Thursday, September 5, 2013

Why Yalta Matters

Your readings consider a series of opinions over whether the Yalta agreements were effective in ending the wars against Germany and Japan.  They also addressed provisions for postwar Europe, which arguably was the most controversial takeaway of the conference.

I don't expect you to be Yalta experts....yet.  But I do want to you to comment on your understanding of Yalta based on the reading.  What were some of the goals of the parties involved.  Why did they receive criticism as well as praise (and why does perspective matter here)?  Finally....what is your take on Yalta?  Was it successful, and if not, what alternative do you suggest?

12 comments:

  1. This agreement seemed to try to ensure the Soviet Union's allegiance with America and Great Britain. This agreement seemed perfect, because America and Great Britain new the losses that the Soviet Union took from Germany, so it gave them a few months to get their feet back under them after the brutal war. It also ensured America extra help against Japan if they needed it. It was bad for the Soviet Union because it tied and guaranteed them another entrance into a war, even after WWII. Stalin would receive a lot of power in north asia and east europe if he agreed also.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Yalta Conference was obviously meant to unify the strongest winning parties of WW 2. I think that Roosevelt and Churchill were very agreed in a lot of points, for example splitting Germany up. But it looks like they had a hard time bargaining with Stalin. It seems to me that they had to grant him a lot of powers to be sure they would all get along in the future, like giving them back the territory they had lost in the Russo-Japanese war and maintaining the "status quo" in Outer Mongolia. It is incredible for me that Stalin did'nt keep his promises in the end and made sure all western European countries where led by communist governments.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought the "Secretary Edward Settings Defends Yalta" article was especially interesting mostly due to the fact that it suggested that Yalta was a quick getaway for the US, a speedy way to get the war over with. The article further suggested that because of the uncertainty of things like the atomic bomb, the "fear of heavy casualties in Japan", and the "possible lack of continuous victories", American military leaders felt the war "had to be concluded as soon as possible" or else there would be an "unfortunate effect on the attitude of American people". However, although America may have thought Yalta was a successful event, recent criticism suggests that their deal making with the Soviet Union was not exactly a smart move because they should have known that USSR would have broken their promises. Overall, I think Yalta was not thought out enough. It was just a quick getaway and obviously not beneficial because it backfired.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Yalta conference was designed to bring together the leading powers after years of a hard fought war. However, these conferences are rarely effective in achieving their aims. They tend to create more tension than they solve.
    There was a lot of compromise that perhaps didn't play into anyone's hands very well. Stalin was a strong character who fought his corner well in certain negotiations.

    ReplyDelete
  5. perspective probably matters quite a bit. Now, we have the ability to look on yalta from 2013 where we can sort of say "wtf were they thinking?" (excuse my french) but back then there was no way to know what was coming, if the bombs would be perfected, or that stalin wouldn't keep his promises. I also want to add that this was a rather biased resource in quite a few places the author referred to the American side as "us" or "we" instead of giving an objective narrative. because "we" are more likely to forgive ourselves for Yalta than, lets say, the Poles. because of this, I choose to abstain from forming an opinion until i've seen a few more sources on the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The yalta conference essentially was to bring together countries after a long and brutal World War II. However, as I'm reading these passages, I can help but think, is this really working? Of course things are happening but Stalin in particular is being hard to compromise with. He is asking for a lot and leaving Churchill and Roosevelt behind. And honestly in the end, I don't think anyone really had the upper hand. America thought they did but things just went downhill when the USSR didn't follow through.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Yalta Conference was mainly about deciding the fact of war torn countries after WWII. I think that it was successful due to some of the arguments made in the readings. Secretary Stettinuis said it best when he mentioned that if no agreements happened Russia would have invaded China and put the US into a war against Russia.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with Hannah saying that the purpose of the Yalta Conference was to unify the strongest parties. The Soviet agreed to enter war with Japan with agreements; Critics argue that the Soviet Union did not stand their ground. The US received criticism because Yalta was seen as immoral and cynical. The article states that America came close to "losing its soul". Territory as well as money were big factors in the Yalta Conference. A big part of criticism is whether or not the US would have been better off without making agreements with the Soviet Union. I agree that it may have prevented the establishment of the United Nations, however the Soviet Union should have followed through. I agree with Rob mentioning that this seemed to cause tension.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Comparing "The Freeman's Bill of Indictment" to the words of Secretary Stettinius was what caught my attention in the reading. Not knowing essentially ANYTHING about Yalta prior, these two different perspectives helped to open my eyes. Freeman basically bashes everything about Yalta, even claiming that "it would seem that the normal American ability to distinguish between right and wrong, freedom and slavery, had been badly blurred." Some goals of the parties included in Yalta mainly regarded territory, such as Sakhalin being returned to the Soviet Union. There were many small goals which all share the common theme of strengthening and broadening the power of the strongest nations.

    I do not think Yalta was successful; so many promises were broken that it seemed to have not existed at the time. Although it promised free elections and democratic governments, the promises broken outweighed those that remained. Now, although I do not think it was successful, I think conditions would have been WORSE if no agreements were made initially. I completely agree with the last paragraph in the Secretary Stettinius section.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yalta reminded me of the treaty of Versailles in the sense that it was all about deciding the fate of the losing parties of WWII and and also for the strengthening of the winning parties, essentially trying to create unity and power amongst the victors. Yalta stopped serious further conflict in Russia, which unlike the Cold War, could have actually caused mass casualties.

    ReplyDelete
  11. According to last night's reading, i kinda do consider Yalta a compromise of morality from great leaders on the behalf of national interest. Yes, Yelta treaty in many ways betrayed Nationalist China and literally give Poland away to Soviet Union without involving the spokesman of Poland. However, if i was in Roosevelt's shoes, i might just have done the very same thing, cause i would had no idea when and weather the Germany was gonna surrender and god knows what's going to happen in pacific which might cause one extra million casualties.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The overarching goal of Yalta was to secure a (semi)stable alliance between the three dominant superpowers emerging from WWII. Those superpowers being; The United States of America, The Soviet Union, and finally Great Britain. The agreements made seemed too good to be true. America and Britain recognized (although some may argue not fully) Russia's contribution and extreme losses during the war, so the soviet union received minor accommodations. Britain and the US gained the forced promise of the Soviet Union to fight in at least one other war that the Allies may need. But unfortunately like most things that sound too good to be true, they well...arnt. and Yalta is no exception. Instead Yalta meetings usually left the great powers with more tension and suspicion between them than when they entered, Russia failed to do what it "promised" on several occasions, the list goes on and on. So i believe that due to these factors, as a whole, Yalta was in fact a failure.

    ReplyDelete