Is America a racist nation?

[Farfromgeneva]

John McWhorter. Many will say "uncle tom". American hero IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gQj5bkUeAc

No one should say Uncle Tom. He writes a regular and very thought-provoking column in the Times, and has been pounding on the excesses of part of the left for a few years now. But he is not saying that the country doesn't have a race problem.

It’s an effective heuristic tool to attempt to control the topic by suggesting a counter by another even if that’s not likely to happen.

[tech37]

John McWhorter. Many will say "uncle tom". American hero IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gQj5bkUeAc

No one should say Uncle Tom. He writes a regular and very thought-provoking column in the Times, and has been pounding on the excesses of part of the left for a few years now. But he is not saying that the country doesn't have a race problem.

Duh. And who said or even alluded to that?

If you listen to the podcast, he does refer to people who are like disciples of a religion (is not a quote). Ring any bells sc?

[seacoaster]

John McWhorter. Many will say "uncle tom". American hero IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gQj5bkUeAc

No one should say Uncle Tom. He writes a regular and very thought-provoking column in the Times, and has been pounding on the excesses of part of the left for a few years now. But he is not saying that the country doesn't have a race problem.

Duh. And who said or even alluded to that?

If you listen to the podcast, he does refer to people who are like disciples of a religion (is not a quote). Ring any bells sc?

Sorry, I guess I made my point, such as it is, poorly. Frankly, you raised the point by posting this episode to this thread. I certainly didn't mean anything shirty by it; I appreciated the fact that you posted it because I surely would have missed it, even though I like this guy's writing and take on things.

The thread is entitled "Is America a Racist Nation." And you suggested that folks might call McWhorter an "Uncle Tom," the colloquial term for traitor to his race. So I was simply underscoring both that he should not bear that moniker and that his point is not that America doesn't have a race problem, just that one of the current ways of combatting it seems, to him (and a lot of other folks) to be misguided.

You seem once again to have been offended by your view of what you think I meant.

[tech37]

John McWhorter. Many will say "uncle tom". American hero IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gQj5bkUeAc

No one should say Uncle Tom. He writes a regular and very thought-provoking column in the Times, and has been pounding on the excesses of part of the left for a few years now. But he is not saying that the country doesn't have a race problem.

Duh. And who said or even alluded to that?

If you listen to the podcast, he does refer to people who are like disciples of a religion (is not a quote). Ring any bells sc?

Sorry, I guess I made my point, such as it is, poorly. Frankly, you raised the point by posting this episode to this thread. I certainly didn't mean anything shirty by it; I appreciated the fact that you posted it because I surely would have missed it, even though I like this guy's writing and take on things.

The thread is entitled "Is America a Racist Nation." And you suggested that folks might call McWhorter an "Uncle Tom," the colloquial term for traitor to his race. So I was simply underscoring both that he should not bear that moniker and that his point is not that America doesn't have a race problem, just that one of the current ways of combatting it seems, to him (and a lot of other folks) to be misguided.

You seem once again to have been offended by your view of what you think I meant.

Yep, you're right sc. I did feel your post was pedantic in tone... thanks for clarifying and I completely agree.

Happy Thanksgiving.

[seacoaster]

John McWhorter. Many will say "uncle tom". American hero IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gQj5bkUeAc

No one should say Uncle Tom. He writes a regular and very thought-provoking column in the Times, and has been pounding on the excesses of part of the left for a few years now. But he is not saying that the country doesn't have a race problem.

Duh. And who said or even alluded to that?

If you listen to the podcast, he does refer to people who are like disciples of a religion (is not a quote). Ring any bells sc?

Sorry, I guess I made my point, such as it is, poorly. Frankly, you raised the point by posting this episode to this thread. I certainly didn't mean anything shirty by it; I appreciated the fact that you posted it because I surely would have missed it, even though I like this guy's writing and take on things.

The thread is entitled "Is America a Racist Nation." And you suggested that folks might call McWhorter an "Uncle Tom," the colloquial term for traitor to his race. So I was simply underscoring both that he should not bear that moniker and that his point is not that America doesn't have a race problem, just that one of the current ways of combatting it seems, to him (and a lot of other folks) to be misguided.

You seem once again to have been offended by your view of what you think I meant.

Yep, you're right sc. I did feel your post was pedantic in tone... thanks for clarifying and I completely agree.

Happy Thanksgiving.

You too; hope you have a nice long holiday weekend with all your people. This is the best holiday we have.

[Typical Lax Dad]

John McWhorter. Many will say "uncle tom". American hero IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gQj5bkUeAc

No one should say Uncle Tom. He writes a regular and very thought-provoking column in the Times, and has been pounding on the excesses of part of the left for a few years now. But he is not saying that the country doesn't have a race problem.

Duh. And who said or even alluded to that?

If you listen to the podcast, he does refer to people who are like disciples of a religion (is not a quote). Ring any bells sc?

Sorry, I guess I made my point, such as it is, poorly. Frankly, you raised the point by posting this episode to this thread. I certainly didn't mean anything shirty by it; I appreciated the fact that you posted it because I surely would have missed it, even though I like this guy's writing and take on things.

The thread is entitled "Is America a Racist Nation." And you suggested that folks might call McWhorter an "Uncle Tom," the colloquial term for traitor to his race. So I was simply underscoring both that he should not bear that moniker and that his point is not that America doesn't have a race problem, just that one of the current ways of combatting it seems, to him (and a lot of other folks) to be misguided.

You seem once again to have been offended by your view of what you think I meant.

Yep, you're right sc. I did feel your post was pedantic in tone... thanks for clarifying and I completely agree.

Happy Thanksgiving.

You too; hope you have a nice long holiday weekend with all your people. This is the best holiday we have.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family. I extend a happy Thanksgiving wish to all the forum members.

[DMac]

Outstanding discussion, it's a shame that this kind of reasonable and well thought out kind of discussion can't be had by way too many in this country.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???

His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?

I googled "foremost historians of World War II" and expected to at least find him on this very long list, but not there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... rld_War_II

But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/

US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War

Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.

His latest appearance at the National WW II Museum.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?469611-1/tower-skulls

whitewash much?

I didn't see Zinn on your wikilist.

That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.

The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.

Certainly more than me!

But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.

I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.

Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.

Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.

The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.

Dude 5 minutes ago you just said they are historical experts because they were shot at.

Dude your reading comprehension is very questionable. The observations of the soldiers and marines involved in so many of the battles of WW2 don't compare to modern revisionist history. Many modern day historians refer to D day as a glorious victory for the allied forces. Operation Overlord was in most respects an unmitigated disaster. The airborne drops were a catastrophe, The armored support for the infantry at Omaha beach sunk in the channel. The infantry landings at Utah beach were in the wrong place. The rangers at Pt Du Hoc went chasing after German artillery that was not there. The only reasons that D day succeeded are simple. Erwin Rommel was in Germany celebrating his wifes birthday and the Bavarian corporal slept in and not believing this was the real invasion, never released the German Panzers that could have beaten the invasion back into the Atlantic Ocean. The historical experts were men like Ryan who interviewed the combatants on both sides and documented their stories and transformed those stories into books for all of us to understand the truth.

Who interviewed the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What did they think of the bombing?

And does it matter what they thought the reasons were that the Americans had done it?

I'm guessing if these residents heard of Pearl Harbor they might have a comprehension why they were victims of the war their leaders started. War is hell as Gen. Sherman said. The citizens of Atlanta learned that lesson as well. You know how to fight a kinder and gentler kind of war, I'm all ears.

How many civilians killed at Pearl Harbor?

News flash bumpkin... we were not at war before the attack at Pearl Harbor. You sound really stupid bumpkin. We were at war with Japan bumkin in case your history happens to evade you. War is hell to quote Gen William T Sherman. The folks in Atlanta Georgia back when the city was burned to the ground will verify that fact for you. There are many southerners still to this day think that Sherman was guilty of war crimes. What say you bumpkin? You do understand you sound really stupid trying to make your point...

"bumpkin"???

cradle, you're the one going off half cocked.

The question was never whether "war is hell", no debate on that here. The question was whether it was actually necessary to use the nuclear weapon once, and to my mind, even more of a question as to twice, 9 days later.

The argument had been made that the attack on Pearl Harbor, a military base, justified the dropping of those two bombs on civilian populations. So, the logical question was how many civilians died at Pearl Harbor...did that attack really justify those two bombs? Both?

(Hint: no. The more compelling argument is the potential loss of life, on both sides, of a long, drawn out battle island to island).

Now, as to the "sneak attack", is it relevant to recognize that the US was enforcing a blockade on Japan prior to that attack? Is it relevant to understand that a blockade is typically considered an act of war? Is it relevant to understand that our military was not actually surprised by a strike from Japan, rather their surprise was that it was at Pearl Harbor rather than the Philippines. Our commanders didn't adequately imagine the reach the Japanese had, nor the audacity, of that strike.

But it sure unleashed the rage of the American public, didn't it?

