Posted on 11/22/2013 4:28:51 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
Churchill knew exactly what Uncle Joe was and did not trust him.
At the final meeting of the Big Three FDR was dismissive of Churchill and fawned over Stalin.
Churchill was fuming.
OK, so Stalin lied. FDR was naive. Churchill was fuming. So what?
Really, what could have been done to prevent or alter what wound up happening? In all of the wrangling and handwringing over FDR having “given away Poland,” I always ask how, after June 22, 1941, it could have been prevented. I have come to the conclusion that it could not. It’s settled by asking one simple question: Tell me the date when the United States Army left Poland and turned it over to the Red Army? Simple; it never happened.
All you have to do is look at the maps that have been posted in the New York Times every day for the past several months. The geopolitical reality is that in order to defeat Nazi Germany, the Red Army WILL occupy Poland. We cannot get there before they do. And as the Poles well knew in 1939, once the Red Army is there, it’s not leaving. The only way to get the Red Army out of Poland in 1945 is by forcible ejection through war with the USSR. And there is no way you will get the American or British public to support it. And what applied to Poland applied to all of Eastern Europe.
This outcome was decided when Churchill decided to support Stalin on June 22, 1941. It was confirmed by adoption of a strategy to defeat Nazi Germany with the combintation of British technology, American industry, and Russian blood. The only other alternative was to back Hitler against Stalin, or stay neutral, and in that event, Auschwitz and Treblinka become ongoing business operations. Not much choice in those outcomes, but those are the only two outcomes that were possible.
We didn’t give Poland away because we never possessed it to begin with.
BTW, O'Hare's father testified against Al Capone. He was later murdered, probably by Capone's boys.
This reality is also why Churchill so persistently argued for a Balkan front, to try to get to some East European countries before the Russians. I have reluctantly concluded, however, that could only be done by cancelling Overlord, which Churchill was apparently prepared to do, but I certainly wouldn't, and neither would Roosevelt and Marshall. It also would have been much more difficult to fight through the mountainous Balkan peninsula to get at Austria and Hungary, presumably the prizes he wanted in addition to Greece and Yugoslavia. But then we would have had to fight through the Alps to get to Germany.
Indeed, Churchill really hadn't thought the problem through. The reason for American and British influence in post-war Europe is because we overran France and the Benelux countries and got to most of Germany first. A Germany entirely occupied by Russia and leading to a Communist state would have presented enormous challenges to us. It would have been much more dangerous than the Warsaw Pact.
I think you missed my point on your way to make your own.
I was not hand wringing over Poland, (you brought that up) merely pointing out that Socialists always lie so judge them by their actions not their words.
There was no political will to liberate Poland, Prussia, Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania. So wether we could or not is moot.
Robert Sherrod, Time Magazine War Correspondent, 6 December 1943
I misspoke about Poland. Churchill never accepted a Communist Poland. What he eventually accepted was Stalin was never going to give back his slice of Poland, which therefore needed more land to be a viable state between Germany and Russia. Thus, Oder-Neisse.
A lot of “ethnic cleansing” is coming. Many Germans are going to leave East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia ahead of the Red Army. To some extent, it’s just a matter of them not coming back. The Sudeten Germans are going to be kicked out of then Czechoslovakia. The Hungarians will be ejected from Transylvania, so the Soviets can have Moldova. Other than Yugoslavia, the ethnic causes of WW2 will be addressed, in a rather drastic manner.
After WWI there was also population movement. Greeks out of Turkey comes to mind.
In each case the receiving country assimilated the refugees. This is unlike what happened to the Palestinian "refugees" after the Israeli War of Independence. In what I believe to be one of the worst human rights violations of that troubled century, the Arab states refused to assimilate their fellow Muslims, creating a perpetual stateless class for purely political purposes. And the blowhards at the UN not only refuse to condemn this, they actively aid and abet it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.