I am so tired of this Yalta debate and the veiled attacks on FDR.
The simple fact of the matter is that unless you wanted to fight an all-out war against Stalin (and, mind you, when Yalta took place, we were still faced with the awful prospect of an invasion of Japan and we were getting brutalized in the island hopping campaign in the Pacific – Iwo Jima took place a week after Yalta and Okinama, the bloodiest battle of World War II for Americans, occurred several months later).
Yes, it was regrettable, but I don’t understand how any other outcome but Soviet occupation of the Eastern Bloc states was possible. Does anyone think that we could have simply bided time in Europe after VE day (which, btw, was not a foregone conclusion when Yalta took place, although the general consensus was that after the Battle of the Bulge all meaningful resistance by the Germans had been crushed), then finished off the Japanese, then after VJ day, shifted all of our assets back to Europe to battle an enormous, battle-hardened, entrenched Soviet Union?
Anyone?
*** Update ***
As was pointed out in the comments, we did not have the Atomic bomb at the time of Yalta, and it probably would not have been desirable to use it in Europe, anyway).
*** Update ***
For the love of everything holy, people. By noting that criticizing Yalta is stupid, I am not tacitly endorsing the 45 year oppression of millions of people by the Soviet Union. I hate communists, and I hated the Soviet Union. Make that capital “H” hate, and I still don’t trust them, and one of my many flaws in my personality is that I still have a Cold Warrior mentality to things. One of the most upsetting things to happen to me in my life was that I was born too late to be of legal voting age when Reagan was running for President.
Having said that, if you think there was the political will and military capability to send all of our resources to the Pacific, defeat the Japanese (which, again, was not at this time a foregone conclusion by any account), and then send all of our boys BACK TO EUROPE to fight an entrenched, battle-hardened, tenacious Soviet Army that was dug in, familair with the terrain, and led by a fanatical officer corps and Joseph Stalin, all the while maintaining occupation armies in newly conquered Japan and Germany, you just need your damned head examined. Put down the damn crack pipe.
Yalta was not a communist plot in our government. It may have had a tragic outcome for many (it was also the framework for a 50 years period of pecie, albeit contentious and tense), and there certainly provisions within Yalta that are abominable, but claiming there was another way is just stoopid with two O’s. And let’s not forget that we NEEDED the Soviets when Yalta took place, if for no other reason than to mention a Soviet invasion on the northern front to scare the shit out of Japan and bring them closer to surrender.
And I like newly commissioned General Jonah Goldberg, but please quit quoting him as a source for military strategy circa 1945.
*** Update ***
Just goes to show you, no matter how long you blog, you never know what posts are going to strike a nerve. This has well over 100 comments, and I quit reading them long ago (they got circular after about the 30th comment), so if you want me to address something, email me.
Guest
Well, although I agree with your point, just to play devil’s advocate — in the immediate aftermath, we did have atomic weapons, the Soviets didn’t, and there was no public pressue *not* to use the atomic bombs. While conquering the USSR may not have been an option, destroying all their major centers of production and forcing a withdrawal from Eastern Europe might have been possible. In hindsight, turning huge swaths of central eurasia into atomic wastelands is not a very appealing option, but I can see how it would have seemed a justifiable decision at the time.
Guest
And that may not be exactly on point to your question, since we wouldn’t know about the effectivness of the A-bomb until well after Yalta.
The Disembodied Voice
The strength of the Western Allies was sufficient to destroy the Soviet Union even without atomic weapons. The problem is that there was no political will to do so in the US. Veteran units were hemmorhaging men to demobilization as the public clamored for the military to downshift even as they were gearing up to invade Japan. An invasion of the Soviet Union- militarily possible (I have no doubt that Patton could have cut through the Sovvies like shit through a goose), politically impossible, and the leaders of today would do well to remember that strength and ability does not always dictate the proper course of action; prudence and pragmatism are also required.
And, as I wrote in my blog, which anyone is free to visit by clicking the link in my name (end shameless plug), characterizing Winston Churchill and FDR as “appeasers” takes a special kind of stupidity.
space
Comparison’s to Munich are historically ridiculous. Comparisons to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact are downright disgusting.
Meanwhile our own military falls short of recruitment goals for another month. Somehow these people can’t take time out of theirbusy schedule — which apparently consists of bashing F.D.R. for not trying to duplicate Stalingrad — to go and enlist.
space
The strength of the Western Allies was sufficient to destroy the Soviet Union even without atomic weapons.
Yeah, that’s what Hitler thought about his own armies. And he hadn’t just fought wars in two theaters.
Frank Minutillo
Why waste time and space debating and refuting comments made by a character who hasn’t understood any argument since the debate over Miller Light…remember less filling vs tastes great!
This was worthy of Bush.
The Disembodied Voice
Yeah, that’s what Hitler thought about his own armies. And he hadn’t just fought wars in two theaters.
Except that at the time, the Western Allies possessed an air wing capable of totally annhilating Soviet industrial capacity, an untouchable industrial heartland, a vast manpower base, one of the toughtest, most battlehardened armies in the world, and, of course, the recipe for instant sunrise. The tank battle was more even (Shermans were no match for Soviet tanks, but the Pershings might have been), but with overwhelming air superiority the Soviet military would have been destroyed, especially as they were heavily reliant on Allied lend-lease shipments. The subsequent guerilla campaign would have been rather bloody, but let’s not kid ourselves and think that the Wermacht at its height was anywhere near the level of the American and British armies immediately after the fall of Germany.
Rick
We had no excellent options there, but Yalta remains a moral sell-out of Munich proportions, and should be acknowledged.
By the time of the conference, FDR thought he’d charmed Uncle Joe thoroughly, and was more intent on trying to bust up–or prevent the restoration–of the French and British empires. Eastern Europe had to shift for itself.
Cordially…
Anderson
Except that at the time, the Western Allies possessed an air wing capable of totally annhilating Soviet industrial capacity, an untouchable industrial heartland, a vast manpower base, one of the toughtest, most battlehardened armies in the world, and, of course, the recipe for instant sunrise. The tank battle was more even (Shermans were no match for Soviet tanks, but the Pershings might have been), but with overwhelming air superiority the Soviet military would have been destroyed, especially as they were heavily reliant on Allied lend-lease shipments. The subsequent guerilla campaign would have been rather bloody, but let’s not kid ourselves and think that the Wermacht at its height was anywhere near the level of the American and British armies immediately after the fall of Germany.
I’m not convinced, but I would have to know more about the bomber ranges–wouldn’t the Soviet factories have been quite distant? Could we have gotten some B-29’s over to Europe in substantial numbers? And I suspect that the Soviet interceptor/AA defenses wouldn’t have been inconsiderable.
I also think that DV sells short both Russian commanders & Russian troops.
But it would certainly make a great wargame.
space
DV also sells short the need for resources in the Pacific for the full-on assault of Japan.
I think DV also vastly overvalues our air power. It was one thing to target Nazi supply lines in France and Germany. But launching a massive bombing campaign into Russia? In 1945? From where?
Give me a break.
We can debate this endlessly. The point is that F.D.R. clearly thought such a plan was unworkable. I’ll give deference to the judgment of the Commander-in-Chief at the time. It’s not like he was afraid of a fight.
JPS
I’m no FDR-basher, John. I’m a conservative who reveres him for exactly the reason that sensible liberals will give Bush credit, in the far future, if his policies succeed: For all he got wrong, and it was a lot, he got the one big thing right.
He saw the nature of the enemy, and he saw that that enemy had to be defeated before the world could move an inch toward a saner existence. He led us into that war when his political opponents would not have, and he did what he had to to win.
But I agree with Rick. The Yalta agreement was a tragic necessity. You can focus on necessity, and inevitability, all you like, and you’ll be right, but the result was still damned tragic for the Eastern Europeans “liberated” by the armies of Stalin.
Oh, and, Frank,
“Why waste time and space debating and refuting comments made by a character who hasn’t understood any argument since the debate over Miller Light…!”
If you’re going to deride others for not thinking deeply enough, you should try to do better than, “Ha ha, Bush shur iz stoopid!” If you can.
Libertine
I found Bush’s comments on FDR unfortunate. Why smear one of the most beloved presidents this country has ever seen? Is it part of his strategy for SS privatization? Try to smear FDR as un-american in an effort to brand all his policies un-american? I’m confused where Bush is going with this one…but it was a disgraceful attack on a great American hero. Shame on George!!!
Birkel
Did anybody happen to notice the Georgian President Saakashvili’s Op-Ed in the WaPo?
He seemed to have a perspective on these matters. And is there any doubt that former Soviet satellites and Eastern Euopean countries have a valuable perspective to offer to the Yalta agreements?
Why are all of these comments focused on the US perspective without any consideration for those people who yearned for freedom but were savaged for 45 years? Did we owe our fellow men nothing?
