Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Start with the intro, and work through the article

Wikipedia has some dreadful intros to articles, seemingly written by fifth graders (or below), and this is another one. QUOTE: "The debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki concerns the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.164.160 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's clunky, but it satisfies a) title of article be presented in bold in the first line and b) link to the main article presented fairly soon in the first paragraph. Maybe you want to have a try at rewording it? Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So, it is fifth grader quality but meets Wikipedia standards and that's ok? Speaks volumes. Regarding me amending it, why should I buy a fight with ownership contributors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.164.160 (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to insult the writer it was a functional opener. I am trying to tune it up for accuracy. I have a book at home on the shelf that I will bring to computer lab next time around if it seems like I need to cite reference these points. But Historical studies obviously change over time.Wikidgood (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Who said what? Continuity issues between the "pro" and "anti" debate

I am a bit confused about the fact that in the "pro bomb" section that it says clearly that Eisenhower, Nimitz, and Leyhe did not make public comments opposing the use of the atomic weapons in Japan, and then in the "anti bomb" section, they are quoted and cited as saying they opposed it. This is not a point of debate.. but of verifiable fact. Did they or didn't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.106.130 (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I was about to comment on that, too. The pro-bomb section quotes an individual saying that there is no evidence that any of the US military "brass" opposed the bombing, while the anti-bomb section clearly states (not in a quote or opinion) that the bombing was opposed by the same "brass" who did not voice any opposition. In fact it even has a passage from Eisenhower's book to the anti-bomb effect. The above user has already made this an issue. i hope we can figure this out because to the reader it must seem very contradictory.PonileExpress (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

These same individuals are quoted in reliable publications opposing the bombing. Other military personnel believed the Japanese were simply hanging on for better surrender terms, and expressed surprise at the bombing. Dynablaster (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

With the possible exception of Eisenhower, no military leaders opposed the bombings before they were used. Afterwards, several expressed disapproval. As for MacArthur, his initial reaction was rather self-centered:

... Theodore White ... interviewing General MacArthur in Manila, ... listened to the general, ... blame the Bomb as likely to end the days of heroic warfare. "Scholars and scientists" had stolen future wars from military professionals and made "men like me" obsolete. There would be "no more wars" of the kind he knew, MacArthur mourned.

from Stanley Weintraub's The Last Great Victory, p. 436 (August 6, 1945)

—WWoods (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing an argument

Surely there should be a subheading disussing the anti-bomb argument that the bombs were used to intimidate the Soviet Union, it is a central issue, highly debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.68.52 (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a subsection that I could easily add, but I'm not sure where it should go. Although intuitively this section would seem to belong on the "opposition" side, some have made the argument that even if the bombs were not necessary to force the Japanese to surrender, they may have been effective in gaining concessions from the Soviets in Europe after the war, and, therefore, were justified from a U.S. perspective. Any guidance on where to post this section would be much appreciated.

Mjfratoni (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to a section under "Opposition" stating that the real purpose of the atomic bombing of Japan was to intimidate the Soviets. I have certainly heard that argument put forth, especially by recent historians. That section should prominently state the evidence against such an argument, such as: the inability of the leaders of the time to accurately predict the shape and duration of the future arms race, the lack of any mention by policy makers of "intimidating the Soviets" or of gaining something in Eastern Europe, and the fact that immediately after WWII the United States instituted the largest military demobilization in history, indicating that future conflict was not a chief concern of the United States.

I have also heard the argument that intimidating the Soviets was a secondary or tertiary reason for the atomic bombing of Japan. I do not think that anyone argues against the atomic bombings because the United States saw impressing the Soviets as an added benefit, but not the major reason. Also there seems to be too little evidence to make an "impressing rival powers" section under Pro. bosoxrock88 (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Bosoxrock88 14 August 2009

Another possible missing argument is that "the US used the atomic bomb on two Japanese cities knowing that Tokyo had decided to surrender". This is claimed by socialistreview.org.uk. I have a feeling I have heard this claim before, but I can't remember any more details. The only mention I can find of it in the article is the purported Nimitz quote in this section. Open4D (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Shame

It's a shame that we have this debate. We still have this debate only because the U.S. is involved. Dy yol (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"History is written by the victors" 79.101.170.5 (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• History is only written by the victors if the losers were annihilated. But the losers (Japan) are still around; you should take a look at what they write concerning WW 2 history. It might sound like this: "Japan's intention was to liberate the Far East from Western imperialists". Angry bee (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It is my understanding that Japanese textbook writers suppress all mention of any inconvenient truths regarding Japanese war crimes and that this "policy", as it were, was encouraged by Douglas MacArthur.<br. />—NBahn (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles about both the Japanese "Liberate Asia" propaganda campaign used on the countries they invaded as well as their revisionist history textbook controversy.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_East_Asia_Co-Prosperity_Sphere
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_textbook_controversy

BillyTFried (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Impressive Article

This is a fantastic article, and I would just like to commend the wikipedia community for maintaining a very solid and well sourced entry on such a hotly debated topic. bosoxrock88 (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)bosoxrock88 August 2009

Continuity Issues with the Opposition Section

Under the section "The Bombings as War Crimes" I think this sentence is severely out of place:

"Kuznick is one of several observers who believe that the U.S. was largely motivated in carrying out the bombings by a desire to demonstrate the power of its new weapon to the Soviet Union. Historian Mark Selden of Cornell University has stated "Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan."

I could understand a separate section that discussed the pros and cons of the argument that the primary purpose of the bombings were to impress the Soviets, but to just insert it randomly is sloppy and misleading.

The John Bolton quote is misleading. Bolton is saying that the international community would charge the United States with war crimes, not that they should charge the United States with war crimes. It is unfair to use such a quote to imply that John Bolton believes the bombings were war crimes.

The beginning of the article directly addresses the claim that several military leaders were against the bombings. We should either move the quote of Professor Maddox, that deals directly with these claims, or simply remove the claims all together.

bosoxrock88 (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)bosoxrock88 17 August 2009

I'm not about to try and write it, but I think a section on impressing the Soviets could be written based on the volume of exposition existing in the literature. Taking out the insertion of Selden and Kuznick is appropriate until such a time that a whole section can be assembled. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is is a documented fact that high-ranking military personnel expressed a negative opinion of the bombings, several saying they were unnecessary. Maddox merely contends these same men did not communicate their misgivings directly to Truman, before or after the event, which is irrelevant (even if true) to the section where these opinions are described: Militarily unnecessary. Nor do I consider it balanced for Supporting sources to appear in the Opposition section, to "rebut" various authors, but not the other way around. Dynablaster (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Maddox and many others are not merely claiming that these men did not express their views to Truman, but rather that no one in a position to influence the decision thought that prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs that their use was militarily unnecessary. Why does this quote belong under "Japan's Leaders Refuse to Surrender"?

If we moved the quote to the "Militarily Unneccessary" section it would set these quotes in context, as is done with the USSBS quote. It is unfair to say that all of these men supported the position that the bombings were military unneccessary because of dubious and out of context quotes. bosoxrock88 (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Believing they were militarily unnecessary and expressing that view are two different things. Even Maddox does not claim to have mind reading skills, and so limits himself to saying there is no official record of people communicating their misgivings directly to Truman. Secondly, there are no "dubious" quotes in this section whatsoever. Dwight D. Eisenhower is quoted verbatim ("dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary"). Maddox is of no relevance here, except to imply that Eisenhower suffered from Alzheimer's, which I think is despicable. Dynablaster (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm dubious about the Nimitz quote, "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace....", since it's so obviously factually incorrect: The Japanese had not, in fact, already sued for peace.

Eisenhower is quoted from his postwar memoir, but apparently the only contemporary evidence of his views is a letter disavowing knowledge of what was happening in the Pacific; he was rather busy with his own situation in Europe, after all.

Note that by 'unnecessary', they all seem to be saying that 'we didn't need the bomb because we could have won the war [my service]'s way'. I.e. by invasion (Army), blockade (Navy), and/or conventional bombing (Air Force). This is not a disinterested appraisal of the effectiveness of the bomb.

—WWoods (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We are quoting men who were in a position to influence the decision to use atomic weapons. Since they did not act to prevent the atomic bombings (when they could have) or did not express a negative opinion towards the bombings (when a high level dissenting voice might have influenced the outcome) its safe to say that they did not oppose the bombings at the time. These men may have believed that the atomic bombing would not influence the outcome of the war, but such a stance is very different than opposing their use.

No one is claiming that Eisenhower had Alzheimer's, just that his memory and his retelling of the matter probably changed over time to make himself look better. It's common to question memoirs, and to not accept their claims as the gospel truth, especially when they contradict primary sources.

