• Murvel@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Debatable. But as always with this topic; what else would force the Japanese surrender?

    • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Maybe the fact they were already sueing for peace? Maybe the complete distruction of their Navy and Air forces? Maybe the blockaid we had on the island? Maybe the fact they were already sueing for peace?

      • Murvel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Oh boy, fun! By all means, provide a source that states that Japan would have surrendered irrespective of the atomic bombings. This could be amusing…

        • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945. Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war. and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. - The United States Strategic Bombing survey (European war) (Pacific War) https://ia801903.us.archive.org/33/items/unitedstatesstra00cent/unitedstatesstra00cent.pdf

          • Murvel@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            Are you arguing that the strategic bombings were justified to end the war, but the atomic bombings were not? That’s a unique opinion, to be sure.

            • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Now you’re just being argumentative throwing out accusations cause you got sourced. You don’t want to defend your position anymore so your attempting to shift the argument entirely.

              Defend your stance or shut it.

                • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Still trying to shift the goal posts. I will not be responding to your 5 second skim of a source you didn’t read because you think you gotta win an argument above all else. You asked for a source that showed the bombings were unnecessary. You got it. Defend the point or shut it. If you want to argue the finer details of the American strategic bombing campaign and it’s effectiveness then get a history degree. Because that is NOT the argument being made here. Neither by me or by you. Attempting to bring that up is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

                  • Murvel@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Your source states, based on your quote, that the atomic bombings would be unnecessary if the strategic bombing continued… and that’s your argument for why the atomic bombings were unjustified?

          • Murvel@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Lmao, in your source, the narrator correctly claims that Emepeor Hirohito had to intervene and force the military to stand down following the atomic bombings. Literally, the first three minutes of the video… gtfo