Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

War Crimes

This talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article's content, and not to express personal opinions on the rights and wrongs of the bombings Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wants to be brave, might it not change:'Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki' to read: 'War Crimes'? (P.S: Should interesting to consider the 'reasoning' of people that reject/attack this suggestion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.182.126.26 (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC) N We already have an article on that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC) War crimes in the sense of what? The Nanking Massacre, the Three Alls Policy in China, Bataan Death March, the eating of live prisoners, death railway, Unit 731, slavery etc etc etc. PS it's interesting to trying to understand the mentality of the apologists who portray the Japanese people as innocent victims. It's always been a mystery to me why they never targeted Tokyo? Took the head of the snake by killing Hirohito, Tojo et al along with the rest of the militaristic establishment. Instead the Yanks - against the wishes of Churchill and Stalin - made peace with the same administration that conducted the war. And so the legacy remains, Abe's own father was a minister in the wartime Japanese government. Could you imagine the furore if there was a Willy (Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler or Goering) as chancellor of a united Germany? Japan was never reconstructed after the war thanks to American short-term interests coming before long-term outlook. Thanks to that there is now a Japan where denial of its war crime is accepted. Nanking and the Comfort women never happened. Abe's denial that Japanese soldiers raped Korean women on an industrial scale and Right wing nationalists openly stating their racist views. Yet juxtapose these people and their views against those who proclaim Holocaust denial and you see the disparity. Apologists make me puke. Japan got what it deserved (and got off lightly in my book). "They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind".81.132.174.64 (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Nanking Massacre and Bataan Death March are nothing compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing. 50.174.10.195 (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Check out the international debate around this issue. While calling the US Atomic bombings of Japan a war crime might be considered a Point Of View, how can such an opinion be considered "personal"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.106.234 (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Question on Infobox inclusion

The question is whether UK inclusion in the infobox is based on contribution to nuclear bomb development (in which case one can argue that Canada should be included also) or on the decision(s) whether, when, and where to use said bombs? In the latter case (correct me if I am wrong) neither the UK nor Canada played a significant part--in which case neither should be included in the infobox...or tagged for responsibility for said bombing (as at least public understanding has it). Juan Riley (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Many countries were involved in the development of the atomic bomb (with particularly notable contributions from Denmark's Niels Bohr and Australia's Mark Oliphant), but only the US, UK and Canada participated in the control of the project through the Combined Policy Committee. The infobox is based partly on the latter case; the British involvement in the the decisions whether (under the Quebec Agreement atomic bombs could only be used with British approval), and where (Penney represented the British government on the target committee) to use the bombs, but also on the actual participation of the two British representatives in the atomic missions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info/answer. Juan Riley (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there documentation of actual UK consent per the Quebec Agreement? Juan Riley (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Catching up on some of this..sorry for silly questions. Yup they consented. Juan Riley (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

The article gives a figure of 1.25 million US casualties. This is in contrast to a different wikiepdia article World_War_II_casualties. At least a Citation Needed should be added to the 1.25 million casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.71.214 (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

N Already cited. I don't see any contraction with the other article either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Numbers dead

Before you start shooting me in the back, yes I know the words "at least" and estimation sentences were used, but it reads very strange to me that in the lead it says: "129.000 deaths" and that when reading further the deathtoll for just one city has an upper limit of 149.000, surely we should be able to paint a more clearer picture of the actual deathtoll no?