• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Calling out history buffs: What's your take on Bush and the Yalta agreement?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dilbert

Member
I saw this rather bizarre story on Yahoo! News this morning:

AP said:
Bush: U.S. Had Hand in European Divisions

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

Second-guessing Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Bush said Saturday the United States played a role in Europe's painful division after World War II — a decision that helped cause "one of the greatest wrongs of history" when the Soviet Union imposed its harsh rule across Central and Eastern Europe.

Bush said the lessons of the past will not be forgotten as the United States tries to spread freedom in the Middle East.

"We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability," the president said. "We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others."

Bush singled out the 1945 Yalta agreement signed by Roosevelt in a speech opening a four-day trip focused on Monday's celebration in Moscow on the 60th anniversary of Nazi Germany's defeat.

In recent days Bush has urged Russia to own up to its wartime past. It appeared he decided to do the same, himself, to set an example for Vladimir Putin.

Bush also used his address to lecture Putin about his handling of the emergence of democratic countries on Russia's borders. "No good purpose is served by stirring up fears and exploiting old rivalries in this region," Bush said. "The interests of Russia and all nations are served by the growth of freedom that leads to prosperity and peace."

Bush spent the day with leaders of three Baltic republics — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Many people in the Baltic countries are still bitter about the Soviet annexation of their countries and the harsh occupation that followed the war for nearly 50 years. Acknowledging that anger and frustration still linger, Bush said that "we have a great opportunity to move beyond the past." His message here — and throughout his trip — is that the world is entering a new phase of freedom and all countries should get on board.

While history does not hide the U.S. role in Europe's division, American presidents have found little reason to discuss it before Bush's speech.

"Certainly it goes further than any president has gone," historian Alan Brinkley. "This has been a very common view of the far right for many years — that Yalta was a betrayal of freedom, that Roosevelt betrayed the hopes of generations."

Bush said the Yalta agreement, also signed by Britain's Winston Churchill and the Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin, followed in the "unjust tradition" of other infamous war pacts that carved up the continent and left millions in oppression. The Yalta accord gave Stalin control of the whole of Eastern Europe, leading to criticism that Roosevelt had delivered millions of people to communist domination.

"Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable," the president said. "Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable."

Bush said the United States and its allies eventually recognized they could not be satisfied with the liberation of half of Europe and decided "we would not forget our friends behind an Iron Curtain."

The United States never forgot the Baltic peoples, Bush said, and flew the flags of free Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania over diplomatic missions in Washington.

"And when you joined hands in protest and the empire fell away," the president said, "the legacy of Yalta was finally buried, once and for all."

Putin, writing in a French newspaper Saturday, said the Soviet Union already made amends in 1989 and his country will not answer the demands of Baltic states for futher repentance. "Such pretensions are useless," Putin wrote in Le Figaro.

Bush reminded Baltic countries that democracy brings obligations along with elections and independence. He said minority rights and equal justice must be protected, a nod to Moscow's concerns about the treatment of Russian-speakers in the three ex-Soviet republics.

Bush applauded the Baltics for supporting democracy in Ukraine and spoke approvingly of democracy progress in Georgia and Moldova.

At a news conference, Bush rejected the suggestion that Washington and Moscow work out a mutually agreeable way to bring democracy to Belarus — the former Soviet republic that Bush calls the "last remaining dictatorship in Europe."

"Secret deals to determine somebody else's fate — I think that's what we're lamenting here today, one of those secret deals among large powers that consigns people to a way of government," Bush said. He called for "free and open and fair" elections set for next year in Belarus, now run by authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko.

Bush placed a wreath at the Latvian Freedom Monument, a towering obelisk symbolizing this small country's struggle for independence. While he is unpopular across much of Europe because of the Iraq war, Bush got a warm welcome here.

Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga presented Bush with the nation's top honor, the Three-Star Order, calling him a "signal fighter of freedom and democracy in the world."

Bush has irritated Russia by bracketing his visit to Moscow Sunday with stops in two former Soviet republics, Latvia and Georgia. He also will speak Sunday at an American cemetery in the Netherlands.
It's been a while since I studied WWII in particular, but this is one of the most bizarre comments that I can remember an American president making about history. For one thing, it seems to be entirely out of context. Yes, Russia has been making some troubling decisions lately which bring into question its commitment to democratic institutions...but what does that have to do with Yalta? Secondly -- and not to be snarky -- Bush is complaining about Yalta, but I don't hear him offering an alternative. Exactly what else should we have done?
 

suaveric

Member
Bush is commenting on this now because Europe is about to celebrate VE day. But to a lot of the people in Eastern Europe VE day wasn't all that great, they just moved from one devil to the next. So Bush is trying to say "sorry about that" on his way to the VE ceremonies in Russia.
 
Bush is making these statements without any appreciation for the realities of Europe in 1945.

The Soviet Army was the largest in the world and had the Germans in full retreat back to their homeland. There was nothing the U.S. could have said to make the Soviets agree to just abandon the parts of Eastern Europe they occupied, which was everything except Greece. If Roosevelt or Truman had pushed the point it would've caused the alliance to deteriorate more rapidly than it already was.

Besides, as ruthless as Stalin was it's hard to ignore the Soviet's desire for a security buffer given that the attrocities the Nazi's committed in their invasion and occupation of Russia were some of the most horrendous of the war.
 

ManaByte

Member
suaveric said:
Bush is commenting on this now because Europe is about to celebrate VE day. But to a lot of the people in Eastern Europe VE day wasn't all that great, they just moved from one devil to the next. So Bush is trying to say "sorry about that" on his way to the VE ceremonies in Russia.

Pretty much.

As for Yalta, even right after his death Roosevelt was attacked for pretty much handing over Eastern Europe to the Soviets and creating a divide. Poland wanted internal control over their country, but Roosevelt and Churchill rejected those requests

Yalta was basically "OK, the War's over; what do we do with Europe now?" as decided by Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin. No other countries were allowed to send represenatives to the conference.

Even before the converence started there was a great deal of friction between Churchill and Stalin and Roosevelt was the one caught in the middle. At the time, the only sensible solution he saw was to give try to strike a balance of sorts. In looking back it may not have been the best idea, but at the time it's what he thought needed to be done or else Europe may have been fighting over its borders when the war ended.

The Soviet Army was the largest in the world and had the Germans in full retreat back to their homeland. There was nothing the U.S. could have said to make the Soviets agree to just abandon the parts of Eastern Europe they occupied, which was everything except Greece. If Roosevelt or Truman had pushed the point it would've caused the alliance to deteriorate more rapidly than it already was.

Truman had absolutely nothing to do with Yalta. He wasn't there. It was just Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin and Roosevelt was the middle man between the stern Churchill and Stalin; a voice of reason.
 

Boogie

Member
KilledByBill said:
Bush is making these statements without any appreciation for the realities of Europe in 1945.

The Soviet Army was the largest in the world and had the Germans in full retreat back to their homeland. There was nothing the U.S. could have said to make the Soviets agree to just abandon the parts of Eastern Europe they occupied, which was everything except Greece. If Roosevelt or Truman had pushed the point it would've caused the alliance to deteriorate more rapidly than it already was.

Besides, as ruthless as Stalin was it's hard to ignore the Soviet's desire for a security buffer given that the attrocities the Nazi's committed in their invasion and occupation of Russia were some of the most horrendous of the war.

Pretty much what I would have said.

It was either you acknowledge the Soviet Union's dominance in Eastern Europe, or you fight them over it, and that just wasn't an acceptable option.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
The flaw in the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is that it doesn't consider what happens after your enemy is defeated... and that right there pretty much sums up the latter two thirds of the 20th century. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom