diff-page edits by me constituted O.R., i'm open-minded to considering such text carefully.)
6. Even if your above five allegations had somehow seemed valid, your reverting approach has been highly problematic. Somehow you have not noticed that some Wiki policies, guidelines, etc conflict, and one example is Be Bold But Careful And Polite on which you rely: contrary to your idea of mechanically reverting everything you don't approve of (and in this case with no intelligible explanation), consider each of the following:
(a) Reverting as little as possible seems required by When To Revert and "has generated the best overall results, after years of use on Wikipedia", according to the following discretionary advice to revert as little as possible.
(b) common sense in a collaborative medium
(c) civility, e.g. "What's important is to let people know why you reverted", and to do so intelligibly (which you failed to do, with your naked invalid allegation of pushing without stating what pushed view you imagined you perceived) (quotation is from Explain Reverts Intelligibly; i removed italics from the word "why").
(d) Your cited Be Bold But Careful And Polite reminds one to be careful and not overly bold. That's especially true for you, because you have this record of seeming invalidity.
(e) For all of these reasons, i intentionally did not revert your seemingly invalid changes. Undoing of work by you was not done by me.
Fried, if you somehow feel your allegations have validity, i'd be very happy to be part of a Wikipedia third-person-opinion process, or any other Wikipedia dispute-scrutinizing process, of your choosing. As you continue your attempted allegations, i'll continue to rebut your attempts. Bo99 (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • 1. It is painfully obvious that you are not a native English speaker. There's nothing wrong with that, but trying to pass off your barely understandable improper grammar as Grade-A English is ridiculous. By the way Comrade 99, if you were a native English speaker, you would know that referring to someone by your own deviation of their name is not considered to be WP:civil, and neither is your extremely rude WP:personal attack claiming that I ”lack quality in thinking, knowledge, judgment, and mental profile”. And since you wanted MORE examples, this sentence makes ZERO sense: I think you are alone in your imaging as to what type of section structure is "proper".”. Go ahead and look up imaging on dictionary.com, and blinder-ed too since it is not even a word at all! And also people don't attempt allegations, they make them. Third grade English.
  • 2. Your change from "Unnecessary" to "Too Soon" DOES make it imply exactly what I said it does, just as this editor said to you already: No, I disagree in that the two concepts are not identical. The thought that more time should have been allowed between bombs is at root assuming two bombs. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I believe it is your lacking grasp of the English languages that causes your failure to understand this.
  • 3. WP:No Original Research <> No original Thinking. And you state that The word "racism" was not mentioned once in the article version at issue, until you added the word., but that is FALSE. That word and section were added by user: Stor stark7 over a year ago!
  • 4. You think I am alone in supporting the current structure eh? Why don't you go ahead and read back through the 14 archives of this talk page where that was thoroughly discussed and agreed upon by many other editors. But I have already said, I would support the Claim/Rebuttal format as well, just not an improper and confusing mix of the two.
  • 5. What you did was improper. Period.
  • 6. Your edits degraded the article and Wikipedia as a result, so I reverted them which improved the article and Wikipedia.

If after reading my response to the short novel you just wrote, you still do not see that you are wrong on all accounts, then by all means feel free to make an WP:RfC. I am quite experienced with them. BillyTFried (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


