Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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 Wikipedia 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. [Japanese] English-language broadcasts used the word "ignore" and the Western press picked up that sentiment.

(From [1]). 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 Wikipedia" 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.". [2]

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[s] 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) [quotes from Victory]

... 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)

[terms of the Potsdam proclamation:] ... 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 [war industries] 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, ... [Hirohito] 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 [can] 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 [dismissive mokusatsu statement] 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 [members of the War Council] 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 [our] 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, [MacArthur's intelligence chief] 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 [six] 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 [the] 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 set 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, [the Emperor's principal adviser Koichi] 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". [3] I therefore ask for more comments on user conduct: Wikipedia: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 [[Le_Canard_Encha%EEn%E9]], which I am accustomed to... a serious reminder of triple-checking my sources it is ! Thank you !

Rama 23:45, 23 Aug 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." [6] (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 [[4]] 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/wiki/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)

The current statement goes too far, it states that some consider it one of the worst acts of terrorism in history. That statement should not be made without further clarification about who, why or what standard they use. There is a lot of historical commentary available that the Japanese did not consider them worse than the fire bombings of Tokyo for instance. Where do they rank compared to Stalin's purges or China's cultural revolution, the bombing of dreden, the rape of nanking, etc. Perhaps some of the terror of Genghis Kahn while not larger in absolute terms is larger in relative terms.--Silverback 16:02, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it too far to say "one of", personally I might not consider it necessarily the largest. However, I disagree with calling it one of the *worst* acts of terrorism in history, however, as that is blatantly POV against the various philosophies supporting acts of terrorism by presupposing that terrorism is necessarily bad (and I have just corrected this). Sarge Baldy 20:42, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

It might be one of the "best" acts of terrorism in history, if those who argue that it saved lives are correct. It is obvious that the US was hoping to win the war through the terror of the weapon. Those who used the weapon would not have had such high hopes for it, if it were to take out the same military targets precisely. If it was a defensible act, the leadership should have been willing to defend it and amend the appropriate international conventions, whether it is technically "terrorism" or not. The fact that they weren't willing to defend it, I think, points to the moral muck of the decision, because of the elements of terrorizing the Soviet Union and the vengence of unconditional surrender. Hardly noble causes, but then Gulf War one was supposedly noble, but left Saddam around with oil resources and an unimproved character. Perhaps noble isn't "right". --Silverback 22:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If the point was only to save lifes and end the war as soon as possible, then why not start negociations on a conditional basis ? Japan would probably have agreed to a conditional surrender, and the main condition it wanted to stick to was preservation of the Emperor (Japanese military could have been dismantled, those responsible for he war would have been arrested and tried, etc.). Additionally, the US eventually did not deposit the Emperor, so sticking to the inconditional surrender seems somewhat futile act. I would be interested to hear an explanation to this. But anyhow, presenting the bombing as an act of salvation seems really extreme to me -- especially with the bombing of Nagasaki. Rama 22:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Unconditional surrender" is useful shorthand, but the Allies' terms of the Potsdam Declaration[5] were more specific than that. Trouble was--even after Nagasaki--the Japanese military was still objecting to the terms you mention. After the experience of World War I, the Allies were determined not to repeat the mistake of stopping fighting before Germany (and also Japan this time) accepted that they had been defeated.

—wwoods 06:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I find it sad to see that so many years after the war so many are still unwilling to accept that this and many other bombings of civilians were outrageous atrocities that cannot be justified. Obvious alternatives like a demonstration at an uninhabitated area are completely ignored by those who cannot see what they are unwilling to see. The same happens with Vietnam, some are still unable to accept that horrible war crimes were committed on a large scale as is well documented although there are still attempts of cover-ups. Actions do not become more just if we ignore their flaws. Get-back-world-respect 13:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I find it sad that they CAN be justified, just as it is disappointing that "just war" theory is the best that can be come up with after 2000 years of Christianity, and a dictatorship loaded United Nations is considered a source of international authority. We need higher standards for justification. I can respect a sincerely held pacifism, but this idea of respecting illegimate authority such as a dictator's sovereignty is ugly.--Silverback 06:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The UN Security Council has five permanent members plus ten elected ones, and rarely do countries enter that can be called dictatorships. I think that keeping the WWII allies as permanent members is anachronistic and it should be possible to do something against vetos for selfish reasons that have nothing to do with justice. And it is a joke to have five countries as permanent members ruling about weapons inspections when these five countries have five of the biggest arsenals of weapons of mass destruction themselves and do not allow inspections. Even if a dictatorship entered the council, it is better to work with dictators than just let them do what they want. And in cases of ethnical cleansings or invasions of souvereign nations, is it not good to have a force that stops such crimes? Get-back-world-respect 14:02, 17 Oct 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)

I'm not suggesting we should limit the article to arguments that were made in 1945. The significant arguments should be presented -- those made at the time and those that nobody thought of then or that are based on information not available then. I just don't see the value in picking a date and saying that arguments made before that date go in one section and arguments made after it go elsewhere.

Civilians: This article can properly include the pro-bombing argument that the targets included industrial facilities of military importance, and the anti-bombing argument that the mass killing of civilians was wrongful. Whether the Japanese government should have conducted the war differently isn't at issue here, though.

You write: '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 issue isn't whether the opinion is valid but whether we're going to report it in the article, and if so at what level of detail. On that subject, current Wikipedia policy does not make the reporting dependent solely on whether some editors decide that the opinion can be rigorously and consistently defended, etc. Instead, the policy is:

Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

(The foregoing is from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#What is the neutral point of view?.) That's why it matters whether there's "a serious body of opinion". If one guy sitting alone at his computer puts up a website arguing that the bombings affected the Earth's orbit and caused global warming, but no one else agrees with him, then it just doesn't matter how rigorous his argument is. We have to draw the line somewhere. If it turns out 50 years from now that he was right, well, they can make fun of us on Slashdot about it. JamesMLane 05:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At least the policy gives some space to minority views. But you are wrong that if "no one else agrees with him, then it just doesn't matter how rigorous his argument is.", especially since your example was from a scientific field. The theory that global warming had a largely human cause had serious trouble with the high inverse correlation in the data between the warming and a non-human phenomena, comsic ray flux and solar sunspot activity. The then mainstream viewpoint, had to acknowlege the great uncertainty in their models and knowledge of cloud physics. The theories about the cause of ulcers had to yield when despite the mainstream opinion, it turns out bacteria could live in the high acid environment of the stomach. The peer review in a wiki philosophy "encyclopedia" has the potential to be more lively in its debate and more challenging of complacent assumptions. Laughing retrospectively after trillions of dollars of resources have been diverted and millions of lives have been lost in opportunity cost is a trajic and unjustifiable (although perhaps excusable) solution. Theories and facts that cannot be rejected, must be addressed, otherwise we fall prey to the errors of democracy and community. We may not be able to enforce this ideal in a wiki enviroment, but we can try to develop and encourage this as an element of the culture.--Silverback 05:44, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Current Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia is not a place for "peer review" with the purpose of lively debate that challenges current assumptions. Instead, it's to report significant facts. Of all the scientific theories out there now that almost no one believes, I'm sure at least a couple will be the accepted orthodox wisdom sometime in the future. Of all the political or other opinions that are now held only by a handful of people, who are derided as crackpots or whatever, I'm sure at least a couple will be widely accepted sometime in the future. For purposes of editing an encyclopedia in 2004, though, that doesn't matter. We're just reporting the views that have some significance in terms of their adherents. If you disagree with that approach, you're going to have to try to get Wikipedia policy changed. JamesMLane 06:00, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Historians

