See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Is Putin Worse Than Stalin?
Source:
Creators.COM Synidicate of Talent
URL Source: http://www.creators.com/conservativ ... s-putin-worse-than-stalin.html
Published: Jul 25, 2014
Author: Pat Buchanan
Post Date: 2014-07-27 11:51:40 by Deasy
Keywords: stalin, putin, fdr, reagan
Views: 300
Comments: 20
n 1933, the Holodomor was playing out in Ukraine. After the "kulaks," the independent farmers, had been liquidated in the forced collectivization of Soviet agriculture, a genocidal famine was imposed on Ukraine through seizure of her food production. Estimates of the dead range from two to nine million souls. Walter Duranty of the New York Times, who called reports of the famine "malignant propaganda," won a Pulitzer for his mendacity. In November 1933, during the Holodomor, the greatest liberal of them all, FDR, invited Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov to receive official U.S. recognition of his master Stalin's murderous regime. On August 1, 1991, just four months before Ukraine declared its independence of Russia, George H. W. Bush warned Kiev's legislature: "Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred." In short, Ukraine's independence was never part of America's agenda. From 1933 to 1991, it was never a U.S. vital interest. Bush I was against it. When then did this issue of whose flag flies over Donetsk or Crimea become so crucial that we would arm Ukrainians to fight Russian-backed rebels and consider giving a NATO war guarantee to Kiev, potentially bringing us to war with a nuclear-armed Russia? From FDR on, U.S. presidents have felt that America could not remain isolated from the rulers of the world's largest nation. Ike invited Khrushchev to tour the USA after he had drowned the Hungarian Revolution in blood. After Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba, JFK was soon calling for a new detente at American University. Within weeks of Warsaw Pact armies crushing the Prague Spring in August 1968, LBJ was seeking a summit with Premier Alexei Kosygin. After excoriating Moscow for the downing of KAL 007 in 1983, that old Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan was fishing for a summit meeting. The point: Every president from FDR through George H. W. Bush, even after collisions with Moscow far more serious than this clash over Ukraine, sought to re-engage the men in the Kremlin. Whatever we thought of the Soviet dictators who blockaded Berlin, enslaved Eastern Europe, put rockets in Cuba and armed Arabs to attack Israel, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush 1 all sought to engage Russia's rulers. Avoidance of a catastrophic war demanded engagement. How then can we explain the clamor of today's U.S. foreign policy elite to confront, isolate, and cripple Russia, and make of Putin a moral and political leper with whom honorable statesmen can never deal? What has Putin done to rival the forced famine in Ukraine that starved to death millions, the slaughter of the Hungarian rebels or the Warsaw Pact's crushing of Czechoslovakia? In Ukraine, Putin responded to a U.S.-backed coup, which ousted a democratically elected political ally of Russia, with a bloodless seizure of the pro-Russian Crimea where Moscow has berthed its Black Sea fleet since the 18th century. This is routine Big Power geopolitics. And though Putin put an army on Ukraine's border, he did not order it to invade or occupy Luhansk or Donetsk. Does this really look like a drive to reassemble either the Russian Empire of the Romanovs or the Soviet Empire of Stalin that reached to the Elbe? As for the downing of the Malaysian airliner, Putin did not order that. Sen. John Cornyn says U.S. intelligence has not yet provided any "smoking gun" that ties the missile-firing to Russia. Intel intercepts seem to indicate that Ukrainian rebels thought they had hit an Antonov military transport plane. Yet, today, the leading foreign policy voice of the Republican Party, Sen. John McCain, calls Obama's White House "cowardly" for not arming the Ukrainians to fight the Russian-backed separatists. But suppose Putin responded to the arrival of U.S. weapons in Kiev by occupying Eastern Ukraine. What would we do then? John Bolton has the answer: Bring Ukraine into NATO. Translation: The U.S. and NATO should go to war with Russia, if necessary, over Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea, though no U.S. president has ever thought Ukraine itself was worth a war with Russia. What motivates Putin seems simple and understandable. He wants the respect due a world power. He sees himself as protector of the Russians left behind in his "near abroad." He relishes playing Big Power politics. History is full of such men. He allows U.S. overflights to Afghanistan, cooperates in the P5+1 on Iran, helped us rid Syria of chemical weapons, launches our astronauts into orbit, collaborates in the war on terror and disagrees on Crimea and Syria. But what motivates those on our side who seek every opportunity to restart the Cold War? Is it not a desperate desire to appear once again Churchillian, once again heroic, once again relevant, as they saw themselves in the Cold War that ended so long ago? Who is the real problem here? Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority." To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deasy (#0)
It was easy for FedGov to kill Moammar Khadafi for daring to leave the US petro- dollar as a trading currency. We can't kill Putin for BRICS/etc., so FedGov mindlessly demonizes a man who puts the interests of Russia ahead of the US petro-dollar. FDR: "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 except security for his own country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace." -Response to advice from Ambassador William C. Bullitt to pursue a containment policy against the Soviet Union (1943), quoted in his account in Life (23 August 1948) How then can we explain the clamor of today's U.S. foreign policy elite to confront, isolate, and cripple Russia, and make of Putin a moral and political leper with whom honorable statesmen can never deal?
