• Murvel@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

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

      • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        9 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
          ·
          9 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
            ·
            9 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
              ·
              9 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
                ·
                9 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
                  ·
                  9 months ago

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

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