troubling

PW2 · May 9, 2005

Re: troubling

The question at Yalta was never the fate of the the Baltic states. That was a forgone conclusion. There was no way, save an all out war on Russia, anything was going to change that. The real question was the fate of Poland, and Stalin already had the beginnings of a control structure in place, very much better organized and in control than the comparable English one. We did get Stalin to promise to allow Poland to remain free, but of course he went back on that promise. At the time Russian troops were ready to overrun Berlin, and we were not positioned at all ready to stop him. Roosevelt himself knew that it was not an ideal arrangement, and he knew Poland would fall. At the time, he was quoted by an aide as saying "I didn't say the result was good, I said it was the best I could do" And JB, if there were any cheap shots in this whole thing, they were issued by W and leveled at Roosevelt. At the time of Yalta, we still did not have the bomb, or at least it was not yet proven that it was reliable, and potentially looking at an invasion of the island of Japan. The last thing on Roosevelt's mind had to be extending the European conflict to include conflict with Russia.

Ralph 123 · May 9, 2005

Re: troubling

Just Poland? How about Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Albania and Czechoslovakia? Reading the post you'd think criticizing the Yalta agreement is something new:

The Yalta agreements were disputed even before the Potsdam Conference later in 1945. The subsequent outbreak of the cold war and Soviet successes in Eastern Europe led to much criticism in the United States of the Yalta Conference and of Roosevelt, who was accused of delivering Eastern Europe to Communist domination http://www.answers.com/topic/yalta-conference

As for Berlin, part of the agreement reached that February in Yalta was that Stalin would be allowed to take Berlin. As for the allies, it's pretty clear where Churchill stood on the matter. That's why he got cut out of the talks:

In earlier talks they had all agreed on the division of Germany, but by the time of Yalta Churchill had come to fear Russian control and began to oppose dismemberment. Roosevelt chose to distance himself from Churchill and deal directly with Stalin on the future of Europe. The result: Soviet control of Eastern and Central Europe set the geographic boundaries for 44 years of Cold War. http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/history/history-yalta020301.shtml

Why do you assume Russia would have fought us for Eastern Europe after having already lost 27M people and being dependent on the West for food and material (they received $10B during the war). Russia was in pretty bad shape and the US industrial base was untouched and producing war material like no nation in history. How about a stiff "Up yours Joe, you're not taking control over all those countries w/o a fight!" You think Stalin really wanted to see Moscow fire bombed like Dresden knowing he couldn't even respond on the US with a spitball?

rodbolt · May 10, 2005

Re: troubling

wow and I bet the fence posts wins most battles of the wits you engage it in. the question is simple. nothing false about it it just requires a simple answer. the execution of the answer will not be as simple. while many clamored for a push into russia in the summer of 45 it just was not feasible. no other allied country would commit to an all out war with the soviets. the logistical supply line was to long for the US to sustain. the logistical supply line wiped out severaal armies in the past. by the summer of 44 the russians had restarted their own war materiels production. an all out war on stalin would have been long, protracted and bloody. could we have won it? possibly, could we have done it rapidly? most likly not. like Ralph had so eloquently noted in aanother post. a deal is a deal. we had entered into an allience with another country? how would we have started a war with an ally? sneak attack like Pearl harbor ? had we pushed east the civilliaan population of eastern Europe would have died. another 2 years of war would have finnished them off. the russians had used the scorched earth retreat policy very well in past wars and allowed the winter to decimate the attackers. so while I dont agree with the yalta agreements and everyone knew what stalin was we really had no other options. by the summer of 45 the US had been involved in the european conflict for about 3 bloody years. the russian problem had not been thought about for the end of the war until it ended. but stalin was no boyscout, the world knew about his bloody rise to power in the late 20's and 30's. he was worse than ruthless. roosevelt and churchill and all the others knew stalin would not abide by any treaties but short of invasion,that had no support, what could be done differently ? the allies outnumberd the germans by about 9-1 the russins outnumbered them by about 20 to 1. that means it was stacked at about 11-1 against the allies. in the spring of 45 the causualty estimates for the taking of Japan were about 300-400,000 US troops killed or wounded. to sustain that casualty rate and still provide an occupying force in europe and asia would have made a war with russia unsustainable and roosevelt knew it. I read sompelace that the estimated casualtly rate for an all out war with russia in 45 would have been just over 1 million. there were plans to place some 60 divisions in poland but by 45 the russians were producing tanks and aircraft at a faster rate than the allies.the vast land mass of the soviet union in 45 would have all but precluded bomber attacks by the US. while they could, it was much more spread out than germanies factories and raw materiel centers and also would have ment 8 to 16 hour flight times over hostile air space.at that time the bomber would have flown 6 to 12 hours without allied fighter escorts. imagine the bomber casualty rates that would entail. the bomber losses in 4 hour hostile air space flights had been staggering. so was yalta good or bad? the world will never know for sure. could we have occupied Russia? most likly not.after studying the russian military and the military prodution rates of 44-47 its amazing how much they produced and how much of the population was directly related to military service and production. all at potsdam and yalta knew the agreement was not going to be upheld on either side. but FDR,and chuchill did what they could do with what they had to work with at the time. does not mean it was wrong nor right its now just a historical fact that needs to be remembered or it will be repeated. thats the beauty about history, those that fail to remember it are doomed to repeat it.

Mod4 · May 10, 2005

Re: troubling

Gentlemen, please try and keep your discussion civil without personal insults. Thank you.

Ralph 123 · May 10, 2005

Re: troubling

so was yalta good or bad? the world will never know for sure

Well I think it's pretty clear that an agreement that ceded Eastern Europe to Russia and started the cold war was a bad deal. I've never heard anyone argue otherwise. You might argue it was the "best" deal that could be made at the time but few people even try to make that claim. You assume the alternative to giving Russia control over all these nations was a full scale invasion of Russia. I simply disagree. You never know what Stalin would have said or done had FDR and Churchill presented a united front at Yalta. Besides, the goal of any conflict with the Russians at the time would have been simply to push them back to their borders, not invade and conquer them. Now, if you believe the historians, ceding control over Eastern Europe had nothing to do with not being able to win a fight with the Russians but because FDR wanted help against the Japanese:

British author and historian John Keegan, in his history The Second World War, reveals another decision reached at Yalta, at the time kept secret, that drove Roosevelt's agenda: The most important of all decisions taken at Yalta, agreed directly between Roosevelt and Stalin, concerned the future conduct of the war in the Pacific. Roosevelt's willingness to barter away the future of Poland and to finalize a division of Germany which accorded the Soviet Union an over-generous allocation of occupation territory was ultimately determined by his anxiety to engage the Red Army in the battle to defeat Japan. At the time of Yalta, the United States had neither yet assured itself that its nuclear-research program would result in the successful test explosion of an atomic bomb, nor advanced its forces to a point from which the land invasion of Japan might be undertaken. The amphibious assault on Iwo Jima was in preparation but had not been launched; the devastating fire-bombing of Japan had not begun. The Red Army's commitment in Europe, on the other hand, was clearly almost at an end, and from western Russia the Trans-Siberian railway led directly to the border of Manchuria, where in 1904-5 Tsar Nicholas II's army had suffered a humiliating defeat. The opportunity to avenge it stood high on the list of Stalin's wartime priorities. When he might take the opportunity, however, was what pre-occupied the American President. To ensure that he did so later rather than sooner motivated almost all Roosevelt's initiatives at Yalta. The price he paid in the end was to discredit Churchill in the eyes of their joint Polish allies, to concede Russia rights over territory in sovereign China which were not America's to grant, but ultimately to assure that the repossession of Japan's conquests in the Pacific would not be bought at the cost of American lives alone. To a nation which had watched the heroic advance of the United States Navy, Marine Corps, and MacArthur's army divisions from New Guinea to the Philippines, the diplomatic price paid at Yalta when the cost to distant European state's territory and to Britain's good name was balanced against further American casualties seemed a small one to pay.

As for Russia's war production:

At the Tehran Conference in late 1944, Marshal Stalin of Russia proposed a toast saying that without American war production "our victory would have been impossible." Once mobilized, U.S. production lines turned out annually 50,000 aircraft, 20,000 tanks, 80,000 artillery pieces, and 500,000 trucks. http://www.60wwii.mil/Presentation/Education/FS_industrial2.cfm

So let's look at the numbers. In 1944 The US produced 96,318 aircraft, the USSR only produced 40,593. The US Produced some 21,426 Tanks while the USSR produced some 14,715. You can look up these numbers here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_topics#Production_and_logistics

dogsdad · May 10, 2005

Re: troubling

Originally posted by rodbolt: wow and I bet the fence posts wins most battles of the wits you engage it in. the question is simple.

Your questions are filled with false premises. You claim to have cited references to a ridiculous statement, but all you have really said is research a CIA website. That's pretty weak. You won't win arguments with sheer volume of BS. I urge you to acquaint yourself with the difference between wit and simply having a large oral cavity.

SoulWinner · May 10, 2005

Re: troubling

Party of tolerance, love, acceptance and enlightenment indeed. The true colors of the Democratic party are clearly visible in the above posts by our respected liberal brothers. It is sad, but remember who gave a record breaking 14 hour speech filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Robert Byrd. A careful examination of the party reveals that hate and divisiveness are hallmarks of the Democratic party, and have been for a long time. Today the core of the party is moving further from mainstream America, and burying it's self in a lunacy of extremism. Listening to Air America I was so astounded to hear one conspiracy theory after another regarding Haliburton, oil pipelines, secret military bases and such, that it has become indistinguishable from Coast To Coast AM. Before the '04 elections, which side was vandalizing campaign offices, steeling signs and slashing tires? The Dem's. What about the t-shirts bearing slogans such as "Kill Bush" or asking prominent Republican leaders to commit suicide? The message from Democrats seems so mean spirited, hate filled and vitriolic; it is no wonder they are loosing power. The Democrats want to be known as party of ideas, and they should be. Their ideas historically are segregation, socialization, constitutional deconstruction, internment of innocent civilians, etc. The administrations of FDR and Trueman were rife with KGB agents. During that period of Soviet influence in Washington, the Rosenberg's ensured that Russia would get the nukular bomb decades earlier than they would have without American technology. Yet liberals still attack McCarthy, even though Venona proved he was right. Facts mean nothing to them. Is this the kind of party you want to be a member of? Are these the kind you want to befriend? Would want to be associated with Woopi's performance at the Kerry rally? Would you want to a bird of the same feather as "theriver", who did nothing stir up sh*t here? Ply and rodbolt, why are you guys so angry? And the rabidness of your posts suggests possibly some insecurity issues. Well whatever it is, I wish you the best. Ok guys, you can begin your personal attacks now.

PW2 · May 10, 2005

Re: troubling

The revisionist history on this is amazing. The American right at the time was dead set against getting into the war in the first place, and went so far as to suggest that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor ahead of time and never said anything, just to make sure we entered the war. Churchill wasn't going to fight the Russians. If it were to be done, it was going to be done by Americans. Perhaps we could have outproduced them, and got them to cave, but it would have been a very risky move. If you are going to bluff someone, you better be prepared to act in case that bluff is called--and FDR clearly felt it was too risky. Some may disagree. So be it. And I'm sure you can find some historian to quote to support any point of view you want. David Kennedy, professor at Stanford University and Author of "Freedom From Fear" part of the "Oxford history of the United States", and about as mainstream and respected as you can get, says FDR had little choice. Michael Beechloss, the noted presidential historian, agrees. And the right's apparent current goal of transforming the world with our freedom and democracy was certainly not evident back at the end of WW II.

Ralph 123 · May 11, 2005

Re: troubling

And I'm sure you can find some historian to quote to support any point of view you want.

You mean like FDR "had little choice?" Let's talk about revisionist history:

Time Magazine Oct. 31, 1955 (Note date) When the State Department made public the Yalta record (TIME, March 28), Senate Democrats hastened to defend Franklin D. Roosevelt's secret concessions to the U.S.S.R. by blaming his military advisersnotably General Douglas MacArthur. The fact that U.S. strategists urged Soviet entry into the Pacific war was taken to justify the Roosevelt deal made at Yalta. Senator Herbert Lehman attacked MacArthur, directly on the ground that he "urgently recommended that Soviet Russia be involved in the war against Japan." The two sides of the argument were talking about different questions: 1) Was...

So, at the time, even the Democrats weren't defending the deal. They were blaming MacArthur! And, consider this recent article from the BBC (Yes the BBC!)

For his part, President Roosevelt had two main aims: to get agreement on the formation of the United Nations, and to get Russia to join the war against Japan. He was less worried about the future of Europe and felt that Stalin could be trusted. Winston Churchill felt that Roosevelt was naive about Stalin. He tried to resist the imposition of punitive reparations on Germany and worked to restore the position of France as a significant power to bolster that of Britain. Above all, he tried to stop the extension of Soviet influence, especially in Poland. After all, the defence of Poland was why Britain and France had declared war on Germany in the first place. But though Churchill spoke with a loud voice, Britain by then carried only a relatively small stick.... "They [the British people] can never feel this war will have ended rightly unless Poland has a fair deal in the sense of sovereignty, independence and freedom, on the basis of friendship with Russia. It was on this that I thought we agreed at Yalta," he wrote. Poland, however, did not gain the sovereignty, independence and freedom for which the war had been declared until many years later.