-Alex Kurtagic
#2. To: X-15 (#1)
BRICS is a tidy explanation but I still don't have any clarity on this issue. Ukraine is a hell of a lot more European than Russia. In fact, Oswald Spengler argues that it's phony history to lump Russia into Europe just because of its linguistic ties to Greece and its Eastern Orthodox Christianity. He argues that Russia is Asian. Thinking this through a little more, I find that while Europe is led by former communists in the EU, and I despise their lack of free speech, I am a European by extraction and by language. None of this contradicts your assertions or PJB's.
#3. To: Deasy (#2)
As I understand it, eastern Ukraine is mostly Russian while western Ukraine is more European, which is why things are divided as they are today. Splitting the country into two along those lines might be considered, but eastern Ukraine has a lot more mining and industry then what the western half has, so that would piss off the western half. That's my very under-researched impression, at least. Ukraine is a hell of a lot more European than Russia.
#4. To: Pinguinite (#3)
A split is natural...
#5. To: Deasy (#4)
Can the Jews Stop Putan?
#6. To: Deasy (#4) (Edited)
Rothschild put Stalan in place to Overthrow The white Czar Rothschild's Choice Barack Obama and the Hidden Cabal Behind the Plot to Murder America.
#7. To: Deasy, Russophiles (#0)
First Pat will have to explain what geo/politics is to my friends on 4um. Next Pat needs to consult a map to see what is afoot in Europe, concerning current geo/politics. Draw a line from northern Lapland to the Black Sea. It is not difficult to see what the US/EU wants. Next, anyone that does understand geo/politics PAST and present would understand, you NEVER TRUST THE RUSSIANS, regardless of who or what is in charge. As for Ukraine, THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT RUSSIANS AND NEVER HAVE BEEN. Only 17 per cent of the Ukraine is Russian. Past HISTORY, Hitler shook down country after country because they were "mistreating German minorities". The West stood by and did NOTHING. Until Hitler came after them. This is routine Big Power geopolitics.
#8. To: Cynicom (#7)
Am I reading this correctly? Until Hitler came after [the Russians].
#9. To: Deasy (#8) (Edited)
I would hope so. Geo/politics has no room for bias. It is what it is. Line above...WEST...Russia has never been the West.
#10. To: Deasy, Cynicom (#8)
Am I reading this correctly? Hitler attacked Russia to destroy the Jewish Bolshevists, who were also causing tremendous trouble in Germany. Until Hitler came after [the Russians].
"Have Brain, Will Travel
#11. To: Turtle (#10)
History is not a required subject on 4um. Hitler attacked Russia to destroy the Jewish Bolshevists, who were also causing tremendous trouble in Germany.
#12. To: Cynicom (#9)
If you use a pronoun like "them" it typically refers to the immediately-preceding noun. I just wanted to be sure before I took on your remarks. My understanding is that other than the protracted North African campaign the British were tied up in preparations for war in Burma and in fighting the Battle of Britain, after "advancing to Dunkirk." Timing: Operation Barbarossa was approved in December of 1940 and launched on June 22, 1941. Other than our unconstitutional lend-leasing to the Brits and Soviets, no real progress happened before America entered. In other words, the Allies lacked real punch until America joined them after Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. Are you suggesting that the Japanese were provoked into attacking Pearl Harbor between July and December of 1941? The Japanese were already planning to attack western interests by the spring. Can you support the linkage between Barbarossa and Allied full-scale entry into the war in terms of the Pacific theater?
#13. To: Deasy (#12)
Past HISTORY, Hitler shook down country after country because they were "mistreating German minorities"............ The..... West...... stood by and did NOTHING........ Past HISTORY, Hitler shook down country after country because they were "mistreating German minorities". The West stood by and did NOTHING.
#14. To: Cynicom (#13)
The same countries who shook down Germany after WW1. Some (israel,usa) are still shaking them down to this day.
