Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is not what Russia got out of Yalta, it's what the west got out of it - nothing. Useless UN agreements and Japan. Russia held alot of cards, but they didn't hold everything. It was still Russia vs. the West, particularly the sleeping giant called the US which was the one superpower who was not in ruins as a result of WW2.
Yes we could have done things to at least make Russia's life more difficult. Start with Poland. Poland had a very close relationship with the west, they were not pro-communist at all. But Roosevelt conceded to the Soviet's Lublin provisional government in Poland, and conceded to this "free election" provisions that had so many legal holes in it that you can drive a truck through it. Diplomacy is an art of deception, could we have "tricked" Russia into being forced to keep Poland free? I think so. Great Britian had 200,000 battle hardened Poles under it's command. Instead Russia had 2 years to collect every independent minded leader in Poland, including officers that served faithfully for the west, and to send them to Siberean Gulags before the farce elections were held in 1947. Russia followed the Yalta agreement as it was signed and as they interpreted it, using every loophole they self-devised. This was the trade off for Japan and the UN. Useless. On the other hand, if we meant "free elections" and wrote out an agreement to that effect, instead of "yeah please Russia can you hold free elections in Poland please guys, we would really appreciate it". The question is would Russia risk war (not even with the west, but a proxy war with the west assisting) to rival what they went through in Afhiganistan 40 years later.
The Red Army was half way across Poland in January 1945 and in fact had crossed the Oder River before Roosevelt even left the White House. Soviet control of Poland was a fait accompli and nothing short of all out war was going to change that.
As Grandstander points out, how on earth was Roosevelt going to win public support for a war against our "Great Ally" the Soviet Union over Poland when we hadn't even beaten the Japanese?
There was nothing left to sell.
If anything Churchill was able to get a decent concession out of them when they agreed not to pursue Communism in Greece.
Your opinion on this topic largely depends on your political ideology.
What fracking ideology would that be? Look at a fraking map of the battle lines in January of 1945! Look at where the Soviet Army was before the Yalta Conference!
Quote:
We conservatives have always believed that FDR smooched Uncle Joe's backside and gave him everything he wanted.
WHose this we? Nutjobs like Patton?
Quote:
The whole idea of the supposedly Invincible Red Army is bunk. Without massive US aid to the USSR the Germans would have rolled the Russians up by '43 or '44 and won the war on the Eastern Front.
This is one of the biggest Cold War revisionist myths around. I won't recount the numerous threads here that have shredded that myth. As for the "supposedly invincible" Red Army... I don't know who thinks that it was "invincible" but it was one hell of a formidable that had defeated far more seasoned and well equipped German forces. The fact is unassailable that inorder to defeat the Red Army the U.S. would have had to conduct a war not to dissimilar to refighting WWII all over again, something that the American public would have accepted just for the sake of Poland.
Quote:
In 1945 the Soviet Union was mostly a devastated wasteland, exhausted and in no condition to take on the victorious American forces and her allies.
That is fracking insane! Exhausted? Now that's funny the Red Army consisted of 2,203,600 men in arms in 1945 almost twice as many as the Western Allies put together with a war still raging not only in Japan but also still bogged down in northern Italy.
Quote:
Hordes of mostly illiterate peasants carrying cheap burp guns in mass human wave attacks supported by crude rocket launchers would have been no match for the overwhelming air and material superiority that the West enjoyed. We should have listened to Patton and made all of Europe free.
Now that is pure jingoism. By the way, it is interesting to note the exclusion of the finest battle tank that any Army possessed at the time, not to mention the much ignored ***-1 fighter.
Your opinion on this topic largely depends on your political ideology. We conservatives have always believed that FDR smooched Uncle Joe's backside and gave him everything he wanted. The whole idea of the supposedly Invincible Red Army is bunk. Without massive US aid to the USSR the Germans would have rolled the Russians up by '43 or '44 and won the war on the Eastern Front. In 1945 the Soviet Union was mostly a devastated wasteland, exhausted and in no condition to take on the victorious American forces and her allies. Hordes of mostly illiterate peasants carrying cheap burp guns in mass human wave attacks supported by crude rocket launchers would have been no match for the overwhelming air and material superiority that the West enjoyed. We should have listened to Patton and made all of Europe free.
