Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 4

message: I think the current statistics relating to subsequent tolls on the population due to radiation sickness are relatively low.  It is well-documented that many tens of thousands died from complications of radiation sickness between 1945-1950. 1 2 3 There are many more references available, though they can be somewhat difficult to find (as with many WWII-era casualty statistics).  --Xaliqen 06:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties due to Radiation Sickness 

message: I have just seen a documentary on the bombs and both a plane observer and a Japanese appear saying that the explosion produced very beautiful changing colors, red, yellow, blue,...
In the black & white photos it is not visible obviously.
Can you confirm and explain it?
--Error 01:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can confirm that the American bombers reported similar things. To my knowledge no color footage of the bombing was shot. There are a few color shots of the Trinity test, but it is hard to tell how the colors changed over time. The changing colors were likely from the ionization of different particles, or something along those lines. Most of the footage of nuclear tests later did not have such colors (in my opinion of them) except for the ones done in the upper atmosphere. However the ones done on the ground were not done over a city so I don't know how much that would have changed things; the other crucial difference may have been the bombs themselves -- by the time they were filming them in color their innards had changed fairly substantially. But this is just speculation on my part. --Fastfission 02:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: In the weeks following the atomic attacks on Japan almost 60 years ago, and then for decades afterward, the United States engaged in airtight suppression of all film shot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the bombings. This included footage shot by U.S. military crews and Japanese newsreel teams. In addition, for many years all but a handful of newspaper photographs were seized or prohibited. The public did not see any of the newsreel footage for 25 years, and the U.S. military film remained hidden for nearly four decades. Six weeks ago, E&P broke the story that articles written by famed Chicago Daily News war correspondent George Weller about the effects of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki were finally published, in Japan, almost six decades after they had been spiked by U.S. officials. This drew national attention, but suppressing film footage shot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was even more significant, as this country rushed into the nuclear age with its citizens having neither a true understanding of the effects of the bomb on human beings, nor why the atomic attacks drew condemnation around the world.  The color U.S. military footage would remain hidden until the early 1980s, and has never been fully aired. It rests today at the National Archives in College Park, Md., in the form of 90,000 feet of raw footage labeled #342 USAF. --Richard@lbrc.org 13:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Colors

message: The article states that when the bombs were dropped America had suffered "about a million casualties", this contradicts the World War Two Casualties by country page of Wikipedia that places American casualties at 413,000. I was under the impression that this was the correct figure and that it is more common to say that American casualties were about half a million rather than a million. Unless anyone has evidence to support that American casualties were closer to a million than half a million then I think this should be changed.
User:Benson85 [ID added]
:There's confusion between fatalities (killed) and casualties (killed, wounded, etc.) going on.
* "Of the 405,399 Americans that lost their lives during World War II, there were 78,976 Missing in Action. Of ..." http://www.abmc.gov/abmc45.htm
* 290k KIA + 115k non-battle deaths http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm (various sources)
* 292k Combat deaths + 115k Other deaths + 671k Wounded = 1,078k Total  http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm
* 406k Military killed + 672k Military wounded http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500550_761563737_-1_1/World_War_II_Casualties_1939%E2%80%9345.html
* 292k Battle deaths + 115k Deaths from other causes + 671k Wounds(Not mortal) + 139k Captured or missing http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_16.html#DATA
* 291,557 Battle Deaths                                                                       + 113,842 Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater) + 671,846	Non-mortal Woundings http://www.va.gov/pressrel/amwars01.htm
* web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/WCPRINCIPAL.pdf has the same numbers 
: So "about a million" is a good number, for casualties
: —wwoods 00:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess "casualties" in this context will be almost uniformly interpreted as "killed", so using the larger number in the absence of further explanation looks rather pointless to me. Changing it back. --213.54.224.185 15:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just change it to "war dead" then? --Fastfission 16:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American casualties 

message: Some questions regarding the "leaflets":
* wouldn't it be better if it was called pamphlet?
* where have the leaflets been dropped - in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where a big part of people already have been killed?
* in which language were these leaflets written? The article suggests English, but I don't think so.
* the article says the leaflets where "dropped"... how where they dropped? By an airplane?
Thanks, --Abdull 22:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They were dropped by plane in the weeks leading up to the bombings. They were written in Japanese by US army translators. Arkady Rose 03:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaflets /pamphlets 

