Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:43, 1 October 2004

Discussions

The pilot's report stated that Nagasaki was only his secondary target. I find it weak to include this without mentioning the originally intended target. Get-back-world-respect 20:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The original target would be Kokura. - 刘 (劉) 振霖 14:05, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'll dig in my papers, but I seem to recall that the second bomb is considered to have been dropped too shortly for any of the great powers of the time to be able to surrender at all because of the massive logistics involved. David

David -- look at e.g., http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hiro/feld.htm . There is a debate about whether the second bomb needed to be dropped, and it should be included (in an NPOV manner) in this article. Some have said the second bomb was the first act of the cold war -- an early surrender preventing Russia from getting into the war against Japan. Google "nagasaki second bomb" for lots of links to filter through. Also, unprotect this page, people.

I'm not sure if I agree with the way the logic of the "no unconditional surrender" argument is given in the last section. Since Japan still has an emperor, the United States must have agreed to a conditional surrender. If the US, however, agreed to such a surrender after the bombs, that is, from a stronger position, it is hard to see why they wouldn't have done so before the bombs. In other words: The problem was not, as implied here, that the US were unwilling to accept an unconditional surrender, but that the Japanese were unwilling to surrender before the bombs, peroid. -- Also, some mention should be made in the article about the Japanese reaction to the Potsdam Declaration, where the Allies warned Japan of "prompt and utter distruction", should Japan continue fighting. -- Wolf Deunan 11:11, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

That is what I call strange logic. The US justifies the bombings with "Otherwise Japan would not have surrendered." As we know, Japan was willing to surrender, but not to give up its emperor. After the bombing the US accepted that condition, so the bombing was not about unconditional surrender. Period. Get-back-world-respect 11:32, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Prompt and utter distruction" is what wars are all about, take a look at Bombing of Dresden in World War II. But no one warned Japan of the atomic bomb, which was unknown and unexpected as the article indicates. A demonstration on uninhabitated ground would have been sufficient. Get-back-world-respect 11:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. This discussion, I fear, is not going to work out, especially since I get the feeling you are pushing an agenda on Misplaced Pages after reading your home page (not that your nick doesn't say one or two things). For the record: Wars are not "all about prompt and utter destruction", at least not from the point of view of the military -- there is this thing about Die Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln by this guy Clausewitz you might want to look into, and in fact the bombing of Dresden is such a debated chapter in WWII exactly because it did not fit into any military strategy but was a simple "revenge" slaughter (semi-amusing note: When in Dresden, take the bus tour and listen to the guide tell everybody it was the Americans who ordered the bombing. So much for Geschichtsunterricht in Saxony). There is no big discussion, for example, about bombing Essen or Bochum to the bedrock outside of the general question if any of the bombings were justified, because getting rid of Krupp's factories still is seen as a valid target.

Japan never came out and said "we want to surrender, let's talk", and their reaction to the Potsdam declaration could only be interpreted in one way by the US:

On July 28, the government issued a carefully worded response to the Potsdam Declaration, which unfortunately used a word with a double meaning. English-language broadcasts used the word "ignore" and the Western press picked up that sentiment.

(From ). This is a must for a balanced article on the topic, because it shows that whatever the Japanese might have been discussing internally, what was sent to the U.S. looked very clear-cut indeed: No deal, we're going to fight. In fact, what passed for the Japanese government at that point was highly divided on the question, and even after the two bombs, the military tried to keep the emperor's crucial broadcast from reaching the Japanese.

Another must is Japan's own infant atom bomb project -- start here at the BBC if you need material. And then there is the question of how many people were being killed by conventional bombings; see the Tokyo raids. Would it have really been better if the conventional bombings had gone on, actually killing more people, just to avoid nuclear bombing? Your answer might (and probably does) differ from mine, but any article about the bombings must definitely address the question, sick as it of course is.

This entry is lacking in too many ways to provide a fair POV, and thereby does not do either side justice.

Sadly, you appear to have more time on your hands than I do and certainly more of a chip on your shoulder than I am wiling to try to bulge, so I'll be leaving this to others to discuss with you. I would urgently suggest that you do add a "the objectivity of this page is contested" tag to the entry, though. -- Wolf Deunan 01:50, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Judge whether I am "pushing an agenda on Misplaced Pages" after reading my edits, not my home page. I defend my opinion on talk pages, if you see any edits you think that lack neutrality point that out at discussion.

I am happy that we agree that the bombing of Dresden did not fit into any military strategy but was a simple "revenge" slaughter. How many guided tours have you had in Dresden? In Germany "Bomber Harris" is well known as an English guy, especially after the Queen showed her appreciation for the mass murderer. Americans and British were allies and bombed jointly. To be honest I do not know if the Americans were involved in Dresden and I do not see that it would matter much. When talking about history lessons in Saxony you may also take into account that only in '89 did the wall come down and history lessons changed a bit, and not immediately. I do not know when you had a tour with how old a guide.

For sure bomb factories are a valid target, but I think we agree that all sides in WWII used bombings of civilians deliberately in order to terrorize the population and break support for their leaders. Fortunately millions on the streets all over the world embarassed euphemists into not using "Shock and Awe" as much again.

Japan's intention to surrender is well known and documented, even General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender.".

My impression is that it was done as deterrence for the Soviets - maybe even also because some Americans did not understand how big an issue it was for Japan to keep its Emperor. The question is not how to bomb civilians most efficiently, the point is that bombing civilians intentionally is a war crime.

If you have anything specific to edit just do it. If you perceive others preventing needed edits and discussion is fruitless add {{NPOV}}. Get-back-world-respect 00:59, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That word would happen to be 黙殺 mokusatsu, "ignore; shelve; smother; treat with silent contempt;" (WWWJDIC) I do not really percieve a double meaning, but it is a rather poor choice of words. I believe that phrasing was used so as to avoid declaring that they would outright ignore it - 刘 (劉) 振霖 14:05, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

You are of course right that I should be judging you by the edits, not your home page. That was uncalled for, please accept my apologies; probably I have been getting too much bull about this question over the years to keep my shoulders clean, too.

To actually contribute something contructive, I've started a new section here in talk with a list of suggestions what could be included below. -- Wolf Deunan 15:37, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Look at "childlovers" and related articles like Rind et al. or List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles and find out what kind of users are around here who really have something to say sorry for. Get-back-world-respect 20:56, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Suggested Additions

(not in sequence)

• List of contemporaries' views on the bomb. People who had something to do with the bombing and their views pro and con, if possible with quotes. Each view gets a section. This is MacArthur would belong.
• Timeline list of events Starting with Truman being informed that the bombs are ready, Potsdam declaration, Japanese response in Japanese, the translation problem, and how it was received; first bomb; allies redemanding surrender, Japanese reaction; second bomb.
• Table of number of dead in each city. This would include number of people who immediately died, who died in the first years after, who have died until today. There is some controvery about the numbers, so this would be delicate and require carefull sourcing.
• Number of dead due to conventional bombing for comparison. The number of dead, though terrible enough, is not the most important reason for the horror of the bombs; to make this clear, the number of dead due to conventional raids should be mentioned. There was a large raid on Tokyo in March or April (this is from memory) which almost killed 100,000 in one night.
• Role of the atom bombs for Japanese radical-right. The radical right in Japan have used the bombs to portrait themselves as vicitims, a major aspect of the way Japan views WW2 today (compare Germany), and this influences things like views on the compensation for Korean sex slaves
• Question of bombs as war crime or terrorism This is going to remain controversal, and therefore should be isolated in a separate section so changes over the years due to radically opposing views won't affect the other parts. Related to that:
• Use of the bombings in anti-American propaganda. This includes stuff published by the Soviet Union, China, neo-Nazis, leftist groups.
• Alternatives to nuclear bombardment. Probably there should be organized by date: Discussions before the bombs (death tolls expected in Operation Downfall would have trippled U.S. war dead, planned use of chemical weapons); right after the end of the war (new information about the real state of the Japanese defenses, willingness to surrender); present day (mordern estimates, Soviet archives).
• Role of the emperor. The emperor had a crucial role in ending the war; because keeping him was the major hurdle for the Japanese surrender, and the decision to let the Japanese keep him was very controversal in the U.S. ("just like keeping Hitler"), a separate section might be warranted.
• Famous details (Not a good name) There are all sorts of aspects and quotes that are famous, such as the response of one of the pilots, the "shadow on the wall", etc., which should be included, though they are not hard facts or stricly of historical importance. This would include the songs that have some reference
• Commomerative dates and ceremonies. Brief note on the yearly bell ringing etc.

There is of course the danger of overlap with other entries, but there always is. Comments?

-- Wolf Deunan 15:37, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think all your proposals make sense. It would be quite an ambitiuous project. Not only time consuming but also at high risk of inflicting strong controversies. For example, what are "leftists", what is "propaganda" - did the U.S. not make use of it? There are also disagreements about the facts, stronger ones about estimations of numbers of casualties and even more so for alternatives. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia article, therefore should be concise and not essay-like. I would advise you start with what you regard most important and where the risk of major conflicts is comparatively low.

Just minor points: The Emperor has a separate article, and some of what you suggest can be dealt with there. The comparison with Hitler is far-fetched in my eyes. I do not know much about the Japanese Emperor, but as far as I know even though horrible crimes were committed by Japanese nationals in WWII and he was involved he did not personally create a totalitarian regime with industrialized murder based on his own racist theories. The comment about comparison with Germany for how WWII is seen today, did you mean allegations like the ones that Japan uses biased textbooks and that Germany in contrast has lots of memorial sites about Nazi terror and paid restitutions to victims? Or do you think that Dresden's tourist guide(s) represent ignorance of Germans? Do U.S. textbooks cover deliberate bombings of civilians as war crimes? Or the Laconia incident? I did not even know much about that when I started my university studies, kind of a taboo. Get-back-world-respect 21:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I recommend reading The Last Great Victory by Stanley Weintraub, and Downfall by Richard Frank, for anyone who doubts that dropping the bomb was the least bad alternative.

The Japanese wanted to get out of the war, but on terms totally unacceptable to the Allies.

p. 64 (July 15, 1945)

... Togo was forced to cable Sato in Moscow that he should inform Foreign Minister Molotov before the leadership left for Potsdam that Japan, "in preparation for the ending of the was, has absolutely no ideas of annexing or holding the territories occupied as a result of the war."

  The cable was deliberately couched to protect Japan’s northern empire--Korea, Manchuria, and the northern islands seized from Czarist Russia in the 1904 war--ironically, the areas in which the Soviets had the most interest.

p. 142 (July 19, 1945)

  "Magic" had known as early as the Leyte landings in 1944 that the Imperial Navy saw the war as lost. After Okinawa there was almost no navy, but for the die-hards in its air arm. The leadership had long scorned the hard terms and had planted suggestions through diplomatic third parties that if Japan could keep this conquest or that, and the Emperor and the old system, and possible avoid occupation, that even the Army, the hard-line service, might accept a peace. The decrypts were only as credible as their sources, and as a chronicler of codebreaking has put it, "The historian has to shed hindsight, and consider what the situation looked like at the time." And at the time the army hierarchy dominating the government was suicidally belligerent.

On the other hand, the Allies were willing to deal on the question of the Emperor--and the Japanese knew it. They also knew that the Allies were explicitly offering softer terms than they had just imposed on Germany.

p. 259 (July 26, 1945)

... Those responsible for Japan’s militaristic ways had to be eliminated from "authority and influence." Until Japan was judged to be peacable, it would be occupied. Sovereignty for Japan would be limited to the home islands "and such minor islands as we determine." After disarming, military forces would be permitted to return home. Japan would not be "enslaved as a race nor destroyed as a nation"; however war criminals ... would have to be punished. Fundamental human rights and freedoms would be established. Japanese industries needed "to sustain her economy" would be permitted, but would be abolished. "We call upon the Government of Japan," the thirteenth point declared, "to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of Japanese armed forces, ..."

  The intent was clear between the lines as well as in the text of the declaration. The Allies--in effect, the Americans--showed that they were aware of Japanese feelings regarding the institution of the Emperor, but only by indirection. Nowhere was specific language about the future of Hirohito or the imperial institution he represented. there was neither call for his dethronement not his punishment. If that question had been an obstacle to surrender, it had been blunted.

p. 265 (July 27, 1945)

  Within hours of Tokyo’s interception of the text of the Potsdam proclamation--at 10:30 A.M. Japan time--the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War met at Premier Suzuki’s request. To his "inner Cabinet" he explained the very positive shift he saw from the unconditional surrender of Japan called for earlier to the unconditional surrender of the armed forces. The imperial structure, as Suzuki saw it, had been rescued, and it would be "extremely impolitic" to reject what amounted to an offer to preserve the key political institution of the Empire.

  The military representatives among the six--the Ministers of War and Navy and the chiefs of staff of the Army and Navy--could only be persuaded to withhold a no until further word from Moscow.

... an official translation was brought to the Imperial Presence by Togo himself as soon as it was ready, ... wondered to Togo why the text had come to Japan by broadcast and not through diplomatic messages. ...

  Togo explained the means of delivery as discouraging for Japan. It was not so much a communication but a declaration of policy beyond negotiation. The terms were hard, the Emperor agreed, but they specifically ruled out making the Japanese a subject race. They were acceptable, as the war had to be stopped.

...

  If the Emperor assumed that his communicating a desire to his Foreign Minister that the war be stopped would indeed stop the war, he was more naive than the record of his bellicose statements indicated. ... Yet if he wanted the war to end he had to talk to his generals who kept it going, not the harassed and impotent civil servants who did their bidding. He had not attempted that, ... The idea had long surfaced that the imperial system might be preserved through asking for a modification of unconditional surrender to guarantee that, but he could not specifically ask to save his own neck if surrender turned his military leadership into war criminals.

p. 288 (July 28, 1945)

  As far as Premier Suzuki’s government was concerned, the Potsdam insistence on unconditional surrender was impossible for Japan to take seriously. Supporting Sato’s contention that Potsdam was the only avenue to peace, and that the Zacharias gloss on its terms was a crucial "divergence" from the utter surrender forced upon Germany, Minister Kase cabled Togo from Bern that he saw real guarantees offered. The "Imperial House" was unmentioned, and thus sanctioned by implication. Further, "a Japanese domain is recognized in which Japanese sovereignty holds sway." ("It seems to me," Kase added in a parenthesis, "that this Proclamation provides a basis on which we carry on our national structure which the Japanese race is now protecting with its very life’s blood.") As Sato did, Kase also observed that unconditional surrender applied only to the military and not to the government or the people, and he pleaded that is should be understood that the careful language of Potsdam appeared ”to have occasioned a great deal of thought” on the part of the signatory governments--"they seem to have taken pains to save face for us on various points." And he pointed out in particular the promise that the Japanese people would "be given the opportunity to lead a peaceful and productive life."

