The shame of Yalta (1 Viewer)

[Poppo]

The Yalta meeting was a shame for the US and GB and for Europe in general: This important meeting made by the allied was a clear Stalin victory. The democracies lost and the sovietic bloody criminal dictator who is Stalin won. We have to say that Churchill made a fierce but invain opposition to the russian dicator , Great Britain was not important enough to stop Stalin' s hunger; Roosvelt was already very sick and weak and put no opposition to the shameful sharing of Europe.
So, we can not say that the US and allies freed Europe from nazism....They only freed HALF Europe as the other HALF was left in Stalin' s bloody hands. Democratic countrys like the baltic countries( Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) and Poland who got their independence from Russia after WW1, Romania, Moldova, Checkoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria were left to the red terror....After WW2 most of their citizens were expropriated and deported in Siberia, their ruling class and intellectuals killed or put in sovietic prisons; their economy destroyed( as if the war hadn' t been cruel enough in the east!!); their culture cancelled, even children were obliged to speak russian at school and forbidden to speak their mother language, and so on...
So the liberation of Europe is just a lie! We can speak only of the liberation of HALF Europe( west Europe) and the start of slavery for the other HALF.
So Yalta was not a "happy friend' s meeting" like someone can think watching some photos.

 

[Jack]

The Yalta meeting was a shame for the US and GB and for Europe in general: This important meeting made by the allied was a clear Stalin victory. The democracies lost and the sovietic bloody criminal dictator who is Stalin won. We have to say that Churchill made a fierce but invain opposition to the russian dicator , Great Britain was not important enough to stop Stalin' s hunger; Roosvelt was already very sick and weak and put no opposition to the shameful sharing of Europe.
So, we can not say that the US and allies freed Europe from nazism....They only freed HALF Europe as the other HALF was left in Stalin' s bloody hands. Democratic countrys like the baltic countries( Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) and Poland who got their independence from Russia after WW1, Romania, Moldova, Checkoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria were left to the red terror....After WW2 most of their citizens were expropriated and deported in Siberia, their ruling class and intellectuals killed or put in sovietic prisons; their economy destroyed( as if the war hadn' t been cruel enough in the east!!); their culture cancelled, even children were obliged to speak russian at school and forbidden to speak their mother language, and so on...
So the liberation of Europe is just a lie! We can speak only of the liberation of HALF Europe( west Europe) and the start of slavery for the other HALF.
So Yalta was not a "happy friend' s meeting" like someone can think watching some photos.

There is much in what you say, although as a history educator it has always fascinated me that every text book I have ever used lists as one of the causes of WW2 the absence of the US from world affairs in the twenties and thirties. The same books would then gleefully list the dangers of US intervention in the post 1945 world. I have recently read the expression 'I do not have a dog in this fight' and loved it so I am determined to use it regularly. As an Australian I do not have a dog in this fight, but it is difficult to criticise the US for failing to fight Stalin - and that's what it would have taken - without assigning them the role of world policeman. They have made errors as we all have, but I for one am grateful that I enjoy the fruits of the American Century. If Latvia (I use this as an example plucked from the list without any intent on my part) was a US responsibility, so was/is Tibet, so is Burma, so are Chinese Christians, so are Iraquis, so are...You are from Europe Poppo so are entitled to feel it more strongly than me who has been blessed with a homeland that did not suffer invasion, but the blame for Russian atrocities must, in the first instance, at least, been laid at the feet of the Russians themselves. It may have been a sin of ommission by the US, but for the Russians, it was a sin of commission.

Interested in your thoughts, but for me an academic discussion for which I feel no 'heat' as it were.

Regards

Jack

 

[jazzeum]

What you say is true -- only half of Europe was liberated -- but the reality is that even with a vital Roosevelt and a Roosevelt not taken in by Stalin, what could the Allies have done? Very little. The reality of the situation was that the Russians were in control of Eastern Europe and short of going to war with them -- extremely unlikely -- there was nothing we could do.

 

[Poppo]

There is much in what you say, although as a history educator it has always fascinated me that every text book I have ever used lists as one of the causes of WW2 the absence of the US from world affairs in the twenties and thirties. The same books would then gleefully list the dangers of US intervention in the post 1945 world. I have recently read the expression 'I do not have a dog in this fight' and loved it so I am determined to use it regularly. As an Australian I do not have a dog in this fight, but it is difficult to criticise the US for failing to fight Stalin - and that's what it would have taken - without assigning them the role of world policeman. They have made errors as we all have, but I for one am grateful that I enjoy the fruits of the American Century. If Latvia (I use this as an example plucked from the list without any intent on my part) was a US responsibility, so was/is Tibet, so is Burma, so are Chinese Christians, so are Iraquis, so are...You are from Europe Poppo so are entitled to feel it more strongly than me who has been blessed with a homeland that did not suffer invasion, but the blame for Russian atrocities must, in the first instance, at least, been laid at the feet of the Russians themselves. It may have been a sin of ommission by the US, but for the Russians, it was a sin of commission.

