Posted on 04/16/2015 4:43:40 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
Where’s the picture of Truman doing a selfie at the funeral and flirting?
This is hard to take, but apparently was a foregone conclusion based on the agreements at Yalta, that the Russians would get Berlin and surrounding territory.
Once again, it appears freedom is good at winning wars but tyranny is better at winning the peace. We were 50-60 miles away from Berlin when we halted. Patton felt he could take Berlin in two days. Compare that with 45 years of Stalin's deadly reign incorporating countless lives into a regime that killed some 80 million of it own citizens. The price for our acquiescence at Yalta was way too high.
In early May 1945, as the Allies shut down the Nazi war machine, Patton stood with his massive 3rd Army on the outskirts of Prague in a potential face off with the Red Army. He pleaded for General Eisenhower’s green light to advance and capture the city for the Allies, which also would have meant containment of the Russians. British Prime Minister Churchill also thought the move a crucial and beneficial one for post-war Europe and insisted upon it, but to no avail. Eisenhower denied Patton’s request, and the Russians took the region, which would pay dearly for years to come. Earlier that year, at the February conference in Yalta, President Roosevelt, with Churchill at his side, extended the hand of friendship to “Uncle Joe” Stalin and signed his Faustian pact. In so doing, the destiny of millions was reduced to mass starvation, blood revenge, and distant gulags. At the time, Patton understood the tragedy of this event and wrote, “We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see that they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it?”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-orlando/the-foresight-of-patton/
Stalin was every bit as bad as Hitler.
It’s very easy to take a “pragmatic” view of our dealings with him in defeating the Nazis. But it all reminds me of an old tale.
The Fox and the Scorpion
Once upon a time a fox was trying to cross a river. The river was deep, and the current was strong, but the fox desperately needed to get to the other side. As he pondered his plight, a scorpion approached him. The fox was fearful and backed away in apprehension, but the scorpion spoke to him in reassuring words.
“There is no need to be frightened of me, for we both face the same predicament. I too want to cross the river; but if I try, I will drown.
I have come to make a deal with you. If I take you to a place that is shallow enough for you to cross, will you carry me on your back, so that I too may cross?”
The fox was still suspicious of the scorpion, but he really wanted to cross the river. “What guarantee can you give me that you won’t sting me if I carry you across?”, the fox asked.
“On my life I promise that I won’t sting you”, the scorpion replied. “Besides, if I sting you, we both will drown”.
The fox mulled the proposal over and over, and despite being one of the smartest creatures in the land, could find no flaw in the scorpion’s reasoning.
“Alright, you have a deal”, the fox said. “Take me to the shallow spot, and I will carry you across.” So off the two traveled, side by side until they reached a bend in the river where the water slowed and shallowed considerably.
“Climb on my back, and I’ll carry you across”, the fox spoke cheerfully.
The scorpion hopped on the fox’s back, and they ventured out into the river. The scorpion had been right. The water was shallow enough to cross, and the fox happily hummed to himself as he easily swam the distance. But right as he reached the deepest point of the river, he felt a sharp pang in the back of his neck.. The scorpion had stung him. He struggled against the poison and the current, but it was too late. He knew he was going to drown. With his last breaths, he cried”
“Why did you sting me? now we will both drown!”
“Because I am a scorpion”, his rider replied matter of factly, “It is my nature”.
And with those words, they both perished.
Sadly, in this case, it was the oppressed people of eastern Europe who were stung by the scorpion.
Although, we too paid a huge price in blood and treasure over half a century fighting and containing the communists.
Oh well. We can’t turn back the hands of time or change anything. All we can do is try to learn from the past, and trust God to work everything out in the end for good.
I contend that the territorial outcomes in Europe were foregone conclusions as early as June 22, 1941 when Hitler invaded the USSR. At that point it was inevitable that the United States and United Kingdom were going to defeat Nazi Germany at the cost of copious amounts of Russian blood, and that meant the Red Army was going to occupy all of Eastern Europe behind the “Iron Curtain” from Rostock to Trieste.
