Posted on 05/15/2005 10:35:41 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
Poland didn't exist from the late 1700's to 1918 or 1919. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to Europe as it was prior to WWI.
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.
He WAS the great symbol, the irreplaceable leader. He was right to think so. I still remember the day of his death even though I was only 6 or 7 at the time. The radio announcer broke down when trying to convey the news.
As to any "effort" re institutions, that just goes to my point. Yalta freed no one, but it did assure the enslavement of tens of millions at Soviet hands.
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? ...
My point being that Balts and Russians are two distinct people, and that Russians have no claim upon the Baltics other than that of a temporary conquest. Hitler at least had an ethnic claim to invade the Sudatenland.
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.
True, the Balts took advantage of a weakened Russia to gain independence, but that doesn't give the Russians any rights later -- and in fact the USSR didn't use history to assert control -- they made up a story about being invited in to the Baltics.
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.
How could I misunderstand that? It's NOT TRUE. The USSR didn't rely on that assertion, and indeed they claimed they were in the Baltic by invitation, not by imperial right.
blah blah blah
for a guy so ignorant of history
My grasp of history is - at the very least - the equal of yours.
Apparently not. I for one haven't made ludicrous analogies of Baltic independance to Muslim imperialism, and I for one know enough history to realize the USSR didn't rely on any past right of conquest when they invaded the Baltics in 1940.
That's the only claim any people has upon any land.
I for one know enough history to realize the USSR didn't rely on any past right of conquest when they invaded the Baltics in 1940
On the contrary it is exactly here - where you naively confuse public propanda with reality - that you reveal your ignorance. Publicly the Russians painted themselves as good guys. In private Stalin told Roosevelt that the Baltics belonged to Russia for geopolitical reasons, realpolitic reasons. But in there hearts Russians felt the Baltics belonged to them, that it was Russian soil. How could they not? Don't sabras feel Israel is theirs? Don't we feel the Southwest is ours and not Mexican? Not only do you not understand history, you don't understand human nature.
I for two haven't either.
How about because Bush was directly addressing the issue of breakaway ex-Soviet republics during a tour that included these Republics
Yes, that's one reason. Speaking to his base is another.
First, we never supported Osama, but you've aleady proved history isn't your best suit.
Sure, we did...but he wasn't Osama yet. He was just another jihadist we were using to harass the Soviets.
Second, the analogy is poor. Don't forget, in Afghanistan the Soviets were the invaders - same as in the Baltics.
The analogy is not exact but it's not poor. It's closer with Saddam's Iraq...and even better with our later abandonment of the Kurds. In all 3 cases we manipulated indigenous people to do our fighting for us and abandoned them when they were no longer useful.
But even if I weren't able to come up with such examples its clear that no great nation will ever a give up realpolitic and refuse to sacrifice the weak to further its own ends if that seems necessary. Bush was just pandering and posturing.
P.S. I don't believe Bush would ever criticize Reagan for his use of realpolitic in opposing Iran. Do you? I don't think he'd even admit that Reagan did such a thing.
We do, indeed, live on different planets. Or, rather, in different realities.
It's true that Hoover's demeanor turned people off. The rest is speculation.
You have handled yourself very well here tonight. I do not agree with all of your points, but you have given me pause regarding FDR's legacy.
So.. are you indeed a liberal?
I'm a big fan of TR. Neither he nor I would be considered liberals in today's world.
One could argue whether or not 8 years of "leading" through a depression represents a good record. How many other economic dislocations have lasted that long? I don't know the answer, but perhaps a better President could have gotten us on the right track sooner.
I definitely agree on TR. What do you think of HT?
In America none that I know of. In other places dislocations have lasted for centuries. Eons.
perhaps a better President could have gotten us on the right track sooner
Perhaps...
Funny how these things work. I'm just know reading about Polk. In terms of policy and accomplishments he was one of the all time greats...but he had a mean spirit, and was not liked, and has since been mostly forgotten.
Hint: Most of GWB's base could give a rat's arse about FDR's decisions 60 years ago, me included. On the other hand, the issue was quite topical with modern-day Balts, who still harbour deep resentment toward Russia.
Sure, we did...but he wasn't Osama yet. He was just another jihadist we were using to harass the Soviets.
Larry, Osama stated publically that he never received any money, training or aid from the US, the CIA states the same thing, and even the 9-11 commission could find no evidence of this accusation, which the hatteful idiots of the left have repeated consistently for years.
The analogy is not exact but it's not poor. It's closer with Saddam's Iraq...
Larry, the analogy is poor because YOU compared the Baltic struggle for independance to (muslim) imperialism. The Balts never invaded anyone. How you equate Balts with RUSSIA/USSR, Saddam or any imperial power is beyond me.
In all 3 cases we manipulated indigenous people to do our fighting for us and abandoned them when they were no longer useful.
Larry, regardless of the merits of this statement, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INITIAL ISSUE. YOU'VE PAINTED YOUSELF INTO A LOGICAL CORNER AND NOW TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT. You entire debate approach appears to consist of changing the subject when hammered on the facts.
Give it up.
But even if I weren't able to come up with such examples its clear that no great nation will ever a give up realpolitic and refuse to sacrifice the weak to further its own ends if that seems necessary. Bush was just pandering and posturing.
Larry, you have yet to provide any appropriate example of how Balts behave as muslim imperialists.
What you have provided is a clear example of your mindless hate for GWB.
I for two haven't either.
Larry, you stated "You remind me of the Muslims who criticize the Israelis for wars or conquest while forgetting their own" in response to my statement "The first issue of note was that the Baltics didn't belong to the USSR before WW2"
Where is the Baltic war of conquest here?
"He WAS the great symbol, the irreplaceable leader."
There is no such thing as an "irreplaceable leader". In the United States, Presidents die and the system continues to function. The graves of the world are filled with 'irreplaceable leaders' and the world continues to function...
The Democrats had no bench in 1944, so they continued with a candidate who was diagnosed at Bethesda Naval Hospital with an advanced heart disease in 1943. When they broke the un-written rule of two presidential terms set by George Washington they forced the nation to set those rules in Constituional concrete...
dvwjr
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.