Gallery"Weren't they war criminals?"
Why are the intrigues of the Great Allied Powers of World War II still kept hidden with such determination and
The truth has to be concealed lest the world find out that it was the victors of the Second World War who agreed on a peace of the graveyard, which brought decades of suffering to more than one hundred million people in Eastern and Central Europe. The Baltic nations were among the victims, and they keep suffering even today.
Roosevelt and Churchill fully understood the nature of their betrayal. That is why the conspiracy of silence is still maintained. That was the reason why Roosevelt carefully guarded the information about his secret deals with "good Uncle Joe" from his own Secretary of State, his State Department and the public. Churchill characterized his own part in one of the cruel collusions rather well:
Might it not be thought rather cynical if it seemed that we had disposed of these issues, so fateful to millions of people, in such an offhand manner?
Yes, it would and it does!
Disinformation about the machinations of Roosevelt and Churchill during the war and the resulting suffering of many nations has reached a new crescendo during the last two decades. The arguments of deceptive war propaganda are resurrected and disseminated with surprising audacity. All the outrages of postwar order are made out to be the misdeeds of the defeated countries.
Historic disinformation is eagerly propagated not only by the supporters of the perpetrators of iniquity, but also by those who keep profiting from the deception. They are united in a campaign to obscure the historic truth.
Even information about known or newly discovered Soviet bestialities is routinely disregarded, passed over in silence, or trivialized by politicians and media in the West. Isn't it rather frightening to realize that certain topics can now be discussed more openly in the Soviet Union than in the United States?
The impudence, with which the falsifications of history are peddled, deserves admiration. But blaming others, who are unable to defend themselves, for the outrages perpetuated by the Liberators of Humanity will no longer do. The truth must come out.
More and more voices demand the truth. Let us quote here only one of the voices. It is that of E. Margolis, political columnist of the Toronto Sun, who dared to ask some very relevant questions:
What were our war heroes doing allied to the monstrous Stalin? Does this not make them accessories or accomplices to his vast crimes?
Wasn't Roosevelt a war criminal for giving mountains of aid to Stalin, the man who killed millions? Churchill knew of Stalin's crimes. Was he not criminally responsible for abetting modern history's worst killer?
He observed that "in the West we still thrive on our own wartime propaganda," that "our wartime myths have become so profoundly accepted as dogma that no one seems to question them," and, that "writers and historians, who make a living out of turning World War II into mythology, will reject such disturbing thoughts." He insisted that "it is time for some glasnost here in the West."1
It is high time to ask the crucial questions. And to find the truthful answers. The people should no longer be misled by outdated propaganda slogans.
It is imperative to understand and remember who made the decisions to hand the Baltic States and their populations to the admittedly "barbaric" Soviet empire. And where one can find the proofs of the cruel misdeeds?
Knowledge is power, and so is truth. Knowing how the small Baltic countries were subjected to oppression, might help them find a way out of their misfortune. The Balts must be told the truth about their betrayal! They should be given the true historic facts, not one disinformation to replace another disinformation, even if the facts contradict very popular biases. A famous British scholar remarked:
Historians often dislike what happened or wish it had happened differently. There is nothing they can do about it. They have to state the truth as they see it without worry, whether this shocks or confirms existing prejudices.2
| 1 | E. Margolis, "Accessories to Murder?" in The Toronto Star (Toronto) Dec. 1, 1988. |
| 2 | Taylor, p. 277. |
