Nbadan
05-13-2005, 03:55 AM
Yet more evidence that the NeoCons domestic agenda is to ursurp the New Deal and the Great Society and roll liberal hero, FDR through the dirt...
Gwynne Dyer: Bush picked a poor moment to display his ignorance
Published May 10, 2005
Presidents aren't expected to know much history, but their speechwriters are. President Bush's speech in Riga on Saturday did not measure up... What he did was to condemn the Yalta agreement of February 1945, signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt for the United States, Winston Churchill for Britain and Joseph Stalin for the Soviet Union. It didn't actually "carve Europe up" between the victors, but it did give each of them responsibility for getting certain liberated countries back on their feet.
Bush condemned Yalta, claiming that the Western allies had needlessly sold the Eastern European countries into 40 years of Communist rule and Soviet control. "We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability," Bush promised, implicitly accusing Roosevelt and Churchill of just those crimes -- and then he flew off to Moscow to shake the hand of his host, Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Bush was going to Moscow to commemorate Russia's sacrifices in the struggle against Nazi aggression, which were far greater than America's. The two countries had roughly equal populations at the time, but about 27 million Russians died in the war, compared to only 405,000 Americans. Moreover, it was the Soviet Army that tore the guts out of the Nazi military machine. When the U.S., British and Canadian armies landed on the Normandy beaches in June 1944, they were faced by about 50 German Army divisions; at the same time, the Soviets were facing over 200 German divisions.
By 1945, the Soviet Army was the strongest ground fighting force in the world. It physically controlled the Eastern European countries that became Moscow's responsibility at Yalta. Moscow later installed Communist regimes there (partly because it wanted a buffer zone of friendly regimes between it and Germany, and partly just because it could) -- and there was absolutely nothing that Roosevelt or Churchill could do about it. President Bush is in favor of wars to overthrow undemocratic regimes, or so he says, but against the Soviet Union in 1945? That's just crazy.
(snip)
Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians and Poles have a right to resent both what Stalin did to them and the present Russian government's refusal to apologize openly for the past. President Bush has the right to support them. But it was simply not fitting for Bush to talk like this while he was on his way to Moscow to join the Russians in mourning their 27 million dead.
Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5394065.html)
Gwynne Dyer: Bush picked a poor moment to display his ignorance
Published May 10, 2005
Presidents aren't expected to know much history, but their speechwriters are. President Bush's speech in Riga on Saturday did not measure up... What he did was to condemn the Yalta agreement of February 1945, signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt for the United States, Winston Churchill for Britain and Joseph Stalin for the Soviet Union. It didn't actually "carve Europe up" between the victors, but it did give each of them responsibility for getting certain liberated countries back on their feet.
Bush condemned Yalta, claiming that the Western allies had needlessly sold the Eastern European countries into 40 years of Communist rule and Soviet control. "We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability," Bush promised, implicitly accusing Roosevelt and Churchill of just those crimes -- and then he flew off to Moscow to shake the hand of his host, Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Bush was going to Moscow to commemorate Russia's sacrifices in the struggle against Nazi aggression, which were far greater than America's. The two countries had roughly equal populations at the time, but about 27 million Russians died in the war, compared to only 405,000 Americans. Moreover, it was the Soviet Army that tore the guts out of the Nazi military machine. When the U.S., British and Canadian armies landed on the Normandy beaches in June 1944, they were faced by about 50 German Army divisions; at the same time, the Soviets were facing over 200 German divisions.
By 1945, the Soviet Army was the strongest ground fighting force in the world. It physically controlled the Eastern European countries that became Moscow's responsibility at Yalta. Moscow later installed Communist regimes there (partly because it wanted a buffer zone of friendly regimes between it and Germany, and partly just because it could) -- and there was absolutely nothing that Roosevelt or Churchill could do about it. President Bush is in favor of wars to overthrow undemocratic regimes, or so he says, but against the Soviet Union in 1945? That's just crazy.
(snip)
Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians and Poles have a right to resent both what Stalin did to them and the present Russian government's refusal to apologize openly for the past. President Bush has the right to support them. But it was simply not fitting for Bush to talk like this while he was on his way to Moscow to join the Russians in mourning their 27 million dead.
Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5394065.html)