I agree with WWoods, Nimitz is emphasizing the effectiveness of the naval interdiction, USSBS the conventional fire bombing, and MacArthur the invasion plans (or he's pitying the loss of battefield glory, or something ridiculous). If we were to move the Maddox quote it would set these views in context. bosoxrock88 (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Casualty Figures

In the preferable to invasion section, a casualty estimate of 30,000-50,000 allied soldiers for Operation Downfall is listed. This figure seems nonsensical due to the fact that the allies had 50,000 casualties during the Battle of Okinawa, which was on a much smaller scale than what a battle over all of Japan would have been. I took the (apparently aberrant) liberty of removing what I perceive to be an asinine comment but that is against procedure so I'm posting this edit for a consensus ruling here. This has nothing to do with the actual debate, and I actually think that the atomic bombings were fundamentally morally wrong, but those casualty figures for an invasion of all of Japan are just stupefyingly low. --MustaphaMond (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, those numbers simply don't reflect the estimates that were made at the time, and based on the casualties suffered on Okinawa alone are completely out of line. If there is a historical source (not one that was written 50 years later) that backs them up, then let's see it. Otherwise, I've removed it. Rapier (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Separate issue: Impact on surrender

There is a separate issue debated about the bombings, namely what impact they had on the decision to surrender. The bulk of the article is rather about the ethical question; I’ve accordingly reworded the lead to make clear that there is a separate issue, and added a new section, “Impact on surrender”, which summarizes views and gives references.

In principle one might have different articles on the separate debates (ethical, effectiveness), though at this juncture this would appear an excess fragmentation.

71.215.132.63 (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

After giving this some thought, I agree with your judgment. Once the book I'm writing comes out I think the debate about the effectiveness of the bombings will move a little more to center stage. And certainly if the bombings didn't coerce surrender that is far more important than whether this particular use was wrong. -The implications of the fact for keeping nuclear weapons would be far more important than whether Americans can feel comfortable that they were justified, say. I almost posted a request that this page be titled "Debate over the morality of the atomic bombings . . ." but decided on second thought to delete it.

It is clearly the case that the vast majority of the discussion has been - up to now - about morality and not effectiveness.

The scholarship in putting this page together seems pretty careful and thorough to me. Thanks for your work, all. WardHayesWilson (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Separate issue: Atomic diplomacy

The debate over whether the bombings were used to intimidate the Soviet Union is yet another separate issue, which is much-discussed on this here talk page, and accordingly I’ve created a section, “Atomic diplomacy”, which begins a discussion of this issue.

As it currently stands, the section is yet meager, but identifies and links to several relevant sources which will hopefully provide a scaffold on which further elaboration may build.

71.215.132.63 (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's the comic?

Where's the comic with the kid watching the bombings on TV who goes "Wow! What terrorist group did that?" I know I've seen it in this article before. I can't find it in the page history. Does anyone know which one I'm talking about? 83.142.1.201 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary and infantile. You can replace the atomic bombing scene with any other scene from WW 2 (eg, Europe, Russia, China). War is not a video game. Angry bee (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

english problem

there is a sentence in The bombings as war crimes section and it says:

A number of scientists who worked on the bomb were against its use.

just i wonder that, can we change last part of this sentence into "it to use". how can we use verb?

A number of scientists who worked on the bomb were against it to use. --96.42.237.249 (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The first version of the sentence is correct. You could also say "...were against using it." The second version you suggest would not be correct English. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

to 96.42.237.249: Well, if we can't use the verb 'use', we probably can use the noun 'use' there.--ja_62 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to change "A number of scientists who worked on the bomb were against its use." The grammar is just fine, with the word "use" employed as a noun. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Unable to Fix Citation #107

I don't know what I'm doing wrong.....
<br. />--NBahn (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of arguments is missing?

Something that just struck me, but that I don't have the time to check so I put it here as a reminder for whoever.... I did some literature checking for a paragraph on the depiction of the bombings, and noticed that someone said that the justification for the bombing by claiming that it saved lives was not made until 1947, primarily because right after the bombing the public received it very positively, and it took years before the mood changed and the need to bomb became openly questioned and in response justified in various ways.

Therefore, perhaps it could be relevant to have a section on how the debate developed over time, when claims first surfaced, changes in public opinion etc. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 17:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point. I think that would be a useful addition to the article. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 03:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Relationship between denial of Japan's wartime atrocities and claim bombings were unnecessary.

Many of the Japanese who say that the atomic bombing was unnecessary and that it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that led to Japan's surrender are the same Japanese who deny Japan's wartime atrocities such as the Rape of Nanjing. For example, Prince Fumimaro Konoe referred to in the article committed suicide to avoid being executed for war crimes. By clamimg the atomic bombings were unnecessary, they can seek to deflect and divert criticism of the Japanese atrocities, a tactic they successfully used in many of the post war War Crime trials. Compared to Germany, only a handfull of the many Japanese guilty of war crimes were ever convicted, and the majority escaped any punishment at all, but remained honored and respected members of Japanese society. The Japanese to this day continue to deny and avoid responsibility for war time atrocities commited by Japan, as can be evidence of Japanese Prime Minister Abe deinal of the rape and brutal treatment of Japanese Comfort Women, and the recent controversy in the recent rewriting of Japanese history text books.

In a somewhat similar vein, some of the American military men who made post war comments that the atomic bombings were not need also had hidden agendas. They minimized to the role of the atomic bombings to counteract the view by some that atomic weapons made conventional forces unnecessary, and justified continue spending on convention military forces. If the atomic bombings successfully caused Japan to surrender, they were afraid that the US Congress would see no need of conventional military forces, but rely on soley on nuclear weapons for the defense of the country. Most of the claims by military men (generals, admirals) were made in the years immediately after World War II, before Korea and Vietnam demonstrated the need for conventional military power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.147.97 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

-An astute observation. Jersey John (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Japanese to this day continue to deny and avoid responsibility for war time atrocities commited by Japan, as can be evidence of Japanese Prime Minister Abe deinal of the rape and brutal treatment of Japanese Comfort Women, and the recent controversy in the recent rewriting of Japanese history text books."
• That is quite an extreme oversimplification of the truth. Perhaps you would appreciate to read the List of war apology statements issued by Japan. The only thing I am getting out of your text is "the Japanese as a whole were despicable war criminals which still deny any and all wrongdoing, therefore, whatever they have to say should be completely disregarded; let alone taken seriously". Association fallacies have no place in Wikipedia, sorry. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumption of effectiveness

The first sentence presumes that the bombs were effective in ending the war. ("The debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki concerns the United States’ atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 August and 9 August 1945, thus ending the Second World War (1939–45).") As you should know from articles and books cited below, this is a matter of contention not accepted fact. I suggest ". . . on 6 August and 9 August 1945, which came at the end of the Second World . . ." WardHayesWilson (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That is sensible. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Aren't they specifically mentioned already in the article text by the emperor of Japan during his communication to end the war? Seems logical to keep it "ending the war". Its a separate issue as to if it was necessary, or if the war would have ended anyways 2 weeks, 2 months, etc. later. 202.88.81.58 (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I support the text suggested by WardHayesWilson. What ended the war was the signatures on the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, and not the atomic bombings. This entire article is about the role the bombings played in that, so it seems strange that the opening paragraph should already be drawing conclusions. Captain Sumo.08:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC).

International Peoples Tribunal

I have removed this following paragraph from Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State:

The issue of guilt over the destruction of Hiroshima was not laid with the Shimoda ruling. For example in 2007, an unofficial panel of scholars met in Hiroshima, which named itself "International Peoples’ Tribunal on the Dropping of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki" and held a mock trial against the US government. The ruling was overwhelmingly against that military action.

Notes

It may be of use in this article. -- PBS (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not alone but travelling in pairs

In the section Speedy end of war saved lives I was going to remove the four instances of the word alone. But I was foiled with two of them because there are three double quotes in the same paragraph. can someone who knows where the first quote ends (if it is a quote and not typo) please add the closing quote or remove the odd quote if it is a typo and remove the two other instances of alone. -- PBS (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it a debate if there are no rebuttals?

I was well aware of the standard positions in the "debate" before I came to read the Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, what I was really looking for - detailed rebuttals for each point - are completely absent. Surely people who support Position A have written about why Position B is flawed? Can we get some proper for/against into this otherwise comprehensive article? Pretty please? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Atomic diplomacy" section

"Along these lines some argue that the US raced the Soviet Union and hoped to drop the bombs and receive surrender from Japan before a Soviet entry into the Pacific war."

