FDR’s Failure Not Forgotten

Human Events ^ | May 13, 2005 | Arnold Beichman

[lizol]

Yalta Condemned Millions to Tyranny

FDR’s Failure Not Forgotten

by Arnold Beichman Posted May 13, 2005

Earlier this week Vladimir Putin celebrated in Moscow the end of World War II and glorified—yes, glorified—the memory of Josef Stalin, one of the great mass murderers of all time. So much for Putin and what he calls his “managed democracy.” President Bush, on the other hand, celebrated the historic date differently. He had the courage to speak truth to power in a once-captive nation, Latvia, which along with Estonia and Lithuania, had suffered for half a century under a Soviet dictatorship.

Bush told the truth about the closing conference of World War II held at Yalta, a conference that turned Eastern and Central Europe into an annex of the Soviet Gulag. He described the results of Yalta as “one of the greatest wrongs of history.” He could have added that Yalta represents one of the most depressing chapters, one of the lowest points, in the history of American diplomacy.

Bush never mentioned the name of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. But it was FDR who accepted the Soviet-dictated partition of the European continent and thus legitimized the enslavement of the peoples of East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. In agreeing to Stalin’s Bolshevik imperialism, FDR told William C. Bullitt, a confidante: “I think that if I give him [Stalin] everything I possibly can without demanding anything in return then, noblesse oblige, he will not attempt to annex anything and will work to build a peaceful and democratic world.” Noblesse oblige, indeed! FDR, by a process of self-corruption, blinded himself to the realities of Stalin’s Great Terror. He ignored written, documented warnings from State Department Soviet experts such as Loy W. Henderson, a longtime career diplomat and one of the principal architects of 20th-Century U.S. diplomacy. He preferred the lying reportage of Walter Duranty, the New York Times correspondent in Moscow, and the scandalous pro-Soviet reports from his ambassador in Moscow, Joseph E. Davies. This is the Davies, a wealthy corporation lawyer, who in 1946 actually preached treason, to wit: “Russia in self-defense has every moral right to seek atomic-bomb secrets through military espionage if excluded from such information by her former fighting allies.” (“Davies Says Soviet Has Right to Spy,” the New York Times, Feb. 19, 1946, Page 2.)

Roosevelt was as determined to recognize the USSR as he was to ignore the openly avowed purposes of the Communist International. As late as 1953, George Kennan wrote that the United States “should never have established de jure relations with the Soviet government.” Yet FDR, with willful ignorance, embarked on a recognition policy without seeking an enforceable quid pro quo. By the time FDR realized he had failed at Yalta, it was too late to do anything about it. On March 23, 1945, 19 days before he died, Roosevelt confided to Anna Rosenberg: “Averell [Harriman] is right. We can’t do business with Stalin. He has broken every one of the promises he made at Yalta.” In other words, FDR had actually believed that Stalin would keep his promises and treaty engagements.

Watching what was going on during and after the war, Kennan deplored “the inexcusable ignorance about the nature of Russian communism, about the history of its diplomacy.” He wrote in 1960: “I mean by that FDR’s well-known conviction that, although Stalin was a rather difficult character, he was at bottom a man like everyone else; that the only reason why it had been difficult to get on with him in the past was because there was no one with the right personality, with enough imagination and trust to deal with him properly; that the arrogant conservatives in the Western capitals had always bluntly rejected him, and that his ideological prejudices would melt away and Russian cooperation with the West could easily be obtained, if only Stalin was exposed to the charm of a personality of FDR’s caliber.” Roosevelt’s last year was a tragedy for the country and for the post-war world. He was, as a book title had it, a dying President. Roosevelt failed the American people. The Dying President by Robert H. Ferrell contains sensational revelations about FDR’s health, all hidden from the American people. A dying President came to Yalta and helped condemn millions of Europeans to death or imprisonment at the hands of the Soviet secret police.

“When powerful governments negotiated,” said Bush, “the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable.”

Never again.

[agitator]

FDR was probably the worst president this country has ever had.

[Mach9]

No mention of Ehlenaw's connections and leanings.

