I've been following the fallout from Bush's Yalta comments with much interest. I haven't commented on it, though, because most discussions seem to end up focusing on the question of who was worse, Hitler or Stalin. And implying one was worse seems to imply that one was better. I like discussing the details of history as much as the next blogger, but it is unnerving to suddenly find oneself comparing the various merits of Hitler and Stalin.
Sadly, these two have so many actual apologists that it seems impossible to just stipulate that they were both evil and then dive into the minutiae. As soon as you do, someone, somewhere will take offense. Check out Stephen Green's Nazi Apologist post and the 100+ comments it generated to see what I mean. Interesting stuff there, by the way. No offense intended to Green or his commenters. I'm just pointing out the very strong opinions pretty much everyone seem to hold.
My opinion: Many decisions made by the FDR and Churchill during WWII were problematic because often there were no good options. This includes Yalta. There were two monsters to be slain. In a perfect world, we would have slain them both. In reality, we could only take on one. The other had to wait.
Update: Victor David Hanson has, as usual, an illuminating essay on the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment