Skip to comments.Defending Western history
Posted on 10/03/2013 7:56:56 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
Diana West, author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nations Character has been attacked, not from the Left but from prominent pundits who identify themselves as conservatives.
Why did the U.S. and Britain not prevent the totalitarian USSR from taking over Eastern Europe after it had defeated the totalitarian Nazis? Ronald Radosh wrote on frontpagemag.com. It had nothing to do with the Rubiks Cube of diplomatic and military considerations, a calculus that had to take into account the willingness of the American and British publics to continue to sacrifice and their soldiers to die. No, it was a conspiracy so immense, as Wests hero Joe McCarthy might have said, that it allowed Western policy to be dictated by a shadow army of Soviet agents. It is unfortunate that a number of conservatives who should know better have fallen for Wests fictions.
... In the State Department, while Alger Hiss would become the most notorious Soviet agent of the war years, he was far from going solo, M. Stanton Evans points out in a column on CNS news entitled In Defense of Diana West. According to a long concealed but now recovered report compiled by security officers of the State Department, there were at wars end no fewer than 20 identified agents such as Hiss on the payroll, plus 13 identified Communists and 90 other suspects and sympathizers serving with him.
Like the FBI report saying nearly every department of the Federal government was infiltrated by Communist apparatchiks, these staggering numbers from the State Department security force look suspiciously like the description of a de facto occupation given in Ms. Wests supposedly unhinged essay.
(Excerpt) Read more at academia.org ...
At [the] Tehran Conference:
Roosevelt says it would be better not to mention India when talking to Churchill, because he, Roosevelt, knows that Churchill has no thoughts concerning India. Churchill plans to postpone the solution of this problem till the end of the war.
Com[rade] Stalin says that India is a sore point for Churchill.
Roosevelt agrees. However, he says, Britain will have to do something about India. He, Roosevelt, hopes to discuss the problem of India with Marshal Stalin one day. He finds the parliamentary system of government to be unsuitable for India and it would be better to create something like the Soviet system in India, beginning from the bottom rather than from the top. Perhaps, that would be the system of Soviets.
Com. Stalin answers that to begin from the bottom would mean taking the revolutionary path. There are a lot of various nationalities and cultures in India. But there are no forces or groups capable of taking power in the country.
It would appear that Stalin had a lot more practical common sense than FDR. His analysis of what FDR was in his shallow vacuous way, proposing is correct and his realistic analysis of what the situation in India actually is reflects a lot more knowledge and sense than our esteemed leader. The West was very fortunate that Stalin's health went into a steep decline in the early 50’s. He was unlike any of these other totalitarians in his combination of ruthlessness, malevolence, cunning and clear sighted realism.
Don’t have the time to read this completely - or to do a bit of history lookup myself. What we do know is that the post WW-II actions of our gubmit allowed the soviets to roll over eastern Europe and bring them to a low level of life that even the Obamadork’s clueless idiocy cannot approach.....yet.
However, given the events of the past few months, it’s obvious that our State Department is not exactly peopled with the top of the line IQ types. Had they possessed intellilgence, morality, and cojones, they would have rebelled when led by such idiots as Hillary and Kerry/gigolo.
We’ve always known that the majority of the inmates there are inbred ivy-league types - few of which have the talent or initiative to create something useful and profitable. Hence, they go where they won’t feel outclassed mentally - the State Department.
After CW-II, we should thoroughly examine just how many of these useless - and potentially harmful - gatherings of liberal arts marshmallow slime modes that we need in order to successfully govern ourselves.
Patton had it right.
Its exactly what General Patton wanted to do.."get 'em while we can!"
We would have probably lost; at best it would have been a bloody stalemate. We had better aircraft, not that the Soviets didn’t have good aircraft themselves.
But the Soviets had better (and more) tanks and artillery. They had lots more troops than we did.
Maybe if we led with a nuke to Moscow we could have pulled it off.
Damn good question....
Another question is; WHY? was NOT communism and socialism made illegal and outlawed by the US Congress?.. (to this day)..
ALL KNEW it was a threat to Freedom and liberty.. private property and the individual..
and the anti-thesis of the US Constitution..
Must be WHY? the teachers UNIONS STOPPED teaching Civics and american history.. a couple of decades ago..
You Know..... Soooo the people would become TOO DUMB to do this..
These people, Hiss and friends, wielded great influence at State, and their legacy, in the form of appointments, hirings, and policies, is a poisonous gift that is still giving...
You might say that. Alger Hiss wrote the United Nation charter.
G. K. Chesterton wrote that purging the communists from the State Department presents no great challenge at all: “Simply abolish the jobs.”
But the Soviets had better (and more) tanks and artillery. They had lots more troops than we did.
No plane could match the P51 until the fifty’s...
AND Truman’s WHITE House was loaded with communists.. left over form FDR.. not to speak of the State Department..
Another gift that keeps on giving...
Stalin played the sick and dying FDR like a violin and Churchill basically went along.
And that's why he got killed.
***Why did the U.S. and Britain not prevent the totalitarian USSR from taking over Eastern Europe after it had defeated the totalitarian Nazis? ***
I have read that Churchill wanted the Western Allies to form an army, sweep up from the south and drive a wedge between the Russian and German armies, and take over the fight from Russia, to deny Russia control of Eastern Europe.
The plan was turned down.