As a moderate conservative and someone with more then a passing interest in military history and WW2 in particular I don't share that view, nor is your concept of the status of Soviet arms even remotely true.
The topic of the impact of Lend Lease Aid to the Soviet Union has been discussed in several threads. The fact of the matter is that WW2 in Europe was decided before Lend Lease had any real impact, the western Allies were barely scratching at Italy's boot and the vaunted strategic bombing campaign had been called off do to excessive losses before resuming in 1944 with the large scale raids we make movies about.
The western Allies had only a marginal impact on the course of the war in Europe between 1941 and 1944 and by that point in time, the war had been decided in Soviet favor. The Germans were already beaten, it was simply a matter of how long it was going to take the Soviets to finish them off.
By 1944 the Soviets had already begun redirecting a signigificant chunk of their GDP away from production of war material and were beginning to rebuild. The amount redirected was easily greater then the amount they were receiving in Lend Lease supplies.
The US replacement system was breaking down by 1945 and the US was facing an extreme shortage of combat infantry to the point that they were stripping supply and logistics units in order to fill the need for combat forces at the front. The Soviets outnumbered the entire western Allied combat force in continental Europe by nearly 4 to 1 with an equal advantage in tanks. The "illiterate hordes" had managed to nearly singlehandedly defeat what many argue is the greatest fighting force of WW2.
The Soviets also had the advantage of being able to simply will their people to continue to fight. One war to save the "Motherland from fascist invasion" followed by another to "Liberate the proletariate from imperial capitalist aggression" would have been an easy sell (heck, they may have even printed up the posters just in case). Meanwhile, US politicans would be faced with trying to explain to war weary Americans why millions of their sons, brothers and husbands needed to die to fight a nation that had been our ally.
The "myth" is thinking that the US could have beaten the Soviets following the collapse of Germany. Left to continue the war, the Soviets would have been in Paris and Rome by 1946 with the Allies "Dunkirking" their way back to Britain. Did it ever occur to you that we "gave up" Poland in exchange for western Europe and a chance at peace?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
The problem is not what Russia got out of Yalta, it's what the west got out of it - nothing. Useless UN agreements and Japan. Russia held alot of cards, but they didn't hold everything. It was still Russia vs. the West, particularly the sleeping giant called the US which was the one superpower who was not in ruins as a result of WW2.
Yes we could have done things to at least make Russia's life more difficult. Start with Poland. Poland had a very close relationship with the west, they were not pro-communist at all. But Roosevelt conceded to the Soviet's Lublin provisional government in Poland, and conceded to this "free election" provisions that had so many legal holes in it that you can drive a truck through it. Diplomacy is an art of deception, could we have "tricked" Russia into being forced to keep Poland free? I think so. Great Britian had 200,000 battle hardened Poles under it's command. Instead Russia had 2 years to collect every independent minded leader in Poland, including officers that served faithfully for the west, and to send them to Siberean Gulags before the farce elections were held in 1947. Russia followed the Yalta agreement as it was signed and as they interpreted it, using every loophole they self-devised. This was the trade off for Japan and the UN. Useless. On the other hand, if we meant "free elections" and wrote out an agreement to that effect, instead of "yeah please Russia can you hold free elections in Poland please guys, we would really appreciate it". The question is would Russia risk war (not even with the west, but a proxy war with the west assisting) to rival what they went through in Afhiganistan 40 years later.
I suppose I would argue, as I did above that what we "got" was western Europe and a chance at peace. Stalin was quite open to agreeing to whatever the western Allies wanted because he held all of the cards. Some of Stalin's advisers even stated that he had given up "too much" to the west to which he basically replied that what was agreed to didn't matter and they would do as they pleased. He knew that short of the west going to war with him (with a war being decidedly slanted in Soviet favor), he had a free hand to do what he wanted in Eastern Europe wherever his "boots were on the ground". The west had already waged one bloody war over Poland, were they going to follow it up with another? Not likely.
