All posts tagged history

Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane’s warning about naive idealism in foreign policy should be a lesson for Obama

I Saw Poland Betrayed by Arthur Bliss LaneTedLipien.com SAN FRANCISCO — Arthur Bliss Lane (16 June 1894–12 August 1956) was the United States Ambassador to Poland (1944–1947). He served earlier as the U.S. Ambassador to the wartime Polish government-in-exile in London and was with the U.S. diplomatic mission in Poland in 1919. During the interwar period, he had a number of other diplomatic assignments in Western Europe and Latin America.

 

Arthur Bliss Lane served as Minister to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania from June 1936 to September 1937, and was later transferred to Yugoslavia. He remained in Belgrade until the German occupation of April 1941. Later during the war,  he was Minister to Costa Rica, October 1941 to April 1942, and Ambassador to Columbia, until October, 1944.

 

From October 1944 to May 1945, he was Ambassador to the Polish government-in-exile in London.  In May 1945, he became Ambassador to the Polish Government in Warsaw after the United States and the United Kingdom transferred their recognition to the Soviet-dominated regime in Poland.

 

Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane resigned from the State Department in 1947, after a distinguished career in U.S. diplomatic service, in protest against what he saw as the betrayal of Poland by the United States and other Western allies toward the end of World War II and in the immediate period after the war.

 

In his book I Saw Poland Betrayed An American Ambassador Reports to the American People, he criticized President Roosevelt’s naive trust in Stalin and his concessions to the Soviet Union at the expense of Poland and other East Central European nations. The cost of Roosevelt’s deals with Stalin was not only decades of Soviet domination and communist repression in Europe but ultimately the Cold War, wars in Korea and Vietnam, thousands of American lives lost and billions of dollars in U.S. defense spending.

 

Roosevelt’s intentions, however, were not evil. In fact, they were noble and idealistic by the standards of international politics of his time. Roosevelt refused to see Stalin for what he really was, a ruthless dictator who had earlier made a deal with Hitler to divide Poland and take over the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) and parts of Finland and Romania.

 

Naive idealism combined with appeasement are dangerous qualities in any U.S. president. Former Czech president, playwright and human rights activist Vaclav Havel, who has been a supporter of Barack Obama, had this warning  in response to the U.S. president’s refusal to see the Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama:

 

“It is only a minor compromise,” Mr. Havel said of the nonreception of the Tibetan leader. “But exactly with these minor compromises start the big and dangerous ones, the real problems.”

 

Appeasing the Kremlin and the Chinese communists in the hope of winning concessions makes such concessions far less likely, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found out during her humilating visit to Moscow last week.  Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and President Medvedev couldn’t be more brutal in telling her that putting pressure on Iran to end its nuclear programs was not in Russia’s national interest, when in fact they meant their own interest. Prime Minister Putin went to China and was not around to receive her.

 

In fact any Russian scholar with a good sense of realism could have told President Obama that the current leaders in Russia want the U.S. out of Eastern Europe but don’t believe that they owe America anything if the Americans leave. They will also continue to rely on anti-Americanism to consolidate their power internally. They want oil prices to be as high as possible, and therefore want tensions to be high in the Middle East. For that reason, they want the United States to be bogged down both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The only thing that the Obama Administration should expect from the Kremlin are Russian concessions that would allow the U.S. to continue and expand military operations in these two Muslim nations.

 

During World War II, when the stakes were still much higher than they are now, Arthur Bliss Lane was not the only one to see the danger in Roosevelt’s policy of appeasing the Soviet dictator. In 1942, another American diplomat, U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union William Christian Bullitt Jr. accurately predicted the “flow of the Red amoeba into Europe“. Roosevelt responded to Bullitt, Jr. with a statement summarizing his rationale for war time relations with Stalin:

 

I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. . . . I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for 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. Franklin Delano Roosevelt

 

Since President Obama’s vision of U.S. foreign policy seems to resemble to some degree President Roosevelt’s worldview — as seen by Obama’s unilateral concessions to Russia on the missile defense, his often expressed hope for a “reset” in relations in Moscow, as well as his refusal to see the Dalai Lama at the White House in order to appease the Chinese communist leadership — the following excerpt from Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane’s I Saw Poland Betrayed book, might be relevant to any media discussion of current issues in U.S.-Polish and U.S.-Russian relations:

 

The public has a right to know when the executive branch of the government makes far-reaching commitments which affect millions of persons and which might seriously endanger the security of the United States. (…) The peace of the globe itself calls for the maintenance of a policy of firmness by the United States backed by military strength. History has already proved that such a policy is a far more effective deterrent of international aggression than a policy of inertia, vacillation or appeasement. Arthur Bliss Lane in “I Saw Poland Betrayed”

 

Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane’s book was published in 1948.  