And how can one argue for intervention in other places around the world if you’re not willing to grant that Yalta, in spite of all the real politik reasons offered above, was a sellout of hundreds of millions of people?
Meanwhile, Alger Hiss left Yalta (where he was an advisor to FDR) to receive a medal in Moscow from his communist handlers. But I’m sure that doesn’t matter at all in the whole calculus…
Rick
Leave it to National Review to get it correctly:
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/editorial/editorial2200505110923.asp
President Bush said that the Yalta agreement codifying that domination
Libertine
What is getting missed is that the people who say we should have turned and attacked the USSR is the point that the Soviets were technically our allies at the time. And add to that the specter of a bloody island hopping campaign in the Pacific, including a potential invasion of the Island of Japan, I can’t see how anybody can suggest that we should have gone after the Soviets over Eastern Europe. Revisionist history at it’s worst!!!
Anderson
How, exactly, did we “bless” the occupiers?
Didn’t Yalta call for free elections?
If those weren’t held, whose fault is that?
Kimmitt
You can’t sell out what you don’t have the capacity to affect. There was every reason to think at the time that if we invaded Eastern Europe after WWII, we would have lost. It’s still an open question today.
Libertine
Great point Kimmit. Would we have won? Maybe…But history is littered with people like Napolean and Hitler who tried to invade Russia and lost big.
Stormy70
Thanks for selling us out for 40 years, we didn’t mind all the dead Comrades, really. It’s just an acknowledgement on the effect of the agreement on the smaller countries raped and pillaged by the Soviets. This doesn’t seem that contraversial to me.
Lurking Observer
So, tragic necessities need not be mourned?
Then was the “three-fifths compromise,” so often mentioned as signalling the fundamentally racist nature of the Founding Fathers, an example of a tragic necessity which need not be raised, or a flaw which should be pointed out?
For that matter, wasn’t Munich really a “tragic necessity,” insofar as it held at bay the prospect of war for a year or so? If jaw-jaw is always better than war-war, is there much to be gained by decrying it?
Libertine
Damn and I thought that conservatives were traditionally against “military adventurism”. I guess the devil is in the political details.
Well let’s see time to revise those school books…first replace evolution with creationism…second FDR was a traiterous commie spy.
Libertine
So since we are in second guessing mode I have one of mine own then…
The real reason that we were attacked on Sept. 11th was Ronald Reagen. His administration was the one who trained Osama in terror tactics in Afghanistan and he also armed Saddam in Iraq. Blame Reagen for 9/11…
(Rolls eyes)
Birkel
No, Libertine, you’ve got that wrong.
FDR was surrounded by traitorous commie spys like Hiss.
**************
What’s up with all the people who are trying to say it was okay to negotiate with a known liar and murderer? Have you guys not realized that known liars and murderers tend to lie and murder regardless of what they promise?
Next thing you know President Clinton will try to negotiate a deal with Pyongyang so they won’t develop nukes. What’s that? Oh… Nevermind.
Ridge
This claptrap has been spread since 1946 by people who were not on the front
line or had to make the decisions. You can dress up a pig all you want, but
its still a pig.
The plain fact is the Red Army had possession of East Europe. It had gotten
there by years of hard fighting and was not going to leave. The US and
British Army were in the ETO but had not finished up resistance on the Western
Front *PLUS* they had huge armies and navies in action against Japan. That
was another real fight. To claim anything but a recognition of reality at
Yalta is to enter the Coulter Lunacy neighborhood and deserves no
consideration by sane people.
Ridge
This claptrap has been spread since 1946 by people who were not on the front
line or had to make the decisions. You can dress up a pig all you want, but
its still a pig.
The plain fact is the Red Army had possession of East Europe. It had gotten
there by years of hard fighting and was not going to leave. The US and
British Army were in the ETO but had not finished up resistance on the Western
Front *PLUS* they had huge armies and navies in action against Japan. That
was another real fight. To claim anything but a recognition of reality at
Yalta is to enter the Coulter Lunacy neighborhood and deserves no
consideration by sane people.
JPS
Oh, for pity’s sake, Libertine, I hope you’re being deliberately parodic. Where did Bush, or his defenders in this thread, call FDR un-American?
He was a great American and a great President. He ensured we’d win WWII, and it damned well needed to be won.
But Yalta was a grim nod to necessity. And despite Rick’s comment above, FDR knew exactly what he was doing: he was giving US blessing to Soviet domination of eastern Europe for the indefinite future.
And, Anderson, he knew damned well that there would be no elections. He even said apologetically to Stalin that he’d have to make a fuss about Poland when the elections weren’t held, to placate the home front and the large Polish-American vote.
It was one of the more hard-hearted and cold-blooded moments in a presidency full of them. Just because I insist he was a great president for WWII (and for no other reason) doesn’t mean (libertine!) that I need to like every decision he made.
Sometimes you make the best of some horrible choices. You know that, so I won’t rise to your bait on Iraq. But the “US trained Osama!’ is simply, factually untrue, and if you actually believe it I probably can’t dissuade you of it.
Molly
My two cents…
Stalin and 12 million Soviet soldiers versus FDR/Churchill and 5 million American/British.
Stalin with home field advantage and answerable to no one.
FDR, an elected with a 4000 mile supply line.
Stalin was a sociopath who wouldn’t have cared if all his soldiers died killing all 5 million of ours.
Probably the only thing that stopped Stalin from taking the remainder of Europe was the atomic bomb.
History is full of what ifs. I am extremely grateful for having had FDR as president during a very pivotal period in our history. Had he survived the war I believe he would have managed the peace better than his successors did.
Birkel
I’m sure that will make the people of Eastern Europe feel much better about 45 years of oppression, Ridge.
You should write an Op-Ed to their major newspapers and gauge the reaction.
Steve Malynn
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200505111147.asp
Jonah makes a good point: Patton could have crossed the Rhein prior to winter ’44 – he was held back by military conservatism.
A military mistake that had real impact.
Lurking Observer
Hmmm.
Molly’s comment is interesting. By that same logic, this would suggest that the USSR did NOT feel threatened by NATO, since NATO always had fewer troops, at the end of the same 4000 miles supply line. Yet, somehow, throughout the Cold War, it was NATO that was threatening the USSR. What does that say about the malleability of arguments, one wonders?
Libertine:
You DO know that your argument about Reagan has been heard throughout the Left, no? Down to the “Reagan trained Osama” bit?
More to the point:
Are we to argue that criticizing FDR is somehow smearing his memory? If Bush had gone to Manzanar and said that we must avoid stereotyping, and this is an example of what happens if we don’t, is that as much besmirching and besmearing?
The point of the matter is that there was NO chance of an invasion of Eastern Europe, whatever Patton’s druthers—but that is hardly the same as arguing that Yalta was therefore fine-and-dandy.
Oh, and the Left might want to check their academic betters. Only a few years ago, Martin Sherwin and the like were the ones criticizing FDR and Truman for not more openly sharing the atomic bomb w/ Stalin, and even now the Gar Alperovitz’s are arguing that we A-bombed Japan solely in order to intimidate Stalin and Russia (and precipitated the Cold War in the process).
FDR, of course, was not quite so clearly charmed by Stalin. By 1945, before he died, he was getting quite pissed over the treatment of eastern Europeans.
Maps that he drew suggest that he had no intention of leaving Berlin in a Soviet-occupied zone—instead, he was going to offer Stalin only that part of Germany between the Oder and the Elbe (you might want to check C. Ryan’s “The Last Battle”).
One can only imagine how the New Left would have characterized THAT, and how the Cold War would have been even more the result of Western intransigence and Soviet hurt feelings….
Birkel
Perhaps this column by Anne Appelbaum has some insight.
“Perhaps the most extraordinary thing about Bush’s comments is that they constitute an apology for a historical disaster most Americans don’t remember. I certainly knew nothing of the bitterness that many East Europeans felt toward the United States and Britain until I was personally accused of “selling out” Poland at Yalta — a deal done 20 years before I was born — during my first trip to Warsaw in the 1980s.
“Less surprising is the tenor of the reaction. On the left, a small crew of liberal historians and Rooseveltians have leaped to argue that the president was wrong, and that Yalta was a recognition of reality rather than a sellout. Their charges ignore the breadth of the agreement — was it really necessary to agree to deport thousands of expatriate Russians back to certain death in the Soviet Union? — as well as the fact that Yalta and the other wartime agreements went beyond mere recognition of Soviet occupation and conferred legality and international acceptance on new borders and political structures.”
Rick
Let’s remember (as one commentator above does), that Munich was praised to the skies at the time of its completion.
In fact, cravennous appears to be the default position of diplomacy and summitry.
That, and Republican Senate membership.