[SamAdams76]

Stalin was able to put himself in position to make such demands because for the first several years of the war, it was the Russian Army that was chewing up the Germans while the Brits and the U.S. approached the war with Germany very cautiously and from mostly a defensive posture. It wasn't until 1943 that the U.S. and Britain finally landed any troops of significance and that was in North Africa. Once established in North Africa, they had opportunity to quickly run up the boot of Italy and take over the Aegean Sea, bringing Turkey into the war (which would have further dispersed Hitler's troops), but stagnation set in as the focus went to Overlord (the invasion of France) even though it was still a good number of months away. As U.S. and British troops stalled south of Rome, Churchill and Roosevelt actually pulled troops and much-needed LSTs out of the Mediterranean theatre so that they could sit, unused, in British ports until such time Overlord was set to begin. Churchill and Roosevelt did this in order to satisfy Stalin, who was constantly badgering them for the invasion of France.

Why was Stalin doing this? Because he knew that if we fully exploited our opportunities in the Mediterranean, we would have brought the war with Germany to a much quicker end and it would have been U.S. and British troops getting to Berlin instead of the Russians. That would have changed the situation at Yalta completely.

Stalin even went so far as to demand 1/3 of the captured Italian Navy to be delivered to him in February of 1944 even though the ships were useless to him at the time and would have been very much useful to the Americans and British in the Mediterranean. To satisfy Stalin's demands, they actually sent British and American warships to him, where they sat in port when the very important Mediterranean operations were being carried out.

If you want to see how badly Churchill and Roosevelt were cowed by Stalin, just read the telegrams that went back and forth between them during this time.

[EagleUSA]

FDR was a hard socialist that pandered to evil powers. Putin is a communist who panders to the "free" world while now and then, showing his REAL colors, while Bush lauds and fights for the freedom of OTHER COUNTRIES while deliberately sacrificing the soverignty and culture of his own country.

The last REAL AMERICAN, who cared about America FIRST, to sit in the Oval office, was Reagan. I am not sure if we will ever see another one.

[ken5050]

I am no fan of FDR's and what the US did at Yalta was deplorable, but the real story has yet to be told, IMHO..to wit..was FDR mentally aware of what was happenign at Yalta, or did Soviet moles in the administration really run the government the last few months. The Dems lied during the 44 nomination and campaign..he was NOT well enough to run again.but in those days, it was a lot easier to conceal..Fortunately, they dumped Wallace from the ticket...can you imagine had he become president? But iunike Wilson, whose wife ran the country during his illness..FDR was estranged from Eleanor, because of his infidelity..she had not slept in the WH for over 6 months..so who had control of him, his health, meals, meds, moods...? WE were lucky..

[lizol]

As far as I know - it was Churchill who wanted to attack Europe from the East not from the West (as you're writing).

If it was done that way - the fate of Poland an all the Eastern European countries would had been probably absolutlely different, than it was in fact.

[lizol]

Oooops - "from the East" = "from the South".

There were other fellows, who attacked from teh East.

[az wildkitten]

I agree entirely with your analysis.

[SamAdams76]

That certainly was Churchill's intent and he deserves credit for that. There was contant friction between Churchill and Roosevelt over operations that Churchill wanted to run in the Mediterranean. But based on Churchill's papers (which I have studied extensively), he was definitely intimidated by Stalin and he allowed Roosevelt to overrule his better judgment constantly. To be fair to Churchill, he did not have the absolute power of Stalin and Roosevelt. Churchill had many in his own government who disagreed with him and overruled him. But the bottom line is that Stalin bullied Churchill constantly and usually got his way. For example, Churchill was forced to run convoys to northern Russian ports despite the fact that these convoys were sitting ducks for the Germans. Some of those convoys lost 90% of their ships! But Churchill ran them anyway and a good portion of the British Navy had to be employed as escorts.

[sgtbono2002]

Despite many efforts by FDR people to deny it, I will always say that FDR set up the United States at Pearl Harbor.

[Fudd Fan]

Amen (well one of the top 5)

[kitkat]

As much as I loved Reagan, he didn't have to fight terrorists who killed 3,000 innocent people on 9/11. Bush gathers in allies around the globe to help us in our fight. Or would you rather that he just close our borders and ignore all the Mid-Eastern and European countries who cooperate with the terrorists to destroy us?

[ken5050]

Thanks..one always enjoys confirmation of one's brillance..(g).It IS curious, at the least, that the iconic Dem presidents of the 20th century..Wilson, FDR, and JFK, and Clinton..ALL had major concealed health issues..

