I tried to start writing this post couple of times and every time I ended up looking at the blinking cursor and unable to collect my thoughts. Sometimes pictures can tell the story better than words and this is why we simply put here WWII military photos made by German soldiers in Belarus during the WWII. Full credit goes to tol.blogs.org and Belarusian photo-community photo_polygon. Many thanks for sharing it.

Quiet honestly, I like “What If…” discussions. A week ago, I was talking with friend of mine about an impact of Allied Forces on the outcome of the WWII. Inevitably for such topic, we came to “What if” scenarios with one major question: What if the United States did not enter the WWII?

I can’t really describe all intensity that surrounded our discussion. And maybe precisely because of it, when we were done arguing, I decided to see what opinions and scenarios exist on the Web. And here are some “What if” versions in regard to our question.

Version 1

Germany fought AGAINST the Soviet Union.

America fought FOR the Soviet Union.

Yet most people here seem to think that IF the USA had kept out of the war, then the Soviet Union would have conquered even MORE TERRITORY than it did WITH US aid?

The USSR had manpower and a huge armory. They did NOT have enough trucks, medicine or even BOOTS until the USA sent them MASSIVE quantities.

Without US aid, the UK would have LOST the U-Boat war. (American naval might and esp. naval AIR POWER defeated U-boats.) The UK would have starved and been forced to make peace; ironically, Hitler NEVER wanted to destroy the British Empire. He hoped for it as a natural ally!)

Without the two front wars, time would have turned IN FAVOR of Germany. No western front means holding out longer in the east. That means the new u-boats and jets (ALREADY EXISTING in spring 1945) could have been produced in sufficient quantity to turn the tide in the east.

Version 2

A lot of this depends on if Japan attacked the US in the Pacific, if not then I doubt there would have any war in the Pacific other than Japan trying to expand ‘slightly’ into Asia.

Eagle and Bob, I suspect you are missing the point that the Russians effectively won the European WW2, it doesn’t actually matter what you think about boots and ambulances, the Russian steamroller relies on millions of Russian men, their logistic support is to throw them some potatoes, they broke the back of the Germans on the eastern front before the US joined the war, yes the aid that was supplied was good, but try reading ‘Stalingrad’ the US supplies were nothing more than a novelty to most of the Soviets.

The Nazi’s were also hamstrung because much of their air force was wiped out in the Battle of Britain, the idea that Britain would have been taken by the Germans is wrong, the Germans gave up in 1940, and committed themselves to the east in late 1940. The British had air superiority over the Channel, and the Germans had no amphibious capability.

The question of sea power and U-boats is an interesting one, the US contribution was vital, but even if it hadn’t been there the Brits and Canadians were already developing Radar based air escort systems by the time the US really got into it, but yes it would have had a draining effect on the UK.

However the Russians would have carried on to the Atlantic, maybe by 1946, but they would have got there. The British Empire would fight back in Africa (as it did) and maybe a vast army would be raised in India, but it wouldn’t have anywhere to go. The danger is that the Soviets own continental Europe and Northern Asia, Maybe they would turn their sights on the UK and another war breaks out, the UK would soon lose to a mighty Russia….

Maybe Russia turns its sights to the Middle East or Asia.

But would the US have developed nukes if there was no war…unlikely, the Brits might have got there first, maybe the Russians would have got it? They made a big point of capturing nuclear labs in Germany.

Undoubtedly the Germans would have been defeated, the US, more than anything though, contributed to pinning back the communists, and providing future security for Western Europe.

Version 3

I think if the United States had not gotten involved, Russia does not necessarily steamroll Europe.

Part of the reason for the Soviet Union’s success against the Nazis was that much of Germany’s resources were also directed to the West, to prevent a second front in Europe. Without American Intervention I think the Germans and Russians would have eventually come to peace terms after millions had died…. neither being able to totally destroy the other. I think it would have also ended with some territorial gains for the Nazis.(Estonia, Lithuania ect.) (Perhaps, including Belarus since Hitler planned to group it together with Baltic States. WW)

Britain would also be forced to sign a separate peace with Germany. I don’t think Britain would have lost any territory to them in the peace treaty, but they would have to recognize Germany as master of Europe proper.

Japan would have had mastery of the Pacific, and would have eventually conquered all of China.

Version 4

Barbarossa was failed in summer 1941, because Hitler planned to destroy Red army before September 1941. First UK/USA aid was send 12 august 1941, army received it in September. According Barbaroosa it already should be destroyed! So, without allies help war in Russia would be harder, but victorious for CCCP. May be in 1947 Berlin would be taken by Red Army.
There are 4 main features that could give Russia advantages superiority:
1.Climat and supplies: as was said, Germans planned to defeat Russia before winter and was not ready to -30C chills. And it is very difficult to supply 6 million army.
2.Popular front: especially partisans. 300000 fighters participated in centralized partisan armies, 700000 participated in resistance movement in occupied lands of USSR. European resistance and industrial sabotage.
3. Resource deficit. In 1942 Germans was confronted with lack of resources. Before invasion they received it buying in USSR: Caucasus oil, Siberian gas, Ural metals.
4. Growing experience of soviet generals. Do you know that first Stalin’s order of the war was order not to shoot? He thought that this is provocation. Then, when army should prepare defense positions he ordered to attack. In 1942, after victory under Moscow, he decided that now Red Army is stronger than Germans and ordered to attack again by all farces and recapture Kharkov – result: Southern front is broken and Red Army is retreating to Stalingrad and Northern Caucasus. In the second part of war (1943-45) soviet generals didn’t make mistakes like that.

These are just some theories and I am curious what do you think about it. Indeed, what if the United States never entered the WWII?

A little bit of a “blast from the Belarus’ past…” Picked it up from newspaper archives…

Minsk. White Russia. August 17 (Delayed.)—After many months of terrorization under Bolshevist rule Minsk is beginning to resume normal life again. Groups are conversing on street corners and in doorways of houses breathing the atmosphere of relief and in every section of the population whether Jewish or Polish shopkeeper or Russian peasants and workmen one finds the same deep inexpressible thankfulness at deliverance from a government which, while pretending to give freedom and equal rights to all, actually exercised a tyranny far greater than anything known under the czars.

Personal liberties were destroyed
It must be admitted that in outward appearances the town and its population do not make a bad impression. Food certainly exists, though the operation of the Bolshevist system or rather its breakdown has resulted in perfectly impossible prices. But these facts admitted, there is nothing else to be said in favor of a regime that destroyed all personal liberty and made the humblest person feel that neither life nor property were either safe.
“To the dogs, death.” These words spoken by a woman as she kicked the dead body of a secretary of the soviet, as it still lay in the streets where he had been shot by Polish soldiers, express the bitter hatred of the people for Bolshevism. The Jewess who was president of the local “extraordinary tribunal for combating the counter revolution” and who signed the death warrants of the miserable persons who were executed almost daily was literally torn to pieces by the mob as she was being taken through the streets. A single word of criticism of the government was sufficient cause for arrest as a counterrevolutionary. When once the victim was arrested, his fate was unknown. Number of such persons is being released from Minsk prison. Over three hundred were deported to Bobrisk and Smolensk: certainly hundreds perished….

Peasants are rich

…Manufacturing and Industry have broken down, mainly, I believe, from a lack of transport: coal and other raw materials are unobtainable. There is plenty of forest land round Minsk, yet the price of wood was twelve thousand rubles. Other current prices are pound bread, 38 rubles; meat, 75 rubles; butter, 200 rubles.
…There has been one issue of bread on bread cards to the citizens since last Easter. On that occasion they received half a pound per head. Citizens of the third and fourth categories received none.
…Yet people have been coming here from Petrograd and Moscow in the hope of finding food for Minsk, which is regarded as the land of plenty.
…People were also drawn to Minsk by the hopes of its delivery by the Poles.

