Did Roosevelt betray Eastern Europe at Yalta?

[Karmadillo]

If Bush says he did, it must be true. The media certainly raised no objections when he made the charge last May. If only we could have forged an alliance with Nazi Germany to fight the Soviets, history could have been changed and we would now be living in utopia. Of course, the socialist crazies at the World Socialist Web Site have a different take on things.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/yalt-m12.shtml

<edit>

“As we mark the victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox,” declared the president. “For much of Germany, defeat led to freedom. For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E Day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end oppression. The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable. The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs of history” (emphasis added).

As it was the US president who made this statement, it represents an unprecedented repudiation and denunciation by the government of the United States of a foreign policy decision made by a previous administration. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt now stands publicly condemned by President Bush as a criminal—for how else can one describe an individual who authored one of history’s “greatest wrongs”? One might ask, to what other “historical wrongs” might the president have been comparing the Yalta agreements? The Holocaust?

Denunciations of the Yalta agreements have long been part of right-wing political rhetoric in the United States. For the extreme right and elements within the American state who advocated the “roll-back” of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe, and even the total destruction of the USSR, Yalta was the symbol of capitulation to communism. The claims that the Yalta agreements were the product of communist subversion of the US State Department provided fuel for the post-World War II witch-hunts spearheaded by Senator Joseph McCarthy.

<edit>

The only political conclusion that can be drawn from Bush’s Latvian statement is that he believes the United States should have taken military action to achieve the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Eastern Europe. For this to have been done in 1945 would have required Washington to conclude a separate peace with Nazi Germany and redeploy what remained of the latter’s military forces in a joint German-American campaign against the USSR.

This was a political scenario which key Nazi leaders, such as SS-leader Heinrich Himmler, and even elements within the American military command, such as General George Patton, hoped to realize. However, this course was never considered a viable option within the most influential sections of the American political establishment. Aside from being militarily impossible, a separate peace with the Nazis and an attack on the Soviet Union would have provoked mutiny within the American army—whose GIs viewed the Soviet troops as comrades-in-arms—and massive political protests among the American people at home.

more...

[whistle]

1. It fits in with the Bush roots to fascism through the grandfather

...Prescott Bush who despised FDR for forcing him to give up all business dealings with Nazi Germany in 1942,

[Captain Hilts]

2. Checking a map of the location of the Red Army shows...

that trying to claim Eastern Europe would have required another war. He didn't think Lithuania (a Baltic state) was worth risking his kids to die for so he didn't think he should ask others to sacrifice their kids. That's what he told Eleanor when questioned about it. She agreed. If only GWB would only fight wars he was willing to risk his kids.

Now, Eisenhower, on the other hand, encouraged Eastern European countries to rebel and when Hungary did, he let them twist in the wind.

[WMliberal]

7. thank you

spot on historically accurate post.

[meegbear]

3. Considering this shit came out when he started his SS reform ...

and bitch-slap to FDR to try to discredit him will do.

[emanymton]

4. History Never Shows Its Alternatives...

Selective reading of history can lead blind mice to many conclusions.

The shrub Junta cannot find itself in its current Middle East failure. Trying to blame FDR for events after World War II (FDR was dead at the time) reeks of Bush (Papa) blaming the LA Riots in 1991 on LBJ.

Don't forget Iraq is the fault of Clinton.


Bush Lied. People Died. Media Cheered.

[wli]

5. well, Bush is a neonazi, so it's obvious he'd say it

The amount of Nazi footsie that went around after WWII and so on is really rather disturbing. Plus a lot of these neocons are pushing outright fascism, terminologically disguised if it's disguised at all (c.f. Ledeen).

[JHB]

6. Typical RW "getting over it"

The "betrayal at Yalta" is nothing more than Roosevelt-hating wingnuts just piling on one more thing to hate him for; the military facts on the ground dictated how far any issue could be pushed without starting a new war, and no one except a few foaming fanatics were itching for another one.

The fact that they're trotting this out again is just part of their broad attempt to rewrite the history of the 20th Century so they can pretend they weren't on the wrong side of every important conflict of freedom for the entire time.

They nurse these grudges for decades, then have the gall to tell us to "get over" their dirty electoral tricks in 2000 & 2004?