White House Letter: In row over Yalta, Bush pokes at Baltic politics

International Herald Tribune ^ | MONDAY, MAY 16, 2005 | Elisabeth Bumiller

[lizol]

White House Letter: In row over Yalta, Bush pokes at Baltic politics.

WASHINGTON When President George W. Bush declared on May 7 in Latvia that the 1945 Yalta agreement had led to "one of the greatest wrongs of history," he reignited an ideological debate from the era of Joseph McCarthy. For more than a week now, the left and the right have been arguing over the president's words and re-arguing the deal made by Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill in an old czarist resort near the Crimean city of Yalta in the closing days of World War II.

Bush has criticized Yalta at least six other times publicly, usually in Eastern Europe, but never so harshly. In the dust kicked up by all the quarreling, the central question for White House watchers is this: How did the unexpected attack on Yalta get in the president's speech? What drove his thinking? Did the White House expect the fallout?

First, the history and the debate.

Yalta effectively recognized Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe and set the stage for what later became known as the cold war.

In the view of many conservatives, the dying Roosevelt did nothing less at Yalta than sell out Eastern Europe to Soviet control for the next 50 years. In the view of liberals, including major historians, Roosevelt ceded Poland and parts of Eastern Europe to Stalin because the Red Army controlled the territory anyway, and Yalta changed no realities on the ground. Yalta also called for free elections in Poland, a call that Stalin later ignored.

Not only did Bush side with the conservatives in his speech in the Latvian capital, Riga, he also took a harder-line view against Yalta than any other American president, including Ronald Reagan.

[frannie]

I have not checked and don't know where to find the facts but according to some statisticians our unemployment was less when Roosevelt became President that when we entered the war. Any one know where we can find unemployment figures?

I know that in 1936, Roosevelt's first reelection campaign, our deficit , not debt, was greater that our receipts.

Check the World Almanac. That is an easy way to GIVE citizens money in their pockets. Just print money and put them on the Government's payroll. I believe if you will check our unemployment was 25% at the beginning of the war.

I know for our family there was no change until about the fall of 1941, we were not on WPA, my mother washed and ironed, cleaned house, picked apples, they didn't hire teenagers for these jobs. In our town female school teachers were let go if they got married, the gas company in our town was going to let the lady in the office go. A married woman could not stay. I was going to be hired but then the war came.

I wonder what the unemployment figures if they had included women and young people in the stats.

[alnick]

He did it while his critics made only noise.

Reminds me of our Dubya!

[ex-snook]

Well said. "By the way, as Stalin and his buddies killed more of his own people than the Germans did, "

I believe they were 'breaking eggs to make an omelet'. Of course those eggs were Christians and/or anti-communists and those were acceptable hate crimes to Communists and American fellow-travellers.

[alnick]

And the second because those same groups tried to resist everything he did in a critical time. Tough times call for tough measures. It's hard to say he was wrong when things turned out so well.

Oops. You keep making unintended parallels to President Bush. :o)

[Smedley]

I am not saying that Roosevelt couldn't have done better. Mistakes are made by everyone during all wars...and in peacetime too. I'm faulting the arm-chair critics who want to call him less than the great man he was because of these possible mistakes.

Larry, here's where I'm calling you a fraud.

Bush wasn't assailing Roosevelt's record wholesale but merely remarking on what MANY people refer to as a mistake -- and something you concede as a "possible mistake"

That being said, I don't fault Roosevelt for this particular decision, nor do I praise him for it. However, I do note that there is room for fair criticism of it. Furthermore, I note that to throw a hissy (as you have) when such criticism is made is absurd.

What is it that Bush is most criticized for? Stating that 'Yalta followed in the "unjust tradition" of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the secret nonaggression deal between the Nazis and Soviets in 1939, and the British appeasement of Hitler in the 1938 Munich pact.'

Here's a clue. Bush is 10000000000% right. What was done to the Baltics was unjust whether or not it was done for political expediency, i.e., "to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability".

[liberallarry]

Reminds me of our Dubya!

In the current conflict, you're right...and it's a good analogy. If he pulls it off he'll be remembered as one of the greats and all his errors and shortcomings will count for nothing. If he doesn't he'll be the President who ruined the country.

