May 7, 2005
LIKE THE PORCELLIAN VOTE ALL OVER AGAIN (via Matt Murphy):
Bush: U.S. Had Hand in European Divisions (TERENCE HUNT, May 7, 2005, AP) --
Second-guessing Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Bush said Saturday the United States played a role in Europe's painful division after World War II — a decision that helped cause "one of the greatest wrongs of history" when the Soviet Union imposed its harsh rule across Central and Eastern Europe.Bush said the lessons of the past will not be forgotten as the United States tries to spread freedom in the Middle East.
"We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability," the president said. "We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others."
Bush singled out the 1945 Yalta agreement signed by Roosevelt in a speech opening a four-day trip focused on Monday's celebration in Moscow of the 60th anniversary of Nazi Germany's defeat.
In recent days Bush has urged Russia to own up to its wartime past. It appeared he decided to do the same, himself, to set an example for Vladimir Putin, the Russian president.
What the heck, the Left already hates him, may as well shred the last tatter of their icon.
MORE:
President Discusses Freedom and Democracy in Latvia (The Small Guild Hall, Riga, Latvia, 5/07/05)
As we mark a victory of six days ago -- six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox. For much of Germany, defeat led to freedom. For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E Day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end oppression. The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable. The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs of history.Posted by Orrin Judd at May 7, 2005 3:32 PMThe end of World War II raised unavoidable questions for my country: Had we fought and sacrificed only to achieve the permanent division of Europe into armed camps? Or did the cause of freedom and the rights of nations require more of us? Eventually, America and our strong allies made a decision: We would not be content with the liberation of half of Europe -- and we would not forget our friends behind an Iron Curtain. We defended the freedom of Greece and Turkey, and airlifted supplies to Berlin, and broadcast the message of liberty by radio. We spoke up for dissenters, and challenged an empire to tear down a hated wall. Eventually, communism began to collapse under external pressure, and under the weight of its own contradictions. And we set the vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace -- so dictators could no longer rise up and feed ancient grievances, and conflict would not be repeated again and again.
In these decades of struggle and purpose, the Baltic peoples kept a long vigil of suffering and hope. Though you lived in isolation, you were not alone. The United States refused to recognize your occupation by an empire. The flags of free Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania -- illegal at home -- flew proudly over diplomatic missions in the United States. And when you joined hands in protest and the empire fell away, the legacy of Yalta was finally buried, once and for all. The security and freedom of the Baltic nations is now more than a noble aspiration; it is the binding pledge of the alliance we share. The defense of your freedom -- in defense of your freedom you will never stand alone.
From the vantage point of this new century, we recognize the end of the Cold War as part of an even broader movement in our world. From Germany and Japan after World War II, to Latin America, to Asia, and Central and Eastern Europe, and now to the broader Middle East, the advance of freedom is the great story of our age. And in this history, there are important lessons. We have learned that free nations grow stronger with time, because they rise on the creativity and enterprise of their people. We have learned that governments accountable to citizens are peaceful, while dictatorships stir resentments and hatred to cover their own failings. We have learned that the skeptics and pessimists are often wrong, because men and women in every culture, when given the chance, will choose liberty. We have learned that even after a long wait in the darkness of tyranny, freedom can arrive suddenly, like the break of day. And we have learned that the demand for self-government is often driven and sustained by patriotism, by the traditions and heroes and language of a native land.
Yet we've also learned that sovereignty and majority rule are only the beginnings of freedom. The promise of democracy starts with national pride, and independence, and elections. But it does not end there. The promise of democracy is fulfilled by minority rights, and equal justice under the rule of law, and an inclusive society in which every person belongs. A country that divides into factions and dwells on old grievances cannot move forward, and risks sliding back into tyranny. A country that unites all its people behind common ideals will multiply in strength and confidence. The successful democracies of the 21st century will not be defined by blood and soil. Successful democracies will be defined by a broader ideal of citizenship -- based on shared principles, shared responsibilities, and respect for all. For my own country, the process of becoming a mature, multi-ethnic democracy was lengthy and violent. Our journey from national independence to equal injustice [sic] included the enslavement of millions, and a four-year civil war. Even after slavery ended, a century passed before an oppressed minority was guaranteed equal rights. Americans found that racial division almost destroyed us, and the false doctrine of "separate but equal" was no basis for a strong and unified country. The only way we found to rise above the injustices of our history was to reject segregation, to move beyond mere tolerance, and to affirm the brotherhood of everyone in our land.
