by Mark Keenan, Lew Rockwell:
The Second World War is commonly remembered as the “Good War”—a struggle against tyranny fought in defence of freedom, democracy, and national self-determination. Yet one uncomfortable fact sits uneasily alongside this moral narrative.
The war ended with much of Eastern and Central Europe handed over to Stalinist communist domination despite the enormous power of the Western Allies.
In a previous article, I argued therefore that World War II cannot be understood simply as a moral victory. The conflict reshaped the global balance of power and helped create political, financial, and institutional systems that emerged stronger from the war itself.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
If the war was fought for freedom and against “tyranny”, why did it end with half of Europe under the control of one of the most murderous communist regimes in history?
One need not accept every revisionist claim to recognise that the postwar settlement was catastrophic for millions of Europeans. It raised questions about the roles of Churchill and Roosevelt in shaping that settlement and about the assumptions and decisions that produced outcomes so profoundly at odds with the principles of freedom, national self-determination, and democracy in whose name the war had ostensibly been fought.
World War II did not simply end in military victory, but helped create a new global system of financial, institutional, and geopolitical power that continued shaping the world long after 1945. This raises deeper questions about who truly benefited from the war and how its legacy has been understood.
Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin — and the War That Remade the World
Uncomfortable questions remain.
Why did Britain refuse serious peace exploration after the fall of France?
Why did Roosevelt manoeuvre an overwhelmingly anti-war American public toward intervention?
Why did Churchill and Truman accept a postwar settlement that left much of Eastern and Central Europe under Soviet communist domination?
Stalin was known to be a communist and mass killer long before the war even started.
Mainstream historians typically explain Soviet domination of Eastern Europe in terms of military realities, wartime exhaustion, and Stalin’s demand for buffer states. Yet revisionist historians argue that the scale and permanence of the concessions granted at Yalta deserve far more critical scrutiny than they usually receive.
