Is America a racist nation?

[Typical Lax Dad]

We mostly bomb folk after they have been dehumanized. Public opinion will be on our side.

[Kismet]

Well this discussion pretty much were downhill and off the rails quickly. It happens often around here.

I'm with OS on this one that certainly there was racial animus towards the Japanese and much of it had to do with their actions during the war that were barbarous and cruel. That said, the racism towards Asian people was well documented and evident in this country before the war began. The internment of US citizens of Japanese descent including children without trial or evidence certainly speaks volumes on the subject. Certainly the decision makers (Truman and his military advisors) knew of that and may even have shared the view. But to suggest that it was a major component of the decision to drop the bomb just aren't supported by much in the way of hard facts.

Certainly, the desire to end the war quickly without invading the home islands of Japan and the Soviet threat appear to be much more likely to have provided the main impetus for the decisions that were made IMHO.

The second bomb issue is also not supported by any hard facts and the Soviet angle is certainly plausible. Previous mention of the horror and depravity
of incendiary bombing is also instructive. The imagery of use of the atomic bomb gets much more play and it does appear that both are light years ahead of other activities in wartime.

Lastly, as someone who has used the Popeye reference towards OS, I did not read anything into the cartoon except that which applied to this thread and discussion.

[MDlaxfan76]

And you keep ignoring all the evidence that addresses your absolute certainty, indeed substantially refutes it.

But the racial animus was definitely real.

Stop whining about absolute certainty when you can't muster the facts to support your position & are too lazy to find them.

Who said racial animus was not real ? I asserted that it was not a significant factor in the decision to drop the Bomb, & certainly not a primary factor, as some assert.

assert away; you're simply not persuasive.

It's really complicated, many factors, for sure, but it's very clear that the racial animus clearly effected other decisions that are in retrospect quite outrageous but were "justified" at the time and for decades thereafter..., and these two bomb drops are the only such dropped on a civilian population, ever...9 days apart.

Yes or no ? Are you asserting that absent racial animus, Truman would not have dropped the Bomb(s) on Japan ?

The success of post war nuc deterrence is irrelevant to the decision making in 1945.
All the powers were racing to get the Bomb to use it to end the war. There was no nuclear taboo, yet.

Yes, IMO absent that factor, the second bomb would not have been dropped just 9 days later.

Of course, I agree that absent the calculations about how many Americans would be lost with the continuation of the war... to achieve unilateral surrender... the first also would not have been dropped. That may well have been the most important factor, perhaps sufficient in and of itself.

Unilateral surrender being demanded as the only acceptable outcome....how much of that demand was tinged with the racial animus?

But then again, likewise absent that racial animus and revenge impulse, it's not clear that even those calculations would have led to the first drop, though I think that's far more debatable. I tend to side with those who think that one may have happened anyway.

But the second one, just 9 days later, I simply don't see that happening absent the racial animus.

Bottomline, we know the racial animus was very real, very strident, and permeated the decision makers, not simply the American zeitgeist. I think that was crucial to the decision to drop the second bomb, more arguable about the first, though its reality undoubtedly made the first more likely, easier.

[Kismet]

Unilateral surrender being demanded as the only acceptable outcome....how much of that demand was tinged with the racial animus?

Germany received the same demand and offer of unconditional surrender without conditions. They accepted.

[CU88]

But we are slowly, ever so slowly, making improvements.

https://www.cleveland.com/guardians/202 ... riday.html

[Typical Lax Dad]

Well this discussion pretty much were downhill and off the rails quickly. It happens often around here.

I'm with OS on this one that certainly there was racial animus towards the Japanese and much of it had to do with their actions during the war that were barbarous and cruel. That said, the racism towards Asian people was well documented and evident in this country before the war began. The internment of US citizens of Japanese descent including children without trial or evidence certainly speaks volumes on the subject. Certainly the decision makers (Truman and his military advisors) knew of that and may even have shared the view. But to suggest that it was a major component of the decision to drop the bomb just aren't supported by much in the way of hard facts.

Certainly, the desire to end the war quickly without invading the home islands of Japan and the Soviet threat appear to be much more likely to have provided the main impetus for the decisions that were made IMHO.

