Bush Says The Baltics Were Betrayed

[visionary]

Bush: Baltics betrayed by transfer to Soviet control

President on four-nation trip to commemorate end of WWII

RIGA, Latvia (CNN) -- President Bush, in a speech to the Latvian people on Saturday, called three Baltic nations' transfer to Soviet control after World War II '"one of the greatest wrongs of history."

"The Baltic countries have seen one of the most dramatic transformations in modern history, from captive nations to NATO allies and E.U. [European Union] members in little more than a decade," Bush said.

He was in Riga, Latvia, speaking at a press conference with Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Lithuanian President Valdus Adamkus and Estonian President Arnold Ruutel, after meeting with the three leaders.

Bush referred to the 1945 conference at Yalta, often cited as the beginning of the Cold War, and acknowledged the United States' role in it.

U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt participated in the conference, along with Soviet leader Josef Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and FDR later faced criticism for what critics saw as giving Eastern Europe away to Stalin.

The conference, he said, resulted in the captivity of millions -- "one of the greatest wrongs of history." Bush also called Soviet oppression "evil."

"When powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable," he said.

"We have a great opportunity to move beyond the past and learn the lessons of that painful history," he told reporters. The countries were annexed by Moscow after the fall of Nazism and chafed for decades under the Kremlin's iron-fisted rule.

"The Baltic peoples kept a long vigil of suffering and hope," Bush said. "Though you lived in isolation, you were not alone. The United States refused to recognize your occupation."

Bush, on the first leg of a politically sensitive European trip marking the end of World War II, earlier told reporters the end of the war 60 years ago "meant peace" for much of the world but "brought occupation and communist oppression" to the Baltic states.

Kremlin's concerns

In answer to a reporter's question about Russia's displeasure with Bush's trip to Latvia, he said he would "continue to speak as clearly as I can to [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin that it's in his country's interests that there be democracies on his borders."

"The idea of countries helping others become free, I hope that would be viewed as not revolutionary, but rational foreign policy, as decent foreign policy, as humane foreign policy," Bush said.

The Kremlin has expressed concern about Bush's visits to Latvia and Georgia, which the president will also visit on this trip, because of Moscow's strained relationships with its former satellites.

Russian officials also have objected to Bush's use of the word occupation in reference to the fate of the Baltics. (Full story)

Baltic leaders have urged Putin to renounce a 1939 pact between Russia and Nazi Germany that led to communist rule in their countries. The Associated Press reported that Putin told German television that Russia had renounced that deal in 1989. (Full story)

Bush also called for free elections, set for next year, in the former Soviet republic of Belarus, which his administration has repeatedly referred to as the last dictatorship in Europe.

The people of Belarus "should be allowed to express themselves in free and open and fair elections," Bush said.

Three Star Order

Earlier, Vike-Freiberga presented Bush with her country's highest honor, the "Three Star Order," calling him a "signal fighter of freedom and democracy in the world."

"I admire your country's courage," said Bush, who along with Vike-Freiberga laid wreaths at the foot of Freedom Monument, a towering obelisk that marks the country's independence from communist rule.

After his talks in Lativa, Bush flew to the Netherlands where he landed Saturday evening. There, as part of the events marking V-E Day (for victory in Europe), Bush plans to lay a wreath at the Netherlands American cemetery on Sunday. Later he will join world leaders for a victory celebration in Moscow that will include a military parade in Red Square.

Bush also is scheduled to visit Georgia before returning to the United States.

CNN's Dana Bash and John King contributed to this report.

Copyright 2005 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.

Find this article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/07/bush.europe/index.html

[Ghost of]

Duh.

The "Great" Roosevelt's doing. But those in the know, been knowin', if you understand me.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

I really don't trust Putin-- He seems to be trying his hardest to consolidate power.

[Soliloquy]

I noticed CNN did not include this quote:

"We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations - appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability," he added.

Pretty strong zing on 'old Europe', and their approach to the WoT.

source

[visionary]

Roosevelt was pretty old and ill at that point...he was nearly a zombie by then. I think. You can't really blame him too much.

[Cdowwe]

lol a zombie

[Ghost of]

Well, yes, by Yalta, he was in bad shape. I don't blame him for that MOMENT, but the series of decisions and refusal to hold his advisors and the infiltration of the government by agents of a foreign power and ideology up to scrutiny. If he had paid heed to the warning signs(or weren't so darn friendly to fascist/socialist economic arrangements) things might have turned out differently.

[Larry]

And let's also face it:

If the Presidend had vehemently wanted to stop Soviet expansion at that point, the american people would likely have impeached him at the very thought of starting another War of European Liberation, when we haven't even brought home the folks who fought the previous one.

[smsmith40]

Exactly what else was FDR going to do. He needed Stalin to finish of the Nazis, his prime ally, the UK, was exhausted and half his forces were facing the possibility of a long and bloody invasion of Japan.

At Yalta, FDR made a virtue out of conceeding the inevitable, there was no way he could have stopped Soviet expansion in the Baltics, even Eastern Europe would likely have been impossible. In the end Truman decided, rightly, not to try.

[redman]

The truth is that we allied with (what we perceived as) a lesser tyrant to defeat a greater one. We certainly weren't endorsing the Soviet/Stalin approach to foreign policy.

It doesn't make that fact that the Soviet drive to the west represented conquest more than liberation any more acceptable. I also think that there could have been a very public statement to the effect that we will not accept anything less than full liberation of those eastern states.