I do not see why we should mention certain historians in this text who do not have their own article and who are unknown to most readers. There are certainly "historians" who say that the World War was all the fault of the treaty of Versaille and the Jewish world conspiracy, that the holocaust never happened and that the concentrations camps were set up by the US and the Soviets for their German prisoners. However, I would get sick if I read in a wikipedia article: Many historians like EX-WHY-Zet point to the facts that the World War was all the fault of the treaty of Versaille ...

I think in the present case it is sufficient to present both views and to name only prominent individuals like those who ordered the acts, those who worked on the scientific project, the official view of the cities... If there was a prominent historian like Goldhagen who started a famous debate ok, but we should not single out university professors arbitrarily. Get-back-world-respect 12:22, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For the reasons I stated above, I agree with you that not every conceivable viewpoint deserves mention. (As for your examples, though, certainly there are plenty of reputable historians who point to the Treaty of Versailles as being at least part of the cause of World War II.) As for this article, I don't think that "having their own article" is the criterion. Gar Alperovitz is mentioned only in passing, but his book Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam was important in the debate, and he in fact deserves his own article, even though he doesn't have one yet. Is there anything now included that you think should be deleted? JamesMLane 15:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, done. Get-back-world-respect 23:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dare I even say it, but isn't this assertion of yours a shade eurocentric? Because you do not know of two relatively major Japanese historians, this means that they shold not be inlcuded in the article? What a load of horse shit.

Even though this is posted above, I will repost it for the visualy impared.

The Document in question about Tojo's order to execute all POW's is reprinted in its original Japanese in the following.

Japans Longest Day

Kazutoshi Hando

pg 183

If you do your fucking homework and read the source, assuming, that is, you can, you will se that it was written in Feb of 1944.

TDC 02:35, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I know it is useless, but I however tell you that your language is again inappropriate.

Rather than present us any argumentation why the historians you mentioned are particularly noteworthy you just start with polemics. That is not helpful.

Nor was it helpful to delete a source about the Hiroshima count of victims but replace the valid information with an unsourced claim I find difficult to trust.

Regarding your book, I am unwilling to try and find it. If there had been such an order and it had still been of importance there would for sure be material on it in the web. But what I find is information you are suppressing with your version, the fact that Tojo was not even in office any longer.

You have reverted three times, as you know you are not entitled to do it again, and it would lead to anoter protection. Get-back-world-respect 02:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is useless, so you can save your breath. TDC 08:14, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

They are noteworthy because their works are the most complete investigations into the Surrender of Japan. It took Hando and his colleagues 8 years of interview and sifting through documents and diaries to write their 1965 book. TDC 08:14, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

That was an unintended side effect of my revert.

Don’t they have libraries in Canada? Believe it or not, there is a great deal of information that is not on the web.

Oh well, I couldn’t have that, now could I. Your threats are as weak as your arguments. TDC 08:14, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Libraries in Canada? There's half a library, same as in the US --66.102.74.57 02:09, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here, this one is in English, so even you could read it.

Devil at My Heels : A Heroic Olympian's Astonishing Story of Survival as a Japanese POW in World War II by Louis Zamperini page 176

TDC 08:20, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

That what fits into your mind must be "the most complete investigations" is obvious. What if I claim that John Hersey's Hiroshima was the most complete investigation? Can I decide that? Is there more or less a consensus among Japanese historians as your statements make it seem?

I am not in Canada, nor do I even consider to go to a library because someone who does not know what neutrality is thinks he can present everything as a fact that he read in some book. You have not even commented on the fact that Tojo had resigned months before the bombings. Get-back-world-respect 16:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see, so my material is removed, because you are too lazy to verify it or take it at face value. Nice work ethic, you'll go far in life. Tojo's resignation is irrelevant, but I incorporated it anyway. His order was still standing in August 1945. TDC 16:58, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

So you complain about the work ethics of others while bluntly lying about the death toll? Do you think it makes sense that everyone dubious change shall stay until others have verified in books that are claimed to source them? If your overall behaviour did not destroy your credibility completely others might be more cooperative. Get-back-world-respect 17:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you blind, or just some kind of high functioning tard? I stated above that the revert in the casualty numbers an unintended side effect of my revert. I sourced it, with two sources, if you are too lazy to look into it, well TFB. TDC 17:29, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

With your version you deleted a link and restored the lie that the 237,062 include "everyone who was in the city when the bomb exploded who has since died". If it was by accident the first time, the second time you were warned. Get-back-world-respect 17:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At first I did it unintentionaly, but now I do it because I doubt the accuracy of your edits. Toodles. TDC 17:52, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

The link you deleted easily shows that your version includes the lie that all victims were counted. I therefore ask any administrators to make use of the rule that the protecting sysop may choose to protect the version favoured by those more closely complying with the guideline on repeated reverts. Including a lie deliberately is a severe violation of wikipedia rules. Get-back-world-respect 18:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please quit your whining to the admins and get back to the task at hand. You would not want me to put your award back up now would you?

Your link had little if anything to do with the casualties directly from the bombing and its radiological effects. The link currently in the article is from a pathological study of the long term effects from the bombing, not some BS political statement from the kumbaya choir. TDC 18:46, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

The rule is not to revert more than three times in 24 hours, and the rule is obviously not to delete important links and include obscene lies. If you misbehave do not blame me that administrators step in to stop you. The institute you linked to is interesting, and I have no comprehensive information about how Hiroshima counted all the victims. It is however obvious to everyone who can think that the number does not include every death since 1945, and your lie is explicitly refuted by the source I provided. Even if you were stupid enough to believe your own lie you would not be entitled to include it in the article until you presented any indication for it. Get-back-world-respect 05:51, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Military opinion

"Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. No American military leaders took expressed this position during the war, but several did in later years, among them U.S. General Douglas MacArthur, later President Dwight Eisenhower [6], Fleet Admiral William Leahy, and Admiral Ernest King, US Chief of Naval Operations."

