Questions remain over Yalta's legacy

When did World War II end? The question is deceptively simple. If you are British, American, German, Japanese, French or Italian, then you undoubtedly would answer, without hesitation, in 1945.

But if you happen to be Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian, then you would answer as Mart Laar, twice a prime minister of Estonia does: "It ended only when the last Russian soldier left my country."

In a series of programmes based on places that have shaped our world, I have been exploring with government leaders and politicians like Mart Laar, historians, economists, diplomats and others who took part, some of the momentous decisions agreed at the end of World War II which have shaped our world ever since.

From 4-11 February, 1945 the Big Three - Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt - met at Yalta, a resort in the Crimea.

They put the seal on what became the division of Europe for almost 50 years. Yalta put the Iron in the Iron Curtain - the Cold in the Cold War.

What happened here settled the fate of tens of millions of people in Eastern Europe until the fall of Communism - though it did keep Greece, Turkey and Iran out of Stalin's reach.

Or - as the historian Gregor Dallas argues - were the Western leaders too readily seduced by Stalin, who just four years previously had been an ally of Hitler and who only ever acted in the interests of Soviet communism?

President Roosevelt said as much - admitting that it was not a good deal but the best he could do.

Stalin's Red Army occupied much of the territory which later became the Communist sphere of influence, the Warsaw Pact, and short of World War III it is difficult to see what could have persuaded them to leave.

Some like historian Stephen Graubard, who as a young man was invited by Eleanor Roosevelt to attend FDR's fourth inauguration in 1944, argue that the widespread admiration for Soviet achievements during the war influenced Churchill and Stalin at Yalta.

He says: "We must remember what the Soviet Union had achieved between 1941 and 1945, and how that had affected the two great democracies of the world."

"There was no peace in central and eastern Europe. Yes, there was no new world war, but actually there was a fight and no peace."

And Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's Polish-born former national security adviser, accuses Roosevelt of naivete.

"Roosevelt's world view, his notions about the future, his perceptions of 'Uncle Joe' - all of that introduced a perspective which was far more accommodating than need be."

Was it not naive of Roosevelt to believe Stalin's word when he signed up to a deal for a democratic Poland?

Why would Stalin grant a true democracy to the Poles when he had not done so for the Russians?

Dr Brzezinski agrees strongly with President George W Bush - speaking in Latvia this summer - when he said Yalta led to "one of the greatest wrongs of history".

As Gregor Dallas says, it would be wonderful "if we could start reading the history of the Second World War and its aftermath in the light of what happened in eastern and central Europe and not just in the light of our own experiences."

But above all, the series - which includes the founding of the UN in San Francisco, of the UNHCR in Geneva and the key moment in the end of the European empires in Delhi in 1947 - demonstrates an important truth about the past.

As far as hammer & sickle, effectively we did (& still do).

Remember that FDR's 'solution' to the depression was the alphabet soup of gov't run, collectivist & socialist organizations that sought to control every aspect of business & agriculture. Legacies of farm supports, restrictions on what can be grown, labor unions, gov't intervention in the economy are with us today.

When the supreme court ruled against some of his measures, his planned response was to pack the supreme court. Unfortunately, the SC backed down. Kelo is a direct result of this unconstitutional legacy.

Remember also the context of the post-12/07 world. America is attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor, so our main target becomes Germany (who coincidentally had launch a major attack on mother Russia 6 months earlier).

However, despite Roosevelt & his advisors being obviously communist or openly symps (perhaps at best "naive"), it probably WAS the best deal that could be gotten at Yalta.

The Red armed forces were much larger and stronger than ours (compare man power of the Eastern Front vs. Western Front). Their tanks were better (T-34 could take a Panther or a Tiger sraight up, the Sherman needed a 4 - 5 tank advantage). Their artillery was more numerous (always a Russian strong point) and they had an effective assult rocket capability. Tactical air would be about evenly matched. The Red army had a three year advantage in battle field experience to draw upon that our forces were still learning (our only main battles after D-Day period were the Ardennes & Hurtigen forest [both of which resulted in allied victories but at a high cost] and the Arnham disaster).

The only clear advantage that we had was in strategic air forces. However, the Russian targets would have been out of range of the B-17s & B-24s in England & Italy. We would have had to reallocate B-29s from the Far East to strike at the Russian industrial base. There would have been major work needed to lengthen the run ways to support the newer aircraft.

Although I am a fan of Patton, he would have come out second best for the reasons listed above. The main Soviet thrust over the North German plain would have hit Montgomery. Monty couldn't best the German's second string in North Africa without an overwhelming superiority in men & machines. He would have been over run quickly by the Soviet varsity (followed by a retreat to the port of Antwerp). The front lines would probably have stabilized in the lower Rhine with the Americans perhaps holding onto the highlands in Hessen & Bavaria.

The most charitable thing that has been said about Roosevely at the conference is that he was a tired, dying man who hoped for a better world.

England couldn't afford to buy what she needed, and the U.S. Congress didn't want to give them lots of stuff for free...Lend-Lease was a way to get them the stuff they needed. Would it have been better for the U.S. if the Nazis had conquered England?

Charles Peters, author of Five Days in Philadelphia, about Wendell Willkie and the 1940 campaign, was on C-SPAN yesterday. He talked at one point about Willkie's post-election trip to England and how he helped persuade Congress to vote for Lend-Lease.

Here's when we should have kept moving east

The first US-USSR Battle

The FReeper Foxhole Remembers the 339th Infantry Regiment at Toulgas (11/11/1918) - Mar. 14th, 2005
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/1362226/posts

It was the USA who lead the victory over Germany.
Not only did we give them everything from airplanes to A-bombs. But also gave them all the German battle plans. gotten from our breaking the Japanese purple code. ( yes the Japanese ) ( a good read on this is the book:
Marching Orders
Bruce Lee 1995 )
And
Hitler And the SS

One of the reasons The German Army advanced so fast. Is at first the people looked at Hitler as there savior & liberator from Stalin. So did not fight and “ stuck there bayonets in the snow” .
The dumb SS after there capture started shooting them and sent the off to the camps.
So they had a choice die under Hitler or live under Stalin. And started to fight back.
If the Germans had treated these people as liberated people. They would have picked up there arms and lead the way to Moscow.

Not only would this had happend. We had the bomb and the will & means to use it.

Uncle Joe was no fool He knew that not only had the US won the war in Europe and Japan But was able to supply England and himself and have plenty left over.

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.