  "Magic" intercepted the cable ... possibly before Suzuki saw it in Tokyo,, ...

... Suzuki’s actually was intended to be ambiguous and to postpone judgment while awaiting a reply from the Soviets, but no one outside the Cabinet knew that, and Togo was helplessly furious. ...

  With no overtures to the United States through neutral governments explaining that all the Japanese wanted was an explicitly favorable construction of Potsdam language with respect to the Emperor, Suzuki’s statement, even to watchers of "Magic" intercepts, appeared inescapably to be a victory of the all-or-nothing military over the moderates.

Even after Hiroshima, and the Soviet attack, the holdouts were still holding out.

p. 499 (August 9, 1945)

  All six quickly agreed that retaining the imperial house was "the indispensable condition of acceptance." Short of that they would fight to the bitter end. War Minister Anami and the two chiefs of staff laid down additional terms, described by Togo as "specifically, that occupation of Japan should if possible be avoided or, if inescapable, should be on a small scale and should not include such points as Tokyo; and that disarmament should be carried out on our responsibility; and that war criminals should be dealt with in Japan."

...

  Before the discussion could go further, news arrived of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, but even that stunning development could not break the deadlock.

I've got quotes from Downfall on the Japanese and American views of the prospects for the Olympic invasion here and here, so I won't copy them here. I think it's quite possible that, absent the bomb, the Japanese would have surrendered before the invasion began, but not soon enough to prevent mass famine in the winter of 1945-46, and of course until then the conventional bombing would have continued, with no need to spare Hiroshima and Nagasaki the fate of Tokyo.
--wwoods 00:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your text is excessively long for an article discussion, you should rather present a concise argumentation. And I am not sure if you should quote such long parts of a copyrighted book online. Furthermore, it only presents one opinion and presentation of facts, check the listed external link Was Hiroshima Necessary? for a very different one. And again, especially note that General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."

The quotes you provide show in some parts a clear bias. Not only that "the Allies were willing to deal on the question of the Emperor--and the Japanese knew it. They also knew that the Allies were explicitly offering softer terms than they had just imposed on Germany." is an unproven, unsourced statement. "Nowhere was specific language about the future of Hirohito" can be seen as much as support for the view that Japan had to think the institution of the Emperor would be abolished as it can be seen for the opposing view.

"The terms were hard, the Emperor agreed, but they specifically ruled out making the Japanese a subject race. They were acceptable, as the war had to be stopped." is an obscene conclusion. The Japanese would not have been enslaved as they deserved, so why did they not happily surrender?

Bombing innocent civilians is a war crime, atomic bombs or not, so the argument of the "alternative" is nonsensical. As the text shows clearly, "Before the discussion could go further, news arrived of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki." Slaughter was preferred to diplomacy, a strategy that could still be observed in the recent past. And "They should be happy with the atomic bombs, otherwise they would have starved to death" is just cynical. Get-back-world-respect 03:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Sorry I'm so long in responding.) I figured I'd wind up putting them in one-by-one anyway, so it seemed simpler and clearer to lay them all out. It's a 700 page book, so I don't think I've gone beyond fair use.

MacArthur's views on the bomb are not necessarily objective:

Victory p. 436 (August 6, 1945)

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

Nor did he or his staff suggest at the time that the invasion was 'completely unnecessary'. Neither did they think they were certain of victory. More importantly, neither did the leaders of the Japanese Army.

from Downfall: The intelligence revelations about Japanese preparations on Kyushu emerging in mid-July transmitted powerful shock waves both in the Pacific and in Washington. On July 29, Willoughby ... noted first that the April estimate allowed for the Japanese capability to deploy six divisions on Kyushu, with the potential to deploy ten. "These divisions have since made their appearance, as predicted," he observed, "and the end is not in sight." If not checked, this threatened "to grow to point where we attack on a ratio of one(1) to one(1) which is not the recipe for victory."

As for "Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender", maybe so but they'd been at that point for months and--absent some shock--there's no reason to think they wouldn't have tottered on for more months. I said above that I thought they might have surrendered before the invasion began in November, but that means a couple of months more of blockade and bombardment, and a couple of months less of relief supplies.

"the Allies were willing to deal on the question of the Emperor..." is my statement, supported by the following quotes. (Quotations are off by indentation and page reference.) Prime Minister Suzuki, Foreign Minister Togo, Hirohito, Ambassadors Kase, Sato, etc. all understood that there was some room for negotiation on the status of the Emperor. The problem was the Army, for which that was not enough.

The discussion in "Before the discussion could go further" was among the members of the Japanese War Council. And reread the last line--even after the second bomb the Army leaders were still unwilling to surrender.

Ultimately, after the Emperor took a stand,

from Downfall: In a postwar commentary, Kido reinforced Suzuki's analysis with the insight that the atomic bombs served not only as an important cause but as an indispensable excuse for the surrender: "If military leaders could convince themselves that they were defeated by the power of science but not by lack of spiritual power or strategic errors, they could save face to some extent."

(I hope the indentation works properly when I save this; it's messed up in the preview.)

--wwoods 22:02, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Defenders of the bombing also point out that Tojo had given an order that all Allied POW's, numbering over 100,000, be executed at the first sign of an invasion of the Japanese mainland.

Japans Longest Day: The Pacific War Research Society by Authors: Kazutoshi Hando , Pacific War Research Society pg 183-196

TDC prefers the wording "point out" while I prefer "claim" because a comment in a book is no proof. You can certainly find books that "proves" that the Japanese did not commit any war crimes and only lost the war because of the American atrocities. I am however not entitled to present such nonsense as facts in an encyclopedia. Get-back-world-respect 12:58, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is a copy of the document in the book, not just some nonsense. TDC 16:44, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I doubt that if there was such a document it would have been written in a language someone like you can understand. Second, I doubt it would have included a number of more than 100,000. Third, your wording would not be neutral even if there was such a document. Fourth, I doubt that there is consensus among historians about such a document. Get-back-world-respect 23:12, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I lived in Japan for over 2 years and became fluent in Japanese. So you are wrong on one count.

The 100,000 is the number of Allied POW's held by the Japanese at the end of WWII.

If you think the wording is not nuetral, then re-write it. No more Stalinistic airbrushing my little monkey.

A consensus? Who the fuck cares about a concensus. Millions of documents were captured at wars end.

