Defending Western history

Accuracy in Academia ^ | October 2, 2013 | Malcolm A. Kline

[Academiadotorg]

Diana West, author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s 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 Rubik’s 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 West’s 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 West’s 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 war’s 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. West’s supposedly unhinged essay.”

[robowombat]

“Conversely, our own research in Soviet secret archives has led us to very similar conclusions about FDR and his administration, Vladimir Bukovsky wrote of West’s book. “For example, here is (sic) a couple of quotations from transcripts of FDR’s conversations with Stalin while Churchill was away.”

“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.

[Da Coyote]

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.

[Resolute Conservative]

Patton had it right.

[Don Corleone]

“Why did the U.S. and Britain not prevent the totalitarian USSR from taking over Eastern Europe after it had defeated the totalitarian Nazis?”

Its exactly what General Patton wanted to do.."get 'em while we can!"

[Little Ray]

Not really.
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.

[hosepipe]

“Why did the U.S. and Britain not prevent the totalitarian USSR from taking over Eastern Europe after it had defeated the totalitarian Nazis?”
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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..

[Little Ray]

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...

[SeeSharp]

...wielded great influence at State...

You might say that. Alger Hiss wrote the United Nation charter.

[SeeSharp]

G. K. Chesterton wrote that purging the communists from the State Department presents no great challenge at all: “Simply abolish the jobs.”

[hosepipe]

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..

[Little Ray]

Another gift that keeps on giving...

[Arm_Bears]

Stalin played the sick and dying FDR like a violin and Churchill basically went along.

[MeganC]

Patton had it right.

And that's why he got killed.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***“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.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***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!”

[Little Ray]

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.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***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.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***“Like the FBI report saying ‘nearly every department’ of the Federal government was infiltrated by Communist apparatchiks,****

Now it is moslems.

[ClearCase_guy]

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.