This sentence makes it sound as if the US and USSR were not involved in any talks about which strategy should be used to bring Japan down. I must point out that such a view point is completely wrong; everything between the US and USSR on the subject of Japan was decided in the Yalta conference. Unless someone can come with a counter argument supporting this sentence, I will remove it as it is severely misleading. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The sentence just say that "some argue", unless you can prove that some don't argue there is nothing severely misleading with the sentence.  Dr. Loosmark  21:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, of course. However, it may make the reader believe that there was no kind of agreement between the USSR and the US about who would get which parts of Japan, when and how. Some argue, but the facts need to be mentioned as to not mislead the reader. I will not remove that sentence, but instead I will make mention of the Yalta conference, with a source of course. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You tell me that the U.S. had informed the USSR about their plans of dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan? Well read this on the "Manhattan Project"-website: "At the Potsdam Conference in Germany, President Harry S. Truman was told that the Trinity test had been successful. He told Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, that the US had a new superweapon, without giving any details. This was the first communication from the US to the Soviet Union about the bomb, but Stalin already knew about it from Russian espionage agents. The authorization to use the bomb against Japan had been given, and no alternatives were considered after the Japanese rejection of the Potsdam Declaration." Given that Moscow was not meant to know about any nuclear bombs and only agreed to Operation Downfall, your argument actually supports the idea purported in the Atomic Diplomacy section. Besides, the argument appears to be established in the Russian edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.17.247 (talk • contribs)

No, the U.S. was simply ready with the bombs—their development was complete and they were now available—so Truman decided to continue with FDR's plan and drop them as soon as possible. Their use would ease U.S. land invasion by weakening Japan even further. There was no race against USSR. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing support

In the "support" section, I believe one important item is missing, perhaps the most important one. Support for the use of extreme destructive means against Japan was founded largely in knowledge of Japan's military aggression and brutality, notably toward the Chinese. It was understood that Japan would continue to be relentless in its militarism, and that it would be largely resistant to any lesser measures including continued firebombing. -SC (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wasted research

This article does not address the accusation of the U.S. Government deploying the bombs only because if they did not, years worth of research would have been wasted. Theothoughts (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Find an expert author or two who supports this position and add what they say. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. I think Michael S. Sherry in The Rise of American Air Power (1989) talks about the impact of sunken costs of tech developement. He also argues that strategic bombing and atomic bombing was a way for the USAAF to gain independence from the army and navy. I'll try and find my notes. Stepheneadon (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Different debates warrant different page or sections

This whole page is set up to argue Pro and Oppose but these events are one of the most concentrated pieces of history - two whole cities utterly demolished in seconds. I don't think you can boil that all down to a binary Pro and Con argument.

Separate debates are

1) what was Truman thinking 2) for that matter, his advisors...these are two "debates" 3) what was Japan thinking Debating Japan's decision making process is the topic of Hasegawa's book and a vast whole topic in itself - did they surrender because of the bomb or because of USSR entry or Manchurian situation or what???? 4) was the bombing militarily justifiable 5)was the bombing morally justifiable ie what does scholarly opinion think since we are writing encyclopedic-wise 6) was the SECOND bombing militarily justifiable 7) was the SECOND bombing morally justifiable 8) was a precedent of some kind created? good bad or indifferent 9) was US reputation tarnished? irrevocably? what should US do 10) should US be in posture of apology or not? 11) not only per (1) what was Truman thinking, but what is moral status of Truman ie what does scholarly opinion think since we are writing encyclopedic-wise

To boil this down to a pro con format is not IMHO the way to proceed. And it is worsened by the intro which suggested that all of this is just one binary question.

OK so nuff said.

What is the best way to deal with this.

IMHO, the bombing are huge huge topics and I have no problem with separate pages as the will arises to write them

probably no one will want to for many weeks months or years unless i do so let me get feed back if people think it would be pointless say or tolerate the following:

separate page expounding in greater detail the Hasegawa thesis that Japan surrendered because it feared Russia as much as anything to do with the bomb. That is a debate that the book alone will add impetus to for centuries.

Suggested Page Title: Atomic_bombings_and Japanese_surrender Suggested Opening Concept: disambiguate that the page deals with what was going on in the minds of the Emperor and his generals and not Truman

a 2nd page on an encyclopedic review of historian opinion evolving on the question of the actual beliefs, motives and actions of Harry S Truman and his advisors - what did they know and think. For instance, there is considerable doubt about what he knew and what he knew about the status of the targets - military targets or civilian targets. His wife left more personal papers that changed a lot of thinking on this topic.

a 3rd an encyclopedic review of thought on the underlying ethcial and moral question,which i think is what this current page is really more about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidgood (talk • contribs) 00:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A page devoted to Hasegawa's ideas would probably be challenged as a POV fork and the material on it proposed to be merged back into this article. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed 99.180.194.222 (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

state terrorism section

An editor followed me here to revert some content I moved over from its main article that we were looking to trim. I wanted to find a home for the material, but at the same time I don't have to give it undue weight here. I don't think this is fringe, but it is a minority view so the section should remain relatively small. That is why an expanded treatment of this view belongs in its own article subject. I'm interested in what other editors think. I noticed it was not objected to, and I have to discount the one editor who likes to edit war and has been blocked numerous times. But I will abide by serious editors and welcome their input. I hope that Sport V7 doesn't go back to edit warring. BernieW650 (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, The concept of "state terrorism" as it applies to declared war is inherently fringe. The USA and the Empire of Japan were engaged in a declared war. The idea of "war terrorism", as outlined in the article now is a a neologism and shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. When you include information on the "targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal" Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets and were defended by an air force. What you have included, and reverted to goes on about the use of air power in unrelated conflicts as if that too were "terrorism". "Terrorism" and "terror" "terrifying" are different things. A declared war between 2 nation states is certainly terrifying, but it isn't "terrorism" and as such the opinions of a the few college professors who specialize in this are given undue weight here.

Secondly, I am not the one who is "edit warring". Per the WP:BRD cycle you were bold and added material to the encyclopedia, I disagree with the materials inclusion and reverted. It was objected to. That is where you were supposed to take it to the talk page and discuss the changes, instead you reverted. That's edit warring. V7-sport (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion, V7-sport. I've tried to explain to you this is not a place to argue personal opinions. We report what sources say, agree with them or not. Its irrelevant. You have not edited this article before but followed me here to edit war. The regular editors here have not opposed this change. I'd like to hear from them. BernieW650 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well no, It's not my personal opinion. It's the opinion of the UN conventions which have refused to label acts of war "state terrorism" and US law. And "reporting what sources say" is fine (when you chose to do it) however giving undue weight to fringe college professors isn't. There is already an article for "state terrorism" which you are well aware of and what you are placing here is a cut and paste duplicate of what is in that article. I have had this article on my watch page for ages.

I notice you didn't address the "edit warring" charge, did you finally read WP:BRD? If you have proposed changes outline them here and we can talk them out. V7-sport (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have a good source that you can provide as a citation to support your claim, then I would not be opposed to adding that. We disagree about what is Fringe vs. a minority view. Clearly the allowance of this view is supported by the community for this article as evidence by its own small section and the inclusion of this view on the lead sentence, and the sources are good mainstream academic sources, and not just two professors, but those who are specialist in this field: Falk, Selden, Lackey, et al. Your objection is one of undue weight. That has been noted. I'd like to hear from others editors. You are not just removing how much weight we give it, you are removing an important point they are making that makes up that view. I do welcome a good citation supporting the contrary view on the subject, though. That would be better than removing content, at least until we hear from other editors. BernieW650 (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So again, your reaction is to edit war instead of trying to find a compromise. Your edit summary simply stated "1st rv" indicating you are willing to take it all the way to 3. BRD has been explained to you several times at this point, here, on the other article you were edit warring on and on your talk page. WP:3RR is not an entitlement to revert a page 3 times.

And again, There already is an article on state terrorism with a tome of 3rd tier college professors alleging that the USA dropping the bomb on Japan was state terrorism. Cutting and pasting content from there is mindlessly larding up the encyclopedia. V7-sport (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You should walk away and let other editors without a history of conflict with me handle this content question. Otherwise it looks bad for you to follow me to article to edit war. Btw, Falk is a professor at Princeton University, in international law. Hardly "3rd tier." As usual you get the basic facts upside down. BernieW650 (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You do have a history of conflict, your IP address was blocked twice and it's been made obvious to a bunch of editors that you are a sock puppet. I'm amazed at the gall you have to advise another editor to walk away from an article is amazing. It isn't going to happen.

By the way, Richard Falk is a 9/11 truther nut-bag who has been condemned by the secretary general of the UN. You may not think that's "fringe" but it's regarded as such on Wikipedia.V7-sport (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"State Terrorism" as it applies to the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Japan is inherently WP:FRINGE, and it is revisionist history to claim otherwise. There had been a declared state of "total war" between the United States and the Empire of Japan for more than 3 years at that point in history and conventional bombings with incindiary devices had already inflicted massive casualties on the Japaneese mainland. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to push a particular point of view, and is not the place to go on a crusade in an attempt to advance a particular agenda. SeanNovack (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think the two paragraphs in question belong here in this article. The preceding paragraph, IMO, already does enough to summarize the idea that some people consider the bombings to constitute state terrorism by the US, and the extra paragraphs simply indulge in more US-bashing to no good purpose. I would favour keeping the two paragraphs in question in the other article (United States and state terrorism). Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are the weasel words WP:WEASEL of "Certain scholars and historians" allowed in this section? Unsupported attributions shouldn't be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleopard (talk • contribs)

Refusal to include the state terrorism section in the article is akin to Japanese nationalists downplaying Japanese war crimes. Alas, most of the English speaking editors are from Allied backgrounds so they have an inherent bias to cover up Allied war crimes. The section should be in there but it will never get there because of the 'popular' basis wikipedia on what information goes in the articles. The immediately previous post by Richwales even raises the 'American bashing' flag on the issue as to the US conducting state terrorism. Then should 'Japanese war crimes' articles be removed because of Japanese nationalists consider it to be 'Japan basing material'?