Try again little monkey man.TDC 23:18, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

I know that you ignore the wikipedia policy of no personal attacks as much as you ignore neutrality in articles. That is why your edits get reverted. And I doubt very much that a person with argumentative skills like yours can learn enough Japanese in two years to read the kind of document you describe. Get-back-world-respect 23:23, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seriously, you dont know jack shit, so simmer down. Secondly, all you seem to know in any depth is man boy love (from persoanl experience I would assume), so I suggest you stick to that. TDC 23:29, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I find the 100,000 figure surprising. FWIW, this website claims that 50,000 POWs were shipped to Japan, of which 10,000 died at sea and that 140,000 were taken in total over the war. --- Style 14:57, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

I think it would be cool to mention how the various scientists that built the bomb felt about this question. Fascinating to me was to learn that the right wing zealot Edward Teller, 'father of the h bomb' , felt that the bombing of hiroshima was barbaric, and that a 'demonstration' should have happened. In fact many scientists signed a note to the government authorities to tell them that a demonstration should happen before the UN, and not use a city as a guinea pig. Meanwhile, Robert Oppenheimer, leftist wingnut, communist party donator, union organizer, and self-styled champion of the 'underdog', and head of the los-alamos lab during the manhattan project, who was almost kicked off the project many times for being a leftist political radical, actually argued against a 'demonstration', and that its first use should be on a target!!!!! This is all in the book 'brotherhood of the bomb', quite an excellent book.

I think it might be important to talk about how the military people, and what exactly they said, especially Stimson, Bush, Groves, and others.

Furthermore i think you should consider mentioning the firebombings of dresden, tokyo, and other cities, which in sheer numbers of deaths, were equivalent to the atomic bombings, although when you consider the horrible long-lasting deaths from cancer, it is a bit of a different picture. at least doctors knew what to do with burn victims.

Also you might want to mention that many US/allied POWs were in these cities when the bombs were dropped. Or if this is just a myth, definitely mention why its false. But I read somewhere that it was true.

Good points. Albert Einstein also opposed the bombing, the article text "Soon after WWII discussion started to criticize" is definitely wrong, the bombing was already criticized before it happened. Get-back-world-respect 14:41, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to pile up the quotes, these two seem rather relavent:

We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war Koichi Kido Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal for Japanese emperor Hirohito

The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war Hisatsune Sakomizu, chief Cabinet secretary in 1945

Mitsumasa Yonai, the navy minister at the time, described the bombings as a "gift from heaven" for those who desired surrender.

TDC 15:26, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Protection

This page was protected because of TDC's ignorance of the three revert rule and his refusal to back his actions with more valuable argumentation than the above or "an edit war? BRING IT ON, my little monkey". I therefore ask for more comments on user conduct: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/TDC Get-back-world-respect 00:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Long-term Casualties

Once the page is unprotected it should be mentioned that the administration of Hiroshima estimates the number of casualties, including those killed by long-term effects of the radiation, at 237,062. Get-back-world-respect 14:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I certainly hope you will source this. TDC 17:29, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Even a person like you who does not want to know it can do a google search for news that are reported worldwide. Get-back-world-respect 07:07, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is obviously impossible to know the exact toll; the margin of error on such an estimate is likely on the order of several thousand. Giving a figure of '237,062' implies more precision than is warranted (see false precision); it would be better practice to represent this as '240,000'. --Calair 00:11, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The alternative of a brief delay

Once the page is unprotected, another criticism of the U.S. decision should be added. The U.S. knew, as Japan did not, that the U.S.S.R. would attack Japan three months after V-E Day (as agreed to at the Yalta Conference but, I think, not publicly disclosed at the time). Operation Olympic was tentatively planned for November 1945, so there was no rush about dropping the bomb. The U.S. could have waited a couple weeks. With the Soviet declaration of war, any Japanese hopes of Soviet mediation would have been dashed, and the largest army in the world would have attacked Japanese forces in Manchuria. That might have prompted a surrender. If not, the bomb could have been tried later in August. JamesMLane 13:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have tons more information for this article once this page is no longer protected. TDC 02:54, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

The Onion

Why is the picture of a "joke" newspaper in this serious article? A very poor taste representation of valid criticisms. Pcb21| Pete 21:57, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is here because

1) I happened to find it (I was not searching for it, so it is possible that some "serious" equivalent could exist in reference newspapers, I didn't do a proper research on the subject)

2) It was published immediatly after the bombing, and I find it interesting to see that even during the war, some criticism still existed toward the goverment official stance (not to say propaganda), even on the subject of the Japanese Empire -- on which a mixture of revengefull sentiment dating back to Pearl Harbour mixed with utter racism.

3) The Onion seems to be a very old and almost reference satirical newspaper in the USA, and thus its point of view could be of some interest. Besides, the satirical nature of the newspaper might have helped expressing its point of view more freely and clearly than in a "serious" newspaper (though, again, I've not been searching for "serious" critics, so this supposition might actually turn out to be wrong).

Anyway, I would like to make it absolutely clear that I do not, of course, in any way, intend to make fun of anyone on this subject. Should a Wikipedian find this perticular addition inappropriate, I am certainly open to his arguments.

Rama 22:36, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)Rama

Hmm I thought The Onion was much newer than that. (And indeed our article The Onion agrees with me). If the Onion was published at the time, then it has more value. If it was produced recently - I suspect in the Our Dumb Century book, then it has less value, and should be removed? Pcb21| Pete 22:47, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wooops... I was not aware of this. I think that you are right, and indeed such a parody has nothing to do in this article. I did not question the idea that The Onion could date back from the 1900's, since it actually is the case of ], which I am accustomed to... a serious reminder of triple-checking my sources it is ! Thank you !

Rama 23:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Terrorism

I listed this as a terrorist incident partly in order to remain NPOV. Disregarding state terrorism as a form of terrorism because it may offend citizens of that state is not NPOV, it is to say state terrorism is more acceptable than guerrilla action. Although an argument of course could be made that the bombings are not at all an example of state terrorism, there is in my opinion a strong enough view to warrant such categorization (as a more liberal rather than closed approach to categorization seems to me much more appropriate). Sarge Baldy 20:18, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Although I do agree that there was undoubtly a form of threat in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and more in the further "equilibrium on terror), I really would think more of guerilla-like actions when I hear "terrorist". I suppose that the nuance of the word might vary according to the language, but in doubt, I would rather use a very restrictive definition (especially in a time when peer-to-peer is sometimes called "terrorism").