The second bomb issue is also not supported by any hard facts and the Soviet angle is certainly plausible. Previous mention of the horror and depravity
of incendiary bombing is also instructive. The imagery of use of the atomic bomb gets much more play and it does appear that both are light years ahead of other activities in wartime.

Lastly, as someone who has used the Popeye reference towards OS, I did not read anything into the cartoon except that which applied to this thread and discussion.

Mass media communication and how it shapes public opinion and how it is used by governments around the world was something I studied in college. I posted the YouTube as an example of how it was used. I don’t believe we dropped those bombs on Japan just because of racism. Unfortunately decisions are complicated and I am not sure we would have dropped that bomb in Germany. The treatment of Japanese Americans versus German and Italian Americans is why I wondered about it. I don’t believe dropping those bombs was just based on racism….the selling of the bombing after the fact was made easier. The Japanese did some atrocious things. That also made it easier to sell.

[Kismet]

Well this discussion pretty much were downhill and off the rails quickly. It happens often around here.

I'm with OS on this one that certainly there was racial animus towards the Japanese and much of it had to do with their actions during the war that were barbarous and cruel. That said, the racism towards Asian people was well documented and evident in this country before the war began. The internment of US citizens of Japanese descent including children without trial or evidence certainly speaks volumes on the subject. Certainly the decision makers (Truman and his military advisors) knew of that and may even have shared the view. But to suggest that it was a major component of the decision to drop the bomb just aren't supported by much in the way of hard facts.

Certainly, the desire to end the war quickly without invading the home islands of Japan and the Soviet threat appear to be much more likely to have provided the main impetus for the decisions that were made IMHO.

The second bomb issue is also not supported by any hard facts and the Soviet angle is certainly plausible. Previous mention of the horror and depravity
of incendiary bombing is also instructive. The imagery of use of the atomic bomb gets much more play and it does appear that both are light years ahead of other activities in wartime.

Lastly, as someone who has used the Popeye reference towards OS, I did not read anything into the cartoon except that which applied to this thread and discussion.

Mass media communication and how it shapes public opinion and how it is used by governments around the world was something I studied in college. I posted the YouTube as an example of how it was used. I don’t believe we dropped those bombs on Japan just because of racism. Unfortunately decisions are complicated and I am not sure we would have dropped that bomb in Germany. The treatment of Japanese Americans versus German and Italian Americans is why I wondered about it. I don’t believe dropping those bombs was just based on racism….the selling of the bombing after the fact was made easier. The Japanese did some atrocious things. That also made it easier to sell.

I suspect that had Hitler survived longer and German intransigence on surrender was like the Japanese that an atomic bomb might have been used to accomplish the goal of unconditional surrender in Europe. After all, we had two bombs. Thankfully, Hitler committed suicide rather than capture by the Soviets and saner heads prevailed after his demise.

Keep in mind, that we knew the Nazis were developing similar types of nuclear weapons and I'm sure that fact might certainly have figured into any decision tree had one needed to be considered.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Well this discussion pretty much were downhill and off the rails quickly. It happens often around here.

I'm with OS on this one that certainly there was racial animus towards the Japanese and much of it had to do with their actions during the war that were barbarous and cruel. That said, the racism towards Asian people was well documented and evident in this country before the war began. The internment of US citizens of Japanese descent including children without trial or evidence certainly speaks volumes on the subject. Certainly the decision makers (Truman and his military advisors) knew of that and may even have shared the view. But to suggest that it was a major component of the decision to drop the bomb just aren't supported by much in the way of hard facts.

Certainly, the desire to end the war quickly without invading the home islands of Japan and the Soviet threat appear to be much more likely to have provided the main impetus for the decisions that were made IMHO.

The second bomb issue is also not supported by any hard facts and the Soviet angle is certainly plausible. Previous mention of the horror and depravity
of incendiary bombing is also instructive. The imagery of use of the atomic bomb gets much more play and it does appear that both are light years ahead of other activities in wartime.

Lastly, as someone who has used the Popeye reference towards OS, I did not read anything into the cartoon except that which applied to this thread and discussion.

Mass media communication and how it shapes public opinion and how it is used by governments around the world was something I studied in college. I posted the YouTube as an example of how it was used. I don’t believe we dropped those bombs on Japan just because of racism. Unfortunately decisions are complicated and I am not sure we would have dropped that bomb in Germany. The treatment of Japanese Americans versus German and Italian Americans is why I wondered about it. I don’t believe dropping those bombs was just based on racism….the selling of the bombing after the fact was made easier. The Japanese did some atrocious things. That also made it easier to sell.

I suspect that had Hitler survived longer and German intransigence on surrender was like the Japanese that an atomic bomb might have been used to accomplish the goal of unconditional surrender in Europe. After all, we had two bombs. Thankfully, Hitler committed suicide rather than capture by the Soviets and saner heads prevailed after his demise.

Keep in mind, that we knew the Nazis were developing similar types of nuclear weapons and I'm sure that fact might certainly have figured into any decision tree had one needed to be considered.

Yep. If I am not mistaken, the only person that suggested it’s either racism or not was Old Woke. I believe he was mad at that 1619 lady that doesn’t post here.

[old salt]

If I am not mistaken, the only person that suggested it’s either racism or not was Old Woke. I believe he was mad at that 1619 lady that doesn’t post here.

Look at the title of this thread. Look at my original post -- you will see that I posted, without comment, a review of her latest foray into race based revisionist history, She more than "suggested" that it was due to racism -- that was the entire content of her article.

Until requested by Kismet, I refrained from further comment because I knew how the discussion would devolve.
The offensive, racist Popeye cartoon was exactly what I anticipated & hoped to avoid, inflaming & diverting a fact based discussion.
I expected to change no woke minds, but once drawn in, I wanted them to defend their race based position with historical facts.
Like the 1619 lady, the defense was based on emotion & a narrow misinterpretation of selective facts, which ignored the wider historical record, second guessing wartime decisions made in 1945 through a 2021 woke fogged lens.

[Typical Lax Dad]

If I am not mistaken, the only person that suggested it’s either racism or not was Old Woke. I believe he was mad at that 1619 lady that doesn’t post here.

Look at the title of this thread. Look at my original post -- you will see that I posted, without comment, a review of her latest foray into race based revisionist history, She more than "suggested" that it was due to racism -- that was the entire content of her article.

Until requested by Kismet, I refrained from further comment because I knew how the discussion would devolve.
The offensive, racist Popeye cartoon was exactly what I anticipated & hoped to avoid, inflaming & diverting a fact based discussion.
I expected to change no woke minds, but once drawn in, I wanted them to defend their race based position with historical facts.
Like the 1619 lady, the defense was based on emotion & a narrow misinterpretation of selective facts, which ignored the wider historical record, second guessing wartime decisions made in 1945 through a 2021 woke fogged lens.

I don’t care about woke woman. Don’t know why you do. I was wondering if racist animus contributed….woke woman is the first to bring it up? who knows why people do what they do. You don’t believe de-humanizing people can impact a decision about those people? Long history makes me question it. Anyway, who cares? You got yours….I am gettin’ mines. Life is good.

[MDlaxfan76]

Actually, you posted a National Review article that attacked Hannah-Jones and Zinn, with the claim that it's an irrefutable fact that racism didn't factor into the decision to drop the bombs on Japanese civilians.

I responded with Zinn's direct discussion on this topic, rather than some slanted National Review commentator.

The 1619 Project historian is branching out {from behind the National Review paywall }

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/ ... c-history/

Nikole Hannah-Jones Mangles World War II Atomic History

By ARTHUR HERMAN
November 15, 2021

The New York Times columnist is very wrong, yet again.
We’ve now been greeted with yet another rendition of fake history. This time, it is purveyed by two of the most prominent and persistent fakers: Nikole Hannah-Jones of the 1619 Project and Howard Zinn, author of the most popular (and misleading) history textbook, A People’s History of the United States.

The misrepresentations, distortions, and outright falsifications of history contained in the 1619 Project have been carefully exposed elsewhere. Nonetheless, Ms. Hannah-Jones recently decided to extend her streak from the history of slavery to the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. She posted this tweet, which has since been deleted:

They [the federal government] dropped the bomb when they knew surrender was coming because they’d spent all this money developing it and to prove it was worth it. Propaganda is not history, my friend.

