The Yalta Conference - History, Purpose & Significance

Running head: THE YALTA CONFERENCE 1 

The Yalta Conference 

Student’s Name 

Institution 

The Yalta Conference 

Various researches and articles have found out more information concerning the Yalta conference as one of the significant historical moments in the 19 th century. In this context, the Yalta conference was a meeting involving three allies in World War II. These allies included Winston Churchill, who was the then British prime minister, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the then U.S. president and last but not least, Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Premier. This meeting was held in the resort city of Yalta in February 1945, and the town was located along the coast of the black sea in the Crimean Peninsula. The intention for the meet up by the trio was the discussion of the post-war fate of Germany defeated at that time and entire Europe. They also intended to discuss Soviet’s entry in the ongoing war against Japan in the Pacific in operation and the formation of the new United Nations organization. 

In the conference, it was agreed by the three leaders that Germany should surrender unconditionally as well divided into various post-war zones that resembled colonies to serve under specific leaders. The French, the U.S, the British, and the Soviet military forces assumed the duties of leadership over Germany. As part of the agreement, it was expected that since the city of Berlin was too large, it needed to be divided into occupation zones that were generally small in size ( Shevchenko, 2015) . Even though France was assigned a post-war zone to tend to, her leader Charles de Gaulle did not receive an invitation to the Yalta conference, and her inclusion in governance was if only her zone of occupation was assumed from the British and U.S zones. Concerning Germany, the final ultimatum was complete demilitarization and denazification only to assume the duties for post-war reparations. 

Concerning Eastern Europe and Poland, Stalin conceded to facilitate representatives into the communist-dominated government from other polish political parties. Also, the provisional government was installed in Poland as well as sanctioned free and fair elections, which was one of Churchill's vital objectives. According to a study, it is evident that the Soviets gave a promise to allow the conduction of free elections in the Eastern Europe territories, especially those that had just been liberated from the occupation of the Nazis, such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia (Watt, 1989). For equality purposes, it was expected that Britain and U.S accept that future governments bordering the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe maintain a friendly status quo to satisfy the desire of Stalin in the provision of a buffer against the rise of conflict in Europe's future. 

Since the war in Europe was winding up or similarly coming to an end, Roosevelt realized that the U.S. was still in a predicament facing a protracted struggle in the pacific war against japan. Therefore, according to his plan, Roosevelt devised a tactic to affirm the support of the collective to limit the casualties and length of the conflict (Hazan, 2017). At the conference, Stalin confirmed the help of the Soviet forces to join their brothers in arms to fight against Japan in a period of three or two months after the surrender of Germany. As a form of showing gratitude for the support the U.S received in the pacific war, the remaining Allies in the Yalta conference agreed to have the Soviet union take charge of japan and her territories, which it had lost in 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War (Sherwood, 2017). Stalin was also given the right to demand to be granted diplomatic recognition of the independence of Mongolia by the United States from China. For this reason, the Mongolian People's Republic, which was founded in 1924, turned to be a satellite of the Soviet Union. 

Given the opportunity at the Yalta conference, Stalin conceded to have the Soviet participate in the U.N, an international peacekeeping organization that Churchill and Roosevelt had a mutual agreement to form in 1941 as a constituent of the Atlantic chatter. He agreed upon this commitment when all the leaders had on a plan in which all the permanent participants and members of the security council of the organization had the chance of holding the veto powers (Sherwood, 2017). Upon the agreement of these crucial issues, it was agreed that another meet up would be held upon German's surrender seeking to finalize other outstanding questions as well as the post-war European borders. Also, there was the need for the signing of a declaration that was intended at liberating Europe, asserting that the people had the right to choose the form of government that is to take charge in their place through a democratic process. 

The Yalta conference was not only held for the satisfaction of the three leaders, but it was also planned to attempt and provide solutions and tackle some of the most challenging situations. It similarly was the center of the ensuing outcry, which was Powstar Poland. The red army occupation had taken responsibility in the installation of a provisional government that was subservient. Also, it was not necessarily held for the recovery of historical facts that had been suppressed by the operating communist regimes but to ascertain the recognition of the trauma faced by the Eastern European states at the end of the w3ar. The problem at hand during this period was the combination of forces between Roosevelt and Churchill in the inclusion of non-communists leaders that are polished ( Ubriaco, 1993). Upon the agreement of Stalin on holding unfettered and free elections, the mechanism was hailed home at first, the main challenge being the presence of new life to the ideals of democracy and liberty. However, with the advancement in years or time, it turned out clearer that other than the fact that the Soviets were broadening Polish governments, they tightened their control over their subjects, causing the emergence of Poland characterized by fettered and unfree conditions. 