There is zero validity in the above Fried verbiage. Details to follow in due course. Bo99 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the promised refutation of all of Fried's above Jan 13 posting that seems to state the following Edit Summary that is unintelligible to me: "انك لن يفوز في هذه".
(Also, in the interim Fried posted above a photo of some military figure giving an official newscast or the like. Fried's photo violated Wiki rules and so a Wiki robot promptly deleted the photo. Then Fried posted another such photo. Perhaps the figure in the photo is or was a controlling person of some country. Fried seems to be betraying his feelings: he finally feels controlled and hemmed in by the cited Wikipedia principles he is violating; good.)
1. Fried's initial allegation 1 (meaning his 6 Jan posting, allegation 1) alleged "rife ... grammatical errors" by me. That allegation is untruthful, as shown by the fact that Fried does not cite even one example of a grammatical error by me (and even if he had, he would have been trivial). Some very-optional details:
1a. Fried alleges that he is in pain because it is obvious to him that i am "not a native English speaker". I have no comment.
1b. Fried alleges that i am "trying to pass off [my writing] as Grade-A English". I have made no such claim.
1c. Fried might be alleging that i am a communist; he addresses me as "Comrade 99", in bold typeface. I have no comment.
1d. Fried did finally manage to come up with one micro-point: My prior para. 4 had a now-fixed typo, i.e. my reference to Fried's "imaging" of proper section structure meant to say "imagining" of proper section structure. (Fried, your efforts are trivial.) In any case that's not a "grammatical error" that would be a first step toward a bit of support for Fried's untruthful allegation 1. (And i continue to try not to comment with specificity on quality or lack of quality in Fried's grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc.)
1e. Fried seems dumbfounded and uses an exclamation point over the fact that i intentionally created the quasi back-formation "blinder-ed" (in my prior posting's para. 2). Such word communicates well that Fried sought to argue for an interpretation of a section title while wearing blinders that precluded his seeing the section's content.
1f. Fried seems dumbfounded that i intentionally created the phrase "attempted allegations" (in some, applicable spots of my prior detailed posting). Such phrase communicates well the view that Fried's allegations are invalid.
1x. Fried's para. 1, regarding his zero cited "grammatical errors" by me, for some reason is where he places many words about how civilly-wronged he sees himself. Fried alleges "extreme ... rude[ness]" by me. Fried's view, contrary to Wikipedia's, is that resisting his invalid conduct and invalid edits is rudeness. He wants things to work this way: Fried reverts the work of others without stating an intelligible reason, and in fact without having validity, and his victims must ask this Fried stranger repeatedly for an intelligible explanation, and the asking must be very solicitous of this Fried stranger's feelings, e.g. the victims must be sure to address this Fried stranger in the precise manner he likes, so that there is no "deviation of [Fried's] name". I am being relatively very gentle with the aggressive yet sensitive Fried. I continue, consistent with Wikipedia, unlike Fried, to try to avoid making comments about Fried's thinking, knowledge, diligence, writing structure, writing ability, judgment, mental profile, integrity, etc, unless it is necessary, e.g. to negate a prior Fried allegation against me, to manage him in this process, etc. I will continue to try not to comment with specificity on Fried's quality or lack of quality. That shield-not-sword approach is overly civil and kind to Fried, yet it bothers him; that's okay.
2. Fried's initial allegation 2 was that i pushed a view in my wanting to change a section title from "Nagasaki bombing unnecessary" to "Second bombing was too soon" or "Second bombing was too soon to be confident of its need". That allegation is untruthful, as shown by the fact that Fried does not dispute that i intended to make no change in meaning. Also, Fried does not dispute that my proposed title, "Second bombing was too soon to be confident of its need", is much more specific and useful to readers. Some very-optional details:
2a. Fried attempts to quote selectively and thus deceptively from a prior discussion between me and Binksternet (above on this talk page). Fried's attempt omits the result of the discussion -- Binksternet stated no disagreement with my reply that 'Maybe such section title "Second bombing was too soon" does not, as you say just above, "at root assume" that a second bomb was mandatory; instead, such title is just standard title shorthand for "Second bombing was too soon to be certain of its need" (and that meaning is clear from the section's content) (and such section title could be spelled out in full ... ).' In any case, even if Fried's deception had been successful, the benefit to Fried's position would be trivial -- everything i wrote in the paragraph immediately above would still be true.
3. Fried's initial allegation 3 was that it was wrong to have removed the words "Racism and" from the section title "Racism and dehumanization", because it is clear to Fried that racism "played a major rol[e] i[n] said dehumanization". Such allegation is untruthful (i.e. removal was proper, and Fried's restoration of the words was improper), because Fried does not dispute that the word he added, "racism", constituted Wikipedia-prohibited original-thinking. Fried does not dispute that the article has cited no source that uses the word "racism". Some useful details:
3a. I'm speaking of cited sources in the article version that exists now and versions that have existed within the past year. (I have not checked them; i just note that i forced Fried to look into the history.)
3b. Fried alleged "FALSE" (capitals are his) in response to my statement that 'The word "racism" was not mentioned once in the article version at issue, until [Fried] added the word.' Such statement by me is true, and such allegation by Fried is untruthful; such quotation refers expressly to "the article version at issue", not the prior version from "over a year ago" now cited by Fried.
3c. Regarding that year-old version, Fried claims that it was some other Wikipedia writer who added the word "racism" to the article. Even if that's true, it's irrelevant obviously. The word "racism" is original thinking that i properly deleted but that Fried added back into the article in violation of one of the three fundamental Wikipedia policies.
4. Fried's initial allegation 4 was that i wrongly moved a pro-bombing quotation from the "proper" section. That allegation is invalid, as shown by the fact that Fried does not dispute that the structuring of the sections is debatable and problematic.
5. Fried's initial allegation 5 was that i added pro-bombing-2 arguments that constituted prohibited original research. That allegation is untruthful, as shown by the fact that Fried does not dispute that i referred only to text that was already in the article (and no one has claimed that such text constituted original research).
6. Even if any of Fried's above five allegations had somehow been valid, Fried's conduct has been highly problematic. Fried does not dispute any of the following:
6a. Fried reverted unintelligibly, with his naked invalid allegation of pushing without stating what pushed view he imagined.
6b. Reverting as little as possible seems required by When To Revert and "has generated the best overall results, after years of use on Wikipedia", according to the following discretionary advice to revert as little as possible.
6c. "What's important is to let people know why you reverted", and to do so intelligibly (quotation is from Explain Reverts Intelligibly; i removed italics from the word "why").
6d. Fried's earlier-cited Be Bold But Careful And Polite reminds one to be careful and not overly bold. That's especially true for Fried, because he has this posting's proof of his invalidity.
6e. (aside: In his para 6 above, Fried indicates that he does not like the length of "the short novel" i posted previously; and this posting by me is another short novel. It's okay that Fried does not feel up to dealing with detail. And it's easier and more satisfying to dissect him fiber by fiber, rather than in clumps.)
7. In my prior posting i invited Fried to initiate any Wikipedia dispute-scrutinizing process of his choosing. Fried does not dispute that he seems to be choosing not to initiate such scrutiny of his conduct, even though he tells us that he is "quite experienced" with one type of Wikipedia dispute-scrutinizing process. I believe completely that the aggressive yet sensitive Fried is in disputes quite often. If Fried initiates, i'm happy to participate. But i don't have a forum preference, because i have already done to Fried what i wanted to do, and am happy to continue doing it, in either forum. Because i have made things unpleasant and difficult for Fried this time (and in a proper manner), in future there is the slight chance Fried will be less trouble to the Wikipedia community.
8. For the applicable reasons above, i intentionally have not cleansed the article of Fried's invalid changes. And i doubt that Fried himself will undo his invalid acts, even though Fried does not dispute (see my para. 3 above) that because of him there is original thinking sitting in the article in violation of fundamental Wikipedia policy. Bo99 (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Get a room, you two. Point of order, Bo99. You wrote "Because i have made things unpleasant and difficult for Fried this time (and in a proper manner), in future there is the slight chance Fried will be less trouble to the Wikipedia community" but there is no 'proper manner' at Wikipedia for making things unpleasant and difficult for an editor. You both have been attacking the person instead of attacking the ideas. This is getting waaay out of hand. Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe there is in fact a proper manner in Wikipedia to make things unpleasant and difficult for an attacker like Fried: to shield oneself from the attacker by refuting his allegations with specific facts and reasoning, as i have done. I can try to find and quote the Wikipedia principles. Refuting the untruthful attacker: (a) does usually constitute criticism of the attacker, (b) often takes detailed writing, and (c) makes the attacker feel that he is being forcefully controlled. Bo99 (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