 

A book about Poland which Arthur Bliss Lane had with him while serving at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Warsaw in 1919. The book is now in my library.

A book about Poland which Arthur Bliss Lane had with him while serving at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Warsaw in 1919. The book is now in my library.

 

 

The Yale University Library, where Arthur Bliss Lane’s private papers and documents are archived, has on its website additional information about his diplomatic career and his public activities after he resigned from the State Department.

 

“From April 1947 until his death in August 1956, Arthur Bliss Lane undertook a number of lecture tours, radio programs, articles and letters by which he worked to stimulate public opposition to the activities of the Soviet Union, particularily in Eastern Europe. In his speeches and writings, … Lane denounced both the spirit of the Yalta Agreement and the manner in which it was carried out. He became a critic of the Roosevelt Administration and of the Democratic Party.

 

During this period, Arthur Bliss Lane was a member and participant in many Polish charities and anti-Communist organizations, including committees supporting the investigation of the Katyn Forest Massacre. Lane campaigned vigorously in 1952 among the Slavic ethnic groups for the Republican Party and Dwight D. Eisenhower. After 1952, he urged diplomatic relations with the Vatican.”

 


As the Wikipedia article about this remarkable American diplomat correctly points out, while in Poland, “Lane was so saddened” by the Soviet domination of the country and the communist suppression of Polish patriots and democrats that he resigned his post on February 24, 1947. He wrote I Saw Poland Betrayed, “which detailed what he considered to be the failure of the United States and Britain to keep their promise that the Poles would have a free election after the war. In that book he described what he considered betrayal of Poland by the Western Allies, hence the title, I Saw Poland Betrayed.” The book was translated into Polish and published  by an underground publishing house in Poland in the 1980s.

 

The Polish Wikipedia has a much longer and more detailed biography of Arthur Bliss Lane.

 

If any relatives or friends of Ambassador Bliss Lane would like to contact me with more information about his life and diplomatic career, please send an email to mail@tedlipien.com.

  • Share/Bookmark

Former Polish Prime Minister: Putin’s Comments “Offensive”

Jerzy Buzek
TedLipien.com

Buzek – Poland has a clear conscience over WW II

 

President of the European Parliament and former Polish prime minister Jerzy Buzek, thought some of Vladimir Putin’s comments at WW II anniversary ceremony in Poland were “offensive”. Read full Polish Radio report…

  • Share/Bookmark

Did Putin Really Condemn the Hitler-Stalin Pact and Apologized to Poland?

russiamap

Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin

The BBC, the Voice of America (VOA) and other international media reported that in in an apparent effort to defuse tensions on the eve of the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II, Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin “expressly condemned” the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the treaty of non-aggression between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. BBC News headline read: “Putin condemns Nazi-Soviet pact.”. The treaty included secret protocols, in which Hitler and Stalin agreed to divide Poland and to allow the Soviet Union to invade Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Romania. But did Prime Minister Putin really condemn the Hitler-Stalin Pact?

 

A careful reading of his article, which appears in the Monday edition of Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, reveals far more excuses than actual criticism of Stalin’s foreign policy and his secret deal with Hitler. A more appropriate headline might read: “Putin Says Nazi-Soviet Pact Can Be Both Condemned and Defended.”

 

Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin: «Pages of History – Reason for Mutual Complaints or Ground for Reconciliation and Partnership?» Article for Gazeta Wyborcza

 

 

Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin: There is no doubt that one can have all the reasons to condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact concluded in August of 1939. But a year before, in Munich, France and England signed a well-known treaty with Hitler and thus destroyed all the hope for a united front to fight fascism.

 

Today, we understand that any kind of collusion with the Nazi regime was morally unacceptable and had no prospects of practical implementation. However, in the context of the historical events of that time, the Soviet Union not only remained face to face with Germany (since the Western States had rejected the proposed system of collective security) but also faced the threat of waging war on two fronts, because precisely in August of 1939 the flame of the conflict with Japan on the Halkin-Gol river reached its highest.