Latvia is facing the challenges that come with ethnic diversity, and it's addressing these challenges in a uniformly peaceful way. Whatever the historical causes, yours is now a multi-ethnic society -- as I have seen on my visit. No wrongs of the past should ever be allowed to divide you, or to slow your remarkable progress. While keeping your Latvian identity and language, you have a responsibility to reach out to all who share the future of Latvia. A welcoming and tolerant spirit will assure the unity and strength of your country. Minorities here have a responsibility as well -- to be citizens who seek the good of the country in which they live. As inclusive, peaceful societies, all of the Baltic nations can be models to every nation that follows the path of freedom and democracy.
In recent months, the Baltic governments gave assistance during the election in Ukraine, and the people of that country chose a wise and visionary leader. As President Yushchenko works to strengthen the rule of law and open Ukraine's economy, the United States will help that nation join the institutions that bind our democracies. Later on this trip I'll travel to Georgia, another country that is taking a democratic path and deserves support on its journey. My country will stand by Georgian leaders who respect minority rights and work to peacefully unify their country, and grow closer to the free nations in Europe. We're also committed to democratic progress in Moldova, where leaders have pledged to expand freedom of the press, to protect minority rights, and to make government institutions more accountable.
All of us are committed to the advance of freedom in Belarus. The people of that country live under Europe's last dictatorship, and they deserve better. The governments of Latvia and Lithuania have worked to build support for democracy in Belarus, and to deliver truthful information by radio and newspapers. Together we have set a firm and confident standard: Repression has no place on this continent. The people of Minsk deserve the same freedom you have in Tallinn, and Vilnius, and Riga.
All the nations that border Russia will benefit from the spread of democratic values -- and so will Russia, itself. Stable, prosperous democracies are good neighbors, trading in freedom, and posing no threat to anyone. The United States has free and peaceful nations to the north and south of us. We do not consider ourselves to be encircled; we consider ourselves to be blessed. No good purpose is served by stirring up fears and exploiting old rivalries in this region. The interests of Russia and all nations are served by the growth of freedom that leads to prosperity and peace. Inside Russia, leaders have made great progress over the last 15 years. President Putin recently stated that Russia's future lies within Europe -- and America agrees. He also stated that Russia's democratic future will not be determined by outsiders -- and America agrees, as well. That nation will follow its own course, according to its own history. Yet all free and successful countries have some common characteristics: freedom of worship, freedom of the press, economic liberty, the rule of law, and the limitation of power through checks and balances. In the long run, it is the strength of Russian democracy that will determine the greatness of Russia. And I believe the Russian people value their freedom, and will settle for nothing less.
For all the problems that remain, it is a miracle of history that this young century finds us speaking about the consolidation of freedom throughout Europe. And the stunning democratic gains of the last several decades are only the beginning. Freedom is not tired. The ideal of human dignity is not weary. And the next stage of the world democratic movement is already unfolding in the broader Middle East.
We seek democracy in that region for the same reasons we spent decades working for democracy in Europe -- because freedom is the only reliable path to peace. If the Middle East continues to simmer in anger and resentment and hopelessness, caught in a cycle of repression and radicalism, it will produce terrorism of even greater audacity and destructive power. But if the peoples of that region gain the right of self-government, and find hopes to replace their hatreds, then the security of all free nations will be strengthened. We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability. We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others. And so, with confidence and resolve, we will stand for freedom across the broader Middle East.