[avile]

his policies did not end the depression the war did!

[liberallarry]

Why single out Yalta if you want to criticize realpolitic?

Why not fault Carter and Reagan for supporting Saddam and Osama and others to defeat the Soviet Union and lessen the power of militant Iran? Why didn't we send in our own soldiers to do the dirty work if it was so important to us?

It was Hitler who invaded and dismembered Czecheslovakia. The French and British didn't create Hitler. They tried to save their people and countries from a repeat of WWI. Similarly, Stalin allied himself with Hitler because he felt the French and British were trying to sacrifice the Russians as they sacrificed the Czechs.

[liberallarry]

Read on.

[avile]

He also did little to stop the holocaust, then again his JINO advisors and newspaper publishers never made it a big issue.

It is true however that he might not have accomplished anything by being tough at Yalta, it was the Russian that carried the load in defeating Hitler.

[expatpat]

The intelligence level of your discourse is truly remarkable.

[SkoalBandit]

Sure alot of people feel a mistake was made at Yalta. The thing is what would have been the right decision? Kicking the Soviets out of Baltics is easier said than done. I don't think the population would have gone for a extension on to the war. They wanted to finish the war.

Yalta Conference had: The declaration of liberated Europe, allowing for democratic elections in all the liberated territories. In reality, for countries occupied by the Red Army such as Poland and the Baltic states, this remained only a declaration.

By the time it was obvious that the Soviets were not going to let this happen it was too really too late. Even with 20/20 hindsite what would have been right thing to do? I don't think the allies could have won a war with the Soviets at that time. They would have not lost, but I doubt they would have won.

[liberallarry]

All that's beside the point.

In 1932 the country was in deep trouble. There was genuine fear of revolution. Hoover was a smart guy who'd done his best...and it wasn't enough. No one knew what to do.

So Roosevelt improvised. He wasn't successful at restoring prosperity. NO ONE WAS. But he did succeed in changing the atmosphere, in giving the masses hope.

Many now criticize him for the supposed unintended, negative consequences of his policies. Who cares? I repeat who cares? If I'm trying to save someone's life is it really all that important if he later finds that I've permanently damaged his fingernails?

[Smedley]

You remind me of the Muslims who criticize the Israelis for wars or conquest while forgetting their own. From the Russian point of view they were only reasserting control over territories they lost at the end of WWI.

Here's a hint, Balts have NEVER been Russians, and fought to LIBERATE themselves from the Russians. Russia didn't just lose the Baltics, the Baltics fought and won their independance.

Your analogy is totally backward. The only wars of conquest in the last 400 years regarding the Baltics occured in 1940 and 1710, and the Russians were the invaders.

The Baltic states, or parts of them, had belonged to Russia for centuries prior to 1914. ...

Yes, starting in 1710 when Russia INVADED the Baltics. Over 100,000 died in Tallinn alone soon after.

But you digress

The Balts fought and won their independance.

Once again you are only interested in a time frame favorable to your position. ...

Gee, the time being circa 1945 and the place being those parts of the Earth that the Allies fought on, I don't think I'm stretching the point one iota.

But looking only at the aftermath of WWII there were border adjustments which favored the French over the Germans. ...

Regardless of the merits of these claims (which would require several threads of their own), the assertion of opportunistic Westerners gobbling up conquored lands is simple b.s.

So who's the asshat?

for a guy so ignorant of history that he wants to compare a 400 year Baltic struggle for independance with Muslim wars of conquest, I'd have to say you are.

[Smedley]

Oops. You keep making unintended parallels to President Bush. :o)

I noticed that too, but was hoping that Larry would come unto that realization himself. BTW, I think it is perfectly fine to criticize Bush's mistakes regarding the Iraqi war. What I object to is the moronic over-criticism by the Dems and the press of things that aren't mistakes.

[Bernard]

Poland hadn't existed for more than a century.

If that's the case, who did Germany invade on 9/1/39? My history books say Poland.

And FDR did have to make some tough decisions - would the American people have supported a continued war against the USSR in 1945? Probably not.