On the other hand, I am most probably in favour of the "war crime" categorisation. Rama

In addition to being blantantly POV, that's factually wrong - military targets such as Hiroshima (which was the HQ for the Japanese 2nd army) were and are legitimate targets for bombing. →Raul654 17:02, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I really think the reason people tend to ignore state terrorism when thinking of terrorism is more the product of the mass media, which of course is too politically oriented to dare describe the actions of a major superpower plainly as terrorism, although from having taken a course on terrorism I see no reason to distinguish acts of state terrorism from acts of guerilla terrorism, since although from a common view standpoint they may seem different, from an intellectual viewpoint they're really about the same thing. A war crimes categorization would perhaps be acceptable, but I feel it's a pretty patriotic American POV to consider 200,000+ civilian deaths for purposes that fit fairly nicely into most definitions of terrorism as merely an example of war crimes only because the word terrorism is used differently in a political forum than in an intellectual. Calling such an example war crimes while far smaller civilian attacks terrorism when there is no real reason to distinguish between the two seems decidedly POV to me. Sarge Baldy 21:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Pretty much any defintion of terrorism precludes nations enganged in a declared war. This category is bull - I'm removing it. →Raul654 16:03, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

What about the prhase "state sponsered terrorism" that american govt is so fond of? --Sivaraj 05:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that to call this an act of terrorism is a stretch at best. TDC 23:43, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. As per american dictionaries, only killing of americans by others can be called as terrorism. Any murder by american troops should be called as collateral damage. Sivaraj

Only government definitions of terrorism disclude state terrorism. That governments refuse to acknowledge their own actions as possible examples of terrorism seems to me to qualify as a political bias. Please give several examples of terrorism and list their sources, having taken a course on exactly this subject we went through many definitions, and the only one that discluded nations as a possible source of terrorism was the U.S. one. Even that doesn't say anything about terrorism "not counting" if the nation is engaged in war. Standards of war exist to prevent war crimes, including terrorism. Sarge Baldy 23:06, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I fear it might be quite delicate to draw a line as to what has to be considered as "terrorism" on the only account that the victim be terrorised or not. After all, nearly anything can induce fear, especially in the context of war. However, I notice that most "definitly terrorist" acts can be outlined as provocations or are intended to make the victims react out of proportions. Terrorism works a little bit like an alergic reaction. I do not mean to suggest that I am an authority on the matter, but I think that this criteria has the merit of accounting on historical terrorism quite faithfully, and provides a rational argument as to why nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be comfortably considered as canonical examples of terrorist acts (to say the least).

Just to emphasise the fact that this remark is not politically oriented, I would like to mention my belief that the Nagagasaki nuclear bombing was very certainly, and the Hiroshma most probably, gratutious act of cruelty and crimes against Humanity --- which is much more serious than terrorism. Rama 14:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit subjective? TDC 18:36, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

My criteria is certainly not exempt of subjectivity risks, but I think it is quite acceptable compared to the "there is a form of threat" criteria. Additionally, the distinction between a provocation or a full-scale act of war can probably be made in most cases. Note that the Terrorism#Criterion page seems to agree with my idea. But anyway, this is merely a wild suggestion. Rama 09:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Governments are equally capable of terror whether at war or not. Totalitarian governments often rule by terror whether at war or not. Terror is a military attack upon a civilian population with the intent of influencing its support for the government. There can be no doubt that the dropping of the bombs was an attack upon civilians, was it an attempt to influence civilian support for the government, or to influence the government leaders themselves? Perhaps the leaders themselves could be terrorized into reducing their support for the government or perhaps there could be hope that the civilians still had some influence in extremis. By the definition here of course, conscription was as practiced by all sides in the conflict was terrorism and took a terrible civilian toll.--Silverback 07:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see your point, but in the context of a "total war", where the distinction between military and civilian targets gets blured, it becomes difficult to tell "terrorism" from "legitimate act of war". Think of things like :

• Hiroshima was the HQ of a Japanese Army, so there was a "component" of military on the city ; is it enough to make the city a legitimate target ? if not, why ? What civilian/military ratio makes a city a legitimate target ? And mind you, that's an "easy" one...
• think of the bombings on Germany where cities where destroyed to the ground on account that their population supported the Nazi regime politically and economically...
• About 40 civilians are killed for every armed opponent by US troops in Iraq.
• What about Guerrilla Warfare ?
• Viet-Nam War
• Repression of the Palestinian insurrections by Israel Army
• Re-think the term "freedom fighter" in the context of your deifinition...

Clear distinctions between civilians and soliers are fine in books like "Red Cross wartime manual", but on the actual field, in a modern war (which has elvolved since the Napoleonic style of battlefield), little girls are always going to be killed, be it only by accident.

DISCLAIMER I don't mean to enforce my idea on the subject, and since I am not a native English-speaker, I might not get the nuance of the word "terrorism" in English. What I am really about is that I would suggest caution on account that

• "Terrorism" is a very fashionable word today, and like always, it tends to mean nothing in these circumstances.
• In my language, "terrorism" convoys the idea of punctual criminal attacks designed to maximise the "destruction"/"psychological effect". Hiroshima and Nagasaki are rather massive destruction upon civilians, and therefore qualify as "War Crimes" and "Crimes against Humanity", which are much more serious than terrorism. So, I fear that arguing around the terorist issue would somewhat provide diversion from the most critical issue.

But again, I might be wrong. Rama 07:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In english there is also the sense of maximizing the psychological effect. I appreciate your attempt to communicate across the language barriers. The criminal/guerilla element in English though is only one component of terrorism. Probably the definitive use of the word for the French Revolution "Reign of Terror". Stalin, Hitler and Red China's cultural revolution were all also reigns of terror or government sponsored terrorism. When viewed in this context of the cultural revolution which may have cost 60 million lives or Stalin's purges which cost 9 to 12 million lives and sent more to the gulags, hiroshima and nagasaki are small happenings. The droppings of the bombs may well be war crimes, but they are no worse than the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden, and there are behaviors in war which are not classified as war crimes but are far more destructive than atomic bombs. Most of the destruction in both world wars was by large conscript armies. Conscription should be classifed as a war crime. There are peace time government policies that are also far more destructive than bombs. In the United States, hundreds of thousands, some estimates at more than a million lives were lost due to the delay in approving clot-busting and beta-blocker drugs. These policies were justified on a net-lives-saved basis in peacetime, why should the standard be higher for war time activities? Sure the authorities are sometimes going to get the calculation wrong. BTW, I question your 40 Iraqi lives figure, although I am not sure what it means when the US is no longer facing uniformed opposition. What many opponents of the Iraqi War don't realize is that the sanctions were killing at a far higher rate before the war, the estimate was in the hundreds of thousands per year, mostly due to infant mortality. The current violent resistance impacts very little of the population although it is greatly magnified by the media.

--Silverback 10:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a difference between "terror" and "terrorism" (at least in my language ; it seems there is, or was, some in English as well but now I'm not so sure... this is one instance of a loss of precision of an over-used word). For what I have seen, "terrorism" is used for one very special way of inducing "terror" in the mind of the people. I would think that it would make little sense of accusing the regime of Hitler, for instance, of being terrorist ; criminal against Humanity, totalitarian, certainly, but terrorist... that's what freedom fighters were called at the time (and technically their work was indeed terrorism -- again, according to my perception of the word, which is not, nor meant to be, universal).

As for conscription seen as a war crime, it is interesting, but I am affraid that is is a little bit disconected of the realities of modern warfare : wars are not any more some kind of violent sports a minority engages into when a settlement is needed. On the other hand, seen from the point of view of a country such as Great Britain or France, threatened by Nazi Germany, which sees itself as a defender of freedom and culture, "total warfare" can seem a legitimate extremity to protect your values (of course, the same argument in the hand of well-intentioned fanatics always leads to disasters). Certainly, war can be seen as a crime against Humanity (pretty much the idea of the Society of the Nations, which wanted to carry on a "war against war" (I'd just like people to leave peace in peace, but that's another story...)). But the responsability of the start of a war is usually complex to establish, and generally strongly casted onto the loser by the winner.

