Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Legal Situation in Japan

This new section has some good information, but is presented in a meandering and overly long manner. It needs to be summarized in just a few sentences. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to propose an abdriged version that at the same time covers all important aspects. I copied and pasted that part from the original translated document, as to meet Wikipedia's quality standards on NPOV and verfiability. Raubfreundschaft (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

The individuals specifically cited as opposing the bomb are sourced to the non:RS "douglong.com". This shouldn't be a big problem to fix, as Long's page purports to cite the original sources themselves. However a more serious issue is that some of the quotes don't support the idea that the individual actually opposed bombing. MacArthur, for instance, who apparently only found the bomibing "militarily unnecessary". Fell Gleaming^talk 06:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As the debate was banned to a separate article the exact positions of all individual military and political leaders cannot be described here. I agree that Doug Long's website, even though excellent and award-winning, is not a perfect reference for wikipedia. If anyone bothers using the information for this article: HIROSHIMA - WHO DISAGREED WITH THE ATOMIC BOMBING? by Doug Long Knopffabrik (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 112.197.159.25, 30 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The factual information in this writing is not correct. This writing carries the traditional misinformation, the writing in several places states historically incorrect that Japan refused to end the war, and that we had to drop the atomic bombs to force Japan to end the war, when in fact Japan had been seeking an end to the war before the bombs were dropped, and had contacted the Russians about talking to the United States about terms. This information is not only recently coming out in current American history books, but was stated long ago by William Casey at the end of his book "Secret War Against Hitler." William Casey being a high ranked member of the OSS, and later Director of the CIA. So I am disputing this writing as misleading and incorrect based on historical facts.

112.197.159.25 (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the instructions provided in the template you used, and provide an exact, reliable reference. (Hohum ^@) 20:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Per above. If it's wrong then be bold and fix it (and post the fixed one here). Thanks, Stickee (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion does not equal historical fact. Something you dont personally agree with is not 'misinformation'. What you claim is 'only just coming to light' has in fact long been known, and described in some detail in books like 'Downfall' by Richard Frank, and 'nemisis' by Max Hastings, except that you have it wrong. Japan put out initial feelers for a negotiated peace, but were quite unwilling to contenmplate surrender and disarming. THAT is a historical fact. We actually have the minutes of the debates of the Japanese Cabinet. In fact, they almost did not surrender AFTER both atomic bombs were dropped, and it took a direct intervention from the emperor to break the deadlock in cabinet. After that, there were no less than three seperate coup attempts to try and stop the decision from being published and to continue the war. Try reading the works of Akira Iriye, who was one of the japnese historians who translated these cabinet minutes. Then, please stop assuming that the last book you read contains the absolute unvarnished truth that nobody else but you realises. In academia we call that 'undergraduate disease'.

Nagasaki was the cradle of Christianity in Japan

This very important information, that makes the citing of the Christian God especially pervert in the article, must be included!!! The Japanese cradle of Christianity eradicated by a bomb crew of baptized Christians. If anything can show the perversion of this new style of democratic war, this is it. Here some more detail: The city of Nagasaki, which for years prospered as a port of trade with Portugal, was also the window through which Christianity first arrived in Japan. However, in 1587, Toyotomi Hideyoshi (the daimyo who unified Japan) decreed a ban on Christianity. This resulted in an incident known as "the execution of the 26 saints". 26 Christians were rounded up in the cities of Kyoto, Osaka, and Sakai, brought to Nagasaki via an overland route in large two-wheeled wagons, and executed at Nishizaka. This marked the first significant incident of martyrdom in Japan and triggered the period of pervasive persecution and martyrdom that followed. Subsequent to this era, however, an impressive event took place that later became known as a miracle. In 1865, after an interval of about 300 years, a community of descendants of the original Japanese Christians was discovered living in the Urakami district. This incident became known worldwide as a miracle in the history of religion. Later, Oura Catholic Church - a national treasure known officially as "the Cathedral of the Martyrdom of the 26 Saints of Japan" - was built by a French priest who dedicated it in prayer to the 26 martyred saints. So what the Pagans could not kill, the Christians finished off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.197.111 (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How is this bit of semi-accurate trivia in any way even remotely relevant to the debate or the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Death Toll Estimates

I do not see a table of the death toll estimates in the beginning of the article (usually found on the right side). Is there a reason for the exclusion of said data? (216.99.61.229 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC))

It's because there was no infobox on the upper right side of the article. I added one and put the death estimates in it. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Debate over bombings

An editor has recently added a large amount of material to this section. I remind people that there is a separate article for this material; the section on debate here should be kept to a minimum summary. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it biased to keep the debate out of the article. Furthermore, before my additions the position that the bombings were justified was dominating that paragraph although historians nowadays consider this view out of date. Knopffabrik (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(a) It's not "out of the debate". It's moved to where it belongs. Forking the content here is not helpful. And (b), you're performing OR in your analysis of what contemporary view is. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

a) Forking means restricting the article to what is considered most important about the bombings and keeping the rest where most readers will never go. Most people outside the US and especially the US military see the historical importance of the bombings in the debate over what is moral in warfare, not how many people died where and how and such things.

b)The view that the atomic bombings were needed to end the war is out of date. This is not just my personal point of view or that of most people outside the US but the result of scientific research as summarized by, e.g., J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: "The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it." [1] Knopffabrik (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy precludes duplicating the same information in multiple articles. If you feel that the debate over the bombing should be covered here, submit a merge request to combine the two articles. Until that time, however, what belongs in this article is a brief summary of the debate, and a link to the full article. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what we have. Now it is just less one-sided. Knopffabrik (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree as I state in my information I disagree with the articles claims "that we had to drops the bombs to end the war." This follows the traditional lie told by the United States Government to justify what they did. I though use current history books being used in American colleges, but more to the point that at the end of his book "Secret War Against Hitler" William Casey makes it very clear that Japan was looking for terms to end the war before the bombs were dropped, and had contacted the Russians to negotiate terms with the United States. This information was given to the United States and the Truman administration knew that Japan wanted an end to the war. William Casey being, as I stated, a high ranking OSS officer and later Director of the CIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.197.159.25 (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion does not equal historical fact. Something you dont personally agree with is not 'misinformation'. What you claim is 'only just coming to light' has in fact long been known, and described in some detail in books like 'Downfall' by Richard Frank, and 'nemisis' by Max Hastings, except that you have it wrong. Japan put out initial feelers for a negotiated peace, but were quite unwilling to contenmplate surrender and disarming. THAT is a historical fact. We actually have the minutes of the debates of the Japanese Cabinet. In fact, they almost did not surrender AFTER both atomic bombs were dropped, and it took a direct intervention from the emperor to break the deadlock in cabinet. After that, there were no less than three seperate coup attempts to try and stop the decision from being published and to continue the war. Try reading the works of Akira Iriye, who was one of the japnese historians who translated these cabinet minutes. Then, please stop assuming that the last book you read contains the absolute unvarnished truth that nobody else but you realises. In academia we call that 'undergraduate disease'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point Fell. I recommend Hasegawa's book. He" makes a strong case that both the Soviet entry and the American use of nuclear weapons were crucial factors in deliberations of the Japanese leadership to end the war." and accords well with NPOV. I have worked with the Cold War graduate studies program and I think I am on pretty solid ground with my edit.

My perception is that the professional historians that I read are interested in what Truman thought not in the question of whether Truman was right.

So, I dunno, maybe there is a huge current of discussion I missed out on.

What is so cool about wikipedia is that the community will sort the thinking out. I do think that most of the debate is about the decision making process which occured in 1945. At least, in the literature, no? Wikidgood (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Truman's order to halt the attacks

The section on "Plans for more atomic attacks on Japan" states when another bomb was expected to be ready and that it was to be used only if the President so ordered. I think it should also state explicitly when Truman agreed to stop after the two bombings. If the article wasn't semi-protected I'd revise the opening of the section to begin as follows:

The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.[85] On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, in which he wrote that "the next bomb... should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or August 18."

However, on the same day, President Truman gave the order to end the atomic bombing. Cabinet member Henry Wallace recorded Truman's reasons in his diary: "He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids'."[New Footnote] Marshall therefore endorsed Groves's memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President."[85]

There was already discussion in the War Department...

The new footnote would read:

Richard Rhodes (1986). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Simon & Schuster. p. 742-743. ISBN 0-671-44133-7.

I hope someone will carry out this or a similar change (including proper <ref> tags, of course). --208.76.104.133 (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see the info about Truman's feelings about the bomb added, but I'm hesitant to include your text as-is. At the very least, it needs to be clear that despite Truman's distaste for the bomb, he actually waffled on whether to ban it after using it on Nagasaki, and a few hours before receiving Japan's surrender, he signaled his intention to go ahead and use the bomb on Tokyo.