message: I would like to take the time to point out some of my thoughts on the misconceptions on the use of the term unconditional surrender.  The Potsdam Proclmation clearly calls for the "unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces" which was changed from the Cairo Declarations for the call of the unconditional surrender of Japan. Here's an exerpt from Kazutoshi Hando, The Pacific War Research Society, Japan's Longest Day (Tokyo: Kodansha International, Ltd., 1968).
:The first man in the government to react positively to the San Francisco broadcast was the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Shunichi Matsumoto. He advised Togo that Japan must accept the terms as stated, that to reject them would be the height of folly, and he had, in fact, already begun to compose a draft of the Japanese acceptance, to be sent to Japan's ministers in Switzerland and Sweden and from there to be conveyed to the enemy, when Togo came into the room where he was working.
:"Wait," said the Foreign Minister, "it's not going to be as easy as that." His voice sounded immeasurably sad, as though he was speaking from some lonely height where he felt far from certain of being heard. "The Army will never accept the Proclamation as it stands."
:But, Togo felt, the fact that the Allies had softened their first demand in the Cairo Declaration for "the unconditional surrender of Japan" to "the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces" suggested that more favorable terms, or at least a more favorable expression of the same terms, might be forthcoming, which the Army could accept and still save face. He conduded, therefore, that before replying, Japan ought to make one final effort to use Soviet "good offices.
:[snip, further down the book]
:At ten-thirty on the morning of July 27th the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War met to discuss the Potsdam Proclamation and the possibility of Soviet mediation. This Supreme War Council--or "inner Cabinet"--consisted of Japan's Big Six: the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of War, the Minister of the Navy, and the chiefs of the General Staffs of both the Army and the Navy. At the meeting Togo emphasized the importance of the shift from the unconditional surrender of Japan to the unconditional surrender of the armed forces and declared that he felt it would be "extremely impolitic" to reject the Proclamation. He was able, against considerable opposition, to persuade the Supreme Council to withhold the Japanese reply until after they had heard again from Moscow.
So what I'm trying to say is that the allies didn't call for the unconditional surrender of Japan.  The allies weakened their stance and merely asked for the army to lay down their weapons and give up.  Eventually, the Japanese would surrender under these terms, I would ask people what would have been better terms(leave the army intact or with a conditional surrender??).  I believe that the call for the unconditional surrender of the armed forces is one of the weakest forms of using the term unconditional surrender(well it would be weaker if you left off unconditional, but what would that condition be???)
I would like to also note Japan's response to mokusatsu the new terms which can be interpreted that they had no intention to surrender(atleast from an outsider's position).  And I would like to note that Japan surrendered on the terms dictated in the Potsdam Proclamation, no change to the sentence containing the term unconditional surrender was ever merited.  Moreover, I would like to talk about the fixation on a conditional surrender, there was no change in the terms of surrender.   I just think the talk about the surrender with the fixation on "unconditional surrender" does not completely illustrate the situation right before the bombs were dropped(but does show the earlier stance).  I would hope this web page would work to clear up some misconceptions: the "condition" of surrender, and the debate of the term "unconditional surrender"...  If there is a statement about the call for unconditional surrender(and there is), I would hope that the webpage would atleast recognize that the terms changed with the Potsdam Proclamation(they weakened).  If people want to find faults with the Potsdam Declaration, I would suggest looking at the war criminials clause.  The Doves did not want to see the emperor harmed. A snip from America's response to Japan surrendering with a "condition".
:...
:"With regard to the Japanese Government's message accepting the
terms of the Potsdam proclamation but containing the statement,
'with the understanding that the said declaration does not
comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His
Majesty as a sovereign ruler,' our position is as follows:
:"From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and
the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to
the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such
steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms.
:...
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.11.155.156 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 8 August 2005  (UTC)
Hey 71.11.! Please sign your entries in the future, even if you do not have a username (although of course getting one would be even better) with -- ~~~~. Also, new entries to debates should be listed at the bottom of a page, not the top. -- AlexR 14:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconceptions on term unconditional surrender and a "conditional" surrender

message: Regarding this "the postwar constitution is the reason for the pacifism, not the bomb". Of course, the postwar constitution adopted pacifism, but no doubt the experience of the bombing contributed to pacifism. For example, take from 
"Still, on the 60th anniversary of the world's first atomic bomb attack, some members of the aging and dwindling population of survivors expressed worries that Japan was shedding its postwar pacifism. The survivors, whose suffering had long made them Japan's most eloquent advocates for pacifism, said recent policy changes inside Japan had made them deeply pessimistic."
You do agree that the intro should, if briefly, mention about pacifism and Japan's postwar nuclear policy. -- Taku 23:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
:I liked the wording better before you changed it.  Your source does not even seem to call the bomb the root of Japan's pacifism.  I would say that their defeat and the constitution has lead to Japan's pacifism(even more articles than article 9 or whatever contributes to Japan's pacifism).  I don't care much for polls either.  I would just lessen the wording of root cause and use a more vague terminology such as contributed significantly.  Furthermore, the statement is an opinion and not a fact, so it seems a little too "definitive". --71.11.155.156 08:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacifism 