Interested in your thoughts, but for me an academic discussion for which I feel no 'heat' as it were.

Regards

Jack

I understand your point Jack, and I agree with you about the US not caring so much of eastern Europe, they felt no 'heat' as you say!(even if WW2 started because of the Poland invasion!). Moreover, the US didn' t want to take risks to start a war with Russia during that delicate moment and made a choice of " real politic". And of course, as you say, the real responability is Russian.... Unfortunately, We haven' t had a "Nurenberg" trial for the sovietic criminals who left their killing activities and started a normal life. The reason is that Russia is still a dictature ( their chiefs are from KGB!)..And these kind of people are not really ready to turn the page (+ also most russian people consider nowadays Stalin as a great man!) As you say, I am sensible on this point as I spend a lot of time in east Europe,I appreciate those people and I visited their museums about communist' s crimes. And I can tell you that for ex. Poland or Latvia put on the same level the nazi occupation and the communist " liberation".....With the difference that germans stayed 3 years, and Soviets 45!

 

[Poppo]

What you say is true -- only half of Europe was liberated -- but the reality is that even with a vital Roosevelt and a Roosevelt not taken in by Stalin, what could the Allies have done? Very little. The reality of the situation was that the Russians were in control of Eastern Europe and short of going to war with them -- extremely unlikely -- there was nothing we could do.

Yes, exact

 

[TomNT]

Good thread Poppo and good post Jack. Another thing to consider is that the UK was virtually bankrupt from the war and the U.S. as mighty as it was, would not have wanted to start another war with Russia. There is also the "guilt" factor to consider from the Western Allies as they knew Russia had bore the brunt of Germany and had suffered huge losses. I also believe the Allies had promised a second front earlier than the DDay landings but had to postpone. All these factors could have had a bearing on allowing Stalin to get what he wanted.

Tom

 

[MapleLeaf]

Din't Patton wanted to keep going all the way to Moscow ??
Maybe they should have let him.

 

[Jack]

Din't Patton wanted to keep going all the way to Moscow ??
Maybe they should have let him.

Marching on Moscow has not traditionally been a good addition to a general's career summary{sm4}, but Patton would certainly not have lacked the confidence.
Seriously though - you would have American graveyards stretching form Normandy to central Russia. It would have been a tragedy for the Free World.

 

[larso]

Certain 'war lover' types have always bemoaned that the US didn't strike the Soviets and liberate the East from Communism. Perhaps there would've been no Cold War (and the mess that brought to many places) but aside from the deaths, it would've been an unforgivable betrayal of the people who did so much to defeat Nazism.

 

[lancer]

There was never going to be a conflict with the USSR right after the end of the war with Germany. It would have been impossible to justify to the US people, especially with the war against Japan still in progress. How would the US have justified such action against the Ally that just sacrificed so much to defeat the plague that was Nazism? There is also the fact that the Soviet Army was an immensly strong and huge force. To overcome it through use of conventional warfare would have been prohibitively costly, if it could have even been done, which I doubt. The USSR had just defeated the most professional army in the world, and I don't believe that anyone in the Western alliance who might be advocating a move against the Soviets had any idea just how good the Soviets were. Short of atomic weapons, there was no real alternative to what resulted, and atomic weapons were not an option. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

good topic but, have to agree with everyone that there was never going to be any conflict between western allies and the soviets. Yalta was a meeting where Stalin basically lied about what he really planned and Churchill and Roosevelt accepted him for his word. Churchill made comment of the gullability of chamberlin in terms of his dealings with Hitler but, had the same wool pulled over his eyes by Stalin as Chamberlin had earlier.

Potsdam was the place where the western leaders could have, and should have, made more forceful demands but, with new leaders and, an eye still on the pacific area much, was again given to the russians. There was a dislike of the russians and a distrust of them but, the savagery and death toll they had faced did restrain many leaders and politicians from being as firm as they should have. Though how effective these means would have been is open to conjecture
Mitch

 

[Sentaapua]

Interesting discussion. The fact is that the outcome was the only one possible. All US & GB top personnel involved (military, diplomats and politicians) knew what the soviet agenda was. After all, it was only a common enemy what united the west with Stalin, who had much more similarities than differences with that common enemy (don't forget they began as allies themselves so WWII could get kicked off). Churchill knew exactly what Stalin was up to, and was determined to fight against it, but he lack the means to call the bluff. He saw what was coming for Poland and letting it go was his major defeat... Roosevelt also knew what Stalin was up to, but at that stage his biggest concern was Japan, and he knew that he would need Russia to share the brunt to get the final job done in mainland Japan, if an invasion had to take place. He also had the A bomb, which he thought would be a major deterrent to Russia. Stalin played similarly to Hitler in the late 30’s testing the West’s will to challenge him. He knew the West was tired of 6 years of war, and he pushed the envelope as far as he could, while secretly racing the development of his nuclear capability. What the US was not expecting is that it would take the Russians only 4 years to fill that atomic gap, and thus consolidate their position in Eastern Europe. I side with those who believe that even if Roosevelt was in Potsdam, the immediate post-war politics wouldn't have differed so much. The soviets only got really daring and saucy after they had their A-bomb, and then we all know what happened.

