I Cogitate

Recent Posts My Best Blogs Archives Favorite Quotes Links Contact
May 11, 2005

Yalta Schmalta

Like me, do you keep waiting for President Bush's pants to combust when he opens his mouth?

It's like he is incapable of either telling the truth or of understanding the 'big picture' enough to accurately present it. Or could it be that reality, as it does so often, is just too messy, facts get in the way and are, well, biased.

Here is an are excerpt from a Jacob Heilbruun commentary in today's Los Angeles Times on President Bush's recent comments on World War II and Eastern Europe:
May 10, 2005
COMMENTARY
Once Again, the Big Yalta Lie
By Jacob Heilbrunn, Jacob Heilbrunn is a Times editorial writer.

During his visit to the Baltics over the weekend, President Bush infuriated Russian leader Vladimir V. Putin by declaring the obvious: that the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe was "one of the greatest wrongs of history." But it was what he said next ­ comparing the Yalta accord among Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin in 1945 to the Hitler-Stalin pact ­ that should cause outrage here at home.

The claim that Roosevelt betrayed Eastern Europe at Yalta, and that he set the stage for 40 years of Soviet domination, is an old right-wing canard. By repeating it, and by publicly charging that the Yalta agreement was in the "unjust tradition" of Hitler's deal with Stalin, Bush was simply engaging in cheap historical revisionism. His glib comments belong to the Ann Coulter school of history.

The slander against Roosevelt that Bush has taken up dates back to the early 1950s, after Harry Truman and Dean Acheson had supposedly "lost" China to communism. That's when the American right first decried what it viewed as a consistent pattern of "appeasement" in the Democratic Party. The right contended that Roosevelt "sold out" Eastern Europe at the Yalta conference by promising the Soviets an unchallenged sphere of influence in the region...

...The truth is that Yalta did not hand Eastern Europe to the Soviets. That territory was already in their possession. Stalin had made clear his plan to take over as much territory as possible back in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939, which carved Poland in half and gave the Soviets the Baltic states. The discovery in 1943 of the massacre of Polish officers by the Soviet army in the Katyn forest was further evidence of Stalin's malign intention to exterminate the leadership of Poland. Then, in 1944, during the Warsaw uprising by the Polish Home Army, Stalin halted the advance of his army on the banks of the Vistula River and allowed Nazi SS units to return to slaughter the Poles. By the time of Yalta, the Red Army occupied all of Poland and much of Eastern Europe.

Theoretically, Churchill and Roosevelt could have refused to cut any deal with Stalin at Yalta. But that could have started the Cold War on the spot. It would have seriously jeopardized the common battle against Germany (at a moment when Roosevelt was concerned with winning Soviet assent to help fight the Japanese, which he received).

Supreme Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower was happy to let the Soviets bear the brunt of the fighting as they marched toward Berlin, and he was unwilling to expend American troops on storming the German capital. The only one who was eager to do that was Gen. George Patton, who hoped to take on the Russians as well. Given the domestic pressure to "bring the boys back home," Roosevelt would have been taking a politically suicidal course had he broken with our allies, the Soviets.

Roosevelt was hardly perfect at Yalta. He was naive about Stalin's intentions and believed he could cajole the dictator into following more moderate policies. But FDR's approach was not particularly different from that of Churchill (who had declared that he would "sup with the devil" to win the war, which is what he and Roosevelt, in effect, did).
Okay, President Bush. Let's order China out of Tibet this very moment. Put a vise-grip on Hu Jintao and squeeze until that Commie pleads for mercy. What's that? Yep, revoke the most-favored nation trade status for those Reds. You mean to tell me you haven't done that already? And tell 'em hands off of Taiwan. If they squawk, put the fear of God in them with the threat that you'll hunt them down 'til rounded up dead or alive.

Then let's go after Pervez Musharraf's
military dictatorship in Pakistan. We certainly can't prop up such an non-democratic dictator because, you know, beacon of liberty, God's freedom, and all that stuff you've been promoting lately. Especially after his top scientist, A Q Khan sold nuclear secrets to other bad guys that threaten us. Certainly nothing could possibly deter you from bringing this iron fister to justice, right? A guy who is protecting someone more dangerous than Osama? Nab his outlaw buddy while you're at it--go for the twofer.

Now, Uzbekistan (what is it with these -stan countries?) has got to change. This guy, president-for-life Islam Karimov, seems to prefer his subjects boiled medium well in water. Well, George,
you had him over for a meet-and-greet at the White House in 2002. Did you read him the riot act? He's still putting his 'favorites' on the barbie. I know, I know, that air base he lets us maintain there sure might be helpful but just what is your strategery Bushman?

Now this one should be a piece of cake. Good ol' Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Yes Mr. Wahhabism himself. When do we start bombing? The invasion commences when? Well, just what is going on? I  saw you holding hands with one of his ambassadors at the ranch in Crawford the other day. I fully expected you to whip him into a full nelson until he begged for mercy. Instead you two were talking about flowers like some girlymen. I'm flummoxed. 15 of Abdullah's countrymen were in that bunch that destroyed the Twin Towers and killed 3,000 people in New York and you're rubbing palms with one of his flunkies?

What's that? All I'm hearing is sputtering ifs, ands and buts. That doesn't sound like you President Bush. Strong, steadfast, no nuance or shades of gray in your beliefs or actions, as far from being a moral relativist as imaginable, is what we're told you are.

Tell us again.


top

RSS feed link RSS feed

Recent Posts My Best Blogs Archives Favorite Quotes Links Contact