Others interested in this topic should read the referenced pages via Google Books, plus the Surrender of Japan and subsequent occupation section and Surrender of Japan#August 13–14 (which has some minor timeline issues that I hope someone will clear up).

Specifically, the referenced pages suggest that at the Aug. 10 meeting between Truman and his advisers to draft the Allied response to Hirohito's conditional surrender offer, War Secretary Stimson argued for discontinuing both atomic & conventional bombing since surrender was assured and the issue of the Emperor's abdication needn't be resolved at the same time, but Truman insisted on continuing both forms of bombing. However, when meeting with his Cabinet later that afternoon, Truman had apparently partially reconsidered and announced, for the reason recorded in Wallace's diary, that he had ordered an end to atomic bombing—but he also ordered that the war (including conventional bombing) was to otherwise proceed at its present intensity until the Japanese accepted the Allied counteroffer. The next day (the 11th), though, he ordered a halt to conventional bombing, because of media reports that incorrectly interpreted a comment by Gen. Spaatz as a cease-fire.

Surrender of Japan#August 13–14 explains that the cease-fire lasted until the 13th/14th (not sure which, given the time zone issue), when, frustrated by the lack of response from Japan and seeing signs of a possible offensive by the Japanese military (though this bit is rather vague), Truman ordered resumption of attacks. Leaflet-dropping on civilian areas and the war's most intense bombing and shelling of military targets ensued. A footnote says that according to the British ambassador to the U.S., Truman "remarked sadly that he now had no alternative but to order an atomic bomb dropped on Tokyo." As mentioned in this article, though, the bomb wouldn't have been ready for several more days. Then, a few hours after Truman made that remark, word of Hirohito's acceptance of the Allied terms was received, and the war was essentially over.

Whether and how to present this in the article, I'm not sure. I like that there's a section devoted to "plans for more attacks on Japan", and another one devoted to the details of surrender, but the resulting segregation of information strips the former section of what I feel is important context. Like I said, mentioning Truman's reluctance to drop a 3rd bomb needs to at least be tempered by a mention that he decided to do it anyway. Thoughts? —mjb (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Target selection and Hiroshima

I found it surprising that Choice of targets doesn't mention the selection of Hiroshima as a target due to its pristine condition, and hence allowing the damage inflicted by the bomb to be more accurately measured. This is mentioned in Little Boy (citation), and seems quite relevant here. It was certainly highlighted at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum when I visited in 2009. Pseudonym99 (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to include it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That is already in the article, but it could be stated more clearly. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

page references other nationalities killed

but does not mention the 12 American POW's that were killed. http://www.us-japandialogueonpows.org/HoroshimaPOW.htm. I suggest that fairness if you are to list all nations, it should include all nations. otherwise this is just more bias wkik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.226.178 (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives and Death

Re: "The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."

By some accounts, the alternatives were quite deadly also. Mass incendiary weapons were being tested, for example. Some statements and references about these should be included. --Tablizer (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

All the alternatives were deadly. One was starvation by blockade, one was a continuation of firebombing, another was invasion. If there had been no atomic bomb and no peace offered by Japan, all three would have been used. Each of these could have killed millions more. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.174.171.15, 12 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please edit Double Survivors section to include reference to BBC causing offence with 'unluckiest man in the world' segment in QI television programme (http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/bbc-apologizes-for-its-playful-take-on-double-a-bomb-victim)

81.174.171.15 (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a better reference which tells us what was said that is offensive? What are we supposed to say, "Some people on some quiz show said something or other that some other people thought was offensive"? That sounds pretty nebulous and vague to me. Banaticus (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing template while consensus is being reached. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 19:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag needed

This article vioaltes wiki's NPOV. The way things are phrased are very anti-american and anti-nuclear. For example it states that criteria was for cities to be "pristine" when is should state, "One of the primary criteria was that the target cities must not have been damaged by conventional bombing. This would allow for an accurate assessment of the damage done by the atomic bomb." Truman's quote is also chopped and edited to present him in a negative light. It should read, "We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war. It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." I would like to request a neutrality tag be added until the wording can be brought more in line with wiki's NPOV policy. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Hirgrnd1.jpg

Shouldn't the image File:Hirgrnd1.jpg be listed as Public Domain Japan? It was taken in 1945, so not sure why it is listed as fairuse copyright? Someone want to explain or change it? Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Was this Truman's warning to the Russians?

I know this might be something that has been discussed before, but I am aware (through a source that i cannot remember)that US President Harry Truman ordered the bombings as a 'heads-up' to the USSR; we know that the "Cold War" began as a direct result of World War 2, and this was Truman's 'shot across the bow' to the Russians; as if to say "we know what your intentions are, and this shows we've got the weapons and we know how to use them" thus beginning a further 45 years of covert conflict.Malc1968 (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Truman had already informed Stalin about the Bomb prior to Hiroshima. Secondly, Stalin already knew about the Bomb through his extensive espionage penetration of the manhattan project. Thirdly, releasing film of Atomic testing would have achieved the exact same result for the Russians. Fourthly, the 'Cold War' didnt start in 1945, it started in 1947-48. In 1945 there was every indication that Russia was planning on playing nice in occupied eastern Europe (Except poland, which the west was willing to accept).

As if those facts were not enough, it is absurd to think that, faced with the potential deaths of a hundred thousand US servicemen or more, and the continuation of a bloody war, Truman was worried about anything except ending the war as quickly as possible is somewhat silly. The war had gone on for 6 years, and the US was about to lose the majority of its most experienced NCOs through the points system, and the US population back home was tired of war and didnt want any more massive lists of body counts. So two bombs were dropped, and lo and behold, the japanese surrendered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Truman's Middle Name Is S (not S.)

Harry S Truman is the correct way to state his name. The article says "S."

Truman's Middle Name is "S" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.223.221 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see the relevant section of the Harry S. Truman article and the Truman Library's info about this topic before making definitive statements about which punctuation is correct. —mjb (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hyperlink Update for Footnote 119

Wiley site made changes, here's the new hyperlink for the Diplomatic History footnote 119

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7709.1990.tb00078.x/abstract

Spmadden 21:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spmadden (talk • contribs)

Quote in bulleted list in "Choice of targets"

Under "Choice of targets", there is a bulleted list of criteria. It currently reads:
"[...] target selection was subject to the following criteria:

• The target was larger than three miles in diameter and was an important target in a large urban area.
• The blast would create effective damage.
• The target was unlikely to be attacked by August 1945. "Any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb."

These cities were largely untouched [...]"
The quote in the third bullet seems out of place. The best guess I can muster is that it is there to try to explain why urban areas were targeted rather than isolated military objectives like bases, units, storage depots, etc., and I think it accomplishes that reasonably well, but
1) the explanation of one of three criteria probably shouldn't be in the bulleted list itself,
2) if that quote relates to any bullet, then it's the first, not the third, since the quoted reason for not targeting a military objective was that if they missed their target, then they would have wasted the bomb,
3) and without context or explanation, this quote loses almost all meaning, or worse, implies something different than intended.
I would just assume to login and delete it to clean it up, but I'm sure whoever put it there had a reason for doing so, and I may be missing something here. Am I? I'll let this sit for the precisely defined duration of "a while" and if no one has anything to say about it and no one modifies it, I'll just login and delete it to make that section clearer. 98.166.122.89 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hiroshima mushroom cloud photo caption

When you click on the image that is captioned 'The "Little Boy" mushroom cloud as seen from Enola Gay' it clearly states this is the Nagasaki mushroom cloud. It needs to be removed and susbtituted.Atomicjohn (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It was only updated very recently to indicate that it was actually of Nagasaki. Whoever did that should've followed the links from there to the wikis where the image is used, and updated the articles. In this article, I have gone ahead and moved it to the Nagasaki gallery and recaptioned it. Thanks for the notice. —mjb (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Victims vs. Casualties

I think to maintain a neutral point of view, people injured by the bombing blast should be referred to as casualties, not victims. "Victims" can carry the connotation that a crime had been committed. "Casualties" is a much more neutral way to refer to people who are injured as a result of military actions.222.98.99.34 (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

the atomic bomb killed many people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.50.81 (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Right wrong or indifferent, the use of the term “victim” makes it appear that it was wonton murder. However, it’s a relatively minor issue, especially when one considers it is an article about a war. (It should be done, it does not have to be done.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Legal situation in Japan

¿Is there any comparable cases in the US? The inclusion of this section, especially without including why the case was denied, gives a loss (though perhaps relatively limited) in neutrality; If there was a comparable case for the US, this would do much to rehabilitate this. (You may note, I did NOT say “A case from the US denying claims.”)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Second and third?

It isn't stated in this article yet, but it appears that these were the second and third nuclear weapons ever detonated (with the Trinity test being first)? That should go in the lede if it's correct. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How about in the article body? I don't think it is so important as the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No excuse so far from any US government?

