If FDR stayed in charge...

[dumbstruck]

What differences would we likely see in the wrapup of the war if FDR
stayed vigorous thru his 4th term? Spare me speeches against counter
factual predictions; I am interested in the differences in his direction
rather than any exact outcomes.

For example, from a book about Nuremburg trials, it sounds like FDR was
in the camp of wholesale summary execution of major war criminals instead
of trials. He jokingly estimated 49,000 should be executed after Stalin
suggested 50,000. Churchill thought 50-100 should be executed. Stalin
thought there should be show trials first though, and started them before
German surrender.

Up to death FDR seemed to be under the sway of his "execute without trial"
advisers such as Morgenthau, who furthermore wanted to cripple German
industrial recovery. This would go along with his pro-Russian/socialist
bias, if it remained. Instead Stimson pressed forward in spite of his boss,
with detailed plans for almost US style trials (minus 5th amendment).
Truman's consent set up W. Germany as a stronger ally in the cold war.

Another area is the decolonization post war... FDR would have likely
ensured French Asian colonies be released for instance. A new book claims
he had already sabotaged the British empire by some terms for aid (lend
lease?) which destroyed the pound sterling standing as a world currency
or something(?). Not sure if he would have handled the bomb differently.
I have heard that Truman only shut down FDR's war economy controls with
great effort... the FDR administration seemed to expect to micromanage
a non-free US economy indefinitely past the war years.

[a425couple]

Post by dumbstruck
What differences would we likely see in the wrapup of the war if FDR
stayed vigorous thru his 4th term? ---
For example, from a book about Nuremburg trials, it sounds like FDR was
in the camp of wholesale summary execution of major war criminals instead
of trials. He jokingly estimated 49,000 should be executed after Stalin
suggested 50,000. Churchill thought 50-100 should be executed. Stalin
thought there should be show trials first though, and started them before
German surrender.
Up to death FDR seemed to be under the sway of his "execute without trial"
advisers such as Morgenthau, ----

I get the impression from my readings, that predicting FDR's
final decision, based on what he 'allowed' prior to that,
was very prone to error.
In other words, he was a master politician, and did very well
keeping those close to him working very hard (on things FDR wanted)
by letting them think 'their way' was going to happen. Only
when it finally came the proper time for a final decision,
did he make it. And this at times was a surprise.
FDR was the master, and he had many key aids,
but it was FDR that pulled the strings,,, definitely not
the other way around!!

Post by dumbstruck
---Another area is the decolonization post war... FDR would have likely
ensured French Asian colonies be released for instance.

Definitely sounds true enough.
He had quite clearly ordered that the USA in NO way
assist the French in SE Asia.

And, kind of tying in to the above, sadly, FDR (and his closest aids)
had been so good at string pulling, he refused to face
reality and broaden out the circle of understanding
to include VP Truman.
The signs of FDR's health failure were quite clear to a
fair number, but they were just refusing to prepare
for "after FDR".

Post by dumbstruck
Not sure if he would have handled the bomb differently.

I'm sure not seeing that it really could have gone
differently with the involved buracracy.
(read "Downfall" by Franks, almost auto-pilot)

Post by dumbstruck
I have heard that Truman only shut down FDR's war economy controls with
great effort... the FDR administration seemed to expect to micromanage
a non-free US economy indefinitely past the war years.

That does not seem surprising.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by a425couple

Post by dumbstruck
What differences would we likely see in the wrapup of the war if FDR
stayed vigorous thru his 4th term? ---
Not sure if he would have handled the bomb differently.

I'm sure not seeing that it really could have gone
differently with the involved buracracy.
(read "Downfall" by Franks, almost auto-pilot)

Agreed. Once Germany was defeated, and Japan still refused to surrender,
it's hard to see them not using the bomb to force a Japanese capitulation.

Mike

[The Horny Goat]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by a425couple

Post by dumbstruck
What differences would we likely see in the wrapup of the war if FDR
stayed vigorous thru his 4th term? ---
Not sure if he would have handled the bomb differently.

I'm sure not seeing that it really could have gone
differently with the involved buracracy.
(read "Downfall" by Franks, almost auto-pilot)

Agreed. Once Germany was defeated, and Japan still refused to surrender,
it's hard to see them not using the bomb to force a Japanese capitulation.

I certainly am no fan of the 'send a message to the Soviets' camp -
Stalin's comment when informed of the bomb (which was basically to the
effect that he hoped it was used against the enemy where most
effective) says to me that he already knew about it which given what
we know about the atomic spies of that era he undoubtedly did.

[Joe keane]

Post by a425couple
And, kind of tying in to the above, sadly, FDR (and his closest aids)
had been so good at string pulling, he refused to face reality and
broaden out the circle of understanding to include VP Truman.

Truman was VP starting in January 1945.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by dumbstruck
factual predictions; I am interested in the differences in his direction
rather than any exact outcomes.
For example, from a book about Nuremburg trials, it sounds like FDR was
in the camp of wholesale summary execution of major war criminals instead
of trials. He jokingly estimated 49,000 should be executed after Stalin
suggested 50,000. Churchill thought 50-100 should be executed. Stalin
thought there should be show trials first though, and started them before
German surrender.

I wonder what the US-Stalin relationship would have been. 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, given the circumstances. Would the Cold War have popped up so
early, and been so intense? I don't know.

Post by dumbstruck
Up to death FDR seemed to be under the sway of his "execute without trial"
advisers such as Morgenthau, who furthermore wanted to cripple German
industrial recovery. This would go along with his pro-Russian/socialist
bias, if it remained. Instead Stimson pressed forward in spite of his boss,
with detailed plans for almost US style trials (minus 5th amendment).
Truman's consent set up W. Germany as a stronger ally in the cold war.

See above; the "execute without trial" might have been part of FDR playing
to Stalin. I doubt he would have carried it out, but that could have been
part of his seeming to find common ground with the Soviets who, whatever
their many faults, had been savaged by the Germans. Seeming to be sympathetic
might have made Stalin feel less paranoid. Again, just speculation.

Post by dumbstruck
Another area is the decolonization post war... FDR would have likely
ensured French Asian colonies be released for instance. A new book claims
he had already sabotaged the British empire by some terms for aid (lend
lease?) which destroyed the pound sterling standing as a world currency
or something(?). Not sure if he would have handled the bomb differently.
I have heard that Truman only shut down FDR's war economy controls with
great effort... the FDR administration seemed to expect to micromanage
a non-free US economy indefinitely past the war years.

I think a lot of things changed as the end-game got nearer. When it began to
be obvious that the West and USSR were not going to see everything eye-to-eye,
the Western powers began to consider how best to get a potentially strong
Germany back on its feet and on their side.

Mike

[Bill]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by dumbstruck
factual predictions; I am interested in the differences in his direction
rather than any exact outcomes.
For example, from a book about Nuremburg trials, it sounds like FDR was
in the camp of wholesale summary execution of major war criminals instead
of trials. He jokingly estimated 49,000 should be executed after Stalin
suggested 50,000. Churchill thought 50-100 should be executed. Stalin
thought there should be show trials first though, and started them before
German surrender.

I wonder what the US-Stalin relationship would have been. 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, given the circumstances. Would the Cold War have popped up so
early, and been so intense? I don't know.

Churchill was an aristocrat with a track record as a visceral anti
Communist whereas FDR came from the left.

Stalin knew exactly where he was with Churchill, and Churchill knew
exactly where he was with Stalin. Once they'd done for the German mad
dog they knew they'd be on different sides yet again.

To Stalin FDR was an unknown quantity.

[news]

Post by Bill
To Stalin FDR was an unknown quantity.
From Stalin ideological point of view, I doubt he saw much difference

between FDR and Churchill.

[Stephen Graham]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
I wonder what the US-Stalin relationship would have been. 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, given the circumstances. Would the Cold War have popped up so
early, and been so intense? I don't know.

There were a number of clashes between the US and the Soviets prior to
Roosevelt's death, specifically over access to Western POWs and US and
British access to Eastern Europe. What Truman's accession brought about
was a realignment within the US State department bringing forward a
faction less inclined to give leeway to Stalin. But the real roots of
the Cold War were in the post-war disagreements over how to handle
Germany and Eastern Europe.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
I wonder what the US-Stalin relationship would have
been. 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

None of the other Allied leaders had any real
understanding of Stalin - that he was a paranoid mass
murderer and the most absolute of absolute rulers.
None of them imagined the scale of mass killings
ordered by Stalin, or what he had done to loyal and
devoted Bolsheviks to prepare the Moscow show trials.

Churchill, for instance, thought that Stalin had to
answer to a "Council of Commissars". But he at least
understood that the USSR was a brutal murderous
dictatorship.

FDR was far more naive - he imagined that Soviet
Communism was Russia's version of the New Deal.

Also, his circle of advisers included several
important Soviet agents of influence, including Alger
Hiss and Harry Dexter White.

So it is absurd to suggest that FDR "got along fine"
with Stalin because he was smarter. "Getting along
with Stalin" was not in the interest of anyone except
Stalin (and those at his mercy).

Stalin's cooperation in some areas was useful. But it
wasn't going to be gained because of any friendly
feelings on Stalin's part - only by his cold
calculation.

FDR'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
future world peace and democracy and freedom were
sincere, and assist in those plans.

This was utter foolishness on two levels.

First, Stalin was incapable of trusting anyone, except
his perhaps most servile tools, who were deeply
complicit in his worst crimes.

Second, if Stalin had any goals other than personal
power, it was the establishment of Soviet-style
Communist states in as many countries as possible, for
which peace and democracy and freedom were obstacles.

"Smart" is not a word that can be usefully applied to
such a policy.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
I wonder what the US-Stalin relationship would have
been. 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

None of the other Allied leaders had any real
understanding of Stalin - that he was a paranoid mass
murderer and the most absolute of absolute rulers.
None of them imagined the scale of mass killings
ordered by Stalin, or what he had done to loyal and
devoted Bolsheviks to prepare the Moscow show trials.

I'm pretty sure most of them knew about the Soviets' habit of executing
large numbers of those they didn't like. They weren't hated/feared simply
because of their political ideologies.

Post by Rich Rostrom
FDR was far more naive - he imagined that Soviet
Communism was Russia's version of the New Deal.

And 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.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Also, his circle of advisers included several
important Soviet agents of influence, including Alger
Hiss and Harry Dexter White.

So, they had steered him into a pattern of raproachment with the USSR through-
out the 30s?

Post by Rich Rostrom
So it is absurd to suggest that FDR "got along fine"
with Stalin because he was smarter. "Getting along

Well, nobody suggested that; what someone suggested was "simply a smarter
politician", which seems true. Whatever else his faults, FDR was a
very smart politician.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Stalin's cooperation in some areas was useful. But it
wasn't going to be gained because of any friendly
feelings on Stalin's part - only by his cold
calculation.

And in the real world, things don't usually break down into easily
distinguished "right" and "wrong" choices; there are numerous
factors to consider, and ability to get along with a foreign ruler
(or inability) can tilt a policy selection one way or another.

Post by Rich Rostrom
FDR'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, Stalin had his way on those things anyway.

Stalin was always VERY careful not to overextend himself.

Post by Rich Rostrom
future 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; it was much less
threatening to his position, and the later attack by North Korea on the
South seems to both have surprised and angered him.

Post by Rich Rostrom
"Smart" is not a word that can be usefully applied to
such a policy.

And you've spent a whole post arguing against a position nobody took.

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
None 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.

They knew that there had been executions in the USSR.
They also knew that Nazi Germany had murdered Jews.