About the bombing of Tokyo (and Dresden, Köln, and lots of other cities), I certainly would cosider them as war crimes as well. The use of the nuclear bomb does not change de matter, in my optic : use of any destructive power indiscrimantly with no evident reason : BAD. Use of nuclear detonating devices to perform civil engineering : GOOD (modulo the fact that polution is a big issue. But if you imagine thermonuclear devices with don't need a fission stage to detonate, civil use could be imagined).

About Iraq, my apologies for not metionning my sources, and for something which could lead us a little bit far away from Hiroshima. The 40:1 figure comes from the Sunit Oulemas comity, which is somewhat neutral in the conflict and has contacts with both US forces and Iraq militant organisations, namely stated by cheikh Ahmed Abdel Ghaffour Al-Sumaraï, and cited in numerous serious newspapers in the world (Le Monde for instance). As for the sanctions, I have read something different in the book by Hans Blix, who says that in 2003, sanctions were basically a nuisance and humiliation for Iraq. I think it would not take long to assert that the average level of life of Iraq population has indeed droped during and after the US invasion. Wether it will climb high and swiftly enough to "make it worth the cost", History will say... I hope it will, but it will certainly take mor energy than merely collapsing the government of Saddam Hussein. Rama 12:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the bombings of Coventry, London, Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, and Tokyo, someone said they were no war crimes. As this article as well as the war crime article and the related specific articles clearly indicate, already at the time of WWII deliberately targeting civilians was defined as a war crime by international law. The point was just that as the Allies had also engaged in that crime it was never tried. Get-back-world-respect 23:20, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mokusatsu

According to a docudrama on Hiroshima coproduced by the CBC and NHK, the use of the word mokusatsu was ambiguous purposefully. The military faction demanded unequivocal support from the civilian government so the government answered something like "In response to the military faction's demands for an answer to the Allies' insistance on unconditional surrender, we give 'mokusatsu'". This is ambiguous. Were the government ignoring the Allies, thus satifying the military, or were they answering (ignoring) the military, thus asking the Allies for time? If Prime-Minister Suzuki had been negotiating with other Japanese, it would have been a brilliant choice of words, but unfortunately the Americans misinterpreted (not unreasonably) by thinking the contempt was directed towards them. This is the how docudrama presented this story. I'm sure other interpretations are possible, but this one strikes me as plausible. Vincent 01:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Recent Revision

Those who roundly dismiss the necessity of using nuclear weapons to end the second world war have never read Hando's work, and therefore I fail to see how critics of the bombing can call it into question. TDC 02:24, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I feel I should comment here. I'm well informed of the attitudes in Japan that opposed surrender, but you're overlooking one major detail which is that the United States demanded unconditional surrender, which is certainly a very excessive demand to make of anyone and certainly not an easy demand to accept. Under unconditional surrender Japan may well have become a territory of the United States. The necessity of nuclear attacks to reach such an impossible goal does seem realistic, but a more explained and diplomatic form of surrender might well have been easily obtained. Sarge Baldy 23:42, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

While it is true that some elements within the Cabinet were seeking an end to hostilities, no one person could negotiate a surrender, not even the emperor. All members of the Japanese cabinet had to sign on any succession in hostilities, and before the bombing only a few were willing to do so, and this was not an unconditional surrender. They sent out feelers to the Soviets, but it was harldy a true negotiation. The JIA as well as the majority of the Navy, thought they could bleed the allies into a more favorable position including retention of the emperor, no occupying army in Japan, no disarmament, and no forfeiture of China and Korean territories. When the Soviets invaded Manchuria, the JIA ordered the starving and ill equiped troops to fight to the last, and they did.

After Hiroshima most of the Cabinet saw any continuing attempt at resistance as futile, and the majority wanted to sign on to an unconditional surrender. But once again a majority was not enough, it had to be unanimous.

Even after Nagasaki was bombed the most hardcore elements in the JIA refused to consider surrender.

It took an attempted palace coup, the expulsion of several members of the cabinet, as well as the belief that the Emperor's life was in danger for the Cabinet to come to its decision. TDC 00:17, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

All of which changes nothing about the correctness of Sarge Baldy's perception that a more explained and diplomatic form of surrender might well have been easily obtained. Get-back-world-respect 12:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you really that much of a dolt? Under no circumstances was the Japanese cabinet going to come to a angreement to surrender. TDC 16:04, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

We know that this the only vision that fits in a mind like yours. Get-back-world-respect 16:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that you have information that states that the Japanese cabinet, every single last one of its members, were considering a way to negotiate an end to the war before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that none of the Cabinet members were determined to fight to the last man?

Are you really stupid enough to make a claim like that knowing that there is no way you could back it up?

Never mind, I already know the answer to that one. TDC 16:46, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can say with assurance exactly what the cabinet would do under different circumstances, and certainly it's a pretty excessive claim that the cabinet might not have come to their senses with more sane terms of surrender and a sincere diplomatic effort on the part of the United States. Along with a more thorough explanation of the power of nuclear weapons (including footage of nuclear tests) I feel a negotation may well have been reached. Sarge Baldy 22:52, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

"Recent Historical Research"

The phrase "recent historical research" is inappropriate in an encyclopedia as what is "recent" changes over time but what is written in an encyclopedia should remain accurate. Furthermore, the research is not sourced but presented as if it was generally accepted.

The precise reasons why the bombings were a war crime according to international conventions need to stay. Please stop confusing your own beliefs with neutral evaluations. Get-back-world-respect 07:02, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous argument. Article George W. Bush says he is the president. VV 07:06, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While the article about Bush will certainly be changed as soon as another President is elected, even you will not tell me that any one will rush to an article once research cited is not "recent" any longer. Get-back-world-respect 07:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The same might be said of current obscure offices. And how quickly in Wikitime will this research become non-recent? It is blindingly obvious you simply want to minimize it because it doesn't fit your prejudices. VV 07:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have opposed the word "recent" everywhere I saw it. As the research is not sourced, there is not even a way to guess when it will become non-recent. It would be easiest and most appropriate to just give the year it was written. And you have no right to revert everything just because you do not like a minor part. Get-back-world-respect 07:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

With another user, I might not. But you have been harassing me, and I'm not going to take the time out to sort which of your edits are POV-pushing and which not. Although I actually did on the penultimate revert. VV 07:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are disqualifying yourself. Get-back-world-respect 08:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protection

As VeryVerily and TDC again reverted without discussion the article is protected and awaits a solution for the problem they caused with

1. their unsourced claim about "recent" historical research. The word recent is inappropriate in an encyclopedia as an encyclopedia is supposed to be written such that its language does not outdate.
2. their presentation of a Tojo order as a fact but used as an argument.
3. their refusal to accept the mentioning the opinion that the bombing was a war crime because of wilful killing of civilians, wanton destruction of cities, and use of poisonous weapons (due to the effects of the radiation). Get-back-world-respect 14:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. Ok then, lets remove the word recent.
2. It is sourced and you can look up the source if you want.
3. Um, its already in the article.

