Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →


New sections at the bottom, please.

Contents

Removal of remarks concerning European opinion

To "Cleared as filed": As you have twice removed my remark as to Europe. Don't worry I won't add it again, it's not that important. But it's not that I try to push my point of view, it's increasingly the view taken by most Europeans. It's not predominant (yet, at least), but lately I hear/read it more and more. When I say European, though, I have to admit I can only speak for German and French speaking countries and Italy. Anyways, here this view is strong. Now I cannot from the top of my head quote many sources, my field of study is sinology, yet this is close enough so that I come into contact with the main theories and opinions. I won't spend several hours researching this matter to consistently "prove" my point, so I won't add anything about it anymore. The one source I did quote I had on my hands by chance, and I added it because this is probably by the leading expert for 20th century East Asian history in Germany, and certainly no enemy of realpolitik (he's a student of Hans Morgenthau).

Accuracy dispute.

The accuracy dispute is about the statement in the article that warnings were not given about the bombing.

According to many sources including the US government, leaflets were dropped on the cities by aircraft warning that the city was targeted. They were known as LeMay leaflets. - user:ted-m

If you could reference some of the sources to which you refer, then the process of vetting them and making any changes deemed necessary can begin. --Xaliqen 15:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Has anybody seen a version of the leaflet written in Japanese? --Yannick 01:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I translated one such leaflet in 1995 for an article about the "thousand-plane" raid of August 14-15, 1945. It refers to conventional bombing, of course. It read: "Tomorrow the 14th day [of August] we will bomb Osaka. This bombing will be the last bombing of 1945." So the leaflets were city-specific. The original, which I copied from a Japanese publication, is shown on page 75 of Air&Space/Smithsonian magazine, August-September 1995. (As always with translating WWII material, I was hampered by the lack of knowledge of wartime terms on the part of young Japanese. The translation may be a bit simple-minded, but it is accurate.) Such a leaflet was presumably dropped on Hiroshima, since this was standard practice in the summer of 1945. I rather doubt that leaflets were dropped on Nagasaki, since it was not the primary target that day. --Cubdriver 10:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This page on the CIA website has a description and image of the LeMay leaflets, including a translation of their text. They were written in Japanese and millions of them were dropped over many cities before the second bombing occurred. Of course that's what the CIA says but I for one believe them. JustinWick 22:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

2 other leaflet pics : http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/COLLECTIONS/MP-PFIL/Pages/MPP-PFIL-087.htm http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/COLLECTIONS/MP-PFIL/Pages/MPP-PFIL-086.htm

Better dead than red

Currently the article reads:

Certainly the fact of both enemies weighed into the decision, but it was more the fear of Soviet occupation that hastened imperialistic Japan's acceptance of defeat.

Not knowning if the Yanks had a production line set up to mass produce the weapon, why would the Japan's government think total destruction was preferable to occupation? As the surrender was close to an unconditional surrender how could they know if the Soviets would or would not occupy part or all of Japan just as they had done in all the other Axis countries apart from Italy? Philip Baird Shearer 18:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It stands to reason that the Soviet attack must have had some weight in the Japanese decision. At a minimum it meant the end of the fantasy that the Soviets would be on the Japanese side in negotiations. However there's no evidence to justify, "more the fear of Soviet occupation". See Surrender of Japan.
—wwoods 22:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it was probably meant to be an attributed opinion to the "other Japanese sources" mentioned in the sentence before it. I removed it in any event -- it's redundant if not confusing. --Fastfission 16:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
There is a new book out by a Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa that says Japan surrendered more out of fear of the Soviets than out of the Atomic Bombs. However, most of the evidence points to the atomic bombs as the major cause. →Raul654 16:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I have just seen professor Hasegawa today, and am quite swayed with his theories. He discussed how the Japanese were torn over total surrender to the Americans, which could erase the position of Japanese Emperor (Which was not an option) or ally with Moscow against the US to hopefully draft a more agreeable surrender. The turning point came not from Truman's fear of a split Japan with the Communists, thus using both bombs, instead Japan was forced to surrender to the Americans when Stalin showed agression in Manchuria, which conincided with the Atomic bomb attacks. While the attacks were massive, Japan figured the international community would not tolerate such actions, and the US would eventually be called off if a Russo-Japanese treaty were drafted. Stalin's agression in Manchuria ended such a dream, and the Japanese authority was forced to face the realization that the only viable option to save being torn apart like Germany was surrender wholely to the United States. As of January 2006, Japan and Russia have not ended World War II via treaty, therefore the Japanese theatre of WWII in Russian view has never ended.→tomduo 03:42, 24 January 2006 (EST)


"a new and most cruel bomb"

This page makes no note of the fact that Hirohito did make reference to the atomic bombings in his radio broadcast of surrender:

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.[1]

I think that it's a pretty relevant point to put in here, somewhere. If someone wants to figure out where it best fits, that would be great. --Fastfission 16:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Not a military site!