Saying they didn't express that position is misleading, since it implies that they held it at the time, which is incorrect. MacArthur was gung-ho for his invasion to the end, Eisenhower was busy in Europe and didn't have an opinion, and the Navy people were shifting to opposing the invasion because they thought (probably correctly) that their program of blockade & bombardment would force Japan to surrender about as fast, with far less loss of American lives.

—wwoods 22

40, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's inaccurate to state that none of them expressed that opinion during the war. Eisenhower was consulted in July 1945 and advised against using the bomb for precisely this reason. [7] JamesMLane 01:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Took" is misleading. As you speculate yourself that Eisenhower "did not have an opinion", we simply cannot know the opinion of every single one of them. We can only know that none of them was known to have opposed the bombings. But as the new source indicates, even that is wrong? Get-back-world-respect 23:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

hibakusha

Look at your own link

[8]: "During Friday's ceremony officials added to the existing toll the names of 5,142 atomic bomb sufferers who died or were confirmed dead during the past year."[emph added] No reputable medical study would claim to know precisely how many people were affected, much less which, so that they could be named. It'd be '1000 ± 500 of the 5,000 who died in the last year' or some such.

With Google and a little arithmetic, you can follow this story back through the years

237,062 - 5142 -> 231,920 - 5050 -> 226,870 - 4977 -> 221,893 - 4757 -> 217,136 etc. Good luck finding a claim that all of these deaths were radiation-related. Since the youngest of the (first generation) hibakusha are 59, the annual death toll will increase for the next decade or so--which in itself'll tell you nothing about the long-term effects of the bombs.

—wwoods 08

53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No one says that the exact number of radiation-related deaths is known precisely. What is known precisely is the estimation of the city of Hiroshima of those who died of reasons related to the bombings. The statement that the 237.062 include everyone who died in Hiroshima since is an obscene lie, and it was easy to find a major news source that explicitly wrote that the added deaths were radiation related. Get-back-world-respect 16:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This one? "Hiroshima city added to a list - encased in a stone monument - 5,142 names of those who have died from cancer and other long-term ailments over the past year, raising the toll to 237,062, city official Niroaki Narukawa said."[9]

Note that (A) it's a city official being quoted, not a doctor or scientist; (B) it doesn't actually say "radiation related"; and (C) they add all the names, even though only a small fraction are excess deaths due to radiation. This isn't an "estimation of ... of those who died of reasons related to the bombings." Such an estimate could not possibly lead to a precise list of specfic individuals.

Here's a quote from the 2001 commemoration: "During the past year, 4,757 hibakusha died, whose names were stored under the Cenotaph for the A-bomb Victims, bringing the total number of hibakusha who passed away in the city to 221,893."[10]

Anybody else want to chime in on this before I revert the misstatement?

—wwoods 18:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apparently I missed some excitement. Digging into the history page I notice that Gbwr's "The statement that the 237.062 include everyone who died in Hiroshima since is an obscene lie." started out as "If you have any reliable source supporting your claim you may insert it again."[11] Well, conveniently I've already cited one: in 2000-2001, yeah-many people died and their names were added to the list. Q.E.D.

—wwoods 05:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The various links that have been cited should all be included in the article. Any reader who wants to dismiss one or more of them is free to do so. JamesMLane 22:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to chime in.

You may be correct when you stated that GBWR’s source claimed that the total number of deaths from the bombing were in excess of Hiroshima’s population at the time of the bombing. Hiroshima’s population at the time of the bombing was approximately 210,000 according to the Japanese census [12]. It is not clear if this figure includes Korean forced labor, and military personnel, but it does not indicate one way or the other. It should be noted that most census records were destroyed in the bombing, but the Manhattan Engineer District’s estimate accounts for population evacuated from the city prior to August 8th, 1945.

I would also like to dispute the given numbers of dead and injured for Hiroshima as well as Nagasaki by drawing on several sources.

A post bombing study performed by the Manhattan Engineer District in 1946, came up with the following information [13]

• Hiroshima
• Pre-raid population: 255,000
• Dead: 66,000 (dead immediately)
• Injured: 69,000 (most dead within 12 month)

• Nagasaki
• Pre-raid population: 195,000
• Dead: 39,000 (dead immediately)
• Injured: 25,000 (most dead within 12 month)

From Edward Pochin’s book , Nuclear Radiation: Risks and Benefits, Clarendon Press Oxford, 1983.

• Hiroshima
• Pre-raid population: 250,000
• Dead: 45,000 (dead immediately)
• Injured: 19,000 (dead within 4 month)

• Nagasaki
• Pre-raid population: 174,000
• Dead: 22,000 (dead immediately)
• Injured: 17,000 (dead within 4 month)

I have seen population estimates for Hiroshima that go all the way up to 400,000, but it is unclear where these numbers were drawn from.

I would also like to point out that GBWR’s source does not say that 237,062 died as a result of the bombings. It states that 237,062 is the total number on its monument. The number on the monument is made up of those individuals believed killed in the bombing, exposure to radiation, subsequent deaths of hibakusha (whose cause of death could not be linked to the bombings) as well as US POW’s who had been killed elsewhere in grisly experiments that the Japanese military apparently wanted to hide.

To my knowledge, the only medical study which has tracked the health of hibakusha, was the one linked in the prior vesrion of the article [14]. TDC 20:42, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

According to the UN commision on the after effects of the Hiroshima and Nagisaki bombings:

• Long term study of the survivors of the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed that high radiation exposures cause excess cancer in the exposed individuals. Till 1990, the Radiation Effects Research Foundation recorded 7827 cancer deaths in the survivor population of just over 86,000. Radiation exposure might have caused 421 excess cancers. Of the 17 types of cancers considered, survivors suffered excesses in 16; at lower radiation levels the risk of cancer has not been demonstrated. The cellular repair mechanisms play a role at all levelsA few `mavericks' believe that low level radiation exposure is beneficial to man. They assert that radiation safety professionals have a vested interest in arguing that radiation is risky at any level. They ignore the fact that the assumption of risk at low level radiation is advocated as a matter of abundant caution.

