> The Japanese were still trying to barter with the Soviets, going so far as to offer Manchuria and southern Karafuto...The Soviets snubbed the emperor's request to send his special emissary, Fumimaro Konoe, to Moscow because Tokyo's surrender condition remained too "opaque". Reader of Zinn's account learn nothing of this broader context.
Readers of Zinn's account learn nothing of this broader context? What US high school textbook goes into any of this? The answer is none. It's a laugh that Zinn is accused of not addressing some Soviet/Japanese negotiation with Fumimaro Konoe as some kind of unique shortcoming. No one discusses this, except in very specific post-grad type historical work.
I mean, the US is so US-focused, you never hear mentioned even things which aren't really controversial. Like that one of the main worries on Stalin's mind when Operation Barbarossa commenced was that the Asian Axis would attack Russia from the East. But due to diplomacy, other concerns for Japan etc., it didn't happen. In fact, Soviet ships used to sail with Soviet flags from Vladisvostock to the US West Coast and safely bring supplies in, during a time that the Atlantic ocean was patrolled by German submarines. 99% of Americans aren't aware of this, never mind more minute concerns about specific last minute negotiations between the Japanese and some other country. Wineburg himself is being crafty about this.
Also - Julius Rosenberg was arrested for being an atomic spy, and then his wife Ethel Rosenberg was arrested to put pressure on Julius. Both were executed. Wineburg himself is guilty of leaving out evidence - we know now that physicists like Klaus Fuchs, Ted Hall etc. were the atomic spies, not the housewife from the Lower East Side who was executed for it, orphaning her children. Even FBI agents who were on the case nowadays say there was not evidence to link her to atomic spying. Wineburg also does not mention that Sobell said that even Julius was not involved in atomic spying. So who is being selective about facts? If Zinn isn't fleshing out new evidence in a book written many years ago, why is Wineburg leaving out important information he already had, since he referenced it?
Readers of Zinn's account learn nothing of this broader context? What US high school textbook goes into any of this? The answer is none. It's a laugh that Zinn is accused of not addressing some Soviet/Japanese negotiation with Fumimaro Konoe as some kind of unique shortcoming. No one discusses this, except in very specific post-grad type historical work.
I mean, the US is so US-focused, you never hear mentioned even things which aren't really controversial. Like that one of the main worries on Stalin's mind when Operation Barbarossa commenced was that the Asian Axis would attack Russia from the East. But due to diplomacy, other concerns for Japan etc., it didn't happen. In fact, Soviet ships used to sail with Soviet flags from Vladisvostock to the US West Coast and safely bring supplies in, during a time that the Atlantic ocean was patrolled by German submarines. 99% of Americans aren't aware of this, never mind more minute concerns about specific last minute negotiations between the Japanese and some other country. Wineburg himself is being crafty about this.
Also - Julius Rosenberg was arrested for being an atomic spy, and then his wife Ethel Rosenberg was arrested to put pressure on Julius. Both were executed. Wineburg himself is guilty of leaving out evidence - we know now that physicists like Klaus Fuchs, Ted Hall etc. were the atomic spies, not the housewife from the Lower East Side who was executed for it, orphaning her children. Even FBI agents who were on the case nowadays say there was not evidence to link her to atomic spying. Wineburg also does not mention that Sobell said that even Julius was not involved in atomic spying. So who is being selective about facts? If Zinn isn't fleshing out new evidence in a book written many years ago, why is Wineburg leaving out important information he already had, since he referenced it?