I'm going to hate it because it's irresponsibly using half-told accounts of history to promote cultural animosity. You're free to do this without adequately warning your readers but it's bad so I'm objecting.

The issue I have with your first point--the provocation one--is that your title (and partly the content thereafter) of that subsection suggests that provocation was the main factor. It also suggests that Japan was powerless to resist provocation rather than bearing responsibility for escalation.

But in reality, decisions are made for multiple reasons.

The U.S. does, genuinely, object to genocide and aggression. It will sometimes give itself a pass on violence, and sometimes look the other way a bit for allies. But Saudi Arabia nearly got itself on our bad list (despite the preferences of our leaders) for killing a single journalist and only the fast news cycle really Saudi Arabia--because the U.S. population hates that stuff, and as a democracy priding itself on human rights and such, you can't really ignore what people hate if they notice it (even when people do not want war).

The U.S. also has its own selfish interests regarding resources and global power, as you discussed.

And it surely occurred to some that the Hull Note was so strongly worded as an ultimatum that it could provoke attack--and this may not have been entirely unintentional (to stop the pointless negotiations and either get what the U.S. wants in the area, or get going with war already--the U.S. and Japan had had very tense relations for years at that point).

But decisions in Japan also happen for multiple reasons. In particular, the attack fleet had already set sail by the time the Hull Note was sent! Of course they could have withdrawn if a diplomatic solution had been found, but the critical act of provocation happened after Japan had already made the tentative decision to attack. Of course, the Hull Note figured prominently in Japan's ultimate decision in the Imperial Conference five days later to commit to the attack.

All of this is way way more complicated and multifaceted than your extended description, which in turn is more complicated than your "racist America provokes helpless Japan to attack".

That's why I think this sort of thing is irresponsible. It's not taking a simpleminded view of history to dehumanize one group of people.

The "it wasn't the bomb, it was Russia" argument about Japan's ceasefire is even worse, because we know what the deliberations were, and we know who held which positions, and we know from the arguments of the people making the decisions that the bomb figured very prominently in their thinking. Yes, they were already looking for a way out--that the Supreme Council could sell to its own members and to the country as a whole. Except they wanted conditions like "". It wasn't "racist America unnecessarily bombed Japan". Even after the two bombs AND the Russian invasion they barely agreed to surrender under terms acceptable to the allies--the Supreme Council couldn't even decide then, and left the decision to the Emperor (whose internal thoughts can only be guessed at, but who referenced the bomb in his announcement). And note--you didn't point this out--that the unconditional surrender of the Potsdam Declaration was only about the military--the Japanese people did NOT have to unconditionally surrender!

The addendum about the Emperor--the one condition asked for--was not contrary to the Potsdam Declaration, unlike the multiple addenda the more aggressive members of the Supreme Council favored (like "no occupation" and "we disarm ourselves").

Now, Truman himself may have decided to drop the bomb on cities rather than demonstrate the bomb in harmless areas, and he may have done so out of racism. But it's also unquestionable that the United States was internally talking about how they were killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, that they didn't want to, and that they needed a fast way to end the war. The decision, while ultimately Truman's, was not made in a vacuum, and that non-vacuum contained a lot of discussion about saving civilians from a protracted war via display of overwhelming power using the atomic bomb.

So whether or not ultimately using the atomic bomb was the correct decision, you do your readers a gross disservice by amplifying the idea that American racism was a dominant, overriding, or even particularly important reason for the use of the bomb, and by casting doubt on the idea that the use of the bomb as it happened achieved quick results which the Soviet invasion alone would not have.

Again, your half-told history is half-told in a way that stokes dehumanization of Americans, and that's bad, because dehumanization has an ugly way of causing exactly those sorts of horrors we witnessed in World War 2.

It is useful and beneficial to responsibly consider the actual impact of racism in the war--certainly the internment of Japanese Americans was unconscionable and strongly motivated by racism.

But what you're doing isn't useful or beneficial.

It's just stoking hatred.

And that's the kind of thing that leads to war and similar horrors. I'm sure you know full well that there's a set of readers who will eat this stuff up, without thoughtful critique, remembering only your headline points which even you don't try to fully justify in the main body, and further solidify in their minds, "Historical America = Racist, Evil, Was Never Good" (rather than the accurate "Historical America = Complicated, Good Aspects, Bad Aspects"). And you also know full well that there are people who are loath to admit any stain on America's virtue absent incontrovertible evidence...and they certainly won't have to admit this one, because some points are iffy and others are just demonstrably wrong. But now they have more "proof" that the other side are vicious lying haters.

So...you get to have your "fun hobby" and the casualty is, in a small way, the integrity of the United States as a country, exacerbating, in a small way, the dehumanizing hatred that right now only a small number of people feel for each other but which can avalanche pretty quickly if things go wrong.

I advise that you pick another, less destructive hobby.