Skip to comments.When Presidents Stand Firm
Posted on 03/23/2014 11:44:25 PM PDT by No One Special
Leadership comes in many forms and with many levels of risk, but history gives us a few moments when leaders stood alone and were proven right.
In late June 1948 the Soviets cut all road, rail and water access to Berlin, a city controlled by the Western Allies yet surrounded by Soviet-controlled territories. The Soviets goal: take Berlin from the Allies by forcing the US-UK-French alliance into one of two options: try to protect a city of 2.1 million starving Germans, or war. The Soviets expected the West to surrender the city quickly.
The US was in the midst of a massive post-war downsizing of their military. These were the conditions within which President Truman had to make a decision.
Despite the urgings of the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, and other policy advisors, Truman stayed firm. Five months into the airlift, with the challenges of winter approaching, and just days from his re-election attempt, Truman reiterated his lone position: In Germany, we have taken the frank and firm position that communism must not spread its tentacles into the western zone. We shall not retreat from that position. We shall feed the people of Berlin.
In the end, Trumans can-do firmness led to airlift and air-traffic control advances. As soon as it was obvious the airlift would succeed through the winter, the Soviets began sending signals that they would be open to ending the blockade. After all, their industries were dependent on Western manufactured goods that were also blocked.
Thirty one years ago today another US president stood alone.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The resident will go to Europe, and he will: 1.)Give up the missile shield and, 2.) Promise to not open the Keystone pipeline in return for Russia to ‘stop’ their expansion. (until the Nov. elections)
Obama could never stand firm.
Obama could never stand firm.
> In late June 1948 the Soviets cut all road, rail and water access to Berlin, a city controlled by the Western Allies yet surrounded by Soviet-controlled territories. The Soviets goal: take Berlin from the Allies by forcing the US-UK-French alliance into one of two options: try to protect a city of 2.1 million starving Germans, or war. The Soviets expected the West to surrender the city quickly.
Truman was wrong to support the city, obviously what he did was provocative and led directly to Soviet responses elsewhere in the world. Had it not been for this ill-considered move, the USSR would not have felt alienated and scapegoated.
Yeah, I am joking. But there are FINOs who will agree with the above paragraph.
And of course, the a-hole Pitchfork Pat equated the Soviet blockade of Berlin with the Israeli “siege of Gaza”:
Thanks No One Special.
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.