Please excuse if this has already been discussed or I overlooked something. The German wiki says "Bis heute hat keine Regierung der USA eine offizielle Entschuldigung gegenüber den zivilen Opfern der Abwürfe und ihren Angehörigen abgegeben." => "Until today no US government has apologized officially to the civil casualties of the bombings or their relatives." There is no source for this statement on the German wiki page. Does anyone know if this is true and if so, should this be incorporated in the article (by a native speaker)? Kind regards from Germany! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.166.235 (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No apology has ever been given to Japan from the American government in regard to the atomic bombs. Obama sent a delegation to Hiroshima for the first time, but the American officials did not deliver a state apology. Some observers have said this delegation is an "unsaid apology". Plenty has been written on the topic in reliable sources, so there is enough to put something about it in the article. Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

U.S. warplanes air-dropped 1 million warning leaflets into Hiroshima, Nagasaki

On Aug. 1, 1945, five days before the nuclear bomb was released on Hiroshima, U.S. warplanes air-dropped 1 million warning leaflets into Hiroshima, Nagasaki and some other cities, advising the residents of the city to flee from coming destruction (c.f. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008604.html). However, the government policy in Japan at the time was such that if anyone was caught possessing American "propaganda" material, he would be prosecuted as a traitor. The warning on those leaflets was therefore unknown to most of the residents in those cities.

The above was reverted : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&action=historysubmit&diff=426332998&oldid=426307493

However, Alan Levine writes: I was mildly surprised to hear that no one except Tom S. seemed to have heard of the fact that leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities before they were firebombed. This was mentioned in the AAF official history, Volume 5, published in 1953; and before that, in Vern Haugland's "The AAF Against Japan" published by Harper in 1948. I happen to own a copy of the latter and ran over to look it up--he dates the first leaflets to late July. I seem to recall that most books on the B-29 campaign mention it somewhere or other. The Williams article seemed design to play up the role of psychological warfare in the surrender of Japan. It really had little role. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008604.html

So it sounds serious enough and worth mentioning. Teofilo talk 22:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no3/article07.html seems to be a reliable enough source. Teofilo talk 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This has come around before. (Search archives for "leaflets".) The article does say

"Although the U.S. had previously dropped leaflets warning civilians of air raids on 35 Japanese cities, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki,[38] the residents of Hiroshima were given no notice of the atomic bomb.[39][40][41]"

File:Firebombing leaflet.jpg has the names of Japanese cities on it.

—WWoods (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I called LA songs' edit a factual error. It should have been an irrelevant information. The leaflet may have delivered to Hiroshima but it had nothing to do with the atomic bombs. Hiroshima is 広島/廣島 and Nagasaki is 長崎 in ja. They are not printed on the leaflet. See this too. Oda Mari (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"There is some duplication on three known versions of this bomb warning leaflet though Hiroshima, Kokura and Nagasaki are not among the major cities mentioned. Richard Hubert, Chief of OWI Saipan outpost said in a handwritten note that warning leaflets were delivered specifically to Hiroshima and Nagasaki but we have found no record of such a leaflet unless it was placed on leaflet 2106A. " SGM Herbert A. Friedman says in http://www.psywarrior.com/OWI60YrsLater2.html . So even the "including Hiroshima and Nagasaki" part is doutbful. Teofilo talk 10:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Oda Mari. Even if it clearly stated Hiroshima, it cannot be an excuse of mass destruction, because it was virtually unable to evacuate from there for all civilians. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a website that has not been peer-reviewed by historians, so it isn't a RS (even if it is a good one as far as private sites go). But leaflet-dropping would not be an 'excuse' for using the bomb - it was to end the war. Everyone but the militarists in the Japanese Empire wanted to put an end to the war ASAP. Nobody wanted to have to mount an invasion of the home islands with the known amount of death and destruction that would bring to the Allies and to the people of Japan. War is a terrible thing - but the dropping of the bomb - horrific as it was - was technically for the greater good. Hiroshima should have been enough, but the warlords of Japan refused to surrender. So unfortunately, a second bomb was used to shake the psyches of the authorities. It saved at least a million lives, if not more, on the Japanese side and the least estimates of Allied casualties are somewhere around 250,000. There was no good solution to this. Just be glad that war is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Front side of OWI (Office of War Information) notice #2106, dubbed the "LeMay bombing leaflet," which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning:

"Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately."

(See Richard S. R. Hubert, "The OWI Saipan Operation," Official Report to US Information Service, Washington, DC 1946.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Ham book

I don't know quite how well regarded Paul Ham is in this field but from the sounds of his interview on ABC TV about his new book on the bombings, he might have some new information that could be relevant for this article as well as supporting source material for some of the views contained already. Video and Transcript of interview --Senor Freebie (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 December 2011

The photo of the crew of the Enola Gay is not an accurate one. I have much better ones I would be willing to share. I am personally acquainted with the crew - the tail-gunner George Robert "Bob" Caron is my uncle. The only crew member still alive, who can vouch for me and what I know is Theodore "Dutch" Van Kirk. WesternLady (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked the current image's caption to correctly tell the reader that it shows Paul Tibbets and five ground crew. The guy looking down is Theodore Van Kirk who was in the flight crew.

If you want to share your image you are welcome to do so. I can give you pointers on the process if you are unfamiliar. If you have digitized the photo and it is stored on your computer, the place to start is here at the Wikimedia Commons upload page. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Category Requests

Category:Anti-imperialism

(irrelevant of the ethical debate, and regardless of the fact that the Empire of Japan's rapidly diminishing power projection radius the bombings were the definitive event, (and this is in noooo way an endorsement of the decision to drop the bobs). The neutral, historical fact is: the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the definitive singular event that marks both the abrupt end of Japan as a historical, multinational geo-political Empire and it's beginning as modern single constitutional nation-state and an "Empire" only in the loosest semantic and ceremonial sense.

108.107.116.15 (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Moi

Or maybe I am just off the mark on this one?

Historical facts

I came to the page looking for this specific information, which could only be found in the "Little Boy" entry: "The Hiroshima bombing was the second artificial nuclear explosion in history, after the Trinity test, and the first uranium-based detonation". I wanted to check there was only one test before, on American soil, and then they deployed the two bombs right away like that.

I suggest this to be added in the first paragraph, after the related information of the explosions being the first in war, etc. Also, please include the fact that Nagasaki was #3. - 187.20.68.95 (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does discuss the Trinity test, and it does discuss the fissile material used in all three explosions (see Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Manhattan_Project) . I'm not sure I see the compelling need to have it spelled out in bar-room trivia style in the intro — to me those sort of "firsts" and "thirds" and etc. are best done in the articles about the specific bombs, not the overview article. I think there's enough trivia in it as it is. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The dates

They should put side to side dates for each of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.29.121 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

problems with refs/cites

• Nothing in the reference section for the Bagby cite.
• The walker quote: "The fundamental issue that has divided scholars..." has two problems: first, I searched but can't find it. Second, there's no matching reference for the cite to "Walker 2008, p. 334 "
• I don't if this last is a problem or a deliberate stylistic choice: several reference appear in full form in the Notes section, the references section, and the Further reading section all at the same time (or one and another). To me it looks like a mishmash of cite styles that creates a bit of extra load time that might be avoidable... but I could be wrong. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • what has happened is that I have been going through the article fixing up the references, but I haven't finished yet. So there are a number of anomalies. The article has had a mishmash of styles all along; I have been putting them in a consistent form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. I'll look for examples of you working on refs to see the format you prefer, so that I won't undo what you've done...If you could identify/add (or delete) Bagby, that would be good. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo under the section titled "Depiction, public response and censorship". In the sentence immediately following citation 121 & 122 there is this. "The total of Template:Conv of footage filmed by ..." I'm not sure where Template:Conv points, but it should be cleaned up or the link reset.

Thanks! 69.178.85.107 (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Sean S., February 5th, 2012

 Done Fixed! Thank you for pointing that out. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Reaction to the Bombing

There should be a section on the reaction on the bombing by each country. Canada opposed the bombing because the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor took care not to target civilians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.109.2.24 (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is largely false. 'Canada' did not oppose the bombings, in fact the Canadian government had no official position on the bombings at all. They were aware of the program as it progressed, as most of the Urnaium was canadian. Upon the attack on Hiroshima, PM Mackenzie King expressed a deep satisfaction and pleasure at the Canadian role in the development of the Bomb. Furthermore, to compare this to the Japanese 'care' during the Pearl harbour, where single engine fighters carring small bombs and Torpedoes (with little or no capacity to attack civilian targets in any meaningful way) attacked an enemy fleet to cripple their offensive capability (it was hoped) is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.140.2 (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"During this time in America, it was a common practice for editors to keep graphic images of death out of films, magazines, and newspapers"

...except of course when they were committed by America's enemies. Case in point: Bombing of Chungking: Life Magazine 12 June 1939, page 39. Available on google books. I would like to strike the above from the article. Megapixie (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It still seems to be considered rude to post images of death from natural disasters. I haven't seen one dead Japanese from the recent earthquake and tsunami, in US media, for example. Dead Americans also tend not to be shown, regardless of how they died. StuRat (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Right... but the point is that the statement seems to indicate that the self-censorship was evenly applied. The reality is that American media tended to hide the results of American action from a potentially wavering American public. And where it was felt it would bolster a 'nationally' favourable position - they would gleefully wheel out the grisly photos. Same is true today: showing the Hussein brother's photos was felt to be justifable by the government -> they get shown: http://www.usatoday.com/news/gallery/2003/07-24-sons/flash.htm (USA today).

My sole point is that the statement gives the impression that the American media didn't show the images because they were grisly. The truth is the images didn't serve the greater purpose of enshrining the memory of a 'great war', so were hidden for decades. Megapixie (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What reliable sources support presenting an alternative viewpoint in this article? The material in question is cited to reliable sources (including a book by John Dower, who takes a highly critical view of the ethics of the American war effort) The above appears to be your personal opinion. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I could just point at the entire body of Chomsky. I could also point at sources that said Hitler was alive and well on the moon dining with Elvis. The point is I can find any number of counterexamples to the statement. Rather than have a ridiculous edit war, or add a long series of caveats, I would rather just remove that statement. Megapixie (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

All the article text needs is to say that it was common to keep out graphic images that would show Americans in a bad light. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dower says, "...official U.S. policy of accentuating the positive and not showing graphic images of dead or gravely injured Americans." That's the crux. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the citation itself; but in the context of the article it appears to implicitly state that:

Photographs of victims of the atomic bombing were not published, because such graphic images never published in American media of the era.

Where as Dower (based on what you quoted above) seems to be agreeing with my point that the press were effectively self-censoring, i.e.

Photographs of victims of the atomic bombing were not published, because American media of the era towed the government line, and self-censored..

What does the other citation say? Megapixie (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bombing was carried out by US only and not Allies

The bombing was by no means a collective or a coordinated act on the part of "World War II Allies" as the article states at the very beginning. It would be interesting to see any references verifying any coordination, or planning, or agreements among allies with regards to the bombing. Without such references, the claim is simply an absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.199.11 (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The British Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm took part in many raids against Japan in the last weeks of the war, but your point about these particular attacks being US-only affairs is a good one. I've tweaked the wording. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly kind of surprised at the lack of mention of President Truman. He's hardly mentioned in the article and I would think his role in the event would have more of a place in here somewhere then it currently does. I'm not enough in-the-know to add the information but it sure would be a better article if someone around here did. 24.255.254.127 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Truman wasn't all that important. He merely rubber-stamped the operation, assuming that the military men and FDR had already thought out all the ramifications. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Nick-D and Binksternet. It was a US-only attack and Truman merely rubber-stamped it after the fact. --John (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• What does the article say?:

Under the 1943 Quebec Agreement with the United Kingdom, the United States had agreed that nuclear weapons would not be used against another country without mutual consent. In June 1945 the head of the British Joint Staff Mission, Field Marshal Sir Henry Maitland Wilson, agreed that the use of nuclear weapons against Japan would be officially recorded as a decision of the Combined Policy Committee. At Potsdam, Truman agreed to a request from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill, that Britain be represented when the atomic bomb was dropped. William Penney and Group Captain Leonard Cheshire were sent to Tinian, but found that Major General Curtis LeMay would not let them accompany the mission. All they could do was send a strongly worded signal back to Wilson.

Cheshire and Penney subsequently accompanied the Nagasaki mission. Hence the flags in the infobox. From the British point of view, the Manhattan Project was a combined effort. This part of the article is fully referenced. It is important to understand that Truman did not, as Binksternet notes, make any such decision. His main role was making the official announcement afterwards. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That's laughable. The UK gave consent, but that does not mean they took part in the attack. What markings did the planes carry? --John (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Penney and Cheshire were observers at the second of the two attacks. They did not participate. Their plane was late and they witnessed the bombing from miles away at high altitude. This definitely does not make Britain a participant in the bombings. Also, what is wrong with calling them "attacks"? Why is "events" better? --John (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Penney was involved with operating experiments that collected data about the attack. Obviously everybody in the planes witnessed the attack from a distance and from altitude, which, when you think about it, is way better than being on the ground.

The British went to great efforts to emphasise that the Manhattan Project an Allied effort with their Tube Alloys. This is pretty much the story of the war in the west, with the British carrying the load early on, but their effort eventually being dwarved by the American one. Why does it matter? For one thing, the wartime emphasis on the war being fought by an Alliance meant a lot to both Britain and the United States, and that Alliance more or less continues to this day. And the story of that Alliance in the immediate post-war years was dominated by the nuclear issue. For another, the moral responsibility for the development and the use of nuclear weapons in war does not lies solely with one nation.

Stephen Ambrose once said that a myth flourished in America soon after the war that the US did all the fighting and the beneficiaries were the British and the Russians, with America getting nothing out of the deal. He said that, on the contrary, "The most important single result is that the Nazis were crushed, the militarists in Japan were crushed, the fascists in Italy were crushed, and surely justice has never been better served" Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Rebuildig of the cities

I can't find anything on the rebuilding of these two cities. How long did it take, etc.? 80.98.146.68 (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Civilians

As far as I'm aware all the killings were civilians, could this be put in the info box? Omni314 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The IJA 5th Division headquarters was at Hiroshima Castle. The naval port at Kure was near by. Hiroshima was a pretty militarized area.Boneyard90 (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Date mark of Nagasaki bomb.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Date mark of Nagasaki bomb.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Date mark of Nagasaki bomb.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is filled with trivia, thus hiding the main fact

The main fact that this was a crime against humanity, not to mention a warcrime. This very true fact is not once written in the entire several page article which primary focuses on the history of the bombing and reason for it... Another clear proof that Wikipedia is controlled by Americans. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What edits do you suggest be made? Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Someone should add link to United States War Crimes in see also section or somewhere. It may be reverted soon though.143.167.244.100 (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What body has ruled it a war crime? Wikipedia requires reliable sources. (Hohum ^@) 22:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The article quite clearly already states that the japanese courts consider it a war crime. As do plenty of scholars. There is not even a section discussing this when it is an important issue concerning modern wmd law and nuclear issues. This article is suspiciously sanitised. 87.194.26.132 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

At some point all discussion about war crimes was bumped to Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#The_bombings_as_war_crimes, even if its just a sentence this section should be linked from here, and preferably a better summary of the debate article written up. 87.194.26.132 (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not sanitized at all. There is at least one section on it with a link to the longer article. The difficulty is that correctly representing the major sides in the debate (and it is a debate — there is no consensus on it) with any depth constitutes a very long article in its own right. It's not perfect as is, but I think the assertion that it is sanitized or trying to hide anything is not fair. It is trying to be neutral. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a court decision in Japan, referenced in the article, that ruled that the bombings were a war crime. The court accepted that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets, as were all the soldiers and factory workers in them. It then went on to invoke the Hague Convention's ban on bombarding undefended cities. Although the cities were in fact defended by aircraft, troops and antiaircraft guns; but the court felt that the damage was the same as if the cities were undefended, and therefore violated the prohibition on bombarding undefended cities. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"War crime" and "terrorist" are labels that are difficult, if not impossible, to make stick on Wikipedia. For example, go over to Irish Republican Army and do a text search for "terror". Nope, not there. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Sōran Bushi (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

might want to check into when things were made laws.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_conventions because the sustained nuclear reaction wasnt really known about until around 1933 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%B3_Szil%C3%A1rd einsteins letter in 1939 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein#World_War_II_and_the_Manhattan_Project to fdr which started the manhattan project, check the laws and see if they are violated if they are its a crime if no law exists until after its just ignorance, also claiming it didnt end the war is just downright obsurd. the second bomb was dropped and they finally accepted the total surrender we offered. also just to reference, america i believe doesnt always sign rules of war, so theres that too... so yea. further more if this is a war crime, so is the berlin air raids just before d-day that killed over 250k civilians, also so was the blitz on london killing numerous civilians. pretty sure we didnt sign an accord promising limiting of anything nuclear until the atmospheric testing ban, which later was broken and nothing was talked about until salt 1 Fortybam (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Numbers do not add up - "killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki"

Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day.

The above numbers do not add up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmatreja (talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I see two sets of numbers, but I don't see a sum. Which numbers are being added together? Boneyard90 (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

vague sentence

section 5.2 nagasaki -- the bombing, butlast paragraph, last sentence: "The explosion generated heat estimated at 3,900 °C (7,050 °F) and winds that were estimated at 1,005 km/h (624 mph)."

It is not specified where this temperature and wind occured, making the whole sentence meaningless. Specifically the the temperature of the initial fireball of any nuclear explosion will be millions a degrees Kelvin. Could someone with expertise and/or good access to source material fix this?

Carel.jonkhout (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be in the core. I will look it up and update it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Red Army

In 1945 the Allies had become suspicious of Joe Stalins future actions and that the Red Army might invade Japan with the aid of massive armoured columns. This would have made Stalin master from Berlin to Tokyo.

My late father was serving out the Far East in 1945 on the British fleet that was forming up to invade Japan when the news broke of the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He said the story on the ground at the time was that with the US Marine Corps exhausted by fanatical Japanese resistance on the various island campaigns, the Americans had to knock Japan out of the war before the Russians could invade.AT Kunene (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, in principle, that more can and should be said about the Soviet Union's planned invasion of Japan and the extent to which this may have affected Allied plans toward the end of the war. We cannot, of course, use the above sort of "my father said" accounts (per WP:RS and WP:NOR), but I assume it should be possible to find acceptable published sources on which to base additional material. — Richwales 16:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't think there would be references to back all that up. Besides, the US Marines were not "exhausted", and even if they were, there was the whole US Army, which, aside from the troops already in the Pacific theatre, was shifting its focus from Europe to Japan. Even General George S. Patton was wanting to get in on the invasion. Finally, the Soviets were in a position to overrun Manchuria (as it was on the mainland), and Sakhalin, but would have had to move south to Hokkaido, and slog it out all the way. They didn't have the maritime infrastructure for an amphibious invasion on that scale, nor was there anything to commandeer from China, Korea, or any other country in the area. US forces were already firmly on Okinawa, and U.S. ships and planes roamed the seas and skies with impunity. The Soviets couldn't have done anything more than they did without the cooperation of the Allies. So, with much respect to your late father for his service, I'm not sure that a "what if" scenario based on rumors among rank & file on the eve of the Cold War would have any relevance in this particular article. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Soviets did indeed plan to invade Hokkaido (though this would not have been known to US ground troops). And Stalin's decision to declare war on Japan (coincidentally just hours before the bombing of Nagasaki) dashed the Japanese government's hopes of convincing the Soviet Union to mediate a negotiated end to the war. And, of course, there were plans in the works for an Allied invasion (starting on Kyushu and proceeding north), which it was widely understood would surely result in massive casualties. So there are grains of truth in AT Kunene's father's account, even if the entire story may have mutated over time and through repeated retelling and the addition of bits and pieces that the troops simply didn't know about until after the fact. Again, I believe more material can and should be added here, but it has got to be based on reliable published accounts. — Richwales 16:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the sanity check, Rich. It's true the Soviets would have had difficulty getting into position for a crossing of the Sea of Japan, and even if they got there, they would be brought up short from the lack of amphibious invasion vessels. The shock to the Japanese was from the Soviets quickly taking Manchuria, not from the Soviets possibly invading the Home Islands. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Leaflet photo upside down

In the photo of the two leaflets that were dropped, the second image is upside down.67.180.133.45 (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

<1% exploded

I heard from my history teacher that less than 1% of these bombs exploded. He said the blew themselves apart before they finished blowing up, I am currently looking for a source for this, but no luck so far. Kodiak42 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Look for efficiency of Fat Man and Little Boy. Little Boy's uranium efficiency was about 1.4%, so your teacher is in the ballpark. Fat Man was a different design, an implosion of plutonium, and was significantly more efficient at about 17%. See Nuclear weapon design, the part that starts "Holding an exploding bomb together is the greatest challenge of fission weapon design." Also check out Teller–Ulam design#Summary. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2012

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki states:

Wright and Shockley spoke with Colonels James McCormack and Dean Rusk, and examined casualty forecasts by Michael DeBakey and Gilbert Beebe. Wright and Shockley estimated the invading Allies would suffer between 1.7 and 4 million casualties in such a scenario, of whom between 400,000 and 800,000 would be dead, while Japanese casualties would have been around 5 to 10 million.[15][16]

This has very little foundation in reliable sources.

Michael DeBakey is - according to WIKI - a world-renowned Lebanese-American cardiac surgeon...

Reliable sources - such as:

1) meeting in the white house 18th. june 1945 - http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/pdfs/21.pdf 2) Joint War Plans Committee 15th. juni, JWPC 369/1, 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

estimates causalties FAR, FAR below this number

I hope for an update of the article with reliable sources

yours Robertmossing

Robertmossing (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are estimates of much lesser casualties, but the Shockley-Wright report was part of the decision-making process and should not be ignored. Frank's book Downfall is cited in about 50 Wikipedia articles, including FAs such as Air raids on Japan; it is a very reliable source. Frank says, "Shockley reported that defeating Japan would cost the Japanese five to ten million deaths and the United States between 1.7 and 4 million casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities." So, you see, the facts are reliable sourced and very faithfully transcribed in the article.

D.M. Giangreco's book Hell to Pay was published by the Naval Institute Press; they are known for solid research. Giangreco's book is also cited in Air raids on Japan, one of our best articles. Giangreco echoes Frank, verifying the numbers shown in the Shockley-Wright report.

Perhaps what would satisfy your request would be to put the Shockley-Wright report in context. The War Department expected 500,000 American casualties; they put in a contract for that many Purple Heart medals to be produced. WWII-era Purple Hearts were still being handed out in Vietnam in the '70s. Giangreco says on page 99 that Secretary of War Henry Stimson, who initiated the drive to come up with casualty estimates, might not have even seen the Shockley-Wright report. If true, this would reduce its effectiveness. However, Giangreco makes sure to note that very highly placed decision makers were looking at the Shockley-Wright report and using it for long-range plans. Truman himself was very aware of the high toll in American lives that the Pacific War was costing, yet in a White House meeting on 18 June 1945 he gave the green light to an invasion of Japan. During this meeting, Truman repeatedly referred to the coming invasion of Japan as a longer and more drawn-out continuation of the horror of Okinawa. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is true, but sad that Frank’s figures are quoted in many articles. That does not make him a reliable source. Secondly the ‘Shockley-Wright-report’ – that you quote correctly to my knowledge – was not part of the decision-making. D. M. Giangreco states: “The war ended before Shockley's proposal could be considered.“ { http://www.endusmilitarism.org/casualty_projections_Giangreco.html page 568} We can easily agree that many estimates were given in 1945 and after. Those in favour of the bomb picks the high estimates, those in disfavour the low estimates. I think the best we can do is to present these estimates with a primary source (if we have looked it up) and a secondary source. To my opinion Wiki is best when it provides people with a good start to study a subject.

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) 07:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You cannot directly compare Japanese defense of Manchuria, a colonial conquest, to Japanese defense of the Home Islands. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not know if I do it directly. But it gives a clue. And add some facts on these many theoretically based estimates.--Robertmossing (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a meaningless comparison. I've read widely on this topic, and it's not a comparison serious historians make - they actually argue the opposite (for instance, see David Glantz's book on the fighting in Manchuria and northern Japan and Giangreco's book on the planned invasion of Japan). Please provide a reliable source which says that the poor showing of the IJA in Manchuria indicates how the IJA would have performed in the defence of the home islands if you think that this should be included in the article. This isn't a forum for your speculation. Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

NickD: I've read widely on this topic…I consider it a very chauvinistic and patronizing statement and have no further comments.--Robertmossing (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Recovery

I notice there is very little coverage of the recovery of both cities. I believe this is deserving of coverage either here or on the respective city articles. My thoughts are that it should treat subjects like whether the cities were evacuated, residual contamination, exclusion zones (if any, or the absence of), reconstruction efforts and when they started/finished and health issues attributed to bombings for the responders and to ongoing residency (the health of those present during the bombing is already addressed). AusTerrapin (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have some references? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The two cities lay in ruins for a few years; Japan had no extra resources. James Dodge's economic bootstrapping plan for Japan was to give the transportation systems higher priority than city infrastructure. The mayor of Hiroshima asked MacArthur's people in 1946 to make his city a special example of speedy rebuilding, but the answer was no. This mayor shifted his pressure to the Diet, and in May 1949 the Peace Memorial City Construction Law was passed. The law helped Hiroshima as well as Nagasaki rebuild more quickly, to show the world a new face of Japanese energy.

• Hiroshima: The Autobiography of Barefoot Gen
• Hiroshima and Nagasaki: the physical, medical, and social effects of the atomic bombings "For a while after the bombings, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki began to rebuild: the damages were simply too massive and too stunning. In 1949, however, the rebuilding of the two cities was considered in the National Diet."
• Pathways to the Present: U.S. Development and Its Consequences in the Pacific
• Hiroshima
• Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima
• The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "...by 1955, the populations of both cities surpassed the 1945 levels."

There are more sources out there. A closer reading of the above sources will provide relevant names of the leaders who made the decisions. Further searches using those names as the key will give more detail. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2012

Beside the "Post Attack Casualties" section, there is a video file of a film. The description is "Video footage taken in Hiroshima in March 1946 showing victims with severe burns". Visually it is evident that this was originally shot on film, not video; also, video recording wasn't created until about 1951. (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blvideo.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampex#Video_technology) During WWII, video cameras existed, but were used for live transmission, not recording. Therefore, the caption should read, "Film footage taken in Hiroshima in March 1946 showing victims with severe burns" or "Video file of film footage taken in Hiroshima in March 1946 showing victims with severe burns" Mtbusler (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your note! Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Disproved

The article on this bombing is historically inaccurate. There has long been considerable documentary evidence, accepted by most leading historians, which disproves the official rationale that the atomic bomb was dropped on civilian populations in order to save lives, which would otherwise be lost in effecting the conventional defeat of a weakened but implacable enemy.

Why is this article not more in keeping with current historical knowledge and why is it protected from further editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankRobinson58 (talk • contribs)

Your "most leading historians" and "disproves the official rationale" indicates to me the confusion you have on this topic.

The official rationale was that the bombings would save American lives—that rationale will forever be the historic rationale that Truman and his people used.

Whether they were correct in their assumptions has been debated vigorously but there is no consensus among historians. Plenty of them agree that American lives were saved, and some even argue that Japanese lives were saved; a rationale that was not important to Truman. Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

contradiction in main text?

re Hiroshima: "Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target."[46] - The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.[59] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.42.98 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

misleading storyline and statistics

There are two paragraphs under the section head Pacific War that I think have been written in an entirely misleading fashion. I wouldn't say "bad faith", but they are not good faith, more like "spin". The spin is in the direction of my own POV, so by asking to have it clarified, I'm asking to have (my) POV removed. (My POV is, "bombing, 9 out of 10, would do it again") Here are the paragraphs as they stand now, in italics:

In 1945, the Pacific War between the Empire of Japan and the Allies of World War II had entered its fourth year. World War II was not winding down. Instead, the fighting was being prosecuted with ever-increasing fury. Of the 1.25 million battle casualties incurred by the United States in World War II, including both soldiers killed in action and wounded in action, nearly one million occurred in the twelve month period from June 1944 to June 1945. December 1944 saw American battle casualties hit an all-time monthly high of 88,000 as a result of the German Ardennes Offensive.[2]

In June '44, with the DDay invasion of Europe, of course casualties went up, so that is a misleading date to choose as the beginning of a period of time to "sample" from, especially when the time period is one year, the preceding period consisted of amassing troops in England, and the end of that year marks the cessation of hostilities in ETO (not winding down? ETO completely wrapped up!). Then again, citing "Dec '44 having the all time high casualties" is not at all evidence that the war was "not winding down in '45"; if anything, if Dec '44 as the peak as implied, it is evidence that the war was winding down. Furthermore, blending ETO with PTO numbers is completely obfuscatory as to the status of the war in the Pacific.

In the Pacific during this period, the Allies captured the Mariana and Palau Islands,[3] returned to the Philippines,[4] and invaded Borneo.[5] The policy of bypassing Japanese forces was abandoned. In order to free troops for use elsewhere, offensives were undertaken to reduce the Japanese forces remaining in Bougainville, New Guinea and the Philippines.[6] In April 1945, American forces had landed on Okinawa, where heavy fighting would continue until June. Along the way, the ratio of Japanese deaths to American casualties dropped from 5 to 1 in the Philippines to 2 to 1 on Okinawa.[2]

in the island hopping campaign, Japanese forces were bypassed and cut off from resupply. After months of their weakening, moving in to mop them up is not "abandoning the strategy in favor of increasing the intensity of the war and decreasing the kill ratio", it's "increasing the intensity of Japanese casualties and minimizing Allied casualties, decreasing the kill ratio from what it would otherwise have been, with the attendant jump in casualties that one would expect from an offensive", time-shifting if you will casualties that should be associated with an earlier campaign till later when other offensives which were also taking place and the casualties would be additive. Furthermore, blending ETO and PTO (which had different timelines) and PTO front line home islands with PTO isolated island mop-up serves to use numbers in a way that is not explanatory.

I'm not saying the assertion is false (that war was winding up or down), I'm saying that the stats provided do not prove what the article asserts, because the stats are misleading in light of the underlying facts. There is a case to be made for the POV the author had, but cheating is not the way to do it. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom?

In the infobox it states the United States and United Kingdom vs Japan, I don't see why the United Kingdom should be included as it was a United States thing not a "joint" thing.C. 22468 Talk to me 22:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not correct. This is explained in the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If the basis of the inclusion of the United Kingdom was its technical involvement in "Tube Alloys", then surely the Canadians should be included too under this premise? For their involvement with "Chalk River Laboratories"? As it states under the subsection of "Atomic Bomb Development". Admittedly you may then point out the justification for the inclusion of the United Kingdom was the subsequent mention of the 1943 Quebec Agreement; but arguably the distinction here is between direct military involvement -- and political/technical/non-direct support. If the non-direct support of the UK through its political and technical arms justifies its mentioning here, then so too should Canada by this logic, is my point. On top of this, the 1943 Quebec Agreement was not only signed in Quebec, Canada, but is also described in its own page as an "Anglo-Canadian-American document outlining the terms of coordinated development of the basic science and advanced engineering developments as related to nuclear energy" -- and so, it could be argued that Canada too was involved in the political aspects of this. Frankly, if the United Kingdom's involvement merits its mention here under the aforementioned basis, then so too should Canada arguably. In addition to this, the mentioning of the United Kingdom (and if you agree to the above logic, Canada) seems somewhat against precedence of other "War" or "Battle" pages, such as the Belligerents listing of the War in Afghanistan (2001 one) -- where the page distinguishes Pakistan and Iran as "supporters" -- a distinction which would make more sense perhaps, and to be more in tune with the precedence set by other pages. 70.53.50.142 (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can support that, especially in light of the 1943 Quebec Agreement. List Canada in the infobox as well. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I was actually just randomly skimming through wikipedia, and this is the first time I've posted anything on wikipedia...so..I'm not exactly sure how to list Canada properly myself..or edit any pages for that matter...sorry!70.53.50.142 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Death Toll Clarification

I'd like to see a breakdown of the death toll based on the immediate blast, short term poisoning and burns, and long term cancers and other radiation related deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Benoy (talk • contribs) 21:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

POV site for removal

During the war "annihilationist and exterminationalist rhetoric" was tolerated at all levels of US society; according to the UK embassy in Washington the Americans regarded the Japanese as "a nameless mass of vermin".[115] Caricatures depicting Japanese as less than human, e.g. monkeys, were common.[115] A 1944 opinion poll that asked what should be done with Japan found that 13% of the US public were in favor of "killing off" all Japanese: men, women, and children.[116][117]

This is 100% POV, the UK actually supported the bombing. If you wish to keep it, please site the UK popular view at the time, of the Japanese.

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/biographies/bio_churchill-winston.htm http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/nagasaki_2733.jsp http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/6/newsid_3602000/3602189.stm

I write a nice paragraph about all the countries that took part in this or at least gave there consent. I am amazed at the revisionism that takes place on these pagesJacob805 22:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Significant Minority -> Significant Majority

Under the headline "Depiction, public response and censorship", article states the following:

"News of the atomic bombing was greeted enthusiastically in the U.S.; a poll in Fortune magazine in late 1945 showed a significant minority of Americans wishing that more atomic bombs could have been dropped on Japan."

Based on context, it seems that it should say "a significant majority of Americans".

192.223.243.5 (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Or it could indicate a "Significant sized minority", like 45%, which is still a "minority" (at <50%), but also of significant size. We need someone to check the source, confirm, and then clarify the wording. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This reference to the poll says 23% wanted to "use many more of them before Japan had a chance to surrender". IT lists further references at the bottom of the page. (Hohum ^@) 18:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

So were leaflets were dropped on August the 1st?