#15. To: Obnoxicated (#14)
Versailles Treaty... "Controversial even today, it is often argued that the punitive terms of the treaty supported the rise of the Nazis and the Third Reich in 1930s Germany, which in turn led to the outbreak of World War II. The Versailles treaty deprived Germany of around 13.5% of its 1914 territory (some seven million people) and all of its overseas possessions. Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France, and Belgium was enlarged in the east with the addition of the formerly German border areas of Eupen and Malmedy. Among other territorial re-arrangements, an area of East Prussia was handed over to Lithuania, and the Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia." The British were against the treaty as too harsh. The US and Jews pushed it. Then later world Jewry openly declared trade war on Germany. History lesson... All of Germanys overseas possessions were taken away. Many of the islands in the Pacific...WERE GIVEN TO JAPAN...that in 1919. In 1919 the US put in motion War Plan Orange, anticipating Japan moving South. The first money was authorized for digging the Malinta tunnel on Corregidor. All the same year WWI ended, preparing for WWII. German General Staff in spring of 1919 drew up next invasion plans for France, which Hitler used in 1940. Hitler in 1919 was a Corporal in the German army. Geo/politics transcends generations.
#16. To: Cynicom (#15) (Edited)
I've always heard that WOODROW was against "getting even" with GERMANY but the others in the "Big Four," the FRENCH, BRITISH and ITALIANS were harsh. The French wanted to weaken Germany out of concern for their future security. Territory was lost, and $33 billion in 1919 US dollars was extracted from them in committed reparations. Another source: encyclopedia.com article on the treaty. Woodrow Wilson is known for failing to secure American commitment to the treaty, due to opposition from isolationists who didn't want to be required to come to the aid of a League signatory. What evidence do you have to the contrary, that Woodrow was the harsh one? ************************************** Are you telling us anything new? What evidence do you have to suggest that America entered the war via the Japanese attack due to the German attack on Russia? The British were against the treaty as too harsh. The US and Jews pushed it. Then later world Jewry openly declared trade war on Germany.
All of Germanys overseas possessions were taken away. Many of the islands in the Pacific...WERE GIVEN TO JAPAN...that in 1919.
Back on the subject of Japan, what is your explanation for Japan's attack on the US before America officially responded to Operation Barbarossa? As you've said, first came Barbarossa, the invasion by Germany of the Soviet Union, and then the real Allied response in earnest. Yet events were already in motion indicated partly by your remarks above for Japan to attack America. At least by the spring of 1941, Japan was planning to attack Allied interests in the Pacific, before Germany attacked Russia in June of 1941.
In 1919 the US put in motion War Plan Orange, anticipating Japan moving South. The first money was authorized for digging the Malinta tunnel on Corregidor.
#17. To: Cynicom (#13)
Not quite true, but there are circumstances that support your argument partially. Britain and France did declare war on Germany when Hitler blitzed for Danzig in "Poland," a traditionally German city that had been German territory before WWI. While Poland was never defended during that lightening war, since no preparations had been made, nor could other armies mobilize as quickly as the Germans, The North Africa campaign dragged on for three years while the British played cat and mouse with Rommel in the desert. (Rough sketch.) It's a safe argument that Britain had reason to believe that the US could be brought into the conflict if their efforts failed. The French believed that the British and Americans would back them up. If the British and French hubris had never led to their phony support of Poland, the war in the west may never have happened. Churchill was backed by the powerful Focus Group and together they lobbied constantly for war against Germany. Once war was declared, those Brits who opposed the war were imprisoned on Defense Regulation 18b. It could be argued that using Lloyd George to negotiate with Hitler was a way of misleading him into thinking Britain wanted peace when it never had. It is well known that attacking an occupying force requires greater numbers and careful preparation, so the delays during the "phony war" were inevitable. The Soviets had stopped the Wehrmacht's advance into Russia and turned them back before western Allies reached Normandy on D-Day. Germans surrendered at Stalingrad a year before the Allied landing at Anzio. The Allies were very busy setting up for war, Lend-Leasing to the British and Soviets, and shipping arms to Chinese destinations. So it's not quite true that the west stood by and did "nothing" until the Russians were attacked. Charles Lindbergh complains in a 1941 speech that our arms shipments to Russia had weakened our overall defenses greatly. Congress was shipping them our planes instead of deploying them properly to defend North America and the Pacific. The..... West...... stood by and did NOTHING...
#18. To: Cynicom, X-15, Obnoxicated, Pinguinite, Turtle, Dakmar, HOUNDDAWG, Jethro Tull, christine (#17)
Please remember these questions: Geo/politics transcends generations.
#19. To: Deasy, Cynicom (#16)
The U.S. had been attacking Japan for ten years before Pearl Harbor. Cutting off their oil, for one thing. Japan has no natural resources, none whatsoever. Back on the subject of Japan, what is your explanation for Japan's attack on the US
"Have Brain, Will Travel
#20. To: Turtle (#19)
I was asking Cynicom to explain his assertion that the west did nothing to stop Germany until Germany attacked Russia. Ten years? What was the first event in that span?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest