The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / By Christian Appy
 All Comments / By Christian Appy
    So many decades later, it’s hard to remember the kind of nuclear thinking top American officials engaged in during the Cold War. In secret National Security Council documents of the early 1950s, for instance, the country’s top strategists descended willingly into the charnel house of futuristic history, imagining life on this planet as an eternal...
  • @matt
    I don't know what we disagree about then. If Stalin thought he could take over all of Europe (and encounter no costly civilian resistance in the process), then, sure, he would have done it, I guess. I'm not sure what the point of saying that is, though, since every sensible person agrees that Stalin didn't think it would be worth it to take over all of Europe (unless you just wanted to say "Stalin was bad", in which case I also agree).

    By the way, the Western Allies were at least equally opportunistic, especially Churchill, who wanted to delay the Normandy landings so he could start an idiotic (from a military standpoint, anyway) drive up the Balkans and into Poland, cutting off the Red Army advance. There were also all kinds of machinations against the antifascist resistance movements in the West during and after the war, both Communist and non-Communist (the Communist dominated ones generally went along with them, on orders from Stalin, who didn't want to upset his allies). If anything, US and Britain were far concerned with the political future of Europe, and maneuvering against Stalin (and each other, especially in France) then vice versa. Stalin just mainly just wanted to survive the attack by the most formidable military (man for man) in the world.

    I don’t know what we disagree about then. If Stalin thought he could take over all of Europe (and encounter no costly civilian resistance in the process),

    I don’t think that civilian resistance would have bothered Stalin:

    Kenneth Christie, Historical Injustice and Democratic Transition in Eastern Asia and Northern Europe: Ghosts at the Table of Democracy (2002)
    Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonians (1940-41): 85,000 deported, of which 55,000 killed or died
    Baltics executed during reconquest (1944-45): 30,000
    Postwar partisan war
    Lithuanians: 40-50,000 k.
    Latvian: 25,000
    Estonians: 15,000

    No, he was worried about military opposition.

    then, sure, he would have done it, I guess.

    I have no doubt on that score.At a minimum, he would have seized all of Germany, not just the half that he grabbed in our timeline.

    I’m not sure what the point of saying that is, though, since every sensible person agrees that Stalin didn’t think it would be worth it to take over all of Europe (unless you just wanted to say “Stalin was bad”, in which case I also agree).

    Just pointing out how things might have gone down without Anglo intervention.No D-Day landings in 1944, Stalin gains control of all of Germany.

    By the way, the Western Allies were at least equally opportunistic, especially Churchill, who wanted to delay the Normandy landings so he could start an idiotic (from a military standpoint, anyway) drive up the Balkans and into Poland, cutting off the Red Army advance.

    Both the Anglos (especially Churchill) and the Soviets were looking ahead to the post-war world.By 1943, at the latest, everyone knew that Nazi Germany was beaten.It was just a question of how long it would take and how many people would die in the process.

    There were also all kinds of machinations against the antifascist resistance movements in the West during and after the war, both Communist and non-Communist (the Communist dominated ones generally went along with them, on orders from Stalin, who didn’t want to upset his allies).

    It’s rather sad how Euro communists of the time toed the Stalinist line….

    If anything, US and Britain were far concerned with the political future of Europe, and maneuvering against Stalin (and each other, especially in France) then vice versa. Stalin just mainly just wanted to survive the attack by the most formidable military (man for man) in the world.

    Stalin wanted to do more than just survive.At the end of the war, for example, he made a triumphant speech about how he had given Russia an Empire that was greater than any that she had known under the Tsars.

    And he was right.Thanks to Stalin’s geopolitical maneuvering (and willingness to absorb enormous casualties) , the USSR, by the late 1940s, controlled the Baltic states, nearly all of Eastern Europe (barring Greece and the rebellious Tito in Yugoslavia), and had half of Germany.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @MarkinLA
    I guess we should all bow to your genius or did you talk to Stalin?

    name calling from a child, I am so hurt.

    I guess we should all bow to your genius or did you talk to Stalin?

    I’m always channeling Uncle Joe. Now if you’ll excuse me, these kulaks aren’t going to liquidate themselves…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • matt says:
    @syonredux

    If that’s the case, why had Stalin been pushing for the D-Day landings? It’s well known that Stalin had been begging for the Western Allies to open a second front in Europe since 1942. It sounds like he was focusing on surviving the German assault more than planning the conquest of Europe.

    EDIT: I hadn’t seen manton’s comment when I wrote this.
     
    Well, as I said to Manton, I wasn't arguing that Stalin didn't want an invasion of Northwest Europe.I was simply pointing out what would have probably occurred without one (Soviet control of all of Germany, quite possibly France, etc)

    As for why Stalin pushed for a second front, that seems quite obvious.Stalin wasn't Hitler.He was a pragmatic opportunist.A vulture.Defeating Hitler without a second front would have vastly increased Soviet losses in blood and treasure.Being a good pragmatist, Stalin was quite willing to settle for only gaining control of Eastern Europe and half of Germany.

    I don’t know what we disagree about then. If Stalin thought he could take over all of Europe (and encounter no costly civilian resistance in the process), then, sure, he would have done it, I guess. I’m not sure what the point of saying that is, though, since every sensible person agrees that Stalin didn’t think it would be worth it to take over all of Europe (unless you just wanted to say “Stalin was bad”, in which case I also agree).

    By the way, the Western Allies were at least equally opportunistic, especially Churchill, who wanted to delay the Normandy landings so he could start an idiotic (from a military standpoint, anyway) drive up the Balkans and into Poland, cutting off the Red Army advance. There were also all kinds of machinations against the antifascist resistance movements in the West during and after the war, both Communist and non-Communist (the Communist dominated ones generally went along with them, on orders from Stalin, who didn’t want to upset his allies). If anything, US and Britain were far concerned with the political future of Europe, and maneuvering against Stalin (and each other, especially in France) then vice versa. Stalin just mainly just wanted to survive the attack by the most formidable military (man for man) in the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I don’t know what we disagree about then. If Stalin thought he could take over all of Europe (and encounter no costly civilian resistance in the process),
     
    I don't think that civilian resistance would have bothered Stalin:

    Kenneth Christie, Historical Injustice and Democratic Transition in Eastern Asia and Northern Europe: Ghosts at the Table of Democracy (2002)
    Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonians (1940-41): 85,000 deported, of which 55,000 killed or died
    Baltics executed during reconquest (1944-45): 30,000
    Postwar partisan war
    Lithuanians: 40-50,000 k.
    Latvian: 25,000
    Estonians: 15,000
     
    No, he was worried about military opposition.

    then, sure, he would have done it, I guess.
     
    I have no doubt on that score.At a minimum, he would have seized all of Germany, not just the half that he grabbed in our timeline.

    I’m not sure what the point of saying that is, though, since every sensible person agrees that Stalin didn’t think it would be worth it to take over all of Europe (unless you just wanted to say “Stalin was bad”, in which case I also agree).
     
    Just pointing out how things might have gone down without Anglo intervention.No D-Day landings in 1944, Stalin gains control of all of Germany.

    By the way, the Western Allies were at least equally opportunistic, especially Churchill, who wanted to delay the Normandy landings so he could start an idiotic (from a military standpoint, anyway) drive up the Balkans and into Poland, cutting off the Red Army advance.
     
    Both the Anglos (especially Churchill) and the Soviets were looking ahead to the post-war world.By 1943, at the latest, everyone knew that Nazi Germany was beaten.It was just a question of how long it would take and how many people would die in the process.

    There were also all kinds of machinations against the antifascist resistance movements in the West during and after the war, both Communist and non-Communist (the Communist dominated ones generally went along with them, on orders from Stalin, who didn’t want to upset his allies).
     
    It's rather sad how Euro communists of the time toed the Stalinist line....

    If anything, US and Britain were far concerned with the political future of Europe, and maneuvering against Stalin (and each other, especially in France) then vice versa. Stalin just mainly just wanted to survive the attack by the most formidable military (man for man) in the world.
     
    Stalin wanted to do more than just survive.At the end of the war, for example, he made a triumphant speech about how he had given Russia an Empire that was greater than any that she had known under the Tsars.

    And he was right.Thanks to Stalin's geopolitical maneuvering (and willingness to absorb enormous casualties) , the USSR, by the late 1940s, controlled the Baltic states, nearly all of Eastern Europe (barring Greece and the rebellious Tito in Yugoslavia), and had half of Germany.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    If that’s the case, why had Stalin been pushing for the D-Day landings? It’s well known that Stalin had been begging for the Western Allies to open a second front in Europe since 1942. It sounds like he was focusing on surviving the German assault more than planning the conquest of Europe.