Hiroshima was certainly not "a city of considerable (...) military significance". Neither has it been "a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military". ("Some military camps were located nearby" does not back up the claim at all.) The opposite is true. Let me cite German public broadcasting: "...she (Hiroshima) was neither an important military base, nor an important port for the supply with military machinery, nor a central point of the military industry." (http://www.br-online.de/wissen-bildung/artikel/0508/11-hiroshimapilot/index.xml). Let me also cite Yale University: "Weller echoed Truman's claim that the US attacked military targets: "[N]o saboteur creeping among the war plants of death could have placed the atomic bomb by hand more scrupulously. ..." It was a judgment that ignores the obvious fact that in Nagasaki, as in Hiroshima, ground zero was pinpointed to exact the largest possible civilian death toll." (http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5964). One just has to read Stephen Walker. Why is it that on the 60th anniversary (!) of the bombing The New York Times still states it was a city "with many military sites at the time"? Why can't America accept its share of atrocities, just point fingers out of moral superiority? And why do EVEN wikipedia-articles - which should represented the intellectual vanguard - include this lie? This permanent denial is such a shame! Does Wikipedia not aspire to adhere to standards of common sense and enlightenment? To me there seems to be no authentic change of mind from Truman's diary entries then to this article now. Jean Winkler 11:41, 21 September 2005 (CEST)

Jean, while your concern certainly has a commandable nature, you sound a little bit like you are certain about conclusions and are willing to jump to any necessary clue to back it, rather than the converse. Your references are very good, so I encourage you to include them in the article, but you should understand that things like "Why can't America accept its share of atrocities, just point fingers out of moral superiority" do not really add anything convincing to your arguments (which are, as I said, quite good), but unecessarly heat the tone of the debate.
I therefore suggest you to voice your suggestions in a less polemic way, it will probably only help make your point better understood. thank you. Rama 09:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I think all in all my suggestions are quite rational, at least I hope so. You have to understand that in many Western countries every pupil learns this particular piece of history just the way I portrayed it above. This is not something I desperately try to proof or feel ideologically about. So many people died there and here we are still "calibrating" the facts... Nevertheless, you are right about being careful regarding the tone of debate so excuse my atrocity-comment. I twice revised the wording I criticized. I provided credible sources (here's another one: http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/interview_dlf/402829/). This is not a topic I specialize on, just tried to correct a wrong. Jean Winkler 12:18, 21 September 2005 (CEST)
I read the article you quoted, and specifically the bit that you quoted above about the "obvious" fact that ground zero was chosen to kill lots of civilians. There isn't anything in that article to back that assertion up, just a statement by the author that it is "obvious." That isn't a credible source. The paragraph that you're trying to remove Hiroshima's military value from, goes on to talk about how the city was mobilized for total war and was a great help to Japan's war effort, and it is backed up with its own sources. Even if you are right that Hiroshima had no military value whatsoever, which I think is obviously patently false, it doesn't make any sense to leave the paragraph contradicting itself by saying that it is and it isn't. —Cleared as filed. 12:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
It is your sources who are not fully convinving. Of the four articles you use to back the content up, only one happens to relate to this issue. The Avalon states: "Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance." Given the group is an assembly of military people should that come as a surprise? Given the history of propaganda of the US-military, continuing until today? I try to be open-minded, but you did not convince me of your version. How to proceed? I cut, you paste? Boils Wikipedia down to who has more time to waste? Let me be clear, this goes right to the core of the article, questions of responsibility and blame. I cannot accept the article as neutral. Jean Winkler 15:43, 21 September 2005 (CEST)
They aren't my sources; I'm not the author of the paragraph. I am merely pointing out that your changes cause the paragraph to contradict itself. In any case, why is the supposed U.S.-military propaganda any less believable than an unsupported assertion by an anti-U.S.-military author from Yale? Because that's the POV you want to believe is true? You say that sources from an assembly of military people is automatically suspect, so why are sources from anti-U.S. pacificists automatically valid? —Cleared as filed. 01:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
So coherence is more important to you than truth I guess. First of all, Mr. Selden is from Cornell, not Yale. I just send him an Email asking whether he can name his sources. Regarding the U.S.-military and truth there are many precedents. You also mistake criticizing the information policy of the U.S.-military (not even the military itself in general) with having an anti-U.S. mindset. Why has Hiroshima not been conventionally bombed (like most of Japanese cities) if it was supposed to be so strategically important? Does this constitute a "considerable" and "significant" military base: 1) clothing depot supplying military and other uniforms 2) provisions depot supplying canned goods and other foodstuffs 3) ordnance supply armory under construction(!)? Not at all. And this is taken from the official homepage of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum (http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/visit_e/est_e/panel/A2/2001g.htm).
On a minor note let me add that Hiroshima was chosen as a target because General Spaatz informed Washington that Hiroshima was the only targeted city without POW-camps. Washington answered: "If your information is valid, Hiroshima should get highest priority." (http://www.zeit.de/2005/30/A-Hiroshima_I) Jean Winkler 9:32, 22 September 2005 (CEST)
It seems your argument is against strategic bombing generally, rather than the use of the atomic bomb specifically. Hiroshima was as justifiable as any other target in Japan. "...she (Hiroshima) was neither an important military base, nor an important port for the supply with military machinery, nor a central point of the military industry." The last of these is correct.
From Richard Frank's Downfall, p. 262-3:
... The mission report described Hiroshima correctly as the largest city in the Japanese Homeland (except Kyoto) that remained undamaged by the B-29 incendiary strikes. ...
    Not identified in the mission report but known to American intelligence was that the city housed the headquarters of Field Marshal Hata's Second General Army [i.e., the organization defending southern Japan from the expected invasion]. Counting Hata's headquarters, about 43,000 soldiers crowded into Hiroshima amid perhaps as many as 280,000 to 290,000 civilians. This almost certainly gave Hiroshima the highest density of servicemen to civilians among Japan's large urban areas. But even if Hiroshima played a very prominent role in Japan's war-making potential, it could not be classified as wholly a military installation.
[Footnote: Why had Hiroshima, the seventh largest city by population in Japan, ... not been bombed earlier? The directives ... to June 15 specified as targets only thirty-three "Selected Urban Industrial Concentrations," exclusive of both those cities, and important aircraft-manufacturing concerns, ... The Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a formal order on July 3 precluding any form of attack on Kyoto, Hiroshima, Kokura, and Niigata. ... During that interval, the XXI Bomber Command operated on only six days. ... It is likely that Hiroshima was not targeted because, while it was a huge training, storage, and transportation center for the Imperial Army, it lacked significance in manufacturing of war material, particularly aircraft production. ...]
The lack of POW camps was a factor in making Hiroshima the primary target on the list. (By the way, when putting an external link on a [language].wikipedia to a page in a different language, it's helpful to indicate that.)
—wwoods 16:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[At the risk of pouring fuel on the fire] Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets. Both cities had munitions factories. In addition Hiroshima was the HQ of the Japanese second army, and a major point of supply and reorganization. Nagasaki was home to the largest naval docks in Japan (docks used primarily by the Japanese navy). Also, let's bear in mind that the Japanese mobilized (literally) 100% of their population to fight back the american invasion. "The entire popuilation of Japan is a military target ... THERE ARE NO CIVILIANS IN JAPAN" (Emphasis not mine) - 5th Air Force intelligence report, July 21, 1945. 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