I could go on, but why bother -> too much effort with too little return

rodbolt · May 11, 2005

Re: troubling

by the spring of 45 the world was rapidly changing. did FDR know about pearl? yes and no. they knew an attack someplace was immint, it was coincedental that ALL the carriers of the 7th fleet were out of port that morning. something that did not usually occur. however usually when a carrier was out so was the carrier battle group. this was not the case on the morn of 7 dec 41. so I dont believe that FDR nor anyone else knew the date time and place of any japanese attack, however the powers at the time knew it was coming. even when we declared war on japan in 41 we still did not declare war on germany but waited till germany declared war with the US. so by the spring of 45 when on may 7th germany surrendered many things had transpired during the war. on may 8th of 45 germany surrendered the second time and we included the russians. now we had a quandry. at that point in time russia occupied and had occupied most of eastern europe for a long time. with an estimated causualty rate in japan of over 300,000 allied forces and the a bomb not being proven what did we do with the division of europe? the russins were already there. the only way to push them out would have been an attack. by 45 the russiaans were matching almost plane for plane and tank for tank the war production of the US and had a vastly superior number of military manpower reserves. with a casualty estimate of 300K in asia and an setimate of over 1 million if we attacked the russians, FDR and churchill were between a rock and a hard spot. similar to our last 3 or 4 presidential elections. only they had to do something and do it rapidly. they did not have much time or it was possible the russians would have pushed us out of eastern europe altogether. what is amazing is the russians did not take west berlin in late 45 or early 46. we still have the intelligence problem today that we had then. its hard to spy on russia or china due to the physical land mass. so was yalta good or bad? at the time it was most likly the best option. 10 years later it most likly was not. dogsdad how is my question a false peremise? maybe if I break it into two parts its understandable If a democratically elected govt of any nation asks the US to pack up the toys and leave should we? if not should we keep the region destabilized, like we did with Iran in 58-59, until a more resonable govt is elected or installed? is that simple and less false ?

dogsdad · May 11, 2005

Re: troubling

" if not should we keep the region destabilized, like we did with Iran in 58-59, until a more resonable govt is elected or installed?" Rodbolt, does your wife know that you are a convicted felon? That is a question based on [what I would assume is] a false premise. Now, just leave me alone. I'm not going to play this little game of going around behind you refuting each and every little bit of BS you spew. You ain't worth it.

rodbolt · May 11, 2005

Re: troubling

thats good cause so far the best you came up with was blah blah. I guess its on par with my cats and your fence post. I am not married but I was convicted of reckless driving once. seems you tend to speak with no research. good solid party line man. http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/articles/rushdie/00-06-16tim.htm http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/CIAtimeline.html http://www.quartzcity.net/blog/archives/2002/09/14/great_moments_in_us_foreign_policy.html http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB21/ having read a lot of history behind the middle east when I signed up knowing war was immenent I tried to find out why a whole regoin of people hated the US enough that I may have to go die in a sand box. the more I read and the more US backed atrocities I found all with oil,rubber and sugar involed with big business aas a backer the more saddened I got. no wonder the middle east region is unstable and trusts no one. the brits and the russians were not much better. Ralph I do agree with you that poland and many other smaller east european states got sacrificed. but the Nazis that were our former enemies and later our paid informants had given false data as to the troop strength and military capeabilities of the soviets. even though the threat was over estimated it was still a real threat. so I will state again that Yalta was most likly wrong but was about the best that could be obtained without a declaration of war on an ally with an allied treaty from the brits and the US.

dogsdad · May 11, 2005

Re: troubling

Okay then rodbolt. You are the smartest man in the world and are always right, all your sources are unbiased, America is evil, and I am always wrong and a dumbass. Are you happy? Now leave me the f*** alone. I am not interested in any discourse with you.

dogsdad · May 11, 2005

Re: troubling

Anyone ever notice you have not done any "research" unless you have come to the conclusion that America sucks?

Mod2 · May 12, 2005

Re: troubling

Closing the thread.

troubling

Commander

Captain

Supreme Mariner

Petty Officer 2nd Class

Captain

Lieutenant

Commander

Commander

Captain

Supreme Mariner

Lieutenant

Supreme Mariner

Lieutenant

Lieutenant

Senior Chief Petty Officer