 

The Soviet diplomacy was quite right at that time to consider it, at least, unwise to reject Germany’s proposal to sign the Non-Aggression Pact when USSR’s potential allies in the West had already made similar agreements with the German Reich and did not want to cooperate with the Soviet Union, as well as to be confronted with the Nazi allmighty military machine alone.

 

I believe that it is the Munich Agreement that led to disunity among the natural allies in the fight against the Nazis and made them distrust and suspect each other. While looking back at the past, it is necessary for all of us, both in Western and Eastern Europe, to remember what tragedies can result from cowardice, behind-the-scenes and armchair politics, as well as from seeking to ensure security and national interests at the expense of others. There cannot be reasonable and responsible politics without a moral and legal framework.

 

In my view, the moral aspect of policies pursued is particularly important. In this regard, I would like to remind you that our country’s parliament unambiguously assessed the immorality of the Molotov – Ribbentrop Pact. This has not been the case so far in some other States, though they also made very controversial decisions in the 1930s. Full text…

 

 

«Страницы истории – повод для взаимных претензий или основа для примирения и партнерства?» Статья В.В.Путина в «Газета Выборча» (Польша)

 

 

Без всяких сомнений, можно с полным основанием осудить пакт Молотова-Риббентропа, заключенный в августе 1939 года. Но ведь годом раньше Франция и Англия подписали в Мюнхене известный договор с Гитлером, разрушив все надежды на создание единого фронта борьбы с фашизмом.

 

 

Сегодня мы понимаем, что любая форма сговора с нацистским режимом была неприемлема с моральной точки зрения и не имела никаких перспектив с точки зрения практической реализации. Однако в контексте исторических событий того времени Советский Союз не только остался один на один с Германией, поскольку западные государства отказались от предлагавшейся системы коллективной безопасности, но и стоял перед угрозой войны на два фронта – ведь именно в августе 1939 года до максимальной силы разгорелся огонь конфликта с японцами на реке Халхин-Гол.

 

 

Отвергнуть предложение Германии подписать пакт о ненападении – в условиях когда возможные союзники СССР на Западе уже пошли на аналогичные договоренности с немецким рейхом и не хотели сотрудничать с Советским Союзом, в одиночку столкнуться с мощнейшей военной машиной нацизма – советская дипломатия того времени вполне обосновано считала, как минимум, неразумным.

 

 

Думаю, именно сговор в Мюнхене подтолкнул к разобщению объективных союзников в борьбе с нацизмом, вызвал между ними взаимное недоверие и подозрительность. И оглядываясь в прошлое, всем нам – и на Западе, и на Востоке Европы – необходимо помнить, к каким трагедиям приводят трусость, закулисная кабинетная политика, стремление обеспечить свою безопасность и национальные интересы за счёт других. Не может быть разумной, ответственной политики вне нравственных и правовых рамок.

 

 

На мой взгляд, нравственный аспект проводимой политики особенно важен. И в этой связи напомню, что в нашей стране аморальный характер пакта Молотова-Риббентропа получил однозначную парламентскую оценку. Чего пока нельзя сказать о ряде других государств – хотя они также принимали далеко неоднозначные решения в 30-е годы. Полный текст…

 

 

President of Russia Dmitri MedvedevIn an interview on TV Channel Rossia’s ‘News of the Week’ program, President Medvedev gave his assessment of the 70th anniversary of the beginning of World War Two.

 

 

YEVGENY REVENKO: You and I are talking today on the eve of an important historic date: September 1, the 70th anniversary of the beginning of World War Two.

 

 

Now, in Europe, there is an unbelievably wide range of assessments as to why this horrible tragedy was started. What are your thoughts on this matter?

 

 

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: These events were the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. It was a tragedy that took the lives of about 70 million people, according to various estimates, as this figure has never been fully determined. Thus, there can be no other view of those events. Of course, there is also the issue of how these events are interpreted in different nations. And here, unfortunately, there are some clear setbacks. Just 20 or 30 years ago, even within the so-called political and ideological blocs that stood in opposition to each other – by which I mean the West and the East, the Warsaw Treaty and NATO – everyone agreed that Nazism had been rightfully condemned by history and that Nazi criminals who were judged in the Nuremberg trials were serving out a just punishment. This was the case, even despite our differences in ideological approaches, which is why I specifically brought it up.