Propaganda
…Propaganda was the strong point with the Bolshevists. The town was placarded with posters, representing the destruction of capital by labor. Bolshevists soldiers shown threatening with a bayonet a fat gentleman in a waistcoat cowering behind cases of war munitions; in another the Russian people are shown floating to safety through a raging sea on a book labeled Karl Marx. Lectures were given daily in the square on the iniquities of capitalism; a special information bureau provided a prolific supply of news about revolutionary strikes in England, the downfall of Kolchak’s army and pogroms by the poles in Vilna.

In preparing for evacuation the soviet published a proclamation declaring that they would meet the white terror- that is, the advance of the Polish army, the red terror. In fulfillment of the threat the mass executions referred to above took place, and on leaving they carried off a large number of hostages, many of whom were women whose husbands and sons are fighting in the Polish army…

“Claims on White Russia…” This is a title of a letter sent to The New York Times and published by the paper on July 4, 1920. By reading it, the very first questions should be: who pretends on it? to whom it belongs? Moreover, these questions bundled together with the title present you with a line of thinking.

It is a popular line of thinking that dominated agendas of big powers that strived to grab White Russia. It is the line of thinking that persistently neglected history and facts. It is the line of thinking that almost erased a nation with a glorious past and distinctive cultural heritage.
Here is how an author of this letter justifies such line of thinking.

To the editor of the New York Times:
Several newspapers have published articles regarding the claims of Poland on a certain part of Russian territory.
The territory, which is known as White Russia, lies in the northwestern part of the great Russian Empire. The number of Poles in this territory, according to the well-known Polish author, E. Pitts?, in his “Polish Encyclopedia”, is estimated to be 8 per cent of the total population. The Russians who inhabited this territory have never separated themselves from the rest of the Russians, and, of course, would never agree to become Polish subjects. Their customs, religion, and, of course, nationality are unquestionably Russian. The difference, if any, in the Language are the same as between the southern and northern parts of the United States.
The territory belonged to Russia from the earliest times, and in the first of the partitions of Poland in the sixteenth century Russia only received back this, her own territory, which was previously lost due to the war terms. Therefore, this territory never belonged to Poland, notwithstanding the later’s claims to the contrary. It would be as reasonable to ask Russians in general if they wish to become Polish subjects as to hold ple…tes only among those in the north-western part of Russia…..

Dr. W. Sveshnikoff
Washington DC
June 22, 1920

Well, I could have jumped into a debate over many things expressed in the letter; however, these historical issues should be addressed separately since they deserve serious attention. Instead, I will suggest another title: Claims rejected: White Russia is an independent country.

Living in New York for short time I have already witnessed so many parades that probably, I could have written a reference titled “Annual parades held in NY”. For example, Puerto Rican, Irish, Turkish, and Chinese…All these parades have their unique history, backgrounds and purposes. Generally speaking, they are all aimed to show their cultural heritage and spirit on the streets of the “Melting Pot”. And I was really surprised to find out that there used to be a multinational parade held on the streets in America: The annual Captive Nations parade.
Here is how “Chicago Tribune” writes about it in an article “50 000 See Annual Captive Nations March in State Street” published on July 16, 1967.

Americans from captive nations carried flags of those nations down State street yesterday along with signs calling for freedom of their native lands. They were marching in the annual Captive Nations parade. American flags flew proudly at the head of each marching unit, and banners proclaimed support for United States service men in Viet Nam.

…Among the largest delegations in the parade of more than 10000 persons were those from Korea and Lithuania.
…In addition to Korea and Lithuania, the nations represented included Bulgaria, the Baltic States, Serbia, Slovakia, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine, Croatia, Bielarus, Albania, Latvia, Cossakia, Slovenia, Armenia, Georgia, Germany, Czechoslovakia and China.

