Is America a racist nation?

[MDlaxfan76]

In some good news: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/23/us/charl ... index.html

$26 million in damages, on the other hand, it was a hung jury on the federal conspiracy charges.

[Farfromgeneva]

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.

He meant to type in redtube

[youthathletics]

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.

He meant to type in redtube

[Brooklyn]

yuck, youtube.


He meant to type in redtube

naughty, naughty

[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.

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.

Tell us more about our act of war blockade of Japan.

[NattyBohChamps04]

The war on Christmas continues. Virginia Flaggers sad that the woke radical Mechanicsville Rotary (Mechanicsville!) won't allow random secessionist battle flags at their Christmas Parade:



Ann Coulter saying the quiet thing out loud:

[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.

[jhu72]

You would have hoped this kind of thing would have ended many years ago.

[jhu72]

Right wing media are such snowflakes. They can't stand the idea that not everyone sees the Rittenhouse case the same way they do. The University of Michigan response. Educators had the balls to state the obvious, that if Rittenhouse had not been white, things would have turned out very differently.

[dislaxxic]

Why Are the McMichaels So Scared?

Fear of being overpowered by Arbery isn’t even the only racist dog whistle in this case. In coverage of the initial shooting, nearly every media outlet parroted the McMichaels’ claims that they pursued Arbery out of concerns over rising crime in the neighborhood—in particular, a series of break-ins. But in court last week, those claims fell apart. The prosecutor, Linda Dunikoski, pointed out that out of all of the 911 calls made in 2019, only one was for burglary, and ultimately that call turned out to be a false alarm. Dunikoski then asked Travis McMichael how he learned about crime in the neighborhood, to which he replied that he learned from Facebook and his mother.

The testimony highlights a crucial privilege of whiteness (and maleness): always being given the benefit of the doubt. For months before they were even indicted, the defendants got to spread their version of the story. And the media published their claims over and over without questioning, fact-checking, or offering a counternarrative. Decades of research have shown that media outlets overemphasize crime coverage, causing many Americans to believe crime rates are higher than they actually are. Once again, Travis McMichael’s testimony appears race-neutral on the surface but is actually laden with racial implications. From the very beginning, the defendants claimed the narrative upper hand by tapping into an easily accepted fear for white Americans everywhere, and the national media helped them do it.

..

[tech37]

Right wing media are such snowflakes. They can't stand the idea that not everyone sees the Rittenhouse case the same way they do. The University of Michigan response. Educators had the balls to state the obvious, that if Rittenhouse had not been white, things would have turned out very differently.

Didn't KR say the same thing?

[cradleandshoot]

Right wing media are such snowflakes. They can't stand the idea that not everyone sees the Rittenhouse case the same way they do. The University of Michigan response. Educators had the balls to state the obvious, that if Rittenhouse had not been white, things would have turned out very differently.

Didn't KR say the same thing?

Going back in time to the Reginald Denny case this legal point sticks in my mind. The angry mob that grabbed him out of his rig and almost beat him to death were a quitted of attempted murder on what grounds again???? How many of you that watched the video of that brutal attack agree with the jury?? The actions of an angry mob justify attempted murder? Got it..

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/loca ... t/1951228/

[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.

Tell us more about our act of war blockade of Japan.

Already did. What's your complaint?

I'm not saying that our freezing of assets or blocked was unjustified, in response to Japanese aggression, I'm simply saying that such is historically considered an 'act of war'. In that case, it put a huge bite on Japan's economy and it really wasn't a surprise that if negotiations failed (and they had) that Japan would respond.

And note, the Axis was formed in Sept 1940, and our actions in Lend-Lease were also considered to be taking sides, not remaining neutral. Again, I'm not suggesting we were wrong to take these actions, indeed, IMO, we should have (with 20:20 hindsight) gotten involved more directly sooner.

But not surprised that it would escalate.

Blockades and asset freezes have become complicated, more addressed by international law...but unilateral such actions can certainly be considered 'acts of war' even today. They certainly were pre United Nations.

[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.

[Kismet]

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.