It has been argued that, under the Nuremberg Principles and the Hague Convention, then in force, the use of atomic weapons against civilian populations on a large scale is a crime against humanity and a war crime. Some people consider the bombings the worst acts of terrorism in history. One officer of the International Court of Justice has stated: "Nuclear weapons can be expected - in the present state of scientific development at least - to cause indiscriminate victims among combatants and non-combatants alike, as well as unnecessary suffering among both categories… Until scientists are able to develop a 'clean' nuclear weapon which would distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, nuclear weapons will clearly have indiscriminate effects and constitute an absolute challenge to humanitarian law." (http://www.bomspotting.be/en/klacht_en.php)TDC

The recent historical research should also not be presented as unanimously accepted unless it is shown to be so.

I cannot see a source for the Tojo order in the article.

What you took out is the exact phrase of the treatie that specifies why it has to be seen as a war crime: because of wilful killing of civilians, wanton destruction of cities, and use of poisonous weapons (due to the effects of the radiation). Get-back-world-respect 14:55, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There still is no source for the Tojo order. Get-back-world-respect 14:09, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is it time for this article to be unprotected? VV 23:13, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that depends on whether you can behave yourself and resist the urge to censor information. As for my argument over listing this article as terrorism, I give up. Sad as it is to say it, POV is clearly impossible on a US-centric wiki. User:Style, who in a decidedly irritating fashion agreed with this categorization, has become frustrated and left the pedia for related reasons. I can't say I blame him. The page as it is is protected against you, and if you can behave yourself it may as well be unlocked. If you cannot control your urge to make changes against consensus, then you should expect action against yourself. Having to lock a page from edit wars and deliberate trolls hinder progress on Misplaced Pages and it is a courtesy on the part of its service to resolve matters through protection rather than through aggressive action against problem users. No one wants to see any page protected, but occasionally there is little other choice. I will unprotect the page if you can abide by the consensus agreement. Sarge Baldy 12:27, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

My question was not directed to you; you clearly have your own "issues", such as being wholly unable to treat this matter objectively. If you're calling my edits "censorship" you're emotionally involved in the article and should not be protecting or unprotecting it. (And the fact that you want to characterize this as a "terrorist incident" proves your lack of judgement, as if it wasn't obvious by your evaluation of the blame for the edit war.) Style was, as far as I could tell, somebody's sockpuppet. In the mean time, take your revisionist edit history and, well, quit your smug ranting. VV 21:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to sound impertinent, and I certainly agree that particular points of view do transpire in the presentation of some data. But I must say that I really think that attributing reluctance to classify the event as terrorism to americano-centrism does not do justice to the current. I am very sure that lots of people who would disagree with this classification are not from the USA, not bear much sympathy to the bombings or the people who ordered them. And again, I reallz would stress that "terrorism" is so very politically connoted that it has lots most of its meaning (like "anti-american" or "Communist", in the discourse of some people) Rama 15:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course you're right it has nothing to do with Americocentrism. But why surrender a potent rhetorical device just because it makes no sense? VV 21:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean to say that elsewhere everyone has a completely different take on the issue, I just find the flat-out refusal of many to even consider the possibility of 340,000 primarily civilian casualties (easily over 100 times as many as the September 11, 2001 attacks) in order to hasten the end of a clearly dying war on the basis that they can't see through the walls of patriotism or propaganda (as a service by US-centric media) enough to come to anything more than the most locally acceptable viewpoint. I certainly appreciate and welcome any dissent from my views, but only if that dissent can be presented in a rational medium. Verbal aggression I do not appreciate, nor pitiful attempts at trolling, nor opinions spouted verbatim from years of cultural brainwashing. Five years ago I though the attacks were justified and even praiseworthy. More recently I took to analyzing the situation more rationally. I highly consider that anyone else do the same. Sarge Baldy 23:19, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages, so please take what I say as humble suggestions. For what I have seen, such discussions can sometimes be resolved by being somehow included in the article itself; do you think we could gather enough material to write a little "Labelling as terrorist crime" section, or something similar ? Rama 06:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a very reasonable suggestion, the section on debate could be expanded and broke up somehow. My only concern is that that might weight the article (Debate over the decision to drop the bombs is already the largest section) though I think that's justified by the obviously controversial nature of the topic. I could start something myself, though I can't say how long it would last given the political climate of this article. Sarge Baldy 12:47, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

It ill-behooves you to call all who disagree with you trolls or brainwashed. The "dying war" theory is disputed, to put it mildly. VV 23:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nice to see there's at least some discussion again. It's not particularly encouraging when discussion stops almost immediately after protection, and makes me leery of unprotecting just yet. Keep working, please, and we might just get this unprotected. --Michael Snow 18:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

After much thought and research into this subject, it seems to me that those most critical of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagisaki are western intelectuals and the best defense for the bombing comes from Japan. Why is that? TDC 21:31, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

First of all, Japan has been quite critic of this : the Hiroshima monument for Peace, and the Peace bell in fornt of the UN, are quite transparent, and the engagement of Japan against nuclear weapons is explicit as well. On the other hand, some people from all political horizons do somehow temper down the criticism : for the "left wing", it would be a display of rejection of the military State of Tojo and peace with the West and the World. For the "right wing", it would be some way of "forgiving it all", "all" including the crimes of the Japanese Army during the War ; a kind of trade, which is understandable under the light of the absence of a "Nurenberg of Asia". Rama 06:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think TDC is saying that on the whole Japan is pro-bombing, merely that the best scholarship defending the need for the A-bombs comes out of Japan. And there was a "Nuremberg of Asia". VV 06:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Correct, International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East. I was more commenting on the obscure choice as to whom would be prosecuted, and the rumours that some had special treatment from the USA in exchange for informations. See ] and Unit_731#Disbanding_and_end_of_World_War_II. Let's not let the subject drift too far, but it is difficult to deny that the role of the USA at the end of the Pacific war, and toward unconventional weapons, was ambiguous, to say the least. Thus it is not unreasonable to consider the idea that the nuclear strikes had, at least, a component of obscure motivations. Rama 11:46, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, the first part is wholly unsurprising, given the present state of Western "intellectuals". VV 21:44, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your two guys' simple mindedness is so funny, if you did not mirror so dramatically all the other idiots who make criminals rule your country I would start laughing. 213.23.142.192 01:31, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What a stunning rhetort! TDC 02:20, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, by the way, is it possible / polite to remove parts of the discussion which blatently reduce the signal/noise ration ? I would take the two previous entries as candidates... don't take this as a personal attack, I don't mean to be rude to anybody: I understand the debate could heat somehow, but on the other hand, humans are not optimised to to good job under pressure, and these remarks probably don't do justice to their authors. Rama 06:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, deleting others' comments tends to provoke reaction, especially if some feel they were more elided than others. Probably the best approach is to start a new section with a summary of the main remaining issues, and then archiving the discussions that clearly wind down. VV 06:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Trust me, nothing does me justice.TDC 07:02, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

an end to the gridlock

Since much has been brought up in the talk page, let us create a new temp article where we can create a new article (because thats what it is going to come down to) and revise discus it there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki_Temp

I would also like to add that most of the article is not in debate, just the justification portion. I think we should write a criticism section without dispersed retort and a justification section without dispersed retort. Both should be meticulously sourced when presenting controversial information (not opinions) and should be roughly equal length. I think 3 or 4 paragraphs would be more than enough but I could write 50 pages if need be. It will be as long or a short as it needs to be.

