Western Betrayal

Before and during WW2, the Western Allies had promoted democracy and made military alliances/pacts with Central European countries(Mostly Czechoslovakia, and Poland). In 1938 they did absolutely nothing to stop the Nazi takeover of Czechoslovakia, and in 1939 did almost nothing to prevent the downfall of Poland. In the latter stages of WW2 they GAVE Warsaw, Prague, and Berlin to the Communists, after they promised Poland and Czechoslovakia democracy. In Czechoslovakia, Eisenhower did not allow Patton to to take the city of Prague, even though he had plans to do it. They also allowed Poland to fall to Communism even though they had fought the Nazis the longest and they had the fourth largest army to fight them.

I come from Czechoslovakia/The Czech Republic, and no offense but I blame Eisenhower for allowing my country to fall to 44 years of Communism.

Does anybody believe that any of those actions were justified in any way?

 

"In the latter stages of WW2 they GAVE Warsaw, Prague, and Berlin to the Communists, after they promised Poland and Czechoslovakia democracy."

And how did the Western Allies GIVE Warsaw to the Soviets? The Western Allies were nowhere close to being able to get to Poland. The Soviets got there first.What do you suggest the Western Allies should have done? Fight the Soviets through the rest of Soviet occupied Germany to get to Warsaw? Its pretty easy to judge with 20/20 hindsight people's decisions over 60 years later.

 

Whatever you feel about the fate of the Eastern European countries at the end of WW2, Eisenhower cannot be held responsible.
Eisenhower was only the military commander of the forces of the Western Allies in Europe, tasked with the destruction of the German forces, he had no responsibility for any of the political decisions made by either the USA or Britain, concerning the nations overrun by the Soviets.

 

I agree Rommel, the western allies were hypocrites in that now and then they consider themselves the "good guys" in WWII 2, the liberators of tyranny, when in fact they fought hand in hand with the Soviets, a regime as brutal as that of the Nazis. In the end they abandoned the very countries they started the war to "protect" from one tyrant to another tyrant. After the fall of Hitler many German soldiers seriously thought that the western allies would join them in the fight against communists but they did so in vain. Soldiers on all sides (for the most part) fought for what they truly believed to be an honorable cause but in the big picture they were all pawns in the power mongering of their governments, that had less to do with ideology and more with the greed for power and control. This is particularly true when WWII is seen as an extension of WWI.

 

Though I'd pretty strongly disagree about the earlier part of the war leaving any more realistic options for the treaty nations to choose, I do think the point of view is understandable.
Particularly given that so much more could likely have been done with regards to the warsaw business, and the generally disgraceful treatment of the Poles postwar I have great sympathy for that country.
To be honest I'm rather more woolly on the postwar carving up that involved Czechoslovakia and find it much harder to comment on that. I would however always offer the caveat that wherever Patton's plans and claims are concerned a large pinch of salt is a useful addition in attempting to ascertain the reality. No matter if the possibility of securing Prague was there, I can't help feeling a withdrawal in favour of the Red Army would have been inevitable as soon as the politics began.

Having said that, it is indeed true that we never had to make the awful realpolitik and strategic decisions required at the time, so judging too harshly should also also be a cautious business. Roosevelt/Truman/Churchill etc., and all their other advisers and functionaries were rarely stupid men, they usually knew what could be achieved and what could not. Stalin wanted his pound of flesh, and was in a rather strong position to claim it.
Hard to extract a country from such a man while he's actually sitting on it.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Two days after the German invasion of Poland saw Britain declare war on Germany. A war which saw 75% of it's national wealth spent, the deaths of over 450,000 of it's people and the end of Empire. Hardly "almost nothing".

cheers,

 

Shouldn't more of the blame fall on the nation that did the things versus the nations that at least tried to prevent them? Sure the US and the UK could have fought Russia over these small nations. That could have resulted in all of Europe being communist for 50 years... now what sounds better.

 

I think Uncle Joe never promised other than freedom to all countries post-war. Definitely he had other ideas but never talked about them in the high-level meetings during WW2. Can you blame Ike for Stalin not keeping his end of the bargain?

Also I´d be curious as to the people in the future Eastern Bloc countries who turned into communists why they did that and how it was possible to keep the countries communistic? The Red Army itself surely could not do it all itself.

So it is not all that simple. Who knows even without Hitler the Europe might have turned communistic anyway if you consider the number of tanks, planes, soldiers Stalin was producing towards the end of 1930´s.

Just a couple of things on my mind on this.

 

The Western Allies gave none of these cities to the Soviets, the Red army took them by force of arms from the Axis forces

Indeed, and according to the agreements between the Allies on the future of these nations, the Soviets should have allowed free and fair elections in these nations.
The fact that they didn't do so was no fault of the Western Allies, and seeing that the only thing that could have altered anything was another major war, involving millions of casualties, its not surprising the Western nations did not act

 

Whoa! Before you start making accusations like that, you better get your facts straight.

