▲ 305 ▼ 'Oppenheimer' finally premieres in Japan to mixed reactions and high emotions (www.npr.org) submitted 2 years ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 216 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] frefi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fight war crimes with war crimes permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Debatable. But as always with this topic; what else would force the Japanese surrender? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Maven@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Here's a whole video essay on the topic https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=67gvnic_eEXJRAPQ Japan was already asking for peace but the US was turning them down. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) My man's here just read 2 sentences of an introduction and thinks that's the whole essay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago All that was needed... permalink fedilink source parent [+] Maven@lemmy.world -6 points 2 years ago My man's here heard a single fact he didn't know before and decided everything about it was wrong permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maven@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Yes that literally happened. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=67gvnic_eEXJRAPQ Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) What? You provided a source that states just that?... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago You throw out random sources that you hope would support your claim, so yeah, I feel this thing is done to. From the start, actually, waste of time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Murvel@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Debatable. But as always with this topic; what else would force the Japanese surrender? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Maven@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Here's a whole video essay on the topic https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=67gvnic_eEXJRAPQ Japan was already asking for peace but the US was turning them down. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) My man's here just read 2 sentences of an introduction and thinks that's the whole essay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago All that was needed... permalink fedilink source parent [+] Maven@lemmy.world -6 points 2 years ago My man's here heard a single fact he didn't know before and decided everything about it was wrong permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maven@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Yes that literally happened. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=67gvnic_eEXJRAPQ Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) What? You provided a source that states just that?... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago You throw out random sources that you hope would support your claim, so yeah, I feel this thing is done to. From the start, actually, waste of time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Maven@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Here's a whole video essay on the topic https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=67gvnic_eEXJRAPQ Japan was already asking for peace but the US was turning them down. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) My man's here just read 2 sentences of an introduction and thinks that's the whole essay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago All that was needed... permalink fedilink source parent [+] Maven@lemmy.world -6 points 2 years ago My man's here heard a single fact he didn't know before and decided everything about it was wrong permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maven@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Yes that literally happened. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=67gvnic_eEXJRAPQ Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) What? You provided a source that states just that?... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago You throw out random sources that you hope would support your claim, so yeah, I feel this thing is done to. From the start, actually, waste of time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Murvel@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Maven@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Here's a whole video essay on the topic https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=67gvnic_eEXJRAPQ Japan was already asking for peace but the US was turning them down. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) My man's here just read 2 sentences of an introduction and thinks that's the whole essay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago All that was needed... permalink fedilink source parent [+] Maven@lemmy.world -6 points 2 years ago My man's here heard a single fact he didn't know before and decided everything about it was wrong permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maven@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Yes that literally happened. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=67gvnic_eEXJRAPQ Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) What? You provided a source that states just that?... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago You throw out random sources that you hope would support your claim, so yeah, I feel this thing is done to. From the start, actually, waste of time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maven@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Here's a whole video essay on the topic https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=67gvnic_eEXJRAPQ Japan was already asking for peace but the US was turning them down. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) My man's here just read 2 sentences of an introduction and thinks that's the whole essay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago All that was needed... permalink fedilink source parent [+] Maven@lemmy.world -6 points 2 years ago My man's here heard a single fact he didn't know before and decided everything about it was wrong permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maven@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Yes that literally happened. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=67gvnic_eEXJRAPQ Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Murvel@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) My man's here just read 2 sentences of an introduction and thinks that's the whole essay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago All that was needed... permalink fedilink source parent [+] Maven@lemmy.world -6 points 2 years ago My man's here heard a single fact he didn't know before and decided everything about it was wrong permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maven@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Yes that literally happened. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) My man's here just read 2 sentences of an introduction and thinks that's the whole essay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago All that was needed... permalink fedilink source parent [+] Maven@lemmy.world -6 points 2 years ago My man's here heard a single fact he didn't know before and decided everything about it was wrong permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Maven@lemmy.world -6 points 2 years ago My man's here heard a single fact he didn't know before and decided everything about it was wrong permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maven@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Yes that literally happened. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=67gvnic_eEXJRAPQ Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) What? You provided a source that states just that?... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago You throw out random sources that you hope would support your claim, so yeah, I feel this thing is done to. From the start, actually, waste of time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Murvel@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) What? You provided a source that states just that?... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago You throw out random sources that you hope would support your claim, so yeah, I feel this thing is done to. From the start, actually, waste of time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) What? You provided a source that states just that?... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago You throw out random sources that you hope would support your claim, so yeah, I feel this thing is done to. From the start, actually, waste of time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Murvel@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) What? You provided a source that states just that?... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago You throw out random sources that you hope would support your claim, so yeah, I feel this thing is done to. From the start, actually, waste of time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago You throw out random sources that you hope would support your claim, so yeah, I feel this thing is done to. From the start, actually, waste of time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago You throw out random sources that you hope would support your claim, so yeah, I feel this thing is done to. From the start, actually, waste of time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago You throw out random sources that you hope would support your claim, so yeah, I feel this thing is done to. From the start, actually, waste of time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago You throw out random sources that you hope would support your claim, so yeah, I feel this thing is done to. From the start, actually, waste of time. permalink fedilink source parent