 

Now, we share relatively common values, and we no longer argue about what we see as the most important values in our societies, the values that should serve as the foundation for our nations, and how we should build our economies. Nevertheless, we are seeing some astounding trends. Governments in the Baltic States and even Ukraine are now essentially pronouncing former Nazi accomplices to be their national heroes who fought for the liberation of their nations. Of course, everyone knows what really happened, but everyone looks down in shame, so as to avoid souring relations.

 

There is another situation: the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly just recently grouped together Germany and the Soviet Union, pronouncing them to be equally responsible for World War Two. Now this, quite frankly, is a flat-out lie. One can have different attitudes toward the Soviet Union; one can be critical of the Soviet Union’s political regime and the leaders of what was then our country, but this is the very issue I was just talking about – the issue of who started the war, which country killed people and which country saved people, millions of people, and which country ultimately saved Europe.

 

I have one final thought regarding this matter. We really must treat our history with a lot of care, especially concerning those issues that were assessed in the same way throughout the world. We cannot destroy the institutions that were formed as a result of those tragic events. We cannot disregard all those things in order to favour some states that are currently developing and are in the process of forming their national identity. We must think about the future. And this, I think, is one of the most important lessons that can be learned from the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the 20th century’s greatest catastrophe – the beginning of World War Two. Full text…

 

Разговор с ведущим программы «Вести недели» Евгением Ревенко.

Президент ответил на вопросы ведущего программы «Вести недели» Евгения Ревенко.

 

Е.РЕВЕНКО: Мы как раз с Вами беседуем в канун крупной исторической даты: 1 сентября – 70-летие начала Второй мировой войны.

 

Дмитрий Анатольевич, вот сейчас в Европе существует невероятно широкий диапазон оценок причин начала этой ужасной трагедии. А какие мысли у Вас на этот счёт?

 

Д.МЕДВЕДЕВ: Эти события являются величайшей трагедией XX века, трагедией, которая унесла около 70 миллионов человек, по разным подсчётам, эта цифра пока не определена до конца. Поэтому никакой другой оценки этим событиям быть не может. Вопрос опять же в том, какую интерпретацию получают эти события в различных странах. И вот здесь, к сожалению, наблюдается явный регресс. Ещё 20–30 лет назад даже при наличии так называемых блоков, которые находились в противостоянии, я имею в виду западный мир и восток, Варшавский договор и, соответственно, НАТО, все были едины в том, что фашизм получил справедливую оценку, а фашистские преступники, которые были осуждены Нюрнбергским трибуналом, понесли заслуженное наказание. Это даже несмотря на разницу в идеологических подходах, почему я об этом специально сказал.

 

Сейчас у нас всех вроде бы общие ценности, мы не спорим по поводу того, что является важнейшими ценностями, на чём должны быть основаны государства, как должны строиться экономики. Тем не менее случаются поразительные вещи. То государства Балтии и даже Украина объявляют, по сути, бывших нацистских приспешников своими национальными героями, которые боролись за освобождение их государств. Хотя все прекрасно понимают, что было, стыдливо опускают глаза, для того чтобы не портить отношения.

 

Другая ситуация: парламентская ассамблея стран Европы буквально совсем недавно поставила на одну доску и сделала равно ответственными за Вторую мировую войну фашистскую Германию и Советский Союз. Но это, простите, уже просто циничная ложь. Можно по-разному относиться к Советскому Союзу, можно очень критично относиться к политическому режиму, который был в Советском Союзе, и к лидерам этого, нашего с вами, государства в тот период. Но это вот как раз то, о чём я сейчас говорил, вопрос в том, кто войну начал, вопрос в том, кто убивал людей и кто спасал людей, миллионы жизней, кто в конечном счёте спас Европу.

 

И последнее, что я хотел бы сказать на эту тему. Мы все должны действительно очень бережно относиться к нашей истории, особенно по тем вопросам, которые получили однозначную оценку со стороны всего мира. Нельзя взламывать те институты, которые были сформированы в результате таких трагических событий. Мы не можем перечёркивать это всё в угоду тем или иным государствам, которые сейчас находятся в стадии развития, формируют свою национальную идентичность, мы должны думать о будущем. И вот это, наверное, один из самых важных уроков, который вытекает из 70-летней годовщины с момента начала крупнейшей катастрофы ХХ века – начала Второй мировой войны. Полный текст…

  • Share/Bookmark