Gator might argue it was a foregone conclusion as early as August 1939 when Stalin and Hitler signed the Non-Aggression Pact. If he were to do so, I could see his point even if I might not go that far.
Despite what Patton said, the political reality was that the American public, with an as of yet unfinished war with Japan, were not going to turn on their erstwhile Soviet allies. And there was no way you could convince them to do so.
The fate of Eastern Europe was a foregone conclusion from that moment. The fate of Western Europe would have been very different if Hitler had not invaded Russia.
Despite what Patton said, the political reality was that the American public, with an as of yet unfinished war with Japan, were not going to turn on their erstwhile Soviet allies. And there was no way you could convince them to do so.
Until we knew that the A-Bomb would work (and we didn't know for sure at the time of the Yalta conference), we very much needed Stalin to invade Manchuria to have any hope of defeating Japan in a short time.
Absolutely correct. There was zero appetite to fight another European war after defeating the Germans.
And I hate to sound like a broken record, but almost no one in America was aware of the atomic bombs and a large majority expected the Pacific War to extend at least into 1946. The conventional military wisdom was that we would need at least one field army from Europe to defeat Japan.
I question how much the American People really opposed another 60 miles to get to Berlin after taking hundreds and thousands of miles in the Atlantic and in Europe. I think it was a very costly error at Yalta by FDR who was himself a socialist and didn’t seem as vigilant about Stalin’s threat as Churchill seemed. I don’t know how much of a fight Churchill put up leading up to and including Yalta, but regardless, it looks like his input was secondary to FDR’s.
Winning the war takes arms, grit, and determination. But winning the peace takes the added element of far-sighted vision and vigilance. An irony of this present world is the peace and prosperity that inevitably comes to a free society also has a tendency to dull the far-sighted vigilance needed to keep freedom, while the tyrants and demagogues, discontented with their lack of power, work tirelessly, determinedly, and patiently to achieve their goals.
FYI...copying you guys...
I question how much the American People really opposed another 60 miles to get to Berlin after taking hundreds and thousands of miles in the Atlantic and in Europe. I think it was a very costly error at Yalta by FDR who was himself a socialist and didn’t seem as vigilant about Stalin’s threat as Churchill seemed. I don’t know how much of a fight Churchill put up leading up to and including Yalta, but regardless, it looks like his input was secondary to FDR’s.
Winning the war takes arms, grit, and determination. But winning the peace takes the added element of far-sighted vision and vigilance. An irony of this present world is the peace and prosperity that inevitably comes to a free society also has a tendency to dull the far-sighted vigilance needed to keep freedom, while the tyrants and demagogues, discontented with their lack of power, work tirelessly, determinedly, and patiently to achieve their goals.
I agree with Ike’s decision to stop at the Elbe. We had already cut the deal on the partition of Germany. Any American soldier who died between the Elbe and Berlin would have died a meaningless and senseless death over dirt we were not going to keep.
And I have strong suspicion some of those deaths would have been to Soviet artillery fire based on a post I made yesterday or the day before. Again, for what purpose?
In my opinion, while not a giant of the 20th Century like Winston Churchill, Ike was very much underrated as both coalition commander and President.
Mokusatsu.
Ooops...sorry. I’m getting ahead of things.
The issue is what FDR acquiesced to at Yalta. Once the Yalta deal had been cut, yes, it would have been an exercise in futility for our armies to counter the political decision already made.
My problem is with the political decision leading up to and at Yalta. I think it resulted in the suffering, misery, and death of millions at the hands of Stalin who, if you do a body count, was much more vicious than Hitler.
My contention is the opposite. Yalta was the recognition of an already accomplished unalterable fact. The Red Army had occupied Romania and Poland, and was well on their way to occupying Eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. There was absolutely nothing we could do to keep that from happening. Having occupied those countries, and having brought the commissars with them, they were not going to leave short of military action forcing them out. And as we’ve pretty much conceded, that wasn’t going to happen either.
