By Dennis D. McDonald

A Book Review

On finishing David Holloway’s engrossing history book STALIN AND THE BOMB I quickly wrote out by hand a short review. I dictated the review into Word on OneDrive on my iPhone, sent the OneDrive link via email to myself, opened it in Word on my laptop, and edited it. I then posted the review on my website here.

Even though I had edited the review I realized going back it was somewaht awkward in parts. I decided to ask ChatGPT to edit it to see how it would turn out.

ChatGPT As Editor

I’ve researched and used ChatGPT both experimentally and in client work to synthesize documents and summarize text and have been impressed by its capabilities. I’ve also been made aware of its limitations, including its ability to create sentences that sound very different from what I would have written.

Here is how I prompted ChatGPT, a straight copy and paste from the original article:

Please edit the following draft article for clarity and grammar: “David Holloway’s “STALIN AND THE BOMB” Cold War, History, Nuclear, Physics, War A book review by Dennis D. McDonald While author Holloway tries in the final pages to come away with a sense of hope given that the West and the Soviet Union did emerge intact from the Cold War after the death of Stalin, it is impossible to read this book without emerging with a sense of unease given how closely we came to World War III. As recounted in this book, Stalin’s brutality and paranoia, especially in his later years, were reflected in the Soviet Union's devotion of massive industrial and scientific resources to the creation of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Especially intriguing is the back and forth between the USSR and the US in development and deployment of the hydrogen bomb. Holloway fairly points out there was significant paranoia and mistrust on both sides. One thing that Holloway clearly details is the complex relationship between delivery capability and warhead size and volume. The US in the 1950s had the advantage in delivery capabilities (e.g., with the introduction of the B-47 and B-52) and the number of warheads. In Holloway’s telling, this advantage suggested to some in the West (but not necessarily to Truman) that a “first strike” might be the way to go in a war with the Soviet Union. Also described: experiments on both sides with the battlefield use of the “tactical” nuclear weapons. Reading about the Soviet field experiments with tactical nuclear weapons--with leaders of other communist powers looking on--can't help but bring to mind what a smoking ruin Europe would have been had a “hot” war between the West and the USSR actually broken out. Stalin's death did lead to a partial pullback of tensions on the part of the Soviets. One reason for this was recognition by some in the USSR that more resources should be devoted to domestic development and consumption rather than the military. Holloway does an admirable job pulling together details of how communist philosophy and governmental structure influenced nuclear weapons development. While ome might argue that Stalin and his paranoia were primarily responsible for driving Cold War tension, keep in mind Russia's perspective on having been invaded by both France and Germany. Can you blame Russians for their mistrust of the West?

How ChatGPT Responded

Here is how ChatGPT responded:

David Holloway's "STALIN AND THE BOMB": A Reflection on Cold War Nuclear Tensions A Book Review by Dennis D. McDonald

[1] In "Stalin and the Bomb" by David Holloway, the closing pages attempt to offer a glimmer of hope, noting that both the West and the Soviet Union survived the Cold War era following Stalin's death. However, the narrative predominantly instills a deep unease due to the harrowing revelations of how close the world came to witnessing World War III.

[2] Holloway meticulously documents Stalin's later years, marked by brutality and paranoia, which significantly influenced the Soviet Union's commitment to developing nuclear and thermonuclear weaponry along with their delivery systems. Particularly captivating is the competitive dynamic between the USSR and the U.S. in the hydrogen bomb's evolution. Holloway objectively acknowledges the prevailing paranoia and distrust on both sides.

[3] A key aspect Holloway elaborates on is the intricate interplay between the delivery systems' capabilities and the warheads' size and volume. During the 1950s, the U.S. led in delivery capabilities, exemplified by the introduction of the B-47 and B-52 bombers, as well as in warhead quantity. This superiority led some Western thinkers—though not President Truman—to contemplate a preemptive strike against the Soviet Union.

[4] Holloway also explores the testing of "tactical" nuclear weapons by both superpowers, highlighting the potential devastation of Europe had a direct conflict ensued.

[5] Following Stalin's demise, a de-escalation of tensions was observable from the Soviet side, partly driven by a renewed focus on domestic development over military expenditure.