In the latter case, they did not know _how_ _many_
until after the victory - when it came as a horrifying
surprise, orders of magnitude greater than imagined.

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.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
FDR was far more naive - he imagined that Soviet
Communism was Russia's version of the New Deal.

And 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.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
Also, his circle of advisers included several
important Soviet agents of influence, including Alger
Hiss and Harry Dexter White.

So, 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. But there is considerable evidence
that Hiss, White, Lauchlin Currie, and others pushed
to extend diplomatic recognition to the USSR, to allow
extensive Soviet diplomatic and consular presence in the
U.S., to facilitate Soviet commercial dealings, and to
prevent the U.S. from obstructing Soviet moves in Eastern
Europe and the Far East.

Until WW II and the 1940s, there wasn't much engagement
between the USSR and the U.S.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
So it is absurd to suggest that FDR "got along fine"
with Stalin because he was smarter.

Well, nobody suggested that; what someone...

You.

Post 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. Politics is the allocation of authority
and resolution of disputes within a power structure.

There was no power structure including the US and USSR.

Dealings by one power structure with a separate (and
therefore independent) power structure are diplomacy.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
FDR'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"?

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Stalin had his way on those things anyway.

There were some things Stalin could enforce. There
were others he could only ask for. For instance,
the 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.

And there were other things given to Stalin by FDR
which could not be withdrawn.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Stalin was always VERY careful not to overextend himself.

And therefore could have been deterred from actions he
got away with thanks to FDR.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
future 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. The same was true of Hitler. Neither
had any interest in peace as a permanent condition. Both
waged war whenever they saw a chance of profit.

Stalin of course initiated the Winter War with Finland.
He also supported the Greek Communist insurrection and
the Communist war in China. Soviet intelligence tried to
organize a revolutionary insurrection in France in 1947.

(This last action was a complete fiasco, as the Comintern
planners grossly overestimated the influence of the
French Communist Party in the relevant labor unions.)

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
"Smart" is not a word that can be usefully applied to
such a policy.

And 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.

Churchill and Truman disliked and distrusted Stalin.
This to me was eminently sensible, as Stalin was a
ruthless, treacherous monster.

FDR "seemed to get along fine with Stalin"; the clear
implication is that FDR liked and trusted Stalin, and
the added suggestion is that it was because FDR was
"smarter".

Now 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.

This 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,
as reported by associates such as Averell Harriman, is
that he believed Stalin could be so swayed, and that
Stalin shared FDR's goals - both delusions.

[Bill]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:31:54 -0400, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
They knew that there had been executions in the USSR.
They also knew that Nazi Germany had murdered Jews.
In the latter case, they did not know _how_ _many_
until after the victory - when it came as a horrifying
surprise, orders of magnitude greater than imagined.

The British certainly intercepted and decrypted the signals from the
Einsatzgruppen recording the deaths of over a million Jews.

[Stephen Graham]

Apropos to this, I just finished (on Saturday) S.M. Plokhy's _Yalta_,
which I'd like to thank Chris Manteuffel for pointing out last June. It
just took a while to percolate to the top of my To Be Read stack.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
Also, his circle of advisers included several
important Soviet agents of influence, including Alger
Hiss and Harry Dexter White.

This is one of the items Plokhy addresses. Even with intermittent access
to the Soviet-era archives, it remains unclear whether Hiss, at least,
was an agent. At Yalta, in those limited areas that Hiss had influence,
he actually opposed Stalin's position.

More important to the outcome of the talks was the fact that the Soviets
had bugged everything very thoroughly.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
So, 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. But there is considerable evidence
that Hiss, White, Lauchlin Currie, and others pushed
to extend diplomatic recognition to the USSR, to allow
extensive Soviet diplomatic and consular presence in the
U.S., to facilitate Soviet commercial dealings, and to
prevent the U.S. from obstructing Soviet moves in Eastern
Europe and the Far East.
Until WW II and the 1940s, there wasn't much engagement
between the USSR and the U.S.

I think it was obviously to the U.S.'s advantage to be engaged with the
USSR between the wars. So extending diplomatic recognition was a clear
winner. The US had become a significant power within the world in the
1920s; likewise the USSR. Thus some degree of communications between the
two states was important.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Political calculation or manipulation or operation
was irrelevant. Politics is the allocation of authority
and resolution of disputes within a power structure.
There was no power structure including the US and USSR.
Dealings by one power structure with a separate (and
therefore independent) power structure are diplomacy.

It's not as if there's a bright line separating politics and diplomacy.
The skills applicable to one are usually equally applicable to the other.

Post by Rich Rostrom
There were some things Stalin could enforce. There
were others he could only ask for. For instance,
the 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.

FDR thought that Soviet participation in the United Nations was
sufficiently important to grant that request. Stalin did a sufficiently
good job at portraying the Ukraine and Belorussia as potentially
independent actors. Consider matters from Stalin's viewpoint: what he
saw was that Britain had multiple seats through the Commonwealth and
that the US similarly could wield more power in the UN through control
of the Latin American states. And it's hardly Stalin's fault that
political considerations made the US turn down seats for Alaska, Hawaii
and Puerto Rico.

Post by Rich Rostrom
And there were other things given to Stalin by FDR
which could not be withdrawn.

Again, FDR gave things to Stalin because he felt that he got value in
return, most importantly, Soviet participation in the war against Japan.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Stalin was always VERY careful not to overextend himself.

And therefore could have been deterred from actions he
got away with thanks to FDR.

Which precise actions do you have in mind?

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Actually, no; Stalin was perfectly fine with peace...

When it suited him.

What the archival material tells us is that Stalin far preferred to stay
at peace and only took military action when forced or when he thought it
could be finished immediately.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Stalin of course initiated the Winter War with Finland.

Because he presumed that the Finns would immediately capitulate.

Post by Rich Rostrom
He also supported the Greek Communist insurrection

And promptly dropped them when it turned to his advantage to do so.

Post by Rich Rostrom
and
the Communist war in China.

As I pointed out in March, that may have been good for the Chinese.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Now 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.
This is not supported by the historical record.

The historical record presently argues that FDR's approach worked better
than that of Churchill and Stalin.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Stephen Graham
What the archival material tells us is that Stalin far preferred to stay
at peace and only took military action when forced or when he thought it
could be finished immediately.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Stalin of course initiated the Winter War with Finland.

Because he presumed that the Finns would immediately capitulate.

One thing that always struck me about Stalin's choices for war were that
they involved nations which had taken Russian territory during Stalin's
lifetime. He picked war with Finland (twice), Poland, the Baltic States,
and Japan; all had either taken territory from Tsarist Russia, or used
the Soviet Revolution chaos to settle some border claims in their favor.

Even then, he was careful to pick those wars when he thought he had
secured the right alliances to make them work. For example, he left
Poland alone until Hitler approached him with the plans for invasion.
He also routed (well, Zhukov routed) Japanese forces in Norhtern China,
but didn't pursue an opportunity to retake the territory lost in the 1904
War until after the Western Powers entered into agreements making the
outcome as close to a done deal as it's possible to get.

Mike

[Stephen Graham]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
One thing that always struck me about Stalin's choices for war were that
they involved nations which had taken Russian territory during Stalin's
lifetime. He picked war with Finland (twice), Poland, the Baltic States,
and Japan; all had either taken territory from Tsarist Russia, or used
the Soviet Revolution chaos to settle some border claims in their favor.

There's a line of argument that Stalin's foreign policy was primarily a
continuation of that of the Czars: the development of a safety buffer
around the Russian heartland and gaining influence over the other Slavs.
Plus control of the Turkish Straits.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Stephen Graham
There's a line of argument that Stalin's foreign policy was primarily a
continuation of that of the Czars: the development of a safety buffer
around the Russian heartland and gaining influence over the other Slavs.
Plus control of the Turkish Straits.

That idea was advocated strongly with the
implication or consequence that the USSR
had abandoned all intention of promoting
Communist world revolution.

It was a case of projection - those who
made that argument projected their own
"realistic" worldview onto the Soviet
leadership, and asserted that all the
professions of socialist ideology and
revolutionary intentions were pretense.
("They don't really mean it.")

[Stephen Graham]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Stephen Graham
There's a line of argument that Stalin's foreign policy was primarily a
continuation of that of the Czars: the development of a safety buffer
around the Russian heartland and gaining influence over the other Slavs.
Plus control of the Turkish Straits.

That idea was advocated strongly with the
implication or consequence that the USSR
had abandoned all intention of promoting
Communist world revolution.

To the best of my knowledge, that is the dominant idea in current
scholarship on the question of Soviet foreign policy in the immediate
post-World War Two era. Communist world revolution would have been nice
but the primary focus was on neutralizing Germany and establishing the
Eastern European buffer zone. Similarly, protection of the Soviet
Pacific coast as well as re-establishment of a deep-water port on the
Liaodong peninsula.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by Rich Rostrom
That idea was advocated strongly with the
implication or consequence that the USSR
had abandoned all intention of promoting
Communist world revolution.

To the best of my knowledge, that is the dominant idea in current
scholarship on the question of Soviet foreign policy in the immediate
post-World War Two era. Communist world revolution would have been nice
but the primary focus was on neutralizing Germany and establishing the
Eastern European buffer zone. Similarly, protection of the Soviet
Pacific coast as well as re-establishment of a deep-water port on the
Liaodong peninsula.

And then what?

If a habitual skirt-chaser fails to solicit
some woman for sex, and eats dinner instead
(because he's really hungry at that moment),
is that evidence that he has become celibate
by choice?

If a devoted evangelist retires from preaching
for a period, while recovering from a serious
illness, is that evidence that he has renounced
his religious convictions, and will not seek
converts any more?

If an aspiring actor passes up an audition
and instead shows up for work as a waiter
(thereby earning his rent money for that
month)l, is that evidence he has no more
thespian ambitions?

[Stephen Graham]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by Rich Rostrom
That idea was advocated strongly with the
implication or consequence that the USSR
had abandoned all intention of promoting
Communist world revolution.

To the best of my knowledge, that is the dominant idea in current
scholarship on the question of Soviet foreign policy in the immediate
post-World War Two era. Communist world revolution would have been nice
but the primary focus was on neutralizing Germany and establishing the
Eastern European buffer zone. Similarly, protection of the Soviet
Pacific coast as well as re-establishment of a deep-water port on the
Liaodong peninsula.

And then what?

And then we get into the Cold War-era, wherein the conventional
narrative of the Free World versus the Communists does an amazingly bad
job of explaining what was going on.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Stephen Graham
There's a line of argument that Stalin's foreign policy was primarily a
continuation of that of the Czars: the development of a safety buffer
around the Russian heartland and gaining influence over the other Slavs.
Plus control of the Turkish Straits.

That idea was advocated strongly with the
implication or consequence that the USSR
had abandoned all intention of promoting
Communist world revolution.

Or, perhaps, with the implication that they didn't see world revolution as
immediately pressing, while securing borders and having buffers was
immediately pressing?

Or, perhaps the implication that any world revolution would come from
within the borders of a nation undergoing said revolution, rather than
being foisted on it from the outside?

Post by Rich Rostrom
It was a case of projection - those who
made that argument projected their own
"realistic" worldview onto the Soviet
leadership, and asserted that all the
professions of socialist ideology and
revolutionary intentions were pretense.
("They don't really mean it.")

In addition to projection, it has the benefit of nicely matching up with
the actions.

In fact, the USSR did not get directly involved in any foreign wars
that were not in immediately neighboring states; odd behavior for an
ideology bent on world revolution.

