Is America a racist nation?

[jhu72]

Behavior of the defense attorneys in the Arbery case. The defense attorneys in the Arbery case had no real defense - sh*t against a wall is what they had, and not very good sh*t. In the end all they had was calls to racism. They behaved disgracefully, even the judge knew it. The mostly white jury didn't fall for it.

Some will say "see see, there is no racism" a white jury found three white men guilty of killing a black man. No the fact that calls to racism is what the local attorneys resorted to means they believed (knew) they had at least one juror, perhaps a few, that could be sensitive to such calls. Those jurors, a minority, weren't going to play their race cards in front of their neighbors in such a clear case, so visibly. The good people of Georgia have to be tired of being embarrassed by the racists among them.

This is progress. A very good day. Gives one hope.

[Brooklyn]

Behavior of the defense attorneys in the Arbery case. The defense attorneys in the Arbery case had no real defense - sh*t against a wall is what they had, and not very good sh*t. In the end all they had was calls to racism. They behaved disgracefully, even the judge knew it. The mostly white jury didn't fall for it.

Regret now that I did not watch at least of the proceedings so that I would know what precisely they did wrong. Hopefully, if tRump goes back into the White House he won't release them. You just never know ...

[jhu72]

Behavior of the defense attorneys in the Arbery case. The defense attorneys in the Arbery case had no real defense - sh*t against a wall is what they had, and not very good sh*t. In the end all they had was calls to racism. They behaved disgracefully, even the judge knew it. The mostly white jury didn't fall for it.

Regret now that I did not watch at least of the proceedings so that I would know what precisely they did wrong. Hopefully, if tRump goes back into the White House he won't release them. You just never know ...

... if I understand your post correctly, the answer is -- there was a camera the defendants were caught on. This is a state case, Orange Duce would have no ability to pardon.

[Farfromgeneva]

Behavior of the defense attorneys in the Arbery case. The defense attorneys in the Arbery case had no real defense - sh*t against a wall is what they had, and not very good sh*t. In the end all they had was calls to racism. They behaved disgracefully, even the judge knew it. The mostly white jury didn't fall for it.

Some will say "see see, there is no racism" a white jury found three white men guilty of killing a black man. No the fact that calls to racism is what the local attorneys resorted to means they believed (knew) they had at least one juror, perhaps a few, that could be sensitive to such calls. Those jurors, a minority, weren't going to play their race cards in front of their neighbors in such a clear case, so visibly. The good people of Georgia have to be tired of being embarrassed by the racists among them.

This is progress. A very good day. Gives one hope.

Raffensberger and Kemp stood up to Trump. This verdict. Don’t tell me Wisconsin or Ohio are so much more enlightened than GA!

[jhu72]

Behavior of the defense attorneys in the Arbery case. The defense attorneys in the Arbery case had no real defense - sh*t against a wall is what they had, and not very good sh*t. In the end all they had was calls to racism. They behaved disgracefully, even the judge knew it. The mostly white jury didn't fall for it.

Some will say "see see, there is no racism" a white jury found three white men guilty of killing a black man. No the fact that calls to racism is what the local attorneys resorted to means they believed (knew) they had at least one juror, perhaps a few, that could be sensitive to such calls. Those jurors, a minority, weren't going to play their race cards in front of their neighbors in such a clear case, so visibly. The good people of Georgia have to be tired of being embarrassed by the racists among them.

This is progress. A very good day. Gives one hope.

Raffensberger and Kemp stood up to Trump. This verdict. Don’t tell me Wisconsin or Ohio are so much more enlightened than GA!

I had the same thought. Actually I suspect a number of southern states are now out pacing northern states in rate of change. It is embarrassing I am sure for the good folks of GA (and other southern states) to always be known by their hind most. Of course we still have the new voting access laws, with power concentrated in the hands of only a few of questionable character.

[ardilla secreta]

I forget the details, but didn’t the DA try to sweep this case under the rug? Then got in trouble for not doing anything.

[jhu72]

I forget the details, but didn’t the DA try to sweep this case under the rug? Then got in trouble for not doing anything.

... yup. Local reporters stayed on the case. Liberal community organizers like Stacy Abrams stayed on the case. Black churches and pastors stayed on the case.

[Kismet]

I forget the details, but didn’t the DA try to sweep this case under the rug? Then got in trouble for not doing anything.

Local DA is under indictment for that. She was arrested for criminal misconduct, released on a personal recognizance bond and should be going to trial soon. Georgia State AG is the prosecutor in the case not the local DA office.

Supreme irony is that the phone video leak came from a local lawyer who was giving the perps advice and he actually thought it would help their case.

[Farfromgeneva]

Behavior of the defense attorneys in the Arbery case. The defense attorneys in the Arbery case had no real defense - sh*t against a wall is what they had, and not very good sh*t. In the end all they had was calls to racism. They behaved disgracefully, even the judge knew it. The mostly white jury didn't fall for it.