No surprise that FDR never told Truman about the Manhattan Project. VP job description nowhere near where it has evolved to today. Bottom line for Roosevelt given his health situation that there was no way they could keep a leftist like Henry Wallace as VP so they had to pick a safer choice and Truman was a moderate democrat with experience in the Senate on the wartime waste/fraud commission and who could appeal to Southern Dems in a way Wallace never could. Opponent was Dewey and not Wilkie which I'm sure also factored in. Truman was a safe and moderate choice to the party elders to whom Roosevelt delegated the task to and could take over, if FDR's health declined precipitously. In addition, FDR hid his true medical condition from just about everybody and his personal physician concealed his true medical condition from everyone. FDR was kind of busy with management of the war and he was quite the micromanager, so no surprise (or implication) that Truman was not involved and suspect there were more than a few others who were omitted as well.

Truman made the call himself and I'm sure he had many inputs on what to do. Harry Truman was not a shrinking violet buy any means but I don't see any evidence of outside forces conspiring to manipulate him in some fashion. He simply wasn't the type and certainly was pragmatic but decisive when he needed to be. After all, he later publicly fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination in Korea.

On Pearl Harbor, check out this upcoming event at GWU
https://library.gwu.edu/events/80th-ann ... washington

[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.

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.

Tell us more about our act of war blockade of Japan.

Already did. What's your complaint?

I'm not saying that our freezing of assets or blocked was unjustified, in response to Japanese aggression, I'm simply saying that such is historically considered an 'act of war'. In that case, it put a huge bite on Japan's economy and it really wasn't a surprise that if negotiations failed (and they had) that Japan would respond.

And note, the Axis was formed in Sept 1940, and our actions in Lend-Lease were also considered to be taking sides, not remaining neutral. Again, I'm not suggesting we were wrong to take these actions, indeed, IMO, we should have (with 20:20 hindsight) gotten involved more directly sooner.

But not surprised that it would escalate.

Blockades and asset freezes have become complicated, more addressed by international law...but unilateral such actions can certainly be considered 'acts of war' even today. They certainly were pre United Nations.

You got one thing right -- a blockade is an act of war.

Now tell us about our blockade of Japan.

[jhu72]

... in the McMichaels trial, the verdict is in. All three were found guilty (to varying degrees).

[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.

Tell us more about our act of war blockade of Japan.

Already did. What's your complaint?

I'm not saying that our freezing of assets or blocked was unjustified, in response to Japanese aggression, I'm simply saying that such is historically considered an 'act of war'. In that case, it put a huge bite on Japan's economy and it really wasn't a surprise that if negotiations failed (and they had) that Japan would respond.

And note, the Axis was formed in Sept 1940, and our actions in Lend-Lease were also considered to be taking sides, not remaining neutral. Again, I'm not suggesting we were wrong to take these actions, indeed, IMO, we should have (with 20:20 hindsight) gotten involved more directly sooner.

But not surprised that it would escalate.

Blockades and asset freezes have become complicated, more addressed by international law...but unilateral such actions can certainly be considered 'acts of war' even today. They certainly were pre United Nations.

You got one thing right -- a blockade is an act of war.

Now tell us about our blockade of Japan.

Why, what's your point?

Here's one resource, Office of the Historian, US Dept of State: https://history.state.gov/milestones/19 ... arl-harbor

Here's a more detailed and referenced wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_le ... arl_Harbor

[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.

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.

Tell us more about our act of war blockade of Japan.

Already did. What's your complaint?

I'm not saying that our freezing of assets or blocked was unjustified, in response to Japanese aggression, I'm simply saying that such is historically considered an 'act of war'. In that case, it put a huge bite on Japan's economy and it really wasn't a surprise that if negotiations failed (and they had) that Japan would respond.

And note, the Axis was formed in Sept 1940, and our actions in Lend-Lease were also considered to be taking sides, not remaining neutral. Again, I'm not suggesting we were wrong to take these actions, indeed, IMO, we should have (with 20:20 hindsight) gotten involved more directly sooner.

But not surprised that it would escalate.

Blockades and asset freezes have become complicated, more addressed by international law...but unilateral such actions can certainly be considered 'acts of war' even today. They certainly were pre United Nations.

You got one thing right -- a blockade is an act of war.

Now tell us about our blockade of Japan.

Why, what's your point?

Here's one resource, Office of the Historian, US Dept of State: https://history.state.gov/milestones/19 ... arl-harbor

Here's a more detailed and referenced wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_le ... arl_Harbor

We never blockaded Japan !

an embargo is NOT a blockade.

a blockade is an act of war, an embargo is NOT.

[Brooklyn]

guilty as charged:


https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/11/24 ... rder-trial


one of the defendants convicted for malice murder, thus, no parole

next case - federal civil rights violations trial