The Western Allies (including the US) DID NOT make any promises to Poland or Czechoslovakia concerning their national security or guaranteeing them a specific form of government. If any promises were made, they were made unilaterally by Britain and France.

As for "giving" the Soviet Union any territory in Eastern Europe, Eisenhower made no such decision; he simply carried out the military orders he received form the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Roosevelt and the JCS were in no position to demand that the Soviets halt their advance in Eastern Europe and, in fact, had absolutely no way of forcing them to do so. Warsaw, Prague, and Berlin fell to the Soviets through force of arms and there was no way the US could change that.

If Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany suffered under the Communists and their peoples were denied the opportunity to choose the form of government they desired, you have only Stalin and the Russians to blame as they also made promises which they failed to keep.

 

Maybe someone whom has a bit more details can find info on this subject...I think the borders. territories which where to be drawn up at the conclusion of WW2 did not term Czechoslovakia to be under the thumb of communist rule..these borders, agreement set forth where done by Stalin,Roosevelt and Churchill at one of the Big 3 conferences....Czechoslovakia did not become communist because they had been liberated by the Russians, but by Stalins greed and territory seized after WW2 or a Russian aggression..

Much in the same light and by different circumstances the roads/rail where suspended of traffic in an attempt of citizens to renounce their territory and switch backing to the Soviets (along this line) and was done so by no food stuff allowed to be sent through the lands around Berlin held by Soviets...so they where flown in in 1948...an interesting story can e read by a Gail Halvorsen (uncle wiggly wings or the Candy bomber)CNN Cold War - Interview: Gail Halvorsen

 

"And how did the Western Allies GIVE Warsaw to the Soviets?"

Maybe gave isn't the right word to use but, I meant that they allowed the USSR to to take it without doing or saying a thing. They didn't object in any way to the soviets doing whatever they wanted. Also I would like to add that Europe was carved up by France, US, Britain and the USSR long before the war ended and at that time the "minor" countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia had almost no say in what would happen to their country and the Western Allies allowed the soviets to "liberate" almost all of the European capitals and almost the entire countries giving them the power over the countries and letting them install their own government. And they should have known that they would set up a communist government. And maybe in hindsight I cannot judge, but I think nobody in their right mind would trust the USSR to set up post war free elections and a democratic government.

"Whatever you feel about the fate of the Eastern European countries at the end of WW2, Eisenhower cannot be held responsible. Eisenhower was only the military commander of the forces of the Western Allies in Europe, tasked with the destruction of the German forces, he had no responsibility for any of the political decisions made by either the USA or Britain, concerning the nations overrun by the Soviets."
First of all I am not talking about Eastern Europe, Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia/Czech Rep. are in Central Europe. Eisenhower was "only" a military commander, but he could have done something but did nothing.

"Two days after the German invasion of Poland saw Britain declare war on Germany. A war which saw 75% of it's national wealth spent, the deaths of over 450,000 of it's people and the end of Empire. Hardly "almost nothing"."

I understand that Britain did huge amounts of work for the war as a whole but during the invasion of Poland they did nothing, as if a declaration of war would stop Nazi Germany. Anyway that part of the war could have been better affected by France who by pact should have invaded Germany but did, what. Nothing.

"Shouldn't more of the blame fall on the nation that did the things versus the nations that at least tried to prevent them? Sure the US and the UK could have fought Russia over these small nations. That could have resulted in all of Europe being communist for 50 years... now what sounds better."

Well yes and it's not like I think it was okay what the communists did, but my point is that the Western Allies did nothing to prevent the creation of communist governments in the countries of Europe.

 

"If Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany suffered under the Communists and their peoples were denied the opportunity to choose the form of government they desired, you have only Stalin and the Russians to blame as they also made promises which they failed to keep."

I never said I do not blame the communists for what happened but I blame the Western Allies for not preventing or even trying to prevent the communists from taking over my country.

I guess you guys are right, I should not blame Eisenhower, but all of my other points I hold firm on.

 

Just what do you think the Western Allies could have done to prevent the Soviets from occupying Poland and Czechoslovakia? In March, 1945, US and British armies were still more than 300 miles from Berlin and were trying to cross the Rhine, while the Soviet Army was already in eastern Czechoslovakia, and by the end of March, was just 30 miles from Berlin.

Stalin wasn't about to halt the Red Army because Churchill and Roosevelt asked him to; the only way the Soviets could have been prevented from taking over Czechoslovakia was by military force. Neither the US nor Britain had any forces which had any prospect of success in stopping the Red Army in Central Europe, and, in any case, both had very good strategic reasons not to even try. Frankly, Czechoslovakia wasn't worth fighting another immediate war against the Soviets, especially since the US still had to worry about subduing the last remaining member of the Axis in the Pacific.

Finally, I must point out that the US had absolutely no obligation, express or implied (i.e. had made no promises whatsoever), to the Czechoslovakian state.

