Posted on 05/11/2005 5:33:42 PM PDT by OESY
This week, while touring the remnants of the former Soviet Union on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, President Bush gave perhaps the greatest diplomatic performance of his career, balancing a host of moral and strategic interests simultaneously. In the Baltic republics, he recognized that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was "one of the greatest wrongs in history." In Russia he carefully avoided alienating the Russians too much. In Georgia he literally danced a jig and championed liberty for the entire world.
But the most exciting part of the president's trip, for some of us, was when he reignited one of the great debates of the 20th century: Did America betray Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War? This question, symbolized by the debate over the Yalta conference, which codified the division of Europe, has preoccupied the left and right for nearly 50 years. Indeed, by revisiting the issue this week, Bush showed the consistency of his foreign policy since he took office. In his first European address - in 2001, before 9/11 - Bush declared "No more Munichs, no more Yaltas!"
Some quick background. The conference took place in the Crimean city of Yalta in February 1945. The war in Europe was winding down and America didn't yet have the atomic bomb. At the conference, America and Britain conceded to a host of Stalin's demands, including accepting the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and the forced repatriation of all soldiers, refugees and other escapees of the Soviet Gulag.
This second set of concessions is usually left out of the debate over Yalta because it was so indefensible. The Allies understood that they were sentencing hundreds of thousands of men (and quite a few women and children) to death and misery. Many of these refugees went to extraordinary lengths to end the war in British and American custody only to be forcibly - i.e., at gunpoint - returned to the Soviets for liquidation. Many killed themselves and their families rather than go back. Shame on us all.
As for the more famous controversy over conceding Eastern Europe to the Soviets. This is a tougher nut to crack, and hyperbole has been common to all sides of the debate. One of the many layers to the controversy is the fact that Alger Hiss, the proven Communist spy - once beloved by liberals everywhere - was an advisor to FDR at the conference. How much of a role he played remains hotly debated. But only fools and Communist sympathizers would today disagree with the statement that he played too much of a role.
Defenders of FDR, who always had a soft spot for Stalin - "I like old Joe" - and defenders of Churchill, who understood completely what a barbarian Stalin was, claim that there was nothing the West could do. And besides, by consigning millions of East Europeans to slavery for generations we received in return a promise from Stalin to help defeat Japan in the pacific - eventually. Of course, Hiroshima made that chit worthless.
For example, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the revered liberal historian who has always considered it part of his job description to carry more water than Gunga Din for Democratic presidents, responded to Bush's speech with the usual haughty incredulity. "The American president is under the delusion that tougher diplomacy might have preserved the freedom of small East European nations. He forgets the presence of the Red Army. No conceivable diplomacy could have saved Eastern Europe from Soviet occupation."
Jacob Heilbrunn was more splenetic in the Los Angeles Times, caterwauling about Bush's peddling of "right-wing mythology" and the "Ann Coulter school of history."
The history is debatable. Schlesinger's emphasis on the word "diplomacy" is revealing. He writes, "It was the deployment of armies, not negotiating concessions, that caused the division of Europe." But the concessions at Yalta were possible because America chose to let Stalin occupy Eastern Europe. If, for example, General Patton had had his way, much of the occupation wouldn't have been a fait accompli. Schlesinger & Co. argue that Yalta was a concession to the necessities of reality. I wonder if FDR's defenders think tougher diplomacy is similarly pointless regarding, say, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank? Israel has it now, so that should settle the issue.
It's ironic: Liberals celebrated Bill Clinton's numerous apologies for America's Realpolitik "mistakes" during the Cold War as a sign of great statesmanship. But when an apology reflects poorly on the mistake that basically launched the Cold War, they bang their spoons on their highchairs about any attempt to tarnish FDR's godhood.
This raises the larger moral point. After a war to end one evil empire, we signed a piece of paper accepting the expansion of another evil empire. And it happened at Yalta.
Um, not quite. According to Solzhenitsyn, there was a Russian Army of three million men that offered to Roosevelt that, if America would back them, they would take on the Soviet dictator. To the offer Roosevelt agreed. He asked for their weapons with a promise that he would supply new ones. When he had done so, he then turned these Russian patriots over to the Soviets to die.
No wonder Mr. Solzhenitsyn had such a strong ambivalence about America.
