Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Neutrality

The article has a "may not be neutral" tag, but there wasn't any discussion of the need for that tag here on the discussion page. Now there is. If you think parts of the article don't conform to a neutral POV, or if you think the tag should be removed from the article, please discuss here. KarlBunker 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the POV flag is justified. The very fact that there are two opposing views in separate sections indicates that both can't be true, hence that the article contains biased information. --Cubdriver 17:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting--I see the "support for the use..."/"opposition to the use..." sections as a perfect way to handle an issue where there is no clear "widely accepted view". Although the two opposing points of view can't both be correct, I see the two sections of the article as being true and unbiased descriptions of those points of view. KarlBunker 17:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I was curious to see if the article on the Nazi party likewise contained equally balanced segments on the virtues and demerits of the ideology. It doesn't, but funnily enough it carries a POV flag nevertheless. I don't see how one can avoid it in these cases. All that is being said is that this article does not represent the consensus view of contemporary historians. It is opinionated; does it really matter that the opinions are separated under different headings? --Cubdriver 17:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Happily, we live in a world where there is some consensus of opinion about the merits of Nazism :-) . In the case of this article, is there a consensus view among contemporary historians? I haven't noticed one strong enough to be called "consensus". It seems to me that there are strong arguments on both sides, even if one applies no ideology beyond valuing human lives. The only way this article can be called non-neutral is if you consider it biased for whichever side you disagree with to get roughly equal space. KarlBunker 19:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Cubdriver, I think you have a lack of understanding of what our neutrality policy is about. Both of the sections are different historical interpretations, and both are significant. There does not need to be a "single" approach to it, and having more than one point of view is actually seen as a virtue around here, not a problem. There is no single consensus view among historians; there are a few major views, some of which have been discussed here. There are also major differences in the historical literature in different countries; the Japanese historiography is very different from the U.S. historiography. The goal of this article should be to survey all of the views and the scholarly arguments which have been used to support or attack them. --Fastfission 20:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No one seems to be arguing that the POV tag should stay, so I'll remove it. Given the topic, it's probably just a matter of time before someone puts it back, but... KarlBunker 19:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay. I find the entire article slanted toward the notiong that the bombing was a war crime. --Cubdriver 20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Fastfission and Karlbunker. There is no single approach to the most controversial event in the 20'th century. This article addresses that problem by having two sepparate headings for the two sides. You say the article is slanted on the war crime side. "Slanted" can't be defined as showing an alternate point of view to yours. Let's be realistic. What can we do? Remove the opposition or support of the bombing sections, whatever our opinions dictate? THAT would be slanted. The POV would only be justified if we did not present both sides of the issue. As it is, everything's excellent. May we please: settle down and let it be? --Wikiuser7 20:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, for openers we could get rid of the overblown statistics, for example, that 200,000 died from the atomic bombs by the end of 1945. That's a hugely exaggerated figure. See below. --Cubdriver 21:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cubdriver, *I* think the bombings *were* a war crime, and I find no such slant as you describe. Opinions are facts too--the fact that the opinion is held--and I think the article lays out both sides pretty fairly. I would've liked to see acknowledgement of the blockade alternative (which Frank discusses in "Downfall"), or did I miss it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.66.85.99 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned briefly: 'Supporters of the bombing also point out that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option—as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month. ... The submarine blockade and the U.S. Army Air Force's mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan's imports. A complementary operation against Japan's railways was about to begin, ... "Immediately after the defeat, some estimated that 10 million people were likely to starve to death," noted historian Daikichi Irokawa. ...'

As for total fatalities, Frank ends his section on that, "The actual total due of deaths due to the atomic bombs will never be known. The best approximation is that the number is huge and falls between 100,000 and 200,000."