<=I removed two images that appeared to me to be inflammatory in nature--images I assumed were meant to needle another editor and get under his skin. This is not helpful to writing the article, guys. Please restrict yourselves to comments that will move the article forward. Further non-constructive additions to the talk page here will be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Images that don't work

I have removed some images from the article. The photograph of Chinese civilians dead in a ditch was removed because there was no text and reference tying this image to the concept that Japan was involved in total war. Without such a connection, the image was performing a synthesis function described and discouraged at WP:SYNTH.

I also removed an image of a woman whose kimono's printed pattern was burned into her skin. This image did not address any particular point in this article.

One further image I removed was of the Hiroshima Peace memorial. This image (again) has nothing to do with the debate.

More images may fall into the category of nothing to do with the debate: the one of the 14-year old victim which I swapped in to replace the Chinese civilians in a ditch is questionable. All of the images need to have a direct connection to debate topics.

Lastly, I took out all the hard coding of image pixel widths. Such hard coding does not take into account the various user preferences that the reader may have engaged. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I diagree. See my comment above under Defending the idea that one bomb was enough. BillyTFried (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The ditch image needs to be referenced as total war; otherwise it still represents a synthesis of facts to form a new conclusion. The reader is led to think that since Japan killed Chinese civilians, the US would be able to kill Japanese civilians and everything would balance out. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
When I restored the image I changed the text to say "Chinese civilians massacred during Japan's campaign of total war." That section also does contain the quote "It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of war against civilians." BillyTFried (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Using a wikilink to total war is not enough to reference the photo as related to the topic of discussion. Without such a reference, the ditch photo is still in violation of WP:SYNTH. I will now tag the photo. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, strike that. The text quote from Siemes seems to cover it. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Is including a reference to Rummel OK?

Glancing through the section The bombings as war crimes, I found no reference to R. J. Rummel. He is best known for proposing rather large figures of people dead under communist regimes; but he actually also enumerates what he calls democide from others. He places US in the "centi"kilodemocide class (he means roughly "killers by the hundred thousands"), to a major part because he claims that a large number of civilians were killed (by intent or indifference) at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that this was against the laws of war. (In Rummel's view, USSR was a thousand times worse, with a "centi"megademocide, killings by the hundred millions; but that is not relevant for this article.)

IMHO, it would be adequate to note that Rummel considered the bombings "democidal", in the discussion of possible extensions of the concept of genocide. However, I don't want to butt in, if a consensus already has been reached on this particular point. Has it? JoergenB (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody has opposed it, I included such a note. JoergenB (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky on bombing

I've added prof. chomsky's description of bombing as 'unspeakable crimes of history'. And also question of legitimacy of such crimes among western and in particular American minds.

Brothers in Arms (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki/Archive_1&oldid=295437316"