The Yalta Discussion

John Hawkins discusses the uproar in certain liberal camps about Bush's speech in Latvia in which he discussed the problems that Yalta generated.

"As we mark a victory of 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 not the end of 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."

Bush does not denigrate FDR's deeds by saying that there were problems with the Yalta agreement. I believe there's more to liberals' defense of Yalta than just FDR. Perhaps they just want people to forget that one of FDR's closest advisers, Alger Hiss, was a communist and a traitor to the U.S. Liberals deny the existence of communist spies like Alger Hiss as much, if not more, than Joseph McCarthy wanted to paint nearly everyone as a communist.

Jonah Goldberg notes that liberal scholars argue that Realpolitik necessitated the Yalta agreement and that tougher diplomacy was basically pointless. Goldberg ponders,

I wonder if FDR's defenders think tougher diplomacy is similarly pointless regarding, say, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank? Israel has it now, so that should settle the issue.