—wwoods 02:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag, although I realize someone else may wish to put it back. From what I can see both sides of this controversial issue have been given a great deal of attention, without an attempt to persuade the reader toward one side or the other. Furthermore this article comes with an extremely extensive amount of scholarly citation, as well as many recommendations for further reading on the subject. Between these two things (two unweighted sides discussed + more than fair attempt at providing sources), I would say that the article can stand on it's own without a POV flag for the time being. Markeer 04:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Bomb affected people

Article mentions 270,000 bomb affected people living in Japan today. A challenging number, as many people alive in 1945 pass away each year. flux.books 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not really that high, Japan is one of the most populous countries in the world and many people affected by the bomb lived for an unusually long time. - Kuzain 15:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this would probably hinge on how one defines a "bomb affected person", too. --Fastfission 17:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

'The A-bomb Survivors Medical Treatment Law first became effective on 1 April 1957. Free medical care was given to the A-bomb survivors who have an A-bomb survivor's health handbook for designated disorders, such as cancer, radiation cataracts, etc. On 1 August 1960, free medical care was extended for all diseases to persons exposed at less than 2 km. On 1 April 1962, free medical care for all diseases was extended to less than 3 km, and on 1 October 1974, this benefit was extended to all persons who were located in either city of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time of the bombing.' http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/glossary/reliefme.htm

Table 1. Estimated population size and number of acute (within two to four months) deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the atomic bombings

    ________________________________________________________________

                Estimated city population      Estimated number of
     City       at the time of the bombings       acute deaths
    ________________________________________________________________

     Hiroshima       310,000 persons              90,000-140,000

     Nagasaki        250,000 persons              60,000- 80,000
    ________________________________________________________________

'Five years after the atomic bombings, in the 1950 Japanese national census, approximately 280,000 persons indicated that they "had been exposed" in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. (Although most of them were probably exposed in the former administrative districts of the cities, the census did not require recording the place of exposure.) The census total is a rough estimate of the number of people who were exposed and survived the bombings.' http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/faqs/faqse.htm#faq1

So that's ~560,000 persons, minus 150,000–220,000 persons killed, leaving 340,000–410,000 survivors in late 1945.

'For example, the 1950 total of identified survivors was 283,498, at a time when they were often were shunned. Subsequently, the complex and highly politicized definition of a hibakushka[sic] (atomic-bomb victim) became anyone who was within two kilometers of the epicenter of the bombs at the time or within a few days thereafter. In March 1995, no fewer than 328,629 living Japanese qualified by this definition.' (Downfall, Richard B. Frank, p. 286–7)

And the annual deaths run 5,000+, which is consistent with a 2004 figure of 270,000. Though presumably the annual rate will increase over the next ten years, since the youngest hibakusha will turn 60 this spring.

—wwoods 09:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get that figure 150,000-220,000 killed? It's more nearly 120,000 as stated in the article. Or has someone changed it there as well? --Cubdriver 11:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"Estimated ... number of acute (within two to four months) deaths" in both cities: (90k+60k) to (140k+80k), as opposed to "At least 120,000 people died immediately from the two attacks combined". Which implies 30k–100k survived the attacks, but died of physical injuries or radiation by the end of the year.

—wwoods 18:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you quoting? Not the article, I trust. The studies I have seen suggest that approximately 90,000 people died at Hiroshima by the end of 1945. I assume you are saying 90,000 at Hiroshima and 60,000 at Nagasaki (probably very highball). I have looked only at Hiroshima studies; see http://www.warbirdforum.com/hirodead.htm for what I have been able to find. Nothing in those studies would justify a jump to 140,000 dead by the end of the year, decade, or century. Certainly there are purported studies that would attribute every Hiroshima resident's death to the bomb, but nobody every promised them immortality. The youngest resident of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, would be over 60 today, having experienced a decade of near malnutrition, and must be nearing the end of his/her life expectancy. As for grownups, most would have died by now had the bomb never been dropped. The truth of the matter, of course, is that nobody knows within 10,000 and probably not within 25,000 how many died at Hiroshima, but the 90,000 figure seems as close to definitive as we will ever get. As for lingering deaths (post 1945), they are more likely in the hundreds than in the thousands. One does no favors to the victims by bloating their numbers. --Cubdriver 20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I copied that table from the Radiation Effects Research Foundation FAQs. If 'warbirdforum' is your website, I see you've already referred to that. The second FAQ goes into later deaths: of the "approximately 50,000 survivors with significant exposures", the RERF estimates ~5,000 cancer deaths from 1950-1990, of which ~500 are bomb-related. And a similar number of bomb-related non-cancer deaths. Pity there's a gap in the data, for deaths in 1946–1949, but post-1945 deaths would seem to be ~1% of the total. Their definition of "significant exposure" is "greater than 5 millisieverts ... several times higher than the typical annual background radiation level to which people are exposed in daily life (1-2 mSv), or about one-fourth of the currently accepted average annual dose allowed for radiation workers (20 mSv). ... The average dose received by the group of survivors considered here is about 200 mSv."[1]