It is amazing that I have lived to see Papa Joe and FDR stripped of their Emperors Clothes
My favorite post from the other thread is from "middie":
Like most ideologues who try to be history analysts this post is guilty of a summary that is egregiously simplistic. The dynamics of the Yalta conference and that period when the war was coming to a close are far too complex to submit to a easy, short and wrong group of conclusory statements. There have been several excellent works by reputable historians. Even as a "Cliff Note," this post would cause one to fail a final exam on the subject.
"FDR dies 20 days after the Yalta conference; when exactly did he turn these "patriots" over to the soviets?'
FDR knew he would have trouble rounding these guys up with his wheelchair so he had the Army do it.
"It was not easy to "persuade" the Russian prisoners to return to the communists. Sometimes, subterfuge was used. Epstein details several examples. One took place on May 28, 1945, in Lienz, Austria. British forces ordered all Cossack officials to attend an important British conference with high British officials. The Cossacks were told to leave their coats since they would be back by six in the evening. Their families were advised so that family members would not worry over their short absence. When the Cossacks appeared nervous, an English officer told them, "I assure you on my word of honor as a British officer that you are just going to a conference."
The 2,749 Cossacks — 2,201 of whom were officers — were driven straight into a prison camp and were advised by British officials that Soviet authorities would soon arrive to pick them up. Epstein writes:
One Cossack officer remarked: "The NKVD or the Gestapo would have slain us with truncheons, the British did it with their word of honor." The first to commit suicide by hanging was the Cossack editor Evgenij Tarruski. The second was General Silkin who shot himself. . . . The Cossacks refused to board [the trucks]. British soldiers with pistols and clubs began using their clubs, aiming at the heads of the prisoners. They first dragged the men out of the crowd and threw them into the trucks. The men jumped out. They beat them again and threw them onto the floor of the trucks. Again, they jumped out. The British then hit them with rifle butts until they lay unconscious and threw them like sacks of potatoes in the trucks.
The same scenes were repeated all along the lines — two million Russian people tricked and beaten by British and American forces so that Stalin could finish the job later on.
Some of this dirty work even took place on American soil. Epstein describes what happened to Russian POWs who were imprisoned at Fort Dix, New Jersey:
First, they refused to leave their barracks when ordered to do so. The military police then used tear gas, and, half-dazed, the prisoners were driven under heavy guard to the harbor where they were forced to board a Soviet vessel. Here the two hundred immediately started to fight. They fought with their bare hands. They started — with considerable success — to destroy the ship's engines. . ."
I am only reporting what I read in The Gulag Archipelago, so take it as you will. Truman did retain Roosevelt's foreign service people.
FDR sent a ship, The St. Louis, full of Jews BACK to Europe to be killed, and the Jews in America STILL ADORE him....go figure.
Why should we apologize .. WE didn't do anything.
To acknowledge that FDR made a big mistake at Yalta is a given. Patten tried to tell them it was a big mistake to allow Russia to have part of Berlin - but the liberals called him a crazy person.
If the FDR lovers want to apologize - let them.
Reputable historians???? Now there is a winner. Cite "reputable historians" as proof of you opinion. Dumb.
"Yalta happened near the end of WWII, and well before the Cold War started"
Not really - the Communists declared war on humanity in 1921 - we did not get around to reacting (thanks to Durantyism) until we got rid of FDR.
Great post. My sentiments exactly. Hindsight is only useful for the future.
Another thing to keep in mind: the first atomic bomb detonation takes place on July 13, 1945. During the Yalta conference the Bomb is just a theoretical concept. The Americans had to consider that they may soon need to divert massive resouces for the planned invasion of mainland Japan. We all know that never happened, but you wouldn't have known that in February of 1945.
Didn't Truman give the orders to drop the bomb on his way back from Yalta while crossing the Atlantic
Disregbard my question, I'm cunfusing Yalta with another meeting
I don't recall anyone designating the US as the world's policeman, do you? Or, are you suggesting that we should have allied with Hitler Nazi Germany against Stalin? Clearly, the guys who had treaties in place to defend the Eastern Republics were France and Britain. They are the ones who failed to do so. The later was busy with Hitler while the former surrendered at the first sound of gun fire. If anyone deserves the blame, it is France. It was their cowardice during the 1930s, and their greed during Versailles, that created Hitler in the first place.
I have absolutely no respect for FDR, but the above is utter bullshit.
Source?
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.