In this great objective, we need a realism that understands the difficulties. But we must turn away from a pessimism that abandons the goal and consigns millions to endless tyranny. And we have reason for optimism. When the people of Afghanistan were finally given the vote, they chose humane rulers and a future of freedom. When the people of the Palestinian Territories went to the polls, they chose a leader committed to negotiation instead of violence. When Iraqi voters turned out by the millions, they repudiated the killers who hate and attack their liberty. There's much work ahead, but the direction of events is clear in the broader Middle East: Freedom is on the march.
Recent elections have brought a tremendous catalyst for change, and more are on the way. Elections are set to start at the end of this month in Lebanon, and those elections must go forward with no outside interference. The people of Lebanon now have the opportunity to bridge old divides and build an independent government. Egypt will hold a presidential election this fall. That election should proceed with international monitors, and with rules that allow for a real campaign.
As in other parts of the world, the work of democracy is larger than holding a fair election; it requires building the structures that sustain freedom. Selective liberalization -- the easing of oppressive laws - is progress, but it is not enough. Successful democracies that effectively protect individual rights require viable political parties, an independent judiciary, a diverse media, and limits on executive power. There is no modernization without democracy. Ultimately, human rights and human development depend on human liberty.
As in other parts of the world, successful democracies in the broader Middle East must also bridge old racial and religious divides -- and democracy is the only force capable of doing so. In Iraq, the new Cabinet includes members of all of Iraq's leading ethnic and religious groups, who, despite their differences, share a commitment to democracy, freedom, and the rule of law. The new President of Iraq is a member of a minority group that was attacked with poison gas by the former regime. Democracy is fostering internal peace by protecting individual rights, while giving every minority a role in the nation's future. Iraq's free government is showing the way for others, and is winning the respect of a watching world.
In the Middle East, we are seeing the rule of law -- the rule of fear give way to the hope of change. And brave reformers in that region deserve more than our praise. The established democracies have a duty to help emerging democracies of the broader Middle East. They need our help, because freedom has deadly enemies in that region -- men who celebrate murder, incite suicide, and thirst for absolute power. By aiding democratic transitions, we will isolate the forces of hatred and terror and defeat them before violence spreads.
The Baltic states are members of a global coalition, and each is making essential contributions every day. Lithuania is preparing to deploy a reconstruction team to western Afghanistan, and has troops in Iraq conducting patrols and aiding in reconstruction. Estonians are serving in Afghanistan, they're detecting and removing explosives, and Estonian troops serve side-by-side with Americans in Baghdad. Latvia has a team in Kabul, Afghanistan, clearing mines, and soldiers in Iraq providing convoy security and patrols. Your commitment to freedom has brought sacrifice. We remember Lieutenant Olafs Baumanis, who was killed in Iraq. We ask for God's blessings for his family, and we're honored that his wife, Vita, is here with us today.
It's no surprise that Afghanistan and Iraq find strong allies in the Baltic nations. Because you've recently known tyranny, you are offended by the oppression of others. The men and women under my command are proud to serve with you. Today I'm honored to deliver the thanks of the American people.
Sixty years ago, on the 7th of May, the world reacted with joy and relief at the defeat of fascism in Europe. The next day, General Dwight D. Eisenhower announced that "history's mightiest machine of conquest has been utterly destroyed." Yet the great democracies soon found that a new mission had come to us -- not merely to defeat a single dictator, but to defeat the idea of dictatorship on this continent. Through the decades of that struggle, some endured the rule of tyrants; all lived in the frightening shadow of war. Yet because we lifted our sights and held firm to our principles, freedom prevailed.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, the freedom of Europe, won by courage, must be secured by effort and goodwill. In our time, as well, we must raise our sights. In the distance we can see another great goal -- not merely the absence of tyranny on this continent, but the end of tyranny in our world. Once again, we're asked to hold firm to our principles, and to value the liberty of others. And once again, if we do our part, freedom will prevail.
Did you write this speech?
Posted by: Bob at May 7, 2005 3:49 PMI thought PORCELLIAN was a harvard undergraduate club, like skull and bones.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 7, 2005 3:58 PMWow. I really didn't think I'd live to see the day that truth would be spoken out loud. Blood vessels round the world must be popping like corn kernels.
