Talk:Leó Szilárd
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An event mentioned in this article is a September 12 selected anniversary.
Leo Szilard is due much more credit than you giving him. He was the one person who persevered despite all odds to see that allies get the ultimate weapon before Hitler. User:68.100.107.145
Which was, of course going to happen anyway even if we waited until the war was over before starting the Manhattan Project.
[edit] Los Alamos connection disputed
Delete "Los Alamos" as Szilard worked only in Chicago's Met Lab during the Manhattan Project. General Groves, the project's military director, distrusted and disliked Szilard and saw to it that Szilard stayed in Chicago for the duration of the war. William Lanouette, author of "Genius in the Shadows: A Biography of Leo Szilard, the Man Behind the Bomb." (Scribners 1992, University of Chicago Press 1994) lanouettew@gao.gov User:161.203.16.1
- Please feel free to edit the article if you can improve it. -- Oliver P. 15:05, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
-
- It's true about Los Alamos, so I changed it. Also corrected the end of the bio, since he was at Salk and not UCSD, in molecular biology (for 17 years). Dandrake 03:45, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Einstein, Refrigerator?
Didn't Szilard and Einstein patent a household refrigerator, later manufactured and marketed by Electrolux?
[edit] For?
"...while he was waiting for a red light on Southampton Row in Bloomsbury."
Surely he would have been waiting for a green light while stopped at a red light. Or is this one of those quirky transatlantic language differences? MrWeeble 09:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Either one sounds ok to me (I'm an American). I'd interpret "waiting for a red light" as short for "waiting for a red light to change". --Delirium July 5, 2005 07:13 (UTC)
[edit] ==
It's the process. This leads to that. It's not hard to grasp this concept.
[edit] Pronounciation
It might be nice to have a phonetic spelling of his name, I keep wanting to say Slizard.
It is similar to the pronounciation of "sea lard".
- I thought it was Sih as in window sill - sih Lard - emphasis on second syllable. --SafeLibraries 13:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Effect of use of atomic weapons
Probably not the right page to debate this, but I am restoring the line deleted by anon 132.204.25.73 that removed the crucial effect of the atomic bombs - the near-immediate Japanese surrender. That was the intent of the bombings, and it was a successful one. If we are going to include the passages castigating Truman for his decision "simply to use the weapons," (a phrase I will delete for the second time, as there is abundant evidence that the decision to kill so many thousands of civilians was hardly a "simple" and casual one, then we must also include mention of the practical impact of the bombing on the course of the war. Kaisershatner 15:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
"However, it should be noted that the use of the atomic bomb is in a sense humane, because it ended the mass slaughter which characterizes modern industrial warfare"
that's not what one would characterize as "neutral"
James Carroll in his book "the House of War" has exploded the argument. Japan was ready to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped on condition they keep the emperor. The bomb was dropped to intimidate Stalin. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618187804/104-1845262-8855931?v=glance&n=283155 Also see Salon interview and NPR interview. --Will314159 14:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Really? NPR and Salon prove it? I agree NPR and Salon are authoritative on revisionist history. --SafeLibraries 13:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well how about Gen Curtis LeMay, the man that firebombed Tokyo with flights of 500 superfortresses at a time. From The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 3), pages 4-11. "General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war." " General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender." [1] Why are you guys so intent on trivializing this great man's principled stand against needless death and depravity? Will314159 18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Failed 0.5 nom
I failed the attempted 0.5 nom on Leó Szilárd because there are no refs. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
The infobox has been removed. Please discuss for & against to reach a consensus. To remind you what it looked like, here is a sample:
 Leó Szilárd (right) and Albert Einstein re-enact the signing of the famous letter to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. |