Further one could ask what exactly would be in it for the western Allies? Certainly Poland would have gained from not being under Soviet oppression, but what was really in it for the west to wage an even bloodier and costlier war then the one they just did? Certainly we weren't going to roll our armies all the way to Moscow and "liberate Russia" were we?
Think about what FDR wanted in exchange - the soviet union in the newly formed UN (a useless organization, and one in which again Stalin duped the west with his establishment of veto power), and the Soviet Union to open up a front against Japan (again, useless as Russia did not start real agression towards Japan until after the atomic bomings, and resulting in the USSR occupying Manchurea). These two useless elements in exchange for Eastern Europe - was it worth it?
True, Stalin had the trump card with his troops outside of Berlin, but everything is negotiable. Now, the problem is that FDR and Stalin, and Churchill for that matter, all had different agenda's. FDR with the naive world view of the UN, Churchill with his concerns about western europe and the med, Stalin with the expansion of influence and the creation of buffer states. Each got their wish, but who did it benefit the most? For instance - what wars has the United Nations prevented?
Maybe the results was inevitable - but that was because we had a sick man that was 2 months from death as our leader, and a communist spy (Hess-still open to argument) doing our negotiating.
The USSR commenced military action against Japan as required by agreement at Yalta, within 90 days after the cessation of hostilities in Europe. No one had a crystal ball when this agreement was made, no one knew precisely when, in what quantities, and to what affect the Manhattan Project would pay off.
And, as Grandstander notes, you blithely ignore the reality on the ground, and wish FDR had as well. If he had, Stalin wouldn't have. And then what? You jsut wave you hands and insist things could've gone better.
Seems strange that we would use the bomb on Japan and not on Russia, when Russia was the greater threat. Japan's agression had been contained and they could be dealt with at our leisure. Russia was not contained, and ALL it MIGHT have taken to get them out of Eastern Europe was for the US to threaten Stalin, that Moscow was the next target if he didn't send his army back to mother russia. Yes, FDR did not have a bomb at the time of the Yalta Conference, and Stalin was his buddy so FDR wasn't going to use it on him anyway, even if he had one, but what about Truman and the Potsdam Conference, and the period over the next few years ?
This was a golden opportunity to see what happens with when one superpower has a bomb and the other one does not. We had better airforce than Stalin and could penetrate Russia up to the days of Francis Gary Power. We could have destroyed his nuclear facilities before they could produce a bomb, and perhaps removed him to allow free elections in Russia. Even if we could not take out his nuke facilities or remove him, if we got him to pull out of Eastern Europe before he had the bomb, and then fortified Eastern Europe, then he could not re-enter after he did get a bomb. It could have been done, and would have been less costly to America than what was to play out over the next several decades, and a lot faster too, like within 3 months or something on those lines. Nukes work pretty fast.
Every American after 1949 had to live with the fact that Stalin could push a button and destroy any target he pleased. This is why I think it was sad that Truman found it OK to use it on Japan, but not on Russia, WTH ? Sorry but I think Poland deserved better, this post is for them, for America, and for my own personal amusement of course.
Any criticism of FDR at Yalta is either utterly specious or motivated by political enimity against Roosevelt. As Gore Vidal so brilliantly and succinctly said, "America was the big winner in WWII. We got Germany and Japan. What did Stalin get? Poland and the Baltic states!"
What the hell was FDR supposed to say to Stalin? What bargaining position did he have? NONE.
The Red Army with millions of soldiers were physically holding the eastern block countries that were totally under his control. The Red Army had "liberated" (heavy quotations) all the eastern block countries. America had nothing to do with it except feeding, clothing and sending Spam to the Red Army. As if that would resonate with a despot like Stalin.
Those who say "Roosevelt was duped at Yalta" understand nothing about politics, the psyche of Stalin, or the fact the USA had no hand to play in 1945. What were they supposed to do? Those countries were re-conquered by th Soviet Union and that's it. It doesn't matter that FDR was a desperately ill man at Yalta. He could have been as healthy as a horse, he was in no position to bargain with Uncle Joe because he was in no position to kick out the Red Army from Poland, Czech, Romania, Hungary, Eastern Germany, the Baltic States, etc, etc.
