305

'Oppenheimer' finally premieres in Japan to mixed reactions and high emotions (www.npr.org)

submitted 8 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

220 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Murvel@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

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

[-] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -2 points 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 8 points 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...

[-] Maven@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

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.

[-] Murvel@lemm.ee 3 points 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

[-] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

My man's here just read 2 sentences of an introduction and thinks that's the whole essay.

[-] Murvel@lemm.ee -3 points 8 months ago

All that was needed...

[-] Maven@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

Yes that literally happened.

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 8 months 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.

[-] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -5 points 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 4 points 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 -5 points 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.

[-] Murvel@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago

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

[-] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 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 6 points 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?

[-] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world -4 points 8 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.

[-] Murvel@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months 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.

this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024

305 points (96.6% liked)

World News

39129 readers

660 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.