[6] Holloway deftly examines the role of communist ideology and governance in the nuclear arms race. While Stalin's paranoia is often blamed for escalating Cold War tensions, Holloway invites readers to consider Russia's historical apprehensions due to invasions by France and Germany, questioning the West's trustworthiness from a Russian perspective.

[7] However, Holloway's analysis of Stalin's relationship with China and its impact on Soviet nuclear strategy lacks depth. Stalin's cautious partnership with Communist China, particularly during the Korean conflict, underscores his strategic allocation of military resources, favoring nuclear efficiency over conventional warfare—highlighting the ever-present dread of a European land war, a sentiment resonating in contemporary contexts such as NATO's response to Putin's aggression in Ukraine.

[8] The book commendably details the scientific achievements of Russian physicists, isolated from Western collaboration in the early 1940s. The narrative uncovers the complexities of nuclear fission, the quest for Uranium 235, and the logistics of mining, refining, and manufacturing bomb materials. Unlike the replication of Western atomic bomb designs, the Soviets' swift and somewhat independent advancement in thermonuclear weaponry and delivery systems served as a stark reminder of their capabilities to the West.

[9] Dennis D. McDonald's review sheds light on Holloway's thorough exploration of the intersection between Cold War politics, scientific innovation, and the omnipresent shadow of nuclear conflict, presenting a compelling read that is both informative and unsettling.

Discussion

Does it read better? I think so, though were I to edit ChatGPT’s text again I might simplify some of the sentence structure and word choices. There are, however, a few places where my imemdiate reaction was, “That’s not exactly what I intended.” For example:

• The ChatGPT version provides a subtitle, which I did not provide. Perhaps it interpreted the string of tags I included with the review (Cold War, History, Nuclear, Physics, War) as a subtitle.

• Paragraph 1: The sentence “However, the narrative predominantly instills a deep unease due to the harrowing revelations of how close the world came to witnessing World War III,” is a fair approximation of what I wrote but reads more formally than I would have attempted.

• Paragraph 2: It’s good but doesn’t change what I wrote significantly.

• Paragraph 3: “Intricate interplay” rather than “complex relationship”? I’m not sure the two are equivalent.

• Paragraph 4: “Holloway also explores” is not what I wrote about the description of the testing of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia. Holloway does not explore the implications for Europe had such weapons been used—that was basically an emotional response on my part on reading about the destruction wrought by the testing. I would not go so far as to chracterize this as an “hallucination” but it is not what Holloway wrote. Perhaps I should have made that clear

• Paragraph 5: correct.

• Paragraph 6: My comment about Russia being rational about fears of Western militarism based on having been invaded by France and Germany in the past was my own comment and not explicitly based on what Holloway wrote. Perhaps I should have made that point clearer in my original text. (Scott’e NAPOLEON was still on my mind with its depiction of Napoleon’s disastrous Russian adventure.)

• Paragraph 7: I’ve been accused of writing long sentences but this one by ChatGPT takes the cake!

• Paragraph 8: An accurate iterpretation of my text but not significantly better, in my opinion. However, I included a reference to Chertok’s book on Russian missile development which goes into detail on Cold War delivery systems that Holloway only briefly touches on.

• Paragraph 9: This paragraph was totally made up by ChatGPT. It’s a good summary but is a bit dry.

Conclusions

As mentioned above I use CHatGPT both on my own and professionally. Using it as an editor of an amateur book review is not a major test but does point out some of its features that need to be managed carefully. In the past when I’ve asked it to edit something “for clarity and grammar” it sometimes has pointed out that there are other more specialized text editing tools that might be tried as well though I have not yet attempted that.

As others have pointed out, when one uses a tool like ChatGPT one must carefully consider (a) whether one is asking it to summarize, synthesize, analyze, or create, and (b) the extent to which local or contextual information will need to be incorporated into its output to make it useful.

Using it to edit a quickly dashed off book review is certainly not a complete test but does point out the need to carefully analyze both the input and output not just for facts but also for whether the output accurately reflects the intentions of the author.

Copyright (c) 2024 by Dennis D. McDonald. The image at the top of the page was generated by Microsoft Designer “Powered by DALL-E 3” after several attempts were refused because, apparently, the initial prompts included the terms “nuclear weapons” or “atomic bombs.”