It’s not hard to identify where she got this counterfactual account of Hiroshima; indeed, it comes from Howard Zinn, who wrote in his People’s History that “the Japanese had begun talking of surrender a year before this” but the Americans insisted on unconditional surrender, which made peace impossible. “Why did the United States not take that small step to save both American and Japanese lives? Was it because too much money and effort had been invested in the atomic bomb not to drop it?,” Zinn pondered.

So much for propaganda versus history. It’s now generally accepted by everyone who knows anything about the subject — including Japanese historians — that the key reason for using the atomic bomb was not racist bloodlust (as the Smithsonian’s abortive Enola Gay exhibit tried to insinuate a few years ago), or (as in another leftist tract, Gar Alperovitz’s Atomic Diplomacy) a cynical desire to impress Stalin and the Soviet Union with our newfound nuclear prowess, but rather an overwhelming concern about the staggering cost in casualties a U.S. invasion of Japan would incur — not to mention Japanese deaths. At a White House meeting on June 18, 1945, a very worried President Truman learned that the man who was to head the invasion of the island of Kyushu, General Douglas MacArthur, estimated that U.S. casualties would approach 120,000 in the first 90 days. The navy’s overall estimate ran to a quarter-million casualties overall — with the battle for Honshu and Tokyo, the capital, still to come.

It was in order to forestall an apocalyptic fight to the death between American soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians that would drag on for months or even years that Truman on July 28 authorized the dropping of one of the two available atomic bombs on the city of Hiroshima, and then, if Japan still refused to surrender, dropping the second on Nagasaki.

These facts are well-known — well-known, it seems, to everyone except Hannah-Jones, Zinn, and their fans. What isn’t so well known is that American decrypts of Japanese military ciphers on the eve of Hiroshima had established that, far from being close to surrender, or even discouraged by one major defeat after another — from Iwo Jima and the Philippines to Okinawa — Japan’s military leadership was determined to fight on to the finish.

Historian Junichiro Shoji has recently revealed how intransigent the Japanese military had become in defending the decision to prosecute the war irrespective of any human cost. Even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the military remained unwavering. The generals even called for the “honorable death of 100 million” in a “battle for the Japanese Home Islands.” At a meeting with the Emperor on August 14, almost a week after the second bomb had been dropped on Nagasaki, both Army Marshal Sugiyama and Admiral Nagano insisted that “the military still has strength remaining and its morale is strong. Based on these [factors], it should be able to resist and resolutely repel the invading U.S. forces.”

The use of atomic weapons, however, did tip the hand of the one person who had the power to overrule Japan’s military elite — namely, Hirohito himself. The shocking devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki only confirmed his private belief that Japan had nothing to gain by fighting on. On August 12, he told the imperial family the circumstances, “Do not lead me to believe that the military would be victorious in the Battle for the Home Islands.” The only option was to accept the conditions laid out the declaration made by the Big Three at their meeting at Potsdam, Germany, on July 26, that called for the surrender of Japan but left the issue of preserving Japan’s national polity, including the status of the Emperor, open.

The Japanese government had already rejected the Potsdam offer on July 28. But on August 10, two days after Nagasaki, the Japanese cabinet, headed by Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, issued an emergency telegram stating that it would accept the Potsdam declaration with the understanding that this did not compromise the Emperor’s future status. Secretary of State James Byrnes then issued a reply stating that the Emperor’s status and that of the Japanese government would be “subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers,” who would be Douglas MacArthur.

That assurance gave Hirohito the courage to overrule his military leaders and to tell the Japanese people in a nationwide broadcast on August 15 that they would have “to endure the unendurable” and accept surrender. Any remaining anxiety about the Emperor’s status was dispelled when a Japanese delegation arrived in Manila on August 19 to negotiate the final terms of surrender, and MacArthur made it clear that he had no intention of overturning Emperor Hirohito’s authority. “Through him it will be possible to maintain a completely orderly government” for rebuilding post-war Japan, the general explained.

