MoMo
05-08-2005, 12:13 PM
Bush now seems to be saying that FDR was wrong to sign the Yalta agreement with Stalin and Churchill that effectively divided Europe into a Communist half and a non-Communist half (although Stalin did, at the time, promise to hold free elections in Eastern Europe -- for what little that proved to be worth).
Surely, the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe for a half-century was a great human tragedy.
But did FDR have any choice? What was he going to do -- have the GIs turn their guns on the Russians, and try to push them back to Moscow the way the Germans were utterly unable to do?
There is what's right, there is what's principled, there is what's ideal -- and then there is what's possible, practical, feasible.
Bush seems to be spending ever more time preaching ideals -- and maybe that's good in some ways, setting higher goals for people. But isn't he rewriting history to suggest that FDR had ANY other realistic option?
Surely, the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe for a half-century was a great human tragedy.
But did FDR have any choice? What was he going to do -- have the GIs turn their guns on the Russians, and try to push them back to Moscow the way the Germans were utterly unable to do?
There is what's right, there is what's principled, there is what's ideal -- and then there is what's possible, practical, feasible.
Bush seems to be spending ever more time preaching ideals -- and maybe that's good in some ways, setting higher goals for people. But isn't he rewriting history to suggest that FDR had ANY other realistic option?