• Studies on 1600 children who were irradiated while they were in their mother's womb during the atomic bomb explosions in the two cities revealed that 30 of them suffered clinically severe mental retardation. Between 0 and 7 weeks post conception mental development was not affected. Between 8 and 15 weeks the sensitivity for mental retardation was maximum. This is possibly because neuronal proliferation and cell migration in the cortex is most active during this period. From 15 weeks to 25 weeks the incidence of metal retardation was clearly lower. In general, mental retardation was found to depend on radiation dose. There was no detectable threshold dose below which the effect was zero. But a threshold of 100 milligray cannot be ruled out. (milligray is a unit of radiation dose; the skin dose in some medical x-ray examinations can be as high as 1 milligray).

TDC 20:42, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

VeriVerily's usual policy to revert including important links and even typos is unacceptable.

—wwoods, A) Yes, the city is quoted, and the text says so. No reason to let the city's statement be followed by an obscene lie. B) out of "cancer and other long-term ailments" you make "not explicitly radiation related" and then conclude "everyone is counted". So everyone in Hiroshima dies of cancer and and other long-term ailments? Long-term car accidents? Long-term heart-attacks? Long-term murders? C) is completely unfounded.

As the provided article indicates, the estimate includes all bombing-related victims, also Americans. I could imagine that Hiroshima also counts those they believe to have died of radiation related causes even if they were born after the bombings, e.g. by sick mothers. And as you admit, you do not know the exact number of inhabitants of Hiroshima at the time of the bombing. Feel free to find out how Hiroshima came to the number, but do not dare to include your own sick phantasies in the article again as if they were factual. Get-back-world-respect 06:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

B) You said, "it was easy to find a major news source that explicitly wrote that the added deaths were radiation related." But in fact your article doesn't mention radiation at all. C) Find an example of a hibakusha who has died and not been included in the list.

You're missing the point of the list; it's not a list of people who have died as a result of the bomb, it's a list of 'atom-bomb victims' who have died, period.

It might help you control your rage if you kept track of who you're talking to, but TDC had a good point

I've got a figure of ~330k people in Hiroshima at the time; doesn't 237k/330k = ~70% seem implausibly high for bomb-related deaths? How much higher do you expect the final count to go?

As for your "sick phantasies", don't bother to project them on me; deal with them yourself.

—wwoods 07

37, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again: "Hiroshima city added to a list - encased in a stone monument - 5,142 names of those who have died from cancer and other long-term ailments over the past year". It is not my job to find a hibakusha who has died and not been included in the list. I have sourced my version. If you do not like it, you have to present a different and neutral version with a source if you want to include new facts. You cannot just use what you think is common sense and include it in the article. Get-back-world-respect 13:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You may have missed it, but I already provided a source: Here's a quote from the 2001 commemoration: "During the past year, 4,757 hibakusha died, whose names were stored under the Cenotaph for the A-bomb Victims, bringing the total number of hibakusha who passed away in the city to 221,893."[15]

My source did include the statement that only those who had died of bomb related causes were added. . One of the sources is not precise. This makes the case for a sentence like "The city of Hiroshima's list of bomb victims who have since died included 237,062 individuals in 2004" or so, it does not make the case for a statement like "The city of Hiroshima keeps a list of 237,062 individuals it ridiculously claims to have died of bomb related causes although it just includes everyone who was in the city at the time of the bombing and who since died." Get-back-world-respect 00:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For the last fucking time: no where does your source mention that ONLY those who had died of bomb related causes were added. TDC 17:10, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

They added to a list - encased in a stone monument - 5,142 names of those who have died from cancer and other long-term ailments over the past year" is much more a point for my version than "During the past year, 4,757 hibakusha died, whose names were stored under the Cenotaph for the A-bomb Victims" is for yours. Get-back-world-respect 22:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Simply reverting many more times than allowed while not even joining the debate is unacceptable. VeriVerily is a constant problem at wikipedia, cf. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily2 and his three current issues of arbitration. Please help to end this. Get-back-world-respect 07:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice way of dodging the debate.

One last time, the article is clearly states that not everyone whose name on the wall died as a direct or even indirect result of the bombing:

frome the article. US POW’s who had been killed elsewhere in grisly experiments that the Japanese military apparently wanted to hide.

Your source sucks, as do your numbers. They are both going to be removed, because I have better more well sourced numbers. TDC 16:58, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

I think everone involved in this debate should have a look at the following.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Get-back-world-respect

Statements of witnesses

To begin with what looks like an easy one: I assume that the multiple unexplained deletions of the "Statements of witnesses" link are simply by-products of blind reverts by people who don't like some other edit and can't be bothered to read what they're reverting. Given that no one has so much as mentioned the link on this page, and given that -- when I take the novel approach of actually looking at the site linked to -- I find that it contains useful information at a greater level of detail than is appropriate for the article (the exactly correct circumstance for an external link), I think it should be in the article. JamesMLane 03:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recent arguments over page protection

I have taken the liberty of moving these here, from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which I thought to be the wrong location for the debate. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki protect again, as the obscene lie is up again and I am unwilling to edit war. The Hiroshima estimate of deaths related to the bombing does NOT include everyone who died in Hiroshima since 1945, and the provided major news source supports this obvious fact. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily2 reverted the version an administrator evaluated as needing protection, then an anonymous user and then me altogether five times, not participating in the discussion at all and deleting several times a link that was not controversial. Get-back-world-respect 05:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - unprotect. Whether deserving protection or not, Sarge Baldy was way out of line protecting it, as he has been active and very controversial in editing and on the talk page, where he has even insulted users who disagree with him. He was asked on his Talk page to recuse himself but refused, and as part of protection he reverted to the version clearly more consistent with his own opinions. VV 23:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you cared to do a follow up on the issue, I responded to TDC in his talk page. TDC challenged the protection no more and began to work to establish NPOV in the article's talk page. The complaints as printed above are both unfounded and highly exaggerated, and I'd seriously recommend checking their validity against the talk page of the article in question. I also remain neutral on the issue in controversy but found protection highly necessary due to an edit war currently in progress and a request requested here by Get-back-world-respect. VV's primary complaint was my employing the three revert rule suggested by protection policy in a way that he disagreed with. I would at this point severely recommend someone look carefully over the current state and situation within that article before unprotecting it, although I see I am too late. A simple glance at the current activity on the article should make it perfectly clear that protection is needed, and I highly suggest that someone else take that course of action. Sarge Baldy 03:22, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

The question was not whether protection is needed but whether you should have recused yourself. You clearly should have, given your deep involvement in the article. Your enforcement of this somewhat uncertain policy is tainted with the appearance of partisanship, which is the main reason for having the policy. VV 05:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