In the end, Japan’s final surrender in World War II was due to three people: Secretary of State James Byrnes, General Douglas MacArthur, and Emperor Hirohito. If atomic bombs had not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however, Hirohito and his civilian leadership might never have had the courage to override a Japanese military that had largely taken over the government and was determined to fight to the last Japanese man, woman, and child. (A hardcore group of officers even tried unsuccessfully to kidnap the Emperor before his broadcast to the Japanese people.)

Indeed, the atomic bombs’ real contribution to peace was the implicit threat that the United States had more bombs ready to drop, which it did not. Intentional or not, the bluff worked, and prevented an invasion that would have led to American and Japanese deaths running into the millions. Australian historian Tom Lewis has recently estimated that worldwide it may have saved more than 32 million lives.

None of this, of course, makes any difference to Ms. Hannah-Jones or her intellectual guide Howard Zinn. The only remaining mystery is why she bothered to delete her tweet. Thus far the public and popular media have allowed her to get away with one counterfactual historical claim after another with impunity. Surely one more wouldn’t mar their record.

[old salt]

Well this discussion pretty much were downhill and off the rails quickly. It happens often around here.

I'm with OS on this one that certainly there was racial animus towards the Japanese and much of it had to do with their actions during the war that were barbarous and cruel. That said, the racism towards Asian people was well documented and evident in this country before the war began. The internment of US citizens of Japanese descent including children without trial or evidence certainly speaks volumes on the subject. Certainly the decision makers (Truman and his military advisors) knew of that and may even have shared the view. But to suggest that it was a major component of the decision to drop the bomb just aren't supported by much in the way of hard facts.

I agree that US racism towards Asians predated the war. Look at the exploitation of Chinese laborers in the gold rush & the building of the transcontinental railroad. That discrimination was the impetus for our first immigration laws.

That said, there were legitimate military & security considerations which influenced the internment decision.
(note -- I said "influenced", not "justified").

We were much more exposed to attack on our W coast than on our E coast. The Japanese had demonstrated an ability to project power to US territory that the Germans had not. They were ashore in the Aleutians. The Japanese had aircraft carriers & naval strike groups at sea, the Germans did not. We had the RAF & Royal Navy between our E coast & the threat. Not so on our W coast.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Actually, you posted a National Review article that attacked Hannah-Jones and Zinn, with the claim that it's an irrefutable fact that racism didn't factor into the decision to drop the bombs on Japanese civilians.

I responded with Zinn's direct discussion on this topic, rather than some slanted National Review commentator.

The 1619 Project historian is branching out {from behind the National Review paywall }

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/ ... c-history/

Nikole Hannah-Jones Mangles World War II Atomic History

By ARTHUR HERMAN
November 15, 2021

The New York Times columnist is very wrong, yet again.
We’ve now been greeted with yet another rendition of fake history. This time, it is purveyed by two of the most prominent and persistent fakers: Nikole Hannah-Jones of the 1619 Project and Howard Zinn, author of the most popular (and misleading) history textbook, A People’s History of the United States.

The misrepresentations, distortions, and outright falsifications of history contained in the 1619 Project have been carefully exposed elsewhere. Nonetheless, Ms. Hannah-Jones recently decided to extend her streak from the history of slavery to the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. She posted this tweet, which has since been deleted:

They [the federal government] dropped the bomb when they knew surrender was coming because they’d spent all this money developing it and to prove it was worth it. Propaganda is not history, my friend.

It’s not hard to identify where she got this counterfactual account of Hiroshima; indeed, it comes from Howard Zinn, who wrote in his People’s History that “the Japanese had begun talking of surrender a year before this” but the Americans insisted on unconditional surrender, which made peace impossible. “Why did the United States not take that small step to save both American and Japanese lives? Was it because too much money and effort had been invested in the atomic bomb not to drop it?,” Zinn pondered.