Of course, you have to wonder if FDR cared at all about the American people. If he did, he could have recognized his physical limitations, stifled his ego, and stepped aside in 1940 or 1944 instead of being convinced that he was the only hope.

Too bad he believed his own press releases about getting this country out of the Depression.

[Smedley]

Why single out Yalta if you want to criticize realpolitic?

How about because Bush was directly addressing the issue of breakaway ex-Soviet republics during a tour that included these Republics. Same way I wouldn't expect bush to talk about Japan while visiting Qatar

Why not fault Carter and Reagan for supporting Saddam and Osama and others to defeat the Soviet Union ...

First, we never supported Osama, but you've aleady proved history isn't your best suit. Second, the analogy is poor. Don't forget, in Afghanistan the Soviets were the invaders - same as in the Baltics.

It was Hitler who invaded and dismembered Czecheslovakia. ...

you're meandering so far off the aubject its pathetic

[Smedley]

Sure alot of people feel a mistake was made at Yalta. The thing is what would have been the right decision? Kicking the Soviets out of Baltics is easier said than done. ..

I don't disagree, but Bush's remarks were simply an acknowledgment of the unjustice the Baltics incurred. I read through the various article on this an can't find where Bush states Roosevelt made the wrong decision.

Yalta Conference had: The declaration of liberated Europe ...

Respectfully, Yalta did no such thing. Western Europe was freed by virtue of defeating the Germans. Eastern Europe, including the Balkans, wasn't freed until much much later.

[liberallarry]

Here's a hint, Balts have NEVER been Russians...

Here's another hint. I never thought or said they were. Imperial Russia wasn't called the prison-house of nations for nothing. But so what? You think the Russians of the time were the only nation which had captive minorities? You can't be that stupid, can you? Nor can you really believe that they thought their claim to the land by right of conquest was invalid, or do you?

...and fought to LIBERATE themselves from the Russians. Russia didn't just lose the Baltics, the Baltics fought and won their independance.

Russians lost WWI to the Germans. Otherwise, the Baltic states would never have gained independence. I'm not denying their efforts. I'm just being factual.

Your analogy is totally backward. The only wars of conquest in the last 400 years regarding the Baltics occured in 1940 and 1710, and the Russians were the invaders.

You misunderstand me. Perhaps I wasn't clear. The Russians felt they were reclaiming territory which rightfully belonged to them - had belonged to them for 200 years.

The bitter truth about humanity is that most nations and cultures live on lands which they forcibly took from others. After a period of time they feel its theirs.

Regardless of the merits of these claims (which would require several threads of their own), the assertion of opportunistic Westerners gobbling up conquored lands is simple b.s.

In the period during which the Czars gobbled up much of Eastern Europe and central Asia, Western nations gobbled up even more...including what is now the United States.

The attempt by Western powers to reclaim their colonial possessions after 1945 cannot be dismissed in such a cavalier fashion. Especially by someone gives such weight to a 200 or 400 year old claim to independence by some minor European ethnic groups.

for a guy so ignorant of history

My grasp of history is - at the very least - the equal of yours.

[SkoalBandit]

The text of the Yalta Agreement: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/yalta.htm

The text says that the countries of europe should have the right to choose institutions of there choice. Did that happen? No. But the effort was made at Yalta.

Text:

The following declaration has been approved:

The Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States of America have consulted with each other in the common interests of the people of their countries and those of liberated Europe. They jointly declare their mutual agreement to concert during the temporary period of instability in liberated Europe the policies of their three Governments in assisting the peoples liberated from the domination of Nazi Germany and the peoples of the former Axis satellite states of Europe to solve by democratic means their pressing political and economic problems.

The establishment of order in Europe and the rebuilding of national economic life must be achieved by processes which will enable the liberated peoples to destroy the last vestiges of nazism and fascism and to create democratic institutions of their own choice. This is a principle of the Atlantic Charter - the right of all people to choose the form of government under which they will live - the restoration of sovereign rights and self-government to those peoples who have been forcibly deprived to them by the aggressor nations.

To foster the conditions in which the liberated people may exercise these rights, the three governments will jointly assist the people in any European liberated state or former Axis state in Europe where, in their judgment conditions require,