With the decent of the iron curtain, the Yalta conference became the point of focus to be accused by American rights. Concerning the claims of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who claimed that in 20 years of continued treason by the state, communists had decided to seek out the cause of freedom, forcing Yalta to be used as a potent symbol. Roosevelt and Stalin huddled in conspiring retreat within the soviet territory. The power of Yalta’s symbolism, however, was able to extend far and beyond McCarthyism, turning it into a touchstone for Roosevelt’s republican criticism and a means of repudiating the new deal. 

The Yalta conference has been tied to a variety of acts and situations that are generally unpleasing. In contradiction to this statement, various studies and research have been conducted to assess the impact of the conference in the 19 th century. For instance, in the dawn of March 1945, it was easy to point out that Stalin wasn’t interested in keeping the promises concerning Poland’s political freedom. His interest was pointed in the direction where any opposition to the provisional government would be squashed (Sherwood, 2017). When two years elapsed and elections held in 1947, Poland was solidified to be among the first Soviet satellites. In spite of his serious health issue, Americans continued to criticize Roosevelt, who later died after two months. His untimely death, on the other hand, ensured that Northeast Asia, as well as Eastern Europe, remain influenced for some time. Also, having troops occupying a more significant part of Eastern Europe and Germany at large, Stalin was in a position to ratify the concessions effectively. 

In the American relation with the Soviet Union, Americans have been forced to bear huge disappointments since 1945. These disappointments have led to the general acceptance of the ideology that at the vital interests in the Yalta’s conference, the U.S was sacrificed and used for the satisfaction and appeasement of the Soviet Union. Historians, on the other hand, have, for a long time, treated the situations and events unfolding to the point where the Soviet bloc disintegrates, the rise of new nation-states, and the collapse of the USSR as a form of manifestation for the past revenge (Hazan, 2017). The recovery of the memory initially suppressed by authoritarian recollections and regimes of the various region’s traumatic exposures during the Second World War is said to have not only boosted the pride of the recently freed states but also emphasized on sectarian and ethnic conflicts between the countries. 

The Russian Federation, among all the beneficiaries of the Yalta conference, appears to be entrapped by the decisions of the meeting and Stalin's legacy. In support of this statement, an article asserts that the Soviet Union has been faced with potential and actual claims against post-Yalta's policies concerning Japan, Germany, the Baltic States, and Poland. Today, the Russian leadership is very far as it has ever been in the process of issuing a public apology for the acts it committed in the name of the Yalta's conference and the agreements made (Sherwood, 2017). A study uncovers that for other Russian elites, the Yalta conference has remained to be a symbol of glory towards the state, a reminder of the former status of Moscow as the capital the superpower only rivaled by the U.S. on the other hand, nostalgic communities continue seeing Yalta agreements and decisions as evidence of the triumph communism including the greatness of Stalin who was a communist dictator ( Shevchenko, 2015) . For the moment, only the liberals who are marginalized and weak echo the once-powerful and most famous movement to ever exist in the Soviet Union. The elite ruling class had purposed to embellish and raise Russia’s image internationally by reminding the entire world of the role Russia undertook in defeating fascism. At this time, the only possible solution to the insecurities of the world lay in recognition of the territories of the Soviet Union, the reinstatement of Russia as a full party in the club of European nations and, last but not least, the complete elimination of the Iron curtain. 

In conclusion, consistently, the U.S rose to a variety of occasions where it condemned the agreements of the Yalta conference putting them in a similar class as the Munich appeasement. Unlike Russia, i.e., the Soviets, U.S has continued to prepare to admit the past historical errors for the possibility of creating better relationships with her neighboring countries and in the entire region at large. Various presidents since the holding of the Yalta conference have seized the opportunity to recognize the multiple offenses as they promote the new international agendas that have been developed. Considering the stated facts, the Yalta conference and debate have brought out the predominance of the various nations rather than the global perspective where the world itself is the only superpower. Moreover, the ideologies of democracy and freedom that lie within the master narratives of most governments are well equipped and suited for the present and past requirements. On the other hand, Yalta debate and conference in Poland symbolizes independence and liberty as the central elements necessary for polishing the national's self-image and the historical narrative since they coexist with the depiction of Poland as a consequential victim of superpowers. 

References 

Hazan, B. A. (2017). Soviet Propaganda . Routledge. 

Sherwood, R. E. (2017). Roosevelt and Hopkins: An intimate history . Pickle Partners Publishing. 

Shevchenko, O. K. (2015). ARCHAEOLOGY OF POWER: EASTERN GALICIA IN THE ETHNIC DISCOURSES OF THE YALTA CONFERENCE. Rusin , 42 (4), 168. 

Watt, D. C. (1989). Britain and the Historiography of the Yalta Conference and the Cold War. Diplomatic History , 13 (1), 67. 

Ubriaco, R. D. (1993). The Yalta Conference and Its Impact on the Chicago Congressional Elections of 1946. Illinois Historical Journal , 86 (4), 225.