article cited at top from Yale states: "It was a judgment that ignores the obvious fact that in Nagasaki, as in Hiroshima, ground zero was pinpointed to exact the largest possible civilian death toll." Even if true, only by chance. The plane with the second bomb flew to Kokura, and only because of cloud cover flew to secondary target Nagasaki, and only by chance found a "break in the cloud cover". (ref somewhere, need to search). Also interesting to reread in this context is http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html Report of the target committee, May 12. It mentions a later meeting May 28. Does anyone have a reference to that later meeting? GangofOne 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Downfall, p. 255: "At a third meeting on May 28, the committee members refined their recommendations to three targets, in order: Kyoto, Hiroshima, and Niigata. They confirmed the city centers as the aiming point, not a specific industrial area, because the bomb might "miss" the intended point of impact by up to a fifth of a mile and they wanted no waste of power." Kyoto was later stricken from the list by Stimson, and Kokura and Nagasaki moved up ahead of Niigata.
They didn't have a good grasp of the power they were dealing with: "By [the second meeting], estimates projected that the uranium bomb ... might be equivalent to 5,000 to 15,000 tons; the plutonium bomb, ... was anyone's guess: 700, 2,000, 5,000 tons," as one writer noted. It was agreed that confining use to a purely military objective would diminish the full impact of the weapon and that "it should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage."
—wwoods 06:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
"Defining Hiroshima as a "military" target is analogous to calling San Francisco a "military" target because it has a port and contains the Presidio" (Kai Bird & Martin Sherwin, Historians' Committee for Open Debate on Hiroshima).
Here is Mark Selden's reply: "(...) refering to the targeting of the Aoio Bridge and the report in the Strategic Bombing Survey: The Aioi bridge was near the castle, but not near a port or naval base. I think the figure the SBS gave for soldiers killed was 3243. The Interim Committee minutes stated, "At the suggestion of Dr. Conant the Secretary agreed that the most desirable target would be a vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses." Truman, of course, in a series of fumbling statements immediately after the bombing and subsequently claimed that the bomb pinpointed military targets."
Wwoods, your equation puts the percentage of military personal inside the city at approximately 15 percent. How come that official U.S. estimates put the number of military personnel killed at approximately three percent of the total number of people killed in the bombing? Furthermore, the figure the Strategic Bombing Survey gives for soldiers killed was 3243. That corresponds to a little more than one percent. So much about "highest density of servicemen to civilians among Japan's large urban areas". Your argument just falls apart here. I understand that Richard Frank is a - to put it in your words - pro-military author but by unconditionally believing that view we could as well take Truman literally, describing Hiroshima as “an important Japanese army base". Instead anything military was on the outskirts of the city and not the bomb's target. The ignition height was calculated for maximum damage. The bomb exploded very close to a hospital(!).
In "Living with the bomb: American and Japanese Cultural Conflicts in the Nuclear Age" Selden writes "The bomb destroyed some factories and military installations, but a far larger number of residential, educational, medical, cultural and commercial buildings and their inhabitants. A later American survey, not released to the public, indicated that the bombs had damaged "less than ten percent of the city's manufacturing, transportation, and storage facilities," which were in the outlying districts." (Reference to "Lifton and Mitchell, Hiroshima in America, 24.")
I also inquired German public broadcasting ("...she (Hiroshima) was neither an important military base, nor an important port for the supply with military machinery, nor a central point of the military industry.") about its sources. Their answer: "The evaluation is based on statements of officials who took part in planning the assault, as cited in two fundamental studies by U.S.-historian Gar Aperovitz. (Hiroshima, 1995; Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, 1965)" And indeed Alperovitz acknowledges: "Hiroshima would not have been allowed to remain as it was, unblemished, waiting to be the site for a new, untested, experimental weapon had it been a high military priority. Indeed, when the Target Committee first met in late April, Hiroshima was not on the Twenty-first Bomber Command priority list." (http://www.doug-long.com/guide2.htm); "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both civilian targets predominantly-that's why they were targeted. Hiroshima was selected because it was a significant, unblemished, mainly civilian target, available for the psychological effect of terror bombing. That's very explicit in the documents; it's not controversial." (http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9507&article=950711) Jean Winkler 18:36, 26 September 2005 (CEST)