TDC had inserted an obscene lie in the article and even admitted it. How else to react on an edit war of someone who "discusses" by calling others "retards"? Get-back-world-respect 05:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a bit surprised to see that TDC and VV are adding propaganda to other articles and starting edit wars again. I can name half a dozen articles that they are turning into right-wing propaganda through the simple technique of repeated reversion of changes and insertion of blatant POV statements. Any possibility of telling the troublemakers to go outside and play so that the adults can get some serious work done? Shorne 15:31, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My previous involvement in the page on completely unrelated issues weeks ago has very little to do with this current dispute. And could you please explain why you requested the page be unprotected if there was no question as to whether the page should be protected? Sarge Baldy 06:20, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Even the appearance of impropriety presents a problem, and there is no doubt from your past actions that you would like to exaggerate the awfulness of the bombings, as GBWR is doing. Yes, a page should be unlocked if it is improperly locked, regardless of whether locking it at all is a good idea. Especially if an admin is taking it on themselves to choose a version, as you did. VV 06:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So if "only", say, 160,000 died, that would make the bombings less awful? Is there anything more awful than disrespecting vicitims by deleting their statements? Get-back-world-respect 06:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it would be less awful than 230,000 dead. <GBWR-style demagoguery>You apparently find the deaths of 70,000 people wholly unworthy of note.</GBWR-style demagoguery> And quit with the red herring link issue. VeryVerily 07:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I categorized it as terrorism, which is not in any way an exaggeration, it's an alternative classification which I argued for as logically as I could in the talk page. Unlike GBWR, I am not and have never been involved in an edit war on that page or on any other page. You question my ability to maintain a NPOV, and yet there is very little evidence to suggest that I do not. "Past actions" includes nothing more than said classification and a perceived grude against you in a talk page. Having a page unprotected because a single user does not trust an administrator because of perceptions of friction and their overall political nature does not in my judgement constitute enough of a reason to unprotect a page that was handled following standard procedure. Sarge Baldy 06:55, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the word exaggerate is not quite the right one, but on a continuum between "incinerating two cities was an act of moral purity" and "we should have surrendered rather than risk harming a Japanese fly", you clearly have an opinion well outside the mainstream which you are willing to fight for. And yes I consider your comments to me on Talk to be aggressive and incredibly uncalled for, and furthermore a clear sign you should not be acting as an admin there. VeryVerily 07:58, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I find your comments hostile to me as well. A single user perceiving some sort of hostility in comments that no one else seems to feel are out of line, I would argue, is probably not the most logical reason to de-admin someone. Considering comments involving you listed here and here, as well as three requests for arbitration, I would ask you to consider to yourself whether it is coincidence that other users hold you in a similary low level of regard, or whether it is in some way a consequence of your behavior. Sarge Baldy 09:36, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

You now appear to me to be extremely dishonest. It was you who attacked me out of nowhere, you have no evidence that "no one else" feels your comments were out of line, and I never suggested de-admining anyone. The negative comments you note exist because I do much to defend the NPOV policy over those who push views on political articles, something which most users leave to others (to keep their own hands clean?). Now if you can see over your nose you might read your initial comment to me again and wonder how it might sound to others. VeryVerily 10:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's a clear difference in saying "no one seems to" and "no one else"; the former case as I used means no one else seems to have acknowledged any objection to my comments. I didn't "attack you out of nowhere", and if in my personal judgement I consider people who engage in edit wars to be "problem users" I don't think that makes me an exceptionally vicious or unusual user. I find your claims to uphold the values of a NPOV extremely laughable (in a literal, and not necessarily condemnable sense), in light of comments such as "I have no objection to saying that some critics say [that the bombings were acts of terrorism]. It might be worth showing (thought not saying) that most such critics are ignorant of military history." I don't regret anything in my initial discourse with you except that I called you a deliberate troll, I would now use the adjective subconscious. As for the de-adminning comment, it came from me misreading there as here, for which I apologize. Sarge Baldy 10:53, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

So it's just fine to call people "trolls" who have contributed far more to this project than you ever have and possibly ever will? You have shown how much worth your "personal judgement" really has. It is a curious feature of Wikipedia how often abusive users such as yourself are tolerated. (And of all people Kevin baas objected to your words.) VeryVerily 11:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Has Sarge Baldy broken the three revert rule even once for every ten times that VeryVerily did? Get-back-world-respect 13:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is that even remotely relevant to the conversation above? VeryVerily 01:31, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As you claimed to have contributed far more to this project than he I just wanted to remind everyone of your usual kind of contribution. Get-back-world-respect 22:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where does the 237 thousand debate, now stand?

I read the link that apparently supports the 237+ thousand figure, and it appears to be a political attempt to let everyone that dies be a "victim", since it names particular victims. Most of the recent deaths could be defended as "associated" with the atomic bomb, only to the extent that the death of someone who shook Trumans hand, and died 40 years later, could be "associated" with Truman. If the language "associated" is to be used in the article, then it must be highly qualified so that all implications of causality are explicitly denied. The other link to a site showing the proportion of deaths that statistics indicate are excess deaths is far more scientifically credible. Hopefully, this community won't allow this scientifically illiterate figure into the article without proper qualification. Perhaps language like, "Since with particular deaths are excess deaths attributable to the bombings is impossible to determine, the city of Hiroshima has chosen to memorialize all deaths."--Silverback 22:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The news source I cited clearly has no political agenda as you suggest. It is just not clear from the sources we have up to now what you claim. Get-back-world-respect 22:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is not the news "source" that has the agenda they are probably correctly reporting what they were told, it is the Hiroshima politicians, that don't want to pick and choose whose name goes on the memorial. It is like the agent Orange controversy here in the US, there are some small percentage of excess cancer deaths that must be due to the exposure, but what politician is going to look the family of the victim in the eyes and say that the odds are your relative would have gotten cancer anyway.--Silverback 22:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Read the paragraph carefully, they are clearly adding all cancer and long term ailment victims to the list, only a small percentage of these could be correctly a part of the "toll". "toll" is a loaded term and probably should not be used with this figure. It looks to me like they may be making SOME discrimination among the deaths, such as not including auto accident victims, the people who manage the memorial are choosing not to discriminate further.--Silverback 22:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I take it to be a list of "atom-bomb victims" who have died--of whatever cause. Of course, most of them did die as the direct or indirect effect of the bomb. The other hibakusha on the list are also 'victims' of the bomb, having suffered materially, medically, psychologically, and/or socially--it just didn't cause their deaths. Properly characterized, the 237k number belongs in the article--it's the sort of thing some people will be wanting to look up. However, we don't want to mislead them as to its meaning.

