This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have looked up some of the sources cited for Umezu vetoing the planning. All of the ones cited — except the Gold one, which I cannot get access to — appear to me to say he vetoed it for moral/strategic/public opinion reasons, not logistical ones. And none of them give any indication that he changed his mind, or was even leaning that way, by August 1945.
This is worth clarifying on here given how Wikipedia is a major source for people understanding this. I see this operation cited many times as a justification for the atomic bombings, with the suggesting that the atomic bombings stopped this from happening. Separate from the question of the role of the atomic bombings in the end of World War II, it is important to make sure that this article is exceedingly accurate on this point. There is a big difference between "they were planning to do this in late 1945" and "they cancelled this program in March 1945" (for whatever reason, but if it was for moral reasons, it actually creates a very different narrative).
Here is what Reiter says (202):
Here is what Barenblatt, _A Plague Upon Humanity_ (Harper, 2004), on 190 says (this is a source cited by Reitner):
Here is what Geoghegan says:
Here is what Gold says in a different book (Unit 731 Testimony, Tuttle Press, 2004):
If there is a reliable source that says it was canceled for logistical reasons, I haven't seen it. If there is one that suggests they were considering putting it back on the table again, I haven't seen it. I am not saying these don't exist, but I haven't been able to see it, despite looking into a bit of the cited literature here. -- NuclearSecrets ( talk) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I’d like to point out that the Wiki page had provided historical information that said that the mission wasn’t canceled until after the Atomic bombs had been dropped. Instead it was changed to “canceled after completion” on the contemporary view it wasn’t “honorable” or even worse, that it justified dropping the bombs. Matter of fact the Japanese military council could not reach an agreement whether to continue the war or not and reached out to the Emperor. Honestly that doesn’t sound like that decision was made based on the merits of being “honorable or dishonorable”
On these historical facts alone I think this page is historical revisionism and active misinformation
The previous entry was properly cited by verifiable sources and truthful. That’s the problem for Wikipedia, anybody can edit anything and cite whatever “source” they want. 2600:100F:B063:C86A:DC61:6076:4D0C:99F ( talk) 00:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
An IP-user (perhaps the one above), attempted to add this to the page:
The link provided did not work for me, but I figured out it must be attempting to link to this article. The author seems like a respectable-enough source, but most of the sources he lists at the end (Geoghegan and Gold — I haven't been able to check Polmar yet) do _not_ say this at all, as I have noted above. Given that this the IP's contribution to Wikipedia was just a lazy copy-paste plagiarism of that article as well, I have removed it for now.
If there are people who make the argument, with evidence, that this was actually formally reconsidered, it would be very interesting to add it here, and to cite it well.
But I fear — and this is just a fear — that this has become a "talking point" of people who are looking to justify the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than it is about ferreting out the truth about this. There are many reasons to argue for and against the atomic bombings, but we should be arguing about it on the basis of very hypothetical things, is my thinking.
I also fear that since the Wikipedia article itself had very strong-but-unsourced sentiments about this topic for many years, it is possible that this unsupported assertion has adopted the status of "truth" in many, many web pages on the Internet, an example of what Randall Munroe called Cytogenesis many years back. So I think we need to be _very_ vigilant in making sure we are citing things that are being rigorous about their claims and citations. I do not the above article really does that; even the text of it is vague ("developed a renewed interest" — how so? in what way? how serious? how evidenced?). -- NuclearSecrets ( talk) 03:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have looked up some of the sources cited for Umezu vetoing the planning. All of the ones cited — except the Gold one, which I cannot get access to — appear to me to say he vetoed it for moral/strategic/public opinion reasons, not logistical ones. And none of them give any indication that he changed his mind, or was even leaning that way, by August 1945.
This is worth clarifying on here given how Wikipedia is a major source for people understanding this. I see this operation cited many times as a justification for the atomic bombings, with the suggesting that the atomic bombings stopped this from happening. Separate from the question of the role of the atomic bombings in the end of World War II, it is important to make sure that this article is exceedingly accurate on this point. There is a big difference between "they were planning to do this in late 1945" and "they cancelled this program in March 1945" (for whatever reason, but if it was for moral reasons, it actually creates a very different narrative).
Here is what Reiter says (202):
Here is what Barenblatt, _A Plague Upon Humanity_ (Harper, 2004), on 190 says (this is a source cited by Reitner):
Here is what Geoghegan says:
Here is what Gold says in a different book (Unit 731 Testimony, Tuttle Press, 2004):
If there is a reliable source that says it was canceled for logistical reasons, I haven't seen it. If there is one that suggests they were considering putting it back on the table again, I haven't seen it. I am not saying these don't exist, but I haven't been able to see it, despite looking into a bit of the cited literature here. -- NuclearSecrets ( talk) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I’d like to point out that the Wiki page had provided historical information that said that the mission wasn’t canceled until after the Atomic bombs had been dropped. Instead it was changed to “canceled after completion” on the contemporary view it wasn’t “honorable” or even worse, that it justified dropping the bombs. Matter of fact the Japanese military council could not reach an agreement whether to continue the war or not and reached out to the Emperor. Honestly that doesn’t sound like that decision was made based on the merits of being “honorable or dishonorable”
On these historical facts alone I think this page is historical revisionism and active misinformation
The previous entry was properly cited by verifiable sources and truthful. That’s the problem for Wikipedia, anybody can edit anything and cite whatever “source” they want. 2600:100F:B063:C86A:DC61:6076:4D0C:99F ( talk) 00:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
An IP-user (perhaps the one above), attempted to add this to the page:
The link provided did not work for me, but I figured out it must be attempting to link to this article. The author seems like a respectable-enough source, but most of the sources he lists at the end (Geoghegan and Gold — I haven't been able to check Polmar yet) do _not_ say this at all, as I have noted above. Given that this the IP's contribution to Wikipedia was just a lazy copy-paste plagiarism of that article as well, I have removed it for now.
If there are people who make the argument, with evidence, that this was actually formally reconsidered, it would be very interesting to add it here, and to cite it well.
But I fear — and this is just a fear — that this has become a "talking point" of people who are looking to justify the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than it is about ferreting out the truth about this. There are many reasons to argue for and against the atomic bombings, but we should be arguing about it on the basis of very hypothetical things, is my thinking.
I also fear that since the Wikipedia article itself had very strong-but-unsourced sentiments about this topic for many years, it is possible that this unsupported assertion has adopted the status of "truth" in many, many web pages on the Internet, an example of what Randall Munroe called Cytogenesis many years back. So I think we need to be _very_ vigilant in making sure we are citing things that are being rigorous about their claims and citations. I do not the above article really does that; even the text of it is vague ("developed a renewed interest" — how so? in what way? how serious? how evidenced?). -- NuclearSecrets ( talk) 03:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)