Again, it seems that your argument is against strategic bombing generally, rather than the use of the atomic bomb specifically. The problem was that, given the technology of the time, bombers couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. So, given the choice between giving up on strategic bombing or giving up on precision bombing, every air force with the capability effectively opted for the latter. Years before 1945, bombing cities was established practice, with the knowledge that this would cause massive civilian casualties, in addition to whatever military targets were destroyed. The atomic bombs differed only in technology, not morality--though they had that impressive equation: 1 bomb = 1 city.
Not necessarily true. I wrote an article today on the first 1,000 bomber raid of the war for which Cologne was the target. 1,455 tons of bombs were dropped, with two-thirds being incendiaries. The number reported killed was between 469 and 486 with a further 45,132 made homeless and 12,840 buildings destroyed or damaged. It depended on the effectiveness of the air raid precautions and if a firestorm was generated. Philip Baird Shearer 16:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had lots of military facilities--enough to make them legitimate targets by the standards of the time. As I cited Frank above, in the spring of 1945 they didn't make the cut of the ~40 top targets ... though by August they probably ranked pretty high--by process of elimination. Hiroshima's importance as a military base and port was enhanced by the emphasis both sides were placing on the prospective "decisive battle" in Kyushu. By the way, Frank's book isn't online that I know of, but his recent article Why Truman Dropped the Bomb is worth reading.
"Defining Hiroshima as a "military" target is analogous to calling San Francisco a "military" target because it has a port and contains the Presidio"
Yup. I've no doubt that, back in its heyday, the Soviet Union had ICBMs aimed at San Francisco for just those reasons.
How come that official U.S. estimates put the number of military personnel killed at approximately three percent of the total number of people killed in the bombing?
Good question.
Gar Alperovitz isn't your best choice of sources--if you're trying to persuade someone who isn't already on your side. :-)
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both civilian targets predominantly-that's why they were targeted."
This is nonsense. They were large targets; see above. A purely military target of equivalent size would have made an even more impressive target--but by August such a target would already have been destroyed by conventional bombs. The bombs were aimed for the centers of the cities for the same reason people are taught to aim guns at the center-of-mass of their targets. To do otherwise would have wasted much of their destructive power, and risked wasting the shock effect entirely.
"The use of the atomic bomb, most experts now believe, was totally unnecessary. Even people who support the decision for various reasons acknowledge that almost certainly the Japanese would have surrendered before the initial invasion planned for November."
There's unnecessary and there's unnecessary. Necessary to win the war, sooner-or-later, somehow, no. Obviously, the Allies managed to win the war against Nazi Germany without the bomb. But to win the war against Japan, in August 1945, the bombs--or something equivalently shocking--were necessary. And a war which lasted even a month longer would have seen the death of far more people than were killed by the bombs. So, if your argument is that avoiding the use of atomic weapons would have been worth the cost in increased bloodshed, well, that's a defensible position. But if you're interested in ending the war at the least cost, the bombs were the least-bad alternative.
—wwoods 07:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, that myth has been sufficiently disproven elsewhere (statements by Eisenhower etc.: "The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it." Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet). And of course, atomic weapons are of a very different moral reckoning, because of their totally indiscriminate mass murder. Whatever problem you have with Mr. Alperovitz, he is by most accounts a distinguished scholar (though he does not write for The Weekly Standard...).
I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Hiroshima was not a city of "considerable (...) military significance." Jean Winkler 13:09, 29 September 2005 (CEST)
Hiroshima was the headquarters of the military district that included Kyushu, target of the "Olympic" invasion scheduled for November. Decapitating a headquarters is a dream situation for an invader. That alone made Hiroshima a military target, at least as much as Tokyo, Dresden, or Berlin. --Cubdriver 16:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
How macabre to call it a "dream situation". I am strongly reminded of the "ministry of truth" here - history is being cut and rewritten to suit current interests. The "free" encyclopedia? As Heinrich Heine once put it: a “monstrous prison of freedom, where the invisible chains would oppress [...] even more heavily than the visible ones [...], and where the most repulsive of all tyrants, the populace, hold vulgar sway”. He was writing about America. --Jean Winkler 08:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Military coup "easily supressed"???