221.25.70.62 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Loses in Pacific Theater during World War II

An account of the loses in List of naval and land-based operations in Pacific Theater during World War II, like the Battle of Iwo Jima and Battle of Okinawa are an important part of the "Preferable to invasion" section. Invasion loses estimates had historical background that must be stated, the estimates were not just guesses. This section is not too long nor too detailed, as claimed by a text delete. Telecine Guy 21:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The only information that is needed is that US casualties were high in the fighting leading up to August 1945, and the Japanese were seen to fight fanatically. These two pieces of information helped US planners to predict how many casualties there might be in a land invasion of Japan. The details of how many dead vs how many injured, or how many were taken prisoner in the previous battles, are too much for this topic. Certain battles can be mentioned as giving US planners the proper dread of a land invasion, but we should be staying at the higher level of planning, not down in the details of Japanese dead, wounded and captured at this or that island battle. At any rate, the mainland invasion was going to be different, involving both fanatical civilian and military defenders, thus the predictions were more difficult to make. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your cited source, "Battle for Iwo Jima, 1945" http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/battleiwojima.htm, does not discuss the casualties at Iwo Jima in the context of greater casualties expected in a land invasion of Japan. If you want to connect the dots (as it is clear you do) then you must find a source that says the high casualties of Iwo Jima led to the expectation of high casualties on Japan's mainland. There are, of course, historians who say this but you did not use one of their books.

You also placed a piped link to Japanese war crimes within a direct quote of Richard B. Frank. Piped links inside people's quoted statements are deprecated in Wikipedia's manual of style, especially the Easter egg type you used. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, very good and thoughtful feedback.
  • fixed "Japanese war crimes" link, you are correct.
  • added new ref for land casualties, you are correct the ref only had sea casualties.

Telecine Guy 22:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no reference to the Potsdam Declaration

and why doesn't the article question the need for Japan's unconditional surrender? Oh is it because most editors on the English Wikipedia have an Allied bias?

221.25.70.62 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your addition regarding Potsdam is very poorly cited to an article written by John W. Cooper who holds a masters in business. Cooper is not a scholarly historian or an acknowledged expert on the topic; he is certainly not prominent enough to be used in the lead paragraph of this extremely visible article. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

221.25.70.62. The article DO have a clear bias in favour of the bombs. Wrote in the potsdam - and the surprising fact that the Soviet was not invited for the signing - and that Japanese peace negotiations had been going on since the surrender of Germany. It is also striking that McArthur's claim: "The war might have ended weeks earlier, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." is HIDDEN in a footnote (96 so far), while the Catholic priest (sorry 'father') gets full attention in the article, when he claims that 'total war' justify bombardments of women and children. Glad I am not a believer...no sympathy gained from the Pope and his followers :)--Robertmossing (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree, the mention of keeping the Emperor, which was Japan's only irreducible demand, & U.S. agreement, deserves more prominence. More important IMO is why it wasn't agreed sooner, when MAGIC was making it pretty clear that's all Japan insisted on, & when the Atlantic Charter (promulgated in 1941!) essentially said that's what any nation would be guaranteed to have: the government it wanted. If there was an issue with Hirohito staying, surely an arrangement could have been made....? By my reading, it was Byrnes' desire to use the Bomb, & his influence over Truman (coupled with Truman's inexperience, since he was only on about Day 3 as PotUS at the time...!), that made it turn out this way. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Trek. Thanks for the feed back. IMO the MacArthur claim is important, because it is true: “The war might have ended weeks earlier, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." And MacArthur should know as the one who granted immunity to the emperor and his family at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. He WAS a war criminal as believed by many (Herbert P. Bix: Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan (2001). See also Bix interview http://www.harpercollins.com/author/authorExtra.aspx?authorID=13941&isbn13=9780060931308&displayType=bookinterview) WHY the bomb was actually dropped, is a difficult question, that has kept scholars busy for decades. I agree with you on Truman’s inexperience. If one goes through the truman-library you find many contradictory statements. And each scholar selects the quotation that fits his point of view. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa believes it was mainly dropped to ’show of’ to the Russians. But I doubt that. The cold war wasn’t started yet. And the hardliner among the allied was not Truman, but Winston Churchill. See Operation Unthinkable.--Robertmossing (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

War crimes in See also section

This series of edits introduced a new "See also" section that listed two entries: United States war crimes and United States and the International Criminal Court. I dispute the listing of these articles; the second one does not even mention Japan (!) and the first one should be made part of the discussion of war crimes in the body of the article, not relegated to a "See also" link. There is an existing war crimes discussion that would be perfectly appropriate to this link. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The factuality of other wikipedia articles is irrelevant to the factual content of this article. The degree and scope of the relationship between the current article and the linked articles may vary. They are there to help and raise interest for readers in obtaining a greater breadth of knowledge and understanding of the issues raised in the current topic, and as such, may or may not directly assist in the interpretation and construction of the present article. In other words, the relevancy of the listed article is subjective and usefulness will vary depending on the reader's purpose of obtaining information.

Jimmyhere456 (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added links to Japanese war crimes and the Rape of Nanking to illustrate the scale of Japanese destruction and killing that needed to be stopped by dropping the a-bomb on Japan. However, the article US war crimes and others that describe culpability of the United States in the atom bombing should be excluded because they are superfluous and already alluded to in the main body. To include them would stir unfair anti-US sentiment and serve Japanese nationalist interests. Haineshunter8482 (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

ALso added link to Japanese history textbook controversies. Japan's ignorance in educating the justifications of the atomic bombing in schools is worthy of focus. Haineshunter8482 (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

@^ i just read the japanese history textbook controversies page. it dosnt have any place in this one. japans text book aproval council guys did there job for the most part and when they failed then the people protested and the schools rejected said books. the only public schools using them are public schools for the "disabled". and that dosnt suprise. crippled kids could use some fairy tales. but on the whole, it seems the japanese are far more sensable then you give them credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.75.162 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Japan's ignorance in educating the justifications of the atomic bombing in schools is worthy of focus. It sure is. Or subsidiarily write American textbook...so the pupils think twice...as they say in a popular TV.channel. ;)--Robertmossing (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources, synthesis

I reverted all of Robertmossing's changes to the article because they removed valid text and added text from primary sources to make a synthesis. As well, Mossing copied and pasted text from Douglas J. MacEachin's monograph hosted by the CIA: "The Final Months of the War With Japan". I do not agree with Mossing's changes such as his trimming of Churchill's quote and his addition of primary source documents. Mossing appears to be using this article to put forward his own interpretation of the debate rather than to tell the reader the state of the debate. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Here I removed a bit of text added by Robertmossing, text which did not apply to Japan as there were no undefended cities selected for bombing. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

And I certainly donot aggree with Binksternet. The quote of Churchill is far out - and not even the WILDEST estimates in the article supports his statement. I suggested that Churchill is eliminated from the article - it is pure nonsens! I also added that Hasegawa has to be quoted CORRECTLY and that he claims - page 299 as quoted by binkerstern - that the many lives saved is a "myth (that) cannot be supported by historical facts." Find another quotation binkerstern, if Hasegawa doesnt fit your point of view! I also quoted 30-06-1998 Article, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 323 CORRECTLY - and updated the dead link - http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jpcl.htm. Red in context - that binkersten doesnt like - it states: The absence of positive law, in this case treaty law, certainly does not mean complete freedom in the use of means and methods, tactics and technology. Before brinkerstern vandalize good primary sources - due to his biased view of the topic - I expect him to critically evaluate the sources. And he could start with Churchill...what the frog can WC deliver of facts on the topic.

