“Roosevelt utterly ignored the plight of China in his determination to counter the European eastern front death war against Stalin.”
The Eastern front was also against Western Europe; it wasn’t all about Russia. Besides, FDR was dead for 4 years before Mao won. Years during which the U.S. did not intervene on behalf of the opposition as forcefully as it could have, given our distrust of Chaing Kai-Shek.
“Stalin capitalized upon the destruction of China by the Japanese.”
Not like he did Eastern Europe. It was more of a comintern-type infiltration thing. Mao was never his bitch like the European satellite leaders were, since Russia never invaded and the Red Army wasn’t looking over his shoulder.
“When did Stalin declare war against the Japanese?”
Never. But I think the whole Yalta betrayal is a myth. The Red Army staying in Eastern Europe was a fait accompli short of another world war right after the second. We knew that, felt we had to get something out of Uncle Joe, but never assumed he’d fight the Japanese or hold free elections. At least, that’s what the clever guys knew. FDR was duped, but there was little option short of violence (which we were not prepared to commit to) anyway.
Roosevelts' Road to Russia by George Crocker, not just for Yalta, but also the earlier Cairo and Tehran meetings.
Compare also the tenets of the so-called Atlantic Charter (which very quickly after WWII ended became merely a "press release" and "un-signed by the principals") with the positions of the chess pieces in August 1945.
To quote Professor H. E. (Elmer - not in the ham radio context) Barnes' paper "Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century":
"These selfsame anti-revisionist critics, who so heatedly denounce Revisionists for revealing and underling Roosevelt's responsibility, are the very ones who also vehemently content that, as a fundamental moral imperative, we simply had to enter the second World War to preserve our national self-respect and promote the safety and preserve the civilied operation of the human race. Hence, Roosevelt's success in putting us into this war should appear to them to be greatly to his credit as a stateman - "a good officer," as Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. has described him in this connection. Elementary logic would make it seem clear that the anti-revisionist writers should be grateful to Revisionists for having demonstrated Roosevelts' responsibility for this great and benign achievement far more definitively and clearly than the anti-revisionists have ever done. By denying his responsibility for what is to interventionists a superlative act of humanitarian statesmanship the anti-revisionists are depriving him of the credit due him for his allegedly comprehensive service to mankind."
Or, just who made the US the policeman of the world?
Or, what happened to the US Congress and their "declaration of war" duty? Involvement in Korea, say, came very easily, and much more easily ever since.
Or, when asked, "Who won WWII?" - just ask any Pole or the tens of millions that vanished behind the curtain thingy.
I obviously respect the thought process evident in your posts, so I argue with you. You wrote “given our distrust of C-K-S”. Isn’t that typical of Dem leaders distrust of Diem, Oops!, Van Thieu, and Karzhai, and other scapegoats in dicey situations that they simply wanted to bail out on?
Where was the fine tuned sense of distrust of Stalin for Goodness Sakes? And I hope and think you know better than to believe that Germany ever willingly warred against western Europe in the 20th century.