Ok I read in the article sections here. It seems like both sides were discussing whether it's true the leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima. However, from the article's "Leaflet" section on the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it appears that it give an impression to the reader that the leaflets were NOT dropped at Hiroshima about the firebombings (not the A-bombings I understand) at all so it's appears to be one-sided. From the Global Security and official CIA sources (and they were considered a legitmate sources for Wikipedia), the leaflets were indeed dropped on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and other 33 Japanese cities on August 1st, warning that those cities were going to be destroyed by firebombings (not the A-bomb itself). If we just keep it like that, it's like me thinking that the "LeMay bombing leaflet" on Google was just a lies. My problem is that the Hiroshima Peace Museum leaflet says that 12 cities were targetted for firebombings and Hiroshima was not. Yet the sources i mentioned above that Hiroshima, Nagasaki and 33 other Japanese cities were warned on August 1st based what the "LeMay bombing Leafet" says. I can't called those sources a lie so you can't just come to the automatic conclusion that the fact is the leaflets on Hiroshima were NOT dropped at all. That's what i felt that section needed some balance and i wanted some tweaks to it. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't get that impression at all from the current wording - it notes that different sources say different things. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I know what you said on your last sentence and I get it already. My point is that everytime i read the "Leaflet" section many times (and i tried to undestand carefully), it appeared to me that the reader will automatically conclude that the leaflets were NOT dropped at Hiroshima at all about the firebombings so it looks like it is one-sided. That's what i wanted to add some things in that section to achieve a balance. Like I could readd the CIA and Global Security Page of the "LeMay Bombing Leaflet" to that section. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of this, and why it should not be struck from the article, as the larger it gets, the closer it becomes to WP:UNDUE. Now while leaflets may or may not have listed Hiroshima by name for firebombing, the city clearly expected to be fire bombed and prepared for the eventuality. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of contradictions on this topic (see the section above at Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Edit Request Concerning Leaflets Dropped on Hiroshima), so I think we ought to stick with scholarly books and the main points rather than websites and specifics. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

While people look for websites about this, they would get confused whether it was dropped or not and this would cause a major conflict in the internet, especially for debates. Websites can be useful to the article as well and last time it is legal to do that on Wikipedia as long as it is the legit news, government agencies, and Global Security as well. Even some sources (and historians told me) say Nagasaki and Kokura wasn't going to be hit with warning leaflets either which but it did. Not a lot of people who going check the links are going to spend time to buy books online and see it was truthful or not because i see a lot of them that tend to make exaggerations. So I'm going to spend time reworking on the "Leaflet" section of the article on my notes in Microsoft Word and see how you people will like it. It may take a while. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok i spend a day over this. I was busy over the week so how do you like it?

"For several months, the US had dropped more than 63 million leaflets across Japan warning civilians of air raids. The Japanese cities suffered terrible damage, some even 97% destruction. In general, the Japanese regarded the leaflet messages as truthful, however, anyone who was caught in possession of a leaflet was arrested by the Japanese government. In preparation for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, US military leaders had decided against a demonstration bomb, and they also decided against a special leaflet warning, in both cases because of the uncertainty of a successful detonation. No warning was given to Hiroshima that a new and much more destructive bomb was going to be dropped. Various history books give conflicting information about when the last leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima prior to the atomic bomb: Robert Jay Lifton writes that it was 27 July but the USAAF history notes 11 cities targeted with leaflets on that date, none being Hiroshima. Other leaflet sorties were undertaken on 1 and 4 August, according to the official USAAF chronology. However it is very likely that Hiroshima was leafleted in late July or early August, as survivor accounts talk about a delivery of leaflets a few days before the atomic bomb was dropped. The U.S. Office of War Information (OWI) revealed that on 1 August 1945, over 1 million leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities, warning civilians that the cities was going to be destroyed and advised them to leave to save their own lives."

Now noticed, I took out in the beginning the first sentence of the paragraph, “The leaflets listed 35 cities targeted for destruction by bombing” after the sentence “For several months, the US dropped more than 63 million leaflets" because it doesn’t make any sense that 35 cities were targeted by 63 million leaflets if the other "35 cities" were also targeted by leaflets on August 1 so it make sense to take that first sentence, "“The leaflets listed 35 cities targeted for destruction by bombing” out. Then I took out the “Hiroshima Peace Museum” as well. It doesn’t make sense to me; saying only 12 cities were targeted and I usually don’t take museums as a source since they tend to lie and sometimes tend to exaggerated. Now I spend over some few days how to put it all together. So can I put this in? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Hiroshima Peace Museum is well regarded internationally, and is the major museum which covers this topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok I take it back about the Peace Museum but i meant they are some conflicts, Strategic Targets Left, page 103. F. J. Bradley. Turner Publishing Company, 1999 says that leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima and is displayed on the Hiroshima Peace Museum yet Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai. Kodansha International, 1981 says it is not displayed on a Peace Museum. That's why i decided to omit both from it and readd the Global Security Link. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The only new part of your suggested text is the following:

• "The U.S. Office of War Information (OWI) revealed that on 1 August 1945, over 1 million leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities, warning civilians that the cities was going to be destroyed and advised them to leave to save their own lives."

Your one new source is the globalsecurity.org page.[2] Your word choice—"revealed"—is too assertive, as if there was doubt or deceit which OWI revealed with the one correct fact. John E. Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, challenges the cia.gov website by saying "contrary to claims made by the US Government these leaflets did not reveal the special nature of Hiroshima's destruction, which came nearly a week after the leaflet campaign began." Thus, we have contradictions in our sources, and an absence of one true "revealing" fact. Also, your addition says there were "over 1 million leaflets" dropped on 1 August, but globalsecurity.org does not say this. Instead, the cia.gov website says "About 1 million leaflets fell on the targeted cities whose names appeared in Japanese writing under a picture of five airborne B-29s releasing bombs."[3] Those 12 names of targeted cities did not include Hiroshima or Nagasaki, so we cannot say, based on the CIA website, that the leaflets absolutely were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Instead, it is John E. Pike who says "Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945". Pike alone cannot be quoted as the one true source, especially when other respected sources are in contradiction. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Global Security link i read and found did not say anything about John E. Pike directly quote that the leaflets were going to be dropped on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and others warning about the firebombings nor challenging the use of it either. I would not put this link if they was a guy who owned the site or any other way who quoted that Hiroshima was warned with firebombing leaflets. I assume that "leaflets did not reveal the special nature of Hiroshima's destruction, which came nearly a week after the leaflet campaign began" which it was supposed to be an A-bomb so i don't know why that sentence about not revealing special nature was put there in the 1st place when they should have removed that Hiroshima was not warned but it did not. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine I reworked on this for a day again so is this good this time?

"For several months, the U.S. had dropped more than 63 million leaflets across Japan warning civilians of air raids. The Japanese cities suffered terrible damage from massive bombing raids, some even 97% destruction. In general, the Japanese regarded the leaflet messages as truthful, however, anyone who was caught in possession of a leaflet was arrested by the Japanese government. In preparation for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the U.S. military leaders had decided against a demonstration bomb and they also decided against a special leaflet warning, in both cases because of the uncertainty of a successful detonation. No warning was given to Hiroshima that a new and much more destructive bomb was going to be dropped. Various history books give conflicting information about when the last leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima prior to the atomic bomb: Robert Jay Lifton writes that it was 27 July but the USAAF history notes 11 cities targeted with leaflets on that date, none being Hiroshima. Other leaflet sorties were undertaken on 1 and 4 August, according to the official USAAF chronology. It is very likely that Hiroshima was leafleted in late July or early August, as survivor accounts talk about a delivery of leaflets a few days before the atomic bomb was dropped. On 30 July, American planes dropped leaflets over Hiroshima warning that, “If the war goes on, Japan will be destroyed” although they never mentioned about the atomic bomb. Other account said that within a few days on early August prior to an atomic bomb attack, more leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima, along with several other Japanese cities, warning that the cities would be firebombed and advised residents to evacuate the city. A Japanese soldier in Hiroshima also recalled a B-29 bomber flying over the city and dropped hundreds of leaflets the night before the deployment of an atomic bomb. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You write that there was absolutely a leaflet dropping raid on Hiroshima on 30 July. This bit is a very close paraphrase of the Theodore H. McNelly paper called "The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb", published as a chapter starting on page 131 of the Jacob Neufeld book Pearl to V-J Day: World War II in the Pacific. McNelly is a respected scholar but he is no more an authority than Robert Jay Lifton who said the leaflet date was 27 July. We have contradictions among our sources, so we cannot simply quote one of them and call it a day. McNelly should be mentioned in the same breath as Lifton, and countered by the USAF history.

Also, you add one eye-witness account but there are many such accounts. One of them is not more reliable than many of them.

