Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 11

message: A few things I’ve noticed, mostly seem to possible typos or minor mistakes but I’d rather post something here first:
1) In the ‘Manhattan Project’ section: “Over 3½ years of direct U.S. involvement in World War II, approximately 400,000 American lives had been lost, roughly half of them incurred in the war against Japan.”
In the ‘Debate over bombings, Support, Preferable to invasion ’ section: “Total U.S. combat deaths on all fronts in World War II in nearly four years of war was 292,000”
These two statements are contradictory – they appear to be giving two very different values for the WW2 U.S.A. combat deaths. If they each refer to deaths in different theatres/across different time periods etc then this should be clarified, otherwise the figures should be amended to the best sourced and most widely recognised value.
:Good point Mathew White is always a good source for such things: National Death Tolls for the Second World War: USA. The White source explains the differences. This article should cite him and his sources --Philip Baird Shearer 19:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Wikipedia article is a horse designed by a committee so the result is often a camel. The trouble is that there are conflicting points of view not only between Wikipedia editors but also among the experts. For example "Soviets had plans to invade Hokkaido" well yes they did but the US armed forces had contingency plans to invade Britain during the inter war years. If you look at the discussion pages, there is a debate about if a successful invasion was feasible, (given that the Soviets had relatively little experience of such operations). "The terrible ifs accumulate", given that any plans to invade were secret for obvious operational reasons, did the Japanese consider this when discussing surrender, I don't know, does anyone know? If they did not discuss it did thinking along this line influence their opinions? All we can do here is report what historians have published and try to present a coherent NPOV. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions within article? 

message: In an attempt to explain how difficult it is to arrive at a reliable figure for casualties of these two bombings, the article offers three reasons, one of which is "the pressure to either exaggerate or minimize the numbers, depending upon political agenda." I appreciate this attempt at being dispassionate when discussing such a horrific event in human history, because it seems to be an honest approach. But, while an emotionally detached perspective is probably the best one, I ask sincerely, would such a comment be acceptable in other, similarly controversial articles? For example, is there empirical data that proves that six million Jews were killed in The Holocaust? It's a good question, but it would incite a heated debate if it was even implied in that article. It seems that in any such horrific event, the number of casualties could be exaggerated or minimized, depending on political agenda. So I ask, why is this statement acceptable here, if it wouldn't be acceptable in other articles? Or should a statement like this be included in other articles as well? Follow the links I've included here and think about it. Comme le Lapin 00:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point. --Timtak 14:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement could be used in the other articles that you link to, if there are credible secondary sources that address the issue of political agendas with regard to numbers of casualties.  That's a valied issue if the sources support its discussion. Cla68 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How much honesty is acceptable here?

message: I took the liberty of putting SierraSkier's comment in a seperate section, with this title based in particular upon SierraSkier's use of complicitous - 'being an accomplice; partnership or involvement in wrongdoing.' 
My great uncle was killed by the Japanese in Okinawa.  I talked to my father a bit about this talk page and the discussion of whether or not dropping the bomb was "moral."  My father had grown up in a close family, and at age 12 my father lost an important person in his life, and our family lost a great man.  I think it is "immoral" to question the decision to drop the bomb without making a careful effort to put yourself into the mindset of the times.  In Tahoe I tell people it is not fair to judge the loggers who clearcut the Tahoe Basin based on our current scientific knowledge.  There are several on this page who are making that mistake.  It is a gross mistake.  Maybe dropping the bomb was immoral.  My grandfather grew old without his brother because he was killed by the Japanese.  That was definitely immoral.  Think about that sense of loss, compounded hundreds of thousands of times and you may begin to understand the nations feelings towards war and the Japanese when those bombs were dropped.  Now the dead are statistics and most WWII vets are gone, most in that generation are gone, so there is no one around to communicate the sense of loss and desparation when the chapelins knocked on doors in towns across the country, or worse, the telegraph was sent to a new widow.  My great uncle died because the Japanese attacked this country first. The fact of the matter is that no government can survive without the support of the people.  The Japanese people supported their leaders and supported their war effort.  That makes them complicitous in killing Americans and guilty of killing by grandfathers brother.  It just may be the American people had lost their sense of humor with the whole thing.  Justified?  To my family, it was quite justified and to thousands of other families, quite justified.  SierraSkier 03:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the bombs were justified as a form of punishment? Today, both Japan and the US enforce capital punishment, and not only as a means of detterent, but also because it is felt that the punishment is just in that it sometimes matches particularly heinous crimes. My first objection to this line of reasoning is that there were children involved. Were they also complicitous? --Timtak 06:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bombings as just punishment for Japanese Crimes

message: Is true people of Hiroshima/Nakasaki develop cancer until today in result of air radiation?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  201.79.48.192  (talk • contribs)  05:54, 15 May 2007  (UTC)
: Several hundred people died of radiation-caused cancer between 1950 and 1990. Presumably such cases are still occurring.
:—wwoods 17:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is difficult to tell but they are given free or reduced rate treatment and checkups.--Timtak 05:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today 

message: Is there any historical record of the longest lving survivor of the Hiroshima blast who was the closest to the physical blast? (Closest to the explosion area) Someone mentioned an elderly Buddhist monk somehwhere. Can anyone suggest a website or book which elaborates this?--Redblossom 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close Proximity Blast Survivors? 