Frank cites several estimates, including the Hiroshima police study:

Hiroshima:  66k -  80k killed,  69k - 151k injured
Nagasaki:   24k -  45k   "   ,  25k -  60k   "

totals:    102k - 125k   "   ,  94k - 206k   "

"Decades afterward, revised estimates were put forward of much higher numbers for total deaths attributed to the bombs. These estimates worked backward from two dubious premises. [high estimates of population minus low estimates of survivors] ... The postwar revisions do suggest plausible higher numbers for one category of individuals. The USSBS counted Hiroshima casualties among Second General Army personnel up to December 10, 1945, at only 6,087 dead, 687 missing, and 3353 injured. The Second General Army, however, did not have command responsibility for even half the servicemen in the city. Revised figures, based on Mid-Japan Veterans Association lists, pushed total estimated military fatalities to possibly as high as 20,000. Military fatalities at Nagasaki were vastly fewer and ran perhaps as low as 150." (Frank, p. 286–7)

"Another controversial topic is the number of Koreans killed by the bombs. Hiroshima undoubtedly held substantial numbers of Koreans ... Estimates range as high as over 80,000 ..., with death totals as high as 30,000, but the more likely number is between 40,000 and 50,000, with deaths in the 5,000 to 8,000 range." (Frank, p. 422)

—wwoods 00:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with the highball estimates, but they strike me as more political than scientific. I still don't see how Hiroshima deaths can be stretched higher than 90,000. Nor do I see how it can reasonably be discussed in the present framework. It would really, really help if there were two articles. Hiroshima is the iconic moment. Bad enough that no one really has any idea of the death toll, and that many or most people don't grasp the difference between deaths and casualities; to throw in Nagasaki with its similar range of imponderables is to make it almost impossible to use numbers in any useful sense. --Cubdriver 11:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see that the figures have indeed been changed: At least 120,000 people died immediately from the two attacks combined, and perhaps more than 200,000 by the end of the year. The first figure may be correct, but the second certainly isn't. And "immediately" has no meaning in the context of catastrophes that were not inspected for days or weeks. Again, the discussion would be more intelligent if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were treated separately. It's really sad that people will turn to Wiki and come away with the belief that "more than 200,000" died from the atomic bombings. If deaths at Nagasaki were half those at Hiroshima, the highest supportable figure would be 135,000 dead by the end of 1945. --Cubdriver 20:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Middle of the road

How could the interpretation which neither support or oppose the bombimg be absorbed or deleted. FWBOarticle

Sorry, but it just didn't say anything that was 1) understandable, 2) relevant, 3) supportable/verifyable, 4) not POV, and 5) not covered elsewhere in the article. For an addition to be worthwhile, it has to be at least all of those things. For example, saying that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings "had no effect on the Japanese surrender" is a point of view (POV). The minutes of High Command meetings are not an absolute determiner of whether the bombings "had an effect".

Another problem is that "middle of the road" doesn't have any meaning here. If the contending points of view are that either the bombings were justified and/or saved lives, or were not justified and caused needless deaths, what is a "middle of the road" between those points of view? KarlBunker 13:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"The decision to drop the bombs was made by U.S. President Harry S. Truman, and already followed controversial bombings of cities belonging to the Axis powers, like the bombing of Dresden, which cost about 35,000 civilian lives. It also followed the loss of around 400,000 lives over 3½ years of direct U.S. involvement in World War II, around half of which had been incurred in the war against Japan. About 60 Japanese cities had been destroyed by then through a massive aerial campaign, including large firebombing raids on the cities of Tokyo and Kobe. Truman's officially stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender. "

Very POV paragraph. Makes it sound like the US came into the war bent on destroying as many lives as possible, and it fails to note that civilian casualties were an expected and accepted part of wartime bombing during that time period.

"The Tokyo control operator of the Japanese Broadcasting Corporation noticed that the Hiroshima station had gone off the air. He tried to re-establish his program by using another telephone line, but it too had failed. About twenty minutes later the Tokyo railroad telegraph center realized that the main line telegraph had stopped working just north of Hiroshima. From some small railway stops within ten miles (16 km) of the city came unofficial and confused reports of a terrible explosion in Hiroshima. All these reports were transmitted to the Headquarters of the Japanese General Staff.

Military headquarters repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at Headquarters; they knew that no large enemy raid could have occurred, and they knew that no sizeable store of explosives was in Hiroshima at that time. A young officer of the Japanese General Staff was instructed to fly immediately to Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for the staff. It was generally felt at Headquarters that nothing serious had taken place, that it was all a terrible rumor starting from a few sparks of truth.

The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about three hours, while still nearly 100 miles (160 km) from Hiroshima, he and his pilot saw a great cloud of smoke from the bomb. In the bright afternoon, the remains of Hiroshima were burning.

Their plane soon reached the city, around which they circled in disbelief. A great scar on the land still burning, and covered by a heavy cloud of smoke, was all that was left. They landed south of the city, and the staff officer, after reporting to Tokyo, immediately began to organize relief measures.

Tokyo's first knowledge of what had really caused the disaster came from the White House public announcement in Washington, sixteen hours after the nuclear attack on Hiroshima ^[2]."

This whole section is written rhetorically like a novel. For example, how do you know they "circled in disbelief" and it is wrong to say "great scar on the land still burning, and covered by a heavy cloud of smoke, was all that was left." because it sounds like a POV novel, and it is untrue as there was parts of the city that survived, so a scar is not all that was left. Also, how do you kow what was "generally felt" at headquarters

"Tokyo's first knowledge of what had really caused the disaster came from the White House public announcement in Washington"

That statement is bull since we know that Tokyo was warned and given an ultimatum before the bombs were dropped.

"A few minutes later, at 11:00, the observation B-29 (The Great Artiste flown by Capt. Frederick C. Bock) dropped instruments attached to three parachutes. These instruments also contained messages to Prof. Ryukichi Sagane, a nuclear physicist who studied with three of the scientists responsible for the atomic bomb at the University of California, Berkeley, urging him to tell the public about the danger involved with these weapons of mass destruction. The letter was not found until after the end of World War II."

I deleted this because there is no reference and I could not find any evidence of this through an internet search. If you replace please reference it.

"According to most estimates, some 75,000 of Nagasaki's 240,000 residents were killed, followed by the death of at least as many from resulting sickness and injury. However, another report issues a different residential number, speaking of Nagasaki's population which dropped in one split-second from 422,000 to 383,000, thus 39,000 were killed, over 25,000 were injured. Including those who died from radioactive materials causing cancer, the total number of residents killed is believed to be at least 100,000."

Cut this our since nobody has yet added the requested references. Please add references if you replace it.

"According to most estimates, some 75,000 of Nagasaki's 240,000 residents were killed, followed by the death of at least as many from resulting sickness and injury. However, another report issues a different residential number, speaking of Nagasaki's population which dropped in one split-second from 422,000 to 383,000, thus 39,000 were killed, over 25,000 were injured. Including those who died from radioactive materials causing cancer, the total number of residents killed is believed to be at least 100,000.""

I cut out this poorly written run on sentence.

The Manhattan Project had originally been conceived as a counter to Nazi Germany's atomic bomb program, and with the defeat of Germany. One of the prominent critics of the bombings was Albert Einstein. Leo Szilard, a scientist who played a major role in the development of the atomic bomb, argued: "If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."

Cut this out until the sources are cited

General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. ^[3] The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that he felt that there was no military justification for the bombings. The citation in text contains no reference proving Eisenhower advised this, and the Mcarthur statement has no reference at all. Use a priary source or proper reference if you want this included please.24.11.154.78 19:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone has changed it back, oh well

• I reformatted the above. I'm having trouble figuring out what you want exactly, but some of your facts are simply wrong and you seem a little hell-bent on removing anything which could be possibly interpreted as critical of the U.S. Tokyo was not given an ultimatum about the bomb, unless you are referencing the vague and unspecified destruction threatened after Potsdam. Szilard certainly said the quote; whether it should be included or not is an entirely different question. Removing the part on the firebombing is strangely even more POV -- rather than, as some do, emphasize the firebombing a way to play down the special quality of the atomic bomb (i.e., "we were already doing this kind of warfare, everyone was"), you seek to simply remove all references to it at all, paradoxically making the atomic bomb more important seeming. Very strange tactic, and very POV. The article clearly needs to be cleaned up and be better cited, but I'm not sure your approach is a good one. --Fastfission 01:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Hey all, I'm new here, but figured what the hell, I'd wade into this anyway. In regards to Eisenhower, I think it should probably be mentioned that his recollection of his meeting with Stimson is contradicted by other sources, and aside from Eisenhower's own recollections, there's no evidence that he advised Stimson that the bomb was unnecessary. Mattm1138 23:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I can add that to the article if someone can explain to the neophyte how to properly cite sources Mattm1138 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

- It's all very well deleting things that do not have a direct reference, but many contentious points in this article don't seem to be properly referenced. The prospective casualties that were used as justification for the bomb are not sourced, nor is it made clear that this became the main line of justification in the years following the bombings, despite its controversy. The Scholarly consensus now is broadly one that states the casualty estimates were completely exaggerated, and the only way they can be justified is that officials at the time believed them. This isn't made clear. - It seems to me that points which question the "traditional" official American interpretation of the bombings are the ones which are facing the most scrutiny here, while the 'official' version of events is being taken for granted rather too freely.

<<<The Scholarly consensus now is broadly one that states the casualty estimates were completely exaggerated>>>

Not true at all. The declassification of the ULTRA and MAGIC decrypts, along with the release of Kido's diary and the Showa monologue have basically made the body of revisionist scholarship on the bombings untenable.Mattm1138 01:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Too many pictures

There are way too many pictures in the current article, lets trim them. Ten Dead Chickens 16:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous: Yes, definately. Also, do people REALLY need to see the burns on that victim? Seriously, many schools in my area view this page. That picture (the first one under, "Japanese realization of the bombing") is just grisly.

Part of learning about atomic warfare is learning about what it can do. Those pictures are educational. We shouldn't censor ourselves. --AaronS 03:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree. I think it would be an absolute disservice to the users of Wikipedia and anyone beyond to not educate them on the atrocities of war by showing the effects of nuclear warfare. It can be very easy to disassociate mortality figures on a website from the actual pain and suffering caused as a result of these actions. It's not a game, after all. --User:alexthecheese 13:31, 20 February 2006 (GMT)