This senetence's paranthetical end, found at the end of a paragraph in the 'Objections to the Bomb's Use' section, seems innacurate from what I know of the conflict that took place between military and civilian leaders in the last days of the war:

Only the direct intervention of the Emperor ended the dispute, and even after that a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender (although it was easily suppressed).

From my understanding a military coup was narrowly averted and was only due to a few individuals loyal to the emperor risking their lives to resist the military coup. I do not rember the names of the individuals, but I thought that the coup was only averted after a few auspicious outcomes to events that could have easily gone the other way. For example the empereror's surrender adress, which was recorded, had to be hidden in the audio engineer's house (whose house was searched by militarists who failed to find the record hidden amongsts a stack of old newspapers) and was sneaked to the radio station, which, on top of this, was stormed by miltarists opposed to surrender immediately before it was played, and was only allowed to be played after a influential general, going against his peers, telephoned the station and ordered the commander of the force that stormed the station to allow the surrender adress to be played. Milatarists actually held the emperor captive when searching for the recording in order to destroy it and prevent a new one being made. All in all it does not seem like it was "easily supressed." I do not have references, but since it is a minor edit I will delete the paranthetical statement. If anyone disagrees I will not dispute it due to my lack of references and the fact that this is not my area of expertise. But I think it might be a relatively uncontroversial edit. --Brentt 03:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Crime against humanity and a war crime

It has been argued that the use of atomic weapons against civilian populations on a large scale is a crime against humanity and a war crime.

Who has argued this? In the long discussion we had about this issue Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 3 and Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 3#War crimes. No one has yet produced an authoritative article which states that it was a war crime or a crime against humanity and several have been produced which state that it was not. So unless an authoritative source can be found to back this sentence up it should be removed. Philip Baird Shearer 17:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The real issue is how exactly the use of nuclear weapons on civilians is any MORE of a crime against humanity than use of conventional bombing against civilians. After all, far more civilians were killed in WW2 from conventional bombing. I suppose the out in the above sentence then is that the nuclear weapons in Japan were not used "on a large scale", when compared to the totality of casualties in the war. StuRat 20:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It was no crime cause the dropper was the winner. If a Japanese squadron had dropped it on San Francisco, each of them would have been charged and executed. 16.12.2006 Slartibartfass from Germany

As murder and extermination fall under the term, there is no doubt it could have been applied to conventional bombings, too. It just was not because the allied countries were unwilling to try themselves. Among the thousands of sources you find for the view that Nagasaki and Dresden were crimes against humanity, a good one is [2]. 84.59.99.253 14:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Leaflets and Wikisource