Posted by: erp at May 7, 2005 4:24 PMA gaffe is when some politician tell an unpleasant truth. What does qualify as?
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 7, 2005 4:29 PMWhen I sent this to OJ, I asked if he and the president have ever been seen together. I've got my suspicions...
Thanks for posting.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 7, 2005 5:39 PMMatt:
When you start hearing the President muse about how the American Revolution was an unnecessary mistake, you'll know our man has arrived.
Posted by: Peter B at May 7, 2005 6:16 PMRecall that he went and paid obeisance to The Queen.
Posted by: oj at May 7, 2005 8:41 PMActually, if Bush proposes a major gas tax hike and starts ridiculing soccer during his future press confrences, then I'll believe some sort of Vulcan mind-meld has taken place.
Posted by: John at May 7, 2005 9:00 PMAnd if there had not been a conference at Yalta, the Red Army would meekly have retreated to the 1939 boundaries of the USSR?
Or maybe it would have chosen the Tsarist boundaries, in which case the Baltic Republics would have been occupied by Russian thugs, just like in the 19th century.
Bush isn't doing anything to counteract the view that he's an ignorant yokel.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 7, 2005 9:33 PMPity to live long enough to see all your delusions buried, eh?
Posted by: oj at May 7, 2005 9:40 PMIt is easy with the benefit of hindsight to criticize FDR's decision, however, I think that given the realities with which he was faced, i.e. a divided Western Europe with strong Communist parties, an enormous Soviet conventional war machine, vast areas of territory to cross, a desire at home to bring the boys home, inter alia, he made the only decision he could. He and, more importantly, Truman drew the line at Greece and Turkey, both of whom could be significantly more appreciative. They focused on rebuilding the West to knock the pins away from any pro-Soviet mass party, a policy which was tremendously successful by any rational measure.
Put simply, the US didn't have a bazooka that could stop a T-34 until 1951, how were they going to stop a Soviet armored assault in 1945?
Posted by: bart at May 8, 2005 9:00 AMBart's got it exactly right. France and Italy were much closer to going red than Poland. Although we may have had the resources to continue East, who but a Monday morning QB (or Patton) had the stomach for it.
Posted by: ed at May 8, 2005 9:45 AMThe Soviets held power as long as they did for the simple reason that so-called liberals in the administration of FDR honestly believed that the top-down bureacratic state structure and the command economy epitomized by the USSR had practical applications and attributes that were worthy of being copied by free societies. The cold war was characterized by equivocation among the chattering classes, academia and the MSM throughout the west particularly during the Viet Nam era although it reached a crescendo during the Reagan administration. FDR's administration provided the template which governed relations between the west and the Soviets which was not discarded until Reagan. One would have to be almost completely oblivious to the 60's and 70's zeitgeist not to acknowledge this simple reality.
In a perfect world the evils of Nazism and Bolshevism should have been allowed to destroy each other. The western left would have had none of that, of course. Ceeding the liberty of millions to the monstrosity of Stalin and then characterizing that evil as just another 'economic system' was the height of rationalization and delusion. FDR's characterization of Stalin as someone who could be cajoled and managed reflects nothing but a deep misunderstanding of the Soviet regime and the meaning of Marxist/Leninist program.
oj-
Unlike the Japanese they were allies. Stalin's Soviet constitution was a model for the rest of the post-colonial world. Aside from the fact that they had a justified fear of encirclemet, their economy was on track to outpace that of the US and western Europe. The CIA, Paul Samuelson and Kenneth Galbraith said so. We needed to become more like them if we wished to compete and save capitalism with some of the freedom that went along with it. With Eastern Eurpoe in their camp and as long as they minded their knitting we could become their partner in the peaceful and inexorable growth of statism around the globe.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at May 8, 2005 11:41 AMBart, Orrin was counting on the German panzerfausts to stop the T-34s.
If you will recall earlier posts, his vision of the free world involved resurrecting the Nazis we had just played a minor part in defeating and marching shoulder to shoulder with them.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 8, 2005 2:33 PMA de-nazified German army would have been more than sufficient. The National Socialists were finished. It's about ideology not ethnicity.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at May 8, 2005 2:53 PMWhy stop them? The further they overextended themselves the better.
Posted by: oj at May 8, 2005 2:56 PMThe P-51 would have taken care of 50% of the Russian tanks in 2 months. We could have bombed their armies (with HE) for weeks (months) on end, with very limited losses. Of course, OJ's preferred option would have worked as well.
But the will wasn't there, and all spy novels aside, I doubt if a significant enough provocation could have been ginned up.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 8, 2005 5:08 PMPutin cannot have been happy to know that the Russian people value their freedom and will settle for nothing less.
And if they didn't before this speech, perhaps now they will (for a bit).
Posted by: ratbert at May 8, 2005 10:29 PMJim,
Our tactics worked so well for the first 6-8 months in Korea. LOL!
Tom,
A 'de-Nazified German army' is what we have today. Unions, hairnets, 8 weeks vacation. They make Sergeant Schultz look like Audie Murphy and Colonel Klink look like William Tecumseh Sherman, and would lose a war in about a fortnight to the Staten Island Brownies.
Also, I find it hard to accept the notion that the Nazis would have gone to our side against the Soviets. Plenty of Nazis went to work for the DDR after the war. Many I'm sure would find one form of authoritarian socialism to be much like another, and both to be preferable to the decadent Americans.
OJ,
As I've said to you before, it is 1564 air miles from London to Moscow. Assuming Attlee's government would even allow us to take off from Britain( a dubious assumption at best), the planes carrying those bombs would be flying over territory occupied by our enemy (not empty ocean as was the case against Japan), where any anti-aircraft fire could shoot them down. Since the planes were slower and flew at a lower altitude than they do today, anti-aircraft fire was a much more effective defense than it is today.
And if the Soviets were really concerned about us bombing Moscow, they already had a capital built in the Urals at Omsk to run the country. Most of their military manufacture was also located in the Urals about 1200 more miles away from London.
German Panzerfausts didn't exactly keep Berlin from being turned into rubble.
The difference between Tokyo and Hiroshima is significant.
Posted by: oj at May 9, 2005 3:02 PMIn that it took 2000 sorties to obliterate the one, and one sortie to obliterate the other? That's actually three degrees of significance. Or are you fishing for something else?
Posted by: joe shropshire at May 10, 2005 12:29 AMOne surprise nuclear drop would have decapitated the totalitarian regime, which would then have collapsed.
Posted by: oj at May 10, 2005 12:35 AMNo fact will ever sway Orrin, but for those who think facts mean something, let's hear what Field Marshal Manstein had to say about it (from 'Lost Victories')
'Another very doubtful point is how Germany could have achieved an honourable peace without Hitler at that time [after the fall of Poland, when the choice was whether to continue the war or make peace with Britain and France]. How was he to be overthrown? If General Halder [often presented as the center of antiHitler resistance in the army] had any fresh plan to take military action against Berlin in October 1939, all I can say is that he would have found even less support among the troops than in autumn 1938.' (page 85)
[Commenting on any chance of bidding for peace after the conquest of France] 'Admittedly, the military leaders had ultimately allowed Hitler to outmaneuver them, just as it may be said that they accepted the preeminence of politics -- even politics they did not agree with, but could have prevented only by a coup d'etat.' (page 148).
Commenting on the Stauffenburg plot, Manstein says:
"’. . . as one responsible for an army group in the field I did not feel I had the right to contemplate a coup d’etat in wartime because in my own view it would have led to an immediate collapse of the front and probably to chaos inside Germany. Apart from this, there was always the question of the military oath and the admissibility of murder for political motives.’(page 287)
In January 1944, Manstein attempted to get Hitler to let a soldier direct the war in the East. Hitler refused. Manstein did not consider a coup.
‘I was well aware that any attempt to settle the matter by force would lead to the collapse of our armies in the field.’ (page 505).
There was no chance, nor much reason, for a coup in '39. Later it would have been easy had we supported it.
Posted by: oj at May 10, 2005 7:21 AM