Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:05, 18 December 2013

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

One of the better-known battles of World War II. Recently shepherded through GA, so here it is at ACR. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments This important article is looking very good - great work. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• The first section on the Pacific War seems a bit under-developed. I'd suggest that this set out how bad the war situation was for Japan, as well as the increasing ferocity of the fighting (which I think is what you were getting at with the very interesting material on the US casualties)
• "The policy of bypassing Japanese forces was abandoned" - this is probably too broad, and isn't fully supported by the source (which is mainly an appreciation from Australian General Blamey - in which he recommends continuing to contain Rabaul). It also states that the goal of destroying all the Japanese forces in the Philippines was to enable the islands to be used to mount the invasion of Japan, and not to free up troops per-se (as I understand it, the goals were actually essentially political as MacArthur and other US policymakers felt a need to complete the liberation of the islands, even when this wasn't militarily necessary. The Borneo campaign seems to have been mainly conceived as a way of keeping the Commonwealth forces in the Pacific busy in the short run, and to provide resources in case the war dragged on for several more years).
  • Y Removed this. I don't think that bypassing ever rose to the status of a policy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

    However, since the plans for the invasion of Japan called for the use of all the US troops then in the Philippines, the remaining Japanese had to be reduced to the point where the Filipino forces could contain them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Presenting the idea of low-altitude firebombing raids as LeMay's isn't entirely accurate: Hap Arnold and his staff had been pushing Hansell do conduct firebombing operations, which he trialled before being sacked. LeMay seems to have emphasised his role to protect Arnold from criticism for this tactic. The overall story seems to have been that there was a gradual realisation in Washington that "precision" bombing wasn't working in Japan, and area bombing was necessary.
  • Y Yes, that's right. It seems that LeMay required more than a little prompting. It's easier in some ways to see why Hansell clung to precision bombing than why Norstad was so willing to embrace it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• It might be worth noting that the firebombing campaign against Japan became increasingly brutal over time. After most of the major cities were destroyed the bombers were sent after the small cities - including what in some cases were actually large towns - and this continued until the end of the war.
  • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• The Japanese air forces reversed their policy on not intercepting raids in late June, but this had little effect due to the poor condition of the fighter force.
  • Do you have a source for this? It's not mentioned in Craven and Cate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, Coox 1994 (which is probably the best single resource on Japanese air defences in 1944-45, not that that's saying much). I've just added this to the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• It might be worth noting in the Atomic bomb development section that Japan also had a small atomic bomb program, even though this was no-where near ready to produce weapons by the end of the war.
  • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• The coverage of the 509th Composite Group's organisation in the "Organization and training" section is probably a bit too detailed given that there's a very good article on the unit.
  • Y Cut it back. Let me know if it has been cut back too far. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• "Marshall asked Groves to nominate specific targets for bombing, subject to approval by himself and Stimson" - was this in April 45?
  • Y. Yes. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• In regards to the leaflets, it might be worth noting that LeMay had adopted a tactic of "warning" cities of being attacked, and then following up on some of these warnings with major raids a few days later: the threats in the leaflets were intended to be seen as very real.
  • Y Done. For some reason the leaflets blew up into a huge issue. I think it is pretty well covered now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Can more be said about the relief efforts after the Hiroshima bombing? These were significant (and I think that the nearby major naval base at Kure quickly got involved)
• Similarly, can anything be said about the events on the ground after the Nagasaki bombing? The article currently doesn't provide details on the relief efforts there.
  • Have you been able to find references on the above topics? Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• " Robert Bacher was packaging it in Los Alamos when he received word from Groves that the shipment was suspended." - on what date was this decision made?
  • Well the order went out on 14 August, but Groves sent out a warning order beforehand. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• The "Hibakusha" section should note the discrimination faced by these people in postwar Japan and their role in society (when I visited Hiroshima in 2008 they were still giving lectures to tourists and schoolchildren about the need for disarmament).
  • Yeah... it is a bit more complicated. On the one hand the Hibakusha still face discrimination. On the other, there is also some resentment in Japan of their use of their position as a political pulpit and for claiming special privileges. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments:

• at five paragraphs, I think the lead might be too long. Per WP:LEAD, four appears to be the maximum recommended;
• there are a couple of "when?" tags in the article in the Depiction section that probably need to be addressed or removed;
• spelling (I presume US English is intended) "aluminium" or "aluminum"?
• spelling "hypocentre" or "hypocenter"?
• "Americans estimated that..." --> "The Americans estimated that..."?
• spelling "recognised" --> "recognized"?
• "Perhaps one in seven of the Hiroshima victims was of Korean ancestry" --> "Perhaps one in seven of the Hiroshima victims were of Korean ancestry"? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Y All done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I made a few extra changes, please check that you are happy with those. I've added my support above as you've addressed all my comments, although I have to say I am a bit out of my depth with this one, so my review probably isn't as comprehensive as it should be. Sorry. Anyway, good luck with taking this further. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)