Tag Info

New answers tagged

3

A "primary" source is the first or original source of information about a fact. It has nothing to do with time. Even if an event occurred hundreds of years before, the source is still primary if it is the first or original source of information. For example, let's imagine Henry Neville (1564 – 1615) wrote a letter in 1594 which said that George Neville ...


1

assuming the author was in contact with actual eyewitnesses This assumption makes the question dreck, as the question contains the answer within itself. Going then, from the question, assuming that Luke-Acts are a primary source, Luke-Acts are then a primary source.


2

There's three questions here. Was Japan a threat? If not, could it be a threat again? Would Japan surrender without the atomic bomb or invasion? These are aspects of the larger question, "was the atomic bomb and invasion necessary"? That's a big question with lots of moving parts that's still debated by professional historians, so it's good to reduce ...


2

I think the possible answer could fall into how to tread the OP's word "capable of maintaining the war".... Thus I would like to analyze between the "material capability side" and the "spiritual capability side". Material Capability Side From this source Data comparison ( From 1941 to 1945 ) The number of soldiers ( including civilian related ...


12

Japan was not really capable of "maintaining war" by mid-1945. The problem was that it was unwilling to "make peace" on anything like reasonable terms. If the Allies had wanted a stop to the fighting, one possibility might have been a "cease fire in place." That would leave the Allies in possession of the Philippines, and Iwo Jima and Okinawa, but it would ...


12

The answer to this question is yes, Japan was capable of maintaining the war at the time and likely would have done so. However, Japan was incapable of conducting meaningful offensive operations by then. So, in a sense they couldn't have hurt the U.S. but they would have hurt many others. U.S. General Curtis LeMay was responsible for implementing the ...


27

No. Japan had almost no capability to continue waging war. In fact, strangled by the American blockade, Japan was tottering on the brink of collapse. Experts both then and since believed that the combined pressure of the Soviet entry, the relentless blockade (and usually, the conventional aerial bombardment campaign) would have compelled Japan to surrender. ...


4

You can never be sure that a naval blockade will indeed lead to a national collapse. E.g., Britain did not surrender. Why do you think Japan would have? You must also remember the international situation: what if the SU would land in Japan and occupy it? By mid-1945 is was already a fact that, despite numerous agreements and promises of free elections, SU ...



Top 50 recent answers are included