As far as “what if’s” I refuse to violate henkster’s law.
In my opinion, while not a giant of the 20th Century like Winston Churchill, Ike was very much underrated as both coalition commander and President.
I concur completely. The Allies were blessed to have the leadership we did, none of whom were perfect: FDR, Marshall, Ike, Churchill, and most of the the field commanders. It seems providential to me--imagine the result if our leaders had been misguided or ineffectual.
Berlin was not an accomplished fact at Yalta and I believe FDR handing it over to Stalin resulted in the suffering of many more lives than would have suffered otherwise. This result should not have been unforeseeable. Churchill smelled it.
In the East, the Vistula-Oder offensive was chewing up German units and real estate, with Zhukov already on the Oder, forty miles from Berlin. It appeared to all a forgone conclusion that the Russians would take Berlin.The Russians had also overrun Romania and Bulgaria and were advancing in Hungary. Posted in the last few days was Churchill's "naughty" note where he agreed to Soviet influence in several Balkan states.
The Yalta agreement was for roughly equal in size zones of occupation for the Russians, British and Americans, situated in areas where their forces were advancing, the Russians in the East, the British in the Northwest and the Americans in the South and Southwest. Had we pressed for unequal zones in which a substantial part of the Russian zone would be awarded the Brits and Americans, the conference would have ended in failure with no agreement and probably with a resolve by Stalin to fight us once he had taken Berlin and defeated the Germans.
Remember, we had made the "90 division gamble" that we could beat Germany and then Japan with an Army of about 90 divisions. We never went to full mobilization in WWII, reserving some manpower for war industries that were also equipping other armies. We had about 3 million troops in Europe on VE day and believed we needed many of them to finish off Japan in the Pacific. The Russians had something in excess of 10 million in the Red Army. The Brits were exhausted and broke and in no position to fight the Russians.
Roosevelt really had no options other than the choices he made regarding the post-War occupation of Germany. My recollection without going back to Homer's February threads is that Churchill did not urge any other course on Roosevelt. IIRC, the key issue was Poland, not Berlin or the post-War Soviet Zone.
I agree that at the end of the day the Communists were as bad if not worse than the Fascists. I served in the Cold War Army. I cheered when President Reagan demanded the Berlin Wall be torn down and cheered again when by golly it really happened. But in 1945 we had won in Europe aided by an awful lot of Russian blood and were in no position to launch a hot war against Communism, even if the American people would have supported one, which they would not.
Near the end of Eisenhower's presidency, my father became a letter carrier for the postal service, fifteen years after serving under Ike in Europe. Postmen begin each day by sorting the mail for their route into several hundred cubbyholes in a letter-case, each bin representing an address on that day's route. It is detailed, exacting, focused, tedious work, exactly the opposite of the kind of strategic thinking we're discussing.
One day my father, reacting to some decision of President Eisenhower's he learned of, said bitterly, "Eisenhower would have a nervous breakdown standing in front of a letter-case." Standing in front of wartime Germany and eastern Europe, though, he seems to have fared rather well.
Seriously, I am a big fan of Ike and agree he has not gotten nearly the credit he deserves.
Believe it or not, the main complaint about President Ike when I was young was that his presidency was boring and plain vanilla in contrast to the 60's and 70's (when things seemed to be going to hell in a handbasket). Seriously? Have they not considered calm, mature leadership is what produces boring peace and prosperity?
I have read several accounts of the Vienna Summit that said Khrushchev sized up Kennedy as a feckless young fool who could be rolled. So, he embarked on the Cuban missile gambit, which, contrary to the Kennedy cheerleaders, was not an American victory.
I remember reading someone say, that Eisenhower was the most powerful man in the world on June 5th, but once he gave the word to “Go”, he became merely a bystander.
I think Ike himself said something very like that.
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.