Some will say "see see, there is no racism" a white jury found three white men guilty of killing a black man. No the fact that calls to racism is what the local attorneys resorted to means they believed (knew) they had at least one juror, perhaps a few, that could be sensitive to such calls. Those jurors, a minority, weren't going to play their race cards in front of their neighbors in such a clear case, so visibly. The good people of Georgia have to be tired of being embarrassed by the racists among them.

This is progress. A very good day. Gives one hope.

Raffensberger and Kemp stood up to Trump. This verdict. Don’t tell me Wisconsin or Ohio are so much more enlightened than GA!

I had the same thought. Actually I suspect a number of southern states are now out pacing northern states in rate of change. It is embarrassing I am sure for the good folks of GA (and other southern states) to always be known by their hind most. Of course we still have the new voting access laws, with power concentrated in the hands of only a few of questionable character.

Most people in metro areas don't like to talk about MTG...But go to like Springfield or Rockland Mass, Buffalo NY, etc....

Kemp did endorse, at least implicitly, the voter law changes, but folks down here know exactly who he is. A political animal who still has some sense of civic duty.

[Farfromgeneva]

I forget the details, but didn’t the DA try to sweep this case under the rug? Then got in trouble for not doing anything.

Local DA is under indictment for that. She was arrested, released on a personal recognizance bond and should be going to trial soon. Georgia State AG is the prosecutor in the case

Keep in mind this is a rural area not really close to anything except sorta kinda Savannah.

[Brooklyn]

Behavior of the defense attorneys in the Arbery case. The defense attorneys in the Arbery case had no real defense - sh*t against a wall is what they had, and not very good sh*t. In the end all they had was calls to racism. They behaved disgracefully, even the judge knew it. The mostly white jury didn't fall for it.

Regret now that I did not watch at least of the proceedings so that I would know what precisely they did wrong. Hopefully, if tRump goes back into the White House he won't release them. You just never know ...

... if I understand your post correctly, the answer is -- there was a camera the defendants were caught on. This is a state case, Orange Duce would have no ability to pardon.

There will soon be a federal civil rights violation case and he has the authority to pardon them for any conviction. The convicts can also appeal to the US Supreme Court which the Orange Crap has stacked with right wingnuts who could easily overturn any conviction. We shall see what happens next.

[MDlaxfan76]

Behavior of the defense attorneys in the Arbery case. The defense attorneys in the Arbery case had no real defense - sh*t against a wall is what they had, and not very good sh*t. In the end all they had was calls to racism. They behaved disgracefully, even the judge knew it. The mostly white jury didn't fall for it.

Regret now that I did not watch at least of the proceedings so that I would know what precisely they did wrong. Hopefully, if tRump goes back into the White House he won't release them. You just never know ...

... if I understand your post correctly, the answer is -- there was a camera the defendants were caught on. This is a state case, Orange Duce would have no ability to pardon.

There will soon be a federal civil rights violation case and he has the authority to pardon them for any conviction. The convicts can also appeal to the US Supreme Court which the Orange Crap has stacked with right wingnuts who could easily overturn any conviction. We shall see what happens next.

Yes, the federal hate crime, which they have not yet been convicted for, would be subject to pardon.
But the case sure looks like a slam dunk, hard to imagine that SCOTUS would take it up.
Not sure what the Constitutional issue would be.

[Farfromgeneva]

Behavior of the defense attorneys in the Arbery case. The defense attorneys in the Arbery case had no real defense - sh*t against a wall is what they had, and not very good sh*t. In the end all they had was calls to racism. They behaved disgracefully, even the judge knew it. The mostly white jury didn't fall for it.

Regret now that I did not watch at least of the proceedings so that I would know what precisely they did wrong. Hopefully, if tRump goes back into the White House he won't release them. You just never know ...

... if I understand your post correctly, the answer is -- there was a camera the defendants were caught on. This is a state case, Orange Duce would have no ability to pardon.

There will soon be a federal civil rights violation case and he has the authority to pardon them for any conviction. The convicts can also appeal to the US Supreme Court which the Orange Crap has stacked with right wingnuts who could easily overturn any conviction. We shall see what happens next.

Yes, the federal hate crime, which they have not yet been convicted for, would be subject to pardon.
But the case sure looks like a slam dunk, hard to imagine that SCOTUS would take it up.
Not sure what the Constitutional issue would be.

They’re definitely going to get “slam dunked” without the benefit of olive oil lube by Nasty Nate.

[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.

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.

I have brought up my dad 100 times. i will bring up my dad 1000 times more. My dad had skin in the game MD all you have is an opinion structured 75 plus years after the fact. It wasn't your ass that after surviving almost a year of front line combat in France, Belgium, Germany and ending up the war riding tanks in Czeckoslavakia was going to be put on the line again. i suggest you read Flags of our Fathers sometime. The end of the book has an interesting conversation between the author and his father. His old man explains very clearly his contempt for the Japanese and why it was still so strong after all these decades. i am on board with OS in trying to decipher your logic here. IMO good grief sums it up perfectly. I hope you and your family have a great Thanksgiving.

ok, cradle. If you refuse to read and comprehend, including when I've been very specific about your dad, and extended that to all who didn't have to invade Japan, I can't help you further.

