Andrew Greeley: Bush is Wrong on Yalta Apology
"Father" Andrew Greeley weighs in on President Bush's recent trip to Eastern Europe and offers his spin on the history surrounding the Yalta Conference and the end of World War II:
***My Comments:
During his recent trip to Europe, when he wasn't telling Vladimir Putin how to preside over Russia, he retold one of the biggest lies of the 20th century. He apologized for the Yalta agreement that handed, as he said, eastern Europe over to Soviet domination. Because one can hardly expect the president to read history books, one supposes that he does not realize that the serious studies of the Yalta conference reject that analysis. It's a Republican big lie that has become true because of 60 years of fervent repetition. It is still a lie, however -- just like the claim in a New York Times article that the big powers had "carved up" Europe at Yalta.
The Yalta meeting occurred in February 1945. Consider a map of Europe at that time, such as the one opposite Page 246 of Max Hasting's book Armageddon. By February 1945, Marshals Zukov and Konev were about to cross the Oder River, which was well inside Germany (and is now the border between Germany and Poland). It had occupied or surrounded every Eastern European capital except Prague. Stalin obtained nothing at the Yalta agreements that he had not already captured.
Despite President's Bush's willingness to accept American responsibility for Soviet occupation of Europe, this remains the Republican big lie of the 1940s: A senile President Roosevelt had given Poland and the Baltic countries over to Stalin.
Roosevelt was not at his best at Yalta. He still thought he could "get along with Stalin." However, there was nothing much he could do to extirpate the Red Army from those or any other countries they occupied except drive them out by brute force.
***
Thus, Bush's "apology" was valid only if he believes that the United States should have driven the Red Army out of Germany (a geographically necessary first step) and then out of Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia (and Ukraine, for good measure). How many millions more would have died on both sides in this continuation of the war?
Why did no one ask President Bush if he would have gone to war with the Soviet Union in 1945? He could have used the Iraq excuse: to rid the world of a monstrous dictator. Like the Iraq conflict, such a war between the United States and Russia might have continued for a long time. Indeed, it might still be going on. Our cities would be in ruins. Most of us would be dead and many of us would never have been born.
[I want to think about this a little - I'll come back here and offer my comments later]
UPDATE:
See Rick Lugari's comments. Since I agree, I'll let them speak for me. But I will say three things.
First, the Soviets were indeed wrong to occupy Eastern Europe at the end of World War II. They were ostensibly our "allies" during that conflict. So, if our allies did something wrong, why shouldn't we apologize for their actions, and for our allowing those actions to occur unchecked? Greeley apparently had no problems with the late Holy Father John Paul II apologizing for all sundry of things that were done by "allies" of the Church. And I can guarantee you that Greeley would not object to the American government apologizing for things done during the 1970s and 1980s by our "allies" in Central and South America. In short, Greeley is a lefty hypocrite who is shilling for the socialist Roosevelt and the Communist Stalin.
Second, Greeley sets up a false dichotomy: (1) acquiese in the Soviet colonization of Eastern Europe or (2) go to war with them to force them out of Eastern Europe. How about condemning their actions? Couldn't Roosevelt at least have done that at Yalta?
And third, military action wouldn't necessarily have meant sending American troops against Soviet troops, as we proved in the Pacific just 3 months after the victory in Europe was secured.
posted by Pro Ecclesia 10:27 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
This is quite easy. Greeley is doing what liberals do best; build a case based on the desired outcome, rather than follow facts to the truth.
First of all, just because Mr. Greeley states that “serious studies of the Yalta conference reject that analysis”, doesn’t make it so. Whose serious studies? I’ve read “serious studies” that affirm that Eastern Europe was sold out at Yalta, and the notion stands to stands to reason given the subsequent actions of the US. Churchill (who for some unknown reason) admired FDR and apparently rather childishly didn’t like “sharing” FDR with Stalin at Yalta, but he was very troubled about the meeting, because of FDR’s sellout. After all Stalin wasn’t a direct threat to the US at the time, but the UK certainly was close enough to have to worry about him.
Remember too, that it was FDR who empowered Stalin during the war with the Lend-Lease Act. It was a very pragmatic strategy, which embodied the logic, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. The strategy was utilitarian in nature (if we credit FDR as not being somewhat accepting of Communism, which I think he was), and it was helpful to our efforts. However, in my opinion it was not wise (hindsight being 20/20) or necessary. A case could be made that Hitler would have still had as many or more resources tied up in the east had he been making great progress there. Hitler had even commented that occupation was more trying than conquest. If you intend on keeping the land you take, you will need to fill it with your forces and there is still never any “peace” because of resistance movements.
General Patton knew damn well what happened at Yalta and the looming threat to the west. He made it quite clear that he thought he should march on to Moscow and get it over with while we could still do it. The fact that Patton was ordered to stand down and cease advancing for the admitted purpose of allowing the Soviets to take not only a great portion of Eastern Europe, but important sectors of Germany as well, give much credence to the notion that FDR sold out Eastern Europe.
It’s important not to forget that it was the invasion of Poland that was the official start of the war. Stalin was in on that action with Hitler. Stalin should never have been given any support by our nation in the first place, let alone being rewarded for being the murderous bastard that he was.
So in response to “Father” Greeley, I would say:
Don’t knock Bush as being ignorant, he probably didn’t write the speech anyway. However, as president he and his staff have access to a lot more confidential information about what really happened at Yalta than you do.
The Soviets weren’t as great of a power as you suppose and they very well could have been forced out (as stated the contrary was the case…they were handed over a great deal more).
Bush would not have been alone in viewing the Soviets as a threat and could reasonably held Patton’s position that the Soviets are a threat that need to be dealt with immediately while we were equipped and in a position to take care of them.
Frankly, you’re an idiot. Had we gone to war with the Soviet Union in ’45, the war would not be still going on (it was inaction that led to the Cold War which lasted 50+ years) and our cities would not be in ruins. There is no way in Hell that the theatre of operations would have come to the US. It most certainly would have been confined to Eastern Europe and parts of Asia. If you’re thinking about nuclear war, you’re still an idiot, because the Soviets didn’t have nuclear weapons, not would they have ever succeeded in building one had we done the right thing at the time.
How’s that for a rant? ;)
And another thing that proves Greeley dead wrong:
From the Free Republic article,Russian President Vladimir Putin's government recently angered Poland by saying it should be grateful for the Yalta treaty, which consigned Poland to the Soviet sphere for decades. If there was no sellout, perhaps Greeley should inform Soviets too. Putin obviously doesn't read "serious studies" of history either.
Who reads this guy, anyway? Has he ever been right on anything?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home