So much for propaganda versus history. It’s now generally accepted by everyone who knows anything about the subject — including Japanese historians — that the key reason for using the atomic bomb was not racist bloodlust (as the Smithsonian’s abortive Enola Gay exhibit tried to insinuate a few years ago), or (as in another leftist tract, Gar Alperovitz’s Atomic Diplomacy) a cynical desire to impress Stalin and the Soviet Union with our newfound nuclear prowess, but rather an overwhelming concern about the staggering cost in casualties a U.S. invasion of Japan would incur — not to mention Japanese deaths. At a White House meeting on June 18, 1945, a very worried President Truman learned that the man who was to head the invasion of the island of Kyushu, General Douglas MacArthur, estimated that U.S. casualties would approach 120,000 in the first 90 days. The navy’s overall estimate ran to a quarter-million casualties overall — with the battle for Honshu and Tokyo, the capital, still to come.

It was in order to forestall an apocalyptic fight to the death between American soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians that would drag on for months or even years that Truman on July 28 authorized the dropping of one of the two available atomic bombs on the city of Hiroshima, and then, if Japan still refused to surrender, dropping the second on Nagasaki.

These facts are well-known — well-known, it seems, to everyone except Hannah-Jones, Zinn, and their fans. What isn’t so well known is that American decrypts of Japanese military ciphers on the eve of Hiroshima had established that, far from being close to surrender, or even discouraged by one major defeat after another — from Iwo Jima and the Philippines to Okinawa — Japan’s military leadership was determined to fight on to the finish.

Historian Junichiro Shoji has recently revealed how intransigent the Japanese military had become in defending the decision to prosecute the war irrespective of any human cost. Even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the military remained unwavering. The generals even called for the “honorable death of 100 million” in a “battle for the Japanese Home Islands.” At a meeting with the Emperor on August 14, almost a week after the second bomb had been dropped on Nagasaki, both Army Marshal Sugiyama and Admiral Nagano insisted that “the military still has strength remaining and its morale is strong. Based on these [factors], it should be able to resist and resolutely repel the invading U.S. forces.”

The use of atomic weapons, however, did tip the hand of the one person who had the power to overrule Japan’s military elite — namely, Hirohito himself. The shocking devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki only confirmed his private belief that Japan had nothing to gain by fighting on. On August 12, he told the imperial family the circumstances, “Do not lead me to believe that the military would be victorious in the Battle for the Home Islands.” The only option was to accept the conditions laid out the declaration made by the Big Three at their meeting at Potsdam, Germany, on July 26, that called for the surrender of Japan but left the issue of preserving Japan’s national polity, including the status of the Emperor, open.

The Japanese government had already rejected the Potsdam offer on July 28. But on August 10, two days after Nagasaki, the Japanese cabinet, headed by Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, issued an emergency telegram stating that it would accept the Potsdam declaration with the understanding that this did not compromise the Emperor’s future status. Secretary of State James Byrnes then issued a reply stating that the Emperor’s status and that of the Japanese government would be “subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers,” who would be Douglas MacArthur.

That assurance gave Hirohito the courage to overrule his military leaders and to tell the Japanese people in a nationwide broadcast on August 15 that they would have “to endure the unendurable” and accept surrender. Any remaining anxiety about the Emperor’s status was dispelled when a Japanese delegation arrived in Manila on August 19 to negotiate the final terms of surrender, and MacArthur made it clear that he had no intention of overturning Emperor Hirohito’s authority. “Through him it will be possible to maintain a completely orderly government” for rebuilding post-war Japan, the general explained.

In the end, Japan’s final surrender in World War II was due to three people: Secretary of State James Byrnes, General Douglas MacArthur, and Emperor Hirohito. If atomic bombs had not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however, Hirohito and his civilian leadership might never have had the courage to override a Japanese military that had largely taken over the government and was determined to fight to the last Japanese man, woman, and child. (A hardcore group of officers even tried unsuccessfully to kidnap the Emperor before his broadcast to the Japanese people.)

Indeed, the atomic bombs’ real contribution to peace was the implicit threat that the United States had more bombs ready to drop, which it did not. Intentional or not, the bluff worked, and prevented an invasion that would have led to American and Japanese deaths running into the millions. Australian historian Tom Lewis has recently estimated that worldwide it may have saved more than 32 million lives.

None of this, of course, makes any difference to Ms. Hannah-Jones or her intellectual guide Howard Zinn. The only remaining mystery is why she bothered to delete her tweet. Thus far the public and popular media have allowed her to get away with one counterfactual historical claim after another with impunity. Surely one more wouldn’t mar their record.

