/// And I condemned every single one of them.
Right. so you condem every allied bombing raid (and axis, of course) of the war. (you never actually mentioned them before AFAIK and patently ignored the precedent of Dresden and Tokyo, but I'll skip that)
Fine. War's ****, I agree there.
So, you think they should have firebombed Hiroshima instead? Killed the same amount of people, like in Tokyo or Dresden?
AFAIK you've still not suggested a reasonable and likely alternative.
// You say they weren't, I say they were. I don't give a damn if there were factories out there. Lot's and lot's of civilians got killed. Period!
You have heard of the Blitz, Dresden, for example? Firebombing of Tokyo? Rape of Nanking?
Strange, I'm sure I mentioned them........
I'd like to suggest a way of defeating the Germans, for example, without any civillian casualties when they oh-so-inconveniently happened to put munitions factories in cities. And - oh! - had civillians employed making their tanks and bombs. The dastards, eh?
Of course, they had conscripts in their army too, so best not shoot them either. Don't want to be there either, poor blighters. And best not use artillery; might hit a house with someone in it.
Yet again the concept of 'total war' as was being and had to be fought by
both sides in the war seems to fly right over your head. Whether that is wilfully or not, I'm unsure.
/// The Japanese war effort was over. You think a few bombs, tanks and planes they can produce there can change anythoing now? They had no oil! The had no navy left. They were sorounded!
So what? The Allies just retreat and let the Japanese rebuild? Go home and let them keep all those people held in POW or concentration camps, all the still occupied territory in the likes of China?
Would the same have been done with Hitler?
I mean, I'm sure you understand the concept of war; to defeat the enemy. And when that enemy is still active (), then doesn't it kind of make sense to finish the war? Certainly did on the Western front.
Oh, and why did they reject the Postdamm declaration in that case?
/// And I can fin many other spources that will say the opposite.
Do so. Find me evidence of unanimous support within the government for surrender, because that is the
only conditions under which it would have been considered.
Prove that the military members of that cabinet had suddenly changed their minds to not fight to the last man (and then explain why some of them attempted a coup upon surrender)
I don't deal with IF's.
You are dealing with massive IFs; every presupposition you made is an if;
if they'd wanted to surrender,
if a demonstration was tactically viable, etc. This is entirely about the ifs, and the maybes, and the likelys. Just as it was when they made the decisions to drop the bombs.
In fact, AFAIK you've not cited a single historical fact or precedent, and ignored those of, well, pretty much every other person.
With starvation & droping a bomb somewhere else for show a war might have ended maby a bit later, but with less caualties (people dont starve that fast)
A million hungry people would sure put pressue on the emperor!
The emperor didn't have a say, the military did. Also, it's not certain when (or even if) starvation would force a surrender (it was ongoing, after all, when the bombs were dropped). And all the time there are people - civillians - dying each day in the rest of Asia, and being held in concentration camps.
Also, haven't you contradicted yourself with 'people don't starve that fast'? If they don't, then there's not going to be as much pressure, is there? Is the more humanitarian option in your opinion to try and starve the entire population to death?
(NB: some estimates have put the average deaths per month by October due to the effects of Operation Starvation as 1,000,000)
And... 'maybe'. I thought we weren't dealing in 'ifs'?
