31–40 of 223 posts
Stalin has always been under-rated in the United States. Truth was, he was a hero who helped to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan. But saying that undermines those who want Churchill and FDR to take all the credit.
The challenge I have with this, and pretty much all 'alternate history' foreign policy discussions, is that they try to argue an indefinite (Japan would have surrendered if we hadn't done this) against a definite (We bombed them and they surrendered immediately). There isn't any way to prove that stuff of course, and you can tweak the indefinite to be whatever you want to overcome the definite. So in some ways it is…
they try to argue an indefinite (Japan would have surrendered if we hadn't done this) against a definite (We bombed them and they surrendered immediately) No, the article is not arguing against a factual claim like that, but against a causal one: that Japan surrendered because of the atomic bombs. The latter may be the mainstream view but it's just as "indefinite" by your standard. And causal claims can be weakened b…
I find it hard to reconcile this idea with the relatively persuasive reasoning that the second bomb was unjustifiable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings...
I am not entirely convinced that it was so, but I do think it is reasonable that a few days is not sufficient time to understand the full magnitude and novel nature of such an event. The second bomb was probably necessary, but even in an alternative universe where it was not, I think it would be foolish to expect a surrender that immediately.
I've never heard a defense of nuclear weapons based on their ability to end wars, only as a weapon to prevent them. I think most policy makers are in agreement that use of a nuclear weapons means they have failed their primary purpose. As for the "uniqueness" of nuclear weapons, there's an interesting parallel to the uniqueness of chemical weapons use in Syria. Even as conventional weapons are ripping the country to…
TFA aside, it is generally accepted that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused Japan to surrender. Besides, the bomb was not invented until well into the war.
Stalin has always been under-rated in the United States. Truth was, he was a hero who helped to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan. But saying that undermines those who want Churchill and FDR to take all the credit.
Stalin wasn't a hero. The Nazis were defeated by USSR (millions of peoples oppressed by the Stalin's regime, yet the alternative was even worse). USA helped defeat the Nazis.
USA defeated Japan. USSR helped defeat the Japan. USSR had no viable ambitions and wasn't in any shape to have them beyond the 38th parallel.
This is why I've started to dislike revisionist history. The premise that the threat of Stalin alone forced Japanese surrender is at least as ludicrous as saying that the nuclear bombs alone forced Japan to surrender. I closed the page immediately because of the full-page popup ad, but I've encountered the premise elsewhere so it warrants examination. The first thing to realize is that for Japan, whatever else happen…
Unsurprisingly, you haven't addressed most of the article's arguments. Even where your material does overlap, it does so incoherently, because one can't figure out where you actually disagree with the author or are even talking about the same things.
A serious counterargument to the OP would be very interesting. The comments on the FP site itself are terrible. So far, the only real argument I've seen is that the article is old hat, since we already know that it wasn't just the bombs that ended the Pacific war. It may be old hat among specialists, but it isn't to the millions of us who were taught and still believe exactly that.
Stalin has always been under-rated in the United States. Truth was, he was a hero who helped to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan. But saying that undermines those who want Churchill and FDR to take all the credit.
A hero who was a megalomaniacal mass murderer who killed any and all who had the audacity to speak their mind. Ask any Jewish person what they think of Stalin.
In another context, ask any Palestinian what he thinks of the foreigners who invaded his home in the 1940s, and massacred his kin and are continuing to increase the bloody settlement of his land...
Stalin has always been under-rated in the United States. Truth was, he was a hero who helped to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan. But saying that undermines those who want Churchill and FDR to take all the credit.
One evil does not cancel out another. Of course it was still preferable that the US won, and there is no denying that they made a very important contribution to end WWII. But there is no need for hero worship. Just because the Allies fought an opponent that was worse, does not absolve them from criticism for their behavior.
I think there is a lot of post rationalization about the attrocities commited by the Allies. If one admitted that a lot of the killing of civilians was unessesary and barbaric, then the story would not be such a nice good guys vs bad guys story.
Stalin has always been under-rated in the United States. Truth was, he was a hero who helped to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan. But saying that undermines those who want Churchill and FDR to take all the credit.
Claiming "Stalin did it" when there had also just been an atomic attack and an entire summer of horrendously devastating attacks, that the Japanese were almost powerless to defend against, on cities not to mention the ever tightening noose of allied encroachment throughout the region and the anticipation of an imminent final invasion, just seems like someone is trying to come up with a catchy article title... not honestly looking at the situation.