|
| Born | February 11, 1898 Budapest, Hungary |
|---|---|
| Died | May 30, 1964 La Jolla, California, USA |
| Residence | USA |
| Nationality | Hungarian-American |
| Field | Physicist, Biologist |
| Institution | University of Berlin, Columbia University, University of Chicago, Brandeis University |
| Alma Mater | Technische Hochschule |
| Doctoral Advisor | <please insert> |
| Doctoral Students | <please insert> |
| Known for | Thermodynamics, nuclear chain reaction |
bunix 12:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why remove the box THEN talk about why it was removed on the Tolk page. Would it not have been better to leave up the box THEN talk about why it should be removed on the Talk page? --SafeLibraries 12:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Let me ask this. Since I'm newish, I'd like to hear from you why it should be removed. To me, the infobox gives a quick overview of the man and is useful for that reason. But I don't know the possible arguments for and against to make an informed decision. So please add why you feel it should stay removed, now that you have removed it. Thanks. --SafeLibraries 13:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it has been two weeks since it was intially removed. This has now allowed adequate time for free discussion. So far the discussion has supported the box and there have been no arguments against posted here. Therefore I am now reinstating the box. In future, please can removers of large chunks of info always go to the discussion page first before removal, as per wiki policy. Immediate removal without discussion is only justified for vandalism and wiki violations. bunix 13:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I support the inclusion of this info box. Could the persons advocating its removal clarify their rationale? Addhoc 14:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Views on the use of nuclear weapons
I have made two changes. Firstly I have completely removed the sections concerning the effects of the atomic bombings and the reasons for the decision to use the bombs. It is a highly contentious issue and is being debated at length on the WP page about the bombing (Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). There is no point to having a stunted rehash of that article here too, and any interested reader would do MUCH better to refer to the article - which, luckily, is already cited in the text itself. Secondly, I have changed the sentence "...protestations of Szilárd and many of the other top scientists in the project" to " ...protestations of Szilárd and other scientists" because I saw no citations to validate the statement "many top scientists at the (Manhattan) Project." If the original reading is to be retained it must have valid citations. In fact, even this weakened statement might still be an overstatement of the true situation; I will be interested to see the sources cited for it. Possibly it needs to be even further weakened if no sourcing is forthcoming Hi There 23:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Documentation is important. --SafeLibraries 01:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Now look: (cur) (last) 11:43, 10 August 2006 Will314159 (Talk | contribs) (Quit it Hil There you are trivializing man's lilfe) Will314159 has added back what Hi There removed. I still agree with Hi There generally, but the material re-added by Will314159 is not 100% accurate. Regarding "On the other hand, author James Carroll in his book The House of War maintains the obstacle in ending the war was the insistence on unconditional surrender. He writes that Japan was ready to surrender in July, 1945, on the condition that it could keep its Emperor, a condition that was later accepted. He writes the true purpose of the nuclear bombing was to intimidate Stalin," I do not see that one man's opinion gets such prominent appearance on the Leo Szilard page.
But worse, directly regarding Leo Szilard, the following is incorrect and internally inconsistent with other content: "Although Szilárd, before the war, had considered the U.S. the one truly humane government in the world, (that being the reason why he chose to assist the U.S. in developing the atomic bomb,) he abandoned this view after the weapons' use." Not true. Earlier the article says, correctly, "In 1927 he finished his habilitation and became a Privatdozent (instructor) in Physics at University of Berlin. .... In 1933 Szilárd fled to London to escape Nazi persecution." So not "choosing" to work for Germany was "choosen" for him by the Germans. It is incorrect to say, in parenthesis no less, "(that being the reason why he chose to assist the U.S. in developing the atomic bomb.)"
