OUT ON A LIMB: What if we hadn’t bombed Hiroshima? Oppenheimer doesn’t need to ask.

As the name suggests, Christopher Nolan’s latest blockbuster, Oppenheimer, is not a meta-commentary on the Red Scare or the complexities of geopolitical game theory. It does not dig into the moral dilemma Harry Truman, who, as vice president, had no idea the Manhattan Project even existed, faced when FDR died, forcing the former to deliberate on whether the Allies should drop the atomic bomb.

And yet, for some reason, some critics are livid that the film Oppenheimer is about the lived experience of J. Robert Oppenheimer and not a diatribe about American imperialism, the suffering of the Japanese, or a complex moral calculus of why we were justified or not in dropping the Fat Man and the Little Boy. Here’s a brief sampling of the dregs of the dullards.

There’s one name missing from Tiana Lowe Doescher’s roundup: Does any country hate itself like America?

For example, the new film “Oppenheimer,” a movie that examines the individuals and events leading to the development of the atomic bomb during WWII, has sparked a renewed public discussion of America’s use of those bombs on the Japanese Empire. To be sure, there is a legitimate, nuanced, academic debate about Truman’s decision. But to see this hairbrained proposition from two years ago resurface, despite the fact that it is found nowhere in the extensive literature or historical record of the bomb controversy, is depressing:

In case you don’t recognize her, that’s Nikole Hannah-Jones, a woman paid by the nation’s “newspaper of record,” The New York Times, to write about history. Our history. She rose to prominence with another wildly anti-American narrative called the 1619 Project that claimed in its original release to, “reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding.” The point was simple: the evil of slavery was the real story of American history, and everything else we have been led to believe is a lie.

Historians systematically debunked the core of Hannah-Jones’ work, to the point that she virulently denies her original claim, now stating her work, “doesn’t argue, for obvious reasons, that 1619 is our true founding.”

Yet despite the intellectual embarrassment that this “project” became, the Times continues to prop up Hannah-Jones’ faux history, even as she has demonstrated little ability to offer anything meaningful beyond easily-disproven, anti-American claims. Consider, her lie about the atomic bomb.

• Historians debate the accuracy of Truman’s estimated casualty figures – both American and Japanese – should the war have continued without the use of the bomb.
• Historians debate whether the use of the bomb was primarily an attempt to intimidate the Soviets.
• Historians note from broken Japanese code that they were preparing for significant defense of the home islands in the fall of 1945.
• Historians note that not only did the Japanese not surrender after the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb, there was an internal coup (the Kyūjō incident) in Japan to try to prevent surrender even after Nagasaki.

In other words, Nikole Hannah-Jones had, once again, simply made something up and pretended it was credible history. Yet she got to keep her job, to cash a paycheck, to conduct television interviews, to receive academic awards, and more. Why? Because she hates her country?

Is that not just weird?

The above tweet, coupled with Hannah-Jones’ thoughts on Europe should make any WWII history book she deigns to write an amazing read!