    EDIT: I hadn’t seen manton’s comment when I wrote this.
     
    Well, as I said to Manton, I wasn't arguing that Stalin didn't want an invasion of Northwest Europe.I was simply pointing out what would have probably occurred without one (Soviet control of all of Germany, quite possibly France, etc)

    As for why Stalin pushed for a second front, that seems quite obvious.Stalin wasn't Hitler.He was a pragmatic opportunist.A vulture.Defeating Hitler without a second front would have vastly increased Soviet losses in blood and treasure.Being a good pragmatist, Stalin was quite willing to settle for only gaining control of Eastern Europe and half of Germany.

    Matt doesn’t know the difference between wanting to do something and knowing that you cannot achieve that something and settling for something else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @matt
    You're a bigger idiot than syon. no small feat

    I guess we should all bow to your genius or did you talk to Stalin?

    name calling from a child, I am so hurt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @matt

    I guess we should all bow to your genius or did you talk to Stalin?
     
    I'm always channeling Uncle Joe. Now if you'll excuse me, these kulaks aren't going to liquidate themselves...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @MarkinLA
    If that’s the case, why had Stalin been pushing for the D-Day landings? It’s well known that Stalin had been begging for the Western Allies to open a second front in Europe since 1942. It sounds like he was focusing on surviving the German assault more than planning the conquest of Europe.

    It is not inconsistent for Stalin to be planning to overrun Europe after France, Britain and Germany exhausted themselves and after being caught with their pants down decide that they no longer have the forces to do what they want to do. The leadership would still have the desire but not the ability.

    Once the Red Army had taken such massive casualties and they were forced to treat their own soldiers with extreme brutality expecting them to then take on the US, Britain, and the rest of western Europe, not to mention resistance movements in eastern Europe would be expecting too much from them.

    You’re a bigger idiot than syon. no small feat

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I guess we should all bow to your genius or did you talk to Stalin?

    name calling from a child, I am so hurt.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @matt

    However, minus external constraints (say, in an alternate timeline where the D-Day landings did not take place in 1944) , I think that it is very likely that he would have pushed on into France, the Netherlands, etc.
     
    If that's the case, why had Stalin been pushing for the D-Day landings? It's well known that Stalin had been begging for the Western Allies to open a second front in Europe since 1942. It sounds like he was focusing on surviving the German assault more than planning the conquest of Europe.

    EDIT: I hadn't seen manton's comment when I wrote this.

    If that’s the case, why had Stalin been pushing for the D-Day landings? It’s well known that Stalin had been begging for the Western Allies to open a second front in Europe since 1942. It sounds like he was focusing on surviving the German assault more than planning the conquest of Europe.

    EDIT: I hadn’t seen manton’s comment when I wrote this.

    Well, as I said to Manton, I wasn’t arguing that Stalin didn’t want an invasion of Northwest Europe.I was simply pointing out what would have probably occurred without one (Soviet control of all of Germany, quite possibly France, etc)

    As for why Stalin pushed for a second front, that seems quite obvious.Stalin wasn’t Hitler.He was a pragmatic opportunist.A vulture.Defeating Hitler without a second front would have vastly increased Soviet losses in blood and treasure.Being a good pragmatist, Stalin was quite willing to settle for only gaining control of Eastern Europe and half of Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Matt doesn't know the difference between wanting to do something and knowing that you cannot achieve that something and settling for something else.
    , @matt
    I don't know what we disagree about then. If Stalin thought he could take over all of Europe (and encounter no costly civilian resistance in the process), then, sure, he would have done it, I guess. I'm not sure what the point of saying that is, though, since every sensible person agrees that Stalin didn't think it would be worth it to take over all of Europe (unless you just wanted to say "Stalin was bad", in which case I also agree).

    By the way, the Western Allies were at least equally opportunistic, especially Churchill, who wanted to delay the Normandy landings so he could start an idiotic (from a military standpoint, anyway) drive up the Balkans and into Poland, cutting off the Red Army advance. There were also all kinds of machinations against the antifascist resistance movements in the West during and after the war, both Communist and non-Communist (the Communist dominated ones generally went along with them, on orders from Stalin, who didn't want to upset his allies). If anything, US and Britain were far concerned with the political future of Europe, and maneuvering against Stalin (and each other, especially in France) then vice versa. Stalin just mainly just wanted to survive the attack by the most formidable military (man for man) in the world.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If that’s the case, why had Stalin been pushing for the D-Day landings? It’s well known that Stalin had been begging for the Western Allies to open a second front in Europe since 1942. It sounds like he was focusing on surviving the German assault more than planning the conquest of Europe.

    It is not inconsistent for Stalin to be planning to overrun Europe after France, Britain and Germany exhausted themselves and after being caught with their pants down decide that they no longer have the forces to do what they want to do. The leadership would still have the desire but not the ability.

    Once the Red Army had taken such massive casualties and they were forced to treat their own soldiers with extreme brutality expecting them to then take on the US, Britain, and the rest of western Europe, not to mention resistance movements in eastern Europe would be expecting too much from them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @matt
    You're a bigger idiot than syon. no small feat
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • matt says:
    @syonredux

    Nobody denies that Stalin wanted Eastern Europe. Russia (Tsarist, Soviet, and Putinist) has always wanted a sphere of influence in EE. But did Stalin have the slightest thought that he could take Western Europe?
     
    Stalin made damn sure that his sphere of influence extended as far into Western Europe as possible.That's why he was so determined that the Soviets would take Berlin before the Anglos, never mind the cost in human lives:

    Battle of Berlin:

    "According to Grigoriy Krivosheev's work based on declassified archival data, Soviet forces sustained 81,116 dead for the entire operation, which included the battles of Seelow Heights and the Halbe;[123] Another 280,251 were reported wounded or sick during the operational period.[123][h] The operation also cost the Soviets about 2,000 armoured vehicles, though the number of irrevocable losses (write-offs) is not known. Initial Soviet estimates based on kill claims placed German losses at 458,080 killed and 479,298 captured,[i] but German research puts the number of dead at approximately 92,000 – 100,000.[11] The number of civilian casualties is unknown,[124] but 125,000 are estimated to have perished during the entire operation."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin#Aftermath

    The point was to seize control of as much of Germany as possible.Facts on the Ground.A buffer between himself and the West.

    Of course, Stalin was far more pragmatic than Hitler was.He had a sense of limits.Hence, although he would certainly have liked to have had all of Germany under his control, he knew that that would have meant war.The holds true, obviously, for France.Stalin knew when to stop.

    However, minus external constraints (say, in an alternate timeline where the D-Day landings did not take place in 1944) , I think that it is very likely that he would have pushed on into France, the Netherlands, etc.

    However, minus external constraints (say, in an alternate timeline where the D-Day landings did not take place in 1944) , I think that it is very likely that he would have pushed on into France, the Netherlands, etc.

    If that’s the case, why had Stalin been pushing for the D-Day landings? It’s well known that Stalin had been begging for the Western Allies to open a second front in Europe since 1942. It sounds like he was focusing on surviving the German assault more than planning the conquest of Europe.

    EDIT: I hadn’t seen manton’s comment when I wrote this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    If that’s the case, why had Stalin been pushing for the D-Day landings? It’s well known that Stalin had been begging for the Western Allies to open a second front in Europe since 1942. It sounds like he was focusing on surviving the German assault more than planning the conquest of Europe.

    EDIT: I hadn’t seen manton’s comment when I wrote this.
     
    Well, as I said to Manton, I wasn't arguing that Stalin didn't want an invasion of Northwest Europe.I was simply pointing out what would have probably occurred without one (Soviet control of all of Germany, quite possibly France, etc)

    As for why Stalin pushed for a second front, that seems quite obvious.Stalin wasn't Hitler.He was a pragmatic opportunist.A vulture.Defeating Hitler without a second front would have vastly increased Soviet losses in blood and treasure.Being a good pragmatist, Stalin was quite willing to settle for only gaining control of Eastern Europe and half of Germany.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @manton
    Not that I am denying this, because I really don't know, but it is true that Stalin pressed hard for the opening of a Western front from the instant he started to get US and UK aid. It was always THE main topic of conversation at the various summits he had with Churchill and later Roosevelt. He felt personally betrayed that they didn't try it in 1942 and even more so when they didn't do it in 1943.

    So if he really wanted to go all the way west, it would seem that he would not have been so eager for the Western allies to open a western front.