Cordially…
Libertine
Yes I was being parodic in my Reagen comments…of course I wouldn’t blame Reagen for the actions of others in his administration. But to me it is the same thing for trying to pin on FDR the plight of the Eastern European countries during the Cold War. And I do feel it is a smear on FDR by saying he was the cause of the misery there. It operates under the premise that he was incompetent or didn’t support freedom. Why did President Bush need to revisit this at this point? It has all the appearences of trying to cast a bad light on FDR now that he can’t defend himself. It is a distasteful attack and as far as I am concerned Bush couldn’t hold FDR’s jock strap in terms of being a great leader and president!!!!
Birkel
Libertine,
I agree that FDR was a tremendous supporter of freedom. Just look how he jumped right into action as soon as he heard about the Nazi concentration camps.
And locking up those Japanese was just a tender bit of mercy to protect them from riotous white folks, I’ll bet.
And then there was his plan to pack the Supreme Court.
Quite a small ‘d’ democrat, that ol’ FDR. Or is it the big ‘D’ you like?
Libertine
I am a Independant who considers himself a Libertarian. I tend to be VERY liberal on social issues and conservative on the economy.
I do have major issues with the group of neocon bastards running the country in DC right now. They are the worst of both worlds…they are big spending, social Neanderthals being led around by the nose by the wingnuts. And the reason I support the dems right now is they don’t want to get into my personal life like the neocon/wingnuts want to. If I want to sit in a vat of lime jello watching porn involving midgets I (or anybody else) should be able to do that if they want.
I also have issues with the neocons writing the speech for Bush. I am fairly certain Bush isn’t an expert on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But he read the speech criticizing FDR and should take the criticism or praise for it.
Mr Furious
From the comments over at Kevin Drum’s:
Sums it up perfectly to me. Actually taking on millions of entrenched Russian soldiers in territories they battled Germany for, the day after ending a bloody six-year war, while still fighting a war on the other side of the world…sounds like just the kind of topic Bush and all these revisionist “ass-kicking” chickenhawk types are experts on. Fucking idiots all of them.
Lurking Observer
Libertine:
If you are arguing that “there was no choice,” then yes, to some extent, FDR did NOT support freedom, or at least valued freedom less than he valued “facts on the ground.”
That is little different from those who would argue that supporting Saddam Hussein’s Iraq against the Iranians, or Pinochet against the Marxist Allende, shows the US did not support freedom.
The point of the matter is that FDR, at the time of Yalta, was signing over OTHER countries’ territories and people to Stalin. He may have been doing so for higher good (e.g., winning the war against Japan), but the same morality that argues that anti-Communism does not justify backing fascists or anti-Nazism does not justify carpet bombing civilians, leads one to the conclusion that anti-Japanese fascism does not justify legitimizing Soviet land-grabs. (The USSR, of course, was the ONLY Allied member of WWII to wind up with a net gain in territory.)
In this latter regard, it is also worth noting that it was not simply eastern Europeans who got the shaft at Yalta. One of the other codicils was recognition of a Soviet sphere of influence over Outer Mongolia, something the Chinese (of both ideological stripes) opposed, since they viewed Ulan Bator as being within THEIR sphere of influence.
Birkel
Six year war? Mr. Furious your math skills are suspect.
*********
Libertine,
Are you demurring to my point about FDR not being a defender of democratic ideals?
M. Scott Eiland
The real reason that we were attacked on Sept. 11th was Ronald Reagen. His administration was the one who trained Osama in terror tactics in Afghanistan and he also armed Saddam in Iraq. Blame Reagen for 9/11…
I see that you’ve been reading diaries at Moonbat Central, Libertine.
Lurking Observer
Mr. Furious:
While Jim M’s comments are silly, your own history is little better.
The Soviets were hardly “entrenched.” Soviet manpower was stretched by the combination of demands of a FOUR-year war (remember, the Soviets were ALLIED with the Nazis from 1939-1941) and the incompetency of Stalin and STAVKA in the first several years of the war.
More to the point, the Soviet rear areas were still devastated by the war—the Soviet military rolled into Eastern Europe in Studebaker trucks while eating SPAM. The all-important logistics lifeline was reliant on western aid.
And the experience in Berlin indicates just how shallow those forces were. While front-line units were often battle-hardened, the rear area troops from most accounts were a mob of raping looters. So, under the crust of vets would have been a far weaker (but still formidable) mass of ill-disciplined conscripts.
Nor did the eastern Europeans exactly look upon the Soviets as liberators. Eastern Germany, Poland, Hungary, all hardly were supportive of the Soviets. Indeed, the little known Ukrainian War lasted until 1948, involving several Soviet armies (corp-level groupings), and this was without foreign aid.
Would the Soviets have welcomed us? Hardly. But the eastern Europeans almost certainly would have.
Again, which is not to say that politically or strategically it would have been sound to have fought the Soviets. But recognizing reality is NOT the same as justifying it.
Rick
M. Scott,
Lotta that around here these days.
Cordially…
Libertine
Lurking Observer…
Yes…FDR at the time didn’t favor freedom over the “facts on the ground”. The world was at war. And just because the European Theater was being wrapped up there was still war being waged. War is hell and sometimes short term sacrifices in terms of supporting liberty and need to be made. But in defense of FDR it was agreed to that there were to be free elections in Eastern Europe. I am sure both he and Churchill knew that Stalin was not to be trusted but I am sure they both thought enough pressure could be brought to bear on him to pull out of Eastern Europe. It didn’t happen but FDR was more concerned about ending a war that was costing America tens of thousands of lives. But in hindsight the lives of those people in Eastern Europe are now, in hindsight, more important the US servicemen.
If there is anyone to be criticized it would be Truman, not FDR, for not addressing the USSR once all hostilities were ended…
Toren
It’s also important to note that the US forces were burned out. Any attempt to take men who had been away from their families and stuck in the hell of the Pacific campaign for three and four years and tell them, “Yeah, Japan surrendered, Germany’s toast, but we’re shipping you off to Yugoslavia to fight the Soviets for another five years” would have resulted in mutiny in the ranks, not to mention rioting at home.
Ditto for the European troops.
Libertine
I see that you’ve been reading diaries at Moonbat Central, Libertine.
Sigh…no I haven’t. All I was trying to do was make a point and wasn’t serious about Reagen and 9/11. But if you like I am more then happy to discuss the policies of any administration.
Birkel
Lurking Observer,
It’s like the Left never heard of Lend-Lease.
*sigh*
More evidence that the public schools (of which I am a product) aren’t teaching enough history.
John Cole
And the experience in Berlin indicates just how shallow those forces were. While front-line units were often battle-hardened, the rear area troops from most accounts were a mob of raping looters. So, under the crust of vets would have been a far weaker (but still formidable) mass of ill-disciplined conscripts.
Hindsight rules.
Birkel
Libertine wrote:
“War is hell and sometimes short term sacrifices in terms of supporting liberty and (sic) need to be made”
So you support torturing prisoners? Japanese internment? Rendition of prisoners?
Libertine
So you support torturing prisoners? Japanese internment? Rendition of prisoners?
On each question…
No…no…no.
But first off WWII was a real war between countries…I guess in terms of our efforts to curb terrorism Bush wanted the power of a wartime president so he can limit our rights ad infinitum. Up to this time wars have always involved sovreign nations.
No I don’t think what FDR did to Japanese Americans was right. But as soon as the war ended they were released. When is our faux (and probably long term) “War on Terror” going to end so our government will stop ignoring Habeus Corpus and other basic civil liberties.
Birkel
The correct spelling is
R e a g a n
Lurking Observer
John Cole:
Please note that I am NOT suggesting that we could/should have gone to war in 1945 with the USSR.
Please note that I have repeatedly said, in this exchange, that this would have been an impossible idea, politically (for all the reasons that Toren and others have noted), as well as strategically (there was still a war to be won in the Pacific).
My point is ONLY to say that that which might be necessary is not always laudable or without a moral price.
Libertine
Thanks for the spelling correction Birkel…I will try to refer to him as Ronnie from now on so that won’t happen again. ;-D
Birkel
Ah, so war is hell and sometimes you have to sacrifice other people’s liberty.
Now I get it.
And you’re now officially a moonbat with your “faux” war comment.
John Cole
Lurking- I am just feeling particularly snarky today, and I simply don’t understand why the administration needed to launch this contentious broadside on history…
Anderson
I’m so glad to see so many of you commenting on blogs and not running foreign policy.
Yes, Stalin was an evil tyrant. One whom we allied ourselves with to ensure that the great majority of dead anti-Nazi troops would be Russians, not Brits or Yanks.
It’s called “politics in the real world,” something that all this ideological b.s. leaves no room for.
Did FDR really believe there’d be elections? Unlikely. Was asking for such a promise the best he could do at the time? Probably.