message: sentence from article
"r the realization that the destruction of Hiroshima was from a nuclear weapon, the civilian leadership gained more and more traction in its argument that Japan had to concede defeat and accept the terms of the Yalta Proclamation"
That sentence should read the Potsdam Proclamation, please change it back and then delete this discussion paragraph thnk...  I don't know why people think the terms were made at Yalta...  The only terms for Japan were the Cairo Declaration/Proclamation and the Potsdam proclamation --71.11.155.156 13:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms of Surrender incorrect 

message: ""Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated"
Should include the statement that this survey assumes that the fire-bombing and conventional bombing of Japanese cities continues until the nov/dec dates.  The statement is VERY misleading without this statement.
--71.11.155.156 13:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another misleading quote 

message: First off, the link The Fire Still Burns:  An interview with historian Gar Alperovitz requires registration.
An article by him at NCSEA makes some strong claims such as
: "Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it." (attributed to J. Samuel Walker)
If this is the case then surely the Wikipedia article can be severely simplified. The claims are sufficiently bold, the language differing too much from expected style for me not to inquire on the veracity of it.
Moreover, his article claims that
: Similarly, a top-secret April 1946 War Department study, Use of Atomic Bomb on Japan, declassified during the 1970's but brought to broad public attention only in 1989, found that "the Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army Group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulate to the Allies."
conflicts with the Wikipedia article that states
: Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and this cabinet was dominated by militarists from the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Navy, all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal.
Some questions:
* How accepted are the views of this historian?
* How can the conflicting statements be amended?
:I'll answer the moreover part...
:I don't see the huge conflicting statements.  Well the SWC/big-6 were dominated by militarists but the cabinet was not(well according to Butow, I have yet to read everything about the cabinet)[big-6 were split 3-3, always].  Notice the Japanese leaders trying to convince the Army group, that implies that the army group holds the power...  The army and navy/other hawks were opposed to the surrender(and even the "condition") right up until the time the emperor spoke his will. The statement "all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal"  may be your problem, I believe that wording is referring to the "militarists" or "die-hard Army Group"...  On second reading, the term peace deal is vague...  The militarist would have probably agreed with some sort of cease-fire agreement, maybe... I would change that to "opposed to any form of surrendering", or something similiar...  unless you interpret initially at an earlier date then I do... --71.11.155.156 18:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia-article states that militarists dominated the cabinet, but it is not clear if domination was from within the cabinet or as pressure from the outside. Particularly the part about unanimous implies domination from within, or at least those having a right to vote on the issue. I am actually more confused now than when I first asked the question. -- 85.164.76.75 10:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I don't know every point of view of the entire cabinet, so I can't say dominated in terms of numbers, but power, yes...  The military fanatics were in the cabinet, and 3 of them were of the big-6/SWC.  The cabinet did need a unanimous vote on the decision [to surrender] though.  But I do believe the fanatical military leaders  were the leaders with real power, they could veto any action that they did not like.  Only the emperor's will made them change their point of view[well actually only vote for surrender with a "condition", a coup eventually happened].  I don't think they dominated in numbers, but they did always disagree on the terms, so nothing was done. Here's some cliff notes from Japan's Longest Day that might help you understand http://www.warbirdforum.com/end.htm --71.11.155.156 12:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Other than Japan's longest day, I believe Japan's Decision to Surrender by Robert J. C. Butow, might also be a good read if you're interested.  I've seen quotes from this book in papers, but I have yet to read it. --71.11.155.156 12:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims by Gar Alperovitz 

message: I know that there were 165 people who were victims/survivors (not sure which) of both bombs, and 9 who closely experienced and survided both. After the bombing of Hiroshima some people left that city and went to Nagasaki, where they were subsequently hit. Some information on this most interesting situation would be great. -Unsigned  130.102.42.97
:I don't find it very interesting. Rather morbid, I'd say. --pippo2001 02:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say this qualifies as trivia.  If there are other trivia items perhaps such a section could be added. StuRat 01:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A survivor of both bombs