Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (107456)	8/16/2005 1:58:37 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I think that if a distinguished professor analyzes information that was not available at the time from all of the leaders involved at the end of the war, a lot more about Truman's motivations might be discovered. I don't think being a member of Greenpeace automatically discredits one from being a great historian. I think most professors probably lean towards being anti-war, against the U.S. being an aggressor nation unless war is absolutely necessary, and against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I would assume that this is because they tend to be very intelligent and have a good understanding of history. I don't think these views should discredit the book; I think it should be evaluated on its own merits. Is his research thorough? Does he make a credible case? There are not very many right-wing professors because the job doesn't pay enough, but I would expect the same level of scholarship regardless of a professor's underlying belief system. I also continue to assert that Truman was a much more complex person than he is typically described as, and may have made decisions that were more motivated by creating a dominant, superpower role for the U.S. than by simply ending the war in the Pacific. This is the subject of the book--did the U.S. have ulterior motives re a grab for postwar power, not just stopping the war in the Pacific--not what you are talking about re the actors at the time. Perhaps you should restate what you are saying, because perhaps I do not understand. Did you read the thesis of the book in the review I posted? As I have said many times, I think most Americans know very little about American history or politics. I think America would be a better, more enlightened place if we did. I think deserved criticism of America is extremely patriotic, and will continue to be patriotic in the way I express myself. I've read several biographies of Truman. I will read Weintraub's book if you read this one. Deal?