[MDlaxfan76]

Outstanding discussion, it's a shame that this kind of reasonable and well thought out kind of discussion can't be had by way too many in this country.

+1

And a Happy Thanksgiving to all!

[Typical Lax Dad]

John McWhorter. Many will say "uncle tom". American hero IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gQj5bkUeAc

I like John McWhorter. In what way is he an American hero? That had never crossed my mind about many professors.

John McWhorter’s position has always reminded me of this:

https://www.biography.com/.amp/news/web ... washington

It’s really nothing new.

[jhu72]

John McWhorter. Many will say "uncle tom". American hero IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gQj5bkUeAc

I like John McWhorter. In what way is he an American hero? That had never crossed my mind about many professors.

John McWhorter’s position has always reminded me of this:

https://www.biography.com/.amp/news/web ... washington

It’s really nothing new.

... McWhorter is fine. He is certainly not an American hero. He is an academic, a linguist and a author.

[jhu72]

The unite the right Nazis had their financial heads handed to them today.

[Typical Lax Dad]

John McWhorter. Many will say "uncle tom". American hero IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gQj5bkUeAc

I like John McWhorter. In what way is he an American hero? That had never crossed my mind about many professors.

John McWhorter’s position has always reminded me of this:

https://www.biography.com/.amp/news/web ... washington

It’s really nothing new.

... McWhorter is fine. He is certainly not an American hero. He is an academic, a linguist and a author.

He is fine. He doesn’t think any different from a lot of
People. Hero just struck me as odd. I don’t know how someone would form that opinion. I wonder in what way he is a hero to Tech?

[cradleandshoot]

I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???

His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?

I googled "foremost historians of World War II" and expected to at least find him on this very long list, but not there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... rld_War_II

But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/

US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War

Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.

His latest appearance at the National WW II Museum.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?469611-1/tower-skulls

whitewash much?

I didn't see Zinn on your wikilist.

That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.

The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.

Certainly more than me!

But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.

I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.

Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.

Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.

The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.

Dude 5 minutes ago you just said they are historical experts because they were shot at.

Dude your reading comprehension is very questionable. The observations of the soldiers and marines involved in so many of the battles of WW2 don't compare to modern revisionist history. Many modern day historians refer to D day as a glorious victory for the allied forces. Operation Overlord was in most respects an unmitigated disaster. The airborne drops were a catastrophe, The armored support for the infantry at Omaha beach sunk in the channel. The infantry landings at Utah beach were in the wrong place. The rangers at Pt Du Hoc went chasing after German artillery that was not there. The only reasons that D day succeeded are simple. Erwin Rommel was in Germany celebrating his wifes birthday and the Bavarian corporal slept in and not believing this was the real invasion, never released the German Panzers that could have beaten the invasion back into the Atlantic Ocean. The historical experts were men like Ryan who interviewed the combatants on both sides and documented their stories and transformed those stories into books for all of us to understand the truth.

Who interviewed the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What did they think of the bombing?

And does it matter what they thought the reasons were that the Americans had done it?

I'm guessing if these residents heard of Pearl Harbor they might have a comprehension why they were victims of the war their leaders started. War is hell as Gen. Sherman said. The citizens of Atlanta learned that lesson as well. You know how to fight a kinder and gentler kind of war, I'm all ears.

How many civilians killed at Pearl Harbor?

News flash bumpkin... we were not at war before the attack at Pearl Harbor. You sound really stupid bumpkin. We were at war with Japan bumkin in case your history happens to evade you. War is hell to quote Gen William T Sherman. The folks in Atlanta Georgia back when the city was burned to the ground will verify that fact for you. There are many southerners still to this day think that Sherman was guilty of war crimes. What say you bumpkin? You do understand you sound really stupid trying to make your point...

"bumpkin"???

cradle, you're the one going off half cocked.

The question was never whether "war is hell", no debate on that here. The question was whether it was actually necessary to use the nuclear weapon once, and to my mind, even more of a question as to twice, 9 days later.

The argument had been made that the attack on Pearl Harbor, a military base, justified the dropping of those two bombs on civilian populations. So, the logical question was how many civilians died at Pearl Harbor...did that attack really justify those two bombs? Both?

(Hint: no. The more compelling argument is the potential loss of life, on both sides, of a long, drawn out battle island to island).

Now, as to the "sneak attack", is it relevant to recognize that the US was enforcing a blockade on Japan prior to that attack? Is it relevant to understand that a blockade is typically considered an act of war? Is it relevant to understand that our military was not actually surprised by a strike from Japan, rather their surprise was that it was at Pearl Harbor rather than the Philippines. Our commanders didn't adequately imagine the reach the Japanese had, nor the audacity, of that strike.

