@ FFLaw...

Thanks for the clarification. 

It is hard (impossible) to know what the outcome would have been if the conduct of the war had been done along the lines advocated by Churchill instead of Roosevelt.  We agree that Truman had very "little latitude" after the war. 

However, the initial point made by the three 'dissenters' from your initial contribution was that Roosevelt/Truman had no political support for taking on Stalin over Eastern Europe.  And the fact remains that Truman was in charge of foreign/military policy after the war.     

But, you make an interesting military point.  And we certainly can all agree that 'hammerheadcow' is a sad case of prejudice and  'moonbattery'.

@ FLLaw....

I know that you were expressing Churchills' frustration. But, since you concurred with it so clearly, I think I was justified in presenting it as your frustration (for the sake of brevity I wanted to keep Churchill out of it). 

Sure, there are always PLANS made in advance for all sorts of possible outcomes in the future, particularly in the Pentagon, but elsewhere as well.  It is no different today.  Wouldn't you really want to see the alternate plans that are being developed for when Iran nukes Israel, or for when NATO breaks up over the refusal of troops from Germany/France/Italy/Spain to come to the aid of besieged Canadian/British/Dutch troops in southern Afghanistan in the near future? 

My (implicit) point was that Roosevelt had only a few days to live after the end of WW2.   The actual implementation (i.e. choices among alternate plans) of US policy vis-a-vis Stalin's designs on Eastern Europe was in the hands of Truman (and his successors).   

P.S. I think you better burry the hatchet w.r.t. your replay (with Atheling) of the religious wars of the Protestant Reformation. They are (should be) ancient European history.

@ hammerheadcow

So far, apart from yourself, 7 people have posted comments on this subject.  Three of them (Oiznop, nostreo, Zen master) expressed no opinion on the matter of Roosevelt's (really Truman's) failure to stop Stalin's designs on Eastern Europe after WW2.  Three others (Lee, marcfrans, and Atheling) expressed doubts and explained why Roosevelt couldn't do much about it.  Only ONE - yes 1!! - person (FLLaw33870) expressed frustration about Roosevelt's 'failure'. 

And you have the gall to start off with...."YOU ALL should be Stalinist revisionists etc..." .   The rest of your lengthy 'contribution' is 1 long (truly infantile) anti-american rant which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

For someone who apparently cannot read intelligently, and who goes off on an irrational anti-something rant besides the point under discussion, you seem to be 'blessed' with a massive amount of arrogance.   Which goes to show again that Americans certainly have no monopoly on arrogance!

P.S. Perhaps you haven't noticed yet (given your ideologically-inbred anti-americanism), but it is largely Irakis that are kiling Irakis, and Americans are trying to prevent them from doing that.  But, you are probably more interested in making anti-rants than in making factual empirical observations.  Hence, your arrogance will, inevitably, be...unbounded. But your pseudonym seems well-chosen, given your inability to read and absorb what is written by others.  

You all should have been Stalinist revisionists. You have the same spirit but fortunately lack the intellectual thoroughness. Well where were you all in 1945? Saipan? Berlin? Americans love playing arm chair military genious and 20-20 hindsight moralists. So okay, How do you think the invincible United States was going to invade the Soviet Union? What would you have invaded with? and with what money? Let alone political will? Then again this is 2006 if I am not dreaming not 1946. Political will was something in great abundance in those days compared with the current U.S. regime and its supporters. Like I said this is 2006, all that was 50 years ago and whatever moral collateral you might have gained then is long gone so enough of the pomposity. As for FDR do you really believe that? Thats as dumb as the idea that he allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. It just doesn't wash freepers. Its such a good thing that the United States of today was not fighting the war in 1942. Today you people don't even have the stamina and energy or humanity to ascertain the difference between a Kurd, Sunni or Shiite let alone "stay the course". That was so humanitarian of you guys. Who supported the Baath party in the first place or encouraged Iraq to invade Iran and subsequently sold arms to both sides? Now what is/was that plan (plans) to "win" in Iraq anyway? Do you even have any idea what you mean by "win"? At this point the only way you could win is by killing every single Iraqi left and I'm sure that wouldn't bother your conscience. And how do you all plan to pay for this little fiasco? Borrow more money from that great bastion of political and relegious freedom; China? You haven't a clue to what the European psyche is. Or any other nations for that matter. You don't even know your own nation's history or current foreign policy. I don't appreciate these simple two dimensional and condescending views. And what makes you think all them "ape-shits" in other countries love and admire you? Look around, you piss people off everywhere.