BTW, I have had those discussions with family members who were of age, including at sea in the Pacific...unfortunately, they've all passed at this point. I do understand the "contempt" they felt. And yeah, it went across the line to "racist". I listened to them 'justify' the concentration camps of American's of Japanese descent. I get it. And that's actually the point...it played a role in the dropping of those two bombs. It wasn't only the saving of American lives, important as that definitely was.

Have a good Thanksgiving.

In your world all of mans inhumanity to his fellow man is easily defined as racist. I guess the human race has known racism since the modern man/woman evolved. What played a role in the second bombing of Japan was the simple fact that the first bomb did not drive home the point. If the second bombing has your boxers in a knot then blame Harry Truman. What you are implicitly saying is Truman was a racist as well. You have the audacity to call me half cocked.. pot meet kettle. I do know the second bomb did drive home the point to the emperor. If it were up to the military leaders of Japan they would have fought until the very last Japanese citizen was dead. If it makes you happy and assuages some sort of guilt you have deep inside yourself that is all fine by me. The fact that the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans soldiers, marines, navy and air force personnel were spared trumps any anguish you have about what Trumans intent may or may not have been. To quote the queen of evil... "at this point in time, what differance does it make" ? The only thing that matters is the Japanese empire surrendered... game, set and match.

I hope your family has a wonderful Thanksgiving as well. Our turkey just went in the oven.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Happy Thanksgiving 🍽. Enjoy the day.

[PizzaSnake]

[Typical Lax Dad]

Happy Thanksgiving….

[cradleandshoot]

Happy Thanksgiving….

[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.

I have brought up my dad 100 times. i will bring up my dad 1000 times more. My dad had skin in the game MD all you have is an opinion structured 75 plus years after the fact. It wasn't your ass that after surviving almost a year of front line combat in France, Belgium, Germany and ending up the war riding tanks in Czeckoslavakia was going to be put on the line again. i suggest you read Flags of our Fathers sometime. The end of the book has an interesting conversation between the author and his father. His old man explains very clearly his contempt for the Japanese and why it was still so strong after all these decades. i am on board with OS in trying to decipher your logic here. IMO good grief sums it up perfectly. I hope you and your family have a great Thanksgiving.

ok, cradle. If you refuse to read and comprehend, including when I've been very specific about your dad, and extended that to all who didn't have to invade Japan, I can't help you further.

BTW, I have had those discussions with family members who were of age, including at sea in the Pacific...unfortunately, they've all passed at this point. I do understand the "contempt" they felt. And yeah, it went across the line to "racist". I listened to them 'justify' the concentration camps of American's of Japanese descent. I get it. And that's actually the point...it played a role in the dropping of those two bombs. It wasn't only the saving of American lives, important as that definitely was.

Have a good Thanksgiving.

In your world all of mans inhumanity to his fellow man is easily defined as racist. I guess the human race has known racism since the modern man/woman evolved. What played a role in the second bombing of Japan was the simple fact that the first bomb did not drive home the point. If the second bombing has your boxers in a knot then blame Harry Truman. What you are implicitly saying is Truman was a racist as well. You have the audacity to call me half cocked.. pot meet kettle. I do know the second bomb did drive home the point to the emperor. If it were up to the military leaders of Japan they would have fought until the very last Japanese citizen was dead. If it makes you happy and assuages some sort of guilt you have deep inside yourself that is all fine by me. The fact that the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans soldiers, marines, navy and air force personnel were spared trumps any anguish you have about what Trumans intent may or may not have been. To quote the queen of evil... "at this point in time, what differance does it make" ? The only thing that matters is the Japanese empire surrendered... game, set and match.

I hope your family has a wonderful Thanksgiving as well. Our turkey just went in the oven.

Truman and race relations are complicated. He was known to use racial slurs and jokes, typical of the time. On the other hand, he desegregated the military.

Likewise, he was known to have used racial slurs about the Japanese, again very much in line with the zeitgeist of the time.

I'm not making some big moral judgment about Truman.

Rather, I'm simply saying that the racism of the time played a substantial role in all sorts of decisions of the era, including this one. I'm also not saying it was necessarily the decisive aspect that made the dropping of the nuclear bomb on the civilian population possible, but it certainly would have reinforced it. Again, I take more issue with the dropping of the second one just 9 days later, instead of allowing the Japanese military more time to fully comprehend the magnitude of what had happened. To me, that's particularly open to question as to whether racism played an important role in the decision to go ahead.

Where racism becomes very, very clear as decisive was the internment of Japanese Americans but not German Americans or Italian Americans. That one, to me, is rather straightforward. Of course, lots of people deny that as well, coming up with all sorts of excuses.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.sgvtribune.com/2017/02/18/i ... 6-too/amp/