Wonder how we would have handled the post bombing messaging here in this country had we bombed Germany and Italy….

“Although the building of the weapon was completed only after Germany surrendered on May 7, 1945, Japan had been designated the target on September 18, 1944, and training for the mission had already been initiated in that same month.”

Doesn’t sound like Japan was Plan B.

https://thebulletin.org/2020/08/memorial-days/

[old salt]

Actually, you posted a National Review article that attacked Hannah-Jones and Zinn, with the claim that it's an irrefutable fact that racism didn't factor into the decision to drop the bombs on Japanese civilians.

I responded with Zinn's direct discussion on this topic, rather than some slanted National Review commentator.

The 1619 Project historian is branching out {from behind the National Review paywall }

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/ ... c-history/

ACTUALLY -- as I said, I posted a review of her latest work, without comment. I claimed no irrefutable fact. I said nothing.

What is the point of your post other than wasting page space & cluttering this thread ?

Zinn has no "slant" ? (woke cya disclaimer -- no racist pun intended)

[Typical Lax Dad]

Actually, you posted a National Review article that attacked Hannah-Jones and Zinn, with the claim that it's an irrefutable fact that racism didn't factor into the decision to drop the bombs on Japanese civilians.

I responded with Zinn's direct discussion on this topic, rather than some slanted National Review commentator.

The 1619 Project historian is branching out {from behind the National Review paywall }

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/ ... c-history/

ACTUALLY -- as I said, I posted a review of her latest work, without comment. I claimed no irrefutable fact. I said nothing.

What is the point of your post other than wasting page space & cluttering this thread ?

Zinn has no "slant" ? (woke cya disclaimer -- no racist pun intended)

I should have used the disclaimer for Popeye.

[MDlaxfan76]

Actually, you posted a National Review article that attacked Hannah-Jones and Zinn, with the claim that it's an irrefutable fact that racism didn't factor into the decision to drop the bombs on Japanese civilians.

I responded with Zinn's direct discussion on this topic, rather than some slanted National Review commentator.

The 1619 Project historian is branching out {from behind the National Review paywall }

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/ ... c-history/

ACTUALLY -- as I said, I posted a review of her latest work, without comment. I claimed no irrefutable fact. I said nothing.

What is the point of your post other than wasting page space & cluttering this thread ?

Zinn has no "slant" ? (woke cya disclaimer -- no racist pun intended)

You posted a very slanted "review" by an NR commentator...that's what you had no "comment" to.

I'm not saying there's no reasonable argument on the question, but your chosen "review", which you posted "without comment", makes assertions that are simply not factual and indeed misrepresent, to my knowledge, Zinn's argument on the topic. So, I posted his actual discussion earlier. The reviewer had to know that the facts were not as irrefutable as they were presented in the review, but instead wrote in absolutist terms.

I don't know enough about Hannah-Jones' work on this topic to opine on her scholarship, but Zinn's a highly respected historian, though certainly controversial in some old line circles. But he's definitely a serious historian. Hannah-Jones is a journalist by trade, not an historian.

To be further clear, as apparently my words above were insufficiently so, I didn't say that you made the "claim that it's an irrefutable fact that racism didn't factor". That claim and that phrase pertains to the NR reviewer. That's the reviewer's "slant" and bias, not necessarily yours.

But you were silent. Having made the choice to share.

Re Hannah-Jones, if I'm not mistaken, she's responded constructively to the critiques of certain aspects of the 1619 Project by some well respected historians who took issue with some of the characterizations she had originally made in specific about the Revolution being about the maintenance of slavery as a core aspect and motivation of the revolt against Britain, which was moving against slavery. While her assertion is fair, they argue, about much of the motivation of much of the leadership of the southern states, it was not fair to say this so broadly across the board. She's modified text in a number of places to address such challenges and expressed a desire for the work to be ongoing, subject to further exploration and critique. That seems like an appropriate response to me...so, much as I think she can too easily go to hyperbole to make a point, she does seem willing to listen to those who engage in good faith. That's a plus.