    Before D-Day, the Soviets were doing well against the Germans –particularly after Stalingrad and Kursk. But there were three fronts with still very tough going for the Soviets. Stalin’s basic early strategy was for the capitalist countries to fight each other (National Socialism/fascism was, well socialism with private property and central control but capitalist by Stalin’s calculus). With US military ramp up, Stalin likely settled for a second front and Eastern Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @manton
    Not that I am denying this, because I really don't know, but it is true that Stalin pressed hard for the opening of a Western front from the instant he started to get US and UK aid. It was always THE main topic of conversation at the various summits he had with Churchill and later Roosevelt. He felt personally betrayed that they didn't try it in 1942 and even more so when they didn't do it in 1943.

    So if he really wanted to go all the way west, it would seem that he would not have been so eager for the Western allies to open a western front.

    Not that I am denying this, because I really don’t know, but it is true that Stalin pressed hard for the opening of a Western front from the instant he started to get US and UK aid. It was always THE main topic of conversation at the various summits he had with Churchill and later Roosevelt. He felt personally betrayed that they didn’t try it in 1942 and even more so when they didn’t do it in 1943.

    So if he really wanted to go all the way west, it would seem that he would not have been so eager for the Western allies to open a western front.

    I wasn’t arguing that Stalin didn’t want the Anglos to open up a second front in Western Europe.I was simply pointing out what probably would have happened had a second front not opened up by 1944.

    As I pointed out upthread, Stalin was a pragmatist.Defeating Nazi Germany without the added assistance of the Anglo invasion of Northwestern Europe in 1944 would have been a much bloodier affair.Stalin was willing to settle for half of Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    Nobody denies that Stalin wanted Eastern Europe. Russia (Tsarist, Soviet, and Putinist) has always wanted a sphere of influence in EE. But did Stalin have the slightest thought that he could take Western Europe?
     
    Stalin made damn sure that his sphere of influence extended as far into Western Europe as possible.That's why he was so determined that the Soviets would take Berlin before the Anglos, never mind the cost in human lives:

    Battle of Berlin:

    "According to Grigoriy Krivosheev's work based on declassified archival data, Soviet forces sustained 81,116 dead for the entire operation, which included the battles of Seelow Heights and the Halbe;[123] Another 280,251 were reported wounded or sick during the operational period.[123][h] The operation also cost the Soviets about 2,000 armoured vehicles, though the number of irrevocable losses (write-offs) is not known. Initial Soviet estimates based on kill claims placed German losses at 458,080 killed and 479,298 captured,[i] but German research puts the number of dead at approximately 92,000 – 100,000.[11] The number of civilian casualties is unknown,[124] but 125,000 are estimated to have perished during the entire operation."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin#Aftermath

    The point was to seize control of as much of Germany as possible.Facts on the Ground.A buffer between himself and the West.

    Of course, Stalin was far more pragmatic than Hitler was.He had a sense of limits.Hence, although he would certainly have liked to have had all of Germany under his control, he knew that that would have meant war.The holds true, obviously, for France.Stalin knew when to stop.

    However, minus external constraints (say, in an alternate timeline where the D-Day landings did not take place in 1944) , I think that it is very likely that he would have pushed on into France, the Netherlands, etc.

    Not that I am denying this, because I really don’t know, but it is true that Stalin pressed hard for the opening of a Western front from the instant he started to get US and UK aid. It was always THE main topic of conversation at the various summits he had with Churchill and later Roosevelt. He felt personally betrayed that they didn’t try it in 1942 and even more so when they didn’t do it in 1943.

    So if he really wanted to go all the way west, it would seem that he would not have been so eager for the Western allies to open a western front.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Not that I am denying this, because I really don’t know, but it is true that Stalin pressed hard for the opening of a Western front from the instant he started to get US and UK aid. It was always THE main topic of conversation at the various summits he had with Churchill and later Roosevelt. He felt personally betrayed that they didn’t try it in 1942 and even more so when they didn’t do it in 1943.

    So if he really wanted to go all the way west, it would seem that he would not have been so eager for the Western allies to open a western front.
     
    I wasn't arguing that Stalin didn't want the Anglos to open up a second front in Western Europe.I was simply pointing out what probably would have happened had a second front not opened up by 1944.

    As I pointed out upthread, Stalin was a pragmatist.Defeating Nazi Germany without the added assistance of the Anglo invasion of Northwestern Europe in 1944 would have been a much bloodier affair.Stalin was willing to settle for half of Europe.
    , @OutWest
    Before D-Day, the Soviets were doing well against the Germans –particularly after Stalingrad and Kursk. But there were three fronts with still very tough going for the Soviets. Stalin’s basic early strategy was for the capitalist countries to fight each other (National Socialism/fascism was, well socialism with private property and central control but capitalist by Stalin’s calculus). With US military ramp up, Stalin likely settled for a second front and Eastern Europe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @matt
    Nobody denies that Stalin wanted Eastern Europe. Russia (Tsarist, Soviet, and Putinist) has always wanted a sphere of influence in EE. But did Stalin have the slightest thought that he could take Western Europe? It's highly doubtful. Stalin didn't even support the Communists in Greece.

    Stalin didn’t even support the Communists in Greece.

    More like he stopped supporting them.My understanding is that Churchill and Stalin reached an accommodation vis-a-vis Greece in 1944.Stalin would get Romania and Bulgaria, while the British, in return, would get a free hand in Greece.

    Again, Stalin was very pragmatic.Under ideal circumstances, he would have extended his sphere of influence into Greece.But he was living in a less than ideal world, and had to settle for just Romania and Bulgaria.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @matt
    Nobody denies that Stalin wanted Eastern Europe. Russia (Tsarist, Soviet, and Putinist) has always wanted a sphere of influence in EE. But did Stalin have the slightest thought that he could take Western Europe? It's highly doubtful. Stalin didn't even support the Communists in Greece.

    Nobody denies that Stalin wanted Eastern Europe. Russia (Tsarist, Soviet, and Putinist) has always wanted a sphere of influence in EE. But did Stalin have the slightest thought that he could take Western Europe?

    Stalin made damn sure that his sphere of influence extended as far into Western Europe as possible.That’s why he was so determined that the Soviets would take Berlin before the Anglos, never mind the cost in human lives:

    Battle of Berlin:

    “According to Grigoriy Krivosheev’s work based on declassified archival data, Soviet forces sustained 81,116 dead for the entire operation, which included the battles of Seelow Heights and the Halbe;[123] Another 280,251 were reported wounded or sick during the operational period.[123][h] The operation also cost the Soviets about 2,000 armoured vehicles, though the number of irrevocable losses (write-offs) is not known. Initial Soviet estimates based on kill claims placed German losses at 458,080 killed and 479,298 captured,[i] but German research puts the number of dead at approximately 92,000 – 100,000.[11] The number of civilian casualties is unknown,[124] but 125,000 are estimated to have perished during the entire operation.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin#Aftermath

    The point was to seize control of as much of Germany as possible.Facts on the Ground.A buffer between himself and the West.

    Of course, Stalin was far more pragmatic than Hitler was.He had a sense of limits.Hence, although he would certainly have liked to have had all of Germany under his control, he knew that that would have meant war.The holds true, obviously, for France.Stalin knew when to stop.

    However, minus external constraints (say, in an alternate timeline where the D-Day landings did not take place in 1944) , I think that it is very likely that he would have pushed on into France, the Netherlands, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manton
    Not that I am denying this, because I really don't know, but it is true that Stalin pressed hard for the opening of a Western front from the instant he started to get US and UK aid. It was always THE main topic of conversation at the various summits he had with Churchill and later Roosevelt. He felt personally betrayed that they didn't try it in 1942 and even more so when they didn't do it in 1943.

    So if he really wanted to go all the way west, it would seem that he would not have been so eager for the Western allies to open a western front.

    , @matt

    However, minus external constraints (say, in an alternate timeline where the D-Day landings did not take place in 1944) , I think that it is very likely that he would have pushed on into France, the Netherlands, etc.
     
    If that's the case, why had Stalin been pushing for the D-Day landings? It's well known that Stalin had been begging for the Western Allies to open a second front in Europe since 1942. It sounds like he was focusing on surviving the German assault more than planning the conquest of Europe.

    EDIT: I hadn't seen manton's comment when I wrote this.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @matt
    Nobody denies that Stalin wanted Eastern Europe. Russia (Tsarist, Soviet, and Putinist) has always wanted a sphere of influence in EE. But did Stalin have the slightest thought that he could take Western Europe? It's highly doubtful. Stalin didn't even support the Communists in Greece.

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/

    Although you can easily dismiss the claims of Stalin’s intentions, if the claims of Soviet military strength (24,000 tanks and almost 1 million airborne troops) are true then it certainly does look like Stalin was planning for his moment which never came.

