Post by Rich RostromPost by m***@netMAPSONscape.netPost by Rich RostromNone of the other Allied leaders had any real
understanding of Stalin...
I'm pretty sure most of them knew about the Soviets' habit of executing
large numbers of those they didn't like.
I think that if you had asked FDR or even Churchill
how many political executions had occurred in the
USSR in the 1930s, they would have said "dozens"
or maybe "hundreds". That the number was in the
_millions_ was utterly beyond their imagining.
I kinda doubt they thought the number was in the "hundreds". However, that's
beside the point; they knew that in a world of vicious national leaders,
he was in the top 2-3 bad boys.
I'm pretty certain they, including FDR, weren't naive about what kind of
person they were dealing with.
Which actually makes it more important to keep lines of communication open.
Post by Rich RostromPost by m***@netMAPSONscape.netAnd I'm pretty certain FDR wasn't that naive; after all, were you correct,
he had had years to reach out to Stalin prior to the entry of the US into
the war, and did no such thing.
In the years before the war, the U.S. was not especially
active in foreign affairs. FDR had no reason to "reach out"
to the USSR.
That's not really true, but even if it were, that makes any actual Hiss
influence utterly irrelevant.
Post by Rich RostromPost by m***@netMAPSONscape.netSo, they had steered him into a pattern of
raproachment with the USSR through- out the 30s?
There wasn't much the U.S. could do for or against the
USSR in the 1930s.
Then, as stated, any influence by these "close advisors" would be
irrelevant.
Post by Rich RostromPost by m***@netMAPSONscape.netPost by Rich RostromSo it is absurd to suggest that FDR "got along fine"
with Stalin because he was smarter.
Well, nobody suggested that; what someone...
You.
Nope. Read what is written; I suggested he might have been a smarter politician
and that may well be true.
Post by Rich RostromPost by m***@netMAPSONscape.net... suggested was "simply a smarter politician",
which seems true. Whatever else his faults, FDR was
a very smart politician.
Political calculation or manipulation or operation
was irrelevant.
You don't follow politics, then.
Post by Rich RostromDealings by one power structure with a separate (and
therefore independent) power structure are diplomacy.
Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.netPost by Rich RostromFDR's policy was to let Stalin have his way about lots
of things in the belief that Stalin would thus be more
likely to trust the US, believe that FDR's plans for
Whereas once he was out of power...
Do you mean "after FDR died"?
Yes. So, it's hard to see that Stalin somehow took advantage of a naive
FDR.
Post by Rich RostromPost by m***@netMAPSONscape.netStalin had his way on those things anyway.
There were some things Stalin could enforce. There
were others he could only ask for. For instance,
He asked for lots of things; the ones he really wanted, and were within his
reach, he took. On others, he negotiated. Sorry, I don't see how this
indicates trying to maintain at least a decent communication with him
was anything but a good idea.
Post by Rich Rostromthe absurd elevation of the Belarussian and
Ukrainian SSRs to membership in the UN. This was
not particularly harmful in the long term, but
it was wholly unnecessary, and a clear symbol of
American servility.
I see Mr Graham has already addressed this, but what was the actual cost to
the US? It didn't lose them a vote, didn't cost them a veto, etc.
Post by Rich RostromAnd there were other things given to Stalin by FDR
which could not be withdrawn.
Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.netStalin was always VERY careful not to overextend himself.
And therefore could have been deterred from actions he
got away with thanks to FDR.
Which actions did he take, whcich could have been reasonably prevented,
actually COST the US anything?
Post by Rich RostromPost by m***@netMAPSONscape.netPost by Rich Rostromfuture world peace and democracy and freedom were
sincere, and assist in those plans.
This was utter foolishness on two levels.
Actually, no; Stalin was perfectly fine with peace...
When it suited him.
Which was almost always. Wars were unpredictable, and he knew that.
Post by Rich RostromThe same was true of Hitler. Neither
Actually, that wasn't at all true of Hitler.
Post by Rich Rostromhad any interest in peace as a permanent condition. Both
waged war whenever they saw a chance of profit.
Nope. Sorry, this is simply wrong. Stalin was very careful to limit wars
to things with specific goals, and opposed anything else.
Post by Rich RostromStalin of course initiated the Winter War with Finland.
And he went to war with Poland and the Baltic states when he had thoroughly
secured the right allies, and limitted those wars to readily held gains.
He could have taken all of Finland at one point, yet he did not.
He could have driven the Japanese out of Manchuria after Nomonhan, pretty
easily, too. He did not. He could have actively entered the Korean War, and
likely have pushed the UN troops entirely out of Korea. He didn't.
Post by Rich RostromHe also supported the Greek Communist insurrection and
Sorry, but that's sort of SOP for every major power, including the US, UK,
etc., for millenia.
Post by Rich Rostromthe Communist war in China. Soviet intelligence tried to
organize a revolutionary insurrection in France in 1947.
See above; or are you unaware that the US, UK, etc., have done similar things?
Does the word "Shah" mean anything to you?
Post by Rich RostromPost by m***@netMAPSONscape.netAnd you've spent a whole post arguing against a position nobody took.
"Churchill and Truman both disliked and distrusted Stalin, but
for whatever reason (maybe he was simply a smarter politician),
FDR seemed to get along fine with Stalin."
I don't see how else to interpret the above sentence.
Hmm, that IS tricky; maybe I'm suggesting he was a SMARTER POLITICIAN than
Churchill or Truman.
I'll stand by it, unless you can explain how it's SMART to be openly
antagonistic to the leader of the second largest world military power
of the time. That's seems to me to be rather the opposite of "smart",
politically.
Post by Rich RostromChurchill and Truman disliked and distrusted Stalin.
I'm pretty sure FDR didn't trust him entirely, either. Doesn't mean he
couldn't get along with him.
Post by Rich RostromThis to me was eminently sensible, as Stalin was a
ruthless, treacherous monster.
Well, that's a good point; the US or UK have NEVER gotten along with "ruthless,
treachorous monsters", have they?
No, they walk the path of the righteous, and sleep the sleep of the
innocent; see Shah-era Iran, S Vietnam, Chiang Kai-Shek's China, etc., as
examples of the US not supporting ruthless treachorous monsters.
Serioulsly,
Post by Rich RostromFDR "seemed to get along fine with Stalin"; the clear
implication is that FDR liked and trusted Stalin, and
No, the clear implication is that he thought he could work with him, and
you might reasonably infer that perhaps he felt he had a decent personal
rapport with him.
Post by Rich Rostromthe added suggestion is that it was because FDR was
"smarter".
Not sure how the word "politician" keeps slipping out of your grasp; could
you explain, please?
Post by Rich RostromNow perhaps what is meant is that Churchill and Truman,
disliking and distrusting Stalin, were overtly hostile
with him, which obstructed western-Soviet dealings,
whereas FDR, being "a smarter politician", kept up a
show of friendliness, which made those dealings easier.
Why, yes, that would much closer to what would be implied by "smarter
politician".
Post by Rich RostromThis is not supported by the historical record. As noted,
the record on Stalin is that he was not even slightly
swayed by such sentimentality. And the record on FDR,
Not sure how "better working relation" implies "sentimentality"; could you
explain?
However, let's bring up a more recent example of US-USSR relations. Do you
seriously believe Gorbachev would have allowed the dissolution of the
USSR had he not had a decent relationship with Reagan? I would not call
Reagan "smart", but he was very obviously a smart politician.
Mike