message: are you kidding? the Japanese Empire was "suspicious of western imperialism"? I think we can safely change that to "the west" and lose the connotation there, given the circumstances. I'd have done it myself, but some fag has protected the page. Cheers. 69.143.136.139 22:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be civil please.  Many historians believe that the subjugation or forced trade agreements with China, the Philippines, Indochina, the Dutch West Indies, and many of the Pacific islands by "western" countries (U.S., UK, Netherlands, France, Germany, etc) before World War II constitutes "imperialism."  Sure, it's a POV word, but how POV is it, really? Cla68 00:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As "POV" is boolean, and the tolerance policy for POV ness is approximately "zero", a non-zero POVness constitutes reason for the verbiage being loosened a little. It would be equally silly to suggest that somebody who calls an editor on wikipedia a fag is themselves upset about the lack of civility. It's pointless to mention, redundant, and stupid. Thanks for trying, though. 69.143.136.139 03:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with  "western imperialism," and do not think that it needs to be changed. The Japan was suspicious that the west was being imperialistic. Makes sense to me. But on the other hand, I think that if it is generally considered POV, the article would not suffer if it was changed to simply The West.  N i g h t F a l c o n 9  0 9  0 9' T a l k 13:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Civility is expected of all wikipedia editors and if you're aware of that but still refuse to abide by it, you should also be aware people are liable to ignore uncivil people. In any case, these kinds of things are difficult. The key factor her is we are talking about the Japanese POV. Contrary to what 69 seems to think, NPOV doesn't mean we should remove POV, on the contrary the whole article is full of POV. NPOV simply requires we present competing POVs in a fair and neutral manner. In this instance, I think western imperialism is better then the west. The simply fact is, Japan were scared of Western imperialism not the west per se. Whether western imperialism actually existed is not really relevant to the point Nil Einne 06:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's entirely silly. Was the British Empire concerned about the "imperialism" of other empires? To state that an empire is afraid of (or suspicious of) imperialism of somebody else is redundant and unnecessary. Is a criminal worried about the criminal activities of another criminal, or the activities? The connotation of "imperialism" is not sterile; it comes with a [[787]-sized hold of baggage. The person who authored that statement knew it, and included it suchly. Conversely, the article is not harmed by removing it. As such, I am removing it. 69.143.136.139 22:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, you know, I would, if it weren't protected. Way to preserve the status quo and point of view. This is why I don't sign up for an account. The politics of the Wales Machine make me sick. 69.143.136.139 22:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to stay calm. The reason the page is protected is so that people like you don't go changing things that aren't the general consensus of the editors here. I don't think that imperialism is used unfairly, and unless the majority here do, it stays.  N i g h t F a l c o n 9  0 9  0 9' T a l k 01:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Consensus is not truth!!  It is mob rule. Witches were burned, negroes were lynched, and millions of jews were exterminated by popular consensus. So let's not pull the consensus card. I wasn't making a significant change to the page, I was making a simple, discussed change to the page. I'd really like it if the text was removed by somebody with an account. Nobody has presented a good reason for it to be there, and I have presented a complaint about it being there. And good god, man, trim your signature. 69.143.136.139 00:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not a democracy. In this case, mob rule among editors rules. If people decide that imperialism is POV, then they can put in their word here. Otherwise, it stays. Or you can take it to some admin or to WP:RFAR.  N i g h t F a l c o n 9  0 9  0 9' T a l k 01:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think what we are trying to say is that the Japanese resented the west for being faster off the mark in the imperial land grab and saw its sphere of imperial influence being eroded by the imperial aspirations of the other imperial states of the time. As for imperial aspirations being pov - it would probably have been justified prior to 1914 but by this time that age of empire building by the west had long gone. --LiamE 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "suspicious of western imperialism" hits a fault line between historical American and British points of view. The Americans did not (and do not) consider their actions were imperialistic and viewed their contribution to WWII as one of anti-imperialism, but they did see Britain's motives as imperialistic for example an American joke was that SEAC really stood for "Save England's Asian Colonies." Britain under Churchill was imperialistic, ("if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years...") but under Attlee's government (during the last few months of the war and beyond) those views changed under the combined weight of political philosophy (it is difficult to be a democratic socialist and an imperialist) and pragmatism (no cash in the piggy bank to stand up to the USA views on this issue even if they wanted to). --Philip Baird Shearer 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well thanks. I was under the impression that Britain had already began to give independence to its former empire by the 1940's but obviously I must be mistaken. Canada, Australia and New Zealand must still have been under government from London. And of course US empire building. How could I have missed that. I must have thought that empire building and trying to spread and preserve democracy were 2 diferent things. How naive of me. Please enlighten me further as to  territories added to western empires between 1914 and 1940 so I don't make the same mistakes again. --LiamE 22:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, exactly, is the point of the preceding comment? What does it have to do with the article? America has bases all over the world to force people to behave themselves, because they won't do it by themselves and no one else will stand up and make them do it. Those bases are in conquered areas, (Germany--they really behaved themselves, huh?) countries that rely on America for their protection, (South Korea) and on land that is legally leased (Guantanamo Naval Base). Regardless, modern day America-bashing has less than nothing to do with what the article is discussing, and as such it has absolutely no place in either the article or the talk page. It is especially out of place when one considers how isolationist and xenophobic America was in the late 30s/early 40s. So just take it somewhere else. There are plenty of forums available to you across the internet where you can express your feelings on the subject. Primium mobile 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "western imperialism"