The cold weather in Russia is a advantage that has been used magnificantly on multiple wars throughout history, the most famous been against Napolean and much later Hitler.
To say they only won because of the cold would be the same as saying the only reason America were not invaded was because of the massive ocean between them and Germany.
The general consensus amongst historians is that Nazi Germany had the ability to take over the world if it was managed properly, however it was not. It was literally a case of Hitler and his team taking too much than they could chew. Fighting the British who had Naval and Air superiority during World War 2, fighting the Russians who had some of the best tanks and best dug in defences and largest army, while also trying to deal with French and other European resistance fighters was far too much for them to deal with, things were already tipping towards an Allied victory, and then of course the arrival of the US made the task of pushing the Germans back take a matter of months rather than years.
I never stated the US created slavery. I stated that the Americans have had slavery for over a century, a fact which is clearly true. I'm not denying that the British played a massive role in the developing slave trade, but to my knowledge the British never fought a civil war to try and keep slavery around either. I know that is a huge exaggeration of the causes of the Civil war btw, before anyone tries to bite me.
Quoting the BBC is the same as quoting a hideous monster, with many different faces which it hides behind. I don't trust them to report the weather accurately, never mind history.
The losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible, but not as terrible as the number of Japanese who would have died as the result of an invasion. The revisionist historians of the 1960s - and their disciples - are quite wrong to depict the decision to use the bombs as immoral. It would have been immoral if they had not been used.
You should really not try to use a Historiography article as a source... The person who wrote that article, who incidentally holds the received view point on the matter, is very much entitled to post what they believe to be correct. The problem with History, as everyone has already said, that people do not have to agree on the same things, what so ever. Received view points are generally seen to be the tradition, thoughts at the time, which is why he would be in favour of the A-bombs. However, revised viewpoints are generally more informed and aware of other details not know at the time of the event. For that reason, a revised viewpoint is often much more supported after it has been put forward, and is much more likely to be closer to the truth. The revised viewpoint in the case of the A bombs was that they killed more then they saved. It is hard to understand these things, because there is so many what if's involved, but all the evidence through history points towards the revised view, that is why it is called a revised view, because it is a change of view by the general historian community on a particular topic, due to an update or change in knowledge.
Of course these things are never set in stone, so to be honest it's entirely you'r opinion, and you'r opinion alone that matters to you, but i'm just stated what I, and the majority of the History community agree to be the most likely fact out of all the evidence there is.