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
In fact, the USSR did not get directly involved in any foreign wars
that were not in immediately neighboring states; odd behavior for an
ideology bent on world revolution.

The USSR was deeply involved in many foreign wars
far beyond its borders.

That it didn't do so directly had less to do
with ideological restraint than with control
of the oceans by the U.S. Navy., and the PR
advantages of using proxies, such as the Cubans
and East Germans deployed in Africa.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
In fact, the USSR did not get directly involved in any foreign wars
that were not in immediately neighboring states; odd behavior for an
ideology bent on world revolution.

The USSR was deeply involved in many foreign wars
far beyond its borders.

The USSR sent advisors and such.

The US sent combat troops.

In addition to being "deeply involved" in Iran, Guatamala, Chile, Vietnam
(pre Tonkin), Cambodia, Laos, etc.

Post by Rich Rostrom
That it didn't do so directly had less to do
with ideological restraint than with control
of the oceans by the U.S. Navy., and the PR

Seriously wrong; as a casual glance at a map shows, there exist overland
routes from the USSR to, eg, Korea.

Perhaps you should look at those maps.

Mike

[Mart van de Wege]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
In fact, the USSR did not get directly involved in any foreign wars
that were not in immediately neighboring states; odd behavior for an
ideology bent on world revolution.

The USSR was deeply involved in many foreign wars
far beyond its borders.

The USSR sent advisors and such.
The US sent combat troops.

To be fair to Rich' viewpoint, some of those Soviet 'advisors' did
actually engage in combat, vide their fighter pilots in the
Israeli-Egyptian conflicts of the 60s and 70s, and the US did the same
thing by calling their combat troops 'advisors', as they did in the
first stages of the Vietnam war.

But we're moving off-topic now, this is more fodder for
soc.history.war.cold-war (if such a group exists).

Mart

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Mart van de Wege
But we're moving off-topic now, this is more fodder for
soc.history.war.cold-war (if such a group exists).

It is and it isn't.

The questions are:

The wisdom or folly of Roosevelt's policy toward
Stalin and the USSR in 1941-1945.

Whether Roosevelt understood the nature of the
Soviet regime and the character of Stalin.

This leads to the question of what that
nature and character were.

Soviet behavior after the war is evidence on that
question.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Mart van de Wege
But we're moving off-topic now, this is more fodder for
soc.history.war.cold-war (if such a group exists).

It is and it isn't.
The wisdom or folly of Roosevelt's policy toward
Stalin and the USSR in 1941-1945.
Whether Roosevelt understood the nature of the
Soviet regime and the character of Stalin.

Well, another question that you've avoided answering is what FDR conceded
to Stalin that was of any value that he didn't already have by having troops
in place because of the war.

Post by Rich Rostrom
This leads to the question of what that
nature and character were.
Soviet behavior after the war is evidence on that
question.

Right; they didn't expand beyond the areas directly on their borders,
and those areas they possessed by having troops in place as a result of
WWII.

Indeed, they eventually handed Manchuria back to China.

Mike

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Mart van de Wege

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
In fact, the USSR did not get directly involved in any foreign wars
that were not in immediately neighboring states; odd behavior for an
ideology bent on world revolution.

The USSR was deeply involved in many foreign wars
far beyond its borders.

The USSR sent advisors and such.
The US sent combat troops.

To be fair to Rich' viewpoint, some of those Soviet 'advisors' did
actually engage in combat, vide their fighter pilots in the
Israeli-Egyptian conflicts of the 60s and 70s, and the US did the same
thing by calling their combat troops 'advisors', as they did in the
first stages of the Vietnam war.

No doubt; and there is at least anecdotal evidence that some Soviet pilots
flew Migs in the Korean War (something like the Flying Tigers intended to
do.)

But the fact remains that once Stalin secured his borders, he remained
firmly behind them, and didn't venture out. A brute to be sure, but a
shrewd one, and one who could thus be reasoned with.

Mike

[Bill]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 00:56:30 -0400, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
In fact, the USSR did not get directly involved in any foreign wars
that were not in immediately neighboring states; odd behavior for an
ideology bent on world revolution.

The USSR was deeply involved in many foreign wars
far beyond its borders.
That it didn't do so directly had less to do
with ideological restraint than with control
of the oceans by the U.S. Navy., and the PR
advantages of using proxies, such as the Cubans
and East Germans deployed in Africa.

Now how on earth does that work with Korea and Vietnam?

As a general rule the Soviets sent guns and advisors.

When they sent combat troops, as in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan,
they were either out in a week or two or, in Afghanistan, they came
horribly unglued.

The US tends to get closer to the action and gets its men involved in
the fighting, possibly because of the way they do things. They're
less liable to turn up with a shed load of hheavy weapons and a
training and support cadre who train large bodies of soldiers and much
more likely to send Special Forces teams to train a small body to
'elite' level.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Bill
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 00:56:30 -0400, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
The USSR was deeply involved in many foreign wars
far beyond its borders.
That it didn't do so directly had less to do
with ideological restraint than with control
of the oceans by the U.S. Navy., and the PR
advantages of using proxies, such as the Cubans
and East Germans deployed in Africa.

Now how on earth does that work with Korea and Vietnam?

Neither is across an ocean from the USSR.

Both were fought by proxies; in the case of Vietnam,
with enormous deniability advantages. (Ho Chi Minh
was a life-long Stalinist, the North Vietnamese
government was explicitly modeled on the USSR, the
NVA was supplied from Soviet arsenals - yet "world
opinion" somehow disconnected Vietnam from the USSR.
Imagine if in 1939 or 1941, Ante Pavelic had led an
explicitly Fascist rebellion against the Kingdom of
Yugoslavia, with cadres trained in Italy and arms
supplied by Italy - and somehow was viewed as a
only a "nationalist" fighting against a foreign
(Serbian) monarchy.)

I should have mentioned the third major constraint
on Soviet aggression: the possession by the U.S.,
and later by its allies, of nuclear weapons.

If Britain and France had nuclear weapons in the
1930s, even Hitler could have been deterred from
starting open wars of aggression. Mussolini certainly
would have.

But their characters would have been exactly the same.

Post by Bill
As a general rule the Soviets sent guns and advisors.

Or they sent troops from wholly owned subsidiary
countries, such as Cuba and East Germany, equipped
with Soviet weapons and taking orders from Soviet
commanders.

Post by Bill
When they sent combat troops, as in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan,
they were either out in a week or two...

Or forty years. That was how long Soviet control
of Czechoslovakia lasted. It only had to be enforced
occasionally - but the loaded gun was pointed at
Czechoslovakia (and Poland, Hungary, Romania, and
Bulgaria) from point-blank range.

Post by Bill
or, in Afghanistan, they came horribly unglued.

Dunno what you mean by that. The Soviets Army could
not secure the very rough Afghan countryside. They
never had any real difficulty holding Afghan cities.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Bill
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 00:56:30 -0400, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
The USSR was deeply involved in many foreign wars
far beyond its borders.
That it didn't do so directly had less to do
with ideological restraint than with control
of the oceans by the U.S. Navy., and the PR
advantages of using proxies, such as the Cubans
and East Germans deployed in Africa.

Now how on earth does that work with Korea and Vietnam?

Neither is across an ocean from the USSR.

Right; Korea is directly adjacent to the USSR, the USN had nothing to
say about what the Soviets did, and still the Soviets didn't commit
troops. The US, however, did.

Odd behavior if, as you claim, Stalin was some sort of world revolutionary.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Both were fought by proxies; in the case of Vietnam,

Well, the US fought outright; again, no real evidence of expansionism by
the Soviets.

Post by Rich Rostrom
with enormous deniability advantages. (Ho Chi Minh
was a life-long Stalinist, the North Vietnamese

Well, no; he was a communist second, and a naitonalist first.

Post by Rich Rostrom
government was explicitly modeled on the USSR, the
NVA was supplied from Soviet arsenals - yet "world
opinion" somehow disconnected Vietnam from the USSR.

Really? You clearly didn't watch TV during that war.

Post by Rich Rostrom
I should have mentioned the third major constraint
on Soviet aggression: the possession by the U.S.,
and later by its allies, of nuclear weapons.

Um, so FDR, knowing he was going to have nuclear weapons (though Stalin
would later have them as well) was somehow naive?

But tell us; with the more hardline Churchill and HST in possession of
nuclear weapons well before Stalin, why didn't they take steps to undo
whatever imaginery damage FDR had done with his naive bumbling?

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Bill
As a general rule the Soviets sent guns and advisors.

Or they sent troops from wholly owned subsidiary
countries, such as Cuba and East Germany, equipped
with Soviet weapons and taking orders from Soviet
commanders.

Sorry, that differs from the US/UK how, exactly?

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Bill
When they sent combat troops, as in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan,
they were either out in a week or two...

Or forty years. That was how long Soviet control
of Czechoslovakia lasted. It only had to be enforced
occasionally - but the loaded gun was pointed at
Czechoslovakia (and Poland, Hungary, Romania, and
Bulgaria) from point-blank range.

Um, so HST and Churchill/UK decided not to remove Stalin with their
nuclear weapons why? exactly?

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Bill
or, in Afghanistan, they came horribly unglued.

Dunno what you mean by that. The Soviets Army could
not secure the very rough Afghan countryside. They
never had any real difficulty holding Afghan cities.

They were actually doing quite well until the US equipped the Mujahideen with
stingers to take out the Hinds, which were devasting them in the countryside.

Oh, and there was that whole "advisor" thing again.

Mike

[Henry]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Bill
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 00:56:30 -0400, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
The USSR was deeply involved in many foreign wars
far beyond its borders.
That it didn't do so directly had less to do
with ideological restraint than with control
of the oceans by the U.S. Navy., and the PR
advantages of using proxies, such as the Cubans
and East Germans deployed in Africa.

Now how on earth does that work with Korea and Vietnam?

Neither is across an ocean from the USSR.

Right; Korea is directly adjacent to the USSR, the USN had nothing to
say about what the Soviets did, and still the Soviets didn't commit
troops. The US, however, did.
Odd behavior if, as you claim, Stalin was some sort of world revolutionary.

The explanation I read (in Mao: The Unknown Story) was that Mao was
eager to have his own sphere of influence and that Stalin indulged him
by letting him have the North Koreans as his first clients.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
Both were fought by proxies; in the case of Vietnam,

Well, the US fought outright; again, no real evidence of expansionism by
the Soviets.

Post by Rich Rostrom
with enormous deniability advantages. (Ho Chi Minh
was a life-long Stalinist, the North Vietnamese

Well, no; he was a communist second, and a naitonalist first.

Post by Rich Rostrom
government was explicitly modeled on the USSR, the
NVA was supplied from Soviet arsenals - yet "world
opinion" somehow disconnected Vietnam from the USSR.

Really? You clearly didn't watch TV during that war.

There might have been a few analysts who mentioned the connection but I
don't think there was a strong presence in the consciousness of the
average TV viewer. I certainly never heard of any major protests against
Soviet involvement in Vietnam. I don't even remember any anti-Soviet
placards in any of the protests.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
I should have mentioned the third major constraint
on Soviet aggression: the possession by the U.S.,
and later by its allies, of nuclear weapons.

Um, so FDR, knowing he was going to have nuclear weapons (though Stalin
would later have them as well) was somehow naive?
But tell us; with the more hardline Churchill and HST in possession of
nuclear weapons well before Stalin, why didn't they take steps to undo
whatever imaginery damage FDR had done with his naive bumbling?

And there you have the fundamental difference between the Western Allies
and the Marxists. The Western Allies did not take advantage of their
nuclear monopoly even when they had the chance to do so. I have little
doubt that Stalin or Mao would exploited such a monopoly if they had had
it.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Bill
As a general rule the Soviets sent guns and advisors.

Or they sent troops from wholly owned subsidiary
countries, such as Cuba and East Germany, equipped
with Soviet weapons and taking orders from Soviet
commanders.

Sorry, that differs from the US/UK how, exactly?

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Bill
When they sent combat troops, as in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan,
they were either out in a week or two...

Or forty years. That was how long Soviet control
of Czechoslovakia lasted. It only had to be enforced
occasionally - but the loaded gun was pointed at
Czechoslovakia (and Poland, Hungary, Romania, and
Bulgaria) from point-blank range.

Um, so HST and Churchill/UK decided not to remove Stalin with their
nuclear weapons why? exactly?

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Bill
or, in Afghanistan, they came horribly unglued.

Dunno what you mean by that. The Soviets Army could
not secure the very rough Afghan countryside. They
never had any real difficulty holding Afghan cities.

They were actually doing quite well until the US equipped the Mujahideen with
stingers to take out the Hinds, which were devasting them in the countryside.
Oh, and there was that whole "advisor" thing again.
Mike

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Henry

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
government was explicitly modeled on the USSR, the
NVA was supplied from Soviet arsenals - yet "world
opinion" somehow disconnected Vietnam from the USSR.

Really? You clearly didn't watch TV during that war.

There might have been a few analysts who mentioned the connection but I
don't think there was a strong presence in the consciousness of the
average TV viewer.

I don't know how old you are, but I remember watching the nightly newscasts,
and there was constant talk of what the Soviets and the Chinese were
doing to help North Vietnam; not a single American I knew of was confused
about who provided SAMs, Migs, etc. to the North Vietnamese.

Post by Henry
I certainly never heard of any major protests against
Soviet involvement in Vietnam. I don't even remember any anti-Soviet
placards in any of the protests.

Um, if you remember the era, you would remember that since the protesters
were mainly leftists, and since the Soviets weren't supplying actual
troops in a "war of liberation", why would you have expected protests
against against them?

Post by Henry

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
But tell us; with the more hardline Churchill and HST in possession of
nuclear weapons well before Stalin, why didn't they take steps to undo
whatever imaginery damage FDR had done with his naive bumbling?

And there you have the fundamental difference between the Western Allies
and the Marxists. The Western Allies did not take advantage of their
nuclear monopoly even when they had the chance to do so. I have little
doubt that Stalin or Mao would exploited such a monopoly if they had had
it.

But the question is NOT about the difference between Stalin and the West; it's
about the differences in dealing with Stalin between FDR and HST and Churchill.

Mike

[Henry]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Henry

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
government was explicitly modeled on the USSR, the
NVA was supplied from Soviet arsenals - yet "world
opinion" somehow disconnected Vietnam from the USSR.

Really? You clearly didn't watch TV during that war.

There might have been a few analysts who mentioned the connection but I
don't think there was a strong presence in the consciousness of the
average TV viewer.

I don't know how old you are, but I remember watching the nightly newscasts,
and there was constant talk of what the Soviets and the Chinese were
doing to help North Vietnam; not a single American I knew of was confused
about who provided SAMs, Migs, etc. to the North Vietnamese.

I have to admit the details are faint in my memory; I was in my teens
then and it's a long time ago....

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Henry
I certainly never heard of any major protests against
Soviet involvement in Vietnam. I don't even remember any anti-Soviet
placards in any of the protests.

Um, if you remember the era, you would remember that since the protesters
were mainly leftists, and since the Soviets weren't supplying actual
troops in a "war of liberation", why would you have expected protests
against against them?

If they were supplying the wherewithal for the North Vietnamese to
attack the South - and by your own admission they were known to be doing
so - they were certainly major enablers of the North's part in the war,
even if they weren't supplying combat troops.

Therefore, an ethical protester SHOULD, in my opinion, have had as much
problem with Soviet and Chinese support for the North Vietnamese as they
did with US support for the South Vietnamese. Certainly there were
claims by the protesters that they wanted peace and weren't really just
bashing the US. I think trying to determine the true extent of that
pacifist, as opposed to leftist, sentiment would be difficult at best to
discuss rationally and objectively but I had always wanted to believe
that. Then again, perhaps the protesters weren't against all war, just
against war that frustrated the aims of the Soviets and mainland
Chinese.....

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Henry

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
But tell us; with the more hardline Churchill and HST in possession of
nuclear weapons well before Stalin, why didn't they take steps to undo
whatever imaginery damage FDR had done with his naive bumbling?

And there you have the fundamental difference between the Western Allies
and the Marxists. The Western Allies did not take advantage of their
nuclear monopoly even when they had the chance to do so. I have little
doubt that Stalin or Mao would exploited such a monopoly if they had had
it.

But the question is NOT about the difference between Stalin and the West; it's
about the differences in dealing with Stalin between FDR and HST and Churchill.

Perhaps I'm diverging a little from the original intent of the
discussion but I believe I'm making an important point. It seems
like I've spent most of my life hearing people bashing the US and
its Cold War foreign policy. I've heard a great many remarks over the
years that made it seem as if there was little difference between the
Soviets and the US. I truly believe that, despite the various events
seized on by critics of the US, there was a huge difference in the basic
natures of the US and the Soviets. Even if both interfered in the
affairs of other nations, the US NEVER indulged in the sort of wholesale
slaughter of innocents that the Soviets and the Chinese and the
Cambodians under Pol Pot did. I think that's crucially important. Few
people ever seem to acknowledge this though; they prefer to rant against
the US as if it really wasn't much different than the Soviet Union.

I don't have enough knowledge of the inner workings of the governments
of FDR and HST to take a confident position on whether FDR was naive or
gullible where HST was not. I've certainly seen my share of accusations
of this type against FDR. Some of them frankly give me the same cause
for concern as Rich Rostrum raised. But maybe those quotes are taken out
of context or misunderstood in some way. Or they were not accurately
quoted in the first place. Maybe FDR's personal views were not actually
quite as portrayed in these quotes even if the quotes are accurate.

I personally believe that WW II would have turned out much better if it
had ended with both Hitler and Stalin dead and their regimes in the
dust. But, of course, it didn't work out that way. Who can say what the
world would look like now if both of those monsters had ended their
reigns of terror around 1945? However frightening it was at times, the
Cold war is over and communism seems increasingly irrelevant, as it should.

But I digress (again). Time to end this post....

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Henry

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Um, if you remember the era, you would remember that since the protesters
were mainly leftists, and since the Soviets weren't supplying actual
troops in a "war of liberation", why would you have expected protests
against against them?

If they were supplying the wherewithal for the North Vietnamese to
attack the South - and by your own admission they were known to be doing
so - they were certainly major enablers of the North's part in the war,
even if they weren't supplying combat troops.

my "own admission"? Nothing to admit; in fact, that's kinda been my point
all along. Almost always, the Stalin tactic (and later Soviet) was to
simply supply their chosen side, not commit to combat. The US (and UK, and
other nations) committed combat troops.

Post by Henry
Therefore, an ethical protester SHOULD, in my opinion, have had as much
problem with Soviet and Chinese support for the North Vietnamese as they
did with US support for the South Vietnamese. Certainly there were

Um, why?

This was a civil war. There were no protests when the US was simply
arming the South; it was when the US committed troops, and didn't make
headway in the war that the protests started. And after a couple years,
they were justified; you don't commit to combat without a clear idea of
what you expect to accomplish.

Getting back to Stalin, he always had pretty clear goals, was good at
deciding how much he was willing to commit, and NEVER overcommit.

Post by Henry
claims by the protesters that they wanted peace and weren't really just
bashing the US. I think trying to determine the true extent of that
pacifist, as opposed to leftist, sentiment would be difficult at best to
discuss rationally and objectively but I had always wanted to believe

Not really; again, it was largely a leftist movement. World-wide, mostly
involving younger people, happily supported by the USSR.

Post by Henry

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
But the question is NOT about the difference between Stalin and the West; it's
about the differences in dealing with Stalin between FDR and HST and Churchill.

Perhaps I'm diverging a little from the original intent of the
discussion but I believe I'm making an important point. It seems
like I've spent most of my life hearing people bashing the US and
its Cold War foreign policy. I've heard a great many remarks over the

The US made many mistakes during that time; it was never going to be a
quick and clean confrontation. However, the Stalinist approach is what
is under discussion.

Post by Henry
years that made it seem as if there was little difference between the
Soviets and the US. I truly believe that, despite the various events
seized on by critics of the US, there was a huge difference in the basic
natures of the US and the Soviets. Even if both interfered in the

Not easy to tell during the wars. The difference was more greatly
apparent AFTER an enemy was vanquished. Look at the US treatment of
Germany and Japan, vs the Soviet treatment of Germany.

Post by Henry
affairs of other nations, the US NEVER indulged in the sort of wholesale
slaughter of innocents that the Soviets and the Chinese and the
Cambodians under Pol Pot did. I think that's crucially important. Few

Pol Pot wasn't Stalin. As for him being a Communist, it should be noted
that he was stopped, not by the west, but by Vietnam.

As for the Chinese, not much difference between Mao and Chiang.

Post by Henry
I don't have enough knowledge of the inner workings of the governments
of FDR and HST to take a confident position on whether FDR was naive or
gullible where HST was not. I've certainly seen my share of accusations
of this type against FDR. Some of them frankly give me the same cause
for concern as Rich Rostrum raised. But maybe those quotes are taken out
of context or misunderstood in some way. Or they were not accurately
quoted in the first place. Maybe FDR's personal views were not actually
quite as portrayed in these quotes even if the quotes are accurate.

More likely, FDR was fully willing to let everyone "know" what he thought,
even when they didn't. After all, he was clever enough to be elected
president 4 times, even without making substantive progress in fighting
the worst depression in out history.

Post by Henry
I personally believe that WW II would have turned out much better if it
had ended with both Hitler and Stalin dead and their regimes in the
dust.

It was always going to end with Hitler dead; while Stalin's death might
have been better for some of his people, what if he successor was a more
aggressive nationalist?

Mike

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:40:42 -0400, Stephen Graham

Post by Stephen Graham
Again, FDR gave things to Stalin because he felt that he got value in
return, most importantly, Soviet participation in the war against Japan.

Which those of us who believe FDR was duped by Stalin believe Stalin
would have taken part in without any encouragement or concessions by
FDR or the British.

After all the prize for Stalin was not a Communist Japan but a
Communist China and by seizing Manchuria and capturing huge quantities
of arms from the Japanese he decisively turned the tide towards Mao
and against Chiang Kai-Shek.

Not to mention acquiring half of Korea and some Japanese islands.

Does anyone here seriously believe that by the time of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki the Red Army wouldn't have moved against the Japanese treaty
or no treaty?

Does anyone here seriously believe that Stalin would have allowed
Chiang Kai-Shek to destroy Mao?

I ask that even in the case of no agreement at all with FDR.

About the only 'hammer' Stalin had in 1945 was the swift return of
Anglo-Allied prisoners captured by the advancing Red Army and it seems
highly likely that any serious harm to these would have been a casus
belli in near record time. While it might have taken longer than it
did in fact take, there would have been no harm intentionally done.

[Stephen Graham]

Post by The Horny Goat
Does anyone here seriously believe that by the time of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki the Red Army wouldn't have moved against the Japanese treaty
or no treaty?

