"One Of The Greatest Wrongs In History"?



After Bush's recent comments (apology?) in Latvia about the suffering that resulted in Eastern Europe from the Yalta agreement, there's been renewed discussion about what actually happened there. Americans, and the world, were tired of a war whose casualties were enormous. Was this simply the most feasible solution to end the years of suffering? Was stopping Hitler (and rewarding Stalin who helped in this) enough? Was the resultant tyranny for the Soviet bloc predictable? Or was this simply appeasement?
Here's an analysis by Pat Buchanan:

"As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings."

To answer Buchanan, WWII was "worth it", at least in stopping Hitler and his extermination of Jews. But as Rush said recently, WWII was ended by Reagan. If these Eastern European countries had retained their independence in 1945, a great deal of suffering would have been unnecessary. This controversy is interesting, and hotly debated, partly because of the criticism of the great liberal icon, FDR. If Yalta can be faulted, then what next? Social Security?

Posted: Thu - May 12, 2005 at 07:46 AM          

©