About the tag removed today suggesting moving the "Leaflet" text to Wikisource. Since this is the English Wikipedia, I think the Japanese text should be moved over to Wikisource, and we should keep the English translation here. I don't see any value in keeping the Japanese text here when most users won't be able to read it. Any comments? —Cleared as filed. 20:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Copy the whole thing to wikisource and delete the nonenglish part here? GOOD IDEA. Be bold! Just do it! WAS 4.250 20:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I see why the text is required in this article at all -- our goal in an encyclopedia article is not to create an argument which requires extensive quoting from primary sources. Primary sources of any sort should either be in-line quotations or linked to at Wikisource -- they are not appropriate inside an encyclopedia article, much less in a different language from that of the encyclopedia. In my opinion. But I wanted to see what others felt before moving and removing. --Fastfission 22:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Fastission for not deleting critical data. The data is critical because of the perceptions, misinformation, emotions, and judgements about why the bombs were dropped at all, why they were dropped where they were dropped, and what the US did or did not do to mitigate loss of innocent life. People can read the content for themselves and use it in helping to make up their own minds. We don't spoonfeed conclusions. Using general rules like don't include entire sources to undermine the INTENT of the world's most complete encyclopedia is called gaming the system. The rules exist to help in creating a better encyclopedia - not to be ends in themselves. And the inclusion of this single paragraph in its entirety (its ONLY A PARAGRAPH!) is important in the reader's ability to make up their own mind about those very important questions. Some people seem to think all quoting is somehow necessarily bad. Ain't so. WAS 4.250 02:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Only a paragraph" -- the question is whether it is necessary or helps the article. I'm happy with the text being kept somewhere else and linked from if that's what is desired. But it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article unless it is being used as part of the article text. As it is, it is being used as an appendix, which is completely inappropriate. --Fastfission 03:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Outsourcing the kanji text seems like a good idea. The English translation seems at least as interesting as the picture of the broken watch. —wwoods 02:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The broken watch is an illustration and takes two seconds to look at and be done with (and will probably be deleted as useful unfreely, anyway). A primary source document is quite a different thing, especially one barely mentioned in the text. --Fastfission 03:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This was the closest building to have survived the blast. No, this was.

Currently, the article says that two different buildings were the closest buildings to have survived the blast.

Citizens of Hiroshima walk by the A-Bomb Dome, the closest building to have survived the city's atomic bombing.

Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, the closest building to have withstood the bomb blast.

They can't both be. Which is it? --Mr. Billion 16:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • These are actually pictures of the same building. The Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall was almost directly underneath the explosion, and as a consequence is now known somewhat colloquially as the A-Bomb Dome. --Fastfission 16:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Justification

Can we have a bit more on the justification for the use of the Atomic Bomb? How about a bit more develpment on the push to have the bomb finished and used before the August 8 Soviet entry date?

Church bell?

The picture of Urakami Tenshudo church showing the bell of the church having toppled off is a bit suspicious. If you look at [3] the octagonal structure looks just like one of the domes on top of the towers! Pt1234 12:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Radius of town heavily damaged?

I cannot make out the scale on the map of Hiroshima; does anyone know the radius of the blast from the bombs? If so, thanks!

On the high-res version of the map[4], it says the rings are at 1000 ft increments. The red (burned) area extends ~10,000 ft to the north and east, ~7,000 ft to the west and south. The area affected by blast is enclosed by a dashed line; it extends about ~11,000 ft to the east and west, and quite a bit further to the south.
—wwoods 00:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone is getting confused about this stuff

I need to explain to you why I did the thing. 1. the image i switched it the mushroom cloud and put the broken house down there 2. the nuclear attack caused great damage not considering what might've happened if the allies attacked japan. I'm not talking about the consequences of the allies attack on japan, just the nuclear attack and what it did. stop confusing the too. 3. I don't understand why and what you don't understand from the nuclear radiation issue, most all of the deaths 99% were caused by nuclear radiation, in other words, nuclear genes and stuff coming into the human genes and altering them forever and that's why many died (the severe) ones for the oncoming years and it was gradually decreased and disappeard i suppose. Also look at Chernobyl if you are not really familiar with nuclear atomic bomb and radiation. Atomic bomb doesn't really kill that much without radiation!. Explain your position coherently and then we can talk. Thanks 67.190.113.165 02:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

reply to 67.190.113.165: Unfortunately, your remarks here and in your "edit summary" comments on the article page are pretty much incomprehensible. You might want to hold off from contributing edits until your command of English is better. KarlBunker 03:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you should hold off, having a poor english is not a qualification and i don't have really time to argue and make my english better to explain to other people. I'm busy, and don't be a loser and just level with me on this topic. That is just sad from you or you need to just relax and not visit wikipedia again. This is for us excluding you, alright. I'm smarter than you are fortunately, or go back to your world poor America or Europe lower middle class bitching and whining lifestyle. I just don't really have a time to argue with poor white person on this topic. Sorry! Peace67.190.113.165 09:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 1. On the images -- okay, didn't notice that. Personally I think the mushroom cloud has becomea cliché symbol of this (and detracts from the fact of the actual damage), but that's a stylistic point and not one I care too much about. 2. I don't know what this point has to do with anything. The line in question you keep inserting is "Because of the enormous after effects from the nuclear attack, Japan sent notice of its unconditional surrender to the Allies on August 15, a week after the bombings." Now the problem is that this is a simple causal statement, and is attributing the surrender directly to the attacks. As the next paragraph hints at, and as the article explains, this is a matter of some historical contention. Directly attributing the cause of surrender in such a simplistic manner is directly contrary to the rest of the article content. 3. Attributing the many later deaths to nuclear radiation is a vague with a pretension to certainty, but is anyway primarily a stylistic issue. As an aside, whether or not the radiation from Chernobyl accounts for many deaths outside of the firefighters and plant operators who worked on it at the time is a matter of scientific dispute, and most of the deaths from the atomic bombs were caused by the massive explosions and firestorms they caused, not radiation. But anyway, point 2 is the most substantive one. --Fastfission 15:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Question & answers

Q.What were the effects of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

A.

Q.What would have happenedif the bombs had not been dropped?

A.

Q.what would be some good things to say in a debate if you were on the con side?

[unasked questions deleted] —wwoods 09:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole page lacks NPOV and it lacks sources for its claims. For example, it says Hiroshima was not a military target...rediculous. This is horribly anti-American and needs to be revised for NPOV.

Reply: There are reasons to be a anti-American, reasons why I am a anti-American. One very good reason, is the use of the atomic bomb on two Japanese towns. Are some military person, some military buildings, sufficient to wipe out a whole town ? We can see those "surgical" attacks even to day ! We know now, that children, women, farmers, are military targets, we have seen that in Vietnam. We know, that it not started with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that the testing of new weapons not ended there.

Conclusion: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targets for a fascistic attack, not better than the other side.

The attack was, by political means, directed against another country, the USSR. One weak of delay, had made the attack political impossible. IF a city in a fascistic, aggressive state, is a military target, why then the indignant over World Trade Center ? This attack was to 50 % directed against a military target, Pentagon.


You are free to be as anti-american as you want, but an encyclopedia should deal only in facts, not opinions!!! There may have been tens of thousands of lives saved by those bombs. The Japanese were relentless in fighting to the death no matter the futility, and they quite possibly would have seen more deaths with a land invasion than with the bombs. Bottom line, Japan started a war and the U.S> finished it decisivley. They could have avoided all the death resultng fro the war by NOT attacking Pearl Harbor. Civilians died, but they were not the target, which is what separates war crimes from collateral damage.

What incohereant bull are bloviating about with the USSR comment. What does "attack was, by political means, directed against another country, the USSR. One weak of delay, had made the attack political impossible." even mean. That does not even make any sense???????

Also, how dare you compare the 9-11 attacks to WW II! If you really think that the terrorists deliberate attack on civilians is the same thing, than your mind is lost. There was no military target. There was no State even conducting the attack, they were terrorist radical Islamists, not a country at war. 24.11.154.78 22:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think what the poster means (clearly his first language is not English) is that if the U.S. had waited a week (presumably from Aug 6) the Japanese would have surrendered, thus making the atomic bombs unnecessary. The problem with all such contrafactual history is that it ignores one fact (Hiroshima) while placing a big bet on another (Russia goes to war). But it is of course entirely possible that if there had been no Hiroshima bomb, there would have been no Russian attack. What if Stalin were merely trying to grab off a piece of Japan for himself, not to mention a piece of China for Mao Tse-tung? Clearly it would be to his interest to wait until the war was lost for Japan--and it was lost, on Aug 6. --Cubdriver 22:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I understand that, but to say these things is pure speculation. How does s/he or anyone else know if Japan would have surrendered. With Japan's war tactics and honor system (fight to the death no matter what) it is quite possible(dare I say probable) they would have never surrendered until they were completely and utterly put into submission. A large land invasion could have done that with a large loss of life on both sides, or choice B was drop the Bomb, lose no American life, and prevent the U.S. from having to destroy the entire country with conventional warfare. Tis is the concept of "total war". Encyclopedias deal in facts. He is free to speculate all he wants, but the article should not include such speculation because, until a time machine is developed, we can never know what would have happened. 24.11.154.78 17:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Reply: I cant find a single argument for that Hiroshima and Nagasaki whas military targets. The percentage of victims, clearly shows the character of the attack; it was a terror-attack.

Well, for one, Nagasaki was an industry center for the war-time production of naval ships during WWII. Greater terror would have been accomplished by attacking Tokyo with a nuclear weapon, but this was avoided. The use of a nuclear weapon does have a truly terrifying affect, no matter what city is destroyed. Robotbeat 21:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Bottom line, Japan started a war and the U.S> finished it decisivley. They could have avoided all the death resultng from the war by NOT attacking Pearl Harbor."

Thats not the bottom line; the strugle for control of the Pacific, and the world, is more close to the bottom line.

"With Japan's war tactics and honor system (fight to the death no matter what) it is quite possible(dare I say probable) they would have never surrendered until they were completely and utterly put into submission. A large land invasion could have done that with a large loss of life on both sides, or choice B was drop the Bomb, lose no American life, and prevent the U.S. from having to destroy the entire country with conventional warfare."

This is pure speculation. The atomic death last for thousands of years, perhaps for eternity. I cant see ANYTHING positive with the atomic bomb, and the possibility to kill more humans than ever before.

This has nothing to do with factual statements and everything to do with your opinion. (I have a good friend who is from Nagasaki, and my family and I have hosted three exchange students from Nagasaki, as well as met dozens more students from Nagasaki. This "atomic death" does not last for thousands of years, or else Nagasaki still wouldn't be habitable and I would've never met my Japanese friends. You are very misinformed on the effects of radiation, which I have studied as part of my work as a Physics major at university.)
Now, this what follows is my opinion, which I have arrived at through careful research and consideration. I do so see something positive about the atomic bomb. If you look after WWII, there were no longer any large wars fought between the world powers, whereas before such wars were quite common (Napoleon, WWI, WWII, etc.). The only military use of nuclear weapons was during WWII. The development of nuclear weapons led many of the scientists involved to believe that war would become so unthinkable that war itself would be banished. This did not quite happen, but the scope of wars has never reached the extent that it had before the development of nuclear weapons. The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction worked, even as crazy as such a policy seems. Robotbeat 21:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you not think that this could have been achieved with the demonstration of the devastating effect of the bomb in unhabitated territory? Furthermore, is your argument not like the guy jumping from the skyscraper and saying at every story he passes "Up to now, everything is ok!"? After the Soviet Union fell apart the threat that nuclear weapons fall into the hands of people with whom the policy does not work is higher than ever. French president may want to deter terrorist with nuclear weapons, but if Al Quaeda uses them I very much doubt civilized people would agree on killing thousands of civilians again. Especially as long as we do not even know where the terrorists are. 84.59.83.159 13:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"From a purely emotional standpoint, the desire for revenge is understandable in a wartime situation. But from the standpoint of finding the least deadly way to bring the enemy's surrender and save the lives of one's own military personnel, emotionalism may divert leaders from considering diplomatic solutions by making military/punitive measures seem more attractive and necessary. This may have contributed to Truman's belief that Japan would not surrender without a large-scale invasion of her mainland and/or atomic bombings." (from http://www.doug-long.com/hirosh2.htm By Doug Long)

Alternately, Truman's belief may have been influenced by the known fact that Japan's military leaders had no intention of surrendering before the invasion, if then: "Although the directing powers, and the government as well, are convinced that our war strength still can deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to feel absolutely secure peace of mind ... Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender." (Japanese foreign minister to Japanese ambassador to Soviet Union, July 17, 1944) From Surrender of Japan.
—wwoods 09:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


"Also, how dare you compare the 9-11 attacks to WW II! If you really think that the terrorists deliberate attack on civilians is the same thing, than your mind is lost. There was no military target. There was no State even conducting the attack, they were terrorist radical Islamists, not a country at war."

Was the instantaneous death of 130.000 civilians in Hiroshima not deliberate ? Are Pentagon not a military target ? Are citys military targets ? Were are YOUR mind ? The attack was directed AGAINST a country at war, a terror-state. Partisans are allowed to fight, even if their State not exist any more. HOW many people can say to you: "They could have avoided all the death by NOT attacking" ?


Could you guys/girls please sign your postings? That way you don't need to start with 'reply' and people will know who is replying (and to whom). DirkvdM 08:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point! It's easy: just add ~~~~ at the end. —wwoods 09:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that would add the date, which is normally preferable, but if you add signatures later (as advisable above) you can do that with three tildes in stead of four, thus: ~~~ . DirkvdM 09:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No forgiving ever!

The 1993 WTC bombers did their act in retaliation of Hiroshima A-bombing, as they clearly stated in court video. They intended to topple one tower, so it brings down the other and kills summa 50k americans to achieve eye-for-eye. Eventually UBL and his 19 warriors realized some of the aim in 2001. But there are 47k further yankees to go plus Nagasaki is not yet avenged. But arabs will not rest to repay the great support japanese revolutionaries provided to the palestinian cause during the 1970s! The a-bombs come back to haunt America! Just like a samurai commits seppuku in case of a grave mistake, America will have its guts ripped as a punishment.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/t/o/Talk%7EAtomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki_Archive_5_2789.html"