 

[Larry Allen]

A great topic, Poppo, and wonderful conversation going on, with a lot of valid comments that I agree with.

My 2 Cents ……

Looking at the Yalta conference and its aftermath viewed from 2012 is different when you position yourself back to 1945. The US ALMOST did have a standing army in 1941. It passed by (?one) vote in Congress. The US was bent on isolating itself from European affairs and wanted NO part in their political or military interactions .

The sting of WWI was still very fresh in the hearts and minds of most American citizens. We didn’t want to go to war in 1941 over countries that (I would guess) many Americans never knew much about. In fact, if you look at the newsreels, many Americans supported Germany’s new government. (Lindberg!)

After December 7th, 1941 we wanted to destroy Japan and her military forces, not Hitler’s or Stalin’s. WHY HITLER declared war on the US is still unclear but he did and (pardon the pun) the rest is history,

At Yalta, Roosevelt and Churchhill “thought” that the Stalin agreed with their political positioning on post-war Europe (mostly Poland) AND Stalin thought they agreed with his view.

For an interesting documentary see “A World at War”, episode 24, “The BOMB”. It has a very interesting discussion of Yalta and who thought what after the meetings.

Heck, Truman almost started WWIII with Russia, shortly after he was sworn in following Roosevelt’s death when he met with Vyacheslav Molotov and he told him point blank that he and the Russians were Liars!

I think to look back at Yalta, now and say who was Right or Wrong is like an expression here in the US, “You are Monday morning Quarterbacking”

Larry

 

[theBaron]

I have to disagree with the argument that there would not have been a conflict between the US and the USSR eventually. The immediate postwar history proves that statement incorrect.

The Soviets followed a strategy that was informed by two main sources, their history as inheritors of Russia's traditional position, and their position as the main Communist power on the planet. There are conflicts between these two sources, to be sure, but there is a lot of overlap in the moves that flow from them. For example, the natural Russian inclination to push their European frontiers as far to the north, west and south as possible coincides with their direction, via the Commintern, of the Communist parties in Western Europe (and the rest of the world).

Also, the idea of returning to isolationism, at least in the form it took from 1919 to 1941. Roosevelt certainly intended that we'd take a more active role on the world stage than we had, including participating instead of choosing not to, as we had with the League of Nations. It was also intended that the UN framework would help bind any potential aggressor, such as the Soviets, through the collective action of the other members of the Security Council, marshalling and directing the efforts of the broader general membership.

Another factor to consider is that Great Britain was no longer able, after 2 world wars, to maintain the position she had held as a power that help discourage aggression and that could mediate between other powers. She handed that role off to the US in the Greek crisis of '48, I believe it was.

There was going to be conflict between the US and the USSR, eventually.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Mitch]

Larry..

Great point about Hitler declaring war on the US. Its debatable that had he not there would have been as was seen in the times a good sized proportion of the population who would have been against US intervention in the european conflict and focus heavily on what was seen as ''their war''

Hitler solved a difficult issue for Churchill in another absurd political and military decision
Mitch

A great topic, Poppo, and wonderful conversation going on, with a lot of valid comments that I agree with.

My 2 Cents ……

Looking at the Yalta conference and its aftermath viewed from 2012 is different when you position yourself back to 1945. The US ALMOST did have a standing army in 1941. It passed by (?one) vote in Congress. The US was bent on isolating itself from European affairs and wanted NO part in their political or military interactions .

The sting of WWI was still very fresh in the hearts and minds of most American citizens. We didn’t want to go to war in 1941 over countries that (I would guess) many Americans never knew much about. In fact, if you look at the newsreels, many Americans supported Germany’s new government. (Lindberg!)

After December 7th, 1941 we wanted to destroy Japan and her military forces, not Hitler’s or Stalin’s. WHY HITLER declared war on the US is still unclear but he did and (pardon the pun) the rest is history,

At Yalta, Roosevelt and Churchhill “thought” that the Stalin agreed with their political positioning on post-war Europe (mostly Poland) AND Stalin thought they agreed with his view.

For an interesting documentary see “A World at War”, episode 24, “The BOMB”. It has a very interesting discussion of Yalta and who thought what after the meetings.

Heck, Truman almost started WWIII with Russia, shortly after he was sworn in following Roosevelt’s death when he met with Vyacheslav Molotov and he told him point blank that he and the Russians were Liars!

I think to look back at Yalta, now and say who was Right or Wrong is like an expression here in the US, “You are Monday morning Quarterbacking”

Larry