• SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    7 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
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 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
        6
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        7 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
          9
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          7 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
            4
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            7 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.

            • Murvel@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              What? You provided a source that states just that?..

              • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                7 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
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  7 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?

                  • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Done with you. Misrepresenting my argument and moving the goal posts. You have given up defending your point, that the nukes were necessary and instead are trying portray my argument, that the nukes were unnecessary, as one advocating for continued strategic bombardment.

                    You wanna read more about strategic bombing in general and it’s own inadequacies then go ahead. But that’s not what this conversation is. Go get a history degree if you want to dive into the nuances, otherwise continued arguments with you are pointless.