But it sure unleashed the rage of the American public, didn't it?

Without doing a google search do you know what the phrase half cocked means? The Empire of Japan declared war on the USA on December 7 1941. You do know that prior to the attack the US and FDR were negotiating the oil blockades you speak of? You are doing a marvelous job of Monday morning quarterbacking... woulda, shoulda, coulda blaaaah blaaaah yada yada. Your primary gripe is with Harry Truman bumpkin. You do know that FDR never even told Truman about the existence of the Manhattan Project? Truman made the call, unless your chain of logic here insinuates that Truman was also involved in being an anti Jap racist SOB. Out of curiosity MD, how many former veterans of the pacific theatre have you ever regaled with your brilliant observations? You know them, the many thousands of combat marines and combat army men that would have died invading the Island of Japan. FTR, my dad was one of those combat veterans humbly informed after a year of front line combat in europe that they had been chosen to train for the invasion of Japan. The Japanese decided they did not know when to quit. I have no problem with the decision Harry Truman made. If you have a problem with it.. then deal with it. Why don't you take your venom out where it belongs, that person would be the sitting POTUS when the order was given.

[cradleandshoot]

Outstanding discussion, it's a shame that this kind of reasonable and well thought out kind of discussion can't be had by way too many in this country.

+1

And a Happy Thanksgiving to all!

A Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family Mr MD.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???

His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?

I googled "foremost historians of World War II" and expected to at least find him on this very long list, but not there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... rld_War_II

But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/

US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War

Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.

His latest appearance at the National WW II Museum.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?469611-1/tower-skulls

whitewash much?

I didn't see Zinn on your wikilist.

That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.

The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.

Certainly more than me!

But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.

I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.

Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.

Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.

The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.

Dude 5 minutes ago you just said they are historical experts because they were shot at.

Dude your reading comprehension is very questionable. The observations of the soldiers and marines involved in so many of the battles of WW2 don't compare to modern revisionist history. Many modern day historians refer to D day as a glorious victory for the allied forces. Operation Overlord was in most respects an unmitigated disaster. The airborne drops were a catastrophe, The armored support for the infantry at Omaha beach sunk in the channel. The infantry landings at Utah beach were in the wrong place. The rangers at Pt Du Hoc went chasing after German artillery that was not there. The only reasons that D day succeeded are simple. Erwin Rommel was in Germany celebrating his wifes birthday and the Bavarian corporal slept in and not believing this was the real invasion, never released the German Panzers that could have beaten the invasion back into the Atlantic Ocean. The historical experts were men like Ryan who interviewed the combatants on both sides and documented their stories and transformed those stories into books for all of us to understand the truth.

Who interviewed the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What did they think of the bombing?

And does it matter what they thought the reasons were that the Americans had done it?

I'm guessing if these residents heard of Pearl Harbor they might have a comprehension why they were victims of the war their leaders started. War is hell as Gen. Sherman said. The citizens of Atlanta learned that lesson as well. You know how to fight a kinder and gentler kind of war, I'm all ears.

How many civilians killed at Pearl Harbor?

News flash bumpkin... we were not at war before the attack at Pearl Harbor. You sound really stupid bumpkin. We were at war with Japan bumkin in case your history happens to evade you. War is hell to quote Gen William T Sherman. The folks in Atlanta Georgia back when the city was burned to the ground will verify that fact for you. There are many southerners still to this day think that Sherman was guilty of war crimes. What say you bumpkin? You do understand you sound really stupid trying to make your point...

"bumpkin"???

cradle, you're the one going off half cocked.

The question was never whether "war is hell", no debate on that here. The question was whether it was actually necessary to use the nuclear weapon once, and to my mind, even more of a question as to twice, 9 days later.

The argument had been made that the attack on Pearl Harbor, a military base, justified the dropping of those two bombs on civilian populations. So, the logical question was how many civilians died at Pearl Harbor...did that attack really justify those two bombs? Both?

(Hint: no. The more compelling argument is the potential loss of life, on both sides, of a long, drawn out battle island to island).

Now, as to the "sneak attack", is it relevant to recognize that the US was enforcing a blockade on Japan prior to that attack? Is it relevant to understand that a blockade is typically considered an act of war? Is it relevant to understand that our military was not actually surprised by a strike from Japan, rather their surprise was that it was at Pearl Harbor rather than the Philippines. Our commanders didn't adequately imagine the reach the Japanese had, nor the audacity, of that strike.