If this is true, I want to see documentation. --SafeLibraries 12:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the section about the effects of and decision to drop the atomic bombs again. My previous remarks and reasons for removing the section are still valid; if you think otherwise please explain why. If you think that James Carroll's opinion is final and definitive, please support such a contention, which you could do, by, let's say, going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Debate_over_the_decision_to_drop_the_bombs and citing Carroll there - and if all the participants in the discussions THERE accept Carroll's opinion as final and definitive and if all further debates therewith cease in deference to his opinion, then perhaps it will accepted here too; but if not, not. Hi There 13:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
SafeLibraries: I have no personal stake in the sentence "Although Szilárd, before the war, had considered the U.S. the one truly humane government in the world, (that being the reason why he chose to assist the U.S. in developing the atomic bomb,) he abandoned this view after the weapons' use." If the statement is not true, it should be gotten rid of. It was in the article when I first saw it and I kept it because I assumed that it was accurate. If it isn't, it needs to be gotten rid of. However, I do not quite see your reasons for saying the statement is incorrect, as you seem to tie together his non-participation in the German project and participation in the American project. These two things would seem to be independent, and the statement in the article about his participation in the American project can be true irrespective of the reasons for his non-participation in the German project. So a clarification of your objection might be in order Hi There 13:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. Let me chuck aside the fancy language. Basically what I am saying is this. Had the Germans not decided to chuck away diversity and make everyone blond haired and blue eyed, Szilard might have choosen instead to do his work for the Germans. After all, he was teaching physics at the University of Berlin. He could have just stayed there. His leaving, however, was forced on him. If he did not leave, his contribution to Germany would have been as a lampshade. So I'm saying that his choosing America might not have happened in the first place if he were not first forced out of Germany for fear of his life. Mind you, I am not an expert in this area. I am just making observations on the particular language used that makes it appear Szilard had free will and freely choose America. Indeed he may have, but having been forced out of Germany first forced his hand at least somewhat. Or maybe I'm being too picky. But at least there should be some cite to it for support. Who knows, maybe another wiki author, just as unfamiliar with the subject as myself, made the sentence initially. --SafeLibraries 14:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I see your point but on the other hand, I would have to assume that physicists such as Szilard could have chosen other countries for a place of refuge and the US was not their only possible choice. As the article states, he initially went to London, and there is no reason to assume that he was forced to leave London at some later date and was only able to go to the US. Also, once having gotten to the US, there is no reason to assume that he was compelled to participate in the bomb project. That is how I understand the phrase under discussion - he thought that the US government was humane and therefore he helped the US develop the bomb even though he was not under any obligation to do so. Hi There 15:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I see. Okay. Citation might still be needed. --SafeLibraries 17:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
I see a new thread was opened. It doesn't have to be James Carrol that validated Leo's view. It can be Curtis Lemay or McArthur. I used James Carrol because I heard him on NPR talking about the evolution of the desentitivity to the horrors of bombing and the loss of morals. It is important to state in the article to state that Scilard's views have been validated by experts in the field. The Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombs were totally superflous. You would think that Gen Curtis LeMay and Gen McArthur would know. the cite to LeMay and McArthur is in the original thread I started when I made the original Carrol addition. Best Wishes Will314159 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Greetings
I looked into the history of the article, and it appears we do have a serious issue with all of the reversions. Communication is of paramount importance. An edit war is not needed here, if the concerns are verifiable.
Cheers,
[edit] Sabotage
We also appear to have attracted anti-semitic vandalism of this site and (surprise surprise) just as it was featured on today's Wiki Main Page.
I was actually CITING this article on a forum when I spotted the sabotage. It made me look like a fool and Wikipedia once again was made to look unreliable and also insulting to Jews!!!???. I was totally incensed. ALL articles on the main page should be LOCKED or only allowed to be edited after peer revue. This situation stinks.--Phil Wardle 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent. Agree. --SafeLibraries 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Developing the idea of the nuclear chain reaction', paragraph 4
To me this reads more like a piece of journalism than a scholarly article, notably: "The entire history of the world could have been changed..." and "and the rest is history". I believe the tone, but not necessarily the meat, of this paragraph should be changed to reflect the scientific nature of the subject matter. Pretender 19:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I spotted that as well and agree with you.--Phil Wardle 01:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Later views on nuclear weapons
The last section begins with two sentances:
"In 1947, Szilárd switched fields of study because of his horror of atomic weapons, moving from physics to molecular biology, working extensively with Aaron Novick. He proposed, in February of 1950, a new kind of nuclear weapon using cobalt as a tamper, a cobalt bomb, which he said might wipe out all life on the planet."
These sentances seem to contradict eachother. On the one hand he abandoned physics because of the horror it had unleashed. Yet he comes up for the design for an even more horrific weapon. If both of these sentances are indeed true (they should be cited) there should be an explanation concerning these actions. Harley peters 20:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