Anne Appelbaum has been smoking something lately, but I *will* agree with her that the forced repatriations were a mistake. We could have let the Russians “vote with their feet,” to coin a phrase, and shrugged to Stalin that if his boys didn’t feel like coming home, we weren’t going to make them. Frankly, I suspect that the Allies didn’t want to assimilate a bunch of Russians. Good old fashioned racism, the kind that kept the Jews bottled up in Europe.
In short, for all the flag-waving and second-guessing, there was no realistic alternative to (1) allying with Stalin and (2) leaving the Russians in control of E. Europe.
The most we could maybe have done was to fight the war better & end it sooner, but I’ve seen no serious argument that our Italian adventure or our delay of D-Day until June ’44 were motivated by desires to let Stalin kill more Germans and make our job easier.
M. Scott Eiland
Sigh…no I haven’t.
I didn’t mean that literally–I was just noting that where you were apparently joking to make a point, the looney left has already planted a flag and moved on to even more extravagant lunacy.
Libertine
OK Birkel…what country are we at war with in or “War on Terror”? And how is the war going? Will anybody in the administration explain it? Or is this an exercise in “Faith Based Governing”…have faith in what we are doing like we have faith there is a God?
Birkel
Lurking Observer,
I don’t see that anybody is suggesting the US should’ve started a war with the USSR in 1945. But to push for something, anything, would’ve been kinda nice.
We didn’t have to sell the ranch and the cattle of the Eastern Europeans to the Soviets for a song. That’s the point. It wasn’t ours to give. And the West didn’t get anything in the process–except a Cold War.
Birkel
Lurking Observer,
I don’t see that anybody is suggesting the US should’ve started a war with the USSR in 1945. But to push for something, anything, would’ve been kinda nice.
We didn’t have to sell the ranch and the cattle of the Eastern Europeans to the Soviets for a song. That’s the point. It wasn’t ours to give. And the West didn’t get anything in the process–except a Cold War.
Lurking Observer
John:
Is it any more contentious than “apologizing” for slavery?
Is it any more contentious than suggesting that the Baltic states should remain part of the USSR?
Is it any more contentious than unilaterallly supporting German reunification (as Bush ’41 did in 1989, over the objections of the rest of Europe)?
Yalta is something that much of the rest of the world (eastern Europe, Chinese) view as a sell-out, whatever our own histories teach. Little different from slavery or genocide of native Americans, in terms of the shame associated with it. If apologies to Africans and Native Americans (or Japanese-Americans, for that matter) are in order, so, too, is apologies to the victims of Yalta.
Anderson:
That’s right, the alliance w/ the USSR was solely in order to get more Soviets killed. And we dropped the A-bomb to then intimidate them.
I don’t suppose the Soviets signing the Non-Aggression Pact, and, through the COMINTERN pushing appeasement and opposing the war effort in the UK, France, and the US were efforts aimed at sapping ALLIED will, now would it?
Birkel
Sorry about the double post.
Libertine, I cannot perform the appropriate exorcism of moonbattery at distance. Best of luck with that nasty rash of Leftism. Neosporin will help–but only so much.
Libertine
I didn’t mean that literally–I was just noting that where you were apparently joking to make a point, the looney left has already planted a flag and moved on to even more extravagant lunacy.
Sorry M. Scott Eiland…I am relatively new here and I can’t say I know people well enough here to understand if it serious or hyperbole. It is a learning process.
Rick
Here’s another great topic:
American Civil War
or
War of Northern Aggression?
Anyone?
Cordially…
Lurking Observer
Birkel & Libertine:
The irony is that Truman probably upheld the legacy of FDR better than many recognize, yet the Left has long pilloried him for precipitating the Cold War. (Stalin, of course, had little to do w/ it.)
Truman’s dropping the A-bomb on Japan is “proof” that it was aimed at the USSR.
Truman’s decision to use post-war, continued Lend-Lease as a lever to try and loosen Stalin’s grip on eastern Europe (especially to try and get democracy into Poland) is seen as interfering in the rightful Soviet sphere of influence.
Truman’s decision (along w/ London and Paris) to create a unified deutschmark zone in the western sectors (after the Soviets were printing up counterfeit bills) and to tie it into the Western economies was seen as pushing the creation of an Iron Curtain.
Believe me, among the Left, now busily defending Yalta, it is part and parcel of the idea that whatever conciliation was done was necessary and right, whatever confrontation done (even the little that WAS done) was excessive, that the fault lies in the West and nary to the East.
Libertine
Libertine, I cannot perform the appropriate exorcism of moonbattery at distance. Best of luck with that nasty rash of Leftism. Neosporin will help–but only so much.
I am an enigma wrapped in a riddle…but I have my own very strong views on what is right and wrong. And I tend to be an equal opportunity offender, I generally piss-off both liberals and conservatives…
Birkel
Lurking Obeserver,
Well said.
Hayek saw it coming as it was happening. Not many can claim that.
But the fact that the pattern of self-deception persists so long after the history has been written is troubling.
Libertine
But what was the alternative? Starting a new World War in the post WWII ravaged Europe? They knew the Soviet occupation would collapse if contained, they seriously miscalculated how long it would take though.
Libertine
Lurking- I am just feeling particularly snarky today, and I simply don’t understand why the administration needed to launch this contentious broadside on history…
It is the $64,000 question John.
Mr Furious
Mr. Furious your math skills are suspect.
Oh hell, I’m sure there are typos in there too. My point was clear, you just chose to ignore it. Europe was ravaged. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers (not to mention civilians) on all sides had died. No one had the stomach for more. For even tenous allies to then turn on each other and prolong the suffering was too much to realistically expect. There would be no support for that except among the right-wing loudmouths who wouldn’t actually have to be on the same side of the ocean as the combat. Sound familiar?
Lurking Observer
Mr. Furious:
Actually, at least one person had the stomach for it: Josef Stalin.
In the run-up to Berlin, Stalin had more than enough willingness to risk war w/ the Western Allies. Indeed, he issued orders to Zhukov and Koniev to prepare to bombard the allies, if they decided to try for Berlin.
In the wake of the European phase of World War II, he waged a multi-year war against his own people, such as the Ukrainians.
And, of course, in the aftermath of World War II, he was perfectly prepared to risk war over Berlin. I mean, you DO remember the Berlin airlift, right, and how that came about, the Berlin blockade, all that?
Hint: It WASN’T the West blocking the Soviets out of Berlin.
But, no, it was the right-wingers who were at fault. Yup.
Libertine
Lurking Observer…
Appeasing the USSR or WWIII…it was a lose-lose situation. But why 2nd guess it 50 years later?
Ridge
Birkel-
Why in the world should the US start a war with a nation that had not attacked or declared war on us? Remember this was before the War Powers Act. The SU was an Ally and part of the United Nations. For the US to all of a sudden premeptively attack such a nation because we did not like the military facts on the ground, while at the same time we were trying to get them to help defeat Japan……beggers the imagination.
As for the folks in Eastern Europe. What makes their political suffering more important than the lives of US servicemen? No one has explained that. They outnumbered the Red Army over 10 to one. When the Czechs tried it, the US was in much better shape poltically, economically, militarily, etc…yet Ike would not intervene militarily. He was someone who understood land war in Europe, as opposed to the bozos rattling 60 year old sabres now.
On a personal note, my father had gone through Normandy, the drive across France,
was wounded and MIA during the Bulge, and then pushed into Germany……and
lived to play poker all the way across the Atlantic on the way home to W. Va.
I can NEVER criticize Yalta or the dropping of the bomb in Japan since those
two events probably saved his life and allowed me to be born.
All these foolish “conservatives” who were against taking on the Serbs or who don’t want to stop the slaughter in Africa talk easily about defeating the millions of the Red Army. They now say, “Yalta was treason or on par
with Munich.” Children who don’t have the intelligence and character to
understand what it is to lead a nation in war. Bush proved it with “Bring it
on”. He proves it once again here. To so blithely talk about spilling the
blood of your fellow citizens in time of danger shows a lack of
maturity, an infantile notion of war, and a total ignorance of the reality of
history.
Lurking Observer
Libertine:
Shatter the colonial consensus or deny the full humanity of a race…it was a lose-lose situation. But why continue to second guess it TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS later?
Risk the possibility of sabotage and worse, or deny the Constitutional rights of a minority…it was a lose-lose situation. But why continue to second-guess it fifty years later?
Risk the possibility of a Communist regime in South America or overthrow a government…it was a lose-lose situation. But why continue to second-guess it thirty years later?
Shall I go on?
Lurking Observer
Ridge:
So, you’d agree w/ the Republican isolationists in 1940-1941, correct? That FDR was irresponsible in siding w/ the British, to the point of ordering US Navy vessels to attack German navy ships, when the Germans had not attacked us yet?
And I take it you’d disagree w/ Truman’s decision to intervene in Korea in 1950? After all, the North Koreans had hardly attacked the United States or even a treaty-ally?
Birkel
Please do go on, LO. (Is it okay to use your initials?) It’s fun to watch.
Ridge,
Please find above where I said the US should’ve started a war with the Soviet Union.
Until you find it, you are dismissed.
Libertine
Shatter the colonial consensus or deny the full humanity of a race…it was a lose-lose situation. But why continue to second guess it TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS later?
Those are US ideals and values…what right do we have trying to impose our ideals on the rest of the world at gun point/war. That is an activist point of view that I expect out of liberals. Back in the 40’s our restrooms were still segregated…
Birkel
Isn’t the whole concept of self-determination a Western concept?
What right do you have, Libertine, to impose it on Eastern Europe and the Soviet satellites?
Lurking Observer
Which ideals are you referring to?
And which guns do we have a right to use or not use?
So, pushing for democracy in Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, South America, is or is not excessive? Pushing for democracy in Germany, Italy, and Japan, the earlier wave, is or is not excessive?
And you’re the one who’s suggesting that 50 years on is a bit late for second-guessing. I’m just curious which issues get to be second-guessed, and what the statute of limitations are.
Libertine
What right do you have, Libertine, to impose it on Eastern Europe and the Soviet satellites?
I don’t believe in forcing it on the rest of the world. What right to we have in forcing on Eastern Europe or the Middle East. The bottom line is people should have the choice…but trying to spreading freedom at gun point renders the concept of freedom impotent.
Birkel
LO,
The answer is that decisions made by conservatives (or contentions made by conservatives) can be second guessed.
Those made by socialists cannot.
Get with the program!
Lurking Observer
Birkel:
Actually, the whole self-determination thing extends only about as far back as Woodrow Wilson and his “Fourteen Points,” in terms of making national self-determination some kind of “right” for all peoples.
Which, oddly enough, was imposed at the point of a gun.
And was done again, more recently, in places like Bosnia and Kosovo (the latter without benefit of UN sanction).
I assume that Libertine is more on the side of the Russians, exercising their right to DENY self-determination at least to Chechens (and, who knows, perhaps also to the Balts, the Georgians, and the like).
Birkel
Self-determination is a Western concept, Libertine. (Your reading comprehension skills are suspect.)
Why must you impose the ideal of self-determination on others?
Why do you think free will, a Western construct if there ever was one, must be imposed on the rest of the world?
Birkel
LO,
I was writing about personal self-determination not the right of a state to determine its own path. But I take your point.
Hopefully you see how it ties into the free will comment I left thereafter.
Mr Furious
I take it back, my math skills aren’t so suspect…
Birkel, just because we didn’t enter the European theater until 1942 doesn’t mean the war was only three years long. Europe had had enough.
Lurking, as the second-half of the timeline demonstrates, the Soviets might not have been welcome or popular in Eastern Europe, but they were there for years by the time we would have been taking them on. I call that entrenched. Though your magic powers of sixty years of hindsight have devised a battle plan extraordinaire, the fact is, at the time, it just wasn’t feasible or desirable.
Libertine
Which ideals are you referring to?
And which guns do we have a right to use or not use?
So, pushing for democracy in Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, South America, is or is not excessive? Pushing for democracy in Germany, Italy, and Japan, the earlier wave, is or is not excessive?
And you’re the one who’s suggesting that 50 years on is a bit late for second-guessing. I’m just curious which issues get to be second-guessed, and what the statute of limitations are.
All of our ideals of freedom and liberty. Freedom and liberty are concepts that have to be intellectually accepted and can’t be forced on any peoples. Who are we to say what is or isn’t right for people in other lands? Why should we have pushed for freedom in Soviet dominated Eastern Europe but not the Central and South American dictatorships which were as abusive to their people as the soviets were.
I want to see all people free to chose whatever government they want. And hopefully they choose wisely and pick democracy.
Birkel
Furious,
Either you count from Germany’s annexations of its neighbors or you count from when the country under discussion enterred the war. And since the discussion was about FDR and the USofA, it ain’t six years. Either six years is too few or too many but it’s wrong.
So by Libertine’s standards we should allow genocide because that’s the right of one group to select their form of government. I’ll call the Sudan to tell them you’re down with the killin’.
Mr Furious
Actually, at least one person had the stomach for it: Josef Stalin.
If your opponent has the stomach for it, by all means, you should attack him? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
If nothing else, this illustrates the wisdom neh, pragmatism, of cutting a deal.
Yeah, Roosevelt is such a pussy, he should have told Stalin to “Bring It On!”
Mr Furious
Anybody else getting the same error message that tells you your post didn’t load? It led to my double-post above, but I haven’t bit on the next two… I don’t have the stomach for it, I guess.
Lurking Observer
Mr. Furious:
Could you perhaps extend the time-line a tad, and tell me when the Soviets were in eastern Europe, such as Poland, Hungary, or Czechoslovakia?
Perhaps you could be so good as to indicate just how “entrenched” they were, as late as 1953 or 1956?
Moreover, since your reading skills are obviously poor, perhaps you could point out exactly where I suggest that we SHOULD have gone to war with the Soviets?
Libertine:
So, I take it that you oppose our compelling Germany and Japan to become democracies in the 1945-1955 period, rather than allowing them to become anything they’d like? Reviving militaristic Shinto or somesuch, perfectly fine with you?
As for the Central/South Americans, I could, I suppose, glibly suggest that maybe they weren’t READY for democracy, any more than the Iraqis are today, whereas Eastern Europe had had more than feudal forms of government. But instead, I’ll leave it in the hands of those who argue that we did not have the wherewithal to fight BOTH the USSR AND Japan at the same time, to suggest that perhaps we had to pick and choose our fights between the USSR and authoritarian tinpots.
Funny, the idea of understanding limited resources is quite clear in the context of the USSR vs. Japan, but less so in the context of a Cold War.
Now, why would that be?
Pug
“An invasion of the Soviet Union- militarily possible (I have no doubt that Patton could have cut through the Sovvies like shit through a goose)…”
Yeah, right. Ask Napoleon or Hitler about “cutting through the Sovvies”. Better yet, ask Germans who served on the Eastern Front.
Perhaps it could have been accomplished by General Jonah, but he was unavailable at the time.
I read the other day, and I don’t know if it’s a fact but I think it may be close, that the Soviets lost as many at Stalingrad as we lost at Normandy. The only difference is they did it every day for two months.
Lurking Observer
So, which was it, Mr. Furious? Which version of YOUR comments should I believe?
or
The point of the matter is that some people had the stomach for it, and that was one of the Left, contradicting your belief that only the right-wing chickenhawks were for it.
And, I stand by my challenge to you: Find where I suggest we SHOULD have gone to war with Stalin in 1945.
Otherwise, learn to read before commenting.
Libertine
So by Libertine’s standards we should allow genocide because that’s the right of one group to select their form of government. I’ll call the Sudan to tell them you’re down with the killin’.
I see…now I support genocide. Whatever…
I guess it really is a brave new world where only one country is supposed to police the world and stop all the bad guys.
So when do we invade Pakistan to stop all of Musharref’s abuses? Oh I forgot he is the poster child of enlightened despotism, so he is ok.
Lurking Observer
pug:
The Soviets indeed lost enormous numbers of men, at Stalingrad and elsewhere.
In the early part of the war, when it was the Nazis who were “entrenching” in Mr. Furious’ mind in eastern Europe, it was as much due to utter incompetence as anything else. (Millions of Soviet troops became prisoners all along the eastern front.)
And throughout the war, Soviet approaches to tactics were, shall we say, less concerned w/ casualties. (Mineclearing, for example, depended as much on marching political prisoners through the fields as anything else.)
Indeed, the prospect of fighting for Berlin raised concerns in western allied HQs. Not so on the eastern front, where Stalin was prepared to sacrifice significant numbers of troops to ensure that they ground through Berlin. (The experience in Grozny suggests that those lessons have not been retained in the Russian army.)
That being said, however, Soviet operations were generally better on the offense than on the defense (and that preference was a staple in Soviet doctrine throughout the Cold War, again raising the interesting question why so much of the Left was convinced the USSR was defensive in nature). Even in the Masurian Lakes offensive in January/February 1945, Soviet forces were still fairly clumsy in the face of unexpected German offensive maneuvers.
Birkel
A newcomer! Welcome Pug.
Your comments about Stalingrad actually tend to show Stalin’s military wasn’t very good at not being killed, doesn’t it? After all, the Allied Forces were attacking an entrenched, armored position in an amphibious assault and the Soviets were defending a city.
It does show the ruthlessness of Stalin who threw his conscripts into the meat grinder without weapons. But hey, to each their own.