 

So we are condemned for not doing enough, and condemned for interfering with the affairs of other nations. Change has to come from within. A democracy can be a great example, but it cannot be a conquering force. If the Allies were to try to fight the Russians at the end of WWII, it would have been a major problem. With millions of soldiers dead, and the war against Japan still going on, making the switch from allies to enemies would not stand well with a world tired of war.

 

If there was any "betrayal" of the countries of Eastern and Central Europe in terms of the postwar political order, it was certainly not the doing of the United States. The war aims of the US were based firmly on the provisions of the Atlantic Charter Atlantic Charter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which was announced even before the US officially became a belligerent, and which the US urged it's future allies to adopt. At the Inter-Allied Council meeting in London on September 24, 1941, the following statement was made br the representative of the Soviet Union;

"The Soviet Union defends the right of every nation to the independence and territorial integrity of its country and its right to establish such a social order and to choose such a form of government as it deems opportune and necessary for the better promotion of its economic and cultural prosperity. The Soviet Government proclaims its agreement with the fundamental principles of the declaration [Atlantic Charter] of Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill."

The meeting unanimously adopted the following resolution;

"The Governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Yugoslavia, and representatives of General de Gaulle, leader of Free Frenchmen, having taken note of the declaration recently drawn up by the President of the United States and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill) on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, now make known their adherence to the common principles of policy set forth in that declaration and their intention to cooperate to the best of their ability in giving effect to them."

The governments of the United States, Great Britain, and Czechoslovakia, as well as other governments thus had every right to expect that the Soviet Union would respect the provisions of the Atlantic Charter in any territories it might, in the future, occupy. The fact that Stalin and the Soviet Union chose to disregard these solemn promises in 1945 cannot be blamed in any way on the Western Allies nor the United States.

The US was so firmly committed to these war aims that it even extended the Atlantic Charter principles to the defeated Empire of Japan.

See; INTER-ALLIED COUNCIL STATEMENT ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ATLANTIC CHARTER

 

No he couldn't.
Military commanders in the western nations operated under the mandate of their democratic governments. Any commander who acted outside of the mandate given to him by his government, would be removed from his position instantly.

 

A show about events during WWII that I am watching, is covering several topics, one of which was the influence of some religious leaders. They felt the Allies should stop attacking Germany back in 1944 due to the civilian deaths. They wanted a negotiated peace, which would have probably kept German control over a large area. An interesting concept, but if they had gained enough momentum, and D-Day had not happened, I would suspect that Russia would have fought Germany all the way to France.

A lot of people have expressed wishes that the Allies had not gotten in bed with the USSR, but had let them fight Germany on their own. Other than more dead Russians and maybe a more easterly advance by the Brits and yanks, I see no major benefits to that scenario.

 

Hmmmmmm. Looks like ol Rommel25 was last on this morning at 9am. And yet he failed to back up his statments. I think this may be a dead discussion. But we can always wait.

 

No offence to anybody, but to understand what Rommel meant in his accusation, you have to come from one of the countries that fell under communism after ww2.By that, i don't mean that "sure, it's only Churchill's/Eisenhower's/De Gaulle's..etc fault and they should all be held responsable for our nation's fate".No.I don't mean that.

After all, it's stupid to blame someone.Churchill did what it was best for his country, and the same did the rest.And after 6 years of fighting, nobody had the strenght to start another war only to fight the russians and liberate all the eastern nations.There was simply no point in doing this.

Still, the people in those nations(like, CzechoSlovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania etc) believed, hoped in an american liberation army that would suddently come from nowhere and liberate us all under the communsim regime(after all, isn't this the general ideea when your country is under foreign control?).Not only that, but the hopes where so high, that the general ideea was that if they would start fighting against the russians, than the americans would back them up(for example, the Hungarian "revolution", or the CzechoSlovakian "revolution").
Of course nothing happened, the americans never came(they didn't had to anyway), so everybody blamed the americans.Which, in my opinion is simply stupid, but, unfortunately this is the general opinion.

In my country(Romania, that is), the last of the partisan fighters against the communist regime were captured in mid 1980.They were still fighting in hope that the americans will come and back them up.

So, you see?...It's simply the general opinion transmmited from grandfather to father to son that somebody (and mainly the western allies) is responsable for us falling under communism.


P.S.:the romanian King, Michael I, who's a relative with the british royal family, was invited at Queen Elizabeth's wedding in 1947.There, he met all the important figures of that time, and tried to explain them the desperate situation in which his country was, asking for help in getting rid of the russian army that was still on the romanian teritorry.Nobody payed attention, nobody offered his help, and nobody seemed to understand.When he came back from the wedding, the soviet army surrounded his palace, and the communist leader(petru Groza), threatened him with a gun nd blackmailed him that the government was to shoot 1,000 arrested students if Michael didn't abdicate.He was sent into exile afterwards.