    It is a fact that German encirclement of Soviet armies resulted in a massive capture of equipment that astonished the Germans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Kiza
    To point out some info which are generally manipulated out of people's minds when nuclear weapons are mentioned.

    Firstly, the nuclear weapons were first developed by the US. Even Hitler’s Germany appears to have been not too keen on nuclear weapons (for a good reason). The US was and is the only country in the World which:
    1) wanted nuclear weapons,
    2) could produce them away from the war zone, and
    3) lacked no compulsion to use them against civilians (well illustrated by Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

    Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons only in response. Considering the preparedness of the Western allies to continue WW2 by attacking Soviet Union, Europe would have been showered by radiation from the US nuclear bombs dropped on Soviet Union. Thus, ironically, Soviet Union saved both itself and the Europeans from the nuclear bombing by developing the same technology as the US, with a significant help of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. I hope that this couple will one day get a decent memorial in Europe for saving Europe.

    Secondly, one needs to see nuclear war simulations to understand the importance of the First Strike. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is not any more MAD if one adds Anti-ballistic missile defense (ABMD). Combined with the First Strike (FS), ABMD+FS guarantee a huge asymmetry in the destruction, easily 10,000:1. If US were to deploy ABMD+FS, whilst 99% of the US population could survive the primary effects of a nuclear exchange, 99% of the Russian population would be instantly destroyed. The secondary effects of a nuclear war are an entirely different matter: the agricultural production would drop close to zero.

    ABMD is as dangerous as the nuclear weapons themselves, because it encourages the First Strike. The average Joe Blow can be easily convinced by the MSM that the word "Defense" in the ABMD is for his own defense against rogue nations and not for the offence against Russia and China (with which he may not agree). But simply, ABMD is an enabler of the First Strike, and thus a predominantly offensive strategic approach.

    Let us summarize:
    not only was the US the first country to develop the ultimate WMD, the only one to use them, the US continues to be the leader in domination and destruction by developing ABMD, whilst unthreatened by any nation except itself from within.

    Methinks I smell a Bertrand Russell Limey Lunatic Type. Begone, fool!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    “The idea that the USSR was this peaceful giant is BS. Both Stalin and Zhukov would have been quite willing to continue to march across the rest of Europe if they thought they could.”

    And your evidence for assertion is what?
     
    I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting that Stalin did not want to place Europe under his control?Bear in mind, this is the Stalin who signed a pact with Hitler in 1939 where they agreed to split Poland between them.This is the Stalin who ruthlessly crushed the Baltic states.Twice:

    Kenneth Christie, Historical Injustice and Democratic Transition in Eastern Asia and Northern Europe: Ghosts at the Table of Democracy (2002)
    Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonians (1940-41): 85,000 deported, of which 55,000 killed or died
    Baltics executed during reconquest (1944-45): 30,000
    Postwar partisan war
    Lithuanians: 40-50,000 k.
    Latvian: 25,000
    Estonians: 15,000
     
    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin

    Nobody denies that Stalin wanted Eastern Europe. Russia (Tsarist, Soviet, and Putinist) has always wanted a sphere of influence in EE. But did Stalin have the slightest thought that he could take Western Europe? It’s highly doubtful. Stalin didn’t even support the Communists in Greece.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/exposing-stalins-plan-to-conquer-europe/

    Although you can easily dismiss the claims of Stalin's intentions, if the claims of Soviet military strength (24,000 tanks and almost 1 million airborne troops) are true then it certainly does look like Stalin was planning for his moment which never came.

    It is a fact that German encirclement of Soviet armies resulted in a massive capture of equipment that astonished the Germans.
    , @syonredux

    Nobody denies that Stalin wanted Eastern Europe. Russia (Tsarist, Soviet, and Putinist) has always wanted a sphere of influence in EE. But did Stalin have the slightest thought that he could take Western Europe?
     
    Stalin made damn sure that his sphere of influence extended as far into Western Europe as possible.That's why he was so determined that the Soviets would take Berlin before the Anglos, never mind the cost in human lives:

    Battle of Berlin:

    "According to Grigoriy Krivosheev's work based on declassified archival data, Soviet forces sustained 81,116 dead for the entire operation, which included the battles of Seelow Heights and the Halbe;[123] Another 280,251 were reported wounded or sick during the operational period.[123][h] The operation also cost the Soviets about 2,000 armoured vehicles, though the number of irrevocable losses (write-offs) is not known. Initial Soviet estimates based on kill claims placed German losses at 458,080 killed and 479,298 captured,[i] but German research puts the number of dead at approximately 92,000 – 100,000.[11] The number of civilian casualties is unknown,[124] but 125,000 are estimated to have perished during the entire operation."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berlin#Aftermath

    The point was to seize control of as much of Germany as possible.Facts on the Ground.A buffer between himself and the West.

    Of course, Stalin was far more pragmatic than Hitler was.He had a sense of limits.Hence, although he would certainly have liked to have had all of Germany under his control, he knew that that would have meant war.The holds true, obviously, for France.Stalin knew when to stop.

    However, minus external constraints (say, in an alternate timeline where the D-Day landings did not take place in 1944) , I think that it is very likely that he would have pushed on into France, the Netherlands, etc.

    , @syonredux

    Stalin didn’t even support the Communists in Greece.
     
    More like he stopped supporting them.My understanding is that Churchill and Stalin reached an accommodation vis-a-vis Greece in 1944.Stalin would get Romania and Bulgaria, while the British, in return, would get a free hand in Greece.

    Again, Stalin was very pragmatic.Under ideal circumstances, he would have extended his sphere of influence into Greece.But he was living in a less than ideal world, and had to settle for just Romania and Bulgaria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Begemot
    "The idea that the USSR was this peaceful giant is BS. Both Stalin and Zhukov would have been quite willing to continue to march across the rest of Europe if they thought they could."

    And your evidence for assertion is what?

    Well the fact that the Red Army let the Polish resistance be massacred by the SS while they watched from a distance doesn’t sound like they were the nice guys you claim they are. Why do you supposed they wanted any possible military opposition destroyed?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @manton
    What "offer"? None was ever conveyed that I have read of.

    We had no means of diplomatic communication, not even back-channel, with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. We had limited insight into what was going on in Japan partly by listening to public radio broadcasts and partly through decoding secret intercepts (the Magic intercepts).

    So far as the US was able to tell, in the Spring-Summer of 1945, there were three factions in Tokyo. Hardliners wanted to fight to the end. There is a famous quote from a die-hard general about how beautiful it would be if the whole nation died like a beautiful flower.

    Then there were those who were encouraged by Iwo Jima and Okinawa. That is, they were encouraged by how ferociously the Japanese soldiers fought to the death in an obviously lost cause, and by how costly those victories were to the US. They thought that they could make an invasion of the home islands so bloody and expensive for the US that we would stop fighting and sue for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender.

    Then there was a faction that did indeed think surrender was the best option. But this was the weakest faction.

    Moreover, the Emperor did not commit to any faction until after Nagasaki; and no faction was going to win the argument without his explicit support. It was his decision after the bombings that was decisive in producing the surrender. And even that took several days to work through the cabinet. We know this because we were able to intercept many of the minutes to those cabinet meetings. No conclusive decision was reached that we were able to intercept, but we did stop the bombings and wait and see what was happening.

    We learned of the surrender not through direct communication with the Japanese but only on Aug. 15, when Hirohito broadcast a public speech to the nation.

    As for the alleged opposition from various American commanders, it's true that many wrote in memoirs written many years later that they had opposed the bombing at the time. The problem is that there is no contemporaneous evidence. Ike is famous for objecting to the bombing (though not in his WW2 memoir, but in his much later presidential memoir). However, there are notes from meetings with Stimson in which he briefed Ike about what was going to happen and does not report Ike raising any objection. The same is true of Leahy and some others. MacArthur appears to have been butthurt that he was not consulted and so, MacArthur-like, took it very personally and later said he thought it was a bad idea. But that same MacArthur also later got very butthurt when he wanted to nuke North Korean supply lines in China and Truman said "no." So it's not like MacArthur was some principled nuclear peacenik.

    Neither was Ike. Let's recall that it was Ike, as President, who dreamed up the American policy of "massive retaliation." Which may be summarized as: We know we can't match the Soviets in conventional arms (nor do we want to spend the money or draft that many men, even if we could). If the Kremlin wants to overrun Europe, it can, and there's not much we can do to stop it. Except overwhelmingly nuke Russia into the stone age. Which we will do.

    So much for flower-child nuclear freeze Ike.

    This policy was amended by Kennedy and McNamara's "flexible response."

