Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

U.S. warplanes air-dropped 1 million warning leaflets into Hiroshima, Nagasaki

On Aug. 1, 1945, five days before the nuclear bomb was released on Hiroshima, U.S. warplanes air-dropped 1 million warning leaflets into Hiroshima, Nagasaki and some other cities, advising the residents of the city to flee from coming destruction (c.f. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008604.html). However, the government policy in Japan at the time was such that if anyone was caught possessing American "propaganda" material, he would be prosecuted as a traitor. The warning on those leaflets was therefore unknown to most of the residents in those cities.

The above was reverted : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&action=historysubmit&diff=426332998&oldid=426307493

However, Alan Levine writes: I was mildly surprised to hear that no one except Tom S. seemed to have heard of the fact that leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities before they were firebombed. This was mentioned in the AAF official history, Volume 5, published in 1953; and before that, in Vern Haugland's "The AAF Against Japan" published by Harper in 1948. I happen to own a copy of the latter and ran over to look it up--he dates the first leaflets to late July. I seem to recall that most books on the B-29 campaign mention it somewhere or other. The Williams article seemed design to play up the role of psychological warfare in the surrender of Japan. It really had little role. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008604.html

So it sounds serious enough and worth mentioning. Teofilo talk 22:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no3/article07.html seems to be a reliable enough source. Teofilo talk 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This has come around before. (Search archives for "leaflets".) The article does say

"Although the U.S. had previously dropped leaflets warning civilians of air raids on 35 Japanese cities, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki,[38] the residents of Hiroshima were given no notice of the atomic bomb.[39][40][41]"

File:Firebombing leaflet.jpg has the names of Japanese cities on it.

—WWoods (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I called LA songs' edit a factual error. It should have been an irrelevant information. The leaflet may have delivered to Hiroshima but it had nothing to do with the atomic bombs. Hiroshima is 広島/廣島 and Nagasaki is 長崎 in ja. They are not printed on the leaflet. See this too. Oda Mari (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"There is some duplication on three known versions of this bomb warning leaflet though Hiroshima, Kokura and Nagasaki are not among the major cities mentioned. Richard Hubert, Chief of OWI Saipan outpost said in a handwritten note that warning leaflets were delivered specifically to Hiroshima and Nagasaki but we have found no record of such a leaflet unless it was placed on leaflet 2106A. " SGM Herbert A. Friedman says in http://www.psywarrior.com/OWI60YrsLater2.html . So even the "including Hiroshima and Nagasaki" part is doutbful. Teofilo talk 10:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Oda Mari. Even if it clearly stated Hiroshima, it cannot be an excuse of mass destruction, because it was virtually unable to evacuate from there for all civilians. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a website that has not been peer-reviewed by historians, so it isn't a RS (even if it is a good one as far as private sites go). But leaflet-dropping would not be an 'excuse' for using the bomb - it was to end the war. Everyone but the militarists in the Japanese Empire wanted to put an end to the war ASAP. Nobody wanted to have to mount an invasion of the home islands with the known amount of death and destruction that would bring to the Allies and to the people of Japan. War is a terrible thing - but the dropping of the bomb - horrific as it was - was technically for the greater good. Hiroshima should have been enough, but the warlords of Japan refused to surrender. So unfortunately, a second bomb was used to shake the psyches of the authorities. It saved at least a million lives, if not more, on the Japanese side and the least estimates of Allied casualties are somewhere around 250,000. There was no good solution to this. Just be glad that war is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Front side of OWI (Office of War Information) notice #2106, dubbed the "LeMay bombing leaflet," which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning:

"Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately."