And now that I read this amateur have made a (homemade-)statement on 'undefended cities' I quote Shimoda et al. v. The State, Tokyo District Court, 7 December 1963 - and updated the dead link http://www.icrc.org/ihl-nat.nsf/276c23458e6a0d2441256486004ad099/aa559087dbcf1af5c1256a1c0029f14d!OpenDocument - that the principle of 'undefended cities' can be applied to Hiroshima: since an aerial bombardment with an atomic bomb brings the same result as a blind aerial bombardment from the tremendous power of destruction, even if the aerial bombardment has only a military objective as the target of its attack, it is proper to understand that an aerial bombardment with an atomic bomb on both cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an illegal act of hostility as the indiscriminate aerial bombardment on undefended cities.Part 2. International law aspects.Letter (litra) 8.--Robertmossing (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC) kindly Robertmossing

Taking an attacking tone (which includes using all CAPS to make statements) is certainly not a good way to make your case on a talk page. It's almost guaranteed to turn people away from the potential facts of your argument and turn them against your behavior. If the issue is using primary sources, perhaps you should find some secondary sources that articulate your position and then work with others on the article talk page to reach solid wording that will present your views in a NPOV way. If you avoid these steps, it makes it seem like you're using original research or synthesis to push a POV position, which is contrary to any number of policies and will get your changes reverted almost every time. Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

♠As I'm reading the Hague Convention position (allowing I haven't actually read the Convention itself...), the "no law" claim is wrong, too. The Convention did prohibit bombing civilians, but allowed what we'd call collateral damage in attacks on military targets. It also prohibited attacks on "undefended" cities. Given AA & interceptors, it's pretty easy to argue there weren't any undefended cities; once you add in bomb shelters & blackout as defense measures, even easier. Since I doubt anybody in 1907 ever conceived a weapon able to wipe out a city, let alone using one, the point would seem moot: the U.S. could argue the destruction of Hiroshima was collateral. (I wouldn't, but that's another issue.) The court in 'Shimoda appears to agree, since the claim was dismissed...

♠As for Nagasaki, I do think that was needless in context of the war with Japan. (I'd say they both Bombs were.) Never mind the sunk cost (I can't see that as a justification; there were lots of things the USG spent money on that never got used). There was a geopolitical context, too: namely, intimidate the Soviets. The argument's been made, had the U.S. not used the Bomb, there would have been a major nuclear exchange in the '50s: using the Bomb on civilians demonstrated the U.S. would, in a war with the SU, & I have a suspicion that's what Secretary Byrnes wanted to prove. Governing geopolitics isn't, AFAI, something the Hague Convention ever contemplated... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back. To Intothatdarkness I will respond that the academic dispute can be tough, but never personally offensive. I do not believe I have penetrated that frontier. Second the ruling of the Shimoda et al. v. The State, Tokyo District Court, 7 December 1963, clearly states that Hiroshima was ‘an undefended city’ and that the CONVENTION CONCERNANT LE BOMBARDEMENT PAR DES FORCES NAVALES EN TEMPS DE GUERRE, adopted at the Hague Peace Conference of 1907 can be applied. The view of the public being of less importance, since the court’s ruling is based on law science. Furthermore it is – to my knowledge – the only time the legality of the Hiroshima bomb has ever been trialed at a court. The reason the court rejects the claims of Shimoda et al is that according to the Japanese Peace Treaty of 1951 “Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nationals against the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of the war or out of actions taken because of the existence of a state of war, and waives all claims arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces…”, article 19.Tokyo District Court, 7 December 1963, part 5, letter (litra) 6.

I do not think any secondary sources is needed to confirm these clear statements. Talking about secondary sources Richard B. Frank has never - to my knowledge - published a Peer reviewed article. http://www.ushistory.org/ I do not even consider as a reliable tertiary source, but mainly as a mean to blow out the brains of American high school students. Kindly--Robertmossing (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with academic disputes. I was pointing out that taking the tone you have will result in difficulties in this environment, which is not as academic as perhaps it should be. Pointing you to finding reputable secondary sources was intended to help you navigate around the original research bugaboo. If those court findings have been used by reputable sources to make assertions similar to yours, then you can (and should) use those in this environment. Personally I find Wiki's reliance on internet sources somewhat disturbing, but it is what it is and we have to navigate within that environment if we wish to contribute. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

My biggest concern here is that the article must be about the state of the debate, not about winning the debate. Robertmossing appears to want to win the debate. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Intothatdarkness. Thanks for the friendly advice. Binksternet. The concept of the article is a bit unclear. Almost everybody living on this Earth has an opinion on Hiroshima, so were to draw the line? And the article is not just about ‘the state of the debate’. It mix facts with POV’s. Richard B. Franks figures are presented as facts. Have desperately looked to find the primary source behind his figures (and something is wrong with his calculation: 1.6 million U.S. casualties would crave 214.7 million man-days, meaning it would take 214 days for an army of a million men to conquer Japan). I do not like the Winston Churchill’s quotation (WC)– and especially not the way it is framed. And if you still insist having it there – it has to be stated that no sources whatever supports his WILD estimates. Actually George Bush senior said the same in 1991 that ‘the atomic bomb saved millions of lives’ (tried desperately to find the primary source but only found it in ‘die Zeit’, http://www.zeit.de/online/2009/35/atombombe-hiroshima). To my opinion the article has a clear bias in favour of the bomb. It would be nice if it could get more balanced.--Robertmossing (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

♠"1.6 million U.S. casualties" That's simply unsupportable. Skates makes it pretty clear Truman pulled the 1 million figure out of thin air postwar; it seems to me he was feeling defensive.... It's been repeated since then, & inflated by inaccuracy & ignorance over time. Skates puts the number under a million for total casualties, on par with the rate for the Philippines or Okinawa (I don't recall which, it's been awhile): steep, perhaps, but not intolerable, if invasion had gone ahead. Even the deaths in the bombing campaign wouldn't have amounted to "millions", AFAIK. If we count the deaths by famine, had war gone on, maybe...& now we're back to guessing, since nobody ever says exactly what's being counted.

♠I suggest, however, that's moot, since Japan had been trying to work out an honorable surrender since April '45 (on the very terms, as it turns out, she finally got--in September). How many died before the Bombs were ever dropped because Byrnes was stalling? The debate isn't simply on the impact of dropping the Bombs, I suggest--it's on waiting for them to be ready. That puts this squarely into immoral behavior: Truman & his government had a moral obligation to their own people to end the war sooner, & waiting for the Bomb did not do that. That must be addressed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Robertmossing, you said, "I do not like" Churchill's quote. Liking it or not does not figure into whether it was a notable quote or not. He delivered the speech in the House of Commons in the same month the bombs were dropped, so yeah, it's notable. It's part of the literature on the bombs. Binksternet (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

My problem with Richard B. Frank. No one but him mentions these high figures on casualities. The profound work by Douglas J. MacEachin, The Final Months of the War With Japan, ( https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/the-final-months-of-the-war-with-japan-signals-intelligence-u-s-invasion-planning-and-the-a-bomb-decision/csi9810001.html#rtoc7 ) has no reference to Frank’s claimed source. Why are these figures not mentioned in The White House meeting June 18. Instead Marshal claims: “There is reason to believe that the first 30 days in Kyushu should not exceed the price we have paid for Luzon." Could someone please cast some light on Frank’s figures.--Robertmossing (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

My library provided me with the diaries of Alan Brooke today. 13. may: ...one gets a feeling he (WC) longs for a new war. Even if it meant we had to fight Russia. ...Had to listen to his nonsens till 18,15. Drove home.

Asked my library to get Frank's downfall.--Robertmossing (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 9 involved approx. 1.5 million Soviet soldiers and 1.2 million Japanese and lasted for approx. 10 days and caused 12.000 killed Soviets and 84.000 killed Japanese. It gives for the Soviet a fatality-rate of 0.8 per 1.000 man-days, less than half the rate Frank in downfall refers to.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp#ch11 http://www.eastviewpress.com/Files/IA_FROM%20THE%20ARCHIVES_No.6_2011.pdf

--Robertmossing (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Biased and missing a cap.

"Winston Churchill did not make the decision to drop the atomic bomb. The Truman administration did. But Winston Churchill did participate in the post war myth on how many lives the atomic bombs saved[8]. Churchill’s overstatement – not even the wildest estimates quoted below supports him – reflects a former prime minister in chock after the English people fired him in the july 45 election."

First off, the use of "post war myth" implies that it is, in fact, a myth. Seeing as it is impossible to truly know as the invasion never happened, the use of "myth" makes it seem that this is a personal opinion.

Secondly, the bit that reads "Churchill's overstatement- not even the wildest estimates quoted below supports him" is also seemingly a personal opinion.

Last off, though I do not know for sure, I do not think that not being reelected is the same as being fired, and this seems to be saying that he was forcibly removed and that this was the only reason for his removal. I am, however, sure that the month July is spelled "July" not "july".

So, I would suggest removing that bit, or at least correcting the missing cap and making it far more neutral.

Though English is not my mother-tongue, a myth is according to oxforddictionaries.com: “an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing: the book is a scholarly study of the Churchill myth.”

According to the diaries of Alan Brooke for June 28: GB would provide 3-5 divisions on the direct attack on Japan. So how WC can claim that the bombs saved “… a quarter of a million British lives…”is a puzzle.

I am still in favour of that the WC-quote goes out. And so do my comments.--Robertmossing (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Dictionary.com, a myth is "any invented story, idea, or concept" or "an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution." English is my native language, and when I think of a myth, it tends to fall under those definitions, or I think Greek, Roman, and Egyptian, which leads back to a false story created in order to explain why things are as they are.