Hm. When folks begin to speak of atrocities and educating people, I catch a hint of propaganda. Personally, I don't have anything against the photographs: they are presumably real, unlike some of the text material. But if their purpose is to educate people, well, I wonder about motives. This is not Hyde Park Corner, after all. --Cubdriver 13:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate. There are nowhere near to many pictures. Still, two have been removed, namely two maps that seem very useful, so I suggest putting them back. DirkvdM 09:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to shape opinions, which seems to be the kind of education that interests some contributors here. That said, the more photos the better. I trust the posters applauding photos of injured Hiroshima citizens would likewise endorse photographs of literal atrocities at Nanjing, on the Burma-Thai Death Railroad, and in the Bataan Death March for example. --Cubdriver 19:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Cubdriver, it seems that you're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. There's a debate about the pictures in this article, and someone spoke generally about "the atrocities of war" and you go off on a tangent accusing people of spewing propaganda and questioning their motives. Someone else talks about maps, and you start throwing Japanese war atrocities into the mix. Why not wait until someone actually talks about making a POV change to the article before you start circling the wagons and shooting at POV injuns? KarlBunker 20:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As I say, the more photos the better, but "educating people about the atrocities of war" is not their purpose, even if we make the debatable assumption that the atomic bombings were an atrocity. The photo originally under question showed radiation injuries; someone objected to it as distasteful; someone defended it as necessary to educate the lumpenproletariat. No, that's not why the photograph is valuable, and if it's there for that purpose, then it ought to come out. The one agenda is as dubious as the other, perhaps more so. --Cubdriver 21:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with most of that. I would only suggest two things: 1) that it doesn't really matter what an editor's motivations are; it's the content that matters, and 2) that someone might use "the atrocities of war" simply to refer to "the really bad things that happen in a war", rather than making any accusation about the legitimacy of a particular act. KarlBunker 01:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The only picture we currently have of any of the victims (this one) is one which is often reprinted and is not very disturbing at all, relatively speaking (looks like a bad sun burn). Personally I think one could make the argument that there are not enough pictures of victims -- most of the pictures of the results of the bombing are of empty cities and make it look as if people were all vaporized instantly, a conception about nuclear war that downplays the actual long-term damage of nuclear warfare (a nice discussion of this by a historian is in Spencer Weart's Nuclear Fear, for those interested). But personally I find the other victim pictures a bit too graphic for an NPOV encyclopedia article, so I think the current one will have to do. Personally I prefer the non-false colored version of the current one (I doubt the color choices are based in any fact), but am not willing to battle back and forth over it. --Fastfission 02:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous (Yes, same guy as before): Perhaps you could put a warning on those pictures (make them links) and put them under a section with a warning that they may be disturbing?

Split article?

Isn't the whole article becoming too large? It's 53k right now and seems to be missing quite a bit of information. Why not have articles at Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Atomic bombing of Nagasaki which detail timelines, damage, casualties, rescue and rebuilding efforts etc.? I would agree with Fastfission that there probably aren't enough victims photos. I would also say that there isn't enough information on the victims or the actual events themselves. There were a number of eye-witnesses to the bombings, yet there are no quotes here describing what they saw.

The article reads as if there is a rush to get past all the factual matters and jump into the support/oppose the bomb argument. Would splitting up the article help the reader get a better understanding of what actually occured? EricR 02:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think that might be a good idea. It would also give some better focus to each of them. One would be strictly about the events of the bombings and a small bit of leading up to it and what happened after it (each with a hefty dose of "the exact motivations/results are contested by many, see the other article). The other article would cover, in a far more systematic fashion than this one currently does, the main arguments made about the motivations, results, and morality/ethics of the bombings. Perhaps Debates about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I'm in favor. --Fastfission 02:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if the article is big enough to warrant that yet. Lets see if it passes the threshold after more factual info is added. Ten Dead Chickens 04:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be split. For one thing, the technical issues around a large article are pretty trivial; the only real reason to split an article is to shorten the time it takes to read it. Secondly, note that in Wikipedia:Article size "Breaking out a controversial section" is specifically named as a reason not to split an article, and I think the reason given applies to this article: an article about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings that doesn't discuss the controversy around the bombings would be a non-neutral article, because it would in effect be stating that the controversy is somehow a separate issue from a "real" discussion of the bombings. KarlBunker 15:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the technical issues are that trivial, though they are trivialized in the current article. I think TDC's approach is fair enough -- I'll try to add what I think would be incorporated into a more complete treatment of the bombings themselves, and if people think it is enough of an addition to warrant a separate article from the controversies and interpretations, then we'll see what to do. Obviously the "what happened" article would/could not be totally separated from the points of contention, but I do think one can make somewhat of a break between the events and their interpretations and controversies. I don't think anyone is arguing that we should split because it is controversial. --Fastfission 19:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

well, i guess i am trying to separate out the controversy here, but not trying to hide anything on a subpage. I think the description of what actually happened is suffering because of the debate. Some things i would like to add, or see added to the article:

• more on the decision to use the bombs
  • more info on the events surronding the decision, summarize part of the Surrender of Japan article
  • who was involved in the decision? The interim committee isn't mentioned at all, and Stimson's role is merely the target selection.
  • what were the dissenting opinions and why were they rejected?
• much better descriptions of what actually happened to the two cities and the people living there
  • accounts from eyewitnesses
  • efforts to care for the victims, the huge number of burn victims and the effects of radiation
• aftermath of the bombing
  • world reaction
  • opinions of military leaders who were not consulted
  • rebuilding of the two cities

Is a single article really the best way to present all of this info and a debate on whether or not the bombs should have been used? EricR 19:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission: I'm curious what technical issues you see to a long article. Wikipedia:Article size only mentions difficulty doing a whole-article edit with some old browsers and browsers on hand-helds. KarlBunker 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes: split them off. The casualty figures presently shown here are meaningless. Bad enough that Hiroshima figures vary so widely, but when you lump the cities together you lose any possibility of reaching a consensus figure, or anyhow a figure that has any meaning for the reader. Further, the iconic moment was dropping the first atomic bomb: that was the difficult decision. Once the decision is made, the choice of Hiroshima among half a dozen possible targets becomes poignant and dramatic. In Tokyo, realizing the nature of the Hiroshima attack (magnesium powder was a first hypothesis) was a seminal moment for the war cabinet. All of this is obscured by lumping the cities together. Separating them also enables more emphasis on the two distinct bomb types, uranium at Hiroshima and plutonium at Nagasaki. I suspect that they are treated together here out of some odd sense of nuclear equivalence: the originators of the portmanteau article probably didn't want to be accused of nuclear favoritism in emphasizing Hiroshima over Nagasaki (as divided articles would inevitably do since the vast majority of readers would turn first and probably only to the Hiroshima account). --Cubdriver 21:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ulterior Motives

There should be a separate topic about other, political resons for the bombing that may have existed. I just created it and put the paragraph already discussing this there. Could I expand on it more?

You can be as illiterate as you like (alterior, indeed!), but you have brilliantly demonstrated that this is a propaganda article, therefore calling for POV alert. Nota bene the caution above: "Sorry, but it just didn't say anything that was 1) understandable, 2) relevant, 3) supportable/verifyable, 4) not POV, and 5) not covered elsewhere in the article. For an addition to be worthwhile, it has to be at least all of those things." --Cubdriver 23:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for cracking down with brutality on my spelling mistake. To address your concerns: as to "propaganda article" and "POV", stating a well known political theory does not show a bias, but rather tells a reader what there is to know on the topic. Just because the theory suggests ambiguous actions on the part of the US, and is therefore anti-American, doesn't mean it should be suppressed. In fact, such censoring would truly be propaganda by any definition. As to understandable, relevant, supportable and verifiable: I merely placed content from elsewhere in the page into a new category, as you seemed to have noticed. I have asked to expand on the idea, but have not done so as of yet. Why the same content organized slightly differently warrants a POV alert is a good question. --Wikiuser7 19:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not the subject matter of the political theory, etc, but that it consumes so much of the article. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are historical events, and the facts of those events are verifiable and indisputable. However, at any point where this article strays into discussion of motivation, consequences, war criminality, and so on (particularly but not exclusively in the section "Debate over the decision ..."), then we have a point-counterpoint series of biased POV statements. Without researching the edit history, it seems obvious from just reading the article that it has suffered at the hands of a lot of people adding their two cents. That is not encyclopedic. The article should be thoroughly revised. Repetition and assertion should be removed, unsupported conclusions should be backed with a citation or removed, and numbers should be checked. Darcyj 11:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Japan was ready to surrender and argument that bombings were not needed should be in intro

Cubdriver removed this from the article, calling it a "false assertion":

"however it was considered by many that Japan was already ready to surrender, leading to a belief that the bombings were a form of collective punishment and a message to the Russians about who would rule the postwar world."