@ Frank Lee

Yes, it is frustrating to be faced with such a degree of (collective) delusion.  But, I doubt that, assuming the political will had been there to stand up to Stalin, the generation of Europeans of that time would have condemned the US for being "worse than the nazis".  Later generations, including the current one, of course have not been able to resist that stupidity, for the temptation to feel morally 'superior' is irresistable when 'own' failures (of inaction) have to be obscured.

But, truth be told, at your dinner party the "American man" with the rhetorical question was an American, which goes to show that some Americans are not immune to grand self-delusions.  His "Dutch wife" obviously lives on a comfortable fantasy planet and will undoubtedly have to be brought back to reality by the events still to come.  

By the way, I do recall the 'public' incident with the Russian submarine aground in Swedish waters.  I suspect that that happened 'quietly' on a number of occasions before. 

My point wasn't simply that the political will to confront Stalin was lacking.  My point was that, even if we had possessed the political will and acted, we would have been condemned across Europe for being worse than the Nazis.

I was at a dinner party last week where an American man mentioned a submarine that a Soviet commander had ineptly run aground in Sweden during the Cold War.  "And we were afraid of them?" he asked rhetorically, and his Dutch wife said, "You were.  We were never afraid" -- implying that the deeply wise Europeans were never foolish enough to believe that the Soviets were a real threat.  That is the brick wall of condescending ignorance and denial that FDR/Truman would have faced from Europeans -- including, let's face it, those in the Baltics -- if they had acted as Churchill presumably wanted them to.

And that, too, I might add, is the sort of ape-shit stupid comment we Americans have to listen to from Europeans CONSTANTLY.

It is encouraging to notice the difference between the Baltic States and the original EU15, many of whom enjoy bashing the US. There is a vast difference between France and the three Baltic States. The Baltic States have a better understanding of what the real world is, with ‘ethnic Russians,’ still remaining on their soil.

They are daily reminders of the Russians who moved in and took the best jobs and the best apartments. The Baltic States have reasons not to like Russia or Russians. They know that the EU15 did nothing to help free them.

I know a second generation Latvian-Russian who is still proud to be 100% Russian. Most of the ethnic Baltic citizens would like to see the Russians return home.

@ Fllaw

You fail to appreciate the core of Frank Lee's point, which is that Roosevelt did NOT face a simple choice, but rather a terrible dilemma.  Perhaps, it is unfair to judge him in the way you do. 

We may reasonably assume that Roosevelt could foresee the tragedy that would befall Eastern Europeans (although even today many in the west cannot fully appreciate that even with the benefit of hindsight), but also that he did not have the political support to continue on the offensive against yet another form of totalitarianism.

Sometimes one has no real choice but to deal with the devil, particularly when there is a shortage of courageous 'followers' (both at home and abroad).  Perhaps, it's a lesson that GWB and Condi are learning the hard way.

What exactly was Churchill willing to do to keep the Baltics free -- go to war with the Red Army?  Or insist that the Ameircans go to war with the Red Army?  In any case, America's experience in Europe since the Second World War suggests just how "grateful" the Baltic people would have been to the Americans for intervening -- that is, not grateful at all.  God knows, when I'm feeling blue, I just bask in the love that the Kosovo Albanians keep sending our way.

I am glad the Baltic countries don't hold a grudge for F.D.R. (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) sold them out to Stalin as F.D.R. and Stalin planned post-war Europe against the protests of Churchill.

F.D.R. had no qualms dealing with the devil, i.e. Stalin. So what if millions were forced throughout Eastern Europe to live under the tyranny of Stalinist Russia/Soviet Union.

F.D.R. will one day be judged for this crime of agreeing to subject millions to such an evil.

...in Europe???...Of the USA???....GASP!!!!.....Yes we do have a few it seems.....Count on Poland and Italy too....It's nice to know who your non-bashing friends are.....a refreshing change to see, indeed....One other note...I suspect this sends a message to Putin & Moscow....STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE BALTICS!!!......