As for the rest of it, it is indeed a puzzle. I would keep the WC quote, but get rid of the bit that follows it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.185.2 (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"use of 'post war myth' implies that it is, in fact, a myth" That's because it is. Skates' Invasion of Japan & Alperovitz's Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb make it pretty clear the casualties predicted were nothing like as high as the postwar claims for lives saved, which appear to have been pulled out of thin air. (Winston's figure seems to be based on the fraction of UK troops to U.S. ones.) Since the figure has no basis in fact, but has since been accepted as fact, it qualifies pretty nicely as "myth". (If anyone cares, English is also my native tongue. :) ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

'Myth' is used by professor of history,Stanford University, Barton J. Bernstein in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1986, A Postwar Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved http://hillyardhistory.net/uploads/Hiroshima_-_A_Postwar_Myth_-_500_000_U.S._Lives_Saved_-_1986-06-01_BAS__Bernstein_.pdf --Robertmossing (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to put on a reference, but I heard that the estimate was based off the number of Marines who died during the war in the Pacific, during the island hopping. On one island by itself, Sapian, 3,465 Marines died, and about 30,000 Japanese died. That was on a single island. The casualties on mainland would have been increased significantly, and the Allies would have been there as well. That makes the figure of a million U.S soldiers and half a million British dead likely. Also, was the word "myth" used by multiple people, or by a single person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.185.2 (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"That makes the figure of a million U.S soldiers and half a million British dead likely." No, it doesn't. By the time the Philippines & Okinawa were invaded, the U.S. had learned a lot about amphibious operations. Besides which, IJA at Kanto Plain was little more than a crust, so the defense in depth of Okinawa or Iwo Jima was impossible; IJA hadn't the motorization to manage it nor the airpower to defend the railways to pull it off. (The situation would have made the German defense in Normandy look like a mobile battle by comparison.) The Allied casualty rate (KIA/WIA to total number deployed) would have been in line with the Philippine op, IIRC: total casualties around 500K, & about 35K KIA, IIRC (per Skates). It was nothing like a million, & no chance of being over that. The Japanese number is usually quoted as twice the U.S., or more; that puts it well under the 2-3mil often mentioned. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

DM Giangreco argues very convincingly in his recent book Hell to Pay that US casualty rates from the invasion of Kyushu would have been similar to those on Okinawa or Iwo Jima. He demonstrates IJA had a large force on Kyushu with reasonably well prepared defensive positions (which extended well into the interior) and a viable logistics network. He also draws on this to totally demolish several of the accounts which argue that the casualties would have been light (from memory, Giangreco argues that the quoted figures for the US military's estimates of casualties from the invasion of Kyushu are actually much too low as the military was in the process of revising them at the time of the surrender to take into account new intelligence on the much larger than expected Japanese force on the island). I'm pretty sure that this is currently considered the standard work on the potential invasion of Japan. I've just removed some nonsense someone added about Churchill to the article. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC) (restored after being deleted by the IP editor below)

Estimates in wartime are not made to be to the number. They tend to be the highest affordable casualties. A casualty is different from fatality, though. A casualty includes Missing In Actions and wounded to point were the person would be unable to continue fighting, as well as the number the dead. Maybe WC mixed up fatalities with casualties. But many men died after combat due to infections, which could also have been factored in. Regardless, there were estimates made that did say up to a million men lost was possible. Therefore, saying "not even the wildest estimates quoted below supported him" is inaccurate. Such an estimate was, indeed, made. It isn't about if it is accurate, it is that his statement was not unfounded, therefore not a "myth" or "overstatement" and the last sentence, "reflects a former prime minister in chock after the English people fired him in the july 45 election" is not even relevant. Plus, July is capitalized.

"up to a million men lost was possible" All casualties, perhaps (I haven't read Giangreco). What's usually stated is "one million dead", & even adding "died of wounds" wouldn't bring the U.S. or Brit total to that.

"well prepared defensive positions (which extended well into the interior) and a viable logistics network" I'd have to wonder how long that would survive the pre-invasion attacks & tacair afterward... Even the Germans couldn't prevent Allied control of the skies; Japan had no hope of it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Giangreco argues that the terrain in Kyushu and the planned Japanese supply network (porters and small boats) were similar to that which the Communist forces maintained despite total American air superiority in the Korean War. As I noted in my review of the book for the Bugle, I think that he overstates the capacity of the Japanese economy at this time, but the military situation was certainly much more favourable to the Japanese than that at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. I agree that a million dead isn't credible, but the Americans were expecting to suffer massive casualties. Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The terrain was not in their favor. The Japanese, fighting on their homeland, had the advantage. The invading forces would have been greatly outnumbered. A million dead is very unlikely, but casualties, again, include wounded and MIAs, and a million wounded, dead, and MIA is fairly likely, as generally fatality take up a small part of casualties, the most being wounded. And also, believe it or not, the military rounds up on numbers dead. They tend to go with "worst case senario in which we could still win" amount dead, as to be ready for whatever the losses end up being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.185.2 (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

♠"porters and small boats similar to that which the Communist forces maintained despite total American air superiority in the Korean War" I don't disbelieve they could do it, but it makes me wonder if it's enough to keep an army supplied in anti-invasion ops. It may be (& it's a really good reason for me to go read Giangreco :D ) I also wonder if the CAS in Korea was as good as late PacWar, & if the RoE limited attacks on (potentially friendly) sampans & such, which wouldn't pertain against Japan.

♠"I think that he overstates the capacity of the Japanese economy" IMO, that was so near a total collapse, it wouldn't have taken a big push to tip it over. There was a proposal in the USSBS summary report to bomb a series of tunnels & bridges, effectively dividing Japan into isolate regions. That IMO might be enough. Even the invasion itself might crash the economy.

♠"casualties, again, include wounded and MIAs" You keep repeating that as if we don't know it. The claims aren't for a million casualties, but expressly, explicitly, for a million dead. That's simply not supportable. Might it have been a bloodbath? Maybe. Would it have been as bad as claimed? No.

♠Let's also not forget another aspect. The U.S., by dropping the Bomb on civilians, demonstrated she would, if pressed. This may have avoided a general nuclear exchange in the '50s... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed (diff), for a second time, a quote from Jacob G. Hornberger added to the article by Robertmossing (talk · contribs). Hornberger does not appear to have any particular expertise on this topic on the basis of what's in his article, and its unclear why this quote from his website was added. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Bias in favour of the bomb

On the surface ‘the debate’ looks balanced. There is Support and there is Opposition. But while the supporters’ view is quoted uncommented – like WC before I intervened – the Opposition’s views are often contradicted:

‘Although bombings do not meet the definition of genocide, some consider…’

‘Despite Truman's insistence that the effects of Japan witnessing a failed test would be too great of a risk to arrange such a demonstration,[106] some have argued…'

‘In response to the claim that the atomic bombing of Nagasaki was unnecessary, Maddox wrote:… ."[56]

‘In some revisionist Japanese writing about the surrender, the Soviet entry into the war is considered the primary reason…The primacy of the Soviet entry as a reason for surrender is a long-standing view in the Japanese left, and has appeared in some Japanese junior high school textbooks.[140] --Robertmossing (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hornberger

Nick-D wrote: Hornberger does not appear to have any particular expertise on this topic on the basis of what's in his article.... The same could be said about Albert Camus, Winston Churchill, John A. Siemes, Federal Council of Churches etc--Robertmossing (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Jacob G. Hornberger was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. http://www.fff.org/aboutUs/bios/jgh.asp

--Robertmossing (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So your reason for including this quote is that you don't think that Hornberger is qualified? This is getting into WP:POINT territory. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As this is effectively an WP:SPS and the addition of this quote seems to be about making a WP:POINT, I've removed it. Make your case for its inclusion without making personal remarks. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Qualified or not, Hornberger's wrong. There weren't any "defenseless women & children" involved, & attacks on industrial capacity, & on morale, are legitimate military objectives. Moreover, there is an ethical obligation on government to put the safety of their own people, including military personnel, above that of the enemy's. It's not absolute, which is why the Bomb is so contentious. Plus the genuine need for it isn't proven. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Let us strengthen the bias

Removed the silly Albert Camus source too. By the way isn't WC's speech in the parlament WP:SPS? I begin to understand that the bombings is a very sensitive issue to Americans and opponents to the legality are either 'left-wing' and/or self-promoting.--Robertmossing (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop disrupting the article to make a WP:POINT, please also leave the posturing of your political leanings behind. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed: More cautiously, historians such as Hasegawa and Asada argue that there was no single decisive external factor in the decision to surrender, the atomic bombings, Soviet invasion, weakened condition of Japan, and threats of internal unrest being contributing considerations, with the ultimate decision to surrender being a personal decision by the emperor, influenced by the peace-seeking wing of the Japanese political elite./ref name=asada/ref name=Hasegawa>Hasegawa, 86/ref

Hasegawa, page 86?, does not support this view –have it right here in my lap. Changed the text to what is actually supported by the source, Sadao Asada. And to NickD and Monster’s great delight we now have a view in favour of the bombings under the head line ‘Opposition'! But at least he is QUOTED CORRECTLY.--Robertmossing (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed: In addition, millions of Japanese military and civilian casualties were expected as a result of such actions./ref/Paulin, Joseph H. (2007). "America's Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan" (PDF). Louisiana State University. Retrieved 2008-08-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)/ref....As this is effectively a self-published source WP:SPS. --Robertmossing (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed Albert Camus. Albert Camus is totally irrelevant and not addressing the bombs specifically. --Robertmossing (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

removed the Hasegawa-source to: Those who argue in favor of the decision to drop the atom bombs believe that massive casualties on both sides would have occurred in Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of Japan.