—wwoods 07:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You "take it to be" is something slightly different from "you are entitled to present it as the truth in the article". Also, nothing in the article indicates that they are "clearly adding all cancer and long term ailment victims to the list". You can also "take it to mean" they only add those believed to have died of long-term effects of the radiation. As long as we are not sure about how they come to the number we should write that, e.g. "In 2004, the city of Hiroshima listed 237.062 atom bomb victims at the Cenotaph". 213.23.141.19 21:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Given that there is no way to tell which are the effects of the radiation and which aren't, this is quote from the article is pretty clear "Hiroshima city added to a list - encased in a stone monument - 5,142 names of those who have died from cancer and other long-term ailments over the past year, raising the toll to 237,062, city official Niroaki Narukawa said." In most cancer's the percentage of excess deaths is small. Even in leukemia where the percentage is significant, there is still no way to tell which particular deaths are due to the radiation exposure. Why try to inflate the figure and risk the credibility of the article. Even without the inflation it is one of the largest single acts of terror in history, unless one counts the decisions to initiate a compaign of terror as a single act, even though the duration of that decisions effects was much longer.--Silverback 23:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Report by The Manhattan Engineer District

THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI by The Manhattan Engineer District, June 29, 1946. http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext96/abomb10.txt

This might be a nice link to mention. Where are we on the page protection front ? Rama 17:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection lifted

The debate has focussed on the phrase about the number of victims that I tried to reword neutrally. The two other debated changes were

1. Professors

Shall we mention specific university professors' view of the bombing? If so, which ones and why? I see no reason to mention any, so I deleted them. Get-back-world-respect 19:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wiki policy is pretty clear that weasel words should be avoided when possible. In this case, I have mentioned the sources, and that is why the names should stay. TDC 17:25, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean with weasel words, but you fail to show consensus about specific university professors' view of the bombing needing to be singled out. Get-back-world-respect 22:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

weasel word, click on the link.

2. Tojo order

There still is no source for the order, nor is it documented in how far the order of a resigned General was still relevant. I therefore oppose the wording "people point at (that order to show that the bombing was necessary)". Get-back-world-respect 19:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have provided several sources for this. If that is not enough for you then TFB. TDC 00:06, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

TFB? Any source other than some book only you have stated to trust? Get-back-world-respect 01:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Two sources, one bieng a prime source of the order. I think it is clear that I have made my case. TDC 17:31, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Is the book footnoted, perhaps giving the source of the document and the location of the original? That would give it more credibility. What about the 100,000? Was the order intended to apply to all the POWs including those overseas or just those on the main islands in Japan? -- thanx, --Silverback 20:24, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Which second source? Where? How can it be verified? Would you answer Silverback? And wait with editing until we have consensus? Thanks. Get-back-world-respect 22:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The sources ... again .... for the third and last time .... : ( and please at least pretend to pay attention to the discussion of if you are going to continue to be such an obstinate twat)

Japans Longest Day: The Pacific War Research Society

pg 183-196

Devil at My Heels : A Heroic Olympian's Astonishing Story of Survival as a

Japanese POW in World War II

by Louis Zamperini

page 176

The first is a prime source with footnotes on the document, the second a corroborating source. TDC 21:58, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I see no reason to doubt your word on this, and wiki policy requires the assumption of good faith and the Pacific War Research Society sounds authoritative. I searched for your mention of the documents, but must have used the wrong search strategy, apologies. I was assuming they would be near the statement about the order. Given the length of the discussion, and poor quality of our search tools, I hope you don't mind, if I ask another possibly redundant question. What is the purpose of presenting the order, unless it can be shown that American authorities knew of it (is there also evidence of that?) it can't be used as justification of their decision. However, of course, it may be post hoc confirmation that the American leadership assessment of or fears about the character of the Japanese leadership and militaristic culture were correct. They had plenty of other evidence to allow them to justify their conclusions.--Silverback 22:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If this order existed in order to mention it we would also need to know that it was still relevant so long after Tojo's resignation. Get-back-world-respect 21:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That would be difficult to establish, given the post war self interest of those who would have been knowledgable. I see no problem with using the order, post hoc. We would know more about it however, if the US leadership had any knowledge of it at the time the decision was made. While the order was a violation of international law, was it an immoral order in Japanese culture of the time? I know they had little respect for people who surrendered, so perhaps there would have been no hesitation to execute it even after Tojo was gone. Were the Japanese signatories to the international treaties involved? If they weren't, and if the order was not immoral in their eyes, then of course it could not justify the use of the atomic bombs in their eyes either.