But to call it a "false assertion" is rather silly when you consider the evidence:

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war:

“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

It was known the Japanese had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had begun talking of surrender a year before this, and the Emperor himself had begun to suggest, in June 1945, that alternatives to fighting to the end be considered.

On July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired his ambassador in Moscow:

“Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace.” Martin Sherwin, after an exhaustive study of the relevant historical documents, concludes: “Having broken the Japanese code before the war, American Intelligence was able to — and did — relay this message to the President, but it had no effect whatever on efforts to bring the war to conclusion.”

If the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender (that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place) the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war.

British scientist P.M.S. Blackett suggested that the United States was anxious to drop the bomb before the Russians entered the war against Japan and wrote the dropping of the bomb was “the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia.”

American historian Gar Alperovitz (“Atomic Diplomacy”), who notes a diary entry for July 28, 1945, by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as

“most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in.”

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey said in its official report:

“Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population.”

Within days of the Hiroshima bombing, David Lawrence, the editor of what is now “U.S. News & World Report,” wrote that Japanese surrender had appeared inevitable weeks before the bomb’s use:

The claim of “military necessity,” he argued, rang hollow. Official justifications would “never erase from our minds the simple truth that we, of all civilized nations ... did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children.”

General Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives"

During a meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson Eisenhower said:

“... I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”

Not long after the Japanese surrender, New York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote:

"The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position... Such then, was the situation when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Need we have done it? No one can, of course, be positive, but the answer is almost certainly negative."

U.S. Secretary of State James F. Byrnes explained how:

"our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable in the East... The demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia with America's military might."

General Leslie Groves said:

"There was never, from about two weeks from the time I took charge of [the Manhattan] Project, any illusion on my part but that Russia was our enemy, and the Project was conducted on that basis."

U.S. Secretary of War Henry Stimson called the bomb a:

"diplomatic weapon," adding, "American statesmen were eager for their country to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip."

Historian Charles L. Mee, Jr. suggested:

"The psychological effect on Stalin was twofold, the Americans had not only used a doomsday machine; they had used it when, as Stalin knew, it was not militarily necessary. It was this last chilling fact that doubtless made the greatest impression on the Russians."

Studs Terkel pondered at the time of the fiftieth anniversary of the bombings:

"Why did we drop [the bomb]? So little Harry could show Molotov and Stalin we've got the cards. That was the phrase Truman used. We showed the goddamned Russians we've got something and they'd better behave themselves in Europe. That's why it was dropped. The evidence is overwhelming. And yet you tell that to 99 percent of Americans and they'll spit in your eye."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christiaan (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the *Japanese* account in "Japan's Longest Day" or see the Japanese-Canadian film "Hiroshima". The Japanese government was in a deadlock until the emperor intervened on August 14. The feelers put out by the civilian peace factor toward Russia were done in secret for fear of a coup. Since the war cabinet operated by consensus, no move could be taken without the assent of the three hardline military members, and that was not going to happen absent the atomic bombs, Russia's invasion of Manchuria, and most important the emperor's unprecedent intervention in a cabinet decision. In any event, the assertion can be hashed out in the text and both sides presented. It must not be stated in the introductory as fact. --Cubdriver 14:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Christiaan -- Yes, there's a lot evidence and weight of argument on that side. But there's a lot on the other side too, and it's the job of an encyclopedia article to avoid declaring a "winner" in a debate unless the weight of both opinion and evidence is overwhelming on one side. That isn't the case here, so debate belongs in the "debate" section of the article. Speaking of which, something that's missing from the "opposition" side of the debate section is the notion that the bombings were intended, at least in part, to send a message to the Soviets. As you've pointed out, a lot of scholars and others have supported that view. Why don't you add something about that to the "opposition" section? KarlBunker 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And I think that there's more than a little bit of quote cherrypicking in the above list, most of which are taken from retrospective accounts. Most analysis of the literature about when the bombs were used has shown that "sending a message to Russia" was not a very salient objective, in part because nobody knew if the bombs would themselves cause Japan to capitulate.--Fastfission 00:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)