[GretchenM]

He [FDR] ignored written, documented warnings from State Department Soviet experts such as Loy W. Henderson [among others] ...

Knowing the forcefulness of Churchill's convictions on the subject, his access to FDR's ear, and WSC's own strong statements about his repeated efforts to stop FDR from giving Eastern Europe to Uncle Joe, I have to wonder how FDR could have pressed on to do what he did. Where was his conscience? He had lots of time to think about this.

I don't see how the assessment that FDR was wrong could be chalked up to massive 20/20 hindsight. There were far too many signs of Stalin's intractability and designs, which FDR dealt with constantly, once Russia became our "ally."

[nathanbedford]

Sam, I think a look at a topographical map will illustrate why the underbelly of Europe was not "soft". That means to me that we could not fight through Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia, or Turkey to physically get into the eastern theatre with any force which could hope to have altered the remorseless march of the red army. Our experience in Italy and Britain's in Greece certainly supports that view.

I have always taken Churchill's side in the argument about keeping landing craft in the Med to do all the mischief they could right up to the last minute before D-day. Of course, that also implies that Churchill strategic conception of fighting where we could, in North Africa and throughout the Med, was the most realistic way we could contribute and relieve the hard pressed Soviets until the spring of '44.

I do not accept the posts that we did less than we might have before D-day. The problem was logistics. We had to operate across a submarine infested ocean and deliver enough petrol to engage a fearsome enemy operating on interior lines. To illustrate the difficulty of managing that maritime logistics problem, I amplify your remark that we suffered 90% losses in one convoy which led to the suspension of all convoys for almost a year. A fact which many who like to belittle the Soviet's massive effort are usually ignorant of. We had to win the Battle of the Atlantic first. Then we could gain the shore but then only at places which offered no chance to interdict the remorseless onrush of communism.

[SamAdams76]

As much as I loved Reagan, he didn't have to fight terrorists who killed 3,000 innocent people on 9/11.

But he did have the opportunity to fight terrorists who killed 200+ Marines in Beirut during 1983 with that truck boming. As much as I also admire Reagan, I will always have a chip on my shoulder about that. We should have cleaned up that mess then and there and perhaps 9/11 would never have happened.

I don't say that either, as some sort of armchair general, sitting on the sidelines. I was a U.S. Marine at the time of the Beirut bombing and I was fully prepared to go over there and put my own life on the line to kick some terrorist butt. I'll never forget the disappointment that myself and my Marine buddies felt when that callup never came.

[EagleUSA]

Or would you rather that he just close our borders and ignore all the Mid-Eastern and European countries who cooperate with the terrorists to destroy us?
-----
This is an interesting question. What has closing our borders, if that is the solution to our BORDER CRISIS, have to do with our allies? Are the illegal Mexicans, possible terrorists, and other criminals, that are crossing our borders OUR ALLIES???

Sorry. No Bush-bot here -- just a realist. And anyone who tries to rationalize Bush's attitude toward open borders is ignoring the real issues as Bush is.

[avile]

CORRECT . IT WAS CALLED THE BACK DOOR PLAN THROUGH THE BALKANS

[Spirited]

"it was FDR who accepted the Soviet-dictated partition of the European continent and thus legitimized the enslavement of the peoples of East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. In agreeing to Stalin’s Bolshevik imperialism, FDR told William C. Bullitt, a confidante: “I think that if I give him [Stalin] everything I possibly can without demanding anything in return then, noblesse oblige, he will not attempt to annex anything and will work to build a peaceful and democratic world.”

A revelation of either morbid stupidity and/or manifest ignorance of the highest magnitude for that individual to have even imagined this. It means that he did not know the culture, the nature or the cunning of his enemy and he stubbornly ignored those who did give him valid advice because he thought he knew better.

Lot's of FDR lovers insist he was sick and was being "led". History will show that his own socialist belief system and elitism did not allow him to believe that anyone else could understand better than he did the nature of the enemy.

He loved "Uncle Joe" (and felt anything socialist couldn't be bad) and that had everything to do with what transpired. History is revealing that Uncle Joe despised him and had him pegged for exactly the fool he was.

This was a categorical betrayal of the first magnitude and that is one reason why Bush needed (for the sake of this Nation) to show repentance on our part.