    If you remember the military tried to stage a coo to prevent the Emperor’s recording of the acceptance of the surrender of Japan from being played to the public. Some junior officers of the palace guard and some officers in Tokyo tried to get their hands on that record before it could be played the next day on the radio but the minister in charge hid it well and enough of the palace guard were loyal so that it failed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Begemot
    "The Japanese had every opportunity to surrender but the Japanese military wanted a US invasion with the hopes of giving the US such a big bloody nose that they would get better surrender terms."

    My understanding is that the Japanese were looking to surrender as early as April 1945. Their desire was that their would be an assurance that the Emperor would be kept untouched and in place. The existing US stance of "unconditional surrender" made the status of the Emperor unclear. US officials were aware of the Japanese offer; were aware of the role and status of the Emperor in Japanese politics and culture; and many US officials believed that clarifying to the Japanese that the Emperor would be untouched would bring about an early Japanese surrender. It's a pity this option was not even tried and sadly ironic that when Japan did capitulate the US allowed for the Emperor to remain.

    Therefore I suggest your historical understanding needs some improvement.

    You are blaming the US because the Japanese did not broadcast that Japan was willing to surrender if the Emperor was maintained and see if the US would accept? I am aware that the Japanese were trying to use the Russians as a back channel to negotiate surrender terms. However, this crap of blaming the US is ridiculous. Japan was beaten it was up to them to offer surrender terms. Even though our stated policy was unconditional surrender this does not excuse Japan from making their terms known to the world.

    After the first bomb was dropped the Japanese government was split. The civilian authorities wanted to surrender, the military continued to push for giving the US a punch in the nose. It was only after the second bomb when Hirohito broke the tie.

    Lee came to Grant when the Army of Northern Virginia was whipped. Japan should have come to us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Begemot
    "The Japanese had every opportunity to surrender but the Japanese military wanted a US invasion with the hopes of giving the US such a big bloody nose that they would get better surrender terms."

    My understanding is that the Japanese were looking to surrender as early as April 1945. Their desire was that their would be an assurance that the Emperor would be kept untouched and in place. The existing US stance of "unconditional surrender" made the status of the Emperor unclear. US officials were aware of the Japanese offer; were aware of the role and status of the Emperor in Japanese politics and culture; and many US officials believed that clarifying to the Japanese that the Emperor would be untouched would bring about an early Japanese surrender. It's a pity this option was not even tried and sadly ironic that when Japan did capitulate the US allowed for the Emperor to remain.

    Therefore I suggest your historical understanding needs some improvement.

    What “offer”? None was ever conveyed that I have read of.

    We had no means of diplomatic communication, not even back-channel, with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. We had limited insight into what was going on in Japan partly by listening to public radio broadcasts and partly through decoding secret intercepts (the Magic intercepts).

    So far as the US was able to tell, in the Spring-Summer of 1945, there were three factions in Tokyo. Hardliners wanted to fight to the end. There is a famous quote from a die-hard general about how beautiful it would be if the whole nation died like a beautiful flower.

    Then there were those who were encouraged by Iwo Jima and Okinawa. That is, they were encouraged by how ferociously the Japanese soldiers fought to the death in an obviously lost cause, and by how costly those victories were to the US. They thought that they could make an invasion of the home islands so bloody and expensive for the US that we would stop fighting and sue for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender.

    Then there was a faction that did indeed think surrender was the best option. But this was the weakest faction.

    Moreover, the Emperor did not commit to any faction until after Nagasaki; and no faction was going to win the argument without his explicit support. It was his decision after the bombings that was decisive in producing the surrender. And even that took several days to work through the cabinet. We know this because we were able to intercept many of the minutes to those cabinet meetings. No conclusive decision was reached that we were able to intercept, but we did stop the bombings and wait and see what was happening.

    We learned of the surrender not through direct communication with the Japanese but only on Aug. 15, when Hirohito broadcast a public speech to the nation.

    As for the alleged opposition from various American commanders, it’s true that many wrote in memoirs written many years later that they had opposed the bombing at the time. The problem is that there is no contemporaneous evidence. Ike is famous for objecting to the bombing (though not in his WW2 memoir, but in his much later presidential memoir). However, there are notes from meetings with Stimson in which he briefed Ike about what was going to happen and does not report Ike raising any objection. The same is true of Leahy and some others. MacArthur appears to have been butthurt that he was not consulted and so, MacArthur-like, took it very personally and later said he thought it was a bad idea. But that same MacArthur also later got very butthurt when he wanted to nuke North Korean supply lines in China and Truman said “no.” So it’s not like MacArthur was some principled nuclear peacenik.

    Neither was Ike. Let’s recall that it was Ike, as President, who dreamed up the American policy of “massive retaliation.” Which may be summarized as: We know we can’t match the Soviets in conventional arms (nor do we want to spend the money or draft that many men, even if we could). If the Kremlin wants to overrun Europe, it can, and there’s not much we can do to stop it. Except overwhelmingly nuke Russia into the stone age. Which we will do.

    So much for flower-child nuclear freeze Ike.

    This policy was amended by Kennedy and McNamara’s “flexible response.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    If you remember the military tried to stage a coo to prevent the Emperor's recording of the acceptance of the surrender of Japan from being played to the public. Some junior officers of the palace guard and some officers in Tokyo tried to get their hands on that record before it could be played the next day on the radio but the minister in charge hid it well and enough of the palace guard were loyal so that it failed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Begemot
    "The idea that the USSR was this peaceful giant is BS. Both Stalin and Zhukov would have been quite willing to continue to march across the rest of Europe if they thought they could."

    And your evidence for assertion is what?

    “The idea that the USSR was this peaceful giant is BS. Both Stalin and Zhukov would have been quite willing to continue to march across the rest of Europe if they thought they could.”

    And your evidence for assertion is what?

    I’m sorry, are you seriously suggesting that Stalin did not want to place Europe under his control?Bear in mind, this is the Stalin who signed a pact with Hitler in 1939 where they agreed to split Poland between them.This is the Stalin who ruthlessly crushed the Baltic states.Twice:

    Kenneth Christie, Historical Injustice and Democratic Transition in Eastern Asia and Northern Europe: Ghosts at the Table of Democracy (2002)
    Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonians (1940-41): 85,000 deported, of which 55,000 killed or died
    Baltics executed during reconquest (1944-45): 30,000
    Postwar partisan war
    Lithuanians: 40-50,000 k.
    Latvian: 25,000
    Estonians: 15,000

    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin

    Read More
    • Replies: @matt
    Nobody denies that Stalin wanted Eastern Europe. Russia (Tsarist, Soviet, and Putinist) has always wanted a sphere of influence in EE. But did Stalin have the slightest thought that he could take Western Europe? It's highly doubtful. Stalin didn't even support the Communists in Greece.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @MarkinLA
    3) lacked no compulsion to use them against civilians (well illustrated by Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

    What a stupid comment. The Japanese had every opportunity to surrender but the Japanese military wanted a US invasion with the hopes of giving the US such a big bloody nose that they would get better surrender terms. Given the high casualties the US and Japan suffered from the taking of Okinawa, the bomb saved millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of US soldiers. Why didn't the Japanese military think of all the starving Japanese civilians instead of their Bushido code?

    Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons only in response. Considering the preparedness of the Western allies to continue WW2 by attacking Soviet Union, Europe would have been showered by radiation from the US nuclear bombs dropped on Soviet Union.

    The US had such a huge advantage in nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them unopposed by the USSR up until the mid to late 50s that if the US so desired they could have wiped the USSR off the map with not so much as a scratch but we didn't.

    “The Japanese had every opportunity to surrender but the Japanese military wanted a US invasion with the hopes of giving the US such a big bloody nose that they would get better surrender terms.”

    My understanding is that the Japanese were looking to surrender as early as April 1945. Their desire was that their would be an assurance that the Emperor would be kept untouched and in place. The existing US stance of “unconditional surrender” made the status of the Emperor unclear. US officials were aware of the Japanese offer; were aware of the role and status of the Emperor in Japanese politics and culture; and many US officials believed that clarifying to the Japanese that the Emperor would be untouched would bring about an early Japanese surrender. It’s a pity this option was not even tried and sadly ironic that when Japan did capitulate the US allowed for the Emperor to remain.

    Therefore I suggest your historical understanding needs some improvement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manton
    What "offer"? None was ever conveyed that I have read of.

    We had no means of diplomatic communication, not even back-channel, with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. We had limited insight into what was going on in Japan partly by listening to public radio broadcasts and partly through decoding secret intercepts (the Magic intercepts).

    So far as the US was able to tell, in the Spring-Summer of 1945, there were three factions in Tokyo. Hardliners wanted to fight to the end. There is a famous quote from a die-hard general about how beautiful it would be if the whole nation died like a beautiful flower.

    Then there were those who were encouraged by Iwo Jima and Okinawa. That is, they were encouraged by how ferociously the Japanese soldiers fought to the death in an obviously lost cause, and by how costly those victories were to the US. They thought that they could make an invasion of the home islands so bloody and expensive for the US that we would stop fighting and sue for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender.

    Then there was a faction that did indeed think surrender was the best option. But this was the weakest faction.

    Moreover, the Emperor did not commit to any faction until after Nagasaki; and no faction was going to win the argument without his explicit support. It was his decision after the bombings that was decisive in producing the surrender. And even that took several days to work through the cabinet. We know this because we were able to intercept many of the minutes to those cabinet meetings. No conclusive decision was reached that we were able to intercept, but we did stop the bombings and wait and see what was happening.

    We learned of the surrender not through direct communication with the Japanese but only on Aug. 15, when Hirohito broadcast a public speech to the nation.

    As for the alleged opposition from various American commanders, it's true that many wrote in memoirs written many years later that they had opposed the bombing at the time. The problem is that there is no contemporaneous evidence. Ike is famous for objecting to the bombing (though not in his WW2 memoir, but in his much later presidential memoir). However, there are notes from meetings with Stimson in which he briefed Ike about what was going to happen and does not report Ike raising any objection. The same is true of Leahy and some others. MacArthur appears to have been butthurt that he was not consulted and so, MacArthur-like, took it very personally and later said he thought it was a bad idea. But that same MacArthur also later got very butthurt when he wanted to nuke North Korean supply lines in China and Truman said "no." So it's not like MacArthur was some principled nuclear peacenik.

    Neither was Ike. Let's recall that it was Ike, as President, who dreamed up the American policy of "massive retaliation." Which may be summarized as: We know we can't match the Soviets in conventional arms (nor do we want to spend the money or draft that many men, even if we could). If the Kremlin wants to overrun Europe, it can, and there's not much we can do to stop it. Except overwhelmingly nuke Russia into the stone age. Which we will do.

    So much for flower-child nuclear freeze Ike.

    This policy was amended by Kennedy and McNamara's "flexible response."
    , @MarkinLA
    You are blaming the US because the Japanese did not broadcast that Japan was willing to surrender if the Emperor was maintained and see if the US would accept? I am aware that the Japanese were trying to use the Russians as a back channel to negotiate surrender terms. However, this crap of blaming the US is ridiculous. Japan was beaten it was up to them to offer surrender terms. Even though our stated policy was unconditional surrender this does not excuse Japan from making their terms known to the world.

    After the first bomb was dropped the Japanese government was split. The civilian authorities wanted to surrender, the military continued to push for giving the US a punch in the nose. It was only after the second bomb when Hirohito broke the tie.

    Lee came to Grant when the Army of Northern Virginia was whipped. Japan should have come to us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @MarkinLA
    Even Hitler’s Germany appears to have been not too keen on nuclear weapons (for a good reason).

    From what I have read the reason the Germans did not build a bomb was that their scientists predicted correctly that it would take two years to construct one and they didn't think Germany would be able to stay in the war that long so they spent their effort on generating electricity with nuclear reactors.

    The idea that the USSR was this peaceful giant is BS. Both Stalin and Zhukov would have been quite willing to continue to march across the rest of Europe if they thought they could.

    “The idea that the USSR was this peaceful giant is BS. Both Stalin and Zhukov would have been quite willing to continue to march across the rest of Europe if they thought they could.”

    And your evidence for assertion is what?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “The idea that the USSR was this peaceful giant is BS. Both Stalin and Zhukov would have been quite willing to continue to march across the rest of Europe if they thought they could.”

    And your evidence for assertion is what?
     
    I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting that Stalin did not want to place Europe under his control?Bear in mind, this is the Stalin who signed a pact with Hitler in 1939 where they agreed to split Poland between them.This is the Stalin who ruthlessly crushed the Baltic states.Twice:

    Kenneth Christie, Historical Injustice and Democratic Transition in Eastern Asia and Northern Europe: Ghosts at the Table of Democracy (2002)
    Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonians (1940-41): 85,000 deported, of which 55,000 killed or died
    Baltics executed during reconquest (1944-45): 30,000
    Postwar partisan war
    Lithuanians: 40-50,000 k.
    Latvian: 25,000
    Estonians: 15,000
     
    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin
    , @MarkinLA
    Well the fact that the Red Army let the Polish resistance be massacred by the SS while they watched from a distance doesn't sound like they were the nice guys you claim they are. Why do you supposed they wanted any possible military opposition destroyed?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • By Christian Appy “Never, never waste a minute on regret. It's a waste of time.” -- President Harry Truman Here we are, 70 years after the nuclear obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I'm wondering if we've come even one step closer to a moral reckoning with our status as the world's only country to...
  • And then there was the Japanese “Three Alls Policy” in China: Kill All, Burn All, Loot All

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Alls_Policy

    It’s estimated that it led to the deaths of around 2.7 million Chinese.

    And total Chinese deaths in the Sino-Japanese War (1937-45) are usually estimated at around 10 million…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • So many decades later, it’s hard to remember the kind of nuclear thinking top American officials engaged in during the Cold War. In secret National Security Council documents of the early 1950s, for instance, the country’s top strategists descended willingly into the charnel house of futuristic history, imagining life on this planet as an eternal...
  • @Kiza
    To point out some info which are generally manipulated out of people's minds when nuclear weapons are mentioned.

    Firstly, the nuclear weapons were first developed by the US. Even Hitler’s Germany appears to have been not too keen on nuclear weapons (for a good reason). The US was and is the only country in the World which:
    1) wanted nuclear weapons,
    2) could produce them away from the war zone, and
    3) lacked no compulsion to use them against civilians (well illustrated by Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

    Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons only in response. Considering the preparedness of the Western allies to continue WW2 by attacking Soviet Union, Europe would have been showered by radiation from the US nuclear bombs dropped on Soviet Union. Thus, ironically, Soviet Union saved both itself and the Europeans from the nuclear bombing by developing the same technology as the US, with a significant help of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. I hope that this couple will one day get a decent memorial in Europe for saving Europe.

    Secondly, one needs to see nuclear war simulations to understand the importance of the First Strike. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is not any more MAD if one adds Anti-ballistic missile defense (ABMD). Combined with the First Strike (FS), ABMD+FS guarantee a huge asymmetry in the destruction, easily 10,000:1. If US were to deploy ABMD+FS, whilst 99% of the US population could survive the primary effects of a nuclear exchange, 99% of the Russian population would be instantly destroyed. The secondary effects of a nuclear war are an entirely different matter: the agricultural production would drop close to zero.

    ABMD is as dangerous as the nuclear weapons themselves, because it encourages the First Strike. The average Joe Blow can be easily convinced by the MSM that the word "Defense" in the ABMD is for his own defense against rogue nations and not for the offence against Russia and China (with which he may not agree). But simply, ABMD is an enabler of the First Strike, and thus a predominantly offensive strategic approach.

    Let us summarize:
    not only was the US the first country to develop the ultimate WMD, the only one to use them, the US continues to be the leader in domination and destruction by developing ABMD, whilst unthreatened by any nation except itself from within.

    3) lacked no compulsion to use them against civilians (well illustrated by Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

    What a stupid comment. The Japanese had every opportunity to surrender but the Japanese military wanted a US invasion with the hopes of giving the US such a big bloody nose that they would get better surrender terms. Given the high casualties the US and Japan suffered from the taking of Okinawa, the bomb saved millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of US soldiers. Why didn’t the Japanese military think of all the starving Japanese civilians instead of their Bushido code?

    Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons only in response. Considering the preparedness of the Western allies to continue WW2 by attacking Soviet Union, Europe would have been showered by radiation from the US nuclear bombs dropped on Soviet Union.

    The US had such a huge advantage in nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them unopposed by the USSR up until the mid to late 50s that if the US so desired they could have wiped the USSR off the map with not so much as a scratch but we didn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Begemot
    "The Japanese had every opportunity to surrender but the Japanese military wanted a US invasion with the hopes of giving the US such a big bloody nose that they would get better surrender terms."

    My understanding is that the Japanese were looking to surrender as early as April 1945. Their desire was that their would be an assurance that the Emperor would be kept untouched and in place. The existing US stance of "unconditional surrender" made the status of the Emperor unclear. US officials were aware of the Japanese offer; were aware of the role and status of the Emperor in Japanese politics and culture; and many US officials believed that clarifying to the Japanese that the Emperor would be untouched would bring about an early Japanese surrender. It's a pity this option was not even tried and sadly ironic that when Japan did capitulate the US allowed for the Emperor to remain.

    Therefore I suggest your historical understanding needs some improvement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Kiza
    To point out some info which are generally manipulated out of people's minds when nuclear weapons are mentioned.

    Firstly, the nuclear weapons were first developed by the US. Even Hitler’s Germany appears to have been not too keen on nuclear weapons (for a good reason). The US was and is the only country in the World which:
    1) wanted nuclear weapons,
    2) could produce them away from the war zone, and
    3) lacked no compulsion to use them against civilians (well illustrated by Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

    Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons only in response. Considering the preparedness of the Western allies to continue WW2 by attacking Soviet Union, Europe would have been showered by radiation from the US nuclear bombs dropped on Soviet Union. Thus, ironically, Soviet Union saved both itself and the Europeans from the nuclear bombing by developing the same technology as the US, with a significant help of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. I hope that this couple will one day get a decent memorial in Europe for saving Europe.

    Secondly, one needs to see nuclear war simulations to understand the importance of the First Strike. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is not any more MAD if one adds Anti-ballistic missile defense (ABMD). Combined with the First Strike (FS), ABMD+FS guarantee a huge asymmetry in the destruction, easily 10,000:1. If US were to deploy ABMD+FS, whilst 99% of the US population could survive the primary effects of a nuclear exchange, 99% of the Russian population would be instantly destroyed. The secondary effects of a nuclear war are an entirely different matter: the agricultural production would drop close to zero.

    ABMD is as dangerous as the nuclear weapons themselves, because it encourages the First Strike. The average Joe Blow can be easily convinced by the MSM that the word "Defense" in the ABMD is for his own defense against rogue nations and not for the offence against Russia and China (with which he may not agree). But simply, ABMD is an enabler of the First Strike, and thus a predominantly offensive strategic approach.

    Let us summarize:
    not only was the US the first country to develop the ultimate WMD, the only one to use them, the US continues to be the leader in domination and destruction by developing ABMD, whilst unthreatened by any nation except itself from within.

    Even Hitler’s Germany appears to have been not too keen on nuclear weapons (for a good reason).

    From what I have read the reason the Germans did not build a bomb was that their scientists predicted correctly that it would take two years to construct one and they didn’t think Germany would be able to stay in the war that long so they spent their effort on generating electricity with nuclear reactors.

    The idea that the USSR was this peaceful giant is BS. Both Stalin and Zhukov would have been quite willing to continue to march across the rest of Europe if they thought they could.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Begemot
    "The idea that the USSR was this peaceful giant is BS. Both Stalin and Zhukov would have been quite willing to continue to march across the rest of Europe if they thought they could."

    And your evidence for assertion is what?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • By Christian Appy “Never, never waste a minute on regret. It's a waste of time.” -- President Harry Truman Here we are, 70 years after the nuclear obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I'm wondering if we've come even one step closer to a moral reckoning with our status as the world's only country to...
  • American wartime culture had for years drawn on a long history of “yellow peril” racism to paint the Japanese not just as inhuman, but as subhuman. As Truman put it in his diary, it was a country full of “savages” — “ruthless, merciless, and fanatic” people so loyal to the emperor that every man, woman, and child would fight to the bitter end. In these years, magazines routinely depicted Japanese as monkeys, apes, insects, and vermin. Given such a foe, so went the prevailing view, there were no true “civilians” and nothing short of near extermination, or at least a powerful demonstration of America’s willingness to proceed down that path, could ever force their surrender. As Admiral William “Bull” Halsey said in a 1944 press conference, “The only good Jap is a Jap who’s been dead six months.”

    First comes the dehumanization then the merciless slaughter. The germans followed the same path on the european front in WWII.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • So many decades later, it’s hard to remember the kind of nuclear thinking top American officials engaged in during the Cold War. In secret National Security Council documents of the early 1950s, for instance, the country’s top strategists descended willingly into the charnel house of futuristic history, imagining life on this planet as an eternal...
  • @Bliss

    In secret National Security Council documents of the early 1950s, for instance, the country’s top strategists descended willingly into the charnel house of futuristic history, imagining life on this planet as an eternal potential holocaust.
     
    Ah, the 1950s. The Golden Age of american WNs. How loudly and often the "race realists" lament it's end...

    Good riddance...

    Yeah, good riddance…Don’t go away mad Bliss. Just go away.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Always useful to recall what the Japanese were up to:

    The Rape of Nanking:

    [MORE]

    Nanking Massacre, 13 Dec. 1937-Feb. 38:
    Spence, The Search for Modern China: 42,000
    Gilbert: >200,000 civilians and 90,000 POWs
    Dict.Wars: 200,000
    Rummel: 200,000
    P. Johnson: 200-300,000
    27 Aug 2001 Newsweek, quoting Japanese textbook: “The number of dead is said to be over 100,000 and it is estimated to be over 300,000 in China.”
    Palmowski, Dictionary of 20th Century World History: “perhaps as many as” 400,000
    Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking (1997) cites these:
    Liu Fang-chu: 430,000
    James Yin & Shi Young: 400,000
    Sun Zhaiwei: 377,400 corpses disposed of
    Wu Tien-wei: 340,000
    District Court of Nanking: 300,000
    International Military Tribunal of the Far East: 260,000
    Fujiwara Akira: 200,000
    John Rabe: 50,000-60,000
    Hata Ikuhiko: 38,000-42,000

    Biological warfare and medical experiments on Chinese civilians and POWs:

    Unit 731, Manchukuo (bio-warfare center: 1937-45)
    Discovery Channel: “as many as 200,000 people — Chinese soldiers, private citizens and prisoners of war — had died” (http://dsc.discovery.com/anthology/spotlight/bioterror/history/history2.html
    Global Security: Up to 3,000 died in this facility. Perhaps as many 200,000 Chinese died from germ war campaign in Yunnan Province, Ningbo, and Changde. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/japan/bw.htm

    Chinese killed in Japanese bombing raids:

    Bombing: 71,105 Chinese k. by Japanese bombing (Clodfelter)

    Atrocities against POWs and civilians:

    Burma-Siam Railroad, worker deaths (1941-43)
    Johnson: 16,000 POWs
    Our Times, also Gilbert: 50,000 Burmese civilians and 16,000 Allied POWs
    Grenville: 100,000 Asians and 16,000 Europeans
    7 February 2002 AP: 50,000 Asian laborers and 16,000 Allied POWs

    The Manila Massacre:

    Manila, Philippines (massacre of civilians by Japanese: Nov. 1944-Feb. 1945): 100 000
    Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century: 100,000 Filipinos k.
    William Manchester, American Caesar (1978): “nearly 100,000 Filipinos were murdered by the Japanese”
    PBS: “100,000 of its citizens died.”
    World War II Database: 100,000

    Assorted other massacres:

    East Timor
    James Dunn, in Century of Genocide, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997)): 70,000 died under Japanese occupation
    19 May 2002 San Gabriel Valley Tribune: “January 1942: Japan occupies the entire island. With support from the local people, Australian commandos in East Timor battle Japan. Japanese reprisals kill 60,000 civilians 13 percent of East Timor’s population.”
    Dutch East Indies: 25,000 Dutch d. out of 140,000 imprisoned (3 Feb. 1998 Agence France Presse)
    Singapore, citizens (mostly Chinese) massacred, 1942
    Japan Economic Newswire/Kyodo News Service
    16 June 2004: 50,000-100,000
    13 Aug. 1984: Report by Allies after WW2 est. 5,000 k. Families claim 40,000-50,000
    Associated Press
    30 July 1995: “The Japanese military said 6,000 were killed. Singaporeans put the death toll at 50,000.”
    12 Sept 1995: 30,000-40,000
    National Archives of Singapore: 8,600 reported. “[T]here were many more.” (http://www.s1942.org.sg/dir_defence7.htm
    Grenville: 5,000

    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Blame

    An eyewitness account of the Rape of Nanking:

    http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/nanking.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • By Christian Appy “Never, never waste a minute on regret. It's a waste of time.” -- President Harry Truman Here we are, 70 years after the nuclear obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I'm wondering if we've come even one step closer to a moral reckoning with our status as the world's only country to...
  • Always useful to remember what the other fellow did.Some Japanese atrocities during the war:

    In China and Korea
    Nanking Massacre, 13 Dec. 1937-Feb. 38:
    Spence, The Search for Modern China: 42,000
    Gilbert: >200,000 civilians and 90,000 POWs
    Dict.Wars: 200,000
    Rummel: 200,000
    P. Johnson: 200-300,000
    27 Aug 2001 Newsweek, quoting Japanese textbook: “The number of dead is said to be over 100,000 and it is estimated to be over 300,000 in China.”
    Palmowski, Dictionary of 20th Century World History: “perhaps as many as” 400,000
    Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking (1997) cites these:
    Liu Fang-chu: 430,000
    James Yin & Shi Young: 400,000
    Sun Zhaiwei: 377,400 corpses disposed of
    Wu Tien-wei: 340,000
    District Court of Nanking: 300,000
    International Military Tribunal of the Far East: 260,000
    Fujiwara Akira: 200,000
    John Rabe: 50,000-60,000
    Hata Ikuhiko: 38,000-42,000

    Unit 731, Manchukuo (bio-warfare center: 1937-45)
    Discovery Channel: “as many as 200,000 people — Chinese soldiers, private citizens and prisoners of war — had died” (http://dsc.discovery.com/anthology/spotlight/bioterror/history/history2.html
    Global Security: Up to 3,000 died in this facility. Perhaps as many 200,000 Chinese died from germ war campaign in Yunnan Province, Ningbo, and Changde. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/japan/bw.htm
    Bombing: 71,105 Chinese k. by Japanese bombing (Clodfelter)
    South East Asia and East Indies
    Bataan Death March, 1942
    Burma-Siam Railroad, worker deaths (1941-43)
    Johnson: 16,000 POWs
    Our Times, also Gilbert: 50,000 Burmese civilians and 16,000 Allied POWs
    Grenville: 100,000 Asians and 16,000 Europeans
    7 February 2002 AP: 50,000 Asian laborers and 16,000 Allied POWs

    Manila, Philippines (massacre of civilians by Japanese: Nov. 1944-Feb. 1945): 100 000
    Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century: 100,000 Filipinos k.
    William Manchester, American Caesar (1978): “nearly 100,000 Filipinos were murdered by the Japanese”
    PBS: “100,000 of its citizens died.”
    World War II Database: 100,000

    East Timor
    James Dunn, in Century of Genocide, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997)): 70,000 died under Japanese occupation
    19 May 2002 San Gabriel Valley Tribune: “January 1942: Japan occupies the entire island. With support from the local people, Australian commandos in East Timor battle Japan. Japanese reprisals kill 60,000 civilians 13 percent of East Timor’s population.”
    Dutch East Indies: 25,000 Dutch d. out of 140,000 imprisoned (3 Feb. 1998 Agence France Presse)
    Singapore, citizens (mostly Chinese) massacred, 1942
    Japan Economic Newswire/Kyodo News Service
    16 June 2004: 50,000-100,000
    13 Aug. 1984: Report by Allies after WW2 est. 5,000 k. Families claim 40,000-50,000
    Associated Press
    30 July 1995: “The Japanese military said 6,000 were killed. Singaporeans put the death toll at 50,000.”
    12 Sept 1995: 30,000-40,000
    National Archives of Singapore: 8,600 reported. “[T]here were many more.” (http://www.s1942.org.sg/dir_defence7.htm
    Grenville: 5,000
    LC: 5,000-25,000 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sgtoc.html

    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Blame

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • So many decades later, it’s hard to remember the kind of nuclear thinking top American officials engaged in during the Cold War. In secret National Security Council documents of the early 1950s, for instance, the country’s top strategists descended willingly into the charnel house of futuristic history, imagining life on this planet as an eternal...
  • In secret National Security Council documents of the early 1950s, for instance, the country’s top strategists descended willingly into the charnel house of futuristic history, imagining life on this planet as an eternal potential holocaust.

    Ah, the 1950s. The Golden Age of american WNs. How loudly and often the “race realists” lament it’s end…

    Good riddance…

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Albino Sasquatch
    Yeah, good riddance...Don't go away mad Bliss. Just go away.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • To point out some info which are generally manipulated out of people’s minds when nuclear weapons are mentioned.

    Firstly, the nuclear weapons were first developed by the US. Even Hitler’s Germany appears to have been not too keen on nuclear weapons (for a good reason). The US was and is the only country in the World which:
    1) wanted nuclear weapons,
    2) could produce them away from the war zone, and
    3) lacked no compulsion to use them against civilians (well illustrated by Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

    Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons only in response. Considering the preparedness of the Western allies to continue WW2 by attacking Soviet Union, Europe would have been showered by radiation from the US nuclear bombs dropped on Soviet Union. Thus, ironically, Soviet Union saved both itself and the Europeans from the nuclear bombing by developing the same technology as the US, with a significant help of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. I hope that this couple will one day get a decent memorial in Europe for saving Europe.

    Secondly, one needs to see nuclear war simulations to understand the importance of the First Strike. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is not any more MAD if one adds Anti-ballistic missile defense (ABMD). Combined with the First Strike (FS), ABMD+FS guarantee a huge asymmetry in the destruction, easily 10,000:1. If US were to deploy ABMD+FS, whilst 99% of the US population could survive the primary effects of a nuclear exchange, 99% of the Russian population would be instantly destroyed. The secondary effects of a nuclear war are an entirely different matter: the agricultural production would drop close to zero.

    ABMD is as dangerous as the nuclear weapons themselves, because it encourages the First Strike. The average Joe Blow can be easily convinced by the MSM that the word “Defense” in the ABMD is for his own defense against rogue nations and not for the offence against Russia and China (with which he may not agree). But simply, ABMD is an enabler of the First Strike, and thus a predominantly offensive strategic approach.

    Let us summarize:
    not only was the US the first country to develop the ultimate WMD, the only one to use them, the US continues to be the leader in domination and destruction by developing ABMD, whilst unthreatened by any nation except itself from within.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Even Hitler’s Germany appears to have been not too keen on nuclear weapons (for a good reason).

    From what I have read the reason the Germans did not build a bomb was that their scientists predicted correctly that it would take two years to construct one and they didn't think Germany would be able to stay in the war that long so they spent their effort on generating electricity with nuclear reactors.

    The idea that the USSR was this peaceful giant is BS. Both Stalin and Zhukov would have been quite willing to continue to march across the rest of Europe if they thought they could.
    , @MarkinLA
    3) lacked no compulsion to use them against civilians (well illustrated by Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

    What a stupid comment. The Japanese had every opportunity to surrender but the Japanese military wanted a US invasion with the hopes of giving the US such a big bloody nose that they would get better surrender terms. Given the high casualties the US and Japan suffered from the taking of Okinawa, the bomb saved millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of US soldiers. Why didn't the Japanese military think of all the starving Japanese civilians instead of their Bushido code?

    Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons only in response. Considering the preparedness of the Western allies to continue WW2 by attacking Soviet Union, Europe would have been showered by radiation from the US nuclear bombs dropped on Soviet Union.

    The US had such a huge advantage in nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them unopposed by the USSR up until the mid to late 50s that if the US so desired they could have wiped the USSR off the map with not so much as a scratch but we didn't.

    , @Charlesz Martel
    Methinks I smell a Bertrand Russell Limey Lunatic Type. Begone, fool!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Good article and well written.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • By Christian Appy “Never, never waste a minute on regret. It's a waste of time.” -- President Harry Truman Here we are, 70 years after the nuclear obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I'm wondering if we've come even one step closer to a moral reckoning with our status as the world's only country to...
  • 25,000 customer reviews

    You may have stumbled upon the true cause of rising ocean temperatures.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The 1960s -- that extraordinary decade -- is celebrating its 50th birthday one year at a time. Happy birthday, 1965! How, though, do you commemorate the Vietnam War, the era’s signature catastrophe? After all, our government prosecuted its brutal and indiscriminate war under false pretexts, long after most citizens objected, and failed to achieve any...
  • […] Burying Vietnam, Launching Perpetual War by Christian Appy for TomDispatch. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I found Veterans for peace to be totally ineffective from a point of view of leadership; so solidly grounded in the left and dismissive of right of center groups aligned with Ron Paul or center groups like the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which has done more to unmask a criminal crusader mentality in our military officer corps than anyone. I resigned from Veterans for Peace after I’d failed in a push to establish coordination and cooperation between the two organizations, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation was willing to explore a cooperative effort where interests meshed, Veterans for Peace was not. So long as the left believes, utterly arrogantly, they exclusively own the anti-war narrative, they’ll be about as effective as if they’d spent their resources baying at the Moon.

    Other than that, good points. BTW I quit Veterans of Foreign Wars long before this, as an organization with no place at all for veterans who questioned the mainstream narrative.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.