Seems strange that we would use the bomb on Japan and not on Russia, when Russia was the greater threat.
All I can do is shake my head at this idiocy...
How was the Soviet Union perceived, IN 1945, as a threat on any level approaching Nazi Germany or Japan? And please for the love of god and my sanity explain to me how the U.S. could by any stretch of your unfathomable reasoning justify using an atomic weapon on the Soviet Union a mere few months after having spent the better part of 5 years promoting as our stalwart allie; who we desperately wanted to enter the war against japan - and by doing so may have played just as important role in Japan's surrender as the A bomb - while in the freaking midst of trying with the Soviet Union the remain Nazis leaders for crimes against humanity of which the charges included waging wars of aggression, and crimes against the peace???
I sincerely would love to know what nutcase, neo-con revisionist lenses you are looking through.
How was the Soviet Union perceived, IN 1945, as a threat on any level approaching Nazi Germany or Japan? And please for the love of god and my sanity explain to me how the U.S. could by any stretch of your unfathomable reasoning justify using an atomic weapon on the Soviet Union a mere few months after having spent the better part of 5 years promoting as our stalwart allie; who we desperately wanted to enter the war against japan - and by doing so may have played just as important role in Japan's surrender as the A bomb - while in the freaking midst of trying with the Soviet Union the remain Nazis leaders for crimes against humanity of which the charges included waging wars of aggression, and crimes against the peace???
I sincerely would love to know what nutcase, neo-con revisionist lenses you are looking through.
Even by Potsdam, it was clear that Stalin was not going to obey the Yalta agreement, we fought Hitler's agression, why not Stalin's agression ? As stated, Stalin had us cowering with an army 4 times larger than other allied forces in europe, giving up on allies like Poland that helped us in war, turning our back on therm. That was wrong and should have been a temporary condition.
We didn't need Stalin to help with Japan, because the president should have known the bomb was going to work, who can fight an atomic bomb ? When you have a weapon of that magnitude, you don't have to ask someone like Stalin to help you out. Once it was demonstrated that we had a bomb and were willing to use it, then it was time to let Stalin know he was an enemy of the US, UK, France, all of Western Europe, all of Eastern Europe that did not want to be his puppets. Certainly by 1948 when Stalin cut off Berlin, the Berlin Airlift should have included a flight to Moscow, to drop a little something off for Stalin.
We didn't need Stalin to help with Japan, because the president should have known the bomb was going to work, who can fight an atomic bomb ? When you have a weapon of that magnitude, you don't have to ask someone like Stalin to help you out. Once it was demonstrated that we had a bomb and were willing to use it, then it was time to let Stalin know he was an enemy of the US, UK, France, all of Western Europe, all of Eastern Europe that did not want to be his puppets. Certainly by 1948 when Stalin cut off Berlin, the Berlin Airlift should have included a flight to Moscow, to drop a little something off for Stalin.
Have you heard of something called a Declaration of War? Congress passed one against Japan and Germany. What would have been the basis for getting Congress to declare war against a country that had been an important ally of ours in this conflict against Germany? I can tell you right now that almost no one in this country gave a rat's behind about Poland. Public support for such a declaration would have been nonexistent. It couldn't have been obtained.
The idea of fighting another war against the USSR for possession of Eastern Europe is absurd. Our troops and the American public were demanding a rapid demobilization of our armed forces at exactly the time the Cold War was beginning. Some of our troops in Europe actually staged "wanna go home riots" in early 1946.
The idea of using an atomic bomb against a country which had been a loyal ally of ours is downright revolting to me. Yes, Joe Stalin was a butcher. Yes, the communists were opposed to our capitalist system. If we had engaged in such a war it would have been the ordinary people of the USSR who paid the price.
It is one thing to argue that FDR may not have gotten a good deal for this country at Yalta. Its quite another to argue we should have started a war against the Soviet Union. It places us in a league with other countries I won't name.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