Rep. Roman C. Pucinski (D. Ill), told more than 200 persons attending a luncheon in the Hilton hotel after the parade:

“God grant that spirit you demonstrated today would become infectious and spread throughout the country and throughout the whole world.”
“God created men to be free and no Communist is going to change that”

Earlier on, we attempted to show how many various interpretations exist regarding the Belarusian nationality . Anuszka mentioned in her comment:

“So, who was Mickiewicz?? Polish, Lithuanian, or Belarussian?”. Because he was born in Belarus, wrote poems in Polish, and his most famous poem begins with: “Lithuania, my homeland!”.

And indeed, so much confusion and it does not stop there. Historians are still engaged in an intense discourse whether Belarusians have the Baltic or Slavic roots. N.Vakar mentions in his book, “Belorussia: The Making of a Nation”:

“The Belorussians consider themselves the oldest and purest branch of the Slav family, tracing their origins to three ancient Slavic tribes: The Krivichi, Dregovichi and Radimichi…The question remains who these people were. Racial distinctions for that period are not clear. Herodotus refers to the Budini, a people dwelling in northern Scythia “in forests where there are large lakes”…

But what if there were some different civilizations on the territory of Belarus? Who could they be? In relation to these questions I stumbled across quiet unexpected article—“Remarkable discovery in Russia” published in “Gleason’s pictorial drawings – Room Companion” on September 24, 1853.

M.B. Larsky, the engineer, lately deceased, made a discovery of the greatest importance in White Russia—a discovery brought to light when his papers were examined after his decease. Being occupied in making a road in that province, he found it necessary to drain off the waters of a lake into another at a lower level, and in the course of the operation he discovered in a forest, several feet below the surface of the soil, a road paved in antique Roman or Mexican style, with traces of a stone bridge of peculiar construction. In Mr. Larsky’s opinion, 2000 or 3000 years must have elapsed before the face of the country has been transformed to such an extent as he observed, and if this supposition be well founded, the district must have been inhabited before the time of the Seythians (Scythians) by a more civilized nation. M. larsky’s discovery will doubtless not pass unnoticed, and may lead to important results.

Unfortunately, there aren’t any specific places mentioned but I don’t have any doubts that the place of discovery was somewhere in modern day Belarus. If someone has more information regarding it, please feel free to comment. It might be indeed “Remarkable discovery”…

It all started in a pretty much calm and neutral manner: “Officials of the United Nations are seeking revision of their year-old arrangement to take over 912 apartments in two housing developments now built by the Metropolitan and the New York Life Insurance companies… And Byron Price, Assistant Secretary General, in charge of housing for United Nations personnel, said that he intended to withdraw the international organization from any official rental relationship with the two companies.”(1947)

Why would he do so? Well, because “…he had been advised by real estate experts that on a practicable, long-term basis it would be better to have leases drawn ‘directly between the insurance companies and the individual tenants,’ that is, the United Nations employes themselves.”
But still, the question stays the same, even more, there comes one more: Why would UN employees deal directly with landlords? Maybe, it happened because: “Constantin Stavropoulos, head of the United Nations employes’ staff committee, had formally asked United Nations officials for clarification of what he said might be interpreted as ‘discriminatory clauses’ contained in the agreements”.

Very interesting…But “discriminatory clauses” are not that specific, therefore, it needs some more details. And there they come: “…agreements with the Metropolitan and New York Life contained ‘a customary clause’ under which the landlord reserved the right to reject tenants who were not found ‘suitable’, the ‘secretariat does not assume that this clause implies racial discrimination”.
And perhaps, precisely because of it, “The United Nations and the two insurance companies are now discussing new agreements under which the United Nations will select the most eligible of its employes on the basis of the present point system. The insurance companies would then choose from among those applicants” (1947)

Now, a whole picture becomes a little bit clearer. Obviously, the United Nations employes are from many different countries and races and while nobody assumes that there is a “racial suitability” implied in a lease agreement, it is still wise to hook up potential tenants with landlords directly and thus avoid all possible and “awkward” problems. It is like give them a clue and let them decide whether they want it or not. And that is just a beginning of a story.

The few months later, the Citizens Housing Council of New York Inc., hailed the United Nations for canceling rental agreement. “This action is significant not only because it implements U.N. policy. It also adds emphasis to appeals recently made to Metropolitan in connection with its announced intention to bar Negroes from Stuyvesant Town which is receiving public aid by way of partial tax exemption, and other advantages.”(1947, Jun.6)
In the same line of thinking, Shad Polier, vice president of the American Jewish Congress, urged the City to apologize to the United Nations for the “serious disservice which has been rendered to personnel and its principles by two insurance companies”.(1947, Jun.6)

And even though, officially U.N. had nothing to do with the Insurance companies, its unofficial policy of “let our employees figure it out themselves” caused a wave of protests among people working for the U.N. On July 17, 1947, they (200 stuff members) signed a petition, vigorously protesting a revised or informal agreement arguing that it actually invites United Nations employees to support discriminatory practices. The submitted petition charged that “…staff members of the United Nations are being invited to conclude leases with these companies on an individual basis when it is clear that by doing so they would acquiesce in the racial discrimination practiced by these companies against their colleagues.” (July 17, 1947),/p>

At the time, the insurance companies defended their policies by arguing that “…Emphasizing that he was taking the ‘human angle’ Mr. Eyriey ( from a department of public information) said that it was important to bear in mind that racial discrimination as practiced in this country by landlords was mainly for financial reasons. It was a well-known fact, he continued, that Negro tenants lowered the value of property considerably. In defiance to cries of ‘shame’ coming from some of his colleagues Mr. Eyriey insisted that the practical side must not be ignored.” (July 18, 1947)

On July 24, 1947, more than thousand of U.N. employees demanded a cancellation of any type agreement between U.N. and insurance companies. Paul Eisler of Czechoslovakia, an employee in the Economic Affairs section argued that records of the New York Supreme Court indicated that the Metropolitan insurance company would bar his ‘colored colleagues’ from an apartment at Peter Cooper Village, in violation of charter principles calling for equality of all races.”(July 25, 1947) Shad Polier went farther by saying: “Americans have long been aware that ‘private governments’ like Metropolitan Life are sometimes more powerful than are public governments and our Constitution. But the world will learn with amazement that such American private governments can also be more powerful than all the governments organized in the United Nations.” (1947, July 26)

But hear this one, on November 27 1948: “Confirming last month’s estimate that 62 percent of tenants of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village favor admittance to the housing project of qualified Negros, a tenant vote showed 240 for admittance and 126 against….”(1948)
However, on December 3, 1948 “The Appellate Division reserved decision yesterday on two appeals from a decision of Supreme Court Justice Felix C.Benvenga who dismissed actions brought against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and its subsidiary, Stuyvesant Town, East Side housing project, for alleged discrimination in selecting tenants. …The arguments were ended yesterday when Assistant Corporation Counsel William Lebwold asserted that the City had no ‘right or power to interfere with the management’ of the housing development. “(Dec 3, 1948)

Reference

Investments Net Insurance Profit. (1947, Feb 15), The New York Times, p.21
George Barrett (1947, Apr.22), U.N. Seeks revision of housing leases. The New York Times, p.22
Groups acclaim U.N. for voiding rentals (1947, June 6), The New York Times, p.5
U.N. mass protest on housing today. (1947, July 17, 1947), The New York Times, p.3
U.N. staff pushes rental curb fight. (1947, July 18, 1947), The New York Times, P.5
U.N. employes ask end of rent pacts. (1947, July 25), The New York Times, p.19
The UNO capitulates (1947, July 26) The Chicago Defender, p. 14
N.Y. Tenants Again Vote No Race Bar (1948, Nov27) The Chicago Defender, P.2
Decision is reserved in housing bias suit (1948, Dec 3) The New York Times, P.17

More than 50 years ago, a Soviet Party leader, Nikita Khruchev, publicly critiqued Stalin. Many of those who attended the conference remembered “death-like” silence that covered the conference hall. It was February 25, 1956.
That day, delegates of the XX Party Session were unexpectedly called up for a closed meeting. When Khruchev went on a podium and started his speech many could not believe it, many where deeply shocked. Without any warning or pre-face, Khruchev unleashed furious words at the Stalin, the great Leader who guided the Soviet Union through the whole Second World War and died three years earlier. According to Khruchev’s report he was a despot and murderer. It took Khruchev four hours to finish, during which he blamed Stalin for creating a cult of his personality and cruel treatment of his opponents.

That was his report, and it signaled the end of terror and re-orientation of the Soviet Union’s course. In the West, many considered Khruchev’s words as an act of bravery and beginning of new and more liberal approach. However, there are some reports in Russia, that Khruchev’s speech was rather an attempt to cover up his own wrongdoings.

Yuri Zhukov, a historian with the Russian Science Academy, thinks that Khruchev blamed everything on Stalin because he was soaked in blood of innocent people himself. Zhukov’s theory is based on recently declassified Soviet archives.
In the Politburo archives, Zhukov found a telegram send by Khruchev, who after becoming a Leader of Ukraine in 1938, asked Politburo to authorize execution or arrest of more than 33 thousand people. Soon after that, there was a massive “clean up” of the “undesirable” elements. A year earlier, when Khruchev was a head of the Moscow district, he asked an authorization to execute 8.5 thousand “traitors” and to sent almost 33 thousand to the concentration camps. “Those persecutions where real and had been done because Khruchev authorized them”, says Zhukov. Overall, according to the documents found in the Politburo archives, Khruchev was seeking the authorization to execute or arrest about 70 thousand people in the 1930’s.

Young Russian intellectual Dima Bykov says that Khruchev was an assiduous Stalin’s server. “When I was a teacher, talking about Khruchev’s speech I used the following analogy, “Imagine Gimmler, making antifascist speech on a meeting of the Nazis after the Hitler’s death.”

And though there is a huge debate going on regarding Khruchev’s role in this whole thing, Nikita Khruchev, his grandson, thinks that: “while there are many controversial documents existing regarding his grandfather, the fact that he had guts to expose Stalin, was his personal act of bravery. It meant that he defeated Stalin inside of him.”

At the same time, Bykov calls Khruchev a brave person who admitted that he made mistakes and tried to conduct reforms but did not have enough will to completely destroy the whole system.

Written using materials from Inopressa.ru

On September 20, 1946, the doors leading to the President’s oval-shaped office still were closed when 10:30 arrived. Five minutes more passed …10…15…Finally, the doors opened, and the reporters surged in.
Mr. Truman was at his desk, attired in a blue suit, red tie and a red handkerchief peeping from his breast pocket. He showed no signs of excitement, and, as his custom, smiled and exchanged small talk with the reporters closest to him.
The reporters, 197 in number, were far in excess of the usual number at a White House conference, and the was difficulty in squeezing them in.
“Move a little to the left,” yelled Doorkeeper Bill Simmons as they piled in. The newsmen, mindful of Wallace’s leftish tendencies, broke into laughter, and Mr. Truman joined in. (Edward T. Folliard, 1946)

That day, President Harry S. Truman fired Mr. Henry Wallace; a Secretary of Commerce who criticized Truman’s foreign policy toward the USSR. The Washington Post wrote that this move had to be done so that H. Wallace’s views would not longer “‘jeopardize’ America’s foreign relations.” During his statement, President Truman specified that while “Americans might disagree freely and publicly on any question” at the same time “the government of the United States of America had to stand as a unit in its relations with the rest of the world”. (Edward T. Folliard, 1946)

Here, President Truman was referring to Mr. Wallace’s speech given in Madison Square Garden in which he advocated position where the USA would cooperate with the USSR, something that was far away from official lines. In his speech, Mr.Wallace went over British “imperial policy in the Middle East” at the time when the US Navy was cooperating together with British Navy in the Middle East. And, exactly at the same time, Soviet newspaper, Izvesia, bashed Britain for violating sovereignty of some states and creating war-like atmosphere in the World. Obviously, such speech would hardly benefit or improve US-British diplomatic relations. The New York Times cited an article that appeared in French newspaper The Monde: “His (Wallace’s) gibe at England is surprising in view of Anglo-American cooperation in diplomacy, with Mr. Byrnes(Secretary of

State) rather than Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin leading the anti-Soviet front”

.(Harold Callender, 1946)

Interestingly, according to The Los Angeles Times, President Truman who approved the Wallace’s speech later said he found it “no departure from foreign policy under Secretary Byrnes”.(AP, 1946) And yet, during the press-conference, he used words that describe Wallace as someone who departed from official line of thinking thus jeopardizing “unity of the government.” Perhaps, in an attempt to slightly cover such awkward situation, the LA Times mentions that the State Department did not clear the speech text even though it was delivered by a Cabinet member with the explicit approval from the President. They also mention that the State Department officials indicated that “in actual delivery, Wallace dropped whole sentences from his prepared text, including language admonishing Russia to ‘stop conniving against us’ and stop teaching that communism ‘by force, if necessary’ must triumph ultimately over democratic capitalism”.

Is not it confusing? First, the speech is approved, then criticized and after all, it is hinted that it was not an actual speech presented to the President. I think it is for reason that a game of politics is the tricky one. Go figure if it was an actual speech or not, did Wallace improvised while delivering it or not, or maybe Truman wanted to get rid of the “last New Dealer?” In one instance, The Washington Post said that ousting of Wallace caused “a squall of speculations in Washington. Had Byrnes told Mr. Truman that ‘Henry goes or I go?’ What would be the effect on the 1946 campaign? Would the Democrats lose the support of liberals and left-wingers who have regarded Wallace as their champion?”(1946). And while the White House denied any type of the ultimatum by Byrnes, saying that the President reached this decision himself, the same article mentions the “indisputable fact that Mr. Truman reached his decision after talking to Byrnes”.(1946)

In a post 1945 world, many works appeared analyzing Wallace’s career and political views. Some called him a “Commie”, “Red”, “Leftie” or “Idealist”. But who was this man? An answer will depend on political views of an author but one fact should remain: Henry Wallace was one of the most humane minds of his time. “The century on which we are entering – the century which will come of this war – can be and must be the century of the common man,” he said back in 1942. He hated fascism and envisioned world where all people had self-determination and civil rights. He assigned a very important role to the UN in his envisioned world and argued that: “…in order that the United Nations may effectively serve the world, it is vital that the United States and Russia be in accord as to the fundamentals of an enduring peace.”(Alonzo L. Hamby, Apr., 1968)

These words came in 1942, at the time when the USA and USSR were allies. The few years later they would become fierce enemies but Wallace would stand by his words. He denounced Truman’s “getting tough” policy arguing that authoritarian regimes in Greece and Turkey were far from being called “democratic”. Wallace supported American-Russian accord and believed that “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” approach would alienate and destroy unity between two superpowers. He followed a line “the tougher we get, the tougher the Russian will get” and supported sphere of influences that would divide the world but at the same time keep it in a peaceful mode. Wallace’s followers argued later that his policies helped to keep peace and some documents might prove it. For example, CIA’s classified document dated on Aug., 27, 1948 says that: “The assumption of a possible future war with the West is implicit in Soviet propaganda since September 1946, the month of …speech and resignation of Wallace from the Cabinet” (CIA, 1946) Could it be a coincidence or maybe Wallace’s actions, while a member of the Cabinet, indeed kept the USSR from openly denouncing the US policies?

