you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 20 points 1 year ago (16 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh, it wasn't because of the fanatical dedication of the Japanese armed forces that were so dug in it would have taken years and cost thousands of American lives to defeat them, island by island? It was because they didn't want the Russians to hog all the glory? Never heard that one before

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    the first bomb was dropped on 6 August, the Soviet Union declared war on the 8th. But contrary to American expectations and post-war claims, the author’s diligent research in the Japanese sources demonstrates conclusively that it was the Soviet declaration of war, not the atomic bombs, that forced the Japanese to surrender unconditionally.

    Geoffrey Jukes review Racing the enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the surrender of Japan by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I'm anti-tankie as the next guy. But pick up a history book. Soviet Russia did a huge amount of the work during WW2.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I didn't say I was anti-marxist. I'm anti-authoritarian. In all it's forms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Oh really? My bad. I've always heard it used specifically to talk about corrupted implementations of Marxism. E.g. Animal Farm.

    Err, maybe I'm confusing Marxism and socialism.

    I'm still not exactly clear on how any of it avoids corruption. At the end of the day, somebody decides whose street gets paved first.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    No, you’re not wrong. They’re muddying meaning of the word “tankie.”

    “Tankie” does not mean “commie.” Not all commies are tankies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That is reductionist and overly simplistic. Just because they are all pejorative does not mean their meaning is identical. Not all communists are “tankies.”

    (But I know very well we need to agree to disagree on this, because I don’t think there’s any value in trying to convince you.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] 13 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [+] -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [+] -4 points 1 year ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [+] -4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Spell out your point or shutup, stop being cryptic

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)