Rick
Lurking- I am just feeling particularly snarky today, and I simply don’t understand why the administration needed to launch this contentious broadside on history…
John,
You might want to consider the circumstances of Dubya’s whirl through the new republics, and Putin’s waxing nostalgic for Uncle Joe.
The newly self-determining Eastern European governments likely have no reason to revere FDR, let alone carry his jockstrap (ewww). The circumstances of this trip celebrates the end of open warfare against of monumental tyranny, but it’s false to pretend that many of the war’s victims weren’t consigned to decades of degradation under to boot-heel of the photo-finish runner-up.
It might be a much needed “broadside on history,” because that history should have taught us to be very, very humble and contrite about Yalta.
Cordially…
Rick
If I want to sit in a vat of lime jello watching porn involving midgets I (or anybody else) should be able to do that if they want.
Whew! Glad I’m not the only one.
Cordially…
Birkel
Libertine,
So if the US (and I assume others) are not to police the world then the genocide in Darfur should be allowed to continue. Sorry that’s the natural implication of what you believe–but it is.
Lurking Observer
Birkel:
On this one, I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree w/ you.
Yes, Stalin was ruthless and fairly incompetent as a military commander. BUT, in the context of Stalingard, it was probably unavoidable.
1. Urban warfare normally is an absolute meatgrinder for troops. (This is part of why those who scoff at the US military’s achievements in Fallujah are idjits—the low casualties are simply startlingly divergent from historical experience.) That applied to Soviets AND Germans in Stalingrad, Americans in Aachen and Hue, Brits in Arnhem.
2. Stalin had manpower to spend at Stalingrad—and relatively little else. General Chuikov, by fighting in the city and doing so tenaciously, neutralized the German air and armor advantages that had carried them so far.
3. The tradeoff was worthwhile. German infantry was, by comparison, a scarce commodity. Losing Soviet conscripts for well-trained panzergrenadiers, much less highly-trained combat engineers, was a favorable one. (And considering how often Soviet troops lacked weapons, as late as ’42, it wasn’t even a loss in materiel.)
4. The opposing forces were different. Only one German division (the 352nd) was first-line on June 6th, on the beaches. (21st Panzer arrived at the end of the day.) Whereas 6th Army was a first-line unit a goodly 10X in size.
Which is not to denigrate the achievement of the allies on June 6, but it was not simply Stalin’s callousness at work in Stalingrad.
Libertine
So, I take it that you oppose our compelling Germany and Japan to become democracies in the 1945-1955 period, rather than allowing them to become anything they’d like? Reviving militaristic Shinto or somesuch, perfectly fine with you?
Ummmmm…that is back in the days where we actually accepted input from our allies. Those were aggressive militaristic regimes who waged wars of aggression on other countries to control them and take their wealth.
I have no problem with taking out the Sudan’s rulers…but we are the ones who have to do it? It sounds like something we should do under UN auspices. I am very critical of the UN regarding the Sudan…it is sitting back and letting a genocide occur.
But to make it short…no I don’t we should unilaterally go into the Sudan, remove the regime and install rulers of the liking of the US.
Rick
I can’t help being amused by the protestations that liberty can’t or shouldn’t spread by armed action.
What was the point of Overlord, then.
Maybe we should have continued the early WWII RAF tactic of dropping leaflets (arms are for hugging) on the Nazis. That sure gave old Fritz jolly what-for, eh?
Cordially…
Rick
100!
Birkel
LO,
I’m not sure why you think you’re disagreeing with me.
I said the stats pug offered showed that the Soviets weren’t very good at avoiding dying. It’s true in whatever form it took.
And it did demonstrate the ruthlessness of Stalin.
I wasn’t trying to prove as against what you offer. And I agree with what you offer.
So what disagreement?
Lurking Observer`
Libertine:
You mean accepting the opinions of allies like the USSR, who had borne the bulk of the blood-cost of World War II in Europe? Or the opinions of the Chinese regarding Japan, who had been fighting for far longer?
Are you sure the French went along w/ how Germany was ruled after the war.
Why we should impose democracy AFTER we’ve defeated their governments, at the point of a gun, mind you, is perplexing, but I”m sure you have a good reason.
Oh, but it’s the militaristic wars of aggression that defines things. Gotcha. Lessee, Kuwait (1962), Iran (1980-1988), Kuwait (1990-1991), does that make them aggressive and militaristic?
And, of course, you oppose imposing democracy on South Korea (no need for that apology regarding Kwangju), Taiwan, Thailand, correct?
Bosnia, oops! Kosovo, what WERE we thinking?! Haiti, won’t be going back there! Cambodia, that’s the right method!
Birkel
*whistle*
Penalty on Libertine. Moving the goal posts. 15 yards. Still second down.
Lurking Observer
Birkel:
My disagreement w/ you regarding your response to pug has to do w/ the idea that Stalin’s military was not very good at not getting itself killed. My point is simply to suggest that, in the context of the weapons and capabilities of the time, that Stalingrad was typical of urban city fights.
Thus, Stalin’s military was (at this point) moderately competent at not getting itself killed—but in a city fight, w/ fewer, less capable weapons, they had no choice but to be killed, if they were holding onto the city.
I think that better evidence of Soviet willingness to expend lives is not in the city fights, but in the various river crossings (which are somewhat like amphibious attacks). Thus, the crossing of the Dneiper or even more the Oder-line is a much better indication of just how high a casualty rate the Soviets were prepared to expend.
Certainly, I do NOT disagree about Stalin’s ruthlessness.
Libertine
I can’t help being amused by the protestations that liberty can’t or shouldn’t spread by armed action.
What was the point of Overlord, then.
Maybe we should have continued the early WWII RAF tactic of dropping leaflets (arms are for hugging) on the Nazis. That sure gave old Fritz jolly what-for, eh?
Neocons are funny…ROFLMAO!!!
Kill ’em all and let their God sort ’em out!!!
And btw…I have no problems with how the allies waged WWII and I defy any of you where I said we should have been easy on the Axis powers, LMAO!!!
M. Scott Eiland
Your comments about Stalingrad actually tend to show Stalin’s military wasn’t very good at not being killed, doesn’t it?
Of course, a big part of the problem was caused by:
1) Stalin exterminating most of his military leaders who he considered a threat to him before the war started in the purges. Since the main identifying characteristic for those who Stalin found threatening was being smarter than a tree stump, this tended to reduce the quality of the Soviet generals;
2) Stalin signing an agreement with Der Fuhrer that involved something other than “we’re going to stay out of this, and you’re not going to raise a fuss when we massively build up our border defenses”, and;
3) Stalin ignoring the signs that the few people he left in place with brains on the western front were spotting and warning him about that the Germans were preparing to invade–the lucky ones were simply ignored by Uncle Joe: the unlucky ones lost their positions and occasionally their lives for trying to save their nation from the Third Reich, before the shooting even started.
Stalin was very talented at finding ways to exterminate appalling numbers of his own people, and he was very helpful to Nazi Germany’s efforts to compete with him in that grisly task.
Lurking Observer
M. Scott:
You forgot to include “Ignoring warnings from the UK and others.”
Churchill and FDR (w/ whom “Ultra” intelligence was already being shared) both signalled Stalin that Hitler had plans up his sleeve for late June. Stalin ignored them.
Of course, considering Stalin also waged war on his own people DURING the Second World War (see, frex, Volga Germans), such bloodthirstiness, coupled w/ utter stupidity, is hardly surprising.
Libertine:
BTW, I’m curious. Should we be trying to make Russia more democratic? Or should we leave it to the tender mercies of Vladimir Putin, who is undoubtedly more aware of the cultural and intellectual longings of the Russian people?
Libertine
You mean accepting the opinions of allies like the USSR, who had borne the bulk of the blood-cost of World War II in Europe? Or the opinions of the Chinese regarding Japan, who had been fighting for far longer?
Are you sure the French went along w/ how Germany was ruled after the war.
Why we should impose democracy AFTER we’ve defeated their governments, at the point of a gun, mind you, is perplexing, but I”m sure you have a good reason.
Oh, but it’s the militaristic wars of aggression that defines things. Gotcha. Lessee, Kuwait (1962), Iran (1980-1988), Kuwait (1990-1991), does that make them aggressive and militaristic?
And, of course, you oppose imposing democracy on South Korea (no need for that apology regarding Kwangju), Taiwan, Thailand, correct?
Bosnia, oops! Kosovo, what WERE we thinking?! Haiti, won’t be going back there! Cambodia, that’s the right method!
The conquering armies dictated things in the case of Japan and Germany. It was us, the UK, Canada, etc. who dictated the government in those countries we occupied after WWII. Was Russia involved in the final defeat of Japan? No, so they have no say. The USSR held the countries they liberated and imposed their preferred form of government…which I think we can all agree was unacceptable.
Iraq huh? I knew it would get there at some point. So let me get this straight…we invaded Iraq because they were an aggressive regime that invaded it’s neighbors? I thought it was the WoMD…terrorist connections…human rights abuses against the Iraqi people. My bad.
South Korea was an UN action and Bosnia/Kososvo was a genocide…and who did the rest of those countries invade?
Birkel
“The USSR held the countries they liberated…”
Therein lies the rub. You think that Eastern Europe was, in fact, liberated whereas I think they were re-conquered.
Mr Furious
Lurking-
I went back and re-read (or at least I’m learning to read…) your response to me where you “take me to task” for failing to recognize the reality of the Soviet’s vulnerability. It’s true, after three column inches of pointing out why the Red Army was ripe for the kicking, you did step back from the brink and wonder if it “would have been sound” to go to war with the USSR.
My mistake. And apparently John Cole’s and other’s as well. Over the course of a hundred comment thread, it seems you left the wrong impression with several people, and had to elaborate a few times.
But maybe I just can’t read.
My comments were not inconsistant. In my first comment (ie: no one wanted more war), I was perhaps underestimating Stalins’ sociopathy, but he probably didn’t prefer war. I was really talking about our side and Western Europe.
By right-wing I mean the McCarthyite maniacs of the late 40s and 50s. And despite the fact he was Communist, I never think of warhawk psycho military dictators like Stalin as “left-wing” even if that might meet the original definition of the phrase. So, excuse me.
Oh, and as far as the freaking timeline semantics… counting when Britain, France and others declared War on Germany (Sept ’39) to when the Yalta talks were held (Feb ’45) as about “six years” sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Libertine
“BTW, I’m curious. Should we be trying to make Russia more democratic? Or should we leave it to the tender mercies of Vladimir Putin, who is undoubtedly more aware of the cultural and intellectual longings of the Russian people?”
Do you think that short of covert operations or an invasion we are going to affect the politics of Russia? The neocons must think we are so beloved around the world that when the US speaks the earth will move. Contrary to popular belief we are not completely trusted and we ar often used as a boogeyman.
I have to go…I’ll be back later. It’s been a good debate.
Lurking Observer
Libertine:
Which Germany did the USSR conquer, and why was it different from that of the western Allies? It would seem to me that the nature of the Germans should have been left to the Germans, by your comments, and NOT imposed by our side. (If the Soviets wanted to impose their system, that was up to them, blood-price and all that.)
So, by what right did we impose our system on the Germans? And by what right did we impose our system on the Japanese (truly alien)? YOU are the one who said that we should not be imposing democracy by force—please explain the justification for either Germany or Japan.
You seem to be from the “Mr. Furious” school of reading comprehension as well. WHERE did I say that we invaded b/c they were an aggressive regime that invaded its neighbors? My comment was on why we might feel justified in making it a democracy.
Either we are not justified in making countries democracies at the point of a gun (your original argument) or we are justified in making countries that are aggressive and militaristic democracies, even at the point of a gun (your subsequent argument). I’m just trying to get a consistent argument from you.
South Korea was NOT a UN action, at least initially. The US sent air and naval forces BEFORE the UN authorized anything. But by your argument, clearly Kosovo was unjustified.
Oh, but it’s genocide. I trust you can show Kosovar bodies on a genocidal scale, or was the President LYING about that?
As for the rest, precisely. Not having invaded anyone, pushing for democracy in Thailand, Taiwan, or South America is unjustified. That IS your point about not imposing democracy on other peoples, correct?
Birkel
“My comments were not inconsistant.” (sic)
That’s true. You’re a reliable Lefty. Not so much with the spelling… but I guess that goes along with the poor reading skills.
And sure, the timeline is fine–if we had been talking about Britian or France. Other than that…
Rick
Libertine,
First off: Neocons are funny…
What do you thin a “neocon” is, exactly? And what makes you think I might be one? Because I might have to try to find you some kind of glossary. Sounds like you’re employing as a pejoritive some scary word the Kool Kos Kids kick around or something, not really reflecting on what it might mean.
Scold over.
Uncle Joe had some say in post-war Japan, because he occupied some Japanese Islands. Shakalin, or some such. The Sovs didn’t wrest them from the Japanese armed forces, I don’t believe. The only post VE-Day USSR/Japanese fighting was mp-up type stuff in Manchuria.
So the islands were a tribute to the Kremlin’s bit.
Cordially…
Mr Furious
Yeah why the hell should Britain count in discussing the merits of three-party talks (which they were party to) about ending a War on European soil?
No wonder I can’t read, I’m a fucking idiot!
Lurking Observer
Mr. Furious:
Obviously, your reading comprehension still needs some work.
From my second post in this thread, at 1:10 PM
Long before writing ANY column inches.
But in the same post of column inches, I concluded with this observation:
So, keep up the remedial reading. Believe me, it’s worth it!
Rick
Not so much with the spelling…
Hey Birkel, I’ve got a dog in *that* fight. Well, my spelling actually is quite good, testing wise. But my typing is so-so, and I just can’t be bothered to proofread.
So I’m vulnerable here, and when Libertine comes back maybe I’ll get a hug. But please–that’s my glass house.
Cordially…
Birkel
But I’ve seen no reason to think your reading skills are also bad, Rick. So don’t take my snark to heart.
And yeah, Furious, I can see all the above references to the Brits. Loads of ’em. All over this thread. But hey, just keep to the “six year war” meme and hold your breath ’til you turn blue.
Lurking Observer
Mr. Furious:
See, you gotta keep working at it.
My comments regarding the form of government in Germany (which I assume is what you’re referring to about the UK) was to suggest that we did not conform w/ the opinions of our allies, which Libertine suggests we should have/did.
In fact, the British government was often compelled to modify its opinions to suit our own view of German reconstruction—compelled by virtue of the use of post-war Lend-Lease aid and subsequent Marshall Plan monies.
My point (to Libertine) is to suggest:
1. That we did not, in fact, “listen” to our allies at the time.
2. That our allies often held very different views (certainly the Soviets did).
3. That, by his arguments, we should have left the Germans to their own devices (and if the Soviets or Brits or French wanted to meddle, that was up to them).
Now, the Brits certainly did have a right to be present at Yalta (wherever did you get the idea that they didn’t?), but by Yalta, they were clearly along for the ride.
More to the point, however, particularly as regards the Asian portion of World War II, it is not clear why the Chinese were not included, especially as their spheres of influence/interest were being hived off to the USSR.
Lurking Observer
BTW, Mr. Furious, no need to be so hard on yourself. Reading is a hard thing, and it comes only w/ practice.
Math, of course, is hard, too, but it uses a different set of skills.
Word problems, which combine the two, are hardest of all, and should be tackled only after a certain dexterity has been reached w/ the individual elements.
Frex, in a thread discussing Yalta, in response to a comment about the Soviets and the Germans, and having posted a timeline which itself indicates that the Soviet participation in the war began in 1941, it is common to presume that the discussion of the Soviet participation in the war would be 1945-1941.
Had we been discussing the German element of the war, or the British, then six years would be more appropriate.
Keep up the hard work, though!
Birkel
I’m pretty sure you’re no longer a lurker.
LOL!
Ridge
Lurking Observer-
“Ridge:
So, you’d agree w/ the Republican isolationists in 1940-1941, correct? That FDR was irresponsible in siding w/ the British, to the point of ordering US Navy vessels to attack German navy ships, when the Germans had not attacked us yet?”
Irresponsible? I think the strategy was to help prop up Britain while the US rearmed, an undertaking that took a year to even begin. Given that FDR and most of Washington remembered WWI, I think they could count on getting into war from unrestricted submarine action. Pearl Harbor is what surprised them. When Germany declared war on the US, the German General Staff went nuts. They knew what they faced.
But as a corollary to your argument, you must want to initiate a ground war with China, North Korea, most of SE and SW Asia, Africa and parts of South America; using military force and the blood of US servicemen/women to free oppressed people from murderous dictatorships. That is the logic of the “Treason at Yalta” crowd. If it was morally necessary in 1944, then why not 2005? Certain it would be much easier to attain such a paradise considering the foes we would face, and for the “Yalta” crowd not to full throatily advocate setting the world afire now shows them to be hypocrites.
“And I take it you’d disagree w/ Truman’s decision to intervene in Korea in 1950? After all, the North Koreans had hardly attacked the United States or even a treaty-ally? ”
Truman and other UN members were upholding Chapter Seven of the UN charter and consistent with the treaty ratified by the US Senate.
Both cases the whole Yalta rigmarole is shown for what it is. A straw man put up by those who could care less about the oppressed Latvians. Its really a dig at FDR using arguments discredited by facts and sanity 60 years ago.