What say everyone? TDC 06:54, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the situation as so bad that we need to work with a temp page. As I understand it, the quibbles are just over a few sentences, not any large-scale issues involving the whole article. Snippets can be given in their entirety and examined on the Talk page. VV 07:00, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So when is the protection on this page going to be lifted?

—wwoods 02

12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ask Sarge Baldy if he's going to continue to insist that this should be listed as a "terrorist incident". VV 04:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's hardly why this page was locked, and I never started an editing war over the matter. It's clearly too radical an opinion for most people here, even just as a bookmark to those who consider it such. Of course I'll continue to insist on the categorization, as I don't change my opinion on any issue merely because other people disagree with it. However, I'll accept the majority say on the opinion. Edit wars are pointless in the sense they're simple thoughtless refutations ("Is so!" "Is not!" Is so!"...). The reason this page was locked was to debate the matters in question in a sensible and rational way. I'm not sure that's completely been the case so far. Sarge Baldy 05:01, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

But there is a point there : what issues go we need to agree a stance on ? Perhaps we can come to a vote, or better a more consensual way of solving the dabate. Since most of this page is already related to the debate over the bombing rather than to the facts themselves, why not consider a new "Nuclear bombings on Japan -- Controversy" page which would link to here ? We could have a section there about the question of wether the bombing qualifies as terrorism or not (or beter, to what extend is qualifies), and this would re-equilibrate the actual page (in the sense deplacing the center of gravity of the article to the facts). Besides, considering the arguments and references which have come forward in the discussion, I would consider the Controversy itself quite an interesting matter, which deserves its own entry -- I mean, if "Naboo" can have its entry, why not this ? Oh, and it's going to use the energy and urge to edit of some people in a more constructive manner ! ;) Rama 05:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Terrible idea. First, "subpages are considered harmful", and should be avoided unless this page is "full" (around or above 32K). Second, you'd be trading one protected page for another even more devicive, prepetually protected page. →Raul654 06:22, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

What about my suggestion as posted above, namely

I would also like to add that most of the article is not in debate, just the justification portion. I think we should write a criticism section without dispersed retort and a justification section without dispersed retort. Both should be meticulously sourced when presenting controversial information (not opinions) and should be roughly equal length. I think 3 or 4 paragraphs would be more than enough but I could write 50 pages if need be. It will be as long or a short as it needs to be. TDC 06:49, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

This topic is going to remain controversial however it's organized (unless you're considering critique be ignored completely, which seems very much a POV gesture). I don't see the need to leave out critical opinion, since obviously most critique is philosophical and can't be proven (e.g. Just War Theory) or something no one can come to a consensus on (e.g. a definition for terrorism). I'm not sure that a secondary page is a bad idea, though it should obviously wait until there's so much debate it imbalances the article as it is now. It seems pretty clear to me there's more than enough to do that. Sarge Baldy 06:49, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Terrorism

Today I read a newspaper article by Ronald Steel, Professor for International Relations at the University of Southern California, who in a critique of Michael Ignatieff's The Lesser Evil qualified the bombings as terrorism. Why do we not just write that some critics of the bombings call them terrorism? Get-back-world-respect 16:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to saying that some critics say that. It might be worth showing (thought not saying) that most such critics are ignorant of military history. FWIW, over across the spectrum, Pat Buchanan has called them terrorism as well. VV 22:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection

Okay, I'm giving unprotection a try. I would suggest that if disagreements crop up, people should promptly start discussing the issues here on the talk page (in other words, start talking with the first revert, not the tenth). --Michael Snow 18:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

becoming non-anonymous

How does one become non-anonymous on this site, I've been to the main page and whatever means exist to sign up, are not immediately obvious. On the subject of whether the dropping of the bombs should be classified as terrorism, it has been dismissed as opinion. I am unwilling to dismiss it so as such per se. Certainly it the dropping is just called terrorism, then it is mere opinion or name calling, however if a definition of terrorism is referenced and an argument made applying the terms of that definition to the facts, then it is not opinion, but an argument to be responded to on the merits.

We don't want wikipedia to have the dryness of a dictionary, but rather a cutting edge of the academic debate. If an argument is without merits, it will easily be debunked.

Just click "login or sign up" in the corner, give a username and a password, and an email address and click "Create User", I think it is. Something like that. --Golbez 06:42, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thanx, now I am no longer anonymous, I think, testing.--Silverback 07:04, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Historical justification and criticism vs revisionist justification and criticism

I propose that we have 4 sections of justification and criticism. Two that are documented historical thinking (contemporary at the time of the dropping and its immediate aftermath). And two that are the best of the current revisionist debate. Modern nihilistic reductionism finds both sides equally culpable. The bombing was a terrorist attack upon "innocent" civilians. Those civilians were treated as military assets by their government legitimizing them as military targets through the policy of conscription of men, women and children. The bombings themselves are nothing special vis'a'vis the other weapons of mass destruction that took a toll, firebombings and conscription--Silverback 08:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To the extent that there is a serious body of opinion that defends the bombings on the grounds that they killed civilians who were employed in war-related work, we can report that POV (properly attributed). The issue of whether the Japanese government acted wrongly in implementing conscription and/or in putting those civilians in those circumstances is out of place in this article. Therefore, I don't see any virtue in drawing an artificial line between "old" and "new" arguments. Of course, we can and should note that some of the debate was contemporary and that other issues have arisen since then. For example, supporters of the bombings have pointed to Japanese government documents, not publicly available at the time, that they say show that Japan would not have surrendered without the bombings. Opponents have pointed to declassified U.S. government documents, also not publicly available then, that they say show American motives as being strongly related to intimidating the USSR rather than ending the war. JamesMLane 04:14, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think whether those civilians were entitled to protective classification as civilians is relevant to the argument or controversy surrounding the bombings. Any opinion which can be rigorously and consistently defended and sheds light on the issues is valid, whether it is part of a "serious body" or not. The contemporary arguments are good to know but often they are poor justification for what was just a gut instinctual or intuitive decision. Their actions demonstrate that they knew that the civilian/military distinction had broken down, but that does not mean they could articulate or even understood why. It is left to postererity to try to understand why, and how it can be avoided in the future. Leaders who have already killed hundreds of thousands of their own innocent civilians by conscripting them and sending them to war, could easily lose any inhibition about also killing the "other side's" civilians. Modern reductive thinking has already dismissed the men, women, and children distinctions as mere ageism and sexism, although, admittedly it has not been able to strip the distinctions of their emotional content, especialling in the case of children. Revisionist thinking may look like 20/20 hindsight, but it is essential to extracting all we can learn from history. If we limited ourselves to contemporary thinking about WWI, we might learn that the US should never have enterred the war and that the treaty of Versaille was unfair, but we would not have learned that it should never have been fought and that all of the combantants would have been better off surrendering than fighting. --Silverback 04:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)