Keep in mind, we agreed to give the Soviets Czechoslovakia, which was one of the few successful democracies to come out of the Versailles Treaty. To have betrayed them (again, remember the Western democracies had already betrayed them to Hitler) was in my view inexcusable.

[smsmith40]

Redman

I agree that perhaps some of the eastern Europe staes might have been saved but there was no chance for the Baltics.

In reality the Baltic states had always lived under the shadow of Russia. Thats just Geography.

[Kilmer17]

I think the mistake was not listening to our Generals who told Roosevelt and anyone else that would listen, that we should continue on to Moscow.

[Renegade7]

Aight, everybody already knows about this. But with the tension between the US and Russia the way it is, why in the world would you bother to take a shot at Russia like that? Why even bring that up?

[Larry]

Originally posted by Renegade7

Aight, everybody already knows about this. But with the tension between the US and Russia the way it is, why in the world would you bother to take a shot at Russia like that? Why even bring that up?

Uh, because Putin thought this was a great time to claim that the Allies weren't morally superior to the Nazis, because those awefull democracies bombed Dresden (over Russian objections), and insisted on fragmenting Germany after the war (over Russian objections)?

[Renegade7]

Originally posted by Larry

Uh, because Putin thought this was a great time to claim that the Allies weren't morally superior to the Nazis, because those awefull democracies bombed Dresden (over Russian objections), and insisted on fragmenting Germany after the war (over Russian objections)?

Oh ya, almost forgot. :doh: That about makes it even.

[NYSkins1]

Originally posted by smsmith40

Exactly what else was FDR going to do. He needed Stalin to finish of the Nazis, his prime ally, the UK, was exhausted and half his forces were facing the possibility of a long and bloody invasion of Japan.

At Yalta, FDR made a virtue out of conceeding the inevitable, there was no way he could have stopped Soviet expansion in the Baltics, even Eastern Europe would likely have been impossible. In the end Truman decided, rightly, not to try.

Exactly. The problem was that you had three countries who were allies in war but knew that there would be tension when the war ended. The Soviets wouldn't have been satisfied not to have Eastern Europe, and an agreement never would have been reached. Each country on the winning side wants certain things at the end of a war, and compromises have to be made.

[Henry]

Originally posted by Larry

And let's also face it:

If the Presidend had vehemently wanted to stop Soviet expansion at that point, the american people would likely have impeached him at the very thought of starting another War of European Liberation, when we haven't even brought home the folks who fought the previous one.

Ding ding ding! Nobody wanted more war in 1945. Nobody. Before we smugly declare our dealings with Stalin a failure, let us not forget that.

I don't think Bush meant what he said as a criticism of FDR. He was talking to a Latvian crowd, and was trying to address the war from their perspective, and (as already stated) was taking a shot at Putin.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

I think the mistake was not listening to our Generals who told Roosevelt and anyone else that would listen, that we should continue on to Moscow.

Yeah, that worked so well for Hitler.

And Napoleon.

And it it the American way to attack our allies without direct provocation.

And the fact that the Soviet Army had us outnumbered in the millions should not have been a consideration.

[Kilmer17]

different thread needed for this, but you should do your research if you actually want to have that debate.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

different thread needed for this, but you should do your research if you actually want to have that debate.

I actually am curious to find out what our brass was saying at the end of WW2. This is the first I have heard of it

[Kilmer17]

Patton wanted to immediately defeat the USSR. He saw the danger and knew they could be defeated.

[redman]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

I actually am curious to find out what our brass was saying at the end of WW2. This is the first I have heard of it

Check out the movie Patton for a taste of the Western leaders' tip-toeing around Uncle Joe.

I don't criticize them severely for that. Prior to D-Day, the West was VERY concerned that Stalin would perceive the Russians as bearing the brunt of the effort to defeat Nazi Germany and would thereby decide simply to make a separate peace with Germany, leaving Germany to have to fight a war only on one front. This wasn't unrealistic given the willingness of the Russians to enter into the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop mutual non-agression pact with Germany.

The Tehran Conference in 1943(?) included, among other things, a promise on the part of the Western Allies to launch an invasion onto mainland Europe (other than Italy) by no later than 1944 to assuage Stalin's stated belief that his nation was fighting it out alone.

In other words, the West well knew that they had a tiger by the tail in their alliance with Stalin's Russia, but the alternative of fighting Germany without Russia seemed far worse. I can't fault the thinking.

OTOH, by late 1944, when the occupation of various Central and Eastern European countries had not yet occurred, and with the Western Allies squarely situated on the continent, I do feel that more could have been done.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

different thread needed for this, but you should do your research if you actually want to have that debate.

Different thread may be needed. But I have done my research. I have read dozens of books on WWII. Just because Patton wanted to attack and said he could win does not mean that an attack was wise or warranted, nor does it mean he actually would have won. By the end of the war, good old Marshal Zhukov was pretty good at tank warfare, and had about a gazillion excellent T-1 tanks that were far superior to our Shermans, plus superior manpower, supply lines and so forth. Patton was living a pipe dream.

[Kilmer17]

He also had nobody left to man the tanks or artillery to shoot from them.

Not to mention no food or clothes left for the troups.

It's a worthless debate though because it didnt happen. No way of knowing what the outcome could have been.

[redman]

Patton was also counting on turning the German troops towards the East and fighting with them against the Russians . . . something that would have presented certain, um, political considerations . . . I agree it was a pipe dream.