It could be either way, however, in opinion of many, he still was a way too sentimental, idealistic and perhaps naïve to believe “Uncle Joe” and his totalitarian ideology. While many liberals realized that communists had world-wide aspirations, he continued to advocate spheres of influences believing that the USSR will stop there. And yet he failed to follow his logic, and thought of the Marshall Plan as something almost fascist.”(Alonzo L. Hamby, Apr., 1968) He was not consistent as an idealist or realist. At the time when many liberals preferred a policy of affirmative containment, Wallace did not accept it. In words of Alfonso N. Hamby:

“He (Wallace) had been unable to discard the assumptions of the war years and still thought in terms of the Popular Front, of anti-fascism struggling against fascism, though such views took him farther from the reality of world politics. A man of the most humane instincts and of elements of greatness, he had destroyed his career by his intellectual rigidity.”

Reference:

Folliard, Edward (1946, Sep.21) President Says Views “Jeopardized” U.S. Relations. The Washington Post, p.1.
Los Angeles Times (1946, Sep. 14) Wallace’s Speech Causes Wide Furor. The Los Angeles Times, Pg.2.
Alfonso L. Hamby (Apr., 1968) Henry A. Wallace, the Liberals and Soviet-American Relations. The Review of Politics, Vol.30, No.2.
Harold Callender (1946, Sep.14) Byrnes Deeply Disturbed by Wallace’s Policy Talk; Truman Under Fire For It. The New York Times, Pg.1
CIA, (1948, Aug., 1948) Evidence of USSR Military Intentions in Soviet Propaganda Broadcast. Copy #71

On November 5, 1979, Iranian students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and captured American hostages. This moment is well-known, documented and discussed by many, but what is less known or rather forgotten is that 16 days after it, on November 20, 1979, Islamic students stormed the U.S. embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan.

What started as a small riot with people shouting the anti-American slogans later grew into a full-scaled attack on the U.S. embassy’s compound. Although, at first glance it seemed as a small protest outside the embassy’s walls, in a little while, buses started pulling up in front of the main gates and hundreds people began climbing over walls and even trying to pull them down using ropes. And when a bullet fired at the gate’s lock by one rioter ricocheted and struck protesters, (according to an investigation) they opened fire falsely believing that Americans fired first. Twenty-year-old Marine Stephen Crowley was struck by a bullet and transported to the embassy’s secure communication vault the rest of personnel serving in the embassy. Locked behind steel-reinforced doors they started waiting for help to come and rescue them from a smoke-filled building.

Two days later, The New York Times published an article titled “Troops Rescue 100 in Islamabad; U.S. Offices Are Burned in 2 Cities”. The article mentions Jody Powell, the White House press secretary at that time who said that the administration appreciates action taken by the Pakistani forces in bringing about the dramatic escape of the 100 people besieged for five hours in the embassy chancery.

In that action: “The Government troops who finally ended the siege had to land on the roof by helicopter, rout the attackers and then assist the embassy personnel onto the roof, down to a lower level of the building and finally to the ground”

This is how official sources presented the story to the public; however, it was “slightly’ incorrect version. The eyewitness accounts described in a book “Ghost Wars” by Steve Cole tell a completely different version of this event. A helicopter that was supposed to flew over embassy and dispatch troops on the embassy roof indeed flew over it at 4 pm…never touching or landing troops on it. The Pakistani authorities argued later that a smoke was too thick to assess the situation. The American sources indicated that the crew decided that the fire was very hot and no American would survive it. Therefore, there was no need to rescue anybody but rather let “the riot to burn itself out”. (S.Coll, p.32)

At around 6:30 pm, the noise outside the secure vault began to drift off and U.S. Marines alongside with some civilian personnel decided to check out the situation. At that moment, the riot was over and only the flames of fire were continuing to burn buildings on the territory of the embassy.
“Using bicycle racks stacked end to end, the Marines set up makeshift ladders and led the large group huddled in the vault to safety. …Some Pakistani army troops had finally arrived. They were standing around inside the compound, mostly watching.”(S.Coll, p.34)