R
Ridge
“Professor Brikel”
LOL!
Since the subject under discussion is the Yalta agreements-
My statement of fact that Eastern Europe was occupied by the Red Army, trained, equipped and experienced- sparked your comment that my pointing out these facts would bring out the disapproval of the inhabitants. You seem to imply that you agree with them, or why else even post?
So, dismissed or not, the only logical implication of your post at 5/11/05-1:02 PM is that the alternative to Soviet Oppression in Eastern Europe is their freedom. Considering the facts on the gound, that could only be achieved by force. If the inhabitants don’t do it then it must be done from the outside…meaning a land war with the Red Army.
Stated plainly or in a round about way, that was the thrust of your post.
R
JPS
I think a lot of us are mixing up two retroactive criticisms. Bringing Patton into it helps do this, because he wanted two things, one insane, one arguably a fine idea.
Not all of us who wonder whether the fate of Eastern Europe was inevitable are saying we should have gone to war against the Soviets to free them, or even marched to Moscow and toppled that regime. There we are truly talking about WWIII, and while I wish we could have accomplished those goals without a world catastrophe, here I side with Russell Zisky’s father: Never hit anyone in anger, unless you’re absolutely sure…that you can get away with it. That time, we couldn’t.
On the other hand, while there was still a Germany, in the post-Bulge era of the European war, we could conceivably have occupied large swaths of what wound up falling under Soviet control, by advancing faster against the Germans. The Germans were putting up a lot less resistance to us after it came down to the question, Who would you rather have as an occupier?
Without ever fighting a Soviet army, we could have ensured that the Iron Curtain was established a good deal further east. We could have taken Berlin, but we agreed that it would fall in the Soviet occupation zone.
It would have strained our alliance with Stalin. I’m open to the argument that we needed him in the war to the end, and couldn’t risk it. But it needn’t have caused WWIII, and I doubt it would have caused the Soviets, at that stage, to drop out of the war.
I give FDR the benefit of the doubt on this, but–Ridge–it isn’t a dig at him to regret that it was necessary, and to wonder if we could have saved at least some of the people we consigned to Stalinist tyranny.
Birkel
No, Ridge. The point of my post was that FDR traded what he did not own to Stalin to the detriment of those people who were then subjugated for 45 years. I will thank you kindly not to put words into my typing.
FDR could’ve resisted the charms of good ol’ Uncle Joe and at least made some demands. Any demands. Instead he abdicated his moral authority by treating with a known liar and murderer.
And after WWII was over the US continued to require nothing by way of concessions from the USSR. So we waited ’til the horror that is communism collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. And now the people of Eastern Europe need to know America will not abdicate her moral authority again.
Lurking Observer
Ridge:
Are things really always so black&white in your world?
Query: Who was closer to Berlin on April 1, 1945, the western Allies or the Soviets? Five weeks prior to the end of fighting, could the western allies have pushed to Berlin ahead of the Soviets?
Query: Who was closer to Praha, the western Allies or the Soviets? Could the Allies have liberated at least the western portion of Czechoslovakia?
You make it sound as though it was the Soviets who pulled up short, when in fact, it was the western Allies who did so—and consequently, condemned a few million extra eastern Europeans to the tender mercies of the Soviets. Would liberating them really have required fighting the Red Army?
As for the support for the Brits: Exactly why, by YOUR lights, should we have aided a country against another, when the Germans had not attacked us?
And how does stripping the US military of weapons to arm the Brits help us in rearming? Or violating the Neutrality Acts (laws signed by FDR himself, banning, for example, the shipment of arms to belligerents aboard US flagged ships)?
As I said to Mr. Furious: Show me where I have advocated fighting to liberate oppressed people. If that’s your reading, I see you need to take the same remedial classes he does.
As for Korea, when did the US commit forces (including air and naval forces) to the defense of South Korea? When did the UN authorize it? A tad bit of ex post facto revisionism, eh?
Of course, had the Soviets not been boycotting the UN, they would have vetoed the entire shebang—and I guess we would have had to sit on the sidelines, is that correct?
All of which is rather far afield of the original point: Yalta essentially ratified and legitimized the Soviet grab of people and territory, in a major power sell-out of eastern Europeans, Mongolians, and others. It did so as part and parcel of a larger effort to defeat the Japanese and Germans.
Let us recognize that this is what major powers do, sometimes, when confronted with facts on the ground. And remember that, when major powers (like, say, the US) act in its interests elsewhere (like, say, Chile-1972, Iraq-1988, Uzbekistan-2005, etc.). And if one is to shrug for the Yaltas and say, “C’est la vie,” at least have the consistency to not then get on a high horse when it’s repeated in the context of the Cold War or the War on Terror.
Libertine
Therein lies the rub. You think that Eastern Europe was, in fact, liberated whereas I think they were re-conquered.
Liberated only in the sense that the Nazi’s were ousted. I should have been clearer Birkel. All I was saying that in Eastern Europe the USSR was on the ground and had full miltary control of those countries…and sadly that is the “spoils of war”. Even victorius “justified” wars sometimes have some bad consequences. The US (FDR) and the UK (Churchill) entered into an alliance with Stalin in WWII out of necessity and there were unfortunate ramifications.
Libertine
So, by what right did we impose our system on the Germans? And by what right did we impose our system on the Japanese (truly alien)? YOU are the one who said that we should not be imposing democracy by force—please explain the justification for either Germany or Japan.
valid questions…
That is the way it was and still is Lurking Observer. The occupying power choses how to establish the new government…whether the occupying power is the UN, US, UK or USSR (damn that was a lot of “U’s”, LOL).
To be objective I feel that democracy worked well in Germany and surprisingly Japan. You make a good point that democracy had never been even romotely practiced in Japan up to that point in their history and it ended up being successful.
But, for example, I think it is justified in the case of us setting up governments in Japan and Germany after WWII because those countries had invaded other sovreign nations in an unprovoked fashion. But in the case of the Iraq invasion, who was Saddam attacking at the time which required us to remove him?
There are dubious claims of pre 9/11 terrorist links and WoMD (the Niger Uranium mistake) but it appears Saddam was taken out because he posed a future threat. That is a very dangerous way to justify wars…and if the policy continues and we invade countries based on what they might do in the future we better re-instate the draft because we are gonna need a lot more soldiers.
Libertine
I would just like to make one more point about Iraq. The bottom line is that right now the US and UK are occupying powers and should be trying to set up a government. It hasn’t turned out to be to the current administration’s liking, the fundamentalist shi’ite majority, some of whom are close to Tehran, but we are letting decide for themselves, which is not all bad. But we need to get out of there as soon as possible because right now we are a big part of the problem the new Iraqi government has.
Enough too far OT again…if John starts a post-war Iraqi government thread I will continue at a later time. :-)
TJ Jackson
Yalta was a disaster because it gave lie to why the Allies fought the war. Despite their protestations Yalta gave Western blessing to ethnic cleansing; massive population removals; sanctioned state elimination of populations; redrew the map of Europe to create a new Russian empire.
Read the Venona tapes. Exactly what role do you think Harry Jopkins had in telling a sick president that the Soviets could be trusted?
Yeah lets celebrate Yalta it was a good thing.
Just like the Soviets and Nazis redrawing the map of Europe in 1939.
TM Lutas
Yalta did not have to happen. Both FDR and Churchill could have begged off and not placed themselves at risk by traveling. Negotiations could have been handled at lower levels and done slowly, methodically.
Lend Lease to the USSR did not have to proceed at the speed it did, post Normandy breakout. If we send 10 tons of food and other supplies instead of 20, is that a cause of war? Without those crucial supplies, the USSR would have advanced more slowly, would have bled worse, and would have been in poorer shape to fight the resistance movements that sprang up all around their new colonial territories.
Without Yalta, it would have been legitimate to recognize Romania’s WW II flip and combat on the allies side to argue for its freedom and to provide lend-lease supplies to them in their fight. Poland had plenty of fighters who were working to liberate Poland for years after WW II. As a previous commenter noted, even Ukraine did not go quietly back into Soviet servitude but fought until 1948.
Yalta condemned all these resistance movements as well as plenty of others I haven’t mentioned to a slow death for lack of logistical support. It didn’t have to happen and americans did not have to fight a further war to do better.
Right now, the Russian Republic is looking for a historical mythos to rally around. Stalin is being groomed as a front running candidate for central hero status. A new stalinist Russia would be horrible for the US, would be highly negative for world stability, and it is a general service for humanity that President Bush pitched in to try to sully Stalin’s reputation at a time when it desperately needs dirtying.
Forget Yalta as commentary on FDR as he’s a sideshow. The real issue is whether Russia will start growing new generations of stalinists? Is anybody out there crazy enough to like that idea?