But it sure unleashed the rage of the American public, didn't it?

Without doing a google search do you know what the phrase half cocked means? The Empire of Japan declared war on the USA on December 7 1941. You do know that prior to the attack the US and FDR were negotiating the oil blockades you speak of? You are doing a marvelous job of Monday morning quarterbacking... woulda, shoulda, coulda blaaaah blaaaah yada yada. Your primary gripe is with Harry Truman bumpkin. You do know that FDR never even told Truman about the existence of the Manhattan Project? Truman made the call, unless your chain of logic here insinuates that Truman was also involved in being an anti Jap racist SOB. Out of curiosity MD, how many former veterans of the pacific theatre have you ever regaled with your brilliant observations? You know them, the many thousands of combat marines and combat army men that would have died invading the Island of Japan. FTR, my dad was one of those combat veterans humbly informed after a year of front line combat in europe that they had been chosen to train for the invasion of Japan. The Japanese decided they did not know when to quit. I have no problem with the decision Harry Truman made. If you have a problem with it.. then deal with it. Why don't you take your venom out where it belongs, that person would be the sitting POTUS when the order was given.

Yes, I meant "half-cocked"...you're throwing poop at someone whose argument you hadn't bothered to understand first. Half-cocked.

Re your dad, as you've told us maybe 100 times, cradle.

And no disrespect in the slightest to your dad, as I've also made clear maybe 100 times.

Yes, there were efforts to negotiate, but the sides could not come to terms. Meanwhile the freeze of Japan's assets and the blockade continued. That's considered an act of war.

https://adst.org/2013/11/the-failed-att ... apan-1941/

I simply don't see a military strike against the US, horrendously damaging as that was, to be justification for the two nuclear bomb drops on civilians. As I said, there's a much more compelling case about preventing the necessity for guys like your dad to have to invade, but that wasn't the argument being made re Pearl Harbor.

And sure, Truman indeed made this decision. I'm sure it was a really, really hard one. And it's clear that he was receiving advice to do so. But yes, like many others, he'd spoken of the Japanese in ways that certainly could be considered 'racist'. But whether racist or not, he made the call to drop the second bomb as well.

Again, have a good Thanksgiving.

[old salt]

... is it relevant to recognize that the US was enforcing a blockade on Japan prior to that attack? Is it relevant to understand that a blockade is typically considered an act of war? Is it relevant to understand that our military was not actually surprised by a strike from Japan, rather their surprise was that it was at Pearl Harbor rather than the Philippines. Our commanders didn't adequately imagine the reach the Japanese had, nor the audacity, of that strike.

Good grief.

[Brooklyn]

A couple hours ago I was on a youtube chat re the Darrell Brooks legal proceedings in Wisconsin. No surprise that certain delusionals ascribed the horrific actions to BLM with one or two ascribing it to Antifa. Naturally, when pressed to produce evidence they got silent or claimed that the Democratic party would soon raise bail for Brooks. Interestingly that while he was accused of racialist hatred towards whites some delusionals denied that Robert Aaron Long (who murdered four Asian women, injured or killed others, and injured a Hispanic man) was a racist. They suggested that society should have compassion for him because he had mental problems unlike Brooks who, they claimed, was motivated by hate.

[MDlaxfan76]

... is it relevant to recognize that the US was enforcing a blockade on Japan prior to that attack? Is it relevant to understand that a blockade is typically considered an act of war? Is it relevant to understand that our military was not actually surprised by a strike from Japan, rather their surprise was that it was at Pearl Harbor rather than the Philippines. Our commanders didn't adequately imagine the reach the Japanese had, nor the audacity, of that strike.

Good grief.

What aspect causes you grief?

That's factual.

But perhaps you're reading into my statement something more? Perhaps beyond my intent?

This discussion was simply about whether the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor justified the dropping of two nuclear bombs. And the argument was that the "surprise" justified revenge.

[MDlaxfan76]

A couple hours ago I was on a youtube chat re the Darrell Brooks legal proceedings in Wisconsin. No surprise that certain delusionals ascribed the horrific actions to BLM with one or two ascribing it to Antifa. Naturally, when pressed to produce evidence they got silent or claimed that the Democratic party would soon raise bail for Brooks. Interestingly that while he was accused of racialist hatred towards whites some delusionals denied that Robert Aaron Long (who murdered four Asian women, injured or killed others, and injured a Hispanic man) was a racist. They suggested that society should have compassion for him because he had mental problems unlike Brooks who, they claimed, was motivated by hate.

yuck, youtube.