If there was no agreement and Stalin thought he could get what he
wanted, it's unlikely that he would have intervened. He'd be terribly
sorry but there was that Neutrality Agreement and it hadn't gotten
denounced at the proper time. You wouldn't want him to violate written
agreements, would you?

Post by The Horny Goat
Does anyone here seriously believe that Stalin would have allowed
Chiang Kai-Shek to destroy Mao?

I don't think that was an option by 1945 or that it would have been in
anyone's interest other than Chiang's.

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by The Horny Goat
About the only 'hammer' Stalin had in 1945 was the swift return of
Anglo-Allied prisoners captured by the advancing Red Army and it seems
highly likely that any serious harm to these would have been a casus
belli in near record time.

Two points about decisions made at Yalta:

A) You overlook the most important issue: US high command was terrified
by the image of the Japanese government fleeing to mainland Asia and forcing
the US to entire into a land war in Asia proper to root them out. That looked
to them like it would result in years and millions of casualties if the
fearsome Kwangtung Army Group fought to the death like at Tarawa, Iwo, Saipan,
etc. FDR needed Stalin to enter the war against Japan to make sure that the
Japanese army on the mainland was properly attrited- exactly as was done to
Germany.

We now know that this was not to be for several reasons: the swift Soviet
defeat showed that the Kwangtung Army Group was a paper tiger by 1945 (all
their best units had been sent home) and we know that the Atomic bombs
worked and would force Japan's surrender. At Yalta, no one knew any of that-
certainly they were not certain of it to want to face the prospect of that
nightmare scenario.

B) Do you really think that the US and Britain, WITH A WAR STILL GOING ON IN
THE PTO, would go to war against the Soviet Union for any reason? This seems
very unlikely to me.

It is important to remember that the war did not end in May, and that the short
time between VE Day and VJ Day was a surprise to all the world leaders involved.

Chris Manteuffel

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by The Horny Goat
Does anyone here seriously believe that Stalin would have allowed
Chiang Kai-Shek to destroy Mao?

Stalin originally supported Chiang; he was an opportunist, and I suspect
he didn't really care who ruled China, so long as they left him alone.

Post by The Horny Goat
I ask that even in the case of no agreement at all with FDR.

See above...

Mike

[The Horny Goat]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by The Horny Goat
Does anyone here seriously believe that Stalin would have allowed
Chiang Kai-Shek to destroy Mao?

Stalin originally supported Chiang; he was an opportunist, and I suspect
he didn't really care who ruled China, so long as they left him alone.

Maybe - but millions of Communist casualties wasn't something he would
readily tolerate.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by The Horny Goat
Does anyone here seriously believe that Stalin would have allowed
Chiang Kai-Shek to destroy Mao?

Stalin originally supported Chiang; he was an opportunist, and I suspect
he didn't really care who ruled China, so long as they left him alone.

Maybe - but millions of Communist casualties wasn't something he would
readily tolerate.

Really? He tolerated them when UN troops did it. In fact, he had things
set up so that IF the North's invasion failed, it would be those Chinese
Communists who would be battlefield fodder.

Not to mention, he tolerated millions of RUSSIAN communist casualties; in fact,
he even caused many of them.

People seem confused about Stalin's politics; he was a Stalinist, not a
Communist. For someone who was a Communist, not a Stalinist, look no
further than Trotsky.

Mike

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
None 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 Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
And 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 Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
So, 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 Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
So 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 Rostrom

Post 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 Rostrom
Dealings by one power structure with a separate (and
therefore independent) power structure are diplomacy.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
FDR'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 Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Stalin 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 Rostrom
the 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 Rostrom
And there were other things given to Stalin by FDR
which could not be withdrawn.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Stalin 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 Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
future 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 Rostrom
The same was true of Hitler. Neither

Actually, that wasn't at all true of Hitler.

Post by Rich Rostrom
had 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 Rostrom
Stalin 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 Rostrom
He 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 Rostrom
the 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 Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
such a policy.

And 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 Rostrom
Churchill 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 Rostrom
This 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 Rostrom
FDR "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 Rostrom
the 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 Rostrom
Now 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 Rostrom
This 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

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
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.

The same opinion was held of Hitler in the 1930s.

How many political murders were there in Nazi
Germany at that time? About 100 in the "Night
of the Long Knives". Hitler believed, rightly,
that his political hold on power was strong
enough that he didn't need to liquidate every
single potential rival or enemy.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
I'm pretty certain they, including FDR, weren't
naive about what kind of person they were dealing
with.

FDR obviously was.

Here is Charles "Chip" Bohlen, FDR's interpreter
at Yalta, and distinguished US diplomat:

"[Roosevelt] felt that Stalin viewed the world
somewhat in the same light as he did, and that
Stalin¹s hostility and distrust, which were evident in
war- time conferences, were due to the neglect that
Soviet Russia had suffered at the hands of other
countries for years after the Revolution. What he
did not understand was that Stalin¹s enmity was based
on profound ideological convictions. The existence of
a gap between the Soviet Union and the United States,
a gap that could not be bridged, was never fully
perceived by Franklin Roosevelt.²

Here (exemplifying the naivete of FDR's clique) is
Harry Hopkins:

"The Russians had proved that they could be reasonable
and far-sighted and neither the President nor any one
of us had the slightest doubt that we could live with
them and get on peaceably with them far into the
future. I must, however, make one reservation < I
believe that in our hearts we made the proviso that we
couldn¹t foretell how things would turn out if
something happened to Stalin."

And here is FDR himself, quoted by Ambassador WIlliam
Bullitt:

"I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of
man. Harry [Hopkins] says he¹s not and that he doesn¹t
want anything but security for his country, and I
think that if I give him everything that I possibly
can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse
oblige, he won¹t try to annex anything and will work
for a world of democracy and peace."

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
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.

That the influence of the Soviet agents was not
especially consequential in the 1930s does not
mean that influence was not consequential in
the 1940s.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
You.

Nope. Read what is written; I suggested...

Exactly, The someone was you. I am rather
confused as to why you wrote "someone".
It's not important, merely confusing.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
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.

IOW, they were both murdering thieves, but Stalin
was more cautious.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
Stalin 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.

IOW, Hitler was a bold, reckless, murdering thief.
whereas Stalin was a careful, cautious murdering
thief. He only murdered defenseless victims, and he
only stole from the helpless, and he didn't try to
kill everyone he could reach, and he didn't steal to
steal everything in reach, so he was really the same
as a law-abiding citizen.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
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.

The choice is not being polite instead of "openly
antagonistic", it is being naively trusting instead
of realistically distrusting.

Neither Churchill nor Truman was "openly antagonistic"
to Stalin, except in openly opposing Stalin's acts of
aggression and subversion.

Read the quote from Hopkins. Is there _any_ connection
between Hopkins' thinking and reality?

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
Churchill and Truman disliked and distrusted Stalin.

I'm pretty sure FDR didn't trust him entirely, either.

See the quotes above.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
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.

The same opinion was held of Hitler in the 1930s.

Nor were they incorrect.

Don't see that FDR underestimated him, though.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
I'm pretty certain they, including FDR, weren't
naive about what kind of person they were dealing
with.

FDR obviously was.

You use this word in a non-standard way; sorry, I see nothing "obviously"
indicating that FDR felt Stalin was anything but a deadly dictator, nor
have you shown any real concessions that FDR made to Stalin.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Here is Charles "Chip" Bohlen, FDR's interpreter
"[Roosevelt] felt that Stalin viewed the world
somewhat in the same light as he did, and that
Stalin?s hostility and distrust, which were evident in
war- time conferences, were due to the neglect that
Soviet Russia had suffered at the hands of other
countries for years after the Revolution. What he
did not understand was that Stalin?s enmity was based
on profound ideological convictions. The existence of

What were these "ideological convictions"? The revolt of the
workers? He didn't really export that. Soviet domination of Europe? Nope.

What were these "ideological convictions", then?

Post by Rich Rostrom
Here (exemplifying the naivete of FDR's clique) is
"The Russians had proved that they could be reasonable
and far-sighted and neither the President nor any one
of us had the slightest doubt that we could live with
them and get on peaceably with them far into the
future. I must, however, make one reservation < I
believe that in our hearts we made the proviso that we
couldn?t foretell how things would turn out if
something happened to Stalin."

So, we went to war with the USSR under Stalin? His successors?

Post by Rich Rostrom
And here is FDR himself, quoted by Ambassador WIlliam
"I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of
man. Harry [Hopkins] says he?s not and that he doesn?t
want anything but security for his country, and I

And that seems to be what he worked for. Where did he extend himself
beyond that?

You keep getting asked for examples, but never provide them.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
That's not really true, but even if it were, that makes any actual Hiss
influence utterly irrelevant.

That the influence of the Soviet agents was not
especially consequential in the 1930s does not
mean that influence was not consequential in
the 1940s.

So show some influence. As Mr Graham already pointed out, Hiss seems to have
opposed Stalin's stances, not supported them.

Again, show an example.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
You.

Nope. Read what is written; I suggested...

Exactly, The someone was you. I am rather

Yes, exactly; I stated that FDR was a smarter politician.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
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.

IOW, they were both murdering thieves, but Stalin
was more cautious.

As was the Shah, Chiang, and others. We got along with them just fine.

And "cautious" does not seem to be a trademark of the ideological
fanatic.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
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.

IOW, Hitler was a bold, reckless, murdering thief.
whereas Stalin was a careful, cautious murdering

So, someone who could be worked with.

Thank you.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
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.

The choice is not being polite instead of "openly
antagonistic", it is being naively trusting instead
of realistically distrusting.

So, again, SLOWLY, what did FDR give away that Stalin wouldn't have taken
from HST?

Post by Rich Rostrom
Neither Churchill nor Truman was "openly antagonistic"
to Stalin, except in openly opposing Stalin's acts of
aggression and subversion.

Well, Churchill was.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Read the quote from Hopkins. Is there _any_ connection
between Hopkins' thinking and reality?

Which wars did we get involved with because of Stalin? He is known to have
opposed the North Korean action.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
Churchill and Truman disliked and distrusted Stalin.

I'm pretty sure FDR didn't trust him entirely, either.

See the quotes above.

Saw them; don't see that FDR's actions matched the quotes.

Now, would you be so good as to provide examples of what ol' country bumpkin
FDR gave away?

Mike

[Michael Emrys]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
IOW, they were both murdering thieves, but Stalin

Post by Rich Rostrom
was more cautious.

As was the Shah, Chiang, and others. We got along with them just fine.

As was the British Empire, just to name one, which was gained and
maintained mainly through force of arms. That didn't stop us from
allying ourselves with them either. Murder and theft are pretty much the
case for all empires down through history. And to the extent that the US
had an empire (we tended not to call it that, but de facto that's what
it was), it too was gained through force of arms. To the extent that
they are able, most nations are and have been murdering thieves. That's
what they do. I would like to think the world is moving toward a more
law-abiding era among nations, but I may be deluded in that. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, it seems that everyone has agreed that another blood letting
on the scale of WW II is not on, especially now that many of the major
nations and several of the minor ones possess nuclear weapons.

Michael

[news]

Post by Michael Emrys

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
IOW, they were both murdering thieves, but Stalin

Post by Rich Rostrom
was more cautious.

As was the Shah, Chiang, and others. We got along with them just fine.

As was the British Empire, just to name one, which was gained and
maintained mainly through force of arms. That didn't stop us from
allying ourselves with them either. Murder and theft are pretty much the
case for all empires down through history. And to the extent that the US
had an empire (we tended not to call it that, but de facto that's what
it was), it too was gained through force of arms. To the extent that
they are able, most nations are and have been murdering thieves. That's
what they do. I would like to think the world is moving toward a more
law-abiding era among nations, but I may be deluded in that. Stay tuned.

There may be some merit to your suggestion that all empires have
involved murder and theft, but I would suggest that, of all the empires
that have come and gone over the years, the British Empire had probably
left the most positive results. The British found, maintained and
nourished the largest number of successful countries; Canada, Australia,
New Zealand. Compare them with some of the colonies and former colonies
of other countries.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by news

Post by Michael Emrys

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Rich Rostrom
IOW, they were both murdering thieves, but Stalin

Post by Rich Rostrom
was more cautious.

As was the Shah, Chiang, and others. We got along with them just fine.

As was the British Empire, just to name one, which was gained and
maintained mainly through force of arms. That didn't stop us from
allying ourselves with them either. Murder and theft are pretty much the
case for all empires down through history. And to the extent that the US
had an empire (we tended not to call it that, but de facto that's what
it was), it too was gained through force of arms. To the extent that
they are able, most nations are and have been murdering thieves. That's
what they do. I would like to think the world is moving toward a more
law-abiding era among nations, but I may be deluded in that. Stay tuned.

There may be some merit to your suggestion that all empires have
involved murder and theft, but I would suggest that, of all the empires
that have come and gone over the years,

It seems to be an unfortunate truth of politics.

Post by news
the British Empire had probably
left the most positive results. The British found, maintained and
nourished the largest number of successful countries; Canada, Australia,
New Zealand. Compare them with some of the colonies and former colonies
of other countries.

Um, it should be noted that those countries (including the US) are quite
successful, but the original inhabitants are not quite so noticable in
what should be their native lands.

Perhaps the Aborigines, Maori, Iroquois, Algonkin, etc., might define
"successful countries" a bit differently.

Mike

[Michael Emrys]

...I would suggest that, of all the empires that have come and gone over
the years, the British Empire had probably left the most positive
results. The British found, maintained and nourished the largest number
of successful countries; Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Compare them
with some of the colonies and former colonies of other countries.

That's true if, as you have done here, you cherry pick your examples.
But if you examine former British colonies in, say, sub-Saharan Africa,
the record does not shine so brightly. And while India has done mainly
well, the record for the sub-continent as a whole is not that impressive.

Do not think that I am ignorant or unimpressed by the positive benefits
of British colonial rule or implying that they were no better than the
Soviets, but the difference viewed on the whole is more of degree than
of kind. Empires first of all serve the ruling country and last if at
all the interests of the ruled. The British Empire was merely the best
of a bad lot.

Michael

[Roman W]

Post by news
left the most positive results. The British found, maintained and
nourished the largest number of successful countries; Canada,

Australia,

Post by news
New Zealand.

Successful from whose point of view? The colonisers or the native
population?

RW

[Andrew Chaplin]

Post by Roman W

Post by news
left the most positive results. The British found, maintained and
nourished the largest number of successful countries; Canada,
Australia, New Zealand.

Successful from whose point of view? The colonisers or the native
population?

I speak for the majority when I say, "us."

[Stephen Graham]

Post by Rich Rostrom
How many political murders were there in Nazi
Germany at that time? About 100 in the "Night
of the Long Knives". Hitler believed, rightly,
that his political hold on power was strong
enough that he didn't need to liquidate every
single potential rival or enemy.

The Night of Long Knives was hardly the only period of political murder
following the Nazi ascension to power. There was a burst in 1933
associated with the actual seizure of power. Then the operations of the
concentration camps in the 1930s deliberately killed a proportion of
their inmates. I would have to check my sources further for a more
precise figure, but political deaths in Germany prior to the outbreak of
WWII were well into the thousands.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Here is Charles "Chip" Bohlen, FDR's interpreter
"[Roosevelt] felt that Stalin viewed the world
somewhat in the same light as he did, and that
Stalin¹s hostility and distrust, which were evident in
war- time conferences, were due to the neglect that
Soviet Russia had suffered at the hands of other
countries for years after the Revolution. What he
did not understand was that Stalin¹s enmity was based
on profound ideological convictions. The existence of
a gap between the Soviet Union and the United States,
a gap that could not be bridged, was never fully
perceived by Franklin Roosevelt.²

What Bohlen missed is that it was a combination: there was an
ideological component but there were also very distinct consequences of
intervention in the Russian Civil War and the diplomatic isolation of
the Soviet Union in the 1920s.

Post by Rich Rostrom
That the influence of the Soviet agents was not
especially consequential in the 1930s does not
mean that influence was not consequential in
the 1940s.

It's not clear that all those accused of being Soviet agents were in
fact Soviet agents. It's also not clear that they actually had direct
influence on US decisions. As I pointed out, Hiss opposed the Soviet
position on the UN at Yalta and had no influence on other matters. The
primary benefit that the Soviets derived from their agents was
information about US and British decisions and plans.

Post by Rich Rostrom
IOW, Hitler was a bold, reckless, murdering thief.
whereas Stalin was a careful, cautious murdering
thief. He only murdered defenseless victims, and he
only stole from the helpless, and he didn't try to
kill everyone he could reach, and he didn't steal to
steal everything in reach, so he was really the same
as a law-abiding citizen.

That's certainly not what I'm arguing nor what Mike is. What I am
arguing is that the behavior was in fact different, had different
motivations and thus should be evaluated differently.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Neither Churchill nor Truman was "openly antagonistic"
to Stalin, except in openly opposing Stalin's acts of
aggression and subversion.

Both were in fact openly antagonistic towards Stalin at points. The
termination of Lend-Lease in May 1945 was mishandled badly and had to be
reversed, for example.

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
I'm pretty sure FDR didn't trust him entirely, either.

See the quotes above.

If you look at the actual record, FDR was much more ambivalent about
Stalin than those quotes portray.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by Rich Rostrom
Here is Charles "Chip" Bohlen, FDR's interpreter
"[Roosevelt] felt that Stalin viewed the world
somewhat in the same light as he did... The existence of
a gap between the Soviet Union and the United States,
a gap that could not be bridged, was never fully
perceived by Franklin Roosevelt.²

What Bohlen missed is that it was a combination: there was an
ideological component but there were also very distinct consequences of
intervention in the Russian Civil War and the diplomatic isolation of
the Soviet Union in the 1920s.

Did Bohlen insist that ideology was the _sole_
cause of disagreement between the U.S. and USSR?
I doubt it, and in any case I don't cite Bohlen
make that claim, which I don't endorse.

What I cite Bohlen on is the claim that Roosevelt was
profoundly ignorant and naive about the nature of the
Soviet regime and the character of Stalin; in
particular that Roosevelt was deeply mistaken about
Stalin and never understood there was _any_
fundamental ideological gap.

He worked closely with Roosevelt in that very field;
I would consider him an authoritative witness.

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by Rich Rostrom
IOW, Hitler was a bold, reckless, murdering thief.
whereas Stalin was a careful, cautious murdering
thief. He only murdered defenseless victims, and he
only stole from the helpless, and he didn't try to
kill everyone he could reach, and he didn't steal to
steal everything in reach, so he was really the same
as a law-abiding citizen.

That's certainly not what I'm arguing nor what Mike
is. What I am arguing is that the behavior was in
fact different, had different motivations and thus
should be evaluated differently.

Of course. Just as one would deal differently with a
Mafia don, a meth-cooking redneck, a black gangbanger,
and a Chinese Triad boss. One might even find ways to
cooperate with one against another. The Mafia don
might supply information against the Triads, or Mafia
"soldiers" ambushed by gangbangers might welcome
police intervention, and in the course of a running
gunfight, help police in turn.

But is it realistic, sensible, "smarter politics",
to regard the don and his "crew" as "reasonable and
far-sighted" good citizens who "[don't] want anything
but security for their <families>" and "will work for
a world of <law and order>"?

Is it realistic or sensible to have the don on the
Civic Reform Committee, or appoint his henchmen
to the Police Commission?

It may be necessary to deal with an evil man or
government, but one should always remember that
he _is_ evil.

Roosevelt didn't.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Rich Rostrom
What I cite Bohlen on is the claim that Roosevelt was
profoundly ignorant and naive about the nature of the
Soviet regime and the character of Stalin; in
particular that Roosevelt was deeply mistaken about
Stalin and never understood there was _any_
fundamental ideological gap.

So what, exactly, where these mistakes and how did they affect policy?

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Stephen Graham
That's certainly not what I'm arguing nor what Mike
is. What I am arguing is that the behavior was in
fact different, had different motivations and thus
should be evaluated differently.

Of course. Just as one would deal differently with a
Mafia don, a meth-cooking redneck, a black gangbanger,
and a Chinese Triad boss. One might even find ways to
cooperate with one against another. The Mafia don

Those are all silly examples; a state has methods to deal with these much
smaller criminals.

How do you deal with a large, dangerous criminal? Start another war? Ignore
him and hope he goes away?

Or try to work with him as best you can?

Post by Rich Rostrom
But is it realistic, sensible, "smarter politics",
to regard the don and his "crew" as "reasonable and
far-sighted" good citizens who "[don't] want anything
but security for their <families>" and "will work for
a world of <law and order>"?

Uh, no; once again, a state has the resources to go after someone like that.

Kinda harder to take on the Soviet army because you don't like someone's
politics.

Post by Rich Rostrom
It may be necessary to deal with an evil man or
government, but one should always remember that
he _is_ evil.
Roosevelt didn't.

Well, you can allege all you like, but you haven't yet shown a single thing
he did to justify that; for the umpteenth time, what did "naive" FDR give
away to Stalin that much more clever HST or WLSC would have stopped?

Mike

[Mario]

Post by Rich Rostrom
It may be necessary to deal with an evil man or
government, but one should always remember that
he _is_ evil.

Good and Evil are not political words.

Interest and Power are.

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by Rich Rostrom
"I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of
man. Harry [Hopkins] says he<UTF16-0131>s not and that he doesn<UTF16-0131>t
want anything but security for his country, and I
think that if I give him everything that I possibly
can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse
oblige, he won<UTF16-0131>t try to annex anything and will work
for a world of democracy and peace."

The problem that I have with this argument is that it rests so
heavily on what FDR said, and what he told his closest advisers.
While one should never trust what a politician says, the problem
is particularly acute with FDR.

As a smart fellow told me once:
"[FDR] seems to have been constitutionally incapable of
being straightforward. He liked to keep all his options
open until the very last minute, even if that meant
providing encouragement to the proponents of contradictory
alternatives." [1]

This is why FDR's words- either directly or mediated through
his close observers, do not particularly sway me. I prefer to
look at FDR's actions, because those give greater insight to
his actual thoughts.

In terms of looking at actions, I think that it easier to make
a case that the totalitarian, murderous dictator that FDR was
naive towards would be Chiang Kai-Shek rather than Stalin.

I'm using so many weasel words there because my sources aren't
the best: 20 years ago I read _Stillwell and the American Experience
in China_, and all I have is vague memories that FDR was naive
and his on-the-ground advisers were more clear-eyed, at least in
her portrayal. But it is entirely possible that that was his biggest
blunder, not his calculations about Stalin.

[1]: Rich Rostrum, message to shwwii July 6th, 2001.
"FDR's Health in Nov 44 Election"
MessageId: <***@news.pacific.net.au>

Chris Manteuffel

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by c***@gmail.com
This is why FDR's words- either directly or mediated through
his close observers, do not particularly sway me. I prefer to
look at FDR's actions, because those give greater insight to
his actual thoughts.
In terms of looking at actions, I think that it easier to make
a case that the totalitarian, murderous dictator that FDR was
naive towards would be Chiang Kai-Shek rather than Stalin.

Probably true; there was a tremendous pro-China sympathy in the US at the
time, and I don't think people looked too closely at the details of the
people fighting the Japanese invaders...

Mike

[dumbstruck]

Post by Rich Rostrom
IOW, Hitler was a bold, reckless, murdering thief.
whereas Stalin was a careful, cautious murdering
thief. He only murdered defenseless victims, and he
only stole from the helpless, and he didn't try to
kill everyone he could reach, and he didn't steal to
steal everything in reach,

Those are not necessarily aspects of their "personality" but their
self-perceived role. Stalin was simply consolidating power in an
existing framework, while Hitler was filling a perceived need for a
smashup revolutionary. Germany had failed, and faced a wrenching
transition to either international socialism or national socialism.
That was the opinion of the more articulate of the Nazi inmates at
Nuremburg according to interview notes of the psychiatrist Goldensohn.

The inmates seemed very prescient about Stalin's coming moves in Europe,
sometimes in detail. On the subject of this thread, one of them said a
weak Truman had given in to Stalin more than FDR would have at Potsdam.
That sounds a stretch, but was from someone rather high up (not Goering).
More than one of them also made the odd assertion that while Himmler and
Goebbels were prime movers against jews, they did that more out of
desperately trying to impress Hitler and others than extreme inner beliefs.
I mention these precisely because they counter today's normal view, yet
the inmates seemed to have no reason to mislead on those particular points.

[a425couple]

-- Stalin was perfectly fine with peace; it was much less
threatening to his position, and the later attack by North Korea on the
South seems to both have surprised and angered him.

I would like to know your cite on the above (NK invasion).

It defies logic that Stalin gave NK leaders demanding
reunification over 150 T-34 tanks (which nothing anywhere
in Korea could stop) and other equipment for a large army,
thinking it was going to stay parked.

Also Richard Thornton in "Odd Man Out" clearly expresses
the view that Stalin planned for it.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by a425couple

-- Stalin was perfectly fine with peace; it was much less
threatening to his position, and the later attack by North Korea on the
South seems to both have surprised and angered him.

I would like to know your cite on the above (NK invasion).

OK, it seems to have been based on older info; after the Soviets opened
the archives, and turned over more info to the South Koreans in 1994. So,
he initially opposed it strongly, then gave the OK later.

Post by a425couple
It defies logic that Stalin gave NK leaders demanding
reunification over 150 T-34 tanks (which nothing anywhere
in Korea could stop) and other equipment for a large army,
thinking it was going to stay parked.

They armed a lot of people; so do we.

Post by a425couple
Also Richard Thornton in "Odd Man Out" clearly expresses
the view that Stalin planned for it.

He opposed it for quite some time. Indeed, he was afraid the South Koreans
would invade first. The situation when 1) the US withdrew its troops from
South Korea 2) the Communists won in China, changing the logistical question
and 3) they successfully tested an atomic bomb. At that point, he OK'd an
attack on the south.

(It should also be noted that, though he didn't expect the US to intervene,
when they did, he had set things up so that the Chinese would be the ones
to have to rescue the North.)

http://www.historytoday.com/paul-wingrove/who-started-korea

http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Korean_War.html

Mike

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 20:28:48 -0400, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
Churchill, for instance, thought that Stalin had to
answer to a "Council of Commissars". But he at least
understood that the USSR was a brutal murderous
dictatorship.

Well that's sort of true - though in fairness the ONLY time there was
any possibility of that was in Oct-Dec 1941. Churchill himself had had
to face a non-confidence motion in the House of Commons. He won it
handily of course and the difference between him and Stalin is that if
the non-elected Politburo had decided Stalin needed to go it would
have been 9 grams of lead where Churchill would have retired to 2 or 3
decades of painting and memoir writing.

Post by Rich Rostrom
FDR'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
future world peace and democracy and freedom were
sincere, and assist in those plans.

The $64,000 question is whether FDR truly understood what Stalin meant
by "peace and democracy" or "friendly governments". I'm not sure of
the first but my reading suggests FDR thought "friendly governments"
meant what is now known in the west as "Finlandization"

Post by Rich Rostrom
First, Stalin was incapable of trusting anyone, except
his perhaps most servile tools, who were deeply
complicit in his worst crimes.

Which is why he alienated first Tito then Mao. Now the Sino-Soviet
split had not occured by Stalin's death but I would argue the roots
were already there long before the death of Stalin.

[Stephen Graham]

Post by dumbstruck
For example, from a book about Nuremburg trials, it sounds like FDR was
in the camp of wholesale summary execution of major war criminals instead
of trials. He jokingly estimated 49,000 should be executed after Stalin
suggested 50,000. Churchill thought 50-100 should be executed. Stalin
thought there should be show trials first though, and started them before
German surrender.

With both Churchill (and Attlee) and Stalin in favor of trials,
Roosevelt would necessarily go along with this. In practice, US opinion
would require something in the form of the Nuremberg Trials. And,
really, we should expect that FDR was ultimately joking about executions
without trial.

Post by dumbstruck
Another area is the decolonization post war... FDR would have likely
ensured French Asian colonies be released for instance.

That really wasn't something that the US could decide. Bear in mind that
Southeast Asia was a British command and that British and Chinese forces
handled the surrender of the Japanese in Indochina. Further, with the
elevation of France to Great Power status as a consequence of decisions
at Yalta, the French had greater standing to reclaim their prior control.

What you might see would be a different evolution of the First Indochina
War.

[GFH]

Post by dumbstruck
What differences would we likely see in the wrapup of the war if FDR
stayed vigorous thru his 4th term?

I have been following this thread, and I am surprised that no one
has raised the question of the Morgenthau Plan. Does no one see
any impact? IMHO, FDR would have done it. Yes, he said he would,
but FDR said a lot of things.

And, to really stretch the imagination, consider that FDR saw the UN
as a world government, with himself as president.

GFH

[Bill]

Post by GFH

Post by dumbstruck
What differences would we likely see in the wrapup of the war if FDR
stayed vigorous thru his 4th term?

I have been following this thread, and I am surprised that no one
has raised the question of the Morgenthau Plan.

That's because it was never implemented, or even seriously
contemplated.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by GFH

Post by dumbstruck
What differences would we likely see in the wrapup of the war if FDR
stayed vigorous thru his 4th term?

I have been following this thread, and I am surprised that no one
has raised the question of the Morgenthau Plan. Does no one see
any impact? IMHO, FDR would have done it. Yes, he said he would,
but FDR said a lot of things.
And, to really stretch the imagination, consider that FDR saw the UN
as a world government, with himself as president.

So, he was stupid enough not to see the value of a strong, industrial western
Germany as a buffer to the Russians, but smart enough to scheme to be
president of some new world government.

Sorry, don't see it.

Mike

[GFH]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH

Post by dumbstruck
What differences would we likely see in the wrapup of the war if FDR
stayed vigorous thru his 4th term?

I have been following this thread, and I am surprised that no one
has raised the question of the Morgenthau Plan. Does no one see
any impact? IMHO, FDR would have done it. Yes, he said he would,
but FDR said a lot of things.
And, to really stretch the imagination, consider that FDR saw the UN
as a world government, with himself as president.

So, he was stupid enough not to see the value of a strong, industrial western
Germany as a buffer to the Russians, but smart enough to scheme to be
president of some new world government.

FDR saw himself as smart enough to be President of the World. Not a universal opinion at the time.

And FDR hated (not too strong) Germany. Ike was his choice for military command in Europe in no small measure because Ike was anti-German.

FDR was convinced he could 'handle' Stalin.

GFH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by GFH

Post by GFH
I have been following this thread, and I am surprised that no one
has raised the question of the Morgenthau Plan. Does no one see
any impact? IMHO, FDR would have done it. Yes, he said he would,
but FDR said a lot of things.
And, to really stretch the imagination, consider that FDR saw the UN
as a world government, with himself as president.

FDR saw himself as smart enough to be President of the World.
Not a universal opinion at the time.

Uh huh. Got any references for this?

Post by GFH
And FDR hated (not too strong) Germany.

You make a common mistake; you have confused "Germany" with "Nazis". Are they
synonymous in your mind?

Post by GFH
Ike was his choice for military
command in Europe in no small measure because Ike was anti-German.

Well, you can see how a guy with the name "Eisenhower" would be anti-German.

Certainly, Ike's "scorched earth" policies in Germany and later treatment
of Germany while he was president bear testimony to the accuracy of your
analysis.

Post by GFH
FDR was convinced he could 'handle' Stalin.

He did OK; not much to handle, since he mostly stayed on his side of the
borders.

Mike

[GFH]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH

Post by GFH
I have been following this thread, and I am surprised that no one
has raised the question of the Morgenthau Plan. Does no one see
any impact? IMHO, FDR would have done it. Yes, he said he would,
but FDR said a lot of things.
And, to really stretch the imagination, consider that FDR saw the UN
as a world government, with himself as president.

FDR saw himself as smart enough to be President of the World.
Not a universal opinion at the time.

Uh huh. Got any references for this?

Beschloss, The Conquerers p 94. Not the only source, but it
will get you started.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH
And FDR hated (not too strong) Germany.

You make a common mistake; you have confused "Germany" with "Nazis".
Are they synonymous in your mind?

FDR's dislike of Germany and Germans goes back to his frequent visits
before 1905.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH
Ike was his choice for military command in Europe
in no small measure because Ike was anti-German.

Well, you can see how a guy with the name "Eisenhower"
would be anti-German.

Ike's opinions on Germany is well documented.

His WWI experience was heading an overland
caravan from D.C. to the West Coast.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Certainly, Ike's "scorched earth" policies in Germany
and later treatment of Germany while he was president
bear testimony to the accuracy of your analysis.

It would seem you know little of the OMGUS occupation of
Germany. The 1,170 days are worth studying. As are the
Rhine Meadows PoW installations.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH
FDR was convinced he could 'handle' Stalin.

He did OK; not much to handle, since he mostly stayed
on his side of the borders.

And you present Yalta as your proof? FDR was convinced he
could handle Stalin. It is clear Stalin did not feel
"handled".

That the Morgenthau Plan was serious is well illustrated
by the Quebec Conference, at which WSC supported it. WSC
later complained that he was forced into supporting it by
FDR. To the extent that is true, it shows just how serious
FDR was about the Morgenthau Plan.

And I refer you to the August 1944 meeting between Ike and
Morgenthau. And JCS 1067. The 1947 JCS 1779 decreed that
"an orderly and prosperous Europe required the economic
contributions of a stable and productive Germany."

Truman asked Herbert Hoover to head the effort to keep the
Germans from starving. He refused to do it as long as Ike
was there.

GFH

GFH

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by GFH

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH

Post by GFH
I have been following this thread, and I am surprised that no one
has raised the question of the Morgenthau Plan. Does no one see
any impact? IMHO, FDR would have done it. Yes, he said he would,
but FDR said a lot of things.
And, to really stretch the imagination, consider that FDR saw the UN
as a world government, with himself as president.

FDR saw himself as smart enough to be President of the World.
Not a universal opinion at the time.

Uh huh. Got any references for this?

Beschloss, The Conquerers p 94. Not the only source, but it
will get you started.

Actually, I'm surprised you don't mention Schlesinger; of course, he does
mention the deliberate checks and limitations that FDR felt should be on
the UN, so it doesn't really fit with your view of him.

And, of course, that "dream" would likely not have been attainable had he
been seen as being vindictive to a conquored Germany.

Post by GFH

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH
And FDR hated (not too strong) Germany.

You make a common mistake; you have confused "Germany" with "Nazis".
Are they synonymous in your mind?

FDR's dislike of Germany and Germans goes back to his frequent visits
before 1905.

Repitition is not evidence. Indeed, it would commonly be considered lack of
evidence.

FDR was in fact much more measured and methodical in his approach to war
with the nazis than Ickes or Morgenthau wanted him to be (yet you believe
he would have followed Morgenthau's plans; odd.)

This does not seem to fit in with your delusions.

Post by GFH

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH
Ike was his choice for military command in Europe
in no small measure because Ike was anti-German.

Well, you can see how a guy with the name "Eisenhower"
would be anti-German.

Ike's opinions on Germany is well documented.

Then you should be able to document.

Post by GFH
His WWI experience was heading an overland
caravan from D.C. to the West Coast.

That's nice; and I once went to Disneyworld.

I don't see how shows Eisenhower's antipathy towards the Germans, though.

Post by GFH

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Certainly, Ike's "scorched earth" policies in Germany
and later treatment of Germany while he was president
bear testimony to the accuracy of your analysis.

It would seem you know little of the OMGUS occupation of
Germany.

It would seem that you again make unwarranted assumptions, not having any
real data to back up your rants.

Post by GFH
The 1,170 days are worth studying. As are the
Rhine Meadows PoW installations.

Uh, sorry, but that doesn't prove your case, either.

Can you show examples of any PoW (or detainee) camps anywhere that were
comfortable at the time? No?

Of course you can't.

Post by GFH

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH
FDR was convinced he could 'handle' Stalin.

He did OK; not much to handle, since he mostly stayed
on his side of the borders.

And you present Yalta as your proof? FDR was convinced he
could handle Stalin. It is clear Stalin did not feel
"handled".

Not sure how you imagined "Yalta" then claimed that was my argument.
Perhaps you should read, rather than project.

But since you brought it up, I'm sure you'll have much more success than
others in telling us was FDR gave away to Stalin that he didn't already
have.

Post by GFH
That the Morgenthau Plan was serious is well illustrated
by the Quebec Conference, at which WSC supported it. WSC

And it wasn't implemented, by anyone, including Ike who, you assure one and
all, hated the Germans.

Post by GFH
Truman asked Herbert Hoover to head the effort to keep the
Germans from starving. He refused to do it as long as Ike
was there.

Soooo, you're saying now that Hoover was responsible for hunger in Europe?

You should put some thought into these things before posting...

Mike

[The Horny Goat]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Uh, sorry, but that doesn't prove your case, either.
Can you show examples of any PoW (or detainee) camps anywhere that were
comfortable at the time? No?
Of course you can't.

I know one Canadian D-Day vet from the Sherbrookes who was taken
prisoner on the east side of the Rhine in late March 1945 who reports
that while the camp conditions were spartan the German guards were
competing with each other to be kind to prisoners in the expectation
that the war would shortly be over and that a friendly Canadian able
to report to authorities that this particular guard had treated him
well would be a huge personal asset once the shooting stopped.

He says he knew men in the camps who had been captured at Dieppe and
had had quite a tough war and he _almost_ felt embarassed to take his
ex-POW supplement to his veteran's pension compared to what they had
done to earn theirs. He said he had the utmost of respect for them but
that if he had to have been taken prisoner at all, his was the best
way to go and that he had been extremely lucky as the engagement that
got him captured could easily have gotten him killed.

But old Alfred would be the first to admit his personal experience
(being an MP who had to stay on the beaches on D-Day, getting strafed
by US and British aircraft and taking a superficial wound in the
engagement that got him captured) was an a-typical experience.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by GFH

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH

Post by GFH
I have been following this thread, and I am surprised that no one
has raised the question of the Morgenthau Plan. Does no one see
any impact? IMHO, FDR would have done it. Yes, he said he would,
but FDR said a lot of things.
And, to really stretch the imagination, consider that FDR saw the UN
as a world government, with himself as president.

FDR saw himself as smart enough to be President of the World.
Not a universal opinion at the time.

Uh huh. Got any references for this?

Beschloss, The Conquerers p 94. Not the only source, but it
will get you started.

Ah yes one of George's favourite works of fiction.

There was no world president position.

Post by GFH

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH
And FDR hated (not too strong) Germany.

You make a common mistake; you have confused "Germany" with "Nazis".
Are they synonymous in your mind?

FDR's dislike of Germany and Germans goes back to his frequent visits
before 1905.

Ah yes, he hated the place so much he kept visiting it.

Post by GFH

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH
Ike was his choice for military command in Europe
in no small measure because Ike was anti-German.

Well, you can see how a guy with the name "Eisenhower"
would be anti-German.

Ike's opinions on Germany is well documented.

So well documented George cannot supply any, only change
the subject.

Post by GFH
His WWI experience was heading an overland
caravan from D.C. to the West Coast.

Let me guess the caravan was made in Germany had kept breaking
down, correct?

Meantime in WWI Eisenhower was in charge of training at Camp
Meade, then with the 65th engineers then with the tank corps.

So where did the caravan service fit in?

Post by GFH

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Certainly, Ike's "scorched earth" policies in Germany
and later treatment of Germany while he was president
bear testimony to the accuracy of your analysis.

It would seem you know little of the OMGUS occupation of
Germany. The 1,170 days are worth studying. As are the
Rhine Meadows PoW installations.

Actually people are well aware of the situation, George prefers
the fictional accounts.

Post by GFH

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by GFH
FDR was convinced he could 'handle' Stalin.

He did OK; not much to handle, since he mostly stayed
on his side of the borders.

And you present Yalta as your proof? FDR was convinced he
could handle Stalin. It is clear Stalin did not feel "handled".

Hey the best outcomes of handled are when the person being
handled is unaware of the situation.

In any case specify exactly what anyone else could do to
remove Stalin from places the Red Army occupied, pre
April 1945.

Post by GFH
That the Morgenthau Plan was serious is well illustrated
by the Quebec Conference, at which WSC supported it. WSC
later complained that he was forced into supporting it by
FDR. To the extent that is true, it shows just how serious
FDR was about the Morgenthau Plan.

In other words they talked about it, thought it was worth
continuing with in 1943 then cancelled it.

Post by GFH
And I refer you to the August 1944 meeting between Ike and
Morgenthau.

Which George will not supply any data for.

Post by GFH
And JCS 1067.

Things like

"The principal Allied objective is to prevent Germany from ever
again becoming a threat to the peace of the world. Essential steps
in the accomplishment of this objective are the elimination of
Nazism and militarism in all their forms, the immediate apprehension
of war criminals for punishment, the industrial disarmament and
demilitarization of Germany, with continuing control over
Germany's capacity to make war, and the preparation for an
eventual reconstruction of German political life on a democratic basis."

"No action will be taken in execution of the reparations program
or otherwise which would tend to support basic living conditions
in Germany or in your zone on a higher level than that existing in
any one of the neighboring United Nations. "

" a. No political activities of any kind shall be countenanced unless
authorized by you. You will assure that your military government
does not become committed to any political group.

b. You will prohibit the propagation in any form of Nazi, militaristic
or pan-German doctrines.

c. No German parades, military or political, civilian or sports, shall
be permitted by you.

To the extent that military interests are not prejudiced and subject
to the provisions of the three preceding subparagraphs and of
paragraph 10, freedom of speech, press and religious worship
will be permitted. Consistent with military necessity, all religious
institutions will be respected. "

Post by GFH
The 1947 JCS 1779 decreed that
"an orderly and prosperous Europe required the economic
contributions of a stable and productive Germany."

Stating the obvious in other words.

Post by GFH
Truman asked Herbert Hoover to head the effort to keep the
Germans from starving. He refused to do it as long as Ike
was there.

Hoover went to Europe in early 1947.

Eisenhower, first military governor of the US zone in Germany,
May to November 1945, Chief of Staff US Army November
1945 to February 1948, First Allied Supreme Commander
Europe April 1951 to May 1952. President of Columbia
University 1948 to 1953. Served as the informal chair of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a time before Bradley was
appointed to the position in August 1949.

So it is interesting how George decides the US army command
was based in Germany in 1947.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Bill Shatzer]

- snip -

Post by Geoffrey Sinclair

Post by GFH
His WWI experience was heading an overland
caravan from D.C. to the West Coast.

Let me guess the caravan was made in Germany had kept breaking
down, correct?
Meantime in WWI Eisenhower was in charge of training at Camp
Meade, then with the 65th engineers then with the tank corps.
So where did the caravan service fit in?

July, 1919 to September of that year.

Not quite WWI but maybe "close enough"?

[The Horny Goat]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Certainly, Ike's "scorched earth" policies in Germany and later treatment
of Germany while he was president bear testimony to the accuracy of your
analysis.

Post by GFH
FDR was convinced he could 'handle' Stalin.

He did OK; not much to handle, since he mostly stayed on his side of the
borders.

I had some interesting high school teachers (late 60s/early 70s) - my
history teacher had been a Canadian captain seconded to British
intelligence for most of the war. Someone asked him one day what his
most memorable military service was and he said he had been promoted
to infantry major shortly after VE Day and given command of a
batallion on the Elbe.

He said there were 3 Soviet divisions on the other side of the river
and he quickly realized that (a) nobody knew for sure how friendly the
Russians were and (b) if the balloon went up his role in the war would
be "speed bump".

My math teacher had his classroom next door - he had been a
Mackenzie-Papineau International Brigader who became an artillery
sergeant 1939-45.

My physics teacher across the hall from both of them was a German
immigrant who had been 13 years old in 1945 and an alumni of an SS
Ordensburgen (SS training castle) which he said was pretty much a
strong academic training with extra courses in Nazi political thought
and weapons training. He says he and his friend stole a motorcyle in
March 1945 and got as far away from the SS as possible. He told some
niteresting stories about what he did with grenades in May/June 1945
for fun which made life difficult for the Amis in their sector -
things like rolling grenades under parked tanks parked far from troops
in tank parks. He became West German amateur middleweight champion
(boxing) and emigrated to Canada after he realized what his career
prospects were in 1948-49 in Germany.

Surprisingly the first two got along famously while they tended to
watch 'the Kraut' who was 15-20 years younger than they were.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by GFH
FDR saw himself as smart enough to be President of the World.
Not a universal opinion at the time.

Except there was no such position and unlikely to be one in the
near future. The US was certainly feeling quite powerful given
how much the USSR and British were using US supplies, plus
the size of the wartime US military. So it did expect to have
more power in the post war world, which it did. It also was
the case Eastern Europe would be better off with US aid.

Post by GFH
And FDR hated (not too strong) Germany.

No George, as usual the Nazis go missing in the George histories.

Post by GFH
Ike was his choice for military command in Europe in no small
measure because Ike was anti-German.

So no doubt you can supply the documentation to show what
Eisenhower thought pre end 1941? He was picked for the
job because it was clear his qualities as a commander of an
allied force were very good. Once the Mediterranean
Command structure was proven it was sent to England to
command Overlord.

How about his treatment of Germany when he became President?

Post by GFH
FDR was convinced he could 'handle' Stalin.

FDR made statements about handling Stalin, and in the end
Stalin ruled most places the Red Army captured, Austria and
much of Berlin ended up in the west, but most of the break
down between Stalin and the west was after FDR died

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.