(See Richard S. R. Hubert, "The OWI Saipan Operation," Official Report to US Information Service, Washington, DC 1946.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Ham book

I don't know quite how well regarded Paul Ham is in this field but from the sounds of his interview on ABC TV about his new book on the bombings, he might have some new information that could be relevant for this article as well as supporting source material for some of the views contained already. Video and Transcript of interview --Senor Freebie (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 December 2011

The photo of the crew of the Enola Gay is not an accurate one. I have much better ones I would be willing to share. I am personally acquainted with the crew - the tail-gunner George Robert "Bob" Caron is my uncle. The only crew member still alive, who can vouch for me and what I know is Theodore "Dutch" Van Kirk. WesternLady (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked the current image's caption to correctly tell the reader that it shows Paul Tibbets and five ground crew. The guy looking down is Theodore Van Kirk who was in the flight crew.

If you want to share your image you are welcome to do so. I can give you pointers on the process if you are unfamiliar. If you have digitized the photo and it is stored on your computer, the place to start is here at the Wikimedia Commons upload page. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Category Requests

(irrelevant of the ethical debate, and regardless of the fact that the Empire of Japan's rapidly diminishing power projection radius the bombings were the definitive event, (and this is in noooo way an endorsement of the decision to drop the bobs). The neutral, historical fact is: the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the definitive singular event that marks both the abrupt end of Japan as a historical, multinational geo-political Empire and it's beginning as modern single constitutional nation-state and an "Empire" only in the loosest semantic and ceremonial sense.

108.107.116.15 (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Moi

Or maybe I am just off the mark on this one?

The article is filled with trivia, thus hiding the main fact

The main fact that this was a crime against humanity, not to mention a warcrime. This very true fact is not once written in the entire several page article which primary focuses on the history of the bombing and reason for it... Another clear proof that Wikipedia is controlled by Americans. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What edits do you suggest be made? Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Someone should add link to United States War Crimes in see also section or somewhere. It may be reverted soon though.143.167.244.100 (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What body has ruled it a war crime? Wikipedia requires reliable sources. (Hohum ^@) 22:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The article quite clearly already states that the japanese courts consider it a war crime. As do plenty of scholars. There is not even a section discussing this when it is an important issue concerning modern wmd law and nuclear issues. This article is suspiciously sanitised. 87.194.26.132 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

At some point all discussion about war crimes was bumped to Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#The_bombings_as_war_crimes, even if its just a sentence this section should be linked from here, and preferably a better summary of the debate article written up. 87.194.26.132 (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not sanitized at all. There is at least one section on it with a link to the longer article. The difficulty is that correctly representing the major sides in the debate (and it is a debate — there is no consensus on it) with any depth constitutes a very long article in its own right. It's not perfect as is, but I think the assertion that it is sanitized or trying to hide anything is not fair. It is trying to be neutral. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a court decision in Japan, referenced in the article, that ruled that the bombings were a war crime. The court accepted that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets, as were all the soldiers and factory workers in them. It then went on to invoke the Hague Convention's ban on bombarding undefended cities. Although the cities were in fact defended by aircraft, troops and antiaircraft guns; but the court felt that the damage was the same as if the cities were undefended, and therefore violated the prohibition on bombarding undefended cities. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"War crime" and "terrorist" are labels that are difficult, if not impossible, to make stick on Wikipedia. For example, go over to Irish Republican Army and do a text search for "terror". Nope, not there. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Sōran Bushi (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Historical facts

I came to the page looking for this specific information, which could only be found in the "Little Boy" entry: "The Hiroshima bombing was the second artificial nuclear explosion in history, after the Trinity test, and the first uranium-based detonation". I wanted to check there was only one test before, on American soil, and then they deployed the two bombs right away like that.

I suggest this to be added in the first paragraph, after the related information of the explosions being the first in war, etc. Also, please include the fact that Nagasaki was #3. - 187.20.68.95 (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does discuss the Trinity test, and it does discuss the fissile material used in all three explosions (see Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Manhattan_Project) . I'm not sure I see the compelling need to have it spelled out in bar-room trivia style in the intro — to me those sort of "firsts" and "thirds" and etc. are best done in the articles about the specific bombs, not the overview article. I think there's enough trivia in it as it is. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The dates

They should put side to side dates for each of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.29.121 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)