Talk:Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Father George Benedict Zabelka renounce or denounce?
"The bombers' chaplain, Father George Benedict Zabelka, would later renounce the bombings after visiting Nagasaki with two fellow chaplains."

I think this is meant to say "denounce."

Alternatives
I could think of many alternatives to the bombings, most obviously a demo for the enemy brass on an uninhabited island near Japan, for example. Could an expert on this topic here add a paragraph why just conventional war and nuking cities were considered?

Note 45 is weak, here's a better one
The source to General LeMay's quote on why he ordered systematic bombing in the section 'Part of Total War' is not incorrect, but it's just some plaintext website with no proper citation. The origin is from LeMay's autobiography 'Mission with LeMay; my story' published in 1965, page 384. A scan of the book can be read in its entirety by registering for free on the Internet Archive here: https://archive.org/details/missionwithlemay00lema/page/n13/mode/2up 46.123.254.89 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

General Marshall
On this page (and the one for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in general) there is a general marshall mentioned with not further information about who this is or what his relation to these events was. There is a page for him on wiki, George Marshall, and it isn't linked in either of these articles, I found it via google. Just a heads up. I don't have the time or experience editing to do this myself. 217.180.219.210 (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That is the one. Senorangel (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

missing
What's missing from this article is discussion of the war crimes the Japanese were committing in all territories that they entered. Revisionist history would have us believe that the U.S. hit Japan w/ two A-bombs without provocation. Japan does not acknowledge its own role leading up to the use of atomic weapons. They do not acknowledge that the Japanese Imperial Army beheaded, raped and mass-murdered millions of people. So was the a-bomb justified? I think it depends on who you ask. If you ask someone who was brutalized by the Japanese during the war, the answer would be an unequivocal "yes." 47.138.93.44 (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Liddle Hart
Sir B. H. Liddell Hart argued against it in his History of World War II..one of the greatest military historians of the 20th century..simply put the Japanese were ready to surrender...we believed the propaganda we were and are still being fed as the Japanese believed what they were being told..thats why civilians were committing suicide..they were told Americans were cannibals...war production had ceased..the urban population were running into the mountains to get away from conventual bombing..the extreme militaristic faction had been dismissed from the inner circles of government...that they were a week away from surrendering..the US dropped the bombs to justify the expense to congress and prove to the Russians we had it..the belief that the Japanese were going to fight to the last man on the beachs with broomsticks was pure fantasy Anonymous8206 (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Liddell Hart had little access to the Japanese records. War production, what was left of it, continued and the Japanese military certainly had made plans to arm civilians with bamboo spears, etc. Whether or not the civilians would have fought or not is an open question...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nevertherless it begs the question..virtually everyone in America at least when I was growing up..was told the Japanese were universally fanatically, that civilians would fight to the bitter end..in reality they were running away and committing suicide when cornered...if there is one thing I`ve learned in this life is that people are basically all the same..I personally believe most Americans at the time believed the propaganda they were being fed without question and those today who even think about it never think to question it...it would have been illogical for the Japanese to continue fighing..it was obvious they were losing and there had to have been people there who saw it..I`m guessing the average person there wanted no part of the war that by the end they were just trying to survive..it`s what I would have been worried about Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that culture plays more of a role in people's actions than you're willing to credit. And don't forget that the Imperial Japanese Army was supposed to enforce civilian attacks at the point of a gun. I'd suggest that you give D. M. Giangreco's Hell to Pay a try for a more modern take on the subject.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)-
 * Which has nothing to do with the bomb..the only possible excuse would be to ask why the nazis held on to the end...I believe Hart..his analysis was objective not political..the war was over..the emperor was ready to give up and the people would have gone along with it as soon as he went public..it was politics nothing more Anonymous8206 (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that you would do well to read more deeply into the subject. Liddell Hart's book doesn't cover this topic well enough for you to form a quality judgement, IMO, not least because this isn't what the book is primarily about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That may be true..but it would have been illogical for Japan to continue the war..the belief that the Japanese people were universally fanatical was a racial stereotype perpetrated by propaganda to this day and will probably never change because history is written by the victors..I don`t know why I always questioned it anymore then I believed Squanto just happened to speak perfect English by chance when the pilgrims arrived in Plymouth..it just never made sense to me that there was any reason whatsoever that they would continue fighting when they were obviously beaten Anonymous8206 (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)