***Patton had it right.***
My dad had a chance to get the ball rolling for Patton. He was with Patton’s army, and while trading items with the Russians, he insulted a Russian officer by offering a pack of cigarettes for the officer’s pistol.
The officer demanded a salute, my dad, a private, refused. The officer continued to demand a salute, my dad still refused and ignored the officer.
The officer continued to demand a salute when another private told my dad...”Shoot that son of a bitch!”
My dad chose not to shoot him and the incident was eventually defused.
My dad always felt we could have “taken the Russians then!”
The P-51 was probably better than the YaK-9, La-5 and La-7, but they were good matches and there were lots of them.
And, arguably, the Il-2 and Il-10 were better ground support aircraft than Typhoons and Thunderbolts. The Russians had great medium bombers, too.
Of course, the Russians had nothing to match our strategic bombers.
***We would have probably lost; at best it would have been a bloody stalemate.***
I have to agree. The Russians had moved their industry beyond the Ural mountains. we were still at war with Japan, Russia had a non-aggression pact with the Japs. What if they had come in on the side of the Japs!
Russia also had another army in reserve. What if they had thrown it against Alaska!
Think of a bombing raid with long range bombers against the Ural factories. Remember what happened at Stalingrad when the Germans attempted to resupply with aircraft? All but two were shot down.
***Like the FBI report saying nearly every department of the Federal government was infiltrated by Communist apparatchiks,****
Now it is moslems.
Given the thinking at the time, we might well have nuked the heck out of the Urals. Middle of nowhere — why not?
The Russians were more tired of war than anyone, I think. With atomic weapons, we could have taken out Stalin and the other leaders with no trouble. Negotiated peace would have been easy, IMO.
Why did the U.S. and Britain not prevent the totalitarian USSR from taking over Eastern Europe after it had defeated the totalitarian Nazis?
The goal was unconditional surrender, it was achieved.
“...Especially galling to West's critics is her contention that Washington in the war years was so riddled with Communists and Soviet agents as to be in effect an “occupied” city — an image that seems to have sparked the greatest anger and most denunciation of her thesis.
By using the “occupied” image, Ms. West is of course not saying Soviet tanks were patrolling the streets of Washington, or that Red martial law was imposed on its cowering citizens. What she is arguing instead is that Soviet agents, Communists and fellow travelers held official posts, or served at chokepoints of intelligence data, and from these positions were able to exert pro-Soviet leverage on U.S. and other allied policy. Though ignored in many conventional histories, the evidence to support this view is overwhelming.
It is for instance abundantly plain, from multiple sources of Cold War intel, that Communist/pro-Soviet penetration of the government under FDR was massive, numbering in the many hundreds.”
Morale would have been the #1 issue.
I think our bombers would have done fine. Russian fighters were optimized for lower altitudes and with P-51 escorts, they would have been able to make it.
The real question would have been range. I don’t know if we could have reached the Urals from German bases...
And, as someone else pointed out, morale would be a major issue.
From sources I have read, FDR sprang unconditional surrender at the Casablanca conference. Stalin termed it a policy designed to maximize the already horrendous Soviet losses. Churchill was said to be privately furious but went along so as not to cause a rift. Some historians estimate FDR’s unconditional surrender posture, based as FDR claimed on the tradition set in the terms offered by Grant to Lee at Appomattox, cost 100,000 lives, and many of those American GI.
From the joint press conference at the Casablanca conference:
“...we had a General called US Grant. His name was Ulysses Simpson Grant, but in my, and the Prime Minister’s, early days he was called ‘Unconditional Surrender’ Grant.”
Appomattox Court-House, Virginia April 9, 1865.
GENERAL: In accordance with the substance of my letter to you of the 8th instant, I propose to receive the surrender of the army of Northern Virginia on the following terms, to wit: Rolls of all the officers and men to be made in duplicate, one copy to be given to an officer to be designated by me, the other to be retained by such officer or officers as you may designate. The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the government of the United States until properly exchanged; and each company or regimental commander to sign a like parole for the men of their commands. The arms, artillery, and public property to be parked and stacked, and turned over to the officers appointed by me to receive them. This will not embrace the side-arms of the officers nor their private horses or baggage. This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside.
U. S. Grant, Lieutenant-General.”
And Grant was not contemplating the surrender of the Confederacy, just that of the Army of Northern Virginia. The above looks like terms of surrender to me.
Stalin ran circles around FDR, but he also had the advantage of having the Red Army occupying much of the area that later became the Soviet bloc. FDR made an attempt at Yalta to get better borders for Poland, but that seems to have been mainly because the Polish-American vote was concentrated in states with large electoral votes. Anyway, FDR and the establishment was almost entirely WASP (with a few Irish-Catholics like Joseph Kennedy). What did they care about Eastern Europeans?
It was a long hard war and EVERYONE was tired and tired of war. We can look back with a different perspective but if we were there and then, we would think the same.... The goal was unconditional surrender, it was achieved.
Not speak of the fact most had no idea what a communist was... or cared.. let alone a socialist.. or that communists ARE socialists..... as well as Nazi’s and Fascists.. who were also socialists.. AND democrats..
Pretty much like NOW!!...
Diana West is brilliant.
“What we do know is that the post WW-II actions of our gubmit allowed the soviets to roll over eastern Europe...”
Point of historical fact. The Soviets “rolled over” almost all of Eastern Europe during the war, not afterwards. Maybe you should have done a “bit of history lookup” before posting this.
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.