Hasegawa calls it a 'myth' p. 299, line 3

Where I come from, this is called quotation-fraud. Seems to me there are many in this article. --Robertmossing (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

An academic thesis is considered a reliable source, a website set up and run by an individual is not. And stop being a WP:DICK I have no axe to grind, though clearly you do. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You deleted my edit of Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where I removed a source, because the source do not support the view stated. Instead of looking up the source to see if I am right, you just REINTRODUCED the source. This is called VANDALIZING. But OK...since this is all you're capable of, let's discuss if I am dickless or not. Maybe I am, but I am capable of looking up the sources and capable of reading. --Robertmossing (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

[1] The source removed was an academic thesis, incorrectly removed by you as an WP:SPS. A) Keep it civil, B) confine your discussion to the talk page and you may consider this a warning that any further personal attacks and I will report your conduct at WP:ANI. And please stay off my talk page. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The academic paper is not only a reliable source but it is correct. There's no reason to disbelieve millions of Japanese deaths from an invasion. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I tried to tell him that, as this appears to be disruptive editing to make a point, I've raised the matter at WP:ANI. I'm also removing the page from my watchlist as frankly I don't need the hassle. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It is QUOTATION FRAUD! Hasegawa does not support the view and as such he cannot be used as a source.--Robertmossing (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The academic paper is not only a reliable source but it is correct. There's no reason to disbelieve millions of Japanese deaths from an invasion. What is this? A POV - 'correct' as judged by judge Binksternet. The source is a paper given by a student to the university - and we do not know how the university perceived his paper. He passed - I googled that - but that does not mean the University agreed to all his thesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertmossing (talk • contribs) 18:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

♠It doesn't make the slightest damn difference what the university thought. The paper represents the views of the writer, not the institution. Do you mean to attribute the views of Skates or Hasegawa to their publisher? Or demand Naval Institute Press endorse & agree with everything Willmott writes?

♠Without Hasegawa in front of me, I seem to recall the cited passage is in close accord with his views. So does he say that in different words?

♠I'm also coming to the view you've got an axe to grind, here. Trying to blow off Hasegawa just because a particular quote isn't supported doesn't make it, unless the totality of the source contradicts the attribution: mistakes in page numbers get made. In this case, it appears possible even who was supposed to be cited could be crossed up: Asada, not Hasegawa. What, exactly, are you trying to prove? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

♠After a glance at Paulin's paper, I have concerns about relying on it. His characterization of the situation is incomplete at best, biased at worst. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The caption

The Fat Man mushroom cloud resulting from the nuclear explosion over Nagasaki rises 18 km (11 mi, 60,000 ft) into the air from the hypocenter

I guess that given the gravity of the discussions above this may seem a little lightweaight, but we are supposed to justify information in Wiki, and the caption for the image at the top of the article doesn't do so. I have included the image here, to illustrate the point. Who says the smoke is 18 km above Nagasaki? The photo was taken from the B-29 assigned for such duties and it appears to be level with the top of the smoke cloud. Boeing rated the B-29 ceiling height at 31,800 ft. There is no way it could attain the 60,000 ft suggested here. We really need a source for the 18km claim in this caption. Moriori (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The source is here. See 163. Considering the distance between the cloud and the B-29, I find nothing wrong with the caption. Oda Mari (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

At the time the photo was taken, the cloud had not yet risen to its eventual height. In that sense, the caption is misleading. In the snapshot, we are not seeing it at 18 km. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In search of a good quotation for the opposition to the use of the atomic bombs that will not be deleted

I tried with Hornberger:

When a government commits a nation to war, it means that its soldiers are going to have to fight and that some of them are going to have to die. That’s the nature of war. And the intentional sacrifice of defenseless women and children and other noncombatants in order to save the lives of military personnel is cowardice, pure and simple. And it’s a war crime as well.

http://www.fff.org/comment/ed0501f.asp

But was taught it was a self promoted Point of View (POV) and as such not allowed on Wikipedia. And the Winston Churchill (WC) view as stated in his speech in the parliament – and so beautifully framed in the ‘support-section’ - is not a self promoted POV. And that it has no foundation on facts – only 3-5 divisions from the commonwealth was supposed to participate in the invasion of the Japanese home islands - is irrelevant as it is a POV- I was told.

Then I thought a quotation from President Roosevelt might do – he is a kind of colleague to WC - might pass:

The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centres of population…, which have resulted in the maiming and death of thousands of defenseless women and children, has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity. If…this sort of inhuman barbarism…hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings, who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have broken out, now will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every Government, which may be engaged in hostilities, publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event and under no circumstances undertake bombardment from the air of civilian populations or unfortified cities...

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/ylbk325.asp

But no, that was deleted too.

On the bottom line any view in opposition of the nuclear bombings are deleted. Except the view of Federal Council of Churches – and no source needed off course! Because it is so stupid that it can do no harm to the nuclear lobby.

So now I am looking for a quotation that does not harm the lobby. Or maybe we should just delete the whole ‘opposition-section’?

--Robertmossing (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the quote by Roosevelt is that it was not opposition to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Trying to make the quote into that is original research on your part. Roosevelt approved the Manhatten project and authorized the bombing of Japanese cities. Edward321 (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The Roosevelt quote was misused as WP:Synthesis, drawing a novel conclusion from unrelated material. FDR was not against the atomic bombs, not at all. His speech came at a time before the USA was involved directly in war. After that, FDR accepted the cost of air war including the bombing of cities. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Robert, please stop playing games and/or attempting to push your views. FDR's quote obviously had nothing to do with opposition to the bombing, and if you're unaware of his (obviously) central role in the atomic bomb program and the conventional bombing of Germany and Japan you shouldn't be editing this article. Responding to the removal of this obviously irrelevant quote by posting "On the bottom line any view in opposition of the nuclear bombings are deleted" and "Or maybe we should just delete the whole ‘opposition-section’?" is, to be frank, complete bullshit. You're well on the way to a long-term block if you continued to edit disruptively like this. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

NickD: You're well on the way to a long-term block.... I couldnt care less and will gladly leave the page to the Americans and to Fox News and U.S. History Online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertmossing (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that Binkernet deletes all opposition to the bomb. This is the 3rd he deletes.

The most racist, nastiest act by this country, after human slavery, was the bombing of Nagasaki... Nagasaki was purely blowing away yellow men, women, and children.Kurt Vonnegut 2003 http://progressive.org/mag_intv0603

See history, to follow the bias.--Robertmossing (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You left out a part of the quote. Edward321 (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between Winston Churchill standing up in Parliament to make a statement about the atomic bombs and Kurt Vonnegut being interviewed in a small-circulation magazine. One of them is a key part of the debate, the other not so much. I deleted Vonnegut because the interview was not widely read and is not a significant part of the debate. As well, the quote is not a neutral one, it violates WP:NPOV by putting heated wording into the article when it is unnecessary to do so. Plenty of neutrally worded opinions are available which say that the bombing of Nagasaki was unnecessary. Vonnegut's invective is not suitable. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

♠I don't think you need to go as far as the tone of Vonnegut's comments, nor the source for them. The mere fact Vonnegut is neither a principal in the decision process nor an authority on the matter disqualifies him prima facie.

♠Beyond that, contending an editor is deleting to push a POV is IMO pretty serious business. It's baseless in this case, & given Robertmossing's evident POV pushing, I'd wonder if this isn't out of bounds behavior. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's borderline, I think. Robertmossing appears to be throwing out an accusation intended as a defense mechanism to shield him from the same accusation. It's baseless, of course. I have a concern that this article be well written, and everything I do here is based on that motive. I am all about summarizing for the reader the more important arguments from all sides.

Vonnegut's bitter comment about racism is not appropriate but there have been valid expressions of opinion that the US was driven by racism in its war with Japan. Vonnegut seems to think that the bombing of Nagasaki was racist but not Hiroshima. (I wonder what Vonnegut thinks of the extensive firebombing campaign which devastated more than 65 other Japanese cities.) There may be more expert analysis sharing the opinion that Nagasaki alone was racist but I have not heard of it. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

♠You don't have to defend your motives, AFAIAC; I never doubted your sole aim was improving the page. (And, I might add, every other page I've seen you connected with. :) Not to mention your patience with me. ;p )

♠There is some scholarship suggesting U.S. racism in connection with the Pacific War in general (I've never seen any on use of the Bomb alone). I don't find it credible, since much of the same level of brutality & the same kinds of characterizations were in play on the Eastern Front: are we to conclude the (white) Germans were racist against (white) Russians? (Leave off the absurd Nazi ideology...)

