[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "But Mr. Bartlett errs, I think, when he opines that Truman probably did not have to drop the nukes on Japan."

Mr. Bartlett errs throughout the article, but it's this point I find him completely devoid of context.

My Stepfather was a Chief Petty Officer on the USS Belleau Wood, a light carrier, when it was on its way with the rest of the fleet to assault the mainland of Japan. Dad said when news of the bombs dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were announced, one could hear a universal sigh of relief coming from the fleet--and he wasn't speaking figuratively, either--as thousands of men discovered the assault would not take place. A few broke into tears.

Conventional invasion of Japan would have meant, at a minimum, a million American casualties. A million.

Truman made the right decision. And another thing, too: Bartlett's low evaluation of Roosevelt and Wilson are way off the mark. For one thing, Roosevelt's superb performance as Commander-in-Chief during WWII far outweighs any damage done by the New Deal, and for another, Wilson was forced by the Germans into WWI--the last thing Wilson wanted was European entanglement. Unrestricted submarine warfare, the contents of the Zimmerman Telegram and more were provocations no President could ignore and remain President for long.

Seems to me Bartlett's allowing his biases to color his judgments, the very thing he accuses liberal historians of doing.

[Sans-Culotte]

Bartlett's low evaluation of Roosevelt and Wilson are way off the mark. For one thing, Roosevelt's superb performance as Commander-in-Chief during WWII far outweighs any damage done by the New Deal.

Roosevelt's cozying up to Stalin seriously undermines his reputation for fighting WW2, IMO. The war began to save eastern Europe from the yoke of nazism, and ended with eastern Europe under the yoke of communism.

Roosevelt beat Hitler, but lost to Stalin. The real winner of WW2 was Stalin because he defeated both the nazis and his allies. Roosevelt's failure to see Stalin for what he was (and having commie advisors in his administration did not help) reminds me of the whole GWB "religion of peace" debacle.

[steve-b]

You make some valid points about FDR, but Wilson deserves considerably harsher than Bartlett gives him. The notion that Wilson was "forced by the Germans into WWI" is simply laughable; also, he single-handedly reversed what could have been the beginnings a considerably less painful transition to racial equality that was beginning to develop during the Teddy Roosevelt years (for no other better reason than to satisfied his bigoted prickitude).