Overall, I quite support the fundamental work of the 1619 Project, I think it makes a very important contribution to opening our eyes to more of the complexity of our history.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Actually, you posted a National Review article that attacked Hannah-Jones and Zinn, with the claim that it's an irrefutable fact that racism didn't factor into the decision to drop the bombs on Japanese civilians.

I responded with Zinn's direct discussion on this topic, rather than some slanted National Review commentator.

The 1619 Project historian is branching out {from behind the National Review paywall }

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/ ... c-history/

ACTUALLY -- as I said, I posted a review of her latest work, without comment. I claimed no irrefutable fact. I said nothing.

What is the point of your post other than wasting page space & cluttering this thread ?

Zinn has no "slant" ? (woke cya disclaimer -- no racist pun intended)

You posted a very slanted "review" by an NR commentator...that's what you had no "comment" to.

I'm not saying there's no reasonable argument on the question, but your chosen "review", which you posted "without comment", makes assertions that are simply not factual and indeed misrepresent, to my knowledge, Zinn's argument on the topic. So, I posted his actual discussion earlier. The reviewer had to know that the facts were not as irrefutable as they were presented in the review, but instead wrote in absolutist terms.

I don't know enough about Hannah-Jones' work on this topic to opine on her scholarship, but Zinn's a highly respected historian, though certainly controversial in some old line circles. But he's definitely a serious historian. Hannah-Jones is a journalist by trade, not an historian.

To be further clear, as apparently my words above were insufficiently so, I didn't say that you made the "claim that it's an irrefutable fact that racism didn't factor". That claim and that phrase pertains to the NR reviewer. That's the reviewer's "slant" and bias, not necessarily yours.

But you were silent. Having made the choice to share.

Re Hannah-Jones, if I'm not mistaken, she's responded constructively to the critiques of certain aspects of the 1619 Project by some well respected historians who took issue with some of the characterizations she had originally made in specific about the Revolution being about the maintenance of slavery as a core aspect and motivation of the revolt against Britain, which was moving against slavery. While her assertion is fair, they argue, about much of the motivation of much of the leadership of the southern states, it was not fair to say this so broadly across the board. She's modified text in a number of places to address such challenges and expressed a desire for the work to be ongoing, subject to further exploration and critique. That seems like an appropriate response to me...so, much as I think she can too easily go to hyperbole to make a point, she does seem willing to listen to those who engage in good faith. That's a plus.

Overall, I quite support the fundamental work of the 1619 Project, I think it makes a very important contribution to opening our eyes to more of the complexity of our history.

Old Woke is canceling her.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I want to thank Old Salt for bringing up this topic. I never would have taken the time to look into it on my own without his initial post on the topic. I learned a couple of things I didn’t know, primarily because I didn’t care.

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opini ... -as-racist

[MDlaxfan76]

I want to thank Old Salt for bringing up this topic. I never would have taken the time to look into it on my own without his initial post on the topic. I learned a couple of things I didn’t know, primarily because I didn’t care.

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opini ... -as-racist

That's a pretty good summary of my 'take' on it, based on all the reading I'd previously done.

[old salt]

I want to thank Old Salt for bringing up this topic. I never would have taken the time to look into it on my own without his initial post on the topic. I learned a couple of things I didn’t know, primarily because I didn’t care.

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opini ... -as-racist

That's a pretty good summary of my 'take' on it, based on all the reading I'd previously done.

...here's is Zinn's tormentor in the link you posted. He is our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific.
Today's woke revisionists are highjacking Zinn & other critics & adding in racism.

Zinn just blithely dismisses aii the Ultra intercepts & Magic analyses which were unclassified & unredacted just prior to 1995.

Richard B Frank is a serious objective historian & a leading expert on this subject.
Zinn was a crank who was scarred for life by his experience as a bombardier in the strategic bombing of Europe. He researched the carnage resulting from the raids in which he participated. His guilt & self-loathing compromised his objectivity. Yes, the carnage of strategic bombing in WW II on all fronts was horrendous. We appear to have learned from it. There are also examples of horrendous racism in our history, but neither is necessarily determinative in strategic military decisions like whether or not (& when) to drop the Bomb on Japan.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/week ... d-the-bomb
https://www.usni.org/people/richard-b-frank
https://www.amazon.com/Richard-B.-Frank ... scns_share