♠Moreover, brutality breeds brutality, & IJA behavior tended to lead to a U.S. acceptance of brutal response; add ignorance... When the psywar guys proved at least some U.S. attitudes were mistaken, U.S. behavior could & did change. I also think the response to the Japanese, in general, has to be seen in light of the perceived treachery of the attack at Pearl. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The mere fact Vonnegut is neither a principal in the decision process...That could be applied to WC as well

I deleted Vonnegut because the interview was not widely read (red?) and is not a significant part of the debate... That could be applied to WC as well

Plenty of neutrally worded opinions are available which say that the bombing of Nagasaki was unnecessary....then add them in stead of deleating everything I add.

I deleted Vonnegut because the interview was not widely read(red?)...brinkernet now put emphasis on what is widely red ....Binkernet is not pushing his self published source anymore. Now it is 'now wideley red' Fox news is widely red and as such a reliable source. Like ushistoryonline, where now primary source is quoted.

Vonnegut's bitter comment about racism is not appropriate...I wonder what Vonnegut thinks...keep wondering and speculating

FDR was not against the atomic bombs......keep speculating. I was taught that he died in April 1945. --Robertmossing (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

♠"'FDR was not against the atomic bombs..'...keep speculating. I was taught that he died in April 1945." Do you seriously believe FDR didn't know everything important about the MEDP? He authorized the Bomb program. It was Truman who was in the dark about it... And AFAIK there's nothing in the record FDR ever expressed the slightest hesitation about using it--against Germany, let alone against Japan.

♠"The mere fact Vonnegut is neither a principal in the decision process...That could be applied to WC as well." Do you really believe Winston wasn't informed? It was a joint U.S.-Brit project. And the U.S. agreed to a "no first use" jointly with Britain before the Bomb was ever used.

♠"in stead of deleating everything I add" You're pushing a POV. That should be deleted.

♠On the matter of the 22:1 ratio, it's true most of the garrisons on bypassed islands died of disease or starvation (or both); was the 22:1 based on experience at Okinawa & Iwo Jima alone? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's the Downfall quote without RM's deletion of chunks of it.[2] Edward321 (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just jumping in here because I keep correcting this one. Harry Truman indeed says that he was in the dark, but in writing a series of articles, I have learned not to trust him. He was briefed on the Manhattan Project in his role as the head of the Truman Committee.
• Due to the Quebec Agreement, it was Churchill, not Truman, who actually had the final say on using atomic bombs. As a matter of pro forma the official order to employ atomic bombs went was recorded as a decision of the Combined Policy Committee, and the orders went out under Wilson's signature. Churchill obtained permission from Truman for British observers to accompany the attacks. He wanted the raids seen as a joint venture.
• Most of the bypassed island garrisons did not die of starvation. Hospital ships went out, collected men suffering from disease and malnutrition, and brought them back to Japan.Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Most of the bypassed island garrisons did not die of starvation." Bergerund, for one, makes a strong case for starvation being a major cause... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Which book is Bergerund? I can't find it on OCLC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry 'bout that, it's Fire in [From?] the Sky. (His research appears good, but his thesis is nonsense.) As I think of it, tho, there's a chance it was in Dower, or in You Can't Fight Tanks with Bayonets, so if you don't find it in Bergerund, keep looking... :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Trek, Due to the Quebec Agreement, it was Churchill, not Truman, who actually had the final say on using atomic bombs. I need a source to that. No, to that, not the Quebec Agreement. When was the British PM commander of the US armed forces?

• Trekkie didn't say that; I did. See Margaret Gowing, Britain and Atomic Energy, 1935-1945. This book gives the British perspective. Because of the Quebec Agreement, both countries had to sign off on the use of the atomic bomb. It so happened that the British signed off second, so Churchill had the final say. Hawkeye7 (talk)

The reason I quoted Frank in context - and he still claims most died of starvation and desease -is that above Binkernet states: Thus we can calculate MacArthur's staff estimate of Japanese dead, multiplying the above figures by 22: I still claim it to be pure speculations due to the fact that Binkernet has not looked up the source.

The reason why I corrected the reference to Frank page 135-137 is he has at least 5 tables on different casuality estimates on these pages, making me suspect that the one who made the reference has it from a secondary source and not from Frank himself.

I believe a correct way to quote is: source XX according to source YY, then implying one hasnt looked up source XX but has it from source YY.

And I still claim the article has a strong bias in favour of the bomb. WChurchil's wild estimate - with no foundation in reality whatsoever (especially not about the British losses)- is beautifully framed, while I made three attempts to frame a view against the bombing (Hornberger, Roosevelt and Vonnegut) and they were all vandalizingly deleated and no substitute put in. Not even a 'framing' of the nonsens from the 'Federal Council of Churches' (and no source off course).

I know - or I have learned - that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are an open American wound. And it should be as it was the most meaningless war crime of the millennium.

--Robertmossing (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

♠"Trek,Due to the Quebec Agreement, it was Churchill, not Truman, who actually had the final say on using atomic bombs. I need a source to that." I didn't say he did. I do know, based on Alperovitz, there was a deal cut over mutual agreement. I've also read, in connection with U.S. CW work, the U.S. agreed on "no first use", which was also agreed in connection to the Bomb. (Just don't ask the source; I have no idea...)~

♠"The reason I quoted Frank in context" Except you didn't. The actual quote doesn't support the spin you were putting on it. That's called selective quotation, & it's a form of quotation fraud, IMO.

♠"The reason why I corrected the reference to Frank page 135-137" If you left it at that, & let the reader decide, I'd have no problem with it. Nor, I suspect, would anyone else. You didn't.

♠This does call in question the 22:1 ratio: it puts the ratio even for Iwo Jima at under 2:1.

♠"I made three attempts to frame a view against the bombing" Your problem is your approach. You have yet to provide a view from a contemporary who was actually involved in either the decision making or even the construction. There were numerous scientists opposed to use, after the Trinity Test (before, even, IDK). The problem is, none had even the slightest say about use, so you're liable to get other editors wanting to delete on that basis (with reason). The opposition is mainly postwar...after it was moot.

♠Calling it a war crime isn't helping your case, either. (It wasn't. Needless, brutal, even stupid, yes--but not a war crime.) Nor is taking swipes at other editors. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• There is still the court decision in Japan that ruled it a war crime. The Binkie is not the only one who has trouble understanding how a city with 35,000 troops in it qualifies as undefended. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• A court in Japan, years after his war, doesn't exactly qualify as an unbiased observer.
• As for "undefended", the fact Japan operated interceptors would be enough to disqualify for "undefended", troops present or no, IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Quite true. This came up in discussion about the Italian Campaign, and Rome's purported status as an "undefended city"; but the point is that the people who call it a war crime are legally quite correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• We may have to agree to disagree, here. As I read the Convention (& I acknowledge, no expert), any defensive measure disqualifies a city from "undefended": that is, much short of declaring it "open", it's fair game. Also, the Convention did allow for "misses" in attacks on purely military targets. Both, IMO, applied to the Bomb. Moreover, the express object had to be targetting civilians (or "undefended" civilians, IDR which), which wasn't the (stated...) aim. Was the Bomb justified? No. Was it legal? Yes. So, not a war crime. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't mind agreeing to disagree. I'm not an expert in military law either. All I know is what the court ruled. Courts sometimes make weird rulings. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• That's for sure. 8o So long as this doesn't get in the way of us working together as needed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum acknowledges that Hiroshima contained significant military infrastructure at the time it was attacked, and its port was one of the main points of embarkation for Japanese Army units throughout the war. From memory, its displays don't argue that the attack was a war crime per-se, but do make a strong case for it being morally indefensible. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Geez, you got a hair you need split, these are the guys to call. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

@Robert: You may "know" that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are an open wound, but my American friend insists that is not the case. I cannot see myself why using an atomic bomb is worse that killing many times that number with napalm. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7: Margaret Gowing, Britain and Atomic Energy, 1935-1945. I need a page number. The view you state is extremely extraordinary and I am surprised it is not mentioned by any other source (Frank, Hasegawa, Allan Brooke and even Churchill’s own memoirs). I guess your approach to this page is to vandalize all opposition to the legality and the military necessity of the atomic bombings. As you state: There is still the court decision in Japan that ruled it a war crime. The Binkie is not the only one who has trouble understanding how a city with 35,000 troops in it qualifies as undefended. Maybe you could try to appeal the court ruling? Until then your POV is totally irrelevant.--Robertmossing (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest that you drop the personal attacks. You're well on the way for being blocked for this, and I'll report any further insults on other editors to an uninvolved admin. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Gowing,Britain and Atomic Energy, 1935-1945, p. 372. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)