[Homer_J_Simpson]

I think the fact that he does not show up in any rolls, reports or battles should have turned a light on for whoever wrote this article.

Maybe the Times was not eager to see what went on behind the public face of the Soviet Union.

[BroJoeK]

"Maybe the Times was not eager to see what went on behind the public face of the Soviet Union. "

I agree, but would ask this: can you name one respect in which the NY Times' outlook differed from that of President Franklin Roosevelt? I can't.

[CougarGA7]

It was definately a “foe to my foe is my friend” kind of atmosphere for sure.

I’m currently reading the book “The Forgotten 500” and even in it there is mention of the bias towards Tito in Yugoslavia because he was openly attacking the Nazi’s in that country (This impression was bolstered by James Klugman who is sometimes refered to as the unmentioned 6th member of the Camberage 5). Now I admit that this book reads almsot as if Churchill is somewhat pro-Communist which is absolutely not true. But what was true was that Chruchill was absolutely against the Nazis and even said that if Hell itself was against the Nazis then he would have to put in a good word for the Devil in the House of Commons.