As well, you jettisoned the bit about a leaflet kept at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, and what it says on it. That should stay in the paragraph! F. J. Bradley in No Strategic Targets Left mentions this museum and its leaflets. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, as the Japanese soldier doesn't know what he's talking about? They are many account of survivors where the leaflets was dropped but this guy was one of them and he was there. I'm not saying he was reliable than any other accounts but he was there as he vividly remembered it. And you think those sources i laid out are based on a lie or not enough truth right? I'm sure you know about this but i found these sources on the net and like i said earlier, you simply cannot put everything as one-sided making it appear was the truth and the sources i laid out appeared to be a bunch of lie. Besides, i still do not believe that, "One such leaflet is on display at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum; it lists 12 cities targeted for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima was not listed". Well, the Japanese author said the leaflets were not dropped but he didn't mention in his book anything the leaflets on the Hiroshima Peace Museum not listing Hiroshima in the list in about the peace museum while F. J. Bradly said it was dropped a few days prior to the A-bomb attack and he said the leaflets were displayed in the Peace Museum. The fact what I'm seeing officially displayed on the "leaflet" section make it appeared one-sided. Last time i checked based on the reviews to people who had been to the Hiroshima Peace Museum, they did said about leaflets being dropped on the city a few or a week before the A-bomb was dropped as far as i know based on the reviews and people. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bink, I reworked on this again, do you approve this?

"For several months, the U.S. had dropped more than 63 million leaflets across Japan warning civilians of air raids. The Japanese cities suffered terrible damage from massive bombing raids, some even 97% destruction. In general, the Japanese regarded the leaflet messages as truthful, however, anyone who was caught in possession of a leaflet was arrested by the Japanese government.

In preparation for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the U.S. military leaders had decided against a demonstration bomb and they also decided against a special leaflet warning, in both cases because of the uncertainty of a successful detonation. No warning was given to Hiroshima that a new and much more destructive bomb was going to be dropped. Various history books give conflicting information about when the last leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima prior to the atomic bomb: Robert Jay Lifton writes that it was 27 July and and Theodore H. McNelly writes that it was 30 July but the USAAF history notes 11 cities targeted with leaflets on that date, none being Hiroshima, and no leaflet sorties on 30 July.. Other leaflet sorties were undertaken on 1 and 4 August, according to the official USAAF chronology. It is very likely that Hiroshima was leafleted in late July or early August, as survivor accounts talk about a delivery of leaflets a few days before the atomic bomb was dropped. Author Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai stated in this book that 12 Japanese cities were pelted with leaflets and Hiroshima didn't receive of them. However, other account said that within a few days prior to an atomic bomb attack on early August, leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima, along with several other Japanese cities, warning that they would be firebombed and advised residents to evacuate the city. The leaflets dropped on Hiroshima and other Japanese cities were displayed on the Hiroshima Peace Museum."

And to my knowledge, Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai didn't state what date the leaflets were dropped like saying "in a few, August 1st, or several days that the before the A-bomb attack", etc nor he stated any sentence in his book about the Peace Museum which is why I put it like this. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai says 30 July. He writes on page 219: "On 30 July, also, American planes dropped leaflets over the city of Hiroshima. They read: 'If the war goes on, Japan will be destroyed. This is certain. The longer the war goes on, the more Japan will be crippled and the harder will be the task of postwar reconstruction. It is not difficult for a man to give up his life for his country, but true loyalty now means the termination of the war and the concentration of the national effort on the rehabilitation of the country.'" Two other books corroborate this leaflet text: page 311 of The last great victory: the end of World War II, July/August 1945 by Stanley Weintraub (who also says 30 July), and page 228 of Fire of a thousand suns: the George R. 'Bob' Caron story, tail gunner of the Enola Gay, by tail gunner George R. Caron and co-author Charlotte E. Meares, who tell their readers this leaflet was dropped over Hiroshima on 4 August. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In first sentence of the paragraph, it's true to what Senshi Kenkyūkai and Stanley Weintraub said so why did you put "no leaflet sorties on 30 of July" on the leaflet section of the article? You put it in there in the 1st place so i suggest you remove it and redd that part in. Like it or not, I still strongly object to the current writing in "leaflet" section because most of it I read made it appeared to the reader that the people of Hiroshima was NOT warned at all, even people like me could see that and i wanted to make changes to it. As for the leaflets being dropped on August 4th or August 1st, that's why i wanted to add F. Bradley's way like, "within a few days prior to an atomic bomb attack on early August, leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima, along with several other Japanese cities, warning that they would be firebombed and advised residents to evacuate the city. The leaflets were displayed on the Hiroshima Peace Museum.", just to solve this whole issue. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In response to Bink, as far as I'm concerned, I don't think you could use "I think the reader would understand it was dropped" as an answer. You use "I don't think it is" as an answer? If i disagree then i also had right to change it if something is wrong as LONG the facts are truthful and not like mixing as if the two sources are the same. As far I'm reading, the current reading doesn't look like to me it is. The last sentence is bit problematic to me because it made it appear truthful and the use “likely” as the leaflet was dropped as a problem. Yes, I'm arguing how it LOOKED to appear to the reader. Everytime i make some few changes to it no matter what, you simply reverse because it does not fit in your view. That's all i want, just to tweak things a bit. As i said again, I know the sources ARE contradiction so i tweaked it like this that the Japanese author did not wrote somewhere at late July and FJ Bradley wrote somewhere at late August the leaflets were dropped and it was displayed in the museum. But also my problem is you mixed those two links like the Japanese author and F.J. Bradley author books, together when both sources did not say any of them so it gives a bad impression to the reader that Hiroshima wasn't targeted with warning leaflets at all. Again, it's not just for intelligent reader but also an average reader as well. I don't think F.J. Bradley wrote that the 12 leaflet cities were targeted with no Hiroshima listed there and the Japanese author only wrote that the leaflets were displayed with 12 cities targeted and none being Hiroshima somewhere before July 30th and so you mixed those two links up to make it appear truthful. Besides, did the "Mattterhorn" book say that the USAAF did say the leaflets were NOT dropped on July 30th. Now honestly how that's supposed to be actual facts and proof? Are you talking about an air raid or something? BTw, fine i make some changes do you like it? I had two.

• For several months, the U.S. had dropped more than 63 million leaflets across Japan warning civilians of air raids. The cities in Japan suffered terrible damage from massive bombing raids, some even 97% destruction. In general, the Japanese regarded the leaflet messages as truthful, however, anyone who was caught in possession of a leaflet was arrested by the Japanese government.

In preparation for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the U.S. military leaders had decided against a demonstration bomb and they also decided against a special leaflet warning, in both cases because of the uncertainty of a successful detonation. No warning was given to Hiroshima that a new and much more destructive bomb was going to be dropped. Various history books give conflicting information about when the last leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima prior to the atomic bomb: Robert Jay Lifton writes that it was 27 July but the USAAF history notes 11 cities targeted with leaflets on that date, none being Hiroshima. Author Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai also wrote in his book that 12 cities in Japan were targeted with leaflets listed for firebombing somewhere in late July, none being Hiroshima. However, other leaflet sorties were undertaken on 1 and 4 August, according to the official USAAF chronology. It is very likely that Hiroshima was leafleted in late July and early August, as survivor accounts talk about a delivery of leaflets a few days before the atomic bomb was dropped.. One account said that a few days on early August before an A-bomb attack, more leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima and several other Japanese cities, warning the cities would be firebombed and urged civilians to evacuate the city. The leaflets were displayed in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.

Now again, noticed in the last link, i do mixed those two links together as they appeared to be truthful because F.J. Bradley did not say this.

or

• For several months, the U.S. had dropped more than 63 million leaflets across Japan warning civilians of air raids. The cities in Japan suffered terrible damage from massive bombing raids, some even 97% destruction. In general, many Japanese civilians regarded the leaflet messages as truthful, however, anyone who was caught in possession of a leaflet was arrested by the Japanese government.

In preparation for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the U.S. military leaders had decided against a demonstration bomb and they also decided against a special leaflet warning, in both cases because of the uncertainty of a successful detonation. No warning was given to Hiroshima that a new and much more destructive bomb was going to be dropped. Various history books give conflicting information about when the last leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima prior to the atomic bomb: Robert Jay Lifton writes that it was 27 July but the USAAF history notes 11 cities targeted with leaflets on that date, none being Hiroshima. Tail gunner of Enola Gay crewmemeber George R. Caron and co-author Charlotte E. Meares also wrote that the leaflets were dropped over Hiroshima on 4 August. F.J. Bradley wrote that a few days on early August before an A-bomb attack, more leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima and several other Japanese cities, warning they would be firebombed and urged civilians to evacuate the cities. The leaflets were displayed in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. According to the official USAAF chronology, leaflet sorties were undertaken on 1 and 4 August. It is very likely that Hiroshima was leafleted in late July and/or early August, as survivor accounts talk about a delivery of leaflets a few days before the atomic bomb was dropped.

I spent over a week for this. The August 1st link i do it later though but i put it based on what you said. Now noticed the "Matterhorn" book didn't say anything about the leaflets not being dropped on the 30th of July when most of the other sources said it was (As you stated) so i removed that part out and put on the original form as you put it. I also put "F.J. Bradley" source on the bottom. Now noticed I do not mix those two links together as well in the last sentence because the Hiroshima Peace Museum did not document any leaflet drops listed of 12 cities and Hiroshima not listed. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

References