I think it is a disservice to international morality to focus so much on the dropping of these bombs. After all the other demoralizing decisions world leadership had made during the war, such as the millions of innocent civilians conscripted to their deaths, the bombs are small potatoes, and although there were possible alternatives that would have saved more lives, a reasonable argument can be made that they did. If the US leadership is to be criticised because they should have become immoral only as a last resort, then they had already crossed that line long before these bombs. Having done these things, it should be no surprise that they also lacked the honor to submit themselves to international law, plead no contest and accept their just execution. At least these weasels were able to produce a fairly cogent spin, that has left the verdict of history up in the air. I don't think the rape of Nanking has faired quite as well in retrospect.--Silverback 00:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The first source I cited is the prime source. The second is one individuals account of his POW experiecne in which he had been reminded shortly before war's end, June 1945 to be precise, that he and all his fellow POW's were slated for speedy execution if there was an invasion. TDC 03:30, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Silverback, think "Two evils do not make on good". I really find that the "it is a disservice to international morality to focus so much on the dropping of these bombs" is clumsy; it reminds me the time when a far-right wing History professor of mine stated that he would not tell us about the Nazi extermination camps because he though they were "spoken about quite enough". I do not mean to imply anything about Silverback himself (especialy since he makes his point quite clear that he's not subject to this kind of bias later in his post). I would like to caution everybody not to be carried out to concepts like "morality", especially when one comes to evoke "morality" to discard the importance of law, or historical facts. "Morality" is a relative concept. Facts and law ar not (law is actually designed not to be). Most of the ideals we stand for (scientific truth, democracy,...) stand without need for morality, because they can rely on facts and laws alone. Only dictatorships are obsessed by morality by opposition to laws and facts (the Taliban regime, Franco's Spain, Nazi Germany, ...) ; when morality starts to cloud facts and laws in a democracy, people can start to be very worried. Rama 06:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We've got a start Rama if we can agree that "Two evils do not make on good". That undermines the justification for conscription and even net-lives-saved goverment programs during peace time such as the regulation of drugs by the Food and Drug Administration, etc. While the concept and purpose of law can be elegant in theory, the reality can be quite different and that difference can undermine respect for the law. Demoocracy and law are not intrinsically stable systems and there must be shared values to sustain them. Law is prone to erosive precedents that spread like viruses, reducing constitutions and legal principles to nihilism. Courts defer to majority sentiment too often. Legislatures pass laws that they know there are not the resources to enforce. Not only is there selectively in which laws get enforced, there is further selective in who they get enforced against. International law, that only gets enforced against the loses of wars is one example. International sanctions that pile up without enforcement is another erosion of the law. Law that protects corruption and hides its workings, such as the stonewalling in the Oil for Food program, and sealed court cases erodes the law. Law requires open proceedings, shared values and intellectual honesty, in other words, "morality". Or it will not be respected, otherwise it is just a tool of those in power, that provides the illusion of legitimacy. Democracy without constraining law, values and respect for others is just a tool of the mob or those who can manipulate it. I hope we can progress from "Two evils do not make on good" to also agree that "Two morally neutral social tools, democracy and law, also do not make a good".--Silverback 08:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While there is consensus about the fact that the Nazis committed horrible war crimes that under no circumstances can ever be allowed to happen again, there is still reluctance to face the fact that the response was immoral and in some cases illegal as well. In order to draw conclusions about how to deal best with crimes as those committed by the Nazis one most discuss the failures in history. If you can add relevant information about the Rape of Nanking you are invited to do so. Whether you "see no problem with using the Tojo order, post hoc." is irrelevant. What we need to know is whether it was still valid. Get-back-world-respect 10:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why is it relevant whether it was still valid? US decision makers apparently didn't know about it when they make the atomic bomb decision, it use here, would be as a demonstration of the Japanese military character at that time. Even if there was a tradition of standing orders expiring when the order giver is changed, or after 6 weeks or whatever, it still serves as a negative character reference. The onus on those who wish to rehabilitate Japanese WWII character, would be to find that the order was opposed at the time within the Japanese hierarchy on either moral or legal grounds. Just saying, after it had been in effect for many months, that since Tojo was no longer in charge, so subordinates would have checked up the management chain before executing, or some such, does not decrease its relevance, since its relevance is in the post hoc analysis of whether the pre-decision judgements made on uncertain facts, were in retrospect a fairly good assessment of the character of the Japanese. The actual pre-decision assessment was probably extrapolated from other experience during the war. BTW, don't assume that the Nazis were the only immoral acts during the war. United States conscription, fire bombings and aid to the its Russian ally which was also conscripting wasting lives as if they were toilet paper, were also reprehensible. The NAZI crimes don't justify US and Russian offenses against their own innocent civilians.--Silverback 11:15, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we are getting a bit off topic here. Tojo issued the order, that is sourced. Louis Zamperini confirms that the order still stood until he was freed from his POW camp after the war. What’s the argument here? TDC 21:50, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

On a side note, Silverback, I fail to see how conscription has anything to do with morality? TDC 21:52, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Then you obviously have no problem justifying an attack upon a civilian population with the intent of influencing its support for its government (terrorism), because that is what conscription is. Conscription takes away a government's moral authority to protest terrorist attacks against its civilian population, because it has claimed them as military assets making them legitimate military targets. Conscription is also torture, with sleep and food deprivation, physical and verbal abuse, conditioning to follow orders and desensitization to killing. In the United States it also violates the liberty clause of the Pledge of Allegiance. Ask yourself, if you have just been conscripted, which government is the most immediate threat to your freedom. Conscription is based on the nationalist premise that nations own individuals and have rights that supercede the individual. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, women and children were conscripted to work in factories, do you defend the "right" of that government to do that, or do you just reserve that "right", just for governments you like, or perhaps just democracies, reserving dictatorial perogitives for the dictatorship of the majority or plurality? Other than the fact that it is slavery, terrorism, torture, and legitimizes enemy terrorist attacks, I have no moral problems with it either. Why give up the best argument yet for justifying the atomic bomb attacks, that they are the responsibility of the Japanese government, which had used the Japanese people like military property? You must be one of those "reporting for duty" types, that think only subjects not governments must obey laws and respect individual rights.--Silverback 03:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You do make an interesting point, I suppose I never really looked into the civilian industrial conscription. TDC 16:58, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

I oppose basing encyclopedia articles on the statements of obviously not neutral individual prisoners. Unless we get sources everyone can verify of experts stating that the order was still in force I see no reason to change the current wording of this issue. Get-back-world-respect 00:27, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

TDC should not have to scan the document. You are violating the assumption of good faith. Do you have any reason to doubt that the Japanese government was capable of such an order?--Silverback 03:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a reference to Tojo, but the Japanese were known to be capable of giving and carrying out such orders. From Richard Frank's Downfall (1995) , p. 161

  When the tide of war turned, Japan began to move POWs from regions likely to be retaken by the Allies to Japan or the Asian continent. But when the Japanese shipped POWs, they did so in unmarked vessels without notice, so when Allied airmen and submariners destroyed Japanese shipping, they sank also thousands of POWs. By Japanese count, 10,800 POWs died out of 50,000 transported.

  By 1945, the war had already turned up ample evidence that the Japanese would kill any prisoners if there was threat of liberation. [Examples of atrocities: Gilbert Islands, Ballale, Wake Island, Palawan]

  Nearly to a man, Allied POWs believed that Japanese would kill them if the Homeland was invaded. Surviving written documentation to support this belief is limited but highly suggestive, as Daws records

At Taihoku on Formosa, an entry in the Japanese headquarters journal recorded extreme measures to be taken against POWs in urgent situations: Whether they are destroyed individually or in groups, or however it is done, with mass bombing, poisonous smoke, poisons, drowning, decapitation, or what, dispose of the prisoners as the situation dictates. In any case, it is the aim not to allow the escape of a single one, to annihilate them all, and not to leave any traces.[Gavan Daws, Prisoners of the Japanese (1994)]

—wwoods 19

17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(By the way, it seems to me that this page needs archiving. Is moving it to Talk:Atomic.../Archive_[date] the right way to do that?)

Thanks Wwoods. I hope this settles this. TDC 16:45, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I shall assume the good faith of someone who told other users "suck your own dick" and who wrote that "only limp-dicked historians" doubt the legitimacy of the atomic bombings of hundreds of thousands of civilians, but on the other hand I shall assume bad faith of the Japanese because "Allied POWs believed that Japanese would kill them"? What do you think did Axis POWs believe about how they would be treated? I can easily find you books claiming that the real concentration camps were those built by the US close to the Rhine were hundreds of thousands were starved to death. Would you assume good faith? Get-back-world-respect 00:39, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Allied POW's were told, not just believed, they were going to be killed if an invasion took place. And I hardly see how a food shortage in post war Europe is comparable to the Battan death march. TDC 03:57, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

"They were told" and "it was ordered" are two different things.

The claim is not about a "food shortage" but about US forces deliberately letting POWs starve. I do not make that claim, I just use it as an example to show that it is easy to find books that make all sorts of claims. Get-back-world-respect 01:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have not seen the vulgar comments. Why are you characterizing the evidence as just the beliefs of POWs. Have I misunderstood what the Pacific War Research Society document is? I thought it was a copy of the order itself. Is it a copy of something else?--Silverback 07:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vulgar comments: [16], [17].

Here, TDC argued: "Louis Zamperini confirms that the order still stood until he was freed from his POW camp after the war." Get-back-world-respect 23:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did not mean that I doubted the vulgar comments existed, but just that I had not been aware of them in any of my previous posts. Once you mentioned them, I assumed they existed. --Silverback 06:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is that all you got? No repudiation of my source, which of course you cannot repudiate, just another lame personal attack? I see the sharks circling. TDC 03:57, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

You may or may not know that quoting another user is not a personal attack. Get-back-world-respect 01:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about this wording:

Allied POW's believed that they all, numbering over 100,000, would be executed at the first sign of an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Some POWs had been explicity told this by their captors. Japanese atrocities, known at the time, lent credence to this fear. Years later, the Pacific War Research Society published evidence that Tojo had given such an order.

Note that I do not address the issue of whether it was still in effect or not, but state only that it had been given.--Silverback 06:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that allied POWs believed this in general. "Japanese atrocities, known at the time, lent credence to this fear." is about as neutral as "the unprecedented atrocity of the nuclear bombings would have made such a vengeance understandable". The question whether Tojo's order was still valid is critical here. Mentioning that he had resigned months ago is the least we have to do for the sake of neutrality. Get-back-world-respect 01:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Get-back, the current language seems fair in terms of the resignation. However, unless the Japanese military practice is radically different, the order should be assumed in effect until rescinded. Commanders are changed or killed often during war, soldeirs continue doing their duty, guards don't abandon their posts during a change in command because they aren't under orders any more, supply ships don't pause and drift waiting for new orders, etc.--Silverback 01:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If someone gave an order and later resigns you cannot just say that there was an order without mentioning that the one who had given it had resigned long ago. Get-back-world-respect 00:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So, I suppose every law and executive order signed by a POTUS is stricken from the books after he leaves office? You lost, we all gave you a chance, but you flubbed. I, for one, think that the concensus is to include my version. Thanks for coming out though. TDC 05:03, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

As to whether decisions of a U.S. President continue in effect after he leaves office, some do and some don't. If something goes through the public comment period and other requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and is formally promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations, then it's a valid regulation until rescinded, regardless of who's President. Was there a Japanese equivalent of CFR? If so, give us the citation to the written and published direction that all prisoners be killed. If not, drop the analogy. We should report the fact that Tojo was no longer in office. Any reader who chooses to dismiss that fact as totally immaterial to the effect of the order is free to do so. There's substantial grounds for considering the fact relevant to that effect, though. There's also substantial grounds for considering the effect of the order to be irrelevant to the decison to drop the bomb, given that the U.S. decisionmakers didn't know about the order, and given that the serious arguments against the bombing don't say that the U.S. should instead have launched an amphibious invasion. The serious arguments are that other courses of action (waiting for the Soviet entry, offering less-than-unconditional surrender, dropping a demonstration bomb instead of taking out a city) would have obviated the invasion. JamesMLane 08:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where specifically does the dispute currently stand? Is TDC proposing language stronger than the current language in the article? Is Get-back-world-respect proposing removal of the current language? Apologies, I have just lost track of where we are. While, US decision makers lacked direct knowledge of the order, it is an after the fact confirmation that a policy and character they suspected and feared also had an explicit official existance and fit overall into their view of the costs of an invasion, and the extremes the Japanese military culture would go to, and the leadership's unwillingness to admit defeat and their likely determination to come back from anything short of defeat. Whether or not the Japanese agreed with international standards for the conducting of war and the treatment of prisoners, they certainly knew what those western standards were, and what the likely consequences would be if they were defeated. The order is confirmatory evidence within this fabric. Although, I don't see that it needs much more than its current language and real estate. Perhaps a less qualified statement than "supporters claim" is justified, based on documentary evidence that TDC has reported.--Silverback 09:47, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am ok with the current wording that I had suggested. Both Silverback and JamesMLane seem to agree, however, TDC tells me "You lost". I have to admit that you lost me here. Get-back-world-respect 01:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The sentence now is

"Supporters also claim that Allied POW's, numbering over 100,000, would have been executed at the first sign of an invasion of the Japanese mainland because General Tojo had ordered this before his resignation as premier in July of 1944."

This clearly improves neutrality as it leaves open the question we cannot answer whether the order was still valid so long after Tojo's resignation. Get-back-world-respect 23:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uh, no .... I think the consensus was that my version is the correct one. TDC 05:56, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Since the order is agreed to exist, TDC is correct in "point"ing to it. According to the order, all the POWs were to be executed at the first sign of an invasion. Get-back-world-respect believes the order might not have been considered still in effect after Tojo's resignation. However, TDC's version mentions the resignation and does not comment on whether it was still in effect or likely to be followed. I think Get-back-world-respect is trying to use "claim" to qualify the wrong phrase, he is wanting to qualify a phrase or sentence that is not in TDC's version. I think what he is getting at would be TDC's version with this sentence added: "Supporters claim that this order was still in effect and likely to be followed." perhaps followed by "Opponents claim the order might have been null and void following the resignation." I think TDC's version gives the resignation information and makes no claim about whether or not the order would still be in effect. In fact we don't know for sure whether it would have been or not, although standing military orders like this should probably be considered in effect unless explicitly rescinded or replaced, or in conflict with a more recent order. TDC's version, which just gives the facts and makes no statement about whether it will still in effect, seems a good compromise.--Silverback 07:08, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"To point to" gives the impression that the order can be used as an important argument. The new version is more neutral as it leaves the question open that we cannot answer. Get-back-world-respect 12:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Silverback asked above "Is the book footnoted, perhaps giving the source of the document and the location of the original? That would give it more credibility. What about the 100,000? Was the order intended to apply to all the POWs including those overseas or just those on the main islands in Japan? ... "What is the purpose of presenting the order, unless it can be shown that American authorities knew of it?" JamesMLane asked: "Was there a Japanese equivalent of CFR? If so, give us the citation to the written and published direction that all prisoners be killed." All this remains unanswered. Get-back-world-respect 12:36, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)