BEMUSED - Reader comments at The New York Sun

Recent Blog Posts

Reader comment on:
Clash Of Evils

Submitted by Norman Hanscombe, Sep 10, 2007 23:20

John's suggestion there was "no need to continue lend lease after 1944" is quaint. Unless the Soviet Union continued to carry the bulk of the fighting in 1945, Western losses could have become unacceptably hight -- -- -- not to mention that no rational Western leader could have risked fuelling Stalin's paranoia even further, by ending Lend Lease. Extending aid was in our own best interests.

Never forget the U.S. entered the Pacific War only after Tojo issued an unavoidable invitation. America became involved in Europe only after Adolph made the first move, sending Congress a declaration of war no rational nation could ignore. We in Australia had reservations about what the U.S. did in two World Wars. This in a country with relatively positive attitudes about America. Imagine how the U.S.S.R. (invaded in 1919 by Western Forces, and left to carry the overwhelming bulk of the struggle against Nazi Germany in W.W. II) would have seen such a betrayal? Even a non-paranoid Stalin would have reacted violently and unpredictably had Lend Lease been blocked in 1944. If Truman had been President in 1944, he'd never have acted so foolishly as to end aid at that point.

Russian participation was wanted in the Pacific (and wanted desperately) if only so that Stalin's unfortunate cannon fodder would continue to help reduce the Western body count. Even by 1945, no one expected the War to end before well into 1946. It's often overlooked, by the way, that Russia attacked Japan on precisely the day the Yalta timetable required them to do so. I remember how excited I was when it happened, because this would mean Dad mightn't be sent to Borneo, that Uncle Len could be released much sooner from the Japanese P.O.W. camp, and that far fewer Australians I didn't know were now less likely to die.

Ditto an even greater number of U.S. servicemen?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

Other reader comments on this article

Comment	By	Date
This was formally before the start of WWII but part of the same story. Poles tend to forget to mention... [MORE]	vic	Sep 15, 2007 06:41
Poland did not invade Czechoslovakia. When Hitler invaded Czecholovakia Poland took back the small area of Teschen Czechoslovakia grabbed from... [MORE]	Stef	Oct 6, 2007 19:52
Vic fails to mention that Czechoslovakia invaded Poland in 1919 with 15,000 troops, some in non Czech uniforms. After Austro-Hungary... [MORE]	Stef	Oct 12, 2007 11:20
I borrow that heading from Stephen Jay Gould's gloss on the rise of mammals through the contingent annihilation of dinosaurs... [MORE]	Brian Johnson	Sep 12, 2007 08:01
I read his history of Europe, and there too he takes swipes at Zionism even though it had no connection... [MORE]	Read his books	Sep 12, 2007 01:18
Emotions are easily manipulated and one would be naïve to think that such an emotionally charged issue as the Holocaust... [MORE]	Stef	Oct 6, 2007 23:35
Many people, including American military and political leaders at the time, focus most of their attention on the European war... [MORE]	Blain	Sep 12, 2007 00:19
1. Historian Norman Davies excludes origins, viz. "who started it," i.e. excludes from the explanation of later events the 1939... [MORE]	Don Phillipson	Sep 11, 2007 18:22
The involvement of the US and Great Britian against Germany was necessary for victory. If Great Britian had surrendered, all... [MORE]	charles	Sep 11, 2007 11:59
From the time my childhood in the USA, I've noticed a tendency to focus on Nazi war crimes to the... [MORE]	Aram	Sep 11, 2007 04:32
John's suggestion there was "no need to continue lend lease after 1944" is quaint. Unless the Soviet Union continued to...	Norman Hanscombe	Sep 10, 2007 23:20
Hindsight is not always 20-20. The British and Americansconducted a very costly bombing campaign on German cities,costly both in men... [MORE]	Muggins	Sep 10, 2007 23:07
In "No Simple War," his treatment of the Holocaust is generally straightforward and unobjectionable. Yet he evidently still feels bruised... [MORE]	Omri Schwarz	Sep 10, 2007 22:10
He's a product of his times. Maybe he is an anti-Semite. or maybe he feels stung by the Zionist need... [MORE]	ds	Sep 12, 2007 12:42
I wish a less subjective reviewer had written this piece. Mr. Kirsch frets throughout that Davies' alleged lack of objectivity... [MORE]	jeepgypsy	Sep 10, 2007 15:05
Keep in mind, as even Churchill noted after the war, that the USSR did the bulk of the fighting against... [MORE]	We were fortunate	Sep 10, 2007 09:39
Dear RTK -- don't try to pull the age thing on Tom. It's like arguing that you only can understand... [MORE]	John	Sep 10, 2007 00:26
Granted John, it's not impossible to understand things you have no experience of, but that being said, comprehending the international... [MORE]	Avi	Sep 10, 2007 11:37
I have always been amused by people who buy our wartime propaganda that we were fighting for freedom and democracy... [MORE]	tom	Sep 5, 2007 03:43
My guess is that "tom" who so smugly wrote "snicker, snicker" is under the age of 70, and knows only... [MORE]	rtk	Sep 5, 2007 21:59

Reader comment on:Clash Of Evils

Other reader comments on this article

Comment on Clash Of Evils

Reader comment on:
Clash Of Evils